4.5 Article

Verification of the Soil-Type Specific Correlation between Liquefaction Resistance and Shear-Wave Velocity of Sand by Dynamic Centrifuge Test

Journal

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000193

Keywords

Sand; Earthquakes; Shear waves; Velocity; Cyclic tests; Soil liquefaction; Centrifuge models; Correlation

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB714203]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50908207, 50708095]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20080430219, 20081476]
  4. Foundation for Seismological Researches, China Earthquake Administration [200808022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liquefaction of granular soil deposits is one of the major causes of loss resulting from earthquakes. The accuracy of the liquefaction potential assessment at a site affects the safety and economy of an engineering project. Although shear-wave velocity (V-s)-based methods have become prevailing, very few works have addressed the problem of the reliability of various relationships between liquefaction resistance (CRR) and V-s used in practices. In this paper, both cyclic triaxial and dynamic centrifuge model tests were performed on saturated Silica sand No. 8 with V-s measurements using bender elements to investigate the reliability of the CRR-V-s1 correlation previously proposed by the authors. The test results show that the semiempirical CRR-V-s1 curve derived from laboratory liquefaction test of Silica sand No. 8 can accurately classify the (CRR, V-s1) database produced by dynamic centrifuge test of the same sand, while other existing correlations based on various sandy soils will significantly under or overestimate the cyclic resistance of this sand. This study verifies that CRR-V-s1 curve for liquefaction assessment is strongly soil-type dependent, and it is necessary to develop site-specific liquefaction resistance curves from laboratory cyclic tests for engineering practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available