Soil Liquefaction Contents

10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
This is the html version of the file http://www.dandelon.com/servlet/download/attachments/dandelon/ids/DE00455B8C703E2BAF316C12571F100432B3F.pdf. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
Soil Liquefaction
A critical state approach
Mike Jefferies & Ken Been
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DxXz2RmjQsEJ:www.dandelon.com/servlet/download/attachments/dandelon/ids/DE00455B8C703E2BA
1/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
u J= \ Taylor & Francis

Taylor &. Francis Croup LONDON AND NEW YORK
Page 2
Contents
LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES SYMBOLS AND NOTATION PREFACE DISCLAIMER AND CAUTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT? 1.2 WHY A CRITICAL STATE VIEW? 1.3 EXPERIENCE OF LIQUEFACTION 1.3.1 Static liquefaction of sands: (1) Fort Peck Dam 1.3.2 Static liquefaction of sands: (2) Nerlerk Berm 1.3.3 Liquefaction in Niigata earthquake 1.3.4 Post-earthquake liquefaction: Lower San Fernando Dam M\ 1.3.5 Mine waste liquefaction: (1) Aberfan 1.3.6 Mine waste liquefaction: (2) Merriespruit tailings dam failure 1.3.7 High cycle loading 1.3.8 Liquefaction induced by machine vibrations 1.3.9 Instrumented liquefaction at Wildlife Site 1.3.10 Summary of lessons from liquefaction experiences 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS 2 DILATANCY AND THE STATE PARAMETER 2.1 A FRAMEWORK FOR SOIL BEHAVIOUR 2.1.1 Dilatancy 2.1.2 The Critical State . 2.1.3 Stress Dilatancy 2.2 STATE PARAMETER APPROACH 2.2.1 Definition 2.2.2 Theoretical basis 2.2.3 Experimental evidence for approach 2.2.4 Normalized variants of the State Parameter 2.2.5 Influence of Fabric 2.2.6 Influence of OCR 2.2.7 Effect of sample size 2.3 EVALUATING SOIL BEHAVIOUR WITH THE STATE PARAMETER 57 2.4 DETERMINING THE CRITICAL STATE 2.4.1 Triaxial testing procedure 2.4.2 Picking the critical state from test results 2.4.3 Critical Friction Ratio (angle) xi xiii xxv xxix xxxii 1 1 3 5 5 6 12 15 17 18 21 26 28 32 32 35 35 35 36 39 40 40 40 43 48 50 53 54 60 60 61 67
2/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
2.4.3 Stress Dilatancy and Critical Friction Ratio 2.4.4 Uniqueness of the CSL 2.5 SIMPLE SHEAR TESTS 2.6 THE CRITICAL STATE FOR DIFFERENT SOILS
70 74 77 80
Page 3
vi Soil Liquefaction
3 CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FOR LIQUEFACTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 Why model? 3.1.2 Why critical state theory? 3.1.3 Key simplifications and idealization 3.1.4 Overview of this chapter 3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3.3 REPRESENTING THE CRITICAL STATE 3.3.1 Existence and definition of the CSL 3.3.2 Critical state in void ratio space 3.3.3 Critical Stress Ratio M(9) 3.4 THE CAMBRIDGE VIEW 3.4.1 Idealized dissipation of plastic work 3.4.2 Cam Clay and Granta Gravel 3.4.3 Numerical integration and the consistency condition 3.5 THE STATE PARAMETER VIEW 3.5.1 The trouble with Cam Clay 3.5.2 Infinity of NCL 3.5.3 State as an initial index versus state as an internal variable $ 3.6 NORSAND CONSTITUTIVE MODEL 3.6.1 Triaxial compression version 3.6.2 Elasticity in Norsand 3.6.3 NorSand summary and parameters 3.6.4 Numerical integration of NorSand 3.7 COMPARISON OF NORSAND TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA 3.7.1 Determination of parameters from drained triaxial tests 3.7.2 Influence of NorSand Properties on modelled soil behaviour 3.8 COMMENTARY ON ASPECTS OF NORSAND ' 3.8.1 Yield surface shape 3.8.2 Effect of elastic volumetric strain on \\i 3.8.3 Volumetric versus shear hardening and isotropic compression 3.8.4 Limit on hardening modulus 3.8.5 Plane strain and other non triaxial compression loadings 4 DETERMINING STATE PARAMETER IN SITU 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 SPT VERSUS CPT 4.3 THE INVERSE PROBLEM: A SIMPLE FRAMEWORK 4.4 CALIBRATION CHAMBERS 4.4.1 Description 4.4.2 Test programs and available data 4.5 STRESS NORMALIZATION 4.5.1 Effect of vertical and horizontal stress 4.5.2 Reference condition approach 4.5.3 Dimensionless approach 4.6 DETERMINING y/FROM CPT 4.6.1 Original method 4.6.2 Stress level bias
85 85 85 85 86 86 87 92 93 93 94 95 95 96 98 100 100 102 105 105 105 109 110 111 111 111 118 120 120 122 122 124 124 131 131 132 137 142 142 144 146 146 149 150 151 151 156
3/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
4.6.3 with NorSand 4.6.4 Simulations A complete framework
157 158
Page 4
Contents vii
4.7 MOVING FROM CALIBRATION CHAMBERS TO REAL SANDS 4.7.1 Effect of material variability 4.7.2 Effect of interbedded strata 4.7.3 CPT inversion software 4.8 ELASTICITY IN SITU 4.9 HORIZONTAL GEOSTATIC STRESS 4.9.1 Geostatic stress ratio, Ko 4.9.2 Measurement with self-bored pressuremeter 4.9.3 Measurement with horizontal stress CPT 4.9.4 Importance of measuring Ko 4.10 ALTERNATIVES TO THE CPT 4.10.1 Self-bored pressuremeter (SBP) 4.10.2 Flat plate dilatometer (DMT) 4.10.3 Using the SPT database 4.10.4 Direct measurement of density 5 SOIL VARIABILITY AND CHARACTERISTIC STATES 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 EFFECT OF LOOSE POCKETS ON PERFORMANCE 5.3 EFFECT OF VARIABILITY OF IN SITU STATE ON CYCLIC PERFORMANCE 5.3.1 Distribution of CPT resistance in Tarsiut P-45 fill 5.3.2 Liquefaction analysis under earthquake loading 5.4 NERLERK CASE HISTORY 5.5 ASSESSING THE CHARACTERISTIC STATE OF SANDS 5.5.1 Characteristic state for liquefaction 5.5.2 Characteristic strengths for foundation design 6 STATIC LIQUEFACTION AND POST-LIQUEFACTION STRENGTH 203 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 DATA FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 6.2.1 Static liquefaction in triaxial compression tests 6.2.2 Triaxial extension 6.2.3 Simple shear 6.3 TRENDS IN LABORATORY DATA FOR su AND sT 6.4 THE NATURE OF STATIC LIQUEFACTION 6.5 UNDRAINED NORSAND 6.5.1 Representing the undrained condition 6.5.2 Simulation of undrained behaviour 6.5.3 How NorSand models liquefaction 6.5.4 Effect of Soil Properties and State on Liquefaction 6.6 UNDERSTANDING FROM NORSAND 6.6.1 Uniqueness of Critical State 6.6.2 Effect of silt (fines) content on liquefaction 6.6.3 Liquefaction in triaxial extension 6.6.4 Liquefaction with constant deviator and reducing mean stress 6.6.5 The pseudo steady state 6.7 PLANE STRAIN VERSUS TRIAXIAL CONDITIONS 6.8 THE STEADY STATE APPROACH TO LIQUEFACTION 6.8.1 Basic premise of Steady State School 6.8.2 Validation of the steady state approach
163 163 167 168 169 172 172 173 175 179 180 180 181 181 182 183 183 183 189 189 194 196 200 200 201
P?
203 204 205 209 211 212 218 221 221 222 225 225 228 228 230 232 233 235 236 241 241 244
4/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
Page 5
viii Soil Liquefaction
6.8.3 Deficiencies of the steady state approach 6.9 TRENDS FROM FULL SCALE EXPERIENCE 6.9.1 Background to the empirical approach 6.9.2 Strength (stability) assessments 6.9.3 Summary of full scale experience 6.9.4 The residual strength normalization and associated errors 6.9.5 State Parameter based approach 6.10 LOWER SAN FERNANDO DAM REVISITED 6.11 SUMMARY 7 CYCLIC STRESS INDUCED LIQUEFACTION 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Cyclic Mobility 7.1.2 Alternative forms of cyclic loading 7.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA 7.2.1 Laboratory cyclic test methods 7.2.2 Trends in cyclic triaxial test data on sands 7.2.3 Sand behaviour moving away from the cyclic triaxial test 7.2.4 Cyclic rotation of principal stress 7.2.5 Cyclic behaviour of silts 7.3 DRAINAGE CONDITIONS FOR CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION 7.4 THE BERKELEY (SEED) APPROACH 7.4.1 Background 7.4.2 Liquefaction Assessment Chart 7.4.3 CRR adjustment factors 7.4.3 Deficiencies with the Berkeley School method 7.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. FOR CYCLIC LOADING 7.5.1 Alternative modelling approaches for cyclic loading 7.5.2 NorSand with cyclic loading and principal stress rotation 7.5.3 Insight to cyclic mobility from NorSand 7.6 STATE PARAMETER VIEW OF BERKELEY APPROACH 7.6.1 The basic Berkeley School liquefaction assessment chart 7.6.2 The nature of Ko 7.6.3 The nature of Ka 7.6.4 Dealing with soil fabric in situ 7.6.5 The influence of silt content 7.7 SUMMARY
247 249 249 251 252 253 259 264 276 279 279 279 281 283 283 286 293 298 303 306 309 309 310 315 318 320 320 321 324 326 326 326 329 330 330 333 335 341
8 CONCLUDING REMARKS APPENDIX A STRESS AND STRAIN MEASURES APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING TO DETERMINE THE CRITICAL STATE OF SANDS B.I OVERVIEW B.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION B.2.1 Moist Tamping method B.2.2 Wet Pluviation B.2.3 Slurry Deposition B.2.4 Dry Pluviation
345 345 346 347 348 349 350
5/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
Page 6
Contents ix
B.3 SAMPLE SATURATION B.3.1 Carbon dioxide treatment B.3.2 Saturation under vacuum B.4 VOID RATIO DETERMINATION B.4.1 Volume changes during saturation B.4.2 Membrane penetration correction B.5 ADDITIONAL TEST DETAILS APPENDIX C THE CRITICAL FRICION RATIO M APPENDIX D NORSAND DERIVATIONS D.I EVOLUTION OF NORSAND D.2 YIELD SURFACE D.3 INTERNAL CAP TO YIELD SURFACE D.4 VARIABLE M D.5 HARDENING RULE D.5.1 Outer yield surface hardening with fixed principal directions D.5.2 Softening of outer yield surface by principal stress rotation D.5.3 Softening of inner yield surface D.5.4 Constraint on hardening modulus D.6 OVER-CONSOLIDATION D.6.1 Implied yield over-consolidation from geostatic stress D.6.2 Constraint on maximum yield over-consolidation ratio D.6.3 Effect of reloading D.7 CONSISTENCY CONDITION D.7.1 Consistency Case 1: On Outer Yield Surface D.7.2 Consistency Case 2: On Inner Cap D.8 STRESS DIFFERENTIALS D.9 DIRECT NUMERICAL INTEGRATION FOR ELEMENT TESTS D.9.1 Undrained triaxial tests D.9.2 Drained triaxial compression D.9.3 Drained plane strain: Cornforth's apparatus D.9.4 Undrained simple shear tests D.9.5 Drained simple shear tests APPENDIX E CALIBRATION CHAMBER TEST DATA APPENDIX F SOME CASE HISTORIES INVOLVING LIQUEFACTION FLOW FAILURE F.I 19th & 20th Century Zeeland Coastal Slides (Netherlands) F.2 1907: Wachusett Dam, North Dyke (Massachusetts) F.3 1918: Calaveras Dam (California) F.4 1924: Sheffield Dam (California) F.5 1938: Fort Peck (Montana) F.6 1968: Hokkaido Tailings Dam (Japan) F.7 1978: Mochikoshi Tailings Dams N 1 And N 2 (Japan) F.8 1982/3: Nerlerk (Canada) F.9 1985: La Marquesa (Chile) F.10 1985: La Palma (Chile)
350 351 351 352 353 354 356 361 367 367 368 369 370 372 372 373 375 375 376 377 378 378 378 379 380 381 383 384 386 387 389 392 395
423 423 425 428 431 433 436 438 440 446 449
Page 7
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DxXz2RmjQsEJ:www.dandelon.com/servlet/download/attachments/dandelon/ids/DE00455B8C703E2BA 6/7
10/6/13
Soil Liquefaction
x Soil Liquefaction
F.I 1 1991: Sullivan Mine Tailings Slide (British Columbia) F. 12 1994: Jamuna (Bangabandhu) Bridge (Bangladesh) REFERENCES INDEX
450 455 459 477
7/7

Soil Liquefaction Contents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Liquefaction Contents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/6/13

Mike Jefferies & Ken Been

u J= \ Taylor & Francis

4.6.3 with NorSand 4.6.4 Simulations A complete framework

345 345 346 347 348 349 350

450 455 459 477

You might also like