The geotechnical characteristics of the soil layers are one of the main factors influencing liquefaction potential of the ground. In common usage, liquefaction refers to the loss of strength in saturated, cohesionless soils due to the build-up of pore water pressures during dynamic loading. The following five screening criteria, are recommended for completing a liquefaction evaluation: Geologic age and origin, Fines content and plasticity index, Saturation, Depth below ground surface and Soil penetration resistance. The liquefaction resistance of soils can be evaluated using laboratory tests such as cyclic simple shear, cyclic triaxial, cyclic torsional shear, and field methods such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Shear Wave Velocity (Vs). The present study is aimed at comparing the results of two field methods used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soil, i.e. SPT and CPT. It is concluded that the liquefaction evaluation methods based on the SPT data show more conservative results compared with those based on the CPT data.
| Published in |
American Journal of Civil Engineering (Volume 3, Issue 2-2)
This article belongs to the Special Issue Research and Practices of Civil Engineering in Developing Countries |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-5 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Liquefaction Potential, Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Pore Water Pressure, Dynamic Loading
| [1] | Castro, G. (1975) "Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands". Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101 (GT6), 551-569. |
| [2] | Finn, W. L., Ledbetter, R. H., and Wu, G. "Liquefaction in silty soils: design and analysis, Ground failures under seismic conditions", Geotechnical Special Publication No 44, ASCE, Reston, 51–79, 1994 |
| [3] | Ishihara, K. (1993), "Liquefaction and Flow Failure during earthquakes (Rankine Lecture)". Geotechnique, 43 (3): 351-415, 1993 |
| [4] | Koester, J.P. (1994). “The Influence Of Fine Type And Content On Cyclic Strength” Ground Failures Under Seismic Conditions, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 44, ASCE, pp. 17-33 |
| [5] | Krinitzky et al.(1993) |
| [6] | Poulos, S.J., Castro, G., and France, W. (1985). "Liquefaction evaluation procedure", J. Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 111, No.6, pp. 772-792. |
| [7] | Robertson. P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1997). " Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation Based on SPT and, CPT ", Final Contribution to the Proceedings of the 1996 NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance (T.L Youd, Chair). |
| [8] | Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1998). "Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3), 442-459. |
| [9] | Robertson, P.K.(1994), “suggested terminology for liquefaction”, An Internal CANLEX Report |
| [10] | Sladen, J. A., D‟Hollander, R. D., and Krahn, J. (1985),"The liquefaction of sands, a collapse surface approach", Can. Geotech. J., 22, 564– 578. |
| [11] | Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential", J. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM9), 1249-1273. |
| [12] | Seed, H. B. (1979). "Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquake", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 105, No. GT2, pp 201-225. |
| [13] | Selig, E.T., and Chang C.S.(1981), “soil failure modes in undrained cyclic loading” J. Geotech. Engg. Div.,ASCE, Vol.107, No.GT5, May, pp 539-551 |
| [14] | Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., eds (l997). ''Proceedings of the NCEER on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistances of Soils Tech. Report NCEER-1997-0022", Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York. |
| [15] | Youd, T.L. and Gilstrap, S.D. (1999). “Liquefaction and Deformation of Silty and Fine Grained Soils”, Procceedings 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon Portugal, 3,1013-1020. |
APA Style
Mohammad Naderi Pour, Adel Asakereh. (2015). A Comparison between Two Field Methods of Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in the Bandar Abbas City. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 3(2-2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11
ACS Style
Mohammad Naderi Pour; Adel Asakereh. A Comparison between Two Field Methods of Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in the Bandar Abbas City. Am. J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 3(2-2), 1-5. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11
AMA Style
Mohammad Naderi Pour, Adel Asakereh. A Comparison between Two Field Methods of Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in the Bandar Abbas City. Am J Civ Eng. 2015;3(2-2):1-5. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11,
author = {Mohammad Naderi Pour and Adel Asakereh},
title = {A Comparison between Two Field Methods of Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in the Bandar Abbas City},
journal = {American Journal of Civil Engineering},
volume = {3},
number = {2-2},
pages = {1-5},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajce.s.2015030202.11},
abstract = {The geotechnical characteristics of the soil layers are one of the main factors influencing liquefaction potential of the ground. In common usage, liquefaction refers to the loss of strength in saturated, cohesionless soils due to the build-up of pore water pressures during dynamic loading. The following five screening criteria, are recommended for completing a liquefaction evaluation: Geologic age and origin, Fines content and plasticity index, Saturation, Depth below ground surface and Soil penetration resistance. The liquefaction resistance of soils can be evaluated using laboratory tests such as cyclic simple shear, cyclic triaxial, cyclic torsional shear, and field methods such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Shear Wave Velocity (Vs). The present study is aimed at comparing the results of two field methods used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soil, i.e. SPT and CPT. It is concluded that the liquefaction evaluation methods based on the SPT data show more conservative results compared with those based on the CPT data.},
year = {2015}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - A Comparison between Two Field Methods of Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in the Bandar Abbas City AU - Mohammad Naderi Pour AU - Adel Asakereh Y1 - 2015/01/19 PY - 2015 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11 T2 - American Journal of Civil Engineering JF - American Journal of Civil Engineering JO - American Journal of Civil Engineering SP - 1 EP - 5 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8737 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.11 AB - The geotechnical characteristics of the soil layers are one of the main factors influencing liquefaction potential of the ground. In common usage, liquefaction refers to the loss of strength in saturated, cohesionless soils due to the build-up of pore water pressures during dynamic loading. The following five screening criteria, are recommended for completing a liquefaction evaluation: Geologic age and origin, Fines content and plasticity index, Saturation, Depth below ground surface and Soil penetration resistance. The liquefaction resistance of soils can be evaluated using laboratory tests such as cyclic simple shear, cyclic triaxial, cyclic torsional shear, and field methods such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Shear Wave Velocity (Vs). The present study is aimed at comparing the results of two field methods used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soil, i.e. SPT and CPT. It is concluded that the liquefaction evaluation methods based on the SPT data show more conservative results compared with those based on the CPT data. VL - 3 IS - 2-2 ER -
Email: