| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立成功大學 === 土木工程學系 === 106 === The purpose of this article is to present the difference of each result on evaluating liquefaction potential while using seven SPT-N value-based methods. There are HBF (2012), NCEER (1997), AIJ (2001), NJRA (2012), JRA (1990), T-Y (1983), and China (2010). The total of 312 soil profiles have been used to assess the liquefaction potential index with each method, and to calculate error using HBF-based with other methods. Moreover, the accuracy of each methods with liquefied sites and non-liquefied sites were also been evaluated in this study. Based on the accuracy of Tainan area, liquefaction damage assessment established by Iwasaki (1984) has been revised in the article.
From the results of PL show that the PL values of HBF, NCEER, NJRA, and T-Y methods are similar, and the percentage of medium-high potential borehole with NJRA is the highest, 83.6%. For error analysis, the results of average error with T-Y and NCEER methods are closed to HBF method. Also, the average error of both are less than 20%. In the accuracy evaluation part, the highest accuracy 25% is NJRA method in liquefaction case. For the revising part, there is a corrective value in each method with different condition discussed in this article.
|
|---|
