Table of contents for Soil liquefaction : a critical state approach / Mike Jefferies & Ken Been.

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.


Counter
 
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:

Soil mechanics.
Soil liquefaction.