SPT-based probabilistic and

deterministic assessment of seismic

soil liquefaction triggering hazard K.
Onder Cetin & Raymond B. Seed &
Robert E. Kayen & Robb E.S. Moss & H.
Tolga Bilge & Makbule Ilgac & Khaled
Chowdhury
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/spt-based-probabilistic-and-deterministic-assessment
-of-seismic-soil-liquefaction-triggering-hazard-k-onder-cetin-raymond-b-seed-robert-e-
kayen-robb-e-s-moss-h-tolga-bilge-makbule-ilgac/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Elsevier Weekblad - Week 26 - 2022 Gebruiker

https://ebookmass.com/product/elsevier-weekblad-
week-26-2022-gebruiker/

Jock Seeks Geek: The Holidates Series Book #26 Jill

Brashear

https://ebookmass.com/product/jock-seeks-geek-the-holidates-
series-book-26-jill-brashear/

The New York Review of Books – N. 09, May 26 2022

Various Authors

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-york-review-of-
books-n-09-may-26-2022-various-authors/

Calculate with Confidence, 8e (Oct 26,

2021)_(0323696953)_(Elsevier) 8th Edition Morris Rn
Bsn Ma Lnc

https://ebookmass.com/product/calculate-with-
confidence-8e-oct-26-2021_0323696953_elsevier-8th-edition-morris-
rn-bsn-ma-lnc/
1 st International Congress and Exhibition on
Sustainability in Music, Art, Textile and Fashion
(ICESMATF 2023) January, 26-27 Madrid, Spain Exhibition
Book 1st Edition Tatiana Lissa
https://ebookmass.com/product/1-st-international-congress-and-
exhibition-on-sustainability-in-music-art-textile-and-fashion-
icesmatf-2023-january-26-27-madrid-spain-exhibition-book-1st-
edition-tatiana-lissa/

Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT

TV-Value and Fines Content Kohji Tokimatsu & Yoshiaki
Yoshimi

https://ebookmass.com/product/empirical-correlation-of-soil-
liquefaction-based-on-spt-tv-value-and-fines-content-kohji-
tokimatsu-yoshiaki-yoshimi/

Probabilistic knowledge Moss

https://ebookmass.com/product/probabilistic-knowledge-moss/

Fragility-based seismic performance assessment of

modular underground arch bridges Van-Toan Nguyen

https://ebookmass.com/product/fragility-based-seismic-
performance-assessment-of-modular-underground-arch-bridges-van-
toan-nguyen/

Deterministic Numerical Modeling of Soil Structure

Interaction 1st Edition Stephane Grange

https://ebookmass.com/product/deterministic-numerical-modeling-
of-soil-structure-interaction-1st-edition-stephane-grange/
 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil T

liquefaction triggering hazard
K. Onder Cetina, , Raymond B. Seedb, Robert E. Kayenb, Robb E.S. Mossc, H. Tolga Bilged,
⁎

Makbule Ilgaca, Khaled Chowdhuryb,e

a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
b
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
c
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
d
GeoDestek Ltd. Sti., Ankara, Turkey
e
US Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division Dam Safety Production Center, Sacramento, CA, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study serves as an update to the Cetin et al. (2000, 2004) [1,2] databases and presents new liquefaction
Soil liquefaction triggering curves. Compared with these studies from over a decade ago, the resulting new Standard Penetration
Earthquake Test (SPT)-based triggering curves have shifted to slightly higher CSR-levels for a given N1,60,CS for values of
Seismic hazard N1,60,CS greater than 15 blows/ft, but the correlation curves remain essentially unchanged at N1,60,CS values less
Cyclic loading
than 15 blows/ft. This paper addresses the improved database and the methodologies used for the development
Standard penetration test
In-situ test
of the updated triggering relationships. A companion paper addresses the principal issues that cause differences
Probability among three widely used SPT-based liquefaction triggering relationships.

1. Introduction 2. Updated Cetin et al. [4,9] database

Empirical field-based frameworks for the assessment of seismic soil
liquefaction triggering hazard continues to be the principal approach
used in engineering practice. Three in-situ index test methods; the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and
the measurement of in-situ Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) have reached a
level of development in the field such that their usage has been applied
worldwide. These three methods and the data supporting them are
discussed in detail in the recent 2016 report of the National Academies
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Committee on Geological and
Geotechnical Engineering (COGGE): “State of the Art and Practice in
the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and its
Consequences”, (NAP [3]). Advances in test procedures in a fourth
method, the Becker Penetration Test (BPT) may expand the test's usage
in the future. New methods are under development, though these four
tests remain the cornerstone of empirical test methodologies.
The authors used the opportunity presented by the NAP committee
report to re-evaluate, organize, update the database of Cetin et al. [2]
(hereafter, CEA2004), and then cast new regression models for seismic
soil liquefaction triggering based on the data improvements.
The case histories of CEA2004 are re-visited so as to correct errors in
the original document, as well as take advantage of updates in the
current state of knowledge. Changes to the database include the fol-
lowing:
(1) A typographical error at the third decimal point in the spreadsheet
execution of the rd formula in the original work of Cetin et al. [2]
was identified. This error biased rd values towards the low side. The
effect was negligible at the ground surface and increased with
depth. The overall average increase in the new rd values for the 150
affected case histories was 6.1%. The remaining 50 field perfor-
mance case histories had rd values directly calculated from site-
specific and event-specific seismic site response analyses (Cetin
et al. [1], Cetin [5]). Since these 50 rd values were properly esti-
mated in the original database, they simply remain unchanged. A
brief discussion of the consistent use of Cetin and Seed [6] rd re-
lationship will be presented later in this manuscript, and a more
detailed discussion is available in Cetin et al. [7].
The estimation of rd values in Cetin and Seed [6] requires the es-
timation of representative shear wave velocity in the upper 12 m of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kemalondercetin@gmail.com, ocetin@metu.edu.tr (K.O. Cetin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.012
Received 11 July 2017; Received in revised form 6 September 2018; Accepted 12 September 2018
Available online 12 October 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Nomenclature N1,60 standard penetration test blowcount value corrected for

overburden, energy, equipment and procedural factors
amax peak horizontal acceleration N1,60,cs fines-corrected N1,60 value
CB SPT correction for borehole diameter ΔN1,60 SPT penetration resistance correction for fines content
CE SPT correction for hammer energy ratio (ER) M earthquake magnitude
CN overburden correction factor Mw earthquake moment magnitude
CR SPT correction factor for the rod length ML earthquake local magnitude
CS SPT correction for sampler configuration details Ms earthquake surface wave magnitude
CSR cyclic stress ratio Pa atmospheric pressure (1 atm)
CSR v = 1 atm, = 0, Mw = 7.5 CSR normalized to σ'v = 1 atm, Mw = 7.5 and PL probability of triggering of liquefaction
α=0 PI plasticity index
CSR v = 1 atm, Mw = 7.5 CSR normalized to σ'v = 1 atm, Mw = 7.5 rd shear mass modal participation factor, commonly referred
CSR v, , Mw actual CSR, not normalized to a reference state of σ'v = 1 to as cyclic shear stress reduction factor
atm, Mw = 7.5 and α = 0 SPT-N standard penetration test blow count
CSR v, Mw actual CSR, not normalized to a reference state of σ'v = 1 Wliq corrective weighting factor for the liquefied data
atm, Mw = 7.5 Wnonliq corrective weighting factor for the non-liquefied data
CSRpeak, v, Mw peak CSR, not normalized to a reference state of σ'v = Vs shear wave velocity
1 atm, Mw = 7.5 Vs,12 m shear wave velocity for the upper 12 m
CRR cyclic resistance ratio γsat unitweigth below ground water table
dcr = d critical depth for liquefaction γmoist unitweigth above ground water table
DR relative density standard deviation
FC fines content standard deviation of the model uncertainty
FS factor of safety against triggering of liquefaction Φ standard cumulative normal distribution
g acceleration of gravity standard normal density function
Hi thickness of soil sublayers ε model error term
K Mw correction for magnitude (duration) effects , rd standard deviation of the model uncertainty of rd
K correction for overburden stress σ'v vertical effective stress
K correction for sloping sites σv vertical total stress
N field measured standard penetration resistance (blows/30 θ limit state model coefficient
cm) set of unknown model coefficients
N60 standard penetration test blowcount value corrected for ΔN1,60 SPT penetration resistance correction for fines content
energy, equipment and procedural factors α initial static driving shear stress ratio; α = τhv,static / σ'v
N1 standard penetration test blowcount value corrected for max maximum shear strain
overburden.

the soil profile. Compared to the earlier version of the database,
shear wave velocities for the 150 cases increased on average 6.6%.
The changes to Vs had a negligible impact on the estimated rd va-
lues, however they were performed for consistency by following the
recommendations of Japan Road Association [8]. Fig. 1 presents a
visual comparison between the back-analyzed field performance
case history input parameters of the CEA2004 and Cetin et al. [4,9]
databases. In this figure, the black and red symbols represent the
values from CEA2004 and Cetin et al. [4,9], respectively.
(2) Unit weights for each case history site were updated as given in
Table 1, unless the available case-specific information was in-
dicating otherwise. Individual unit weights for each case, and each
stratum, typically vary slightly based on information available.
Details for each case history are presented in Cetin et al. [4,9]. The
updated unit weights are, typically, very close to, and slightly lower
than, the average values common to the databases of Cetin et al.
[4,9] and Idriss and Boulanger [10] (hereafter IB2010). In the
average, the γmoist and γsaturated values increased by approximately
10% as compared to the values used in CEA2004. Mean values of
the unit weights used for case history processing will be presented
later in the manuscript. The changes in unit weight affect the values
of total and effective stresses.
(3) The conversion of atmospheric pressure (Pa) from atmospheres to
kilopascals to pounds-per-square-foot was set accurately as follows
for all case histories: 1 atm 101.3 kPa 2116.2 lbs/ft2. In
CEA2004, these conversions which are needed for the effective
stress adjustments (CN) to SPT blow counts and Kσ adjustments for
cyclic stress ratio were approximated as 1 atm = 100 kPa = 2000
lbs/ft2. These adjustments and updates were common to all case
histories.
Some modifications were made to selected case histories per ob-
servations of Idriss and Boulanger [11]. The authors excluded three
cases from the CEA2004 database: (1) 1975 Haicheng Earthquake (Ms
= 7.3) Shung Tai Zi River,(2) 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Mw = 6.7)
Malden Street Unit D, and (3) 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake (ML =
6.6) Wildlife Unit B. The reasons for exclusion of these cases are sum-
marized in Table 2.
Three case history sites (1) 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Mw =
6.93) Clint Miller Farm (CMF-10), and 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
Earthquake (Mw = 6.9) Kobe (2) # 6 and (3) #16 are now reclassified
as non-liquefaction sites. Additionally, (4) the critical depth of the 1993
Kushiro-Oki Earthquake (Mw = 7.6) Kushiro Port strong motion re-
cording station case history site is modified. The reasons for the mod-
ifications of these cases are summarized in Table 3.
Recent work on ground motion models and, in particular, the da-
tabase development of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) project,
has provided new insight into some of the historical earthquake mag-
nitudes and, therefore, estimated peak ground acceleration levels. New
moment magnitudes for events are summarized in Table 4, and they are
compared with the moment magnitudes used in CEA2004. Changes in
moment magnitudes are relatively minor and were made for com-
pleteness. The changes to magnitude had a negligible impact on the
triggering correlations.
All other cases were also reviewed, and for some cases, details such
as the elevation of the phreatic surface, amax, average fines content,
critical depth, average SPT-N values, CR and/or CB corrections were re-
assessed and adjusted. As shown in Fig. 1, resulting modifications here

699
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Fig. 1. Comparison of case history model input parameters (a) dcrt (b) Fines content (c) N1,60 (d) amax (e) σ'v for CEA2004 and Cetin et al. [4,9]. (Case histories are
numbered as listed in Table S1). Comparison of case history model input parameters for CEA2004 and Cetin et al. [4,9]. (f) σv (g) Vs (h) rd (i) Mw (j) CSR. (Case
histories are numbered as listed in Table S1).

were typically minor and had no significant impact on the resulting are not available to assess plasticity, (3) sites are not free-field, due to
liquefaction triggering correlations developed. non-level topography or close proximity of a structure, and (4) the use
The IB2010 SPT-catalog database has 230 case histories, and many of percussion drilling techniques for SPT borings.
are those screened and compiled by CEA2004. A new group of 33 case
histories was added by IB2010. These include twenty seven case his-
2.1. Summary of changes to the new database
tories compiled by Iai et al. [21] for the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu Earth-
quake (M = 7.7), three case histories from the 1989 Loma Prieta
The updated database is schematically presented in Fig. 2, and
Earthquake (Mw = 6.93), one from the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Mw
plotted here as the mean values of CSR v , Mw and N1,60 for each case
= 7.6), one from the 1968 Hyūga-nada Earthquake (M = 6.9), and one
history, without fines corrections, or adjustments for effective stress
from the 1982 Urakawa-Oki Earthquake (M = 6.9). More recently,
(Kσ) and earthquake magnitude (KMw). In Fig. 2, “Seed et al.” represents
Boulanger and Idriss [22] (hereafter BI2014) compiled 24 additional
cases from Seed et al. [21]. The 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
cases from the 1999 Kocaeli(Mw = 7.51) and 1999 Chi-Chi (Mw =
(“Kobe EQ”) cases are from the CEA2004 database. “Cetin et al.” data
7.62) earthquakes.
points represent the remaining case histories. The database is also
Cetin et al. [4,9] re-evaluated these 57 new cases. The screening
summarized in Supplementary material Table S1. A complete discus-
criteria used for the CEA2004 were used here, and 13 of the new
sion of the case history database, its background documentation, ana-
IB2010 and BI2014 case histories (10 of the Nihonkai-Chubu and 3 of
lysis, and parametric evaluations are available in Cetin et al. [4,9].
the Loma Prieta earthquake case histories) satisfied the authors
In Table 6, there is a comparative summary of key database statistics
screening criteria, and were added to the database presented here.
of Seed et al. [23], CEA2004, Cetin et al. [4,9] and IB2010. While
These 13 new cases added are listed in Table 5. Non-inclusion of the
calculating these composite statistics for all three of these databases (1)
remaining case histories is discussed in Cetin et al. [4,9] and these
liquefied, (2) nonliquefied, and (3) Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earth-
exclusions were consistent with the criteria used to assess the authors’
quake case histories were each weighted individually as will be dis-
original database: that is, due to not meeting one or more of the fol-
cussed later in this manuscript. So the cross-comparisons here are based
lowing screening filters: (1) soil profiles (e.g.: boring logs) are not well
on identical weighting within each database. As a result, the parameter
documented or accessible, (2) soil properties for the critical soil layer
ensemble averages shown in Table 6 are not biased by different

700
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Fig. 1. (continued)

Table 1 3. Conventions for analyzing liquefaction field performance case

Assumed unit weights as used in Cetin et al. [4,9] for back analyses of field histories
performance case histories unless case-specific values are available.
(a) Coarse-grained soil layers The key elements of the conventions and procedures employed in
the authors’evaluation of the field performance case histories for this
SPT-N60 γmoist γsat study are essentially the same as those employed in Cetin et al. [1,2].
3 3 Additional descriptions and details are provided by Cetin [5] and some
(blows/ft) (lb/ft ) (kN/m ) (lb/ft3) (kN/m3)
of these are also discussed in the companion manuscript of Cetin et al.
0–4 100 15.7 110 17.3 [24] and Cetin et al. [7].
5–10 110 17.3 120 18.9
11–30 120 18.9 125 19.6
30–50 125 19.6 135 21.2 3.1. Case history screening
(b) Fine-grained soil layers
0–4 100 15.7 110 17.3
5–8 110 17.3 120 18.9 All case histories used in these studies are free-field and level
9–16 115 18.1 125 19.6 ground cases. Cases with ground slopes greater than 3%, or cases near a
free face (e.g. trench, stream cut, shoreline etc.) were eliminated. Cases
in which soil/structure interaction might have had a pronounced in-
weighting schemes, and direct cross-comparisons are, therefore, fluence on the cyclic shear stress, or enhanced liquefaction damage,
meaningful. were eliminated. Case histories can produce only binary outcomes- sites
Interestingly, in the calculation of cyclic stress ratios (CSR), the either liquefied or not. The authors made exceptions for two case his-
effect of the average increase in rd values in the new database of Cetin tories where the performance was characterized as “marginal” by the
et al. [4,9], relative to CEA2004, is largely offset by the effect of in- field team that made the observation. There is only one single most
creased unit weight has on the ratio of σv / σ′v. The effect of this offset is ‘critical layer’ at any borehole, and it was not allowed to evaluate both
seen in the final plot of Fig. 1(j), where the updated CSR v , Mw values are “liquefied” and “non-liquefied” data for the same borehole (or the same
likely to decrease in nearly as many cases as those for which there is an site, if multiple borings characterize the same soil unit), as the onset of
increase. liquefaction in one stratum reduces cyclic shear stresses in both over-
lying and underlying strata such that back-analyses for other layers
become unreliable. That is, deriving an unbiased “non-liquefied” data

701
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Table 2
Reasons for exclusion of the three case histories.
Case history Comments

1975 Haicheng Earthquake (Ms = 7.3), Shuang Tai Zi
River
1994 Northridge Earthquake (Mw = 6.7), Malden
Street Unit D
1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake (ML = 6.6),Wildlife
Unit B
Lack of documentation of fines content and soil texture limits in the original reference. This information is needed to
judge if the suspect fine grained soil layer is non-plastic or not. Seed et al. [12] described the critical layer as "silt" with no
further details.
Unit A is a compacted fill, located mostly above the water table, and is judged to be non-liquefiable; Unit B is a fine
grained soil layer with N ≈ 2–3 blows/ft., and FC > 70%, with average PI = 18%, and average clay content of 31%
(Bennett et al. [13]). Clayey soils with PI = 18%, were categorically judged to be non-liquefiable in Cetin [5] and
CEA2004. Unit D is Pleistocene silty sand. However, revisiting this case history based on exchanges with the original field
investigators, it has been determined that the suspect layer for the observed ground deformations is the soft fine-grained
plastic Unit B that accumulated permanent seismic displacements during the dynamic loading of cohesive soils, as
proposed and modeled recently by Kayen [14].
Lack of a confirmed no-liquefaction performance by field investigators. Youd [15] noted that: “the no assigned to the
Wildlife site for the 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake (M = 6.5) was not confirmed by investigator observation.”

point from other strata at a site where one or more strata have liquefied, Table 4
is not possible. Compiling multiple case histories from a single borehole Comparison between the moment magnitudes (Mw) used in CEA2004 and Cetin
also has the negative effect of weakening the statistical independence of et al. [4,9].
the maximum likelihood formulation. At each case history site, the Earthquake CEA2004 Cetin Ref.
critical stratum was identified as the non-plastic, submerged soil sub- et al.
stratum most susceptible to triggering of liquefaction, and the mid- [4,9]
depth of the critical sub-layer was used as the representative depth.
1944 Tohnankai 8.00 8.10 USGS Centennial Earthquake
However, soil properties were assessed within the full thickness of the 1948 Fukui 7.30 7.00 Catalog, Engadhl and Villasenor
critical soil layer. 1968 Tokachioki 7.90 8.30 [17]
1975 Haicheng 7.30 7.00
1976 Tangshan 8.00 7.60
1977 Argentina 7.40 7.50
3.2. Estimation of the CSR
1978 Miyagiken-Oki 6.70 6.50
Feb. 20
Peak ground surface acceleration (amax) values for each case history 1978 Miyagiken-Oki 7.40 7.70
were estimated using source mechanism and geometry, local and re- June 12
1990 Luzon 7.60 7.70
gional recorded strong motion data, and suites of available ground
1979 Imperial Valley 6.50 6.53 NGA Flatfiles [18]
motion prediction equations. When available, values of amax in the 1987 Superstition 6.70 6.54
database are estimated as the geometric mean (GM ) of the two ortho- Hills
gonal peak ground acceleration (PGA ) horizontal components 1989 Loma Prieta 7.00 6.93
(i . e: GM = PGA1 PGA2 ) of motion. However, if the geometric mean of 1964 Niigata 7.50 7.60 Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology
the rotated set of components corresponding to ppth percentile (i.e.:
(IRIS) Seismo Archives [19]
GMRotDpp) is available, a suitable conversion factor needs to be ap- 1993 Kushiro-Oki 8.00 7.60 Ide and Takeo [20]
plied. Uncertainty (or variance) in amax was evaluated for each case and
is directly reflective of the level and quality of data for each case his-
tory. amax v
CSR v, Mw
= 0.65 CSRpeak, v, Mw
= 0.65 rd
For 48 of the 210 liquefaction field performance case histories, in- g v (1)
situ CSR v , Mw was evaluated based on site-specific and event-specific
seismic site response analyses (using SHAKE 91; Idriss and Sun [25]). In Eq. (3), as defined earlier, amax is the peak horizontal ground
For the remaining 162 cases, wherein full seismic site response analyses surface acceleration; g is the acceleration of gravity, σv and σ′v are total
were not performed, CSR v , Mw was evaluated using the estimated amax and effective vertical stresses, respectively, and rd is the stress reduction
and Eq. (1), with rd-values estimated by using the predictive rd re- or nonlinear shear mass participation factor. A full explanation of the
lationship developed by Cetin and Seed [6,26]. development of the probabilistic rd relationship is presented in Cetin
and Seed [6,24]. In total, 2153 one-dimensional seismic site response

Table 3
Reasons for the modification of four case histories.
Case History ID Comments

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Mw = 6.93), Miller Farm CMF-
10
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake (Mw = 6.9), Kobe # 6
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake (Mw = 6.9), Kobe # 16
1993 Kushiro-Oki Earthquake (Mw = 7.6), Kushiro Port
strong motion recording station
At the time of Cetin [5] and CEA2004 studies, the Clint Miller Farm CMF-10 case history site was classified as a
liquefied site. The CMF-10 borehole was located in a suite of tests across a permanent deformation transition
zone and it is now understood that the field investigation team (Wayne et al. [16]) intended CMF-10 to represent
the non-liquefied zone. The authors accept the field judgments of the field investigation teams.
This site was found to be inconsistently listed as a non-liquefied and a liquefied site on the summary table and the
map, respectively, from the Kobe City Office in 1999. After personal communication with Prof. Tokimatsu, the
site is updated as a "non-liquefied" site.
Due to the proximity of Kobe #15 (Liquefied) and #16 (Non-Liquefied) sites, Kobe # 16 was originally classified
as a marginal liquefaction (Yes/No) site. Now it is treated as a non-liquefied site.
When the CEA2004 database was compiled, the silty layer at the depth range of 20–22 m with SPT-N values of
6–10 blows/ft was judged to be the suspect stratum. However, after having revisited this case history, the suspect
stratum was identified as "medium dense" coarse sand soil layer with SPT-N values of 16–18 blows/ft at the
depth range of 2.8–5.2 m. This case history is judged to warrant further in depth investigation. Meanwhile, this
shallower "medium dense" coarse sand soil layer is used as the critical layer.

702
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Table 5
List of 13 additional field performance case histories from IB2010 that were
added to Cetin et al. [4,9] database.
1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M = 7.7 1989 Loma Prieta Mw = 6.93
Earthquake Earthquake

1. Akita Station 1. General Fish

2. Gaiko 1&2 2. Marina Laboratory_F1-F7
3. Hakodate 3. MBARI NO.4-B4B5EB2EB3
4. Nakajima No. 1(5)
5. Nakajima No. 2(1)
6. Nakajima No. 2(2)
7. Nakajima No. 3(3)
8. Nakajima No. 3(4)
9. Ohama No. 2(2)
10. Ohama No. Rvt. (1)

Fig. 3. Plots of rd for all 2153 site response analyses for all combinations of sites
and input motions superimposed with the predictions based on group mean
values of Vs, Mw, and amax (Heavy black lines show regressed mean and ± 1
standard deviations) (taken from Cetin and Seed [6]).

analyses were performed in order to generate the data set for prob-
abilistic regressions. Fig. 3 shows the rd curves for all of these site re-
sponse analyses.
The consistent use of rd relationship of Cetin and Seed [6,26] is
presented on an illustrative seismic soil liquefaction triggering assess-
ment problem in Cetin et al. [7]; hence will not be repeated herein.
The probabilistic regressions indicate that the harder a soil column
is shaken, and the softer the column is, the greater the degree of non-
linearity of response that results, such that rd values decrease more
rapidly with increasing depth. Increased heterogeneity or distinct
“layering” of the site conditions tends to break up wave coherence, and
also tends to cause rd values to decrease more rapidly with increasing
depth. Increased magnitude serves as a proxy for duration, and is the
least significant of the four factors. The predictive relationship of Cetin
and Seed [6,26] is intended to be used on soil profiles with potentially
Fig. 2. Summary of the Cetin et al. [4,9] field performance case history data.
liquefiable layers and it is recommended by the authors that an upper
bound of VS,12 m ≤ 230 m/s be employed in forward analyses so as not

Table 6
Summary and comparison of overall case history weighted average input parameters.
Parameter Seed et al. [10] CEA2004 Cetin et al. [4,9] IB2010
125 case history 200 case history 210 case history 230 case history

Mean Mean Std. Dev. Mean Mean Std. Dev. Mean Mean Std. Dev. Mean Mean Std. Dev.

γmoist (kN/m3) – – 15.2 0.67 16.77 0.47 – –

γsaturated (kN/m3) – – 16.91 0.69 18.91 0.47 – –
Critical Depth: dcr (m) 5.80 – 5.08 0.53 4.93 0.55 5.02 –
N1,60 13.51 – 15.83 3.15 15.13 3.09 15.02 –
FC (%) 14.72 – 18.89 3.02 16.57 4.16 16.24 –
a a
ΔN1,60 – – 1.61 1.52 1.94 –
a a
N1,60,CS – – 17.44 16.65 16.96 –
amax (g) 0.22 – 0.25 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.25 –
σ v (kPa) 105.58 – 83.87 9.52 89.70 10.60 91.78 –
σ'v (kPa) 67.45 – 53.48 5.83 60.62 5.62 61.29 –
Vs,12 m (m/s) – – 178.92 – 190.87 – – –
rd 0.953 – 0.859 0.058 0.911 0.057 0.949 –
CSR v , Mw 0.210 – 0.211 0.04 0.208 0.05 0.225 –
Mw 7.12 – 7.06 – 7.09 – 7.13 –
KMw – – 1.17 – 1.17 – 1.12 –
Kσ – – 1.23 – 1.25 – 1.06 –
CSR v = 1 atm, Mw = 7.5 0.197 – 0.158 – 0.156 – 0.196 –

a
Functions of regressed likelihood model coefficients, as presented later in this manuscript.

703
K.O. Cetin et al.
to produce nearly rigid body type response predictions. The shear wave
velocity value of 230 m/s for VS,12 m is coincident with the zone of
highest values of VS1 found to have liquefied in the database of Kayen
et al. [27]. Similarly, for unusually soft sites with VS,12 m ≤ 90 m/s, rd
relationship of Cetin and Seed [6,26] can be employed, though that
lower value of average shear wave velocity corresponds with the very
lowest VS1 reported in Kayen et al. [27]. No site exists with conditions
of VS,12 m less than 90 m/s or above 230 m/s in any of the liquefaction
databases, though these studies represent the vast majority of well
documented field-performance sites. VS,12 m is estimated by calculating
the apparent travel times through each sub-layer, down to a depth of 12
m, and then by dividing the total distance (i.e.: 12 m) by the total travel
time. A detailed discussion on consistent estimation of VS,12 m is pre-
sented in Cetin et al. [7] by an illustrative seismic soil liquefaction
triggering assessment problem; hence will not be repeated herein.
These approaches were employed to develop unbiased best-esti-
mates of rd, and its variance. As such, the resulting liquefaction trig-
gering relationships can be used in forward engineering analyses with
either rd relationship of Cetin and Seed [6,26], or site-specific seismic
site response analyses. Factors contributing to overall variance in esti-
mation of the equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR v , Mw )
were summed within a structural reliability framework. The main
contributors to this variance were (1) uncertainty in amax, and (2) un-
certainty in nonlinear shear mass participation factor (or rd). Other
variables, which contributed to a lesser degree to the overall variance
were the depth of the critical soil stratum, soil unit weights, and loca-
tion of the phreatic surface (“water table depth”) at the time of the
earthquake.
3.3. Estimation of SPT-N values
Some case histories have critical layers characterized with only a
single SPT boring, while others have dense concentrations character-
ized from multiple SPT borings. This study assigned a single case his-
tory to the total number of borings at the same site that could be
grouped together to jointly define a stratum. Cases with more SPT data
usually have lower uncertainties in their N-values. These cases exert
more weight on the location of the triggering curves than less well-
characterized cases with higher uncertainty.
The resulting N1,60 values are the product of the averaged N values
for a stratum corrected for effective normal stress (CN), hammer energy
(CE), equipment rod length (CR), equipment sampler (CS), borehole
diameter (CB), and procedural effects to fully standardized N1,60 values
as given in Eq. (2).
N1,60 = N · CN·CR·CS·CB· CE (2)
The corrections for CN, CR, CS, CB and CE correspond closely to those
recommended by the NCEER Working Group (NCEER [28], and Youd
et al. [29]), and are discussed in CEA2004 and Cetin et al. [4,7]; hence
will not be repeated herein. In the literature there exist alternative
correction schemes regarding these factors (e.g. effective stress only or
effective stress and relative density dependent CN (Liao and Whitman
[30], Boulanger [31], etc.) or rod length (NCEER workshop proceedings
[28], CEA2004, Sancio and Bray [32], etc.). However, due to lack of
consensus among these correction schemes, and due to their relative
insignificance on the overall corrected SPT blow counts, NCEER
workshop consensus recommendation is adopted. For effective stress
ranges exceeding 2 atm, which is outside the limits of case history-
based liquefaction triggering models, the differences between effective
stress only-, and effective stress-relative density dependent-CN correc-
tion schemes can be significant. Hence, their effects on the estimated
N1,60 values should be carefully and case specifically assessed. For
further discussion regarding these correction factors refer to NCEER
Workshop Proceedings [28], Youd et al. [29], CEA2004 and Cetin et al.
[4,9].
For 20 out of 210 cases wherein the critical stratum had only one
704
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709
single useful N1,60-value, the standard deviation was taken as 2 blows/ft
because 2 blows/ft was typical of the larger variances among the cases
with multiple N1,60 values regardless of the value of the mean blow-
count.
4. Development of probabilistic liquefaction triggering curves
Liquefaction triggering correlations were developed based on
probabilistic “regressions” performed employing the maximum like-
lihood estimation (MLE) method. The formulations and approaches
employed are described in detail by Cetin [5], Cetin et al. [4,33], and
here only briefly. The MLE serves essentially the same purpose as multi-
dimensional probabilistic “regression” analyses, but (1) allows for se-
parate treatment of various contributing sources of aleatory un-
certainty, and (2) facilitates treatment of more descriptive variables
(model parameters) while also permitting the monitoring of model
parameter interactions and co-variances. Within the MLE analyses, all
data (i.e.: CSR, N1,60, σ′v, FC, Mw) were modeled as random variables.
Thus, the points in Figs. 1 and 2 are actually the mean values of un-
certainty clouds in all parametric directions for each case history.
All liquefaction databases have a sampling disparity that biases the
data set toward liquefied sites and is due to the undersampling of
nonliquefied sites. Cetin et al. [1,2,33] proposed a procedure to balance
the dataset by up-weighting the value of non-liquefied sites by a
weighting factor of 1.2, and by down-weighting the value of liquefied
sites by a factor of 0.8. This is approximately equivalent to simply up-
weighting the non-liquefied cases by a factor of 1.5. However, parti-
tioning the weighting factors among both liquefied and non-liquefied
cases allows improved treatment of model uncertainty.
The Cetin et al. [4,9] database has nearly the same overall char-
acteristics (and almost the same cases) as the CEA2004 database, and
the same weighting factors (1.2 and 0.8) were again applied to liquefied
and nonliquefied case histories. An additional weighting factor was
needed to address the large number of case histories from the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) earthquake. The database has 56 case
histories from this single event; and that very large number results in an
unbalance of the overall data set wherein that single event is over-re-
presented. This was addressed in the assessments performed for Cetin
et al. [4,9] database by down-weighting the Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe)
earthquake case histories by a weighting factor of 0.25. Additional
details of the assessments performed are presented in Cetin et al. [4,9].
The maximum likelihood approach begins with the selection of a
mathematical model. The model for the limit-state function has the
general form g = g (x, ) ,where x = (N1,60, CSR v , , Mw , Mw , FC , v ) is a
set of descriptive variables and is the set of unknown model coeffi-
cients. Consistent with the normal definition of failure in structural
reliability, liquefaction is assumed to have occurred when g (x, ) takes
on a negative value. The limit-state surface g (x, ) = 0 denotes the 50-
percentile (median) boundary condition between liquefaction and
nonliquefaction. The following model from Cetin et al. [2,33] is used
for the limit state function:
gˆ (x , ) = N1,60 (1 + v
1 FC ) 2 ln(Mw ) 3 ln + 4 FC + 5
Pa
ln (CSR )
6 v, , Mw (3)
where = ( 1, …, 6) is the set of unknown model coefficients.
The limit state function given in Eq. (3) has the advantage of as-
sessing Kσ, KMw and fines corrections within a unified framework.
Hence, as part of the maximum likelihood assessment, the overall li-
quefaction triggering relationship is assessed jointly with relationships
for these corrections factors. Eq. (3) assumes that the liquefaction
triggering hazard can be completely explained by a set of five de-
scriptive variables x = (N1,60, CSR v , , Mw , Mw , FC , v ) . But other vari-
ables exist, which may influence the initiation of liquefaction. Even if
the selected descriptive variables were able to fully explain the
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

liquefaction triggering phenomenon, the adopted mathematical ex- correction factors 0.8 and 1.2, respectively.
pression may not have the ideal form. Hence, Eq. (3) is by definition an If x i = (N1,60, i , CSR v , , Mw, i , Mw, i , FC i, v, i ) is inexact (uncertain),
imperfect model of the limit-state function. This is signified by the use then this additional uncertainty should be included in the formulation
of a superposed "hat" on g . To account for the influences of possible of the likelihood function as given in Eq. (7).
missing variables and the possible imperfect model form, a random wliq . wnonliq .
model error term, ε, was introduced as given in Eq. (4). gˆ (x i , ) gˆ (xi , )
L( , )=
liquefiedsites , tot , i non liquefied sites , tot , i
v
g (x , ) = N1,60 (1 + 1 FC ) 2 ln(Mw ) 3 ln + 4 FC + 5 gˆ (x i , )
Pa
ln (CSR )+ marginally liquefied sites , tot , i (7)
6 v, , Mw (4)

With the aim of producing an unbiased model (i.e., one that, on the Assuming that the mean values of the case history descriptive input
average, makes the correct prediction), the mean of is set to zero, and parameters N1,60, i , CSR v , , Mw, i , Mw, i , FC i, v, i are estimated in an un-
for convenience it is assumed to be normally distributed. The standard biased manner (i.e., mean choices, rather than conservative or un-
deviation of , denoted , however is unknown and must be estimated conservative choices, are made in case history processing) then the
as part of the regression. The set of unknown coefficients of the model, error terms of N1,60, i , ln(CSR v , , Mw, i ), ln(Mw, i ), FC i, ln( v, i ) can be
therefore, is = ( , ) . considered as normally distributed random variables with zero means
Let x i = (N1,60, i , CSR v , Mw, i , Mw, i , FCi, v, i ) be the values of N1,60, and standard deviations N1,60, i , ln(CSR v , , Mw ), i , ln(Mw ), i , FC, i and ln( v ), i ,
respectively. Then the overall variance of each liquefaction field per-
CSR, Mw, FC and v for the ith case history, respectively, and i be the
formance case history (σ2tot) is estimated as the sum of the variance of
corresponding realization of the model correction term. If the ith case
case history input parameters (σ2case-history) and model error (σ2є) as given
history field performance is liquefied, then g (x i , i, ) 0 . On the other
in Eq. (8).
hand, if the ith case history field performance is nonliquefied, then
g (x i , i, ) > 0 . When g (x i , i, ) 0 then the case history is defined as 2
=( 7 case history, i )
2 + 2
(8)
tot , i
marginally liquefied (or marginally nonliquefied). Assuming that the
Cetin et al. [4,9] database is compiled from statistically independent In Eq. (8), case history, i represents the consolidated uncertainty of
liquefaction field performance case histories, the likelihood function individual case history input parameters, and as discussed earlier a
can be written as the product of the probabilities of the observations scaling factor of 7 is systematically applied to them. This factor ( 7 ) is
given in Eq. (5). one of the regressed parameters of the overall triggering relationship. If
Num. of liquefied sites
the higher-order terms are eliminated, then case history, i can be estimated
L( , )= P [g (xl , l, ) 0] as given Eq. (9).
l=1
Num. of non liquefied sites
2
case history, i = ( 6 )2 [cov(CSR v , , Mw, i ) ]2 + 2
N1,60, i (1 + 1 FCi )2 + 2
FCi
P [g (xj , j, ) > 0] ( 1 N1,60, i +
2 2
4 ) + ( 3) [cov( v, i )]
2
(9)
j=1
Num. of marginally liquefied sites
Finally, the eight model coefficients (i.e.: 1 through 7 , and ) are
P [g (xk , k, ) 0] assessed simultaneously in a single overall regression in order to max-
k=1 (5)
imize the likelihood function presented in Eq. (9). The resulting (new)
Suppose that x i = (N1,60, i , CSR v , , Mw, i , Mw, i , FC i, v, i ) for each li- recommended seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationships are
quefaction field performance case history is exact, i.e., no measurement presented in Eqs. (10) and (11) and the new model coefficients are
or estimation uncertainty is present. Then, noting that Eq. (4) has the listed in Table 7 along with CEA2004 model coefficients for comparison

(N1,60 (1 + 1 FC ) 6 ln(CSR v, = 0, Mw
) 2 ln(Mw ) 3 ln ( )+ v
Pa 4 FC + 5

PL (N1,60, CSR v, = 0, Mw
, Mw , v , FC ) =

(10)

(N1,60 (1 + 1 FC ) 2 ln(Mw ) 3 ln ( )+
v
Pa 4 FC + 5 + 1 (P )
L

CRR (N1,60, Mw , v, FC , PL) = exp

6

(11)

normal distribution with mean gˆ (x i , ) and standard deviation , the purposes.

likelihood function Eq. (5) can be written as given in Eq. (6). The new probabilistic boundary curves are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5
wliq . wnonliq . presents a direct comparison between the new triggering relationship
gˆ (xl , ) gˆ (xj , )
L( , )= and the previous relationship of CEA2004. These new triggering re-
liquefiedsites non liquefied sites lationships will be referred to as CEA2018, hereafter.
gˆ (xk , ) In Eq. (10), PL is the probability of liquefaction in decimals (i.e. PL
= 30% is input as 0.30), CSR v , = 0, Mw is not “adjusted” for vertical
marginally liquefied sites (6)
overburden stress or magnitude/duration effects (corrections are exe-
In Eq. (6), [ ] and [ ] are the standard normal cumulative cuted within the equation itself), FC is percent fines content (by dry
function and the standard normal probability density functions, re- weight) expressed as an integer (e.g.: 12% fines is input as FC = 12)
spectively. Also note that wliq and wnonliq are the sampling bias with the limit of 5 ≤ FC ≤ 35, Pa is atmospheric pressure (1 atm =

705
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Table 7 two relationships are similar, and the new fines correction relationship
A comparative summary of limit state model coefficients. has a lesser dependence upon N1,60.
Model coefficients CEA2004 CEA2018 Similarly, in-situ equivalent uniform CSR v , , Mw can be evaluated
either based on (1) direct seismic site response analyses, or (2) direct
1 0.004 0.00167 seismic site response and soil-structure-interaction analyses, or (3)
2 29.530 27.352 using the "simplified" approach employing Eq. (1), and the Cetin and
3.700 3.958
3
Seed [6] rd relationships.
0.050 0.089
CSR v , , Mw is then adjusted by the K , K and K Mw correction factors
4
5 16.850 16.084
6 13.320 11.771 to convert overburden and static shear stresses, and duration(magni-
7 – 0.392 tude) to the references states of v = 1 atm , = 0 and Mw = 7.5, as
2.70 2.95 given in Eqs. (13)–(15). Note that for level sites (which includes all field
performance case histories in the database) the value of K = 1.0.

101.3 kPa = 2116.2 psf) in the same units as the in-situ vertical ef- 1 1 1
CSR v = 1 atm, = 0, Mw = 7.5
= CSR v, , Mw
lim
fective stress (σ′v), and Φ is the standard cumulative normal dis- K KMw K
tribution.The cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, for a given probability of li- : CSR v = 1 atm, = 0, Mw = 7.5
0.6 (13)
quefaction can be expressed as given in Eq. (11), where
Φ−1(PL) is the inverse of the standard cumulative normal distribu- 3/ 6 3.958/11.771 0.336
v v v
tion (i.e. mean = 0, and standard deviation = 1). For spreadsheet K = = = ; lim : 0.8 K 1.6
Pa Pa Pa
construction purposes, the command in Microsoft Excel for this specific
function is “NORMINV(PL,0,1)”. In Figs. 4 and 5, factor of safety (FS) (14)
values corresponding to probability of liquefaction 5%, 20%, 50%, 2/ 6 27.352/11.771 2.324
Mw Mw Mw
80%, 95% are also shown. Approximate factors of safety, FS values can K Mw = = = ; lim
7.5 7.5 7.5
be estimated by Eq. (12) based on the assumption that PL value of 50%
corresponds to a best-estimate factor of safety value equal to 1.0 and : 5.5 Mw 8.4 (15)
the resulting FS values for the five sets of PL contours are also shown in As an alternative to Eqs. (14) and (15), K and K Mw corrections can
Figs. 4 and 5. be employed by using Figs. 8 and 9.
CRR (PL = 50%) ( 1 (P )) ( 2.95 1 (P )) Fig. 8 shows the new K curve regressed from the liquefaction
L L
FS = = exp = exp performance field case history database, and the lower portion of Fig. 8
CRR (PL) 6 11.771
shows a histogram of the distribution of case histories with different
= exp[ 0.251 1 (P )]
L (12) ranges of σ'v. This field case history-based K relationship is valid over
the range of approximately 0.25 atm ≤ σ'v ≤ 1.8 atm. Extrapolation to
For the purpose of assessing the effects of sampling disparity (and
higher values of σ'vfor forward engineering analyses is discussed in the
weighting), the same exercise was then repeated, but this time without
companion paper of Cetin et al. [24].
applying weights on non-liquefied and liquefied case history data
The new K curve is observed to be largely consistent with the
points. Fig. 6 presents the relative positions of equi-probability (5%,
CEA2004 recommendations, which were also based on regressions of
20%, 50%, 80% and 95%) liquefaction triggering contours with (solid
field performance case histories, and at least approximately also fits
lines) and without the weighting factors(dashed lines). Since it would
laboratory cyclic simple shear test results of Cetin and Bilge [34] and is
be potentially over-conservative to leave the sampling disparity pro-
similar to a dataset of cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear data
blem unaddressed, the model developed with weighting factors of
wnon liquefied = 1.2 and w liquefied = 0.8 is recommended for forward en-
gineering assessments.

5. Recommended use of the new correlations

The proposed new probabilistic correlations can be used in two

ways. They can be used directly, all at once, as summarized in Eqs. (10)
and (11). Alternatively, they can be used “in parts” as has been con-
ventional for most previous, similar methods. The use of both of the
alternatives in seismic soil liquefaction triggering assessments is pre-
sented in Cetin et al. [7] for an illustrative seismic soil liquefaction
triggering assessment of a soil site shaken by a scenario earthquake. The
protocols, which need to be followed, as well as the recommendations
which guides the engineers through the procedure and “tricks” for the
correct use of the methodology for forward engineering (design) as-
sessments are discussed in the subject manuscript. Hence, the readers
are referred to Cetin et al. [7] for the consistent use of the methodology,
mean and uncertainty estimations of input parameters: i.e.: SPT blow-
count along with Fines Content data, CSR and its input parameters of
maximum ground acceleration, stress reduction (mass participation)
factor rd, moment magnitude, vertical effective and total stresses.
“In-part” use of the proposed seismic soil liquefaction triggering
relationships require the application of fines, stress and magnitude
correction factors (K and K Mw ). Fig. 7 shows the regressed fines cor-
rections for these current studies, and also for the previous triggering
relationships of CEA2004. The overall average fines corrections for the Fig. 4. New probabilistic seismic soil liquefaction triggering curves.

706
K.O. Cetin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709

Fig. 7. Proposed N1,60 dependent fines correction.

on the overall regression of the liquefaction triggering field perfor-

mance case history database. It agrees well with the relationship of
CEA2004, which was also based on regression of field case histories,
and it is bound within the field K Mw lower-bound of NCEER [28] (the
upper bound curve of Andrus and Stokoe [42] is also presented on
Fig. 9), the laboratory relationships of Idriss [38,39] and Boulanger and
Idriss [22], and the shear wave velocity – based relationships of Kayen
Fig. 5. Comparison between the triggering boundary curves of CEA2004 and
et al. [27]. Agreement between these, Seed and Idriss [40], and Cetin
these current studies.
and Bilge [41] K Mw relationships developed based on different sets of
approaches is relatively good.
The resulting, fully adjusted and normalized values of N1,60,cs and
CSR v = 1 atm, = 0, Mw = 7.5 can then be used, with Fig. 4, to assess the prob-
ability of initiation of liquefaction.For “deterministic” evaluation of li-
quefaction resistance Eq. (12) can be used to approximate an acceptable
factor of safety.

6. Conclusions

The preparation of the report by the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the “State of the Art and
Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and
Its Consequences” provided the authors the motivation and impetus to
update the SPT-based relationship of CEA2004 and cast a new prob-
abilistic triggering relationship based upon the updated field database.
New probabilistic and deterministic liquefaction triggering curves are
proposed based on the most recent case history database of Cetin et al.

Fig. 6. Effects of implementing compensation for sampling disparity (solid

lines) vs. leaving sampling disparity unaddressed.

collected and compiled by Montgomery et al. [35]. In the literature,

there also exist alternative K relationships which were developed on
the basis of cyclic laboratory test data (e.g. Vaid et al. [36], Hynes and
Olsen [37], Boulanger [31], Cetin and Bilge [34], etc.). As discussed in
the recent state of the art report of NAP [3] both the case history or
laboratory test data based K frameworks are judged to be technically
valid and their use for the stress normalization of high effective stress
case history CSR values to the CSR values at the reference state of 1 atm
vertical effective stress, is possible. Fig. 8. Newly regressed K corrections compared with available cyclic la-
Fig. 9 presents the new K Mw curve, which was also developed based boratory test data.

707
K.O. Cetin et al.
Fig. 9. Newly regressed K Mw corrections compared with available literature.
[4,9]. Maximum likelihood models for assessment of seismic soil li-
quefaction initiation are presented, and in their development the re-
levant uncertainties including (a) measurement / estimation un-
certainties of input parameters, (b) limit state model imperfection, (c)
statistical uncertainty, and (d) uncertainties arising from inherent
variability were addressed.
The use of site-specific and event-specific seismic site response-
based calculations of CSR, and of compatible unbiased (median)
probabilistic rd relationships based on representative suites of site
conditions results in triggering relationships that are therefore unbiased
with respect to use in conjunction with either (1) direct seismic site
response analyses, or site response and soil-structure interaction ana-
lyses, for evaluation of in-situ CSR, or (2) improved “simplified” as-
sessment of in-situ CSR in forward engineering analyses.
The new models provide an improved basis for engineering assess-
ment of the likelihood of liquefaction initiation. The proposed models
deal explicitly with the issues of (1) fines content (FC), (2) magnitude
(duration) effects (i.e.: K Mw correction), and (3) effective overburden
stress effects (i.e.: K correction). These correction factor relationships
are all developed based on regression of the entire field case history
database. As a result, the overall triggering relationships provide both
(1) an unbiased (median) basis for evaluation of liquefaction initiation
hazard, and (2) a basis for assessment of overall model uncertainty.
Overall uncertainty in application of these new correlations to field
problems is driven by the difficulties/uncertainties associated with
project-specific engineering assessment of the “loading” and “re-
sistance” variables. In the estimation of these loading and resistance
terms, the need to use a series of corrections and normalizations re-
mains at the heart of the triggering assessment. The objective of this
updated set of correlations is to provide an unbiased set of liquefaction
triggering relationships, normalized at σ'v = 1 atm, MW = 7.5 and α =
0. These relationships are recommended to be used for either prob-
abilistic or deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction trig-
gering. The use of them beyond their recommended limits by simple
extrapolation techniques without additional, project specific en-
gineering assessments and/or laboratory testing-based confirmations
may lead to unconservatively biased predictions; hence it is strongly
discouraged.
Acknowledgements
The authors are deeply grateful to the many engineers and re-
searchers who developed the field case history data upon which these
types of correlations are based. We are also grateful to the many en-
gineers, colleagues and our anonymous Reviewers, who encouraged
this current work, and whose discussions and comments were of great
value.
708
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.012.
References
[1] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Moss RES, Der Kiureghian AK, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, et al.
Field performance case histories for SPT-based evaluation of soil liquefaction trig-
gering hazard, (Geotechnical Research Report No. UCB/GT-2000/09) Berkeley, CA:
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley;
2000.
[2] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder Jr LF, Kayen RE, et al.
SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction
potential. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(12):1314–40.
[3] NAP. State of the art and practice in the assessment of earthquake-induced soil
liquefaction and its consequences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine; Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. 〈https://dx.
doi.org/10.17226/23474〉.
[4] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, et al. Summary of SPT-
based field case history data of the updated 2016 Database. (Report no: METU/
GTENG 08/16-01) METU Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Research
Center; 2016.
[5] Cetin KO. Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil liquefaction initiation hazard.
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, University of California at Berkeley; 2000.
[6] Cetin KO, Seed RB. Nonlinear shear mass participation factor, rd for cyclic shear
stress ratio evaluation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng J 2004;24(2):103–13.
[7] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, et al. The use of the SPT-
based seismic soil liquefaction triggering evaluation methodology in engineering
hazard assessments. Methods X 2018. [In preparation].
[8] Japan Road Association Design Specifications for Highway Bridges; 2002.
[9] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, et al. Dataset on SPT-
based seismic soil liquefaction. Data Brief 2018;20:544–8. Elsevier.
[10] Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. (Report
UCD/CGM-10/02) Davis, CA: Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California; 2010. p. 136.
[11] Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. Examination of SPT-based liquefaction triggering corre-
lations. Earthq Spectra 2012;28(3):989–1018.
[12] Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM. The influence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. (Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15) Berkeley, CA: Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California at Berkeley; 1984.
[13] Bennett MJ, Ponti DJ, Tinsley JC, Holzer TL, Conaway CH. Subsurface geotechnical
investigations near sites of ground deformations caused by the 17 January 1994
Northridge California Earthquake. (Open File Report 1998). Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey, p. 98–373.
[14] Kayen R. Seismic displacement of gently-sloping coastal and marine sediment under
multidirectional earthquake loading. Eng Geol 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2016.12.009.
[15] Youd TL. Discussion of “examination and reevaluation of SPT-based liquefaction
triggering case histories” by Ross W. Boulanger, Daniel W. Wilson, and I.M. Idriss. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;138(8):898–909.
[16] Wayne AC, Donald OD, Jeffrey PB, Hassen H. Direct measurement of liquefaction
potential in soils of Monterey County, California. In: Holzer TL, editor. The Loma
Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Liquefaction. Washington D.C:
U.S. Government Printing Office; 1998. p. B181–208.
[17] Engadhl ER, Villasenor A. Global seismicity: 1900–1999. International handbook of
earthquake and engineering seismology. International Association of Seismology
and Physics of the Earth's Interior, Committee on Education; 81A; 2002. p. 665–90.
[18] NGA Flatfiles. 〈http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest2/databases/〉; 2015.
[19] Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Seismo Archives, 〈http://
ds.iris.edu/seismo-archives/〉; 2004.
[20] Ide S, Takeo M. The dynamic rupture process of the 1993 Kushiro-oki earthquake. J
Geophys Res 1996;101(B3):5661–75.
[21] Iai S, Tsuchida H, Koizumi K. A liquefaction criterion based on field performances
around seismograph stations. Soils Found 1989;29(2):52–68.
[22] Boulanger RW, Idriss IM. CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures.
(Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01). Davis, CA: Center for Geotechnical Modeling,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California; 2014.
p. 134.
[23] Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM. The influence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng ASCE
1985;111(12):1425–45.
[24] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Moss RES, Bilge HT, Ilgac M, et al. Examination of
differences between three Spt-based seismic soil liquefaction triggering relation-
ships. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2018;113:75–86. Elsevier.
[25] Idriss IM, Sun JI. User’s manual for SHAKE91, a computer program for conducting
equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits
program modified based on the original SHAKE program published in December
1972 by Schnabel, Lysmer and Seed; 1992.
[26] Cetin KO, Seed RB. Earthquake-induced nonlinear shear mass participation factor
(rd). (Geotechnical Research Rept. No. UCB/GT-2000/08). Berkeley, CA: Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley; 2000.
K.O. Cetin et al.
[27] Kayen R, Moss R, Thompson E, Seed R, Cetin K, Kiureghian A, et al. Shear-wave
velocity–based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefac-
tion potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013:407–19. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743.
[28] NCEER. In: Youd TL, Idriss IM, editors. Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils (Technical Report No. NCEER-97-
0022). National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY, Buffalo; 1997.
[29] Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, et al. 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
Eng 2001;127(10):817–33.
[30] Liao SSC, Whitman RV. Overburden correction factor OS for SPT in sand. J Geotech
Eng 1986;112(3):373–7.
[31] Boulanger RW. High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2003;129(12):1071–82.
[32] Sancio RB, Bray JD. An assessment of the effect of rod length on SPT energy cal-
culations based on measured field data. Geotech Test J ASTM 2005;28(1):1–9.
[Paper GTJ11959].
[33] Cetin KO, Der Kiureghian A, Seed RB. Probabilistic models for the initiation of
seismic soil liquefaction. J Struct Saf 2002;24(1):67–82.
[34] Cetin KO, Bilge, HT. Stress scaling factors for seismic soil liquefaction engineering
problems: a performance-based approach. In: Proceedings of the international
709
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115 (2018) 698–709
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering from case history to practice in
honor of Prof. Kenji Ishihara, Istanbul, Turkey; 2013.
[35] Montgomery J, Boulanger RW, Harder Jr. LF. Examination of the Kσ overburden
correction factor on liquefaction resistance. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
[36] Vaid YP, Chern JC, Tumi H. Confining pressure, grain angularity and liquefaction. J
Geotech Eng ASCE 1985;111(10):1229–35.
[37] Hynes ME, Olsen RS. Influence of confining stress on liquefaction. Physics and
Mechanics of Soil Liquefaction. Balkema, Rotterdam; 1999. p. 145–51.
[38] Idriss IM. Seed memorial lecture. University of California at Berkeley; 1995.
[39] Idriss IM. An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating lique-
faction potential. (Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-165). In: Proceedings of the TRB
workshop on new approaches to liquefaction, Federal Highway Administration;
1999.
[40] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Ground motion and soil liquefaction during earthquakes.
Oakland, Calif.: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph; 1982.
[41] Cetin KO, Bilge HT. Performance-based assessment of magnitude (duration) scaling
factors. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2012;138(3):324–34.
[42] Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II. Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. In:
Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of
soils. State Univ. of New York, Buffalo; 1997. p. 89–128.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Doctor Von Blon was a suave, smooth-faced man of forty, with
small, almost feminine features and an air of unwavering amiability.
His urbanity struck me as too artificial—“professional” is perhaps the
word—and there was something of the ambitious egoist about him.
But I was far more attracted than repelled by him.
Vance watched him attentively as he spoke. He was more
anxious even than Heath, I think, to question the girl.
“It was not a particularly serious wound, then?” Markham asked.
“No, not serious,” the doctor assured him; “though it barely
missed being fatal. Had the shot gone an inch deeper it would have
torn across the lung. It was a very narrow escape.”
“As I understand it,” interposed Vance, “the bullet travelled
transversely over the left scapular region.”
Von Blon inclined his head in agreement.
“The shot was obviously aimed at the heart from the rear,” he
explained, in his soft, modulated voice. “But Ada must have turned
slightly to the right just as the revolver exploded; and the bullet,
instead of going directly into her body, ploughed along the shoulder-
blade at the level of the third dorsal vertebra, tore the capsular
ligament, and lodged in the deltoid.” He indicated the location of the
deltoid on his own left arm.
“She had,” suggested Vance, “apparently turned her back on her
assailant and attempted to run away; and he had followed her and
placed the revolver almost against her back.—Is that your
interpretation of it, doctor?”
“Yes, that would seem to be the situation. And, as I said, at the
crucial moment she veered a little, and thus saved her life.”
“Would she have fallen immediately to the floor, despite the
actual superficiality of the wound?”
“It’s not unlikely. Not only would the pain have been considerable,
but the shock must be taken into account. Ada—or, for that matter,
any woman—might have fainted at once.”
“And it’s a reasonable presumption,” pursued Vance, “that her
assailant would have taken it for granted that the shot had been
fatal.”
“We may readily assume that to be the case.”
Vance smoked a moment, his eyes averted.
 “Yes,” he agreed, “I think we may assume that.—And another
point suggests itself. Since Miss Ada was in front of the dressing-
table, a considerable distance from the bed, and since the weapon
was held practically against her, the encounter would seem to take
on the nature of a deliberate attack, rather than a haphazard shot
fired by some one in a panic.”
Von Blon looked shrewdly at Vance, and then turned a
questioning gaze upon Heath. For a moment he was silent, as if
weighing his reply, and when he spoke it was with guarded reserve.
“Of course, one might interpret the situation that way. Indeed, the
facts would seem to indicate such a conclusion. But, on the other
hand, the intruder might have been very close to Ada; and the fact
that the bullet entered her left shoulder at a particularly vital point
may have been the purest accident.”
“Quite true,” conceded Vance. “However, if the idea of
premeditation is to be abrogated, we must account for the fact that
the lights were on in the room when the butler entered immediately
after the shooting.”
Von Blon showed the keenest astonishment at this statement.
“The lights were on? That’s most remarkable!” His brow crinkled
into a perplexed frown, and he appeared to be assimilating Vance’s
information. “Still,” he argued, “that very fact may account for the
shooting. If the intruder had entered a lighted room he may have
fired at the occupant lest his description be given to the police later.”
“Oh, quite!” murmured Vance. “Anyway, let us hope we’ll learn the
explanation when we’ve seen and spoken to Miss Ada.”
“Well, why don’t we get to it?” grumbled Heath, whose ordinarily
inexhaustible store of patience had begun to run low.
“You’re so hasty, Sergeant,” Vance chided him. “Doctor Von Blon
has just told us that Miss Ada is very weak; and anything we can
learn beforehand will spare her just so many questions.”
“All I want to find out,” expostulated Heath, “is if she got a look at
the bird that shot her and can give me a description of him.”
“That being the case, Sergeant, I fear you are doomed to have
your ardent hopes dashed to the ground.”
Heath chewed viciously on his cigar; and Vance turned again to
Von Blon.
 “There’s one other question I’d like to ask, doctor. How long was
it after Miss Ada had been wounded before you examined her?”
“The butler’s already told us, Mr. Vance,” interposed Heath
impatiently. “The doctor got here in half an hour.”
“Yes, that’s about right.” Von Blon’s tone was smooth and matter-
of-fact. “I was unfortunately out on a call when Sproot phoned, but I
returned about fifteen minutes later, and hurried right over. Luckily I
live near here—in East 48th Street.”
“And was Miss Ada still unconscious when you arrived?”
“Yes. She had lost considerable blood. The cook, however, had
put a towel-compress on the wound, which of course helped.”
Vance thanked him and rose.
“And now, if you’ll be good enough to take us to your patient, we’ll
be very grateful.”
“As little excitement as possible, you understand,” admonished
Von Blon, as he got up and led the way up-stairs.
Sibella and Chester seemed undecided about accompanying us;
but as I turned into the hall I saw a look of interrogation flash
between them, and a moment later they too joined us in the upper
hall.
 CHAPTER VI.
An Accusation
(Tuesday, November 9; 4 p. m.)

Ada Greene’s room was simply, almost severely, furnished; but

there was a neatness about it, combined with little touches of
feminine decoration, that reflected the care its occupant had
bestowed upon it. To the left, near the door that led into the dressing-
room communicating with Mrs. Greene’s chamber, was a single
mahogany bed of simple design; and beyond it was the door that
opened upon the stone balcony. To the right, beside the window,
stood the dressing-table; and on the amber-colored Chinese rug
before it there showed a large irregular brown stain where the
wounded girl had lain. In the centre of the right wall was an old Tudor
fireplace with a high oak-panelled mantel.
As we entered, the girl in the bed looked at us inquisitively, and a
slight flush colored her pale cheeks. She lay on her right side, facing
the door, her bandaged shoulder supported by pillows, and her left
hand, slim and white, resting upon the blue-figured coverlet. A
remnant of her fear of the night before seemed still to linger in her
blue eyes.
Doctor Von Blon went to her and, sitting down on the edge of the
bed, placed his hand on hers. His manner was at once protective
and impersonal.
“These gentlemen want to ask you a few questions, Ada,” he
explained, with a reassuring smile; “and as you were so much
stronger this afternoon I brought them up. Do you feel equal to it?”
She nodded her head wearily, her eyes on the doctor.
 Plan of Ada’s bedroom.

Vance, who had paused by the mantel to inspect the hand-

carving of the quadræ, now turned and approached the bed.
“Sergeant,” he said, “if you don’t mind, let me talk to Miss Greene
first.”
Heath realized, I think, that the situation called for tact and
delicacy; and it was typical of the man’s fundamental bigness that he
at once stepped aside.
“Miss Greene,” said Vance, in a quiet, genial voice, drawing up a
small chair beside the bed, “we’re very anxious to clear up the
mystery about last night’s tragedy; and, as you are the only person
who is in a position to help us, we want you to recall for us, as nearly
as you can, just what happened.”
The girl took a deep breath.
“It—it was awful,” she said weakly, looking straight ahead. “After I
had gone to sleep—I don’t know just what time—something woke
me up. I can’t tell you what it was; but all of a sudden I was wide
awake, and the strangest feeling came over me. . . .” She closed her
eyes, and an involuntary shudder swept her body. “It was as though
some one were in the room, threatening me. . . .” Her voice faded
away into an awed silence.
“Was the room dark?” Vance asked gently.
“Pitch-dark.” Slowly she turned her eyes to him. “That’s why I was
so frightened. I couldn’t see anything, and I imagined there was a
ghost—or evil spirit—near me. I tried to call out, but I couldn’t make
a sound. My throat felt dry and—and stiff.”
“Typical constriction due to fright, Ada,” explained Von Blon.
“Many people can’t speak when they’re frightened.—Then what
happened?”
“I lay trembling for a few minutes, but not a sound came from
anywhere in the room. Yet I knew—I knew—somebody, or
something, that meant to harm me was here. . . . At last I forced
myself to get up—very quietly. I wanted to turn on the lights—the
darkness frightened me so. And after a while I was standing up
beside the bed here. Then, for the first time, I could see the dim light
of the windows; and it made things seem more real somehow. So I
began to grope my way toward the electric switch there by the door. I
had only gone a little way when . . . a hand . . . touched me. . . .”
Her lips were trembling, and a look of horror came into her wide-
open eyes.
“I—I was so stunned,” she struggled on, “I hardly know what I did.
Again I tried to scream, but I couldn’t even open my lips. And then I
turned and ran away from the—the thing—toward the window. I had
almost reached it when I heard some one coming after me—a queer,
shuffling sound—and I knew it was the end. . . . There was an awful
noise, and something hot struck the back of my shoulder. I was
suddenly nauseated; the light of the window disappeared, and I felt
myself sinking down—deep. . . .”
When she ceased speaking a tense silence fell on the room. Her
account, for all its simplicity, had been tremendously graphic. Like a
great actress she had managed to convey to her listeners the very
emotional essence of her story.
Vance waited several moments before speaking.
“It was a frightful experience!” he murmured sympathetically. “I
wish it wasn’t necess’ry to worry you about details, but there are
several points I’d like to go over with you.”
She smiled faintly in appreciation of his considerateness, and
waited.
“If you tried hard, do you think you could recall what wakened
you?” he asked.
“No—there wasn’t any sound that I can remember.”
“Did you leave your door unlocked last night?”
“I think so. I don’t generally lock it.”
“And you heard no door open or close—anywhere?”
“No; none. Everything in the house was perfectly still.”
“And yet you knew that some one was in the room. How was
that?” Vance’s voice, though gentle, was persistent.
“I—don’t know . . . and yet there must have been something that
told me.”
“Exactly! Now try to think.” Vance bent a little nearer to the
troubled girl. “A soft breathing, perhaps—a slight gust of air as the
person moved by your bed—a faint odor of perfume. . . ?”
She frowned painfully, as if trying to recall the elusive cause of
her dread.
“I can’t think—I can’t remember.” Her voice was scarcely audible.
“I was so terribly frightened.”
“If only we could trace the source!” Vance glanced at the doctor,
who nodded understandingly, and said:
“Obviously some association whose stimulus went
unrecognized.”
“Did you feel, Miss Greene, that you knew the person who was
here?” continued Vance. “That is to say, was it a familiar presence?”
“I don’t know exactly. I only know I was afraid of it.”
“But you heard it move toward you after you had risen and fled
toward the window. Was there any familiarity in the sound?”
“No!” For the first time she spoke with emphasis. “It was just
footsteps—soft, sliding footsteps.”
“Of course, any one might have walked that way in the dark, or a
person in bedroom slippers. . . .”
“It was only a few steps—and then came the awful noise and
burning.”
Vance waited a moment.
 “Try very hard to recall those steps—or rather your impression of
them. Would you say they were the steps of a man or a woman?”
An added pallor overspread the girl’s face; and her frightened
eyes ran over all the occupants of the room. Her breathing, I noticed,
had quickened; and twice she parted her lips as if to speak, but
checked herself each time. At last she said in a low tremulous voice:
“I don’t know—I haven’t the slightest idea.”
A short, high-strung laugh, bitter and sneering, burst from Sibella;
and all eyes were turned in amazed attention in her direction. She
stood rigidly at the foot of the bed, her face flushed, her hands tightly
clinched at her side.
“Why don’t you tell them you recognized my footsteps?” she
demanded of her sister in biting tones. “You had every intention of
doing so. Haven’t you got courage enough left to lie—you sobbing
little cat?”
Ada caught her breath and seemed to draw herself nearer to the
doctor, who gave Sibella a stern, admonitory look.
“Oh, I say, Sib! Hold your tongue.” It was Chester who broke the
startled silence that followed the outbreak.
Sibella shrugged her shoulders and walked to the window; and
Vance again turned his attention to the girl on the bed, continuing his
questioning as if nothing had happened.
“There’s one more point, Miss Greene.” His tone was even
gentler than before. “When you groped your way across the room
toward the switch, at what point did you come in contact with the
unseen person?”
“About half-way to the door—just beyond that centre-table.”
“You say a hand touched you. But how did it touch you? Did it
shove you, or try to take hold of you?”
She shook her head vaguely.
“Not exactly. I don’t know how to explain it, but I seemed to walk
into the hand, as though it were outstretched—reaching for me.”
“Would you say it was a large hand or a small one? Did you, for
instance, get the impression of strength?”
There was another silence. Again the girl’s respiration quickened,
and she cast a frightened glance at Sibella, who stood staring out
into the black, swinging branches of the trees in the side yard.
 “I don’t know—oh, I don’t know!” Her words were like a stifled cry
of anguish. “I didn’t notice. It was all so sudden—so horrible.”
“But try to think,” urged Vance’s low, insistent voice. “Surely you
got some impression. Was it a man’s hand, or a woman’s?”
Sibella now came swiftly to the bed, her cheeks very pale, her
eyes blazing. For a moment she glared at the stricken girl; then she
turned resolutely to Vance.
“You asked me down-stairs if I had any idea as to who might
have done the shooting. I didn’t answer you then, but I’ll answer you
now. I’ll tell you who’s guilty!” She jerked her head toward the bed,
and pointed a quivering finger at the still figure lying there. “There’s
the guilty one—that snivelling little outsider, that sweet angelic little
snake in the grass!”
So incredible, so unexpected, was this accusation that for a time
no one in the room spoke. A groan burst from Ada’s lips, and she
clutched at the doctor’s hand with a spasmodic movement of
despair.
“Oh, Sibella—how could you!” she breathed.
Von Blon had stiffened, and an angry light came into his eyes.
But before he could speak Sibella was rushing on with her illogical,
astounding indictment.
“Oh, she’s the one who did it! And she’s deceiving you just as
she’s always tried to deceive the rest of us. She hates us—she’s
hated us ever since father brought her into this house. She resents
us—the things we have, the very blood in our veins. Heaven knows
what blood’s in hers. She hates us because she isn’t our equal.
She’d gladly see us all murdered. She killed Julia first, because Julia
ran the house and saw to it that she did something to earn her
livelihood. She despises us; and she planned to get rid of us.”
The girl on the bed looked piteously from one to the other of us.
There was no resentment in her eyes; she appeared stunned and
unbelieving, as if she doubted the reality of what she had heard.
“Most interestin’,” drawled Vance. It was his ironic tone, more
than the words themselves, that focussed all eyes on him. He had
been watching Sibella during her tirade, and his gaze was still on
her.
 “You seriously accuse your sister of doing the shooting?” He
spoke now in a pleasant, almost friendly, voice.
“I do!” she declared brazenly. “She hates us all.”
“As far as that goes,” smiled Vance, “I haven’t noticed a
superabundance of love and affection in any of the Greene family.”
His tone was without offense. “And do you base your accusation on
anything specific, Miss Greene?”
“Isn’t it specific enough that she wants us all out of the way, that
she thinks she would have everything—ease, luxury, freedom—if
there wasn’t any one else to inherit the Greene money?”
“Hardly specific enough to warrant a direct accusation of so
heinous a character.—And by the by, Miss Greene, just how would
you explain the method of the crime if called as a witness in a court
of law? You couldn’t altogether ignore the fact that Miss Ada herself
was shot in the back, don’t y’ know?”
For the first time the sheer impossibility of the accusation seemed
to strike Sibella. She became sullen; and her mouth settled into a
contour of angry bafflement.
“As I told you once before, I’m not a policewoman,” she retorted.
“Crime isn’t my specialty.”
“Nor logic either apparently.” A whimsical note crept into Vance’s
voice. “But perhaps I misinterpret your accusation. Did you mean to
imply that Miss Ada shot your sister Julia, and that some one else—
party or parties unknown, I believe the phrase is—shot Miss Ada
immediately afterward—in a spirit of vengeance, perhaps? A crime à
quatre mains, so to speak?”
Sibella’s confusion was obvious, but her stubborn wrath had in no
wise abated.
“Well, if that was the way it happened,” she countered
malevolently, “it’s a rotten shame they didn’t do the job better.”
“The blunder may at least prove unfortunate for somebody,”
suggested Vance pointedly. “Still, I hardly think we can seriously
entertain the double-culprit theory. Both of your sisters, d’ ye see,
were shot with the same gun—a .32 revolver—within a few minutes
of each other. I’m afraid that we’ll have to be content with one guilty
person.”
Sibella’s manner suddenly became sly and calculating.
 “What kind of a gun was yours, Chet?” she asked her brother.
“Oh, it was a .32, all right—an old Smith & Wesson revolver.”
Chester was painfully ill at ease.
“Was it, indeed? Well, that’s that.” She turned her back on us and
went again to the window.
The tension in the room slackened, and Von Blon leaned
solicitously over the wounded girl and rearranged the pillows.
“Every one’s upset, Ada,” he said soothingly. “You mustn’t worry
about what’s happened. Sibella’ll be sorry to-morrow and make
amends. This affair has got on everybody’s nerves.”
The girl gave him a grateful glance, and seemed to relax under
his ministrations.
After a moment he straightened up and looked at Markham.
“I hope you gentlemen are through—for to-day, at least.”
Both Vance and Markham had risen, and Heath and I had
followed suit; but at that moment Sibella strode toward us again.
“Wait!” she commanded imperiously. “I’ve just thought of
something. Chet’s revolver! I know where it went.—She took it.”
Again she pointed accusingly at Ada. “I saw her in Chet’s room the
other day, and I wondered then why she was snooping about there.”
She gave Vance a triumphant leer. “That’s specific, isn’t it?”
“What day was this, Miss Greene?” As before, his calmness
seemed to counteract the effect of her venom.
“What day? I don’t remember exactly. Last week some time.”
“The day you were looking for your emerald pin, perhaps?”
Sibella hesitated; then said angrily: “I don’t recall. Why should I
remember the exact time? All I know is that, as I was passing down
the hall, I glanced into Chet’s room—the door was half open—and I
saw her in there . . . by the desk.”
“And was it so unusual to see Miss Ada in your brother’s room?”
Vance spoke without any particular interest.
“She never goes into any of our rooms,” declared Sibella. “Except
Rex’s, sometimes. Julia told her long ago to keep out of them.”
Ada gave her sister a look of infinite entreaty.
“Oh, Sibella,” she moaned; “what have I ever done to make you
dislike me so?”
 “What have you done!” The other’s voice was harsh and strident,
and a look almost demoniacal smouldered in her levelled eyes.
“Everything! Nothing! Oh, you’re clever—with your quiet, sneaky
ways, and your patient, hangdog look, and your goody-goody
manner. But you don’t pull the wool over my eyes. You’ve been
hating all of us ever since you came here. And you’ve been waiting
for the chance to kill us, planning and scheming—you vile little——”
“Sibella!” It was Von Blon’s voice that, like the lash of a whip, cut
in on this unreasoned tirade. “That will be enough!” He moved
forward, and glanced menacingly into the girl’s eyes. I was almost as
astonished at his attitude as I had been at her wild words. There was
a curious intimacy in his manner—an implication of familiarity which
struck me as unusual even for a family physician of his long and
friendly standing. Vance noticed it too, for his eyebrows went up
slightly and he watched the scene with intense interest.
“You’ve become hysterical,” Von Blon said, without lowering his
minatory gaze. “You don’t realize what you’ve been saying.”
I felt he would have expressed himself far more forcibly if
strangers had not been present. But his words had their effect.
Sibella dropped her eyes, and a sudden change came over her. She
covered her face with her hands, and her whole body shook with
sobs.
“I’m—sorry. I was mad—and silly—to say such things.”
“You’d better take Sibella to her room, Chester.” Von Blon had
resumed his professional tone. “This business has been too much
for her.”
The girl turned without another word and went out, followed by
Chester.
“These modern women—all nerves,” Von Blon commented
laconically. Then he placed his hand on Ada’s forehead. “Now, young
lady, I’m going to give you something to make you sleep after all this
excitement.”
He had scarcely opened his medicine-case to prepare the
draught when a shrill, complaining voice drifted clearly to us from the
next room; and for the first time I noticed that the door of the little
dressing-room which communicated with Mrs. Greene’s quarters
was slightly ajar.
 “What’s all the trouble now? Hasn’t there been enough
disturbance already without these noisy scenes in my very ear? But
it doesn’t matter, of course, how much I suffer. . . . Nurse! Shut those
doors into Ada’s room. You had no business to leave them open
when you knew I was trying to get a little rest. You did it on purpose
to annoy me. . . . And nurse! Tell the doctor I must see him before he
goes. I have those stabbing pains in my spine again. But who thinks
about me, lying here paralyzed——?”
The doors were closed softly, and the fretful voice was cut off
from us.
“She could have had the doors closed a long time ago if she’d
really wanted them closed,” said Ada wearily, a look of distress on
her drawn white face. “Why, Doctor Von, does she always pretend
that every one deliberately makes her suffer?”
Von Blon sighed. “I’ve told you, Ada, that you mustn’t take your
mother’s tantrums too seriously. Her irritability and complaining are
part of her disease.”
We bade the girl good-by, and the doctor walked with us into the
hall.
“I’m afraid you didn’t learn much,” he remarked, almost
apologetically. “It’s most unfortunate Ada didn’t get a look at her
assailant.” He addressed himself to Heath. “Did you, by the way, look
in the dining-room wall-safe to make sure nothing was missing? You
know, there’s one there behind the big niello over the mantel.”
“One of the first places we inspected.” The Sergeant’s voice was
a bit disdainful. “And that reminds me, doc: I want to send a man up
in the morning to look for finger-prints in Miss Ada’s room.”
Von Blon agreed amiably, and held out his hand to Markham.
“And if there’s any way I can be of service to you or the police,”
he added pleasantly, “please call on me. I’ll be only too glad to help. I
don’t see just what I can do, but one never knows.”
Markham thanked him, and we descended to the lower hall.
Sproot was waiting to help us with our coats, and a moment later we
were in the District Attorney’s car ploughing our way through the
snow-drifts.
 CHAPTER VII.
Vance Argues the Case
(Tuesday, November 9; 5 p. m.)

It was nearly five o’clock when we reached the Criminal Courts

Building. Swacker had lit the old bronze-and-china chandelier of
Markham’s private office, and an atmosphere of eerie gloom
pervaded the room.
“Not a nice family, Markham old dear,” sighed Vance, lying back
in one of the deep leather-upholstered chairs. “Decidedly not a nice
family. A family run to seed, its old vigor vitiated. If the heredit’ry
sires of the contempor’ry Greenes could rise from their sepulchres
and look in upon their present progeny, my word! what a jolly good
shock they’d have! . . . Funny thing how these old families
degenerate under the environment of ease and idleness. There are
the Wittelsbachs, and the Romanoffs, and the Julian-Claudian
house, and the Abbassid dynasty—all examples of phyletic
disintegration. . . . And it’s the same with nations, don’t y’ know.
Luxury and unrestrained indulgence are corruptin’ influences. Look
at Rome under the soldier emperors, and Assyria under
Sardanapalus, and Egypt under the later Ramessids, and the Vandal
African empire under Gelimer. It’s very distressin’.”
“Your erudite observations might be highly absorbing to the social
historian,” grumbled Markham, with an undisguised show of
irritability; “but I can’t say they’re particularly edifying, or even
relevant, in the present circumstances.”
“I wouldn’t be too positive on that point,” Vance returned easily.
“In fact, I submit, for your earnest and profound consideration, the
temperaments and internal relationships of the Greene clan, as
pointers upon the dark road of the present investigation. . . . Really,
y’ know”—he assumed a humorsome tone—“it’s most unfortunate
that you and the Sergeant are so obsessed with the idea of social
justice and that sort of thing; for society would be much better off if
such families as the Greenes were exterminated. Still, it’s a
fascinatin’ problem—most fascinatin’.”
“I regret I can’t share your enthusiasm for it.” Markham spoke
with asperity. “The crime strikes me as sordid and commonplace.
And if it hadn’t been for your interference I’d have sent Chester
Greene on his way this morning with some tactful platitudes. But you
had to intercede, with your cryptic innuendoes and mysterious head-
waggings; and I foolishly let myself be drawn into it. Well, I trust you
had an enjoyable afternoon. As for myself, I have three hours’
accumulated work before me.”
His complaint was an obvious suggestion that we take ourselves
off; but Vance showed no intention of going.
“Oh, I sha’n’t depart just yet,” he announced, with a bantering
smile. “I couldn’t bring myself to leave you in your present state of
grievous error. You need guidance, Markham; and I’ve quite made
up my mind to pour out my flutterin’ heart to you and the Sergeant.”
Markham frowned. He understood Vance so well that he knew
the other’s levity was only superficial—that, indeed, it cloaked some
particularly serious purpose. And the experience of a long, intimate
friendship had taught him that Vance’s actions—however
unreasonable they might appear—were never the result of an idle
whim.
“Very well,” he acquiesced. “But I’d be grateful for an economy of
words.”
Vance sighed mournfully.
“Your attitude is so typical of the spirit of breathless speed
existing in this restless day.” He fixed an inquisitive gaze on Heath.
“Tell me, Sergeant: you saw the body of Julia Greene, didn’t you?”
“Sure, I saw it.”
“Was her position in the bed a natural one?”
“How do I know how she generally laid in bed?” Heath was
restive and in bad humor. “She was half sitting up, with a coupla
pillows under her shoulders, and the covers pulled up.”
“Nothing unusual about her attitude?”
 “Not that I could see. There hadn’t been a struggle, if that’s what
you mean.”
“And her hands: were they outside or under the covers?”
Heath looked up, mildly astonished.
“They were outside. And, now that you mention it, they had a
tight hold on the spread.”
“Clutching it, in fact?”
“Well, yes.”
Vance leaned forward quickly.
“And her face, Sergeant? Had she been shot in her sleep?”
“It didn’t look that way. Her eyes were wide open, staring straight
ahead.”
“Her eyes were open and staring,” repeated Vance, a note of
eagerness coming into his voice. “What would you say her
expression indicated? Fear? Horror? Surprise?”
Heath regarded Vance shrewdly. “Well, it mighta been any one of
’em. Her mouth was open, like as if she was surprised at something.”
“And she was clutching the spread with both hands.” Vance’s look
drifted into space. Then slowly he rose and walked the length of the
office and back, his head down. He halted in front of the District
Attorney’s desk, and leaned over, resting both hands on the back of
a chair.
“Listen, Markham. There’s something terrible and unthinkable
going on in that house. No haphazard unknown assassin came in by
the front door last night and shot down those two women. The crime
was planned—thought out. Some one lay in wait—some one who
knew his way about, knew where the light-switches were, knew
when every one was asleep, knew when the servants had retired—
knew just when and how to strike the blow. Some deep, awful motive
lies behind that crime. There are depths beneath depths in what
happened last night—obscure fetid chambers of the human soul.
Black hatreds, unnatural desires, hideous impulses, obscene
ambitions are at the bottom of it; and you are only playing into the
murderer’s hands when you sit back and refuse to see its
significance.”
His voice had a curious hushed quality, and it was difficult to
believe that this was the habitually debonair and cynical Vance.
 “That house is polluted, Markham. It’s crumbling in decay—not
material decay, perhaps, but a putrefaction far more terrible. The
very heart and essence of that old house is rotting away. And all the
inmates are rotting with it, disintegrating in spirit and mind and
character. They’ve been polluted by the very atmosphere they’ve
created. This crime, which you take so lightly, was inevitable in such
a setting. I only wonder it was not more terrible, more vile. It marked
one of the tertiary stages of the general dissolution of that abnormal
establishment.”
He paused, and extended his hand in a hopeless gesture.
“Think of the situation. That old, lonely, spacious house, exuding
the musty atmosphere of dead generations, faded inside and out,
run down, dingy, filled with ghosts of another day, standing there in
its ill-kept grounds, lapped by the dirty waters of the river. . . . And
then think of those six ill-sorted, restless, unhealthy beings
compelled to live there in daily contact for a quarter of a century—
such was old Tobias Greene’s perverted idealism. And they’ve lived
there, day in and day out, in that mouldy miasma of antiquity—unfit
to meet the conditions of any alternative, too weak or too cowardly to
strike out alone; held by an undermining security and a corrupting
ease; growing to hate the very sight of one another, becoming bitter,
spiteful, jealous, vicious; wearing down each other’s nerves to the
raw; consumed with resentment, aflame with hate, thinking evil—
complaining, fighting, snarling. . . . Then, at last, the breaking-point—
the logical, ineluctable figuration of all this self-feeding, ingrowing
hatred.”
“All of that is easy to understand,” agreed Markham. “But, after
all, your conclusion is wholly theoretic, not to say literary.—By what
tangible links do you connect last night’s shooting with the admittedly
abnormal situation at the Greene mansion?”
“There are no tangible links—that’s the horror of it. But the
joinders are there, however shadowy. I began to sense them the
minute I entered the house; and all this afternoon I was reaching for
them blindly. But they eluded me at every turn. It was like a house of
mazes and false passages and trapdoors and reeking oubliettes:
nothing normal, nothing sane—a house in a nightmare, peopled by
strange, abnormal creatures, each reflecting the subtle, monstrous
horror that broke forth last night and went prowling about the old
hallways. Didn’t you sense it? Didn’t you see the vague shape of this
abomination continually flash out and disappear as we talked to
these people and watched them battling against their own hideous
thoughts and suspicions?”
Markham moved uneasily and straightened a pile of papers
before him. Vance’s unwonted gravity had affected him.
“I understand perfectly what you mean,” he said. “But I don’t see
that your impressions bring us any nearer to a new theory of the
crime. The Greene mansion is unhealthy—that’s granted—and so,
no doubt, are the people in it. But I’m afraid you’ve been
oversusceptible to its atmosphere. You talk as if last night’s crime
were comparable to the poisoning orgies of the Borgias, or the
Marquise de Brinvilliers affair, or the murder of Drusus and
Germanicus, or the suffocation of the York princes in the Tower. I’ll
admit the setting is consonant with that sort of stealthy, romantic
crime; but, after all, housebreakers and bandits are shooting people
senselessly every week throughout the country, in very much the
same way the two Greene women were shot.”
“You’re shutting your eyes to the facts, Markham,” Vance
declared earnestly. “You’re overlooking several strange features of
last night’s crime—the horrified, astounded attitude of Julia at the
moment of death; the illogical interval between the two shots; the
fact that the lights were on in both rooms; Ada’s story of that hand
reaching for her; the absence of any signs of a forced entry——”
“What about those footprints in the snow?” interrupted Heath’s
matter-of-fact voice.
“What about them, indeed?” Vance wheeled about. “They’re as
incomprehensible as the rest of this hideous business. Some one
walked to and from the house within a half-hour of the crime; but it
was some one who knew he could get in quietly and without
disturbing any one.”
“There’s nothing mysterious about that,” asserted the practical
Sergeant. “There are four servants in the house, and any one of ’em
could’ve been in on the job.”
Vance smiled ironically.
 “And this accomplice in the house, who so generously opened
the front door at a specified hour, failed to inform the intruder where
the loot was, and omitted to acquaint him with the arrangement of
the house; with the result that, once he was inside, he went astray,
overlooked the dining-room, wandered up-stairs, went groping about
the hall, got lost in the various bedrooms, had a seizure of panic,
shot two women, turned on the lights by switches hidden behind the
furniture, made his way down-stairs without a sound when Sproot
was within a few feet of him, and walked out the front door to
freedom! . . . A strange burglar, Sergeant. And an even stranger
inside accomplice.—No; your explanation won’t do—decidedly it
won’t do.” He turned back to Markham. “And the only way you’ll ever
find the true explanation for those shootings is by understanding the
unnatural situation that exists in the house itself.”
“But we know the situation, Vance,” Markham argued patiently.
“I’ll admit it’s an unusual one. But it’s not necessarily criminal.
Antagonistic human elements are often thrown together; and a
mutual hate is generated as a result. But mere hate is rarely a
motive for murder; and it certainly does not constitute evidence of
criminal activity.”
“Perhaps not. But hatred and enforced propinquity may breed all
manner of abnormalities—outrageous passions, abominable evils,
devilish intrigues. And in the present case there are any number of
curious and sinister facts that need explaining——”
“Ah! Now you’re becoming more tangible. Just what are these
facts that call for explanation?”
Vance lit a cigarette and sat down on the edge of the table.
“For instance, why did Chester Greene come here in the first
place and solicit your help? Because of the disappearance of the
gun? Maybe; but I doubt if it is the whole explanation. And what
about the gun itself? Did it disappear? Or did Chester secrete it?
Deuced queer about that gun. And Sibella said she saw it last week.
But did she see it? We’ll know a lot more about the case when we
can trace the peregrinations of that revolver.—And why did Chester
hear the first shot so readily, when Rex, in the next room to Ada’s,
says he failed to hear the second shot?—And that long interval
between the two reports will need some explaining.—And there’s
Sproot—the multilingual butler who happened to be reading Martial
—Martial, by all that’s holy!—when the grim business took place, and
came directly to the scene without meeting or hearing any one.—
And just what significance attaches to the pious Hemming’s oracular
pronouncements about the Lord of hosts smiting the Greenes as he
did the children of Babylon? She has some obscure religious notion
in her head—which, after all, may not be so obscure.—And the
German cook: there’s a woman with, as we euphemistically say, a
past. Despite her phlegmatic appearance, she’s not of the servant
class; yet she’s been feeding the Greenes dutifully for over a dozen
years. You recall her explanation of how she came to the Greenes?
Her husband was a friend of old Tobias’s; and Tobias gave orders
she was to remain as cook as long as she desired. She needs
explaining, Markham—and a dashed lot of it.—And Rex, with his
projecting parietals and his wambly body and his periodic fits. Why
did he get so excited when we questioned him? He certainly didn’t
act like an innocent and uncomprehending spectator of an attempted
burglary.—And again I mention the lights. Who turned them on, and
why? And in both rooms! In Julia’s room before the shot was fired,
for she evidently saw the assassin and understood his purpose; and
in Ada’s room, after the shooting! Those are facts which fairly shriek
for explanation; for without an explanation they’re mad, irrational,
utterly incredible.—And why wasn’t Von Blon at home in the middle
of the night when Sproot phoned him? And how did it happen he
nevertheless arrived so promptly? Coincidence? . . . And, by the by,
Sergeant: was that double set of footprints like the single spoor of
the doctor’s?”
“There wasn’t any way of telling. The snow was too flaky.”
“It probably doesn’t matter particularly, anyhow.” Vance again
faced Markham and resumed his recapitulation. “And then there are
the points of difference in these two attacks. Julia was shot from the
front when she was in bed, whereas Ada was shot in the back after
she had risen from bed, although the murderer had ample time to go
to her and take aim while she was still lying down. Why did he wait
silently until the girl got up and approached him? How did he dare
wait at all after he had killed Julia and alarmed the house? Does that
strike you as panic? Or as cool-headedness?—And how did Julia’s