Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model uncertainties of SPT, CPT, and VS-based simplified methods for soil liquefaction assessment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Simplified methods for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on the standard penetration test (SPT) are prevalent in practice and widely accepted by several seismic design codes. When encountering sites that have not been investigated using SPT, such as offshore sites or sites with a high level of gravel content, engineers can only substitute the methods based on piezocone penetration test data (CPT-qc methods) or shear wave velocity measurements (VS-based methods); however, these two approaches perform inconsistently with methods based on SPT data (SPT-N methods). As a result, this paper exploits the datasets consisting of SPT, CPTU, and in situ seismic test measurements from 13 alluvium sites in the Taipei Basin to compare the performance of prevalent SPT-N, CPT-qc, and VS-based methods. The discrepancies (uncertainties) of these methods are characterized as Gaussian distribution models, which is believed to be a feasible strategy for predicting equivalent results for SPT-N methods when SPT data are not available. Finally, the application of the proposed models to liquefaction potential index evaluation is demonstrated using a real case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2014) AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design with 2012 and 2014 Interim Revisions

  • Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 126:1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang AH, Tang WH (2007) Probability concepts in engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2001) Recommendations for the design of buildings. (in Japanese)

  • ASTM D4428/D4428M (2016) Standard Test Methods for Crosshole Seismic Testing. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  • ASTM D5778 (2012) Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  • ASTM D1586 (2018) Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  • Baez JI, Martin GR, Youd TL (2000) Comparison of SPT-CPT liquefaction evaluations and CPT interpretations. Geo-Denver 2000

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2016) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 142(2):04015065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabalar AF, Canbolat A, Akbulut N, Tercan SH, Isik H (2019) Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras. Turkey Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):1822–1838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanella RG, Robertson PK, Gillespie D, Laing N, Kurfurst PJ (1987) Seismic cone penetration in the near offshore of the MacKenzie delta. Can Geotech J 24:154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Bilge HT (2022) Recent advances in seismic soil liquefaction engineering The Evolution of Geotech - 25 Years of Innovation. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, Chowdhury K (2018) Examination of differences between three SPT-based seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationships. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 113:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kiureghian AD, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 130(12):1314–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang M, Kuo CP, Shau SH, Hsu RE (2011) Comparison of SPT-N-based analysis methods in evaluation of liquefaction potential during the 1999 Chi-chi earthquake in Taiwan. Comput Geotech 38:393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen BSY, Mayne PW (1996) Statistical relationships between piezocone measurements and stress history of clays. Can Geotech J 33(3):488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching J, Phoon KK (2012) Establishment of generic transformations for geotechnical design parameters. Struct Saf 35:52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover WJ (1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot DJ, Baecher GB (1993) Estimating autocovariance of in‐situ soil properties. J Geotech Eng 119. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(147)

  • Dobry R, Ladd RS (1980) Discussion to Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes. by H.B. Seed and ‘Liquefaction potential: Science versus practice,’ by R.B. Peck, J Geotech Eng Div 106(GT6):720–724

  • Gilstrap SD, Youd TL (1998) CPT based liquefaction resistance analyses using case histories. Technical Report, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University

  • Guettaya I, Ouni MR, Moss RES (2013) Verifying liquefaction remediation beneath an earth dam using SPT and CPT based methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:130–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoque MM, Ansary M, Siddique A (2017) Evaluation of liquefaction potential from SPT and CPT: a comparative analysis. Proceedings of the 19th Int Conf Soil Mech Geotech Eng, Seoul, Korea

  • Hwang JH, Khoshnevisan S, Juang CH, Lu CC (2021) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation – an update of the HBF method focusing on research and practice in Taiwan. Eng Geol 280:105296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang JH, Yang CW, Chen CH (2005) Simplified methods for assessing liquefaction potential of soils by using hyperbolic cyclic resistance curves. Sino-Geotechnics 103:53–64 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-10/02. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA

  • Ishihara K, Li S (1972) Liquefaction of saturated sand in triaxial torsional shear test. Soils Found 12(2):19–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida KI (1984) Simplified Procedures for Assessing Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):49–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Road Association (JRA) (2017) Specification for highway bridges, Part V: Seismic Design. (in Japanese)

  • Jarushi F, Alkaabim S, Cosentino P (2015) A new correlation between SPT and CPT for various soils. Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophy Eng 9(9):101–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2000) Risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation using standard penetration tests. Can Geotech J 37(6):1195–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Ching J, Wang L, Khoshnevisan S, Ku CS (2013) Simplified procedure for estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using cone penetration test (CPT). Can Geotech J 50(10):1055–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayen RE, Mitchell JK (1997) Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 123(12):1162–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayen RE, Mitchell JK, Seed RB, Lodge A, Nishio SY, Coutinho R (1992) Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data. U.S. National. Center Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), Proceedings from the fourth Japan-U.S. workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures for soil liquefaction, NY, 177–204

  • Kayen RE, Moss RES, Thompson EM, Seed RB (2013) Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 139:407–419. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku CS, Juang CH (2012) Liquefaction and cyclic softening potential of soils – a unified piezocone penetration testing-based approach. Geotechnique 62(5):457–461

  • Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Cornell University, Palo Alto

  • Mayne PW (2006) In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. Proceedings of Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils II, Singapore

  • Moss RES, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Stewart JP, Kiureghian AD, Cetin KO (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 132(8):1032–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Interior, MOI of Taiwan (2022) Seismic design specifications and commentary of buildings. (in Chinese)

  • National Research Council (2016) State of the art and practice in the assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and its consequences. Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Division on Earth and Life Studies. Natl Acad Sci Eng Med

  • National Science Foundation (1994) Profiling the overconsolidation ratio of clays by piezocone tests. Report No. GIT-CEEGEO-94–1, Georiga Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georiga

  • Olsen R (1997) Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils 225–276

  • Power MS, Holzer TL (1996) Liquefaction maps. ATC TechBrief 1, Applied Technology Council

  • Randolph M, Gourvenec S (2011) Offshore geotechnical engineering. Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western Australia, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York

  • Rix GJ Romero-Hudock S (2006) Liquefaction potential mapping in Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee. Rep. to the U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

  • Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK (2015) Comparing CPT and VS liquefaction triggering methods. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 141(9):04015037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK (2016) Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — an update. Can Geotech J 53(12):1910–1927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Wightman A (1983) SPT-CPT Correlations J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 109(11):1449–1459

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Wride CEF (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Woeller DJ, Finn WDL (1992) Seismic cone penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading. Can Geotech J 29:686–695. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed B, Idriss I (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed B, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chun RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 111(12):1425–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph. Oakland, CA

  • Shibata T, Teparaska W (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration tests. Soils Found 28(2):49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark TD, Olson SM (1995) Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories. J Geotech Eng 121(12):856–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuedlein AW, Gianella TN, Canivan G (2016) Densification of granular soils using conventional and drained timber displacement piles. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 142(12):04016075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki Y, Tokimatsu K, Koyamada K, Taya Y, Kubota Y (1995) Field correlation of soil liquefaction based on CPT data. Proceeding of International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing 2:583–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykora, DW (1987) Examination of existing shear wave velocity and shear modulus correlations in soils. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Miscellaneous Paper GL-87–22

  • Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JS, Hwang JH, Lu CC, Deng YC (2022) Measurement uncertainty of shear wave velocity: a case study of thirteen alluvium test sites in Taipei Basin. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 155:107195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107195

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM (1997) Proceedings of NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Nat Ctr Earthq Eng Res State Univ New York at Buffalo

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Liam Finn WD, Harder JLF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (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 Geoenvironmental Eng 127(1):297–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The field investigation support received from CECI Engineering Consultants Incorporation, Prof. Chih-Sheng Ku of I-Shou University, and Director Chih-Hsin Hu of HCK Geophysical Company was of great help. The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to all of our benefactors.

Funding

The authors received financial support from the Taipei City Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jiun-Shiang Wang

  2. Division of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering, National Center for Research On Earthquake Engineering, National Applied Research Laboratories, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Jiun-Shiang Wang, Yuan-Chang Deng & Chih-Chieh Lu

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Jin-Hung Hwang

Authors
  1. Jiun-Shiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jin-Hung Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan-Chang Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chih-Chieh Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiun-Shiang Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, JS., Hwang, JH., Deng, YC. et al. Model uncertainties of SPT, CPT, and VS-based simplified methods for soil liquefaction assessment. Bull Eng Geol Environ 82, 260 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-023-03300-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-023-03300-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation