Abstract
The state parameter (ψ) is based on a framework of critical state soil mechanics, which reflects the influences of soil compactness and stress level and has significant advantages for liquefaction analysis. In engineering practice, a simplified procedure based on the cone penetration test (CPT) to assess the liquefaction potential in the field involves model and parameter uncertainties. Furthermore, the use of limited CPT measurements involves project-specific test uncertainties, and the spatial variability of soil properties has a remarkable effect on soil liquefaction. To tackle these challenges, this study develops a ψ-based liquefaction probability framework to integrate the prior information of project-specific CPT, and uses limited tests to characterize the 2D spatial distribution of liquefaction potential with proper consideration of various uncertainties and soil spatial variability. The framework is developed based on simulation of Gaussian stationary random fields and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. The proposed method is demonstrated using real CPT data from the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake in Japan. The results indicate that the ψ-based evaluation performs well and can reasonably assess the liquefaction phenomenon of heterogeneous soils. This study incorporating the spatial variability of ψ into the liquefaction probability framework provides valuable information for geotechnical engineering design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akkayal A, Vanmarcke E (2003) Estimation of spatial correlation of soil parameters based on data from the texas A&M University NGES. American Society of Civil Engineers, 29–40
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (1999) Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. NCEER Publication No.-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Au SK, Cao ZJ, Wang Y (2010) Implementing advanced monte carlo simulation under spreadsheet environment. Structural Safety 32(5): 281–292, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.03.004
Been K, Crooks JHA, Jefferies MG (1989) Interpretation of material state from the CPT in sands and clays. In: Penetration testing in the UK. Thomas Telford Publishing, 215–218
Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 35(2):99–112, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.99
Been K, Jefferies MG Crooks JHA, Rothenburg L (1987) The cone penetration test in sands: Part II, general inference of state. Géotechnique 37(3):285–299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.3.285
Bong T, Stuedlein AW (2018) Effect of cone penetration conditioning on random field model parameters and impact of spatial variability on liquefaction-induced differential settlements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 144(5):04018018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001863
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2016) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(2):04015065, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001388
Cai G, Chu Y, Liu S, Puppala AJ (2016) Evaluation of subsurface spatial variability in site characterization based on RCPTU data. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 75(1):401–412, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0727-8
Cao Z, Wang Y (2013) Bayesian approach for probabilistic site characterization using cone penetration tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(2):267–276, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000765
Cao Z, Wang Y (2014) Bayesian model comparison and selection of spatial correlation functions for soil parameters. Structural Safety 49:10–17, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.06.003
Cao Z, Wang Y, Li D (2016) Quantification of prior knowledge in geotechnical site characterization. Engineering Geology 203:107–116, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.018
Chen G, Kong M, Sara K, Chen W, Li X (2019) Calibration of Vs-based empirical models for assessing soil liquefaction potential using expanded database. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 78(2):945–957, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1146-9
Cox BR, Boulanger RW, Tokimatsu K, Wood CM, Abe A, Ashford S, Donahue J, Ishihara K, Kayen R, Katsumata K, Kishida T, Kokusho T, Mason HB, Moss R, Stewart JP, Tohyama K, Zekkos D (2013) Liquefaction at Strong Motion Stations and in Urayasu City during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 29(1_suppl): 55–80, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000110
Duan W, Congress S, Cai G, Liu S, Dong X, Chen R, Liu X (2021) A hybrid GMDH neural network and logistic regression framework for state parameter-based liquefaction evaluation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (12):58, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2020-0686
Duan W, Congress SSC, Cai G, Zhao Z, Liu S, Dong X, Chen R, Qiao H (2022a) Prediction of in situ state parameter of sandy deposits from CPT measurements using optimized GMDH-type neural networks. Acta Geotechnica 17(10):4515–4535, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01540-6
Duan W, Congress SSC, Cai G, Zhao Z, Pu S, Liu S, Dong X, Wu M, Chen R (2023) Characterizing the in-situ state of sandy soils for liquefaction analysis using resistivity piezocone penetration test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 164:107529, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107529
Duan W, Zhao Z, Cai G, Liu S, Dong X, Chen R (2022b) Liquefaction discrimination of sand based on cone penetration test combined shear wave velocity test. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science) 50(5):703–710, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11908/j.issn.0253-374x.21115 (in Chinese)
Duan W, Zhao Z, Cai G, Pu S, Liu S, Dong X (2022c) Evaluating model uncertainty of an in situ state parameter-based simplified method for reliability analysis of liquefaction potential. Computers and Geotechnics 151:104957, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104957
Fenton GA (1999a) Estimation for stochastic soil models. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(6):470–485, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:6(470)
Fenton GA (1999b) Random field modeling of CPT data. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 126(12):486–498, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:6(486)
Franke KW, Olson SM (2021) Practical considerations regarding the probability of liquefaction in engineering design. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 147(8):04021061, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002561
GEER (2023) Geotechnical extreme events reconnaissance. In: National Science Foundation (NSF), Retrieved January 21, 2023, https://www.geerassociation.org/
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Rubin DB (1995) Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC
Guan Z, Wang Y (2022a) SPT-based probabilistic evaluation of soil liquefaction potential considering design life of civil infrastructures. Computers and Geotechnics 148:104807, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104807
Guan Z, Wang Y (2022b) CPT-based probabilistic liquefaction assessment considering soil spatial variability, interpolation uncertainty and model uncertainty. Computers and Geotechnics 141:104504, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104504
Guan Z, Wang Y, Stuedlein AW (2022) Efficient three-dimensional soil liquefaction potential and reconsolidation settlement assessment from limited CPTs considering spatial variability. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163:107518, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107518
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Rep UCD/CGM-10 2:4–13
Ishihara K, Araki K, Bradley B (2011) Characteristics of liquefaction induced damage in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. University of Canterbury Civil & Natural Resources Engineering, https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/6249
Jefferies M, Been K (2015) Soil liquefaction: A critical state approach. 2th Edition, CRC press
Juang C H., Ching J, Ku C-S, Hsieh Y-H (2012) Unified CPTu-based probabilistic model for assessing probability of liquefaction of sand and clay. Géotechnique 62(10):877–892, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.9.P.025
Juang CH, Zhang J (2017) Bayesian methods for geotechnical applications — A practical guide. ASCE 215–246, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480731.019
Kang X, Cheng Y, Ge L (2015) Radial strain behaviors and stress state interpretation of soil under direct simple shear. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 43(6):1594–1601, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20140202
Kang X, Xia Z, Chen R, Ge L, Liu X (2019) The critical state and steady state of sand: A literature review. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 37(9):1105–1118, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2018.1534294
Kayen R, Moss R, Thompson EM, Seed R, Cetin K, Kiureghian AD, Tanaka Y, Tokimatsu K (2013) Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic. Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(3): 407–419, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743
Kayen RE, Ishihara K, Stewart JP, Tokimatsu K, Kishida T (2012) Geotechnical deformations at ground failure sites from the March 11, 2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake, Japan: Field mapping, LIDAR modeling, and surface wave investigation. In: Ninth Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering
Kim H-K, Santamarina JC (2008) Spatial variability: Drained and undrained deviatoric load response. Géotechnique 58(10):805–814, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.3724
Ku C-S, Juang CH, Chang C-W, Ching J (2012) Probabilistic version of the Robertson and Wride method for liquefaction evaluation: Development and application. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49(1):27–44, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-085
Lai S-Y, Chang W-J, Lin P-S (2006) Logistic regression model for evaluating soil liquefaction probability using CPT data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(6):694–704, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:6(694)
Liao SSC, Veneziano D, Whitman RV (1988) Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 114(4):389–411, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389)
Moss RE, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Stewart JP, Der Kiureghian A, Cetin KO (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(8):1032–1051, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032)
Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(4):612–624, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-038
Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests — A unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46(11):1337–1355, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065
Rowe PW, Taylor GI (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 269(1339):500–527, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0193
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 97(9):1249–1273, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662
Tao Y, Sun H, Cai Y (2022) Predictions of deep excavation responses considering model uncertainty: Integrating BiLSTM neural networks with bayesian updating. International Journal of Geomechanics 22(1):04021250, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002245
Tokimatsu K, Katsumata K (2012) Liquefaction-Induced damaged to buildings in URAYASU City During The 2011 TOHOKU Pacific Eathquake. Proc, of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake 665–674
Vanmarcke EH (1983) Random Fields Analysis and Synthesis, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/5807
Wang Y, Au S-K, Cao Z (2010) Bayesian approach for probabilistic characterization of sand friction angles. Engineering Geology 114(3): 354–363, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.05.013
Wang Y, Cao Z, Au S-K (2011) Practical reliability analysis of slope stability by advanced Monte Carlo simulations in a spreadsheet. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48(1):162–172, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-044
Wang Y, Cao Z, Li D (2016) Bayesian perspective on geotechnical variability and site characterization. Engineering Geology 203:117–125, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.017
Wang Y, Fu C, Huang K (2017) Probabilistic assessment of liquefiable soil thickness considering spatial variability and model and parameter uncertainties. Géotechnique 67(3):228–241, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.219
Wang Y, He J, Shu S, Zhang H, Wu Y (2022a) Seismic responses of rectangular tunnels in liquefiable soil considering spatial variability of soil properties. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 162:107489, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107489
Wang T, Xiao S, Zhang J, Zuo B (2022b) Depth-consistent models for probabilistic liquefaction potential assessment based on shear wave velocity. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 81(6):255, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-022-02754-4
Yan RWM, Yuen K-V, Yoon G-L (2009) Bayesian probabilistic approach for the correlations of compression index for marine clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000157
Yang J, Liu X, Guo Y, Liang LB (2018) A unified framework for evaluating in situ state of sand with varying fines content. Géotechnique 68(2):177–183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.254
Zhao Z, Congress SSC, Cai G, Duan W (2022a) Bayesian probabilistic characterization of consolidation behavior of clays using CPTU data. Engineering Geology 17(3):931–948, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01277-8
Zhao Z, Duan W, Cai G (2021) A novel PSO-KELM based soil liquefaction potential evaluation system using CPT and Vs measurements. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 150:106930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106930
Zhao Z, Duan W, Cai G Wu M, Liu S (2022b) CPT-based fully probabilistic seismic liquefaction potential assessment to reduce uncertainty: Integrating XGBoost algorithm with Bayesian theorem. Computers and Geotechnics 149:104868, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104868
Zhao T, Xu L, Wang Y (2020) Fast non-parametric simulation of 2D multi-layer cone penetration test (CPT) data without pre-stratification using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Engineering Geology 273:105670, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105670
Acknowledgments
The majority of the work presented in this study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.41867039), the Guangxi Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (No. 20-Y-XT-03), and Foundation Engineering of Technical Innovation Center of Mine Geological Environmental in Southern Area (No. CXZX2020002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, H., Liu, Z. & Xie, Y. Probabilistic Liquefaction Assessment Based on an In-situ State Parameter Considering Soil Spatial Variability and Various Uncertainties. KSCE J Civ Eng 27, 4228–4239 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0144-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0144-7