Spatial variability of liquefaction potential in regional mapping using CPT and SPT data

Abstract Cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) are widely used for the site specific evaluation of liquefaction potential and are getting increased use in the regional mapping of liquefaction hazard. This paper compares CPT and SPT-based liquefaction potential characterizations of regional geologic units using the liquefaction potential index (LPI) across the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay, California, USA and examines the statistical and spatial variability of LPI across and within geologic units. Overall, CPT-based LPI characterizations result in higher hazard than those derived from the SPT. This bias may result from either mis-classifications of soil type in the CPT or a bias in the CPT simplified procedure for liquefaction potential. Regional mapping based on cumulative distribution of LPI values show different results depending on which dataset is used. For both SPT and CPT-based characterizations, the geologic units in the area have broad LPI distributions that overlap between units and are not distinct from the population as a whole. Regional liquefaction classifications should therefore give a distribution, rather than a single hazard rating that does not provide for variability within the area. The CPT-based LPI values have a higher degree of spatial correlation and a lower variance over a greater distance than those estimated from SPTs. As a result, geostatistical interpolation can provide a detailed map of LPI when densely sampled CPT data are available. The statistical distribution of LPI within specific geologic units and interpolated maps of LPI can be used to understand the spatial variability of liquefaction potential.

[1]  M. Soulié,et al.  Modelling spatial variability of soil parameters , 1990 .

[2]  T. Leslie Youd,et al.  Mapping of Liquefaction Severity Index , 1987 .

[3]  C. Hsein Juang,et al.  Assessing Probabilistic Methods for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation , 2000 .

[4]  Harun Sonmez,et al.  Modification of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol,Turkey) , 2003 .

[5]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 1971 .

[6]  Donald E. Yule,et al.  The influence of confining stress on liquefaction resistance , 1998 .

[7]  Chih-Sheng Ku,et al.  A study of the liquefaction risk potential at Yuanlin, Taiwan , 2004 .

[8]  John C. Tinsley,et al.  Liquefaction hazard and shaking amplification maps of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont, California: a digital database , 2002 .

[9]  M. Jefferies,et al.  Use of CPTu to Estimate Equivalent SPT N60 , 1993 .

[10]  T. Holzer,et al.  Shear-Wave Velocity of Surficial Geologic Sediments in Northern California: Statistical Distributions and Depth Dependence , 2005 .

[11]  Timothy C. Coburn,et al.  Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation , 2000, Technometrics.

[12]  J. B. Scott,et al.  A transect of 200 shallow shear velocity profiles across the Los Angeles Basin: submitted to Bull , 2003 .

[13]  G. Baecher.  Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering , 2003 .

[14]  J. B. Scott,et al.  A Shallow Shear-Wave Velocity Transect across the Reno, Nevada, Area Basin , 2004 .

[15]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , 2001 .

[16]  Laurie G. Baise,et al.  Liquefaction Hazard Mapping—Statistical and Spatial Characterization of Susceptible Units , 2006 .

[17]  An improved statistically based technique for evaluating the CPT friction ratio , 2002 .

[18]  Kok-Kwang Phoon,et al.  Evaluation of Geotechnical Property Variability , 1999 .

[19]  Don J. DeGroot,et al.  Analyzing Spatial Variability of In Situ Soil Properties , 1996 .

[20]  P. Robertson,et al.  Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test , 1998 .

[21]  K. Terzaghi,et al.  EVALUATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF SUBGRADE REACTION , 1955 .

[22]  Ronald D. Andrus,et al.  Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation , 2002 .

[23]  P. Mayne,et al.  CPT site characterization for seismic hazards in the New Madrid seismic zone , 2002 .

[24]  N. Cressie.  Fitting variogram models by weighted least squares , 1985 .

[25]  Robert S. Nicholson,et al.  Preliminary maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California: a digital database , 2000 .

[26]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-BASED PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 2004 .

[27]  Glenn J. Rix,et al.  Regional variations in near surface shear wave velocity in the Greater Memphis area , 2001 .

[28]  S. Harmsen,et al.  Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard maps , 2002 .

[29]  J. David Frost,et al.  Spatial Liquefaction Analysis System , 1998 .

[30]  Selcuk Toprak,et al.  Liquefaction Potential Index: Field Assessment , 2003 .

[31]  K. Stokoe,et al.  Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity , 2000 .

[32]  Peter K. Robertson,et al.  Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the standard penetration test or cone penetration test , 2004 .

[33]  Michael J. Bennett,et al.  Liquefaction and Soil Failure during 1994 Northridge Earthquake , 1999 .

[34]  Peter K. Robertson,et al.  Simplified geostatistical analysis of earthquake-induced ground response at the Wildlife Site, California, U.S.A , 2003 .

[36]  Michael J. Bennett,et al.  Liquefaction Hazard Mapping with LPI in the Greater Oakland, California, Area , 2006 .