Comparison of CPT-based and SPT-based liquefaction discrimination methods by Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake data

被引：0

作者：

Dong L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Wang L.-M. ^{[1
,2
]}

Xia K. ^{[1
]}

Yuan X.-M. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Key Laboratory of Loess Earthquake Engineering, Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu

[2] Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, 150080, Heilongjiang

来源：

Yantu Lixue/Rock and Soil Mechanics | 2017年 / 38卷 / 12期

关键词：

Chi-Chi earthquake; Cone penetration test; Liquefaction; Standard penetration test;

D O I：

10.16285/j.rsm.2017.12.032

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Using CPT data from the Chi-Chi earthquake, CPT-based liquefaction discrimination methods proposed by Robertson and by Olsen are inspected. The prediction success ratios of the two methods are 82.61% and 80.43% for the liquefied sites, but 31.82% and 44.32% for the non-liquefied sites, respectively. CPT-based methods are reliable for liquefied soils, but not effective for non-liquefied soils. For comparison, the SPT-based liquefaction discrimination method recommended by National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research of USA is tested using data from Chi-Chi earthquake, the prediction success ratio of the procedure is 92.41% and 94.35% for liquefied and non-liquefied sites, respectively. The SPT-based method demonstrates higher prediction success ratio than that CPT-based methods. However, CPT-based soil type chart can reflect soil strength and soil type simultaneously, and can differentiate liquefied soils from non-liquefied soils in Chi-Chi earthquake. Moreover, for the preliminary discrimination of clayey soils liquefaction, CPT-based soil type chart is also better than the clay content which has been always used. © 2017, Science Press. All right reserved.

引用

页码：3643 / 3648

页数：5

共 15 条

[1] Seed R.B., Cetin K.O., Moss R.E.S., Et al., Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering, a unified and consistent framework, (2003)
[2] Zhang J.-H., Gu G.-R., Study on CPT for liquefaction estimation of sands with thin clay interlayer in Shanghai area, Rock and Soil Mechanics, 26, 10, pp. 1652-1656, (2005)
[3] Cai G.-J., Liu S.-Y., Tong L.-Y., Et al., Evaluation of liquefaction of sandy soils based on cone penetration test, Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 27, 5, pp. 1019-1027, (2008)
[4] Li Z.-Y., Sun R., Cao Z.-Z., Et al., Feasibility of cone penetration test to evaluating Bachu earthquake liquefaction, Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31, 12, pp. 3907-3912, (2010)
[5] Youd T.L., Idriss I.M., Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironment Engineering, 127, 4, pp. 297-313, (2001)
[6] Seed H.B., Idriss I.M., Arango I., Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109, 3, pp. 458-482, (1983)
[7] Seed H.B., Tokimatsu K., Harder L.F., Et al., The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111, 12, pp. 1425-1445, (1985)
[8] Robertson P.K., Wride C.E., Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, 3, pp. 442-459, (1998)
[9] Olsen R.S., Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, pp. 225-276, (1997)
[10] Hwang J.H., Yang C.W., Verification of critical cyclic strength curve by Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake data, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21, 3, pp. 237-257, (2001)

← 1 2 →