Evaluation of Iranian Standard for Assessment of Liquefaction Potential of Cohesionless Soils Based on Standard Penetration Test

Authors: Reza Ziaie Moayad, Azam Kouhpeyma

Abstract:

In-situ testing is preferred to evaluate the liquefaction potential in cohesionless soils due to high disturbance during sampling. Although new in-situ methods with high accuracy have been developed, standard penetration test, the simplest and the oldest in-situ test, is still used due to the profusion of the recorded data. This paper reviews the Iranian standard of evaluating liquefaction potential in soils (codes 525) and compares the liquefaction assessment methods based on standard penetration test (SPT) results on cohesionless soil in this standard with the international standards. To this, methods for assessing liquefaction potential are compared with what is presented in standard 525. It is found that although the procedure used in Iranian standard of evaluating the potential of liquefaction has not been updated according to the new findings, it is a conservative procedure.

Keywords: cohesionless soil, liquefaction, SPT, Iranian liquefaction standard

References:

[1] Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. "CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures." Report No. UCD/CGM.-14 1 (2014).
[2] Cetin, K.O., 2000. Reliability-based assessment of soil liquefaction initiation hazard. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of California Berkeley.
[3] Cetin, K.O. and Seed, R.B., 2004. Nonlinear shear mass participation factor (rd) for cyclic shear stress ratio evaluation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(2), pp.103-113.
[4] Cetin, K.O. Seed, R.B. Kiureghian, A.D. Tokimatsu, K. Harder, L.F. Kayen, R.E. and Moss, R.E.S. (2004), “Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(12), pp.1314-1340.
[5] Daniel, C.R., Howie, J.A., Jackson, R.S. and Walker, B., 2005. Review of standard penetration test short rod corrections. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 131(4), pp.489-497.
[6] Deger, T.T., 2014. Overburden stress normalization and rod length corrections for the standard penetration test (SPT) (Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley).
[7] Golesorkhi, R., 1989. Factors influencing the computational determination of earthquake-induced shear stresses in sandy soils (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).
[8] Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2006. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 26(2-4), pp.115-130.
[9] Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
[10] Liao, S.S. and Whitman, R.V., 1986. Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 112(3), pp.373-377.
[11] Office of Deputy for Strategic Supervision Department of Technical Affairs “Soil Liquefaction Potential, Consequences and Mitigation Methods No. 525”. (2012)
[12] Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div.
[13] Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,Berkeley, Calif.
[14] Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985). ‘‘The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(12), 1425–1445.
[15] Youd, T.L. and Noble, S.K., 1997, December. Magnitude scaling factors. In Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo (pp. 149-165).
[16] Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 127(4), pp.297-313.