CPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING ANALYSIS WITH

AN EMPHASIS ON THE 1999 CHI-CHI, TAIWAN,

EARTHQUAKE
C. Hsein Juang1, Hui Yang2, Haiming Yuan2, Der-Her Lee3, and Ronald D. Andrus4
1

Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911,

Phone: (864) 656-3322, Fax: (864) 656-2670, E-mail: Hsein@clemson.edu
2
Res. Asst., Civil Engineering Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911.
3
Prof., Civil Engineering Department, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 600, Taiwan.
4
Asst. Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911.

Abstract
This paper presents part of the results obtained in an ongoing research project sponsored by the
National Science Foundation. CPT data at sites with and without liquefaction evidence in the
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake are collected and analyzed along with existing data from
historical earthquakes. A new simplified CPT-based method is developed for liquefaction
triggering analysis. The new method is shown to be superior to the existing CPT-based methods
for evaluating liquefaction potential.
Introduction
On 21 September 1999, a disastrous earthquake with a main shock moment magnitude (Mw) of
7.6 struck Taiwan at 1:47 A.M. local time. The main shock caused strong ground shaking for
about 20-30 seconds. The epicenter was at 23.87N, 120.75E, which is near Chi-Chi, according
to the records of the Central Weather Bureau of Taiwan (CWB). Over 2,400 people were killed,
and 11,000 were injured. Buildings, highways, bridges, harbor facilities, and other infrastructure
components were severely damaged or collapsed. Damage estimate, including lost productivity,
range from U.S. $20 billion to $30 billion (Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999
Reconnaissance Report, referred to herein as the EERI (2001) report).
One of the causes for the heavy damages to buildings, lifeline systems, and harbor facilities
is the widespread liquefaction caused by the Chi-Chi earthquake. Figure 1 shows the distribution
of liquefaction sites in central Taiwan in the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. The inland areas suffering
the most severe liquefaction were Yuanlin, Wufeng, and Nantou. Damage to the waterfront
structures at the Port of Taichung caused by liquefaction was reported (Yu et al., 2000; Su and
Lee, 2000). The industrial parks at Mai-Liau and Chang-Bin (Changhwa Coastal Industrial
Park) performed better in the Chi-Chi earthquake, primarily due to 1) less severe ground shaking,
and 2) ground improvement. Performance of the improved sites at Mai-Liau and Chang-Bin has
been reported by Yu et al. (2000) and Lee et al. (2001).
Many field investigations, by means of in situ tests such as Standard Penetration Test
(SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and shear-wave velocity measurements (Vs), were carried
out after the earthquake. As part of the present study by the authors, in situ test data along with

field observations were collected and verified. These included in situ tests conducted at Yuanlin,
Dachun and Shetou (Soil Liquefaction Evaluation and Remedial Measures: Summary Report
and Appendixes, referred to herein as the MAA (2000a) report) by Moh and Associates Inc.
(MAA), tests conducted by MAA at Nantou and Wufeng (Soil Liquefaction Investigation at
Nantou and Wufeng, referred to herein as the MAA (2000b) report), and tests conducted by
Resources Engineering Services Inc. (Yu, 2001, personal communication) and National Cheng
Kung University (Lee, 2001, personal communication). In the present paper, only CPT data are
reported. Table 1 lists a catalog of CPT data and field observations from the Chi-Chi earthquake.
At present, 106 CPT profiles are collected and verified. They are used along with the
existing data, mostly from the U.S., as described in Juang et al. (2000a), for liquefaction
triggering analysis in the present study. It is noted, however, additional CPT tests (about 100120 CPTs) will be conducted in Yuanlin, Wufeng, and Nantou to supplement the existing
database (Lee, 2001, personal communication). These data will be reported in the future.
Local Geologic Conditions
In the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake, substantial damage to the structures was caused by the
liquefaction of soil (NCREE, 1999; CGSB, 1999). The field investigations reported herein are
limited to the towns of Yuanlin, Nantou, and Wufeng, and the Changhwa Coastal Industrial Park
(Chang-Bin). The geologic conditions in these areas are briefly discussed in the following.
Yuanlin Area
The town of Yuanlin is located approximately 15 km from the Chelungpu fault rupture. Ground
motions recorded at the Yuanlin Elementary School (Station TCU 110) were modest, with a
maximum horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.19 g. The geometric mean PGA is
0.18g. Although the town experienced widespread liquefaction effects, no evidence of
liquefaction was observed at the site of the station.
Effects of liquefaction observed in Yuanlin include sand boils present at the surface,
deformed roadways, and severe building settlement and/or tilting. Detailed surface
reconnaissance of ground failure effects was performed in Yuanlin by NCREE (1999), MAA
(2000a), Stewart et al. (2000), and many others.
The town is situated on a thick alluvial deposit of Tsosui River at the foothill of Baguashan.
Soil conditions in the relatively flat portion of Yuanlin west of Shan-Jao Road consist of
Holocene alluvium to the depth of about 50-60 m, which overlie older sedimentary deposits
(Stewart et al., 2000). The depth to the bedrock increases from east towards west, reaching a
depth of more than 200 m (Ueng et al., 2000).
Figure 2 shows a typical soil profile at Yuanlin based on the investigation conducted by
MAA (2000a). Ground water table is quite shallow, ranging from about 0.5 to 4.0 m below the
ground surface. There exist layers of very loose sandy soils that are susceptible to liquefaction.
There is generally a thick layer of clayey soils at the western part of Yuanlin, which becomes
thinner towards the eastern side of the town. At some locations, however, sand deposits exist
near the ground surface with little or no capping clayey layer. Severe damages to buildings were
generally found at sites with little or no capping clayey layers. At sites with capping clayey
layers, sand boils generally were not observed, although in many of these sites, ground
subsidence and/or titling of buildings were still observed.

Nantou Area
The city of Nantou is located in the Taichung Basin, approximately 5-10 km from the fault
rupture. It experienced strong ground motions as indicated by the recording at Station TCU076,
which showed a maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.43g. The geometric mean maximum
PGA is 0.38g. The site of the station showed no evidence of liquefaction.
The liquefaction evidences in Nantou during the Chi-Chi earthquake included sand boils,
building subsidence, and lateral spreading. Locations of obvious liquefaction such as sand
boils and lateral spreading are mainly along the Mau-Lou River that runs through Nantou and in
the Juin-Gong district, which is to the east of downtown Nantou (NCREE, 1999; Stewart et al.,
2000).
The geologic deposit at Nantou generally consists of Holocene alluvial sediments with
shallow ground water (2 to 5 m below the ground surface). The area is formed by alluvial sector
and deposit plains that are mainly composed of cemented or poorly-cemented clay, silty sand,
sand and gravel distributed on valleys and alluvial plateau. The simplified soil strata of Nantou
generalized from the SPT boreholes and CPT soundings conducted by MAA are shown in Figure
3. The layer of loose to medium-dense silty sand and sandy silt, in the range of 4 to 8 m below
the ground surface, is considered susceptible to liquefaction.
Wufeng Area
The village of Wufeng is located 26 km north of the epicenter and within 1 km of the Chelungpu
fault rupture. The maximum horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) recorded at Wufeng
Elementary School (Station TCU065) is 0.79g. The geometric mean maximum PGA is 0.66g.
The evidences of liquefaction in Wufeng during the Chi-Chi earthquake included sand
boils, building subsidence, tilting and failure, and lateral spreading. Locations of obvious
liquefaction, indicated primarily by sediment boils, are on the alluvial deposits west of the fault.
Some of the most damaging lateral spreading occurred at the south end of Wufeng, and involved
movement towards the Dove Nest Creek. As reported by Stewart et al. (2000), the most severe
concentrations of the liquefaction-induced damage to structures occurred at the south end of
Wufeng: (1) at the condominium complex within the bend of the Dove Nest Creek, (2) at a
second condominium complex approximately 300 m to the north, and (3) at the lateral spread
immediately to the east. Differential foundation settlement was the most commonly observed
ground failure indicator in these areas. According to Chu et al. (2000b), the severe damages at
Wufeng are not only due to the Chelungpu fault passing through the area but also due to its
geological and hydrological conditions such as the existence of old river channels.
The near surface geological formation at Wufeng is mainly covered by the alluvial plain of
the Quaternary deposits (Chu et al., 2000a). Stratified rock formation can be found at shallow
depths in the eastern part of Wufeng, which is a deposit from the age of Pliocene and
Pleistocene. The alluvium at the western part of Wufeng consists of silts, sands, gravels, and
cobbles eroded from the foothills and transported by the Kan creek. Ground water is generally
shallow (0.5 to 5.0 m below the surface). Chu et al. (2000a) assumed the ground water table at
0.5 m below the ground surface in their liquefaction analysis. Figure 4 shows the typical soil
layers at Wufeng. Silty sand layers at shallow depths are considered susceptible to liquefaction
and responsible for effects of liquefaction at the surface.

Chang-Bin Area
Chang-Bin (Changhwa Coastal Industrial Park), located in Lukang, Changhwa, 47 km from the
epicenter of the Chi-Chi earthquake and about 25 km from the fault rupture, is a major reclaimed
land area off the coast. The maximum horizontal peak ground acceleration is about 0.12g, based
on the recording at the Shanshi Middle School (Station TCU 117). The geometric mean
maximum PGA is about the same (0.12g).
Chang-Bin is a hydraulically filled, reclaimed land with an average fill thickness of about 4
m. The total area of the site is about 38 km2, consisting of three districts, Shanshi, Lunwei and
Lukang. In some portions of the site, the filling operations were ongoing at the time of the ChiChi earthquake. The fill layer and the upper layers of native soils generally consist of alternating
layers of silty sands, and silty and sandy clays. Figure 5 shows a typical soil profile at the site.
Within the depth of about 10 m, the soils mainly consist of loose to medium-dense fine silty
sands and poorly graded sands with 8% to 20% fines content. Ground water table is at the depth
of about 1.0 to 2.6 m below the surface. Dynamic compaction was utilized to mitigate potential
ground failure. However, the ground improvement work was ongoing at the time of earthquake.
Liquefaction evidences such as sand boils were observed only at some locations where ground
improvement work had not yet been performed. Performance of this site in the Chi-Chi
earthquake was reported in detail by Lee et al. (2001).

Development Of New Cpt-Based Method For Liquefaction Analysis

Background
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is generally considered a more consistent and repeatable in situ test
than Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (Lunne et al., 1997), and unlike SPT, it can provide a
nearly continuous soil profile. In the past 15 years, simplified methods based on CPT had been
developed for evaluating soil liquefaction potential (Robertson and Campanella, 1985; Seed and
de Alba, 1986; Olsen, 1988; Shibata and Teparaksa, 1988; Mitchell and Tseng, 1990; Stark and
Olson, 1995; Suzuki, et al., 1995; Olsen, 1997; Robertson and Wride, 1998). One drawback of
these simplified methods is that the boundary curves were largely drawn through visual
inspection of data plotted on a 2-D graph, and as such, there existed subjectivity and uncertainty
in the established limit state for liquefaction triggering analysis.
To overcome this drawback, Chen (1999) and Juang et al. (2000a) pioneered a procedure
with which the limit state can be established in a more objective way. The method based on
artificial neural network (ANN) analysis of field cases yielded satisfactory results in predicting
liquefaction occurrence. However, the developed limit state function for liquefaction triggering
analysis involves multi-variables, and thus making it difficult to present the limit state surface in
a 2-D graph and to compare with other simplified methods such as Robertson and Wride (1998)
and Olsen (1997). In the present study, a simplified method is further developed, built on the
experience gained and the techniques developed by Chen (1999) and Juang et al. (2000a). In the
present study, the data set of field cases compiled by Chen (1999) were reviewed, and 35 cases
that were judged marginal in reliability, primarily those with high fines content, were removed.
The data set was supplemented with 36 cases derived from the Chi-Chi earthquake. The revised
data set, referred to herein as the modified Chens data set, consisting of 131 liquefied cases and
95 non-liquefied cases for a total of 226 cases, is used for developing the new method.

Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

The simplified procedure pioneered by Seed and Idriss (1971) is widely used to evaluate the
liquefaction potential of soil, and the approach is generally adopted for developing other
simplified methods such as Robertson and Wride (1998). All simplified methods that follow this
approach require the determination of two variables, namely, cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR). CSR represents some form of the seismic load, whereas CRR represents
the capacity of a soil to resist the initiation of liquefaction. In the present study, the equation for
CSR originally defined by Seed and Idriss (1971) is adjusted to the benchmark earthquake
(moment magnitude Mw = 7.5):
CSR 7.5 = 0.65(

v a max
)(
)(rd ) / MSF
v g

(1)

= the vertical total stress of the soil at the depth studied,

v = the vertical effective stress of the soil at the depth studied,

amax = the peak horizontal ground surface acceleration,
g
= the acceleration of gravity,
rd
= the shear stress reduction factor, and
MSF = the magnitude scaling factor
The variable rd is calculated as follows (Liao et al., 1988):
rd = 1.0 0.00765 z, z 9.15 m
= 1.174 0.0267 z, 9.15 m <z 23 m

(2)

The variable MSF is calculated as follows (Andrus and Stokoe, 2000):

MSF = (

Mw n
)
7.5

(3)

where Mw is the moment magnitude and n is an exponent. In the present study, n is set to be
equal to 2.56, as suggested by I.M. Idriss (personal communication to T.L. Youd, 1997).
Equations 2 and 3 are generally accepted by the geotechnical community (Youd and Idriss, 2001;
Andrus and Stokoe, 2000), although many other different sets of rd and MSF formulas have been
proposed (for example, Idriss, 1999). Inclusion of MSF in the formulation of CSR was argued
for by Juang et al. (2000a, 2000b) for two reasons: 1) Mw and thus MSF should be lumped more
logically with the term representing the seismic load, namely, CSR, than the liquefaction
resistance (CRR), and 2) such arrangement makes it easier in the search of the limit state for
liquefaction triggering. The MSF-adjusted CSR is denoted as CSR7.5, as shown in Equation 1.
The simplified method, presented as a model for CRR, required use of the above equations
for the determination of CSR. Any deviation from the above equations for calculating CSR must
be avoided when using the new CRR model presented in this paper.

Development of CRR model

The procedure for developing the new model for CRR, a limit state function for liquefaction
triggering, is basically the same as that described by Juang et al. (2000a), although some minor
modifications are made. The development of the proposed CRR model is summarized with the
following step-by-step procedure.
Step 1. Developing a Neural Network Model
A neural network is trained and tested with the data set of 226 cases to approximate the
following model:
LI = fLI (qc1N, Ic, v, CSR7.5)

(4)

where LI

= the liquefaction index (LI = 1, for liquefied cases; LI = 0 for non-liquefied

cases),
qc1N = the overburden stress-adjusted cone tip resistance (defined below),
Ic
= the soil behavior type index,
v
= the vertical effective stress of the soil,
CSR7.5 = the MSF-adjusted CSR (adjusted to Mw = 7.5).

The input variables in Equation 4 were selected based on the results of the previous study (Juang
et al., 2000a) and a review of the state of the art on the CPT-based liquefaction triggering
analysis (for example, Youd and Idriss, 2001). The variable CSR7.5 represents the seismic load,
whereas qc1N and Ic together account for soil resistance characteristics as reflected in CPT
measurements. The variable v is considered necessary, as its effect is not accounted for fully in
the first three variables mentioned.
The successfully trained neural network is a three-layer, feed-forward network with 3
hidden neurons. The training was carried out using the neural network toolbox in the Matlab
environment (Demuth and Beale, 2000). The readers are referred to Juang et al. (2000a) for
detail of neural network training and testing. This network has a success rate of 97% in
distinguishing liquefied cases from non-liquefied cases during the training phase that involved
151 cases, and a success rate of 91% during the testing phase that involved 75 cases. The overall
success rate of this network is 95%.
In the present study, the overburden stress-adjusted cone tip resistance, qc1N, is defined as:
q c1N = q c / ( )0.5
v

(5)

where qc is the cone tip resistance, and both qc and v are in the unit of atm (note: 1 atm 100
kPa). Although other researchers have argued that the stress exponent, such as 0.5 here, should
be a variable, depending on soil type (for example, Olsen, 1997; Robertson and Wride, 1998),
the writers are in the opinion that qc1N is merely an adjusted tip resistance, and any suitable stress
benchmark can be used as a reference for adjustment. Use of the exponent of 0.5 is consistent
with the well accepted formulation for the stress-adjusted standard penetration blow count,
(N1)60, proposed by Liao et al. (1988). The effect of soil type may be accounted for by means of
the soil type index defined below (modified from Lunne et al., 1997):

Ic = [(3.47- log qc1N)2 + (log F + 1.22)2]0.5

(6)

where F is the normalized friction ratio defined as (Lunne et al., 1997):

F = fs / (qc - v) 100%

(7)

where fs is the sleeve friction, and v is the total overburden stress at the point of CPT
measurement. All three variables in Equation 7 must be in the same unit (for example, kPa). It
is noted that the soil type index defined in Equation 6 is different from the soil behavior type
index defined by Robertson and Wride (1998). The latter involves multiple steps and requires
some decisions, whereas the former involves only a one-step calculation. Equation 6 serves the
purpose of accounting for the effect of soil type well in the present study.
Step 2. Searching for Points on the Unknown Limit State Surface
The developed neural network model (Equation 4) is then used to search for points on the
unknown limit state surface (note: in the existing methods for liquefaction triggering analysis,
the limit state surface is presented as a boundary curve that separates liquefied cases from nonliquefied cases in a two dimensional graph). The search technique proposed by Juang et al.
(2000a) is followed here with minor modifications. For each case in the data set, if liquefaction
is observed (output from Equation 4, LI = 1), the search for point on the boundary curve could
involve a reduction of the seismic load, CSR7.5 or an increase in normalized soil strength, qc1N. If
non-liquefaction is observed (output LI = 0), the search for the boundary curve could involve an
increase in CSR7.5 or a decrease in qc1N. For example, a liquefied case may be brought to the
boundary (when the case becomes non-liquefied as judged by the developed neural network) if
the seismic load CSR7.5 is allowed to decrease. Each search, if successful, results in a multivariable data point (CSR7.5, qc1N, Ic, v) that is located on the unknown boundary surface. Since
CRR = CSR7.5 on the boundary surface, a limit state function, CRR = f (qc1N, Ic, v), may be
established once a sufficiently large number of data points have been obtained through this
searching process. In the present study, a total of 381 data points that meet the definition of limit
state are generated.
Step 3. Establishing the Limit State Function (CRR Model)
In this step, an approximate function is to be established based on the generated limit state data.
In the previous study (Juang et al., 2000a), a neural network was used to approximate the limit
state function, since no acceptable regression equation could be established. In the present study,
the following equation is obtained with reasonably good statistical results (coefficient of
determination, R2 = 0.806; the root mean square error (RMSE) of predicted CRR, RMSE =
0.036; and the p-values (i.e., the 2-tailed test against null hypothesis) for all coefficients in
Equation 8 are less than 1 x 10-6):
CRR = C exp[ 2.876 + 1.287 (q c1N,cs / 100)1.2 ]

(8)

C = exp [1127 + 1127 ( v / 100)0.38 ]

.
.

(8a)

where

q c1N,cs = q c1N (0.958 I c4 5.696 I c3 + 12.685I c2 12.166 I c + 5.031)

(8b)

Thus, for a given set of basic data (qc, fs, v, and v), qc1N can be calculated from Equation 5, Ic
can be calculated from Equations 6 and 7, and then CRR can be calculated from Equations 8,
8(a) and 8(b). The calculated CRR must be compared with CSR determined from Equation 1. In
fact, in a deterministic approach, the factor of safety against the triggering of liquefaction is
defined as: FS = CRR/CSR. In theory, if FS > 1, no liquefaction is expected to occur, whereas
liquefaction is expected to occur if FS 1. However, past studies (Liao et al., 1988; Youd and
Noble, 1997; Juang et al., 2000b, 2000c) have revealed that the probability of liquefaction for a
case with FS = 1 may be as high as 50%, and varies from one method to another. Thus, the
proposed method (the CRR model, Equation 8, with the associated CSR model, Equation 1)
needs to be calibrated so that the meaning of the calculated FS can be properly interpreted.
Step 4. Calibrating the Proposed Deterministic Method
A mapping function approach based on Bayes theorem has been proposed by Juang et al. (1999)
and Juang et al. (2000a). The objective of the mapping is to relate the calculated FS to the
probability of liquefaction (PL) so that its meaning may be properly interpreted. Development of
this mapping function using the available database of field cases is a direct calibration of the
deterministic model. With this approach, the conditional probability of liquefaction of a soil in a
future seismic event is inferred from the information in the existing database (Juang et al., 1999;
Juang and Jiang, 2000):
PL

f L ( X)
f L ( X) + f NL ( X)

(9)

where
PL
= the conditional probability of liquefaction for a given safety factor X,
fL(X) = the probability density function of X of the liquefied cases,
fNL(X) = the probability density function of X of the non-liquefied cases.
Applying the above procedure to the data set of 226 cases, the following mapping function is
obtained:

PL =

1
1 + (FS / A) B

(10)

where A = 0.90 and B = 5.1. Based on Equation 10, it may be concluded that on the average, the
proposed limit state or boundary curve (Equation 8) may be characterized with a probability of
37%. If an acceptable level of risk (probability) of 20% is adopted, as is inferred from the design
recommendations by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC, 1997) for the ordinary
structure, then the required minimum factor of safety when using the proposed deterministic
model would be 1.18. For design of more critical structures, if the acceptable level of risk
(probability) for liquefaction were restricted to 10%, then the required minimum factor of safety
when using the proposed deterministic model would be 1.39.

Assessment Of The Newly Developed Method

Comparison with Logistic Regression Method
The mapping function may also be derived indirectly and approximately from logistic regression
analysis. For each of the 226 cases in the data set, LI and v are given, whereas CSR7.5 and
qc1N,cs can be readily calculated using Equations 1 and 8b, respectively. In the present study, a
logistic regression analysis is carried out with the 226 cases and the following equation is
obtained:
ln [PL/ (1-PL)] = 22.9587 0.1064 qc1N,cs 0.0466 v + 5.5262 ln (CSR7.5)

(11)

Using Equation 11, the conditional probability of liquefaction PL for each case in the database
can be calculated. For the same case, CRR can be calculated from Equation 8, and along with
the given CSR7.5, the factor of safety FS can be determined. A mapping function can then be
obtained by curve fitting the data points (PL, FS) obtained for all cases in the database.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the PL-FS mapping functions obtained from the logistic
regression analysis and the Bayesian mapping approach, respectively. The mapping functions
obtained from the two approaches agree well with each other. This result provides an indirect
but strong support to the claim of validity of the newly developed simplified method.
Visual Inspection of the Proposed Method
Two-dimensional graph of the boundary curve (limit state) is traditionally prepared in
conjunction with the development of a simplified method visually. The proposed CRR model
(Equation 8) was not developed based on the visual inspection of any graph. In fact, its
development process is considered more comprehensive and rational. However, a visual
inspection of a simplified method is desired for many practicing engineers. Two dimensional
plot of Equation 8, in terms of CRR versus qc1N,cs, can be made at a given v. A logical choice
of v value for graphing purpose would be 100 kPa, which is the most commonly used stress
benchmark. A visual assessment of the developed CRR model may be made by plotting all of
the 226 cases in the database on the same graph. Of course, for each case, qc1N,cs has to be
calculated from Equation 8b and CSR7.5 calculated from Equation 1 (with MSF adjustment).
However, each of these cases has a different v, and thus an adjustment to the calculated CSR7.5
is need so that the plotted data points can be meaningfully compared with the CRR boundary
curve. The stress-adjusted CSR7.5, denoted as CSR7.5, is defined as:
CSR7.5 = CSR7.5 /C

(12)

Figure 7 shows the 2-D plot of the boundary curve (deterministic model, Equation 8) along with
the 226 cases. Also shown in Figure 7 are the probability curves (PL = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9)
obtained from the mapping function (Equation 10). The reader is referred to Juang and Jiang
(2000) on how these probability curves may be obtained from a mapping function. Of course,
the actual cases are plotted in Figure 7 with the above stress adjustment. As a reference, the
same data set is plotted without stress adjustment to the calculated cyclic stress ratio, as shown in
Figure 8. The number of apparent incorrect predictions assessed from Figure 7 is the same as

that assessed based purely on the calculated factor of safety using Equations 1 (for CSR) and 8
(for CRR). The same observation cannot be made from Figure 8, which is plotted without stress
adjustment to the calculated cyclic stress ratio. This result has two implications. First, the stress
adjustment to the calculated cyclic stress ratio defined in Equation 12 is valid. Second, the
traditional plots of cyclic stress ratio versus soil strength index such as (N1)60,cs, qc1N,cs, or Vs1,cs
(the adjusted shear wave velocity), in which all actual cases were assumed to be at the same
stress level, should be revisited.
From Figure 7, the proposed deterministic curve (CRR model) may be characterized with a
probability of about 40%, based on the relative position of this curve to the probability curves.
The exact value is 37% as mentioned previously, which was obtained based on the mapping
function defined in Equation 10. Following the traditional, deterministic thinking, the boundary
curve shown in Figure 7 might be lowered somewhat so as to encompass almost all liquefied
cases. However, this ad-hoc, visual approach should be avoided, just as the notion that a soil
cannot be liquefied if the calculated FS > 1 should be viewed with caution. What is really needed
is an appropriate calibration, such as the mapping function approach presented herein, so that a
design decision can be made based on an acceptable risk (or a proper factor of safety may be
selected based on the acceptable risk). If the acceptable risk (probability) is set at 20%, which
corresponds to using FS = 1.18 with the proposed method, all but one liquefied case in Figure 7
will be correctly predicted. Thus, it may be argued that the risk-based approach should be
preferred. The mapping function defined in Equation 10 makes it easier to engage in risk-based
decisions using the proposed CRR model.
The proposed method is further examined using 125 cases from the Chi-Chi earthquake
compiled by Lee and Ku (2001). This data set of 125 cases, referred to herein as the Lee and
Kus data set and listed in Table 2, is not used in the development of the proposed method.
Figure 9 shows these cases, with stress adjustment to CSR7.5, along with the deterministic and
probability curves. In contrast to Figure 7, however, the proposed deterministic boundary curve
shown in Figure 9 might appear to be too conservative from the traditional deterministic design
viewpoint, and the curve might be raised up somewhat. Again, this ad-hoc, visual approach
should be avoided for the same reasons stated previously. Figure 10 shows the deterministic
boundary curve and the probability curves along with all cases from Figures 7 and 9.
Comparison with the Existing CPT-based Methods
Currently, two simplified CPT-based methods that receive most attention are the Robertson and
Wride (1997; 1998) method and the Olsen (1997) method. The Olsen (1997) method referred to
herein is a simplified CRR model, not the original chart-based method. It is of interest to
compare the newly developed method with these two methods. Figure 11 shows such a
comparison. Notice that the boundary curves are drawn for the category of clean sand. For the
proposed CRR model, the boundary curve is drawn with additional condition, that is, v = 100
kPa. For the Olsen method, Rf = 0.5% is assumed for clean sands. Of course, this comparison is
only approximate, as the requirements in these methods are not exactly the same. Nevertheless,
it shows that the Robertson and Wride method and the proposed method agree quite well with
each other, whereas the Olsen method appears to be in a completely different form. It is noted
that the actual data points shown are those in the database that meet two conditions: 1) clean
sand cases and 2) v is within 20 kPa of the benchmark stress level (100 kPa).

Figure 12 further compares the proposed method with the Robertson and Wride method.
As in the previous comparison (Figure 11), this comparison is only approximate in nature. The
boundary curves for the proposed method are plotted for the condition that v = 100 kPa. On
the other hand, v is not a factor in the Robertson and Wride method, other than being used in
the calculation of qc1N and Ic. In addition, the definition of qc1N and Ic are not exactly the same in
these two methods. For clean sand cases, CRR obtained by the proposed method is greater than
that by the Robertson and Wride method. One possible reason for this is that the boundary
curves in the proposed method are plotted for the condition that v = 100 kPa, whereas most
cases in that range actually have an effective overburden stress of less than 100 kPa. As CRR
increases with the increase in v in the proposed model, but not in the Robertson and Wride
method, the comparison is somewhat skew. For silty sands, CRR obtained by the proposed
method is less than that by the Robertson and Wride method. In general, both sets of boundary
curves are quite comparable with each other.
A more direct way to compare these methods is to compare the CRR and the conditional
probability of liquefaction (PL) calculated for each of the cases in the database. Since the
original Olsen method and the Robertson and Wride method are deterministic-based, they can
only be used to determine CRR but not PL. In the present study, the PL values for these two
methods are calculated from the PL-FS mapping functions developed for them by Juang and Jiang
(2000) and Chen and Juang (2000).
Figure 13 compares the CRR determined by the Robertson and Wride method and those by
the proposed method. Figure 14 shows the comparison of the calculated PL values from the two
methods. Generally, these two methods produce comparable results. One observation from
Figure 14 is perhaps worth mentioning. For non-liquefied cases, the PL calculated by the
proposed method is generally lower than those calculated by the Roberson and Wride method,
whereas for liquefied cases, the PL calculated by the proposed method is generally higher than
those calculated by the Roberson and Wride method. This indicates that on the average, the
proposed method is more accurate than the Robertson and Wride method.
Similarly, Figures 15 and 16 show the comparison of the Olsen method and the proposed
method based on the calculated CRR and PL, respectively. The two methods are still quite
comparable, although the scatter from the linear trend is much greater than that in the previous
comparison between the Robertson and Wride method and the proposed method. The different
form of CRR function adopted by Olsen (1997) is probably responsible for such scatter. The
same conclusion from Figure 14 can be observed in Figure 16; the proposed method is more
accurate, on the average, than the Olsen method based on the calculated PL values.
Another way to compare the three methods is to examine case by case whether a particular
method can correctly predict the field observation. Table 3 shows a comparison of the three
methods in terms of success rates in predicting the field observations of the 226 cases that were
used for calibration of the methods. Here, the success is measured by different criteria, from the
most stringent to the least. For liquefied cases, Criterion A is the most stringent; a prediction is
considered a success only if PL > 85%. Criterion E is the least stringent, which requires only that
PL > 15% for a prediction to be considered as a success. Criteria B, C, and D are in between the
two extremes. For non-liquefied cases, Criteria A is the most stringent; a prediction is
considered a success only if PL < 15%. Criterion E is the least stringent, which requires only that
PL < 85%. Again, Criteria B, C, and D are in between the two extremes. The results in Table 3
show that the proposed method is the most accurate, although the three methods are quite
comparable.

Table 4 shows a similar comparison of the three methods using the Lee and Kus data set
(Table 2), which is not used in the calibration of these methods. The same criteria as those in
Table 3 are used to assess the success rates. The results in Table 4, again, show that the
proposed method is the most accurate among the three methods.
In summary, the results presented previously clearly support the claim that the proposed
method is sufficiently accurate and reliable. The proposed method is easy to use, and with its
mapping function extension, more rational decisions can be made using the traditional factor of
safety approach. It has the potential to be an important tool in practice for assessing the
liquefaction potential using CPT.

Concluding Remarks
1. In this paper, field data that are related to the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake are briefly
summarized. Although in situ test data, including CPT, SPT, and shear wave velocity (Vs),
are collected, only CPT data are discussed. In addition, there is an ongoing effort to acquire
more data, and a more complete report will be published in the future.
2. Based on the acquired data, a CPT-based simplified model for CRR is developed and
assessed. Calibration of the new model is carried out, and the result is presented in a
mapping function. The proposed model is easy to use, and with its calibrated mapping
function, risk-based decisions can be made using the traditional factor of safety approach.
3. The validity of the newly developed simplified method has been proved through a series of
assessments and comparisons with the existing CPT-based methods. Based on results of the
assessments and comparisons presented, the proposed method is shown to be a simple and
effective tool for liquefaction triggering analysis by CPT.
4. The paper is essentially an interim report of an ongoing research project. A final report with
revision and addition is expected in the near future.

Future Collaborative Research

As a result of this project, Dr. Juang, the principal investigator, has expanded his previous
collaboration network with Taiwanese engineers and researchers. He continues to collaborate
with Dr. Der-Her Lee of National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan and Dr. Ping-Sien
Lin of National Chung Hsing University (NCHU) in Taichung on the subject of liquefaction as
well as many other geotechnical issues. Dr. Lee is instrumental in establishing several
geotechnical earthquake engineering programs funded by the National Science Council (NSC).
In addition, Dr. Juang has established strong ties with Dr. An-Bin Huang of National Chiao Tung
University (NCTU) in Hsinchu and Dr. Richard Hwang of Moh and Associates (MAA) in
Taipei. Collaboration with Dr. Hwang, senior vice president of MAA, is significant because
MAA is the most reputable and largest geotechnical firm in Taiwan. Dr. Huang is currently
coordinating a three-year Special Earthquake Engineering Research Subprogram on
Liquefaction, funded by NSC for approximately 1 million U.S. dollars. Dr. Huang and his NSC
liquefaction team, consisting of Dr. Lee and Dr. Lin and several others, were recently awarded a
contract by the Bureau of Water Conservancy (BWC) to develop a liquefaction hazard and
geological information database and provide guidelines for foundation design and retrofit in the

high intensity zones in the Chi-Chi earthquake. This new contract is a two-and-a-half year effort
with funding of approximately U.S. $850,000. Dr. Juang is the only participant and consultant
from the U.S. for this project.
In addition to the collaborations mentioned previously, Dr. Juang has established a network
of contact that assures him of easy access to virtually any geological and liquefaction-related
data. For example, part of Dr. Juangs data collection came from Dr. Sheng-Huoo Ni of National
Cheng Kung University, Dr. Bin-Lin Chu of National Chung Hsing University, Mr. Ming-Shan
Yu of Resources Engineering Services Inc., and Dr. Wei Lee of Taiwan Construction Research
Institute. His network consists of academics from 8 national universities and 4 private
universities, and engineers from several large geotechnical consulting firms.
Dr. Juang recently delivered a keynote lecture on liquefaction assessment in the 9th
Conference on Current Research in Geotechnical Engineering in Taiwan, a geotechnical
congress in Taiwan, which is held every two years. This invitation for presenting a keynote
lecture in the geotechnical congress reflects his status and strong tie with academics and
engineers in Taiwan. This should bear more fruits in the future collaboration.
Below is a list of collaborative efforts between Dr. Juang and his research partners in
Taiwan in the near future:
1. Dr. Juang will continue to participate in the NSCs Special Earthquake Engineering
Subprogram on Liquefaction, coordinated by Dr. A.B. Huang. Dr. Juangs participation
involves providing input to the subsurface exploration plan, and helping with calibration of
existing methods for liquefaction assessment. Dr. Juangs involvement in this project is
primarily through Dr. Lee of NCKU and Dr. Lin of NCHU, both of whom are responsible
for in situ testing and liquefaction evaluation using in situ test data.
2. Dr. Juang will participate in the project entitled Disaster Prevention Planning for the
Areas Affected by Soil Liquefaction during the Chi-Chi Earthquake, funded by BWC and
led by Dr. Huang. Dr. Juangs participation involves providing input to the subsurface
exploration plan, and helping with calibration of existing methods for liquefaction
assessment, conducting liquefaction potential analysis, and developing a ground failure
potential map. Dr. Juangs involvement in this project is primarily through Dr. Lee of
NCKU and Dr. Ji of Chang Jung Christian University. Dr. Lee is the primary subcontractor
for in situ testing, involving about 100-120 CPTs and other supporting in situ tests
including SPT and Vs measurements. Dr. Ji is the primary subcontractor for liquefaction
analysis and hazard potential mapping.
3. Dr. Lee of NCKU and Dr. Lin of NCHU will continue to work with Dr. Juang on various
technical papers that are at different stages of preparation. Both will participate, along with
Dr. Huang of NCTU, as a consultant in a research project proposed by Dr. Juang.
4. Dr. San-Shyan Lin of National Taiwan Ocean University (NTOU) will continue to work
with Dr. Juang on the subject of pile foundations, particularly on pile responses in liquefied
soils. Several papers on piles are being published and/or at different stages of preparation.
At present, there is an urgent need for the U.S. researchers to actively engage in the
collaborative research with Taiwanese scholars to secure critical data that were brought by the
disastrous Chi-Chi earthquake and the subsequent efforts by the Taiwanese government and
geotechnical community to develop the deployable seismic hazard mitigation techniques. The
National Science Foundation can, and should, support research that engage in such collaborative
research with Taiwanese scholars.

Acknowledgments
This paper presents an interim report of the project entitled Investigation of soil liquefaction in
the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. The project is sponsored by the National Science
Foundation through Grant No. CMS-0085143. This financial support is greatly appreciated.
Many individuals from Taiwan have contributed to the task of data collection. In particular, the
following individuals are thanked for their assistance: Dr. Richard Hwang and Mr. Ting-Chiun
Su of Moh and Associates, Inc., Mr. Ming-Shan Yu of Resources Engineering Services Inc., Dr.
Sheng-Huoo Ni of National Cheng Kung University, Dr. Bin-Lin Chu and Dr. Ping-Sien Lin of
National Chung Hsing University, and Dr. Wei Lee of Taiwan Construction Research Institute.
Dr. Chi-Sheng Ku of National Cheng Kung University and Dr. An-Bin Huang of National Chiao
Tung University are thanked for their valuable discussions and comments concerning the CPTbased methods developed at Clemson University.

Reference
Audrus, R. D. and Stokoe, K. H. (2000), Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear wave
velocity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.126,
No.11, pp.1015-1025.
BSSC (1997), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures, 1997 Edition, Part 2: Commentary, Building Seismic Safety Council
(BSSC), Washington, D.C., 1997.
Chen, C.J. and Juang, C.H. (2000), Calibration of SPT- and CPT-based liquefaction evaluation
methods, Innovations Applications in Geotechnical Site Characterization, P. Mayne and
R. Hryciw, eds., ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 97, pp. 49-64.
Chou, H.S., Yang, C.Y., Shieh, B.J., Yu, M.S., and Kao, Y.H. (2000), A study of geotechnical
disaster in Nantou county after shock, Sino-Geotechnics, No. 81, pp. 69-84 (in Chinese).
Chu, B.L., Hsu, S.C., Lay, S.Y., and Chang, Y.M. (2000a), Failures associated with liquefaction
at Wufeng during Chi-Chi earthquake, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual
Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I.
Liao, eds., National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.
46-57.
Chu, B.L., Chang, Y.M., Chen, K.M., Hsu, S.C., and Chang, C.M. (2000), Liquefaction and
settlement in Wufeng and Taiping during Ch-Chi earthquake, Sino-Geotechnics, No. 77,
pp. 19-28 (in Chinese).
Chu, B.L., Hsu, S.C., and Lai, S.Y. (2000c), Soil liquefaction potential evaluation in the 921
earthquake: Wufeng area, National Science Council Report No. NSC89-2921-Z-319-00518, Department of Civil Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan
(in Chinese).
CGSB (1999), Investigation Report of the 1999, Chi-Chi Earthquake, Central Geological Survey
Bureau (CGSB), Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Demuth, H. and Beale, M. (2000), Neural Network Toolbox Users Guide, 4th Edition, The
MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Mass.

EERI (2001), Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999 Reconnaissance Report,
Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Vol. 17, J. Uzarski and C. Arnold, eds., Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Publication No. 2001-02, April, Oakland, CA.
Hsieh, C.C. (2000), A study of the liquefaction evaluation methods with an emphasis on soils in
Nantou area, M.S. Thesis, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Juang, C. H., Rosowsky, D.V. and Tang, W.H. (1999), A reliability-based method for assessing
liquefaction potential of sandy soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.125, No. 8, pp. 684-689.
Juang, C. H., C. J. Chen, W. H. Tang, and D. V. Rosowsky (2000a), CPT-based liquefaction
analysis, Part 1: Determination of limit state function, Geotechnique, Vol.50, No.5,
pp.583-592.
Juang, C.H., Chen, C.J., Jiang, T. and Andrus, R.D. (2000b), Risk-based liquefaction potential
valuation using SPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 1195-1208.
Juang, C.H., C.J. Chen, D.V. Rosowsky, and W.H. Tang (2000c), CPT-based liquefaction
analysis, Part 2: Reliability for design, Geotechnique, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 593-599.
Juang, C. H. and Jiang T. (2000), Assessing probabilistic methods for liquefaction potential
evaluation, Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000, R. Y. S. Pak and J. Yamamura, eds.,
ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 107, pp.148-162.
Idriss, I.M. (1999), An update of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction
potential, Proceedings, TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction Analysis,
FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Liao, S. C. C., Veneziano, D. and Whitman, R. V. (1988), Regression models for evaluating
liquefaction probability, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.114, No.4,
pp.389-411, 1988.
Lee, D.H., Ku, C.S., and Juang, C.H. (2000), Preliminary investigation of soil liquefaction in
the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual
Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I.
Liao, eds., National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.
140-151.
Lee, D.H., Juang, C.H., and Ku, C.S. (2001), Liquefaction performance of soils at a partially
improved site in the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 38, No. 6, (in press).
Lee, D.H. and Ku, C.S. (2001), A study of the soil characteristics at liquefied areas, Journal of
the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, accepted for publication, (in
Chinese).
Lin, P.S., Lai, S.Y., Lin, S.Y., and Hseih, C.C. (2000), Liquefaction potential assessment on
Chi-Chi earthquake in Nantou, Taiwan, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual
Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I.
Liao, eds., National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.
83-94.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M. (1997), Cone Penetration Testing, Blackie
Academic & Professional, London, UK.
MAA (2000a), Soil Liquefaction Assessment and Remediation Study, Phase I (Yuanlin, Dachun,
and Shetou), Summary Report and Appendixes, Moh and Associates (MAA), Inc., Taipei,
Taiwan (in Chinese).

MAA (2000b), Soil Liquefaction Investigation in Nantou and Wufeng Areas, Moh and
Associates (MAA), Inc., Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Mitchell, J. K. and Tseng, D. J. (1990), Assessment of liquefaction potential by cone
penetration resistance, Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, J. M. Duncan,
ed., Vancouver, B. C., Vol.2, pp.335-350.
NCREE (1999), Reconnaissance Report of the Geotechnical Hazards Caused by Chi-Chi
Earthquake, National Center for Research in Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taipei,
Taiwan (in Chinese).
Ni, S.H. and Lai, H. Y. (2000), Some liquefaction cases investigation in central Taiwan in ChiChi earthquake, 1999, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual Commemoration
of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I. Liao, eds.,
National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 152-165.
Olsen, R. S. (1988), Using the CPT for dynamic site response characterization, Proceedings,
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II Conference, J.L. Von Thum, ed.,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 2, ASCE, New York, pp. 374-388.
Olsen, R. S. (1997), Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetration test, Proceedings of the
NCEER Workshop of Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical report
NCEER-97-0022, T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss, eds., National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, pp.225-276.
Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. (1985), Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone
penetration tests, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.111, GT 3, pp384403.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1997), Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT
and CPT, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils, Technical report NCEER-97-0022, T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss, eds., National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY, pp. 41-87.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. (1998), Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the
cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.35, No.3, pp.442-459.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971), Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div., ASCE, Vol. 97, SM 9, pp.
1249-1273.
Seed, H. B. and de Alba, P. (1986), Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating liquefaction
resistance of sands, Proceedings, Specially Conference on Use of in Situ Testing in
Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 6, ASCE, New York, pp.
281-302.
Shibata, T. and Teparaksa, W. (1988), Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils using cone
penetration tests, Soils and Foundations, Tokyo, Vol.28, No.2, pp.49-60.
Stark, T. D. and Olsen, S. M. (1995), Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case
histories, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.121, No. GT 12, pp. 856-869.
Stewart, J.P., Chu, D.B., Seed, R.B., Ju, J.W., Perkins, W.J., Boulanger, R.W., Chen, Y.C., Ou,
C.Y., Sun, J., and Yu, M.S. (2000), Incidents of soil liquefaction from the 921 Chi Chi
(Taiwan) earthquake, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of
Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I. Liao, eds.,
National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 119-130.
(Also appeared in Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999 Reconnaissance

Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Vol. 17, J. Uzarski and C. Arnold, eds.,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Chapter 4, Oakland, CA.).
Su, T.C., Chiang, K.W., Lin, S.J., Wang, F.G., and Duann, S.W. (2000), Field reconnaissance
and preliminary assessment of liquefaction in Yuanlin area, Sino-Geotechnics, No. 77, pp.
29-38 (in Chinese).
Suzuki, Y., Koyamada, K., Tokimatsu, K., Taya, Y., and Kubota, Y. (1995), Empirical
correlation of soil liquefaction based on cone penetration test, Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, K. Ishihara, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.369-374.
Ueng, T.S., Chen, M.H., and Li, I.Y. (2000), Preliminary study of soil properties in Yuen-Lin
liquefaction areas, Proceedings, International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of
Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III Geotechnical Aspect, C.H. Loh and W.I. Liao, eds.,
National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 131-139.
Youd, T.L. and Noble, S.K. (1997), "Liquefcation Criteria based on Statistical and Probabilistic
Analyses," Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils, Technical report NCEER-97-0022, edited by T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY, pp. 201 215
Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (2001), Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report ftom the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance
soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.127, No.
4, pp. 297-313.
Yu, M.S., Shieh, B.C., and Chung, Y.T. (2000), Liquefaction induced by Chi-Chi earthquake on
reclaimed land in central Taiwan, Sino-Geotechnics, No. 77, pp. 39-50 (in Chinese).

Yuanlin

City

C-5-YL
C-6-YL
C-7-YL
C-8-YL
C-9-YL
C-10-YL
C-11-YL
C-12-YL
C-13-YL
C-14-YL
C-15-YL
C-16-YL
C-17-YL
C-18-YL
C-19-YL
C-20-YL
C-21-YL
C-22-YL
C-23-YL
C-24-YL
C-25-YL
C-26-YL
C-27-YL
C-28-YL
C-29-YL
C-30-YL
C-31-YL
C-32-YL

CPT
designation

G.W.T
(m)
1.5
1.78
1.6
1.1
1.4
1.8
2
1.7
1.5
1.5
0.85
2.5
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.8
1.7
1.1
2
2
2.3
2.3
1
2
2
2.3
0.6
0.71

Coordinates
N
E
2653059
206822
2651130
207848
2652343
205528
2651824
204477
2651609
205693
2651700
206744
2651986
208264
2651020
205092
2651148
206254
2650807
205672
2650885
206450
2651149
207211
2650185
206202
2650546
207709
2649876
205529
2649629
206098
2650185
208211
2649901
208076
2649641
208520
2649678
207964
2649330
208329
2649897
204979
2649408
207881
2648390
205255
2648187
207043
2647835
206384
2650179
207940
2640623
208000
none
uncertain
none
none
none
none
none
uncertain
none
uncertain
none
none
uncertain
uncertain
settlement, sand boiling
uncertain
uncertain
settlement, sand boiling
uncertain
settlement, sand boiling
settlement
uncertain
uncertain
none
uncertain
uncertain
settlement, sand boiling
sand boiling

Liquefaction Evidence

Reference
MAA (2000a)
Su et al. (2000)

Table 1. Catalog of CPT tests and field observations from the Chi-Chi earthquake

Nantou

Nantou

Shetou

Dachun

Yuanlin

Yuanlin

C-33-YL
C-36-YL
C-37-YL
C-38-YL
C-39-YL
C-40-YL
C-41-YL
C-43-YL
C-44-YL
C-45-YL
C-K1-YL
C-K2-YL
C-K3-YL
C-1-DC
C-2-DC
C-3-DC
C-4-DC
C-34-ST
C-35-ST
C-42-ST
C-2-NT
C-3-NT
C-7-NT
C-8-NT
C-11-NT
C-13-NT
C-15-NT
C-16-NT
C-Y5-NT
C-Y6-NT

0.8
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
2
1.3
1.4
2.3
1
1
1
1.8
0.6
1.7
1
0.8
1.3
2.3
5.0
4.0
3.6
3.0
1.8
2.0
3.4
5.2
2.2
2.2

2650091
2651066
2651233
2649959
2648946
2650092
2648741
2649552
2650547
2650426
2649933
2649938
2649849
2654409
2653689
2653559
2653589
2642268
2643853
2647053
2648053
2648136
2646224
2645560
2644441
2643585
2645954
2648270

207677
207667
208223
207000
208284
207482
206899
208076
206184
205962
208044
208030
208284
206117
205641
206445
207045
208819
206950
207913
216463
217856
218322
217868
217371
217815
218575
217753

uncertain
none
uncertain
none
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
settlement, sand boiling
none
uncertain
sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
none
settlement, sand boiling
none
settlement, sand boiling
uncertain
settlement
none
sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
settlement
none
sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
Yu et al. (2000)
Chou et al. (2000)

MAA (2000b)
Hsieh (2000)
Lin et al. (2000)

MAA (2000a)
Su et al. (2000)

MAA (2000a)
Su et al. (2000)

Lee and Ku (2001)

MAA (2000a)
Su et al. (2000)

Table 1. Catalog of CPT tests and field observations from the Chi-Chi earthquake (continued)

Lunwei

Wufeng

Wufeng

Nantou

Nantou

C-Y13-NT
C-Y14-NT
C-K1-NT
C-K5-NT
C-7-WF
C-8-WF
C-9-WF
C-10-WF
C-15-WF
C-16-WF
C-K1-WF
C-K2-WF
C-K3-WF
C-K4-WF
C-K5-WF
C-LW-A1
C-LW-A2
C-LW-A3
C-LW-A5
C-LW-A6
C-LW-A7
C-LW-A8
C-LW-A9
C-LW-A10
C-LW-C1
C-LW-C2
C-LW-D1
C-LW-D2
C-LW-D3
C-BL-C1

2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
3.2
0.5
5
4
2.5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2645852
2645818
2661861
2661574
2662417
2661221
2661486
2662213
2661861
2661574
2662417
2661221
2661486
2662213
2666622
2666935
2666505
2666392
2666776
2666472
2666445
2666623
2665736
2665871
2665722
2666070
2666029
2666657

217927
217960
218608
218501
218217
218349
218296
218570
218608
218501
218217
218349
218296
218570
188169
188092
187783
188258
188091
188194
188058
188721
186395
186748
187409
187532
187837
188429

sand boiling
sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
settlement, sand boiling
sand boiling
none
sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
none
settlement,sand boiling
sand boiling
settlement,sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
settlement,sand boiling
sand boiling
none
none
uncertain
none
sand boiling
none
sand boiling
sand boiling
none
sand boiling
none
uncertain
sand boiling
Lee and Ku (2001)
Ku (2001,
personal communication)

Lee et al. (2000)

Lee and Ku (2001)

MAA (2000b)
Chu et al. (2000c)

Yu et al. (2000)
Chou et al. (2000)
Lee et al. (2000)

Table 1. Catalog of CPT tests and field observations from the Chi-Chi earthquake (continued)

Dounan

Lukang

Lunwei

C-BL-C2
C-BL-C3
C-BL-C5
C-BL-C6
C-BL-C7
C-LK-0
C-LK-1
C-LK-2
C-LK-5
C-LK-10
C-LK-20
C-LK-46
C-LK-E3
C-LK-N3
C-LK-E4
C-DN-1
C-DN-2
C-DN-3

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2

2666985
2666836
2666085
2665942
2665715
2663320
2663320
2663320
2663322
2663327
2663332
2663350
2663299
2663299
2663298

187571
187725
187413
186772
186314
186128
187129
187130
187132
187135
186143
186162
186154
186157
186127

sand boiling
none
none
none
uncertain
sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
uncertain
uncertain
none
sand boiling
sand boiling
sand boiling
settlement,sand boiling
sand boiling
settlement,sand boiling
Lee et al. (2000)
Lee and Ku (2001)

personal communication)

Lee and Ku (2001)

Ku (2001,

Ku (2001,
personal communication)

Lee and Ku (2001)

Table 1. Catalog of CPT tests and field observations from the Chi-Chi earthquake (concluded)

2.5

3.5

10.35

3.5

3.5

4.5

13.5

3.1

4.1

10

12.5

3.1

10.5

11.5

3.7

7.5

12.5

13.5

C-K1-NT

C-K1-NT

C-K1-NT

C-K5-NT

C-K5-NT

C-2-NT

C-2-NT

C-2-NT

C-7-NT

C-7-NT

C-7-NT

C-15-NT

C-15-NT

C-1-DC

C-2-DC

C-3-DC

C-3-DC

C-4-DC

C-5-YL

C-5-YL

C-5-YL

C-7-YL

Depth
Boring ID
( m)

6.67

7.02

6.80

8.03

2.70

7.62

7.46

2.54

8.27

5.77

1.87

11.96

0.90

1.41

16.30

6.01

3.86

12.89

11.56

11.32

1.47

0.94

qc
(MPa)

14.2

24.3

37.2

2.6

32.4

27.9

35.8

11.9

0.2

25.0

23.6

162.2

9.0

4.9

130.1

27.2

24.3

138.8

170.0

114.0

24.6

22.4

fs
( kPa)

4.8

-2.0

-23.6

-5.3

-43.8

-27.1

-40.0

-40.9

0.2

-45.1

-19.0

-55.0

8.9

-40.4

11.8

-30.6

-35.5

-93.0

-20.8

-79.9

-40.9

-27.5

Pw:
(kPa)

0.21

0.36

0.55

0.32

1.24

0.36

0.48

0.57

0.24

0.45

1.30

1.35

0.59

0.39

0.80

0.46

0.78

1.08

1.51

0.73

1.94

2.54

Rf
(%)

166.5

249.8

231.3

138.8

68.5

207.0

189.0

57.4

231.3

148.0

74.0

185.0

75.9

57.4

249.8

83.3

64.8

170.2

68.5

191.5

64.8

46.3

(kPa)

91.5

129.8

121.3

78.8

46.5

107.0

99.0

41.4

121.3

83.0

49.0

105.0

54.9

46.4

134.8

58.3

49.8

96.5

49.8

108.0

49.8

41.3

(kPa)
v

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.43

amax.
(g)

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Liq?

0.89

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.96

0.78

0.78

0.98

0.75

1.00

1.00

0.65

1.00

1.00

0.24

0.99

1.00

0.57

0.06

0.84

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.86

0.77

0.88

0.43

0.82

0.76

0.78

0.96

0.98

0.90

0.76

0.95

0.99

0.80

0.93

0.92

0.77

0.43

0.83

0.81

0.67

0.90

0.90

0.86

0.76

0.79

0.89

0.88

0.91

0.87

0.99

0.99

0.68

0.04

1.00

0.58

0.98

0.98

0.63

0.04

0.84

0.98

0.03

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

This study
Olsen
Robertson
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (Ku, 2001, personal communication)

10.1

17

7.5

14

2.5

3.5

11.8

12.5

14

14.5

2.5

3.5

11.1

12.5

14

14.5

3.2

4.5

10.5

11.5

12.5

C-9-YL

C-10-YL

C-19-YL

C-19-YL

C-19-YL

C-22-YL

C-22-YL

C-22-YL

C-22-YL

C-22-YL

C-22-YL

C-24-YL

C-24-YL

C-24-YL

C-24-YL

C-24-YL

C-24-YL

C-25-YL

C-25-YL

C-25-YL

C-25-YL

C-31-YL

C-31-YL

Depth
Boring ID
( m)

8.30

2.54

7.41

8.25

1.82

2.66

17.08

13.65

9.19

6.70

2.45

1.62

16.89

12.43

10.08

8.15

2.62

2.54

12.15

6.23

2.22

7.68

7.72

qc
(MPa)

12.7

13.8

55.5

70.6

22.8

19.2

69.1

21.8

33.0

46.9

17.1

15.5

44.0

28.2

22.0

37.0

11.0

23.0

0.3

1.7

23.4

60.8

15.5

fs
( kPa)

-0.1

-30.8

23.4

-39.7

-31.0

-10.4

-22.5

-13.8

-63.6

-54.2

-18.7

-42.9

-35.8

-28.5

-27.1

-35.9

-2.2

-31.2

-0.7

-0.9

31.1

-19.9

19.9

Pw:
(kPa)

0.15

0.54

0.76

0.86

1.25

0.73

0.37

0.16

0.40

0.72

0.72

1.00

0.27

0.23

0.23

0.46

0.41

0.97

0.25

0.27

1.06

0.81

0.20

Rf
(%)

231.3

92.5

212.8

194.3

83.3

59.2

268.3

259.0

231.3

205.4

64.8

46.3

268.3

259.0

231.3

218.3

64.8

46.3

259.0

138.8

92.5

314.5

186.9

(kPa)

121.3

57.5

112.8

104.3

53.3

42.2

138.3

134.0

121.3

109.4

44.8

36.3

138.3

134.0

121.3

115.3

44.8

36.3

134.0

78.8

57.5

159.5

100.9

(kPa)
v

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

amax.
(g)

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Liq?

0.72

0.99

0.68

0.53

0.98

0.97

0.01

0.10

0.53

0.79

0.98

0.98

0.01

0.16

0.45

0.66

0.98

0.96

0.24

0.92

0.98

0.43

0.81

0.91

0.85

0.63

0.52

0.52

0.64

0.45

0.71

0.77

0.68

0.72

0.52

0.54

0.72

0.81

0.75

0.84

0.44

0.87

0.95

0.62

0.57

0.88

0.86

0.92

0.78

0.66

0.87

0.86

0.12

0.38

0.81

0.83

0.89

0.83

0.13

0.52

0.75

0.86

0.93

0.77

0.55

0.89

0.90

0.74

0.87

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

Robertson
This study
Olsen
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (continued)

Depth
( m)

14

2.6

4.5

13.5

14.5

15.5

18.5

19.5

11.5

12.5

4.05

13.5

11.5

13.9

2.5

3.5

4.5

6.5

7.5

13.5

14.5

Boring ID

C-31-YL

C-32-YL

C-32-YL

C-35-ST

C-36-YL

C-36-YL

C-36-YL

C-36-YL

C-36-YL

C-42-ST

C-42-ST

C-43-YL

C-43-YL

C-43-YL

C-44-YL

C-44-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

10.61

14.67

3.05

2.69

2.78

2.09

3.00

11.58

8.32

8.30

6.61

2.61

7.52

6.83

11.26

10.05

8.74

8.01

8.00

1.73

2.96

1.18

12.77

qc
(MPa)

19.2

9.8

32.5

28.8

20.7

8.2

7.4

29.5

27.1

43.3

26.0

23.5

30.9

24.5

35.5

46.1

41.0

20.9

26.8

25.8

21.1

11.4

22.8

fs
( kPa)

-26.3

-30.6

4.6

11.8

-15.4

-33.2

-13.8

-9.4

11.1

-8.3

3.6

-26.5

38.1

36.6

-31.0

2.1

-48.1

23.6

-65.7

-15.7

-0.2

-48.6

-0.6

Pw:
(kPa)

0.18

0.07

1.07

1.09

0.74

0.39

0.25

0.28

0.34

0.53

0.40

0.95

0.42

0.35

0.32

0.45

0.46

0.26

0.36

1.59

0.71

0.79

0.18

Rf
(%)

268.3

249.8

138.8

120.3

96.2

64.8

46.3

257.2

216.5

249.8

148.0

74.9

231.3

212.8

364.5

346.0

286.8

268.3

249.8

83.3

92.5

48.1

259.0

(kPa)

133.3

124.8

73.8

65.3

48.3

39.8

31.3

133.2

112.8

129.8

83.0

49.4

121.3

112.8

180.8

172.3

146.8

138.3

129.8

53.3

57.5

37.1

134.0

(kPa)
v

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.21

0.21

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.21

0.19

0.19

0.19

amax.
(g)

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Liq?

0.40

0.09

0.98

0.98

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.23

0.70

0.58

0.86

0.98

0.82

0.89

0.13

0.22

0.46

0.67

0.68

0.98

0.98

0.99

0.15

0.82

0.70

0.66

0.66

0.80

0.91

0.83

0.74

0.81

0.71

0.80

0.61

0.85

0.88

0.72

0.69

0.72

0.88

0.83

0.51

0.74

0.57

0.74

0.71

0.23

0.91

0.91

0.94

0.96

0.89

0.61

0.85

0.78

0.89

0.87

0.92

0.93

0.68

0.78

0.84

0.88

0.87

0.89

0.90

0.85

0.48

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

Robertson
This study
Olsen
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (continued)

Depth
( m)

15.5

16.5

3.5

4.5

7.4

13

2.5

3.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

12.5

13.5

7.5

12.5

13.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

7.5

8.5

Boring ID

C-K2-YL

C-K2-YL

C-LW-A1

C-LW-A1

C-LW-A1

C-LW-A1

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A2

C-LW-A3

C-LW-A3

C-LW-A3

C-LW-A3

C-LW-A5

C-LW-A5

C-LW-A5

C-LW-A5

C-LW-A7

C-LW-A7

5.38

5.91

7.18

6.12

5.21

6.68

6.85

7.58

5.59

6.64

6.54

7.68

7.47

7.04

7.40

2.65

3.26

5.16

5.46

0.64

1.28

13.65

14.74

qc
(MPa)

26.1

28.0

45.5

30.6

28.8

41.2

59.1

44.6

21.8

36.9

49.8

58.7

34.8

30.0

30.3

9.3

9.5

62.0

45.9

9.9

8.8

17.6

26.2

fs
( kPa)

48.6

44.2

40.7

47.9

44.0

25.4

55.3

77.0

52.3

40.8

26.7

41.5

45.2

45.6

32.3

13.5

-10.2

19.8

28.0

-14.7

3.6

-21.5

-28.3

Pw:
(kPa)

0.48

0.47

0.64

0.51

0.55

0.62

0.87

0.60

0.40

0.55

0.76

0.77

0.47

0.43

0.40

0.36

0.29

1.21

0.84

1.91

1.00

0.13

0.20

Rf
(%)

156.6

138.6

179.5

161.0

142.5

124.0

246.6

228.6

138.6

111.6

246.6

228.6

156.6

138.6

120.6

66.6

48.6

237.6

136.8

84.6

63.0

305.3

286.8

(kPa)

83.0

75.0

95.8

87.3

78.8

70.3

123.0

115.0

75.0

63.0

123.0

115.0

83.0

75.0

67.0

43.0

35.0

119.0

74.2

51.0

43.0

150.3

141.8

(kPa)
v

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.19

0.19

amax.
(g)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Liq?

0.65

0.54

0.28

0.49

0.62

0.30

0.21

0.22

0.63

0.31

0.27

0.17

0.30

0.35

0.25

0.91

0.79

0.32

0.51

0.91

0.93

0.11

0.06

0.60

0.54

0.38

0.50

0.50

0.34

0.34

0.44

0.63

0.34

0.40

0.34

0.47

0.49

0.39

0.72

0.50

0.27

0.31

0.26

0.62

0.75

0.65

0.80

0.74

0.48

0.60

0.64

0.42

0.52

0.52

0.76

0.40

0.58

0.46

0.61

0.62

0.45

0.81

0.61

0.55

0.52

0.00

0.77

0.42

0.27

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

Robertson
This study
Olsen
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (continued)

Depth
( m)

9.5

11.5

12.5

13.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

12.5

13.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

7.9

9.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

9.5

11.6

6.5

10.5

Boring ID

C-LW-A7

C-LW-A7

C-LW-A7

C-LW-A7

C-LW-A9

C-LW-A9

C-LW-A9

C-LW-A9

C-LW-A9

C-LW-A10

C-LW-A10

C-LW-A10

C-LW-A10

C-LW-A10

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C1

C-LW-C2

C-LW-C2

C-LW-C2

6.08

7.12

6.61

7.72

7.43

1.54

1.89

2.01

2.49

6.76

6.05

0.64

1.50

0.92

6.32

5.47

6.49

6.73

7.03

7.41

7.38

7.99

6.62

qc
(MPa)

31.7

50.7

41.5

62.6

57.7

5.8

6.7

5.1

10.0

64.9

43.3

27.5

24.4

18.9

61.5

63.3

55.2

49.2

36.1

58.9

42.9

43.3

37.0

fs
( kPa)

71.6

23.1

11.0

22.1

11.7

53.4

38.0

23.7

3.9

27.2

26.0

-78.9

-85.5

-90.2

-7.9

16.8

17.3

37.7

10.8

37.9

52.6

28.0

54.8

Pw:
(kPa)

0.52

0.71

0.62

0.81

0.77

0.41

0.37

0.25

0.41

0.96

0.71

4.20

2.16

2.54

0.98

1.17

0.86

0.73

0.51

0.79

0.57

0.54

0.57

Rf
(%)

192.6

120.6

93.6

218.3

179.5

124.0

105.5

87.0

68.5

174.6

145.8

84.6

66.6

48.6

246.6

228.6

192.6

156.6

120.6

246.6

228.6

210.6

174.6

(kPa)

99.0

67.0

55.0

113.6

95.8

70.3

61.8

53.3

44.8

91.0

78.2

51.0

43.0

35.0

123.0

115.0

99.0

83.0

67.0

123.0

115.0

107.0

91.0

(kPa)
v

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

amax.
(g)

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Liq?

0.50

0.22

0.23

0.16

0.21

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.91

0.27

0.45

0.50

0.83

0.78

0.24

0.31

0.33

0.34

0.28

0.17

0.24

0.20

0.42

0.53

0.26

0.27

0.31

0.30

0.91

0.89

0.91

0.66

0.29

0.39

0.07

0.19

0.10

0.31

0.27

0.32

0.36

0.35

0.35

0.45

0.42

0.49

0.63

0.32

0.32

0.43

0.41

0.93

0.91

0.87

0.79

0.46

0.56

0.00

0.61

0.00

0.53

0.53

0.49

0.50

0.39

0.50

0.54

0.47

0.60

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

Robertson
This study
Olsen
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (continued)

Depth
( m)

12.5

18.5

3.5

6.5

7.5

2.5

3.5

6.1

8.5

12.5

Boring ID

C-LW-C2

C-LW-C2

C-LW-D1

C-LW-D1

C-LW-D1

C-LW-D1

C-LW-D2

C-LW-D2

C-LW-D2

C-LW-D2

C-LW-D2

8.83

6.21

7.24

0.18

0.23

7.57

7.94

5.93

0.20

9.48

7.76

qc
(MPa)

57.7

24.8

41.4

0.6

0.9

41.4

45.1

54.4

3.7

86.1

53.9

fs
( kPa)

37.1

47.3

18.1

110.5

76.2

45.5

31.2

14.9

100.8

48.2

46.5

Pw:
(kPa)

0.66

0.40

0.57

0.37

0.42

0.55

0.57

0.92

1.96

0.79

0.70

Rf
(%)

235.0

161.0

116.6

68.5

50.0

142.5

124.0

96.2

68.5

336.6

228.6

(kPa)

121.3

87.3

66.9

44.8

36.3

78.8

70.3

57.5

44.8

163.0

115.0

(kPa)
v

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

amax.
(g)

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Liq?

0.10

0.51

0.21

0.98

0.97

0.22

0.14

0.27

0.92

0.02

0.18

0.36

0.57

0.31

0.97

0.93

0.35

0.29

0.19

0.18

0.21

0.37

0.40

0.71

0.35

0.00

0.00

0.39

0.29

0.29

0.00

0.27

0.47

Probability of liquefaction (PL)

Robertson
This study
Olsen
and Wride

Table 2. Field liquefaction performance cases in the Chi-Chi Earthquake (concluded)

Table 3. Comparison of three CPT-based methods using the modified Chens data set
Based on 131 liquefied cases
CRITERION

A
B
C
D
E

This study
No. of success
cases
86
108
119
125
130

Rate
66%
82%
91%
95%
99%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
27
61
92
105
129

Robertson and Wride

Rate
21%
47%
70%
80%
98%

No. of success
cases
53
96
109
117
122

Rate
40%
73%
83%
89%
93%

Based on 95 non-liquefied cases

CRITERION

A
B
C
D
E

This study
No. of success
cases
54
76
81
86
93

Rate
57%
80%
85%
91%
98%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
35
73
83
88
95

Robertson and Wride

Rate
37%
77%
87%
93%
100%

No. of success
cases
63
72
79
87
93

Rate
66%
76%
83%
92%
98%

Summary (Total: 226 cases)

CRITERION

A
B
C
D
E

This study
No. of success
cases
140
184
200
211
223

Rate
62%
81%
88%
93%
99%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
62
134
175
193
224

Robertson and Wride

Rate
27%
59%
77%
85%
99%

No. of success
cases
116
168
188
204
215

Rate
49%
74%
83%
90%
95%

Note:
Criterion A is the most stringent criteria. For liquefied cases, PL >85% is considered a
success; for non-liquefied cases, PL <15% is considered a success;
Criterion B: For liquefied cases, PL >65%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <35%;
Criterion C: For liquefied cases, PL >50%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <50%;
Criterion D: For liquefied cases, PL >35%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <65%;
Criterion E: For liquefied cases, PL >15%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <85%.

Table 4. Comparison of three CPT-based methods using Lee and Kus data set
Based on 41 liquefied cases
CRITERION

A
B
C
D
E

This study
No. of success
cases
37
40
41
41
41

Rate
90%
98%
100%
100%
100%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
12
25
34
36
39

Robertson and Wride

Rate
29%
61%
83%
88%
95%

No. of success
cases
25
31
33
33
33

Rate
61%
76%
80%
80%
80%

Based on 84 non-liquefied cases

CRITERION

A
B
C
D
E

This study
No. of success
cases
11
45
55
63
80

Rate
13%
54%
65%
75%
95%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
0
19
36
48
74

Robertson and Wride

Rate
0%
23%
43%
57%
88%

No. of success
cases
3
11
29
50
69

Rate
4%
13%
35%
60%
82%

Summary (Total: 125 cases)

This study
CRITERION
A
B
C
D
E

No. of success
cases
48
85
96
104
121

Rate
38%
68%
77%
83%
97%

Olsen
No. of success
cases
12
44
70
84
113

Robertson and Wride

Rate
10%
35%
56%
67%
90%

No. of success
cases
28
42
62
83
102

Rate
22%
34%
50%
66%
82%

Note:
Criterion A is the most stringent criteria. For liquefied cases, PL >85% is considered a
success; for non-liquefied cases, PL <15% is considered a success;
Criterion B: For liquefied cases, PL >65%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <35%;
Criterion C: For liquefied cases, PL >50%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <50%;
Criterion D: For liquefied cases, PL >35%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <65%;
Criterion E: For liquefied cases, PL >15%; for non- liquefied cases, PL <85%.

Figure 1. Distribution of liquefaction sites in central Taiwan in the Chi-Chi earthquake (NCREE, 1999)

Depth
(m)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
GL0m ~ GL3m

GL0m ~ GL17.5m

GL12m ~ GL30m

GL29m ~ GL44m

Figure 2. Typical soil profile at Yuanlin

Silty clay; grey; dense to very

dense

Silty fine sand to silty coarse

medium fine sand; grey; medium GL7.7m ~ GL34m
dense to very dense

Silty clay; grey; medium dense

to very dense

Silty fine sand to silty coarse

GL4m ~ GL24m
medium fine sand; grey; loose to
medium dense

Silty clay; grey; very loose to

medium dense

Silt fine sand to silty medium fine

GL0m ~ GL9m
sand:Loose to medium dense

Backfill: very loose to loose

Depth
(m)

20

18

16

14

12

10

GL14m ~ GL20m

GL6m ~ GL20m

GL6m ~ GL9m

GL0.8m ~ GL12m

GL0m ~ GL2.4m

Figure 3. Typical soil profile at Nantou

Gravel and coarse medium sand

Silty fine sand to silty medium

fine sand; brown; dense

Silty clay; medium dense to very

dense; brown yellow to grey;
occasionally sandy silt

Gravel and medium fine sand;

brown yellow

Silty fine sand, silty medium fine

sand and sandy silt; loose to
medium; brown yellow to grey;

Backfill: very loose to loose

Depth
(m)

20

18

16

14

12

10

GL0m ~ GL30m

GL0.5m ~ GL25m

GL0m ~ GL3.0m

Figure 4. Typical soil profile at Wufeng

Gravel; occasionally medium fine

sand

Silty clay; medium dense to very

dense; yellowish brown to grey;
occasionally fine sand seam

Silty sand, yellowish brown to

grey

Backfill: very loose to loose

Depth
(m)

30

25

20

15

10

GL9m~GL46m

GL8m~GL28

GL0m~GL10m

Figure 5. Typical soil profile at Chuang-Bin

Silty clay

Silty fine sand to silty

medium fine sand

Silty clay

Silty fine sand to silty medium

fine sand; Loose to medium
dense

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2
Fs

Logistic regression

Bayesian mapping

Figure 6. Comparison of mapping functions logistic regression approach

Versus Bayesian approach

PL

Stress-adjusted, MSF-adjusted Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR7.5

50

150

qc1N,cs

100

250

Liq cases

Non-liq cases

The deterministic
curve (Eq.8)

200

PL=0.9 0.5 0.1

0.7 0.3

Figure 7. Deterministic and probability curves with actual cases

(with stress adjustment to CSR7.5) Chens data (226 cases)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

v = 100 kPa, M w = 7.5

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

50

100
qc1N,cs

150

250

Liq cases

Non-liq cases

The deterministic
curve (Eq.8)

200

PL=0.9 0.5 0.1

0.7 0.3

M w = 7.5

Figure 8. Deterministic and probability curves with actual cases

(without stress adjustment to CSR7.5) Chens data (226 cases)

MSF-adjusted Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR 7.5

Stress-adjusted, MSF-adjusted Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR 7.5

50

150

qc1N,cs

100

250

Liq cases

Non liq cases

The determ inistic

curve (Eq.8)

200

PL=0.9 0.5 0.1

0.7 0.3

Figure 9. Deterministic and probability curves with actual cases

(with stress adjustment to CSR7.5) Lee and Kus data (125 cases)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

v = 100 kPa, M w = 7.5

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

50

150
qc1N,cs

100

250

Liq cases

Non liq cases

Liq cases

Non liq cases

The determ inistic

curve (Eq.8)

200

PL=0.9 0.5 0.1

0.7 0.3

v = 100 kPa, M w = 7.5

Figure 10. Deterministic and probability curves with actual cases

(with stress adjustment to CSR7.5) all data

Stress-adjusted, MSF-adjusted Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR 7.5

CSR 7.5 or CRR

50

150

qc1N

100

200

250

Figure 11. Comparison of three methods

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

v = 100 kPa, M w = 7.5

This study
Olsen
Robertson
Non-liq Cases
Liq cases

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

50

FC=35%
Ic=2.59

150

qc1N

100

5%
1.64

200

250

Robertson and Wride

This study

15%
2.07

v = 100 kPa, M w = 7.5

Figure 12. Comparison of the Robertson and Wride method

with the proposed method

CRR

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.4

CRR by Robertson and Wride

0.2

0.5

0.6

Figure 13. Comparison of CRRthe Robertson and Wride

method versus the proposed method

CRR by the proposed method

0.6

PL by the proposed method

0.0

0.2

0.6
PL by Robertson and Wride

0.4

0.8

Liq cases
1.0

Non-liq cases

Figure 14. Comparison of PL the Robertson and Wride

method versus the proposed method

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CRR by the proposed method

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.4

CRR by Olsen

0.2

0.5

0.6

Figure 15. Comparison of CRRthe Olsen method

versus the proposed method

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

PL by the proposed method

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.6
PL by Olsen

0.4

0.8

1.0

Figure 16. Comparison of PL the Olsen method

versus the proposed method

0.0

Liq cases

Non-liq cases