using Strength Ratios

Similar documents
Analysis of dilatometer test in calibration chamber

The tensile capacity of suction caissons in sand under rapid loading

Desaturating sand deposit by air injection for reducing liquefaction potential

Theory of a vertically loaded Suction Pile in CLAY

CONE PENETRATION TESTS

UNIT-I SOIL EXPLORATION

Effects of Sample Disturbance and Consolidation Procedures on Cyclic Strengths of Intermediate Soils

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING (Autonomous) Dundigal, Hyderabad

Influence of Settlement on Bearing Capacity Analysis of Shallow Foundations on Sandy Clays in the Niger Delta, Nigeria

INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING (Autonomous) Dundigal, Hyderabad CIVIL ENGINEERING TUTORIAL QUESTION BANK

ESTIMATION OF LATERAL SPREAD OF A CAISSON TYPE QUAY CAUSED BY BACK FILL LIQUEFACTION

CHAPTER 5: VACUUM TEST WITH VERTICAL DRAINS

A study of effectiveness of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

CENGRS GEOTECHNICA PVT. LTD. Job No Sheet No. 1

Displacement-based calculation method on soil-pile interaction of PHC pipe-piles

Bearing Capacity and Settlement Response of PMS Tanks on Cohesionless Soil Lithology in Lekki, Lagos of Nigeria

Cubzac-les-Ponts Experimental Embankments on Soft Clay

For a cantilever pile wall shown in Figure 1, assess the performance of the system and answer the following questions.

Typical factors of safety for bearing capacity calculation in different situations

SUPPORTING NOTES FOR THE EVALUATION OF UNBOUND ROAD BASE AND SUB-BASE AGGREGATES

SOIL IMPROVEMENT BY VACUUM PRELOADING FOR A POWER PLANT PROJECT IN VIETNAM

Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) Using the WP4C

Vertical Uplift Capacity of a Group of Equally Spaced Helical Screw Anchors in Sand

Deformation parameters of soils determined by the cone penetration test

Strength Reduction Stability

Critical face pressure and backfill pressure in shield TBM tunneling on soft ground

Tension Cracks. Topics Covered. Tension crack boundaries Tension crack depth Query slice data Thrust line Sensitivity analysis.

Module 7 Lecture 1. Swelling and Collapse Behavior

Liquefaction Mitigation in Silty Sands Using Stone Columns with Wick Drains

An integrated three-dimensional model of wave-induced pore pressure and effective stresses in a porous seabed: II. Breaking waves

Ground control for slurry TBM tunnelling GEO Report 249

Development of Data Acquisition System for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test

BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS: GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF STABILITY EVALUATION

CIVE 554/650. Geotechnical Engineering. Rock. Soil. Water. Site Investigation Techniques. CIVE Knight 1. 1/8/2006 CIVE Knight 1

Compaction, Permeability, and Fluid Flow in Brent-type Reservoirs Under Depletion and Pressure Blowdown

Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls-Design and Construction

FRAGILITY CURVES FOR GRAVITY-TYPE QUAY WALLS BASED ON EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES

Department of Civil & Geological Engineering GEOE Engineering Geology

ATCE-II. Construction Dewatering. Advanced Topics in Civil Engineering Construction Dewatering. Professor Kamran M. Nemati Second Semester

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-7 SUB-STATION SY NO-225, NEAR RAYACHERLU VILLAGE

3-D LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ANALYSIS OF SEABED AT NEARSHORE AREA

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON OPTIMUM INSTALLATION DEPTH OF PVD UNDER VACUUM CONSOLIDATION ABSTRACT

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-1 SUB-STATION SY NO-44, NEAR KYATAGANACHERLU VILLAGE

Separating Load from Moisture Effects in Wet Hamburg Wheel-Track Test

Please note that there was an error in the initial proposal: samples should be nominally 1 inch in diameter (see below).

GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION

Construction Dewatering

A CENTRIFUGE MODEL STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF PILE INSTALLATION PROCESS ON SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION FOR OIL STORAGE TANKS

Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty

Strength and Deformation Behavior of Soft Bangkok Clay

THE USE OF SPIN FIN PILES IN MASSACHUSETTS

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF WORK ROLL CHOCK AND BACKUP ROLL CHOCK IN COLD ROLLING MILL

CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITION

Slope Stability Analysis Of Class I Landfills With Co Disposal Of Bios

Ground Failure Mechanism of Micoropiled-raft

Title Tsunami during 2011 East Japan Eart. The final publication is available より本文ファイルは に公開.

THE STABILITY OF THE PIPELINE LAID ON A PORO-ELASTIC SEABED

Licensed Copy: Puan Ms. Norhayati, Petroliam Nasional Berhad, 12 March 2003, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI

Update on Performance of Thin Asphalt Overlays

DEVELOPMENT OF A ROBUST PUSH-IN PRESSUREMETER

Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Bridge Caisson Foundation

A Theory for Strong Long-Lived Squall Lines Revisited

Saturated-Unsaturated Consolidation

ABSTRACT. The design of a temporary slope and excavation retaining wall system often is carried out

Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils 1

A STUDY ON LIQUEFIED GROUND DISRUPTION EFFECTS ON LIQUID STORAGE TANK BEHAVIOR

Suction caisson extraction resistance in Gulf of Guinea clay

2.1 Introduction to pressure vessels

Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online

A MICRO-BUBBLE INJECTION METHOD FOR A COUNTERMEASURE AGAINST LIQUEFACTION

Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design

Quantifying Mainshock Aftershock Collapse Probabilities for Woodframe Buildings. John W. van de Lindt and Negar Nazari The University of Alabama

City, University of London Institutional Repository

14 Oct., Dr. Wilson will post Quiz 2 correct answers and scores over the weekend. Today we begin Ch. 6 Cloud Development and Forms

Critical Pool Level and Stability of Slopes in Granular Soils

STUDY ON UPWARD MOVEMENT OF FINES FROM SANDY SEABED UNDER CYCLIC WATER PRESSURE CHANGE DUE TO WAVES

MODEL SHAKE TABLE TEST ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRAVITY TYPE QUAY WALL WITH DIFFERENT FOUNDATION GROUND PROPERTIES

m v = 1.04 x 10-4 m 2 /kn, C v = 1.29 x 10-2 cm 2 /min

Analysis of Shear Lag in Steel Angle Connectors

Application of Expansive Soil Geotechnical Procedures

DIRECTIONAL DRILLING

Compaction Theory and Best Practices

SETTLEMENT & SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Analysis for Zhongwei--guiyang Natural Gas Pipeline Endangered by Collapse

Fail-Safe Design by Outer Cover of High Pressure Vessel for Food Processing

METHODS FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND MINE SEALS

Stability of slopes of municipal solid waste landfills with co-disposal of biosolids

Calibration and Validation of the Shell Fatigue Model Using AC10 and AC14 Dense Graded Hot Mix Asphalt Fatigue Laboratory Data

APPENDIX G SCA BASIN CALCULATIONS

387. Fellenius, B.H Sixty Years of dynamic testing and analysis of piles A retrospective. Keynote Lecture to the 10th International Conference

1 CHAPTER 1. Standard Penetration Test: Corrections and Correlations. 1.1 General. 1.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Mechanical Stabilisation for Permanent Roads

Colorado Mountain Club Youth Education Program

* Numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this paper. 84

SHAKING TABLE TESTS AND EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES ON THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF WEDGED CAISSONS

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory CIVIL ENGINEERING VIRTUAL LABORATORY Experiment no 8 Standard Penetration Test

Temporary Flood Protection Research at U of M. Title of presentation. Faculty of Engineering. Shawn Clark, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Tresca s or Mises Yield Condition in Pressure Vessel Design

Transcription:

Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil using Strength Ratios Prof. Scott M. Olson, PhD, PE 86 th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board January 22, 2007

Liquefaction Problems Photos from eeri.org

Undrained Behavior of Sand data from Verdugo (1992)

Behavior of Saturated, Contractive Sand under Sloping Ground s u (liq)/σ' vo

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts Olson & Stark (2003) data from Castro (1969)

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts Olson & Stark (2003)

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts Olson & Stark (2003)

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts Olson (2006)

s u u( (liq) from Flow Failures 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT after Olson & Stark (2002) 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Vertical Effective Stress, σ' vo (kpa)

Liquefied Strength Ratio v. q c1 0.4 Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.3 0.2 0.1 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted CPT from measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated CPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated CPT after Olson & Stark (2002) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Normalized CPT tip resistance, q c1 (MPa)

Liquefied Shear Strength v. q c1 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted CPT from measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated CPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated CPT 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Normalized CPT tip resistance, q c1 (MPa)

Liquefied Strength Ratio v. (N 1 1) 60 0.4 Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.3 0.2 0.1 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT after Olson & Stark (2002) 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Liquefied Shear Strength v (N 1 1) 60 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT Seed and Harder (1990) boundaries 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Liquefied Shear Strength v. (N 1 1) 60cs 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT Seed and Harder (1990) boundaries 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60cs

s u u( (liq) v. Vertical Effective Stress 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT after Olson & Stark (2002) 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Vertical Effective Stress, σ' vo (kpa)

Laboratory TxC Data Olson & Mattson (in press)

Laboratory DSS/RS Data Olson & Mattson (in press)

Laboratory TxE Data Olson & Mattson (in press)

Comparing Field and Lab Data Olson & Mattson (in press)

Behavior during Lateral Spreads Arumoli et al. (1992)

Idealized Behavior Shear Stress after Taboada & Dobry (1995) Shear Strain

s u (liq) from Lateral Spreads 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

s u (liq) from Lateral Spreads Youd (1998)

s u (liq) from Lateral Spreads 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60cs

s u (liq)/σ' vo from Lateral Spreads 0.4 Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.3 0.2 0.1 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Lateral Spreads in Luzon, Philippines 0.4 Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.3 0.2 0.1 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Magnitude of Displacement 0.4 Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 2-5 m displacement 0.2-0.5 m displacement 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Strength of Shaking Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0.17g 0.43g 0.51g 0.84g 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Consolidation Stress Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT Shake table test σ' vo ~44kPa 4.4 Miller Farm (Loma Prieta eq) σ' vo ~ 120 kpa Magsaysay Bridge (Luzon eq) σ' vo ~ 180 kpa Shake table test σ' vo ~ 3.4 kpa 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Consolidation Stress 60 Liquefi ied shear strength h, s u (kpa a) 50 40 30 20 10 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Vertical Effective Stress, σ' vo (kpa)

Void Ratio Redistribution Lique efied stre ength rati o, s u /σ' vo 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Back-calculated calculated liquefied strength ratio and measured SPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and converted SPT from measured CPT Back-calculated liquefied strength ratio and estimated SPT Estimated liquefied strength ratio and measured, converted, or estimated SPT Shake table test Centrifuge experiment series Shake table test 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normalized SPT blow count, (N 1 ) 60

Conclusions For many natural sands, s u (liq) consolidation stress s u (liq)/ σ ' vo 1 ψ s (liq)/ σ ' u vo penetration resistance

Conclusions TxC, DSS/RS, TxE support the liquefied strength ratio concept and suggest that mode of shear does not greatly affect s u /s' vo when specimens are contractive throughout shearing

Conclusions Lateral spreads appear to follow strength th ratio concept Suggests that we may not understand physics/mechanics very well Void ratio redistribution can only in part explain this as some field cases and many shake table/centrifuge tests consist of sand only no permeability contrast

Recommendations Practitioners can use relations between s u /σ' vo & q c1 [or (N 1 ) 60 ]t to evaluate post-triggering stability and deformation problems supported by theory supported by laboratory data supported field cases of liquefaction flow failures and lateral spreads

Thank You! Questions???

GO BEARS!!! superbowl.com chicagobears.com si.com

Simplified Liquefaction Analysis of Sloping Ground Susceptibility Is the soil contractive (i.e., Triggering Are loose the enough additional to Post-triggering triggering loads flow)? sufficient to ti trigger If liquefaction strain- does softening occur, what (i.e., are the liquefaction)? consequences (i.e., slope instability)? CONTRACTIVE DILATIVE

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts

Liquefied Strength Ratio Concepts

Analysis of Duncan Dam Olson (2006)