BY SUMAN ROY

DETERMINISTIC METHODS
In situ tests and simplified procedures are frequently used to evaluate the liquefaction

potential of soils.
The simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential most widely used in

North America and throughout much of the world was originally proposed by Seed and Idriss
The simplified methods were all developed from field liquefaction performance cases at

sites that had been characterized with the corresponding in situ tests.
In the context of probabilistic analyses these methods are known as DETERMINISTIC

METHODS.
With a deterministic method, liquefaction of a soil is predicted to occur if the factor of

safety defined as the ratio of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) over cyclic stress ratio (CSR)is less than or equal to 1.

REVIEW OF CERTAIN DETERMINISTIC

METHODS:
CSR

This CSR applies according to seed et al to a particular earthquake of magnitude 7.5 To modify this a MSF or Magnitude Scaling Factor is actually multiplied for an

earthquake of required magnitude.

rd = stress reduction factor

Introduced for the flexibility of soil profile

rd=1.0-0.00765 z for z<9.15 m rd=1.174-0.0267 z for 9.15 m,z<23 m

REVIEW OF CERTAIN DETERMINISTIC METHODS:

CRR:
Three simplified methods, based on SPT, CPT, and Vs measurements respectively are selected for probabilistic treatments

SPT (CRR):

where a=0.048; b=-0.1248; c=-0.004721; d=0.009578; e =0.0006136; f=-0.0003285; g=-

0.00001673; and h =0.000003741.

The variable x is the clean sand equivalence of the corrected SPT blow count

 CPT (CRR):

where qc1N,cs is the clean-sand equivalence of the stress-corrected cone tip resistance.

Vs (CRR):
where Vs1,cs is the clean soil equivalence of the stress-corrected shear wave velocity, the constant 215 is the limiting shear wave velocity recommended by Andrus and Stokoe

HOW THE PROCESS WAS CARRIED OUT?

Here logistic regression model was used
So for SPT , the model predicted a equation :

CPT AND Vs:

CPT Logistic regression:

Vs Logistic regression:

OTHER PARAMETERS IN THE THREE CASES:

PL = Probability of

liquefaction

Success rates SPT CPT

Cases 243 225

Liquefied 130/150 (87%) 107/119 (90%)

Nonliquefied 61/93 (66%) 62/81 (76%)

It is noted that in logistic regression, the classification or prediction is generally considered a success for a liquefied case if

PL > 50% Whereas the prediction is considered a success for a non liquefied case if PL<50%

Vs

225

86/105 (82%)

94/120 (78%)

BAYESIAN MAPPING FUNCTION

The mapping function approach is first presented by Juang et al.(1999) and later updated

in Juang and Jiang (2000)

A function that connects that relates the factor of safety obtained from deterministic

methods to the PL (probability of liquefaction)

f L(FS) and f NL(FS)probability density functions of the calculated FS for the subsets of

liquefied cases and non liquefied cases

FOR DIFFERENT CASES:

SPT:
For SPT the Bayesian mapping function is given by:

where the regression coefficients, A=0.8 and B=3.5

CPT:
where the regression coefficients, A=1.0 and B=3.3

Vs:
where the regression coefficients, A=0.73 and B=3.4

CURVES FOR THE EQUATIONS:

OBSERVATIONS:
SPT-SI deterministic boundary curve is equivalent to the 31% probability curve
The CPT-RW deterministic boundary curve is characterized with a 50% probability The Vs-AS deterministic boundary curve is characterized with a 26% probability So the most conservative among the three is the Vs-AS curve while the least conservative

is CPT-RW

the Vs-AS curve boundary missed the least no. of liquefiable cases while the CPT-RW missed the most number of liquefiable cases.

Second, unlike the probability curves developed from the results of logistic regression,

which are independent of the deterministic methods, the probability curves based on Bayesian mapping functions are specific to the deterministic methods adopted.

OBSERVATIONS:
Third, the SPT- and Vs-based probability curves are seen to have limiting upper bounds,

whereas no clear bounds are seen in the CPT-based probability curves.

COMPARISON OF CURVES:
Comparison of curves between Bayesian mapping and those obtained from logistic

regression were made.

It is observed that the results of logistic regression depend on the form of regression

function adopted.

COMPARISON OF CURVES:
The probability curves obtained from Bayesian mapping retain the shape of deterministic

boundary curves.
In case of CPT the difference between the two curves is more pronounced at higher levels

than in Vs curves.
Another way to compare is to create a PL Fs mapping
First the probability is calculated according to logistic regression equation Then the factor of safety is calculated from a desired deterministic method The next table shows the parameters A and B evaluated according to the adopted method Their comparison curves are also shown.

parameter A B

SPT BM 0.8 3.5

SPT LR 0.9 3.7

CPT BM 1.0 3.3

CPT LR 1.1 3.5

Vs BM 0.73 3.4

Vs LR 0.69 3.1

EVALUATION OF THE FACTOR OF SAFETY:

LIQUEFACTION LIKELIHOOD CLASSIFICATION (CHEN and Juang 2000)

EXAMPLE:
AT A RISK LEVEL OF 20%, Vs-As METHOD USED
Fs VALUES IS 1.1 same risk level utilizes 1.2 and 1.5 for SPT and CPT methods So we see that Vs method is the most conservative method Also the soil designed with the CPT-RW method is more likely to liquefy

than that using the SPT-SI or Vs-AS methods if the same FS is adopted

SUMMARY:
Probabilities of liquefaction interpreted from Bayesian mapping functions are

comparable with those interpreted from the results of logistic regression

The method-dependent Bayesian mapping approach preserves the characteristics of a

particular deterministic method under consideration and provides an easy transition from the traditional factor-of-safety design decision to the probability- or risk-based

design decision
Blind adoption of a factor of safety that is recommended for a different deterministic

method should be avoided because the same magnitude of factor of safety could imply a significantly different level of risk.
If a design against soil liquefaction is based on the concept of factor of safety, the Vs-AS

method is found to be the most conservative, the SPT-SI method a close second, and the CPT-RW method the least conservative among the three methods examined. They are characterized on the average with probabilities of 26, 31, and 50%, respectively

REFERENCES:
Toprak.S,A. M.ASCE,Holzer.T.L. (2003 ): Liquefaction Potential Index: Field

Assessment J. Geotech. and Envir. Engrg. (ASCE)

Juang.C.H,Jiang.T, Andrus.Rer.D. Assessing Probability based Methods for

Liquefaction Potential Evaluation (2002), J. Geotech. and Envir. Engrg. (ASCE)

Andrus R. D. and Stokoe, K. H.(2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from

shear wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Haldar, A., and Tang, W. H. (1979) Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction

potential. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.