Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

HOME WORK
1. Derive w, Sr, e and Gs and Check if 𝑺𝒓 . 𝒆 = 𝒘. 𝑮𝒔
a. Specific Gravity
𝑊𝑠
𝐺𝑠 =
𝑉𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤
𝑊𝑠
𝑉𝑠 =
𝐺𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤
Assume that Ws = 1, so
1
𝑉𝑠 = (1)
𝐺𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤

b. Water content
𝑊𝑤
𝛾𝑤 =
𝑉𝑤
𝑊𝑤
𝑉𝑤 =
𝛾𝑤
Assume that Ww = w, so
𝑤
𝑉𝑤 = (2)
𝛾𝑤

c. Degree of saturation
𝑉𝑤
𝑆𝑟 =
𝑉𝑤 +𝑉𝑎
𝑉𝑤
𝑉𝑤 +𝑉𝑎 =
𝑆𝑟
𝑉𝑤 𝑉𝑤 𝑉𝑤 𝑆𝑟 (1 − 𝑆𝑟 )𝑉𝑤 (1 − 𝑆𝑟 )𝑤
𝑉𝑎 = − 𝑉𝑤 = − = = (3)
𝑆𝑟 𝑆𝑟 𝑆𝑟 𝑆𝑟 𝑆𝑟

d. Void ratio
𝑉𝑤 + 𝑉𝑎
𝑒= (4)
𝑉𝑠
Substitute Eq. (1) to (4)
𝑉𝑤 + 𝑉𝑎
𝑒=
1
𝐺𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤
 Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

So,
𝑒
𝑉𝑤 + 𝑉𝑎 = (5)
𝐺𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤

Based on Eq. (2) and (5),

𝑤
𝑉𝑤 𝛾𝑤 𝑤𝐺𝑠
𝑆𝑟 = = 𝑒 =
𝑉𝑤 +𝑉𝑎 𝑒
𝐺𝑠 . 𝛾𝑤
So,
𝑆𝑟 𝑒 = 𝑤𝐺𝑠 OK!

2. How to define wL and wP in the experimental test (based on JGS and native country)
a. Japanese Geotechnical Society standard
Liquid limit (wL) describes as the water content of a soil transition from the plastic state to the
liquid state, which can be obtained by means of liquid limit test. The liquid limit measuring
instrument shall consist of a brash dish, a dropper device for the dish, a hard rubber pad,
grooving tool and gauge as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The procedure started by inserting
a gauge between the brass dish and the rigid rubber table and Adjust the dropper so that the
falling height of the brass dish becomes (10 ± 0.1) mm. Using a spatula, place the specimen in
a brass dish to the maximum thickness is about 1 cm and shape it. While holding the grooving
tool perpendicular to the bottom of a brass dish, cut the groove in the sample along the diameter
of the brass dish, aligned with the center line of the cams bearing surface, thereby dividing the
sample into two. Place the brash dish in the dropper device. Lift and drop the dish repeatedly
at a rate of twice per second, continuing until the divided soil at the bottom of the groove has
joined together again for a length of about 1,5 cm. Record the number of drop at the time when
the groove joined and obtain the water content of the sample near the joining point. Either add
distilled water to the sample or allow some moisture to evaporate, the mix the sample fully and
repeated step. This process shall be repeated until two samples of 10 to 25 drops and 25 to 35
drops. The liquid limit shall be calculated by plotting the number of drops on the logarithmic
axis and the soil water content on the arithmetic axis. Then obtain a best fit straight line, known
as flow curve. Determine the soil water content corresponding to 25 drops on the flow curve.
This shall be a liquid limit, wL (%).
Plastic limit (wP) is the water content of a soil transition from the plastic state to the semi solid
state. The apparatus used to measure plastic limit are frosted glass plate and round rod
(diameter about 3 mm). The procedure is done by rolling the mixed sample on the glass plate
under the palm of the hand, until the diameter become 3 mm. repeat the process until the string
breaks apart as it reaches diameter of 3 mm then collect the broken parts and obtain the water
content. The water content of the sample is the plastic limit, wP (%).
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

Figure 1. Liquid limit measuring instrument (JGS 0141-2009)

Figure 2. Grooving tool and gauge (JGS 0141-2009)

b. ASTM (Indonesian standard reference)

The liquid limit test of Atterberg's involved mixing a pat of clay in a round-bottomed porcelain
bowl of 10–12 cm diameter as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. A groove was cut through the
pat of clay with a spatula, and the bowl was then struck many times against the palm of one
hand. Casagrande subsequently standardized the apparatus and the procedures to make the
measurement more repeatable. Soil is placed into the metal cup portion of the device and a
groove is made down its center with a standardized tool of 13.5 millimeters (0.53 in) width.
The cup is repeatedly dropped 10 mm onto a hard rubber base at a rate of 120 blows per minute,
during which the groove closes up gradually as a result of the impact. The number of blows
for the groove to close is recorded. The moisture content at which it takes 25 drops of the cup
to cause the groove to close over a distance of 13.5 millimeters (0.53 in) is defined as the liquid
limit. The test is normally run at several moisture contents, and the moisture content which
requires 25 blows to close the groove is interpolated from the test results. The Liquid Limit
test is defined by ASTM standard test method D 4318. The test method also allows running
the test at one moisture content where 20 to 30 blows are required to close the groove; then a
correction factor is applied to obtain the liquid limit from the moisture content.
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

The plastic limit (PL) is determined by rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a soil on a
flat, non-porous surface. The procedure is defined in ASTM Standard D 4318. If the soil is at
a moisture content where its behavior is plastic, this thread will retain its shape down to a very
small diameter. The sample can then be remolded and the test repeated. As the moisture content
falls due to evaporation, the thread will begin to break apart at larger diameters. The plastic
limit is defined as the moisture content where the thread breaks apart at a diameter of 3.2 mm.
A soil is considered non-plastic if a thread cannot be rolled out down to 3.2 mm at any moisture
possible.

Figure 3. Hand-operated liquid limit device (ASTM D4318–05)

Figure 4. Grooving tools (ASTM D4318–05)

There are no big different between ASTM D4318–05 and JGS 0141-2009. There are a little
different in the dimension of the apparatus but not too big difference and generally the
procedure is similar each other.
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

3. How to rehabilitate Pisa Tower (1000 words)

Pisa Tower construction had begun in 1173 to house the bells of the cathedral of the Piazza dei
Miracoli. Figure 1 shows a cross-section through the tower. It is nearly 60 m high and the
foundations are 19.6 m in diameter. At present the foundations are inclined due south at about
5.5° to the horizontal. The seventh cornice overhangs the first cornice by about 4.5 m. Figure
2 shows the ground profile underlying the tower. Based on sample descriptions, the material
to the south of the tower appears to be more clayey than to the north and the sand layer is
locally much thinner. The upper clay, known as the Pancone Clay, very sensitive to disturbance
which causes it to lose much strength.

Figure 1. Cross-section through the tower Figure 2. Soil profile beneath the tower

Figure 3 shows the reconstructed history of inclination of the foundations of the tower using
the alternative hypothesis. It can be seen that initially the tower inclined slightly to the north
amounting to about 0.2° in 1272 when construction recommenced. As construction proceeded
the tower began to move towards the south. In 1278, the tilt was about 0.6° and during the 90
year after it stopped, the tilt increased to about 1.6°. After the completion of the bell chamber
in about 1370 the inclination of the tower increased dramatically. The point dated 1817 is based
on measurements made by two British architects Cressy and Taylor using a plumb line. A
further measurement was made by the Frenchman Ruhault de Fleury in 1859 which showed
that the excavation of the catino by Gherardesca in 1838 caused a significant increase of
inclination. The history of tilting depicted in Fig. 3 has been used to calibrate numerical and
physical models of the tower and underlying ground.
The discovery that the motion of the tower is as shown in Fig. 4 has turned out to be a most
important finding in a number of respects. Previously it had been believed that the foundations
were undergoing creep settlements with the south side settling more rapidly than the north.
However, the observation that the north side had been steadily rising led to the suggestion that
the application of load to the foundation masonry on the north side could be beneficial in
reducing the overturning moment.
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

Figure 3. Historical inclination of Pisa Tower Figure 4. Tower motion

There are two problems that threaten the stability of the tower. The first one is the strength of
the masonry. The second problem is the stability of the foundations. The masonry problem has
been tackled by binding lightly pre-stressed plastic covered steel tendons around the tower at
the first cornice and at intervals up the second storey (Fig. 5). The work was effective in closing
some cracks and reduce the risk of a buckling failure of the marble cladding.

Figure 5. Temporary stabilization of the mansory

The application of load to the foundation masonry on the north side could be reduce the
overturning moment. The computer analysis indicated that it was safe to apply a maximum
load of up to 1400 t to the north side of the foundation masonry. The application of a north
counterweight shown in Fig. 6. It consists of a temporary pre-stressed concrete ring cast around
the base of the tower at plinth level. The movements are measured with a highly monitoring
system consisting of precision inclinometers and levellometers installed on the wall of the
ground floor room. The agreement between the two independent monitoring systems is
excellent. The amount of creep between the phases of load is small. However, subsequent to
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

completion of loading, time-dependent northward inclination has continued. One month after
completion of loading, the northward inclination was 33" and it had increased to 4.8" giving a
total of 52" including the effect of the concrete ring. On 21st February 1994 the average
settlement of the tower relative to the surrounding ground was about 2.5mm.

Figure 6. Counterweight details

After the application of the temporary counterweight, there was a concern that the unsightly
counterweight would be exposed for many years. The counterweight replaced with ten
tensioned cables anchored until 45 m in depth as shown in Fig. 7. It would give a slightly larger
stabilizing moment. The main concern was the uncertainty about the strength of the structural
connection between the conglomerate and the masonry formed by the steel grout pipes. In view
of this uncertainty the freezing operation was abandoned and work on developing the
permanent solution was accelerated.

Figure 7. Temporary anchor solution

Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

Figure 8. Induced subsidence by soil extraction

The next method to solve this problem was inducing the subsidence area by soil extraction as
shown in Figure 8. The principle of the method is to extract a small volume of soil at a desired
location leaving a cavity. The process is repeated at various chosen locations and very
gradually the inclination of the tower is reduced. The soil extraction trial was successfully
completed in March 1996 but there is no evidence of the soil extraction effectiveness. The
decision was taken to carry out preliminary soil extraction beneath the tower to observing the
response of the tower. A safeguard structure was constructed in the form of a horizontal cable
stay attached to the tower at the third storey which could be tensioned to steady the tower in
the event of detrimental movements. The soil extraction produced a positive response, the
method was approved for permanent stabilization. Using 41 extraction tubes, work on the full
intervention commenced on 21st February 2000. It is estimated that it will take about eighteen
months of careful soil extraction to reduce the inclination of the tower by about half a degree
which will be barely visible. In December 2001, the tower was reopened to the public and has
been declared stable for at least another 300 years.

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Tower+of+Pisa. “Tower of Pisa”

Campbell, Peter (2001). “Learning from Construction Failures: Applied Forensic

Engineering”. Whittles Publishing, Scotland, UK. (available as a preview on Google books)
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

4. Mechanism of Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby a soil loses strength and stiffness in response due
to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or other sudden change in stress condition,
causing it to behave like a liquid. This condition occurs generally in short time but nevertheless
long enough for liquefaction to be the cause of many failures, deaths and major financial losses.
A state of soil liquefaction occurs when the effective stress of soil is reduced to essentially
zero, which corresponds to a complete loss of shear strength. This caused by either monotonic
loading or cyclic loading. A soil in a saturated loose soil state, which may generate significant
pore water pressure due to the changing of load are the most likely to liquefy. This is because
a loose soil has the tendency to compress when sheared, generating large excess pore water
pressure as load is transferred from the soil skeleton to adjacent pore water during undrained
loading. Liquefaction is more likely to occur in loose to moderately saturated granular soils
with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sands and gravels capped or containing seams of
impermeable sediments. During cyclic loading, loose sands tend to decrease in volume, which
produces an increase in their pore water pressures and consequently a decrease in shear
strength (effective stress decrease). The most susceptible soils that liquefaction will be occurs
are young (Holocene-age, within the last 10,000 years) sands and silts of similar grain size,
and saturated soil. Such deposits are often found along stream beds, beaches, dunes, and areas
where windblown silt (loess) and sand have accumulated. Some examples of soil liquefaction
include quicksand, quick clay, turbidity currents, and earthquake induced liquefaction.
Depending on the initial void ratio, the soil material can respond to loading either strain-
softening or strain-hardening. Strain-softened soils like loose sands, can be triggered to
collapse, if the static shear stress is greater than the steady-state shear strength of the soil. In
this case flow liquefaction occurs, where the soil deforms at a low constant residual shear
stress. If the soil strain-hardens from moderately dense to dense sand, liquefaction will
generally not occur. However, cyclic softening can occur due to cyclic undrained loading such
as earthquake loading. Deformation during cyclic loading will depend on the density of the
soil, the magnitude and duration of the cyclic loading, and amount of shear stress reversal. If
stress reversal occurs, the effective shear stress could reach zero, then cyclic liquefaction can
occur.
The Niigata earthquake, on 16 June 1964, inflicted major damage on the city of Niigata on the
west coast of Japan. The epicenter was about 35 miles north of the city (offshore) and the
recorded magnitude was 7.3 on the Richter Scale. The Niigata earthquake caused damage for
more than $1 billion and most of this damage was related to soil liquefaction as shown in
Figure 1. Liquefaction is an aspect of soil behavior that occurs worldwide and is of
considerable importance from both public safety and financial standpoints.
Much of the traditional empirical approach to liquefaction evaluation is based on plotting the
soil strength characterized by the penetration resistance against the applied earthquake loading.
Those sites where liquefaction occurred are then distinguished from those where no
liquefaction was observed. Figure 2 shows the Seed liquefaction assessment chart which uses
the SPT penetration resistance, adjusted for stress level and energy level, (N1)60, as the
preferred measure of penetration resistance. Seed’s liquefaction assessment diagram has been
modified by many people since 1983, but largely has not changed in nature or location of the
dividing line between liquefaction and non-liquefaction for clean sands. Seed’s approach is in
essence a geological classification scheme, taking minimal account of soil properties and
Adhitya Yoga Purnama CL6

treating the silt sized fraction of the soil as a key index to anticipated behavior for a given
penetration resistance.

Figure 1. Apartment building at Kawagishi-cho that rotated and settled because of foundation
liquefaction in 1964 Niigata earthquake. (From Karl V. Steinbrugge Collection, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.)

Figure 2. Seed liquefaction assessment chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction#cite_note-10, “Soil Liquefaction”

Jefferies, Mike; Been, Ken (2006). “Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach”. Taylor &
Francis. (available as a preview on Google books)