Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced

Reconsolidation „Volumetric… Settlements

K. Onder Cetin1; H. Tolga Bilge2; Jiaer Wu3; Annie M. Kammerer4; and Raymond B. Seed5

Abstract: A maximum likelihood framework for the probabilistic assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation settlements of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

saturated cohesionless soil sites is described. For this purpose, over 200 case history sites were carefully studied. After screening for data
quality and completeness, the resulting database is composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically induced ground settlement case histories from
seven different earthquakes. For these case history sites, settlement predictions by currently available methods of Tokimatsu and Seed
共1984兲, Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, and Wu and Seed 共2004兲 are presented comparatively, along with the
predictions of the proposed probabilistic model. As an integral part of the proposed model, the volumetric strain correlation presented in
the companion paper is used. The accuracy of the mean predictions as well as their uncertainty is assessed by both linear regression and
maximum likelihood methodologies. The analyses results revealed that 共1兲 the predictions of Shamoto et al. and Tokimatsu and Seed are
smaller than the actual settlements and need to be calibrated by a factor of 1.93 and 1.45, respectively; and 共2兲 Ishihara and Yoshimine,
and Wu and Seed predictions are higher than the actual settlements and need to be calibrated by a factor of 0.90 and 0.98, respectively.
The Wu and Seed procedure produced the most unbiased estimates of mean settlements 关i.e., their calibration coefficient 共0.98兲 is the
closest to unity兴, but the uncertainty 共scatter兲 of their predictions remains high as revealed by the second to last smaller R2 value, or
relatively higher standard deviation 共␴␧兲 of the model error. In addition to superior model predictions, the main advantage of the proposed
methodology is the probabilistic nature of the calibration scheme, which enables incorporation of the model uncertainty into mean
settlement predictions. To illustrate the potential use of the proposed model, the probability of cyclically induced reconsolidation settle-
ment of a site after a scenario earthquake to be less than a threshold settlement level is assessed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2009兲135:3共387兲
CE Database subject headings: Volume change; Settlement; Probability; Soil liquefaction; Soil consolidation.

Introduction ment of cyclically induced reconsolidation 共volumetric兲 settle-

Currently available approaches for predicting the magnitude of
postcyclic reconsolidation settlements are categorized as: 共1兲 nu-
merical analyses in the form of finite element and/or finite differ-
ence techniques 共e.g., Martin et al. 1975; Seed et al. 1976; Booker
et al. 1976; Finn et al. 1977; Liyanathirana and Poulos 2002兲; and
共2兲 semiempirical models developed based on laboratory, field
test and performance data 共e.g., Lee and Albaisa 1974; Tokimatsu
and Seed 1984; Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; Shamoto et al.
1998; Zhang et al. 2002; Wu and Seed 2004; Tsukamato et al.
2004兲. Due to difficulties in the determination of input model
parameters necessary for numerical simulations, semiempirical
models continue to establish the state of practice for the assess-
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Tech-
nical Univ., 06531, Ankara, Turkey.
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle
East Technical Univ., 06531, Ankara, Turkey.
3 review, currently available methods for the assessment of one-
Senior Project Engineer, URS Corporation, Oakland, CA 94612.
4
Senior Project Engineer, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rock-
ville, MD 20555.
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on January 23, 2007;
approved on May 2, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 3, March 1,
2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2009/3-387–398/$25.00.
ments. However, even the best of these models cannot produce, at
the moment, reasonably precise estimates of postcyclic reconsoli-
dation 共volumetric兲 settlements. Some of the predictions by cur-
rently existing models are documented to be off by more than a
factor of 2, which forms the established limits for use in engineer-
ing practice 共Cetin et al. 2002; Bilge and Cetin 2007兲. Therefore,
more needs to be done to produce more reliable and accurate
models that better address the cyclically induced reconsolidation
共volumetric兲 settlement problem.
This paper applies and calibrates the proposed volumetric
strain correlation presented in the companion paper to semiem-
pirically evaluate the cyclically induced, postearthquake recon-
solidation settlements of level, free-field sites. For this purpose, a
database composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically induced ground
settlement case histories from seven different earthquakes was
compiled. The data compilation efforts are discussed, followed by
a brief review of the available literature. As part of the literature
dimensional, postcyclic reconsolidation 共volumetric兲 ground sur-
face settlement due to saturated cohesionless soil layers are
discussed. In addition to an example case history assessment to
illustrate the adopted evaluation procedure, an example is pro-
vided to demonstrate the potential probabilistic use of the method,
which is selected to be suitable for the increasingly popular
performance-based design approaches. Assessment of the ground
surface settlements due to cyclically induced deviatoric straining
of both cohesive and cohesionless volumetric compression of un-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 387

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

 saturated cohesionless, or reconsolidation of cohesive soil layers
is excluded from the scope of this study.
Database Compilation Efforts
Efforts aiming to develop a semiempirical or empirical model
require naturally the compilation of a high-quality database. For
this purpose, existing literature was carefully reviewed and more
than 200 cases were studied extensively 共Appendix兲. Due to data
quality and completeness considerations, cases with one or more
of the following features have been excluded: 共1兲 poor site soil
profile definitions; 共2兲 sloping ground 共gradient⬎ 5 % 兲 or sites
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
close to a free face; 共3兲 cyclically induced ground deformations
reported inconsistently in different references; 共4兲 soil profiles
composed of cohesive soils only; 共5兲 sites with piles or improved
soil layers; and 共6兲 large reported lateral deformations 共⬎1.5 m兲.
The resulting database is composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically
induced ground settlement case histories from seven different
earthquakes. Some of the characteristics of these cases are sum-
marized in Table 1. For a majority of these case history sites, the
ground settlements were mapped immediately after earthquakes
by topographical surveys. For some case history sites, in addition
to these surveys, “undisturbed” ground fissures were also care-
fully mapped to verify the relative settlement measurements.
When estimating the settlement from open ground fissures, care-
ful attention was reported to be given to match preearthquake
contact points across the fissure 共Cetin et al. 2004b兲. A complete
documentation of the case histories is also available at Bilge and
Cetin 共2007兲 and can be downloaded through the following link
http://www.ce.metu.edu.tr/⬃onder/publications/PUB-NO59.zip.
Review of Semiempirical Postcyclic Volumetric
Settlement Assessment Methods
In addition to the predictions by the proposed model, for com-
parison purposes, postcyclic reconsolidation 共volumetric兲 ground
surface settlements were assessed for each case history site by the
widely used methods of Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Ishihara and
Yoshimine 共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, and finally by a more
recent study of Wu and Seed 共2004兲. Case history processing
details will be discussed next.
Tokimatsu and Seed „1984…
Adopting the demand and capacity terms of cyclic stress ratio
共CSR兲 and overburden-, fines-, and the procedure-corrected Stan-
dard Penetration Test 共SPT兲 blow counts 共N1.60,CS兲, Tokimatsu and
Seed 共1984兲 recommended a set of chart solutions, calibrated with
case history performance data, for the estimation of limiting shear
and postcyclic volumetric strains based on cyclic triaxial and
simple shear tests performed on clean sands. The recommended
postcyclic volumetric strain boundary curves are given in Fig. 1.
Use of this methodology requires determination of overburden-,
fines-, and procedure-corrected SPT blow counts, and duration-,
and K␴-corrected CSR values. In the assessment of case history
sites, SPT corrections were performed as recommended by Youd
et al. 共2001兲 and fines corrections as proposed by Cetin et al.
共2004a兲. Magnitude 共duration兲 and K␴ corrections were per-
formed as proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲 and Youd
et al. 共2001兲, respectively. Corresponding volumetric strain 共␧v兲
values were determined using proposed chart solutions for each
388 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.
saturated cohesionless soil layer. Then, these volumetric strain
values were multiplied by the corresponding layer thicknesses to
determine the volumetric settlement of each sublayer. The sum of
the sublayer settlements was interpreted as the total settlement of
the case history site.
Ishihara and Yoshimine „1992…
Using results of irregular loading direct cyclic simple shear tests,
Ishihara and Yoshimine recommended correlations between the
reconsolidation volumetric strain and the factor of safety against
liquefaction 共FSliq兲, as presented in Fig. 2. FSliq and corrected
SPT blow-count 共N1兲 values were selected as demand and capac-
ity terms, respectively. N1 was estimated consistent with NCEER
共Youd et al. 2001兲 recommendations, with hammer energy as the
only exception. To be consistent with the Ishihara and Yoshimine
method, field SPT-N values were corrected to 72% hammer effi-
ciency to reflect the fact that Japanese average SPT hammer en-
ergy was 20% higher than the standard value of 60% 共Tokimatsu
and Yoshimi 1983兲. For fines, adjustment was performed as pro-
posed by Cetin et al. 共2004a兲. Demand term, FSliq, was defined as
the ratio of cyclic resistance ratio 共CRR兲 to CSR. CRR was de-
termined as described in Cetin et al. 共2004a兲 for 50% probability
of liquefaction 共PL兲. As K␴ and duration 共magnitude兲 corrections
were intrinsic to the CRR definition of Cetin et al. 共2004a兲, no
additional corrections were needed to be applied to CSR. The
volumetric straining of each saturated cohesionless soil layer was
estimated as a function of N1 共i.e., N1.72兲 and FSliq. Similarly, the
contribution of each layer to the overall ground settlement was
estimated by multiplying the thickness of sublayers with the cor-
responding volumetric strain value, the sum of which was equal
to postcyclic, volumetric, ground settlement.
Shamoto et al. „1998…
Shamoto et al. proposed a set of constitutive equations to describe
liquefaction-induced ground deformations based on the results of
torsional shear tests. Similar to the chart solution proposed by
Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Shamoto et al., proposed charts for
the determination of cyclically induced residual volumetric strain-
ing as a function of CSR and SPT blow counts 共Nadj兲. Consistent
with the recommendations of the method, Nadj was estimated as
proposed by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi 共1983兲. K␴ and magnitude
共duration兲 corrections 共K M w兲 as proposed by Youd et al. 共2001兲
and Cetin et al. 共2004a兲, respectively, were applied to calculate
the CSR. Due to availability of three chart solutions 共Fig. 3兲 cor-
responding to fines contents of 0, 10, and 20%, corresponding
volumetric strain values were estimated by interpolation for fines
content within these limits. For fines content greater than 20%,
the chart solution for 20% was adopted as opposed to an extrapo-
lation. Shamoto et al. recommends the calibration of the estimated
ground settlements by a factor of 0.84 based on case histories
from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Thus, consistent
with the recommendations of the method, volumetric settlement
of each sublayer was summed up and further scaled by 0.84 to
result in the final ground settlement prediction.
Wu and Seed „2004…
In a relatively more recent study, Wu and Seed proposed a
method based on simple shear tests performed on Monterey 0/30,
clean sand. In this study, N1.60,CS and CSR were selected as ca-
pacity and demand terms, respectively. The authors provided a
 Table 1. Comparisons of Model Predictions with the Observed Settlements
Wu
Observed Lateral This Tokimatsu and Ishihara and Shamoto and
Case settlement spread study Seed Yoshimine et al. Seed
number Earthquake Location 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 Tohnankai共1944兲,8.0 Komei City 0.40 0 0.25 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.17 Kishida 共1969兲, Lee and Albaissa 共1974兲, Cetin 共2000兲
2 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 1 0.60 1.0 0.30 0.24 0.35 0.20 0.24 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
3 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 2 0.60 1.0 0.35 0.28 0.36 0.25 0.30 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
4 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Niigata Station 3 0.60 1.0 0.28 0.21 0.33 0.29 0.25 Yamada 共1966兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
5 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Agano River 0.20 0.0 0.31 0.19 0.29 0.32 0.23 Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲
6 Niigata共1964兲,7.5 Sewage Plant 0.20 1.0–3.0 0.23 0.12 0.29 0.28 0.19 Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲, Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲
7 Tokachioki共1968兲,7.9 Paper Manuf. Pl, P6 0.50 0 0.45 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.33 Ohsaki 共1966兲, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Cetin 共2000兲
8 Miyagiken-Oki共1978兲,7.4 Arahama Sewage Pl 0.20 0 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.11 0.18 Tohno and Yasuda 共1981兲, Cetin 共2000兲
9 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Oakland Toll Plaza, SFOBB-1 0.41 0 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.27 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 389

10 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Oakland Toll Plaza, SFOBB-2 0.41 0 0.39 0.29 0.47 0.70 0.38 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
11 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port Oakland, POO7-2 0.23 0 0.15 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.20 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
12 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port of Richmond, POR-2 0.05 0.02–0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.09 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
13 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Port of Richmond, POR-3 0.08 0.02–0.08 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.09 Mitchell et al. 共1994兲, Kayen et al. 共1998兲, Cetin共2000兲
14 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M1 0.01 0 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.06 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
15 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M2 0.01 0 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
16 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M3 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
17 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M4 0.10 0 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.15 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
18 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M5 0.12 0 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.09 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
19 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Marina District, M6 0.01 0 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲, Rollins and McHood 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
20 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-3 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.14 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.12 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
21 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-5 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.19 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley 共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
22 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Miller Farm, CMF-8 0.10 0.12–0.16 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.09 Holzer et al. 共1994兲, Bennet and Tinsley 共1995兲, Cetin 共2000兲
23 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,Sandholdt Road,UC-B10 0.07 0.3 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.04 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
24 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,St.Beach Entr.Kiosk,UC-B1 0.30 0.3–0.6 0.33 0.30 0.44 0.39 0.36 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
25 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,St.Beach Path Entr.,UC-B2 0.08 0.1–0.3 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.02 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
26 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing, Marine Lab.,HB-1 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.07 0.15 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Mejia 共1998兲, Cetin 共2000兲
27 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Moss Landing,MBARI Fac.Bldg 3,EB-5 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.08 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲, Cetin 共2000兲
28 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 South of Market, SR2917 0.10 0 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.04 Pease and O’Rourke 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
29 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, Array B-1 0.18 0 0.22 0.29 0.31 0.16 0.30 De Alba et al. 共1994兲, Power et al. 共1998兲
30 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, Array B-3 0.18 0 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.09 0.20 De Alba et al. 共1994兲, Power et al. 共1998兲
31 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-21 0.08 0 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.06 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
32 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-25 0.08 0 0.08 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.10 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
33 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-26 0.08 0 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
34 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-42 0.05 0 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.05 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
35 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-82 0.20 0 0.29 0.44 0.50 0.54 0.43 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
36 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-93 0.10 0 0.12 0.13 0.31 0.11 0.20 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
37 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-95 0.13 0 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.10 0.19 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
38 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-104 0.20 0 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.25 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
39 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-105 0.20 0 0.16 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.25 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
40 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-179 0.20 0 0.25 0.32 0.52 0.21 0.33 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
41 LomaPrieta共1989兲,7.0 Treasure Island, BH No-181 0.10 0 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.14 Power et al. 共1998兲, Wu et al. 共2003兲
42 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Naruohama Isl.,Toyota Cnst.Tech.Cent.C 0.05 0 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 Akamoto and Miyake 共1996兲
43 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island, Site A 0.20 0.5 0.12 0.64 0.76 1.00 0.97 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
44 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island, Site I 0.50 1 0.46 0.47 0.72 0.65 0.67 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
45 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Port Island Vertical Array Site 0.30 0.1–0.9 0.47 0.47 0.61 0.62 0.65 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Ishihara et al. 共1996兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
46 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Rokko Island, Site G 0.45 0.6 0.68 0.41 0.44 0.64 0.61 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Kazama et al. 共1998兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
47 Hyogoken Nambu共1995兲,6.9 Rokko Island, KB-224 0.30 0.2 0.35 0.26 0.37 0.37 0.38 Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲, Kazama et al. 共1998兲, Bardet et al. 共2002兲
48 Kocaeli共1999兲,7.4 Hotel Sapanca SPT11 0.65 0.7 0.38 0.32 0.54 0.44 0.48 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲
49 Kocaeli共1999兲,7.4 Hotel Sapanca SPT9 0.30 0.2 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.34 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Volumetric strain assessment chart 关adapted from Tokimatsu
and Seed 共1984兲兴
chart solution 共Fig. 4兲 for the prediction of cyclically induced
reconsolidation volumetric strain. When using these chart solu-
tions, N1.60,CS value was estimated consistent with Youd et al.
共2001兲 and fines-adjustment correlation of Cetin et al. 共2004a兲. To
determine the ground settlement of a soil profile, individual volu-
metric strain values of each sublayer were first estimated by using
the chart solution. Next, consistent with the methodology dis-
cussed so far, settlement of each layer was calculated and
summed up to result in the total ground settlement prediction.
Proposed Methodology
A probabilistically based semiempirical model for the assessment
of cyclically induced straining of saturated cohesionless soils is
冋
ln共␧v兲 = ln 1.879 ln 冋 780.416 ln共CSRSS,20,1D,1
636.613N1,60,CS + 306.732
lim:5 艋 N1,60,CS 艋 40,
In Eq. 共1兲, the ⫾0.689 term represents the standard deviation of
the volumetric strain model, and can be used conveniently for the
probabilistic assessment of the performance of a soil site, as dis-
cussed further, later in this paper.
Correction factors adopted to convert the CSRfield value to
equivalent CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm are presented in Eqs. 共2兲–共5兲
CSRfield
CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm = 共2兲
KmdK M WK␴
Kmd correction is used to convert multidirectionally applied
CSRfield value to the value of a unidirectionally applied laboratory
390 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.
Fig. 2. Deviatoric and volumetric strain assessment charts 关adapted
from Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲兴
discussed in detail in the companion paper. As a summary, cycli-
cally induced volumetric straining is assessed either by using the
chart solution given in Fig. 5, or the closed-form solution pre-
sented in Eq. 共1兲. N1.60,CS was selected as the capacity term, and
CSRfield value equivalent to unidirectional, 20 loading cycle
simple shear test performed under a confining stress of 100 kPa
共CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm兲 was selected as the demand term
atm兲 − N1,60,CS + 2,442.465
册 册
+ 5.583 ⫾ 0.689
0.05 艋 CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm 艋 0.60 共1兲
CSR. Since the early 1970s, there have been several studies per-
formed to account for multidirectional shaking effects. Seed et al.
共1975兲 proposed a 10–20% reduction in cyclic resistance if load-
ing was multidirectionally applied. Similarly, Ishihara and
Yamazaki 共1980兲 observed a reduction of 10–30%. Boulanger and
Seed 共1995兲 indicated that the ratio of “parallel” to “perpendicu-
lar” cyclic loading resistances varied within a range of 70–95%.
Based on unidirectional and bidirectional simple shear test results
on Monterey No 0/30 sand performed by Wu et al. 共2003兲 and
Kammerer 共2002兲, Wu et al. proposed reduction factors as a func-
tion of relative density. Inspired by Wu et al., correction factors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Charts for predicting residual volumetric strains 关adapted from Shamoto et al. 共1998兲兴

for multidirectional shaking effects 共Kmd兲 are assessed as a func- 87.1

tion of relative density, as shown in the following: KMW = 共4兲
M 2.217
w
Kmd = 0.361 ln共DR兲 − 0.579 共3兲 Finally, the nonlinear increase in cyclic resistance to shear
Volumetric strain solutions provided in Eq. 共1兲 are proposed stresses with increasing confining 共or vertical兲 effective stresses is
for 20 uniform shear 共or CSR兲 cycles, corresponding to a M w accounted for by applying the K␴ correction to the CSR values.
= 7.5 earthquake, per Liu et al. 共2001兲. Thus, for earthquake shak- The following equation, as proposed by Youd et al. 共2001兲, is
ing, producing cycles other than 20, durational effects need to be used for the purpose
adjusted for. The duration 共magnitude兲 correction factor as pro-
posed by Cetin et al. 共2004a兲, shown in Eq. 共4兲, is adopted in this
proposed methodology

Fig. 4. Chart for predicting cyclically induced volumetric strains Fig. 5. Postcyclic volumetric strain boundary curves 共Cetin et al.
关adapted from Wu and Seed 共2004兲兴 personal communication, 2007兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 391

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Sample case history processesing for Arahama Sewage Plant, Japan after Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake 共1978兲, M w = 7.4
K␴ = 冉 冊␴⬘v,0
Pa
f−1
f = 1 − 0.005 DR
A weighting scheme, linearly decreasing with depth, inspired
by the recommendations of Iwasaki et al. 共1982兲, is implemented.
Aside from the better model fit it produced, the rationale behind
the use of a depth weighting factor is based on the following: 共1兲
upward seepage, triggering void ratio redistribution, and resulting
in unfavorably higher void ratios for the shallower sublayers of
soil layers; 共2兲 reduced induced shear stresses and number of
shear stress cycles transmitted to deeper soil layers due to initial
liquefaction of surficial layers; and 共3兲 possible arching effects
due to nonliquefied soil layers. All these may significantly reduce
the contribution of volumetric settlement of deeper soil layers to
the overall ground surface settlement. It is assumed that the con-
tribution of layers to surface settlement diminishes as the depth of
layer increases, and beyond a certain depth 共zcr兲 settlement of an
individual layer cannot be traced at the ground surface. After
statistical assessments, the optimum value of this threshold depth
was found to be 18 m. The proposed depth weighting factor 共DFi兲
is defined in Eq. 共6兲. Equivalent volumetric strain, ␧v,eqv., of the
soil profile is estimated by Eq. 共7兲 and the estimated settlement,
sestimated, of the profile is simply calculated as the product of ␧v,eqv.
and the total thickness of the saturated cohesionless soil layers or
sublayers, 兺ti, as presented by Eq. 共8兲. sestimated is further cali-
brated by ␪ for the estimation of field settlement values. In Eq.
共9兲, the ␴␧ term designates the standard deviation of the calibra-
tion model. Further discussion of the ␴␧ term is presented later in
the paper
di
DFi = 1 −
zcr = 18 m
where di = middepth of each saturated cohesionless soil layer from
ground surface
兺␧v,itiDFi
␧v,eqv. =
兺tiDFi
sestimated = ␧v,eqv. 兺 ti
ln共scalibrated兲 = ln共␪ sestimated兲 ⫾ ␴␧
392 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.
In volumetric settlement assessment of the case histories, three
cases were encountered regarding the application of DF: 共1兲 a
very dense cohesionless soil layer 共N1.60,CS ⬎ 35兲 or bedrock or a
共5兲 cohesive soil layer underlying the volumetric settlement vulner-
able cohesionless soil layer; 共2兲 cohesionless soil layer continuing
beyond the critical depth of 18 m with or without available SPT
profile; and 共3兲 cohesionless soil site where the depth of boring is
less than 18 m. For case 共1兲, settlement calculations were per-
formed till the depth to the top of the dense layer or bedrock or
cohesive layer. For case 共2兲, potentially settlement vulnerable co-
hesionless layers beyond 18 m were simply ignored due to their
limited contribution to the overall ground surface settlement. For
case 共3兲, after confirming the geological characteristics of soil
site, for the soil sublayers without a SPT value at a specific depth,
SPT values were judgmentally extended beyond the maximum
borehole depth to a depth of maximum 18 m based on available
SPT blow counts. In any case, whenever a cohesive soil layer was
encountered, it was assumed that cyclically induced volumetric
strain due to this layer was negligible. In addition, thickness of
this layer was not considered in the calculation of ␧v,eqv.
Analysis of an Example Case History
For illustrating the use of the proposed methodology, the ground
settlement case history of the Arahama Sewage Plant site shaken
by 1978 Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake 共M w = 7.4兲 is analyzed. The
site is located in Watari Town, a district of Arahama, Japan. Prior
to the main shock of M w = 7.4, an earthquake of magnitude 6.7
occurred. SPT was performed before the main earthquake in
1978. Peak ground acceleration 共pga兲 and ground settlement were
reported as 0.20 g and 0.20 m, respectively, along with no sign of
lateral spreading 共Tohno and Yasuda 1981; Fear and McRoberts
共6兲
1995; Cetin 2000兲. Subsurface soils at the Arahama site consist of
sand deposits with some silt and gravel. The upper 9 m of the site
is covered with very loose sandy deposits. These loose layers are
underlain by a dense fine sand layer, which extends down to a
depth of 16 m.
共7兲 As shown in Fig. 6, the soil profile is subdivided into multiple
sublayers, each with a SPT measurement at the middepth. CSR
value is estimated using the simplified procedure of Seed and
共8兲 Idriss 共1971兲 modified with rd values proposed by Cetin et al.
共2004a兲. CSR corrections for duration 共magnitude兲, overburden
stress, and multidirectional shaking are performed as defined by
共9兲 Eqs. 共3兲–共5兲, respectively. For each sublayer the corresponding
 = —; energy ratio 共ER兲 = 65%; Kmw = 1.03 by Cetin 共2000兲 and 1.03 by Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲; references=Tohno and Yasuda 共1981兲, Cetin 共2000兲. ␧v,eqv = 共兺␧v,i ti DFi / 兺ti DFi兲 = 1.218%; sestimated
共cm兲 t DF

Note: Site= sewage plant, Arahama, Japan; borehole= sewage plant site, GWT= 0.91 m; earthquake= 1978 Miyagiken-Oki EQ, M w = 7.4, PGA= 0.20 g; reported settlement= 0.20 m; lateral displacement
postcyclic volumetric strain value and depth weighting factor

1.44
1.07
0.91
0.69

0.74
1.05
0.80
0.30
1.11

8.11
共DFi兲 are determined using Eqs. 共1兲 and 共6兲, respectively. Equiva-
lent volumetric strain 共␧v,eqv兲 of the soil profile is determined as

␧v t DF

2.45
1.78
1.26
1.00
2.13
1.23
0.00
0.03
0.00
9.88
defined by Eq. 共7兲. Estimated settlement 共sestimated兲 of the ground
surface is calculated consistent with Eq. 共8兲. Analysis details are

1.70 0.91
1.66 0.83
1.39 0.76
1.44 0.69
1.91 0.62
1.67 0.53
0.00 0.42
0.03 0.27
0.00 0.09
summarized in Table 2. The soil profile, variation of N and

DF

兺
N1.60,CS, CSRfield and CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm with depth, and resulting
cyclically induced volumetric strain, ␧v,i, of each sublayer are

␧v 共%兲
shown in Fig. 6. Cyclically induced one-dimensional ground
settlement is estimated as 0.21 m before scaling by the calibration

atm
factor, which is discussed next.

CSRfield CSRSS,20,1D,1
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Comparisons of the Predictions by Available

Methods and This Study

0.12
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
For comparison purposes, each case history site was analyzed
using the methods of Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Ishihara and
Yoshimine 共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, Wu and Seed 共2004兲,

49 175 1.43 0.82 0.99

54 189 1.32 0.86 0.99
59 202 1.26 0.89 0.98
60 204 1.19 0.90 0.97
55 192 1.11 0.87 0.95
59 201 1.06 0.89 0.92
92 269 1.01 1.00 0.87
89 262 0.91 1.00 0.79
92 269 0.83 1.00 0.73
rd
and finally the proposed method. The performance of the model
predictions, expressed by Pearson product moment correlation co-

Kmd
efficient, R2, is summarized in Table 3. For each method, pre-
dicted and observed settlements are paired and shown on figures

K␴
along with the 1:2 and 1:0.5 boundary lines 关Figs. 7–11 for this
study, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, Ishihara and Yoshimine

N1,60,CS 共%兲 共m/s兲

VS
共1992兲, Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, and Wu and Seed 共2004兲,
respectively兴. DR
As a better alternative, which enabled the assessment of the
model 共calibration兲 error, predictions of each method were com- 10.8
13.2
16.2
16.5
13.8
15.8
39.2
36.2
39.0
pared probabilistically by using the maximum likelihood analysis.
The limit state function, as given in Eq. 共10兲, is simply defined as
the difference 共error兲 between the natural logarithm of the ob-
5 5.5 0.75 2.33 1.04
0 8.5 0.85 1.69 1.00
11 0.89 1.53 1.00
12 0.93 1.37 1.00
11 0.99 1.17 1.00
1.12 1.00
1.01 1.03
0.90 1.03
0.82 1.03
CF

served and calibrated settlements. In Eq. 共10兲, ␪ is the settlement

calibration factor
CN
Table 2. Summary of the Assessment of the Arahama Sewage Plant Case History Site

CR

1
1
1
1
gs共sobservation,sestimated,⌰兲 = ln共sobservation兲 − ln共␪sestimated兲 ⫾ ␧s
共m兲 t 共m兲 共kPa兲 共%兲 N60

共10兲
13
35
36
43
FC

0
0
0
0
5
5
5

The proposed model includes a random model correction term

123
150
23
35
46
56
69
83
99
␴v⬘

共␧s兲 to account for the facts that 共1兲 possible missing descriptive
variables with influence on settlements may exist; and 共2兲 the
17.2
1.6
1.3
1.3

1.2
10.5 10.5 2.5

16.4 16.4 3.3

1
2

adopted mathematical expression may not have the ideal func-

tional form. It is reasonable and convenient to assume that ␧s has
13.2 13.2
dSPT

1.7 1.2
3.1 3.1

5.5 5.2
7.5
8.6 8.2

the normal distribution with zero mean for the aim of producing
兺
4

an unbiased model 共i.e., one that, on average, makes correct pre-

共m兲
drep

4.4

diction兲. However, standard deviation of ␧s, denoted as ␴␧, is

7

unknown and must be estimated. Therefore, the set of unknown

Potentially
liquefiable

parameters of the model is ⌰ = 共␪ , ␴␧兲.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assuming the settlement values from each case history to be

statistically independent, the likelihood function for “n” cases is
written as the product of the probabilities of the observations, i.e.
Coarse sand with gravel
Coarse sand with gravel
Coarse sand with silt
Coarse sand
Coarse sand
Coarse sand

n
Fine sand
Fine sand
Fine sand
definition

兿
Layer

= ␧v,eqv 兺 ti = 21 cm.

Ls共␪,␴␧兲 = P关gs共sestimated,i,␧s,i,␪兲 = 0兴 共11兲

i=1

Suppose the values of si at each data point are exact, i.e., no

measurement error is present, noting that g共¯兲 = ĝ共¯兲 + ␧i has the
normal distribution with mean ĝ and standard deviation then the
likelihood function can be written as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 393

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

 Table 3. Summary of the R2 Values Estimate for Each Method
Method R2
This study 0.64
Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲 0.33
Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲 0.42
Shamoto et al. 共1998兲 0.36
Wu and Seed 共2004兲 0.33

冋 册
n
ĝs共sobserved,sestimated,i,␪兲
Ls共␪,␴␧兲 = 兿
i=1
␸
␴ ␧s
共12兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where ␸关·兴 = standard normal probability density function. Note

that the above is a function of the unknown parameters.
Consistent with the maximum likelihood methodology, the set
of unknown parameters, ⌰ = 共␪ , ␴␧兲, is estimated to maximize the
likelihood function in Eq. 共12兲. The resulting values of ␪ and ␴␧,
along with the maximum value of the likelihood functions, are
presented in Table 4. It should be noted that a higher likelihood
value and lower standard deviation of the model error term indi-
cate superior model predictions. As the values of the calibration
coefficient, ␪, presented in Table 4 imply, existing methods of
Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, and the pro-
posed methodology underpredict the actual settlements by a fac-
tor of 1.91, 1.45, and 1.15, respectively. Similarly, Wu and Seed
Fig. 9. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground
settlements by Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲
共2004兲, and Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲 overpredict settle-
ments and need to be corrected by a factor of 0.98 and 0.90. The
Wu and Seed 共2004兲 procedure produces the most unbiased settle-
ment predictions 共i.e., the mean of the estimated settlements is
about equal to the mean of the observed settlements兲. However, in
terms of the uncertainty 共or scatter兲 of the predictions, Wu and
Seed 共2004兲 methodology is ranked to be second to last with an
R2 value of 0.33. After scaling with the calibration coefficient, ␪,

Fig. 7. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground Fig. 10. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground
settlements by the proposed methodology settlements by Shamoto et al. 共1998兲

Fig. 8. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground Fig. 11. Comparison between the measured and predicted ground
settlements by Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲 settlements by Wu and Seed 共2004兲

394 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

 Table 4. Results of the Maximum Likelihood Analyses
Method ␪ ␴␧ 兺 likelihood f ⫻ n
This study 1.15 0.61 −19.8
Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲 1.45 1.05 −31.1
Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲 0.90 1.12 −32.7
Shamoto et al. 共1998兲 1.93 1.36 −36.7
Wu and Seed 共2004兲 0.98 0.71 −22.9

the proposed model produces relatively the best predictions com-

pared to the other four methods, also consistent with the R2 trends
presented in Table 5.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Probabilistic Use of the Proposed Model Fig. 12. Cumulative distribution function of pga

To illustrate the probabilistic use of new correlations, the Ara-

hama Sewage Plant site is analyzed to determine the probability
of volumetric settlement exceeding a certain threshold value. The
scenario earthquake is chosen as a moment magnitude 6.5 at a
closest fault distance of 20 km away from the site. Median of the
peak soil ground acceleration for a shallow soil site is estimated
as 0.17 g and the standard error of ln共pga兲 is 0.50 according to the
Abrahamson and Silva 共1997兲 attenuation relationship. Consistent
with the attenuation model, pga is assumed to be log-normally
distributed, and corresponding cumulative distribution function is
shown in Fig. 12. pga bins are defined for 0.1 g intervals. For
each, representative pga value 共midvalue of the bin range兲, volu-
metric settlement predictions are performed considering the un-
certainty of the calibrated model predictions 关i.e., the model
uncertainty given in Eq. 共10兲兴. For simplicity, the uncertainty of
volumetric strain estimations is ignored and the probability of
settlement exceeding a threshold value, s*, is estimated as the
product of the probability of pga to be in the pga bin range rep-
resented by pgarep and the probability of settlement greater than s*
for a given pgarep, as also illustrated in Eq. 共13兲 and Table 5
P共s 艌 s*兲 = P共s 艌 s*/pgarep兲P共pgabin,lower ⬍ pgarep 艋 pgabin,upper兲
共13兲
Using Eq. 共13兲, probabilities of settlements exceeding various
threshold values, s* is determined and shown in Fig. 13. As the
figure implies, for selected site and earthquake scenario, cycli-
cally induced volumetric ground settlement is estimated to be less
than 0.1 m with 47% confidence. Similarly, with 80% confidence,
volumetric settlement is predicted to be less than 0.24 m. This
example illustrated the potential use of the proposed procedure in
assessing the probability of ground failure of a site as defined by
a certain settlement performance level.
Summary and Conclusions
Within the confines of this study, it is intended to develop a meth-
odology for the assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation
ground surface settlements of level sites composed of mostly
saturated cohesionless soils. An extensive literature survey has
been performed to compile cyclically induced volumetric 共recon-
solidation兲 settlement case histories. The resulting database is
composed of 49 high-quality, cyclically induced ground settle-
ment case histories from seven different earthquakes. Perfor-
mances of the proposed and four existing procedures were
evaluated using these case histories. In addition to simple linear
regression, the maximum likelihood methodology was also used
to develop limit state models for calibrating cyclically induced
settlement predictions. Based on both linear regression and maxi-
mum likelihood assessment results, it is concluded that before
correcting with settlement calibration factors 共coefficients兲, 共1兲
Shamoto et al. 共1998兲, Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲, and the pro-
posed methodology predictions are smaller than the actual values
and need to be corrected by a factor of 1.91 共in addition to the
originally proposed calibration coefficient of 0.84兲, 1.45, and

Table 5. Estimation of the Probability of Ground Settlement to Be Greater Than s* = 0.1 m for the Scenario Earthquake
pga range
共pgalower – pgaupper兲 pgarep P共pgalower ⬍ pga艋 pgaupper兲 ln共scalibrated兲 P共s ⬎ s*兩pga= pgarep兲兩 P共s ⬎ s*兲
0.00–0.10 0.05 0.154 −6.768 0.000 0.000
0.10–0.20 0.15 0.492 −2.424 0.421 0.207
0.20–0.30 0.25 0.237 −1.510 0.903 0.214
0.30–0.40 0.35 0.079 −1.235 0.960 0.075
0.40–0.50 0.45 0.025 −1.074 0.978 0.025
0.50–0.60 0.55 0.008 −0.978 0.985 0.008
0.60–0.70 0.65 0.003 −0.907 0.989 0.003
0.70–0.80 0.75 0.001 −0.854 0.991 0.001
0.80–0.90 0.85 0.000 −0.815 0.993 0.000
0.90–1.00 0.95 0.000 −0.782 0.994 0.000
⌺ = 0.53

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 395

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

 Name of reference
Shengcong and Tatsuoka 共1983兲
Tokimatsu and Seed 共1984兲
Yasuda and Tohno 共1988兲
Holzer et al. 共1989兲
Bennett 共1989兲
Seed and Harder 共1990兲
Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲
O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲
Wakamatsu 共1992兲
Ishihara and Yoshimine 共1992兲
Mitchell et al. 共1994兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stewart et al. 共1994兲

De Alba et al. 共1994兲
Holzer et al. 共1994兲
Bennett and Tinsley 共1995兲
Fear and McRoberts 共1995兲
Inagaki et al. 共1996兲
Fig. 13. Probabilistic use of the proposed model for a scenario case Akamoto and Miyake 共1996兲
Tokimatsu et al. 共1996兲
1.15, respectively; and 共2兲 the predictions of Ishihara and Ishihara et al. 共1996兲
Yoshimine 共1992兲 and Wu and Seed 共2004兲 are higher than the Boulanger et al. 共1997兲
actual settlements and need to be corrected by a factor of 0.90 and Mejia 共1998兲
0.98, respectively. The Wu and Seed 共2004兲 procedure produces Pearse and O’Rourke 共1998兲
the most unbiased estimates of mean settlements 关i.e., their cali- Kayen et al. 共1998兲
bration coefficient 共0.98兲 is the closest to unity兴, although the Kazama et al. 共1998兲
uncertainty 共scatter兲 of their predictions is larger as revealed by Rollins and McHood 共1998兲
the second to last smaller R2 or relatively higher model error Power et al. 共1998兲
standard deviation, ␴␧. Bennett et al. 共1998兲
Encouraged by a significantly improved correlation coeffi- Holzer et al. 共1999兲
cient, R2 value, and a smaller model error, ␴␧, the proposed pro- Cetin 共2000兲
cedure is recommended as a better alternative to existing models. Bardet et al. 共2002兲
In addition to superior model predictions, the main advantage of Cetin et al. 共2002兲
the proposed methodology is the probabilistic nature of the cali-
Wu et al. 共2003兲
bration coefficient, which enables incorporation of the model un-
Cetin et al. 共2004b兲
certainty into settlement predictions. To illustrate the potential use
of the proposed model, the probability of cyclically induced re-
consolidation settlement of a site after a scenario earthquake to be Notation
less than a threshold settlement level was assessed.
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CRR ⫽ cyclic resistance ratio;
Appendix. List of References Studied to Compile CSR ⫽ cyclic stress ratio;
the Resulting Database CSRfield ⫽ CSR value corresponding to field
Name of reference conditions;
CSRSS,20,1D,1 atm ⫽ CSR value corresponding to a
Koizumu 共1964兲 one-dimensional, 20 uniform loading cycle
Seed and Idriss 共1966兲 simple shear test under a confinement
Yamada 共1966兲 pressure of 100 kPa 共=1 atm兲;
Ohsaki 共1966兲 DR ⫽ relative density 共%兲;
Kishida 共1969, 1970兲 DFi ⫽ depth weighting factor;
Lee and Albaissa 共1974兲 FSliq ⫽ factor of safety against liquefaction;
Iwasaki et al. 共1978兲 K M w ⫽ duration 共magnitude兲 correction;
Tsuchida 共1979兲 K␴ ⫽ correction factor for varying confining
Idriss et al. 共1979兲 stress conditions;
Seed 共1979兲 M w ⫽ moment magnitude;
Tsuchida et al. 共1980兲 N1 ⫽ overburden corrected Standard Penetration
Ishihara et al. 共1981兲
Test 共SPT兲 blow counts;
N1,60,CS ⫽ overburden-, fines-, and the
Tohno and Yasuda 共1981兲
procedure-corrected SPT blow counts;
Youd and Wieczorek 共1982兲
N1,72 ⫽ overburden-, and 72% energy corrected
Youd and Bennett 共1983兲
SPT blow counts;

396 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.

 PL ⫽ probability of liquefaction;
pga ⫽ peak ground acceleration;
R2 ⫽ Pearson product moment correlation
coefficient;
rd ⫽ nonlinear mass participation factor;
ti ⫽ thickness of the ith saturated cohesionless
soil sublayer; and
zcr ⫽ critical depth beyond which individual
settlement of layers cannot be traced.
␧v ⫽ postcyclic volumetric strain 共%兲;
␧v,eqv. ⫽ equivalent postcyclic volumetric strain
共%兲;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. 共1997兲. “Equations for estimating
horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North
American Earthquakes: A summary of recent work.” Seismol. Res.
Lett., 68共1兲, 128–153.
Akamoto, H., and Miyake, M. 共1996兲. “Earthquake-induced settlement in
Naruohama Reclaimed Land.” Soils Found., 36共SPI兲, 161–168.
Bardet, J. P., Hu, J., Swift, J., and Tobita, T. 共2002兲. “Ground deformation
database.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Rep.
共CD-ROM兲, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Southern California,
Los Angeles.
Bennett, M. J. 共1989兲. “Liquefaction analysis of the 1971 ground failure
at the San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall, California.” Bull. Int. Assoc.
Eng. Geol., 26共2兲, 209–226.
Bennett, M. J., Ponti, D. J., Tinsley, J. C., Holzer, T. L., and Conaway, C.
H. 共1998兲. “Subsurface geotechnical investigations near sites of
ground deformations caused by the January 17, 1994 Northridge,
California, Earthquake.” Open File Rep. No. 98–373, Dept. of Inte-
rior, USGS, Menlo Park, Calif.
Bennett, M. J., and Tinsley, J. C. 共1995兲. “Geotechnical data from surface
and subsurface samples outside of and within liquefaction-related
ground failure of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties, California.” Open File Rep. No. 95–
663, Dept. of Interior USGS, Menlo Park, Calif.
Bilge, H. T., and Cetin, K. O. 共2007兲 “Field performance case histories
for the assessment of cyclically-induced reconsolidation 共volumetric兲
settlements.” METU EERC Rep. No. 2007/01, 具http://www.ce.metu.
edu.tr/~onder/publications/PUB-NO59.zip典 共Jan. 4, 2007兲.
Booker, J. R., Rahman, M. S., and Seed, H. B. 共1976兲. “GADFLEA—A
computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and
dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading.” Rep. No. EERC 76–
24, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Boulanger, R. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss, I. M. 共1997兲. “Liquefaction at
Moss Landing during Loma Prieta Earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 123共5兲, 453–467.
Boulanger, R. W., and Seed, R. B. 共1995兲. “Liquefaction of sand under
bi-directional monotonic and cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Engrg.,
121共12兲, 870–878.
Cetin, K. O. 共2000兲. “Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil lique-
faction initiation hazard.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Ber-
keley, Calif.
Cetin, K. O. et al. 共2002兲. “Liquefaction-induced ground deformations at
Hotel Sapanca during Izmit-Turkey Earthquake.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng., 22共9–12兲, 1083–1092.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.
F., Jr., Kayen, R. E., and Moss, R. E. S. 共2004a兲. “SPT-based proba-
bilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction po-
tential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共12兲, 1314–1340.
Cetin, K. O., Youd, T. L., Seed, R. B., Bray, D. B., Stewart, J. P., Dur-
gunoglu, H. T., Lettis, W., and Yilmaz, M. T. 共2004b兲. “Liquefaction-
induced lateral spreading at Izmit bay during the Kocaeli 共Izmit兲—
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009 / 397
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.
Turkey earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共12兲, 1300–
1313.
De Alba, P., Benoit, J., Pass, D. G., Carter, J. J., Youd, T. L., and Shakal,
A. 共1994兲. “Deep instrumentation array at the Treasure Island Naval
Station.” Professional Paper No. 1551-A, USGS, Washington, D.C,
155–168.
Fear, C. E., and McRoberts, E. C. 共1995兲. “Report on liquefaction poten-
tial and catalogue of case records.” International Geotechnical Engi-
neering Rep., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Finn, W. D. L., Lee, K. W., and Martin, G. R. 共1977兲. “An effective stress
model for liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 103共6兲, 517–533.
Hamada, M., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1992兲. “1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earth-
quake.” Proc., 4th Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant De-
sign of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction,
Technical Rep. No. NCEER-92-0019, MCEER Publications, Buffalo,
N.Y.
Holzer, T., Bennett, M., and Ponti, D. 共1999兲. “Liquefaction and soil
failure during 1994 Northridge Earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 126共6兲, 438–452.
Holzer, T. L., Tinsley, J. C., Bennett, M. J., and Mueller, C. S. 共1994兲.
“Observed and predicted ground deformation—Miller Farm lateral
spread, Watsonville, California.” Proc., 5th U.S.–Japan Workshop on
Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermea-
sures for Soil Liquefaction, Technical Rep. No. NCEER-94-0026,
MCEER Publications, Buffalo, N.Y., 79–99.
Holzer, T. L., Youd, T. L., and Hanks, T. C. 共1989兲. “Dynamics of lique-
faction during the Superstition Hills Earthquake 共M = 6.5兲 of Novem-
ber, 24, 1987.” Science, 244共4900兲, 56–59.
Idriss, I. M., Arango, I., and Brogan, G. 共1979兲. “Study of liquefaction in
November 23, 1977 Earthquake San Juan Province, Argentina.” Final
Rep., Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, Calif.
Inagaki, H., Iai, S., Sugano, T., Yamazaki, H., and Inatomi, T. 共1996兲.
“Performance of caisson type quay walls at Kobe Port.” Soils Found.,
1, 119–136.
Ishihara, K., Shimuzu, K., and Yamada, Y. 共1981兲. “Pore water pressures
measured in sand deposits during an earthquake.” Soils Found.,
21共4兲, 85–100.
Ishihara, K., and Yamazaki, F. 共1980兲. “Cyclic simple shear tests on satu-
rated sand in multi-directional loading.” Soils Found., 20共1兲, 45–59.
Ishihara, K., Yasuda, S., and Nagase, H. 共1996兲. “Soil characteristics and
ground damage.” Soils Found., 1, 99–108.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M. 共1992兲. “Evaluation of settlements in
sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils
Found., 32共1兲, 173–188.
Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T., and Tokida, K. 共1982兲. “Standard penetration
test and liquefaction potential evaluation.” Proc., Int. Conf. of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, 925–941.
Iwasaki, T., Kawashima, K., and Tokida, K. 共1978兲. “Report of the
Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake of June, 1978.” Rep. No. 1422, Public
Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Tokyo 共in Japa-
nese兲.
Kammerer, A. M. 共2002兲. “Undrained response of Monterey 0/30 sand
under multi-directional cyclic shear loading conditions.” Ph.D. disser-
tation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Kayen, E. R., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., and Shin’ya, N. 共1998兲. “Soil
liquefaction in the East Bay during the earthquake.” The Loma Prieta,
California Earthquake of October, 17, 1989—Liquefaction, Profes-
sional Paper No. 1551-B, 61–86, USGS, Washington, D.C.
Kazama, M., Yamaguchi, A., and Yanagisawa, E. 共1998兲. “Seismic be-
havior of an underlying alluvial clay on manmade islands during the
Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake.” Soils Found., 2共2兲, 23–32.
Kishida, H. 共1969兲. “Characteristics of liquefied sands during Mino-
Owari, Tohnankai and Fukui Earthquakes.” Soils Found., 9共1兲, 75–
92.
Kishida, H. 共1970兲. “Characteristics of liquefaction of level sandy ground
during the Tokachi-Oki Earthquake.” Soils Found., 10共2兲, 103–111.
Koizumi, Y. 共1964兲. “Changes in density of sand subsoil caused by the
 Niigata Earthquake.” Proc., Symp. on Niigata Earthquake, Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
Lee, K. L., and Albaisa, A. 共1974兲. “Earthquake induced settlements in
saturated sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100共GT4兲, 387–406.
Liu, A. H., Stewart, J. P., Abrahamson N. A., and Moriwaki Y. 共2001兲.
“Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction
analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共12兲, 1017–1026.
Liyanathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共2002兲. “A numerical model for
dynamic soil liquefaction analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
22共9–12兲, 1007–1015.
Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L., and Seed, H. B. 共1975兲. “Fundamentals of
liquefaction under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
101共GT5兲, 423–438.
Mejia L. H. 共1998兲. “Liquefaction at Moss Landing.” The Loma Prieta,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/27/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
California Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction, Profes-
sional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Washington, D.C., 129–150.
Mitchell, J. K., Lodge, A., Coutinho, R., Kayen, R., Seed, R. B., Nishio,
S., and Stokoe, K. H. 共1994兲. “In-situ test results from four Loma
Prieta Earthquake liquefaction sites: SPT, CPT, DMT, and shear wave
velocity.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-94/04, Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Ohsaki, Y. 共1966兲. “Niigata Earthquakes, 1964, building damage and soil
conditions.” Soils Found., 6共2兲, 14–37.
O’Rourke, T. D., Pease, J. W., and Stewart, S. E. 共1992兲. “Lifeline per-
formance and ground deformation during the earthquake.” Profes-
sional Paper No. 1551-F, USGS, Washington, D.C., 155–179.
Pearse, J. P., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1998兲. “Liquefaction hazards in the
Mission District and South of Market area, San Francisco.” The Loma
Prieta, California Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction,
Professional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Washington, D.C., 25–60.
Power, M. S., Egan, J. A., Shewbridge, S. E., deBecker, J., and Faris, J.
R. 共1998兲. “Analysis of liquefaction-induced damage on Treasure Is-
land.” The Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October, 17,
1989—Liquefaction, Professional Paper No. 1551-B, USGS, Wash-
ington, D.C., 87–120.
Rollins, K. M., and McHood, M. D. 共1998兲. “Comparison of computed
and measured liquefaction-induced settlements in the Marina District,
San Francisco.” The Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October,
17, 1989—Liquefaction, Professional Paper No. 1551-B, 223–240.
Seed, H. B. 共1979兲. “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for
level ground during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 105共2兲,
201–255.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 共1966兲. “An analysis of soil liquefaction in
the Niigata Earthquake.” Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Materials
Research Laboratory Rep., Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
Calif.
Seed H. B., and Idriss I. M. 共1971兲. “Simplified procedure for evaluating
soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97共9兲,
1249–1273.
Seed, H. B., Martin, G. R., and Lysmer, J. 共1976兲. “Pore-water pressure
changes during soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102共GT4兲,
323–346.
Seed, H. B., Pyke, R. M., and Martin, G. R. 共1975兲. “Effect of multi-
directional shaking on liquefaction of sands.” Rep. No. EERC 75–41,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F., Jr. 共1990兲. “SPT-based analysis of cyclic
pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H.
B. Seed Memorial Sym., BiTech Publishers, Richmond, BC, Canada,
351–376.
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J. M., and Tokimatsu, K. 共1998兲. “Methods for
398 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:387-398.
evaluating residual post-liquefaction ground settlement and horizontal
displacement.” Soils Found., 2共2兲, 69–83.
Shengcong, F., and Tatsuoka, F. 共1983兲. Report of Japan-China coopera-
tive research on engineering lessons from recent Chinese Earth-
quakes, including the 1976 Tangshan earthquake (Part 1), C. Tamura,
T. Katayama, and F. Tatsuoka, eds., Institute of Industrial Science,
Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Stewart, J. P., Thomas, P. A., Seed, R. B., and Bray, J. D. 共1994兲. “Geo-
technical aspects of the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994:
Soil liquefaction and dynamic ground compaction.” Geotech. News,
12共2兲, 53–56.
Tohno, I., and Yasuda, S. 共1981兲. “Liquefaction of the ground during the
1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake.” Soils Found., 21共3兲, 18–34.
Tokimatsu, K., Mizuno, H., and Kakurai, M. 共1996兲. “Building damage
associated with geotechnical problems.” Soils Found., 共1兲, 219–234.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B. 共1984兲. “Simplified procedures of the
evaluation of settlements in clean sands.” Rep. No. UCB/GT-84/16,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. 共1983兲. “Empirical correlation of soil
liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content.” Soils Found.,
23共4兲, 56–74.
Tsuchida, H. 共1979兲. “The damage to port structures by the 1978
Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake.” Technical Note No. 225, The Port and
Harbor Research Institute, Ministry of Transportation, Tokyo 共in Japa-
nese兲.
Tsuchida, H., Iai, S., and Hayashi, S. 共1980兲. “Analysis of liquefaction
during the 1978 Off Miyagi Prefecture Earthquake.” Proc., 7th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Istanbul, Turkey, 211–218.
Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., and Sawada, S. 共2004兲. “Settlement of silty
sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils
Found., 44共5兲, 135–148.
Wakamatsu, T. 共1992兲. “1990 Luzon Earthquake.” Proc., 4th Japan-U.S.
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, Technical Rep. No. NCEER-
92-0019, MCEER Publications, Buffalo, N.Y.
Wu, J., and Seed, R. B. 共2004兲. “Estimating of liquefaction-induced
ground settlement 共case studies兲.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Case His-
tories in Geotechnical Engineering, Paper 3.09, New York.
Wu, J., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction triggering
and post liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0/30 sand under uni-
directional cyclic simple shear loading.” Geotechnical Engineering
Research Rep. No. UCB/GE-2003/01, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Yamada, G. 共1966兲. “Damage to earth structures and foundations by the
Niigata earthquake, June 16, 1964, in JNR.” Soils Found., 6共1兲, 1–13.
Yasuda, S., and Tohno, I. 共1988兲. “Sites of reliquefaction caused by the
1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake.” Soils Found., 28共2兲, 61–72.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.
Youd, T. L., and Bennett, M. J. 共1983兲. “Liquefaction sites, Imperial
Valley California.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 109共3兲, 440–457.
Youd, T. L., and Wieczorek, G. F. 共1982兲. “Liquefaction and secondary
ground failure.” The 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquakes, Professional
Paper No. 1254, USGS, Washington, D.C., 223–246.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. 共2002兲. “Estimating
liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground.”
Can. Geotech. J., 39共5兲, 1168–1180.