A Method for Estimating Undrained Cyclic Strength of Sandy Soils Using Standard Penetration Resistances

Tatsuoka, Fumio; Iwasaki, Toshio; Tokida, Ken-ichi; Yasuda, Susumu; Hirose, Makoto; Imai, Tsuneo; Konno, Masashi

doi:10.3208/sandf1972.18.3_43

Cited by 33 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, the range of estimated to measured relative density was from +25 to À20%. Tatsuoka et al (1978), who examined the accuracy of Meyerhof's (Meyerhof, 1957) expression by studying the results of SPT on normally consolidated sandy deposits and conventional undisturbed samples, made a similar assessment and concluded that Meyerhof's formulation tends to underestimate the relative density of fine sands and silty sands.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria

Hamidi

Varaksin²,

Nikraz³

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Impr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of relative density was developed with the intention of appropriately defining looseness and denseness of sand or sand–gravel soils in a meaningful way; however, there are sufficient amounts of research and case studies to demonstrate the unreliability of this concept due to its large inherent errors. Nevertheless, this parameter found its way early on as a ground improvement acceptance criterion based on the same philosophy that led to its formation. As there was general agreement among engineers that, in any case, direct testing of relative density in actual deep ground improvement projects was difficult, time consuming and costly, direct methods of relative density measurement were abandoned in favour of correlation to other field tests. At first glance, this may have seemed to work out quite well as the conceptual unreliability of relative density did not come into play, but a deeper look could reveal that the proposed correlations are also as unreliable as the concept itself. This paper will discuss the reasons why relative density correlations should not be used as ground improvement acceptance criteria, and alternative reliable criteria will be proposed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria

Hamidi

Varaksin²,

Nikraz³

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Impr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bearing all this in mind, we shall attempt to estimate the difference between laboratory and in-situ liquefaction resistance from (sparse) information in the literature. This information, reported in terms of the "ratio of undistributed to remolded strength" (Tatsuoka et al (1978), Mulilis et al (197Ü) and (1977)) is reproduced in Table 3.10., herein. Be cause difference in soil structure is assumed here as the primary reason for difference in resistance and because difference in soil structure (i.e., sample preparation) seems to cause only a change in intercept a, in Eq.…”

Section: Li•mentioning

confidence: 82%

Probabilistic Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes

Φαρδησ¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of test results on the variability of limiting density estimates. 3.2.Effect of uncertainty on D on the estimation of the Ν -D r relationship. ...-..,• 3.3.Comparison of proposed Ν -D" relationship with other models. 3.4.Effect of mean initial effective stress on liquefaction.3.5. Variation of the intercept of the liquefaction model. 3.6.Liquefaction effect of motion bi-directionality as a function of densification rate. Ill 3.7. Pore pressure evolution under uniform simple shear cycles. 3.8.Cyclic Stress-strain relation for sand. 3.9.Hysteresis loops at a point in a deposit subjected to the Taft 1952 record. Total stress analysis. 129 3.10. Hysteresis loops at a point in a deposit subjected to an artificial earthquake. Total stress analysis. 130 3.11. Undrained stress-strain loops after Seed and Lee (1966). 131 3.12. Hysteresis loops at a point in a deposit subjected to the Taft 1952 record. Effective stress analysis. 1333.13. Hysteresis loops at a point in a deposit subjected to an artificial motion. Effective stress analysis.3.14. Layer-average values of £nN. 3.15. Layer variance of ÄnN. 149 3.16. Autocorrelation functions of £nN. (a) Vertical autocorrelation model, (b) Horizontal isotropic autocorrelation model. 151 4.1. Discrete Dynamic Model. 182 4.2 Median bedrock spectrum and +σ fractiles. 186 13 Page 4.3. Realizations of random bedrock spectra. 192 4.4. Equivalent uniform cycle concept after Annaki and Lee (1974). 4.5. Variation of hysteresis loops in a layer due to variation in void ratio. 4.6. Determination of stress amplitude from the layer-average stress time-history. 199 4.7. Typical relationship between layer-average excess pore pressure ratio and liquefied fraction of the layer. 211 4.8. Isotropic spectral density function of horizontal fluctuations of relative density and permeability. 219 4.9. Discretization grid for simulations of horizontal diffusion. 221 4.10. Effect of vertical diffusion on pore pressures. 226 5.1. Fraction of liquefied area for soil parameters equal to their mean values. Reference site. 235 5.2. Fraction of liquefied area for soil parameters equal to their mean values. Actual site. 236 5.3. Layer-average excess pore pressure ratio for soil parameters equal to their mean values. Reference site. 237 5.4. Layer-average excess pore pressure ratio for soil parameters equal to their mean values. Actual site. 239 5.5. Effect of deposit discretization on results of Model B. 242 5.6. Typical evolution of layer-average excess pore pressure ratios from Model B. 243 5.7. Typical evolution of layer-average excess pore pressure ratios from Model C. 244 5.8. Response spectra at the top for 5% damping. Model A, both sites. 250 5.9. Response spectra at the top for 5% damping. Model B, Reference site. 251 5.10. Response spectra at the top for 5% damping. Model C, Reference site. 252 5.30. Probability of zero liquefied area. Actual site. 5.31. Probability of zero liquefied area. Reference site. 5.32. Probability of zero liquefied area. Actual site. 5.33. Mean value and standard devia...

show abstract

History of Liquefaction Hazard Map Development and a New Method for Creating Hazard Maps for Low-Rise Houses

Yasuda

2022

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (Beijing 202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Method for Estimating Undrained Cyclic Strength of Sandy Soils Using Standard Penetration Resistances

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria

Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria

Probabilistic Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes

History of Liquefaction Hazard Map Development and a New Method for Creating Hazard Maps for Low-Rise Houses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About