(Created blank page) |
m (JSanchez moved page Draft Sanchez Pinedo 348612704 to Rollins* et al 2024a) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Abstract== | ||
+ | Although gravelly soils have been observed to liquefy in 27 earthquakes in the past 120 years, many engineers believe that gravel cannot liquefy due to its high hydraulic conductivity. Gradations from gravel liquefaction case histories have shown these deposits typically contain 25 to 40% sand, reducing the hydraulic conductivity and enabling excess pore pressures to cause liquefaction. While cone penetrometers (CPT), typically used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in sand, may show increases in penetration resistance due to their small diameter relative to gravel particles, the CPT has successfully predicted gravel liquefaction for looser sandy gravels. Case histories in Wellington, New Zealand demonstrate the successful identification of gravel liquefaction hazards using CPT. Although some layers in the profile indicated high penetration resistance, most of the profile was correctly predicted to liquefy. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) from the CPT did not consistently indicate a sandy gravel profile but was often classified as behaving like a sand or silty sand; likely influenced by higher sand percentages between gravel particles. To evaluate the ability of the CPT to characterize gravelly soils and their liquefaction potential, additional field case histories are desirable. This paper presents test results from two case histories, one in Wellington, New Zealand, and one in Petrinja, Croatia, where gravels have liquefied. In both cases, the CPT occasionally overestimated liquefaction resistance in gravel layers. The advantages of using a 74 mm diameter Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT) are also highlighted with companion testing. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Full Paper == | ||
+ | <pdf>Media:Draft_Sanchez Pinedo_348612704282.pdf</pdf> |
Although gravelly soils have been observed to liquefy in 27 earthquakes in the past 120 years, many engineers believe that gravel cannot liquefy due to its high hydraulic conductivity. Gradations from gravel liquefaction case histories have shown these deposits typically contain 25 to 40% sand, reducing the hydraulic conductivity and enabling excess pore pressures to cause liquefaction. While cone penetrometers (CPT), typically used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in sand, may show increases in penetration resistance due to their small diameter relative to gravel particles, the CPT has successfully predicted gravel liquefaction for looser sandy gravels. Case histories in Wellington, New Zealand demonstrate the successful identification of gravel liquefaction hazards using CPT. Although some layers in the profile indicated high penetration resistance, most of the profile was correctly predicted to liquefy. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) from the CPT did not consistently indicate a sandy gravel profile but was often classified as behaving like a sand or silty sand; likely influenced by higher sand percentages between gravel particles. To evaluate the ability of the CPT to characterize gravelly soils and their liquefaction potential, additional field case histories are desirable. This paper presents test results from two case histories, one in Wellington, New Zealand, and one in Petrinja, Croatia, where gravels have liquefied. In both cases, the CPT occasionally overestimated liquefaction resistance in gravel layers. The advantages of using a 74 mm diameter Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT) are also highlighted with companion testing.
Published on 10/06/24
Submitted on 10/06/24
Volume Sources of error in CPTu testing, 2024
DOI: 10.23967/isc.2024.282
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license
Are you one of the authors of this document?