Case Study of Reliability Liquefaction
Analysis Based on Standard Penetration
Test: Sakarya City (Turkey)
Zamila Harichane, Ayfer Erken, Mohamed Ghrici,
and Alaa Chateauneuf
Abstract
In the present paper, the standard penetration test
(SPT) based liquefaction trigging analysis using the
first-order moment method probabilistic method (FORM)
was conducted in the Sakarya (Turkey). Variability of
input parameters for a specified level of risk was
considered. The reliability analysis of liquefaction trig-
gering was followed in order to take into account the
uncertainties of input parameters. The SPT results were
obtained in an experimental program following the 1999
Kocaeli earthquake. These results together with the
empirical approach of Seed and Idriss and its updates,
used in a probabilistic framework, were enough to
confirm the occurrence of liquefaction in the studied area.




Keywords


Factor of safety FORM Uncertainty
Liquefaction SPT
1 Introduction
During major earthquakes the occurrence of soil liquefaction
is one of the most disastrous factors that may cause eco-
nomic and human losses. An important aspect for earthquake
risk analysis and hazard management is the evaluation of the
liquefaction potential of soil [1]. Many methods have been
carried out to study le liquefaction triggering but because of
Z. Harichane (&)
M. Ghrici
Geomaterial Laboratory, University Hassiba Benbouali of Chlef,
Chlef, Algeria
e-mail: z.harichane@univ-chlef.dz
A. Erken
Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey
A. Chateauneuf
Institut Pascal, University of Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand,
France
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. Kallel et al. (eds.), Recent Advances in Geo-Environmental Engineering, Geomechanics and Geotechnics,
and Geohazards, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01665-4_50
the difficulty and expense to preserve undisturbed samples
and reproduce the stress state, empirical methods based on
in situ tests such as the standard penetration test (SPT) or the
cone penetration test (CPT) are rather used [2]. Determin-
istically, soil liquefaction is assessed using a safety factor to
judge whether liquefaction would occur or not. But the
inability of this kind of method to determine the liquefaction
probability related to a safety factor [3], probabilistic
methods provide a more reliable analysis. Several practical
reliability-based methods were proposed by several
researchers. Mostly, these methods are based on Seed and
Idriss [4] method together with NSP- or CPT-data to assess
soil liquefaction triggering.
In this paper, a probabilistic procedure for liquefaction
evaluation incorporating uncertainties in the input parame-
ters which were treated as random variables was conducted
based on the popular Seed and Idriss liquefaction analysis
method. The probabilistic approach was built from the steps
in a deterministic liquefaction analysis and the accuracy of
the procedure of analysis was studied by conducting a case
study.
2 Deterministic Model for Soil Liquefaction
Trigging
The deterministic evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils
is frequently carried using the simplified procedure origi-
nally proposed by Seed and Idriss [4] and which, since then,
has undergone several revisions and updates using the SPT.
The evaluation of liquefaction resistance in the Seed and
Idriss procedure involves two calculation steps: (1) the
cyclic stress ratio (CSR), i.e. the cyclic loading on the soil
caused by the earthquake and (2) the cyclic resistance ratio
(CRR) which expresses the resistance of the soil to
liquefaction.
213
214 Z. Harichane et al.

3 Reliability Analysis for Soil Liquefaction 1 lz l  lRS

b¼ ¼ ¼ pRffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð3Þ
Trigging dz dz r2R þ r2S

The different variables involved in this deterministic method
are prone to uncertainties. So reliability assessment of liq-
uefaction may provide means of evaluating the combined
effects of uncertainties in providing better engineering
decisions [5, 6]. The liquefaction potential may be evaluated
at different depths within a soil profile since both CSR and
CRR vary with depth. The reliability analysis for soil liq-
uefaction consists in defining the performance function.
A specified value (or state) called the limit state of the
performance function may be used to judge on the occur-
rence of liquefaction. A simple form of the performance
function for liquefaction is expressed as:
Z ¼ RS
where S denotes the CSR and R the CRR. So, if Z = R −
S < 0, the performance state is “failure”, i.e., liquefaction
occurs. If Z = R − S > 0, the performance state is “safe”,
i.e., no liquefaction occurs. If Z = R − S = 0, the perfor-
mance state is on a “limit state”, i.e., on the boundary
between liquefaction and non-liquefaction states [3]. To
account for measurements or inherent uncertainties in esti-
mating CSR and CRR, the input parameters may be con-
sidered as random variables. The liquefaction probability Pf
is defined as the probability of Z = R − S  :
Z0
pf ¼ PðZ  0Þ¼ fz ðzÞdz ¼ Ffz ð0Þ
1
where fz(Z) and Fz(Z) denote, respectively, the probability
density function (PDF) and cumulative probability function
(CPF) of Z. The reliability index b is defined according to
the first-order and second moment method, as
where dz is the covariance coefficient, lR and rR the mean
value and standard deviation, respectively, of R and lS and
rS those of S. The Hasofer Lind method which is a first-order
reliability method (FORM) [2] was used here.
4 Results
In an experimental program [7] led in the Sakarya-Adapazari
region following the Kocaeli earthquake of Magnitude
M = 7.4, SPT results are available for several places. A soil
profile and index properties of a borehole under a tilted area
was chosen. The safety factor against liquefaction was cal-
ð1Þ culated as the ratio between the CRRand CSRM=7.5 r0v =1atm
where CRRM=7.5, r0v =1atm and CSRM=7.5 r0v =1atm are,
respectively, the CRR and CSR adjusted for M = 7.5 and
r0v = 1 atm. CRRM=7.5, r0v =1atm is deduced from the values of
the equivalent clean sand corrected SPT (N1)60cs and
CSRM=7.5 r0v =1atm according to Boulanger and Idriss [8]. The
deterministic data and results of the borehole BH4 are
plotted in Fig. 1. Judging on factor of safety against lique-
faction, the occurrence of liquefaction is expected. To con-
duct the reliability analysis, the input parameters (fines
content (FC), SPT blow count value (N1)60, peak ground
acceleration (amax), magnitude (MW), total pressure (rv), and
effective pressure (r0v )) were considered as normally dis-
ð2Þ
tributed random variables. The amax value was assumed
0.4 g and the MW value is 7.4. The coefficients of variation
(Cv) of the parameters were estimated according to Phoon
[9] (Table 1). The obtained results are shown in Fig. 2. From
Fig. 2, the probability of failure is close to one (1), except for
the depth z = 8.0 m because of the low value of fine content

Fig. 1 Deterministic data and (a) (N1)60cs (b) CRR M=7.5, (c) CRR M=7.5, (d) Factor of safety
v'=1atm v'=1atm
results of the borehole BH4:
0 10 20 30 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
a (N1)60cs, b CSR M=7.5, r0v =1atm, 0 0
0 0
c CRR M=7.5, r0v =1atm, d factor of
safety (FS) 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35

Table 1 Coefficients of Parameter FC (N1)60 amax MW rv r0v

variation of input parameters
Cv 0.35 0.40 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20
Case Study of Reliability Liquefaction Analysis … 215

Fig. 2 a Probability of failure, (c)

b index of friability and c factors (a) Failure probability (b) Fiability index
affecting the friability analysis 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -3 -1.5 0 (N1)60 FC SV1 SV AMAX MW
against liquefaction at the 0 0
borehole BH4
5 5
10 10

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35

(FC = 15) [9]. Also, the friability index obtained according
to Eq. (3) is negative because of the negative values of the
limit state function (Eq. 1) at all the depths in the soil profile.
The reliability method used in this study confirmed suc-
cessfully the occurrence of liquefaction during the 1999
Kocaelli Earthquake.
5 Conclusion
In this study a reliability analysis of soil liquefaction trigging
has been conducted based on SPT results in the framework of
probabilistic methods. The reliability FORM method has
shown its ability on the decision of the occurrence of lique-
faction at the studied site compared to that confirmed in many
studies that followed the 1999 Kocaelli Earthquake.
References
2. Phoon, K.K., Ching, J.: Risk and Reliability in Geotechnical. CRC
Press Taylor & Francis Group (2015)
3. Hwang, C.W., Yang, C.W., Juang, D.S.: A practical
reliability-based method for assessing soil liquefaction potential.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 24(9), 761–770 (2004)
4. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M.: Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. J. Soil Mech. Foundations Division 97,
1249–1273 (1971)
5. Guellil, M.E., Harichane, Z., Djilali Berkane, H., Sadouki, A.: Soil
and structure uncertainty effects on the soil foundation structure
dynamic response. Earthq. Struct. 12(2), 153–163 (2017)
6. Sadouki, A., Harichane, Z., Elachachi, S.M., Erken, A.: Response of
anisotropic porous layered media with uncertain soil parameters
to shear body- and Love- waves. Earthq. Struct. 14(4), 313–322
(2018)
7. Kaya, Z., Erken, A.: Cyclic and post-cyclic monotonic behavior of
Adapazari soils. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 77, 83–96 (2015)
8. Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M.: CPT and SPT. Based Liquefaction
Triggering Procedures. Report. UCD/CGM- 14/01, Department of
Civil and Environmental. Engineering, University of California
(2014)
9. Phoon, K.K.: Reliability-Based Design in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Computations and Applications, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis
(2008)

1. Huang, H.W., Zhang, J., Zhang, L.M.: Bayesian network for

characterizing model uncertainty of liquefaction potential evaluation
models. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 16(5), 714–722 (2012)