Location

San Diego, California

Session Start Date

3-26-2001

Session End Date

3-31-2001

Abstract

This paper presents an assessment of existing probabilistic methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. Emphasis is placed on comparison of probabilities of liquefaction calculated with four different methods. Two of these methods are based on SPT, and the other two are based on CPT. In both SPT- and CPT-based evaluations, logistic regression and Bayesian techniques are applied to map factor of safety to probability of liquefaction. The present study shows that the Bayesian approach yields more conservative results than does the logistic regression approach, although results from the two approaches are quite comparable. Discussion of the procedure for risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation is also presented.

Department(s)

Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering

Appears In

International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Meeting Name

Fourth Conference

Publisher

University of Missouri--Rolla

Publication Date

3-26-2001

Document Version

Final Version

Rights

© 2001 University of Missouri--Rolla, All rights reserved.

Document Type

Article - Conference proceedings

File Type

text

Language

English

Share

COinS
 
Mar 26th, 12:00 AM Mar 31st, 12:00 AM

Assessing Probabilistic Methods for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation — An Update

San Diego, California

This paper presents an assessment of existing probabilistic methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. Emphasis is placed on comparison of probabilities of liquefaction calculated with four different methods. Two of these methods are based on SPT, and the other two are based on CPT. In both SPT- and CPT-based evaluations, logistic regression and Bayesian techniques are applied to map factor of safety to probability of liquefaction. The present study shows that the Bayesian approach yields more conservative results than does the logistic regression approach, although results from the two approaches are quite comparable. Discussion of the procedure for risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation is also presented.