Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.
Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.
Contents LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ix SYMBOLS AND NOTATION xxi PREFACE xxv DISCLAIMER AND CAUTION xxviii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT ? 1 1.2 WHY A CRITICAL STATE VIEW ? 3 1.3 EXPERIENCE OF LIQUEFACTON 5 1.3.1 Static Liquefaction of Sands: (1) Fort Peck Dam 5 1.3.2 Static Liquefaction of Sands: (2) Nerlerk Berm 6 1.3.3 Liquefaction in Niigata Earthquake 12 1.3.4 Post-earthquake liquefaction: Lower San Fernando Dam 15 1.3.5 Mine waste liquefaction: (1) Aberfan 17 1.3.6 Mine waste liquefaction: (2) Merriespruit tailings dam failure 18 1.3.7 High cycle loading 21 1.3.8 Liquefaction induced by machine vibrations 26 1.3.9 Instrumented Liquefaction at Wildlife Site 28 1.3.10 Summary of lessons from liquefaction experiences 32 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS 32 2 DILATANCY AND THE STATE PARAMETR 35 2.1 A FRAMEWORK FOR SOIL BEHAVIOUR 35 2.1.1 Dilatancy 35 2.1.2 The Critical State 36 2.1.3 Stress Dilatancy 39 2.2 STATE PARAMETER APPROACH 40 2.2.1 Definition 40 2.2.2 Theoretical basis 40 2.2.3 Experimental evidence for approach 43 2.2.4 Normalized Variants of the State Parameter 48 2.2.5 Influence of Fabric 50 2.2.6 Influence of OCR 53 2.2.7 Effect of Sample Size 54 2.3 EVALUATING SOIL BEHAVIOUR WITH THE STATE PARAMETER 57 2.4 DETERMINING THE CRITICAL STATE 60 2.4.1 Triaxial Testing Procedure 60 2.4.2 Picking the critical state from test results 61 2.4.3 Critical Friction Ratio (Angle) 67 2.4.3 Stress dilatancy and critical friction ratio 70 2.4.4 Uniqueness of the CSL 73 2.5 SIMPLE SHEAR TESTS 76 2.6 THE CRITICAL STATE FOR DIFFERENT SOILS 79 3 CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FOR LIQUEFACTION 85 3.1 INTRODUCTION 85 3.1.1 Why model? 85 3.1.2 Why critical state theory? 85 3.1.3 Key simplifications and idealization 86 3.1.4 Overview of this Chapter 86 3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 87 3.3 REPRESENTING THE CRITICAL STATE 92 3.3.1 Existence and Definition of the CSL 93 3.3.2 Critical state in void ratio space 93 3.3.3 Critical Stress Ratio M(?). 94 3.4 THE CAMBRIDGE VIEW 95 3.4.1 Idealized dissipation of plastic work 95 3.4.2 Cam Clay and Granta Gravel 96 3.4.3 Numerical integration and the consistency condition 98 3.5 THE STATE PARAMETER VIEW 100 3.5.1 The trouble with Cam Clay 100 3.5.2 Infinity of NCL 102 3.5.3 State as an initial index versus state as an internal variable 105 3.6 NORSAND CONSTITUTIVE MODEL 105 3.6.1 Triaxial Compression Version 105 3.6.2 Elasticity in Norsand 109 3.6.3 NorSand summary and parameters 110 3.6.4 Numerical integration of NorSand 111 3.7 COMPARISON OF NORSAND TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA 111 3.7.1 Determination of parameters from drained triaxial tests 111 3.7.2 Influence of NorSand Properties on Modelled Soil Behaviour 118 3.8 COMMENTARY ON ASPECTS OF NORSAND 120 3.8.1 Yield surface shape 120 3.8.2 Effect of elastic volumetric strain on ? 122 3.8.3 Volumetric versus shear hardening and isotropic compression 122 3.8.4 Limit on hardening modulus 124 3.8.5 Plane strain and other non triaxial compression loadings 124 4 MEASURING STATE PARAMETER IN SITU 131 4.1 INTRODUCTION 131 4.2 SPT VERSUS CPT 132 4.3 THE INVERSE PROBLEM: A SIMPLE FRAMEWORK 136 4.4 CALIBRATION CHAMBERS 142 4.4.1 Description 142 4.4.2 Test programs and available data 144 4.5 STRESS NORMALIZATION 146 4.5.1 Effect of vertical and horizontal stress 146 4.5.2 Reference condition approach 149 4.5.3 Dimensionless approach 150 4.6 DETERMINING ? FROM CPT 151 4.6.1 Original method 151 4.6.2 Stress level bias 156 4.6.3 Simulations with NorSand 157 4.6.4 A complete framework 158 4.7 MOVING FROM CALIBRATION CHAMBERS TO REAL SANDS 163 4.7.1 Effect of material variability 163 4.7.2 Effect of interbedded strata 167 4.7.3 CPT inversion software 168 4.8 ELASTICITY IN SITU 169 4.9 HORIZONTAL GEOSTATIC STRESS 172 4.9.1 Geostatic stress ratio, Ko 172 4.9.2 Measurement with Self-Bored Pressuremeter 173 4.9.3 Measurement with horizontal stress CPT 175 4.9.4 Importance of measuring Ko 179 4.10 ALTERNATIVES TO THE CPT 180 4.10.1 Self-bored pressuremeter (SBP) 180 4.10.2 Flat plate dilatometer (DMT) 181 4.10.3 Using the SPT database 181 4.10.4 Direct measurement of density 182 5 SOIL VARIABILITY AND CHARACTERISTIC STATES 183 5.1 INTRODUCTION 183 5.2 EFFECT OF LOOSE POCKETS ON PERFORMANCE 183 5.3 EFFECT OF VARIABILITY OF IN SITU STATE ON CYCLIC PERFORMANCE 189 5.3.1 Distribution of CPT resistance in Tarsiut P-45 fill 189 5.3.2 Liquefaction analysis under earthquake loading 194 5.4 NERLERK CASE HISTORY 196 5.5 ASSESSING THE CHARACTERISTIC STATE OF SANDS 200 5.5.1 Characteristic state for liquefaction 200 5.5.2 Characteristic strengths for foundation design 201 6 STATIC LIQUEFACTION AND POST LIQUEFACTION STRENGTH 203 6.1 INTRODUCTION 203 6.2 DATA FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 204 6.2.1 Static Liquefaction in Triaxial Compression Tests 205 6.2.2 Triaxial Extension 209 6.2.3 Simple Shear 211 6.3 TRENDS IN LABORATORY DATA FOR SU AND SR 212 6.4 THE NATURE OF STATIC LIQUEFACTION 218 6.5 UNDRAINED NORSAND 221 6.5.1 Representing the Undrained Condition 221 6.5.2 Simulation of Undrained Behaviour 221 6.5.3 How NorSand Models Liquefaction 225 6.5.4 Effect of Soil Properties and State on Liquefaction 225 6.6 UNDERSTANDING FROM NORSAND 228 6.6.1 Uniqueness of Critical State 228 6.6.2 Effect of silt (fines) content on liquefaction 230 6.6.3 Liquefaction in triaxial extension 232 6.6.4 Liquefaction with constant deviator and reducing mean stress 233 6.6.5 The pseudo steady state 235 6.7 PLANE STRAIN VERSUS TRIAXIAL CONDITIONS 236 6.8 THE STEADY STATE APPROACH TO LIQUEFACTION 241 6.8.1 Basic premise of Steady State School 241 6.8.2 Validation of the steady state approach 243 6.8.3 Deficiencies of the steady state approach 246 6.9 TRENDS FROM FULL SCALE EXPERIENCE 249 6.9.1 Background to the empirical approach 249 6.9.2 Strength (stability) assessments 250 6.9.3 Summary of full scale experience 251 6.9.4 The residual strength normalization and associated errors 254 6.9.5 State parameter based approach 258 6.10 LOWER SAN FERNANDO DAM REVISITED 264 6.11 SUMMARY 275 7 CYCLIC STRESS INDUCED LIQUEFACTION 283 7.1 INTRODUCTION 279 7.1.1 Cyclic Mobility 279 7.1.2 Alternative Forms of Cyclic Loading 281 7.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA 283 7.2.1 Laboratory cyclic test methods 283 7.2.2 Trends in cyclic triaxial test data on sands 286 7.2.3 Sand behaviour moving away from the cyclic triaxial test 293 7.2.4 Cyclic rotation of principal stress 298 7.2.5 Cyclic behaviour of silts 303 7.3 DRAINAGE CONDITIONS FOR CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION 306 7.4 THE BERKELEY (SEED) APPROACH 309 7.4.1 Background 309 7.4.2 Liquefaction Assessment Chart 310 7.4.3 CRR Adjustment Factors 315 7.4.3 Deficiencies with the Berkeley School Method 319 7.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CYCLIC LOADING 320 7.5.1 Alternative Modelling Approaches for Cyclic Loading 320 7.5.2 NorSand with cyclic loading and principal stress rotation 322 7.5.3 Insight to Cyclic Mobility from NorSand 324 7.6 STATE PARAMETER VIEW OF BERKELEY APPROACH 326 7.6.1 The basic Berkeley School liquefaction assessment chart 326 7.6.2 The nature of K? 326 7.6.3 The nature of K? 329 7.6.4 Dealing with soil fabric in situ 330 7.6.5 The influence of silt content 330 7.7 SUMMARY 333 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS 339 REFERENCES 345 APPENDIX A STRESS AND STRAIN MEASURES 359 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING TO DETERMINE THE CRITICAL STATE OF SANDS 363 B.1 OVERVIEW 363 B.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION 364 B.2.3 Slurry Deposition 367 B.2.4 Dry Pluviation 368 B.3 SAMPLE SATURATION 368 B.3.1 Carbon dioxide teatment 369 B.3.2 Saturation under Vacuum 369 B.4 VOID RATIO DETERMINATION 370 B.4.1 Volume changes during saturation 370 B.4.2 Membrane Penetration Correction 372 B.5 ADDITIONAL TEST DETAILS 374 APPENDIX C THE CRITICAL FRICION RATIO M 377 APPENDIX D NORSAND DERIVATIONS 383 D.1 EVOLUTION OF NORSAND 383 D.2 YIELD SURFACE 384 D.3 INTERNAL CAP TO YIELD SURFACE 385 D.4 VARIABLE Mi 387 D.5 HARDENING RULE 388 D.5.1 Outer Yield Surface Hardening with Fixed Principal Directions 388 D.5.2 Softening of Outer Yield Surface by Principal Stress Rotation 390 D.5.3 Softening of Inner Yield Surface 391 D.5.4 Constraint on Hardening Modulus 392 D.6 OVERCONSOLIDATION 393 D.6.1 Implied Yield Overconsolidation from Geostatic Stress 393 D.6.2 Constraint on Maximum Yield Over-Consolidation Ratio 394 D.6.3 Effect of Reloading 394 D.7 CONSISTENCY CONDITION 395 D.7.1 Consistency Case 1: On outer yield surface 396 D.7.2 Consistency Case 2: On Inner Cap 397 D.8 STRESS DIFFERENTIALS 398 D.9 DIRECT NUMERICAL INTEGRATION FOR ELEMENT TESTS 399 D.9.1 Undrained triaxial tests 400 D.9.2 Drained Triaxial Compression 403 D.9.3 Drained Plane Strain: Cornforth¿s Apparatus 403 D.9.4 Undrained simple shear tests 405 D.9.4 Drained simple shear tests 408 APPENDIX E CALIBRATION CHAMBER TEST DATA 413 APPENDIX F SOME CASE HISTORIES INVOLVING FLOW LIQUEFACTION 441 F.1 19th & 20th Century Zeeland Coastal Slides (Netherlands) 441 F.2 1907: Wachusett Dam, North Dyke (Massachusetts) 443 F.3 1918: Calaveras Dam (California) 446 F.4 1924: Sheffield Dam (California) 448 F.5 1938: Fort Peck (Montana) 451 F.6 1968: Hokkaido Tailings Dam (Japan) 454 F.7 1978: Mochikoshi Tailings Dams No 1 And No 2 (Japan) 456 F.8 1982/3: Nerlerk (Canada) 458 F.9 1985: La Marquesa (Chile) 464 F.10 1985: La Palma (Chile) 466 F.11 1991: Sullivan Mine Tailings Slide (British Columbia) 468 F.12 1994: Jamuna (Bangabandhu) Bridge (Bangladesh) 473 Tables 2.1 Critical state properties for some soils 44 2.2 Clarification of terminology for describing soils 59 2.3 Laboratory test for design parameters in sands and silts 60 2.4 Summary of proposed relationships for Mi 74 3.1 Summary of NorSand 110 3.2 NorSand parameters and typical values for sands 111 3.3 Triaxial tests on Erksak 330/0.7 sand to determine CSL and NorSand parameters (Been et al, 1990) 112 3.4 NorSand parameters for Erksak 330/0.7 drained triaxial calibration 117 3.5 Paired tests on Brasted sand (data from Cornforth, 1961) 125 4.1 Dimensionless parameter groupings for CPT interpretation 132 4.2 Summary of CPT calibration chamber studies 145 4.3 Approximate expressions for general inversion form ? = f(Qp) 161 4.4 Relationship of soil type to soil classification index Ic 167 4.5 Summary of ¿good¿ SBP tests in Tarsiut P-45 hydraulically placed sand fill and adjacent CPT data 175 5.1 Dimensions and properties of model and prototype caissons (after Rowe and Craig, 1976) 185 5.2 Cyclic loading stages in caisson models (Rowe and Craig, 1976) 185 5.3 Model time per cycle and time factors for centrifuge models (Rowe and Craig, 1976) 185 5.4 Resistance factors for characteristic strength percentiles for an offshore structure example (Been and Jefferies, 1993) 202 6.1 Observed values of the parameters (su/p')n, ?' and IB for consolidated undrained tests on cohesionless soils (Bishop, 1971) 214 6.2 Summary of steady state strength determinations from laboratory tests for Lower San Fernando Dam (after Marcuson et al., 1990) 243 6.3 Some important case histories giving insight to full-scale post-liquefaction strength 252 6.4a Comparison of post-liquefaction residual strength sr (psf) from back-analysis of failure as reported by various investigators 255 6.4b Comparison of corresponding characteristic normalized SPT blowcount (N1) 255 6.5 Fines content adjustment factors for SPT (after Seed, 1987) 256 6.6 Summary of case history data for mobilized post-liquefaction strength 260 7.1 Proposed factors for difference between cyclic simple shear and triaxial testing 298 E.1 Boundary Condition Codes, after Parkin et al (1980) 413 F.1 Summary of strengths and strength ratios determined by Olson et al 445 F.2 Summary of index and critical state properties for Nerlerk Sands 461 F.3 Summary of shear strengths from back analysis of La Marquesa Dam 466 Figures 1.1 Definition of state parameter ? 4 1.2 Aerial view of Fort Peck failure (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 1939) 6 1.3 Nerlerk B-67 berm and foundation cross section (Been et al. 1987) 8 1.4 Plan of failures that occurred at Nerlerk B-67 and cross section through Slide 3 (Sladen et al., 1985a) 9 1.5 Grain size distribution information for Nerlerk B-67 materials (Sladen et al., 1985a) 10 1.6 Typical Nerlerk berm CPT (CPTC12 in 1988) including clay layer between sand fill and the seabed. 11 1.7 Summary of CPT distributions in Nerlerk B-67 berm, in Nerlerk sand and Ukalerk sand 12 1.8 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) 13 1.9 Sketch plan of Niigata, showing main area of damage. Kawagishi-cho and South Bank sites marked with X. (Ishihara, 1993) 14 1.10 Soil profile and CPT resistance at Kawagisho-cho site (Ishihara and Koga, 1981) 15 1.11 Soil profile and CPT resistance at South Bank site (Ishihara and Koga, 1981) 15 1.12 Seed Liquefaction Assessment Chart (Seed et al. 1983) 16 1.13 Liquefaction failure of Lower San Fernando Dam after the 1971 earthquake. (Note paved crest of dam descending into water in top photograph) 17 1.14 Possible failure mechanism for Aberfan Tip No 7 (Bishop, 1973) 18 1.15 Aberfan flow slide shortly after the failure. Flowslide distance added by authors 19 1.16 Aerial view of the Merriespruit tailings dam failure showing the path of the mudflow that occurred (Fourie et al. 2001) 20 1.17 Sequence of retrogressive failures of Merriespruit containment postulated by Wagener et al. 1998 (Fourie et al, 2001) 21 1.18 Grain size distribution and Critical State Line of Merriespruit tailings materials (Fourie and Papageorgiou, 2001). 22 1.19 Distrubution of in situ void ratios obtained during post failure investigation of Merriespruit tailings dam (Fourie et al., 2001) 23 1.20 Gulf Canada¿s Molikpaq structure in the Beaufort Sea 24 1.21 Details of cyclic ice loading and excess pore pressure 12 April 1986 25 1.22 Piezometric response showing accumulating excess pore pressure to lique- faction (piezometer E1, mid depth in centre of loaded side). 26 1.23 Failure of embankment on Ackermann Lake triggered by vibroseis trucks (Hryciw et al. 1990) 28 1.24 Plan and cross section of the Wildlife instrumentation array (from Youd and Holtzer based on Bennett et al. 1984) 29 1.25 Surface accelerometer (N-S) and piezometer P5 (2.9m) at Wildlife site during Superstition Hills 1987 Earthquake (from Youd and Holtzer, 1994) 30 1.26 Shear stress and shear strain history at depth of piezometer P5 at Wildlife Site, interpreted from accelerometers by Zeghal and Elgemal (1994) 31 1.27 Average stress ¿ average strain graphs for selected time increments interpreted from NS accelerometers at Wildlife site (after Youd and Holtzer, 1994) 32 2.1 Difference between rate and absolute definitions of dilatancy 36 2.2 Early hypothesis of critical void ratio from direct shear tests (Casagrande, 1975) 37 2.3 Comparison of behaviour of sand as a function of relative density and state parameter for Kogyuk 350/2 and Kogyuk 350/10 sands. 41 2.4 Idealized state path to illustrate relationship of dilatancy to state parameter 42 2.5 Peak dilatancy of twenty soils in standard drained triaxial compression 46 2.6 Stress-dilatancy component of peak strength of twenty soils in standard drained triaxial compression 47 2.7 Volumetric strain at peak stress for drained triaxial compression tests on 20 sands. 48 2.8 Friction angle versus state parameter normalized by range of accessible void ratios (emax¿ emin). Compare the lack of improvement over Figure 2.6. 49 2.9 Maximum dilatancy as a function of ?/?. There is no improvement in the correlation compared to ? alone (compare with Figure 2.5). 49 2.10 Maximum dilation as a function of state parameter normalized by (1+e). There is a small improvement compared to state parameter alone (Figure 2.5). 50 2.11 Effect of sample preparation on the behaviour of Kogyuk sand (Been and Jefferies, 1985) 51 2.12 Effect of loading direction to soil structure on the strength of Toyoura sand (after Tatsuoka, 1987) 52 2.13 Effect of fabric on friction angle of sands reported by Tatsuoka and by Oda, compared to general correlation of friction angle to state parameter 53 2.14 Comparison of the effect of void ratio and sample preparation method on the cyclic strength of two sands in simple shear (Nemat-Nasser and Tobita, 1982) 53 2.15 Influence of overconsolidation ratio on the friction angle of Erksak 330/0.7 sand. 54 2.16 Effect of sample size on the behaviour of dense Ticino sand 55 2.17 Multiple shear bands evident through membrane in large (300mm diameter) sample after drained shearing. 56 2.18 Schematic illustration of relationship between parameters and testing methods 58 2.19 Stress controlled CIU triaxial test during which a critical (steady) state is clearly reached. 62 2.20 CIU triaxial test showing dilation at large strains. The quasi-steady state must not be interpreted as the critical state. 63 2.21 Selection of undrained tests to used to give critical state line in Figure 2.22 64 2.22 Critical state line for Erksak 330/0.7 sand from undrained tests that reached a distinct critical (steady) state 65 2.23 Examples of drained triaxial tests on loose samples reaching critical state 66 2.24 Critical state line for Guindon Tailings B (67% fines) showing use of drained tests on loose samples to define critical state at higher stresses. 66 2.25 Critical state locus for Toyoura sand, data from Verdugo (1992) 68 2.26 Experimental data for relation between peak strength and peak dilatancy for Erksak and Brasted sands under different loading conditions (Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002). 69 2.27 Drained triaxial data for Erksak sand reduced to stress dilatancy form (Been Jefferies, 2004) 72 2.28 Relationship of mobilized friction ratio ?f to ? for Erksak data. Dense sand data at initial DP=0 shown as filled squares; loose sand data shown as traces for complete strain path. Also shown are several proposed constitutive model relationships (Been and Jefferies, 2004). 73 2.29 Effect of sample preparation on undrained behaviour of Erksak 330/0.7 sand 75 2.30 Comparison of critical states from pluviated and moist compacted samples of Erksak 330/0.7 sand (data from Been et al. 1991). Note that pluviated samples cannot be prepared at high void ratios. 76 2.31 Peak dilation rate in drained triaxial compression tests as a function of distance from critical state line determined from undrained tests. The trend line passes close to zero, indicating that drained and undrained behaviour relate to the same CSL. 77 2.32 Stress conditions in the simple shear test 78 2.33 Undrained simple shear tests on Fraser River sand (Vaid and Sivathayalan, 1996) 79 2.34 Comparison of triaxial compression, extension and simple shear behaviour of Fraser River Sand (Vaid and Sivathayalan, 1996) 80 2.35 Critical state loci for several sands whose properties are given in Table 2.1 82 2.36 Relationship between slope of the critical state line and fines content; uniformly graded soils 83 2.37 Relationship between location of critical state line at p' = 1kPa (??) and maximum void ratio (emax); uniformly graded soils 83 2.38 Comparison of critical state lines for uniformly graded and well graded silty sands. 84 3.1 Illustration of normality through hockey puck analogy 88 3.2 Definition of normality (associated plastic flow) 89 3.3 Dilation implied by normality to Mohr Coulomb surface 89 3.4 Correct association of yield surface with soil strength, from Drucker, Gibson and Henkel (1957). 90 3.5 Comparison of isotropic compression idealizations 91 3.6 Separation of state parameter from overconsolidation ratio (Jefferies and Shuttle 2002) 92 3.7 Example of variation of critical friction ratio M with Lode angle ??(Jefferies and Shuttle 2002) 94 3.8 Illustration of the consistency condition 99 3.9 Implied overconsolidation for a given state ? in Cambridge models 100 3.10 Illustration of the Hvorslev surface idealization 101 3.11 Distribution of fill density in normally consolidated hydraulic sand fill (Stewart at al, 1983) 102 3.12 Experimental evidence for an infinity of NCL (isotropic consolidation of Erksak 330/0.7 sand). 104 3.13 Illustration of NorSand yield surface, limiting stress ratios and image condition 107 3.14 Dilatancy as a function of state parameter at image condition 108 3.15 Measured bulk modulus of Erksak sand in isotropic unload-reload tests (Jefferies and Been, 2000) 114 3.16 State diagram for drained tests on Erksak 330/0.7 sand 115 3.17 Examples of calibrated fit of NorSand to Erksak 330/0.7 sand in drained triaxial compression 116 3.18 Plastic hardening modulus versus state parameter ?o for Erksak sand (Ticino and Brasted sand shown for comparison). 117 3.19 Effect of NorSand model parameters on drained triaxial compression behaviour 118 3.20 Example of experimentally determined yield surfaces in Fuji River sand (Tatsuoka and Ishihara, 1974) 121 3.21 NorSand yield surfaces for comparison with experimental results on Fuji River sand 121 3.22 Isotropic plastic compression behaviour of NorSand 123 3.23 Failure of sample in plane strain test carried out by Cornforth. 125 3.24 Peak dilatancy of Brasted sand in triaxial compression versus state (from Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 126 3.25 Calibration of NorSand to Brasted sand in triaxial compression 128 3.26 Validation of NorSand in plane strain by comparison of predictions versus data for Brasted sand (Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 129 4.1 Comparison of SPT and CPT repeatability 134 4.2 Illustration of soil type classification chart using CPT data (Robertson, 1990) 135 4.3 Relation between qc/N and soil type (Burland and Burbidge, 1985) 136 4.4 Example stress-strain behaviour of NAMC material in triaxial compression (properties for medium dense sand) 138 4.5 Spherical cavity limit pressure ratio versus friction angle for NAMC material with Bolton¿s approximation of stress-dilatancy 140 4.6 Spherical cavity limit pressure ratio versus state parameter (broken lines indicate linear approximation of equation [4.7]). 141 4.7 Comparison of experimental spherical cavity limit pressure with penetration resistance of blunt indenter (after Ladanyi and Roy, 1987) 142 4.8 Example of CPT calibration chamber (Been et al, 1987b) 143 4.9 Example of CPT chamber test data (Erksak sand, from Been et al 1987b) 144 4.10 Grain size distribution curves for sands tested in calibration chambers 145 4.11 CPT resistance versus relative density for three sands (after Robertson and Campanella, 1983) 146 4.12 CPT resistance calibration for Monterey No 0 sand (test data from Villet, 1981; graph from Been et al, 1986) 47 4.13 Effect of stress on penetration resistance in normally consolidated sand (a) vertical stress; (b) horizontal stress. (Clayton et al, 1985). 148 4.14 Experimentally determined CN functions for Reid Bedford and Ottawa sand by Marcuson and Bieganowski (1977) and recommended CN function by Liao and Whitman (1986) 150 4.15 Dimensionless CPT resistance versus state parameter for Monterey sand (data from Fig 4.12, after Been et al, 1986) 151 4.16 Normalized Qp ¿ ? relationships from calibration chamber studies (NC= normally consolidated) 152 4.17 Normalized CPT resistance of normally consolidated and overcon- solidated Ticino Sand 154 4.18 Comparison of Qp ¿ ? trends for different sands 155 4.19 CPT inversion parameters versus slope of CSL, ?10 156 4.20 Summary of stress level bias in Qp ¿ ? relationship for Ticino sand as suggested by Sladen (1989a,b) 157 4.21 Numerical calculation of Qp ¿ ? relationship for Ticino sand, showing linearity and effect of elastic modulus as cause of stress level bias (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998). 158 4.22 Computed effect of Ir on k,m coefficients for Ticino sand (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998) 159 4.23 Shear modulus of Ticino sand versus confining stress: pr is a reference stress level, here taken as 100 kPa. (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998) 159 4.24 Computed Qp ¿ ? relationship for Ticino sand, shown as trendlines, compared to individual calibration chamber tests. 60 4.25 Effect of soil properties on spherical cavity expansion pressure ratio (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998) 162 4.26 Performance of approximate general inversion on 10 sands with randomly chosen properties (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998) 162 4.27 Trends in effective inversion parameters k', m' with soil compresibility ??? 164 4.28 Relationship between ??? and F suggested by Plewes, Davies and Jefferies (1992) 165 4.29 Suggested relationship between ? and Ic (adapted from Been and Jefferies,1992) 166 4.30 Soil type classification chart showing constant Ic contours 166 4.31 Shear modulus determined from VSP tests in hydraulically placed sandfill (Molikpaq core at Tarsiut P-45) 171 4.32 Comparison of Ir between silts and sands 172 4.33 Results of SBP tests in hydraulically placed Erksak sand 174 4.34 Horizontal geostatic stress in hydraulic fills (Graham and Jefferies, 1986) 176 4.35 CPT horizontal stress amplification factor versus state (Jefferies Jönsson and Been, 1987) 177 4.36 Comparison of geostatic stress from SBP and CPT in hydraulically placed sandfill (Jefferies, Jönsson and Been, 1987) 178 4.37 Effect of uncertainty in horizontal stress on uncertainty in estimated in situ state parameter from CPT data (Jefferies, Jönsson and Been, 1987) 179 5.1 Measured response of caissons subject to increasing stages of cyclic loading in centrifuge test (from Rowe and Craig, 1976) 184 5.2 Layout of loose pockets below caissons (Rowe and Craig, 1976) 186 5.3 Scaled displacements and pore pressures observed in model with 4% loose zones in fill (Rowe and Craig, 1976) 187 5.4 Scaled displacement and piezometric data for centrifuge model with 10% loose zones in fill (Rowe and Craig, 1976) 188 5.5 Schematic cross section of the Molikpaq at Tarsiut P-45 showing locations of CPTs to determine fill properties (adapted from Jefferies et al 1985 by Popescu et al 1997) 190 5.6 Examples of CPTs in Tarsiut P-45 fill. These CPTs are spaced about 9m apart. (see Figure 5.5) MAC 05 & 32 and MAC 08 & 33 are spaced 1m apart to demonstrate repeatability of measurements. (adapted from Jefferies et al 1985 and Popescu et al 1997) 190 5.7 Selected Tarsiut P-45 CPTs plotted against depth with average trends in core and berm fill shown. Inset histograms are distributions of qc values in 1m depth intervals at depths of 5m, 15m and 25m 191 5.8 Statistical profile of normalized penetration resistance Q and state parameter at Tarsiut P-45 192 5.9 Stochastic reconstruction of Tarsiut P-45 fill by Popescu (1995) 193 5.10 Distribution of fines content measured in Tarsiut P-45 fill (Jefferies et al. 1988) 194 5.11 Liquefaction of variable fill computed by Popescu 1995 195 5.12 Comparison of uniform and variable fill results in Popescu et al, 1997. 196 5.13 Summary of CPT statistics in the area of Slide 3 of Nerlerk berm. State parameter interpretation using variable shear modulus methodology of Chapter 4. 197 5.14 Distribution of random ? field mapped onto Nerlerk berm geometry, computed by Onisiphorou (2000) 198 5.15 Results of Nerlerk Berm analysis with uniform fill states (Onisiphorou, 2000) 199 5.16 Results of analysis of Nerlerk berm with variable field ???? = -0.08, ? = 0.05 (Onisiphorou, 2000) 199 6.1 Undrained triaxial compression of Erksak 330/0.7 sand 206 6.2 Loose Ticino sand in undrained triaxial compression 207 6.3 Particle size distribution curve for four liquefying soils 207 6.4 Loose silty sand (Bennett Dam) and sandy silt (Guindon Tailings) in undrained triaxial compression 208 6.5 Triaxial extension test data for Erksak 300/0.7 sand 209 6.6 Comparison of extension and compression tests on Erksak sand (normalized) 210 6.7 Effect of stress path on the critical state locus (at expanded scale) 211 6.8 Comparison of Bonnie Silt in simple shear, triaxial compression and triaxial extension (all tests at initial confining stress of 80kPa, 0.683 < eo < 0.753) 212 6.9 Normalized undrained strength of loose liquefiable sands 214 6.10 Undrained strength ratio of normally consolidated clay (equation in Wroth, 1984). 215 6.11 Pore pressure ratio Af of loose sands at peak strength 216 6.12 Comparison of normalized peak and residual undrained strengths 217 6.13 Brittleness index of sands with a range of ?. (Filled symbols represent low ? and open symbols higher ? values.) 217 6.14 Comparison of collapse surface and instability or flow liquefaction line representations for onset of liquefaction (after Yang, 2002) 218 6.15 Erksak sand test G609 illustrating the nature of static liquefaction and collapse surface at ?L 219 6.16 Very loose Erksak drained test D684 showing intersection of stress path with ¿collapse surface¿ 220 6.17 Initial state diagram for the series of triaxial tests on Erksak 330/0.7 sand 223 6.18 Triaxial compression static liquefaction - NorSand compared to Erksak sand data 224 6.19 NorSand simulations showing effect of elastic modulus on undrained behaviour 226 6.20 NorSand simulations showing effect of plastic modulus on undrained behaviour 227 6.21 Peak undrained triaxial compression strength for liquefying sands with trends from NorSand 227 6.22 S and F lines from Norsand simulations of triaxial compression tests (Jefferies and Been, 1992) 228 6.23 Simulations showing modeling of sample preparation effects (for both samples ? = 0.816, ?10 = 0.031, ? = 0.2) 229 6.24 Simulation of liquefaction of loose sandy silts from Rose Creek Impoundment 231 6.25 Simulation of triaxial extension, Erksak 330 test CIUE-G642 232 6.26 Failure in declining mean stress at constant shear experiment of Sasistharan et al (1993) 233 6.27 NorSand simulation for declining mean stress drained brittle failure in experiments by Sasitharan et al (1993). 234 6.28 NorSand simulations of pseudo steady state condition 236 6.29 Comparison of NorSand with measured undrained silt behaviour in simple shear 237 6.30 Example of effect of initial geostatic stress ratio Ko on undrained strength in simple shear 237 6.31 Effect of initial state on peak undrained strength in simple shear versus triaxial conditions 239 6.32 Computed peak undrained strength in simple shear versus triaxial conditions when normalized by the initial vertical effective stress 240 6.33 Peak undrained strength of normally consolidated clay in different strain conditions (based on Figs 7 and 27 of Wroth, 1984) 240 6.34 Steady State School method to determine steady state strength of soil at in situ void ratio (after Poulos et al, 1985) 243 6.35 Cross sections of Lower San Fernando dam (from Seed et al, 1988) 244 6.36 Adjustments of measured undrained steady state strengths to in situ conditions at Lower San Fernando dam (from Seed et al., 1988) 245 6.37 Comparison of in situ void ratios and remoulded SSL for Lower Sand Fernando dam determined by Vasquez-Herrera and Dobry (1988). 246 6.38 X-ray images of shear bands in triaxial samples (Oda and Kazama, 1998) 248 6.39 Proposed but incorrect correlation between steady state (residual) strength and adjusted SPT penetration resistance (after Seed and Harder, 1990). 256 6.40 Alternative correlation between steady state (residual) strength and adjusted SPT penetration resistance proposed by Stark and Mesri (1992) 257 6.41 Illustration of the importance to practical engineering of the difference between the two correlations proposed for sr from SPT data 258 6.42 Residual undrained strength ratio versus penetration resistance from liquefaction case histories 261 6.43 Relationship between initial in situ state parameter and mobilized steady state strength from case history data. 263 6.44 Lower San Fernando dam showing as-constructed section (above) and section during the 1985 investigation (below) after Castro el al (1989) 265 6.45 Plan of Lower San Fernando dam in 1985 and showing location of investigation borings/soundings (after Castro et al, 1989) 266 6.46 Cross section through Lower San Fenando dam at St. 09+35 (approximately centerline of sliding mass) showing inferred zonation of dam from 1985 study 268 6.47 Comparison of CPT and SPT resistances at Lower San Fernando Dam (from Castro et al, 1989) 269 6.48 CPT C103 from Lower San Fernando dam investigation in 1985 270 6.49 Particle size distribution of soils within Zone 5 of Lower San Fernando Dam (¿Batch Mix No 7¿ was used for steady state triaxial tests, after Castro et al 1989) 271 6.50 Comparison of CPT tip resistance profiles in hydraulic fill (Note different depths because of different collar elevations) 272 6.51 CPT C104 from Lower San Fernando dam investigation in 1985, including screening level interpretation of ? 273 6.52 Computed residual strength ratio sr /??vo in hydraulic fill at Lower San Fernando Dam 274 6.53 Boundary between satisfactory and unsatisfactory undrained performance of sands in terms of CPT penetration resistance. These curves are illustrative and must be computed for any specific soil. 277 7.1 Void ratio reduction induced by cyclic shear (after Youd, 1972) 281 7.2 Schematic illustration of the different forms of cyclic loading 282 7.3 Stress conditions in triaxial, simple shear and hollow cylinder tests. 284 7.4 The hollow cylinder test apparatus at University of British Columbia (Vaid et al, 1990). 285 7.5 Example of sand behaviour in undrained cyclic triaxial test (Nevada sand, Arulmoli et al 1992). 287 7.6 Cyclic strength of Toyoura Sand in triaxial compression (data from Toki et al 1986) 289 7.7 Cyclic triaxial test data on 13 sands for which CSL is known, with ranges obtained by Garga and McKay (1984) for sands and tailings sands shown. 290 7.8 Cyclic triaxial test data from 7.7 normalized to cyclic resistance ratio for 15 cycles, CRR15 291 7.9 Cyclic triaxial data normalized to consolidation stress ratio, Kc, illustrating absence of trend as a function of Kc 292 7.10 Cyclic resistance ratio at 15 cycles (CRR15) as a function of state parameter for 13 sands 292 7.11 Example of effect of fabric (sample preparation method) on cyclic strength of sands. (Ladd, 1978) 293 7.12 Cyclic simple shear test on Nevada sand (Velacs project data, Arulmoli et al 1992) 294 7.13 Cyclic simple shear data from several sands 295 7.14 Cyclic simple shear tests on Ottawa sand, illustrating how the effect of static bias varies depending on the selected ¿failure¿ criterion (Vaid and Finn, 1979) 296 7.15 Shaking table tests ¿corrected¿ for compliance effects (De Alba et al. 1976) 297 7.16 Comparison between cyclic triaxial and shaking table tests on Monterey sand, with cyclic simple shear tests on Oosterschelde sand. 97 7.17 Demonstration of the importance of principal stress rotation on behaviour of dense sand by Arthur et al (1980) 299 7.18 Cumulative volumetric strain in lightly dilatant Leighton Buzzard sand caused by principal stress rotation (Wong and Arthur, 1986) 300 7.19 Result of a pure principal stress rotation test on loose Toyoura sand (Ishihara and Towhata 1983). 301 7.20 Behaviour of Erksak sand in hollow cylinder test simulating principal stress history for Molikpaq piezometer E1 during 12 April 1986 ice loading event. 303 7.21 Cyclic triaxial test on Bonnie Silt (Velacs project, Arulmoli et al 1992) 304 7.22 Cyclic simple shear test on Bonnie Silt (Velacs project, Arulmoli et al 1992) 305 7.23 Estimated coefficient of consolidation for Molikpaq core sand 308 7.24 Calculated pore pressure dissipation rate for piezometer in Molikpaq core (for comparison with measured dissipation on Figure 1.22) 308 7.25 Earthquake magnitude scaling factors tabulated and superimposed on cyclic strength curve in Seed and Idriss (1982), with power law trend added. 311 7.26 Most recent version of Seed liquefaction diagram (Youd et al., 2001). Data points numbers correspond to the case history reference assigned by Fear (1996) based on Ambraseys (1988). 312 7.27 CPT version of Seed liquefaction diagram (Robertson and Wride, 1998) 313 7.28 CPT resistance adjustment factor to provide equivalent clean sand value from that measured in the actual soil at the site (Robertson and Wride, 1998) 314 7.29 Recommended magnitude scaling factors from NCEER Workshop (Youd and Noble, 1997) 316 7.30 K? values after Seed and Harder (1990) 317 7.31 K? values recommended by Hynes and Olson (1999) 317 7.32 Illustration redrawn from Lee and Seed (1967) showing apparent effect of consolidation stress ratio Kc on liquefaction resistance. 318 7.33 Summary of recommended values for K? (Harder and Boulanger, 1997) 319 7.34 Illustration of alternative hardening laws 321 7.35 Biaxial compression test on an assembly of photo-elastic discs (after de Josselin de Jong and Verruijt, 1969) 322 7.36 Schematic of yield surface softening induced by principal stress rotation (from Been et al. 1993) 323 7.37 Comparison of NorSand with cyclic simple shear tests on Nevada sand, from Velacs project (??v = 160 kPa, ? = -0.068) after Been et al, 1993. 325 7.38 Comparison of Seed liquefaction diagram with state parameter presentation of cyclic triaxial test data. Note that both diagrams are based on 15 cycles of loading, as M=7.5 corresponds to 15 cycles (Figure 7.23) 327 7.39 Field case history data on liquefaction expressed in terms of ? 328 7.40 Comparison of K? recommended by NCEER with K? computed from ? changing with stress level at constant soil density 329 7.41 Illustration of the critical level of repeated loading (from Sangrey et al, 1978) 331 7.42 Critical state model for liquefaction of sands, silts and clays 332 B.1 Effect of sample preparation on the cyclic resistance of sand samples (from Ladd, 1977) 363 B.2. Illustration of sample preparation methods for clean sands (Ishihara, 1993) 365 B.3. Illustration of vacuum saturation apparatus for triaxial sample preparation (Shen and Lee, 1995) 369 B.4 Volume changes during triaxial sample lifetime (for a drained test on a dilatant sample) 370 B.5 Potential error in void ratio if volume changes during saturation are not considered (from Sladen and Handford, 1987) 371 B.6 Normalized membrane penetration coefficient as a function of median grain size. 373 B.7 Comparison of CSL determined from load controlled and strain rate controlled triaxial compression tests 374 B.8 Triaxial cell with axial load cell located underneath cell to minimize dynamic effects. Pore pressure transducer is also close to cell to reduce system compliance. 375 B.9 Lubricated end platen for triaxial testing of sands 376 C.1 Erksak sand stress dilatancy in triaxial compression and extension (after Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 378 C.2 Brasted sand stress dilatancy in plane strain and triaxial conditions (after Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 378 C.3 Lode angle at peak strength in plane strain (after Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 379 C.4 Comparison of functions for M(?) with Brasted sand data (after Jefferies and Shuttle, 2002) 380 D.1 Schematic illustration of self-consistency requirement for internal cap to yield surface (Jefferies, 1997) 387 D.2 Yield surface softening induced by principal stress rotation (Been et al., 1993) 390 D.3 Fit of NorSand to data with modified stiffness and dilatancy for reloading (R>1, ? <1) (from Jefferies, 1997) 395 D.4 Comparison of undrained liquefaction alternative softening rules 402 D.5 Dense sand after failure in Imperial College plane strain apparatus, tested by Cornforth, 1964. 404 D.6 Simple shear conditions (from Potts et al, 1987) 406 E.1 Chamber size standardization factors (Been et al, 1986) 414 F.1 Location of flowslide on the coast of Zeeland from 1881-1946 (Koppejan et al, 1948) 441 F.2 Vlietpolder flowslide geometry (Koppejan et al, 1948) 442 F.3 Typical CPT soundings in flowslide material (Koppejan et al, 1948) 443 F.4 Longitudinal and transverse sections of North Dyke of Wachusett Dam (Olson et al 2000) 444 F.5 Cross section of Wachusett dam failure with 1991 investigation results (Olson et al, 2000) 445 F.6 Typical section of hydraulic fill dam during construction (Hazen, 1918) 446 F.7 Sketch of Calaveras Dam failure showing surface before and after slip (Hazen, 1918). 446 F.8 Cross section of Sheffield dam, based on Seed et al (1969) 449 F.9 Aerial photographs of Fort Peck Dam failure 452 F.10 Critical state summary for Fort Peck Dam shell material (Middlebrooks, 1940) 453 F.11 Section through Fort Peck Dam failure (Casagrande, 1975) 453 F.12 Plan and section of Hokkaido tailings dam (Ishihara et al 1990) 454 F.13 CPTs from Hokkaido tailings dam (Ishihara et al 1990) 455 F.14 Cross section of Mochikoshi tailings dams (Dam No1 is top, Dam No2 is the bottom) (Ishihara et al 1990) 456 F.15 Double-tube cone penetration test at Mochikoshi Tailings Dams (Ishihara et al 1990) 457 F.16 Nerlerk B-67 berm and foundation cross section (Been et al. 1987) 459 F.17 Plan of failures that occurred at Nerlerk B-67 as reported by Sladen et al.(1985a) 459 F.18 Example of bathymetric survey data at Nerlerk showing interpolation of berm contours 460 F.19 Summary of state and stress paths in triaxial tests of reconstituted Nerlerk 270/1 samples 462 F.20 Summary of CPT distributions in Nerlerk B-67 berm, in Nerlerk sand and Ukalerk sand 463 F.21 Reconstructed cross section through failed portion of La Marquesa Dam (De Alba et al 1988) 464 F.22 Cross section through failure zone of La Marquesa Embankment (De Alba et al 1988) 465 F.23 Reconstructed cross section through failed portion of La Palma Embankment (De Alba et al 1988) 467 F.24 Cross section through failure zone of La Palma embankment (De Alba et al 1988) 467 F.25 Illustration and cross-section through failure zone of Sullivan Mine tailings dyke slide (Davies, Dawson and Chin, 1998) 469 F.26 CPT soundings through Sullivan Dyke failure (see Figure F.25b for location) 471 F.27 Estimated in situ state from CP91-29 data by screening method 472 F.28 Example of flowslide geometry at Jamuna (Yoshimine et al 1999) 473 F.29 Plan view of west guide bund of Jamuna Bridge showing CPT locations (Yoshimine et al, 2001) 474 F.30 Statistical summary of Jamuna west bund CPT results (based on data provided by Prof Yoshimine)
Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication: