Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sabih Ahmad
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India,
M.Z. Khan
Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department, I.E.T. Sitapur Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India
ABSTRACT
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most widely used in-situ test throughout the world for subsurface
geotechnical investigation and this procedure have evolved over a period of 100 years. Estimation of the
liquefaction potential of soils is often based on SPT test. Liquefaction is one of the critical problems in the field of
Geotechnical engineering. It is the phenomena when there is loss of shear strength in saturated and cohesion-less
soils because of increased pore water pressures and hence reduced effective stresses due to dynamic loading. In the
present study, SPT based data were analysed to find out a suitable numerical procedure for establishing a MultiLinear Regression Model using IBM-Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics v20.0.0) and
MATLAB(R2010a) in analysis of soil liquefaction for a particular location at a site in Lucknow City. A MultiStoreyed Residential Building Project site was considered for this study to collect 12 borehole datasets along 10 km
stretch of IIM road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (India). The 12 borehole datasets includes 06 borehole data up to 22m
depth and other 06 borehole data up to 30m depth to further analyse the behavior of different soil properties and
validity of the established Multi-Linear Regression Model. Disturbed soil sample were collected upto 22m and 30m
depth in every1.5m interval to determine various soil parameters. In recent years, various researchers have
expressed the need for location based specific study of seismic soil properties and analysis of Liquefaction in Soils.
Keywords: Liquefaction, Multi-Linear Regression Modeling, MATLAB, SPSS, SPT, CSR, CRR.
Cite this Article: Abdullah Anwar, Sabih Ahmad, Yusuf Jamal and M.Z. Khan, Assessment of Liquefaction
Potential of Soil Using Multi-Linear Regression Modeling, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 7(1), 2016, pp. 373-415.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=1
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
373
editor@iaeme.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Liquefaction had been studied extensively by researchers all around the world right after two main
significant earthquakes in 1964. Since than a number of terminologies, conceptual understanding, procedures and
liquefaction analysis methods have been proposed. A well-known example is the 1964 Niigata (Japan) and 1964
Great Alaskan Earthquake in which large scale soil liquefaction occurred, causing wide spread damage to building
structures and underground facilities [1]. Development of liquefaction evaluation started when Seed and Idriss
(1971) [2] published a methodology based on empirical work termed as simplified procedure. It is a globally
recognized standard which has been modified and improved through Seed (1979) [3], Seed and Idriss (1982) [4],
Seed et al. (1985)[5] ,National Research Council (1985) [6], Youd and Idriss(1997) [7], Youd et al. (2001) [8]; Idriss
and Boulanger(2006) [9]. Liquefaction of loose, cohesionless, saturated soil deposit is a subject of intensive
research in the field of Geo-technical engineering over the past 40 years. The evaluation of soil liquefaction
phenomena and related ground failures associated with earthquake are one of the important aspects in geotechnical
engineering practice. It will not only cause the failure on superstructure, but also the substructure instability and both
lead to catastrophic impact and severe casualties. For urban cities with alarmingly high population, it becomes
necessary to develop infrastructural facilities with several high rise constructions. It is one of the primary challenge
for Civil Engineers to provide safe and economical design for structures, particularly in earthquake prone areas. The
in situ data are used to estimate the potential for triggering or initiation of seismically induced liquefaction. In the
context of the analyses of in situ data, the assessment of liquefaction potential are broadly classied as:
1.
Deterministic (Seed and Idriss 1971; Iwasaki et al. 1978; Seed et al. 1983; Robertson and Campanella 1985;
Seed and De Alba 1986; Shibata and Teparaksa 1988; Goh 1994; Stark and Olson 1995; Robertson and
Wride 1998; Juang et al. 2000, 2003; Idriss and Boulanger 2006) [10-21]
2.
Probabilistic (Liao et al. 1988; Toprak et al. 1999; Juang et al. 2002; Goh 2002; Cetin et al. 2002, 2004; Lee
et al. 2003; Sonmez 2003; Lai et al. 2004; Sonmez and Gokceoglu 2005) [22-30]
The deterministic method provides a yes/no response to the question of whether or not a soil layer at a
specic location will liquefy. However, performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) requires an estimate of
the probability of liquefaction (PL) rather than a deterministic (yes/no) estimate (Juang et al. 2008) [31]. Probability
of Liquefaction (PL) is a quantitative and continuous measure of the severity of liquefaction. Probabilistic methods
were rst introduced to liquefaction modeling in the late 1980s by Liao et al. (1988) [22]. In recent years, innovative
computing techniques such as articial intelligence and machine learning have gained popularity in geotechnical
engineering. For example, Goh (1994) [16] and Goh (2002) [25] introduced the articial neural networks for
liquefaction potential, Cetin et al. (2004) [27] and Moss et al. (2006) [32] applied the Bayesian updating method
for probabilistic assessment of liquefaction, and Hashash (2007)[33] used the genetic algorithms for geomechanics.
An important advantage of articial intelligence techniques is that the nonlinear behavior of multivariate dynamic
systems is computed efciently with no a priori assumptions regarding the distribution of the data.
Various researchers, like Raghukanth and Iyengar [34], Rao and Satyam [35], Sitharam and Anbazhagan [36],
Hanumanthrao and Ramana [37], Maheswari et al. [38], Shukla and Choudhury [39] and few others showed the
need for location based study for seismic soil properties and analysis of Liquefaction in Soils. In view of the above,
for the present study, a site of Lucknow city is chosen for assessment of liquefaction in soil. As per Indian Seismic
Design Code (CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES) IS 1893 (Part 1):
2002 [40], Lucknow city is located in Seismic Zone III, and a moderate intensity (5.5 to 6.5) Earthquake may occur
which may lead to liquefaction of some typical soil sites. Liquefaction occurs due to rapid loading during seismic
events where there is not sufcient time for dissipation of excess pore-water pressures by natural drainage. Rapid
loading situation increases pore-water pressures resulting in cyclic softening in ne-grained materials. The increased
pore water pressure transforms granular materials from a solid to a liqueed state thus shear strength and stiffness of
the soil deposit are reduced. Liquefaction is observed in loose, saturated, and clean to silty sands. The soil
liquefaction depends on the magnitude of earthquake, peak ground acceleration, intensity and duration of ground
motion, the distance from the source of the earthquake, type of soil and thickness of the soil deposit, relative density,
grain size distribution, nes content, plasticity of nes, degree of saturation, conning pressure, hydraulic
conductivity of soil layer, position and uctuations of the groundwater table, reduction of effective stress, and shear
modulus degradation [41]. Liquefaction-induced ground failure is inuenced by the thickness of non-liqueed and
liqueed soil layers. Measures to mitigate the damages caused by liquefaction require accurate evaluation of
liquefaction potential of soils. The potential for liquefaction to occur at certain depth at a site is quantied in terms
of the factors of safety against liquefaction (FS). Seed and Idriss (1971) [10] proposed a simplied procedure to
evaluate the liquefaction resistance of soils in terms of factors of safety (FS) by taking the ratio of capacity of a soil
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
374
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
375
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
376
editor@iaeme.com
SITE LOCATION
3. IN-SITU TEST
3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
In this study, we use the data obtained by Standard Penetration Test. Estimation of the liquefaction potential of
saturated granular soils for earthquake design is often based on SPT tests. The test consists of driving a standard
50mm outside diameter thick walled sampler into soil at the bottom of a borehole, using repeated blows of a 63.5kg
hammer falling through 760 mm. The SPT N value is the number of blows required to achieve a penetration of 300
mm, after an initial seating drive of 150 mm. Correlations relating SPT blow counts for silts & clays and for Sands
& Gravels, from Peck et al. (1953) [43] is depicted in Table 1. The SPT procedure and its simple correlations
quickly became soil classication standards. stimated values of Soil friction and cohesion based on uncorrected
SPT blow counts from Karol (1960) [44] are presented in Table 2.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
377
editor@iaeme.com
S. No.
Blows/Ft (NSPT)
Sands and
Gravels
Blows/Ft
(NSPT)
Silts and
Clay
0-4
Very Loose
0-2
Very
Soft
4-10
Loose
2-4
Soft
10-30
Medium
4-8
Firm
30-50
Dense
8-16
Stiff
Over 50
Very Dense
16-32
Very
Stiff
6.
Over 32
Hard
S. No.
Table 1 Correlations relating SPT blow counts for silts & clays and for Sands & Gravels, from Peck et al. (1953)
11.
12.
Cohesive Soil
Cohesi
onless
Soil
8.
9.
10.
Interme
diate
Soil
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Soil Type
SPT Blow
Counts
Undisturbed Soil
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Loose
<2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
<10
Cohesion
(psf)
250
250-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-4000
>4000
0
Friction
Angle ()
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
Medium
Dense
Loose
10-30
>30
<10
0
0
0
28-30
32
28
Medium
10-30
28-30
Dense
>30
32
Table 2 Estimated values of Soil friction and cohesion based on uncorrected SPT blow counts, from Karol
(1960)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
378
editor@iaeme.com
Equipment Variables
Term
Corrections
Overburden Pressure
CN
(Pa/'vo)0.5 (but CN 2)
Energy Ratio
Borehole Diameter
Rod Length
Sampling Method
Donut Hammer
Safety Hammer
Automatic Hammer
65-115mm
150mm
200mm
3-4m
4-6m
6-10m
10-30m
>30m
Standard Sampler
Sampler without liners
CE
CB
CR
CS
0.5-1.0
0.7-1.2
0.8-1.5
1.0
1.05
1.15
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.1-1.3
Table 3 Recommended Corrections for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count values, taken from Robertson
and Wride (1997), as modified from Skempton (1986)
(Source: Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test by J. DAVID
ROGERS, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XII, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 161179 )
4. METHODOLOGY
In the present research, SPT based datasets on different soil parameters were analysed to find out suitable numerical
procedure for establishing a Multi-Linear Regression Model using MATLAB(R2010a) and IBM- Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics v20.0.0) in analysis of soil liquefaction at a particular location of a site
in Lucknow City. A Multi-Storeyed Residential Building Project site was considered for this study to collect 12
borehole datasets along 10 km stretch of IIM road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (India). The 12 borehole datasets
includes 06 borehole data up to 22m depth and other 06 borehole data up to 30m depth to further analyse the
behavior of different soil properties and validity of the established Multi-Linear Regression Model. Disturbed soil
sample were collected up to 22m and 30m depth in every1.5m interval to determine various soil parameters. The
different soil parameters includes particle size analysis, grain size distribution, water content, Atterbergs limit, bulk
density, dry density, specific gravity, void ratio, shear strength parameters and uniformity coefficient etc. Excel
Spreadsheets (v 2007) was used to input of over 200 data for the above said different soil parameters including the
SPT-N values and Ground Water Table at different locations on the site. The soil at the site were found to be alluvial
deposits. By using all these data- a Multi Linear Regression Model in terms of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) was
developed in SPSS, a predictive statistical analysis software (to make smarter decisions, solve problems and
improve the outcomes). After developing the CRR model, it was tested on the available site data and the results were
examined in MATLAB (v R2010a), a high-level language and interactive environment for numerical computation,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
379
editor@iaeme.com
0.65 is a weighing factor to calculate the equivalent uniform stress cycles required to generate same pore water
pressure during an earthquake; amax is the maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground surface; vo and 'vo are
total vertical overburden stress and effective vertical overburden stress, respectively, at a given depth below the
ground surface; rd is depth-dependent stress reduction factor; MSF is the magnitude scaling factor and K is the
overburden correction factor.
Stress reduction coefficient (rd) is expressed as a function of depth (z) and earthquake magnitude (M):
Idriss (1999) [50] re-evaluated the MSF relation which is given by:
where; M is the Magnitude of the earthquake . The MSF should be less than equal to 1.8, i.e. MSF 1.8
Boulanger and Idriss (2004) [51] found that overburden stress effects on the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). The
recommended K curves are expressed as follows:
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
380
editor@iaeme.com
Subsequent expressions describe the way parameters in the above equation are calculated as:
where,
(N1)60 is the correction for fines content in percent (FC) present in the soil and is expressed as:
(N1)60 is the overburden stress corrected blow count; N60 is the SPT N value after correction to an equivalent 60%
hammer efficiency (because the original SPT (Mohr) hammer has about 60% efficiency, and this is the standard to
which other blowcount values are compared) and CN is the Overburden Correction Factor for Penetration resistance.
If the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) caused by an earthquake is greater than the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) of the
in-situ soil, then liquefaction could occur during the earthquake and vice-versa. Liquefaction is predicted to occur
when FS 1.0, and liquefaction predicted not to occur when FS > 1. The higher the factor of safety, the more
resistant against liquefaction [52]. Both CSR and CRR vary with depth, and therefore the liquefaction potential is
evaluated at corresponding depths within the soil prole.
C N- Correction factor obtained directly from the graph given in Indian Standard Code (IS: 2131-1981) [53]. (Fig.4)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
381
editor@iaeme.com
7. MATLAB ANALYSIS
The present study was aimed to examine the reliability of CRR model, developed in SPSS environment, by
computing, visualizing and comparing its results to the calculated value of CRR(based on Boulanger & Idriss) of the
soil at varying depth. MATLAB is a high-level language and interactive environment for numerical computation,
visualization, and pro-gramming. MATLAB is used to analyze data, develop algorithms, and create models and
applications. The language, tools and built-in math functions enable to explore multiple approaches and reach a
solution faster than with traditional programming languages, such as C/C++ or Java. (Anon., 1994-2015) [56].
MATLAB was used to provide with a convenient environment for performing many types of calculations and
implementation of numerical methods. The results obtained from modeled CRR (computed in MATLAB) is then
compared and analysed with the calculated value of CRR (based on Boulanger & Idriss). Further, modeled factor of
safety against liquefaction (FSLiqMod) is calculated and its compared to the computed value of factor of safety against
liquefaction (FSLiq) (based on Boulanger & Idriss) to study the reliability of model in the assessment of soil
liquefaction.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
382
editor@iaeme.com
BH-1
BH-2
BH-3
BH-4
BH-5
BH-6
BH-7
BH-8
BH-9
BH-10
BH-11
BH-12
4.100
4.600
4.600
4.750
4.670
4.350
4.100
4.600
4.600
4.750
4.700
4.670
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Soil Description
Poorly graded sand
Silty sand
Very fine sand
Silty clay with low plasticity
Sandy clay with medium plasticity
Silty clay with high plasticity
1.
2.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.50
3.
4.00
0.082
0.10
1.22
No
4.
5.50
0.096
0.15
1.56
No
5.
7.00
0.105
0.14
1.33
No
6.
8.50
0.111
0.15
1.35
No
7.
10.00
0.115
0.11
0.95
Yes
8.
9.
10.
11.
11.50
13.00
14.50
16.00
11
13
15
17
0.117
0.119
0.119
0.118
0.13
0.19
0.21
0.23
1.10
1.59
1.76
1.94
MLL
No
No
No
12.
17.50
17
0.117
0.22
1.88
No
13.
19.00
19
0.116
0.25
2.15
No
14.
20.50
19
0.114
0.24
2.10
No
S.No.
SPT N value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
11
4
0.084
0.083
0.23
0.13
2.74
1.56
No
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
383
editor@iaeme.com
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Depth (Z)
m
SPT N
value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
1.00
2.50
11
4
0.084
0.083
0.23
0.13
2.74
1.57
No
No
3.
4.00
0.082
0.11
1.34
No
4.
5.50
0.090
0.17
1.88
No
5.
7.00
10
0.101
0.17
1.68
No
6.
8.50
10
0.107
0.17
1.58
No
7.
10.00
11
0.112
0.13
1.16
MLL
8.
11.50
13
0.115
0.14
1.20
MLL
9.
13.00
14
0.116
0.20
1.72
No
10.
14.50
15
0.117
0.21
1.79
No
11.
16.00
16
0.116
0.21
1.81
No
12.
17.50
19
0.116
0.26
2.24
No
13.
19.00
19
0.114
0.25
2.19
No
14.
20.50
20
0.113
0.26
2.30
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
384
editor@iaeme.com
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
3.
Depth
(Z) m
1.00
2.50
4.00
0.084
0.083
0.082
0.22
0.19
0.10
2.61
2.28
1.22
No
No
No
4.
5.50
0.090
0.10
1.11
MLL
5.
7.00
0.099
0.13
1.31
No
6.
8.50
0.106
0.15
1.41
No
7.
10.00
11
0.110
0.12
1.09
MLL
8.
11.50
11
0.112
0.12
1.07
MLL
9.
13.00
12
0.114
0.16
1.40
No
10.
14.50
15
0.114
0.18
1.57
No
11.
16.00
16
0.114
0.18
1.57
No
12.
17.50
20
0.113
0.22
1.94
No
13.
19.00
20
0.112
0.21
1.87
No
14.
20.50
18
0.110
0.19
1.72
No
S.No.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
385
editor@iaeme.com
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
1.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.
S.No.
SPT N value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
11
0.084
0.23
2.73
No
2.50
0.083
0.10
1.22
No
3.
4.00
0.082
0.11
1.34
No
4.
5.50
0.088
0.10
1.13
MLL
5.
7.00
0.099
0.14
1.41
No
6.
8.50
0.105
0.15
1.42
No
7.
10.00
0.110
0.11
1.00
Yes
8.
11.50
11
0.113
0.12
1.06
MLL
9.
13.00
11
0.114
0.16
1.40
No
10.
14.50
13
0.115
0.18
1.56
No
11.
16.00
16
0.115
0.21
1.82
No
12.
17.50
15
0.114
0.19
1.66
No
13.
19.00
17
0.113
0.21
1.85
No
14.
20.50
19
0.112
0.24
2.14
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
386
editor@iaeme.com
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.50
0.084
0.25
0.083
0.15
2.97
1.81
No
No
3.
4.00
0.082
0.10
1.22
No
4.
5.50
0.089
0.10
1.12
MLL
5.
7.00
0.099
0.14
1.41
No
6.
8.50
0.106
0.16
1.51
No
7.
10.00
11
0.11
0.13
1.18
MLL
8.
11.50
11
0.112
0.12
1.07
MLL
9.
13.00
12
0.114
0.17
1.49
No
10.
14.50
15
0.114
0.20
1.75
No
11.
16.00
16
0.114
0.21
1.84
No
12.
17.50
20
0.113
0.23
2.03
No
13.
19.00
20
0.112
0.24
2.14
No
14.
20.50
18
0.111
0.23
2.07
No
S.No.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
387
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
Depth
(Z) m
1.00
2.50
0.084
0.083
0.23
0.13
2.73
1.57
No
No
3.
4.00
0.082
0.11
1.34
No
4.
5.50
0.093
0.17
1.82
No
5.
7.00
0.103
0.16
1.55
No
6.
8.50
10
0.109
0.17
1.56
No
7.
10.00
11
0.114
0.13
1.14
MLL
8.
11.50
13
0.116
0.14
1.20
MLL
9.
13.00
14
0.117
0.20
1.71
No
10.
14.50
16
0.118
0.22
1.86
No
11.
16.00
17
0.117
0.23
1.96
No
12.
17.50
19
0.116
0.26
2.24
No
13.
19.00
19
0.115
0.25
2.17
No
14.
20.50
20
0.114
0.26
2.28
No
S.No.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
388
editor@iaeme.com
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
3.
Depth
(Z) m
1.00
2.50
4.00
0.0840
0.0830
0.0820
0.1400
0.1900
0.2000
1.67
2.28
2.43
No
No
No
4.
5.50
13
0.0970
0.2400
2.47
No
5.
7.00
15
0.1070
0.2700
2.52
No
6.
8.50
11
0.1130
0.1900
1.68
No
7.
10.00
12
0.1160
0.1900
1.63
No
8.
11.50
15
0.1180
0.2300
1.94
No
9.
13.00
14
0.1190
0.2000
1.68
No
10.
14.50
17
0.1180
0.2400
2.03
No
11.
16.00
20
0.1180
0.3000
2.54
No
12.
17.50
21
0.1160
0.3200
2.75
No
13.
19.00
23
0.1150
0.2200
1.91
No
14.
20.50
20
0.1130
0.1700
1.50
No
15.
22.00
19
0.1110
0.1600
1.44
No
16.
23.50
21
0.1090
0.1700
1.56
No
17.
25.00
0.1070
0.1060
0.2400
0.2700
No
26.50
21
23
2.24
18.
2.54
No
19.
28.00
22
0.1040
0.2400
2.30
No
20.
29.50
25
0.1030
0.3000
2.91
No
S.No.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
389
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (Z) m
1.00
SPT N value
5
CSR
0.0840
CRR
0.1400
FSLiq
1.67
Status
No
2.
2.50
0.0830
0.1500
1.80
No
3.
4.00
0.0820
0.1700
2.07
No
4.
5.50
10
0.0900
0.1800
2.00
No
5.
6.
7.00
8.50
11
12
0.1000
0.1060
0.1800
0.1900
1.80
1.79
No
No
7.
10.00
13
0.1100
0.1900
1.72
No
8.
11.50
14
0.1130
0.2000
1.77
No
9.
13.00
16
0.1140
0.2200
1.93
No
10.
14.50
16
0.1140
0.2100
1.84
No
11.
12.
16.00
17.50
19
18
0.1140
0.1130
0.2500
0.2200
2.19
1.94
No
No
13.
19.00
22
0.1120
0.2000
1.78
No
14.
15.
20.50
22.00
21
20
0.1100
0.1090
0.1800
0.1600
1.63
1.46
No
No
16.
23.50
22
0.1070
0.1800
1.68
No
17.
25.00
23
0.1050
0.2800
2.67
No
18.
26.50
23
0.1040
0.2700
2.59
No
19.
28.00
23
0.1020
0.2600
2.54
No
20.
29.50
25
0.1010
0.3000
2.97
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
390
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.50
3.
S.No.
SPT N value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
5
6
0.0840
0.0830
0.1400
0.1500
1.67
1.80
No
No
4.00
0.0820
0.1600
1.95
No
4.
5.50
10
0.0900
0.1800
2.00
No
5.
7.00
11
0.1000
0.1800
1.80
No
6.
8.50
12
0.1070
0.1900
1.77
No
7.
10.00
13
0.1110
0.1900
1.71
No
8.
11.50
14
0.1140
0.2000
1.75
No
9.
13.00
16
0.1150
0.2200
1.91
No
10.
14.50
16
0.1150
0.2100
1.82
No
11.
16.00
19
0.1150
0.2500
2.17
No
12.
17.50
18
0.1140
0.2200
1.93
No
13.
19.00
22
0.1130
0.2100
1.85
No
14.
20.50
21
0.1120
0.1800
1.60
No
15.
22.00
20
0.1100
0.1700
1.54
No
16.
23.50
22
0.1080
0.1800
1.67
No
17.
25.00
23
0.1070
0.2900
2.71
No
18.
26.50
23
0.1050
0.2800
2.67
No
19.
28.00
23
0.1040
0.2700
2.59
No
20.
29.50
25
0.1030
0.3100
3.00
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
391
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fig. 13: Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Hole (BH-9)
1.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.
S.No.
SPT N value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
0.0840
0.1400
1.67
No
2.50
0.0830
0.1500
1.80
No
3.
4.00
0.0820
0.1600
1.95
No
4.
5.50
10
0.0890
0.1700
1.91
No
5.
6.
7.00
8.50
11
12
0.0990
0.1060
0.1800
0.1900
1.81
1.79
No
No
7.
10.00
13
0.1110
0.1900
1.71
No
8.
11.50
14
0.1140
0.2000
1.75
No
9.
13.00
16
0.1150
0.2200
1.91
No
10.
14.50
16
0.1160
0.2100
1.81
No
11.
12.
16.00
17.50
19
18
0.1150
0.1150
0.2600
0.2300
2.26
2.00
No
No
13.
19.00
22
0.1140
0.3200
2.80
No
14.
15.
20.50
22.00
21
20
0.1120
0.1110
0.1900
0.1700
1.69
1.53
No
No
16.
23.50
22
0.1090
0.1900
1.74
No
17.
25.00
23
0.1080
0.3000
2.77
No
18.
26.50
23
0.1060
0.2800
2.64
No
19.
28.00
23
0.1050
0.2700
2.57
No
20.
29.50
25
0.1040
0.3200
3.07
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
392
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (Z) m
1.00
2.50
SPT N value
5
6
CSR
0.0840
0.0830
CRR
0.1400
0.1500
FSLiq
1.67
1.80
Status
No
No
3.
4.
4.00
0.0820
0.1700
2.07
No
5.50
10
0.0890
0.1800
2.02
No
5.
7.00
11
0.0990
0.1800
1.82
No
6.
8.50
12
0.1060
0.1900
1.79
No
7.
10.00
13
0.1100
0.1900
1.73
No
8.
11.50
14
0.1130
0.2000
1.76
No
9.
13.00
16
0.1140
0.2200
1.93
No
10.
14.50
16
0.1140
0.2200
1.93
No
11.
16.00
19
0.1140
0.2600
2.28
No
12.
17.50
18
0.1130
0.2300
2.03
No
13.
19.00
22
0.1120
0.2100
1.88
No
14.
20.50
21
0.1110
0.1800
1.62
No
15.
22.00
20
0.1090
0.1700
1.56
No
16.
23.50
22
0.1080
0.1800
1.67
No
17.
25.00
23
0.1060
0.2900
2.74
No
18.
26.50
23
0.1050
0.2800
2.67
No
19.
28.00
23
0.1030
0.2600
2.52
No
20.
29.50
25
0.1020
0.3100
3.04
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
393
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (Z) m
SPT N value
CSR
CRR
FSLiq
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.00
2.50
4.00
5.50
5
6
9
10
0.0840
0.0830
0.0820
0.0890
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0.1800
1.67
1.80
1.95
2.02
No
No
No
No
5.
7.00
11
0.0990
0.1800
1.81
No
6.
7.
8.
8.50
10.00
11.50
12
13
14
0.1060
0.1100
0.1130
0.1900
0.1900
0.2000
1.79
1.73
1.76
No
No
No
9.
13.00
16
0.1140
0.2200
1.93
No
10.
14.50
16
0.1140
0.2100
1.84
No
11.
16.00
19
0.1140
0.2500
2.19
No
12.
17.50
18
0.1130
0.2200
1.94
No
13.
19.00
22
0.1120
0.2000
1.78
No
14.
20.50
21
0.1100
0.1800
1.64
No
15.
22.00
20
0.1090
0.1700
1.55
No
16.
23.50
22
0.1070
0.1800
1.68
No
17.
18.
19.
20.
25.00
26.50
28.00
29.50
23
23
23
25
0.1060
0.1040
0.1030
0.1020
0.2900
0.2700
0.2600
0.3000
2.73
2.59
2.52
2.94
No
No
No
No
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
394
editor@iaeme.com
3.0
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig. F Change
(p-value)
.018
Durbin-Watson
1.490
The p-value defined as the probability value is computed using the test statistic, that measure the support (or lack of
support) provided by the sample for the Null Hypothesis (H o). Since p-value is less than the level of significance
(= 0.0 ) for the developed Multi-Linear Regression Model, i.e; (0.018 < 0.05), hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) is
rejected and Alternate Hypothesis (H1) is accepted resulting the developed model to be strongly accepted. The term
R is defined as Multiple Coefficient of Correlation. The value of R= 0.878 signifies that 87.8% changes are due to
the factors considerd in Regression Modeling. The Coefficient of Determination (R2) is used to identify the strength
of relationship. The Coefficient of Determination is defined as the ratio of Explained Variation to Total Variation.
The value of R2 = 0.771 signifies that the strength of relationship for the developed model is 77%.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)a
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Regression
.011
.002
Residual
.003
.000
Total
.015
13
5.398
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
395
editor@iaeme.com
Sig. (p-value)
.018b
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
(Constant)
Std. Error
-.011
.757
Depth
.005
Fine
Content
.001
1.
Water Content
-.002
Bulk Density
.029
Cyclic Shear Stress
1.085
a. Dependent Variable: Cyclic Resistance Ratio
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.002
.001
.005
.494
1.407
.935
.445
-.312
.058
.433
Sig.
(pvalue)
t-test
-.014
.989
2.465
.866
-.521
.059
.772
.039
.412
.617
.955
.463
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
.199
.109
.080
.029
.091
5.037
9.215
12.530
34.596
11.006
The t-test shows the test of difference between the predicted value and the observed value. Smaller difference shows
the fall in the t-test values resulting in rise of p-value thus improving the fitness of parameters in the developed
model.
7.1.2. DISCRIMINANT TEST FOR OUTLIERS IN THE MULTI-LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL
Eigenvalue
Eigenvalues
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
2.395a
100.0
100.0
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Test of Function(s)
1
Wilks' Lambda
Wilks' Lambda
Chi-square
.295
11.612
Canonical
Correlation
.840
df
5
Sig.
.041
b. Classification Statistics
Classification Processing Summary
Processed
14
0
0
14
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
396
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
397
editor@iaeme.com
Depth
(Z) m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
2.
1.00
2.50
0.23
0.13
0.1671
0.1804
2.74
1.56
1.4040
1.5160
No
No
No
No
3.
4.00
0.10
0.1156
1.22
1.4098
No
No
4.
5.50
0.15
0.1221
1.56
1.2718
No
No
5.
6.
7.00
8.50
0.14
0.15
0.1638
0.1777
1.33
1.35
1.3763
1.4935
No
No
No
No
7.
10.00
0.11
0.1332
0.95
1.1583
Yes
MLL
8.
0.13
0.19
0.21
0.1387
0.1723
0.1906
1.10
1.59
1.76
1.1855
1.4478
1.6016
MLL
MLL
10.
11.50
13.00
14.50
No
No
No
No
11.
16.00
0.23
0.2220
1.94
1.8657
No
No
12.
17.50
19.00
20.50
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.2333
0.2387
0.2454
1.88
2.15
2.10
1.9608
2.0056
2.0619
No
No
No
No
No
No
S.No
1.
9.
13.
14.
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
398
editor@iaeme.com
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
1.00
0.23
0.1744
2.74
2.
2.50
0.13
0.1850
1.57
3.
4.00
0.11
0.1631
4.
5.50
0.17
5.
7.00
6.
S.No
Calculated
Modeled
1.4903
No
No
1.5816
No
No
1.34
1.3944
No
No
0.1370
1.88
1.1712
No
MLL
0.17
0.1553
1.68
1.3276
No
No
8.50
0.17
0.1712
1.58
1.4634
No
No
7.
10.00
0.13
0.1653
1.16
1.4132
MLL
No
8.
11.50
0.14
0.1764
1.20
1.5073
MLL
No
9.
13.00
0.20
0.2079
1.72
1.7766
No
No
10.
14.50
0.21
0.2173
1.79
1.8569
No
No
11.
16.00
0.21
0.2188
1.81
1.8704
No
No
12.
17.50
0.26
0.2261
2.24
1.9326
No
No
13.
19.00
0.25
0.2301
2.19
1.9670
No
No
14.
20.50
0.26
0.2361
2.30
2.018
No
No
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
399
editor@iaeme.com
S.No.
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
2.
1.00
2.50
0.22
0.19
0.1826
0.1912
2.61
2.28
3.
4.00
0.10
0.1643
4.
5.50
0.10
5.
7.00
6.
Modeled
1.6016
1.6770
Calculated
No
No
1.22
1.4416
No
No
0.1044
1.11
1.1600
MLL
MLL
0.13
0.1533
1.31
1.3445
No
No
8.50
0.15
0.1712
1.41
1.5016
No
No
7.
10.00
0.12
0.1264
1.09
1.1491
MLL
MLL
8.
11.50
0.12
0.1339
1.07
1.1955
MLL
MLL
9.
13.00
0.16
0.2009
1.40
1.7618
No
No
10.
14.50
0.18
0.2076
1.57
1.8208
No
No
11.
16.00
0.18
0.2163
1.57
1.8974
No
No
12.
17.50
0.22
0.2215
1.94
1.9432
No
No
13.
19.00
0.21
0.2272
1.87
1.9928
No
No
14.
20.50
0.19
0.2340
1.72
2.0530
No
No
No
No
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
400
editor@iaeme.com
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
2.
1.00
2.50
0.23
0.10
0.1692
0.1889
2.73
1.22
3.
4.00
0.11
0.1607
4.
5.50
0.10
5.
7.00
6.
Status
1.4712
1.6423
Calculated
No
No
Modeled
No
No
1.34
1.3974
No
No
0.1027
1.13
1.1670
MLL
MLL
0.14
0.1561
1.41
1.3574
No
No
8.50
0.15
0.1680
1.42
1.4610
No
No
7.
10.00
0.11
0.1231
1.00
1.1187
Yes
MLL
8.
11.50
0.12
0.1361
1.06
1.2044
MLL
MLL
9.
13.00
0.16
0.2023
1.40
1.7591
No
No
10.
14.50
0.18
0.2130
1.56
1.8525
No
No
11.
16.00
0.21
0.2204
1.82
1.9164
No
No
12.
17.50
0.19
0.2256
1.66
1.9616
No
No
13.
19.00
0.21
0.2306
1.85
2.0056
No
No
14.
20.50
0.24
0.2378
2.14
2.0682
No
No
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
401
editor@iaeme.com
S.No.
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
Calculated
Modeled
1.
1.00
0.25
0.1762
2.97
1.5456
No
No
2.
2.50
0.15
0.1903
1.81
1.6697
No
No
3.
4.00
0.10
0.1628
1.22
1.4285
No
No
4.
5.50
0.10
0.1053
1.12
1.1831
MLL
MLL
5.
7.00
0.14
0.1550
1.41
1.3599
No
No
6.
8.50
0.16
0.1701
1.51
1.4925
No
No
7.
10.00
0.13
0.1265
1.18
1.1501
MLL
MLL
8.
11.50
0.12
0.1349
1.07
1.2045
MLL
MLL
9.
13.00
0.17
0.2019
1.49
1.7710
No
No
10.
14.50
0.20
0.2101
1.75
1.8429
No
No
11.
16.00
0.21
0.2181
1.84
1.9135
No
No
12.
17.50
0.23
0.2233
2.03
1.9591
No
No
13.
19.00
0.24
0.2287
2.14
2.0062
No
No
14.
20.50
0.23
0.2359
2.07
2.0696
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
402
editor@iaeme.com
S.No.
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
1.00
0.23
0.1707
2.73
2.
2.50
0.13
0.1830
3.
4.00
0.11
4.
5.50
5.
Calculated
Modeled
1.4468
No
No
1.57
1.5512
No
No
0.1655
1.34
1.4022
No
No
0.17
0.1415
1.82
1.5215
No
No
7.00
0.16
0.1595
1.55
1.3521
No
No
6.
8.50
0.17
0.1748
1.56
1.4814
No
No
7.
10.00
0.13
0.1323
1.14
1.1605
MLL
MLL
8.
11.50
0.14
0.1397
1.20
1.2043
MLL
MLL
9.
13.00
0.20
0.2074
1.71
1.7574
No
No
10.
14.50
0.22
0.2158
1.86
1.8289
No
No
11.
16.00
0.23
0.2204
1.96
1.8679
No
No
12.
17.50
0.26
0.2295
2.24
1.9451
No
No
13.
19.00
0.25
0.2344
2.17
1.9866
No
No
14.
20.50
0.26
0.2413
2.28
2.0446
No
No
2.5
FSLiq
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
403
editor@iaeme.com
S.No.
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
Calculated
Modeled
1.
1.00
0.1400
0.1575
1.67
1.3236
No
No
2.
2.50
0.1900
0.1264
2.28
1.5225
No
No
3.
4.00
0.2000
0.1365
2.43
1.6641
No
No
4.
5.50
0.2400
0.1804
2.47
1.8593
No
No
5.
7.00
0.2700
0.1831
2.52
1.5584
No
No
6.
8.50
0.1900
0.1910
1.68
1.6049
No
No
7.
10.00
0.1900
0.2020
1.63
1.6979
No
No
8.
11.50
0.2300
0.2169
1.94
1.8225
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2000
0.2271
1.68
1.9084
No
No
10.
14.50
0.2400
0.2310
2.03
1.9413
No
No
11.
16.00
0.3000
0.2368
2.54
1.9897
No
No
12.
17.50
0.3200
0.2351
2.75
1.9752
No
No
13.
19.00
0.2200
0.2123
1.91
1.7839
No
No
14.
20.50
0.1700
0.2174
1.50
1.8270
No
No
15.
22.00
0.1600
0.2235
1.44
1.8781
No
No
16.
23.50
0.1700
0.2284
1.56
1.9191
No
No
17.
25.00
0.2400
0.2840
2.24
2.3868
No
No
18.
26.50
0.2700
0.2911
2.54
2.4462
No
No
19.
28.00
0.2400
0.2956
2.30
2.4841
No
No
20.
29.50
0.3000
0.3013
2.91
2.5319
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
404
editor@iaeme.com
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
1.00
0.1400
0.1635
1.67
2.
2.50
0.1500
0.1703
3.
4.00
0.1700
4.
5.50
5.
6.
S.No.
Status
1.4345
Calculated
No
Modeled
No
1.80
1.4940
No
No
0.1370
2.07
1.2018
No
MLL
0.1800
0.1498
2.00
1.3137
No
No
7.00
8.50
0.1800
0.1900
0.1571
0.1645
1.80
1.79
1.3784
1.4426
No
No
No
No
7.
10.00
0.1900
0.1784
1.72
1.5648
No
No
8.
11.50
0.2000
0.1869
1.77
1.6393
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2200
0.1953
1.93
1.7135
No
No
10.
14.50
0.2100
0.2051
1.84
1.7990
No
No
11.
12.
16.00
17.50
0.2500
0.2200
0.2124
0.2154
2.19
1.94
1.8636
1.8894
No
No
No
No
13.
19.00
0.2000
0.2137
1.78
1.8749
No
No
14.
15.
20.50
22.00
0.1800
0.1600
0.2176
0.2235
1.63
1.46
1.9086
1.9606
No
No
No
No
16.
23.50
0.1800
0.2325
1.68
2.0397
No
No
17.
25.00
0.2800
0.2860
2.67
2.5084
No
No
18.
26.50
0.2700
0.2946
2.59
2.5839
No
No
19.
28.00
0.2600
0.2996
2.54
2.6284
No
No
20.
29.50
0.3000
0.3074
2.97
2.6968
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
405
editor@iaeme.com
1.
2.
3.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.50
4.00
4.
5.50
0.1800
0.1430
2.00
1.2433
5.
7.00
0.1800
0.1618
1.80
1.4071
No
No
6.
8.50
0.1900
0.1696
1.77
1.4751
No
No
7.
10.00
0.1900
0.1833
1.71
1.5937
No
No
8.
11.50
0.2000
0.1932
1.75
1.6804
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2200
0.2018
1.91
1.7552
No
No
10.
14.50
0.2100
0.2069
1.82
1.7992
No
No
11.
16.00
0.2500
0.2168
2.17
1.8849
No
No
12.
17.50
0.2200
0.2213
1.93
1.9248
No
No
13.
19.00
0.2100
0.2193
1.85
1.9073
No
No
14.
20.50
0.1800
0.2244
1.60
1.9516
No
No
15.
16.
22.00
23.50
0.1700
0.1800
0.2294
0.2380
1.54
1.67
1.9947
2.0700
No
No
No
No
17.
25.00
0.2900
0.2916
2.71
2.5353
No
No
18.
19.
20.
26.50
28.00
29.50
0.2800
0.2700
0.3100
0.2988
0.3042
0.3133
2.67
2.59
3.00
2.5980
2.6453
2.7247
No
No
No
No
No
No
S.No.
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0.1649
0.1722
0.1340
1.67
1.80
1.95
1.4339
1.4974
1.1649
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
406
editor@iaeme.com
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
1.
1.00
0.1400
0.1628
1.67
2.
2.50
0.1500
0.1646
3.
4.00
0.1600
4.
5.50
5.
6.
7.00
8.50
7.
S.No.
1.4033
Calculated
No
Modeled
No
1.80
1.4189
No
No
0.1080
1.95
1.3170
No
No
0.1700
0.1219
1.91
1.3697
No
No
0.1800
0.1900
0.1545
0.1633
1.81
1.79
1.4336
1.4578
No
No
No
No
10.00
0.1900
0.1769
1.71
1.5252
No
No
8.
11.50
0.2000
0.1862
1.75
1.6048
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2200
0.1946
1.91
1.6777
No
No
10.
11.
12.
14.50
16.00
17.50
0.2100
0.2600
0.2300
0.2054
0.2143
0.2177
1.81
2.26
2.00
1.7709
1.8470
1.8767
No
No
No
No
No
No
13.
19.00
0.3200
0.2284
2.80
1.9691
No
No
14.
15.
20.50
22.00
0.1900
0.1700
0.2192
0.2251
1.69
1.53
1.8897
1.9408
No
No
No
No
16.
23.50
0.1900
0.2341
1.74
2.0177
No
No
17.
25.00
0.3000
0.2873
2.77
2.4768
No
No
18.
26.50
0.2800
0.2984
2.64
2.5412
No
No
19.
28.00
0.2700
0.3009
2.57
2.5942
No
No
20.
29.50
0.3200
0.3093
3.07
2.6667
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
407
editor@iaeme.com
1.
2.
3.
4.
Depth (Z)
m
1.00
2.50
4.00
5.50
5.
7.00
0.1800
0.1398
1.82
1.4123
No
No
6.
8.50
0.1900
0.1665
1.79
1.4602
No
No
7.
10.00
0.1900
0.1796
1.73
1.5755
No
No
8.
11.50
0.2000
0.1888
1.76
1.6565
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2200
0.1980
1.93
1.7369
No
No
10.
14.50
0.2200
0.2110
1.93
1.8507
No
No
11.
16.00
0.2600
0.2176
2.28
1.9089
No
No
12.
17.50
0.2300
0.2194
2.03
1.9247
No
No
13.
19.00
0.2100
0.2156
1.88
1.8915
No
No
14.
20.50
0.1800
0.2206
1.62
1.9354
No
No
15.
22.00
0.1700
0.2255
1.56
1.9784
No
No
16.
23.50
0.1800
0.2355
1.67
2.0656
No
No
17.
25.00
0.2900
0.2864
2.74
2.5125
No
No
18.
26.50
0.2800
0.2942
2.67
2.5810
No
No
19.
28.00
0.2600
0.2993
2.52
2.6251
No
No
20.
29.50
0.3100
0.3071
3.04
2.6936
No
No
S.No.
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
0.1400
0.1500
0.1700
0.1800
0.1625
0.1650
0.1143
0.1247
1.67
1.80
2.07
2.02
1.4253
1.4471
1.3947
1.4012
Calculated
No
No
No
No
Modeled
No
No
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
408
editor@iaeme.com
S.No.
Depth (Z)
m
CRRcal
CRRMod
FSLiq
FSLiqMod
Calculated
Modeled
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.00
2.50
4.00
5.50
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0.1800
0.1642
0.1712
0.1034
0.1146
1.67
1.80
1.95
2.02
1.4405
1.5021
1.2610
1.2872
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
5.
7.00
0.1800
0.1587
1.81
1.3921
No
No
6.
7.
8.
8.50
10.00
11.50
0.1900
0.1900
0.2000
0.1662
0.1796
0.1907
1.79
1.73
1.76
1.4576
1.5756
1.6725
No
No
No
No
No
No
9.
13.00
0.2200
0.1989
1.93
1.7449
No
No
10.
14.50
0.2100
0.2062
1.84
1.8089
No
No
11.
16.00
0.2500
0.2139
2.19
1.8759
No
No
12.
17.50
0.2200
0.2180
1.94
1.9120
No
No
13.
19.00
0.2000
0.2161
1.78
1.8953
No
No
14.
20.50
0.1800
0.2179
1.64
1.9116
No
No
15.
22.00
0.1700
0.2261
1.55
1.9831
No
No
16.
23.50
0.1800
0.2353
1.68
2.0641
No
No
17.
18.
19.
20.
25.00
26.50
28.00
29.50
0.2900
0.2700
0.2600
0.3000
0.2880
0.2959
0.3045
0.3111
2.73
2.59
2.52
2.94
2.5261
2.5954
2.6714
2.7290
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
FSLiq
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cal
Mod
The developed Multi-Linear Regression based CRR Model is presented and it can be used to assess site
specific liquefaction potential of soil.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
409
editor@iaeme.com
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Based on SPSS, the Coefficient of Determination (R2) of the developed Multi-Linear Regression Model is
77%. As Coefficient of Determination signifies the strength of relationship in the model, hence the proposed
model is a tool for assessment of liquefaction potential of a particular site in Lucknow.
Based on SPSS, the probability value (p-value) of the developed Multi-Linear Regression Model is 0.018.
The p-value is computed using the test statistic, that measure the support (or lack of support) provided by the
sample for the Null Hypothesis (Ho). Since p-value is less than the level of significance (= 0.0 ) for the
developed Multi-Linear Regression Model, i.e; (0.018 < 0.05), hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and
Alternate Hypothesis (H1) is accepted resulting the developed model to be strongly accepted.
The overall success rate of prediction of liquefaction and non-liquefaction cases by the proposed method for
all 204 cases in the present database is found to be 97.54% on the basis of calculated Factor of Safety (Fs)
The proposed Multi-Linear Regression Model could also be used for any such location, where the evaluation
of parameters are similar to that obtained and considerd in the development of this model.
A soil layer with FSLiq<1 is generally classied as liqueable and with FS Liq>1 is classied as non-liqueable.
However, some of the studies reveals that liquefaction have also occurred when FS Liq> 1 [18], uncertainties
exist due to different soil conditions, validity of case history data and calculation method chosen.
Out of the total evaluated 204 cases in the present study i.e.; from Bore Hole 1 to Bore Hole 12, the model
shows insignificant results in Bore Hole 2, Bore Hole 8 and Bore Hole 9. Therefore, further studies is still
required to determine the limitations of the developed Multi-Linear Regression based CRR Model for
assessment of liquefaction potential of soil.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
H. Kowasumi (Ed.), Tokyo Electrical Engineering College Press, Tokyo, Japan, 1968.
[3]
H. B. Seed, Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 105(2), 1979, 201255.
[4]
H. B. Seed, and I. M. Idriss, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland, Califonia, 1982.
[5]
H. B. Seed, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, and R. M. Chung, The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil
Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(12), 1985, 1425
1445.
[6]
National Research Council (NRC), Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C, 1985.
[7]
[8]
T.L. Youd, I.M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, I. Arango, G. Castro, J.T. Christian, R. Dobry, W.D.L. Finn, L.F.
Harder, M.E. Hynes, K. Ishihara, J.P. Koester, S.S.C. Liao, W.F, Marcuson, G.R. Martin, J.K.
Mitchell, Y. Moriwaki, R.B. Seed, and K.H. Stokoe, Liquefaction Resistance of Soil: Summary report
from The 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironment Engineering, 127(10), 2001,817 833.
[9]
[10]
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential."
J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE 97(SM9), 1249273
[11]
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K. I., and Yasuda, S. (1978). A practical method for assessing soil
liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Microzonation for Safer ConstructionResearch and Application, Vol. II, 885896.
[12]
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. (1983) valuation of liquefaction potential using eld
performance data. J. Geotech. Engrg.,109(3), 458482.
H. B. Seed, and I. M. Idriss, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 97(9), 1971, 12491273.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
410
editor@iaeme.com
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (198 ). Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J.
Geotech. Engrg.,111(3), 384403.
[14]
Seed, H. B., and De Alba, P. (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction
resistance of sands, Blacksburg, Va., 281302.
[15]
Shibata, T., and Teparaksa, W. (1988) valuation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone
penetration tests. Soils Found.,28(2), 4960.
[16]
Goh, A. T. C. (199 ) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J. Geotech. Engrg.,
120(9), 14671480.
[17]
Stark, T. D., and Olson, S. M. (199 ). Liquefaction resistance using CPT and eld case-histories.
J.Geotech. Engrg., 121(12), 856869.
[18]
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. . (1998) valuating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test. Can. Geotech. J.,35(3),442459.
[19]
Juang, C. H., Chen, C. J., Tang, W. H., and Rosowsky, D. V. (2000) CPT-based liquefaction analysis.
Part1: Determination of limit state function. Geotechnique,50(5), 583592.
[20]
Juang, C. H., Yuan, H. M., Lee, D. H., and Lin, P. S. (2003). Simplied cone penetration test-based
method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(1), 6680.
[21]
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction
potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 26, 115130.
[22]
Liao, S. S. C., Veneziano, D., and Whitman, R. V. (1988) Regressionmodels for evaluating
liquefaction probability. J. Geotech. Engrg, 114(4), 389411.
[23]
Toprak, S., Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., and Tinsley, J. C. I. (1999)CPT and SPT-based probabilistic
assessment of liquefaction. Proc.,7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of
Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, MCEER, Seattle, 6986.
[24]
Juang, C. H., Jiang, T., and Andrus, R. D. (2002) Assessing probability based methods for
liquefaction potential evaluation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128(7), 580589.
[25]
Goh, A. T. C. (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can.
Geotech. J.,39(1), 219232.
[26]
Cetin, K. O., Kiureghian, A. D., and Seed, R. B. (2002) Probabilistic models for the initiation of
seismic soil liquefaction. Struct. Safety, 24(1), 6782.
[27]
Cetin, K. O., et al. (200 ) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment
of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J.Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(12), 13141340.
[28]
Lee, D.-H., Ku, C.-S., and Yuan, H. (2003)A study of the liquefaction risk potential at Yuanlin,
Taiwan. Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam),71(12),97117.
[29]
Sonmez, H. (2003). Modication of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility
mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol, Turkey) Environ. Geol.,44(7), 862871.
[30]
Sonmez, H., and Gokceoglu, C. (200 )A liquefaction severity index suggested for engineering
practice. Environ. Geol.,48(1), 8191.
[31]
Juang, C. H., Li, D. K., Fang, S. Y., Liu, Z., and Khor, . H. (2008) Simplied procedure for
developing joint distribution of amax and MW for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 134(8), 10501058.
[32]
Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., Stewart, J. P., Kiureghian, A. D., and Cetin, K. O. (2006)
CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(8), 10321051.
[33]
Hashash, Y. M. A. (2007) Special issue on biologically inspired and other novel computing
techniques in geomechanics. Comput. Geotech.,34(5),329329.
[34]
Raghukanth STG, Iyengar RN (2006) Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city. Curr Sci 91(11):
1486-1494
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
411
editor@iaeme.com
Rao KS, Satyam ND (2007) Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region. Curr Sci
92(5) 646-654.
[36]
Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for the Bangalore region. Nat Hazards
40(2): 261-278.
[37]
Hanumanthrao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic Soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J
Earth Syst Sci 117(S2): 719-730.
[38]
[39]
Shukla J, Chaoudhury D(2012) Estimation of seismic ground motion using deterministic approach for
major cities of Gujarat. Nat Hazards Earth Sys Sci 12: 2019-2037.
[40]
IS 1893-Part 1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[41]
Youd, T. L. and Perkins, D. M.: Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure potential, J. Geotech.
Eng. Division, 104, 443 446, 1978.
[42]
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 134 pp.
[43]
PECK, R. B.; HANSON, W. E.; AND THORNBURN, T. H., 1953, Foundation Engineering: John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 410 p.
[44]
[45]
KAROL, R. H., 1960, Soils and Soil Engineering: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 194 p.
[46]
ROBERTSON,P.K.AND WRIDE, C. E., 1997, Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT
and CPT. In Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
Technical Report NCEER-97-0022: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
NY, pp. 4187.
[47]
LIAO,S.S.C.AND WHITMAN, R. V., 1986, Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand: Journal
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.112, No. 3, pp. 373377.
[48]
[49]
Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, R. W. (2006). Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays. J. of
Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng. , 132:11, 1413-1424.
[50]
Idriss, I.M., (1999), An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction
potential, Proc., TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, January, Publication
No.FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administration, 1999.
[51]
Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M. (200 ), State normalization of penetration resistances and the effect of
overburden stress on liquefaction resistance, Proc., 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, 484-491.
[52]
Youd et al., Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops oevaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, 2001, J. Geotech. Engg. Div.
ASCE, 127(10) (2001) pp817-833.
[53]
[54]
SKEMPTON, A. W., 1986, Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden
pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation: Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.
425- 447.
Sabih A, Khan M. Z,, Abdullah A, Ashraf S.M., (201 ), Determination of Liquefaction Potential by
sub surface exploration using Standard Penetration Test , International Journal of Innovative Science,
Engineering & Technology (IJISET), Vol.2, Issue 10, October 2015, pp 751-760
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
412
editor@iaeme.com
Varghese, P.C. Foundation Engineering, prentice hall of India private limited, New Delhi 110001,
2007
[56]
Wikipedia, 1994-2015. MATLAB Product Description - MATLAB & Simulink. [Online] Available
at: http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/learn_matlab/product-description.html
APPENDIX
A.
Box-Plot Test for Outliers in the Multi-Linear Regression based CRR Model (CRRMod)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
413
editor@iaeme.com
Figure 6 Curve Estimation between Cyclic Resistance Ratio Calculated and Modeled (CRRCal and CRRMod)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
414
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
415
editor@iaeme.com