Top

Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

Published in:

01-06-2022 | Original Paper

Depth-consistent models for probabilistic liquefaction potential assessment based on shear wave velocity

Authors: Tianpeng Wang, Shihao Xiao, Jie Zhang, Baocheng Zuo

Published in: Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment | Issue 6/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In the Chinese code models for seismic design, the shear wave velocity (V_s)-based model for liquefaction potential assessment is built based on the depth consistency assumption, i.e., the seismic demand is a non-decreasing function of the soil depth. It provides an alternative way to construct empirical models based on past case histories. However, the current V_s-based Chinese code model is deterministic in nature. In this paper, the depth consistency assumption for V_s data is validated with models built within the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) framework. Then, two V_s-based probabilistic models for liquefaction potential assessment are built based on the depth consistency assumption, i.e., a model with explicit consideration of the measurement uncertainty and a model without explicit consideration of the measurement uncertainty. It is found that the performances of the two suggested models are comparable with those of two frequently used models built within the CSR framework and are superior to the Chinese code model. For a site where the measurement uncertainty is not available, the model without explicit consideration of the measurement uncertainty should be used. For a site where measurement uncertainty is available, it is suggested that the model with explicit consideration of the measurement uncertainty should be used as it is more conservative.

previous article Risk assessment and support design optimization of a high slope in an open pit mine using the jointed finite element method and discontinuous deformation analysis

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

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

Andrus, RD, Stokoe, KH, Chung, RM, Juang, CH (1999) Draft guidelines for evaluating liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures

Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138:1185–1195. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000700CrossRef

Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. University of California, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Cavallaro A, Capilleri PP, Grasso S (2018) Site characterization by dynamic in situ and laboratory tests for liquefaction potential evaluation during Emilia Romagna earthquake. Geosciences 8:242. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070242CrossRef

Cetin K, Der Kiureghian A, Seed R (2002) Probabilistic models for the initiation of seismic soil liquefaction. Struct Saf 24:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00036-XCrossRef

Cetin KO (2000) Reliability-based assessment of soil liquefaction initiation hazard. University of California Berkeley, Ph. D. of Environmental Engineering

Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, Chowdhury K (2018) SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 115:698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.012CrossRef

Chen G, Xu L, Kong M, Li X (2015) Calibration of a CRR model based on an expanded SPT-based database for assessing soil liquefaction potential. Eng Geol 196:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.002CrossRef

Chen GX, Kong MY, Sara K, Chen WY, Li XJ (2019) Calibration of Vs-based empirical models for assessing soil liquefaction potential using expanded database. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:945–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1146-9CrossRef

CIGE (2009) Code for investigation of geotechnical engineering (GB50021–2001, 2009 version). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China (in Chinese)

CSIS (2008) The Chinese seismic intensity scale (GB/T 17742–2008, 2008 version). Beijing: Standards Press of China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China and Standardization Administation (in Chinese).

Drummond C, Holte RC (2003) C4. 5, class imbalance, and cost sensitivity: why under-sampling beats over-sampling. Workshop on learning from imbalanced datasets II. Citeseer, 1–8

Ecemis N (2020) Effect of soil-type and fines content on liquefaction resistance—shear-wave velocity correlation. J Earthqu Eng 24:1311–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1475312CrossRef

Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27:861–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010CrossRef

Franke KW, Olson SM (2021) Practical Considerations Regarding the Probability of Liquefaction in Engineering Design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 147:04021061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002561CrossRef

Grasso S, Massimino MR, Sammito MSV (2020) New stress reduction factor for evaluating soil liquefaction in the Coastal Area of Catania (Italy). Geosciences 11:12. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11010012CrossRef

Grasso S, Maugeri M (2008) The Seismic Dilatometer Marchetti Test (SDMT) for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading. Geotech Earthq Eng Soil Dyn IV, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/40975(318)75

Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747CrossRef

Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:521–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.001CrossRef

Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2007) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-006-0063-0CrossRef

Hu JL, Tang XW, Qiu JN (2017) Analysis of the influences of sampling bias and class imbalance on performances of probabilistic liquefaction models. Int J Geomech 17:04016134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000808CrossRef

Hwang JH, Yang CW (2001) Verification of critical cyclic strength curve by Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00002-1CrossRef

Idriss IM (1999) An Update to the Seed-Idriss Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential. Proceedings of TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC

Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023CrossRef

Jo T, Japkowicz N (2004) Class imbalances versus small disjuncts. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsl 6:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007730.1007737CrossRef

Juang CH, Ching J, Luo Z (2013) Assessing SPT-based probabilistic models for liquefaction potential evaluation: a 10-year update. Georisk 7:137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2013.778117CrossRef

Juang CH, Fang SY, Tang WH, Khor EH, Kung GTC, Zhang J (2009) Evaluating model uncertainty of an SPT-based simplified method for reliability analysis for probability of liquefaction. Soils Found 49:135–152. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.49.135CrossRef

Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2002)128:7(580)CrossRef

Juang CH, Khoshnevisan S, Zhang J (2015) Maximum likelihood principle and its application in soil liquefaction assessment. CRC Press, New York, Risk and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering, 181–219

Kayabali K (1996) Soil liquefaction evaluation using shear wave velocity. Eng Geol 44:121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(96)00063-4CrossRef

Kayen R, Moss RES, Thompson EM, Seed RB, Cetin KO, Kiureghian AD, Tanaka Y, Tokimatsu K (2013) Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:407–419. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000743CrossRef

Liao SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand. J Geotech Engrg ASCE 112:373–377. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373)CrossRef

Maurer B, Green R, Cubrinovski M, Bradley B (2015) Assessment of CPT-based methods for liquefaction evaluation in a liquefaction potential index framework. Géotechnique 65:328–336. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP.15.P.007CrossRef

Moss RES (2020) Applied civil engineering risk analysis. Springer, Shedwick Press, San Luis Obispo, CACrossRef

Oommen T, Baise LG, Vogel RM (2011) Sampling bias and class imbalance in maximum-likelihood logistic regression. Math Geosci 43:99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-010-9311-8CrossRef

Ruan B, Miao Y, Cheng K, Yao E-l (2021) Study on the small strain shear modulus of saturated sand-fines mixtures by bender element test. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 25:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1513870CrossRef

Schmidt JP (2019) A Predictive Modeling Approach for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential Using CPT Data. Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University

Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662CrossRef

Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111:1425–1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425)CrossRef

Shen M, Chen Q, Zhang J, Gong W, Juang CH (2016) Predicting liquefaction probability based on shear wave velocity: an update. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0880-8CrossRef

Shi ZJ (1986) Shear Wave Velocity Method for Determining Liquefaction Potential of Horizontal Soil. Hydro Eng Geol, 04, 9–10+13 (in Chinese)

Sun R, Yuan X (2019) Depth-consistent vs-based approach for soil liquefaction evaluation. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 41:439–447 (in Chinese)

Upadhyaya S, Maurer BW, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A (2021) Selecting the optimal factor of safety or probability of liquefaction triggering for engineering projects based on misprediction costs. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 147:04021026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002511CrossRef

Uyanık O (2020) Soil liquefaction analysis based on soil and earthquake parameters. J Appl Geophys 176:104004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104004CrossRef

Wong FS (1985) First-order, second-moment methods. Comput Struct 20:779–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(85)90039-2CrossRef

Yang Y, Chen L, Sun R, Chen Y, Wang W (2017) A depth-consistent SPT-based empirical equation for evaluating sand liquefaction. Eng Geol 221:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.02.032CrossRef

Yang Z, Liu X, Guo L, Cui Y, Liu T, Shi W, Ling X (2022) Effect of silt/clay content on shear wave velocity in the Yellow River Delta (China), based on the cone penetration test (CPT). Bull Eng Geol Environ 81:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02520-yCrossRef

Yazdi JS, Kalantary F, Yazdi HS (2012) Prediction of liquefaction potential based on CPT up-sampling. Comput Geosci 44:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.03.025CrossRef

Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (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. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)CrossRef

Zhang J, Wang TP, Xiao SH, Gao L (2021) Chinese code methods for liquefaction potential assessment based on standard penetration test: An extension. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 144:106697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106697CrossRef

Zhang J, Xiao S, Huang H, Zhou J (2020) Calibrating a standard penetration test based method for region-specific liquefaction potential assessment. Bull Eng Geol Environ 79:5185–5204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01815-wCrossRef

Zhang J, Zhang LM, Huang HW (2013) Evaluation of generalized linear models for soil liquefaction probability prediction. Environ Earth Sci 68:1925–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1880-zCrossRef

Zhao K, Wang Q, Chen Q, Zhuang H, Chen G (2021) Simplified effective stress modeling of shear wave propagation in saturated granular soils. Geotech Lett 11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.19.00023CrossRef

Zhou YG, Chen YM (2007) Laboratory investigation on assessing liquefaction resistance of sandy soils by shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:959–972. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:8(959)CrossRef

Zou KH, O’Malley AJ, Mauri L (2007) Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 115:654–657. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.594929CrossRef

Title: Depth-consistent models for probabilistic liquefaction potential assessment based on shear wave velocity
Authors: Tianpeng Wang
Shihao Xiao
Jie Zhang
Baocheng Zuo
Publication date: 01-06-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment / Issue 6/2022
Print ISSN: 1435-9529
Electronic ISSN: 1435-9537
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-022-02754-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 6/2022

Risk assessment on the stability of barrier dam induced by Caijiaba landslide, SW China

System reliability analysis of landslides subjected to fluctuation of reservoir water level: a case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir area, China

Influence of water content on the basic friction angle of porous limestones—experimental study using an automated tilting table

Landslide susceptibility prediction using an incremental learning Bayesian Network model considering the continuously updated landslide inventories

Probabilistic assessment of effects of heterogeneity on the stability of coal mine overburden dump slopes through discrete element framework

Multimethod geophysical investigation in karst areas: case studies from Silesia, Poland