SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard

For the new nuclear power plants, the hazard of liquefaction due to earthquakes should be excluded by appropriate site selection or eliminated by engineering measures. An important question is how to define a quantitative criterion for negligibility of the liquefaction hazard. In the case of operating plants, liquefaction can be revealed as a beyond-design-basis event. It is important to learn whether the liquefaction hazard has a safety relevance and whether there is a sufficient margin to the onset of liquefaction. The use of pseudoprobabilistic method would be practicable for the definition of probability of liquefaction, but it could result in overconservative results. In this paper, the applicability of the pseudoprobabilistic procedure is demonstrated for the sites in diffuse seismicity environment and for low hazard levels that are typical for nuclear safety considerations. Use of the procedure is demonstrated in a case study with realistic site-plant parameters.

show abstract

“…As it has been described by Katona [7], the probability of liquefaction can be calculated, for example, by the formula of Cetin et al [27]:…”

Section: The Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…has been used by Cetin et al [27]. e probability of liquefaction can be derived from equation (3) as follows:…”

Section: The Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of Pseudoprobabilistic Method of Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants at Diffuse Seismicity Sites

Katona

Győri

Tóth³

2019

Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On 17 August and 12 November 1999, the wider area of Izmit, Adapazari, Duzce and Bolu in Turkey was hit by two major earthquakes exceeding magnitude 7 occurred within three months. The widespread damaging effects of liquefaction during the two seismic shocks, which ruptured about 200-km segment of the North Anatolian Fault, accelerated soil liquefaction studies in Turkey (Bakir et al 2002;Cetin et al 2004;Yalcin et al 2008;Tosun et al 2011). In this study, definition of five different levels of liquefaction potential in percentages is proposed for the study area.…”

Section: Assessment Of Liquefaction Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been long understood that the liquefaction potential of soils depends on several parameters including grain size distribution, grain shape, density, thickness of deposits, as well as the position of groundwater table (Andrus 1994;Finn et al 1994;Andrews and Martin 2000;Thevanayagam and Martin 2002;Naeini and Baziar 2004). During the recent decades, many regions have subjected serious damages because of the soil liquefaction (Seed and Idriss 1967;Holzer 1998;Yuan et al 2003;Cetin et al 2002Cetin et al , 2004Beroya and Aydin 2008;Tosun et al 2011;Lee et al 2012). Structural failures in liquefied soils can take place as results of sand boiling and ground settlement, leading to bearing capacity failure of foundation, uplift of buried structures, slumps of roads and failure in slopes or lateral spreading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), Becker Penetration Test (BPT) and measurement of in situ shear wave velocity (V s ) testing methods have a level of enough reliability to predict the liquefaction potential of soils, the most commonly used in situ testing method is the SPT (Youd et al, 2001). The use of SPT for assessment of liquefaction potential was first employed in the Great Alaska (M > 8) and Niigata (M ¼ 7.5) Earthquakes in 1964, and has made a substantial progress by numerous researches (Ohsaki 1966;Idriss 1971, 1982;Seed et al 1985;Liao et al 1988;NCEER 1997;Toprak et al 1999;Youd et al 2001;Cetin et al 2004;Idriss and Boulanger 2006;Mhaske and Choudhury 2010;Das 2015a, 2015b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras, Turkey

Çabalar

Canbolat

Akbulut

et al. 2019

Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras city, which is located on the seismically active zones of East Anatolian and Dead Sea Faults in southern central Turkey. Geotechnical investigations in the city were carried out both in situ and laboratory. A total of 238 boreholes in the city were drilled in order to perform Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and to define the physical properties (sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, soil classification) of the soils obtained from these boreholes. The stratigraphic structure underlying the city consists of various amounts of silt, clay, gravel and sand. Ground water table levels were found to vary from 0-6 m to 15 m or more in the study area. Liquefaction potential was studied based on the SPT results and a hypothetical earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5. The results indicate that the southern areas of the city have a high potential to liquefy, while the northern parts of the city lie mainly within nonliquefaction area. Analyses of liquefaction potential were mapped by using geographical information system (GIS)based computer software. Evidently, the complied GIS maps could be effectively used by researchers and engineers for further studies on the purpose of land-use planning and urban development.

show abstract

Site‐specific liquefaction fragility analysis: Cloud, stripe, and incremental approaches

Bullock

Liel

Dashti

2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article adapts a handful of procedures from performance‐based earthquake engineering for use in estimating the probability of liquefaction triggering. The resulting approach, defined as liquefaction fragility analysis (LFA), produces site‐specific fragility functions for liquefaction. These fragility functions incorporate site‐specific, system‐level effects not captured by existing, broader methods, but require more detailed knowledge of both the subsurface conditions and the seismic hazard at the site. LFA accounts for system‐level effects such as pore pressure migration, dynamic layer‐to‐layer interaction, and partial saturation to the extent that these phenomena can be captured in the constitutive models used in nonlinear site response analyses. Multiple approaches for selecting ground motions for LFA are discussed and illustrated using a case study of a site in Los Angeles, California. The computational expense of using LFA for probabilistic estimate of future liquefaction seismic performance is also discussed.

show abstract

SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard

Cited by 90 publications

References 20 publications

Applicability of Pseudoprobabilistic Method of Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants at Diffuse Seismicity Sites

Applicability of Pseudoprobabilistic Method of Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants at Diffuse Seismicity Sites

Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras, Turkey

Site‐specific liquefaction fragility analysis: Cloud, stripe, and incremental approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About