Fig 1.
Case histories from the SPT of cohesionless soils with a fine content (FC) of 35% or greater include the NCEER Workshop (1997) curve, along with the suggested curves for both clean sand and FC = 35% for a magnitude of 7½ and a vertical effective stress of 1 atm. (Idriss and Boulanger, 2004 [9]).
Table 1.
Properties of Monterey Sand.
Table 2.
Properties of Leyden Clay.
Table 3.
Uniformity coefficients and coefficients of curvature values for five soil samples with fines content.
Fig 2.
Distribution of grain sizes in the soil samples utilized.
Fig 3.
CHCT devices at UCD.
Fig 4.
Schematic diagram of the cyclic hollow cylinder test device at UCD (J. W. Chen 1988 [21]).
Table 4.
Equations governing stresses and strains in the CHCT (Hight, et al., (1983) [24]).
Fig 5.
Loading and stress scenarios for hollow cylinder testing.
Table 5.
Characteristics of soil sample mixtures, the test conditions, and the results are summarized.
Fig 6.
Cyclic shear stress versus the number of cycles to liquefaction in cyclic hollow cylinder test.
Fig 7.
Change in pore water pressure in relation to number of cycles to liquefaction in the CHCT.
Fig 8.
Cyclic shear stress and excess pore pressure versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction on soil sample (Dr=30%) with 5% of fine content.
Fig 9.
Cyclic shear stress and excess pore pressure versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction on soil sample (Dr=30%) with 15% of fine content.
Fig 10.
Cyclic shear stress and excess pore pressure versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction on soil sample (Dr=60%) with 15% of fine content.
Fig 11.
Cyclic shear stress and excess pore pressure versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction on soil sample (Dr=60%) with 25% of fine content.
Fig 12.
Cyclic shear stress and excess pore pressure versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction on soil sample (Dr=60%) with 35% of fine content.
Fig 13.
Cyclic stress ratio versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction for clean sand under effective stress of 103kpa and 207kpa.
Fig 14.
Cyclic stress ratio versus number of cycles to reach liquefaction for soil specimens with varying percentages of fine content under effective stress of 103kpa.
Fig 15.
Cyclic stress ratio versus number of cycles to reach soil liquefaction for soil specimens with varying percentages of fine content under effective stress of 207 kpa.
Fig 16.
Cyclic stress ratio requires for reaching soil liquefaction after 8 cycles versus different soil specimens in CHCT.
Fig 17.
Cyclic stress ratio requires for reaching soil liquefaction after 27 cycles versus different soil specimens in CHCT.
Fig 18.
Cyclic stress ratio requires for reaching soil liquefaction after 20 cycles versus different soil specimens in CHCT.
Fig 19.
Cyclic stress ratio requires for reaching soil liquefaction after 40 cycles versus different soil specimens in CHCT.
Fig 20.
Flow chart of the machine learning model.
Fig 21.
Schematic diagram of BPNN.
Fig 22.
Neural network inside steps.
Fig 23.
Effect of neuron numbers on the training model.
(a) Two neurons in hidden layer.Four neurons in hidden layer. (b) Eight neurons in hidden layer.
Fig 24.
Validation performance of the BP neural network.
(a) Performance. (b) Training state.
Fig 25.
Comparison between predicted and actual values.