Advertisement

An Analytical Approach to Probabilistic Modeling of Liquefaction Based on Shear Wave Velocity

  • A. Johari
  • A. R. Khodaparast
  • A. A. Javadi
Research paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils is an important step in many geotechnical investigations in regions susceptible to earthquake. For this purpose, the use of site shear wave velocity (Vs) provides a promising approach. The safety factors in the deterministic analysis of liquefaction potential are often difficult to interpret because of uncertainties in the soil and earthquake parameters. To deal with the uncertainties, probabilistic approaches have been employed. In this research, the jointly distributed random variables (JDRV) method is used as an analytical method for probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential based on measurement of site shear wave velocity. The selected stochastic parameters are stress-corrected shear wave velocity and stress reduction factor, which are modeled using a truncated normal probability density function and the peak horizontal earthquake acceleration ratio and earthquake magnitude, which are considered to have a truncated exponential probability density function. Comparison of the results with those of Monte Carlo simulation indicates very good performance of the proposed method in assessment of reliability. Comparison of the results of the proposed model and a standard penetration test (SPT)-based model developed using JDRV shows that shear wave velocity (Vs)-based model provides a more conservative prediction of liquefaction potential than the SPT-based model.

Keywords

Reliability Jointly distributed random variables method Monte Carlo simulation Liquefaction Shear wave velocity 

References

  1. Alfredo H-SA, Wilson H (1975) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (1997) Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. Technical Report NCEER, US National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), vol 97, pp 89–128Google Scholar
  3. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Chung RM (1999) Draft guidelines for evaluating liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrus RD, Piratheepan P, Ellis BS, Zhang J, Juang CH (2004a) Comparing liquefaction evaluation methods using penetration-V S relationships. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Hsein Juang C (2004b) Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthq Spectr 20:285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arulanandan K, Yogachandran C, Meegoda NJ, Ying L, Zhauji S (1986) Comparison of the SPT, CPT, SV and electrical methods of evaluating earthquake induced liquefaction susceptibility in Ying Kou City during the Haicheng Earthquake. Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering, ASCE, pp 389–415Google Scholar
  8. Baziar M, Nilipour N (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural-networks and CPT results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolton Seed H, Tokimatsu K, Harder L, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111:1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chau KW, Wu CL (2010) A hybrid model coupled with singular spectrum analysis for daily rainfall prediction. J Hydroinformatics 12(4):458–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cubrinovski M, Ishihara K (1999) Empirical correlation between SPT N-value and relative density for sandy soils. Soils Found 39:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das, B. M. (2013). Advanced soil mechanics, CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobry R, Stokoe K, Ladd R, Youd T (1981) Liquefaction susceptibility from S-wave velocity. ASCE National Convention, ASCE New York, New York, pp 81–544Google Scholar
  14. Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriels P, Snieder R, Nolet G (1987) In situ measurements of shear-wave velocity in sediments with higher-mode Rayleigh waves. Geophys Prospect 35:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goh AT (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harr ME (1987) Reliability-based design in civil engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasofer A, Lind N, U. o. W. S. M. Division (1973) An exact and invariant first-order reliability format. University of Waterloo, Solid Mechanics Division, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoel PG, Port SC, Stone CJ (1971) Introduction to probability theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, p 12zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Idriss I (1991) Earthquake ground motions at soft soil sites. In: Second international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, Missouri S&T (formerly the University of Missouri–Rolla), St. Louis, Missouri, 11–15 March 1991Google Scholar
  21. Idriss I, Boulanger R (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Idriss I, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Johari A, Javadi A (2012) Reliability assessment of infinite slope stability using the jointly distributed random variables method. Sci Iran 19:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johari A, Khodaparast A (2013) Modelling of probability liquefaction based on standard penetration tests using the jointly distributed random variables method. Eng Geol 158:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johari A, Khodaparast A (2014) Analytical reliability assessment of liquefaction potential based on cone penetration test results. Sci Iran A 21(5):1549–1565Google Scholar
  27. Johari A, Khodaparast A (2015) Analytical stochastic analysis of seismic stability of infinite slope. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johari A, Javadi A, Makiabadi M, Khodaparast A (2012) Reliability assessment of liquefaction potential using the jointly distributed random variables method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 38:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johari A, Fazeli A, Javadi A (2013) An investigation into application of jointly distributed random variables method in reliability assessment of rock slope stability. Comput Geotech 47:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Juang CH, Chen CJ (1999) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation using artificial neural networks. Comput Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng 14:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T (2001) Probabilistic framework for liquefaction potential by shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:670–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Juang CH, Yuan H, Lee D-H, Lin P-S (2003) Simplified cone penetration test-based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Juang CH, Yang SH, Yuan H (2005) Model uncertainty of shear wave velocity-based method for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1274–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juang CH, Ching J, Luo Z, Ku C-S (2012) New models for probability of liquefaction using standard penetration tests based on an updated database of case histories. Eng Geol 133:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 80Google Scholar
  37. Lees JJ, Ballagh RH, Orense RP, Ballegooy SV (2015) CPT-based analysis of liquefaction and re-liquefaction following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79(B):304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liao SS, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J Geotech Eng 112:373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marosi KT, Hiltunen DR (2004) Characterization of spectral analysis of surface waves shear wave velocity measurement uncertainty. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:1034–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The monte carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell JK, Tseng D-J (1990) Assessment of liquefaction potential by cone penetration resistance. In: Proceedings of the HB seed memorial symposium, vol 2. Bi Tech Publishing, pp 335–350Google Scholar
  42. Morgenstern N (1995) Managing risk in geotechnical engineering: the third Casagrande Lecture. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pan-American Conference on soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Guadalajara, Mexico, Mexican Society of Soil Mechanics, Mexico City, vol 4, pp 102–126Google Scholar
  43. Muduli PK, Das SK, Bhattacharya S (2014) CPT-based probabilistic evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential using multi-gene genetic programming. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 8:14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nafday AM (2010) Soil liquefaction modelling by survival analysis regression. Journal. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 4:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramachandran KM, Tsokos CP (2014) Mathematical statistics with applications in R. Elsevier, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson P (1990) Cone penetration testing for evaluating liquefaction potential. In: Proceedings Symposium On Recent Advances in Earthquake Des. Using Lab. And In Situ Tests. ConeTec Investigations Ltd., BurnabyGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenblueth E (1975) Point estimates for probability moments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 72:3812–3814MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249Google Scholar
  49. Seed HK, Tokimatsu LH, Chung R (1984) The Influence of SPT Procedures on soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Report No. UCB\EERC-84/15. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Seed HB, De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands. Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering, ASCE, pp 281–302Google Scholar
  51. Seed RB, Harder LF (1990) SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength. H Bolton Seed Mem Symp Proc. 2:351–376Google Scholar
  52. Seed HB, Idriss I, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng 109:458–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silver ML (1977) Laboratory triaxial testing procedures to determine the cyclic strength of soils, prepared under contact to US NRC, (contact No. WRC-E (11-1)-2433), Reported No. NUREG-31Google Scholar
  54. Sowers GF (1991) The human factor in failures. Civil Eng ASCE 61:72–73Google Scholar
  55. Stokoe KH, Roesset J, Bierschwale J, Aouad M (1988) Liquefaction potential of sands from shear wave velocity. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake, vol 13, pp 213–218Google Scholar
  56. Taormina R, Chau KW, Sivakumar B (2015) Neural network river forecasting through baseflow separation and binary-coded swarm optimization. J Hydrol 529(3):1788–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Terzaghi K (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Tijms H (2012) Understanding probability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 113:861–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tokimatsu K, Uchida A (1990) Correlation between liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity. Soils Found 30:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitman RV (2000) Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu CL, Chau KW, Fan C (2010) Prediction of rainfall time series using modular artificial neural networks coupled with data-preprocessing technique. J Hydrol 389(1–2):146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Youd T, Idriss I, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WL, Harder LF Jr., Hynes ME (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zou H, Liu S, Cai G, Bheemasetti TV, Puppala AJ (2017) Mapping probability of liquefaction using geostatistics and first order reliability method based on CPTU measurements. Eng Geol 218:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShiraz University of TechnologyShirazIran
  2. 2.Computational Geomechanics Group, Department of EngineeringUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations