Front. Archit. Civ. Eng.
China 2010, 4(2): 178–195
DOI 10.1007/s11709-010-0023-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Lianyang ZHANG
A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from
shear wave velocity
© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
Abstract The simplified procedure using shear wave
velocity measurements is increasingly used to evaluate the
seismic liquefaction potential of soils. This procedure is
based on finding the boundary separating the liquefaction
and non-liquefaction cases through the analysis of
liquefaction case histories, following the general format
of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure based on standard
penetration test (SPT) data. It is noted that many
assumptions have been made in the simplified procedure.
This paper develops a simple method for evaluating the
liquefaction potential of soils from shear wave velocity by
using the optimum seeking method to directly analyze the
liquefaction history data and quantify the influence of
major factors affecting the liquefactions potential of soils.
The factors considered are the earthquake magnitude, the
vertical effective overburden stress, the shear wave
velocity, the peak acceleration at the ground surface of
the site, and the fines content of the soil. The most
important factor has been identified as the shear wave
velocity. The developed method uses the measured data
directly and in a very simple way. Neither stress-correction
of shear wave velocity nor calculation of cyclic shear stress
as in the simplified procedure is required. Comparisons
indicate that the developed simple method has a higher
success rate for evaluating liquefaction potential of soils
than the simplified procedure. A case study is presented to
illustrate the application of the developed simple method
and further confirms its accuracy.
Keywords liquefaction, earthquake, simple method,
shear wave velocity, case history introduction
Received December 10, 2009; accepted January 19, 2010
Lianyang ZHANG ( )✉
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Uni-
versity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
E-mail: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu
1 Introduction
Evaluation of seismic liquefaction potential of soils
constitutes an important task of earthquake hazard
mitigation. Various methods for evaluating the seismic
liquefaction potential of soils have been developed.
Because of the difficulty and cost of obtaining and testing
high-quality undisturbed samples, the simplified procedure
based on in-situ tests, such as standard penetration test
(SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), or shear-wave velocity
measurements, is widely used in the United States and
throughout much of the world [1]. The SPT-based
simplified procedure was originally developed by Seed
et al. [2]. Since 1971, this procedure has been revised and
updated based on more liquefaction case histories [1,3–9].
In the mid-1980s, a similar procedure based on CPT was
developed by Robertson et al. [10], using empirical SPT-
CPT correlations. The lack of sufficient field liquefaction
case histories at sites where CPT data were available
necessitated such an approach. With increasing field
liquefaction case histories with CPT data available, the
CPT-based simplified procedure has been significantly
revised and updated [1,9,11–15].
With the increasing popularity worldwide of shear wave
velocity measurements for site characterization, the
simplified procedure using shear-wave velocity Vs has
also been developed for evaluating seismic liquefaction
potential of soils [16–21]. Although the shear wave
velocity is a very small-strain measurement while the
liquefaction is a much larger-strain phenomenon, since
both of them are related to the initial soil condition, such as
density, the shear wave velocity can be used to evaluate the
liquefaction resistance. The use of Vs for liquefaction
assessment has a number of advantages, including [20,21]:
1) The measurements are possible in soils that are hard
to sample, such as gravelly soils where penetration tests
may be unreliable.
2) Measurements can also be performed on small
laboratory specimens, allowing direct comparisons
between laboratory and field behavior.
 Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity
3) Vs can be measured by the spectral-analysis-of-
surface-waves (SASW) technique at sites where borings
may not be permitted, such as landfills, sites that extend for
great distances where rapid evaluation is required, and
hard-to-sample sites composed of gravels, cobbles, and
even boulders.
The simplified procedure based on SPT, CPT, or Vs
measurements generally is presented in a chart that defines
the boundary separating liquefaction and non-liquefaction.
The simplified procedure needs to calculate the cyclic
stress ratio (CSR) and the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
based on different assumptions and simplifications and has
the following limitations:
1) For the calculation of CSR:
(a) The constant 0.65 is only an approximation with a
reasonable degree of accuracy.
(b) Since the range of the depth reduction factor rd is
wide, the average value of rd used in the calculation of
CSR may be far from the actual value. Moreover, many
different equations are available for calculating the average
rd, and they may give different average values of rd.
2) For the calculation of CRR:
(a) The measured soil resistance (SPT blow count, CPT
tip resistance, or shear wave velocity) need to be normal-
ized to account for the effect of stress. Many different
equations are available for normalizing the measured soil
resistance, and they may give very different results.
(b) To consider the influence of fines content, the
normalized soil resistance need to be corrected to the
equivalent clean sand value.
(c) The CRR versus the normalized soil resistance
curves (i.e., the boundary curves separating liquefaction
and non-liquefaction) were largely drawn through visual
inspection of the data plotted on a 2D graph, and as such,
there is subjectivity in the established boundary curves.
(d) Various CRRs versus normalized soil resistance
curves exist even for the same soil resistance parameter,
and they give very different CRR even for the same
normalized soil resistance.
(e) The CRR versus the normalized soil resistance
curves generally apply only to magnitude 7.5 earthquakes
and need to be corrected using the magnitude scaling
factors (MSFs) for earthquakes of magnitudes smaller or
larger than 7.5. Many different methods are available for
estimating MSFs, and they give very different values.
Zhang [22,23] developed simple methods for evaluating
seismic liquefaction potential of soils from SPT data or
CPT data. The methods are developed by using the
optimum seeking method to quantify the influence of
various factors directly. No assumptions or simplifications
as in the simplified procedure are required. Moreover, the
simple methods can evaluate liquefaction potential at a
success rate equivalent to or somewhat higher than the
corresponding simplified procedure.
Consider the advantages of using Vs for liquefaction
potential assessment as stated above, the present paper
179
develops the simple method for evaluating the liquefaction
potential from the Vs data by using the same methodology
as in Zhang [22,23]. The database of field liquefaction case
histories from Andrus et al. [21] is used for the
development. Using the case history data, the influence
of various factors on liquefaction potential of soils is
quantified, and a simple expression for evaluating
liquefaction potential is developed. The developed simple
method is then compared with the simplified procedure of
Andrus et al. [21] and Andrus and Stokoe [20]. Finally, a
case study is presented to illustrate the application of the
developed simple method.
2 Field liquefaction case history data
This study utilizes the database collected by Andrus et al.
[21]. The case records represent a total of 225 case
histories. Of the 225 case histories, 96 are liquefaction case
histories, and 129 are non-liquefaction case histories. The
case records correspond to 26 earthquakes that occurred in
the period 1906–1995. From the 225 case histories, 88
(Table 1) are randomly selected for analysis to quantify the
influence of the selected factors using the optimum seeking
method. The other 137 (Table 2) case histories are used to
test the optimized results.
There are many factors that affect the seismic liquefac-
tion potential of soils, such as the density of the soil, the
depth of the water, and the magnitude of the earthquake.
Each factor has a different level of influence on the soil
liquefaction behavior. According to the general principle of
selecting influencing factors [22,23]:
1) the major factors,
2) the factors available to majority of field sand
liquefaction data, and
3) the factors easy to obtain and determine, the following
five factors are selected for evaluating the liquefaction
potential of soils:
1) the earthquake magnitude, M ;
2) the vertical effective overburden stress,
ív;
3) the shear-wave velocity, Vs ;
4) the peak acceleration at the ground surface of the site,
amax, and
5) the fines content, FC.
3 Development of simple method for
liquefaction potential evaluation
In this section, the simple method for liquefaction potential
evaluation is developed by quantifying the influence of the
five selected factors based on the 88 case histories in
Table 1. To do that, the factors are first graded according to
the standard shown in Table 3. G(*) in Table 3 is the grade
of the corresponding factor, e.g., G(M) represents the grade
of M. The grading standard is established by considering
 180

Table 1 Field liquefaction data for optimization analysis

location –1
No. M
ív =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
1906 San Francisco, California
Coyote Creek, S-R1 1 7.7 61.9 136 0.36 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 3 3 392 1 0
Coyote Creek, R1-R2 2 7.7 58.0 154 0.36 <5 yes 1 2 2 1 3 3 424 1 0
Salinas River North, S-R1 3 7.7 139.8 177 0.32 44 no 0 2 0 0 3 1 211 0 0
Salinas River North, R1-R3 4 7.7 139.8 200 0.32 44 no 0 2 0 0 3 1 211 0 0
Salinas River South, S-R1 5 7.7 122.6 131 0.32 14 yes 1 2 0 1 3 2 321 1 0
1957 Daly City, California
Marina District, No. 2 6 5.3 82.2 120 0.11 ~8 no 0 0 1 2 1 2 286 0 0
Marina District, No. 4 7 5.3 59.6 120 0.11 <5 no 0 0 1 2 1 3 325 1 1
1964 Niigata, Japan
Niigata, Site A1 8 7.5 97.7 162 0.16 <5 no 0 2 1 1 1 3 324 1 1
Niigata, Site C1 9 7.5 50.7 112 0.16 <5 yes 1 2 2 2 1 3 427 1 0
1975 Haicheng, China
Fisheries and shipbuilding 10 7.3 43.7 101 0.12 90 yes 1 2 2 3 1 0 381 1 0
Middel school 11 7.3 100.9 143 0.12 92 no 0 2 1 1 1 0 207 0 0
1979 Imperial Valley, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, R1-R2 12 6.5 46.8 131 0.50 22 yes 1 1 2 1 3 2 350 1 0
Heber Road Point Bar, R1-R2 13 6.5 45.4 164 0.50 10 no 0 1 2 1 3 2 350 1 1
Kornbloom 14 6.5 58.1 105 0.12 75 no 0 1 2 2 1 0 275 0 0
Radio tower 15 6.5 55.8 90 0.21 35 yes 1 1 2 3 2 1 419 1 0
Wildlife, 1 16 6.5 53.9 127 0.13 27 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

1980 Mid-Chiba, Japan

Owi Island No.1, Layer 2 17 5.9 124.5 195 0.08 35 no 0 0 0 0 0 1 39 0 0
1981 Westmorland, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, R1-R2 18 5.9 46.8 131 0.02 22 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, R1-R2 19 5.9 45.4 164 0.02 10 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Kornbloom 20 5.9 58.1 105 0.36 75 yes 1 0 2 2 3 0 308 0 1
Radio tower 21 5.9 55.8 90 0.20 35 yes 1 0 2 3 2 1 384 1 0
Wildlife, 1 22 5.9 53.9 127 0.27 27 yes 1 0 2 1 2 2 281 0 1
 (Continued)
location –1
No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
1983 Borah Peak, Idaho
Andersen Bar, X1-X2 23 6.9 28.7 106 0.29 <5 yes 1 1 3 2 2 3 458 1 0
Goddard Ranch, SA-4 24 6.9 37.4 105 0.30 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
North Gravel Bar, Bar Site 25 6.9 36.0 206 0.46 ~<5 no 0 1 2 0 3 3 318 1 1
Pence Ranch, SA-1 26 6.9 46.2 103 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 3 3 3 531 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-3 27 6.9 36.8 102 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 3 3 3 531 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-5 28 6.9 45.6 123 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-B 29 6.9 32.9 128 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 1 3 3 389 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-D 30 6.9 33.8 131 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 1 3 3 389 1 0
Pence Ranch, Xd-Xe 31 6.9 46.8 146 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 1 3 3 389 1 0
1985 Chiba-Ibaragi, Japan
Owi Island No.1, Layer 1 32 6.0 65.3 155 0.05 20 no 0 1 1 1 0 2 216 0 0
October 26, 1985 Taiwan (event LSST2)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 33 5.3 45.4 137 0.05 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 34 5.3 45.4 156 0.05 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
November 7, 1985 Taiwan (event LSST3)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 35 5.5 45.4 137 0.02 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
January 16, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST4)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 36 6.6 45.4 137 0.22 50 no 0 1 2 1 2 1 277 0 0
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 37 6.6 45.4 127 0.22 50 no 0 1 2 1 2 1 277 0 0
April 8, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST6)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 38 5.4 45.4 137 0.04 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
May 20, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST7)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 39 6.6 45.4 137 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 40 6.6 45.4 156 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
May 20, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST8)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 41 6.2 45.4 137 0.04 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity

Lotung LSST, L8-L3 42 6.2 45.4 156 0.04 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0

181
 182

(Continued)
location –1
No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) v
Gð
í Þ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
July 30, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST12)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 43 6.2 45.4 137 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 44 6.2 45.4 156 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
July 30, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST13)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 45 6.2 45.4 137 0.05 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 46 6.2 45.4 156 0.05 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
November 4, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST16)
Lotung LSST, L2-L5/L6 47 7.6 45.4 137 0.16 50 no 0 2 2 1 1 1 278 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 48 7.6 45.4 156 0.16 50 no 0 2 2 1 1 1 278 0 0
1987 Elmore Ranch, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, R1-R2 49 5.9 46.8 131 0.03 22 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, R1-R2 50 5.9 45.4 164 0.03 10 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Kornbloom 51 5.9 58.1 105 0.24 75 no 0 0 2 2 2 0 274 0 0
Radio tower 52 5.9 55.8 90 0.11 35 no 0 0 2 3 1 1 350 1 1
Wildlife, 1 53 5.9 53.9 127 0.13 27 no 0 0 2 1 1 2 247 0 0
1987 Superstition Hills, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, R1-R2 54 6.5 46.8 131 0.18 22 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, R1-R2 55 6.5 45.4 164 0.18 10 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
Kornbloom 56 6.5 58.1 105 0.21 75 no 0 1 2 2 2 0 309 0 0
Radio tower 57 6.5 55.8 90 0.20 35 no 0 1 2 3 2 1 419 1 1
Wildlife, 1 58 6.5 53.9 127 0.20 27 yes 1 1 2 1 2 2 316 1 0
1989 Loma Prieta, California
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

Bay Farm Island, Dike 59 7.0 77.0 204 0.27 10 no 0 2 1 0 2 2 248 0 0

Bay Farm Island, Loop 60 7.0 61.4 125 0.27 < 12 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Coyote Creek, S-R1 61 7.0 61.9 136 0.18 <5 no 0 2 1 1 1 3 324 1 1
Harbor Office, UC-12 62 7.0 52.6 150 0.25 15 yes 1 2 2 1 2 2 351 1 0
Marina District, No. 2 63 7.0 82.2 120 0.15 ~8 yes 1 2 1 2 1 3 395 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-1 64 7.0 90.4 148 0.24 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-3 65 7.0 81.3 176 0.24 10 yes 1 2 1 1 2 2 319 1 0
Port of Richmond, POR-2, S-R1 66 7.0 84.1 143 0.16 57 yes 1 2 1 1 1 1 246 0 1
 (Continued)
location –1
No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
Salinas River North, S-R1 67 7.0 139.8 177 0.15 44 no 0 2 0 0 1 1 143 0 0
Salinas River South, S-R1 68 7.0 122.6 131 0.15 14 no 0 2 0 1 1 2 253 0 0
Sandholdt Road, UC-4 Layer 1 69 7.0 37.4 91 0.25 2 yes 1 2 2 3 2 3 532 1 0
State Beach, UC-15 70 7.0 45.4 116 0.25 1 yes 1 2 2 2 2 3 461 1 0
TI Fire Station, Redpath 71 7.0 73.3 129 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI Fire Station, B1-B4 72 7.0 60.9 137 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI Fire Station, B4-B5 73 7.0 60.9 131 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI perimeter, UM03 74 7.0 99.8 173 0.14 13 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI perimeter, UM09 75 7.0 64.8 143 0.14 14 yes 1 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 1
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, S-R1 76 7.0 82.5 143 0.24 ~9 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, SFOBB-1 77 7.0 83.4 148 0.24 ~9 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
1993 Kushiro-Oki, Japan
Kushiro Port, No. 2 78 8.3 41.9 152 0.41 7 yes 1 3 2 1 3 2 420 1 0
1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki, Japan
Pension House, BH-1 79 8.3 30.4 74 0.19 <5 yes 1 3 2 3 1 3 533 1 0
Hakodate Port, No. 1 80 8.3 55.7 131 0.15 20 yes 1 3 2 1 1 2 352 1 0
1994 Northridge, California
Rory Lane, M-20 81 6.7 78.4 160 0.51 ~10 yes 1 1 1 1 3 3 357 1 0
1995 Hyogoken Nanbu, Japan
Hanshin Expressway 5, 3 82 6.9 62.8 160 0.50 18 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
Hanshin Expressway 5, 25 83 6.9 96.7 172 0.65 9 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
Kobe-Nishinomiya EWY, 3 84 6.9 93.8 175 0.63 7 no 0 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 1
Kobe-Nishinomiya EWY, 28 85 6.9 74.0 160 0.65 2 no 0 1 1 1 3 3 357 1 1
LPG Tank Yard, Kobe 86 6.9 54.6 110 0.50 10 yes 1 1 2 2 3 2 421 1 0
Port Island, 2C 87 6.9 134.4 200 0.50 10 yes 1 1 0 0 3 2 215 0 1
Port Island, Common Factory 88 6.9 129.3 193 0.50 6 no 0 1 0 0 3 2 215 0 0
Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity

total 14
Notes: Liq ? means liquefaction or not; Pra = pratical grade; Pre = predicted grade; Err = ½Pre – Pra½. When LP≥315, Pre = 1; when LP < 315, Pre = 0. LP ¼ 35GðM Þ þ 32Gð
í
v Þ þ 71GðVs Þ þ 34Gðamax Þ þ 39GðFCÞ:
183
Table 2 Field liquefaction data for testing 184
–1
location No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
1906 San Francisco, California
Coyote Creek, R1-R3 89 7.7 58.0 161 0.36 <5 yes 1 2 2 1 3 3 424 1 0
Coyote Creek, R2-R3 90 7.7 61.9 169 0.36 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 3 3 392 1 0
Salinas River North, R1-R2 91 7.7 139.8 195 0.32 44 no 0 2 0 0 3 1 211 0 0
Salinas River North, R2-R3 92 7.7 139.8 199 0.32 44 no 0 2 0 0 3 1 211 0 0
Salinas River South, R1-R2 93 7.7 122.6 149 0.32 14 yes 1 2 0 1 3 2 321 1 0
Salinas River South, R1-R3 94 7.7 122.6 158 0.32 14 yes 1 2 0 1 3 2 321 1 0
Salinas River South, R2-R3 95 7.7 122.6 168 0.32 14 yes 1 2 0 1 3 2 321 1 0
1957 Daly City, California
Marina District, No. 3 96 5.3 82.2 105 0.11 ~12 no 0 0 1 2 1 2 286 0 0
Marina District, No. 5 97 5.3 120.5 220 0.11 <5 no 0 0 0 0 1 3 151 0 0
Marina District, School 98 5.3 54.1 112 0.11 2 no 0 0 2 2 1 3 357 1 1
1964 Niigata, Japan
Niigata, Railway Station 99 7.5 45.2 131 0.16 <5 yes 1 2 2 1 1 3 356 1 0
Niigata, Site C2 100 7.5 46.5 118 0.16 <5 yes 1 2 2 2 1 3 427 1 0
1975 Haicheng, China
Chemical Fiber 101 7.3 90.3 147 0.12 61 yes 1 2 1 1 1 0 207 0 1
Construction Building 102 7.3 73.6 103 0.12 83 yes 1 2 1 3 1 0 349 1 0
Glass Fiber 103 7.3 50.3 98 0.12 42 yes 1 2 2 3 1 1 420 1 0
Paper Mill 104 7.3 35.2 122 0.12 72 yes 1 2 2 2 1 0 310 0 1
1979 Imperial Valley, Califor-
nia
Heber Road Channel Fill, S-R1 105 6.5 46.8 133 0.50 22 yes 1 1 2 1 3 2 350 1 0
Heber Road Point Bar, S-R1 106 6.5 45.4 173 0.50 10 no 0 1 2 1 3 2 350 1 1
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

McKim 107 6.5 39.7 126 0.51 20 yes 1 1 2 1 3 2 350 1 0

Vial Canal 108 6.5 58.4 101 0.12 13 no 0 1 2 3 1 2 424 1 1
Wildlife 109 6.5 55.3 114 0.13 27 no 0 1 2 2 1 2 353 1 1
Wildlife, 1 110 6.5 53.9 124 0.13 27 no 0 1 2 2 1 2 353 1 1
1980 Mid-Chiba, Japan
Owi Island No.1, Layer 1 111 5.9 65.3 155 0.08 20 no 0 0 1 1 0 2 181 0 0
1981 Westmorland, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, S-R1 112 5.9 46.8 133 0.02 22 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, S-R1 113 5.9 45.4 173 0.02 10 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
McKim 114 5.9 39.7 126 0.06 20 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Vial Canal 115 5.9 58.4 101 0.30 13 yes 1 0 2 3 3 2 457 1 0
 (Continued)
–1
location No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
Wildlife 116 5.9 55.3 114 0.27 27 yes 1 0 2 2 2 2 352 1 0
Wildlife, 2 117 5.9 53.9 124 0.27 27 yes 1 0 2 2 2 2 352 1 0
1983 Borah Peak, Idaho
Andersen Bar, SA-1 118 6.9 27.8 105 0.29 <5 yes 1 1 3 2 2 3 458 1 0
Goddard Ranch, SA-2 119 6.9 37.3 122 0.30 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
Mackay Dam, Toe 120 6.9 52.3 270 0.23 6 no 0 1 2 0 2 2 245 0 0
North Gravel Bar, Terrace 121 6.9 69.2 274 0.46 ~<5 no 0 1 1 0 3 3 286 0 0
Pence Ranch, SA-2 122 6.9 44.7 94 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 3 3 3 531 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-4 123 6.9 49.4 109 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-A 124 6.9 46.3 134 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 1 3 3 389 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-C 125 6.9 32.4 107 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
Pence Ranch, SA-E 126 6.9 38.3 122 0.36 <5 yes 1 1 2 2 3 3 460 1 0
1985 Chiba-Ibaragi, Japan
Owi Island No.1, Layer 2 127 6.0 124.5 195 0.05 35 no 0 1 0 0 0 1 74 0 0
October 26, 1985 Taiwan (event LSST2)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 128 5.3 45.4 127 0.05 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 129 5.3 40.4 142 0.05 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
November 7, 1985 Taiwan (event LSST3)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 130 5.5 45.4 127 0.02 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 131 5.5 45.4 156 0.02 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 132 5.5 40.4 142 0.02 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
January 16, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST4)
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 133 6.6 45.4 156 0.22 50 no 0 1 2 1 2 1 277 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 134 6.6 40.4 142 0.22 50 no 0 1 2 1 2 1 277 0 0
April 8, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST6)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 135 5.4 45.4 137 0.04 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L3 136 5.4 45.4 156 0.04 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 137 5.4 40.4 142 0.04 50 no 0 0 2 1 0 1 174 0 0
May 20, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST7)
Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity

Lotung LSST, L2-L7 138 6.6 45.4 127 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0

Lotung LSST, L8-L4 139 6.6 40.4 142 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
May 20, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST8) 0
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 140 6.2 45.4 127 0.04 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 141 6.2 40.4 142 0.04 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
185
 186
(Continued)
–1
location No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
July 30, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST12)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 142 6.2 45.4 127 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 143 6.2 40.4 142 0.18 50 no 0 1 2 1 1 1 243 0 0
July 30, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST13)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 144 6.2 45.4 127 0.05 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 145 6.2 40.4 142 0.05 50 no 0 1 2 1 0 1 209 0 0
November 4, 1986 Taiwan (event LSST16)
Lotung LSST, L2-L7 146 7.6 45.4 127 0.16 50 no 0 2 2 1 1 1 278 0 0
Lotung LSST, L8-L4 147 7.6 40.4 142 0.16 50 no 0 2 2 1 1 1 278 0 0
1987 Chiba0Toho-Oki, Japan 0
Sunamavhi, Tokyo Bay 148 6.5 138.8 150 0.10 15 no 0 1 0 1 1 2 218 0 0
1987 Elmore Ranch, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, S-R1 149 5.9 46.8 133 0.03 22 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, S-R1 150 5.9 45.4 173 0.03 10 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
McKim 151 5.9 39.7 126 0.06 20 no 0 0 2 1 0 2 213 0 0
Vial Canal 152 5.9 58.4 101 0.13 13 no 0 0 2 3 1 2 389 1 1
Wildlife 153 5.9 55.3 114 0.13 27 no 0 0 2 2 1 2 318 1 1
Wildlife, 1 154 5.9 53.9 124 0.13 27 no 0 0 2 2 1 2 318 1 1
1987 Superstition Hills, California
Heber Road Channel Fill, S-R1 155 6.5 46.8 133 0.18 22 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
Heber Road Point Bar, S-R1 156 6.5 45.4 173 0.18 10 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
McKim 157 6.5 39.7 126 0.19 20 no 0 1 2 1 1 2 282 0 0
Vial Canal 158 6.5 58.4 101 0.20 13 no 0 1 2 3 2 2 458 1 1
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

Wildlife 159 6.5 55.3 114 0.20 27 yes 1 1 2 2 2 2 387 1 0

Wildlife, 1 160 6.5 53.9 124 0.20 27 yes 1 1 2 2 2 2 387 1 0
1989 Loma Prieta, California
Bay Farm Island, Dike S-R1 161 7.0 75.2 193 0.27 10 no 0 2 1 0 2 2 248 0 0
Bay Farm Island, Dike R1-R2 162 7.0 72.4 205 0.27 10 no 0 2 1 0 2 2 248 0 0
Bay Farm Island, Loop S-R1 163 7.0 68.2 98 0.27 < 12 yes 1 2 1 3 2 2 461 1 0
Bay Farm Island, Loop R1-R2 164 7.0 68.2 113 0.27 < 12 yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 390 1 0
Coyote Creek, R1-R2 165 7.0 58.0 154 0.18 <5 no 0 2 2 1 1 3 356 1 1
Coyote Creek, R1-R3 166 7.0 58.0 161 0.18 <5 no 0 2 2 1 1 3 356 1 1
Coyote Creek, R2-R3 167 7.0 61.9 169 0.18 <5 no 0 2 1 1 1 3 324 1 1
Marina District, No. 3 168 7.0 82.2 105 0.15 ~12 yes 1 2 1 2 1 2 356 1 0
 (Continued)
–1
location No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
Marina District, No. 4 169 7.0 59.6 120 0.15 <5 yes 1 2 1 2 1 3 395 1 0
Marina District, No.5 170 7.0 120.5 220 0.15 <5 no 0 2 0 0 1 3 221 0 0
Marina District, School 171 7.0 54.1 112 0.15 2 yes 1 2 2 2 1 3 427 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-2 172 7.0 82.9 157 0.24 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-2 173 7.0 90.7 151 0.24 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-2, S-R1 174 7.0 88.5 147 0.24 <5 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
Port of Oakland, POO7-2, R1-R2 175 7.0 88.5 181 0.24 <5 yes 1 2 1 0 2 3 287 0 1
Port of Richmond, POR-2 176 7.0 80.9 145 0.16 57 yes 1 2 1 1 1 1 246 0 1
Port of Richmond, POR-2 177 7.0 76.4 117 0.16 57 yes 1 2 1 2 1 1 317 1 0
Port of Richmond, POR-2, R1-
178 7.0 84.0 135 0.16 57 yes 1 2 1 1 1 1 246 0 1
R2
Port of Richmond, POR-3 179 7.0 76.3 110 0.16 > 25 yes 1 2 1 2 1 2 356 1 0
Port of Richmond, POR-4 180 7.0 76.3 128 0.16 > 32 yes 1 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 1
Salinas River North, R1-R2 181 7.0 139.8 195 0.15 44 no 0 2 0 0 1 1 143 0 0
Salinas River North, R1-R3 182 7.0 139.8 200 0.15 44 no 0 2 0 0 1 1 143 0 0
Salinas River North, R2-R3 183 7.0 139.8 199 0.15 44 no 0 2 0 0 1 1 143 0 0
Salinas River South, R1-R2 184 7.0 122.6 149 0.15 14 no 0 2 0 1 1 2 253 0 0
Salinas River South, R1-R3 185 7.0 122.6 158 0.15 14 no 0 2 0 1 1 2 253 0 0
Salinas River South, R2-R3 186 7.0 122.6 168 0.15 14 no 0 2 0 1 1 2 253 0 0
Sandholdt Road, UC-4 Layer 2 187 7.0 87.2 209 0.25 4 no 0 2 1 0 2 3 287 0 0
Sandholdt Road, UC-6 188 7.0 56.4 171 0.25 1 no 0 2 2 1 2 3 390 1 1
Santa Cruz, SC02 189 7.0 31.2 122 0.42 ~35? yes 1 2 2 2 3 1 417 1 0
Santa Cruz, SC03 190 7.0 47.9 145 0.42 ~12? yes 1 2 2 1 3 2 385 1 0
Santa Cruz, SC04 191 7.0 41.3 163 0.42 ~35? no 0 2 2 1 3 1 346 1 1
Santa Cruz, SC05 192 7.0 58.9 149 0.42 > 35? no 0 2 2 1 3 1 346 1 1
Santa Cruz, SC13 193 7.0 39.9 119 0.42 ~35? no 0 2 2 2 3 1 417 1 1
Santa Cruz, SC14 194 7.0 30.7 126 0.42 < 5? yes 1 2 2 1 3 3 424 1 0
State Beach, UC-16 195 7.0 68.2 162 0.25 1 yes 1 2 1 1 2 3 358 1 0
TI Fire Station, Gibbs et al. 196 7.0 63.7 133 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity

TI Fire Station, 1992 197 7.0 59.6 131 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0

TI Fire Station 198 7.0 59.6 133 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI Fire Station, B2-B3 199 7.0 60.9 129 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI Fire Station, B2-B4 200 7.0 60.9 132 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
187
 188

(Continued)
–1
location No. M
í
v =kPa Vs/(m%s ) amax/g FC/% Liq ? Pra G(M) Gð
í
vÞ G(Vs) G(amax) G(FC) LP Pre Err
TI Fire Station, Portable 201 7.0 63.5 130 0.13 24 no 0 2 1 1 1 2 285 0 0
TI perimeter, UM05 202 7.0 62.5 151 0.14 5 yes 1 2 1 1 1 3 324 1 0
TI perimeter, UM06 203 7.0 38.7 123 0.14 5 yes 1 2 2 2 1 3 427 1 0
TI Approach to Pier, SA-5b 204 7.0 78.1 189 0.14 5 no 0 2 1 0 1 3 253 0 0
TI Approach to Pier, SA-6 205 7.0 67.1 187 0.14 5 no 0 2 1 0 1 3 253 0 0
TI Approach to Pier, SA-7 206 7.0 78.1 187 0.14 5 no 0 2 1 0 1 3 253 0 0
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, R1-R2 207 7.0 82.5 144 0.24 ~9 yes 1 2 1 1 2 2 319 1 0
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, SFOBB-2 208 7.0 92.4 148 0.24 ~13 yes 1 2 1 1 2 2 319 1 0
1993 Kushiro-Oki, Japan
Kushiro Port, No. D 209 8.3 56.6 135 0.41 5 yes 1 3 2 1 3 3 459 1 0
1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki, Japan
Hakodate Port, No. 2 210 8.3 57.8 143 0.15 8 no 0 3 2 1 1 2 352 1 1
Hakodate Port, No. 3 211 8.3 62.2 124 0.15 54 yes 1 3 1 2 1 1 352 1 0
1994 Northridge, California
Rory Lane, M-32 212 6.7 76.7 152 0.51 ~10 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
Rory Lane, M-33 213 6.7 67.9 129 0.51 ~10 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
1995 Hyogoken Nanbu, Japan
Hanshin Expressway 5, 10 214 6.9 64.6 112 0.58 16 yes 1 1 1 2 3 2 389 1 0
Hanshin Expressway 5, 14 215 6.9 94.2 175 0.63 ~12 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
Hanshin Expressway 5, 29 216 6.9 77.8 167 0.65 12 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
KNK 217 6.9 83.4 139 0.12 ~10 no 0 1 1 1 1 2 250 0 0
Kobe-Nishinomiya EWY, 17 218 6.9 49.0 200 0.53 8 no 0 1 2 0 3 2 279 0 0
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

Kobe-Nishinomiya EWY, 23 219 6.9 60.8 130 0.63 11 no 0 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 1

Kobe Port, 7C 220 6.9 195.4 160 0.55 10 yes 1 1 0 1 3 2 286 0 1
Port Island, 1C 221 6.9 116.3 170 0.50 13 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
Port Island, Common Factory 222 6.9 126.4 214 0.50 6 no 0 1 0 0 3 2 215 0 0
Port Island, Dhole Array '91 223 6.9 93.0 190 0.50 10 yes 1 1 1 0 3 2 247 0 1
Port Island, Dhole Array '95 224 6.9 99.4 165 0.50 10 yes 1 1 1 1 3 2 318 1 0
SGK 225 6.9 136.9 190 0.45 ~10 no 0 1 0 0 3 2 215 0 0
total 26
Notes: Liq ? means liquefaction or not; Pra = pratical grade; Pre = predicted grade; Err = ½Pre – Pra½. When LP≥315, Pre = 1; when LP < 315, Pre = 0. LP ¼ 35GðMÞ þ 32Gð
í
v Þ þ 71GðVs Þ þ 34Gðamax Þ þ 39GðFCÞ:
 Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity 189

Table 3 Factor grading standard liquefaction behavior; and Pre represents the grade of the
factor G(*) predicted liquefaction behavior, which is a function of
0 1 2 3 liquefaction potential (LP) that is obtained by
M £5.9 6.0 – 6.9 7.0 – 7.9 ≥8.0 LP ¼ x GðM Þ þ x Gð
í Þ þ x GðV Þ þ x Gða Þ
1 2 v 3 s 4 max

í =kPa
v ≥120.1 59.6 – 120.0 30.0 – 59.5 £29.9
Vs/(m%s–1) ≥177 125 – 176 105 – 124 £104 þ x5 GðFCÞ, (2)
amax/g £0.09 0.10 – 0.19 0.20 – 0.29 ≥0.30
where x1, x2, x3, x4, and x5 are coefficients to be determined
FC/% ≥61 35 – 60 6 – 34 £5 based on the optimization.
Note: G(*) is the grade of the corresponding factor, e.g., G(M) represents the The final optimized results can be simply presented as
grade of M.
follows:
LP ¼ 35GðM Þ þ 32Gð
í Þ þ 71GðV Þv s
the possible range of the factors and their influence on the
liquefaction potential of soils [22,23]. The overall predic- þ 34Gðamax Þ þ 39GðFCÞ, (3a)
tion accuracy is also considered in defining the grading
standard. If a different grading standard is used, the final (
0, when LP < 315,
optimized results will be different. For the liquefaction Pre ¼ (3b)
behavior, a binary value of 1 is given for the sites that 1, when LP³315:
liquefied, and a value of 0 for the sites that did not liquefy.
After the factors are graded according to the standard in The minimum value of y (i.e., the number of prediction
Table 3 (Table 1), the influence of the five selected factors errors) is 14, as shown in Table 1.
is quantified using the optimum seeking method, as Using the optimized results (Eq. (3)), the 137 case
detailed in Zhang [22,23]. The optimization is simply to records in Table 2 are evaluated by simply grading the
find the minimum value of the following function (i.e., the factors according to Table 3 and then doing the simple
number of prediction errors): calculations using Eq. (3). The results are shown in
Table 2, with only 26 errors. The prediction results of the
X
88
whole 225 case records are summarized in Fig. 1. All
y¼ jPre – Praji , (1) together, there are just 40 errors, giving an 82.2% success
i¼1
rate.
in which Pra represents the grade of the practical From the optimized results, we can also see the relative

Fig. 1 Summary of prediction results using developed simple method

190 Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195
importance of the five selected factors influencing the
liquefaction potential of soils (Table 4). The most
important factor is the shear wave velocity.
Table 4 Relative importance of factors
factors M
í v Vs amax
relative importance/% 16.6 15.2 33.6 16.1
4 Factor of safety
For engineering purposes, it is not enough to know
whether the site will liquefy or not. One needs to know the
factor of safety against liquefaction. Using the optimized
results, the factor of safety (FS) can be simply defined by
315
FS ¼ , (4)
LP
where LP is the liquefaction potential evaluated by
Eq. (3a). Liquefaction is predicted to occur when FS£ 1,
and liquefaction is predicted not to occur when FS > 1. The
acceptable value of FS will depend on several factors,
including the acceptable level of risk for the project, extent
and accuracy of geotechnical data, and conservativeness in
determining the design earthquake magnitude and
expected peak horizontal ground surface acceleration.
For the 40 wrongly predicted cases, FS can be
determined using Eq. (4), as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 5.
It can be seen that the values of FS for most of the wrongly
predicted cases are close to 1. Therefore, the wrong
predictions are not too far from the real conditions.
Fig. 2 Predicted factor of safety (FS), for 40 wrongly predicted cases using the developed simple method
5 Comparison with simplified procedure
5.1 Simplified procedure based on shear wave velocity
Andrus et al. [21] and Andrus et al. [20] presented a
FC simplified procedure based on shear wave velocity for
18.5 evaluating seismic liquefaction potential of soils. The
procedure consists of calculation of three parameters
[21]:
1) the level of cyclic loading on the soil caused by the
earthquake, expressed as CSR;
2) the stiffness of the soil, expressed as an overburden
stress-corrected shear wave velocity; and
3) the resistance of the soil to liquefaction, expressed as
CRR.
CSR induced by an earthquake at a particular depth in
the ground is estimated using the simplified method
proposed by Seed et al. [2], i.e.,



τ amax
v
CSR ¼ av í ¼ 0:65 rd , (5)

í

v g
v
where tav = average equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress
caused by the earthquake and is assumed to be 0.65 of the
maximum induced stress; amax = peak horizontal accel-
eration at the ground surface; g = acceleration of gravity
(9.81 m/s2);
ív = initial effective vertical (overburden)
stress at the depth in question; sv = vertical total
overburden stress at the same depth; and rd = depth
reduction factor. The depth reduction factor can be
estimated from the average curve originally proposed by
Seed and Idriss Refs. [2].
 Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity 191

Table 5 Predicted FS of 40 wrongly predicted cases

wrongly predicted cases Pra LP Pre predicted FS = 315/LP predictions conservative or unsafe
7 0 325 1 0.97 conservative
8 0 324 1 0.97 conservative
13 0 350 1 0.90 conservative
20 1 308 0 1.02 unsafe
22 1 281 0 1.12 unsafe
25 0 318 1 0.99 conservative
52 0 350 1 0.90 conservative
57 0 419 1 0.75 conservative
61 0 324 1 0.97 conservative
66 1 246 0 1.28 unsafe
75 1 285 0 1.11 unsafe
84 0 318 1 0.99 conservative
85 0 357 1 0.88 conservative
87 1 215 0 1.47 unsafe
98 0 357 1 0.88 conservative
101 1 207 0 1.52 unsafe
104 1 310 0 1.02 unsafe
106 0 350 1 0.90 conservative
108 0 424 1 0.74 conservative
109 0 353 1 0.89 conservative
110 0 353 1 0.89 conservative
152 0 389 1 0.81 conservative
153 0 318 1 0.99 conservative
154 0 318 1 0.99 conservative
158 0 458 1 0.69 conservative
165 0 356 1 0.88 conservative
166 0 356 1 0.88 conservative
167 0 324 1 0.97 conservative
175 1 287 0 1.10 unsafe
176 1 246 0 1.28 unsafe
178 1 246 0 1.28 unsafe
180 1 285 0 1.11 unsafe
188 0 390 1 0.81 conservative
191 0 346 1 0.91 conservative
192 0 346 1 0.91 conservative
193 0 417 1 0.76 conservative
210 0 352 1 0.89 conservative
219 0 318 1 0.99 conservative
220 1 286 0 1.10 unsafe
223 1 247 0 1.28 unsafe

Following the traditional procedures for correcting SPT where Vs1 = overburden stress-corrected shear wave
blow count and CPT tip resistances to account for velocity; Cv = factor to correct measured shear wave
overburden stress, Vs can be corrected to a reference velocity for overburden pressure; Pa = reference stress of
overburden stress by Refs. [17,21,24] 100 kPa or about the atmospheric pressure; and
í v = initial

0:25 effective overburden stress (kPa). A maximum Cv value of
P 1.4 is generally applied to Vs data at shallow depths, similar
Vs1 ¼ Vs Cv ¼ Vs ía , (6)

v to the SPT and CPT procedures.
192 Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195

The value of CSR separating liquefaction and non-
 – 2:56

M
liquefaction occurrences for a given Vs1 is called CRR. MSF ¼ , (9)
7:5
CRR for a given Vs1 can be calculated by


 where M = moment magnitude of the earthquake.
Vs1 2 1 1
CRR ¼ 0:022 þ 2:8 – MSF,
100 Vs1
– Vs1 Vs1
5.2 Comparison with simplified procedure based on shear
(7) wave velocity

where Vs1
= limiting upper value for cyclic liquefaction
occurrence; and MSF = magnitude scaling factor to
account for the effect of earthquake magnitude. Vs1
is
related to fines content and can be expressed by
Vs1
¼ 215 m=s, f or sands with FC£5%,
Vs1
¼ 215 – 0:5ðFC – 5Þ m=s,
f or sands with 5% < FC < 35%,
Vs1
¼ 200 m=s, f or sands and silts with FC³35%,
where FC = average fines content in percent by mass. The
magnitude scaling factor MSF is evaluated by
Using the simplified procedure of Andrus et al. [21] and
Andrus et al. [20], as described in the previous section, the
liquefaction potential of the 225 case histories in Tables 1
and 2 are evaluated. The results are shown in Fig. 3. The
(8a) simplified procedure based on shear wave velocity gives
58 errors of predictions or a 74.2% success rate. As stated
before, the developed simple method gives 40 errors of
predictions or an 82.2% success rate. Therefore, the
developed simple method has a higher success rate for
(8b) evaluating liquefaction potential than the simplified
procedure.
For design purposes, the developed simple method is
(8c) simpler and more direct than the simplified procedure.
With the developed simple method, apart from grading the
factors according to Table 3 (which is very easy to do), no
preprocessing of the data is required for a specific site

Fig. 3 Summary of prediction results using simplified procedure based on shear wave velocity
 Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity
under a particular design earthquake. With the simplified
procedure, however, the stress-correction of Vs and
calculation of CSR are required before the liquefaction
potential can be assessed. In addition, the developed
simple method can be easily employed by just conducting
hand calculations using Eq. (3) to obtain instantaneous
results. Another advantage of the proposed method is the
possibility to avoid theoretical assumptions and laboratory
experimental errors.
6 Case study
In this section, the developed simple method is applied to
evaluate the liquefaction potential at the Treasure Island
fire station site during the 1989 magnitude 7 Loma Prieta
earthquake. The soil profile, measured shear wave
velocities and fines contents, are shown respectively in
Figs. 4(a)–(c). According to Andrus et al. [21], the water
table is about 1.4 m below the ground surface, and the soil
densities can be assumed to be 1.76 mg/m3 above the water
table and 1.92 mg/m3 below the water table. Based on the
peak acceleration values of 0.16 g and 0.11 g recorded in
two horizontal directions at the fire station during the
earthquake, a geometric mean value of 0.13 g can be
assumed [21].
Figure 4(d) shows the values of FS obtained using the
developed simple method. FS is slightly smaller than 1
Fig. 4 Application of developed simple method to Treasure Island fire station site and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (soil profile and
properties are from Ref. [21]). (a) Soil profile; (b) shear wave velocity, Vs/(m%s–1); (c) fines content/%; (d) factor of safety, FS
193
between the depths of 1.5 m and 5 m and slightly greater
than 1 from 5 to 9 m. Therefore, the soil at the site might be
marginally stable during the 1989 earthquake. Field
records show that no sand boils or ground cracks occurred
at the site, but there was sudden drop in strong ground
motion recordings at about 15 s and small motion
afterward [25,26]. The sudden drop in strong ground
motion recordings indicates that the soil at site might have
liquefied [21]. Since no sand boils or ground cracks were
observed, the liquefaction might not be serious, which
confirms the prediction result (marginally stable) of the
developed simple method.
7 Conclusions
In this paper, a simple method is developed for evaluating
liquefaction potential of soils from shear wave velocity.
The simple method is developed by using the optimum
seeking method to analyze the liquefaction history data and
quantify the influence of five selected factors: the earth-
quake magnitude, M, the vertical effective overburden
stress,
í
v , the shear-wave velocity, Vs, the peak horizontal
acceleration at the ground surface of the site, amax, and the
fines content of the soil, FC. The most important factor has
been identified as the shear-wave velocity.
The developed simple method can be summarized in
three simple steps:
194 Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195
1) Grade the five factors M,
í v , Vs, amax, and FC
according to Table 3.
2) Calculate the liquefaction potential, LP, using
Eq. (3a).
3) Calculate the value of FS using Eq. (4). Liquefaction
is predicted to occur when FS£1. Liquefaction is
predicted not to occur when FS > 1.
The developed simple method is compared with the Vs-
based simplified procedure, and the results indicate that the
developed simple method has a higher success rate for
evaluating liquefaction potential than the simplified
procedure. In particular, the developed simple method is
simple and easy to use, since neither stress-correction of Vs
nor calculation of CSR is required, and hand calculations
can be conducted using Eq.(3) to provide instantaneous
results.
A case study is presented to illustrate the application of
the developed simple method. It also confirms the accuracy
of the developed simple method for evaluating the
liquefaction potential of soils.
References
1. Youd T L, Idriss I M, Andrus R D, Arango I, Castro G, Christian J T,
Dobry R, Finn W D L, Harder L F Jr, Hynes M E, Ishihara K,
Koester J P, Liao S S C, Marcuson W F III, Martin G R, Mitchell J
K, Moriwaki Y, Power M S, Robertson P K, Seed R B, Stokoe K H
II. Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary Report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001, 127(10): 817–833
2. Seed H B, Idriss I M. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 1971, 97(9): 1249–1273
3. Seed H B. Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level
ground during earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
1979, 105(2): 201–255
4. Seed H B, Idriss I M. Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,
USA, 1982
5. Seed H B, Idriss I M, Argango I. Evaluation of liquefaction potential
using field performance data. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
1983, 109(3): 458–482
6. Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction
based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils and Foundations,
1983, 23(4): 56–74
7. Seed H B, Tokimatsu H, Harder L F, Chung R M. Influence of SPT
procedure in seismic liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, 111(12): 1425–1445
8. Cetin K O. Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil liquefaction
initiation hazard. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Berkeley:
University of California, 2000
9. Seed R B, Cetin K O, Moss R E S, Kammerer A M, Wu J, Pestana J
M, Riemer M F, Sancio R B, Bray J B, Kayen R E, Faris A. Recent
advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent
framework. In: 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical
Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, California. 2003
10. Robertson P K, Campanella R G. Liquefaction potential of sands
using the CPT. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, 111(3):
384–403
11. Seed H B, De Alba P M. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the
liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of ASCE Special
Conference on Use of In Situ Testing in Geotechnical Engineering,
Special Publication No. 6, 1986, 281–302
12. Shibata T, Teparaksa W. Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of
soils using cone penetration tests. Soils and Foundations, 1988, 28
(2): 49–60 (in Japanese)
13. Stark T D, Olson S M. Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field
case histories. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1995, 121(12):
856–869
14. Robertson P K, Wride C E. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential
using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
1998, 35(3): 442–459
15. Moss R. CPT-Based Probabilistic Assessment of seismic soil
liquefaction initiation. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree.
Berkeley: University of California, 2003
16. Stokoe K H, Nazarian S. Use of Rayleigh waves in liquefaction
studies. In: Woods R D, ed. Measurement and Use of Shear Wave
Velocity for Evaluating Dynamic Soil Properties. ASCE, New York,
1985: 1–17
17. Robertson P K, Woeller D J, Finn W D L. Seismic cone penetration
test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1992, 29: 686–695
18. Kayen R E, Mitchell J K, Seed R B, Lodge A, Nishio S, Coutinho R.
Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave- based methods for
liquefaction potential assessments using Loma Prieta data. In:
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, NCEER-92-0019, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering. Buffalo, New York, 1992, 177–
192
19. Andrus R D, Stokoe K H. Liquefaction resistance based on shear
wave velocity. In: Youd T L, Idriss I M, eds. Proceedings, NCEER
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Tech.
Rep. NCEER-97-0022. National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, Buffalo, 1997, 89–128
20. Andrus R D, Stokoe K H. Liquefaction resistance of soils from
shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 2000, 126(11): 1015–1025
21. Andrus R D, Stokoe K H, Chung R M. Draft guidelines for
evaluating liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity
measurements and simplified procedures. NISTIR 6277, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA, 1999
22. Zhang L. Predicting seismic liquefaction potential of sands by
optimum seeking method. International Journal of Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 1998, 19: 219–226
23. Zhang L. Assessment of liquefaction potential using optimum
seeking method. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 1998, 124(8): 739–748
24. Sykora D W. Creation of a data base of seismic shear wave
 Lianyang ZHANG. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity 195

velocities for correlation analysis. Geotechnical. Laboratory. Mis-
cellaneous Paper GL–87–26, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987
25. Idriss I M. Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In:
Proceedings of H B Seed Memorial Symposium 2. Vancouver:
BiTech Publisher, 273–289
26. Bennett M. Subsurface investigation for liquefaction analysis and
piezometer calibration at Treasure Island Naval Station, California.
Open File Report 94–709, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park,
California, 1994