Seismic Soil Liquefaction for Deterministic and Probabilistic Approach Based on in Situ Test (CPTU) Data

Shpresa Gashi^*, Neritan Shkodrani

Polytechnic University of Tirana.

DOI: 10.4236/wjet.2015.32004                

Abstract

One of the most devastating effects of earthquakes in the seismic regions is liquefaction. Many research works have been done in this field and at present different methods are available for the liquefaction potential assessment. The liquefaction is a very significant phenomenon in clayey silty soils, silty sands and also sands. The high potential of liquefaction is generally recognized when these type of soils are laid under the hydrostatic water table. This paper make an overview of two different methods for the evaluation of liquefaction potential, and a case study is presented. Two methods presented here are the Deterministic Approach proposed by Robertson and Wride (1998), and the Probabilistic Approach proposed by Moss and co-workers. Case study of the liquefaction potential evaluation is done for the Golem area, where geotechnical data from CPTU test were collected. The results of analysis in the Golem area show that liquefaction has medium susceptibly to occur. From the analyses, it is shown that the Probabilistic Approach gives more accurate information about the risk of liquefaction than the Deterministic Approach.

Keywords

Liquefaction Assessment, Deterministic Approach, Probabilistic Approach, CPTU Test

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971) Simplified Procedures for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 97, 1249-1273.
[2]	Robertson, P.K. (2010) Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied strength using the Cone Penetration Test. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136, 842-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000286
[3]	Liao, S.S.C. and Whitman, R.V. (1986) Catalouge of Liquefaction and Non-Liquefaction Occurrences during Earthquakes. Report, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge.
[4]	Youd, T.L. and Noble, S.K. (1997) Magnitude Scaling Factors. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 149-165.
[5]	Idriss, I.M. (1990) Response of Soft Soil Sites during Earthquakes. Proc., H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, 273-290.
[6]	Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C. (1998) Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, 442-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t98-017
[7]	Robertson, P.K. (1990) Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27, 151-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t90-014
[8]	Coduto, D.P. (2003) Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices. Chapter 3, Chapter 20.
[9]	Cetin, K.O. and Seed, R.B. (2004) Nonlinear Shear Mass Participation Factor (rd) for Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio Evaluation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24, 103-113.
[10]	Moss, R.E., Seed, R.B., Kayne, R.E., Stewart, J.P. and Kiureghian, A.D. (2006) CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of in Situ seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132, 1032-1051.
[11]	Sulstarova, E., Kociaj, S. and Aliaj, S.H. (1980) Seismic Regionalization of PSR of Albania. Publication of Academy of Sciences, Tirana.
[12]	Aliaj, Sh., Kociaj, S., MuÇo, B. and Sulstarova, Sh. (2010) Seismic Regionalization of PSR of Albania. Publication of Academy of Sciences, Tirana, 221.