Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Three-dimensional liquefaction potential analysis using

geostatistical interpolation
Kevin M. Dawsona, Laurie G. Baiseb,*
a
Hayward Baker, Inc., 25 Mall Road, Suite 300, Burlington, MA 01803, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, 113 Anderson Hall, Medford, MA 02155, USA
Accepted 15 February 2005

Abstract
We applied three-dimensional geostatistical interpolation to evaluate the extent of liquefiable materials at two sites that liquefied during
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The sites were the Balboa Blvd site and the Wynne Ave. site located in the alluvial San Fernando Valley.
The estimated peak ground accelerations at the sites are 0.84 g (Balboa Blvd) and 0.51 g (Wynne Ave.). These sites were chosen because
surface effects due to liquefaction were not predicted using available techniques based on thickness and depth of liquefiable layers (Ishihara
[Ishihara K. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, vol. 1. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema; 1985. p. 321–76.]) and the Liquefaction Potential Index
(Iwasaki et al. [Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S. A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies
at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on microzonation, San Francisco; 1978. p. 885–96.]). During
the earthquake, both sites experienced surface effects including ground cracking and extension as a result of liquefaction. Foundations and
buried utilities were damaged at both sites. The sites were investigated after the event by researchers with the United States Geologic Survey
using standard penetration tests (SPT) and cone penetration tests. In this paper, liquefaction potential was estimated for each soil sample
using results from SPTs according to the updated Seed and Idriss simplified procedure. The probability of liquefaction was estimated by
applying an indicator transform to the results of the liquefaction potential calculation. We compared our results to detailed geologic mapping
of the sites performed by other researchers. Using geostatistical interpolation to estimate the probability of liquefaction is a useful supplement
to geologic evaluation of liquefaction potential. The geostatistical analysis provides an estimate of the continuous volume of liquefiable soil
along with an assessment of confidence in an interpolation. The probability of liquefaction volumes compare well with those predicted using
geologic interpretations.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil liquefaction; Geostatistics; Three-dimensional; 1994 Northridge earthquake

1. Introduction sediments are generally expected to be spatially variable

Ground deformations were observed at numerous sites in
the San Fernando Valley during the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. The San Fernando Valley is a narrow valley
filled with Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial sediments.
Regionally, Holocene alluvial sediments make up the upper
8–12 m of the San Fernando Valley. In general, Pleistocene
alluvium underlies the Holocene sediments. Alluvial
* Corresponding author. Fax: C1 617 627 3994.
E-mail address: laurie.baise@tufts.edu (L.G. Baise).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.008
as a result of variations in source materials and depositional
processes. Researchers at the United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) investigated several sites in the San Fernando
Valley to determine the cause of ground failure (Bennett
et al. [1]; Holzer et al. [5]). According to the site
investigations, the Balboa Blvd and Wynne Ave. sites had
thin layers of liquefiable material with thicknesses less than
3 m. Both sites plotted below Ishihara’s boundary curves
based on thickness and depth of liquefiable materials for the
occurrence of surface effects (Holzer et al. [5]). Holzer
and others [5] determined that shaking-induced ground
failure caused surface deformations at both sites. A case
study for the Moss Landing area during the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake also showed the potential of ground
370 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
Table 1
List of applicable characterization and modeling parameters
Site PGA (g) # of borings # of samples
Balboa Blvd 0.84 13 113
Wynne Ave. 0.51 8 49
deformations resulting from thin liquefiable soil layers
(Boulanger et al. [2]). Because the continuity of thin
liquefiable soil layers relates to the potential for ground
deformations, we have used three-dimensional geostatistical
interpolation to determine the volume of liquefied soil at a
site. In this paper, we set out to evaluate the measurement of
cumulative volumes of liquefiable soil as a method of
evaluating liquefaction potential using the Balboa Blvd and
Wynne Ave. sites in the San Fernando Valley (Table 1).
Liquefaction potential is usually determined in one-
dimension for a single sample (Seed and Idriss, [14]) or
two-dimensions for the length of a boring (Ishihara, [8];
Iwasaki et al. [9]). The standard penetration test (SPT)
based simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction
potential proposed originally by Seed and Idriss [14] and
used extensively by earthquake engineers looks at soil
samples one sample at a time. Several alternate approaches
have combined sample information over the length of a
boring (Ishihara [8]; Iwasaki et al. [9]). Ishihara [8]
presented curves relating liquefaction-induced ground
deformation to the thickness of the non-liquefiable surface
layer and the thickness of the liquefiable layer at a site.
Ishihara’s curves have been used by many researchers to
evaluate potential for surface effects of liquefaction
(Holzer et al. [5]; Youd and Garris [18]). Youd and Garris
[18] evaluated Ishihara’s curves for numerous cases and
showed that Ishihara’s curves were appropriate for sites
that were not susceptible to ground oscillation or lateral
spread. Iwasaki and others [9] proposed the Liquefaction
Potential Index (LPI) which provides an integration of
liquefaction potential over the length of a boring or CPT.
In 2003, Toprak and Holzer [17] published a field
assessment study of the LPI using cone penetration test
(CPT) soundings at sites that had experienced liquefaction.
The field assessment used both the Wynne Ave. and
Balboa Blvd sites. At Balboa Blvd, the LPI ranged from
0 to 2.3 with averages of 1.2 in liquefied regions and 0.3
in non-liquefied regions. These LPI values are considerably
lower than the common limit for liquefaction proposed by
Iwasaki and others [9] of LPI!5.
Neither Ishihara’s curves nor the LPI were able to predict
the surface deformations observed at both the Balboa Blvd
and Wynne Ave. sites. The challenge at these sites is that the
liquefied material is a relatively thin layer (1–3 m maximum
thickness). The observations at these sites indicate that if a
thin liquefiable layer is continuous it can lead to ground
deformations. Identifying continuous volumes of liquefiable
soil should therefore be linked with establishing liquefac-
tion potential.
% of liquefiable samples Semivariogram range Semivariogram sill
30 394 0.209
61 311 0.233
Since we can track and display subsurface information in
three dimensions, we need a method to determine liquefac-
tion potential using this additional information. In three
dimensions, the volume of liquefiable soil is the measure of
interest. If we could correlate the volume of potentially
liquefiable soil at a site to surface effects, we would be able
to use three-dimensional interpolation to accurately predict
liquefaction potential. The first step in establishing three-
dimensional geostatistical methods for liquefaction poten-
tial evaluation is demonstrating their effectiveness at well
documented liquefied sites. In the following paper, we use
data from the Balboa Blvd and Wynne Ave. sites to evaluate
a three-dimensional geostatistical approach for determining
liquefaction potential.
2. Study sites
Massive ground cracking and failure occurred in the San
Fernando Valley alluvium during the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake. The data collection effort following the North-
ridge earthquake was intended to provide data to study the
ground cracking failure mechanisms and was not specifi-
cally targeted to identify liquefaction failures (Bennet et al.
[1]). Balboa Blvd and Wynne Ave. are two of the
investigated sites. The USGS performed SPTs, CPTs,
grain size, Atterberg limits, and water content tests on soil
samples obtained for each study site.
Holzer and others [5] investigated ground failures at
Balboa Blvd and Wynne Ave. and provided extensive
background on the subsurface conditions and observed
surface effects. The Balboa Blvd site was explored with
13 SPTs and 13 CPTs along a 570 m line. According to
Holzer and others [5], the Balboa site is underlain by
Holocene silty sand to lean clay in the upper 8–10 m.
The Holocene soils are underlain by Pleistocene silty sand.
The Holocene soils include a thin layer of reworked fill over
sheet flood and debris flow deposits. The deepest portion of
Holocene deposits is fluvial in origin. Along the studied
profile, only the fluvial deposits were found to be saturated.
According to their investigations, the Holocene saturated
fluvial deposit was between 8 and 10 m deep, had an
average corrected blowcount of 21 blows/ft, an average
fines content of 42%, and had a maximum thickness of 3 m.
Holzer and others [5] determined that the ground defor-
mations were consistently related to the saturated Holocene
fluvial deposits. The ground deformations consisted of
extensive ground cracking along the entire 570 m of the
study area. The ground deformations resulted in at least six
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
water transmission and natural gas pipeline breaks in the
study area. These deformations were part of an extensive
sequence of cracking that was observed over a 5 km long
section of the northern margin of the San Fernando Valley.
(Holzer et al. [5]).
The Wynne site was explored with 8 SPTs and 11 CPTs
along a 510 m line. According to Holzer and others [5], the
site is underlain by 2 m of silty sand to sandy lean clay
overlying 12–14 m of Holocene sandy silt to lean clay. The
water table was observed at 4.3 m depth. The Holocene
deposit consists of overbank and sheetflood deposits and
includes lenticular sand layers. Holzer and others [5]
concluded that liquefaction occurred in two thin (2 and
1.5 m) sand layers at depths of 6 and 10 m. The upper layer
was concluded to be relatively continuous along the profile
while the deeper layer was suspected to be discontinuous.
According to their investigations, the liquefied deposits had
an average corrected blowcount of 20 blows/ft (6 m depth)
and 27 blows/ft (10 m depth) with an average fines content
of 38%. The ground deformations at the Wynne Ave. site
were more limited than that observed at Balboa Blvd. The
deformations resulted in a 150 m long by 12 m wide down-
dropped block with vertical offsets of 100–200 mm. This
ground failure resulted in ruptured water lines and sewers.
According to Holzer and others [5], the ground defor-
mations at the Wynne Ave. site were collocated with the
deeper discontinuous 1.5 m thick layer of liquefiable
material.
3. Method of study
3.1. Liquefaction analysis
Since it was first published over 30 years ago, the
simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction resistance
of soils (Seed and Idriss [15]; Seed and Idriss [14]; Seed
et al. [16]; NRC [12]) has become the most widely used
means of evaluating site specific liquefaction resistance.
The simplified procedure for liquefaction evaluation has
been updated numerous times. In 2001, following a
workshop on liquefaction, the simplified procedure was
republished with recommended corrections and procedures
(Youd et al. [19]). Although CPTs are often preferred for
characterizing soil liquefaction potential, the CPT is still not
widely available. Both the Wynne Ave. and Balboa Blvd
sites were characterized with both CPT and SPT. We chose
to focus on the SPT results because the majority of existing
site characterization data is SPT. The liquefaction analysis
preformed herein for the Wynne Ave. and Balboa Blvd sites
follows the recommended procedures in Youd and others
[19] for SPT data. The cyclic stress ratio (CSR) was
calculated according to the following equation




tav amax svo
CSR Z 0 Z 0:65 0 rd (1)
svo g svo
371
and rd is calculated according to equations suggested by
Liao and Whitman [11]. The cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
for clean sands and an earthquake magnitude of 7.5 was
calculated using an equation approximating the curve
originally published in Seed and Idriss [14]. The effect of
fines content was incorporated by correcting the (N1)60
value to an equivalent value for clean sands, (N1)60cs, using
the equations in Youd and others [19]. The (N1)60 was
obtained by correcting for overburden. The hammer energy
ratio was assumed to be 60% based on standard practice. A
magnitude scaling factor (MSF) was applied to the CRR.
The recommended MSF is a recommended lower bound
(Youd et al. [19]).
102:24
MSF Z (2)
Mw2:56
We used the recommended correction to CRR for
effective overburden pressure developed by Hynes and
Olsen [6]. A factor of safety of 1.2 was used as the limiting
value between inducing liquefiable soil and non-liquefiable
soil. The recommended design range for factor of safety
against liquefaction is 1.2–1.5 (BSSC, [3]). According to a
proability-based analysis of liquefaction potential study by
Juang and others [10], a factor of safety of 1.2 captures most
of the parameter uncertainty; therefore, a factor of safety of
1.2 was chosen over 1.0 to address some of the uncertainties
in the analysis.
For each soil sample, we calculated the ground accel-
eration necessary to induce liquefaction. This ground
acceleration is referred to as the trigger value. Using the
trigger value for each soil sample paired with the estimated
PGA for the sites, we performed an indicator transform to
the data according to the following equation
(
1 if tPGA % sPGA
iðsPGA Þ Z (3)
0 if tPGA O sPGA
where sPGA is the estimated PGA at the site for the 1994
Northridge event and tPGA is the trigger value. Using the
indicator transform, the trigger values are converted into
probability of occurrence values. A value of one indicates a
probability of occurrence of 100% whereas a value of
0 indicates a probability of occurrence of 0%. The major
advantages to using an indicator transform in this case are to
reduce the effect of outliers and to directly estimate
probabilities of liquefaction. Indicator transforms remove
the detrimental effects of outliers because all data points are
reduced to zeros and ones. In this case, unliquefiable
samples (unsaturated points or high N-values) are assigned a
null value. By using the indicator transform, the null values
are directly associated with the zero probability of
liquefaction. When interpolation is applied to the indicator
transformed data, the estimated values are a measure of the
probability of occurrence for liquefaction. This probability
estimation is a convenient way to incorporate the
geostatistical uncertainty directly into the estimated values.
372 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
The primary disadvantage often associated with indicator
transforms is the loss of information that results from the
transform. Because we are evaluating sites where liquefac-
tion is known to have occurred for a known PGA, the
distribution of trigger values is not as relevant as the
locations of liquefiable samples for this earthquake. There-
fore, the loss of information in the indicator transform is not
a significant detriment for this case.
3.2. Geostatisticscal Analysis
Because geological information often exhibits spatial
correlation, we chose geostatistical methods for interpola-
tion of the indicator values. The main goal of geostatisical
interpolation is to predict unknown sample values while
quantifying the spatial variability of the data set. The
procedure consists of four main steps:
1. Define the relationship between distance and sample
variance; this relationship is known as the
semivariogram.
2. Fit an appropriate model to the semivariogram. The
model provides a mathematical relationship that can be
used to describe the difference in neighboring sample
values with distance.
3. Predict unknown data locations using the
semivariogram.
4. Review the predictions and confirm that predicted values
approximate known values at known value locations.
We will first describe how the four steps are applied to
the general 2D case and then we will present the details on
how the techniques are adapted to 3D. See Isaaks and
Srivastava [7] for a detailed theoretical background of
geostatistics.
The first step in a geostatistical analysis is to establish the
spatial variability of the variable that you are trying to
predict. The spatial variability is defined by the semivario-
gram. The semivariogram is a plot of semi-variance versus
distance interval (Fig. 1). We can find the average semi-
variance for each distance interval as follows
2gðhÞ Z VarfSðuÞ K Sðu C hÞg (4)
where
2g semivariance
Var{y} variance of the increment y
Fig. 1. Semivariogram for the Balboa site.
S(x) value of sample at location x
h distance between samples.
The square root of the semi-variance equals the standard
deviation and the standard deviation is often used as a
measure of confidence when estimating unknown values.
The second step in geostatistical interpolation is the
determination of the proper mathematical model to describe
the spatial variation of the sample population (or to model
the semivariogram). The model that is most often used to
describe this relationship is the spherical model. Instead of a
spherical model, we use a best-fit parametric model. The
semivariogram model is determined with a least squares
minimization. This choice was controlled by the software
package used in the analysis (Ctech—Environmental
Visualization Systems).
The best-fit semivariogram model for the indicator
values at the Balboa site is shown in Fig. 1. The range can
be qualitatively described as the distance over which
samples are correlated. The indicator values at the Balboa
Blvd site are spatially correlated over a distance of 288 m.
The sill describes the plateau of the semivariogram and is
related to the variability of the data set beyond the limits of
spatial correlation. The sill at the Balboa site is 0.21.
Another variable that is usually associated with semivario-
grams is the nugget. The nugget value is a measure of the
inherent variability of the data, or the random error. The
nugget is forced to zero by the software package used in this
study. The rational for omitting nugget values is to require
that the interpolation always estimates values at locations
that match known data.
The third step is the estimation of unknown values. We
use kriging to estimate probability of liquefaction values
across the sites of interest. Kriging is often referred to as a
Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE). We used ordinary
kriging for interpolation. In order to predict the optimum
value, Popt, at point, P, kriging assigns weights (wn) to the
value of the adjacent known sample values (Sn) as shown
below.
Popt Z w1 S1 C w2 S2 C/C wn Sn (5)
When assigning weights, the error of the estimate at point
P is minimized and the weights sum to one. Samples with
lower variance (according to the semivariogram model)
receive higher weights than samples with higher variance.
This ensures that the estimate will have the lowest
error/highest confidence.
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
Fig. 2. Probability of liquefaction at the Balboa Blvd site.
Geostatistical interpolation methods can be used not only
to predict unknown values but also to determine the amount
of uncertainty in that prediction. The ability to determine
and quantify the error in any prediction is an essential
component in any type of analysis. One major advantage of
using geostatistical interpolation techniques is that the
statistical confidence of predicted values can be directly
calculated using the standard deviation and the local mean.
We use the statistical concept of confidence to evaluate the
reliability of the geostatistical predictions of probability of
liquefaction. The confidence bounds used herein are set by a
confidence level (68% confidence) and a specified tolerance
level (maximum standard deviation allowed). In most cases,
we used a tolerance of 20% probability of liquefaction.
The description of geostatistical methods thus far is for
two-dimensions. In order to extend geostatistical methods to
three-dimensions, several additional assumptions are
needed. In order to create a 3D semivariogram, the distance
between pairs is determined in three dimensions instead of
two dimensions. The vertical dimension is included in the
semivariogram model by including a vertical anisotropy
factor. Variation of soil properties is almost always greater
in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction. The
large differences over small vertical distances can skew the
semivariogram relationship if anisotropy is not taken into
account. In order to weight the influence of horizontal
samples more than the influence of vertical samples during
prediction, we use a horizontal/vertical anisotropy factor.
Fig. 3. Sixty-eight percent confidence volume for interpolated probability of liquefaction at Balboa Avenue site with a tolerance of 15%. The vertical
exaggeration is 6 times.
373
Because the anisotropy factor is user-defined, it should be
chosen based on the soil type. Based on previous studies of
spatial correlation in soil deposits (DeGroot [4]; Phoon and
Kulhawy [13]), we choose a factor of 20 for both the Wynne
Ave. and Balboa Blvd sites. The soils at both sites are
fluvial, alluvial, floodplain, and overbank deposits and
should exhibit some degree of horizontal continuity. In the
literature, the range for horizontal to vertical anisotropy for
geotechnical materials is 10–40 (DeGroot [4]; Phoon and
Kulhawy [13]). For a factor of 20, known data values
located vertically from a prediction point influence the
prediction the same as data points located 20 times the
distance horizontally from the prediction point. This model
is used for three-dimensional kriging which is a simple
extension of the 2D kriging described above.
3.3. Confidence and tolerance levels
Following the procedure described above, we built three-
dimensional models of the probability of liquefaction for
each site. The probability of liquefaction at the Balboa site
is shown in a cross-sectional view in Fig. 2. This model
includes all predictions regardless of the confidence in the
prediction. In order to determine appropriate values for
confidence and tolerance, we tested several values. Fig. 3
shows the volume of soil at the Balboa site where the
probability of liquefaction (0–100%) is predicted within
15% with 68% confidence. Fig. 4 shows the same scenario
374 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
Fig. 4. Sixty-eight percent confidence volume for interpolated probability of liquefaction at Balboa Avenue site with a tolerance of 20%. The vertical
exaggeration is 6 times.
but with a confidence of 68% and a tolerance of 20%. The
soil volume within the 68% confidence volume is
significantly larger using 20% rather than 15% tolerance
(145,880 vs. 81,349 m3). If we keep the tolerance at 20%
and vary the confidence level, we will also change the
volume that is within the specified confidence and tolerance.
Fig. 5 shows the volume of soil at the Balboa site where the
probability of liquefaction is predicted with a confidence of
95% and a tolerance of 20% (4773 m3). In order to predict
probability of liquefaction at this high level of confidence,
the data needs to be very densely spaced. The choice of
tolerance and confidence level for the remainder of this
analysis is somewhat arbitrary. We want a balance between
providing estimates of probability of liquefaction and
keeping the estimate uncertainty low. By setting a
confidence and tolerance level, we accept a certain level
of uncertainty in our estimates. For the remainder of the
analysis, we will use a tolerance of 20% and a confidence of
68% (unless stated otherwise).
3.4. Probability of liquefaction
Fig. 6 shows the volume of soil at the Balboa Blvd site
where the probability of liquefaction is greater than 50, 75,
and 90% all within the 68% confidence limits. The volume
of soil shrinks as the probability of liquefaction increases.
At 90% probability, the volume of soil has tightened around
the soil samples with indicator values of one. Where
multiple liquefiable samples exist as neighbors either
vertically or horizontally, the volume is continuous between
Fig. 5. Ninety-five percent confidence volume for interpolated probability of liquefaction at Balboa Avenue site with a tolerance of 20%. The vertical
exaggeration is 6 times.
samples. Soil samples with indicator of values of one that
are not surrounded by similar valued samples are not
included in the large continuous volumes but have very
small isolated volume pockets.
Fig. 7 shows the volume of soil that has greater than 75%
probability of liquefaction without the confidence limits. A
comparison of Figs. 6(b) and 7 shows the benefits of using
the confidence limits. Geologically, we might agree with
Fig. 7—that the liquefiable volumes are connected laterally;
however, geostatistically we cannot make the same
conclusion.
4. Interpretation of results
The same analyses performed for the Balboa site and
described above were performed at the Wynne Ave. site.
We can start by comparing the spatial correlation at the
sites. For the purposes of visualizing the differences
between the two sites, we have plotted the semivariogram,
Fig. 8. The range of the semivariogram model for Balboa
equals 288 ft, the sill equals 0.21. The range of the
semivariogram model for Wynne equals 248 ft, the sill
equals 0.23. The semivariograms are very similar at the two
sites. The Wynne Ave. site has a slightly shorter range and
higher sill—indicating less spatial correlation and more
overall variability. As a result of the differences in data
distribution and estimated spatial variability, the volume of
soil that can be estimated with a high degree of confidence at
the Wynne Ave. site is smaller.
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381 375

Fig. 6. Volume of soil at (a) 50% probability of liquefaction (b) 75% probability of liquefaction and (c) 90% probability of liquefaction at the Balboa Avenue
site where the data is 68% confident with a tolerance of 0.2. Vertical exaggeration is 6 times.

The sites are similar in size but were sampled differently.
The Balboa site is approximately 500 m across and has 13
borings with SPT values. In comparison, the Wynne site is
also approximately 500 m across but has only 8 borings with
SPT values. The spacing of the borings at the Wynne site
leaves large gaps of 150–250 m between groups of borings.
As a result, the Wynne Ave. site semivariogram has a
smaller distribution of separation distances represented.
The semivariogram estimate is affected by the spacing of the
data as well as by the true spatial correlation of the site.
Fig. 9 shows the volume of soil at the Wynne site where
the probability of liquefaction is predicted within 20 with
68% confidence (99,428 m3). As expected, the volume of
soil is smaller than observed at the Balboa site
(144,580 m3). We use the 68% confidence volumes of soil
to normalize the probability volume estimates for each site.

Fig. 7. Seventy-five percent probability of liquefaction at the Balboa site with no consideration for confidence in prediction. Vertical exaggeration is 6 times.
376 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381

Fig. 8. Semivariogram for Balboa Blvd and Wynne Avenue.

Fig. 9. Sixty-eight percent confidence volume for interpolated probability of liquefaction at Wynne Avenue site with a tolerance of 20%. Vertical exaggeration
is 5 times.

The resulting volume estimates can be translated into 68%
confidence volume percentages. Because we use the same
confidence and tolerance levels, we can directly compare
the volume percentages for the sites with varying spatial
variability. If we did not filter the data by confidence, the
comparison between sites would be biased.
Fig. 10 shows the volume of soil at the Wynne Ave. site
where the probability of liquefaction is greater than 50, 75,
and 90% all using the 68% confidence limits. The results are
very similar to that observed at the Balboa Blvd site.
Although the 68% confidence volume is lower at the Wynne
site, the percentage of soil within the 68% confidence
volume that has a high probability of liquefaction is higher.
From the SPT data, the Wynne site has 61% of the soil
samples being classified as liquefiable versus only 30% at
the Balboa site.
Fig. 11 shows the volume of soil that has greater than
75% probability of liquefaction without the confidence
limits. A comparison of Figs. 10(b) and 11 shows a
significantly larger volume of soil would be predicted as

Fig. 10. Volume of soil at (a) 50% probability of liquefaction (b) 75% probability of liquefaction and (c) 90% probability of liquefaction at the Wynne Avenue
site where the data is 68% confident with a tolerance of 0.2. Vertical exaggeration is 5 times.
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381 377

Fig. 11. Seventy-five percent probability of liquefaction at the Wynne site with no consideration for confidence in prediction. Vertical exaggeration is 5 times.

having a high probability of liquefaction if confidence limits
were not set. The effect is more significant at Wynne than at
Balboa because of the differences in boring spacing and
spatial correlation mentioned earlier. Again, geologically
Fig. 11 makes sense—a laterally continuous liquefiable
layer—but the predicted volume has a low confidence level
between borings.
In order to compare the geologic interpretations of
liquefaction at the sites (Holzer et al. [5]), we plot their
interpreted cross-sections for each site against our geosta-
tistical estimates using a probability of liquefaction of 75%
and the 68% confidence level with 20% tolerance. These
comparisons are shown in Fig. 12 (Balboa) and Fig. 13
(Wynne). At both sites, the liquefiable areas on the
interpreted cross-sections match those on the geostatistical
cross-sections. The advantage of the geostatistical cross-
sections is that they are directly associated with a confidence
level. The disadvantage of the geostatistical estimates is that
they are not bounded by interpreted geologic contours. The
geologic interpretation is based on an understanding of
regional geology, the soil characterizations in the borings
and CPTs and the experience of the geologist. Geologic
interpretations generally do not have associated uncertainty
estimates. Holzer and others [5] geologic interpretation does
not match the geostatistical estimates in the areas of low
confidence. A combination of the geologic interpretation

Fig. 12. (a) Cross-section of Balboa Boulevard showing liquefiable layer thicknesses (Holzer, Bennet, Ponti, and Tinsley, 1999). (b) Cross-section of Balboa
Boulevard showing interpolated liquefiable layer thicknesses for a probability of liquefactionZ75%, toleranceZ0.20, confidenceZ68%.
378 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381

Fig. 13. (a) Cross-section of Wynne Avenue showing liquefiable layer thicknesses (Holzer, Bennet, Ponti, and Tinsley, 1999). (b) Cross-section of Wynne
Avenue showing interpolated liquefiable layer thicknesses for a probability of liquefactionZ75%, toleranceZ0.20, confidenceZ68%.

and the geostatistical interpretation provides the best
estimate of liquefiable materials.
At the Balboa Blvd site, Holzer and others [5] predicted
that the aggregate thickness of liquefied material was
between 1 and 2 m along the southern portion and less than
1 m along the northern portion of the site. Our estimated
volume of liquefied material ranges from 30 to 9% for 50
and 90% probability of liquefaction within the 68%
confidence bounds. The thickness of liquefied material
follows the trend determined by Holzer and others [5] from
south to north. The largest continuous volume of liquefied
material for the 68% confidence is between 3,794,045 and
3,794,145 N and has a maximum thickness of 5 m. When
the confidence bounds are ignored, a continuous volume of
soil is predicted from the southern portion of the site to
3,794,170 N at 75% probability of liquefaction. The
northern portion of the site has a smaller but also continuous
volume at 75% probability. The geostatistical interpolation
connects the southern and northern volumes of liquefied
materials only at probabilities of liquefaction less than 25%.
At the Wynne Ave. site, Holzer and others [5] predicted
an aggregate thickness of liquefied material of over 3 m
beneath the ground deformations but closer to 1 m across
the rest of the site. Our estimated volume of liquefied
material ranges from 63 to 40% for 50 and 90% probability
of liquefaction within the 68% confidence bounds.
According to our probability of liquefaction volume
estimates, the largest continuous volume of liquefied
material at the Wynne Ave. site was predicted to be
beneath the area of ground deformations and had a
maximum thickness near 5 m. The confidence bounds
limit the volumes laterally and vertically. The vertical
confidence is significantly higher than the lateral confi-
dence as a result of higher data density. If the confidence
bounds were not taken into account, the continuous volume
of liquefied material at a probability of 75% would extend
across the entire site and would be far thicker than that
predicted geologically (Holzer et al. [5]).
The geostatistical estimates of volume of liquefied
materials are more constrained by confidence bounds at
the Wynne Ave. site than the Balboa Blvd site as a result of
differences in the spacing of subsurface investigations. The
geostatistical estimates do not predict the same 1 m thick
layer of liquefiable materials across the site that were
predicted geologically; instead the volumes are thicker and
less continuous (as a result of low confidence).
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381 379

100.00%

90.00%
BALBOA (0.84g)

Percentage of Liquefiable Soil I 80.00% Wynne (0.51g)

70.00%

60.00%
Ishihara 0.2g
50.00%
Ishihara 0.3g

40.00%
Ishihara 0.4g-0.5g
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Probability of Liquefaction

Fig. 14. Percentage of liquefiable soil versus probability of liquefaction with Ishihara [8] boundary curves (ConfidenceZ68%, ToleranceZ0.20).

In order to directly compare the results for the two sites, Both the Balboa and Wynne sites should be compared to
we calculated the percentage of theoretically liquefiable soil Ishihara’s 0.4–0.5 g boundary. This comparison may be
for each probability of liquefaction. These calculations are more appropriate for the Wynne site (PGAZ0.51 g)
presented graphically in Fig. 14. Once we determined because the estimated PGA at Balboa is 0.84 g. For the
the relationship between volume of liquefiable soil and Wynne site, the percentage of liquefiable soils is always
probability of liquefaction for each site, we could compare above the Ishihara boundary (although when plotted directly
the relationship to Ishihara’s curves for liquefaction surface on Ishihara’s curves, the Wynne site plots below the
effects based on thickness and depth to unit. Ishihara’s 0.4–0.5 g curve). The Balboa site crosses the boundary at a
boundary curves are shown in Fig. 15. Ishihara [8] presented probability of liquefaction of 56%.
three boundary curves, one for a PGA equal to 0.2, one for a Each site typically has a different ratio of liquefiable
PGA equal to 0.3, and one for a PGA between 0.4 and 0.5. to non-liquefiable samples. This ratio directly affects
If we assume a uniform soil deposit with a constant thickness
liquefied layer at a constant depth, we can convert Ishihara’s
boundary curves to percentages of liquefiable material:

thliquefiable
Volliquefiable ð%Þ Z !100 (6)
thliquefiable C thsurface

We plotted the minimum Volliquefiable for each boundary

curve as a straight line on our graph relating the percentage of
liquefiable soil to the probability of liquefaction, Fig. 14. For
each of Ishihara’s curves, the Volliquefiable increases after a
certain thsurface. One additional difference between this
approximation to Ishihara’s boundary curves and our
predictions of Volliquefiable using geostastistical interpolation
is that Ishihara’s curves only use the liquefiable layer and the
overlying materials in the volume calculation. Ishihara’s
Volliquefiable would be significantly lower if the entire soil
profile was considered. If we assume a soil profile of 20 m
thickness, Ishihara’s Volliquefiable range from 5% (for a 1 m
thick liquefiable layer) to 40% (for an 8 m thick liquefiable
layer). According to Ishihara [5], the 1 m thick liquefiable
layer will only lead to surface effects if the surface layer
is less than 1 m thick (0.2 g) to 3 m thick (0.4–0.5 g).
Our geostatistical estimates of Volliquefiable do not consider
thickness of surface layer. Fig. 15. Liquefaction occurrence boundary curves presented by Ishihara [8].
380 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
Table 2
Liquefiable volume calculations
Site % Liquefiable Ishihara’s
samples volume (%)
Balboa Blvd 31 8.6
Wynne Ave. 60 14
the volume calculations. At the Balboa site, 30% of the SPT
samples were predicted to liquefy. At the Wynne site, 61%
of the SPT samples were predicted to liquefy. The raw
percentages of samples meet the geostatistical Volliquefiable
predictions at 49 and 60% probability of liquefaction,
respectively. The slope of the line describing the variation
of the volume of liquefiable soil with the probability of
liquefaction is generally low for sites with high numbers
of liquefiable samples and steepens as the percentage of
liquefiable samples decreases. We can see this trend in
Fig. 14 for our two sites.
Holzer and others [5] estimate that the thickness of the
overlying non-liquefiable layer at Balboa equals 8.1 m and
the aggregate thickness of liquefiable layers equals 0.7 m.
According to Ishihara’s curve 0.4–0.5 g curve, the site
should not exhibit surface effects to liquefaction. In terms of
volume, this equals 8.6%. We calculate that the percentage
of liquefiable soil at Balboa Boulevard equals 8.6% at a
probability of liquefaction equal to 0.91. This helps us
interpret at what probability of liquefaction our results
match results obtained using the Ishihara [8] method. For
the Wynne site, Holzer and others [5] estimated the average
thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable layer at about
6 m. The estimated aggregate thickness of liquefiable layers
was around 1 m (14% Volliquefiable). According to Ishihara’s
0.4–0.5 g curve, liquefaction induced surface effects would
not be expected at the Wynne Ave. site. If we only look at
the area under the observed ground deformations where the
aggregate thickness of liquefiable materials was closer to
3 m (33% Volliquefiable), the site would plot above Ishihara’s
curve. According to the geostatistical prediction of
Volliquefiable at Wynne, Volliquefiable is always above 33%
(Ishihara’s prediction).
In order to understand the differences in the geostatistical
results and the geologic interpretation by Holzer and others
[5], both results are plotted in Fig. 12 (Balboa) and Fig. 13
(Wynne). We can see that the interpolated thickness of
liquefiable layers for a probability of liquefaction equal to
0.9 matches the liquefiable layer thickness plotted by Holzer
and others [5] very closely. Note that we used a factor of
safety against liquefaction equal to 1.2 rather than 1.0, so
some inherent variation exists. The effect of this variation is
negligible for this comparison. At a probability of liquefac-
tion equal to 90%, we do not interpolate far from our
liquefiable samples. At this high probability, our method
approximates the Ishihara method since our volume
estimates are focused closely around known liquefiable
samples. At a probability of liquefaction equal to 50%, our
Geostatistical volume Geostatistical volume Geostatistical volume
50% probability 75% probability 90% probability
30 16 8.8
63 53 40
interpolated liquefiable layer thickness increase substan-
tially. We have included soil that is close to non-liquefiable
samples and soil located between soil borings. We are able to
include this soil and statistically quantify its probability of
liquefaction. In this way, our method matches the Ishihara
[8] method for high probabilities of liquefaction. Our method
also enables researchers to consider soil that is liquefiable at
a probability of liquefaction less than 1.0.
Table 2 compares the predicted ratio of liquefiable
materials for one-dimensional (samples), two-dimensional
(Ishihara’s curves), and three-dimensional (geostatistics)
estimates. With the addition of a dimension, more
information is added. The 1D estimate completely ignores
geologic structure. The 2D estimate includes information
about thickness and location of liquefiable materials that are
understood to affect the occurrence of ground deformations.
The 3D estimate takes into account the spatial correlation of
liquefiable materials. The 3D estimate presented here does
not take into account depth of materials but thickness of
deposits is included in the volume estimates.
5. Conclusions
We have presented a method of three-dimensional
geostatistical liquefaction evaluation. The method consists
of four main steps. First, calculate the trigger accelerations
for all soil samples at the study site and assign liquefaction
indicator values to the soil samples. Second, build a three
dimensional model of the probability of liquefaction at a
known statistical tolerance and confidence. Third, calculate
the percentage of theoretically liquefiable soil present at the
site over a range of probabilities of liquefaction. Finally,
compare the results with interpreted geologic structure of
the site.
We have shown how we calculate the volume of
liquefiable soil at a site for a given confidence and tolerance
over a range of probabilities of liquefaction and we have
compared our results to geologic interpretations at the
Balboa Blvd and Wynne Ave. site in the San Fernando
Valley. The advantage of the three-dimensional geostatis-
tical interpolation is that it identifies volumes of continuous
liquefiable soil and the estimate includes an evaluation of
uncertainty (using confidence and tolerance bounds).
Because the continuous nature of liquefiable soil is an
important factor in the extent of surface effects, this method
holds promise over the existing methods for determining
extent of surface effects due to liquefaction.
 K.M. Dawson, L.G. Baise / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 369–381
Our future research focuses on the development of a
larger case history database in order to develop a
relationship between continuous volume and surface effects
resulting from liquefaction. The reliability of the method
depends on the accurate development of the relationship
between the volume of liquefiable soil at a site and the onset
of liquefaction-induced ground damage. An improved case
history database will help refine the boundaries for surface
effects.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank researchers at the USGS who
gathered this valuable data set after the 1994 Northridge
earthquake and performed the geologic interpretation shown
in Figs. 12 and 13 for the two sites.
References
[1] Bennett MJ, Ponti DJ, Tinsley III JC, Holzer TL, Conaway CH.
Subsurface geotechnical investigations near sites of ground defor-
mation caused by the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California,
Earthquake. US Geological Society Open-File Report 98-373; 1998.
[2] Boulanger RW, Mejia LH, Idriss IM. Liquefaction at Moss landing
during the Loma Prieta earthquake. J Geotech Eng 1997;123(5):
453–67.
[3] Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP recommended provisions
for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Part 2.
Commentary, Foundation Design Requirements, Washington, DC;
1997.
[4] DeGroot DJ. Analyzing spatial variability of in situ soil properties. In:
ASCE proceedings of uncertainty’96, uncertainty in the geologic
environment: from theory to practice, ASCE geotechnical special
publication no. 58 p. 210–38.
[5] Holzer TL, Bennett MJ, Ponti DJ, Tinsley III JC. Liquefaction and soil
failure during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 1999;125(6):438–52.
381
[6] Hynes ME, Olsen RS. Influence of confining stress on liquefaction
resistance. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on physics
and mechanics of soil liquefaction, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands p. 145–52.
[7] Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM. An introduction to applied geostatistics.
New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.
[8] Ishihara K. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In:
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering. vol. 1. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema; 1985 p. 321–76.
[9] Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S. A practical method for
assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various
sites in Japan. In: In: Proceedings of the second international
conference on microzonation, San Francisco p. 885–96.
[10] Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD. Assessing probability-based methods
for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Eng 2002;128(7):
580–9.
[11] Liao S, Whitman RV. Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand.
J Geotech Eng ASCE 1986;112(3):373–7.
[12] National Research Council (NRC). Liquefaction of soils during
earthquakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985.
[13] Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. On quantifying inherent soil variability. In:
In: Proceedings of uncertainty ’96, uncertainty in the geologic
environment: From theory to practice, ASCE geotechnical special
publication no. 58 p. 326–40.
[14] Seed HB, Idriss IM. In: Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute Monograph; 1982.
[15] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1971;97(9):1249–73.
[16] Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM. The influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 1985;111(12):1425–45.
[17] Toprak S, Holzer TL. Liquefaction potential index: field assessment.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(4):315–22.
[18] Youd TL, Garris CT. Liquefaction-induced ground-surface disrup-
tion. J Geotech Eng 1995;121(11):805–9.
[19] Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT,
et al. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
2001;817–33.