Update of the CPT-based

liquefaction triggering
procedure
Boulanger & Idriss 2014
23/10/2014

Existing Liquefaction Analysis Methods

Since 1970s several liquefaction analysis

methods have been developed

Laboratory and Field Methods

Numerical Methods
Empirical Methods

Simplified Empirical Methods:

Seed and Idriss (1971) was first
Youd et al. (2001) (NCEER)
Cetin et al. (2004)
Idriss and Boulanger (2006, 2008,2014)

Overview of the simplified empirical methods

Liquefaction is usually evaluated with the estimation of factor of safety against liquefaction,

FoS or FSL

Idriss & Boulanger 2008 Boulanger & Idriss 2014

Boulanger & Idriss 2014 or B&I 2014

B&I 2014

Presented a revised CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure

New relationships for the Magnitude Scale Factor (MSF)

Modified MSF expression to be a function of magnitude, soil type and density of the soil layer at depth

Update of CPT-based approach

Changed qc1N as a function of FC
Changed CRR versus qc1Ncs

These revisions were based on findings from experimental data

(eg cyclic triaxial testing), analytical (eg analyses of ground
motion records) and case history studies (including 50
Christchurch case histories 25 CPTs summarized in Green
et al 2014).

Examination of the CPT-based case histories in terms of soil behaviour type (SBT) index, Ic

CPT-BASED CASE HISTORY DATABASE

Limited to cases with Ic<2.6

253 cases with Ic<2.6

180 cases with surface evidence of liquefaction

71 cases with no surface evidence

2 cases were described as being at the margin between

liquefaction and no liquefaction

NZ accounts 53 records of liquefaction including Darfield

(Sep) and Christchurch (Feb) events, as well as the 1968
Inangahua, New Zealand May 23 (M=7.2)

50 Christchurch records (25 CPT data points for Sept and

Feb events)

CPT-BASED CASE HISTORY DATABASE

Magnitude Scale Factor (MSF)

The value of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) loading is calculated using the following

History of the development of MSF

Seed et al. (1975): proposed a relationship between "Number of Equivalent Uniform Cycles, Neq" &
Magnitude, M, which led to the initial development of "MSF Values".

Seed & Idriss (1982): Tabulated "MSF Values" as a function of M; used shaking table test results by
DeAlba et al. (1976) relating CRR to "Number of Uniform Cycles".

Idriss (1999): Used results of cyclic tests on frozen samples by Yoshimi et al. (1984) to derive a
revised relationship between Neq & M, which resulted in a revised MSF relationship.

Boulanger & Idriss (2014): Modified MSF expression to be a function of magnitude, soil type, and
density (void ratio) of the soil.

MSF=f(earthquake & ground motion characteristics; DR; FC)

and is used to account for duration effects on the triggering of liquefaction

Magnitude Scale Factor (MSF)

Magnitude Scale Factor (MSF)

denser

looser

Effects of density void ratio on slope b

10

Magnitude Scale Factor (MSF)

denser

looser

The revised MSF relationship shown in Figure 2.6 is believed to provide an improved accounting
of how this relationship should vary with soil characteristics compared to currently available MSF
relationships that provide a single relationship for all cohesionless soils.

MSF is picking up the Mw vs cycles; the link between CRR and Nc (density dependent) less
cycles required to liquefy a looser soil than a denser one

Loose relatively flat (need lower no of Nc to develop liquefaction)

11

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

LOADING - Cyclic Stress Ratio

RESISTANCE - Cyclic Resistance Ratio

The deterministic version of the CPT-based

correlation in terms of qc1N for different values of FC,
rather than in terms of the equivalent clean sand
penetration resistance (qc1Ncs)

12

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

No change

The terms Q and F are used in soil behavior type

classification charts, such as the chart shown in
Figure (Robertson 1990, SBT).

The exponent n varies from 0.5 in sands to 1.0 in

clays (Robertson and Wride 1998).

The term Ic represents the radial distance between

any point on this chart and the point defined by Q =
2951 and F = 0.06026%.

Circular arcs defined by constant Ic values are used

to approximate the boundaries between different soil
behavior types in this chart

13

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

Large scatter

Ic=2.6 ranging from 15% to 100% FC

Large uncertainty in the Ic vs FC due

to:
Correlation of lab estimation with
representative CPT depth

Inherent limitations in using Ic to

predict FC

Influence of fines - plasticity

14

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

CFC is a fitting parameter

based on specific data or in
the absence set equal to
0.0 (mean) and check for
SD=0.29

Positive CFC for larger

estimate of FC

Negative CFC for lower

estimate of FC

CFC = 0.07 is approximately

equal to the relationship
developed by Robinson et
al (2013) for liquefiable
soils along the Avon River

CFC

15

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

Equivalent clean sand

adjustment (qc1Ncs) which are
considered appropriate for nonplastic to low-plasticity silty
fines M.. due to changes in the
updated case history dataset
More FC correction in B&I
2014

B&I 2014

I&B 2008

5.4
16.0

0.01

0.01
16

B&I 2014 and MBIE Clarifications and updates

Mw

SLS

ILS

ULS

PGA
7.5

0.13

0.20

0.35

B&I 2014 [A]

6.0

0.19

0.30

0.48

B&I 2014 [B]

Lower Mw higher PGA is more

critical for B&I 2014 triggering
method

CFC=0.07
Mw=7.5 is critical for I&B 2008
Mw=6.0 is critical for B&I 2014

17

Update of CPT-based approach, B&I 2014

For sites outside of the Canterbury earthquake region, it would only be appropriate to adopt the 2014
methodology where a seismic hazard de-aggradation plot or other data has been examined to determine
appropriate representative design events
Implementation of 2014 liquefaction triggering procedure for mapping of expected damages at SLS, ILS or
ULS levels of seismic loading REQUIRE use of representative PGA-M values consistent with deaggregation of seismic hazard
Highlights the importance of PGAs on either back or forth estimation of liquefaction triggering and the use
of any of existing liquefaction vulnerability parameters (Sv1D, LPI, LSN, LPIc etc)
Deterministic towards a Performance Based Liquefaction Analysis (Kramer et al, 2008 PerformanceBased Liquefaction Potential Evaluation), which is another way to characterize liquefaction potential in
terms of the liquefaction resistance (CRR q or N) required to produce a desired level of performance
Prudent to perform parametric analyses

Using CFC=-0.29, 0.0, 0.29 to evaluate the sensitivity to FC estimates

Ic cut-off shall be repeated for 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8 to evaluate sensitivity to this parameter

Results can then be used to illustrate the importance of site-specific sampling and testing for a given
project, while recognizing that some amount of sampling and testing should always be required for
high risk / high consequence projects

18

Examples

19

Examples CBD, Bealey Avenue

80% clay-like 20% sand-like

20

Examples Cashmere
60% clay-like 40% silt-like

21

Examples Woolston
80% sand-like 20% silt-like

22

Examples Beckenham
20% sand-like 80% silt & clay-like

23

Examples New Brighton

100% sand-like

24

Examples Aranui
100% sand-like

25

Examples Parklands
25% clay-like 75% sand-like

26

Examples CBD, Bealey Avenue

80% clay-like 20% sand-like

0.13

0.19

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.48

2008, 7.5
2014, 6.0

27

Examples CBD, Bealey Avenue

80% clay-like 20% sand-like

0.13

0.19

2008, 7.5

2008, 6.0

2014, 7.5

2014, 6.0

28

Examples New Brighton

100% sand-like

0.13

0.19

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.48

2008, 7.5
2014, 6.0

29

Examples New Brighton

100% sand-like

0.13

0.19

2008, 7.5

2008, 6.0

2014, 7.5

2014, 6.0

30

Elements that affect site response in order of importance:

 Input motion (Mw PGA)

 Soil profile

 Soil material properties

 Method of analysis

31