Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 August 2010
Received in revised form 15 January 2011
Accepted 15 January 2011
Available online 4 February 2011
Keywords:
Liquefaction assessment
SPT-N-based method
Sensitivity study
Method comparison
Chi-chi earthquake
a b s t r a c t
SPT-N-based methods have been adopted for liquefaction assessment of soils during earthquakes for decades. However, there has not been a consistent way of assessing the accuracy and applicability of these
methods. The Chi-chi earthquake of 1999, which has been the most serious ground shaking in Taiwan
within the century, caused extensive liquefactions in mid-west alluvial deposits of the island. This paper
assesses the prediction accuracy of several SPT-N-based methods using liquefaction and non-liquefaction
incidents observed during the earthquake. A sensitivity study on commonly adopted parameters shows
that the SPT blow count and peak ground acceleration are most sensitive in computing liquefaction
potential. By comparing the error in predicting liquefaction and non-liquefaction incidents, this study
concludes that Tokimatsu and Yoshimis method is more accurate than the other methods. However,
the differences between prediction errors of various methods are minimal, indicating all of the methods
examined are applicable for the 1999 earthquake in Taiwan.
2011 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
1. General
Evaluation of liquefaction potential of a saturated sandy deposit
during an earthquake requires knowledge of the intensity and
duration of cyclic shear stresses of shaking as well as the cyclic
shear resistance of deposit materials. Generally, cyclic shear stresses could be assessed through a simplied manner [14], or based
upon results of a site response analysis [5]. The cyclic shear resistance of soils could be evaluated in the laboratory, such as through
cyclic triaxial or cyclic simple shear testing, or based upon empirical relationships between liquefaction case histories and on-site
material parameters (e.g., SPT-N, CPT-qc, or Vs values) through various eld testing programs.
The majority of liquefaction assessment methods available to
date are simplied-empirical; namely, the cyclic shear stress due
to shaking is estimated by a simplied procedure, and the cyclic
resistance of soils is based on an empirical approach. A review of
these methods can be found in a summary report by National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) of the United
States [6] and the paper by Liam Finn [7]. The vast worldwide database, allows the SPT-N-based approach to become a dominant
methodology in the simplied-empirical category. Although this
approach has been applied for many years, the ways of assessing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 5 534 2601; fax: +886 5 531 2049.
E-mail address: changmh@yuntech.edu.tw (M. Chang).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.01.003
394
for the CSR estimation uses the original average relationship suggested by Seed and Idriss [1] and endorsed by NCEER/NSF workshops [6]. The earthquake magnitude scaling factor (MSF), as
shown in the gure, adopts the revised version by Idriss during
the 1995 Seeds Memorial Lecture, as suggested by NCEER/NSF
workshops as a lower bound for MSF values [6].
2.2. Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (TY) method
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi [9] proposed a similar approach to
Seeds method, by estimating CSR and CRR separately prior to the
computation of the factor of safety against liquefaction (FL). However, the TY method is different from Seeds method in developing
the CRR relationships. The CRR boundary curves of soils are established based on the results of laboratory testing on high quality
undisturbed (frozen) samples from Niigata, Japan, where severe
liquefactions had occurred in 1964 [18]. The cyclic strength of soils
in laboratory is determined based on a given cyclic strain at 15
stress cycles, and the cyclic strain is correlated to the level of severity in liquefaction damages observed during 70 case histories in Japan and 20 cases in other parts of the world. The assessment
owchart of TY method is presented in Fig. 2, showing the earthquake magnitude (M) is accounted for in the CSR estimation. As
mentioned, the CRR curves take into account the level of severity
of liquefaction damages, which is reected by the coefcient, Cs.
According to the authors, a Cs-range of 8090 (i.e., a cyclic shear
strain c = 5.51.5%) is normally adopted. For extensive liquefaction,
however, a Cs value of 75 (i.e., a cyclic shear strain c ; 10%) is
suggested.
2.3. New JRA (NJRA) method
The original JRA method was promulgated in 1990 [11] by synthesizing studies of several parties [1921]. The CRR curves of this
method are based on the results of laboratory evaluation of in situ
samples, where the cyclic resistance is determined with a number
of liquefaction stress cycle (Nl) of 20. After the Hyogoken-Nambu
Earthquake of Japan in 1995, this method has been considerably
revised [10]. In view of the ndings from the earthquake, a set of
screening criteria has been added prior to the assessment procedure. The cyclic resistance of gravelly soils, as evidenced in the
earthquake, is also considered based on limited laboratory results
of frozen samples. Although the earthquake magnitude is not included in the CSR formulation, two types of earthquake are accounted for in assessing the cyclic resistance of soils. Type I
quakes occurs along the subduction zone boundaries, and Type II
quakes occurs under the intraplate of continents. Fig. 3 indicates
the analysis owchart of the revised method. It is noted that the
maximum values of the CSR and CRR are computed in the process,
unlike the majority of SPT-N-based approaches, where only average values are employed.
2.4. Chinese building code (CSDB) method
The Chinese liquefaction assessment procedure was established
in the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (CSDB) of China in 1974
(Doc. No. TJ11-74). This procedure adopts a critical SPT N-value,
Ncr, which is a function of seismic intensity, groundwater depth,
and the depth of interest, indicating that a lower limit is required
for the soil to prevent liquefaction. After the Haichen (1975) and
Tongshan (1976) earthquakes, this assessment procedure has been
modied by considering the attenuation effect of ground shaking,
as shown in the building code of 1989 (Doc. No. GBJ11-89). In
2001, the building code (Doc. No. GB50011-2001 [17]) was slightly
updated by adjusting the assessment procedure and adopting design earthquake groups to account for both the characteristic
395
Horizontal peak
ground acceleration,
amax
SPT N-value,
N
EQ magnitude,
Mw
Effective overburden
pressure, v( kPa)
ER
N 60 = N
60
CN =
Fines content,
FC (%)
100
v '
( FC 5)
5.0
(35 FC )
1.0
1.2
( FC 5)
(5 < FC < 35)
(35 FC )
CRR7.5 =
MSF =
10 2.24
M w2.56
a + cx + ex 2 + gx 3
1 + bx + dx 2 + fx 3 + hx 4
CSR = 0.65
amax v
rd
g v '
FL =
CRR
/
=
CSR o ' R o ' L
Horizontal peak
ground acceleration,
amax
EQ magnitude,
M
SPT N-value,
N
N1, 72 =
Effective overburden
pressure, o( kg/cm2)
1.7 N ER
o '+0.7 72
Fines content,
FC (%)
( FC < 5)
(5 FC < 10)
(10 FC )
N f = FC 5
0.1FC + 4
rd = 1 0.015z
N a = N1,72 + N f
Cyclic resistance ratio, CRR
Equiv. average cyclic stress ratio, CSR
= 0.1( M 1) max v rd
'
g v '
o L
16 N
16 N a
a
= aCr
+
Cs
'
100
o R
FL =
CRR
/
=
CSR o ' R o ' L
396
Design horizontal
EQ coefficient, khc
Effective overburden
pressure, o ( kg/cm2)
SPT N-value,
N
N1,72 =
c2 =
(
10) / 18
FC
N a = c1 N1, 72 + c2
(0 FC < 10)
(10 FC )
Gravel:
N a = N1,72 []
1 0.36 log10 ( D50 / 2)
Na
0.0882
1 .7
RL =
0.0882 N a + 1.6 10 6 ( N 14) 4.5
a
1 .7
rd = 1 0.015z
( N a < 14)
(14 N a )
EQ Type I: c w = 1.0
( RL < 0.1)
1.0
(0.4 RL )
2.0
CSR = L = rd kh
(0 FC < 10)
1
1.7 N ER
o '+0.7 72
Sand:
khc replaced by
amax
g
Fines content,
FC (%)
v
v '
CRR = R = cw RL
FL =
CRR R
=
CSR L
397
Screening criteria for further assessment for sands or silts (except loess)
(1) Geologic age younger than Pleistocene Epoch;
(2) Clay fraction (CF) less than 10, 13, and 16 (%), for seismic intensity (I) less than
7, 8, and 9, respectively;
(3) For overlaying non-liquefaction soil thickness (du) and groundwater depth (dw),
satisfying: du (d0+db-2m), dw (d0+db-3m), or (du+dw) (1.5d0+2db-4.5m),
where db=building embedment, d0=liquefaction characteristic depth.
Design earthquake
group
Groundwater
depth (dw)
Seismic intensity
(I, amax)
Soil depth
(ds)
Clay fraction
(CF, %)
FL =
CRR
N
=
CSR N cr
CN = 1 log 'o
Analysis
parameter
Analysis methods
Seeda
TYb
NJRAc
CSDBd
GWT
amax
SPT-N
FC
rd
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
For z 5 9.15 m,
rd 1 0:00765z
For
9.15 m < z 5 23 m,
r d 1:174 0:0267z
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
r d 1 0:015z
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
r d 1 0:015z
Yes
Yese
Yes
n/af
n/a
102:24
M 2:56
Yes
M
CN
ER (%)
Cs
q
Pa
r00
60
n/a
1:7
0 0:7
0
72
8090 Use 75
for extensive
liquefaction
n/ag
r
1:7
0 0:7
0
72
n/a
n/ag
n/a
60
n/a
Table 1
Parameters adopted in the liquefaction analysis methods.
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.0
2.0
Peck et.al. (1974)
3.0
Seed (1976)
Tokimatsu et.al. (1983)
Liao & Whitman (1986)
4.0
Dr = 40~60%
Dr = 60~80%
Lambda = 1.4
Lambda = 0.7
5.0
Fig. 5. Distribution of overburden pressure correction factor.
398
d = 1 m z (0.3048meter / ft )
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Seed & Idiss (lower limit)
Depth, z (ft)
10
20
30
m = 0.005
40
m = 0.010
50
Iwasaki et al. (m = 0.015)
60
70
m = 0.020
80
m = 0.025
90
m = 0.030
100
Fig. 6. Distribution of stress reduction factor.
ter, and causing the cyclic resistance of soil (CRR) to remain the
same. As pointed out by Youd et al. [6], the effective stress adopted
for CN should be the overburden pressure at the time of drilling and
testing, implying that the corrected N-value (N1) and the cyclic
resistance (CRR) of soil should be determined at the time of testing
and remains constant afterwards, even if the groundwater level
might be uctuating over time.
An example of the misinterpretation of the CRR and the associated factor of safety against liquefaction (FL) is indicated by Lin
et al. [23] and shown in Fig. 7a. In the example, an increase in
groundwater level causes amplication of CN factor and increases
N1 and CRR of soil, resulting in an adverse increase of FL at shallower depths. If N1 is decided at the time of testing and remains
constant afterwards (i.e., N1 irrelevant to groundwater uctuation),
then the increase in groundwater level would only enhance CSR,
and therefore decrease the FL, as shown in Fig. 7b.
5. The 1999 Chi-chi earthquake
Liquefaction and non-liquefaction incidents of the 1999 earthquake are used to compare the prediction accuracy by various
SPT-N-based methods. Since the CSDB method adopts a signicantly different analysis philosophy, this method is excluded from
the comparison. Accordingly, only Seeds method [6], the TY
method [9], and the NJRA method [10] are considered in the following study.
5.1. The earthquake and liquefaction damages
Table 2
Results of relative sensitivity study.
Parameter
SPT-N
ER
k, for CN
FC
GWT
amax
m, for rd
M
Cs
Parameter value
Range
Reference
Seed
(%)
TY
(%)
NJRA
(%)
CSDB
(%)
315
50100%
0.71.4
040%
0.55 m
0.150.35 g
0.0050.030
6.08.0
7595
10
73.5%
1.0
15%
1.5 m
0.25 g
0.015
7.5
85
153
76
5
55
50
98
28
72
91
50
3
56
57
102
24
45
53
87
40
1
32
46
86
17
192325
91129
3339
4049
399
FL
FL
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
GWT=0,N=15
10
11
12
13
GWT=1,N=15
GWT=2,N=15
GWT=3,N=15
GWT=4,N=15
GWT=5,N=15
14
15
16
17
GWT=0,N=20
GWT=1,N=20
GWT=2,N=20
GWT=3,N=20
18
19
20
GWT=4,N=20
GWT=5,N=20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
0
1
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
GWT=0,N=15
GWT=1,N=15
GWT=2,N=15
GWT=3,N=15
GWT=4,N=15
GWT=5,N=15
GWT=0,N=20
GWT=1,N=20
GWT=2,N=20
GWT=3,N=20
GWT=4,N=20
GWT=5,N=20
Study
Area
Miaoli
Taichung
Chuoswei
River
(downstream)
Changhua
Yunlin
Nantou
Epicenter
Chelungpu
Fault
Chiai
50
100Km
Liquefaction Site
A total of 1571 borehole logs have been collected for this study.
Some of the logs are neglected due to the lack of essential information or reliability of results. The remaining 1084 borehole logs,
with locations shown in Fig. 11, are deemed effective and adopted
in the analyses. According to different screening criteria, the actual
borehole numbers adopted in the assessment methods are slightly
varied, as shown in Table 3.
The adopted boreholes are assigned as either liquefaction or
non-liquefaction boreholes prior to the subsequent analyses. As
in usual practices, boreholes with observed surface manifestations
of liquefaction (e.g., sand boils, lateral spreads, and tilted, settled or
oated structures, etc.) in the vicinity of the boreholes during the
1999 earthquake are assigned as liquefaction boreholes, while
those without surface manifestations are assigned as non-liquefaction boreholes. It is noted that liquefaction often occurs at depth
which may or may not extend up to the ground surface due to several reasons. In accordance, the observed surface manifestations
are indicative of soil liquefaction, while no surface manifestations
are implying either non-liquefaction or liquefaction sites. For instance, Youd and Carter [40] indicate no liquefaction phenomenon
was observed in the vicinity of the instrument sites at Treasure Is-
400
2680000
N
W
2670000
S
2660000
2650000
2640000
2630000
2620000
2610000
10000
20000
30000
40000 (m)
Fig. 10. Recorded peak ground acceleration (PGA; amax,EW) contours and 34 strong
motion stations in the study area during the 1999 earthquake.
Fig. 9. Acceleration-time histories recorded at Yuanlin Station (TCU120), Changhua
County during the 1999 earthquake [33].
N
2670000
land and Alameda Navy Air Station, California, during the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake. However, a sudden shift of frequency contents to longer periods and a decrease in acceleration amplitudes
after some time period in the actual motions, as compared with
those in the predicted motions (without soil softening), clearly
indicate that soil liquefactions had occurred at the sites. Since no
detailed ground response analysis has been conducted for borehole
category classication purposes in this study, some falsely-assigned non-liquefaction boreholes may exist. The potential impact
of the falsely-assigned borehole categories is further discussed in
Section 6.4.3 of this paper.
An earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 is adopted in the analyses by Seeds and TYs methods. For the NJRA method, however,
a Type I Earthquake is assumed in order to be comparable to the
1999 earthquake condition. In consideration of the level of liquefaction damages, this study adopts Cs = 83 for the TY method,
which is consistent with an earthquake magnitude of 7.6, per suggestions by Wu [25]. Based on limited on-site data [23,26,39], an
energy ratio of 73.5% is assumed for the current study, which is
consistent with the value adopted by NCREE/Taiwan for the SPT
hammers used in the island. In analysis, the unit weight of soil at
each of the material strata is based on the borehole data obtained
at the time of drilling.
Due to lack of real time monitoring data, this study assumes the
groundwater levels recorded in the borehole logs to form an average groundwater datum for the area. To account for seasonal uctuations [27] and the timing of the earthquake, an additional 3 m is
assumed on top of the average datum as the groundwater level
during the 1999 earthquake. The datum and its additional 3 m
assumption is limited by the condition that the groundwater level
should be at least 1 m below the ground surface.
E
S
2660000
2650000
2640000
2630000
2620000
2610000
0
10
20
Kilometers
2600000
160000 170000 180000
220000
401
Table 3
Number of boreholes for analysis.
Case
Numbers of boreholes
Collected
Liquefaction
Non-liquefaction
Sum
69
1015
1084
Analyzed
Seeds
method
TYs
method
NJRAs
method
66
920
986
67
927
994
67
930
997
FC = 5%
FC = 15%
FC = 35%
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
CRR
CRR
CRR
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
Seeds method
Seeds method
Seeds method
T & Ys method
T & Ys method
T & Ys method
NJRAs method
NJRAs method
NJRAs method
0
0
10
20
(N1)60
30
40
50
0
0
10
20
(N1)60
30
40
50
10
20
(N1)60
Fig. 12. CRRavN1,60 curves for liquefaction analysis of the 1999 earthquake (CRR converted per Seeds analysis framework).
30
40
50
402
Table 4
Comparison of CRRs by various analysis methods for the 1999 earthquake (CRR converted per Seeds analysis framework).
FC (%)
SPT-N1,60
02
28
810
1012
1215
1524
>24
N>T>S
T>S>N
S>TN
CRR value.
N>S>T
S>T>N
S>TN
S>N>T
S>T>N
S>N>T
S>T>N
ST>N
N>S>T
N>S>T
S>T>N
S>TN
S>N>T
S>T>N
S>N>T
S>T>N
ST>N
N>S>T
Table 5
Comparison of CSRs by various analysis methods for the 1999 earthquake (CSR converted per Seeds analysis framework).
Depth (m)
03.75 m
Average
3.756.75 m
Average
6.759.75 m
Average
>9.75 m
Average
a
b
CSRTYa
CSRSeed
CSRNJRA,aveb
CSRNJRA,max
Liquefaction
boreholes
Non-liquefaction
boreholes
Liquefaction
boreholes
Non-liquefaction
boreholes
Liquefaction
boreholes
Non-liquefaction
boreholes
Liquefaction
boreholes
Non-liquefaction
boreholes
0.140.26
0.19
0.160.24
0.21
0.200.24
0.23
0.150.24
0.20
0.020.40
0.09
0.030.42
0.11
0.040.37
0.12
0.030.42
0.10
0.130.25
0.17
0.160.22
0.20
0.190.23
0.21
0.160.23
0.20
0.020.40
0.09
0.020.40
0.10
0.030.35
0.11
0.030.42
0.10
0.200.39
0.28
0.230.35
0.31
0.290.35
0.32
0.250.35
0.31
0.040.48
0.14
0.040.50
0.16
0.050.50
0.17
0.050.50
0.17
0.130.26
0.18
0.160.23
0.20
0.190.23
0.21
0.160.23
0.20
0.030.31
0.09
0.030.33
0.10
0.030.33
0.11
0.030.33
0.11
Assume M = 7.5.
Assume CSRNJRA,ave = 0.1(M 1)CSR
NJRA,max
= 0.1(7.5 1)CSR
NJRA,max
= 0.65CSR
NJRA,max.
coefcient (rd), however, TY and NJRA methods provide somewhat smaller predictions than the Seeds method.
403
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
CSR
CSR
0.5
CSR
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
CRR, FC = 5%
0.1
CRR, FC = 5%
CRR, FC = 15%
CRR, FC = 35%
CRR, FC = 35%
CRR, FC = 35%
Liquefaction cases
Liquefaction cases
Liquefaction cases
Non-liquefaction cases
Non-liquefaction cases
Non-liquefaction cases
0
0
10
20
30
40
CRR, FC = 5%
CRR, FC = 15%
CRR, FC = 15%
50
0
0
10
20
30
(N1)60
(N1)60
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
(N1)60
Fig. 13. Comparison of predictions vs. observations for analysis at a depth interval: 3.756.75 m during the 1999 earthquake (M = 7.6).
CSR
&
CRR
CRR
Curve
Liquefaction
Region
L =
CSRB
CRRA CSRA
CRRA
NL =
CRRB
CSRB CRRB
CRRB
Liquefaction Site:
CRRA
CSRA
NonLiquefaction
Region
NA
NB
Non-Liquefaction Site:
Falsely-Assigned
Liquefaction Site:
SPT-N
the smallest percentage of cases with erroneous predictions (PL,err,min) would be at the depth interval of 6.759.75 m. In consideration
of the prediction error and population of the cases for the whole
depth range, the NJRA method yields the smallest sum of the
weighted average prediction error ratio (min.REL,av; i.e., most accurate), the TY method next, and Seeds method the greatest (max.REL,av; i.e., least accurate) for the liquefaction cases.
For non-liquefaction cases (Table 7), the minimum average prediction error ratios (eNL,av,min) are located at the same depth interval
(3.756.75 m) as the liquefaction cases. However, the minimum
percentage of cases with erroneous predictions (PNL,err) is located
at the top depth interval (03.75 m) for all of the analysis methods.
Considering the prediction error and population of the cases for the
whole depth range for non-liquefaction cases, the sum of the
weighted average prediction error ratios (RENL,av) is the smallest
for the TY method (i.e., most accurate), next smallest for Seeds
method, and greatest for the NJRA method (i.e., least accurate).
The above discussion appears to be inconclusive because liquefaction and non-liquefaction cases are not considered at the same
404
Table 6
Prediction errors for liquefaction cases (whole depth range) in the 1999 earthquake (M = 7.6).
Method
Percentage of cases
with erroneous
predictions PL,err (%)
Average prediction
error ratio eL,av
Weighted average
prediction error
ratioa EL,av (%)
Sum of weighted
average prediction
error ratio REL,av (%)
Ranking
Seed
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
56
51
23
169
57.1
37.3
4.4
53.3
0.264
0.186
0.321
0.237
15.06
6.93
1.40
12.64
36.0
TY
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
58
51
23
175
56.9
31.4
4.4
33.1
0.210
0.166
0.267
0.261
11.95
5.20
1.16
8.66
27.0
NJRA
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
64
52
22
172
51.6
15.4
4.6
20.9
0.296
0.141
0.205
0.337
15.27
2.16
0.93
7.05
25.4
Note: Bold numbers indicate the minimum values in all depth intervals.
a
EL,av = PL,err eL,av 100.
Table 7
Prediction errors for non-liquefaction cases (whole depth range) in the 1999 earthquake (M = 7.6).
Method
Depth
interval
(m)
Depth case
analyzed
Average prediction
error ratio eNL,av
Weighted average
prediction error ratioa ENL,av
(%)
Ranking
Seed
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
643
1100
783
2613
7.0
12.5
11.1
9.1
0.377
0.293
0.334
0.332
2.65
3.66
3.72
3.03
13.1
TY
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
655
1112
801
2756
5.1
8.7
9.7
9.3
0.453
0.331
0.361
0.384
2.30
2.88
3.51
3.58
12.3
NJRA
03.75
3.756.75
6.759.75
>9.75
811
1240
920
3014
5.2
9.9
10.1
10.1
0.473
0.365
0.396
0.390
2.46
3.60
3.99
3.95
14.0
Table 8
Prediction errors for liquefaction and non-liquefaction cases (whole depth range) in the 1999 earthquake (M = 7.6).
Method
Seed
TY
NJRA
Liquefaction cases
Non-liquefaction cases
Ratio of analyzed
borehole numbers
BL
Ratio of analyzed
borehole numbers
BNL
36.0
27.0
25.4
66/986
67/994
67/997
13.1
12.3
14.0
920/986
927/994
930/997
Ranking
14.6
13.3
14.8
2
1
3
405
Seed
TY
NJRA
Liquefaction cases
Non-liquefaction cases
Weighted average
prediction error ratio EL,av
(%)
Ratio of analyzed
borehole numbers BL
Weighted average
prediction error ratio ENL,av
(%)
Ratio of analyzed
borehole numbers BNL
6.93
5.20
2.16
66/986
67/994
67/997
3.66
2.88
3.60
920/986
927/994
930/997
Ranking
3.88
3.04
3.50
3
1
2
406
[8] Lee SH, Lee CS, Hsu WY, Hou KC, Wu CM. Evaluation of liquefaction
potential analysis methods. In: Proc of 9th conf geot eng, Taiwan, vol.
F010; 2001. p. 13.
[9] Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on
SPT-N values and nes content. Soils Found, JSSMFE 1983;23(4):5674.
[10] Japan Rail Association (JRA). Design code and explanations for roadway
bridges, Part V seismic resistance design, Japan; 1996.
[11] Japan Rail Association (JRA). Design code and explanations for roadway
bridges, Part V seismic resistance design, Japan; 1990.
[12] Hwang JH, Chen CH. Evolution of design guidelines on soil liquefaction
assessment. Sino Geotech 1998;70:2344.
[13] Ministry of Interior (MOI), Taiwan. Seismic design codes and explanations for
buildings, architectural technology regulations; 1997.
[14] Ministry of Interior (MOI), Taiwan. Seismic design codes and explanations for
buildings, architectural technology regulations; 2001.
[15] Su DJ, Wang CH. Evaluation of soil liquefaction at Yuanlin Township during the
Chi-chi Earthquake. Sino Geotech 2000;81:5768.
[16] Hwang JH, Yang CW. Appraisal of SPT-N methods in liquefaction analysis by
using the Chi-chi earthquake data cases. Sino Geotech 2003;98:7990.
[17] Construction Department/People Republic of China (CD/PROC). Code for
seismic design of buildings. GB50011-2001; 2001.
[18] Yoshimi Y, Hatanaka M, Oh-oka H. A simple method for undisturbed sampling
by freezing. In: Proc 9th int conf soil mech found eng, Tokyo; 1977. p. 238.
[19] Ishihara K. Simplied method of analysis for liquefaction of sand deposits
during earthquake. Soils Found 1977;17(3):117.
[20] Tatsuoka F, Iwasaki T, Tokida KI, Yasuda S, Hirose M, Imai T, et al. Standard
penetration tests and soil liquefaction potential evaluation. Soils Found
1980;20(4):95111.
[21] Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida KI. Simplied procedure for assessing soil
liquefaction during earthquakes. In: Proc soil dyn eq eng conf; 1982. p. 925
39.
[22] Hwang JH, Chen CH. Study on stress reduction factor rd for liquefaction
analysis. In: Proc 1st int conf eq geot eng; 1995. p. 61722.
[23] Lin ML, Chen MH, Shen CC. Establishment of national liquefaction potential
maps and assessment of liquefaction analysis methods in Taiwan. NCREE-0117; 2001.
[24] Ma KF, et al. The 1999 Chi-chi, Taiwan Earthquake large surface
displacements of an thrust fault. In: Proc investigation damages of 1999 Chichi EQ, Taiwan, vol. 2, 1999. p. 115.