Probabilistic and spatial liquefaction analysis using CPT data: a case study for Alameda County site

Soil liquefaction is one of the major concerns causing damage to the structures in saturated sand deposits during earthquakes. Simplified methods for the assessment of liquefaction potential rely on the limit states that are generally established with built-in conservatism and a great deal of subjectivity. Well-known SPT- and CPT-based methods are widely used in the design practice for this purpose due to their simplicity and reasonable predictive capability. However, these methods do not account for various sources of uncertainties explicitly. Moreover, evaluations are made only at the locations of test results and are generalized for the whole region, which may not give accurate results where spatial variation of soil properties is significant. The present study focuses on the probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential of Alameda County site, California, considering spatial variation of soil indices related to CPT soundings. A stochastic soil model is adopted for this purpose using random field theory and principles of geostatistics by developing 2D exponential correlation functions. It has been observed that the probability of liquefaction is significantly underestimated as much as 34 %, if the spatial dependence of soil indices is not considered. Further, the effect of spatial variation is more prominent in low-level earthquakes compared to the high-level earthquakes, showing a 41.5 % deviation for magnitude 8.1 and a 60.5 % deviation for magnitude 5.0 earthquake at a depth of 10 m.

[1]  Hadi Barghamadi,et al.  PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 2005 .

[2]  J. H. Hwang,et al.  A practical reliability-based method for assessing soil liquefaction potential , 2004 .

[3]  Akbar A. Javadi,et al.  Reliability assessment of liquefaction potential using the jointly distributed random variables method , 2012 .

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

[5]  Gordon A. Fenton,et al.  Spatial variation in liquefaction risk , 1998 .

[6]  Mike Rees,et al.  5. Statistics for Spatial Data , 1993 .

[7]  Jiro Kuwano,et al.  A kriging method of interpolation used to map liquefaction potential over alluvial ground , 2013 .

[8]  Gregory B. Baecher,et al.  Estimating Autocovariance of In‐Situ Soil Properties , 1993 .

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

[10]  William T. Holmes,et al.  The 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures , 2000 .

[11]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Liquefaction Risk Assessment Using Geostatistics to account for Soil Spatial Variability , 2008 .

[12]  C. H. Juang,et al.  CPT-based liquefaction analysis, Part 1: Determination of limit state function , 2000 .

[13]  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 .

[14]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Statistics for Spatial Data. , 1992 .

[15]  Robert V. Whitman,et al.  Regression Models For Evaluating Liquefaction Probability , 1988 .

[16]  Achintya Haldar,et al.  PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 1979 .

[17]  Kenneth W. Campbell,et al.  Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra , 1997 .

[18]  D. V. Griffiths,et al.  Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering , 2008 .

[19]  方 火浪,et al.  Soil liquefaction during earthquakes and improvement effects by sand compaction piles , 1995 .

[20]  C. H. Juang,et al.  Reliability-based method for assessing liquefaction potential of soils , 1999 .

[21]  G. Fenton.  Random Field Modeling of CPT Data , 2000 .

[22]  G. Deodatis,et al.  3D effects in seismic liquefaction of stochastically variable soil deposits , 2005 .

[23]  C. H. Juang,et al.  CPT-based liquefaction analysis, Part 2: Reliability for design , 2000 .

[24]  Roberto Villaverde,et al.  Fundamental Concepts of Earthquake Engineering , 2009 .

[25]  K. Phoon,et al.  Characterization of Geotechnical Variability , 1999 .

[26]  Fernando Lopez-Caballero,et al.  Assessment of variability and uncertainties effects on the seismic response of a liquefiable soil profile , 2010 .

[27]  A. Johari,et al.  Modelling of probability liquefaction based on standard penetration tests using the jointly distributed random variables method , 2013 .

[28]  Riley M. Chung,et al.  Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations , 1985 .

[29]  Achintya Haldar,et al.  Probability, Reliability and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design (Haldar, Mahadevan) , 1999 .

[30]  G. Deodatis,et al.  EFFECTS OF SPATIAL VARIABILITY ON SOIL LIQUEFACTION: SOME DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS , 1997 .

[31]  Chien-Hsun Chen,et al.  Mapping Liquefaction Potential Considering Spatial Correlations of CPT Measurements , 2006 .

[32]  Sanjay Kumar Jha,et al.  Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard penetration test , 2009 .