Model Uncertainties of SPT, CPT, and VS-based

Simplified Methods for Soil Liquefaction

Assessment
Jiun-Shiang Wang 
(

jswang@narlabs.org.tw
)
National Taiwan University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8714-4888
Jin-Hung Hwang 
National Central University
Yuan-Chang Deng 
NCREE: National Applied Research Laboratories National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering
Chih-Chieh Lu 
NCREE: National Applied Research Laboratories National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering

Research Article

Keywords: Soil liquefaction, Simplified method, Model uncertainty, Taipei Basin

Posted Date: August 3rd, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1915577/v1

License:


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License.
 
Read Full License

Page 1/26
Abstract
Simplified methods for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on the standard penetration test (SPT)
are prevalent in practice and widely accepted by several seismic design codes. When encountering sites
that have not been investigated using SPT, such as offshore sites or sites with a high level of gravel
content, engineers can only substitute the methods based on piezocone penetration test data (CPT-qc
methods) or shear wave velocity measurements (VS-based methods); however, these two approaches
perform inconsistently with methods based on SPT data (SPT-N methods). As a result, this paper exploits
the datasets consisting of SPT, CPTU, and in-situ seismic test measurements from 13 alluvium sites in
the Taipei Basin to compare the performance of prevalent SPT-N, CPT-qc, and VS-based methods. The
discrepancies (uncertainties) of these methods are characterized as Gaussian distribution models, which
is believed to be a feasible strategy for predicting equivalent results for SPT-N methods when SPT data
are not available. Finally, the application of the proposed models to liquefaction potential index
evaluation is demonstrated using a real case study.

1 Introduction
The investigation of soil liquefaction potential is the cornerstone of modern seismic engineering design.
An abundance of approaches for assessing soil liquefaction potential have been developed since the
devastating liquefaction damage induced by the 1964 Alaska and Niigata earthquakes (e.g., Seed and
Idriss 1971; Ishihara and Li 1972; Dobry and Ladd 1980; Seed et al. 1985; Kayen and Mitchell 1997; Youd
et al. 2001; Cetin et al. 2004; Idriss and Boulanger 2010), and the robustness and applicability of these
methods have been comprehensively compared and discussed (e.g., National Research Council 2016). It
is evident that methods that exploit the measurements of in-situ tests, such as the blows of standard
penetration tests (SPT-N), the cone resistance of piezocone penetration tests (CPT-qc), and the shear wave
velocity (VS) for liquefaction potential evaluations are prevalent in engineering practice. In this paper,
these are referred to as “SPT-N methods”, “CPT-qc methods”, and “VS-based methods”, respectively.

SPT-N methods, which are approaches for assessing liquefaction potential based on the number of blows
of an SPT and the index properties of split-samples, are popular in engineering practice and have been
widely accepted in various seismic design codes for civil structures (e.g., Architectural Institute of Japan
(AIJ) 2001; Ministry of Interior (MOI) of Taiwan 2022; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2014; Japan Road Association (JRA) 2017). SPT-N methods have
been diversely developed over the past few decades (e.g., Seed et al. 1985; Youd and Idriss 1997; Juang
et al. 2000; Youd et al. 2001; Cetin et al. 2004; Idriss and Boulanger 2010; Boulanger and Idriss 2014;
Cetin et al. 2018; Hwang et al. 2021) in accordance with the simplified procedure attributed to Seed and
Idriss (1971). Among these methods, the one featured in the 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop (Youd et al.
2001) is the earliest procedure on which geotechnical experts and scholars have reached a consensus
and also usually appears in relevant comparative research work (e.g., Hwang et al. 2005; Boulanger and

Page 2/26
Idriss 2014; Cetin et al. 2018; Hwang et al. 2021). This method has evidently become the representative
SPT-N method in the literature.

Compared with the SPT-N methods, the CPT-qc methods emerged later but piezocone penetration tests
(CPTU) have many advantages (National Science Foundation 1994) and have attracted considerable
attention in geotechnical engineering (e.g., Campanella et al. 1987; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990; Chen and
Mayne 1996; Mayne 2006; Robertson 2009, 2016) such that CPT-qc methods have gradually evolved in a
diverse manner and matured with an increasing amount of investigative data of liquefied and non-
liquefied sites. Olsen (1997) utilized the liquefaction data from case histories (Shibata et al. 1988; Stark
and Olson 1995; Suzuki et al. 1995) to develop a technique for evaluating liquefaction resistance from
CPT soundings along with a soil classification system, which pioneered CPT-qc research methods. Based
on these cases, Robertson and Wride (1998) proposed a robust procedure to evaluate cyclic liquefaction
potential using CPT soundings, which is also recommended for engineering practice by the 1998
NCEER/NSF workshop (Youd et al. 2001). Hwang et al. (2005) collected CPT data from the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake history to construct a CPT-qc method for liquefaction assessment that uses hyperbolic
functions. They validated that this method performs as well as the methods proposed by Olsen (1997)
and Robertson and Wride (1998) using global data from liquefaction case histories. Ku and Juang (2012)
developed a unified CPTU-based model for assessing cyclic liquefaction resistance applicable to both
sand-like and clay-like soils, and examined its performance using data from Adapazari, Turkey after the
1999 earthquake struck the city. They obtained satisfactory results. Moss et al. (2006) and Boulanger and
Idriss (2016) compiled considerably more in-situ investigative data from case histories of liquefaction
and adopted Bayesian frameworks to develop probabilistic CPTU-based models for evaluating the
probability of liquefaction (PL) of soils subjected to cyclic loading. For deterministic analysis, a model
associated with PL = 15% was recommended (Moss et al. 2006; Boulanger and Idriss 2016).

On the other hand, when encountering sites where penetration tests cannot be readily implemented or
whose deposits have a high gravel content, in-situ seismic tests (e.g., cross-hole tests or P-S suspension
logging) are common strategies for site investigation to acquire small-strain soil properties (Sykora 1987;
Mayne 2006), which has led to the recent development of VS-based methods for liquefaction potential
assessments. There are also deterministic (e.g., Kayen et al. 1992; Robertson et al. 1992; Andrus and
Stokoe 2000) and probabilistic (e.g., Kayen et al. 2013) procedures published in the literature. However,
the VS-based approaches were developed with fewer case histories of liquefaction, and VS measurements
do not provide stratigraphic profiling. VS is also a small-strain property, whereas pore-water pressure
buildup and the onset of liquefaction are medium- or large-strain phenomena, such that some concerns
about VS-based methods remain (Youd et al. 2001; National Research Council 2016).

Although SPT-N methods have developed more maturely than the other two simplified approaches and
are more widely accepted by national seismic design codes and well-known design principles, their
application to sites such as offshore sites or gravel-rich formations is limited. Due to the harsh and
rapidly fluctuating oceanographic conditions and the limited time available for investigation at the

Page 3/26
offshore sites, CPT is the prevalent means for geotechnical investigation in marine engineering owing to
its steadiness (Randolph and Gourvenec 2011), which has led it to replace SPT investigation. For gravel-
rich formations, penetration tests like SPT or CPTU may not be conducted appropriately due to the large
particle size of the deposits, so that in-situ seismic tests are adopted to investigate the subsurface
conditions. As a result, CPT-qc or VS-based methods for liquefaction potential assessments are commonly
substituted for SPT-N methods at these sites.

Even though CPT-qc or VS-based methods can provide liquefaction potential assessments of the
aforementioned sites, there are discrepancies between their assessments and those conducted via SPT-N
methods, which have been revealed in the literature (e.g., Gilstrap and Youd 1998; Guettaya et al. 2013;
Jarushi et al. 2015; Robertson 2015; Hoque et al. 2017), and this has raised concerns about their impact
on engineering design and economics among engineers who practice in the areas where SPT-N methods
have been prevalently adopted. These discrepancies are attributed to the disparities in the models used
for liquefaction resistance evaluation (Baez et al. 2000), and they lead to what is referred to as “model
uncertainty” in this paper.

To figure out and quantify the model uncertainties of SPT-N, CPT-qc, and VS-based methods, the datasets
of SPT, CPTU, and in-situ seismic methods at 13 alluvium sites in the Taipei Basin have been compiled
(Wang et al. 2022) as a case study. In this paper, the measurements associated with sandy soils are
exploited to first examine the consistencies between the SPT-N methods described in the 1998
NCEER/NSF workshop (hereinafter denoted NCEER-SPT methods) and some popular CPT-qc and VS
methods, and to simultaneously calibrate the corresponding model uncertainties. Thereafter, the
consistencies of different SPT-N methods are further discussed and characterized with statistical
approaches. Finally, an illustration of the application of these calibrated models to the liquefaction
potential index (LPI, proposed by Iwasaki et al. 1984) is given using an SPT-CPTU-VS record outside the
above database, which is believed to be an available reference for seismic site investigation, geotechnical
design, and liquefaction potential map generation.

2 Seismic Testing Plan And Data Acquisition

SPT, CPTU, and cross-hole (XH) seismic tests were carefully planned at 13 selected Holocene alluvium
sites in the Taipei Basin. Figure 1 is a map of the site locations. The typical layout for each test site and
the data acquired are shown in Fig. 2. Two sets of SPT and CPTU were conducted within a distance of
approximately 1 m of each other, and the cross-hole seismic tests were implemented in the same
boreholes in which SPTs were conducted. It is worth noting that for each site two series of XH
measurements were obtained by exchanging receivers and sources thus generating two reverse survey
paths at the same depth. In other words, if one series of VS measurements via XH methods was acquired
by the receiver in BH-1 with the source in BH-2 (see Fig. 2), then the other was obtained by the receiver in
BH-2 with the source in BH-1. These tests were conducted by professionals following the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard procedures (ASTM D1586 2018; ASTM D5778 2012;

Page 4/26
ASTM D4428 2016) at each of the 13 alluvium sites. All these tests reached over 20 meters in depth. To
reduce potential interference between the seismic tests due to drilling and penetration, the time interval
between the drilling and the seismic testing was set to one week. To ensure data quality, the test
operations were supervised by professional engineers from the National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering throughout the whole process, and experienced geotechnical experts
intermittently inspected the implementation procedures. The procedures for implementing the seismic
tests, VS data acquisition, and supervision have been elaborated on by Wang et al. (2022).

SPT-N60 measurements were at discrete depths with a penetration distance of 30 cm (approximately 12

inches) (left hand profile in Fig. 3), continuous CPT-qc profiles were obtained near the borehole in which
the SPT was conducted (central profile, Fig. 3), and VS measurements using cross-hole tests with the
receiver in the SPT hole were made at 1 m depth intervals (right hand profile, Fig. 3). The SPT-CPTU-VS
data were compiled for each SPT-N measurement as illustrated by the horizontal blue bar in Fig. 3. Taking
the SPT-N60 values obtained in the depth range 13.2 m to 13.5 m as an example, the CPT-qc for this depth
range was averaged using uniform weights (i.e., the arithmetic mean was calculated). The other CPT
measurements (sleeve friction, fs and pore water pressure, u2) were averaged in the same way. In this
way, VS measurements, averaged CPT values, and SPT-N values were paired for each depth. The above
procedure is consistent with other relevant research (e.g., Robertson 1983; Gilstrap and Youd 1998; Baez
et al. 2000; Stuedlein et al. 2016).

In general, the simplified methods for assessing soil liquefaction potential are applicable to sandy soils
only. Thus, this study filtered the SPT-CPTU-VS data associated with sandy soils in accordance with the
classification result of each split-sample and transformed these data with an overburden correction
factor, CN (Andrus and Stokoe 2000; Robertson 2009; Boulanger and Idriss 2016), into normalized
parameters as follows:

(N1 ) 60 = N60CN
1.

qt
q t1 = CN
pa

2.

V S1 = V SC N

3.

Page 5/26
 pa

CN = {
√ σv ′
⩽

4.

where N60 is the number of blows of SPT with 60% of standard energy to falling hammer, qt is corrected
cone resistance for pore water pressure effects; pa is atmosphere pressure (≈ 101.3 kPa) and σv′ is
effective overburden stress.

The filtered normalized datasets (i.e., (N1)60-qt1-VS1) are shown in Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows that most of the
(N1)60 values are between 5 and 15, the qt1 values are mainly in the interval of 15–60, and the range of
VS1 is 150–210 m/s. The number of these datasets is 102, and the sample mean, sample coefficient of
variation, and 10%- and 90%-quantile values of these datasets are listed in Table 1. It can be seen from
Table 1 that over 90% of the (N1)60 values are smaller than 15, which indicates most of the sandy soils in
these studied sites were classified as loose to medium sand (Terzaghi et al. 1996).

Table 1
Statistics of datasets used in this study
  qt1 (N1)60 VS1(m/s)

Sample mean 38.00 9.53 174.65

Sample coefficient of variation 0.55 0.49 0.14

[10%-, 90%-] quantile [14.08, 62.81] [4.26,14.68] [149.21, 209.95]

3 Comparison Of Performance Of Selected Simplified Methods

This section aims to compare the performance of selected CPT-qc and VS-based methods with the
representative SPT-N method, NCEER-SPT, using the datasets from these alluvium sites. For CPT-qc-based
approaches, there were six prevalent methods selected in this study: the Olsen (1997) method (denoted
as OS97), the Robertson and Wride (1998) method, the Hwang et al. (2005) method (denoted as HBF05),
the Moss et al. (2006) method (denoted as MS06), the Ku and Juang (2012) method (denoted as KJ12),
and the Boulanger and Idriss (2016) method (denoted as BI16). Robertson (2009) updated the procedure
proposed by Robertson and Wride (1998), and the updated procedure was adopted and denoted as RB09
in this study for comparison. For VS-based procedures, those proposed by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and
Kayen et al. (2013) were chosen in this study, and these two methods are respectively denoted as AN00
and KY13 in this paper.

This section compares the factor of safety against cyclic liquefaction (FS) values assessed via these
simplified methods to examine the consistency of their performance. FS values obtained via such
simplified methods can be evaluated as follows:
Page 6/26
FS=\frac{{CRR}}{{CSR}}=\frac{{CR{R_{7.5}} \cdot MSF}}{{0.65 \times \frac{{PGA}}{g} \times \frac{{{\sigma
_v}}}{{{\sigma _v}'}} \times {r_d}}}
5.

where CRR is the cyclic resistance ratio of the soil, CSR is the averaged cyclic stress ratio caused by the
earthquake, CRR7.5 is the cyclic resistance ratio of equivalent clean sand corresponding to an earthquake
magnitude Mw=7.5, MSF is the magnitude scaling factor, PGA is the peak ground acceleration, rd is the
shear stress reduction factor, σv is the total overburden stress, and σv′ is the effective overburden stress. It
is worth noting that the recommended formulas for CRR7.5, MSF, and rd for each simplified method are
distinct. That is, the evaluations of these parameters are the characteristics of the simplified methods.

The evaluated FS values of the aforementioned datasets subjected to the design earthquake (475-year
return period) in the Taipei Basin in accordance with the seismic design codes for ordinary buildings (MOI
2022) by the selected CPT-qc, VS-based, and NCEER-SPT methods are shown in Fig. 5. This figure shows
that most of the FS values assessed by the CPT-qc methods are lower than those assessed by the NCEER-
SPT method, which indicates that these CPT-qc methods are more conservative than the NCEER-SPT
method. Further observation shows that OS97 is less biased with the NCEER-SPT method (its FS
evaluations concentrate more around the 45° line), whereas it is more uncertain (its FS evaluations are
more scattered) than the other CPT-qc methods. The FS values evaluated by KJ12 are evidently below the
45° line, which suggests that KJ12 was the most conservative among the CPT-qc methods. As stated
above, the assessment of liquefaction potential using the CPT-qc methods is inconsistent with that using
the NCEER-SPT method at the studied sites.

It is also observed that the two selected VS-based methods performed in an inconsistent manner
compared with the NCEEER-SPT method. The FS values evaluated using the VS-based methods are
significantly lower than those evaluated using the NCEER-SPT method (as shown in Fig. 5), which
suggests that these two VS-based methods are more conservative than the NCEER-SPT method.
Comparing these two VS-based methods, it is evident that AN00 is more conservative than KY13 since the
FS values assessed by AN00 are significantly below the 45° line.

4 Calibration Of The Model Uncertainties Of The Simplified Methods

The discrepancies in the assessments by the different simplified methods as observed above are
characterized using statistical approaches in this section. These discrepancies are referred to in this
paper as the “model uncertainties” of the simplified methods. The model uncertainties are quantified as
the ratio of the factors of safety (RFS). For instance, the RFS of the FS value obtained using CPT-qc
methods (FS CPT) to the value obtained using SPT-N methods (FS SPT) can be expressed according to
Eq. (5) as:

Page 7/26
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {RF{S_{{\text{C}}PT - {\text{S}}PT}}}&{=\frac{{F{S_{CPT}}}}{{F{S_{SPT}}}}}&
{=\frac{{{{\left( {{\raise0.7ex\hbox{${CRR}$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{CRR} {CSR}}}\right.\kern-
0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${CSR}$}}} \right)}_{CPT}}}}{{{{\left( {{\raise0.7ex\hbox{${CRR}$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{CRR} {CSR}}}\right.\kern-0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${CSR}$}}} \right)}_{SPT}}}}} \\ {}&{}&
{=\frac{{CR{R_{CPT}}}}{{CR{R_{SPT}}}} \cdot \frac{{{{\left( {0.65 \times {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${PGA}$}
\!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{PGA} g}}\right.\kern-0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{$g$}} \times
{\raise0.7ex\hbox{${{\sigma _v}}$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\sigma _v}} {{\sigma
_v}'}}}\right.\kern-0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{\sigma _v}'}$}} \times {r_d}} \right)}_{SPT}}}}{{{{\left( {0.65
\times {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${PGA}$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{PGA} g}}\right.\kern-
0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{$g$}} \times {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${{\sigma _v}}$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
{{{\sigma _v}} {{\sigma _v}'}}}\right.\kern-0pt}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{\sigma _v}'}$}} \times {r_d}}
\right)}_{CPT}}}}} \\ {}&{}&{=\frac{{CR{R_{CPT}}}}{{CR{R_{SPT}}}} \cdot \frac{{{{\left( {{r_d}} \right)}_{SPT}}}}
{{{{\left( {{r_d}} \right)}_{CPT}}}}} \end{array}
6.

Eq. (6) shows that RFS only consists of the parameters evaluated by the distinctions of each method and
without site-specific parameters such as the ground response. That is, RFS represents the relationship
between different models and its variability reflects the model uncertainty of the simplified methods.

To characterize this variability, the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which was developed based on
frequentist principles, was adopted because it is known that it has many positive statistical properties,
including being unbiased and having asymptotic normal distributions, asymptotic minimum variance,
and consistency (DeGroot and Baecher 1993). Applications of the characterization of various
geotechnical material properties can be found in the literature (e.g., Ang and Tang 2007; Ching and Phoon
2012; Juang et al. 2013). RFS cannot be negative, evidently, and so the logarithm of RFS, ln(RFS), is
adopted to be characterized using MLE. For a Gaussian distribution, the likelihood function is expressed
as follows:

\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {f\left[ {{\text{ln}}\left( {RFS} \right)\left| {\mu ,\sigma } \right.} \right]}&

{=\prod\limits_{{i=1}}^{N} {f\left[ {{\text{ln}}\left( {RF{S_i}} \right)\left| {\mu ,\sigma } \right.} \right]} } \\
{}&{=\prod\limits_{{i=1}}^{N} {\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } \sigma }}\exp \left\{ { - \frac{1}{{2{\sigma ^2}}}{{\left[
{{\text{ln}}\left( {{\text{RF}}{{\text{S}}_i}} \right) - \mu } \right]}^2}} \right\}} } \end{array}
7.

where N is the number of data points and µ and σ are parameters of the Gaussian distribution
representing mean value and standard deviation, respectively.

After these parameters are estimated using MLE, the goodness-of-fit of the probabilistic model needs to
be determined. The goodness-of-fit test can be viewed as the normality test because a Gaussian
distribution has been adopted as the probabilistic model in this study. The normality of the estimation
can be validated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test (Conover 1999). In general, the goodness-of-fit
test is considered as passed when the p-value associated with the K-S test is equal to or greater than 5%.
Page 8/26
4.1 Model uncertainties of the CPT-SPT methods
The ln(RFS) values of the six selected CPT-qc methods with respect to the representative SPT-N method
(NCEER-SPT) were evaluated with the datasets compiled in this study, and their histograms and the
corresponding characterized probabilistic models from MLE are shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6 shows that
Gaussian distribution models with the estimated parameters listed in Table 2 can reasonably fit the
distribution of each ln(RFS) of the CPT-SPT methods. Furthermore, the p-values associated with the K-S
test of these characterized probabilistic models are listed in Table 2. They are all higher than 5%, which
indicates that a Gaussian distribution is suitable for the model uncertainties of these six selected CPT-qc
methods with respect to the NCEER-SPT method.

Table 2
Distribution type and distribution parameters for SPT-CPT and SPT-VS ln(RFS)

  OS97 HBF05 MS06 RB09 KJ12 BI16 AN00 KY13

Distribution Gaussian

µc(µv) -0.14 -0.17 -0.27 -0.26 -0.49 -0.14 -0.67 -0.23

σc(σv) 0.49 0.29 0.34 0.31 0.34 0.28 0.46 0.41

p-value 0.15 0.99 0.44 0.76 0.82 0.89 0.89 0.85

4.2 Model uncertainties of the VS–SPT methods

To calibrate the model uncertainties of the VS-SPT methods, the ln(RFS) values of the two selected VS-
based methods with respect to the representative SPT-N method (NCEER-SPT) were also evaluated and
are shown as histograms in Fig. 7. The calibrated Gaussian distribution models of these ln(RFS) are
plotted as blue curves in Fig. 7 as well. It is evident that these Gaussian distribution models fit the
distributions of the ln(RFS) histograms reasonably well. The goodness-of-fit of these Gaussian
distribution models is also indicated by the p-values associated with their K-S tests (see Table 2). A
Gaussian distribution is thus a suitable probabilistic model for the model uncertainties of these two
selected VS–based methods with regard to the NCEER-SPT method.

4.3 Consistency issues for SPT-N methods

The NCEER-SPT method, the SPT-N method described in the 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop, was adopted
as the representative SPT-N method being the basis for comparison in this study, but it does not always
perform in a manner consistent with other SPT-N methods. This means that the model uncertainties of
the characterized CPT-SPT and VS-SPT methods are not definitely compatible with other SPT-N methods.
Although the SPT-N methods that have appeared over the past few decades in the literature were
developed in accordance with the framework proposed by Seed and Idriss (1972), and although their

Page 9/26
success rates at predicting whether or not soil is liquefied do not differ significantly (Hwang et al. 2005;
Chang et al. 2011), some studies have indicated that their assessments for the cyclic resistance and FS
of soils with different normalized SPT penetration resistance are still distinct (e.g., Cetin et al. 2018;
Hwang et al. 2021; Cetin and Bilge 2022). Thus, the consistency issue for NCEER-SPT is discussed in the
current section. The model uncertainties are further calibrated, which allows the characterized models of
the CPT-SPT and VS-SPT model uncertainties to be applicable to other SPT-N methods.

Four SPT-N methods validated by global liquefied and non-liquefied case histories were selected to
examine this consistency issue. They were proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) (denoted as CE04), Boulanger
and Idriss (2014) (denoted as BI14), Cetin et al. (2018) (denoted as CE18), and Hwang et al. (2021)
(denoted as HBF21). Note that CE04, BI14, and CE18 are probabilistic and deterministic versions, whereas
only deterministic versions were adopted in this study.

The model uncertainties of these four SPT-N methods were quantified as ln(RFS) and characterized using
statistical approaches identical to the procedure for the calibration of the model uncertainties of the CPT-
SPT and VS-SPT methods. The characterization results are shown in Fig. 8 and listed in Table 3. Figure 8
and the p-values associated with the K-S test in Table 3 show that the Gaussian distribution is also
suitable for the model uncertainties of these SPT-N methods. The model uncertainties of these SPT-N
methods (σs) are reasonably lower than those of the CPT-SPT or VS-SPT methods (σc or σv).

Table 3
Distribution type and distribution parameters for
ln(RFS) of different SPT-N methods
  CE04 BI14 CE18 HBF21

Distribution Gaussian

µs -0.31 -0.11 -0.04 -0.05

σs 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.08

p-value 0.58 0.84 0.17 0.40

4.4 Prediction of FS equivalent to the SPT-N methods

As long as the model uncertainties of CPT-SPT and VS-SPT methods have been characterized, their
assessments of liquefaction potential equivalent to the SPT-N methods can be sensibly inferred based on
the assessments using CPT-qc or VS-based methods, even at those sites lacking SPT data. Given a set of
factors of safety against cyclic liquefaction assessed using CPT-qc methods, FS CPT, the corresponding
FS values assessed using the NCEER-SPT method, FS NCEER−SPT, can be expressed as a log-normal
random variable as follows:

\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {f\left( {F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}\left| {F{S_{CPT}}} \right.} \right)}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi

} {\sigma _c}}}{\operatorname{e} ^{ - \frac{{{{\left[ {\ln \left( {\frac{{F{S_{CPT}}}}{{F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}}}}
Page 10/26
\right) - {\mu _c}} \right]}^2}}}{{2{\sigma _c}^{2}}}}}} \\ {}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } {\sigma _c}}}
{\operatorname{e} ^{ - \frac{{{{\left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - \ln \left( {F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}} \right) -
{\mu _c}} \right]}^2}}}{{2{\sigma _c}^{2}}}}}} \\ {}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } {\sigma _c}}}{\operatorname{e} ^{
- \frac{{{{\left\{ {ln\left( {F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}} \right) - \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - {\mu _c}}
\right]} \right\}}^2}}}{{2{\sigma _c}^{2}}}}}} \end{array}
8.

where µc and σc are calibrated parameters that can be found in Table 2. Therefore, FS NCEER−SPT can be
inferred according to Eq. (8). For instance, the median value of FS NCEER−SPT is exp[ln(FS CPT)-µc], and the
95% confidence intervals can be estimated using the following equation:

\exp \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - {\mu _c} - 1.96 \times {\sigma _c}} \right] \leqslant F{S_{NCEER -
SPT}} \leqslant \exp \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - {\mu _c}+1.96 \times {\sigma _c}} \right]
9.

On the other hand, the assessments using other SPT-N methods can also be reasonably inferred with the
calibrated models in this study. Consider that the FS values evaluated from HBF21 (FS HBF21) are of
interest. Given a set of FS CPT, the corresponding FS HBF21 values can be expressed as a log-normal
random variable as well:

\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {f\left( {F{S_{{\text{HBF21}}}}\left| {F{S_{CPT}}} \right.} \right)}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt

{2\pi \left( {{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)} }}{\operatorname{e} ^{ - \frac{{{{\left[ {\ln \left(
{\frac{{F{S_{CPT}}}}{{F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}}}} \right) - \ln \left( {\frac{{F{S_{HBF21}}}}{{F{S_{NCEER - SPT}}}}}
\right) - \left( {{\mu _c} - {\mu _s}} \right)} \right]}^2}}}{{2\left( {{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)}}}}}
\\ {}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi \left( {{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)} }}{\operatorname{e} ^{ -
\frac{{{{\left[ {\ln \left( {\frac{{F{S_{CPT}}}}{{F{S_{HBF21}}}}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _c} - {\mu _s}} \right)}
\right]}^2}}}{{2\left( {{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)}}}}} \\ {}&{=\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi \left( {{\sigma
_c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)} }}{\operatorname{e} ^{ - \frac{{{{\left\{ {\ln \left( {F{S_{HBF21}}} \right) -
\left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _c} - {\mu _s}} \right)} \right]} \right\}}^2}}}{{2\left(
{{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} \right)}}}}} \end{array}
10.

where µs and σs are calibrated parameters that can be found in Table 3, and FS HBF21 can be inferred
according to Eq. (10). For instance, the median value of FS NCEER−SPT is exp[ln(FS CPT)-(µc−µs)], and the
95% confidence intervals can be estimated using the following equation:

\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {\exp \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _c} - {\mu _s}} \right) - 1.96
\times \sqrt {{\sigma _c}^{2}+{\sigma _s}^{2}} } \right]}&{ \leqslant F{S_{HBF21}}} \\ {}&{ \leqslant \exp
\left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{CPT}}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _c} - {\mu _s}} \right)+1.96 \times \sqrt {{\sigma _c}^{2}+
{\sigma _s}^{2}} } \right]} \end{array}
11.

Page 11/26
The approach to predicting FS values assessed using SPT-N methods given FS VS is similar to the
procedures based on FS CPT. FS NCEER−SPT predicted based on FS VS can also be expressed as a log-normal
random variable, whose median value is exp[ln(FS VS)-(µv)], and the 95% confidence interval is shown
below:

\exp \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{{V_s}}}} \right) - {\mu _v} - 1.96 \times {\sigma _v}} \right] \leqslant F{S_{NCEER
- SPT}} \leqslant \exp \left[ {\ln \left( {F{S_{{V_s}}}} \right) - {\mu _v} - 1.96 \times {\sigma _v}} \right]
12.

where µv and σv are calibrated parameters that can be found in Table 2.

5 Illustrated Applications Of The Calibrated Models

This section demonstrates the application of the calibrated models to the prediction of FS SPT by CPT-qc
and VS-based methods and the corresponding liquefaction potential index (LPI) using a set of SPT-CPTU-
VS records excluded from the datasets used for the calibrations above. LPI is an index proposed by
Iwasaki et al. (1984) to quantify the severity of ground manifestation or the damage to low-rise buildings
due to liquefaction; it is commonly adopted for liquefaction hazard map generation as well (e.g., Power
and Holzer 1996; Rix and Romero-Huock 2006; Cabalar et al. 2019). In practice, the LPI value is regularly
evaluated following the formula proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1984) with the FS values generated using
SPT-N methods on SPT records to assess the liquefaction potential of the site of interest. However, at
sites lacking SPT data, CPT-qc or VS-based methods are substituted for SPT-N methods, and their
variability may impact the LPI evaluation and other such assessments of liquefaction hazards. This
study calibrated probabilistic models for the model uncertainties of CPT-SPT, or VS-SPT methods to
provide strategies for reasonable estimations of LPI values using SPT-N methods, even when SPT data
are lacking.

As an illustration of the application of these calibrated probabilistic models, one set of records from an
alluvium site in Taipei City was examined. The records consist of SPT, CPTU, and down-hole seismic test
data. The distance between the SPT borehole and CPTU was approximately 2 m, and the down-hole
seismic test was implemented at the same location as the CPTU. The normalized data (i.e., (N1)60, qt1
,VS1) are shown in Fig. 9. This figure shows that these three normalized datasets have reasonably
consistent profiles when plotted against depth, which indicates that the horizontal spatial variability of
this site is not significant. As such, so that it is ignored hereinafter.

Based on these records, the FS NCEER−SPT profile subjected to the design earthquake with 475-year return
period (MOI 2022) is shown as a series of yellow circles in Fig. 10, whereas the results of predicted
profiles of FS NCEER−SPT using the calibrated models conditioning the six FS CPT and two FS VS models are
plotted as solid blue lines (median) and dashed lines (95% confidence interval). It can be seen that the
median profiles of the predicted FS NCEER−SPT values based on the FS CPT or FS VS profiles are reasonably

Page 12/26
consistent with the actual FS NCEER−SPT, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals include most of
the actual FS NCEER−SPT values. This suggests that the statistical consistencies of the characterized
models for the model uncertainties of the CPT-SPT and VS-SPT methods are acceptable.

After further evaluation, the LPI values assessed based on FS NCEER−SPT, FS CPT, and FS VS are shown in
Fig. 11 as red dashed lines and black squares. The median values and 95% confidence intervals of the
LPI value predictions using the NCEER-SPT methods conditioning FS CPT and FS VS are also shown in
Fig. 11(a) and 11(b) as blue circles and grey lines. Figure 11 shows that the medians of the predicted LPI
are much closer to the actual LPINCEER−SPT value, and the 95% confidence intervals also cover the actual
LPINCEER−SPT values. This also suggests that the calibrated models in this study perform reasonably
consistently at LPI prediction.

6 Concluding Remarks
This paper examined the inconsistencies of some prevalent simplified methods for liquefaction potential
assessment, including SPT-N, CPT-qc, and VS-based procedures, and adopted the ratio of factors of safety
(RFS) to quantify the variability of their performance, which were referred to as “model uncertainties” in
this study. These model uncertainties were calibrated as probabilistic models using statistical
approaches based on the SPT-CPTU-VS datasets from 13 alluvium sites in the Taipei Basin. These
models demonstrated that they can provide reasonable estimations of the factors of safety against
liquefaction (FS) evaluated via one simplified method inferred from the FS values by another method.
The applications of these models to the prediction of liquefaction potential indices evaluated using other
methods were illustrated with a real case in the final section. These calibrated models are believed to
provide reasonable strategies for consideration of the discrepancies of different methods applied to
geotechnical design against liquefaction and thus yield more reliable results.

Some other observations are enumerated below:

1. The six selected CPT-qc methods in this study were all found to be more conservative than the
NCEER-SPT method. Among them, the method proposed by Ku and Juang (2012) was the most
conservative, whereas the method developed by Olsen (1997) was the least conservative. The
procedure developed by Olsen (1997) was less biased compared with the NCEER-SPT method than
the other CPT-qc methods, but its variability was the highest when compared with the NCEER-SPT
method.
2. For VS-based methods, the two selected methods were more conservative than the NCEER-SPT
method. Furthermore, it was evident that the method developed by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) was
significantly more conservative, and its variability compared with the NCEER-SPT method was higher
than the other VS-based method.
3. This study selected four SPT-N methods that had been validated with global case histories of
liquefaction in order to discuss their consistencies with the NCEER-SPT method. The results showed

Page 13/26
 that they all performed more consistently compared with the NCEER-SPT method than the CPT-qc or
VS-based methods. The procedure proposed by Hwang et al. (2021) was the least biased, and the
uncertainty was lower, which indicates that it performed the most consistently compared with the
NCEER-SPT method.

It should be noted that the probabilistic models calibrated in this study were established based on data
from Taipei Holocene alluvium deposits only. Their feasibility for other geological environments or
stratigraphic formations of different ages requires further validation.

Declarations
Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely appreciate the financial support from the Taipei City Government. The field
investigation support received from CECI Engineering Consultants Incorporation, Prof. Chih-Sheng Ku of I-
Shou University, and Director Chih-Hsin Hu of HCK Geophysical Company was also of great help. The
authors wish to express their sincere thanks to all of our benefactors. 

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors wish to express
their sincere thanks to all of our benefactors. 

References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2014) AASHTO
Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design with 2012 and 2014 Interim Revisions
2. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH(2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech
Geoenvironmental Eng 126:1015–25. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015)
3. Ang AH, Tang WH(2007) Probability concepts in engineering, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New
York
4. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2001) Recommendations for the design of buildings. (in
Japanese)
5. ASTM D4428/D4428M (2016) Standard Test Methods for Crosshole Seismic Testing. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
6. ASTM D5778 (2012) Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration
Testing of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
7. ASTM D1586 (2018) Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

Page 14/26
 8. Baez JI, Martin GR, Youd TL(2000) Comparison of SPT-CPT liquefaction evaluations and CPT
interpretations. Geo-Denver 2000
9. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No.
UCD/CGM-14/01. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis,
CA
10. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2016) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech
Geoenvironmental Eng 142(2):04015065
11. Cabalar AF, Canbolat A, Akbulut N, Tercan SH, Isik H (2019) Soil liquefaction potential in
Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):1822–1838
12. Campanella RG, Robertson PK, Gillespie D, Laing N, Kurfurst PJ (1987) Seismic cone penetration in
the near offshore of the MacKenzie delta. Can Geotech J 24:154–159
13. Cetin KO, Bilge HT (2022) Recent advances in seismic soil liquefaction engineering The Evolution of
Geotech – 25 Years of Innovation. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
14. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, Chowdhury K (2018) Examination of
differences between three SPT-based seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationships. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 113:75–86
15. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kiureghian AD, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard
penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction
potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 130(12):1314–1340
16. Chen BSY, Mayne PW (1996) Statistical relationships between piezocone measurements and stress
history of clays. Can Geotech J 33(3):488–498
17. Ching J, Phoon KK (2012) Establishment of generic transformations for geotechnical design
parameters. Struct Saf 35:52–62
18. Conover WJ(1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
19. DeGroot DJ, Baecher GB(1993) Estimating autocovariance of in-situ soil properties. J Geotech Eng
119. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(147)
20. Dobry R, Ladd RS Discussion to “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground
during earthquakes,” by H.B. Seed and ‘Liquefaction potential: Science versus practice,’ by Peck
RB(1980) J Geotech Eng Div 106(GT6):720–724
21. Gilstrap SD, Youd TL(1998) CPT based liquefaction resistance analyses using case histories.
Technical Report, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University
22. Guettaya I, Ouni MR, Moss RES (2013) Verifying liquefaction remediation beneath an earth dam
using SPT and CPT based methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:130–144
23. Hoque MM, Ansary M, Siddique A(2017) Evaluation of liquefaction potential from SPT and CPT: a
Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of the 19th Int Conf Soil Mech Geotech Eng, Seoul, Korea
24. Hwang JH, Khoshnevisan S, Juang CH, Lu CC (2021) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation – An
update of the HBF method focusing on research and practice in Taiwan. Eng Geol 280:105296

Page 15/26
25. Hwang JH, Yang CW, Chen CH (2005) Simplified methods for assessing liquefaction potential of
soils by using hyperbolic cyclic resistance curves. Sino-Geotechnics 103:53–64 (in Chinese)
26. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Report No.
UCD/CGM-10/02. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis,
CA
27. Ishihara K, Li S (1972) Liquefaction of saturated sand in triaxial torsional shear test. Soils Found
12(2):19–39
28. Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida KI (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):49–58
29. Japan Road Association (JRA) (2017) Specification for highway bridges, Part V: Seismic Design. (in
Japanese)
30. Jarushi F, Alkaabim S, Cosentino P (2015) A new correlation between SPT and CPT for various soils.
Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophy Eng 9(9):101–107
31. Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2000) Risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation using
standard penetration tests. Can Geotech J 37(6):1195–1208
32. Juang CH, Ching J, Wang L, Khoshnevisan S, Ku CS (2013) Simplified procedure for estimation of
liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using
cone penetration test (CPT). Can Geotech J 50(10):1055–1066
33. Kayen RE, Mitchell JK (1997) Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias
intensity. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 123(12):1162–1174
34. Kayen RE, Mitchell JK, Seed RB, Lodge A, Nishio SY, Coutinho R(1992) Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and
shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data. U.S.
National. Center Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), Proceedings from the fourth Japan-U.S.
workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures for soil
liquefaction, NY, 177–204
35. Kayen RE, Moss RES, Thompson EM, Seed RB (2013) Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic and
deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng
139:407–419. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000743
36. Ku CS, Juang CH (2012) Liquefaction and cyclic softening potential of soils – a unified piezocone
penetration testing. -based approach Geotechnique 62(5):457–461
37. Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Report
EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute. Cornell University, Palo Alto
38. Mayne PW(2006) In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. Proceedings of
Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils II, Singapore
39. Moss RES, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Stewart JP, Kiureghian AD, Cetin KO (2006) CPT-based probabilistic
and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech
Geoenvironmental Eng 132(8):1032–1051

Page 16/26
40. Ministry of Interior, MOI, of Taiwan (2022) Seismic design specifications and commentary of
buildings. (in Chinese)
41. National Research Council (2016) State of the art and practice in the assessment of earthquake-
induced soil liquefaction and its consequences. Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Division on
Earth and Life Studies. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
42. National Science Foundation (1994) Profiling the Overconsolidation Ratio of Clays by Piezocone
Tests,” Report No. GIT-CEEGEO-94-1. Georiga Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georiga
43. Olsen R(1997) Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test.NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils225–276
44. Phoon KK, Tang C(2019) Characterization of geotechnical model uncertainty, Georisk: Assess
Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 13(2):101–130
45. Power MS, Holzer TL (1996) Liquefaction Maps. ATC TechBrief 1. Applied Technology Council
46. Randolph M, Gourvenec S (2011) Offshore Geotechnical Engineering. Centre for Offshore Foundation
Systems. University of Western Australia, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York
47. Rix GJ, Romero-Hudock S(2006) Liquefaction potential mapping in Memphis and Shelby County,
Tennessee
48. Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach. Can Geotech J
46(11):1337–1355
49. Robertson PK (2015) Comparing CPT and VS Liquefaction Triggering Methods. J Geotech
Geoenvironmental Eng 141(9):04015037
50. Robertson PK (2016) Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification
system — an update. Can Geotech J 53(12):1910–1927
51. Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Wightman A (1983) SPT- CPT correlations. J Geotech
Geoenvironmental Eng 109(11):1449–1459
52. Robertson PK, Wride CEF (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration
test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459
53. Robertson PK, Woeller DJ, Finn WDL (1992) Seismic cone penetration test for evaluating liquefaction
potential under cyclic loading. Can Geotech J 29:686–695. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-075
54. Seed B, Idriss I (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech
Found Div 97(9):1249–1273
55. Seed B, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chun RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction
resistance evaluations. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 111(12):1425–1445
56. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland, CA
57. Shibata T, Teparaska W (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration
tests. Soils Found 28(2):49–60

Page 17/26
58. Stark TD, Olson SM (1995) Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories. J Geotech Eng
121(12):856–869
59. Stuedlein AW, Gianella TN, Canivan G (2016) Densification of Granular Soils Using Conventional and
Drained Timber Displacement Piles. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 142(12):04016075
60. Suzuki Y, Tokimatsu K, Koyamada K, Taya Y, Kubota Y(1995) Field correlation of soil liquefaction
based on CPT data. Proceeding of International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing 2:583–588
61. Sykora DW (1987) Examination of existing shear wave velocity and shear modulus correlations in
soils. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Miscellaneous
Paper GL-87-22
62. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons
63. Wang JS, Hwang JH, Lu CC, Deng YC (2022) Measurement uncertainty of shear wave velocity: a
case study of thirteen alluvium test sites in Taipei Basin. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 155:107195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107195
64. Youd TL, Idriss IM(1997) Proceedings of NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils. Nat. Ctr. for Earthq Eng. Res., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo
65. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Liam Finn WD, Harder JLF,
Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y,
Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe, II KH (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 Geoenvironmental Eng 127(1):297–313

Figures

Page 18/26
Figure 1

Locations of the 13 test sites in the Taipei Basin

Figure 2

Typical layout of the test site

Page 19/26
Figure 3

Illustration case for dataset acquisition

Figure 4

Scatter plots of qt1-(N1)60-VS1 data

Page 20/26
Figure 5

Comparison between the factors of safety via CPT-qc and VS-based methods and SPT-N methods

Page 21/26
Figure 6

Histograms of ln(RFS) of CPT-SPT methods and their model uncertainties

Page 22/26
Figure 7

Histograms of ln(RFS) of VS-SPT methods and their model uncertainties

Page 23/26
Figure 8

Histograms of ln(RFS) of different SPT-N methods and their model uncertainties

Page 24/26
Figure 9

Illustrative example of the application of the calibrated model uncertainties

Figure 10

Predicted FS via CPT-qc and VS-based methods using calibrated models

Page 25/26
Figure 11

Predicted LPI via CPT-qc and VS-based methods using calibrated models

Page 26/26