Sources of uncertainty in liquefaction triggering procedures

Uncertainties in observed data and in processing field and laboratory tests are major concerns. Assigning reasonable coefficients of variation to the parameters in the conventional analyses indicates that a site with deterministic factors of safety of 1.5 can actually have liquefaction triggering probability above 20%. About a third of the variance comes from uncertainty in the load, which is independent of the resistance. Researchers have traditionally presented the results of case studies in the form of charts showing instances in which liquefaction did and did not occur and have developed relations to separate the two. Although the original researchers developed the separations informally, recent work has applied statistical methods. These give the sampling distributions of the observed data rather than the probability of triggering given the data. Researchers have addressed this issue using Bayesian methods, adopting non-informative priors. Published curves of liquefaction probabilities can be interpreted as likelihood ratios. Other independent work demonstrates that geological, meteorological, and historical data can be used to develop prior probabilities, so it may not be necessary to assume a non-informative prior. The actual prior can then be combined with the likelihood ratios to provide rational probabilities of liquefaction. We recommend that researchers publish their likelihood ratios and allow engineers faced with particular sites to use those to update their own priors.