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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alfredo H-SA, Wilson H (1975) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Wiley, New York
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 89–128
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:1015–1025
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, Gaithersburg
Andrus RD, Piratheepan P, Ellis BS, Zhang J, Juang CH (2004a) Comparing liquefaction evaluation methods using penetration-V S relationships. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:713–721
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Hsein Juang C (2004b) Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthq Spectr 20:285–308
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 389–415
Baziar M, Nilipour N (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural-networks and CPT results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:631–636
Bolton Seed H, Tokimatsu K, Harder L, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111:1425–1445
Chau KW, Wu CL (2010) A hybrid model coupled with singular spectrum analysis for daily rainfall prediction. J Hydroinformatics 12(4):458–473
Cubrinovski M, Ishihara K (1999) Empirical correlation between SPT N-value and relative density for sandy soils. Soils Found 39:61–71
Das, B. M. (2013). Advanced soil mechanics, CRC Press
Dobry R, Stokoe K, Ladd R, Youd T (1981) Liquefaction susceptibility from S-wave velocity. ASCE National Convention, ASCE New York, New York, pp 81–544
Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:307–316
Gabriels P, Snieder R, Nolet G (1987) In situ measurements of shear-wave velocity in sediments with higher-mode Rayleigh waves. Geophys Prospect 35:187–196
Goh AT (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39:219–232
Harr ME (1987) Reliability-based design in civil engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
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, Waterloo
Hoel PG, Port SC, Stone CJ (1971) Introduction to probability theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, p 12
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 1991
Idriss I, Boulanger R (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130
Idriss I, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland
Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford University Press, New York
Johari A, Javadi A (2012) Reliability assessment of infinite slope stability using the jointly distributed random variables method. Sci Iran 19:423–429
Johari A, Khodaparast A (2013) Modelling of probability liquefaction based on standard penetration tests using the jointly distributed random variables method. Eng Geol 158:1–14
Johari A, Khodaparast A (2014) Analytical reliability assessment of liquefaction potential based on cone penetration test results. Sci Iran A 21(5):1549–1565
Johari A, Khodaparast A (2015) Analytical stochastic analysis of seismic stability of infinite slope. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:17–21
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 38:81–87
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 47:42–47
Juang CH, Chen CJ (1999) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation using artificial neural networks. Comput Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng 14:221–229
Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T (2001) Probabilistic framework for liquefaction potential by shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:670–678
Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589
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 129:66–80
Juang CH, Yang SH, Yuan H (2005) Model uncertainty of shear wave velocity-based method for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1274–1282
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 133:85–93
Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 80
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):304–314
Liao SS, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J Geotech Eng 112:373–377
Marosi KT, Hiltunen DR (2004) Characterization of spectral analysis of surface waves shear wave velocity measurement uncertainty. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:1034–1041
Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The monte carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44:335–341
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 335–350
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 102–126
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 8:14–28
Nafday AM (2010) Soil liquefaction modelling by survival analysis regression. Journal. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 4:77–92
Ramachandran KM, Tsokos CP (2014) Mathematical statistics with applications in R. Elsevier, London
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., Burnaby
Rosenblueth E (1975) Point estimates for probability moments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 72:3812–3814
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249
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, CA
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 281–302
Seed RB, Harder LF (1990) SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength. H Bolton Seed Mem Symp Proc. 2:351–376
Seed HB, Idriss I, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng 109:458–482
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-31
Sowers GF (1991) The human factor in failures. Civil Eng ASCE 61:72–73
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 213–218
Taormina R, Chau KW, Sivakumar B (2015) Neural network river forecasting through baseflow separation and binary-coded swarm optimization. J Hydrol 529(3):1788–1797
Terzaghi K (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York
Tijms H (2012) Understanding probability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 113:861–878
Tokimatsu K, Uchida A (1990) Correlation between liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity. Soils Found 30:33–42
Whitman RV (2000) Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:583–593
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):146–167
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 127:817–833
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 218:197–212
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Derivation of Mathematical Functions K 1 to K 7 and FS and Their Domains is Presented in “Appendix”
where
VS1mean is average value of stress-corrected shear wave velocity. σVS1 is standard deviation of stress-corrected shear wave velocity. VS1min is minimum value of stress-corrected shear wave velocity. VS1max is maximum value of stress-corrected shear wave velocity.
rdmean is average value of stress reduction factor. σrd is standard deviation of stress reduction factor. rdmin is minimum value of stress reduction factor. rdmax is maximum value of stress reduction factor.
where MWmin is minimum value of moment magnitude. MWmax is maximum value of moment magnitude. λMw is rate of change in moment magnitude (rate parameter) = 1/βMw.βMw is scale parameter of moment magnitude.
where αmin is minimum value of earthquake acceleration ratio. αmax is maximum value of earthquake acceleration ratio. λα is rate of change in earthquake acceleration ratio (rate parameter) = 1/βα.βα is scale parameter of earthquake acceleration ratio.
And the cumulative distribution function of K7 can be determined as below:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johari, A., Khodaparast, A.R. & Javadi, A.A. An Analytical Approach to Probabilistic Modeling of Liquefaction Based on Shear Wave Velocity. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 43 (Suppl 1), 263–275 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0163-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0163-7