Abstract: A maximum likelihood framework for the probabilistic assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation settlements of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
saturated cohesionless soil sites is described. For this purpose, over 200 case history sites were carefully studied. After screening for data
quality and completeness, the resulting database is composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically induced ground settlement case histories from
seven different earthquakes. For these case history sites, settlement predictions by currently available methods of Tokimatsu and Seed
共1984兲, Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, and Wu and Seed 共2004兲 are presented comparatively, along with the
predictions of the proposed probabilistic model. As an integral part of the proposed model, the volumetric strain correlation presented in
the companion paper is used. The accuracy of the mean predictions as well as their uncertainty is assessed by both linear regression and
maximum likelihood methodologies. The analyses results revealed that 共1兲 the predictions of Shamoto et al. and Tokimatsu and Seed are
smaller than the actual settlements and need to be calibrated by a factor of 1.93 and 1.45, respectively; and 共2兲 Ishihara and Yoshimine,
and Wu and Seed predictions are higher than the actual settlements and need to be calibrated by a factor of 0.90 and 0.98, respectively.
The Wu and Seed procedure produced the most unbiased estimates of mean settlements 关i.e., their calibration coefficient 共0.98兲 is the
closest to unity兴, but the uncertainty 共scatter兲 of their predictions remains high as revealed by the second to last smaller R2 value, or
relatively higher standard deviation 共兲 of the model error. In addition to superior model predictions, the main advantage of the proposed
methodology is the probabilistic nature of the calibration scheme, which enables incorporation of the model uncertainty into mean
settlement predictions. To illustrate the potential use of the proposed model, the probability of cyclically induced reconsolidation settle-
ment of a site after a scenario earthquake to be less than a threshold settlement level is assessed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2009兲135:3共387兲
CE Database subject headings: Volume change; Settlement; Probability; Soil liquefaction; Soil consolidation.
Efforts aiming to develop a semiempirical or empirical model Ishihara and Yoshimine „1992…
require naturally the compilation of a high-quality database. For
this purpose, existing literature was carefully reviewed and more Using results of irregular loading direct cyclic simple shear tests,
than 200 cases were studied extensively 共Appendix兲. Due to data Ishihara and Yoshimine recommended correlations between the
quality and completeness considerations, cases with one or more reconsolidation volumetric strain and the factor of safety against
of the following features have been excluded: 共1兲 poor site soil liquefaction 共FSliq兲, as presented in Fig. 2. FSliq and corrected
profile definitions; 共2兲 sloping ground 共gradient⬎ 5 % 兲 or sites SPT blow-count 共N1兲 values were selected as demand and capac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
close to a free face; 共3兲 cyclically induced ground deformations ity terms, respectively. N1 was estimated consistent with NCEER
reported inconsistently in different references; 共4兲 soil profiles 共Youd et al. 2001兲 recommendations, with hammer energy as the
composed of cohesive soils only; 共5兲 sites with piles or improved only exception. To be consistent with the Ishihara and Yoshimine
soil layers; and 共6兲 large reported lateral deformations 共⬎1.5 m兲. method, field SPT-N values were corrected to 72% hammer effi-
The resulting database is composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically ciency to reflect the fact that Japanese average SPT hammer en-
induced ground settlement case histories from seven different ergy was 20% higher than the standard value of 60% 共Tokimatsu
earthquakes. Some of the characteristics of these cases are sum- and Yoshimi 1983兲. For fines, adjustment was performed as pro-
marized in Table 1. For a majority of these case history sites, the posed by Cetin et al. 共2004a兲. Demand term, FSliq, was defined as
ground settlements were mapped immediately after earthquakes the ratio of cyclic resistance ratio 共CRR兲 to CSR. CRR was de-
by topographical surveys. For some case history sites, in addition termined as described in Cetin et al. 共2004a兲 for 50% probability
to these surveys, “undisturbed” ground fissures were also care- of liquefaction 共PL兲. As K and duration 共magnitude兲 corrections
fully mapped to verify the relative settlement measurements. were intrinsic to the CRR definition of Cetin et al. 共2004a兲, no
When estimating the settlement from open ground fissures, care- additional corrections were needed to be applied to CSR. The
ful attention was reported to be given to match preearthquake volumetric straining of each saturated cohesionless soil layer was
contact points across the fissure 共Cetin et al. 2004b兲. A complete estimated as a function of N1 共i.e., N1.72兲 and FSliq. Similarly, the
documentation of the case histories is also available at Bilge and contribution of each layer to the overall ground settlement was
Cetin 共2007兲 and can be downloaded through the following link estimated by multiplying the thickness of sublayers with the cor-
http://www.ce.metu.edu.tr/⬃onder/publications/PUB-NO59.zip. responding volumetric strain value, the sum of which was equal
to postcyclic, volumetric, ground settlement.
1 Tohnankai共1944兲,8.0 Komei City 0.40 0 0.25 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.17 Kishida 共1969兲, Lee and Albaissa 共1974兲, Cetin 共2000兲
2 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 1 0.60 1.0 0.30 0.24 0.35 0.20 0.24 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
3 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 2 0.60 1.0 0.35 0.28 0.36 0.25 0.30 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
4 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 3 0.60 1.0 0.28 0.21 0.33 0.29 0.25 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
5 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Agano River 0.20 0.0 0.31 0.19 0.29 0.32 0.23 Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲
6 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Sewage Plant 0.20 1.0–3.0 0.23 0.12 0.29 0.28 0.19 Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲
7 Tokachioki共1968兲,7.9 Paper Manuf. Pl, P6 0.50 0 0.45 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.33 Ohsaki 共1966兲, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Cetin 共2000兲
8 Miyagiken-Oki共1978兲,7.4 Arahama Sewage Pl 0.20 0 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.11 0.18 Tohno and Yasuda 共1981兲, Cetin 共2000兲
9 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Oakland Toll Plaza, SFOBB-1 0.41 0 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.27 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 389
10 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Oakland Toll Plaza, SFOBB-2 0.41 0 0.39 0.29 0.47 0.70 0.38 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
11 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port Oakland, POO7-2 0.23 0 0.15 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.20 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
12 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port of Richmond, POR-2 0.05 0.02–0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.09 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
13 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port of Richmond, POR-3 0.08 0.02–0.08 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.09 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
14 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M1 0.01 0 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.06 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
15 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M2 0.01 0 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
16 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M3 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
17 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M4 0.10 0 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.15 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
18 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M5 0.12 0 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.09 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
19 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M6 0.01 0 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
20 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-3 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.14 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.12 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
21 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-5 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.19 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley 共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
22 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-8 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.09 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley 共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
23 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,Sandholdt Road,UC-B10 0.07 0.3 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.04 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
24 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,St.Beach Entr.Kiosk,UC-B1 0.30 0.3–0.6 0.33 0.30 0.44 0.39 0.36 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
25 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,St.Beach Path Entr.,UC-B2 0.08 0.1–0.3 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.02 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
26 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing, Marine Lab.,HB-1 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.07 0.15 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Mejia 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
27 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,MBARI Fac.Bldg 3,EB-5 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.08 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
28 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 South of Market, SR2917 0.10 0 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.04 Pease and O’Rourke 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
29 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, Array B-1 0.18 0 0.22 0.29 0.31 0.16 0.30 De Alba et al. 共1994兲, Power et al. 共1998兲
30 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, Array B-3 0.18 0 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.09 0.20 De Alba et al. 共1994兲, Power et al. 共1998兲
31 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-21 0.08 0 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.06 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
32 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-25 0.08 0 0.08 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.10 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
33 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-26 0.08 0 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
34 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-42 0.05 0 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.05 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
35 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-82 0.20 0 0.29 0.44 0.50 0.54 0.43 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
36 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-93 0.10 0 0.12 0.13 0.31 0.11 0.20 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
37 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-95 0.13 0 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.10 0.19 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
38 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-104 0.20 0 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.25 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
39 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-105 0.20 0 0.16 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.25 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
40 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-179 0.20 0 0.25 0.32 0.52 0.21 0.33 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
41 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-181 0.10 0 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.14 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
42 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Naruohama Isl.,Toyota Cnst.Tech.Cent.C 0.05 0 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 Akamoto and Miyake 共1996兲
43 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island, Site A 0.20 0.5 0.12 0.64 0.76 1.00 0.97 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
44 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island, Site I 0.50 1 0.46 0.47 0.72 0.65 0.67 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
45 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island Vertical Array Site 0.30 0.1–0.9 0.47 0.47 0.61 0.62 0.65 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Ishihara et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
46 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Rokko Island, Site G 0.45 0.6 0.68 0.41 0.44 0.64 0.61 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Kazama et al. 共1998兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
47 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Rokko Island, KB-224 0.30 0.2 0.35 0.26 0.37 0.37 0.38 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Kazama et al. 共1998兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
48 Kocaeli共1999兲,7.4 Hotel Sapanca SPT11 0.65 0.7 0.38 0.32 0.54 0.44 0.48 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲
49 Kocaeli共1999兲,7.4 Hotel Sapanca SPT9 0.30 0.2 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.34 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲
冋
ln共v兲 = ln 1.879 ln 冋 780.416 ln共CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm兲 − N1,60,CS + 2,442.465
636.613N1,60,CS + 306.732
册 册
+ 5.583 ⫾ 0.689
In Eq. 共1兲, the ⫾0.689 term represents the standard deviation of CSR. Since the early 1970s, there have been several studies per-
the volumetric strain model, and can be used conveniently for the formed to account for multidirectional shaking effects. Seed et al.
probabilistic assessment of the performance of a soil site, as dis- 共1975兲 proposed a 10–20% reduction in cyclic resistance if load-
cussed further, later in this paper. ing was multidirectionally applied. Similarly, Ishihara and
Correction factors adopted to convert the CSRfield value to Yamazaki 共1980兲 observed a reduction of 10–30%. Boulanger and
equivalent CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm are presented in Eqs. 共2兲–共5兲 Seed 共1995兲 indicated that the ratio of “parallel” to “perpendicu-
CSRfield lar” cyclic loading resistances varied within a range of 70–95%.
CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm = 共2兲 Based on unidirectional and bidirectional simple shear test results
KmdK M WK
on Monterey No 0/30 sand performed by Wu et al. 共2003兲 and
Kmd correction is used to convert multidirectionally applied Kammerer 共2002兲, Wu et al. proposed reduction factors as a func-
CSRfield value to the value of a unidirectionally applied laboratory tion of relative density. Inspired by Wu et al., correction factors
Fig. 3. Charts for predicting residual volumetric strains 关adapted from Shamoto et al. 共1998兲兴
Fig. 4. Chart for predicting cyclically induced volumetric strains Fig. 5. Postcyclic volumetric strain boundary curves 共Cetin et al.
关adapted from Wu and Seed 共2004兲兴 personal communication, 2007兲
Fig. 6. Sample case history processesing for Arahama Sewage Plant, Japan after Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake 共1978兲, M w = 7.4
K = 冉 冊⬘v,0
Pa
f−1 In volumetric settlement assessment of the case histories, three
cases were encountered regarding the application of DF: 共1兲 a
very dense cohesionless soil layer 共N1.60,CS ⬎ 35兲 or bedrock or a
共5兲 cohesive soil layer underlying the volumetric settlement vulner-
f = 1 − 0.005 DR able cohesionless soil layer; 共2兲 cohesionless soil layer continuing
A weighting scheme, linearly decreasing with depth, inspired beyond the critical depth of 18 m with or without available SPT
by the recommendations of Iwasaki et al. 共1982兲, is implemented. profile; and 共3兲 cohesionless soil site where the depth of boring is
Aside from the better model fit it produced, the rationale behind less than 18 m. For case 共1兲, settlement calculations were per-
the use of a depth weighting factor is based on the following: 共1兲 formed till the depth to the top of the dense layer or bedrock or
upward seepage, triggering void ratio redistribution, and resulting cohesive layer. For case 共2兲, potentially settlement vulnerable co-
in unfavorably higher void ratios for the shallower sublayers of hesionless layers beyond 18 m were simply ignored due to their
soil layers; 共2兲 reduced induced shear stresses and number of limited contribution to the overall ground surface settlement. For
shear stress cycles transmitted to deeper soil layers due to initial case 共3兲, after confirming the geological characteristics of soil
liquefaction of surficial layers; and 共3兲 possible arching effects site, for the soil sublayers without a SPT value at a specific depth,
due to nonliquefied soil layers. All these may significantly reduce SPT values were judgmentally extended beyond the maximum
the contribution of volumetric settlement of deeper soil layers to borehole depth to a depth of maximum 18 m based on available
the overall ground surface settlement. It is assumed that the con- SPT blow counts. In any case, whenever a cohesive soil layer was
tribution of layers to surface settlement diminishes as the depth of encountered, it was assumed that cyclically induced volumetric
layer increases, and beyond a certain depth 共zcr兲 settlement of an strain due to this layer was negligible. In addition, thickness of
individual layer cannot be traced at the ground surface. After this layer was not considered in the calculation of v,eqv.
statistical assessments, the optimum value of this threshold depth
was found to be 18 m. The proposed depth weighting factor 共DFi兲
is defined in Eq. 共6兲. Equivalent volumetric strain, v,eqv., of the Analysis of an Example Case History
soil profile is estimated by Eq. 共7兲 and the estimated settlement,
sestimated, of the profile is simply calculated as the product of v,eqv. For illustrating the use of the proposed methodology, the ground
and the total thickness of the saturated cohesionless soil layers or settlement case history of the Arahama Sewage Plant site shaken
sublayers, 兺ti, as presented by Eq. 共8兲. sestimated is further cali- by 1978 Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake 共M w = 7.4兲 is analyzed. The
brated by for the estimation of field settlement values. In Eq. site is located in Watari Town, a district of Arahama, Japan. Prior
共9兲, the term designates the standard deviation of the calibra- to the main shock of M w = 7.4, an earthquake of magnitude 6.7
tion model. Further discussion of the term is presented later in occurred. SPT was performed before the main earthquake in
the paper 1978. Peak ground acceleration 共pga兲 and ground settlement were
reported as 0.20 g and 0.20 m, respectively, along with no sign of
di lateral spreading 共Tohno and Yasuda 1981; Fear and McRoberts
DFi = 1 − 共6兲
zcr = 18 m 1995; Cetin 2000兲. Subsurface soils at the Arahama site consist of
sand deposits with some silt and gravel. The upper 9 m of the site
where di = middepth of each saturated cohesionless soil layer from
is covered with very loose sandy deposits. These loose layers are
ground surface
underlain by a dense fine sand layer, which extends down to a
兺v,itiDFi depth of 16 m.
v,eqv. = 共7兲 As shown in Fig. 6, the soil profile is subdivided into multiple
兺tiDFi sublayers, each with a SPT measurement at the middepth. CSR
value is estimated using the simplified procedure of Seed and
sestimated = v,eqv. 兺 ti 共8兲 Idriss 共1971兲 modified with rd values proposed by Cetin et al.
共2004a兲. CSR corrections for duration 共magnitude兲, overburden
stress, and multidirectional shaking are performed as defined by
ln共scalibrated兲 = ln共 sestimated兲 ⫾ 共9兲 Eqs. 共3兲–共5兲, respectively. For each sublayer the corresponding
Note: Site= sewage plant, Arahama, Japan; borehole= sewage plant site, GWT= 0.91 m; earthquake= 1978 Miyagiken-Oki EQ, M w = 7.4, PGA= 0.20 g; reported settlement= 0.20 m; lateral displacement
postcyclic volumetric strain value and depth weighting factor
1.44
1.07
0.91
0.69
0.74
1.05
0.80
0.30
1.11
8.11
共DFi兲 are determined using Eqs. 共1兲 and 共6兲, respectively. Equiva-
lent volumetric strain 共v,eqv兲 of the soil profile is determined as
v t DF
2.45
1.78
1.26
1.00
2.13
1.23
0.00
0.03
0.00
9.88
defined by Eq. 共7兲. Estimated settlement 共sestimated兲 of the ground
surface is calculated consistent with Eq. 共8兲. Analysis details are
1.70 0.91
1.66 0.83
1.39 0.76
1.44 0.69
1.91 0.62
1.67 0.53
0.00 0.42
0.03 0.27
0.00 0.09
summarized in Table 2. The soil profile, variation of N and
DF
兺
N1.60,CS, CSRfield and CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm with depth, and resulting
cyclically induced volumetric strain, v,i, of each sublayer are
v 共%兲
shown in Fig. 6. Cyclically induced one-dimensional ground
settlement is estimated as 0.21 m before scaling by the calibration
atm
factor, which is discussed next.
CSRfield CSRSS,20,1D,1
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
For comparison purposes, each case history site was analyzed
using the methods of Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Ishihara and
Yoshimine 共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, Wu and Seed 共2004兲,
Kmd
efficient, R2, is summarized in Table 3. For each method, pre-
dicted and observed settlements are paired and shown on figures
K
along with the 1:2 and 1:0.5 boundary lines 关Figs. 7–11 for this
study, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Ishihara and Yoshimine
CR
1
1
1
1
gs共sobservation,sestimated,⌰兲 = ln共sobservation兲 − ln共sestimated兲 ⫾ s
共m兲 t 共m兲 共kPa兲 共%兲 N60
共10兲
13
35
36
43
FC
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
共s兲 to account for the facts that 共1兲 possible missing descriptive
variables with influence on settlements may exist; and 共2兲 the
17.2
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
10.5 10.5 2.5
1.7 1.2
3.1 3.1
5.5 5.2
7.5
8.6 8.2
the normal distribution with zero mean for the aim of producing
兺
4
4.4
n
Fine sand
Fine sand
Fine sand
definition
兿
Layer
= v,eqv 兺 ti = 21 cm.
冋 册
n
ĝs共sobserved,sestimated,i,兲
Ls共,兲 = 兿
i=1
s
共12兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground Fig. 10. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground
settlements by the proposed methodology settlements by Shamoto et al. 共1998兲
Fig. 8. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground Fig. 11. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground
settlements by Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲 settlements by Wu and Seed 共2004兲
Probabilistic Use of the Proposed Model Fig. 12. Cumulative distribution function of pga
Table 5. Estimation of the Probability of Ground Settlement to Be Greater Than s* = 0.1 m for the Scenario Earthquake
pga range
共pgalower – pgaupper兲 pgarep P共pgalower ⬍ pga艋 pgaupper兲 ln共scalibrated兲 P共s ⬎ s*兩pga= pgarep兲兩 P共s ⬎ s*兲
0.00–0.10 0.05 0.154 −6.768 0.000 0.000
0.10–0.20 0.15 0.492 −2.424 0.421 0.207
0.20–0.30 0.25 0.237 −1.510 0.903 0.214
0.30–0.40 0.35 0.079 −1.235 0.960 0.075
0.40–0.50 0.45 0.025 −1.074 0.978 0.025
0.50–0.60 0.55 0.008 −0.978 0.985 0.008
0.60–0.70 0.65 0.003 −0.907 0.989 0.003
0.70–0.80 0.75 0.001 −0.854 0.991 0.001
0.80–0.90 0.85 0.000 −0.815 0.993 0.000
0.90–1.00 0.95 0.000 −0.782 0.994 0.000
⌺ = 0.53
California Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction, Profes- associated with geotechnical problems.” Soils Found., 共1兲, 219–234.
sional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Washington, D.C., 129–150. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B. 共1984兲. “Simplified procedures of the
Mitchell, J. K., Lodge, A., Coutinho, R., Kayen, R., Seed, R. B., Nishio, evaluation of settlements in clean sands.” Rep. No. UCB/GT-84/16,
S., and Stokoe, K. H. 共1994兲. “In-situ test results from four Loma Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Prieta Earthquake liquefaction sites: SPT, CPT, DMT, and shear wave Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. 共1983兲. “Empirical correlation of soil
velocity.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-94/04, Earthquake Engineering Re- liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content.” Soils Found.,
search Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. 23共4兲, 56–74.
Ohsaki, Y. 共1966兲. “Niigata Earthquakes, 1964, building damage and soil Tsuchida, H. 共1979兲. “The damage to port structures by the 1978
conditions.” Soils Found., 6共2兲, 14–37. Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake.” Technical Note No. 225, The Port and
O’Rourke, T. D., Pease, J. W., and Stewart, S. E. 共1992兲. “Lifeline per- Harbor Research Institute, Ministry of Transportation, Tokyo 共in Japa-
formance and ground deformation during the earthquake.” Profes- nese兲.
sional Paper No. 1551-F, USGS, Washington, D.C., 155–179. Tsuchida, H., Iai, S., and Hayashi, S. 共1980兲. “Analysis of liquefaction
Pearse, J. P., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1998兲. “Liquefaction hazards in the during the 1978 Off Miyagi Prefecture Earthquake.” Proc., 7th World
Mission District and South of Market area, San Francisco.” The Loma
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Istanbul, Turkey, 211–218.
Prieta, California Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction,
Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., and Sawada, S. 共2004兲. “Settlement of silty
Professional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Washington, D.C., 25–60.
sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils
Power, M. S., Egan, J. A., Shewbridge, S. E., deBecker, J., and Faris, J.
Found., 44共5兲, 135–148.
R. 共1998兲. “Analysis of liquefaction-induced damage on Treasure Is-
land.” The Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October, 17, Wakamatsu, T. 共1992兲. “1990 Luzon Earthquake.” Proc., 4th Japan-U.S.
1989—Liquefaction, Professional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Wash- Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
ington, D.C., 87–120. Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, Technical Rep. No. NCEER-
Rollins, K. M., and McHood, M. D. 共1998兲. “Comparison of computed 92-0019, MCEER Publications, Buffalo, N.Y.
and measured liquefaction-induced settlements in the Marina District, Wu, J., and Seed, R. B. 共2004兲. “Estimating of liquefaction-induced
San Francisco.” The Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October, ground settlement 共case studies兲.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Case His-
17, 1989—Liquefaction, Professional Paper No. 1551-B, 223–240. tories in Geotechnical Engineering, Paper 3.09, New York.
Seed, H. B. 共1979兲. “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for Wu, J., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction triggering
level ground during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 105共2兲, and post liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0/30 sand under uni-
201–255. directional cyclic simple shear loading.” Geotechnical Engineering
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 共1966兲. “An analysis of soil liquefaction in Research Rep. No. UCB/GE-2003/01, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
the Niigata Earthquake.” Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Materials Calif.
Research Laboratory Rep., Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Yamada, G. 共1966兲. “Damage to earth structures and foundations by the
Calif. Niigata earthquake, June 16, 1964, in JNR.” Soils Found., 6共1兲, 1–13.
Seed H. B., and Idriss I. M. 共1971兲. “Simplified procedure for evaluating Yasuda, S., and Tohno, I. 共1988兲. “Sites of reliquefaction caused by the
soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97共9兲, 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake.” Soils Found., 28共2兲, 61–72.
1249–1273. Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
Seed, H. B., Martin, G. R., and Lysmer, J. 共1976兲. “Pore-water pressure report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
changes during soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102共GT4兲, evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
323–346. ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.
Seed, H. B., Pyke, R. M., and Martin, G. R. 共1975兲. “Effect of multi- Youd, T. L., and Bennett, M. J. 共1983兲. “Liquefaction sites, Imperial
directional shaking on liquefaction of sands.” Rep. No. EERC 75–41, Valley California.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 109共3兲, 440–457.
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. Youd, T. L., and Wieczorek, G. F. 共1982兲. “Liquefaction and secondary
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F., Jr. 共1990兲. “SPT-based analysis of cyclic ground failure.” The 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquakes, Professional
pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H. Paper No. 1254, USGS, Washington, D.C., 223–246.
B. Seed Memorial Sym., BiTech Publishers, Richmond, BC, Canada, Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. 共2002兲. “Estimating
351–376. liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground.”
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J. M., and Tokimatsu, K. 共1998兲. “Methods for Can. Geotech. J., 39共5兲, 1168–1180.