Liquefaction-induced settlements can cause a large economic toll on a region, from severe infrastructural damage, after an earthquake occurs. The ability to predict, and design for, these settlements is crucial to prevent extensive damage. However, the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting seismic events and hazards makes calculating accurate settlement estimations difficult. Currently there are several seismic hazard analysis methods, however, the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) method is becoming the most promising. The PBEE framework was presented by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. The PEER PBEE framework is a more comprehensive seismic analysis than any past seismic hazard analysis methods because it thoroughly incorporates probability theory into all aspects of post-liquefaction settlement estimation. One settlement estimation method, used with two liquefaction triggering methods, is incorporated into the PEER framework to create a new PBEE (i.e., fully-probabilistic) post-liquefaction estimation procedure for the cone penetration test (CPT). A seismic hazard analysis tool, called CPTLiquefY, was created for this study to perform the probabilistic calculations mentioned above. Liquefaction-induced settlement predictions are computed for current design methods and the created fully-probabilistic procedure for 20 CPT files at 10 cities of varying levels of seismicity. A comparison of these results indicate that conventional design methods are adequate for areas of low seismicity and low seismic events, but may significantly under-predict seismic hazard for areas and earthquake events of mid to high seismicity.

This study examines the use of performance-based engineering in earthquake liquefaction hazard analysis with Cone Penetration Test data (CPT). This work builds upon previous research involving performance-based liquefaction analysis with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Two new performance-based liquefaction triggering models are presented herein. The two models used in this liquefaction analysis are modified from the case-history based probabilistic models proposed by Ku et al. (2012) and Boulanger and Idriss (2014). Using these models, a comparison is made between the performance-based method and the conventional pseudo-probabilistic method. This comparison uses the 2014 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard models for both methods. The comparison reveals that, although in most cases both methods predict similar liquefaction hazard using a factor of safety against liquefaction, by comparing the probability of liquefaction, the performance-based method on average will predict a smaller liquefaction hazard.

Liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacements cause severe damage to infrastructure, resulting in large economic losses in affected regions. Predicting lateral spread displacements is an important aspect in any seismic analysis and design, and many different methods have been developed to accurately estimate these displacements. However, the inherent uncertainty in predicting seismic events, including the extent of liquefaction and its effects, makes it difficult to accurately estimate lateral spread displacements. Current conventional methods of predicting lateral spread displacements do not completely account for uncertainty, unlike a performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) approach that accounts for the all inherent uncertainty in seismic design. The PBEE approach incorporates complex probability theory throughout all aspects of estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacements. A new fully-probabilistic PBEE method, based on results from the cone penetration test (CPT), was created for estimating lateral spread displacements using two different liquefaction triggering procedures. To accommodate the complexity of all probabilistic calculations, a new seismic hazard analysis tool, CPTLiquefY, was developed. Calculated lateral spread displacements using the new fully-probabilistic method were compared to estimated displacements using conventional methods. These comparisons were performed across 20 different CPT profiles and 10 cities of varying seismicity. The results of this comparison show that the conventional procedures of estimating lateral spread displacements are sufficient for areas of low seismicity and for lower return periods. However, by not accounting for all uncertainties, the conventional methods under-predict lateral spread displacements in areas of higher seismicity. This is cause for concern as it indicates that engineers in industry using the conventional methods are likely under-designing structures to resist lateral spread displacements for larger seismic events.

Liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacements cause severe damage to infrastructure, resulting in large economic losses in affected regions. Predicting lateral spread displacements is an important aspect in any seismic analysis and design, and many different methods have been developed to accurately estimate these displacements. However, the inherent uncertainty in predicting seismic events, including the extent of liquefaction and its effects, makes it difficult to accurately estimate lateral spread displacements. Current conventional methods of predicting lateral spread displacements do not completely account for uncertainty, unlike a performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) approach that accounts for the all inherent uncertainty in seismic design. The PBEE approach incorporates complex probability theory throughout all aspects of estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacements. A new fully-probabilistic PBEE method, based on results from the cone penetration test (CPT), was created for estimating lateral spread displacements using two different liquefaction triggering procedures. To accommodate the complexity of all probabilistic calculations, a new seismic hazard analysis tool, CPTLiquefY, was developed. Calculated lateral spread displacements using the new fully-probabilistic method were compared to estimated displacements using conventional methods. These comparisons were performed across 20 different CPT profiles and 10 cities of varying seismicity. The results of this comparison show that the conventional procedures of estimating lateral spread displacements are sufficient for areas of low seismicity and for lower return periods. However, by not accounting for all uncertainties, the conventional methods under-predict lateral spread displacements in areas of higher seismicity. This is cause for concern as it indicates that engineers in industry using the conventional methods are likely under-designing structures to resist lateral spread displacements for larger seismic events.