Scholarlink

<p>Soil liquefaction is a major geotechnical hazard during earthquakes, particularly in loose, saturated, cohesionless soils, and is a key contributor to structural damage. Therefore, reliable assessment of liquefaction potential is essential in seismically active regions. Commonly employed in-situ methods including Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Shear Wave Velocity (<i>V</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>) measurements are interpreted through Empirical Liquefaction Models (ELMs) to estimate the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). In this study, CRR was evaluated using SPT, CPT, and <i>V</i><sub><i>s</i></sub> data from three seismically active sites in India, applying multiple ELMs to assess variability in predictions. The results show significant discrepancies among methods and models. Among the models evaluated, the CPT-based Moss (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(8):1032–1051, 2006) and SPT-based Cetin et al. (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(12):1314–1340, 2004) methods exhibited the highest consistency across sites. A comparison of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) from SPT and CPT further highlights substantial variability in liquefaction risk estimates across different approaches.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Empirical liquefaction modeling: a multi-method assessment from indian seismic sites

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Kedar Birid,
  • Ramvir Singh Chahar

摘要

Soil liquefaction is a major geotechnical hazard during earthquakes, particularly in loose, saturated, cohesionless soils, and is a key contributor to structural damage. Therefore, reliable assessment of liquefaction potential is essential in seismically active regions. Commonly employed in-situ methods including Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) measurements are interpreted through Empirical Liquefaction Models (ELMs) to estimate the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). In this study, CRR was evaluated using SPT, CPT, and Vs data from three seismically active sites in India, applying multiple ELMs to assess variability in predictions. The results show significant discrepancies among methods and models. Among the models evaluated, the CPT-based Moss (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(8):1032–1051, 2006) and SPT-based Cetin et al. (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(12):1314–1340, 2004) methods exhibited the highest consistency across sites. A comparison of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) from SPT and CPT further highlights substantial variability in liquefaction risk estimates across different approaches.