KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008

pp. 15~24
DOI 10.1007/s12205-008-8015-9

Proposal of Liquefaction Potential Assessment Procedure using

Real Earthquake Loading
By Sooil Kim* and Keunbo Park**

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

In this paper, the application of the energy-based excess pore pressure generation model using damage potential to the assessment
of liquefaction potential is examined through experimental and analytical investigations. For a more realistic description of the
dynamic responses of saturated sands, the model parameters of the proposed model were modified based on the relative density.
Dynamic undrained triaxial tests were performed for sand with different relative densities. Based on the test results, new equations
for the model parameters with the relative density were addressed. Further, a liquefaction potential assessment procedure using the
model based on the maximum cumulative excess pore pressure ratio is also proposed. Factors of safety calculated from the stress-
based method and the proposed method were compared through examples with different soils and earthquake conditions.
Keywords: liquefaction, dissipated energy, excess pore pressure, damage potential, cumulative absolute velocity, earthquake
loading, liquefaction potential assessment

···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
The excess pore pressure (EPP) is an important factor in-
fluencing the behavior of saturated sands under seismic loading
conditions. When a dynamic force such as an earthquake is
applied to saturated sands, the EPP builds up continuously with a
concomitant decrease in soil strength, and the sands are
eventually liquefied. For assessment of the liquefaction potential
or susceptibility of sands, various researchers have investigated
soil liquefaction both in the laboratory and in the field using
methods such as SPT and energy measurement (Seed et al., 1975;
Green, 2001). It is generally understood that the liquefaction
phenomenon is essential in the analysis and design of structures
and foundations involving saturated sands subjected to dynamic
loading.
Several methods have been developed to determine the
liquefaction potential of soil deposits. The stress-based method
using the equivalent shear stress concept proposed by Seed et al.
(1975) is the most common method utilized by engineers for
determining the liquefaction potential. According to this concept,
earthquake-induced loadings are simplified as equivalent cyclic
shear stresses. The liquefaction resistance of a soil, on the other
hand, is defined by the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at an equivalent
number of loading cycles corresponding to a given earthquake
magnitude. The factor of safety is then obtained as a ratio of the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), which is obtained from the
estimated CSR value, to the cyclic shear stress equivalent for a
given earthquake-induced loading. This approach is most popular
due to its simplicity and suitability to laboratory cyclic triaxial
tests. It should be noticed, however, that the stress-based method
is based on the equivalent stress concept and does not reflect
various seismic factors such as the amplitude, duration, and
shape of earthquake motions.
During the past three decades, several energy-based liquefac-
tion potential assessment approaches have been proposed and
also employed in practice to evaluate the liquefaction potential
and susceptibility of sands. These approaches have established a
foundation for the development of energy-based EPP generation
models (Nemat-Nasser and Shokooh, 1979; Law et al., 1990;
Figueroa et al., 1994; Green et al., 2000; Davis and Berrill,
2001). These energy-based models define EPP in terms of the
dissipated energy produced by induced stresses and strains based
on certain model parameters that are empirically obtained from
laboratory test results. While energy-based liquefaction potential
assessment procedures based on energy-based EPP generation
models have been successfully verified for many dynamic
geotechnical problems, these have been primarily for sinusoidal
loading cases. When realistic earthquake loadings are involved,
the dynamic responses may differ from those for sinusoidal
loadings, and thus, correlations between the EPP and dissipated
energy for sinusoidal loading conditions may no longer be
applicable (Ishihara and Yasuda, 1972; Kim et al., 2005; Park et

*Member, Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Yonsei, Seoul, Korea (E-mail: geotech@yonsei.ac.kr)
**Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Yonsei, Seoul, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: uscake@ yon-
sei.ac.kr)

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008 − 15 −

 Sooil Kim and Keunbo Park
al., 2007). In most energy-based models, a relationship between
the dissipated energy, initial soil condition, and model parameters
can be derived by setting the EPP ratio (ER) to 1.0. Model
parameters, which are implemented in the majority of these
models, should be obtained by curve fitting of experimental data.
Several laboratory sinusoidal test results are required before
implementing a model (Baziar and Jafarian, 2007). Although
correlations have been proposed for the model parameters in
some of these models, their accuracy is not satisfactory for all
soils and loading conditions. Furthermore, many of these models
lack a specified procedure to determine the model parameters.
Recently, an energy-based model to predict the EPP under real
earthquake loading conditions has been proposed using the
dissipated energy (wd) and damage potential [such as the cumu-
lative absolute velocity (CAV)] as a measure of the severity of
earthquake motions (Park et al., 2007). This model has been
successfully verified for dynamic triaxial tests considering various
seismic factors such as the amplitude, duration, and shape of earth-
quake motions. However, no energy-based liquefaction potential
assessment procedure using real earthquake motions has yet
been presented.
This paper proposes a new procedure for liquefaction potential
assessment based on the energy-based model proposed by Park
et al. (2007). This method has been developed to evaluate the
liquefaction potential without requiring ground response analysis,
several triaxial tests, or determination of dynamic properties such
as the shear modulus. In addition, undrained triaxial tests under
earthquake loading conditions have been performed for sands
with different relative densities to investigate their influence on
the model parameters proposed by Park et al. (2007). Based on
the test results, for correlations of model parameters with full
consideration of the relative density, model parameters consi-
dering the variation in the relative density are proposed. A
liquefaction potential assessment procedure based on the model
proposed by Park et al. (2007) is also proposed. The proposed
assessment procedure is discussed and compared through
examples for different soils and earthquakes conditions.
2. Current Liqufaction Potential Assessment Pro-
cedure
With regard to the design practice for soil structures and
foundations, one of the most commonly employed approaches in
assessing liquefaction potential is the factor of safety (FS)
concept. This concept is presented in terms of demand and
capacity, where demand is the load imparted to the soil by the
earthquake, and capacity is the demand required to induce
liquefaction. FS is defined as the ratio of capacity to demand.
capacity
FS = --------------------- (1)
demand
In the conventional stress-based procedure (Seed and Idriss,
1971), the demand of a soil varies depending on the magnitude
of the input earthquake because the CSR is determined as a
− 16 −
function of the number of loading cycles for a given earthquake
magnitude. When the capacity is determined in a laboratory,
liquefaction prediction is made by performing cyclic triaxial tests
for more than three different stress ratios. In this method, the
CSR of a soil (i.e., capacity) and the maximum or equivalent
CRR likely to be induced in the soil during an earthquake (i.e.,
demand) are estimated and the liquefaction potential of the
deposit is expressed in terms of the FS against liquefaction,
which is given by Eq. (1).
For energy-based liquefaction potential assessment, the demand
imposed on the soil is quantified in terms of seismic energies
proposed by Gutenberg and Richter (1965), Arias (1970), and
Alkhatib (1994). The capacity represents a measure of liquefaction
resistance in the energy-based EPP generation models. The
liquefaction potential is predicted where the ratio of capacity to
demand is less than or equal to unity.
3. Energy-based EPP Generation Model
3.1 Energy-based EPP Generation Model using CAV
The energy-based EPP generation model proposed by Park et
al. (2007) is based on a scalar damage mechanics approach. The
concept postulates that a soil in the undamaged state undergoes
internal microstructural changes under external force conditions.
These microstructural changes cause reorientation and relative
motion of the particles of the soil. As a result, the state of the soil
is transformed continuously from the undamaged to a damaged
state. The EPP response of the soil at a certain loading condition
is then determined from the degree of the CAV and dissipated
energy (wd), which is defined as the area bound by the stress–
strain hysteresis loops, whereupon the EPP is quantified by the
normalized cumulative EPP ratio (NCER) as follows:
NCER = 1 – exp ( –Ar NCW z ) r
(2)
where NCER = CER/CERmax, NCW = CW/CWmax, and Ar and
Zr are the model parameters. The model parameters Ar and Zr in
Eq. (2) represent the scale and overall shape of the NCER–NCW
curve, respectively. CER, CERmax, CW, and CWmax are functions
expressed in terms of the EPP and wd as follows:
t
CER = ³ [ ( 1 – dCAV ) ⋅ ER ] dt (3)
0
t
CW = ³ wd ( t ) dt (4)
0
tmax
(5)
CERmax = ³ [ ( 1 – dCAV ) ⋅ ER ] dt
0
tmax
CWmax = ³ wd ( t ) dt (6)
0
where t denotes time, dCAV = CAV/CAVmax, ER is the EPP ratio
(i.e., ER = EPP/σ'c), wd is the dissipated energy represented by
the area of the hysteresis loop of the stress–strain curves, and tmax
denotes the time until the end of the loading cycle. CAV and
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Proposal of Liquefaction Potential Assessment Procedure using Real Earthquake Loading

CAVmax are the area under the absolute accelerogram of an 3.3 Determination of Initial Liquefaction
earthquake excitation and at the end of loading cycle, respectively, According to Park et al. (2007), the key procedure for the
and are expressed as follows: evaluation of ER or EPP generation using Eq. (9) is the identi-
t fication of initial liquefaction. Initial liquefaction occurs at a
CAV = ³ a( t ) dt (7) certain level of applied stress at which wd reaches a limit value,
0
causing EPP to equal σ'c. This, in turn, indicates that initial lique-
tmax faction can be identified from wd and cumulative stress, such as
CAVmax = ³ a ( t ) dt (8) from the normalized cumulative stress (NCS)–normalized cu-
0
mulative dissipated energy (NCW) relationship. Similar to Eq.
where t denotes time, and a(t) is the time-dependent ground (2), NCS–NCW curves can be defined by:
acceleration.
NCS = 1 – exp ( –Aw NCW z ) w
(17)
In this model, the relationship between the wd and ER to
trigger initial liquefaction is developed as follows: where Aw and Zw are the model parameters. The values of the
parameters Aw and Zw can be estimated from the first-order
wd · wd ·
ER = K ⋅ § ---------------
© 1 – dCW¹
- / K ⋅ § ---------------
© 1 – dCW¹
-
liq
(9) polynomial regression line that is obtained by taking the natural
logarithm of both sides in Eq. (17) as follows:
where K is obtained from the derivative of Eq. (2) as follows:
ln[ – ln{ ( 1 – NCS ) } ] = lnAw + Zw lnNCW (18)
dNCER
K = ------------------- = ( Ar ⋅ Zr ) ⋅ NCW Z – 1 ⋅ exp ( –Ar ⋅ NCWZ )
r r
(10) As NCS and NCW are known from the input loading motion
dNCW
and the constitutive relationship, the regression line and values of
From Eq. (9), the general equation under random loading Aw and Zw can be obtained without dynamic tests.
conditions with a given earthquake waveform can be rewritten For the identification of initial liquefaction using the NCS–
as: NCW curves, the minimum curvature method proposed by Park
(1997) is adopted. Based on the best curve fitting procedure
wd · § CERmax·
ER = K ⋅ § -----------------
- ⋅ ------------------ (11) using Eq. (17), the minimum curvature (Rp) on the NCS–NCW
© 1 – dCAV¹ © CWmax ¹
curve can be found as the minimum value of R given by the
where K = dNCER/dNCW. In Eq. (11), to determine ER from following equation of curvature:
the input stress time history, the CERmax value must be identified;
( NCS )''
this will be further discussed. Rp = min ( R ) = min ------------------------------------ (19)
( 1 + ( NCS )' 2 )3 / 2
3.2 Determination of Model Parameters Ar and Zr where Rp denotes the minimum curvature; R, the curvature of the
In the model proposed by Park et al. (2007), the model NCS–NCW function of Eq. (17); min( ), a function that repre-
parameters, Ar and Zr, are related to the CAV. In order to establish sents the minimum value; and (NCS)' and (NCS)", the 1st and
a correlation between Ar, Zr, and CAV, the following normalized 2nd derivatives of the NCS–NCW function, respectively.
CAV (NCAVliq) at initial liquefaction is addressed:
CAVliq
4. Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Soil
NCAVliq = -------------------
- (12) Responses
tmax ⋅ amax
where CAVliq is the CAV at initial liquefaction; tmax, the time until 4.1 Cyclic and Static Triaxial Tests
the end of loading cycle; and amax, the peak acceleration. The In order to investigate the effects of the model parameters on
value of CAVliq is obtained as the CAV value corresponding to the model proposed by Park et al. (2007), dynamic undrained
the time when initial liquefaction occurs. The determination of triaxial tests with two more relative densities equal to 70 and 75
initial liquefaction is further described below. % of that of the sands were performed under earthquake
According to Park et al. (2007), through dynamic test results loading conditions. Four acceleration records were selected
for both sinusoidal and earthquake loading cases with relative from recent major earthquakes of magnitudes between 6.1 and
density (Dr) = 60%, the model parameters are given as: 7.0. The significant duration is the 5-95% RMS (root-mean-
square) duration (Abrahmson and Silva, 1996). The values of
Ar = 15.20 ⋅ NCAV liq – 0.87 for sinusoidal loading (13)
Zr = 0.34 ⋅ NCAVliq + 0.54 for sinusoidal loading (14)
Ar = 32.56 ⋅ NCAV liq + 2.45 for earthquake loading (15) Table 1. Basic Properties of Jumunjin Sand
Zr = 4.71 ⋅ NCAVliq + 0.68 for earthquake loading (16) γdmax γdmin D50
emax emin GS Cu* Cc**
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (mm)
Once the initial liquefaction and NCAVliq are identified for a
given loading condition, the values of Ar and Zr can be obtained 15.7 13.6 0.719 0.625 2.63 0.52 1.35 1.14
* **
using Eqs. (13)–(16). C = coefficient of uniformity, C
u c = coefficient of curvature.

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008 − 17 −

 Sooil Kim and Keunbo Park

Table 2. List of Dynamic Triaxial Tests

Moment σd,p Earthquake name Significant
Test no. Dr (%)
magnitude (Mw) (kPa) (location and year) duration (s)
EL1 70 6.1 87 Parkfield (USA, 1966) 24
EL2 70 6.2 65 Ormond (New Zealand, 1993) 20
EL3 70 6.9 56 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Japan, 1995) 8
EL4 75 6.2 66 Ormond (New Zealand, 1993) 20
EL5 75 6.9 62 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Japan, 1995) 8
EL6 75 7.0 25 Loma Pieta (USA, 1989) 8

the significant durations for earthquakes used in this study were

8 to 24 sec.
The test soil employed was Jumunjin sand, a representative
clean silica sand from Korea; its properties are listed in Table 1.
The triaxial soil samples tested in this study were of 70 mm in
diameter and 135 mm in height. The moist tamping method (or
moist placement method) (Ladd, 1978; Vasquez-Herrera and
Dobry, 1989) was utilized for sample preparation. The dynamic
triaxial tests and earthquake records are summarized in Table 2.
All the tests listed in Table 2 were carried out under isotropically
consolidated conditions with a confining pressure level equal to
100 kPa. When the B parameter reached a value greater than
0.98, the confining pressure was applied.
As waveforms vary with time, it is necessary to evaluate the
magnitude of stress at which liquefaction is first generated under
the earthquake loadings. In order to evaluate the deviatoric stress
at initial liquefaction under earthquake loadings, a trial test was
carried out using an insufficient deviatoric stress level that did
not cause liquefaction. In the next step, the level of the deviatoric
stress was increased slightly with the same waveform. Upon
repeating this procedure multiple times, liquefaction eventually
occurred, indicating that the induced EPP was equal to σ'c. The
deviatoric stress at this point was defined as the peak deviatoric
stress (σd,p) for a given earthquake waveform with a magnitude at
which liquefaction was first generated. Table 2 lists the values of
Fig. 1. Test Results for Earthquake Loading (Ormond, MW = 6.2,
σd,p obtained from the above procedure for each earthquake 1993); σd,p = 66 kPa
loading case.

4.2 Test Results
The results of the earthquake loading tests are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1(a) shows the response time history of the deviatoric stress
(σd) and EPP for Ormond earthquake loading. As indicated in
Fig. 1(a), the EPP does not increase at the early stages, but
suddenly jumps when σd,p is reached, whereupon liquefaction
sets in. Fig. 1(b) shows the hysteresis loops. Contrary to the
general sinusoidal loading test results, the loops for earthquake
loading tended to progressively increase until initial liquefaction.
However, after liquefaction, the loops became progressively
flatter and their areas were near zero. The same phenomena were
observed for the other earthquake loadings.
To compare the liquefaction initiation procedure for earthquake
loadings, the relationships between wd and ER are plotted in
Fig. 2. Fig. 2 shows the test results for all earthquake loadings
until initial liquefaction. The ER vs. wd plots appear to have
remarkably irregular shapes. As indicated in Fig. 2, the extent
of scatter is fairly severe and no unique correlations appear to
be obtained. These results also indicate that the relationship
between ER and wd is strongly dependent on the loading type.
This is consistent with previously reported results (Park et al.,
2007).
4.3 Effect of Model Parameters and Verification
Fig. 3 shows the NCS and NCER versus NCW plots described
previously. When compared with Fig. 2, the results in Fig. 3
show improved correlations and appear to be more suitable for
quantifying the energy-based relationship between stress and ER

− 18 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Proposal of Liquefaction Potential Assessment Procedure using Real Earthquake Loading

Fig. 2. Test Results for Dissipated Energy and ER

Fig. 4. Correlation between Model Parameters and NCAVliq for

Different Relative Densities

Fig. 3. Tested and Calculated Results of NCS and NCER Curves

vs. NCW

(or EPP). In Fig. 3, the solid lines represent curves calculated

using Eqs. (2) and (17) with the values of the model parameters.
As shown in Fig. 3, the predicted results show reasonable
agreement with the measured results.
In order to investigate the effect of the model parameters using
the curve fitting procedure, the values of Ar and Zr are plotted
against NCAVliq in Fig. 4 for relative densities of 70 and 75%,
which were obtained in this study, and 60 %, which was obtained
by Park et al. (2007). It was found that the correlations of Ar and
Zr with NCAVliq vary with the relative densities, as shown in Fig.
4. Therefore, it should be noted that the relative density is
another factor to be addressed in the model proposed by Park et Fig. 5. New Correlation between Model Parameters for Different
al. (2007). Relative Densities

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008 − 19 −

 Sooil Kim and Keunbo Park
Table 3. Values of Model Parameters and Number of Loading Cycles at Initial Liquefaction for Verification Test Results
Earthquake (location and year) Nliq,p/Nliq,m Aw
Taumaranui (NewZealand, 1973) 18/18 6.15
Synthetic earthquake loading 6/6 4.23
From the test results, it was found that Ar and Zr are variable
and are closely related to the relative densities. To determine Ar
and Zr with relative densities, the values of NCAVliq were
obtained and replotted in Fig. 5 as a function of 0.7⋅Dr⋅Ar and Zr.
As shown in Fig. 5, it is observed that the correlation parameters
0.7⋅Dr⋅Ar and Zr increase with NCAVliq and NCAVliq⋅Dr-–4 values,
respectively. Ar and Zr were found to be linearly dependent on
NCAVliq with the relative density. Thus, new correlations for
earthquake loading with different Dr shown in Fig. 5 can be
approximated as:
Ar = ( 6.06 ⋅ NCAVliq + 0.51 ) ⁄ 0.7 D r
for earthquake loading
(20)
Zr = 0.91 ⋅ NCAVliq ⋅ Dr–4 + 0.46 for earthquake loading
(21)
In order to verify the effect of the model parameters, Ar and Zr,
for the evaluation of initial liquefaction and EPP generation,
additional dynamic triaxial tests using earthquake loading were
performed. The test soil was Jumujin sand with Dr = 70 and 75 %
and σ'c = 100 kPa. Table 3 shows the input loadings, predicted
and measured number of cycles at initial liquefaction, and values
of model parameters obtained from the proposed procedure.
From Table 3, it is seen that the predicted values of the number
of cycles at initial liquefaction (i.e., Nliq,p) show good agreement
with the measured values (i.e., Nliq,m). As shown in Fig. 6, the
predicted pore pressure build up shape also shows reasonable
agreement with the measured results for Taumaranui earthquake
loading of Dr = 70%. Based on the analysis results, it is seen that
the overall procedure still remains valid in the model proposed
by Park et al. (2007). It is also found that the values of Ar and Zr
are functions of the Dr.
Fig. 6 Measured and Predicted ER Curves for Dr = 70%
− 20 −
Zw Ar Zr Dr (%)
0.70 5.23 0.95 70
0.65 4.23 0.85 75
5. Liquefaction Potential Assessment Based on
Energy-based EPP Generation Model
5.1 Evaluation of CERmax
In the model proposed Park et al. (2007), the expression for the
CERmax value is defined as cumulative ER. It was also found that
the CERmax is the only unknown value for identifying the ER
using the input stress time history. Fig. 7 shows the ER
obtained from different CERmax values based on Eq. (11) and
dynamic triaxial test results obtained for different loading
amplitudes. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the changes in the CERmax
value appear to be nearly identical to those of the ER. Once the
CERmax value is obtained for a given loading condition, the ER
can be identified using Eq. (11). The results in Fig. 7 suggest
that the CERmax value can be effectively used for the description
of ER development, and thus, as an index for the assessment of
liquefaction potential.
5.2 Determination of Capacity and Demand
From the energy-based excess pore pressure generation model
proposed by Park et al. (2007), it was found that the mobilization
of the ER or EPP under dynamic loading conditions is closely
related to the CERmax value. From Fig. 7, the occurrence of
liquefaction can be thought of as CERmax value (i.e., CERmax,liq)
when initial liquefaction is first generated for given earthquake
waveform; that is the critical resistance of the soil to resist the
development of EPP. If exceeded, initial liquefaction may be
induced leading to the development of EPP. CERmax,liq value is a
unique value for given earthquake waveform. Thus, it represents
the liquefaction capacity of soil and is comparable with cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR) in stress based method. Simple rearrange-
ment of Eq. (11) and substitution of the definition of ER = 1.0
Fig. 7. Proposed and Measured ER for σ'c = 100 kPa and Dr = 60%
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Proposal of Liquefaction Potential Assessment Procedure using Real Earthquake Loading

and CERmax,liq can be rewritten as:

1 1 – dCAV·
CERmax, liq = § ----· ⋅ § -----------------
- ⋅ CWmax (22)
© K¹ © wd ¹
Here the demand is assessed as the level of the ER or EPP
developed by a given earthquake waveform. ER or EPP is
quantified in terms of the CERmax value (i.e., CERmax,tx) obtained
from a dynamic test result using the amplitude of a given
earthquake waveform. Thus, CERmax,tx can be used as the
liquefaction demand for a given earthquake amplitude as
follows:
tmax
CERmax, tx = ³ [ ( 1 – dCAV ) ⋅ ER ]dt (23)
0

where tmax is the time until the end of loading cycle, dCAV = CAV/
CAVmax, ER is the EPP ratio, and t denotes time.

5.3 Procedure for Liquefaction Potential Assessment

This new approach is a conceptual unification and mathemati-
cal function in terms of the maximum cumulative ER ratio. The
procedure for the evaluation of EPP generation and initial
liquefaction proposed in this study is divided into four key steps:
(1) calculation of demand, (2) determination of EPP, (3) calcula-
tion of capacity, and (4) calculation of the FS. This procedure is
summarized in Fig. 8.
As shown in Fig. 8, once a dynamic test is performed for a given
loading waveform with any value of maximum acceleration, the Fig. 8. Procedure for Liquefaction Potential Assessment with Pro-
demand is determined from Eq. (23). Determination of wd from posed Method
the input stress time history requires an implementation of a
certain constitutive model that can well reproduce the undrained Table 4. Seismic Parameters of Earthquakes and Test Conditions
used in Liquefaction Potential Assessment
stress–strain behavior of saturated sands; the DSC model pro-
posed by Desai (2001) is one such model. In this study, the DSC Name of earthquake Magnitude Significant Dr σd,i
model was used to determine the stress–stain relationship and wd (location and year) (Mw) duration (s) (%) (kPa)
for a given input dynamic loading. Once wd and CAV are obtained, 24
initial liquefaction can be identified using Eqs. (17) and (19). Cost Rica (Costa Rica,
7.5 21 60 40*
1991)
This is then used to define Ar and Zr for evaluation of the ER or 60
EPP. The capacity for the proposed procedure is developed using
24
Eq. (22) from energy-based EPP model. If CERmax,tx < CERmax,liq,
Baja-California (Mex-
liquefaction is not predicted to occur, and if CERmax,tx ≥ CERmax,liq 6.4 23 60 33*
ico, 1934)
liquefaction is predicted. The FS against liquefaction, defined as 43
the ratio of capacity and demand, is given by Eq. (1). 39
Parkfield
6.1 24 70 87*
5.4 Examples for Liquefaction Potential Assessment (USA, 1966)
Based on Proposed Procedure 104
In order to examine the proposed method for liquefaction 15
potential assessment, four earthquakes were selected from the Loma Prieta (USA,
7.0 8 75 25*
1989)
literature (COSMOS Virtual Data Center) and used for the 35
examination. The selected earthquakes were the Parkfield, Baja *
deviatoric stress at which liquefaction was first generated for a given
California, Loma Prieta, and Costa Rica earthquakes. Table 4 earthquake waveform
shows various seismic parameters, including the magnitudes,
significant durations, and input deviatoric stress (σd,i) values for
the earthquakes used in the comparison. Dynamic triaxial test 5-95% RMS duration (Abrahamson and Silva, 1996). Fig. 9
results with relative density and earthquake records are also shows the soil profile and the depth of the target layer (i.e., 20 m)
summarized in Table 4. The significant duration in Table 4 is the adopted in this study for liquefaction potential assessment. The

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008 − 21 −

 Sooil Kim and Keunbo Park

Fig. 9. Soil Profile Showing Target Layer used in Liquefaction

Potential Assessments

soil was assumed to be Jumunjin sand with different relative

densities of 60, 70, and 75%.
In order to determine the demand, three additional cyclic
triaxial tests were performed for Dr = 60, 70, and 75 % with σ'c =
100 kPa, which is approximately equivalent to the mean
effective stress at the depth of the target layer shown in Fig. 9.
Table 4 shows the results of tests performed for various input
deviatoric stresses and relative densities. As an example, the test
for the Costa Rica earthquake is shown in Fig. 10. As shown in
Fig. 10, the input deviatoric stress time histories equal 24, 40,
and 60 kPa, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the test results for the Costa Rica earthquake
loading case. In all the tests, a dramatic increase in the EPP is
observed when σd,p is attained, whereupon liquefaction occurs
for the cases in which σd,i is equal to 40 and 60 kPa; however,
liquefaction does not occur for σd,i equal to 24 kPa. In particular,
it is observed that the shapes of the EPP curves are the same with Fig. 10. Earthquake Stress Time Histories for Costa Rica Earth-
increasing σd,i. For different σd,i (equal to 24, 40, and 60 kPa), the quake
demands are calculated with the number of cycles, as shown in
Fig. 11. The values of the demand are 13.37, 22.20, and 22.93,
receptively.
The values of the demand induced by each earthquake loading
case are listed in Table 5. As shown in the table, the values of the
demand increase with σd,i for each given earthquake. This result
is consistent with the other test results. This also indicates that
the greater is the value of the CERmax,tx, the greater is the amplifi-
cation of the earthquake wave motion. It should be noted that the
values of the demand adopted in the proposed assessment
method are accumulated EPP values from the initial to the end of
the earthquake-induced loadings. It can be said, therefore, that
the proposed assessment method based on the CERmax,tx value Fig. 11. ER Curves for Different σd,i
reflects complete earthquake profiles throughout the entire time
history, while most stress-based methods consider only one
significant seismic parameter such as the peak acceleration. by Park et al. (2007), the values of CERmax,liq were obtained
In order to determine the capacity based on the model proposed based on the procedures described previously in Fig. 8. For the

− 22 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Proposal of Liquefaction Potential Assessment Procedure using Real Earthquake Loading

Table 5. CERmax,tx and CERmax,liq for Different Earthquakes and Soil based method proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) was selected
Conditions and used in the comparison. As stress-based method employs the
Name of earthquake peak acceleration at the target layer for liquefaction potential
Dr (%) σd,i (kPa) CERmax,tx CERmax,liq
(location and year) assessment, ground response analysis was required to obtain the
24 13.37 peak acceleration for the given earthquakes and soil conditions.
Cost Rica * However, the input deviatoric stresses for a given earthquake
60 40 22.20 22.20
(Costa Rica, 1991)
waveform with a magnitude at which the liquefaction is generated
60 22.93
can be determined through the proposed model and test results
24 13.74 (i.e., Table 4). The σd,i values of the earthquake loadings can be
Baja California
60 33* 17.18 17.18 directly used to obtain the peak acceleration from Newton’s
(Mexico, 1934)
43 19.08 second law for a given soil mass and transformed force. For
39 12.77
liquefaction potential assessment by the stress-based method, the
Parkfield *
peak acceleration calculated using the σd,i value was used.
70 87 28.37 28.37
(USA, 1966) From Table 6, it is seen that the FS values using the proposed
104 29.50 method are reasonably predicted for liquefaction initiation with
15 14.22 different soil conditions and earthquake loading levels. It is also
Loma Prieta seen that the results from the proposed method are reasonable
75 25* 23.69 23.69
(USA, 1989)
and consistent with the variations in the soil and earthquake
35 24.50
loading conditions. The FS values from the stress-based method,
*
stress at which liquefaction was first generated for a given earthquake on the other hand, appear to be unconservative compared with
waveform
those from the proposed method. The differences in FS between
Table 6. Summary of Liquefaction Assessment Results the stress-based and proposed method are more pronounced. This
result indicates that the stress-based method may overestimate
Name of earthquake Dr σd,i
(location and year) (%) (kPa)
FSproposed FSSeed and Idriss the FS for all soil and earthquake loading conditions.
24 1.66 6.37
Cost Rica
6. Conclusion
*
60 40 1.00 3.82
(Costa Rica, 1991)
60 0.97 2.54 When a dynamic force such as an earthquake is applied to
24 1.25 6.37 saturated sands, the EPP builds up continuously with a concom-
Baja California itant decrease in soil strength, and the sands are eventually liq-
60 33* 1.00 4.63
(Mexico, 1934) uefied. In this paper, a new and simple method for determining
43 0.90 3.55 liquefaction potential based on the energy-based EPP generation
39 2.22 10.52 model proposed by Park et al. (2007) was proposed and
Parkfield * evaluated through experimental and analytical investigations. In
70 87 1.00 4.72
(USA, 1966)
104 0.96 3.94
order to describe in a more realistic manner the effect of the
model parameters proposed by Park et al. (2007), as an ex-
15 1.67 12.18
perimental investigation, undrained dynamic triaxial tests with
Loma Prieta *
75 25 1.00 7.31 saturated sand samples were carried out under earthquake
(USA, 1989)
35 0.97 5.22 loading conditions with different relative densities. From the test
*
stress at which liquefaction was first generated for a given earthquake results, it was observed that the model parameters were closely
waveform related to the relative density.
Based on the test results, new equations for the model
parameters based on the relative density were presented. In order
determination of wd, the DSC model was adopted. The model to verify the proposed model for the evaluation of EPP genera-
parameters and initial liquefaction were then determined and tion using the new equations for the model parameters, additional
identified using Eqs. (18)-(21). Through Eq. (22), CERmax,liq was undrained dynamic triaxial tests were performed. From these test
calculated until the end of the loading cycles. For Costa Rica results, it was seen that the predicted EPP generation and initial
earthquake, the value of the CERmax,liq with the same number of liquefaction match the measured results for both sinusoidal and
cycles then equals to 22.20. The values of the capacity induced real earthquake loading cases.
by the other earthquake loading cases are given in Table 5. The liquefaction potential assessment procedure using the
Table 6 shows the FS values for different soils and earthquakes model based on the maximum cumulative EPP ratio, which
using the proposed assessment method. For the proposed assess- represents the accumulated EPP in a dynamic loading process,
ment method, the FS was defined as the ratio of CERmax,liq to was also proposed. The FS values calculated from the stress-
CERmax,tx. In order to compare FS values, the existing stress- based procedure proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) and the

Vol. 12, No. 1 / January 2008 − 23 −

 Sooil Kim and Keunbo Park
proposed method [using the model by Park et al. (2007)] were
compared using examples of different soil and earthquake
conditions. It was seen that the proposed procedure produces
reasonable FS values that were consistent with the variations in
the soil and earthquake conditions.
References
Abrahamson, N., and Silva, W. (1996). Empirical Ground Motion
Models, Draft Report, Brookhaven National Lab, Upton, New York.
AlKahatib, M. (1994). Liquefaction Assessment by Strain Energy
Approach, Ph.D. Thesis (T. Kagawa, Advisor), Wayne State
University, p. 212.
Arias, A. (1970). “Measure of earthquake intensity.” Seismic Design for
Nuclear Power Plants, R.J., Hansen, ed, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Baziar, M.H., and Jafarian, Y. (2007). “Assessment of liquefaction
triggering using strain energy concept and ANN model: capacity
energy.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, pp.
1056-1072.
COSMOS Virtual Data Center, http://db.cosmos-eq.org, the Consortium
of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation System 1999.
Davis, R.O. and Berrill, J.B. (2001). “Pore pressure and dissipated
energy in earthquakes-field verification.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 3, pp.
269-274.
Desai, C.S. (2001). Mechanics of Materials and Interfaces-the
Disturbed State Concept, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Figueroa, J., Saada, A.S., Liang, L., and Dahisaria, N.M. (1994).
“Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, pp. 1554-1569.
Green, R.A., Mitchell, J.K., and Polito, C.P. (2000). “An energy based
excess pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils.” Proc
Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics - The John Booker
Memorial Symp, D.W. Smith and J.P. Carter, eds, Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia, AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp.
383-390.
− 24 −
Green, R.A. (2001). Energy based Evaluation and Remediation of
Liquefiable Soils, PhD Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1956), “Earthquake magnitude, inten-
sity, energy and acceleration.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 46, pp. 105-145.
Ishihara, K. and Yasuda, S. (1972). “Sand liquefaction due to irregular
excitation.” Soils and foundations, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 65-77.
Kim, S.I., Park, K.B., Park, S.Y., Hwang, S.J., Lee, J.H., and Choi, J.S.
(2005). “Effects of irregular dynamic loads on soil liquefaction.”
16th International Conference Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Osaka, Vol. 4, No. 4b, pp. 2673-2676.
Ladd, R.S. (1978). “Preparing test specimens using under compaction.”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Law, K.T., Cao, Y.L., and He, G.N. (1990). “An energy approach for
assessing seismic liquefaction potential.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 320-329.
Nemat-Nasser, S. and Shokooh, A. (1979). “A unified approach to
densification and liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic shear-
ing.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 659-678.
Park, I.J. (1997). Disturbed State Modeling for Dynamic and
Liquefaction Analysis, PhD Dissertation, Dept of CEEM, Univ of
Arizona, Tucson.
Park, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., and Park, I. (2007). “Energy-based evaluation
of excess pore pressure using damage potential.” International
Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, (accepted).
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). “Simplified procedure for evaluating
soil liquefaction pontential.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, Vol. 97, No. SM9, pp. 1249-1273.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., Makdisi, F., and Banerjee, N. (1975).
“Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent
uniform stress series in liquefaction analysis.” Earthquake En-
gineering Research Center, Univ. California, Berkeley No.EERC
75-29.
Vasquez-Herrera, A. and Dobry, R. (1989). The Behavior of Undrained
Contractive Sand and Its Effects on Seismic Liquefaction Flow
Failures of Earth Structures, Contract No. 86-003, Dept. of Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering