TY - JOUR
T1 - 3rd Ishihara Lecture
T2 - An investigation into why liquefaction charts work: A necessary step toward integrating the states of art and practice
AU - Dobry, Ricardo
AU - Abdoun, Tarek
N1 - Funding Information:
Some of the key results and conclusions presented were obtained over an extended period of time, with the help of many colleagues who are just too numerous to mention by name, but who are still most gratefully acknowledged. In the immediate past, the authors are deeply grateful to a number of colleagues, researchers and students for providing precious laboratory and field data and analyses, illuminating issues through insightful discussions, contributing directly to the paper and reviewing it. These more recent collaborators include: the staffs at the U. at Buffalo and RPI NEES Experimental Sites; graduate students at RPI and U. at Buffalo; Drs. R. Andrus, V. Bennett, S. Bhatia; A. Elgamal, M.E. Hynes, M. Gonzalez, I. Sasanakul, M. Sharp, S. Thevanayagam, and M. Zeghal; Messrs. H. El Ganainy and V. Mercado; and Ms. Meghan Hatton. All this help is cheerfully acknowledged. Important parts of the paper are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation of the U.S. under NEESR-SG Grant no. 0529995 ; this support is also gratefully acknowledged.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - This paper is a systematic effort to clarify why field liquefaction charts based on Seed and Idriss[U+05F3] Simplified Procedure work so well. This is a necessary step toward integrating the states of the art (SOA) and practice (SOP) for evaluating liquefaction and its effects. The SOA relies mostly on laboratory measurements and correlations with void ratio and relative density of the sand. The SOP is based on field measurements of penetration resistance and shear wave velocity coupled with empirical or semi-empirical correlations. This gap slows down further progress in both SOP and SOA. The paper accomplishes its objective through: a literature review of relevant aspects of the SOA including factors influencing threshold shear strain and pore pressure buildup during cyclic strain-controlled tests; a discussion of factors influencing field penetration resistance and shear wave velocity; and a discussion of the meaning of the curves in the liquefaction charts separating liquefaction from no liquefaction, helped by recent full-scale and centrifuge results. It is concluded that the charts are curves of constant cyclic strain at the lower end (Vs1<160m/s), with this strain being about 0.03-0.05% for earthquake magnitude, Mw≈7. It is also concluded, in a more speculative way, that the curves at the upper end probably correspond to a variable increasing cyclic strain and Ko, with this upper end controlled by overconsolidated and preshaken sands, and with cyclic strains needed to cause liquefaction being as high as 0.1-0.3%. These conclusions are validated by application to case histories corresponding to Mw≈7, mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area of California during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
AB - This paper is a systematic effort to clarify why field liquefaction charts based on Seed and Idriss[U+05F3] Simplified Procedure work so well. This is a necessary step toward integrating the states of the art (SOA) and practice (SOP) for evaluating liquefaction and its effects. The SOA relies mostly on laboratory measurements and correlations with void ratio and relative density of the sand. The SOP is based on field measurements of penetration resistance and shear wave velocity coupled with empirical or semi-empirical correlations. This gap slows down further progress in both SOP and SOA. The paper accomplishes its objective through: a literature review of relevant aspects of the SOA including factors influencing threshold shear strain and pore pressure buildup during cyclic strain-controlled tests; a discussion of factors influencing field penetration resistance and shear wave velocity; and a discussion of the meaning of the curves in the liquefaction charts separating liquefaction from no liquefaction, helped by recent full-scale and centrifuge results. It is concluded that the charts are curves of constant cyclic strain at the lower end (Vs1<160m/s), with this strain being about 0.03-0.05% for earthquake magnitude, Mw≈7. It is also concluded, in a more speculative way, that the curves at the upper end probably correspond to a variable increasing cyclic strain and Ko, with this upper end controlled by overconsolidated and preshaken sands, and with cyclic strains needed to cause liquefaction being as high as 0.1-0.3%. These conclusions are validated by application to case histories corresponding to Mw≈7, mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area of California during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
KW - Cyclic strains
KW - Empirical correlations
KW - Liquefaction
KW - Simplified procedure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919363375&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919363375&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.011
DO - 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.011
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84919363375
SN - 0267-7261
VL - 68
SP - 40
EP - 56
JO - Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
JF - Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
ER -