Search

found 5332 results

Images for for; more images...

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

A number of field testing techniques, such as standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), and Swedish weight sounding (SWS), are popularly used for in-situ characterisation. The screw driving sounding (SDS) method, which has been recently developed in Japan, is an improved version of the SWS technique and measures more parameters, including the required torque, load, speed of penetration and rod friction; these provide more robust way of characterising soil stratigraphy. It is a cost-efficient technique which uses a machine-driven and portable device, making it ideal for testing in small-scale and confined areas. Moreover, with a testing depth of up to 10-15m, it is suitable for liquefaction assessment. Thus, the SDS method has great potential as an in-situ testing method for geotechnical site characterisation, especially for residential house construction. In this paper, the results of SDS tests performed at a variety of sites in New Zealand are presented. The soil database was employed to develop a soil classification chart based on SDS-derived parameters. Moreover, using the data obtained following the 2010-2011 Christchurch Earthquake Se-quence, a methodology was established for liquefaction potential evaluation using SDS data. http://www.isc5.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1345-2-ORENSE.pdf

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Semi-empirical models based on in-situ geotechnical tests have become the standard of practice for predicting soil liquefaction. Since the inception of the “simplified” cyclic-stress model in 1971, variants based on various in-situ tests have been developed, including the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). More recently, prediction models based soley on remotely-sensed data were developed. Similar to systems that provide automated content on earthquake impacts, these “geospatial” models aim to predict liquefaction for rapid response and loss estimation using readily-available data. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures (e.g., PGA), which can either be provided in near-real-time following an earthquake, or predicted for a future event; and (ii) geospatial parameters derived from digital elevation models, which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface relevent to liquefaction. However, the predictive capabilities of geospatial and geotechnical models have not been directly compared, which could elucidate techniques for improving the geospatial models, and which would provide a baseline for measuring improvements. Accordingly, this study assesses the realtive efficacy of liquefaction models based on geospatial vs. CPT data using 9,908 case-studies from the 2010-2016 Canterbury earthquakes. While the top-performing models are CPT-based, the geospatial models perform relatively well given their simplicity and low cost. Although further research is needed (e.g., to improve upon the performance of current models), the findings of this study suggest that geospatial models have the potential to provide valuable first-order predictions of liquefaction occurence and consequence. Towards this end, performance assessments of geospatial vs. geotechnical models are ongoing for more than 20 additional global earthquakes.