Assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering beneath building foundation systems

Çetin, K. Önder; Unutmaz, Berna; Jeremić, Boris

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.021

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Cetin et al (2012) used a probabilistic relationship to determine the r d factor (Eqs. 4 and 5) that is divided into two parts (for z < 20 m and for z ³ 20 m), where s e r d (Eqs.…”

Section: Determination Of the Cyclic Stress Ratio (Csr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21, to consider the impact of the fines content based on Seed et al (1985). However, Cetin et al (2012) Consequently, Fig. 5 recapitulates the soil liquefaction resistance evaluation procedure, where the correction of the SPT blow counts is essential in this evaluation.…”

Section: Fines Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many correlations were published to evaluate liquefaction since the development of Seed & Idriss method; these new methods give more accurate results, like the correlations developed by Seed et al in 1985, which was adopted with slight modification by Youd et al (2001), Cetin et al (2004Cetin et al ( , 2012Cetin et al ( , 2016 and Idriss & Boulanger (2004, 2008.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1, there are significant differences between the methods of Seed et al, Cetin et al and Idriss & Boulanger. The Cetin et al correlations of the cyclic resistance ratio, adjusted for a magnitude M = 7.5 and a vertical effective stress s' v = 1 atm, are significantly lower than Seed et al and Idriss & Boulanger correlations. This paper focuses on the evaluation of the differences between the three main deterministic liquefaction correlations suggested by Seed et al (1985) (modified by Youd et al (2001)), Cetin et al (2004Cetin et al ( , 2012Cetin et al ( , 2016 and Idriss & Boulanger (2004, 2008) through a case study of a "petroleum" site located in the south of Saudi Arabia. Also, a step by step procedure is suggested to evaluate the liquefaction potential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Investigating the Differences between Various Deterministic Liquefaction Correlation Methods

Kahi¹,

Khouri²

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to manage the risks associated with an earthquake, a particular attention should be given to reduce and resist the effects caused by the earthquake such as soil liquefaction. Several evaluation procedures have evolved over the last four decades, since the use of the simplified method suggested by Seed & Idriss in 1971. However, these procedures present various differences among them. The target of this article is to investigate the differences between the three deterministic liquefaction correlations presented by Seed et al. and those that were published more recently by Cetin et al. and Idriss & Boulanger. A case study of a petroleum site located in the south of Saudi Arabia is utilized for this comparison. This site is representative of the sites located in that area. Based on SPT (Standard Penetration Test) measurements, results reveal the impact of these differences on cyclic resistance and cyclic stress ratios (CRR and CSR) and on the safety factor (FS). In addition, results reveal a comparison between the considered methods in terms of economical, conservative and moderate for the considered case. Also, a step by step procedure is suggested for engineers and designers to follow when evaluating the liquefaction potential of a certain site.

show abstract

Section: Determination Of the Cyclic Stress Ratio (Csr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fines Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Investigating the Differences between Various Deterministic Liquefaction Correlation Methods

Kahi¹,

Khouri²

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elastic solutions for these con ditions can be found in Poulos and Davis (1974) and other similar references. Cetin et al (2012) considered foundation affects on de formations and presented a useful figure in that paper to help map static driving shear stress ratio.…”

Section: Deformations and Static Driving Shear Stressesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonparametric Liquefaction Triggering and Postliquefaction Deformations

Yazdi

Moss

2017

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluates granular liquefaction triggering case-history data using a nonparametric approach. This approach assumes no functional form in the relationship between liquefied and nonliquefied cases as measured using cone penetration test (CPT) data. From a statistical perspective, this allows for an estimate of the threshold of liquefaction triggering unbiased by prior functional forms, and also provides a platform for testing existing published methods for accuracy and precision. The resulting threshold exhibits some unique trends, which are then interpreted based on postliquefaction deformation behavior. The range of postliquefaction deformations are differentiated into three zones: (1) large deformations associated with metastable conditions; (2) medium deformations associated with cyclic strain failure; and (3) small deformations associated with cyclic stress failure. Deformations are further defined based on the absence or presence of static driving shear stresses. This work presents a single simplified framework that provides quantitative guidance on triggering and qualitative guidance on deformation potential for quick assessment of risks associated with seismic soil liquefaction failure.

show abstract

Effects of basements and adjacent structures on liquefaction-triggering potential of foundation soils

Unutmaz

2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering beneath building foundation systems

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

Investigating the Differences between Various Deterministic Liquefaction Correlation Methods

Investigating the Differences between Various Deterministic Liquefaction Correlation Methods

Nonparametric Liquefaction Triggering and Postliquefaction Deformations

Effects of basements and adjacent structures on liquefaction-triggering potential of foundation soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About