Rollins* et al 2024a - Revision history

https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Rollins%2A_et_al_2024a Rollins* et al 2024a - Revision history 2026-05-11T21:01:57Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Rollins*_et_al_2024a&diff=302954&oldid=prev JSanchez: JSanchez moved page Draft Sanchez Pinedo 348612704 to Rollins* et al 2024a 2024-06-10T10:56:42Z

<p>JSanchez moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Sanchez_Pinedo_348612704" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Sanchez Pinedo 348612704">Draft Sanchez Pinedo 348612704</a> to <a href="/public/Rollins*_et_al_2024a" title="Rollins* et al 2024a">Rollins* 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 10:56, 10 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=Rollins*_et_al_2024a&diff=302953&oldid=prev JSanchez at 10:56, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T10:56:33Z

<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 10:56, 10 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'> </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'> </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'> </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>Although gravelly soils have been observed to liquefy in 27 earthquakes in the past 120 years, many engineers believe that gravel cannot liquefy due to its high hydraulic conductivity.  Gradations from gravel liquefaction case histories have shown these deposits typically contain 25 to 40% sand, reducing the hydraulic conductivity and enabling excess pore pressures to cause liquefaction. While cone penetrometers (CPT), typically used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in sand, may show increases in penetration resistance due to their small diameter relative to gravel particles, the CPT has successfully predicted gravel liquefaction for looser sandy gravels. Case histories in Wellington, New Zealand demonstrate the successful identification of gravel liquefaction hazards using CPT. Although some layers in the profile indicated high penetration resistance, most of the profile was correctly predicted to liquefy. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) from the CPT did not consistently indicate a sandy gravel profile but was often classified as behaving like a sand or silty sand; likely influenced by higher sand percentages between gravel particles. To evaluate the ability of the CPT to characterize gravelly soils and their liquefaction potential, additional field case histories are desirable. This paper presents test results from two case histories, one in Wellington, New Zealand, and one in Petrinja, Croatia, where gravels have liquefied. In both cases, the CPT occasionally overestimated liquefaction resistance in gravel layers. The advantages of using a 74 mm diameter Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT) are also highlighted with companion testing.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </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>Although gravelly soils have been observed to liquefy in 27 earthquakes in the past 120 years, many engineers believe that gravel cannot liquefy due to its high hydraulic conductivity.  Gradations from gravel liquefaction case histories have shown these deposits typically contain 25 to 40% sand, reducing the hydraulic conductivity and enabling excess pore pressures to cause liquefaction. While cone penetrometers (CPT), typically used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in sand, may show increases in penetration resistance due to their small diameter relative to gravel particles, the CPT has successfully predicted gravel liquefaction for looser sandy gravels. Case histories in Wellington, New Zealand demonstrate the successful identification of gravel liquefaction hazards using CPT. Although some layers in the profile indicated high penetration resistance, most of the profile was correctly predicted to liquefy. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) from the CPT did not consistently indicate a sandy gravel profile but was often classified as behaving like a sand or silty sand; likely influenced by higher sand percentages between gravel particles. To evaluate the ability of the CPT to characterize gravelly soils and their liquefaction potential, additional field case histories are desirable. This paper presents test results from two case histories, one in Wellington, New Zealand, and one in Petrinja, Croatia, where gravels have liquefied. In both cases, the CPT occasionally overestimated liquefaction resistance in gravel layers. The advantages of using a 74 mm diameter Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT) are also highlighted with companion testing.</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </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"> </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"> </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;"><pdf>Media:Draft_Sanchez Pinedo_348612704282.pdf</pdf></ins></div></td></tr>  </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Rollins*_et_al_2024a&diff=302951&oldid=prev JSanchez at 10:56, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T10:56:32Z

<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 10:56, 10 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"> </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"> </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'> </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'> </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"> </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;">Although gravelly soils have been observed to liquefy in 27 earthquakes in the past 120 years, many engineers believe that gravel cannot liquefy due to its high hydraulic conductivity.  Gradations from gravel liquefaction case histories have shown these deposits typically contain 25 to 40% sand, reducing the hydraulic conductivity and enabling excess pore pressures to cause liquefaction. While cone penetrometers (CPT), typically used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in sand, may show increases in penetration resistance due to their small diameter relative to gravel particles, the CPT has successfully predicted gravel liquefaction for looser sandy gravels. Case histories in Wellington, New Zealand demonstrate the successful identification of gravel liquefaction hazards using CPT. Although some layers in the profile indicated high penetration resistance, most of the profile was correctly predicted to liquefy. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) from the CPT did not consistently indicate a sandy gravel profile but was often classified as behaving like a sand or silty sand; likely influenced by higher sand percentages between gravel particles. To evaluate the ability of the CPT to characterize gravelly soils and their liquefaction potential, additional field case histories are desirable. This paper presents test results from two case histories, one in Wellington, New Zealand, and one in Petrinja, Croatia, where gravels have liquefied. In both cases, the CPT occasionally overestimated liquefaction resistance in gravel layers. The advantages of using a 74 mm diameter Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT) are also highlighted with companion testing.</ins></div></td></tr>  </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Rollins*_et_al_2024a&diff=302950&oldid=prev JSanchez: Created blank page 2024-06-10T10:56:30Z

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

JSanchez