https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Roldan_et_al_2024a 2026-05-08T22:58:29Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Roldan_et_al_2024a&diff=301885&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:36:55Z

<p>JSanchez moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Sanchez_Pinedo_293213011" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Sanchez Pinedo 293213011">Draft Sanchez Pinedo 293213011</a> to <a href="/public/Roldan_et_al_2024a" title="Roldan et al 2024a">Roldan et al 2024a</a></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:36, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan='2' style='text-align: center;' lang='en'><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Roldan_et_al_2024a&diff=301884&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:36:50Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:36, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l3" >Line 3:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 3:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The state of the practice to evaluate the dynamic liquefaction potential of a soil column entails the use of simplified methods that compares the cyclic stress ratio with the cyclic resistance ratio. One of the most used methods is the Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss 2014, which relies on cone penetration test data to estimate in-situ cyclic resistance ratio and cyclic stress ratio distributions, considering corrections factors for soils with fine contents. Saye, Olson and Franke in 2021 presented a novel method to assess liquefaction susceptibility using cone penetration test data on soils ranging from non-sensitive clays to clean sands. The procedure was developed using +400 documented case records of liquefaction and non-liquefaction in clean sands, silty sands, sandy silts, and low plasticity fine grained soils. Although promising, this method is not widely used in the industry yet. This paper presents a comparison between both methods for tailings. It uses cone penetration test soundings performed in tailings with a wide range of mineralogy and fine contents, combined with variations in peak ground accelerations and magnitudes. This analysis shows that Saye, Olson and Franke’s method is generally more robust, particularly for the analysis of fine tailings, as Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss’ method relies on site specific data or the engineer’s judgement to define an Ic cut-off value that screens out clay-like soils from the liquefaction analysis.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The state of the practice to evaluate the dynamic liquefaction potential of a soil column entails the use of simplified methods that compares the cyclic stress ratio with the cyclic resistance ratio. One of the most used methods is the Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss 2014, which relies on cone penetration test data to estimate in-situ cyclic resistance ratio and cyclic stress ratio distributions, considering corrections factors for soils with fine contents. Saye, Olson and Franke in 2021 presented a novel method to assess liquefaction susceptibility using cone penetration test data on soils ranging from non-sensitive clays to clean sands. The procedure was developed using +400 documented case records of liquefaction and non-liquefaction in clean sands, silty sands, sandy silts, and low plasticity fine grained soils. Although promising, this method is not widely used in the industry yet. This paper presents a comparison between both methods for tailings. It uses cone penetration test soundings performed in tailings with a wide range of mineralogy and fine contents, combined with variations in peak ground accelerations and magnitudes. This analysis shows that Saye, Olson and Franke’s method is generally more robust, particularly for the analysis of fine tailings, as Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss’ method relies on site specific data or the engineer’s judgement to define an Ic cut-off value that screens out clay-like soils from the liquefaction analysis.</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Full Paper ==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;pdf&gt;Media:Draft_Sanchez Pinedo_29321301154.pdf&lt;/pdf&gt;</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Roldan_et_al_2024a&diff=301882&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:36:48Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:36, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">==Abstract==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The state of the practice to evaluate the dynamic liquefaction potential of a soil column entails the use of simplified methods that compares the cyclic stress ratio with the cyclic resistance ratio. One of the most used methods is the Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss 2014, which relies on cone penetration test data to estimate in-situ cyclic resistance ratio and cyclic stress ratio distributions, considering corrections factors for soils with fine contents. Saye, Olson and Franke in 2021 presented a novel method to assess liquefaction susceptibility using cone penetration test data on soils ranging from non-sensitive clays to clean sands. The procedure was developed using +400 documented case records of liquefaction and non-liquefaction in clean sands, silty sands, sandy silts, and low plasticity fine grained soils. Although promising, this method is not widely used in the industry yet. This paper presents a comparison between both methods for tailings. It uses cone penetration test soundings performed in tailings with a wide range of mineralogy and fine contents, combined with variations in peak ground accelerations and magnitudes. This analysis shows that Saye, Olson and Franke’s method is generally more robust, particularly for the analysis of fine tailings, as Boulanger &amp;amp; Idriss’ method relies on site specific data or the engineer’s judgement to define an Ic cut-off value that screens out clay-like soils from the liquefaction analysis.</ins></div></td></tr> <!-- diff cache key mw_drafts_scipedia-sc_mwd_:diff:version:1.11a:oldid:301881:newid:301882 --> </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Roldan_et_al_2024a&diff=301881&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:36:46Z

<p>Created blank page</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div></div>

JSanchez