Calibration of liquefaction potential index: A re-visit focusing on a new CPTU model

Fines-content effects on liquefaction hazard evaluation for infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand

“…Finding that 85% of sites without manifestation had LPI 45, Lee et al [35] concluded that LPI ¼ 13 was the OOP. Juang et al [32] first noted that the sites studied by Toprak and Holzer [54] were predominantly deposits of clean sands, while those examined by Lee et al [35] were mostly deposits of silty sands and sandy silts, postulating that the discrepancy in findings might be tied to fines-content. Papathanassiou [46] similarly evaluated LPI at sites with relatively high fines-content during the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan), 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey), and 2003 Lefkada (Greece) earthquakes, and concluded that LPI¼19 was the OOP for the assessed dataset.…”

CPTu Simplified Stress-Based Model for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential

“…Thus, the results of the analysis using the proposed CPTu-based method will enable a more meaningful modeling of liquefaction eŠect within the framework of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI). In fact, calibration of the LPI framework that is developed based on the proposed CPTu model has been performed and satisfactory results have been reported (Juang et al, 2008).…”

“…13. CPTu sounding proˆles and soil classiˆcation at location CPT-C4 in Adapazari (after Juang et al, 2008) the formulation of Ic (Eq. (3)) can lead to a signiˆcant error in the CRR calculated with Eq.…”

CPT-based analysis of liquefaction and re-liquefaction following the Canterbury earthquake sequence

“…Because the index involves many factors, the suitability of the LPI in different earthquakes (especially different geological conditions) must be re-calibrated under different geological conditions (e.g. [24,14,15,20,12]). Thus, the LPI-based analyses presented herein should be considered as a calibration process to confirm whether the LPI values obtained correlate well with the observed damage in Christchurch.…”