Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
REPORT NO.
EERC 70-9
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER
November 1970
ASIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE
FOR EVALUATING
SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
by
H. BOLTON SEED
I. M. IDRISS
.- COllEGE OF ENGINEERING
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • Berkeley, California
u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161
A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
by
l 2
H. Bolton Seed and I. M. Idriss
more appropriate to describe this type of soil behavior, the broader use
relatively level ground where the response of the soil to stresses in-
surface irregularities.
acting on the soil and the characteristics of the earthquake involved. The
For cohesionless soils, the soil type is perhaps most easily character-
ized by the grain size distribution. There is some evidence to show that
graded materials (Ross, et al. (24); Lee and Fitton (16» and that for
uniformly graded soils, fine sands tend to liquefy more easily than do
noted that there were no cases of bridge damage due to this cause for
structures supported on gravels but there were many cases of damage for
where the soil in this depth range was a sandy silt. These field observa-
any given earthquake loose sands may liquefy but the same materials in a
extensive where the relative density of the sand was about 50 percent but
it did not develop in areas where the relative density exceeded about
70 percent. Laboratory test data of all types shows the important in-
18,21,27) have shown that for a given initial density, the stress required
initial confining pressure. The effect was also shown in the field during
the Niigata earthquake where soil under a 9 ft fill remained stable but
these in turn are related to the intensity of ground shaking. The signifi-
cance of the applied stresses has been shown by many laboratory investi-
gations but the important effect of ground shaking intensity in the field
Records of earthquakes for this city extend back over a period exceeding
for earthquakes affecting the city in the past 370 years are shown in
for the effect of local soil conditions based on the recorded ground
Kawasumi (10).
Niigata have been shaken by 25 earthquakes in the past 370 years, histori-
cal records show only 3 occasions on which liquefaction has been reported
z
••
f--
en z
• z
0
-....
•• <t
o~of)!!N Joeu Uo!~:>o~enb!1 • • • a::
w
...J
0 W
fo-
• ~ 0
<X>
U
U
<t
0
o~o6!!N U! Uo!~:>o~enb!1 ewos • Z
:::>
• ~
0
Q)
0
a::
(!)
• >-
•0 ~
:::>
- - 0
r-- ~
-x
<t
~
• 0
• w
....
<t
~
-
f--
~.
• -
0
0
~
....
en
w
0-
LL
o
a o
If) (\J o~
o d d
f) - UO!~OJele:>:>'f punOJ~ wnwpcow pe~ow!~s3
Lf-{/0
5
show that for any given stress or strain level, the onset of liquefaction
the Alaska earthquake of 1964. These slides did not occur until about
90 seconds after the earthquake motions started (22) indicating the need
In view of the evidence that the five factors discussed above have a
should take these factors into account. Accordingly, Seed and Idriss (26)
(1) After establishing the soil conditions and the design earthquake,
shear tests may be used for this purpose and the interpretation
and Peacock (29». However in this way, the soil type, the
shown in Fig. 2.
1
Zone of liquefaction
Depth
\_1_
Cyclic str"ss causing
liquefaction in N cycles
(from testing program)
1 /cpo -
, .. max)r
Omax
= rho -g-
Depth
istics of the soil as the pore pressures build up (28). In most cases
response analysis may involve techniques, skills and equipment which are
techniques have been developed for evaluating induced stresses and soil
waves in the deposit. If the soil column above a soil element at depth h
behaved as a rigid body and the maximum ground surface acceleration were
(T )
max r
=:x!:!..
g
a
max
(1)
where y is the unit weight of the soil, see Fig. 3(a). Because the soil
(T ) = r . (T ) (2)
max d d max r
8
r falls within the range of values shown in Fig. 4. It may be seen that
d
in the upper 30 or 40 ft the scatter of the results is not great and for
any of the deposits, the error involved in using the average values shown
by the dashed line would generally be less than about 5%. Thus to depths
T =~ • a . r (3)
max g max d
where values of r are taken from the dashed line in Fig. 4. The critical
d
depth for development of liquefaction, if it is going to occur, will
can readily be made. However after making these determinations for a number
accuracy, the average equivalent uniform shear stress, T ,is about 65%
av
of the maximum shear stress, T Combining this result with the above
max
rd = (Tmax)d
(Tmax)r
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0 r-----r---r---r--r--..:..,---r--...::.,---=-r--~---:.:..
10
30
+-
40
-
Q)
Q) Range for different
I
soil profiles
.c:
+-
50
0-
Q)
a
60
70
80
90
100
--------~ Tinox
(4)
20
8 30
The use of these values together with stresses determined from Eq. 4,
different depths by any given earthquake for which the maximum ground
°
of these tests are expressed in terms of the stress ratio 2~c causing
a
liquefaction in 10 and 30 cycles, where 0dc is the cyclic deviator stress
0.30 ..
•
~
-----:-.~ -----r- Triaxial compression test data for
~
0.25 Y
-
0- 6. 2';;~ at liquefaction
Q
.5
.2 0.20
~
....
-uo
Ql
;:,
CT
oJ -
--
[;]
~
Field value of J,0 causing liquefaction-
0.15 -
Ot
c: estimated from results of simple shear tests
III
;:,
o
u
.2 0.10
o
a::
Relative Density::::: 50%
No. of Stress Cycles = 10
:::
-Ql
~
(/) 0.05
a
1.0 0.3 0.1 0.03 0.01
Mean Groin Size, D50 -mm
0.30
•
i'"
Q)
"'Vl -
0.25 jTriaxial compression test doto for
~
u
Ode at liquefaction
or<l
/
20Q
~
.l
. A
c: 0.20
~ ....,
.2
U
-o
Q)
;:,
CT
[;]
:J 0.15 ~
Ot
.5
'"o
; :,
- Field value of ;; I
0
causing liquefaction -
U estimated from results of simple shear tests
o 0.10
~
ll:
III
I
III
Q)
Relative Density:::::50%
.::
(/) 0.05 No. of Stress Cycles = 10
a
1.0 0.3 0.1 0.03 0.01
Mean Groin Size, D50 - mm
and a is the initial ambient pressure under which the sample was con-
a
solidated. Although the tests were performed by different investigators,
results, suggesting that these data may be used to estimate the 1ique-
Also shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are the values of the stress ratio aT,
o
causing liquefaction under field conditions, estimated from the results of
and a ' is the initial effective overburden pressure. It may be seen that
o
odc
the field value of OT, is less than the corresponding value of How-
2o
o a
ever the two stress ratios may be related by the equation:
(5)
test specimens and the limitations of the test itself have led to the
together with the values of c in Fig. 8 provide a simple means for assess-
r
ing the stress conditions likely to cause liquefaction of different soils
in the field. For a given soil at a relative density D , the stress ratio
r
1.0
0.8
l/
0.6
(. ,~
~
,:7
Cr
0.4
0.2
o
o 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density - percent
D
• c r
• 50 (6)
r
critical depth will often be about 20 ft and for those where the water
table depth is about 15 ft, the critical depth may be about 30 ft. Thus
Consider for example, a deposit of sand for which D ~ 0.2 mm, the
50
water table is 5 ft below the ground surface and which is subjected to
T ~ 0.65 x 1!!. • a x r
av g max d
T ~ 0.65 x 0.95 x ~ . a
av g max
However for a soil with D ~ 0.2 mm,the data in Fig. 6 show that
50
giving
D
THO ~ 0.24 • 0"0' • 5~ • c r
T
av = Ti10
.Y!!. Dr
i.e. 0.65 x 0.95 x
g
. a
max
= 0.24 • 0" '
o
•
50
• c
r
0" '
0.24 ....2...- •
or yh
0.65 x 0.95 x 50
0" '
~ 0 0078 • ....2...- • c D
• yh r r
For a water table 5 ft below the ground surface and a soil element at a
depth of 20 ft:
0"
, ~ 5 x 112 + 15 x 50 ~ 1310 psf
0
a 1310
Thus --!!!!!!. ~ 0.0078 x 2240 • c r Dr
g
~
0.0046 c r Dr
13
evaluated as follows:
a
D c (from Fig. 8) ~ = 0.0046 c D
r r g r r
30 0.55 0.076
40 0.55 0.100
50 0.57 0.131
60 0.60 0.166
70 0.64 0.205
80 0.68 0.250
and the relationship can be plotted as shown in Fig. 9. If, for any given
the same procedure for water table depths of 10 and 15 ft are also
Similar computations can readily be made for other soil types, depths
of water table and number of stress cycles. Soils having the greatest
D of the order of 0.08 rom. For such materials the relationships between
50
a and relative density for which initial liquefaction would just occur
max
. in an earthquake producing 20 stress cycles for different water table
grain size might be expected to range from 0.075 mm to about 0.2 rom and
0.4r--------r-------r-------,..------r--------,
.§ 0.31---'------t-------+------_t----~C-.h;__-no...__-__l
'0
~
]
Q)
.
u
.E
Liquefaction
~ 0.21--------+--------+----~o<__t~--7I'_---+-----___l
"0
c:
CI
..
o
:::l
E
:s Na liquefaction
E
·s O.II---'------t---~~~rl'_-----_t------t_----~
:E
o 20 80 100
0.4 r - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - r - - - - - - , - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - ,
0'
I
c: 0.31--------+-------+-------+------+--------1
.2
+-
l:!
'C1l
Qi
::l
<{
C1l
...o
U
~ 0.2f-------t-------+------_+----.r--b-------I
l/l
Liquefaction dw = 5'
"0
c:
.
:::l
o
CI
E
:::l
E
S 0.1 f-------+-------b~_::;~'----_+------t-----__I
:E No liquefaction
O~-----=-'=----____,"-=:-----_=_=----__=:"=_----'":":!
o 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density - percent
Fig. 10 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL FOR VERY FINE SAND- 20 STRESS C'tCLES.
13-~
14
the number of stress cycles from 10 to 200 Thus the boundaries between
D
SO
~ 0.075 mm; Nc = 20
D
SO
~ 0.2 mm; N
c
= 10
acceleration for which initial liquefaction will just occur for these
conditions are plotted in Figs. 11 and 12 for water table depths of 5 and
would often cause liquefaction; combinations falling below the lower curve
believed that charts of this type can provide a useful guide in the
The only reliable method for determining the usefulness of any method
been made of a number of cases in which sand deposits have or have not
Niigata 1802 6.6 Niigata 24 Sand 20 53 0.12 020 No liqUefactiOn} Kawasumi (10)
Niigata 1802 6.6 Niigata 24 Sand 20 12 64 0.12 020 No liquefaction Seed & Idriss (26)
Niigata 1887 6.1 Niigata 29 Sand 20 53 0.08 012 No liqUefactiOn} Kawasumi (10)
Niigata 1887 6.1 Niigata 29 Sand 20 12 64 0.08 012 No liquefaction Seed & Idriss (26)
Mino Owar! 1891 8.4 Ogaki 20 Sand 45 17 65 00.35 075 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
Mino Owar! 1891 8.4 Ginan West 20 Sand 30 10 55 00.35 075 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
Mino Owar! 1891 8.4 Dnuma 20 Sand & Gravel 25 19 75 00.35 075 No liquefaction Kishida (12)
Mino Owar! 1891 8.4 Ogase Pond 20 Sand 20 16 72 00.35 075 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
Santa Barbara 1925 6.3 Sheffield Dam Sand 015 25 40 00.2 15 Liquefac tion Seed et al (28)
El Centro 1940 7.0 Brawley Sand 015 015 58 00.25 30 Liquefaction Ross (23)
E1 Centro 1940 7.0 All-Am. Canal Sand 020 025 43 00.25 30 Liquefaction Ross (23)
E1 Centro 1940 7.0 Solfatara Canal Sand 020 32 00.25 30 Liquefaction Ross (23)
Tohnankai 1944 8.3 Komei 100 Sand 13 40 00.08 070 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
Tohnankai 1944 8.3 Meiko St. 100 Silt & Sand 30 00.08 070 Liquef ac tion Kishida (12)
Fukui 1948 7.2 Takaya Sand 11 23 18 72 00.30 030 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
Fukui 1948 7.2 Takaya Sand 23 28 90 00.30 030 No liquefaction Kishida (12)
Fukui 1948 7.2 Shonenji Temple Sand 10 40 00.30 030 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
~ Fukui 1948 7.2 Agr. Union Sand & Silt 20 50 00.30 030 Liquefaction Kishida (12)
San Francisco 1957 5.5 Lake Merced Sand 10 55 00.18 18 Liquefac tion Ross (23)
~ Chile 1960 8.4 Puerto Mantt 070 Sand 12 15 50 00.15 075 Liquefaction Lee (15)
Chile 1960 8.4 Puerto Montt 070 Sand 12 15 55 00.15 075 Liquefaction Lee (15)
Chile 1960 8.4 Puerto Montt 070 Sand 12 20 18 75 00.15 075 No liquefaction Lee (15)
Niigata 1964 7.5 Niigata 32 Sand 20 53 0.16 40 Liquefac tion Seed & Idriss (26)
Niigata 1964 7.5 Niigata 32 Sand 25 15 70 0.16 40 Liquefac tion Kishida (11)
Niigata 1964 7.5 Niigata 32 Sand 20 12 64 0.16 40 No liquefaction Seed & Idriss (26)
Niigata 1964 7.5 Niigata 32 Sand 12 25 53 0.16 40 No liquefaction Seed & Idriss (26)
Alaska 1964 8.3 Snow River 60 Sand 20 50 00.15 180 Liquefac tion Ross et al (24)
Alaska 1964 8.3 Snow River 60 Sand 20 44 00.15 180 Liquefac tion Ross et al (24)
Alaska 1964 8.3 Quartz Creek 70 Sandy Gravel 025 40-80 100 00.12 180 No liquefaction Ross et al (24)
Alaska 1964 8.3 Scott Glacier 55 Sand 020 10 65 00.16 180 Liquefaction Ross et al (24)
Alaska 1964 8.3 Valdez 35 Sand & Gravel 020 13 68 00.25 180 Liquefaction Coulter & Migliaccio (3)
Tokachioki 1968 7.8 Hachinohe 45 to 110 Sand 12 14 78 0.21 45 No liquefaction Ohsaki (20)
Tokachioki 1968 7.8 Hachinohe 45 to 110 Sand 12 58 0.21 45 Liquefaction Ohsaki (20)
Tokachioki 1968 7.8 Hachinohe 45 to 110 Sand 10 15 80 0.21 45 No liquefaction Ohsaki (20)
Tokachioki 1968 7.8 Hakodate 100 Sand 15 55 0.18 45 Liquefaction Kishida (13)
0.5,..------......-------,.--------r------,...-------.
Water table at depth of about 5 ft.
• Liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration recorded
• Liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration estimated
o No liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration recorded
<:> No liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration estimated
0.41--------+-------+------+------+------1
01
I
c:
o
:;: • • •
...
o
Q)
g 0.31---------1------41.--.---41..-------4--- --+----<:)'----1
«
Q)
o
...
.E
:::J •
Cf)
.
"0
~
e
c: •
0.21-------1-------1------.--l--~tC-----+-----___I
E
:::J
E
)(
•
o
~
O.II--------+-------:A------;;;,'.L:----+------+---------j
o o
20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density - percent
•0
Liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration estimated
No liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration estimated
0 No liquefaction; maximum ground acceleration recorded
0.4
01
I
c:
0
+=
0
'-
•
Q)
Q)
(,)
(,) 0.3
<t
-
Q)
(,)
0
'-
:3
CJ)
"0
c:
:3 0.2
0
'-
<.!>
E
:3
E
x
0
~
0.1
01-------'--------'--------'---------'-------'
o 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density - percent
the deposits. In these cases the in-situ relative density was determined
and effective overburden pressure proposed by Gibbs and Holtz (7). This
able for only a few cases. Thus in most cases it was necessary to estimate
In this way, for locations where the water table was about 5 ft below
density and maximum ground surface acceleration for 15 cases where lique-
faction is known to have occurred and 8 cases where liquefaction did not
develop. These cases are plotted in Fig. 11, larger symbols being used
for cases where ground motion measurements were available and smaller
For locations where the water table was about 10 ft below the ground
known to have occurred and 6 cases where liquefaction did not develop.
-
...:
c:T
en
'-
2
8-
en
Q.
3
.¥:
I
Q)
'-
:::s 4
en
en
Q)
'-
a.
c 5
Q)
"0
'-
:::s
.0
'-
Q)
> 6
0
--
Q)
>
0
Q) 7
w
8
20% 40%
~ 50ok 60% 70% 80% 90%
9
occurred in some parts of the city but not in others. The maximum ground
soil conditions between the heavy damage area where liquefaction occurred
and the light damage area where liquefaction did not develop. It was
resistance, in the light damage area as compared with the heavy damage
area. Independent studies by Kishida (11) and Koizumi (14) led to the
potential. For the conditions at Niigata, the mean grain size for the
soil ranged from about 0.1 to 0.5 rom, the water table was about 5 ft
below the ground surface and the earthquake (Magnitude about 7.6) could
Fig. 11 shows that for these conditions and a maximum ground surface
Standard Penetration Resistance, N - blows per foot
o 10 20 30 40
o r---------.,.------.-,---....,.-------,...----------,
I
I
I
I
,
I
Lig ht damage-
I
~ I no liquefaction
-
a \ 1
I
~ 0.5 1----------+---'>-,-----\-~I,----+--------+----------1
~
Q)
I/)
\
\
'
,
'" ,
E
c:: \ ',
, ,
1
Q) " "
...:::J '"'
a:
I/)
~
~,
"
-> I
-
w
~1.5~-------+--------+----.\.----+----------l
2.0'--------..L.....--------l----------'----------I
/6-~
17
relative density may be read off directly from Fig. 13, and they are
plotted in Fig. 14. It may be seen that the boundary between zones of
data in Figs. 11 and 12 may readily be used to develop simple charts for
values. For example on the basis of the analytical and field data shown in
table is about 5 ft. Thus for any given value of maximum ground accelera-
Cf)
e
.....
,, a
<X> z
<IW
..... Cf)(J
..... \
0:: <I
,,
• .....
,,
\
\
\
aLL
LLO::
:::>
,, \ -JCf)
• ,, \
<:>
\
o -c
<Ie
f-z
z:::>
a Q)
to ...
u
Q)
WO
f-O::
• o
a.
I
0<9
(L
->.
l J)
c
z~
oS
Q) f-W
e (JCD
Q)
~f-
a
'¢ -
0
>
Q)
WW
:::>W
aLL
-
0::
-Jl{)
~
• \\1,,)
-Z-.r
LL W
O-J
ZCD
~ 0<I
~ a
-f-
f-
<I 0::
O. C\J :::>W
0\\ -Jf-
<I <I
8 >3::
W
l{)
0
0'
li:
a
rt') C\J 0
0 0 0
f> - uO'~OJala:>:>'1 a:>opns punoJ8 wnw!xo~
/7-C0
18
For sites consisting of sands with the water table about 5 ft below the
ranges:
evaluation charts such as those shown in Fig. 16. Charts for a water
table depth of 10 ft are shown in Fig. 17 and similar charts for other
Fig. 16, are compared in Fig. 18. Also shown in this figure are the
Standard Penetration Resistance-blows/ft. Stoodard Penetration Resistance - blows/ft.
09 Ip 2? 3p 4,0 5p 6p 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
...,
-5l....- ---4Z-
--:-
20 I If / / V/ / / X I I I 201 I \///,4/++-1-/\ I I
Liquefaction
Liquefaction very unlikely very unlikely
I { (
I I ; II
30 I 1/ /bl,l,l / ,I A I I I I 30 t------ \/ 1 / / Ill'/\
Ql
Ql Ql
Ql
I
-
I
--
"-.£ 40 Liqn. £
- 401
very 0. t'
~o. Ql .
I Ql Liquefaction
~o
likely
o very likely
\ 501 \1//////1///\ I I I 50 I I I \/ / / / If / / / / / / X A I I
Maximum ground surface acceleration::::: 0.15g Maximum ground surface acceleration::::: 0.25 9
80· !, , , 80, ! ! I ,
Fig.16 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION CHARTS FOR SANDS WITH WATER TABLE AT DEPTH CF ABOUT 5 FEET.
Standard Penetration Resistance -blows/ft Standard Penetration Resistance - blows/ft.
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 O? I? 2p 3p 4p 5,0 6p
0, I I i i I I
10 --.5L- 10 ..sl...-
Q)
- Q)
-
".e ~ I Liquefaction
~~ 40 ~Liqn.
very ~ 40 Ivery likely
likely 0-
Q)
~~
o
-
o
501 \,' ,1 / / , / A I I I I 501 I Yill/////V//ll" I I I
Maximum ground surface acceleration s:::: 0.15 g Maximum ground surface acceleration s:::: 0.25 9
80' ! ! I I ! I 80' ! ! ! ! I I
Fig. 17 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION CHARTS FOR SANDS WITH WATER TABLE AT DEPTH OF ABOUT 10 FEET.
Standard Penetration Resistance, N - blows 1ft.
o 10 20 30
Or------r----..,.-------r----~--___,---__y
40 50 60
10 t - - - ---+-~J-.-.-1r_t_--\---_t_---+_---t__--___I
20 r-----1r---+......-~H_-\--_\__-I-----_+---_t_--__1
30 ~---++--- ~rr--___+-~r__-_+---_+_--___I
40 I---------II-+-----+-+-~~--f'l......_-~_+_---_+_----I
+-
-
Q)
Q)
I
.r:.
a. 50 I---------If-----lc-----+--+--~~~-_+__+_--_+_---~
Q)
o
601------+---\-----f----+--+---\i,lc-\-+---\--t-----1
701------l--~L.....-__+_----+----+=-_':_::_--f_1_--_____i
Omax = O.lg 0.15g 0;20g 0.25g
e----. Ohsaki
80 <:>------0 Kishida
Liquefaction very unlikely for any soil and for any
earthquake if penetration resistance values exceed those
shown above; however lower values adequate for some
90 conditions (see Figs 16 and 17).
Ohsaki and Kishida are perhaps somewhat conservative for low intensity
Conclusion
for evaluating liquefaction potential which will take these factors into
believed that even the limited available field data can provide a useful
guide to the probable performance of other sand deposits, that the method
,
20
Acknowledgments
are most grateful for this support and for the assistance of P. Schnabel
References
1. Amano, Ryokichi, Azuma, Hisashi and Ishii, Yasumaru (1956) "Aseismic
Design of Quay Walls in Japan," Proceedings, 1st World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, California.
2. Casagrande, A. (1936) "Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting
the Stability of Slopes and Earth Fills," Journal, Boston Society of
Civil Engineers, January.
3. Coulter, H. W. and Migliaccio, R. R. (1966) "Effects of the Earthquake ;,t;.
22. Report on Anchorage Area Soil Studies, Alaska. Shannon and Wilson, Inc.,
to Uo S. Army Engineer District, Anchorage, Alaska, Seattle, Washington,
1964.
24. Ross, Grant A., Seed, H. Bolton and Migliaccio, Ralph R. (1969)
"Bridge Foundations in Alaska Earthquake," Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol, 95, Noo SM4, July 1969, pp. 1007-1036.
EERC 68-3 "A Graphical Method for Solving the Wave Reflection-Refraction
Problem," by H, D, McNiven and Y. Mengi - April 1968.
(PB 187 943)
EERC 70-5 "A Computer Program for Earthquake Analysis of Dams," by Anil
K. Chopra - September 1970.