Implementation and Use of a Mechanical Cone Penetration Test Database for Liquefaction Hazard Assessment of the Coastal Area of the Tuscany Region

Abstract

This paper describes the implementation and use of a mechanical cone penetration test (CPTm) database for the evaluation of the liquefaction potential in some areas of Tuscany. More specifically, the database contains 4500 CPTm covering an area of 1787 square km and mainly concerns some coastal areas of Tuscany. Available simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures (LEPs) are mainly based on piezocone CPT (CPTu) test results and not on CPTm. An early interest on developing LEPs with reference to CPTm became quite soon obsolete because of the widespread use of piezocone. Unfortunately, in Italy, the use of CPTm is very popular. After the 2012 seismic sequence of Emilia-Romagna, the use of CPTm for liquefaction risk analysis has seen a renewed interest, even though such a topic should require further studies. This paper shows an empirical approach for liquefaction triggering assessment by CPTm using existing LEPs, thus making possible the use of the developed CPTm database for the preliminary screening of the study area.

The Identification of the Uncertainty in Soil Strength Parameters Based on CPTu Measurements and Random Fields

“…Initially, tests were performed using mechanical cones registering two parameters, i.e., cone tip resistance ( q c ) and sleeve friction ( f s ), along with the survey profile with an interval of tens of centimeters. This large interval is directly related to the design of mechanical cones [ 25 ]. Today, mechanical cones are used less and less, and the name CPT refers rather to the quasi-continuous surveys performed with electrical cones (with typical intervals of 0.5–2 cm).…”

Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Potential through Three Field Tests-Based Methods: A Case Study of Babol City

“…13. These results show that although the CPT and SPT are the two most widely utilized indices for estimating the liquefaction properties of soils [55], [56], the standard penetration number (N) and cone tip resistance (qc) are not evaluated precisely and the test apparatus may be in error. In addition, due to the variation of the recorded SPT N-value and CPT resistance, factor of safety against liquefaction may lead to an over or under estimation compare to each other.…”