Wood CMMcGann CRCox BRGreen RAWotherspoon LMBradley, Brendon2017-10-062017-10-062017Wood CM, McGann CR, Cox BR, Green RA, Wotherspoon LM, Bradley BA. A comparison of CPT-Vs correlations using a liquefaction case history database from the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Vancouver, BC, Canada: 3rd International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-III). 16/7/2017-19/7/2017.http://hdl.handle.net/10092/14476This study uses 44 high quality liquefaction case histories taken from 22 locations affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to evaluate four commonly used CPT-VS correlations (i.e., Robertson, 2009; Hegazy and Mayne, 2006; Andrus et al., 2007; McGann et al., 2015b). Co-located CPT soundings and VS profiles, developed from surface wave testing, were obtained at 22 locations and case histories were developed for the Mw 7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield and Mw 6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. The CPT soundings are used to generate VS profiles using each of four CPT-VS correlations. These correlated VS profiles are used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction using the Kayen et al. (2013) VS-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure. An error index is used to quantify the predictive capabilities of these correlations in relation to the observations of liquefaction (or the lack thereof). Additionally, the error indices from the CPT-correlated VS profiles are compared to those obtained using: (1) the Kayen et al. (2013) procedure with surface wave-derived VS profiles, and (2) the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedure. Based on the error indices, the evaluation procedures based on direct measurements of either CPT or VS provided more accurate liquefaction triggering estimates than those obtained from any of the CPT-VS correlations. However, the performance of the CPT-VS correlations varied, with the Robertson (2009) and Hegazy and Mayne (2006) correlations performing relatively poorly for the Christchurch soils and the Andrus et al. (2007) and McGann et al. (2015b) correlations performing better. The McGann et al. (2015b) correlation had the lowest error indices of the CPT-VS correlations tested, however, none of the CPT-VS correlations provided accurate enough VS predictions to be used for the evaluation of liquefaction triggering using the VS-based liquefaction evaluation procedures.enConference Contributions - Published2017-07-03Field of Research::05 - Environmental Sciences::0503 - Soil Sciences::050305 - Soil PhysicsFields of Research::290000 Engineering and Technology::290800 Civil Engineering::290805 Geotechnical engineering