Table 1
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of various field tests for assessment of liquefaction resistance (modified from NCEER: Youd and Idriss, 1997).
Comparaison des avantages et des inconvénients de divers essais de reconnaissance pour l’évaluation de la résistance à la liquéfaction (modifié à partir de NCEER : Youd et Idriss, 1997).
| Test type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature | PMT | SPT | CPT | V s |
| Past measurements at liquefaction sites | Sparse | Abundant | Abundant | Limited |
| Type of stress-strain behavior influencing test | From small to large strain | Partially drained, large strain | Drained, large strain | Small strain |
| Quality control and repeatability | Good | Poor to good | Very good | Good |
| Detection of variability of soil deposits | Good | Good for closely spaced tests | Very good | Fair |
| Soil types in which test is recommended | All | Non-gravel | Non-gravel | All |
| Soil sample retrieved | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Test measures index or engineering property | Engineering | Index | Index | Engineering |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.