Liquefaction Evaluation Research Articles

Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles : J. L. Figueroa, A. S. Saada, L. Liang & N. M. Dahisaria, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering — ASCE, 120(9), 1994, pp 1554–1569

Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles : J. L. Figueroa, A. S. Saada, L. Liang & N. M. Dahisaria, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering — ASCE, 120(9), 1994, pp 1554–1569

Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction by Energy Principles

Damage resulting from severe earthquakes are commonly caused by liquefaction of loose and saturated sands and strong ground motions. For two decades, researchers have sought for parameters that might better explain the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit. The use of the energy concept to define the liquefaction potential of a soil is discussed in this paper and has been validated in laboratory tests on sand specimens. Numerous tests were conducted at various confining pressures, relative densities, and strain amplitudes to determine energy per unit volume required for liquefaction. Relationships were developed between the energy per unit volume and the varying test parameters. The dissipated-energy-per-unit-volume approach shows promise and is accommodating to nonuniform loading typical of earthquakes.

Liquefaction Susceptibility Evaluation for the City of Evansville, Indiana

A series of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to delineate potentially liquefiable deposits in Evansville, Indiana. Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) were performed in areas where SPT soundings indicated liquefaction-prone material. Two SPT-based and two CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures were evaluated. A fifth method, called the Liquefaction Potential Index, is utilized to provide more quantitative assessment regarding liquefaction risk resulting from the postulated earthquakes. At 27 different locations, over 100 soil layers were investigated for liquefaction susceptibility. Concern exists for two postulated earthquakes: one a major earthquake generated in the Wabash Valley fault zone and the other a catastrophic earthquake with an epicenter in the central New Madrid seismic zone.

Development of a new iron catalyst for the direct liquefaction of coal

As part of a program for the evaluation of coal liquefaction, supported by the French government and the European Community between 1980 and 1990, our Institute has developed a synthetic catalyst. We first consider the approach that led us to the selection of iron-based solids in the form of dispersed disposable catalysts, as a convenient solution to the improvement of coal liquefaction efficiency. This choice implies the catalysts possess some specific properties which are detailed in the light of experimental and operational evidences. Several methods for the production of highly divided solids have been tested experimentally. The most promising phases were obtained through hydrolysis of volatile iron compounds in a hydrogen-oxygen flame

An expert system approach to liquefaction analysis part 1: Development and implementation

This paper presents the development of the rule-based expert system, LIQUEFY, which evaluates the liquefaction potential of sites using several commonly accepted liquefaction evaluation methods. In this paper the issues in the design of the rule-based are addressed including: knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, and system validation. LIQUEFY was developed for the personal computer and includes 470 rules, an explanation facility, and methods for handling uncertainty in input data and resulting conclusions.

Discussion of “ Uncertainty in Steady‐State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Discussion of “ <i>Uncertainty in Steady‐State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures</i> ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Closure to “ Uncertainty in Steady‐State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Closure to “ <i>Uncertainty in Steady‐State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures</i> ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Liquefaction evaluation at a California substation site

A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, in conjunction with subsurface geologic investigations, was used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of sand layers at Western Area Power Adminstration's Tracy, California, substation site. The seismic hazard analysis evaluates the peak ground acceleration corresponding to a lower level earthquake with a 50-percent probability of occurrence in 150 years, and two upper level earthquakes with a 10-percent probability of occurrence in 50 and 100 years. Based on the results of the geologic investigations and seismologic studies, it was concluded that the potential of liquefaction at the site for the design earthquakes was low.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Uncertainty in steady-state liquefaction evaluation procedures : Kramer, S.L. J Geotech Engng Div ASCE V115, N10, Oct 1989, P1402–1419

Uncertainty in steady-state liquefaction evaluation procedures : Kramer, S.L. J Geotech Engng Div ASCE V115, N10, Oct 1989, P1402–1419

Erratum “ Uncertainty in Steady State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Erratum “ <i>Uncertainty in Steady State Liquefaction Evaluation Procedures</i> ” by Steven L. Kramer (October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10)

Liquefaction at the Meloland Overcrossing During the Imperial Valley Earthquake of 1979

The Meloland Overcrossing is located 0.3 mi from the Imperial fault and was shaken by ground surface motions of up to 0.3 g during the Imperial Valley earthquake of 1979 (magnitude M = 6.4). While there was no significant damage to this instrumented highway bridge or any reported surface evidence of subsurface liquefaction, it is assessed that liquefaction occurred in up to three layers at the site at various times during the first eight seconds of shaking. A modified level ground liquefaction analysis after Seed and others (1983) was used to assess such time dependent development of liquefaction. Results from such evaluations were used to assess and explain anomalies in the lateral and rotational responses of the central pier pile foundation demonstrating that the central pier of the Meloland Overcrossing came periously close to complete collapse during this event. This is contrary to the bridge designer9s belief that this highway bridge performed quite well during the earthquake as characterized solely by the lack of observable damage to the bridge. It is further suggested that the time dependent evaluation of liquefaction demonstrated herein can be used on other projects where one likewise wishes to assess the amount of deformation (e.g., the rotationally induced settlement in the case of Meloland) that is likely to ensue.

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Closure to “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Closure to “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Discussion of “ <i>Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure</i> ” by Steve J. Poulos, Gonzalo Castro, and John W. France (June, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 6)

Liquefaction evaluation procedure : Poulos, S J; Castro, G; France, J W J Geotech Engng Div ASCEV111, N6, June 1985, P772–792

Liquefaction evaluation procedure : Poulos, S J; Castro, G; France, J W J Geotech Engng Div ASCEV111, N6, June 1985, P772–792