Abstract
The demand for a precise evaluation of shear wave velocity Vs, is gaining interest in the field of geotechnical engineering due to its importance as a key parameter required to properly evaluate typical characteristics of soils. Nowadays, Vsmeasurements are performed on the field using different methods, such as SCPT tests and various geophysical methods. However, the effectiveness of these field measurements is not guaranteed and rather depends on how they are analyzed. Furthermore, a proper analysis is critical since the collected data may be used in liquefaction evaluation or earthquake ground response analyses. In these situations, it is recommended to verify the coherence between the obtained geophysical (Vs) and geotechnical (N-SPT, qc-CPT) measurements using alternative methods (e.g., Vs-correlations, H/V method, etc...). In some situations, the correlation between the different measurements makes it easier to unambiguously define seismic wave profiles. In other cases, geophysical and geotechnical tests would provide different resolutions for Vsmeasurements, an issue that complicates the decision of the practitioner. In this paper, we first demonstrate the importance of the shear-wave velocity in liquefaction potential analysis. A case study performed in eastern Canada is also presented where we show the importance of the method used to calculate Vsprofiles (MASW, MMASW).
Highlights
The disturbing effects of soil liquefaction have not sprung to the attention of researchers and geotechnical engineers until 1964 when two major earthquakes shook Anchorage, Alaska and Niigata, Japan
The liquefaction potential calculated based on the SPT tests are compared to those obtained with the Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) and the Multi Modal Analysis of Surface Waves (MMASW) methods in order to compare the effectiveness of both methods
Vs appears to be preferred over N-SPT and qc-CPT in liquefaction potential analyses since it has the advantage of linking the cyclic liquefaction resistance CRR of the soil to its seismic demand cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
Summary
The disturbing effects of soil liquefaction have not sprung to the attention of researchers and geotechnical engineers until 1964 when two major earthquakes shook Anchorage, Alaska and Niigata, Japan. Both earthquakes produced spectacular examples of major damage to buildings, bridges, buried structures, highways, and utilities [1]. Liquefaction caused severe damages in several seismic events such as in the Marina District in San Francisco during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, in Kobe during the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake, and in the Eastern part of Japan during the 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku. While these cases serve as relatively recent examples, similar cases of sand liquefaction were reported much earlier [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
