A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential
This paper estimated the liquefaction potential of a saturated soil deposit subjected to a horizontal seismic excitation at its base using the total stress approach. A comparative analysis between the simplified and the nonlinear dynamic methods was used to verify to what extent the simplified metho...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2017-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674775516302256 |
| _version_ | 1819040947564969984 |
|---|---|
| author | Kamel Filali Badreddine Sbartai |
| author_facet | Kamel Filali Badreddine Sbartai |
| author_sort | Kamel Filali |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This paper estimated the liquefaction potential of a saturated soil deposit subjected to a horizontal seismic excitation at its base using the total stress approach. A comparative analysis between the simplified and the nonlinear dynamic methods was used to verify to what extent the simplified method could be reliable. In order to generalise the reliability of the simplified method for any value of the maximum acceleration for the used earthquakes, a correction for the maximum acceleration less than 0.3g was proposed based on the comparison of safety factor values determined by the dynamic method illustrated by the equivalent linear model with lumped masses and the simplified method for a given profile of soil subjected to 38 earthquakes. The nonlinear behaviour of soil was represented by two hyperbolic models: Hardin and Drnevich, and Masing. To determine the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the cone penetration test (CPT) based method, the standard penetration test (SPT) based method, and the shear wave velocity based method were used. The safety factor was calculated as the ratio of CRR/CSR, where CSR represents the cyclic stress ratio. The results of the proposed correction have given smaller values of the safety factor compared to the nonlinear dynamic methods for the maximum acceleration less than 0.3g. In other words, by considering this correction, the most unfavourable case is always given by the modified simplified method. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T09:17:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-293bd2ec2c164a6dba065d343c31e200 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1674-7755 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T09:17:12Z |
| publishDate | 2017-10-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering |
| spelling | doaj.art-293bd2ec2c164a6dba065d343c31e2002022-12-21T19:09:06ZengElsevierJournal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering1674-77552017-10-019595596610.1016/j.jrmge.2017.05.008A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potentialKamel Filali0Badreddine Sbartai1LMGHU Laboratory, University of 20 August 1955-Skikda, Skikda, 21000, AlgeriaLMGHU Laboratory, University of 20 August 1955-Skikda, Skikda, 21000, AlgeriaThis paper estimated the liquefaction potential of a saturated soil deposit subjected to a horizontal seismic excitation at its base using the total stress approach. A comparative analysis between the simplified and the nonlinear dynamic methods was used to verify to what extent the simplified method could be reliable. In order to generalise the reliability of the simplified method for any value of the maximum acceleration for the used earthquakes, a correction for the maximum acceleration less than 0.3g was proposed based on the comparison of safety factor values determined by the dynamic method illustrated by the equivalent linear model with lumped masses and the simplified method for a given profile of soil subjected to 38 earthquakes. The nonlinear behaviour of soil was represented by two hyperbolic models: Hardin and Drnevich, and Masing. To determine the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the cone penetration test (CPT) based method, the standard penetration test (SPT) based method, and the shear wave velocity based method were used. The safety factor was calculated as the ratio of CRR/CSR, where CSR represents the cyclic stress ratio. The results of the proposed correction have given smaller values of the safety factor compared to the nonlinear dynamic methods for the maximum acceleration less than 0.3g. In other words, by considering this correction, the most unfavourable case is always given by the modified simplified method.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674775516302256LiquefactionSoilEarthquakeSimplified methodNonlinear dynamic method |
| spellingShingle | Kamel Filali Badreddine Sbartai A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering Liquefaction Soil Earthquake Simplified method Nonlinear dynamic method |
| title | A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| title_full | A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| title_fullStr | A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| title_short | A comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| title_sort | comparative study between simplified and nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating liquefaction potential |
| topic | Liquefaction Soil Earthquake Simplified method Nonlinear dynamic method |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674775516302256 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kamelfilali acomparativestudybetweensimplifiedandnonlineardynamicmethodsforestimatingliquefactionpotential AT badreddinesbartai acomparativestudybetweensimplifiedandnonlineardynamicmethodsforestimatingliquefactionpotential AT kamelfilali comparativestudybetweensimplifiedandnonlineardynamicmethodsforestimatingliquefactionpotential AT badreddinesbartai comparativestudybetweensimplifiedandnonlineardynamicmethodsforestimatingliquefactionpotential |