Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Soil Layers along Tabriz Metro Line 1 based on Practical Methods

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

Department of Civil Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

10.22034/jcema.2020.232424.1027

Abstract

Settlements in the ground and deep soil layers can occur after the liquefaction phenomenon—these deformations damage structures, buildings, and lifelines. Several practical methods have recently been proposed based on fields and laboratory data for evaluating volumetric strain (settlement) and maximum shear strain due to liquefaction. The present study mainly aimed to compare liquefaction potential assessment findings in terms of risk intensity and settlement values of soil layers after liquefaction using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Energy Methods along Tabriz Metro Line 1. Thus, 31 boreholes along the path were selected in this regard. Then, the liquefaction potential of soil layers was assessed based on the above-mentioned methods, and the liquefaction potential risk index was determined as well. Finally, the settlement value of soil layers was evaluated according to the two proposed methods' findings. The findings showed that both processes were relatively correlated, and the energy method proposed higher liquefaction potential risk compared to the SPT procedure.

Keywords


1. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I. Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1983 Mar;109(3):458-82. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
2. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Rep. UCD/CGM-10. 2010 Dec;2:4-13. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
3. KHALILI NM, Dabiri R, HAJIALILUE BM. Evaluating the Liquefaction Potential of Soil in the South and Southeast of Tehran based on the Shear Wave Velocity through Empirical Relationships. 2012, 29-41.[View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
4. Robertson PK, Wride CE. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian geotechnical journal. 1998 Jun 1;35(3):442-59. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
5. Andrus RD, Stokoe II KH. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. 2000 Nov;126(11):1015-25. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
6. Dabiri R, Askari F, Shafiee A, Jafari MK. Shear wave velocity-based liquefaction resistance of sand-silt mixtures: deterministic versus probabilistic approach. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
7. Uyanık O, Ekinci B, Uyanık NA. Liquefaction analysis from seismic velocities and determination of lagoon limits Kumluca/Antalya example. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 2013 Aug 1;95:90-103. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
8. Ishac MF, Heidebrecht AC. Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction in sands. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 1982 Jan;10(1):59-68. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
9. Law KT, Cao YL, He GN. An energy approach for assessing seismic liquefaction potential. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1990 Jun 1;27(3):320-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
10. Running D L, An energy-based model for soil liquefaction Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. (1996)  [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
11. Kayen RE, Mitchell JK. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1997 Dec;123(12):1162-74. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
12. Green RA, Mitchell JK. Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable soils. InGeotechnical engineering for transportation projects 2004 (pp. 1961-1970).. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
13. Jafarian Y, Vakili R, Abdollahi AS, Baziar MH. Simplified soil liquefaction assessment based on cumulative kinetic energy density: attenuation law and probabilistic analysis. International Journal of Geomechanics. 2014 Apr 1;14(2):267-81. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
14. Kokusho T, Mimori Y. Liquefaction potential evaluations by energy-based method and stress-based method for various ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2015 Aug 1;75:130-46. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
15. Kaghazchi M, Dabiri R. Comparison of Liquefaction Potential Evaluation based on SPT and Energy methods in Tabriz metro line 2. Journal of Tethys: Vol.;5(3):313-26. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
16. Askari F, Dabiri R, Shafiee A, Jafari MK. Effects of non-plastic fines content on cyclic resistance and post liquefaction of sand-silt mixtures based on shear wave velocity.2010, 13-24. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
17. Silver ML, Seed HB. Volume changes in sands during cyclic loading. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div. 1971 Sep. 1171-1182. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
18. Pyke R, Seed HB, Chan CK. Settlement of sands under multidirectional shaking. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1975 Apr;101(ASCE# 11251 Proceeding). [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
19. Tokimatsu K, Seed HB. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of geotechnical engineering. 1987 Aug;113(8):861-78. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
20.Oshnaviyeh D, Dabiri R. Comparison of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) Methods in Determining Liquefaction Hazard along Tabriz Metro Line 2. Journal of Engineering Geology. 2018 Oct 10;12(2):183-212. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
21. Ghasemian M, Dabiri R, Mahari R. Settlements hazard of soil due to liquefaction along Tabriz Metro line 2. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences. 2018 Jun 1;24(6). [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
22. Shimomura S, Adachi T, Asaeda R and Sako N, Study on Applicability of ground settlement prediction method in liquefaction based on energy balance 15th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012, 1-10. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
23. Iwasaki T. A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. InProc. Second Int. Conf. Microzonation Safer Construction Research Application, 1978 1978 (Vol. 2, pp. 885-896). [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
24. Iwasaki T, Tokida KI, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S, Sato H. Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. InProceedings of the 3rd international conference on microzonation, Seattle 1982 Jun 28 (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1310-1330). [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
25. Barzegari G, Uromeihy A, Zhao J. EPB tunneling challenges in bouldery ground: a new experience on the Tabriz metro line 1, Iran. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 2014 May 1;73(2):429-40. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
26. Idriss IM. An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. Proc., TRB Worshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Pubbl. n. FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administation. 1999 Jan. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].
27. Skempton A K , Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and over consolidation, Journal of Geotechnique, 1986, 36(3): 425-447. [View at Google Scholar].
28. Hynes ME, Olsen RS, Yule DE. The influence of confining stress on liquefaction resistance. NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP. 1998 Sep:167-84. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].