Advertisement

Comparative analysis of liquefaction susceptibility assessment methods based on the investigation on a pilot site in the greater Lisbon area

  • Cristiana FerreiraEmail author
  • António Viana da Fonseca
  • Catarina Ramos
  • Ana Sofia Saldanha
  • Sara Amoroso
  • Carlos Rodrigues
Original Research
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

In Portugal, particularly in the greater Lisbon area, there are widespread alluvial sandy deposits, which need to be carefully assessed in terms of liquefaction susceptibility and risk zonation. For this purpose, a pilot site has been set up, as part of the European H2020 LIQUEFACT project. An extensive database of geological and geotechnical reports was collected and a comprehensive site investigation campaign was carried out, including boreholes with standard penetration (SPT), piezocone penetrometer and seismic dilatometer tests as well as geophysical methods, complemented by undisturbed soil sampling for laboratory characterisation. The assessment of liquefaction susceptibility based on field tests was made using the simplified procedure, considering the factor of safety against liquefaction (FSliq), which relates the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) with the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). While the computation of the CSR is relatively straightforward, the reliability of the CRR strongly depends on the adopted in situ testing technique. Alternative approaches to liquefaction assessment have been proposed, based on quantitative liquefaction damage indexes, namely the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and Liquefaction Severity Number. In this paper, the geotechnical field data is integrated in these distinct approaches to liquefaction assessment. A comparative and in-depth analysis of the conventional approach is presented and the inclusion of specific information on soil type, as a means to overcome the observed differences, is discussed particularly for SPT and VS results. The combination of these criteria enabled to clearly identify the most critical layers, in terms of liquefaction potential and severity.

Keywords

Earthquake-induced liquefaction Liquefaction potential Site characterisation In situ tests Lisbon earthquake 

List of symbols

ag

Design ground acceleration on type A ground

agR

Reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground

amax

Peak ground acceleration

CH

Cross-hole test

CPTu

Piezocone penetrometer test

CRR

Cyclic resistance ratio

CSR

Cyclic stress ratio

Cσ

Overburden coefficient

DMT

Flat dilatometer test

DWF

Distance Weighting Factor

EC8

Eurocode 8

EC8-NA

Eurocode 8, National Annex

EILDs

Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Disasters

FC

Fines content

FSliq

Factor of safety against liquefaction

g

Acceleration of gravity

hliq

Height of liquefiable layer

IC

Soil behaviour type index

ID

Material index

Ka1

Ageing correction factor

Ka2

Ageing correction factor

KD

Horizontal stress index from DMT

Kσ

Effective overburden stress coefficient

LPI

Liquefaction Potential Index

LSN

Liquefaction Severity Number

MSF

Magnitude scaling factor

MSFmax

Upper limit of MSF

Mw

Moment magnitude

(N1)60cs

Normalised equivalent clean sand SPT blow count number

pa

Reference atmospheric pressure

PI

Plasticity index

PL

Liquefaction probability

qc

Cone tip resistance

qc1Ncs

Normalised equivalent clean sand CPT cone tip resistance

Qcn

Normalised cone tip penetration resistance

rd

Shear stress reduction coefficient

S

Soil factor defined in EN 1998-1:2004

SASW

Spectral analysis of surface waves test

SCPTu

Seismic piezocone penetration test

SDMT

Seismic dilatometer test

SI

Site investigation point

Smax

Soil factor depending on ground type

SPT

Standard penetration test

SR

Seismic refraction test

u2

Pore pressure

VS

Shear wave velocity

VS_AS

Shear wave velocity calculated with Andrus and Stokoe (2000)

VS_KAE

Shear wave velocity calculated with Kayen et al. (2013)

VS1

Stress-corrected shear wave velocity

VS1*

Upper boundary value of VS1

z

Depth

α

Parameter to calculate rd

β

Parameter to calculate rd

γI

Importance factor

\(\upsigma_{\text{v}}^{\prime }\)

Effective overburden stress

\(\upsigma_{{\text{v0}}}^{\prime }\)

Initial effective overburden stress

τcyc

Cyclic shear stress

Notes

Acknowledgements

LIQUEFACT project (“Assessment and mitigation of liquefaction potential across Europe: a holistic approach to protect structures/infrastructures for improved resilience to earthquake-induced liquefaction disasters”) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. GAP-700748. Acknowledgements are also due to the Portuguese stakeholders of LIQUEFACT, namely Teixeira Duarte, LNEG, ENMC, CMMontijo, CMBenavente, ABLGVFX, BRISA, CENOR, GEOCONTROLE and COBA, as well as to Dr. Luca Minarelli and Dr. Rui Carrilho Gomes. The second and third authors have received funding from FCT (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) in the form of the SFRH/BPD/120470/2016 and SFRH/BD/120035/2016 grants, respectively.

References

  1. Amoroso S (2014) Prediction of the shear wave velocity Vs from CPT and DMT at research sites. Front Struct Civ Eng 8(1):83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-013-0234-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrus RD, II Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrus, RD, II Stokoe KH, Juang CH (2004) Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 20(2):285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrus RD, Mohanan NP, Piratheepan P, Ellis BS, Holzer TL (2007) Predicting shear-wave velocity from cone penetration resistance. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo J, Guerreiro L, Bento R, Lopes M, Proença J (2010) Seismic vulnerability of lifelines in the greater Lisbon area. Bull Earthq Eng 8:157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014). CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2010) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistanceGoogle Scholar
  8. Cubrinovski M, Rhodes A, Ntritsos N, Van Ballegooy S (2017) System response of liquefiable deposits. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical engineering, Vancouver, 16–19 July 2017Google Scholar
  9. Ferrão C, Bezzeghoud M, Caldeira B, Borges JF (2016) The seismicity of portugal and its adjacent atlantic region from 1300 to 2014: maximum observed intensity (MOI) map. Seismol Res Lett 87(3):743–750.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira C, Viana da Fonseca A, Saldanha AS, Ramos C, Amoroso S, Minarelli L (2018) Estimated versus measured Vs profiles and Vs30 at a pilot site in the lower Tagus Valley, Portugal. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessanoliki, 18–21 June 2018, ID: 10591Google Scholar
  11. GeoLogismiki (2017) https://geologismiki.gr/products/cliq/. Accessed in November 2017
  12. HegazyYA, Mayne PW (1995) Statistical correlations between VS and cone penetration data for different soil types. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on cone penetration testing, CPT’95, pp 173–178Google Scholar
  13. Idriss IM (1999) An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. In: Proceedings of the TRB workshop on new approaches to liquefaction, Federal Highway AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  14. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2004) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. In: Doolin D et al (eds) Proceedings, 11th international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, and 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, vol 1. Stallion Press, pp 32–56Google Scholar
  15. Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S, Sato H (1982) Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. Proceedings of 3rd international conference on microzonation, vol 3. Seattle, pp 1319–1330Google Scholar
  16. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earth-quakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-10-02. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 22476-1:2012 (2012) Geotechnical investigation and testing—field testing—part 1: electrical cone and piezocone penetration testGoogle Scholar
  19. Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on microzonation. San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 885–896Google Scholar
  20. Jorge C (1993) Zonation of liquefaction potential. Application attempt to the Portuguese Territory. M.Sc. in Sciences in Engineering Geology, New University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorge C, Vieira A (1997) Liquefaction potential assessment—application to the Portuguese Territory and to the Town of Setúbal. In: Sêco e Pinto (ed) Seismic behaviour of ground and geotechnical structures. Balkema, pp 33–43Google Scholar
  22. Kayen R, Moss RES, Thompson EM, Seed RB, Cetin KO, Kiureghian A, Tanaka Y, Tokimatsu K (2013) Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(3):407–419.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LIQUEFACT (2017) Project overview. http://www.liquefact.eu. Accessed in November 2017
  24. Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 106(GT3):299–321Google Scholar
  25. Marchetti S (2016) Incorporating the Stress history parameter KD of DMT into the liquefaction correlations in clean uncemented sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Calabrese M (2001) The flat dilatometer test (DMT) in soil investigations—a report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16. In: Failmezger RA, Anderson JB (eds) Proceedings of international conference on insitu measurement of soil properties and case histories, Bali, 2001, official version reprinted in Flat Dilatometer Testing, Proceedings of 2nd international conference on the Flat Dilatometer, Washington D.C., April 2–5, 2006, pp 7–48Google Scholar
  27. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Marchetti D (2008) In situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT). In: Laier JE, Crapps DK, Hussein MH (eds) From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, vol 180, pp 292–311Google Scholar
  28. Mayne PW (2006) In situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. In: Proceedings of characterization and engineering properties of natural soils II, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  29. Millen M, Ferreira C, Gerace A, Viana da Fonseca A (2019) Simplified equivalent soil profiles based on liquefaction performance. In: 7th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  30. Monaco P, Marchetti S, Totani G, Calabrese M (2005) Sand liquefiability assessment by flat dilatometer test (DMT). In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Millpress Science Publishers/IOS Press, pp 2693–2697.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-656-9-2693. Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  31. Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using cone penetration test. Canadian Geotech J 27:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests: a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson PK (2012) The James K. Mitchell Lecture: interpretation of in situ tests—some insights. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, Porto de Galinhas, vol 1, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  34. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1997) Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT and CPT. In: Proceedings, NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soilsGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodrigues C, Amoroso S, Cruz N, Viana da Fonseca A (2016) Liquefaction assessment CPTu tests in a site in South of Portugal. In: Geotechnical and geophysical site characterisation 5—Lehane, Acosta-Martínezí, Kelly (eds). Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, pp 633–638. https://australiangeomechanics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ISC5_Proceedings-Vol1_20170209-ISBN-978-0-9946261-1-0-LowRes.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019 (ISBN 978-0-9946261-2-7)
  36. Saldanha AS, Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C (2018) Microzonation of the liquefaction susceptibility: case study in the lower Tagus valley. Geotecnia J Portuguese Geotech Soc 142:7–34.  https://doi.org/10.24849/j.geot.2018.142.01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  38. Tonkin & Taylor (2013) Canterbury earthquakes 2010 and 2011. Land report as at 29 February 2012. Earthquake Commission, p 108. https://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/documents/liquefaction-vulnerability-study-final.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  39. Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Ramos C (2017) D2.1—Part 2: report on ground characterization of the four areas selected as testing sites by using novel technique and advanced methodologies to perform in situ and laboratory tests—Lisbon Area in Portugal. Deliverable D2.1 of the European H2020 LIQUEFACT research project. January 2017Google Scholar
  40. Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Saldanha AS, Ramos C, Rodrigues C (2018) Comparative analysis of liquefaction susceptibility assessment by CPTu and SPT tests. In: Hicks MA, Pisanò F, Peuchen J (eds) Cone penetration testing 2018, Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on cone penetration testing (CPT’18). CRC Press, Delft, pp 669–675Google Scholar
  41. Wair BR, DeJong JT, Shantz T (2012) Guidelines for estimation of shear wave velocity profiles. PEER Report 2012/08. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  42. Wotherspoon LM, Orense RP, Green RA, Bradley BA, Cox BR, Wood CM (2015) Assessment of liquefaction evaluation procedures and severity index frameworks at Christchurch strong motion stations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79(Part B):335–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONSTRUCT-GEOFaculty of Engineering of University of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering of University of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.University of Chieti-PescaraPescaraItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaL’AquilaItaly
  5. 5.Polytechnic Institute of GuardaGuardaPortugal

Personalised recommendations