Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Technical note

Calibration of a CRR model based on an expanded SPT-based database for

assessing soil liquefaction potential
Guoxing Chen a,b,, Lingyu Xu a,b, Mengyun Kong a,b, Xiaojun Li a,c
a
b
c

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, China

Civil Engineering and Earthquake Disaster Prevention Center of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing 210009, China
Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100081, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 November 2014
Received in revised form 28 July 2015
Accepted 1 August 2015
Available online 5 August 2015
Keywords:
Soil liquefaction potential
Deterministic assessment
Probabilistic assessment
Liquefaction triggering correlation
Expanded SPT-based database

a b s t r a c t
A new calibrated empirical liquefaction triggering correlation equation with ve parameters determined by trial
and error is derived from the expanded SPT-based database of the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and Xie (1984)
case histories. The new calibrated correlation equation is reasonably conservative for the expanded SPT-based
database and is insensitive to reasonable variations in the components of the liquefaction analysis framework
adopted in this study. In addition, a probabilistic version of the new calibrated correlation equation expressed
in the form of a mapping function that relates the liquefaction probability to a nominal safety factor obtained
using the weighted maximum likelihood technique is veried using a weighted empirical probability approach
and Monte Carlo simulations. Liquefaction, transition and non-liquefaction zones for clean sands are dened
based on different probability contours, i.e., empirical correlations with different liquefaction probabilities.
Liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction probabilities of 4%, 15% and 25% represent the very low,
low, and moderate probability events, respectively, of a liqueable soil being mistaken for a non-liqueable
soil in the liquefaction potential evaluation.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A certain amount of soil liquefaction has often been observed
during major seismic events. Soil liquefaction has caused serious
damage to buildings and infrastructure as well as loss of life, especially when coastal natural or backlled soils have liqueed, as in
the 1964 Niigata earthquake (Ohsaki, 1966), the 1995 HyogokenNanbu earthquake (Sitar, 1995), the 2011 Christchurch earthquake
(Yamada et al., 2011) and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
(Bhattacharya et al., 2011). Therefore, soil liquefaction is one of the
primary seismic geological disasters that has attracted a great deal
of attention in the area of evaluating the seismic safety of civil
projects. These cases of liquefaction raise concerns regarding the
liquefaction of saturated soil.
The most commonly accepted and widely used method for evaluating soil liquefaction potential is the simplied procedure pioneered by
Seed and Idriss (1971). The simplied procedure is generally expressed
in terms of a deterministic model and was developed using empirical

Corresponding author at: Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech

University, Nanjing 210009, China.
E-mail address: gxc6307@163.com (G. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.002
0013-7952/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

evaluations of eld observations, eld and laboratory tests, and a strong

theoretical basis (Youd et al., 2001; Juang et al., 2012). Later updates of
this simplied procedure relied almost entirely on case histories involving liquefaction or non-liquefaction (Seed, 1979, 1987; Seed et al., 1983,
1985; Youd et al., 2001; Cetin et al., 2002, 2004; Idriss and Boulanger,
2004, 2008, 2010; Boulanger and Idriss, 2012). Although the simplied
procedure is widely used in practice, it lacks case history data from
Chinese earthquakes that occurred prior to 1980, such as the 1976
Tangshan earthquake. However, these prior simplied procedures
represent excellent research efforts and provide the best types of examples; no perfect empirical relationship for determining or evaluating the
potential for soil liquefaction exists, and each empirical relationship is
always open to improvement based on updated data. In this study, the
data from Chinese earthquakes prior to 1980 are used to update the liquefaction case history database published by Idriss and Boulanger
(2010).
Recently, probabilistic analyses have been used in assessments of a
soil's liquefaction potential that consider uncertainty in the model,
and certain researchers have developed a probabilistic model using
the maximum likelihood principle with an updated database of case histories (Cetin et al., 2002, 2004; Idriss and Boulanger, 2010; Boulanger
and Idriss, 2012; Juang et al., 2012, 2013). In a similar way, Cetin et al.
(2004) and Boulanger and Idriss (2012) have developed a probabilistic

306

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

model for the Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) liquefaction triggering
correlation equation. It is expressed by Eq. (1):

using the weighted maximum likelihood technique, as expressed

by Eq. (3):


ln F s 0:13
P L 1
0:13
"
#
!








N1 60CS
N 1 60CS 2
N1 60CS 3
N1 60CS 4

2:67lnCSR
0:13
14:1
126
23:6
25:4

PL

1
h 
i
1 exp a  ~F s b

1
where is the cumulative standard normal distribution function; PL is
the liquefaction probability; FS is the anti-liquefaction safety factor
dened as the ratio of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR); and (N1)60CS is the equivalent SPT blow count for clean sand.
In this paper, unless otherwise stated, all of the equations are for
(N1)60CS.
Fig. 1 shows the liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction
probabilities of 15%, 50%, and 85% in the Boulanger and Idriss (2012)
model and points from the case histories in the Idriss and Boulanger
(2010) database. The input parameters are treated as random variables
in the Boulanger and Idriss (2012) model, and, therefore, the parameters of the CRR and the CSR and the FS are also random variables. Unlike
Boulanger and Idriss (2012), Juang et al. (2012, 2013) express PL as a
function of the ~F S , i.e., a xed value dened as the ratio of the nominal
~ to the nominal cyclic stress ratio (C ~SR).
cyclic resistance ratio (C RR)
Therefore, Eq. (1) is equivalent to Eq. (2), which was given by Juang
et al. (2013):


0 
12 0 
13 0 
14 1
~
~1
~1
~1
N
N
N
N

B 6 1 60CS
60CS
60CS
60CS
A @
A @
A C
@
C
B 4
C
14:1
126
23:6
25:4
P L B
C
B
A
@


i
~
2:67 ln C SR e =0:13
0

2

2
where and e are the uncertainties of (N1)60CS and lnCSR, respectively.
Boulanger and Idriss (2012) suggested that should be taken as a normal random variable with a zero mean and a standard deviation
between 0.15 (1)60CS and 0.2 (1)60CS, while e is taken as a normal random variable with a zero mean and a standard deviation between 0.15
and 0.25.
Because of the complexity of the Boulanger and Idriss (2012) probabilistic model, Juang et al. (2012, 2013) derived a simplied probabilistic model in terms of PL and the nominal safety factor ( ~F s ) for the Idriss
and Boulanger (2004, 2008) liquefaction triggering correlation equation

Fig. 1. The liquefaction triggering correlation equations of Boulanger and Idriss (2012) for
liquefaction probabilities of 15%, 50%, and 85% compared with data from the Idriss and
Boulanger (2010) case history database.
Revised using the Idriss and Boulanger case history database (2010) and Eq. (1).

where a and b are the model parameters. The values of a and b are 7.545
and 0.952 (Juang et al., 2012) and 7.612 and 0.898 (Juang et al., 2013),
respectively.
The Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) liquefaction triggering correlation equation is equivalent to Juang et al. (2012 and 2013) models
with liquefaction probabilities of 41.0% and 31.5% when ~F s 1:0 is
substituted into Eq. (3). Therefore, Juang et al. (2012 and 2013) models
corresponding to the Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) liquefaction
triggering correlation equation might be reasonable to use in common
civil projects with low to medium potential risk levels but are dangerous
and unacceptable for enormously complex civil projects that have extremely high risk potential. Therefore, it is necessary to re-calibrate
the CRR model using the expanded SPT-based case history database
such that it has a very low probability of mistaking liqueable soil for
non-liqueable soil when the liquefaction potential of soil sites is
evaluated for projects with different potential risk levels.
2. A new calibration of the empirical liquefaction triggering
correlation equation
2.1. The liquefaction case history database
Both the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and the Xie (1984) case history
databases are used in this study. The total number of cases in the updated Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database is 230 of which 115 cases
have surface evidence of liquefaction, 112 cases have no surface
evidence of liquefaction, and 3 cases are on the border between liquefaction and non-liquefaction. The total number of case histories in the
Xie (1984) database (see Table 1) is 155 of which 94 cases have surface
evidence of liquefaction, and 61 cases have no surface evidence of
liquefaction.
The Xie (1984) database includes the SPT-based case history data
from the Chinese code for the Seismic Design of Buildings (TJ11-74)
and from the 1975 Haicheng and 1976 Tangshan earthquakes. It
includes data from seven strong earthquakes that occurred in China between 1962 and 1976 (Xie, 1979; Seed et al., 1983, 1985). The results of
evaluating the soil liquefaction potential using Xie's empirical equation
(Xie, 1979; Ishihara, 1985) have been incorporated into the Chinese
code (TJ11-74), and the results of Seed's simplied procedure are
generally in excellent agreement with them (Seed et al., 1983, 1985).
Additionally, the reliability of Xie's empirical equation has been veried
using case history data from the 1975 Haicheng and 1976 Tangshan
earthquakes (Xie, 1984), and the updated Xie (1984) equation was
later incorporated into updated versions of the Chinese code (GBJ1189, GB5001-2001, GB5001-2010).
According to Xie (1984), most of the sands in the database are ne
and silty. Unfortunately, the database lacks plausibility for the ne content of the sands, the effective overburden stress, and the moment magnitude. In this study, the ne content (FC) is set to 5%. During the
calculation of the total and effective overburden stress in the CSR and
the CRR equations for the Xie (1984) case histories, the weight densities
of the soils above and below the ground water level are set to 20 kN/m3
and 18.5 kN/m3, respectively. In the original case history data, the
magnitudes of the earthquakes were measured using the Richter scale
(Xie, 1984). The moment magnitudes are available only for the 1975
Haicheng earthquake (Mw = 7.0) and the 1976 Tangshan earthquake
(Mw = 7.6); the other ve earthquakes are considered in terms of
their moment magnitudes in this study.

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

307

Table 1
Basic information from the Xie (1984) liquefaction case history database.
No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Earthquakes

1962 Heyuan
1966 Xingtai
1969 Yangjiang
1969 Bohai
1970 Tonghai
1975 Haicheng
1976 Tangshan

6.4
6.7
6.4
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.8

PGA/g

0.20
0.1790.526
0.0990.108
0.0940.140
0.10.676
0.0890.190
0.0860.797

CSR

0.156
0.0950.330
0.0570.088
0.0570.11
0.1280.523
0.0610.16
0.0650.740

No. of cases
L

NL

0
9
3
3
17
7
55

1
3
1
0
14
5
37

Critical liquefaction depth (m)

Ground water level (m)

(N1)60CS

6.5
1.154.41
0.94.5
2.02.5
0.55.4
313
1.320

0
02.77
01.0
02.0
02.35
12
0.435.9

7.41
8.6718.08
2.683.53
6.8010.47
4.9749.5
6.3417.79
1.3466.07

Note: PGA represents the horizontal peak ground surface acceleration, L denotes liquefaction cases, and NL denotes non-liquefaction cases.

2.2. Calibration of the liquefaction triggering correlations for different

liquefaction case history databases
Youd et al. (2001) indicated that clean granular soils are too dense to
liquefy and are, therefore, classied as non-liqueable for (N1)60CS 30,
i.e., (N1)60CS 30 is selected as the upper bound for non-liqueable clean
sand. However, in this study, equivalent clean sands are considered
non-liqueable if their CSR b 0.06 or their (N1)60CS 28 (see Figs. 2
and 3). In fact, for the liquefaction case histories, the minimum and
maximum CSR values in the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database are
0.086 and 0.484, respectively; the minimum and maximum CSR values
in the Xie (1984) database are 0.060 and 0.539, respectively. The maximum (N1)60CS values in the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database and
the Xie (1984) database are 25.9 and 27.6, respectively.
The calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation between CRR and
(N1)60CS follows the basic equation published by Idriss and Boulanger
(2004, 2008), which is shown with ve parameters in Eq. (4):
"
#








N1 60CS
N1 60CS 2
N1 60CS 3
N1 60CS 4

a5
a1
a2
a3
a4

CRR exp

liquefaction analysis framework adopted by Idriss and Boulanger

(2010) are expressed by Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively.
"
#








N1 60CS
N1 60CS 2
N1 60CS 3
N1 60CS 4

CRR exp

3:1
12:6
130:8
25:4
27:3

5
"
#








N1 60CS
N1 60CS 2
N1 60CS 3
N1 60CS 4

CRR exp

3:6
9:4
135:1
24:2
26:7

6
Fig. 2a and b show the case history data of the Idriss and Boulanger
(2010) and Xie (1984) databases with the liquefaction triggering correlations given in Eqs. (5) and (6) in terms of CSR and (N1)60CS, respectively. Only one liquefaction case history lies below the calibrated
liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eqs. (5) or (6) (see Fig. 2a
or b).
In the same way, for the combined database of Idriss and Boulanger
(2010) and Xie (1984), the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation
is expressed by Eq. (7):
"

where a1a5 are the ve parameters. These ve parameters were determined by trial and error using the following two principles:(1) the liquefaction triggering correlation for (N1)60CS 15 is generally
controlled by the lower bound of the liquefaction case history data;
and (2) the liquefaction triggering correlation for (N1)60CS 25 is generally controlled by the upper bound of the non-liquefaction case history
data. Therefore, the probability of mistaking a liquefaction case history
for a non-liquefaction case history is reduced, and the liquefaction triggering correlations will be reasonably conservative (see Figs. 2 and 3).
For the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and Xie (1984) databases, the
calibrated liquefaction triggering correlations on the basis of the

CRR exp

#








N1 60CS
N1 60CS 2
N1 60CS 3
N1 60CS 4

3:6 :

9:7
135:1
24:7
27:5

7
Fig. 3 shows CSR and (N1)60CS for the case histories in the combined
database and the differences between the three liquefaction triggering
correlations (Eqs. (5), (6) and (7)) and those published by Youd et al.
(2001) and by Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008). It is notable that the
liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) for the combined
database envelops the lower bound of the liquefaction triggering
correlations given in Eqs. (5) and (6) and those published by Youd

Fig. 2. The distribution of the case history data with the liquefaction triggering correlation from: (a) the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) case history database; and (b) the Xie (1984) case
history database.

308

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

histories is reduced with respect to the liquefaction triggering correlations given in Eqs. (5) and (6).
2.3. The sensitivity of the case history data to components of the liquefaction
analysis framework

Fig. 3. The distribution of the data in the combined Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and Xie
(1984) case history databases compared with the liquefaction triggering correlations
given in Eqs. (5), (6) and (7) and those published by Idriss and Boulanger (2004) and
Youd et al. (2001).

et al. (2001) and by Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008). Additionally, it is

notable that points corresponding to eight, three, and one liquefaction
case histories are located below the liquefaction triggering correlations
given in Eqs. (5), (6) and (7), respectively, for the combined database. In
addition, Fig. 3 indicates a rather low resistance to liquefaction at values
of (N1)60CS that are less than approximately 15 for liquefaction case histories in the Xie (1984) database, which leads to a lower liquefaction
triggering correlation in this region.
Therefore, the liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) is
more suited to and reasonably conservative for soil sites of civil projects
with extremely high potential risk levels because the probability of
mistaking these liquefaction case histories for non-liquefaction case

The sensitivity of the case history data to the components of the

liquefaction analysis framework was investigated by varying the
inuential components of the framework relative to the position of
the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) for
interpreting the case history databases of Idriss and Boulanger (2010)
and Xie (1984).
Any one of the liquefaction trigger correlations can be updated later
as a part of the simplied procedure based on an assessment of the rd
(shear stress reduction factor) of the in situ CSRs; as a result, all of the
correlations suffer from moderately biased estimates of their in situ
CSRs, especially at shallow depths, and these shallow case histories
comprise a large portion of the two databases. The three different rd relationships were used to study the effect of different expressions for rd
on the interpretation of the liquefaction case history database. Fig. 4
shows the values of CSR and (N1)60CS for the liquefaction case history
data using the three different rd relationships developed by Cetin et al.
(2004), Kishida et al. (2009), and Youd et al. (2001) in comparison
with the liquefaction triggering correlations given by Eq. (7). For the
three different expressions for rd, four, one, and one liquefaction case
histories from the combined database, respectively, are below the liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7). These results indicate that
the use of moderately biased values of rd is not problematic for the
correlations given by Eq. (7) for the combined database, i.e., the positions of the liquefaction triggering correlations given by Eq. (7) are
not sensitive to changes in rd with moderate bias.
Both CRR and CSR are affected by the ne content (FC) of the soil. The
equivalent clean sand adjustment (N1)60 is empirically derived from

Fig. 4. The distribution of the data in the combined Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and Xie (1984) case history databases using different models of rd compared with the calibrated liquefaction
triggering correlation given in Eq. (7): (a) Cetin et al. (2004); (b) Kishida et al. (2009); and (c) Youd et al. (2001).

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

the liquefaction case history data and accounts for the effects that FC has
on the CRR and the SPT blow count. The effect of using the equivalent
clean sand adjustment (N1)60 from the procedures described by
Youd et al. (2001) and the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) procedure is analyzed. The ne content correction is equivalent to a null adjustment for
FC 5% and reaches a limiting value for FC 35% (Youd et al., 2001) or
FC 50% (Idriss and Boulanger, 2010). Because the Xie (1984) database
lacks data on the ne contents of the sands, Fig. 5 illustrates the case history data of only sands with FC N 15% in the Idriss and Boulanger (2010)
database using the equations proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2010)
and Youd et al. (2001). Zero liquefaction case histories fall below the
liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) for the FC given by
different equations. These results indicate that the position of the
calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) is not
sensitive to the two clean sand adjustment procedures for the Idriss
and Boulanger database (2010) used.
Both the expression for the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) derived
by Idriss (1999) and the values of rd depend on the moment magnitude
Mw. Therefore, variations in the earthquake magnitude can affect the
MSF and the rd and, therefore, the CSR. Fig. 6 illustrates the Xie (1984)
liquefaction case history data for the 1975 Haicheng earthquake and
the 1976 Tangshan earthquake by comparing the Richter magnitude
ML and the moment magnitude Mw to the liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7). The comparisons indicate that the use of the Richter magnitude ML instead of the moment magnitude Mw shifts the case
history data slightly upward. However, the amount of liquefaction case
history data below the liquefaction triggering correlation line remains
the same (only one point) whether the Richter magnitude ML or the
moment magnitude Mw is used. This result indicates that the distribution of the data in the Xie (1984) database can be reasonably well
interpreted using the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation
given in Eq. (7) and that the position of the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) is not sensitive to the two magnitude
scales used for the data in the Xie (1984) database.
3. A probabilistic version of the new calibrated liquefaction
triggering correlation equation
Deterministic liquefaction triggering correlations only give a yes or
no answer to the question of whether soil liquees. However, liquefaction triggering correlations for general project sites cannot and should
not envelop all of the liquefaction case histories (Idriss and Boulanger,
2010) shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, statistical methods should be used to
evaluate the uncertainty in liquefaction triggering correlations.
In this section, probability contour curves for the new calibrated
liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) for the combined
database were determined using the weighted maximum likelihood
technique that was initially adopted for a probabilistic liquefaction

309

analysis by Cetin et al. (2004) and veried using the weighted empirical
probability approach and Monte Carlo simulations (MCS).
3.1. The weighted maximum-likelihood technique and the empirical
probability approach
The logistic regression model used in the weighted maximumlikelihood technique was suggested by Juang et al. (2002) and Chen
and Li (2006); in this model, the probability of liquefaction (PL)
corresponding to the nominal safety factor ( ~F s ) is:
PL

1 ~F s =a

b ;

where a and b are the model parameters.

Therefore, the weighted likelihood function (Juang et al., 2012,
2013) is:
8
9wL 8 0
19wNL
>
>
>
>
<
=
<209
=
173
1
1
B
C


1
;
La; bjD
@
A




b>
b >
>
>
: j1
;
:i1 1 ~F =a ;
1 ~F s =a
s

where D is the combined database. In this paper, D fLi ; ~F S ; i

1 ; ; 382g, where L(i) indicates the ith case and L(i) = 1 in the case of
liquefaction and 0 otherwise. The values of wL and wNL are the weights
assigned to liquefaction and non-liquefaction cases, respectively.
According to the results of Cetin et al. (2002), the ratio of wNL to wL is
usually between 1.5 and 2.0. The use of wNL/wL = 1.5 (i.e., wNL = 1.2
and wL = 0.8) for the combined database appears to be reasonable.
For each case in the combined database, the nominal safety factor ~F s
is computed using the deterministic liquefaction triggering correlation
given in Eq. (7). Therefore, a set of case history data (PL, ~F s ) can be obtained using the weighted empirical probability approach described
by Juang et al. (2013), and the empirical relationship of PL and ~F s can
be graphed.
3.2. Results and discussion
The results of the maximum-likelihood analyses using different ratios of wNL to wL are given in Table 2. The models are shown in Fig. 7
in the form P L f ~F S with different values of the model parameters a
and b. As observed, the results of the weighted maximum-likelihood
technique are consistent with the empirical liquefaction probability
data (see Fig. 7), and the weighted empirical liquefaction probability decreases slightly as wNL/wL increases. The true value of wNL/wL is unknown; however, wNL/wL = 1.5 was suggested by Cetin et al. (2002),

Fig. 5. The distribution of the data in the Idriss and Boulanger (2010) case history database for sands with FC N 15 % reprocessed using the two different equivalent clean sand adjustment
procedures to determine (N1)60 compared with the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7): (a) Idriss and Boulanger (2010); and (b) Youd et al. (2001).

310

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

Fig. 6. The distribution of the Xie (1984) liquefaction case history data after being reprocessed using the different earthquake magnitude scales compared with the calibrated liquefaction
triggering correlation given in Eq. (7): (a) Richter magnitude ML; and (b) moment magnitude MW.

adopted by Boulanger and Idriss (2012), and reanalyzed by Juang et al.

(2013) as part of their maximum-likelihood analyses. Their results
imply that the use of wNL/wL = 1.5 (i.e., wNL = 1.2 and wL = 0.8) is
reasonable for the combined database.
To further verify the reasonableness of using wNL/wL = 1.5, the distribution of the liquefaction probability PL was evaluated using MCS
with proper statistical characterization of the uncertainty in the input
parameters (Juang et al., 2013). In this study, , which represents the uncertainty in (N1)60CS, was assumed to be a normal random variable with
a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 0.15 (1)60CS, and e, which
represents the uncertainty of lnCSR, was assumed to be a normal random variable with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 0.20.
Fig. 8 illustrates the relationships between PL and ~F s that were derived
using an MCS of 10,000 sets of independent samples of (, e), the
weighted maximum-likelihood technique with wNL/wL = 1.5, a =
0.653 and b = 3.581 in Eq. (9), and the weighted empirical probability
approach with wNL/wL = 1.5 and bin widths of 0.1 and 0.2. Except for
some noise in the simulations, the results of the liquefaction triggering
correlation given in Eq. (7) using MCS for the combined database are indeed consistent with those calculated using the weighted maximumlikelihood technique and the trend of the empirical liquefaction
probability data. Therefore, the empirical relationship between the
liquefaction probability PL and the nominal safety factor ~F s is:
PL

1
3:851 :
~
1 F S =0:635

where ~F S P L denotes that ~F s is a function of PL and the values can be

calculated by inverting Eq. (10).
Therefore, the deterministic liquefaction triggering correlation given
in Eq. (7) corresponds to a liquefaction probability of approximately
15%. The liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction probabilities of 4%, 15%, 25%, 45%, 75% and 95% are graphed with the case history
data in the combined database in Fig. 9. The Idriss and Boulanger (2004,
2008) liquefaction triggering correlation equation is also graphed in
Fig. 9. It is notable that the zone below the liquefaction triggering correlation for liquefaction probabilities of 4% indicates a non-liquefaction
zone for clean sands, the zone above the liquefaction triggering correlation for liquefaction probabilities of 95% indicates a liquefaction zone for
clean sands, and the middle gray zone enclosed by the liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction probabilities of 4% and 95% is dened
as a transition liquefaction zone for clean sands. In addition, zero, one
and eight of the liquefaction case histories in the combined database
fall below the liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction
probabilities of 4%, 15%, and 25%, respectively (see Fig. 9). These results
indicate that the liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction
probabilities of 4%, 15%, and 25% represent the very low, low, and
moderate probability events of mistaking a liqueable soil for a nonliqueable soil when evaluating the liquefaction potential.

10

Combining Eqs. (7) and (10) allows the probabilistic version of the
liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7) for the combined
database to be expressed as:
"
#








N 1 60CS
N1 60CS 2
N 1 60CS 3
N 1 60CS 4

CRR ~F S P L  exp

3:6
9:7
135:1
24:7
27:5

11

Table 2
Parameters a and b for formula (8) derived with various assumptions of weight
ratios wNL/wL.
wNL/wL

1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8

0.704
0.673
0.635
0.605

3.996
3.921
3.851
3.781

Fig. 7. The empirical relationship between PL and ~F s derived for different values of wNL/wL
using the weighted maximum-likelihood technique and the weighted empirical approach
to determining the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in Eq. (7).

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

311

The relationship between PL and ~F s derived using the weighted

maximum-likelihood technique corresponds well with those obtained
using Mote Carlo simulations and an empirical approach.
(4) The zones of the probability contour curves for liquefaction
probabilities 4%, 495%, and 95% represent non-liquefaction, transition, and liquefaction zones for clean sands, respectively. The liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction probabilities of 4%, 15%,
and 25% represent the very low, low, and moderate probability events
of mistaking a liqueable soil for a non-liqueable soil when evaluating
the liquefaction potential.
Acknowledgments

Fig. 8. The empirical relationship between PL and ~F s when wNL/wL = 1.5 is derived using
the weighted maximum-likelihood technique, the weighted empirical approach, and
Monte Carlo simulations for the calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation given in
Eq. (7).

4. Conclusions
In this paper, a new calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation
equation was proposed based on the combined databases of Idriss and
Boulanger (2010) and Xie (1984), the sensitivity of the case history
data to the components of the liquefaction analysis framework was investigated, and an empirical equation for determining the liquefaction
probability was expressed in the form of a mapping function that relates
the liquefaction probability PL to the nominal safety factor ~F s . The
primary conclusions were as follows,
(1) The possibility of mistaking liquefaction case history data as nonliquefaction case history data can generally be reduced by using the two
principles for determining the lower boundary of the liquefaction triggering correlation (4) with ve parameters. The equivalent clean sand
can be classied as non-liqueable when (N1)60CS 28 or CSR b 0.06.
(2) The new calibrated liquefaction triggering correlation equation
given in Eq. (7) is reasonably conservative and is insensitive to reasonable variations in the components of the liquefaction analysis framework used in this study.
(3) The use of wNL/wL = 1.5 with the weighted maximum-likelihood
technique is shown to be appropriate for the combined database.

Fig. 9. The liquefaction triggering correlations for liquefaction probabilities of 4%, 15%, 25%,
45%, 75%, and 95% and published by Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008), compared with the
combined case history data of Idriss and Boulanger (2010) and Xie (1984).

The authors gratefully acknowledge nancial support for this study

from the Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(41172258, 51438004) and the Major Research Plan Integration Project
of the Natural Science Foundation of China (91215301).
References
Bhattacharya, S., Hyodo, M., Goda, K., Tazoh, T., Taylor, C.A., 2011. Liquefaction of soil in
the Tokyo Bay area from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 31, 16181628.
Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M., 2012. Probabilistic standard penetration test-based
liquefaction-triggering procedure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. ASCE 138 (10), 11851195.
Cetin, K.O., Kiureghian, A.D., Seed, R.B., 2002. Probabilistic models for the initiation of
seismic soil liquefaction. Struct. Saf. 24 (1), 6782.
Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Kiureghian, A.D., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., Kayen, R.E., Moss, R.E.S.,
2004. Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of
seismic soil liquefaction potential. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. ASCE 130 (12), 13141340.
Chen, G.X., Li, F.M., 2006. Probabilistic estimation of sand liquefaction based on neural
network model of radial basis function. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 28 (3), 301305
(in Chinese).
Idriss, I.M., 1999. An update to the Seed-Idriss simplied procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. In Proceedings, TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction,
Publication No. FHWARD-99-165. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W., 2004. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction
potential during earthquakes. In: Doolin, D., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering vol. 1. Stallion Press,
pp. 3256.
Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Monograph
MNO-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W., 2010. SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report
UCD/CGM-10/02. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Davis, California.
Ishihara, K., 1985. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In Proc. 11th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 1, pp. 321376.
Juang, C.H., Jiang, T., Andrus, R.D., 2002. Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. ASCE 128 (7), 580589.
Juang, C.H., Ching, J., Luo, Z., Ku, C.-S., 2012. New models for probability of liquefaction
using standard penetration tests based on an updated database of case histories.
Eng. Geol. 133134, 8593.
Juang, C.H., Ching, J., Luo, Z., Ku, C.-S., 2013. Assessing SPT-based probabilistic models for
liquefaction potential evaluation: a 10-year update. Georisk 7 (3), 114.
Kishida, T., Boulanger, R.W., Abrahamson, N.A., Driller, M.W., Wehling, T.M., 2009. Site
effects for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Earthquake Spectra 25 (2), 301322.
Ohsaki, Y., 1966. Niigata earthquakes, 1964 building damage and soil condition. Soils
Found. 6 (2), 1437.
Seed, H.B., 1979. Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during
earthquakes. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 105 (2), 201255.
Seed, H.B., 1987. Design problems in soil liquefaction[J]. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 113 (8),
827945.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1971. Simplied procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 97 (SM9), 12491273.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., Arango, I., 1983. Evaluation of liquefaction potential using eld
performance data. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 109 (3), 458482.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., Chung, R.M., 1985. Inuence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 111 (12), 14251445.
Sitar, N., 1995. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the effects of the January 17, 1995,
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Japan. In: Sitar, N. (Ed.), Rep. No. UCB/EERC-95/01.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
pp. 2769.
Xie, Junfei, 1979. Empirical criteria of sand liquefaction. Special session on Earthquake Engineering in China. Proceedings of the Second US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Aug.
Xie, Junfei, 1984. Some comments on the formula for estimating the liquefaction of
sand in revised seismic design code. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 4 (2), 95126 (in
Chinese).

312

G. Chen et al. / Engineering Geology 196 (2015) 305312

Yamada, S., Orense, R., Cubrinovski, M., 2011. Earthquake news: geotechnical damage due
to the 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand. Int. Soc. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng. Bull. 5 (2),
2745.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson III,

W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed,
R.B., Stokoe, K.H., 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance
of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. ASCE 127 (10), 817833.