Wang, Y. et al. Gotechnique [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.

219]

Probabilistic assessment of liquefiable soil thickness considering

spatial variability and model and parameter uncertainties

FS
Y. WANG
, C. FU
and K. HUANG

This paper develops a probabilistic approach for identifying liquefiable soil layers and assessing
the liquefiable soil thickness using cone penetration tests (CPTs). The inherent spatial variability of
liquefaction resistance (i.e. cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)), the model uncertainty associated with the
CPT-based Robertson and Wride model, and input parameter uncertainty in cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
are taken into consideration explicitly in the proposed approach. The probability distribution of the
CRR and the thicknesses of soil layers with statistically homogeneous CRR are first identified. Then,
for a given nominal seismic loading, the thicknesses of liquefiable soil layers are estimated. A ratio of
the liquefiable soil thickness over the total thickness of all soil layers considered is quantified for
assessment of liquefaction consequences, and it is determined probabilistically using Monte Carlo
simulations. The proposed approach is illustrated using a set of CPT data collected from New Zealand.
Case histories of the 20102011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand are used to
systematically validate the proposed approach. The proposed approach is shown to properly identify the
liquefiable soil layers, quantify their liquefiable soil thicknesses and associated uncertainty, and provide
OO results that are consistent with earthquake field observations. It is also shown that deterministic analysis
not only cannot quantify the uncertainty in the assessment results, but also fails to provide consistent
results for the assessment of liquefaction consequences. It is therefore necessary to perform probabilistic
analysis using the proposed approach. In addition, a sensitivity study is performed to explore the effect
of spatial variability on soil liquefaction.

Q2 KEYWORDS:

INTRODUCTION
Soil liquefaction refers to a phenomenon a granular material
transforming from a solid to a liquefied state due to increased
pore pressure and reduced effective stress (e.g. Youd et al.,
2001; Cetin et al., 2002). In situ tests, such as the cone pene-
tration test (CPT), standard penetration test (SPT) and shear
wave velocity test, are widely used in engineering practice to
Q3 assess the earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of soils
(e.g. Stark & Olson, 1995; Andrus & Stokoe, 2000; Moss
et al., 2006; Baker & Faber, 2008; Juang et al., 2013). As CPT
tests provide a repeatable and nearly continuous data profile
PR
(e.g. Robertson & Wride, 1998; Juang et al., 2003; Lai et al.,
2004).
Consider, for example, the Robertson & Wride (1998)
method, referred to as the RW method in the literature (e.g.
Youd et al., 2001; Ku et al., 2012). The CRR is estimated
from CPT test results, followed by calculations of the CSR
and factor of safety, FS = CRR/CSR. No liquefaction is
expected to occur when FS . 1, and liquefaction is predicted
if FS  1. As the calculation models for estimating CSR
and CRR were mainly developed from past field obser-
vations and engineering experience (see later section entitled
Estimation of CRR and CSR), they inevitably involve

with depth, they are popular in engineering practice (e.g.

Robertson & Campanella, 1985; Lai et al., 2006). Many
research studies have been performed on the assessment of
liquefaction potential of soils using CPT (e.g. Seed & Idriss,
1971; Robertson & Wride, 1998; Juang et al., 2003; Jefferies
& Been, 2006). The simplified procedure developed by
Seed & Idriss (1971) has been widely used in practice for
evaluating the liquefaction potential of soils around the
world (Juang et al., 2004). The procedure has been updated
periodically (e.g. Seed, 1979; Seed & Idriss, 1982; Youd et al.,
2001), and the seismic loading and resistance in the current
procedure are expressed as cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR), respectively. Although the CSR equa-
tion developed by Seed & Idriss (1971) generally remains
unchanged in the literature, the methods of calculating the
CRR and various factors in the CSR equation are different
Manuscript received 29 September 2015; revised manuscript
accepted 25 August 2016.
Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor.

Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City
University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
various uncertainties (e.g. measurement error, uncertainty
in the model). For example, a value of FS . 1 does not
guarantee that no liquefaction is observed in field obser-
vations, and vice versa. To deal properly with these
uncertainties, several probabilistic methods have been devel-
oped for liquefaction potential assessment in the literature (e.
g. Toprak et al., 1999; Juang et al., 2002; Toprak & Holzer,
2003; Lai et al., 2006; Moss et al., 2006; Ku et al., 2012).
However, these probabilistic methods mainly focused on
whether or not liquefaction occurs, based on data at a
particular point (i.e. at a specific depth during CPT). The
spatial correlation of soil properties at different depths is
ignored in the assessment.
In addition, the severity of liquefaction has attracted
increasing research attention (e.g. Iwasaki et al., 1982; Youd
& Perkins, 1987; Toprak & Holzer, 2003; Maurer et al., 2014,
2015). These previous studies have shown that liquefaction
severity is mainly affected by the thicknesses of the liquefi-
able soil layers, thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable
layer, depth of the liquefiable layer beneath the ground
surface, FS value and so on. Therefore, an important issue
in the liquefaction severity assessment is how to determine
properly the locations and thicknesses of liquefiable

1
 2 WANG, FU AND HUANG
qc: MPa
0 15 30 0 40
0
FS
2 CSR
Depth: m 4 FS = 1
6 Sand
10
12
OO Fig. 1. A set of real CPT results from Canterbury region, New Zealand (CGD, 2016)
soil layers, particularly when using the scattered test
results from CPTs. For example, Fig. 1 shows a set of
CPT data obtained from a site at Canterbury region,
Q4 New Zealand (CGD, 2016). The first and second columns
of Fig. 1 show variation of tip resistance, qc, and sleeve
friction, fs, with depth. Their values are obviously scattered,
even within a relatively short distance. The third column
of Fig. 1 shows the distribution of the CRR calculated
using the RW method. For a given earthquake magnitude,
Mw, and peak ground acceleration, amax, distribution of
the CSR can be estimated using the equation developed by
Seed & Idriss (1971, see section entitled Estimation of
CRR and CSR). The third column of Fig. 1 shows
distributions of the CSR when amax = 0315g and Mw = 60
by a dashed line. The fourth column of Fig. 1 shows the
variation of FS with depth. Since the data are scattered,
engineering judgement is frequently employed to consider
subjectively the effect of various uncertainties (e.g. spatial
variability or correlation of soil properties at different depths)
PR
and to estimate the thicknesses of liquefiable soil layers
accordingly.
A probabilistic approach is developed in this study to
objectively identify liquefiable soil layers and assess the
liquefiable soil thickness using CPT. The spatial variability of
liquefaction resistance (i.e. CRR), the model uncertainty
associated with the CPT-based RW method, and input
parameter uncertainty in CSR calculation are taken into
consideration explicitly in the proposed approach. It starts
with a framework for probabilistic assessment of liquefiable
soil thickness, followed by a brief description of the RW
method and simplified procedure for estimating the CRR
and CSR and their associated uncertainties. Probability
distribution of the CRR and the thicknesses of soil layers
with statistically homogeneous CRR are then identified.
Subsequently, the location and thickness of liquefiable soil
layers are assessed probabilistically using Monte Carlo
simulations (MCS). The proposed approach is illustrated
using a set of real CPT data collected from New Zealand.
Case histories of the 20102011 Canterbury earthquake
sequence in New Zealand are used to systematically evaluate
the proposed approach. In addition, a sensitivity study is
performed to explore the effect of spatial variability on soil
liquefaction.
fs: kPa CRR, CSR FS
80 120 160 0 01 02 03 04 05 0 1 2 3
Mw = 60 Mw = 60
amax = 0315g amax = 0315g
CRR
Q27
PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR LIQUEFIABLE
SOIL THICKNESS ASSESSMENT
A percentage, P, of the thickness of liquefiable soil layers
over the total thickness of all soil layers at a site is defined in
the probabilistic assessment framework, and it is quantified
probabilistically using MCS. The MCS relies on repeatedly
calculating a mathematical or empirical operator in which
the variables within the operator are random with prescribed
probability distributions (e.g. Ang & Tang, 2007; Wang,
2011). For the problem considered herein, the mathematical
operator involves the determination of the load (i.e. CSR)
and resistance (i.e. CRR) in soil layers and judgement of
whether or not liquefaction occurs. As illustrated in Fig. 2,
the assessment starts with characterisation of the uncertain-
ties in the random variables (e.g. CRR, various input
parameters in the CSR equation, and model uncertainty in
the RW model). Bayesian approaches are developed to
characterise the spatial variability and probability distri-
bution of the CRR in each layer. After the characterisation,
n0 sets of random samples of the uncertain variables are
generated from the uncertainty quantification results, fol-
lowed by calculation of FS and judgement of whether
liquefaction occurs for all the data points. Then, the per-
centage, P, of the liquefiable soil thickness in the nth layer is
estimated using the following equation
X
nL
hi
P 1
i1
Hn
where nL is the total number of liquefiable CPT data points in
the nth layer; hi is the average of the vertical intervals
between the ith liquefiable CPT data point and its two
adjacent points along the vertical direction, respectively; and Q5
Hn is the thickness for the nth layer. For the CPT data points
collected at an equal vertical interval, h, the percentage,
P, of the liquefiable soil thickness in the nth layer is
approximated as
nL  h nL  h nL
P 2
Hn h  nt nt
where nt is the total number of CPT data points in the nth
layer. Finally, statistical analysis of the P values obtained
from the n0 sets of output for the nth layer is performed to
 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS 3 Q1
Obtain CPT and other necessary data If Ic , 26, the exponent to calculate Q should be changed to
n 05 and Ic is recalculated. If the recalculated Ic remains
less than 26, then the recalculated Q is taken as qclN. On the
Calculate CRR of all data pointsusing Robertson and Wride model
other hand, if Ic iterates above and below the value of 26,
then Q, qclN and Ic are calculated based on n 075.

FS
Quantify relevant uncertainties Subsequently, a correction factor, Kc, is estimated by the
(a) Spatial variability of CRR following equation
(b) Model uncertainty in the Robertson and Wride model 8
(c) Parameter uncertainty in CSR
< 10 for Ic  164
Kc 0403Ic4 5581Ic3  2163Ic2
:
3375Ic  1788 for Ic . 164
Generate n0 sets of CRR and CSR random samples according 4
to the results from the uncertainty quantification
The equivalent clean sand normalised CPT penetration
resistance, (qclN)cs, is calculated as
Calculate FS = CRR/CSR and judge whether liquefaction (FS 1) qclN cs Kc qclN 5
occurs for all the data points and calculate the percentage of
liquefiable soil thickness in each layer using one set of random
Finally, using the (qclN)cs, CRR is estimated using the
samples as input
following simplified equation
8

>
> qclN cs 3
MCS > 93
< 008 for 50  qclN cs,160
No 1000
Complete n0 times of repetitive CRR

>
> q
executions of the previous step
>
OO using a different set of random
samples as input every time

Yes

Perform statistical analysis of the resulting n0 sets of output

: 0833 clN cs 005 for qclN cs , 50
1000

The CSR value for a CPT data point (i.e. at a specific depth
during CPT) is calculated using the procedure recommended
6

by Youd et al. (2001) Q6

065 v0 =v0 amax =grd

Fig. 2. Probabilistic framework for assessment of liquefiable soil
CSR 7
MSF=K
thickness
where amax is the peak horizontal ground surface accelera-
tion; g is gravitational acceleration; rd is the shear stress
provide relevant statistics and probability distribution of P. reduction factor; MSF is the magnitude scaling factor; K is
The MCS requires information on spatial variability of the , Pa). The
the overburden correction factor (K = 1, for v0
CRR, model uncertainty in the RW model, and parametric rd, MSF and K are calculated using the following equations,
uncertainty in CSR calculation. The RW model is first used respectively (Youd et al., 2001) Q7
to calculate the CRR values for all CPT data points. Then 
spatial variability of the CRR is characterised, and the mean, 10  000765z for z  915 m
rd 8
standard deviation and correlation length of the CRR are 1174  00267z for 915 m , z  23 m
estimated using Bayesian approaches. The calculation pro-
cedure recommended by Youd et al. (2001) is used to deter- 10224
mine the CSR. The RW model and simplified procedure for MSF 9
PR

estimating the CRR and CSR, their associated model Mw256

uncertainty, parametric uncertainty in CSR calculation,
and the Bayesian characterisation of the CRR are discussed
in the following four sections.
ESTIMATION OF CRR AND CSR
In the RW model (Robertson & Wride, 1998), a soil
behaviour type index, Ic, is defined as follows
Ic 347  log Q2 log F 1222 05
where Q (qc  v0/Pa2)(Pa/v0 ) is the normalised CPT
n
  f 1
v0
K 10
Pa
where z is the depth of the CPT data point; Mw is the
earthquake moment magnitude; f is an exponent that is
a function of site conditions, including relative density, stress
history, aging and overconsolidation ratio. For routine prac-
tice and non-critical projects, f may be taken as 07 (Juang
3 et al., 2008).

penetration resistance; F 100 [ fs/(qc  v0)] is the normal-

ised friction ratio in percentage; fs is the sleeve friction; v0
are the total and effective overburden stresses, respec-
and v0
tively; Pa is the atmospheric pressure in the same units as v0
(e.g. Pa 100 kPa if v0 is in kPa); Pa2 is the atmospheric
pressure in the same units as v0 (e.g. Pa2 01 MPaif v0 is in
MPa). The stress exponent n varies from around 05 for sands
to 10 for clays. The normalisation for Q is somewhat
complex and requires iteration. First, n 10 is used to
calculate Q and Ic. If Ic . 26, then the normalised cone tip
resistance corrected for overburden stress, qclN, is set as Q.
PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY IN CSR
CALCULATION
Equations (7)(10) show that CSR is a function of five
input parameters (i.e. amax, Mw, v0 , v0 and rd) and other
constants (e.g. f = 07). These five parameters are treated as
random variables. rd is taken to follow a triangular dis-
tribution with its mode (i.e. the rd value with the maximum
probability density function) calculated from equation (8).
The lower and upper bound of the triangular distribution are
determined in accordance with the rd ranges suggested by
4 WANG, FU AND HUANG
Table 1. Typical ranges of coefficient of variation (COV) for input Cyclic resistance ratio
parameters in CSR calculation

Random Typical range References Layer 1: 1 = [1 1 1] h1

variable of COV

FS
amax 010020 Haldar & Tang (1979), Espinosa Layer 2: 2 = [2 2 2] h2
(1982), Comartin et al. (1995),
Juang et al. (1999, 2000)
Mw 005010 Juang et al. (1999)

v0 005020 Juang et al. (1999, 2000)
v0 005020 Juang et al. (1999, 2000)

Layer n: n = [n n n] hn
Table 2. Coefficients of correlation among input parameters

Random variable amax Mw

v0 v0

amax 1 09 0 0
Mw 09 1 0 0

v0 0 0 1 09
v0 0 0 09 1

Note: this table is compiled from previous studies reported in the

Layer N: N = [ N N N ]
literature, such as Campbell (1981); Idriss (1991); Juang et al. (1999, hN
2000, 2008).
OO
Seed & Idriss (1971) and recommended by Youd et al. (2001).
The other four parameters (i.e. amax, Mw, v0 and v0) are
taken to follow a lognormal distribution because of their
non-negative physical meaning, as commonly modelled in
the literature (e.g. Juang et al., 2004). Since the mean value of
Fig. 3. An illustration of the soil profile divided into N statistically
homogeneous soil layers based on cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)

uncertainty. Then, the predicted CRR in a log scale is

a parameter is frequently adopted as its nominal value in
geotechnical practice, for a lognormally distributed random
variable with a given mean or nominal value, the only statis-
tical parameter needed to characterise the random variable is
its standard deviation or coefficient of variation (COV).
Table 1 summarises the typical ranges of COV for amax, Mw,
and v0 reported in the literature (e.g. Haldar & Tang,
v0
1979; Espinosa, 1982; Comartin et al., 1995; Juang et al.,
1999, 2000, 2004). In addition, owing to the physical mean-
ings of amax, Mw, v0 and v0, there are obvious correlations
between amax and Mw and between v0 and v0, while the
correlations for the other pairs of random variables are weak
(e.g. Campbell, 1981; Idriss, 1991; Juang et al., 1999, 2000,
2008). Table 2 shows a matrix of correlation coefficients
PR
expressed as
 
CRR
ln CRR ln ln CRR  ln c
c
ln CRR T 12
where T represents the model uncertainty. Juang et al. (2004)
calibrated the model uncertainty using a large field obser-
vation database and a Bayesian mapping approach (Juang
et al., 1999). In their approach, a Bayesian mapping function
PL  fL()/[ fL() fNL ()] was first developed that relates
the reliability index to the probability of liquefaction PL,
where fL(), fNL ()) are probability density functions of the
calculated of the group of liquefied cases and the group of
non-liquefied cases, respectively. The effect of model uncer-

reported and used in the literature (e.g. Juang et al., 2008).

Using the information from Tables 1 and 2, random samples
of amax, Mw, v0 and v0 can be generated for the MCS shown
in Fig. 2. In addition, it is worthwhile to note that, if the
measured amax data under a specific earthquake are available
at specific sites, the COV values from the measurement data
should be used in MCS to reflect the uncertainty associated
with site response. The amax COV values shown in Table 1
should only be used when the measured amax data are not
available.
tainty is reflected in the calculated probability because the
probability was calibrated through the reliability index based
on a large database of field observations (Juang et al., 2004).
A first-order reliability method was then used to quantify
the model uncertainty explicitly using a lognormal random
variable, c. According to Juang et al. (2004), the mean and
coefficient of variation of c were characterised as 094 and
015, respectively. Then, the mean and standard deviation,
defined as m and m, of the equivalent normal variable
-lnc were calculated as 0073 and 0149, respectively (i.e. Q8
T  N(0073, 0149)).

MODEL UNCERTAINTY IN THE ROBERTSON AND

WRIDE MODEL
As the RW model was developed based on past obser-
vations and engineering judgement, uncertainties inevitably
exist in the model for estimating CRR. When considering the
model uncertainty in the RW model, the true CRR is given
by the following equation (Juang et al., 2004)
CRR CRR  c
where CRR is the CRR values calculated from the RW
method and c is a random variable representing model
BAYESIAN CHARACTERISATION OF CRR
Bayesian approaches are developed to characterise spatial
variability of the CRR. As shown in Fig. 3, the inherent
spatial variability of the CRR within the N statistically
homogeneous layers is modelled by N one-dimensional
and mutually independent lognormal random fields along
11 the vertical direction (i.e. CRRn (d), n = 1, 2, , N ) (e.g.
Vanmarcke, 1977), where the subscript n denotes the layer
number (i.e. the nth layer of soil) and d is the depth. The
mean and standard deviation of the CRR for the nth layer are
 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS
n and n, respectively. An exponential correlation function is
used to model the correlation structure, and the correlation
coefficient (i, j) between the logarithms of the CRR (i.e.
ln[CRR(di)] andln[CRR(dj )]) at depths di and dj is expressed
as (e.g. Fenton, 1999a, 1999b; Wang et al., 2010, 2011; Wang
FS
& Cao, 2013; Cao & Wang, 2014)
 
2jdi  dj j
i; j exp  ; n 1; 2; . . .; N 13
n Similar to the likelihood function, the prior distribution
where n is the correlation length along the vertical direction,
also known as the vertical scale of fluctuation, within the nth
layer.
Q9 Then, a kn-by-kn correlation matrix Rn, where the (i, j)-th
entry is given by equation (13), is constructed to represent
the spatial correlation of the lnCRR (i.e. the logarithm of
the CRR within the nth layer) at different depths (i.e. along
8
< 1 1 1
  for n [ 0; 06; n [ 0; 0173; n [ 0; 10
Pn jN 06 0173 10
:
0 for others
OO
Q10
vertical direction). Let hn, n = 1,2, , N, denote the thickness
of the nth soil layer (See Fig. 3), then the N lognormal
random fields are uniquely defined by a thickness vector
hN [h1, h2, , hN]T and a model parameter matrix N
that consists of N model parameter vectors n = [n n n] and
N correlation matrices Rn.
Let [1, 2, , N]T be a set of ln CRR data at different
depths calculated from the RW model in a soil profile con-
taining N layers, where n = [n(d1), n(d2), , n(dkn)]T,
n = 1,2, , N, is the calculated lnCRR values at the kn
depths d1, d2, , dkn within the nth soil layer. In the context
of random field modelling and the transformation model
given by equation (12), it can be reasoned that n measured
within the nth soil layer is a Gaussian vector with a mean
(ln,n m)ln and covariance matrix Cn = 2ln,nRn + m 2In,
where ln,n and ln,n are the mean and standard deviation
of the corresponding normal variable lnCRR for the nth
layer, respectively; ln is a vector with kn components all equal
to one; and In is a kn-by-kn identity matrix (Wang et al.,
2010). The model parameters (i.e. N, hN) used to define the
N lognormal random fields are unknown and need to be
estimated. Bayesian system identification and model class
PR
selection methods (e.g. Cao & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2013,
2014) are developed to estimate these model parameters, as
discussed below.
The estimation of model parameters N for N given soil
layers is formulated as a Bayesian updating process and
expressed as (e.g. Ang & Tang, 2007; Wang et al., 2016)
PN j; N KN P jN ; NPN jN 14 the formulation mentioned above. It is further taken as a vari-
where KN is a normalising constant; P(|N, N ) is the likeli-
hood function as given by equations (15) and (16) (Wang
et al., 2010; Cao & Wang, 2013), P(N|N ) is the prior
distribution of model parameters. P(|N, N ) is further
expressed as
Y
N
P jN ; N P n jn ; N 15 them. The most probable number of soil layers is the one
n1
P n jn ; N 2kn =2 jdet Cn j1=2


1 T 1
 exp  n  ln;n m l n Cn n  ln;n m l n
2 k 1; 2; . . .; Nmax
16
5 Q1
where P( n|n, N ), n = 1, 2, , N, is the likelihood function
for the nth soil layer. Note that ln,n and ln,n are determined
from the mean and standard deviation of the corresponding
lognormal distribution of the CRR (i.e. n, n). In addition,
the likelihood function in equation (14) is a function of not
only the model parameters for each layer (i.e. N) but also the
layer thickness vector hN [h1, h2,..., hN]T since the data are
divided into N soil layers and used in the equations.
P(N|N ) is given by (e.g. Cao et al., 2016)
Y
N
PN jN Pn jN 17
n1
where P(n|N ), n = 1, 2, , N, is the prior distribution
of model parameters n [n n n] in the nth soil layer, for
which a uniform distribution is adopted and expressed as
18
The prior distribution above is derived based on the lower
and upper bounds of n, n and n (i.e. min, max ; min, max ;
min, max), which can be estimated in accordance with their
respective physical meaning. n and n are the mean and
standard deviation of the lognormal distribution of the CRR
for the nth layer, respectively. The CRR value must be larger
than 0 (i.e. min 0) and should be smaller than 06 (i.e.
max 06) based on the empirical curve recommended for
determining CRR (Robertson & Wride, 1998). In addition,
n is a standard variation, and it must be larger than 0
(i.e. min 0). The upper bound of n is taken at an extreme
case when the CRR is uniformly distributed between the
range (0, 06), and the corresponding max is estimated as
q
max 06  02 =12 0173 (e.g. Wang et al., 2013). The
n is the vertical scale of fluctuation for the nth layer,
and it must be larger than 0 and is typically smaller than
10 m (e.g. Phoon & Kulhawy, 1999).
The posterior distribution of model parameters
(i.e. N, hN) is then obtained from equation (14) using the
likelihood function and prior distribution derived. An
asymptotic technique (Bleistein & Handelsman, 1986) is
used to solve equation (14) for obtaining the posterior infor-
mation on the model parameter. The most probable value
(MPV) of model parameters (i.e. N *, h N*) obtained by
minimising an objective function fobj ln[P(N|, N )]
is taken as the posterior mean of the model parameters
(e.g. Cao & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2013, 2014).
The number of soil layers (i.e. k) is considered as a constant in
able, and a Bayesian model class selection method (e.g. Beck
& Yuen, 2004; Cao & Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2013, 2014) is
used to determine its most probable value (i.e. k*). Let Nmax
denote the maximum possible number of soil layers within the
depth of a CPT sounding. The most probable model class
is determined by repeatedly calculating the evidence P(|Mk)
among all model classes Mk, k = 1, 2, , Nmax, and comparing
with the maximum value of P(|Mk) (Cao & Wang, 2013). The
P(|Mk) can be approximated as (e.g. Papadimitriou et al.,
1997; Beck & Katafygiotis, 1998; Wang et al., 2014)
  1=2
P jMk  P 
; Mk P
jMk 2 jk =2 det H

k k k
19
6 WANG, FU AND HUANG
Obtain CPT and earthquake data and choose Nmax
Calculate CRR and the CSR for each CPT data point using
equations (3)(10)
FS
Compute prior information P(NN) using equations (17) and (18)
Compute the likelihood function using equations (15) and (16) and
construct the objective function fobj = ln[P(N, N)]
Minimise the objective function, determine the MPV of layer
thicknesses and other model parameters, and calculate the
Hessian matrix
Calculate the conditional probability P(Mk) for the
kth model class using equation (19)
OO Repeat Nmax times for different
model classes?
Yes
Compare P(Mk) and determine the soil layer number, the MPV
No
of layer thickness, and other model parameters
Perform Monte Carlo simulations and calculate P using equation (2)
(See Fig. 2)
Fig. 4. Flowchart for probabilistic assessment of liquefiable soil
thickness
where k* is the MPV of model parameters for model class
Mk; P(|k*, Mk) is the likelihood function of Mk evaluated
at k*; P(k*|Mk) is the prior distribution of Mk evaluated at
k*; H(k*) is the Hessian matrix of Mk evaluated at k*;
jk = 3k is the number of model parameters of Mk. Details of
PR
the Bayesian model class selection method are provided by
Cao & Wang (2013)..
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
Figure 4 shows details of each step and their associated
equations for the proposed probabilistic assessment of
liquefiable soil thickness. Although the proposed approach
involves quite a number of equations and seems complex,
it is rather straightforward to program it as a user function
or toolbox using computer software, such as Matlab
(Mathworks, Inc., 2016). The user function or toolbox can
be treated as a black box. Geotechnical engineers only need
to provide input, such as CPT data and earthquake para-
meters (e.g. amax and Mw). Then, the user function or
toolbox will return the locations and thicknesses of liquefi-
able soil layers and their corresponding percentages of
liquefiable soil thickness. This not only allows engineers to
use the proposed approach without being compromised by
the complex mathematics, but also offers engineers insights
into the distribution of liquefiable soil layers along the
vertical direction and the occurrence probability or uncer-
tainty of liquefaction along the vertical direction.
Table 3. Bayesian model class selection results
Model ln[P(|Mk)] Most probable thicknesses, hk*: m
class Mk
h1* h2* h3* h4* h5*
M1 38 10
M2 32 32 68
M3 53 38 12 50
M4* 58 38 12 12 38
M5 43 28 10 12 12 38
The proposed approaches are illustrated using a set of real
CPT data from a site in the Canterbury region, New Zealand
(CGD, 2016). As shown in Fig. 1, the site contains a thick
layer of sand extending from the ground surface to a depth of
more than 12 m. The groundwater table (GWT) was at about
16 m below the ground surface. It is noted that liquefaction
only occurs below the GWT, and therefore, the total
thickness Ht of the soil profile taken into consideration in
the liquefaction analysis is 100 m (i.e. from a depth of 16 m
to 116 m). The distributions of qc and fs, and the calculated
CRR values, are shown in Fig. 1. The proposed Bayesian
system identification and model class selection methods are
first used to characterise the spatial variability of CRR,
considering a maximum of five candidate model classes (i.e.
Nmax 5). Then, the CRR characterisation results are used
for probabilistic assessment of liquefiable soil thickness by
MCS. The number of MCS samples should be at least ten
times the reciprocal of the target failure probability (e.g.
Wang, 2011). In this study, the level of liquefaction prob-
ability of interest is taken as 1  104, and a sample number
of 1 000 000 is used. For illustration purposes, the mean
values of amax and Mw are taken as 0315g and 60, respec-
tively, for a Canterbury earthquake sequence case history.
Nominal values of v0 and v0 at different depths are adopted
as their mean values. The measured amax data at this site
show that the amax standard deviation is 0036g. In addition,
based on Table 1, the COVs of Mw, v0 and v0 are taken as
005, 010 and 015, respectively. Table 2 is also used in MCS
to model the correlation among amax, Mw, v0 and v0.
Bayesian characterisation results
Table 3 summarises the logarithm of evidence in the second
column for the five candidate model classes. The value of ln
[P(|Mk)] increases from 38 to 58 as k increases from 1 to 4,
and it then decreases from 58 to 43 as k further increases
from 4 to 5. The model class with four soil layers has the
maximum value of ln[P(|Mk)] among all the five model
classes. Therefore, the most probable number of soil layers is 4.
Table 3 also summarises the most probable thicknesses (i.e.
hk*) of the soil layers for the five candidate model classes.
Using hk*, k = 1, 2, , 5, the most probable boundaries of
soil layers are delineated accordingly for the five model
classes, as shown in Fig. 5 using short, dashed lines. For the
most probable model class M4*, the most probable thick-
nesses of these four layers are 38 m, 12 m, 12 m and 38 m,
respectively. The most probable boundaries for M4 are thus at Q11
a depth of 54 m, 66 m and 78 m, respectively. In addition,
the identified MPV of the model parameters for the most
probable model class are summarised in Table 4.
An important feature of the proposed method is the
delineation of the statistically homogeneous CRR layers in
an objective and rational manner. Delineation of statistically
homogeneous layers from CPT data is often challenging and
involves subjective judgement because of the nature of CPT
data, such as significant scatteredness, spatial correlation
 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS 7 Q1
Model class CRR
M1 M2 M3 M*4 M5 0 01 02 03 04 05 06
0

FS
Depth: m 4

10

12
Boundaries identified in Most probable boundaries of
different model classes statistically homogeneous CRR layers

Fig. 5. The most probable boundaries of statistically homogeneous CRR layers

OO
Table 4. Bayesian system identification results

Layer number

Model parameters

Normalised frequency: %
100
90
80
70
60
Layer 1: 1654 m

Mean: 193%
Standard deviation: 101%
Sample number: 1 000 000

1 0226 0072 0592

2 0388 0030 5947 50 168% (deterministic approach)
3 0180 0030 4605 40
4 0255 0040 0521 30
20
100 10
Mean: 192%
90 Standard deviation: 55% 0
Sample number: 1 000 000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
80
Percentage of liquefiable soil thickness, P : %
Normalised frequency: %

70 (a)
60 116% (deterministic approach)
50 Layer 3: 6678 m
50
45
40 Mean: 538%
40
Normalised frequency: %

30 Standard deviation: 248%

35 Sample number: 1 000 000
PR

20
30
10 433% (deterministic approach)
25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20
Percentage of liquefiable soil thickness, P : % 15
10
Fig. 6. A histogram of the percentage, P, of liquefiable soil thickness
5
0
and transition of layers. The proposed Bayesian method in 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
this study uses the evidence P(|Mk) (i.e. the probability of Percentage of liquefiable soil thickness, P : %
observing the measured dataset given a model class Mk or (b)
a soil stratification model with k layers in this study) as
the objective index to compare different model classes and Fig. 7. Histograms of the percentage, P, of liquefiable soil thickness
delineate the most probable statistically homogeneous layers in layers 1 and 3: (a) layer 1; (b) layer 3
(e.g. see Table 3 and Fig. 5). It not only effectively eliminates
the need for subjective judgement, allowing engineers with
different subjective judgement to arrive at the same results, Liquefiable soil thickness assessment results
but also it is mathematically sound and rational. In addition, Figure 6 shows a histogram of the percentage P of
note that the effect of a thin layer on CPT data is not liquefiable soil thickness for all soil layers below the GWT
considered in this study, because previous studies have shown (i.e. extending from a depth of 16 m to 116 m) from MCS.
that only liquefiable soil layers with considerable thickness The mean and standard deviation of P are 192% and 55%,
(e.g. greater than 03 m) have contributions in terms of respectively. If the RW model is used deterministically with-
liquefaction severity (e.g. Youd & Perkins, 1987). out consideration of spatial variability, model uncertainty,
8 WANG, FU AND HUANG
FS
OO
Fig. 8. Locations of all CPT data used in this study. Note: The test numbers of CPTs in severe or moderate liquefaction sites are labelled in red;
whereas those in minor or no liquefaction sites are labelled in white
PR
or parameter uncertainty, the percentage of liquefiable soil
thickness is calculated as 116%. There is considerable differ-
ence between the mean value of P from MCS (i.e. 192%) and
the P value from the deterministic approach (i.e. 116%).
In addition, the proposed approach provides a probabilistic
distribution of P and quantifies the uncertainty in the
liquefiable soil thickness assessment results obtained. The
P values from MCS vary from 0% to about 40% with a mean
value of 192%, and the COV of P is 55%/192% = 286%.
The variability or uncertainty is significant. In contrast, the
deterministic approach only provides an estimated P value of
116%, and no measurement is possible on the variability or
uncertainty in this estimation.
Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the normalised frequency of P
in layer 1 (i.e. at depth 1654 m) and layer 3 (i.e. at depth
6678 m), respectively. Because the MCS results show that
layers 2 and 4 are unlikely to liquefy, detailed analysis results
are only shown for layers 1 and 3. As shown in Fig. 7(a), the
deterministic RW approach gives a P value of 168% for
layer 1. However, based on the MCS results, the P value in
layer 1 varies from 0% to 50% with different occurrence
frequencies. The mean and standard deviation of P in layer 1
is calculated as 193% and 101%, respectively. The COV of P
value in layer 1 is 101%/193% = 523%, suggesting sub-
stantial variability or uncertainty in the P value obtained. In
addition, the mean P value of 193% from MCS is larger than
the P value (i.e. 168%) from the deterministic approach.
Fig. 7(b) shows similar variability in the P value for layer 3.
The deterministic RW model gives a P value of 433%. In
contrast, the P values from MCS vary from about 0% to
100%, with a mean and standard deviation of 538% and
248%, respectively. Significant variability or uncertainty in
the P value is also observed from MCS results. The mean
P value of 538% from MCS is larger than the P value
(i.e. 433%) from deterministic approach.
CASE HISTORIES OF THE 20102011 CANTERBURY
EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE IN NEW ZEALAND
During 20102011, a series of earthquakes struck
Christchurch, New Zealand, including the Mw 71 Darfield
earthquake on 4 September 2010, Mw 48 aftershock on
26 December 2010, Mw 62 Christchurch earthquake on
22 February 2011, two, Mw 60 and Mw 58, respectively,
 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS 9 Q1
qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa
10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20
0 0 0 0 0
qc
1 1 1 1 1 fs
2 2 qc
2

FS
fs qc 2 2
3 3 qc
qc 3 fs
3 fs 3
4 fs 4
Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m
4
5 5 4 4
5
6 6 5 5
6
7 7
7 6 6
8 8
9 9 8 7 7

10 10 9 8 8
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200
fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa
CPT_39 CPT_40 CPT_41 CPT_107 CPT_172

qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa
10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20
0 0 0 0 0
qc qc qc
1 qc
fs 1 1 1
fs fs 1 fs
OO 2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
qc
fs
2
3
4
2

3
Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m
5
6 5 5 5 4
7 6 6 6 5
8
7 7 7
9 6
8 8 8
10
9 9 9 7
11
12 10 10 10 8
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200
fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa
CPT_177 CPT_282 CPT_283 CPT_311 CPT_314
(a)

Fig. 9. CPT data collected from the Canterbury Geotechnical Database: (a) severe or moderate liquefaction; (b) minor or no liquefaction. Note:
horizontal solid lines in the figures represent the most probable boundaries of statistically homogeneous soil layers identified from CPT data
(continued on next page)

Q12 earthquakes on 13 June 2011, and two, Mw 59 and Mw proposed approach in previous sections (see Fig. 1) relate to
58, respectively, earthquakes on 23 December 2011. These CPT_6. The CRR is first calculated from qc and fs data
PR

earthquakes caused widespread liquefaction, lateral spread-
ing and ground surface subsidence. After the earthquake
on 4 September 2010, the New Zealand Earthquake
Commission (EQC) carried out extensive geotechnical site
investigations in the Canterbury region affected by conse-
quential liquefaction. The site investigation data were com-
piled by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(CERA) to establish a searchable repository of geotechnical
data to the public, called the Canterbury Geotechnical
Q13 Database (CGD, 2016). CGD includes extensive data on
CPT, soil borehole, shear wave velocity, groundwater data
and so on. It is an online geographic information system
(GIS)-based database built on the Project Orbit platform,
and it allows users to interact directly with the database
through a map (e.g. see Fig. 8).
Twenty sets of CPT data are collected from CGD and used
together with the proposed approach, including ten sets
of data where severe or moderate liquefaction has been
observed (see Fig. 9(a)) and ten sets of data where minor or
no liquefaction has been observed (see Fig. 9(b)). Locations
of the 20 CPTs were shown in Fig. 8. Table 5 summarises
the information collected from the CGD. Figure 9 shows the
distributions of qc and fs. The CPT data used to illustrate the
points. Then the proposed Bayesian system identification and
model class selection methods are used to characterise the
spatial variability of the CRR. The soil layers identified from
the Bayesian characterisation are also shown in Fig. 9 and
summarised in Table 5. A MCS run with a sample number of
1 000 000 is subsequently performed for each set of CPT
data. The nominal value of Mw and the mean and standard
deviation of amax corresponding to each set of CPT data are
collected from CGD and summarised in Table 5. Based on
Table 1, the COVs of Mw, v0 and v0 are taken as 005, 010
and 015, respectively. The correlations shown in Table 2 for
amax, Mw, v0 and v0 are also used in MCS.
Table 5 summarises the mean and standard deviation of P
from MCS. For the ten sets of CPT data where severe or
moderate liquefaction has been observed in the field, the
mean P value varies from more than 60% to about 90%.
Results from the proposed approach show that a majority of
the soil below the water level liquefied during the earthquake.
This is consistent with the field observations of severe or
moderate liquefaction. However, for the other ten sets of
CPT data where minor or no liquefaction has been observed
in the field, the mean P value generally varies from about 0%
to about 20%. The results suggest that only minor, or even no,
10 WANG, FU AND HUANG
qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa
10 20 10 20 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 10 20
0 0 0 0 0
qc qc
1 1 1 1 fs
2 qc
1 fs
2 2 qc
fs qc 2

FS
3 3 fs
3 2
4 fs 3
4
4
Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m
5 3
5 4
6 5
6 5 4
7 6
7
8 6
8 7 5
9
8 7
10 9
6
11 10 9 8

12 11 10 9 7
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200
fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa
CPT_6 CPT_20 CPT_236 CPT_231 CPT_758

qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa qc: MPa
10 20 30 40 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
0 0 0 0 0
1 qc qc qc qc
1 1
fs fs 2 fs 1
2 fs
OO 3
4
5
qc
fs
2
3
4
2
3
4
4

6
2

3
Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m
5
6 4
6 5 8
7 5
7 6
8 10
8 6
9 7
10 9 12
8 7
11 10
14 8
12 11 9
13 12 10 16 9
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200
fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa fs: kPa
CPT_477 CPT_1383 CPT_1387 CPT_446 CPT_1484
(b)

Fig. 9. Continued

liquefaction occurred during the earthquake. The results Note that the calculation model for CRR and CSR (e.g.
agree with the field observations of minor or no liquefaction. equations (3)(10)) is not a linear calculation model, and that
PR

The proposed approach successfully identifies liquefiable soil
layers and provides results consistent with field observations.
In addition, the proposed approach provides the standard
deviation of the P value and quantifies the uncertainty in the
estimated liquefiable soil thickness. The standard deviation
varies from a few percent to about 14%, indicating significant
uncertainty in the estimated liquefiable soil thickness.
For comparison, Table 5 also includes the P values
obtained from the deterministic approach (i.e. without con-
sideration of spatial variability, model uncertainty or par-
ameter uncertainty). Much higher P values are also obtained
from the deterministic approach for severe or moderate
liquefaction cases than those for minor or no liquefaction
cases. Although the general trend from the deterministic
approach is consistent with that obtained from the proposed
probabilistic approach, the deterministic P values might be
significantly different from the mean P values. Consider,
for example, CPT_107, for which mean the P value is 78%.
But its deterministic P value is just 59%, which is about
20% smaller than the mean P value. In contrast, CPT_314
has a mean P value of 72%, but its deterministic P value
is 88%, which is about 16% larger than the mean P value.
The deterministic analysis does not provide consistent
results for quantifying the liquefiable soil thickness.
only a linear calculation model will guarantee that the mean
of the probabilistic analysis output is identical to the output
of a deterministic analysis with the mean values of input
parameters as input. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the
P value from the deterministic approach differ from the mean
P value from MCS. To provide a consistent assessment on
liquefiable soil thickness, it is necessary to perform prob-
abilistic analysis and properly consider the spatial variability,
model uncertainty and parameter uncertainty, as proposed in
the present study.
EFFECT OF SPATIAL VARIABILITY ON
LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS
To further investigate the effect of spatial variability on
liquefiable soil thickness, a sensitivity study with 12 simulated
CRR cases is performed for the first two soil layers identified
in the section entitled Illustrative example (i.e. from a depth
of 16 m to 66 m in Fig. 5). The random field model and
spatial correlation model described in the previous sections are
used to simulate the CRR samples, together with the MPV
values of mean and standard deviation obtained from the
Bayesian approaches (see Table 4). The mean and standard
deviation of the lognormally distributed CRR for the two
 PR
OO
Table 5. Summary of Canterbury earthquake sequence case histories

PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS

Field observation CPT no. Earthquake moment Peak horizontal ground Thickness of statistically Percentage of liquefiable P from deterministic
magnitude, Mw surface acceleration, amax: g homogeneous soil layers: m* soil thickness, P: % approach: %

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

Severe or moderate CPT_39 62 036 0034 83 = 12 + 60 + 11 89(90/99/37) 4 88

liquefaction CPT_40 62 0395 0034 81 = 10 + 36 + 18 + 17 85(72/97/95/53) 5 84
CPT_41 62 04 0034 66 = 28 + 14 + 24 64(82/21/69) 13 65
CPT_107 62 0478 0031 62 = 10 + 14 + 24 + 14 78(53/100/91/52) 9 59
CPT_172 62 054 0034 62 = 14 + 10 + 10 + 28 73(96/84/67/59) 14 66
CPT_177 62 057 0039 81 = 10 + 42 + 12 + 17 81(76/98/94/33) 4 77

FS
CPT_282 62 0372 0031 64 = 14 + 40 + 10 84(94/89/46) 8 80
CPT_283 62 0352 0034 79 = 38 + 20 + 10 + 11 76(96/99/37/1) 5 78
CPT_311 62 036 0031 72 = 12 + 40 + 10 + 10 66(84/93/0/11) 7 68
CPT_314 62 034 0036 59 = 10 + 38 + 11 72(43/84/59) 12 88
Minor or no liquefaction CPT_6 60 0315 0036 100 = 38 + 12 + 12 + 38 19(19/0/54/14) 6 12
CPT_20 60 0315 0034 85 = 28 + 44 + 13 19(20/23/0) 11 24
CPT_236 62 0212 0044 86 = 22 + 14 + 24 + 26 18(33/53/5/0) 6 21
CPT_231 62 0216 0044 67 = 34 + 10 + 23 9(17/1/0) 7 11
CPT_758 60 0165 0039 60 = 12 + 34 + 14 8(18/0/21) 6 27
CPT_477 59 0198 0024 105 = 20 + 18 + 42 + 25 14(0/17/16/18) 8 8
CPT_1383 60 0302 0039 86 = 20 + 42 + 24 15(23/0/34) 6 23
CPT_1387 60 0342 0039 58 = 12 + 18 + 14 + 14 21(64/0/0/33) 7 21
CPT_446 59 0193 0025 107 = 36 + 32 + 20 + 19 1(0/0/4/0) 1 0
CPT_1484 59 016 0035 57 = 18 + 12 + 14 + 13 6(0/13/8/5) 4 0

*This column shows the total soil thickness and thickness of each layer obtained from the Bayesian characterisation. For example, 83 = 12 + 60 + 11 means that the total thickness of soil below the
groundwater level is 83 m, and that the soil is divided into three layers with thickness of 12 m, 60 m and 11 m, respectively.
This column represents the mean P values for the total soil thickness and each layer defined in column 6. For example, 89(90/99/37) means that the mean P value of the total soil thickness is 89%, and that
the mean P values for all the layers defined in column 6 are 90%, 99% and 37%, respectively.
This column represents the standard deviation of P for the total soil thickness.

11 Q1
12 WANG, FU AND HUANG
100 40

90 = 100 m
=5m
80
Normalised frequency: %

= 059 m 30
70 = 001 m

FS
Mean of P: %
60
50 20
40
Layer 1
30
10 Layer 2
20
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 001 01 1 10 100
Percentage of liquefiable soil thickness, P: % Correlation length: m
(a) (a)

100 30

90 = 100 m
80 = 595 m
Normalised frequency: %

= 05 m

Standard deviation of P: %
70 = 001 m 20
60
OO 50
40
10 Layer 1
30
20 Layer 2

10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 001 01 1 10 100
Percentage of liquefiable soil thickness, P: % Correlation length: m
(b) (b)

Fig. 10. Effect of spatial variability on the percentage, P, of Fig. 11. Relationship between correlation length and the statistics of
liquefiable soil thickness: (a) layer 1; (b) layer 2 the percentage, P, of liquefiable soil thickness: (a) mean of P;
(b) standard deviation of P

layers are taken as 0226, 0072 and 0388, 0030, respectively.

To explore the effect of spatial variability, the correlation
length in these 12 different cases varies over a large range,
including: 001 m (i.e. approximated as 0 for a mutually
independent case), 003 m, 01 m, 05 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m,
25 m, 5 m, 10 m, 30 m, 100 m (i.e. approximated as for a
fully correlated case), and their respective MPV values of
obtained from Bayesian approaches (i.e. 0592 m for layer 1
PR
standard deviation of P is significantly influenced by the
spatial variability or correlation. In this case, ignoring spatial
correlation (i.e. 0) leads to underestimation of the stan-
dard deviation of P and the occurrence probability of extreme
cases (e.g. P [ [0%, 10%] for the almost no liquefaction case
or P [ (90%, 100%] for a case where almost all soils liquefy).
Such an effect is similar to the effect of spatial variability on

and 5947 m for layer 2). A number of MCS runs are per-
formed to assess the thickness of liquefiable soil in each case
with a MCS sample number of 1 000 000. Fig. 10 shows the
normalised frequency of P in these two layers for the four
different correlation lengths.
Figure 10(a) shows the results for layer 1. The P values
spread over a wide range from 0% to 100%, indicating large
variability in the assessment results. When (i.e. the
fully correlated case), the largest normalised frequency is
more than 50% for P [ [0%, 10%] (i.e. almost no liquefaction
occurs in layer 1). As the value decreases or the correlation
within the soil layer diminishes, the normalised frequency
for P [ [0%, 10%] decreases and the normalised frequencies
for P [ [10%, 40%] gradually increase. When 0 (i.e. the
mutually independent case), the largest normalised fre-
quency is about 50% for P [ (10%, 20%].
Figure 11 shows the variation of the mean and standard
deviation of P with correlation length. For layer 1, the mean
P value remains constant at about 19%; while the standard
deviation increases steadily from 7% to 23% as the correla-
tion length increases from 001 m to 100 m. Because the
spatial variability is modelled as a stationary random field
in this study, it is expected to have no effect on the mean
P value, as shown in Fig. 11(a). On the other hand, the
the failure probability of geotechnical structures, as reported
in the literature (e.g. Wang et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2015).
It should be noted that, in layer 1, the mean values of the
CRR and CSR profiles are close to each other (i.e. both at
about 0102; see Fig. 1 and Table 4). In contrast, Fig. 10(b)
shows the results for layer 2, where the mean values of CRR
and the CSR are quite different. In layer 2, the mean CSR
value of about 0102 (see Fig. 1) is significantly smaller
than the mean CRR value of 0388 (see Table 4) and lies in
the probability distribution tail of the CRR. The probability
that CRR is less than CSR is therefore relatively small,
despite the spatial variability. Fig. 11 also includes the vari-
ation of mean and standard deviation of P with correlation
length for layer 2. It is obvious that the effect of spatial vari-
ability is minimal for layer 2. The effect of spatial variability
is significant only when the mean values of CRR and CSR
are close to each other, such as layer 1.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper has developed a probabilistic approach for
assessment of liquefiable soil thickness using CPT data and
considering spatial variability and model and parameter
 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFIABLE SOIL THICKNESS
uncertainties. The CRR was first calculated from the CPT
data at different depths using the RW model. Then, Bayesian
system identification and model class selection methods were
developed to characterise probabilistically the CRR and the
thicknesses of statistically homogeneous layers. The inherent
FS
spatial variability and model and parameter uncertainties
were incorporated explicitly in the proposed approach. MCS
was performed to quantify the percentage P of liquefiable soil
thickness for the assessment of liquefaction consequences.
The proposed approach was illustrated using a set of real
CPT data collected from New Zealand and was further vali-
dated using relevant CPT data and earthquake field observ-
ations from the 20102011 Canterbury seismic sequence in
New Zealand. The proposed approach properly identifies the
thicknesses of the liquefiable soil layers, quantifies their
liquefiable soil thickness and associated uncertainty, and
provides results that are consistent with earthquake field
observations. In addition, it was shown that the P value from
deterministic analysis might be either much larger or smaller
than the mean P value from probabilistic analysis. The
deterministic approach not only cannot quantify the uncer-
tainty in the assessment results, but also fails to provide
consistent results for the assessment of liquefiable soil thick-
OO ness. It is therefore necessary to perform probabilistic
analysis in engineering practice. The approach proposed in
this study offers a rational vehicle to properly and explicitly
consider the spatial variability and model and parameter
uncertainties in the assessment of liquefiable soil thickness.
A sensitivity study is also performed to explore the effect of
the spatial variability on the liquefiable soil thickness. It is
found that, when the mean values of the CRR and CSR are
close to each other, spatial variability has a significant effect
on the variability or uncertainty in the assessment results (i.e.
the standard deviation of P); but it has a minimal effect on
the mean value of P. In this case, ignoring spatial correlation
leads to underestimation of the standard deviation of P and
the occurrence probability of extreme cases, such as the
almost no liquefaction case and a case where almost all soils
Q14 liquefy.
Q15 NOTATION
amax peak horizontal ground surface acceleration
Cn
c random variable representing model uncertainty
PR
F normalised friction ratio in the Robertson and Wride
model
f exponent estimated from site conditions used in
calculation of K in CSR calculation
fs sleeve friction measured from CPT
g gravitational acceleration
Q16 H Hessian matrix
Hn thickness for the nth soil layer
hN thickness vector
Ic soil behavior type index based on CPT data
In
Kc correction factor for grain characteristics in the
Robertson and Wride model
K correction factor for soil layers subjected to large static
normal stresses in CSR calculation
ln
Mw earthquake moment magnitude
Nmax maximum possible number of soil layers within the
depth of a CPT sounding
nL total number of liquefiable CPT data points in the nth layer
nt total number of CPT data points in the nth layer
P percentage of liquefiable soil thickness
Pa atmospheric pressure in same units as v0
Pa2 atmospheric pressure in same units as v0
Q normalised CPT penetration resistance in the Robertson
and Wride model
13 Q1
qc cone tip resistance measured from CPT
qclN normalised cone penetration resistance corrected for
overburden stress in the Robertson and Wride model
(qclN)cs equivalent clean sand normalised CPT penetration
resistance in the Robertson and Wride model
Rn
rd stress reduction coefficient in CSR calculation to account
for flexibility in soil profile
z depth below ground surface (m)
reliability index
hi average vertical interval between the ith liquefiable
CPT data point and its two adjacent points along the
vertical direction
T model uncertainty
N model parameters for all soil layers
n model parameters for nth soil layer
n
n correlation length along the vertical direction within the
nth soil layer
ln,n mean of logarithms of the CRR within the nth soil layer
m mean of model uncertainty in the Robertson and
Wride model
n mean of the CRR within the nth soil layer
(i, j) correlation coefficient between the logarithms of the CRR
at depths di and dj
ln,n
n
v0
v0
standard deviation of the logarithms of the CRR within
the nth soil layer
standard deviation of the model uncertainty in the
Robertson and Wride model
standard deviation of the CRR within the nth soil layer
total vertical overburden stress of soil
effective vertical overburden stress of soil
REFERENCES
Andrus, R. D. & Stokoe, K. H. (2000). Liquefaction resistance
of soils from shear wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng
126, No. 11, 10151025.
Ang, A. H. S. & Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability concepts in
engineering: emphasis on applications to civil and environmental
engineering. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Baker, J. & Faber, M. (2008). Liquefaction risk assessment using
Geostatistics to account for soil spatial variability. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 134, No. 1, 1423.
Beck, J. L. & Katafygiotis, L. S. (1998). Updating models and their
uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J. Engng Mech
124, No. 4, 455461.
Beck, J. L. & Yuen, K. V. (2004). Model selection using response
measurements: Bayesian probabilistic approach. J. Engng Mech.
130, No. 2, 192203.
Bleistein, N. & Handelsman, R. (1986). Asymptotic expansions of
integrals. New York, NY, USA: Dover.
Campbell, K. W. (1981). Near-surface attenuation of pear ground
acceleration. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, No. 6, 20392070.
Cao, Z. & Wang, Y. (2013). Bayesian approach for probabilistic
site characterization using cone penetration tests. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 139, No. 2, 267276.
Cao, Z. & Wang, Y. (2014). Bayesian model comparison and
selection of spatial correlation functions for soil parameters.
Struct. Safety 49, 1017. Q17
Cao, Z., Wang, Y. & Li, D. (2016). Quantification of prior
knowledge in geotechnical site characterization. Engng Geol.
203, 107116. Q18
Cetin, K. O., Der Kiureghian, A. & Seed, R. B. (2002). Probabilistic
models for the initiation of seismic soil liquefaction. Struct.
Safety 24, No. 1, 6782.
CGD (Canterbury Geotechnical Database) (2016). https://
canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com (accessed
00/00/2016). Q19
Comartin, C. D., Greene, M. & Tubbesing, S. K. (1995). The
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake preliminary reconnaissance report,
EERI report No. 95-04. Oakland, CA, USA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. Q20
Espinosa, A. F. (1982). ML and MO determination from strong-
motion accelerograms, and expected intensity distribution.
 14 WANG, FU AND HUANG
In The Imperial Valley, California, earthquake of October 15,
1979, geological survey professional paper 1254, pp. 433438.
Washington, DC, USA: United States Government Printing
Q21 Office.
Fenton, G. (1999a). Estimation for stochastic soil models.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 125, No. 6, 470485.
FS
Fenton, G. (1999b). Random field modeling of CPT data.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 125, No. 6, 486498.
Haldar, A. & Tang, W. H. (1979). Probabilistic evaluation
of liquefaction potential. J. Geotech. Engng 104, No. 2,
145162.
Idriss, I. M. (1991). Earthquake ground motions at soft soil sites.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on recent
advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil
dynamics, vol. 3, pp. 22652271. Rolla, MO, USA: University
Q22 of Missouri-Rolla.
Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., Tatsuoka, F., Watanabe, S., Yasuda, S. &
Sato, H. (1982). Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential
using simplified methods. Proceedings of the 3rd international
earthquake microzonation conference, Seattle, WA, USA,
pp. 13191330.
Jefferies, M. G. & Been, K. (2006). Soil liquefaction a critical state
approach. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis Group.
Jiang, S., Li, D., Cao, Z., Zhou, C. & Phoon, K. (2015). Efficient
system reliability analysis of slope stability in spatially variable
OO soils using Monte Carlo simulation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng 141, No. 2, 04014096.
Juang, C. H., Rosowsky, D. V. & Tang, W. H. (1999).
Reliability-based method for assessing liquefaction potential of
soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 125, No. 8, 684689.
Juang, C. H., Chen, C. J., Rosowsky, D. V. & Tang, W. H. (2000).
CPT-based liquefaction analysis. Part 2. Reliability for design.
Gotechnique 50, No. 5, 593599, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2000.50.5.593.
Juang, C. H., Jiang, T. & Andrus, R. D. (2002). Assessing
probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 128, No. 7, 580589.
Juang, C. H., Yuan, H. M., Lee, D. H. & Lin, P. S. (2003). Simplified
cone penetration test-based method for evaluating liquefaction
resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 129, No. 1,
6680.
Juang, C. H., Yang, S. H., Yuan, H. & Khor, E. H. (2004).
Characterization of the uncertainty of Robertson and Wride
model for liquefaction potential evaluation. Soil Dynamics
Earthquake Engng 24, No. 9, 771780.
Juang, C. H., Fang, S. Y. & Li, D. L. (2008). Reliability analysis
of liquefaction potential of soils using standard penetration
test. In Reliability-based design in geotechnical engineering (ed.
Q23 K. K. Phoon), Ch. 13, pp. 497526. Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
UK: Taylor & Francis.
PR
Juang, C. H., Ching, J. & Luo, Z. (2013). Assessing SPT-based
probabilistic models for liquefaction potential evaluation: a
10-year update. Georisk 7, No. 3, 137150.
Ku, C. S., Juang, C. H., Chang, C. W. & Ching, J. (2012).
Probabilistic version of the Robertson and Wride method for
liquefaction evaluation: development and application. Can.
Geotech. J. 49, No. 1, 2744.
Lai, S. Y., Hsu, S. C. & Hsieh, M. J. (2004). Discriminant model
for evaluating soil liquefaction potential using cone pene-
tration test data. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 130, No. 12,
12711282.
Lai, S. Y., Chang, W. J. & Lin, P. S. (2006). Logistic regression model
for evaluating soil liquefaction probability using CPT data.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 132, No. 6, 694704.
Maurer, B., Green, R., Cubrinovski, M. & Bradley, B. (2014).
Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing
liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 140, No. 7, 04014032.
Maurer, B., Green, R., Cubrinovski, M. & Bradley, B. (2015).
Assessment of CPT-based methods for liquefaction evaluation
in a liquefaction potential index framework. Gotechnique
65, No. 5, 328336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP.15.P.007.
Mathworks, Inc. (2016). MATLAB the language of technical
computing. Mathworks, Inc.. See http://www.mathworks.
com/products/matlab/ (accessed 08/08/2016). Q24
Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., Stewart, J. P., Der
Kiureghian, A. & Cetin, K. O. (2006). CPT-based probabilistic
and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction
potential. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 132, No. 8, 10321051.
Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J. L. & Katafygiotis, L. S. (1997).
Asymptotic expansions for reliability and moments of uncertain
systems. J. Engng Mech. 123, No. 12, 12191229.
Phoon, K. K. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1999). Characterization of
geotechnical variability. Can. Geotech. J. 36, No. 4, 612624.
Robertson, P. K. & Campanella, R. G. (1985). Liquefaction
potential of sands using the CPT. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng 111, No. 3, 384403.
Robertson, P. K. & Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic
liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can.
Geotech. J. 35, No. 3, 442459.
Seed, H. B. (1979). Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation
for level ground during earthquakes. J. Geotech. Engng Div. 105,
No. 2, 201255.
Seed, H. B. & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for
evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., ASCE 97, No. SM9, 12491273.
Seed, H. B. & Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground motions and
soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Oakland, CA, USA:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Stark, T. & Olson, S. (1995). Liquefaction resistance using CPT
and field case histories. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 121,
No. 12, 856869.
Toprak, S. & Holzer, T. L. (2003). Liquefaction potential index: field
assessment. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 129, No. 4, 315322.
Toprak, S., Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J. & Tinsley, J. C. (1999).
CPT and SPT-based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction
potential. Proceedings of 7th USJapan workshop on earthquake
resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures
against liquefaction, Seattle, WA, USA, Technical Report
MCEER-99-0019. Q25
Vanmarcke, E. H. (1977). Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles.
J. Geotech. Engng 103, No. 11, 11271246.
Wang, Y. (2011). Reliability-based design of spread foundations by
Monte Carlo simulations. Gotechnique 61, No. 8, 677685,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.016.
Wang, Y. & Cao, Z. (2013). Expanded reliability-based design
of piles in spatially variable soil using efficient Monte Carlo
simulations. Soils Found. 53, No. 6, 820834.
Wang, Y., Au, S. K. & Cao, Z. (2010). Bayesian approach for
probabilistic characterization of sand friction angles. Engng
Geol. 114, No. 34, 354363.
Wang, Y., Cao, Z. & Au, S. K. (2011). Practical reliability analysis of
slope probability by advanced Monte Carlo simulations in
spreadsheet. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No. 1, 162172.
Wang, Y., Huang, K. & Cao, Z. (2013). Probabilistic identification
of underground soil stratification using cone penetration tests.
Can. Geotech. J. 50, No. 7, 766776.
Wang, Y., Huang, K. & Cao, Z. (2014). Bayesian identification of
soil strata in London Clay. Gotechnique 64, No. 3, 239246,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.T.018.
Wang, Y., Cao, Z. & Li, D. (2016). Bayesian perspective on
geotechnical variability and site characterization. Engng Geol.
203, 117125. Q26
Youd, T. L. & Perkins, D. M. (1987). Mapping of liquefaction
severity index. J. Geotech. Engng 113, No. 11, 13741392.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G.,
Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Liam Finn, W. D., Harder, L. F. Jr,
Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Laio, 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.
(2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 127, No. 10, 817833.
 QUERY FORM

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

Journal Title: (JGEOT)

Article No: 15P219
AUTHOR: The following queries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer the queries by making the
requisite corrections at the appropriate positions in the text.

Query No. Nature of Query Authors Response

Q1 Please check shortened title for running head
Q2 Please provide up to six keywords selected only from the approved
list of terms for this journal. See http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/
pb-assets/for%20authors/GeokeywordlistJune2016.pdf
Q3 Please confirm the change of spelling from Stark & Olsen (1995)
to Stark & Olson (1995) in text citations as per the reference list.
Q4 URL (here and elsewhere) has been removed from text and added
to reference list, with citation in accordance with preferred
journal style please check.
Q5 Can respectively be deleted here? It is not clear what this is
respective to?
Q6 Please check layout/denominator of equation (7). It was not clear
from original manuscript how the division should be displayed.
Q7 Please check equation (8) m has been interpreted as m for
metres, OK?
Q8 Please clarify whether minus lnc is intended here, i.e. lnc. The
symbol used in the manuscript seems like a hyphen and its
meaning is unclear.
Q9 Kn-by-kn has been changed to kn-by-kn , OK?
Q10 Bold italic font has been used to denote vector throughout, not
underscore, please confirm this is OK and check throughout that
these are correctly identified.
Q11 Is respectively needed in this sentence and the next? Not clear,
respectively to what specifically?
Q12 Again here respectively is used twice in this sentence but it is not
clear respective to what? Can these be deleted?
Q13 Again the web address has been removed from the text here and
replaced by reference citation, please check.
Q14 Acknowledgements section has been deleted in accordance with
journal preferred style, which is not to include thanks to reviewers.
Q15 Notation has been added. Please check carefully and amend/com-
plete with definitions where necessary.
Q16 Bold upright font has been used to denote matrix and bold italic for
vector throughout, not underscore, please confirm this is OK and
check throughout that these are correctly identified.
Q17 Please provide the issue number in Cao and Wang (2014).
Q18 Please provide the issue number in Cao et al. (2016).
Q19 CGD (2016) added as reference so that URLs can be removed from
the text, as per preferred journal style. Please check/amend as
necessary, and provide last accessed date.
Q20 Please check city/town and country names added by copy editor in
Comartin et al. (1995).
Q21 Please provide editor names, if any, in Espinosa (1982).
Q22 Please provide editor names in Idriss (1991).
Q23 Please check chapter no., page range, publisher name, publisher
location details added by copy editor for Jung et al. (2008).
Q24 Please provide company location i.e. city/town, state (if USA) and
country details in Mathworks, Inc. (2016).
Q25 Please provide page range if possible in Toprak et al. (1999).
Q26 Please provide the issue number in Wang et al. (2016).
Q27 Fig. 1. A set of real CPT has been changed to A set of real CPT
results OK? Also, reference has been cited instead of supplying
web address, in accordance with preferred journal style. Please
check.