ترجمه مقاله نقش ضروری ارتباطات 6G با چشم انداز صنعت 4.0
- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
ترجمه مقاله پایداری توسعه شهری، تعدیل ساختار صنعتی و کارایی کاربری زمین
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
ABSTRACT
The preceding companion paper presented the updating of the seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationship of Cetin et al. (2004) [1], and compared the resulting updated relationship with the earlier version. In this second paper, a detailed cross-comparison is made between three triggering relationships: (1) Seed et al. (1985) [2], as slightly updated by the NCEER Working Group (Youd et al., 2001 [3]), (2) Boulanger and Idriss (2012) [4], and (3) Cetin et al. [5]. Differences between these three triggering relationships, and the apparent causes of them are examined. Also studied are the impacts of these differences on levels of conservatism with regard to evaluation of liquefaction triggering hazard, and the resulting risks for engineering projects.
Conclusion
For a given N1,60,CS value, the corresponding cyclic resistance values (i.e.: CRR) associated with any target level of likelihood of liquefaction triggering based on the relationships of (1) SEA1985, (2) BI2012 and (3) Cetin et al. [5] are observed to be significantly different. These differences occur at essentially all locations on the triggering curves, but they are most pronounced at low N1,60,CS values. For conditions corresponding to σ'v = 1 atm, the differences between the estimated CRR values reach as high as 50–80% in the critical region of N1,60,cs < 20 blows/ft within which the consequences of triggering of liquefaction can be especially significant due to low post-liquefaction strengths and high cyclic shear strain potential. This paper has examined the principal sources and causes of differences between the three triggering relationships, addressing each source of differences in turn. It is now useful to summarize by addressing each of the three overall triggering relationships in turn.