Examination of SPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Correlations

Abstract

The differences between the liquefaction triggering correlations published by Seed et al. (1984) and those published more recently by Cetin et al. (2004) and those by Idriss and Boulanger (2004 , 2008) are examined in this paper. The case histories, which cause the Cetin et al. correlation of the cyclic resistance ratio, adjusted for M = 7.5 and σ v′ = 1 atm, to plot significantly lower than those by Seed et al. and Idriss and Boulanger, are examined in detail. The lower position of the Cetin et al. liquefaction triggering correlation is found to be primarily caused by their interpretations and usage for 8 of the 11 key case histories that had controlled the position of their liquefaction triggering correlation. When properly interpreted, these eight case histories no longer support the position of the published Cetin et al. liquefaction triggering curve.

Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Using the Energy Approach

“…Computed liquefaction energies and earthquake energies for 4 different cases (sat = unit weight, Mt = mass of the soil for the volume of 1 m 3 , Wliq = energy required for liquefaction, Wquake = energy imposed by the earthquake over soil. Data from Idriss and Boulanger, 2010 …”

“…The partial data in Table 3, namely amax, depths to layer of interest and water table, the total and effective vertical stresses on the layer, (N1)60, fines content and (N1)60cs were taken from Idriss and Boulanger (2010). sat and Mt were deduced from the imported data using the depth to water table, the total stress and the effective stress in the same data source.…”

Sensitivity Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Potential

“…In the literature we find that the probabilistic method has been widely used for the evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils (Cetin et al, 2004;Idriss & Boulanger., 2010;Juang et al, 2012;Bhattacharya & Goda, 2013). But most of these authors use probabilistic models based on statistical analyzes of historical cases.…”

“…The Example that we treat for deterministic and probabilistic analysis of liquefaction potential of soil for a magnitude Mw = 7.4 and acceleration a max = 0.2 g is taken from a site in hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) after an earthquake of magnitude M = 6.9 occurred on 16 January 1995 (Idriss & Boulanger, 2010). The different parameters of soils are shown in Figure 1.…”

Select Liquefaction Case Histories from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence

“…However, as discussed in Idriss and Boulanger (2012), the position of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) curve, which is central to simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures, is often controlled by relatively few case histories. Toward this end, the authors selected 25 sites to analyze in detail, many of which had minor surficial liquefaction manifestations resulting from the Darfield or Christchurch earthquake.…”