Rollins Et Al 2022 A New Vs Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure For Gravelly Soils

A New V s -Based Liquefaction-Triggering
Procedure for Gravelly Soils

Kyle M. Rollins, M.ASCE 1; Jashod Roy, M.ASCE 2; Adda Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, M.ASCE 3;
Dimitrios Zekkos, M.ASCE 4; Sara Amoroso 5; Zhenzhong Cao 6; Giuliano Milana 7;
Maurizio Vassallo 8; and Giuseppe Di Giulio 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: Liquefaction assessment has primarily been performed using in situ penetration testing, but this practice has become problematic
for gravelly soils. For example, standard penetration test (SPT)- or cone penetration test (CPT)-based correlations can become unreliable
owing to interference with large gravel particles, while the Becker Penetration Test, commonly used for gravelly soil, can be relatively
expensive and requires conversion to an equivalent sand blow count. As an alternative, probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves have
been developed based on shear-wave velocity (V s ) using gravel sites in the M w 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. These curves have significant
uncertainty because of the small data set. In this study, new probabilistic triggering curves for gravel liquefaction have been developed based
on a V s data set. The data set consists of 174 data points (96 liquefaction and 78 no liquefaction) obtained from 17 earthquakes in seven
countries within different geological environments. The larger data set better constrained the curves and reduced the range between the 15%
and 85% probability of liquefaction curves, indicating less uncertainty. These triggering curves for gravel are shifted to the right relative
to comparable curves for sand, indicating that higher V s values are necessary to preclude liquefaction. To account for the influence of
the different earthquake magnitudes on liquefaction, a magnitude scaling factor (MSF) was developed specifically for gravel. This curve
falls within the range of other MSF curves for sands based on V s . DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002784. © 2022 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Gravel liquefaction; Probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curve; Shear-wave velocity; Magnitude scaling factor
(MSF).
Introduction
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham
Young Univ., 430 Engineering Bldg., Provo, UT 84602 (corresponding Liquefaction of loose saturated granular soils produces significant
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8977-6619. Email: rollinsk@ damage to civil infrastructure such as bridges, roadways, and ports
byu.edu in most major earthquakes. Liquefaction and the resulting loss of
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, shear strength causes landslides, lateral spreading, and bearing
Brigham Young Univ., 430 Engineering Bldg., Provo, UT 84602. Email: capacity failure for foundations, along with excessive settlement
jashod.roy@gmail.com and rotation of foundations. Direct and indirect economic losses
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California, resulting from liquefaction are substantial costs to society. Evi-
Berkeley, CA 94720. Email: adda.zekkos@berkeley.edu
4 dence of gravel liquefaction has been reported in multiple case
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720. Email: zekkos@berkeley.edu histories during 26 earthquake events over the past 130 years, as
5
Associate Professor, Dept. of Engineering and Geology, Univ. of summarized in Table 1. Assessing the potential for liquefaction
Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, Pescara 65129, Italy; Researcher, Roma of gravelly soils in a cost-effective and reliable way has often posed
1 Section, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Viale Crispi, 42, a significant challenge in geotechnical engineering.
L’Aquila 67100, Italy. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5835 Typical laboratory investigation techniques have proven ineffec-
-079X. Email: sara.amoroso@unich.it tive for characterizing gravelly soil due to the cost and difficulty of
6
Professor, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechni- extracting undisturbed samples from gravelly deposits (Cao et al.
cal Engineering, Guilin Univ. of Technology, Guilin 541004, China. Email:
2013). In addition, the large particle size of gravels can lead to ar-
iemczz@163.com
7
Technologist, Roma 1 Section, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
tificially high penetration resistance values from traditional in situ
Vulcanologia, Via di Vigna Murata, 605, Rome 00143, Italy. Email: tests such as the cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetra-
giuliano.milana@ingv.it tion test (SPT) (DeJong et al. 2017). The 168-mm-diameter Becker
8 penetration test (BPT) (Harder and Seed 1986; Harder 1997) re-
Researcher, Roma 1 Section, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia, Viale Crispi, 43, L’Aquila 67100, Italy. Email: maurizio duces the potential for artificially high penetration values; however,
.vassallo@ingv.it this method is relatively expensive and is not available outside
9
Researcher, Roma 1 Section, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e of North America. In addition, the method requires a correlation
Vulcanologia, Viale Crispi, 43, L’Aquila 67100, Italy. Email: giuseppe between the BPT blow count and the SPT blow count, which leads
.digiulio@ingv.it
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 14, 2021; approved on
to greater uncertainty relative to methods that are directly correlated
January 6, 2022; published online on April 5, 2022. Discussion period open with field liquefaction resistance.
until September 5, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for indi- As an alternative, in situ measurement of shear-wave velocity
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and (V s ) is a popular way of characterizing the liquefaction resistance
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241. of soil deposits. V s is a basic mechanical property of soil materials,
© ASCE 04022040-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

Table 1. Case histories involving liquefaction of gravelly soil
Earthquake Year Mw Reference
Mino-Owari, Japan 1891 7.9 Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983)
San Francisco, California 1906 8.2 Youd and Hoose (1978)
Messina, Italy 1908 7.1 Baratta (1910)
Fukui, Japan 1948 7.3 Ishihara (1985)
Alaska, USA 1964 9.2 Coulter and Migliaccio (1966), and McCulloch and Bonilla (1970)
Haicheng, China 1975 7.3 Wang (1984)
Tangshan, China 1976 7.8 Wang (1984)
Friuli, Italy 1976 6.4 Sirovich (1996a, b), and Rollins et al. (2020)
Miyagiken-Oki, Japan 1978 7.4 Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983)
Montenegro 1979 6.9 Kociu (2004)
Borah Peak, Idaho, USA 1985 6.9 Youd et al. (1985), Andrus (1994), and Harder and Seed (1986)
Armenia 1988 6.8 Yegian et al. (1994)
Limon, Costa Rica 1991 7.7 Franke and Rollins (2017)
Roermond, Netherlands 1992 5.8 Maurenbrecher et al. (1995)
Hokkaido, Japan 1993 7.8 Kokusho et al. (1995)
Kobe, Japan 1995 7.2 Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)
Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 7.8 Chu et al. (2000), and Lin et al. (2004)
Kocaeli, Turley 1999 7.6 Bardet et al. (2000)
Wenchuan, China 2008 7.9 Cao et al. (2011, 2013)
Tohoku, Japan 2010 9.0 Tatsuoka et al. (2017)
Cephalonia Island, Greece 2012 6.1 Nikolaou et al. (2014), and Athanasopoulos-Zekkos et al. (2019, 2021)
Iquique, Chile 2014 8.2 Rollins et al. (2014), and Morales et al. (2020)
Muisne, Ecuador 2016 7.8 Lopez et al. (2018)
Kaikoura, New Zealand 2016 7.8 Cubrinovsky et al. (2017)
Durres, Albania 2019 6.4 Pavlides et al. (2020)
Petrinja, Croatia 2020 6.4 Amoroso et al. (2021)
directly related to the small strain shear modulus (G0 ), that is an dispersion characteristics of the ground (Stokoe et al. 1994; Andrus
essential parameter for performing soil–structure interaction analy- 1994; Kayen et al. 2002). These noninvasive test methods can sig-
sis and liquefaction evaluation under earthquake loading. The use nificantly reduce the cost of in situ V s estimation, although they are
of V s as an index of liquefaction resistance is based on the fact that affected by uncertainties related to poor ability in resolving very
V s and liquefaction resistance are similarly influenced by void ra- thin layers and very short wavelengths. They also suffer from un-
tio, effective vertical stresses, stress history, and geologic age (Youd certainty in inverting the dispersion curve and become less reliable
et al. 2001). In addition, V s is considerably less sensitive to the with depth below the ground surface (Vantassel and Cox 2021).
problems of soil compression and reduced penetration resistance Despite these limitations, which also affect techniques based on
when fines are present, compared with SPT and CPT methods. body waves, the noninvasive techniques are a good compromise
Moreover, V s only requires relatively minor corrections for fines for deriving an average V s profile at a rather low operational cost,
content (FC), at least for sands (Kayen et al. 2013), unlike the SPT especially at stiffer sites where penetration techniques are not pos-
or CPT, which requires significant correction for FC for liquefac- sible. In fact, testing at three field test sites indicated that variability
tion evaluation. The primary advantage of the in situ V s approach is of V s profiles from noninvasive methods were generally compa-
that testing can be performed at sites where boring is not possible, rable to those from invasive methods when performed by experts
or the penetration test results may be unreliable. Hence, V s meas- (Garofalo et al. 2016b).
urement can be considered a reliable and economical alternative to Dobry et al. (1982) proposed a strain-based approach for assess-
overcoming the difficulties of penetration testing through gravelly ing liquefaction potential and developed the concept of a cyclic
strata. Nevertheless, some concern exists about the applicability of threshold strain for which pore pressures are generated. To develop
V s measurement for liquefaction assessment because V s is essen- a more simplified method of liquefaction-triggering analysis com-
tially a small-strain parameter, whereas liquefaction is a medium- to patible with in situ tests like the SPT or CPT, Seed et al. (1983)
large-strain phenomenon (Jamiolkowski and Lo Presti 1990; Kramer developed a cyclic stress ratio ðCSRÞ − V s triggering model using
1996). However, the ultimate strength, at large strain, typically SPT versus V s correlations. Later, in the early 1990s, several cor-
increases as the initial shear stiffness increases, so V s may still be relations were developed between the effective stress normalized
correlated with liquefaction resistance. shear-wave velocity (V s1 ) and the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
The traditional methods of measuring V s require a penetrometer causing liquefaction based on an increasing number of direct field
or instrumented boreholes to measure the travel time of shear waves measurements of V s at liquefaction sites (Robertson et al. 1992;
at various depths. A downhole test requires one borehole to mea- Kayen et al. 1992; Lodge 1994). These correlations were based
sure the vertically propagating wave, while a cross-hole test re- on the liquefaction of sandy soils.
quires at least two boreholes to directly measure the horizontally Andrus and Stokoe (2000) increased the population of V s data
propagating wave (Stokoe et al. 1994). These invasive test methods by collecting a large database from locations around the world
are usually quite expensive due to the cost of drilling, casing, and where both sandy and gravelly soils had liquefied in various seis-
grouting boreholes. In the last two decades, some advanced non- mic events. Based on this data set, improved triggering curves were
invasive test methods [spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) developed for sands and gravels for different FC percentages. The
and multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)] have been database of Andrus and Stokoe (2000) only contained a limited
developed that indirectly estimate the V s profile using surface-wave number of data points, where the V s1 was higher than 200 m=s

even for gravelly soils. This is consistent with observations by magnitudes. Therefore, it was difficult to apply these triggering
Kokusho et al. (1995) that loose gravels, despite being well graded, curves in evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils for
can exhibit shear-wave velocities similar to those of loose sands earthquakes with different magnitudes. While existing magnitude
and can be susceptible to liquefaction. In contrast, the SPT-V s cor- scaling factor (MSF) curves that were developed for sand liquefac-
relation of Ohta and Goto (1978) and the correlation of Rollins et al. tion can be used (e.g., Youd et al. 2001), it is uncertain whether they
(1998) suggest a higher range of V s1 (230 m=s) for liquefiable Hol- would be appropriate for assessing gravel liquefaction based on V s .
ocene gravels. Such variation of shear-wave velocity in gravelly Therefore, additional effort is necessary to collect more V s data
soils can be due to variations in gravel content, grain size distribu- from the gravel liquefaction sites to improve the existing V s -based
tion, and the relative density of the soil matrix (Kokusho et al. 1995; liquefaction-triggering curves for gravelly soils.
Weston 1996; Chang 2016; Chen et al. 2018). For example, a loose Hence, in this study, a larger database consisting of 174 data
well-graded gravel deposit and a medium-dense to dense sand points was compiled by collecting 127 additional data points from
deposit can have a similar range of shear-wave velocity. 7 different countries around the world where gravel liquefaction did
Based on the Andrus and Stokoe (2000) data set, Juang et al. or did not take place in 17 major earthquake events and adding
(2001, 2002) developed probabilistic V s1 -based liquefaction- them to the existing 47 data points from China reported by Cao
triggering curves using reliability-based concepts. Kayen et al. et al. (2011). Based on this new data set, a new family of probabi-
(2013) subsequently developed V s -based probabilistic liquefaction- listic liquefaction-triggering curves was developed using logistic
triggering curves for sandy soils by compiling a large database of regression techniques. The triggering equations developed in this
422 case histories of sand liquefaction. However, all these probabi- study include the moment magnitude for each case history as an
listic correlations are based on the liquefaction of sands rather than independent variable. This formulation made it possible to develop
gravels. a new MSF curve expressly for gravel liquefaction based on V s .
Using logistic regression techniques, Cao et al. (2011) produced This paper provides details regarding the collection and processing
liquefaction probability curves based on V s data collected from of the expanded data set along with the development of the new
the Chengdu Plain in China, where gravel liquefaction took place liquefaction-triggering procedure. The proposed V s -based trigger-
during the 2008 M w 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake [Fig. 1(a)]. These ing curves are compared with existing V s -based probabilistic trig-
probability curves were based on 47 data points (19 liquefaction gering curves developed for gravel by Cao et al. (2011), as well
and 28 no liquefaction) for a single earthquake and in a similar those developed for sand by Kayen et al. (2013).
geological environment that consisted of loose alluvial fan gravel
deposits that are typically overlain by a clay surface layer that is Collection of Additional V s -Based Case
2–4 m thick (Cao et al. 2011). Owing to the limited number of data History Data
points and the possibility of false negatives (e.g., sites where lique-
faction may have occurred but did not produce surface manifesta- As a part of this study, additional gravel liquefaction case history
tion), the 15% and 85% probability of liquefaction-triggering data were obtained by performing or collecting in situ V s test
curves are relatively far apart. In comparison, V s -based probabilis- data from sites around the world where gravelly soil liquefaction
tic liquefaction-triggering curves for sands (Kayen et al. 2013) has been identified. The sites where gravel liquefaction features
shown in Fig. 1(b) have more closely grouped 15% and 85% (e.g., surface ejecta of gravelly soils, lateral spreading, settlement
probability curves because of the much larger size of the data set. manifestation) were found were treated as liquefaction points.
Moreover, the Cao et al. (2011) probability curves were developed In addition, V s data were also collected from sites where no
for a single M w 7.9 earthquake, which made it impossible to liquefaction was evident despite having gravel layers below the
develop appropriate correction factors for different earthquake water table. These no-liquefaction points may provide an important
Fig. 1. Comparison of (a) V s -based probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves for gravel (Cao et al. 2011); and (b) V s -based probabilistic
liquefaction-triggering curves for sand (Kayen et al. 2013). Liquefaction points are denoted by solid symbols while nonliquefied points are denoted
by open symbols.

Fig. 2. Range of grain size distribution curves for liquefiable gravelly soil based on collected case history database (according to ASTM criteria).
constraint on triggering curves. In some cases, these points were the

same sites that might have liquefied during higher-magnitude earth-
quakes but produced no liquefaction effects for other smaller earth-
quake events. The sites for V s testing were strategically selected to
fill significant gaps in the data set. Among the no-liquefaction
cases, there may be some false negative points (Boulanger and
Idriss 2014; Cao et al. 2013), which might have liquefied during
the actual event but produced no surface manifestation owing to
the presence of a thick impermeable cap layer overlying the grav-
elly strata that could prevent the eruption of gravelly ejecta onto the
surface. In addition, the relatively small width of ground cracks and
fissures may also hinder the eruption of relatively heavy and large
gravel particles. These issues could not be properly captured only
based on site investigations performed in this study and remain
a source of uncertainty in developing the liquefaction-triggering
procedure.
Salient information for every site corresponding to each case
history event is summarized in the Table S1 along with the relevant
references. Further details for every site, including the soil profiles Fig. 3. Distribution of countries with gravel case histories for shear
and damage caused by the liquefaction incidence, can be found in wave velocity data set.
the respective references listed in the table. A summary of the gra-
dation curves for the investigated sites is shown in Fig. 2, which
provides an overall range of the particle size distribution for the
potentially liquefiable gravelly deposits. Fig. 2 shows that the grav- 7 other countries. The distribution of data collected from different
elly deposits have gravel contents of 20% to 70% according to the countries is shown by the bar chart in Fig. 3. The gravelly deposits
4.75-mm gravel size criterion. The newly collected case histories at ports and dams are primarily artificial fills, whereas other sites
were added to the existing Chinese data to form a large V s -database consist of natural deposits from alluvial fans, glacial outwash,
of gravel liquefaction case histories. The expanded database con- and fluvial processes. A bar chart is provided in Fig. 4 to show
sists of 174 case histories (96 liquefaction sites and 78 nonlique- the distribution of different types of soil deposits included in the
faction sites) resulting from 17 different earthquakes in 7 countries. gravel liquefaction case history database. This figure indicates that
This collection of data provides a 270% increase in the number of the alluvial deposits and artificial fills have experienced larger num-
case histories relative to the database of Cao et al. (2011). bers of gravel liquefaction incidents, whereas a relatively smaller
Although a large portion of the new data points come from number of incidents took place in the glaciofluvial and fluvial
China (Zhou et al. 2020), there are also 76 new case histories from deposits.

Fig. 4. Distribution of deposition environments for gravel case history

data set. Fig. 5. Distribution of V s test method for gravel case history data set.
(Arai and Tokimatsu 2005; Picozzi et al. 2005) for some of the
Performance of In Situ Tests to Collect Additional investigated sites. The HVSR curve using ambient noise (Nogoshi
V s Data and Igarashi 1971; Nakamura 1989) was computed using ambient
At many sites V s testing was performed using the MASW method. noise recorded for a few hours by collocated seismic stations using
The MASW method considers the dispersion of Rayleigh waves to a three-component velocimeter with an eigenfrequency of 5 s. The
generate an apparent phase-velocity dispersion relationship that is HVSR curve was considered to be connected to the ellipticity of
then used in an inversion analysis to derive a V s profile. MASW Rayleigh-wave during the inversion step, with the HVSR peak pro-
surveys were performed using a linear array at each site composed viding information on the fundamental resonance frequency of the
of vertical geophones (4.5 Hz) spaced at 1-m intervals to increase site (Fäh et al. 2003).
resolution near the surface and 3-m intervals for greater depths. A This procedure, based on a joint inversion, helped extend the
sledgehammer (usually 5.5 kg) striking on a plastic plate was used investigated frequency range toward lower frequency values and
as the seismic source. The source was aligned to the geophones and to reduce the ambiguities typically encountered in velocity profile
located at several offsets (three to five) for each linear array. For inversions (Tokimatsu 1997; Wathelet et al. 2004). A joint inver-
each offset, a stack of three to five measurements was considered sion, combining active and passive data analysis as well as any a
adequate to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. The recorded phase priori information, allows one, in principle, to increase the reliabil-
offset of different frequency waves (f-k analysis) is used to develop ity of the estimates of the average shear-wave velocity profile and to
a relationship between phase velocity and frequency (or wave- achieve a greater investigation depth compared to that obtained by
length) called a dispersion curve. Based on the dispersion curves, inverting only the dispersion curve from active data (Bard et al.
inversion analyses were conducted using the Park et al. (1999) 2010). Details of these inversion analyses for every site to obtain
methodology and typically without a priori subsurface information the best estimate of V s can be found in the corresponding reference
to derive a shear-wave velocity model. It is well known that major given in the Table S1.
differences in interpretation arise not from the dispersion analyses Besides MASW, other tests, e.g., SASW, cross-hole testing, and
in particular, but from the inversion algorithm used to estimate the downhole testing, were also performed at several sites, as men-
V s profile from the dispersion curve. Therefore, the inversion pro- tioned in Table S1, to obtain the V s profile. The distribution of
cess has a much stronger effect on the final V s model compared to different test methods used to investigate the gravel case history
the dispersion curve generation method (Garofalo et al. 2016a). data in the present study is plotted in Fig. 5. The plot shows that
At some Italian sites (Avasinis and Bordano), two-dimensional the highest percentage of the V s data was obtained by performing
arrays of 24 vertical geophones with a diameter of approximately MASW testing at sites in Alaska, China, Italy, Ecuador, Greece,
50 m were installed in addition to the MASW acquisition. For and New Zealand. A major portion of the Chinese data (Zhou et al.
the array’s configuration, 23 geophones were installed around 2 2020) was also obtained by performing SASW and downhole test-
concentric circles (with radii of 12 and 24 m, respectively) with ing. Moreover, SASW testing was also performed at sites in Idaho
a spacing between adjacent geophones of approximately 10 m. by Andrus (1994). At a few sites in Alaska, Friuli, and Idaho, cross-
The last geophone was installed in the centers of circles. These hole testing was also performed. The seismic dilatometer was also
arrays acquired ambient seismic noise for at least 1.5 h, and the used to measure V s at one site in L’Aquila.
data were analyzed through the frequency-wavenumber (f-k) algo-
rithm to define a more refined dispersion curve generally charac- Data Interpretation and Selection of Critical Layers
terized by a higher resolution toward low frequencies (<10 Hz),
The V s values obtained by various in situ methods were corrected
compared to that inferred from the linear MASW analysis.
for overburden pressure to obtain V s1 using the equation
The surface-wave inversion is affected by the nonuniqueness of
the solution (Foti et al. 2009), and to better constrain the inversion 0 0.25
V s1 ¼ V s ðPa =σvo Þ ð1Þ
procedure, a joint inversion of surface Rayleigh-wave dispersion
0
curves and ellipticity curves derived from ambient vibration analy- where σvo = initial vertical effective stress; and Pa = atmospheric
ses [horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (HVSR)] was performed pressure approximated by a value of 100 kPa, as suggested by

Sykora (1987) and adopted by Youd et al. (2001). These normal- the depth that may be potentially liquefiable. Out of several pos-
ized V s1 profiles based on the V s testing were then plotted as a sible layers, the representative critical layer for each borehole was
function of depth. It should be noted that Liao and Whitman selected as that layer located closest to the water table that was most
(1986) recommended Eq. (1) for sandy soils with a wide range of likely to produce manifestation on the ground surface and had a
gradations and densities of soil matrix. Hence, the use of Eq. (1) to minimum thickness of 1 m to avoid the effect of thin peaks and
estimate the normalized shear-wave velocity for gravelly soil is a troughs, as suggested by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). Nonliquefi-
reasonable approximation because the gravelly deposits contain able cohesive soil layers were deliberately excluded from the criti-
a considerable sand content as shown by the gradation curves in cal layer consideration.
Fig. 2. However, the correction factor may depend on a few other The distribution of V s1 with respect to the depth of critical layers
characteristics, such as angularity, compressibility, and crushing for all the data points is illustrated in Fig. 7. The plot shows that the
strength, that might differ in the case of gravelly soil relative to critical gravel layers are mostly constrained within a depth of 12 m
sandy soil. To address these issues, exclusive investigation is re- and the majority of the V s1 values for liquefiable strata remain less
quired to explore the correction factors specifically for gravelly than approximately 300 m=s. This range of critical layer depth is
soils, which is beyond the scope of this study.
In addition, the CSR for each site and earthquake event was
obtained using the simplified equation
0
CSR ¼ 0.65ðamax =gÞðσvo =σvo Þrd ð2Þ
Seed and Idriss (1971) developed Eq. (2), where σvo is the initial
vertical total stress; amax is the peak ground acceleration (PGA);
and rd is a depth reduction factor as reported in Youd et al. (2001).
The PGAs (amax ) for each site were obtained either from nearby
strong ground motion stations (SGMSs) or from USGS ShakeMaps
(Worden et al. 2010) depending on the available data. This is a sim-
ilar approach to that adopted by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) while
developing CPT-based liquefaction-triggering procedure for sandy
soil. According to the references given in the Table S1, the PGAs at
the sites of Manta, Hokkaido, Borah Peak, Wellington, Lixouri, and
Argostoli were estimated from the nearby SGMS records. The
PGAs at the Chengdu Plain in China were obtained from the con-
tour maps developed from the nearby SGMS records. At the Italian
sites, the SGMSs were located within the area of Avasinis but not
close to the liquefied areas. Hence, the PGAs estimated from the
nearby SGMSs were verified with the results of a ground motion Fig. 6. Distribution of earthquake magnitude (Mw ) and corresponding
prediction equation (GMPE) (Bindi et al. 2011) and USGS Shake- PGA for improved data set.
Map estimations, as reported in Rollins et al. (2020). At the sites in
Alaska, PGAs were obtained from a USGS ShakeMap. At the sites
in L’Aquila, PGAs were determined using the SGMSs for sites
(Aquila3 and Aquila4) close to a seismic station in operation
during the earthquake and using the information derived from the
ShakeMap (Faenza and Michelini 2011) for the remaining sites.
Overall, 88% of PGA data are directly based on SGMS records
and the remaining 12% are from USGS ShakeMaps. It should
be noted that estimation of PGAs from different kinds of sources
may add considerable uncertainty to the liquefaction potential
evaluation. However, the fact that a large percentage of the PGAs
in this study are based on direct measurement in the field can ac-
tually reduce the uncertainty to a moderate level.
Besides CSR, the moment magnitude (M w ) was treated as an-
other independent variable while developing the liquefaction-
triggering procedure. The values of M w for all seismic events are
also provided in the Table S1. The distribution of M w versus PGA
for all the data points is plotted in Fig. 6. This shows that the data
set contains a broad range of M w from 5.3 to 9.2 along with the
PGAs varying from 0.116g to 1.457g. In Fig. 6, several points over-
lap each other that actually represent multiple sites for similar earth-
quake magnitudes but different PGAs.
Based on the V s1 and CSR plots with depth, the critical layer
for each location was identified as the layer with the highest po-
tential to trigger and manifest liquefaction at the ground surface
(Cubrinovski et al. 2018). Typically, this was the gravelly layer
Fig. 7. Distribution of critical layer depth and corresponding V s1 for
corresponding to the lowest range of V s1 value below the water
expanded gravel liquefaction case history data set.
table (Kayen et al. 2013). There can be multiple critical layers along

consistent with some previous investigation results. For example, Hydraulic conductivity is another parameter, independent of
Youd et al. (2001) reported that the depth of the critical layers shear-wave velocity (Zhou et al. 2020), that may significantly con-
for most of the empirical SPT liquefaction data is less than 15 m. trol the pore pressure generation in gravelly strata during seismic
Likewise, Cubrinovski et al. (2017) noted that only one case history loading. As reported by Seed et al. (1976), gravelly soil with a
in the 250 CPT-based liquefaction case histories assembled by hydraulic conductivity greater than approximately 0.3 cm=s is
Boulanger and Idriss (2014) was located deeper than 10 m. For the unlikely to liquefy owing to rapid dissipation of pore water pres-
no-liquefaction points, the V s1 values are distributed roughly from sure. However, the presence of an impermeable cap layer on top of
180 to 450 m=s. These no-liquefaction cases are a result of low the gravelly strata, as found in many of the case histories considered
CSR values because loose soil deposits may still not liquefy if in this study (e.g., Cao et al. 2012; Yegian et al. 1984; Rollins et al.
the CSR is low. Therefore, the no-liquefaction points are distributed 2020), may hinder the dissipation of pore pressure during an
over a broader range of V s1 . earthquake and cause the triggering of liquefaction in the gravelly
strata (Chen et al. 2018). In addition, an impermeable cap layer
can also reduce the effect of liquefaction manifestation at the

Limitations of Compiled Database surface. In some cases, this may lead to a site being classified as
Besides shear-wave velocity (V s ), CSR, and moment magnitude a no-liquefaction site, even though liquefaction may have occurred
(Mw ), other significant parameters, for example, percentage of in the ground. This, of course, is a source of uncertainty for all
fines, sand and gravel, relative density, hydraulic conductivity, and available liquefaction-triggering curves. On the other hand, without
thickness of impermeable cap layer overlying the gravelly strata, the presence of any overlying impervious cap, several layers clas-
may also play a significant role in controlling the liquefaction sified as sandy gravel according to the Unified Soil Classification
resistance of gravelly soils. FC has already been included as an System could still have a sufficiently low hydraulic conductivity to
independent variable in developing V s -based correlations for evalu- generate high excess pore pressure and cause liquefaction during an
ating the liquefaction potential of sands (Andrus and Stokoe 2000; earthquake event. For example, She et al. (2006) observed that
Kayen et al. 2013). Unfortunately, the gravel liquefaction case gravel–sand mixtures having more than approximately 30% sand
histories collected in the present study lack sufficient data for the typically have hydraulic conductivities that are similar to those
critical layers to statistically formulate the influence of FC on the of sandy soils. Furthermore, DeJong et al. (2017) reported that
liquefaction resistance. However, FC information was included for the permeability of sand–gravel mixtures is often low enough to
some Japanese and Italian sites where specific information was generate excess pore pressures in earthquakes because the per-
available based on sampling data. For many of the remaining sites, meability is controlled by the D10 size, as noted by the Kozeny-
a range of FC data was available instead of specific sampling data Karmen equation (Kozeny 1927), which is controlled by the sand
for every V s -testing location based on the range of gradation curves content.
given in the corresponding reference (Fig. 3), and those FC ranges A summary of the average grain size distribution curves for the
are also included in the Supplemental Materials table. In addition to data set used in this study (Fig. 2) indicates that most gravelly sites
the FC, the percentage of sand (SC) and gravel (GC), along with the have a high sand content and a small D10 size, which produce a
relative density, significantly control the shear-wave velocity (V s ) hydraulic conductivity low enough to allow pore pressure to de-
of gravelly strata. Chang (2016) semiempirically correlated V s with velop during earthquake shaking. Therefore, the presence of an
GC and evaluated the liquefaction resistance of gravelly sand using impermeable layer on top of the gravelly strata is not necessary
the GC-corrected V s . According to Chang (2016), the liquefaction to restrict the dissipation of pore water pressure and induce lique-
resistance of gravelly sand with GC less than a threshold value faction. However, the available data regarding the hydraulic con-
(30%–60%), where the gravel particles float in the sand matrix, can ductivity and other parameters controlling the generation of pore
be evaluated based on the V s of the sand matrix by applying the GC pressure are still insufficient for inclusion in statistical regression
correction factor. However, if the GC is higher than the threshold analyses for developing a new liquefaction-triggering framework.
value, V s should be estimated based on the overall soil mixture
instead of only the sand matrix in performing the liquefaction
evaluation. Liquefaction Evaluation by Existing V s -Based
Zhou et al. (2020) established a correlation between V s1 and GC Triggering Procedure of Cao et al. (2011)
for a wider range based on the V s of the gravelly deposits in the
Chengdu Plain in China after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. This The collected data set given in the Table S1 allows us to evaluate
correlation shows a wide variation between the upper and lower the performance of the existing V s -based triggering curves of Cao
bounds of the V s1 , which can be attributed to variations in relative et al. (2011) to predict the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils.
density in the soil strata. In this study, the database given in the The Cao et al. (2011) triggering curves were developed for a single
Table S1 contains average information on GC for most of the sites earthquake event of Mw 7.9. Therefore, to perform the liquefaction
instead of specific data for every location, except for the Chinese assessment for the new database having a variety of earthquake
data from Zhou et al. (2020), whereas information on relative den- magnitudes, the original triggering curves of Cao et al. (2011) were
sity is not available due to the difficulty in undisturbed sampling at modified to an earthquake reference standard of M w 7.5 using MSFs
most of the sites. Hence, the parameter GC could not be considered given by the following equation, as reported in Youd et al. (2001):
in the regression analysis owing to insufficient information regard-
MSF ¼ 102.24 =M 2.56
w ð3Þ
ing grain size distribution for all critical layers. Furthermore, the
present database contains a wide range of GCs where the GC- Hence, the modified form of the probability of liquefaction (PL )
correction factor (Chang 2016) is not applicable for the purpose is given as follows by Eq. (4):
of obtaining an equivalent liquefaction evaluation for sandy soil.
However, the in situ measured V s1 , which was included as the 1
PL ¼ ð4Þ
primary variable in the development of the triggering curves, 1 þ expð−11.97 þ 0.039V s1 − 1.77lnCSRM¼7.5 Þ
can be treated as a combined function of all these parameters
(GC, relative density) to account for their effect on the correlation. where CSRM¼7.5 is obtained by Eq. (5)

CSRM¼7.5 ¼ CSR=MSF ð5Þ predicts liquefaction for a significant number of cases where no
liquefaction occurred, a new set of triggering curves needs to be
Rearranging Eq. (4), the CRR at M w 7.5 can be expressed as developed, based on the expanded data set, to provide a better as-
8 9 sessment of liquefaction observed in the field case histories. Based
>
<11.97 þ 0.039V s1 − ln 1−P L >
= on the additional data points, the spread in the triggering curves
PL
CRRM¼7.5 ¼ exp ð6Þ from 15% to 85% may also become narrower as false negatives
>
: 1.17 >
; and false positives (sites with cracking but without ejecta) become
a smaller percentage of the total data set.
Using Eq. (6), a modified set of triggering curves was obtained
for 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 85% probability of liquefaction. In
addition, the CSRs of all the data points having different earthquake Development of New Probabilistic Triggering Curves
magnitudes were also converted to Mw 7.5 using Eq. (5). For each
data point, the converted CSR was plotted with the corresponding In this study, a logistic regression analysis (Liao et al. 1988; Youd
V s1 along with the modified triggering curves, as shown in Fig. 8, and Noble 1997; Cao et al. 2011, 2013; Rollins et al. 2021) has
to provide a magnitude standard. Liquefaction data points are de- been performed to obtain a new set of probabilistic liquefaction-
noted by solid symbols, while no-liquefaction data points are triggering curves based on the whole database given in the Table S1.
denoted by open symbols. Unlike the correlation of Cao et al. (2011) which involved only one
Fig. 8 shows that most of the newly added liquefaction points seismic event, the moment magnitude (M w ) has been considered to
with probabilities of liquefaction greater than 50% are satisfactorily be an independent variable along with the other explanatory vari-
evaluated by the Cao et al. (2011) triggering curves. In contrast, the ables i.e., normalized shear-wave velocity (V s1 ) and the natural log
no-liquefaction points from the Port of Wellington (Cook Strait and of the cyclic stress ratio [lnðCSRÞ] while performing the logistic
Lake Grassmere earthquakes) and Argostoli (1983 earthquake) fall regression analysis. To compute the CSR, the formulation of rd
above the 30% triggering line. In other words, these sites are evalu- in Eq. (2) has been updated to Eq. (7) to include the effect of mag-
ated as potentially liquefiable, but this is inconsistent because these nitude on the variation of rd with depth
sites did not liquefy during the actual seismic event. Furthermore,
the no-liquefaction points from L’Aquila in Italy at the middle rd ¼ e½αðzÞþβðzÞMw ð7Þ
portion of the plot fall between the 30% and 50% triggering curve,
indicating a relatively high chance of liquefaction, whereas the where
gravelly deposits at these sites did not liquefy during the actual
earthquake events. z
αðzÞ ¼ −1.012–1.126 sin þ 5.133 ð8Þ
In addition, a large number of no-liquefaction data points from 11.73
the Chengdu Plain in China newly added from Zhou et al. (2020)
during the Wenchuan earthquake fall considerably above the 30%
z
triggering line, suggesting that those points could be liquefiable. βðzÞ ¼ 0.106 þ 0.118 sin þ 5.142 ð9Þ
Because the existing Cao et al. (2011) triggering curve incorrectly 11.28
Fig. 8. Comparison of CSR-V s1 points for all collected data with probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves developed by Cao et al. (2011). Solid
markers denote liquefaction sites, while open markers denote no-liquefaction sites.

and z is the depth in meters, as proposed by Golesorkhi (1989) and values. These cycles of regression are performed until the proba-
Idriss (1999). bility values of all the explanatory variables remaining in the model
become less than 0.05.
Regression Model
Analysis Results and Discussion
According to the logistic regression analysis procedure, the prob-
ability that liquefaction (PL ) will occur is expressed by the general Following Steps 1–3, different forms of equations including lower
equation to higher degrees of polynomials in V s1 , M w , and ln(CSR) were
obtained. The estimates of model parameters for these different
1
PL ðθ; XÞ ¼ ð10Þ forms are summarized in Table 2. The set of results shows that no
1 þ expðθ1 X 1 þ θ2 X 2 þ · · · þθn X n Þ combination of the basic explanatory variables was found to be
statistically significant. Although all the solutions given in Table 2
where the series of X values represents the soil and the earthquake are statistically admissible, there are slight variations in their per-
parameters. In this study, these variables are V s1 , M w , and ln(CSR) formance in evaluating the liquefaction and no-liquefaction points
along with various combinations of these primary variables. The of various ranges. To illustrate this fact, 30% triggering curves for
vectors θ are the model coefficients, which are unknowns that need each of the different solutions were plotted together with all the
to be estimated to define the function of the probability of lique- points in Fig. 9.
faction (PL ). These parameters were obtained using the maximum Fig. 9 shows that the triggering curve based on the solution
likelihood estimation (MLE) technique. The likelihood function of Trial 1, which is a function of only a first-order polynomial
can be expressed as in V s1 , starts with a much lower range of CRR that does not prop-
Y erly evaluate several no-liquefaction points in the low range of V s1 .
Lðθ; XÞ ¼ ½PL ðθ; XÞn ½1 − PL ðθ; XÞm−n ð11Þ
The triggering curve obtained from the solution of Trial 2, which
contains a second-order polynomial in V s1 , is much improved com-
where m = total number of data in sample; and n = total number
pared to the first-order solution at the lower range, but it becomes
of liquefied sites, i.e., m − n = total number of nonliquefied sites.
slightly slanted toward the right at the upper end of the curve, which
To maximize this likelihood function, the following condition
may present some limitations in evaluating the no-liquefaction
should be satisfied:
points at the high range of V s1 . On the other hand, the Trial 4
∂Lðθ; XÞ solution having V s1 polynomial up to the fourth order makes the
¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; n ð12Þ triggering curve too steep and vertical from the middle to high
∂θi
range of CRR, which may produce limitations in evaluating some
By satisfying Eq. (12), n number of equations can be obtained, liquefaction points in the middle or higher range of CSR. Hence, in
which need to be solved to estimate the model coefficients θ. judging the performance of all these curves for the given data set,
However, solving this set of equations required extensive numerical the Trial 3 solution based on a third-order polynomial of V s1 was
programming that was accomplished by simply using the variable determined to be the most suitable way of determining the lique-
selection procedure (Youd and Noble 1997) with the JMP Pro 13 faction potential of the existing points in a reliable manner. There-
software package in this study. A similar approach was taken by fore, the recommended equation for obtaining the probability of
Rollins et al. (2021) to develop the liquefaction-triggering pro- liquefaction from this updated regression analysis is as follows:
cedure based on the dynamic penetration test (DPT) penetration
resistance. However, a brief illustration of the logistic regression 1
PL ¼ ð13Þ
analysis associated with the stepwise variable selection procedure 1 þ expf1.6M w þ 4.95 lnðCSRÞ − 3.88 × 10−7 V 3s1 g
following the approach of Rollins et al. (2021) is given as follows:
Step 1: First a set of explanatory variables is defined by Rearranging Eq. (13), the revised CRR can be written in the
combining normalized shear-wave velocity (V s1 ) and earthquake following form:
parameters [ln(CSR) and M w ] in different forms. The explanatory 8 9
variables in the first set are [V s1 , V 2s1 , V 3s1 , V 4s1 , M w , ln(CSR)] and >
<3.88 × 10−7 V 3s1 − 1.6M w − ln 1−P L >
=
different combinations of these variables, for example, M w lnðCSRÞ, PL
CRR ¼ exp ð14Þ
M w V s1 , and V s1 lnðCSRÞ. Hence, the likelihood function is formu- >
: 4.95 >
;
lated as a function of this set of variables as given by Eq. (11), and
the first cycle of regression is performed to estimate the first set of
model parameters based on Eq. (12). The relationship between V s1 and CRR can be obtained by
Step 2: Following completion of the first cycle, chi-square test substituting Mw ¼ 7.5 and various probabilities of liquefaction.
results and p-values (the probability that the level of prediction of
the model would decrease if the explanatory variable provided zero
contribution to the model) are checked for the estimated model Table 2. Results of model parameter estimates from logistic regression
parameters for all the variables. The variable having the maximum analysis
p-value and minimum chi-square value is eliminated from the set of Parameter estimations (p < 0.05)
explanatory variables because a high p-value essentially indicates Candidate
that the associated variable makes the least contribution to the variable Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
predictive capacity of the model. Hence, following elimination of V s1 −0.048 — — —
the variable with the highest p-value, a new regression analysis is V 2s1 — −1.48 × 10−4 — —
performed based on the new set of variables following Step 1. V 3s1 — — −3.88 × 10−7 —
Step 3: Steps 1 and 2 are repeated iteratively and the insignifi- V 4s1 — — — −1.3 × 10−9
cant variables are excluded from the prediction model after each Mw 2.02 2.01 1.6 1.52
lnðCSRÞ 3.046 5.11 4.95 5.152
cycle of regression based on the chi-square test and probability

Fig. 9. Comparison among different logistic regression solutions for 30% probability of liquefaction relative to liquefaction and no-liquefaction
points. Solid markers denote liquefaction sites, while open markers denote no-liquefaction sites.
Development of Magnitude Scaling Factor that the MSF model developed for gravelly soil falls about midway
between the Andrus and Stokoe (2000) curve at the high end and
While comparing the data points with the Cao et al. (2011) trigger- the Kayen et al. (2013) curve at the low end, both of which were
ing curves, the original CSRs for all the points with various M w developed for sandy soil based on V s1 . In addition, the MSF curve
values were converted to CSRM¼7.5 using Eq. (5), the lower-bound from this study falls just below the lower-bound range for MSF
MSF curve (Idriss 1999) recommended by the National Center for recommended by the NCEER/NSF liquefaction workshop (Youd
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER)/National Science et al. 2001) but slightly higher than the MSF curve proposed by
Foundation (NSF) workshop (Youd et al. 2001). However, the Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Hence, the MSF model developed
Idriss (1999) MSF equation was primarily developed for the in this study for gravelly soil appears to be reasonably consistent
liquefaction of sand, which could be a reason for the improper with existing MSF curves for sands.
liquefaction assessment of several gravel liquefaction case histories
using the Cao et al. (2011) triggering curves. In the new
liquefaction-triggering procedure described in the previous section,
the moment magnitude, M w , was treated as a separate variable as
shown in Eqs. (13) and (14). Therefore, as a part of this regression
analysis, a new MSF model was developed specifically for gravelly
soils that may help improve liquefaction assessment at some grav-
elly sites considered in this study. However, more data from other
earthquakes would still be desirable to refine the regression model
and further constrain the set of triggering curves.
To develop the MSF curve, CSR values were first obtained from
Eq. (14) for M w 5.5 through 9 with an increment of 0.5, keeping V s1
and PL constant. Then the CSRs for different magnitudes were
divided by CSRM¼7.5 to obtain the magnitude scaling factor. The
same process was then repeated for different values of V s1 and PL
in Eq. (14) to obtain the variation of MSF with these variables.
But, notably, the MSF pattern did not vary with the normalized
shear-wave velocity (V s1 ) and the probability of liquefaction (PL ).
Hence, the MSF was found to be formulated as a function of
magnitude with the best-fit exponential equation given by
MSF ¼ 10.667 expð−0.316M w Þ ð15Þ Fig. 10. Comparison of MSF curve from logistical regression analysis
of gravel liquefaction case histories based on V s with MSF curves
The MSF curve obtained with Eq. (15) is plotted and compared
proposed previously for sand.
with several other MSF curves in Fig. 10. The comparison shows

Fig. 11. Proposed liquefaction-triggering curves along with collected data points. Solid markers denote liquefaction sites, while open markers denote
no-liquefaction sites.
Based on the new MSF model [Eq. (15)], the CSRs for all the the no-liquefaction points from Argostoli, KNK, and Coyote Creek
case history data points were converted to CSRM¼7.5 and plotted played a significant role in constraining the lower branch of the
with the newly developed triggering curves obtained by Eq. (14), triggering curves to move upwards. Likewise, the triggering curves
as shown in Fig. 11. Fig. 11 shows that all the data points were at the higher range of V s1 have been tightened and slightly steep-
slightly relocated and the liquefaction potential of the marginal ened compared to the Cao et al. (2011) triggering curves by the
points evaluated as being relatively better compared to Fig. 8. This additional no-liquefaction data points from Chengdu, L’Aquila
fact is particularly applicable to the case histories at the Port and Valdez. However, more data points would certainly be desir-
of Wellington in New Zealand and at the port of Argostoli in able to better constrain the shape of the triggering curves in the high
Cephalonia, Greece, where liquefaction and no-liquefaction data range of V s1 .
points are now better distributed with respect to the 50% probability In the middle range of the triggering curves, there are a few no-
curve. Moreover, the larger database including the additional lique- liquefaction points from the Chengdu Plain that fall above the 50%
faction and no-liquefaction data points better constrained the trig- triggering curve and a few liquefaction points from the same region
gering curves by reducing the uncertainty at both the higher and that fall below the 30% triggering curve. Because of these points,
lower ranges of CSR. Therefore, the newly developed V s -triggering the set of triggering curves remains slightly sloped above the V s1
procedure in association with the new MSF model provides a much value of 200 m=s, causing several no-liquefaction points to fall
improved alternative for evaluating the liquefaction potential of marginally on the 30% triggering curve instead of falling distinctly
gravelly deposits. below the line. These points may belong to the false negative or
false positive categories, as explained previously, leading to incon-
sistent evaluation of the actual incident. These points might also
Comparison with Cao et al. (2011) Triggering Curves
be governed by some other in situ parameters, for example, the
The newly developed probabilistic triggering curves with liquefac- permeability of the soil strata, level of FC, and the presence of
tion probabilities of 15% to 85% are plotted in Fig. 12(a) with solid an impervious cap layer, that were not included in the regression
lines along with the similar curves developed by Cao et al. (2011) analysis due to a lack of information available for each site. These
marked as dashed lines to allow for a distinct comparison between points remain a source of uncertainty in the overall liquefaction-
the two triggering procedures. For lower values of V s1 (around triggering procedure.
150 m=s), the CRR for the new 50% probability of liquefaction As shown in Fig. 12(a), for V s1 values above 200 m=s, the PL ¼
curve is about 0.10, while it is only 0.04 for the Cao et al. (2011) 50% curve for the new regression is very similar to that for the Cao
curves. This adjustment produces much better agreement with et al. (2011) regression. However, the addition of new liquefaction
observed field performance. These higher CRR values at lower points has pulled the new PL ¼ 85% curve to the right, while the
shear-wave velocities are also more typical of those predicted by addition of no-liquefaction data points has pulled the new PL ¼
the V s -based triggering curves developed by Kayen et al. (2013) 15% curve to the left, relative to the Cao et al. (2011) curves. Mov-
for sands. In fact, it can be seen from Fig. 11 that the marginal ing the new PL ¼ 15% curve to the left is particularly significant
liquefaction and no-liquefaction points from the Port of Wellington because this curve is often recommended for deterministic evalu-
for the 2013 Cook Strait and Lake Grassmere events of M w ¼ 6.6, ations (Kayen et al. 2013). However, the slope of the new set of

for sand in Fig. 12(b). To plot the triggering curves for Kayen et al.
(2013), an average effective vertical stress of 100 kPa and FC of
6% were assumed to keep the values within a reasonable range.
Although the probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves for gravel
developed in this study are similar to those for sands (Kayen et al.
2013) at lower V s1 values typical of looser gravels, the curves
diverge as V s1 increases. For example, V s1 equals 275 m=s for the
proposed PL ¼ 50% curve for gravel in this study at a CRR of 0.5
in comparison with a V s1 of only 225 m=s for the PL ¼ 50% curve
for sand proposed by Kayen et al. (2013). This indicates that the
probabilistic triggering curves for gravels from this study shift to
the right relative to similar curves developed for sands as V s1 in-
creases. This result indicates that gravels can still liquefy at V s1

values that would be high enough to preclude liquefaction in sand.
This does not mean that gravels are more or less likely to liquefy
than sand; it simply means that for a comparable level of shaking, a
higher V s1 is necessary to obtain the same probability of liquefac-
tion for sandy gravel than pure sand. This result is consistent with
liquefaction case histories in gravels reported by Cao et al. (2011),
Chang (2016), Rollins et al. (2020), and Zhou et al. (2020), where
V s -based triggering curves for sands would have incorrectly pre-
dicted no liquefaction, along with results from laboratory testing
(e.g., Hubler et al. 2017, 2018) as well.
Summary and Conclusion
In this study, probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves for grav-

elly soils based on the shear-wave velocity (V s ) were developed
that can be used for liquefaction evaluation of gravelly soils for
a wide range of earthquake magnitudes, tectonic settings, and geo-
logical environments. These curves are a significant step forward
compared to those developed by Cao et al. (2011), as the total
number of data points increased by 270%. V s1 data were compiled
from various sites around the world where liquefaction or no-
liquefaction case histories of gravelly soils were observed during
several earthquake events in the past. The expanded data set con-
sisted of 174 data points (96 liquefactions and 78 no liquefaction)
during 17 different earthquakes in 7 different countries in a variety
of geological environments.
Based on the results of the field studies and data analysis per-
formed in this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
Fig. 12. Revised liquefaction-triggering curves from this study (solid 1. The increased number of liquefaction and no-liquefaction data
lines) (a) relative to triggering curves originally proposed by Cao et al. points in the expanded data set better constrained the probabi-
(2011) (dashed lines); and (b) relative to triggering curves proposed by listic liquefaction-triggering curves. Relative to the Cao et al.
Kayen et al. (2013) for sands (dashed lines). (2011) curves, this shifted the PL ¼ 85% curve to the right and
PL ¼ 15% curve to the left. The reduction in the range between
the PL ¼ 85% and 15% curves indicates a considerable de-
curves from this study remains almost the same as for the Cao et al. crease in uncertainty, because false negative data points have
(2011) curves. Overall, the spread between the triggering curves less impact on the expanded data set. Shifting the PL ¼ 15%
was substantially reduced in comparison to the Cao et al. (2011) curve to the left is significant because this probability curve is
triggering curves. This outcome is consistent with the concept sometimes recommended for deterministic analyses (Kayen
that an increased number of data points reduces the uncertainty that et al. 2013).
would develop for a limited number of individual data points that 2. At lower V s1 values (≈150 m=s) typical of looser gravels, the
plot in an unexpected position. Furthermore, the addition of lique- proposed triggering curves for gravel in this study start at a
faction and no-liquefaction data points helped constrain the trigger- higher range of CSRs compared to the curves developed by
ing curves. Cao et al. (2011). This modification was necessary to produce
agreement with the no-liquefaction points from the field case
histories and brought the CSR values in line with the V s1 value
Comparison with Kayen et al. (2013) Curves for for sand as predicted by the Kayen et al. (2013) probability
Sand curves.
3. A simplified MSF versus moment magnitude M w equation was
A comparison is provided between the newly developed triggering developed exclusively for gravel liquefaction. The MSF versus
curves for gravel and the curves developed by Kayen et al. (2013) Mw curve plots about midway between similar curves proposed

for V s methods for sands (Andrus and Stokoe 2000; Kayen et al. Baratta, M. 1910. La catastrofe sismica calabro-messinese (28 Dicembre
2013) and is slightly below the lower-bound MSF curve recom- 1908). Roma, Italy: Società Geografica Italiana.
mended for sand by the NCEER/NSF panel (Youd et al. 2001). Bard, P. Y., et al. 2010. “From non-invasive site characterization to site
These results suggest that the effect of magnitude on liquefac- amplification: Recent advances in the use of ambient vibration mea-
tion resistance is similar for both sands and sandy gravels. surements.” In Earthquake engineering in Europe, 105–123. Berlin:
Springer.
4. Although the probabilistic triggering curves for gravel are sim-
Bardet, J. P., K. O. Cetin, W. Lettis, E. Rathje, G. Rau, R. B. Seed, and D.
ilar to those for sands (Kayen et al. 2013) at low V s1 values
Ural. 2000. “Chapter 7. Soil liquefaction, landslides and subsidence.”
typical of loose gravels (≈150 m=s), they shift to the right as Earthquake Spectra 16 (1): 141–162.
V s1 values increase. This indicates that gravels can still liquefy Bindi, D., F. Pacor, L. Luzi, R. Puglia, M. Massa, G. Ameri, and R.
at high V s1 values and the typical sand-based V s triggering Paolucci. 2011. “Ground motion prediction equations derived from
curves would incorrectly estimate these points as no-liquefaction the Italian strong motion database.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 9 (6):
events. 1899–1920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9313-z.
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2014. CPT and SPT based liquefaction
triggering procedures. Rep. No. UCD/CGM-14/01. Davis, CA: Center
Data Availability Statement of Geotechnical Modeling, Univ. of California-Davis.
Cao, Z., T. L. Youd, and X. Yuan. 2011. “Gravelly soils that liquefied
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this during 2008 Wenchuan, China earthquake, Ms = 8.0.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable quake Eng. 31 (8): 1132–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011
.04.001.
request.
Cao, Z., T. L. Youd, and X. Yuan. 2013. “Chinese dynamic penetration test
for liquefaction evaluation in gravelly soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 139 (8): 1320–1333. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
Acknowledgments -5606.0000857.
Cao, Z., X. Yuan, T. L. Youd, and K. M. Rollins. 2012. “Chinese dynamic
Funding for this study was provided by Grant G16AP00108 from
penetration tests (DPT) at liquefaction sites following 2008 Wenchuan
the USGS Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and Grants earthquake.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geophysical
CMMI-1663546 and CMMI- 1663288 from the National Science Site Characterization, 1499–1504. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Foundation. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. This work is Chang, W. J. 2016. “Evaluation of liquefaction resistance for gravelly sands
also part of a research project funded by ReLUIS (University using gravel content–corrected shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geo-
Network of Seismic Engineering Laboratories) Consortium 2019– environ. Eng. 142 (5): 04016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT
2021, WP 16 Geotechnical Engineering, Task 16.1: Site response .1943-5606.0001427.
and liquefaction. However, the opinions, conclusions, and recom- Chen, L., X. Yuan, Z. Cao, R. Sun, W. Wang, and H. Liu. 2018. “Character-
mendations in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the istics and triggering conditions for naturally deposited gravelly soils
sponsors. We also express sincere appreciation to Luca Minarelli that liquefied following the 2008 Wenchuan M w 7.9 earthquake, China.”
for help in arranging access to geophysical surveys at sites in Italy Earthquake Spectra 34 (3): 1091–1111. https://doi.org/10.1193
and to G. Athanasopoulos for arranging access to these tests at sites /032017EQS050M.
in Cephalonia, Greece. Chu, B. L., S. C. Hsu, S. E. Lai, and M. J. Chang. 2000. Soil liquefaction
potential assessment of the Wu Feng area after the 921 Chi-Chi earth-
quake. Report of National Science Council. [In Chinese.] Taipei,
Taiwan: National Research Council of Taiwan.
Supplemental Materials
Coulter, H. W., and R. R. Migliaccio. 1966. Effect of the earthquake of
March 22, 1964 at Valdez, Alaska. US Geological Survey Professional
Table S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary
Paper 542-C. Washington, DC: USGS.
.org).
Cubrinovski, M., J. Bray, C. de la Torre, M. Olsen, B. Bradley, G. Chiaro,
E. Stocks, and L. Wotherspoon. 2017. “Liquefaction effects and asso-
ciated damages observed at the Wellington CentrePort from the 2016
References Kaikōura earthquake.” Bull. N.Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 50 (2): 152–173.
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.50.2.152-173.
Amoroso, S., et al. 2021. “Liquefaction field reconnaissance following the
Cubrinovski, M., J. D. Bray, C. de la Torre, M. Olsen, B. Bradley,
29th December 2020 M w 6.4 Petrinja earthquake (Croatia).” In Proc.,
G. Chiaro, E. Stocks, L. Wotherspoon, and T. Krall. 2018. “Liquefac-
EGU General Assembly Conf. Abstracts 2021.
tion-induced damage and CPT characterization of the reclamations at
Andrus, R. D. 1994. “In situ characterization of gravelly soils that liquefied
in the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil CentrePort, Wellington.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108 (3B): 1695–1708.
Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170246.
Andrus, R. D., and K. H. Stokoe II. 2000. “Liquefaction resistance of DeJong, J. T., M. Ghafghazi, A. P. Sturm, D. W. Wilson, J. den Dulk, R. J.
soils from shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (11): Armstrong, A. Perez, and C. A. Davis. 2017. “Instrumented Becker
1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11 penetration test. I: Equipment, operation, and performance.” J. Geotech.
(1015). Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (9): 04017062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
Arai, H., and K. Tokimatsu. 2005. “S-wave velocity profiling by joint GT.1943-5606.0001717.
inversion of microtremor dispersion curve and horizontal-to-vertical Dobry, R., R. Ladd, F. Yokel, R. Chung, and D. Powell. 1982. Prediction of
(H/V) spectrum.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 (5): 1766–1778. https://doi pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earth-
.org/10.1785/0120040243. quakes by the cyclic strain method. NBS Building Science Series 138.
Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., D. Zekkos, K. M. Rollins, J. Hubler, Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
J. Higbee, and A. Platis. 2019. “Earthquake performance and charac- Faenza, L., and A. Michelini. 2011. “Regression analysis of MCS intensity
terization of gravel-size earth fills in the ports of Cephalonia, Greece, and ground motion spectral accelerations (SAs) in Italy.” Geophys. J.
following the 2014 earthquakes.” In Proc., Earthquake Geotechnical Int. 186 (3): 1415–1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011
Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Con- .05125.x.
structions, Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineer- Fäh, D., F. Kind, and D. Giardini. 2003. “Inversion of local S-wave velocity
ing, 1212–1219. London: Taylor & Francis Group. structures from average H/V ratios, and their use for the estimation of

site-effects.” J. Seismol. 7 (4): 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/B: Kayen, R. E., J. K. Mitchell, R. B. Seed, A. Lodge, S. Nishio, and R.
JOSE.0000005712.86058.42. Coutinho. 1992. “Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based
Foti, S., C. Comina, D. Boiero, and L. V. Socco. 2009. “Non-uniqueness in methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data.”
surface wave inversion and consequences on seismic site response In Vol. 1 of Proc., 4th Japan-US Workshop on Earthquake Resistant
analyses.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29 (6): 982–993. https://doi.org Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefac-
/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.11.004. tion, 177–204. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineer-
Franke, K. W., and K. M. Rollins. 2017. “Lateral spread displacement ing Research.
and bridge foundation case histories from the 1991 Magnitude 7.6 Kociu, S. 2004. “Induced seismic impacts observed in coast area of
earthquake near Limón, Costa Rica.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. Albania: Case studies.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Case Histories in
143 (6): 05017002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606 Geotechnical Engineering. Rolla, MO: Missouri Univ. of Science and
.0001653. Technology.
Garofalo, F., et al. 2016a. “InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive Kokusho, T., Y. Tanaka, K. Kudo, and T. Kawai. 1995. “Liquefaction case
and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra- study of volcanic gravel layer during 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earth-
comparison of surface wave methods.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. quake.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
82 (3): 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.010. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 235–242. St. Louis:
Garofalo, F., et al. 2016b. “InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Kokusho, T., and Y. Yoshida. 1997. “SPT N-value and S-wave velocity for
Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods.” Soil gravelly soils with different grain size distribution.” Soils Found. 37 (4):
Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 82 (3): 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j 105–113. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.37.4_105.
.soildyn.2015.12.009. Kozeny, J. 1927. “Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden.”
Golesorkhi, R. 1989. “Factors influencing the computational determination Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien 136 (2): 271–306.
of earthquake-induced shear stresses in sandy soils.” Ph.D. dissertation, Kramer, S. L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering, 653. Hoboken,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harder, L. F. 1997. “Application of the Becker penetration test for Liao, S. S. C., D. Veneziano, and R. V. Whitman. 1988. “Regression
evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils.” In Proc., models for evaluating liquefaction probability.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance. Buffalo, viron. Eng. 114 (4): 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. -9410(1988)114:4(389).
Harder, L. F., Jr., and H. B. Seed. 1986. Determination of penetration Liao, S. S. C., and R. V. Whitman. 1986. “Overburden correction factors
resistance for coarse-grained soils using the Becker hammer drill. for SPT in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 112 (3): 373–377. https://doi.org/10
Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86/06. Berkeley, CA: College of Engineering, .1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373).
Univ. of California.
Lin, P., C. Chang, and W. Chang. 2004. “Characterization of liquefaction
Hubler, J., A. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, and D. Zekkos. 2017. “Monotonic,
resistance in gravelly soil: Large hammer penetration test and shear
cyclic, and postcyclic simple shear response of three uniform gravels in
wave velocity approach.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (9–10):
constant volume conditions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (9):
675–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.010.
04017043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001723.
Lodge, A. L. 1994. “Shear wave velocity measurements for subsurface
Hubler, J., A. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, and D. Zekkos. 2018. “Monotonic
characterization.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
and cyclic simple shear response of gravel-sand mixtures.” Soil Dyn.
Engineering, Univ. of California.
Earthquake Eng. 115 (Dec): 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
Lopez, J. S., X. Vera-Grunauer, K. Rollins, and G. Salvatierra. 2018.
.2018.07.016.
“Gravelly soil liquefaction after the 2016 Ecuador earthquake.” In
Idriss, I., and R. W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.
Proc., Conf. on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Dynamics V, 273–285. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Idriss, I. M. 1999. “An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure
Maurenbrecher, P. M., A. Den Outer, and H. J. Luger. 1995. “Review of
for evaluating liquefaction potential.” In Proc., TRB Workshop on
New Approaches to Liquefaction. Washington, DC: Federal Highway geotechnical investigations resulting from the Roermond April 13, 1992
Administration. earthquake.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotech-
nical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 645–652. Reston,
Ishihara, K. 1985. “Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes.” In
Vol. 1 of Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation VA: ASCE.
Engineering, 321–376. Accord, MA: A.A. Balkema. McCulloch, D. S., and M. G. Bonilla. 1970. Effects of the earthquake of
Jamiolkowski, M., and D. C. F. Lo Presti. 1990. “Correlation between March 27, 1964, on the Alaska Railroad. Washington, DC: US
liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity.” Soils Found. 32 (2): Government Printing Office.
145–148. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.30.2_33. Morales, C., C. Ledezma, E. Saez, S. Boldrini, and K. M. Rollins. 2020.
Juang, C. H., C. J. Chen, and T. Jiang. 2001. “Probabilistic framework “Seismic failure of an old pier during the 2014 M w 8.2, Pisagua, Chile
for liquefaction potential by shear wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoen- earthquake.” Earthquake Spectra 36 (2): 880–903. https://doi.org/10
viron. Eng. 127 (8): 670–678. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090 .1177/8755293019891726.
-0241(2001)127:8(670). Nakamura, Y. 1989. “A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of
Juang, C. H., T. Jiang, and R. D. Andrus. 2002. “Assessing probability subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface.” Quarterly Rep.
based methods for liquefaction evaluation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Railway Techn. Res. 30 (1): 25–33.
Eng. 128 (7): 580–589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 Nikolaou, S., D. Zekkos, D. Assimaki, and R. Gilsanz. 2014. “GEER/
(2002)128:7(580). EERI/ATC earthquake reconnaissance January 26th/February 2nd 2014
Kayen, R., R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Cephalonia, Greece Events, version 1.” Accessed November 18, 2021.
Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, and K. Tokimatsu. 2013. “Shear-wave velocity– http://www.geerassociation.org/index.php/component/geer_reports/?view=
based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil lique- geerreports&id=32.
faction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (3): 407–419. Nogoshi, M., and T. Igarashi. 1971. “On the amplitude characteristics of
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743. microtremor (part 2).” J. Seismol. Sco. Japan 24 (1): 26–40.
Kayen, R., E. Y. Tanaka, T. Kishida, and S. Sugimoto. 2002. “Liquefaction Ohta, Y., and N. Goto. 1978. “Physical background of the statistically ob-
potential of native ground in West Kobe, Japan by the spectral analysis tained S-wave velocity equation in terms of soil indexes.” [In Japanese.]
of surface waves (SASW) method.” In Proc., 8th US-Japan Workshop ButsuriTanko(Geophys. Explor.) 31 (1): 8–17.
on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Counter- Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia. 1999. “Multichannel analysis of sur-
measures against Liquefaction. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center face waves.” Geophysics 64 (3): 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1190/1
for Earthquake Engineering Research. .1444590.

Pavlides, S., Y. Muceku, A. Chatzipetrow, G. Georgious, and I. Lazos. Paper GL-87-26. Vicksburg, MS: USACE Waterways Experiment
2020. Preliminary report on the ground failures of the Albanian Station.
(Durres-Thumane) 26th of November earthquake. Thessaloniki, Tatsuoka, F., J. Koseki, and A. Takahashi. 2017. “Earthquake-induced
Greece: Earthquake Geology Research Team, Aristotle Univ. of damage to earth structures and proposal for revision of their design
Thessaloniki. policy—Based on a case history of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of
Picozzi, M., S. Parolai, and S. M. Richwalski. 2005. “Joint inversion of H/V Tohoku earthquake.” J. JSCE. 5 (1): 101–112. https://doi.org/10.2208
ratios and dispersion curves from seismic noise: Estimating the S-wave /journalofjsce.5.1_101.
velocity of bedrock.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (11): L11308. https://doi Tokimatsu, K. 1997. “Geotechnical site characterization using surface
.org/10.1029/2005GL022878. waves.” In Earthquake geotechnical engineering, 1333–1368. Rotterdam,
Robertson, P. K., D. J. Woeller, and W. D. L. Finn. 1992. “Seismic cone Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential.” Can. Geotech. J. Tokimatsu, K., and Y. Yoshimi. 1983. “Empirical correlation of soil lique-
29 (4): 686–695. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-075. faction based on SPT N-value and fines content.” Soils Found. 23 (4):
Rollins, K., C. Ledezma, G. Montalva, A. Becerra, G. Candia, D. Jara, 56–74. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.23.4_56.
Vantassel, J. P., and B. R. Cox. 2021. “A procedure for developing
K. Franke, C. Ledezma, K. Rollins, and E. Saez. 2014. Geotechnical

aspects of April 1, 2014, M8.2 Iquique, Chile earthquake. GEER uncertainty-consistent Vs profiles from inversion of surface wave
Association Rep. No. GEER-038. Atlanta: Geotechnical Extreme Event dispersion data.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 145 (Jun): 106622. https://
Reconnaissance. doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106622.
Rollins, K. M., S. Amoroso, G. Milan, L. Minerelli, M. Vassallo, and G. Di Wang, W. S. 1984. “Earthquake damages to earth dams and levees in re-
Giulio. 2020. “Gravel liquefaction assessment using the dynamic cone lation to soil liquefaction and weakness in soft clays.” In Vol. 1 of Proc.,
penetration test based on field performance from the 1976 Friuli earth- Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, 511–521.
quake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 146 (6): 04020038. https://doi Rolla, MO: Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002252. Wathelet, M., D. Jongmans, and M. Ohrnberger. 2004. “Surface-wave in-
Rollins, K. M., M. D. Evans, N. B. Diehl, and W. D. Daily III. 1998. “Shear version using a direct search algorithm and its application to ambient
modulus and damping relationships for gravels.” J. Geotech. Geoen- vibration measurements.” Near Surf. Geophys. 2 (4): 211–221. https://
viron. Eng. 124 (5): 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090 doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2004018.
-0241(1998)124:5(396). Weston, T. R. 1996. “Effects of grain size and particle distribution on the
stiffness and damping of granular soils at small strains.” M.S. thesis,
Rollins, K. M., J. Roy, A.-Z Athanasopoulos, D. Amoroso, and S. Cao.
Dept. of Civil Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
2021. “New dynamic cone penetration test-based procedure for lique-
Texas.
faction triggering assessment of gravelly soils.” J. Geotech. Eng.
Worden, C. B., D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, and G. Cua. 2010.
147 (12): 13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002686.
“Integration of macroseismic and strong-motion earthquake data in
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1971. “Simplified procedure for evaluating
ShakeMap for real-time and historic earthquake analysis.” Accessed
soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): 1249–
August 5, 2021. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/.
1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662.
Yegian, M. K., V. G. Ghahraman, and R. N. Harutiunyan. 1994.
Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and I. Arango. 1983. “Evaluation of liquefaction “Liquefaction and embankment failure case histories, 1988 Armenia
potential using field performance data.” J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (3): 458– earthquake.” J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (3): 581–596. https://doi.org/10
482. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(458). .1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:3(581).
Seed, H. B., P. P. Martin, and J. Lysmer. 1976. “Pore-water pressure Youd, T. L., et al. 2001. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report
changes during soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 102 (4): 323– from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER=NSF workshops on evalu-
346. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000258. ation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
She, K., D. P. D. P. Horn, and P. Canning. 2006. “Porosity and hydraulic 127 (4): 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)
conductivity of mixed sand-gravel sediment.” In Proc., 41st Defra 127:4(297).
Conf. on Flood and Coastal Risk Management, 1–16. Oxford, UK: Youd, T. L., E. L. Harp, D. K. Keefer, and R. C. Wilson. 1985. “The Borah
HR Wallingford. Peak, Idaho Earthquake of October 29, l983—Liquefaction.” Earth-
Sirovich, L. 1996a. “In-situ testing of repeatedly liquefied gravels and quake Spectra 2 (1): 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585303.
liquefied overconsolidated sands.” Soils Found. 36 (4): 35–44. https:// Youd, T. L., and S. N. Hoose. 1978. Historic ground failures in Northern
doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.4_35. California triggered by earthquakes. US Geological Survey Profes-
Sirovich, L. 1996b. “Repetitive liquefaction at a gravelly site and liquefac- sional Paper 1993. Washington, DC: USGS.
tion in overconsolidated sands.” Soils Found. 36 (4): 23–34. https://doi Youd, T. L., and S. K. Noble. 1997. “Magnitude scaling factors.” In Proc.,
.org/10.3208/sandf.36.4_23. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Stokoe, K. H., II, S. G. Wright, J. A. Bay, and J. M. Roesset. 1994. Char- 149–165. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering
acterization of geotechnical sites by SASW method. ISSMFE, Technical Research, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo.
Committee #10 for XIII ICSMFE, Geophysical Characterization of Zhou, Y. G., P. Xia, D. S. Ling, and Y. M. Chen. 2020. “Liquefaction
Sites. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. case studies of gravelly soils during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.”
Sykora, D. W. 1987. Creation of a data base of seismic shear wave veloc- Eng. Geol. 274 (Sep): 105691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020
ities for correlation analysis. Geotechnical Laboratory Miscellaneous .105691.

Rollins Et Al 2022 A New Vs Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure For Gravelly Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rollins Et Al 2022 A New Vs Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure For Gravelly Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A New V s -Based Liquefaction-Triggering

Procedure for Gravelly Soils

© ASCE 04022040-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

constraint on triggering curves. In some cases, these points were the

© ASCE 04022040-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

Fig. 4. Distribution of deposition environments for gravel case history

© ASCE 04022040-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

can also reduce the effect of liquefaction manifestation at the

© ASCE 04022040-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

creases. This result indicates that gravels can still liquefy at V s1

Summary and Conclusion

In this study, probabilistic liquefaction-triggering curves for grav-

© ASCE 04022040-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

© ASCE 04022040-14 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

K. Franke, C. Ledezma, K. Rollins, and E. Saez. 2014. Geotechnical

© ASCE 04022040-15 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022040

You might also like