Liquefaction of granular soil deposits is one of the major causes of loss resulting from earthquakes. The accuracy in the assessment of the likelihood of liquefaction at a site affects the safety and economy of the design. In this paper, curves of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) versus cone penetration test (CPT) stress-normalized cone resistance qc1 are developed from a combination of analysis and laboratory testing. The approach consists of two steps: (1) determination of the CRR as a function of relative density from cyclic triaxial tests performed on samples isotropically consolidated to 100 kPa; and (2) estimation of the stress-normalized cone resistance qc1 for the relative densities at which the soil liquefaction tests were performed. A well-tested penetration resistance analysis based on cavity expansion analysis was used to calculate qc1 for the various soil densities. A set of 64 cyclic triaxial tests were performed on specimens of Ottawa sand with nonplastic silt content in the range of 0–15% by weight, and relative densities from loose to dense for each gradation, to establish the relationship of the CRR to the soil state and fines content. The resulting (CRR)7.5-qc1 relationship for clean sand is consistent with widely accepted empirical relationships. The (CRR)7.5-qc1 relationships for the silty sands depend on the relative effect of silt content on the CRR and qc1. It is shown that the cone resistance increases at a higher rate with increasing silt content than does liquefaction resistance, shifting the (CRR)7.5-qc1 curves to the right. The (CRR)7.5-qc1 curves proposed for both clean and silty sands are consistent with field observations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carraro et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: