Arulanandan, K.

English

Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T): Scholars' Mine

Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics 1981 - First International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics 01 May 1981, 10:45 am - 12:00 pm Session 8: Final Comments by Moderator K. Arulanandan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd  Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Arulanandan, K., "Session 8: Final Comments by Moderator" (1981). International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 26. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/01icrageesd/session08/26 This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu. Final Comments by Moderator K. Arulanandan. Dr. Byrne appears to have misunderstood the point made in the moderator's report. It is not the adequacy of the pressure meter test, subject to obtaining results without disturbance that was questioned, but comments were made concerning the manner in which the results were interpreted to compare with Seed's chart. Recently, the use of relative density, Dr, alone to predict liquefaction potential has received valid criticism from reputable engineers. Peck (1979) showed that many other factors including soil fabric, overconsolidation, seismic history and cementation influence the liquefaction potential of sand. In spite of this, Vaid et.al. have attempted to measure liquefaction resistance in terms of dilation angle, v, through a direct relationship between \1 and Dr. Although the relationship between \1 and Dr appears reasonable, the correlation with liquefaction resistance does not consider the effect of the additional factors mentioned by Peck. In spite of much criticism against the use of Holtz and Gibbs charts to predict Dr, the authors make an additional error by trying to quantify their results in terms of corrected blow count, N.. Blow count is not only a function of Dr but of m\my other factors as summarized by Seed (1976). The authors make a third error in attempting to justify their prediction of liquefaction resistance by comparison with a correlation of T/a vs. N. established by Seed et.al. (197 5). This ~8mparisbn is invalid since the authors' correlation is based on Dr alone, and Seed's chart is based on results of N values obtained in the field. REFERENCES Peck, R. B. 0979) "Liquefaction Potential. Science versus Practice," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. 0173, March. Seed, H. B. (1976) "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground During Earthquakes," State-of-the-Art paper for the National Convention on Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1-104, Sept. 27 to Oct. 1. Seed, H. B., K. Mori and C. K. Chan (1975) "Influence of Seismic History on the Liquefaction Characteristics of Sands," Report No. EERC 75-25, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. 1264 

Session 8: Final Comments by Moderator

https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2614&context=icrageesd

Session 8: Final Comments by Moderator

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T): Scholars' Mine