#8 liquefaction part 2 - gregg drilling & testing, inc ... · p.k. robertson 2013 definitions...
TRANSCRIPT
6/12/2013
1
Evaluation of soil liquefactionusing the CPT – Part 2
P.K. Robertson
2013
Definitions of Liquefaction
• Cyclic (seismic)Liquefaction– Zero effective stress
(during cyclic loading)
• Flow (static)Liquefaction– Strain softening
response
6/12/2013
2
Cyclic (seismic) Liquefaction
• Zero effective stress dueto undrained cyclicloading
• Shear stress reversal
– Level or gently slopingground
• Controlled by size andduration of cyclicloading
• Large deformationspossible
Moss Landing
Kobe
Flow (static) Liquefaction
• Strain softening response in undrainedshear
• Trigger mechanism required
• Static shear stress greater than minimum(liquefied) undrained shear strength
• Kinematic mechanism required
– Uncontained flow
– Contained deformation
6/12/2013
3
Schematic undrained response ofsaturated, contractive sandy soil
After Olson & Stark, 2003
Flow chart toevaluate
liquefaction
After Robertson, 1994
6/12/2013
4
Flow (static) liquefactionsteeply sloping ground
Sites defined as:
Steeply sloping (> 5 degrees) or earth embankments(e.g. dams)
Sequence to evaluate flow liquefaction:
1. Evaluate susceptibility for strength loss
2. Evaluate stability using post-earthquake shearstrengths
3. Evaluate trigger for strength loss
If soils are susceptible, and instability possible, it is often prudentto assume trigger will occur
Evaluate susceptibility forstrength loss
• Soils must be strain softening in undrainedshear
• Strain softening soils are CONTRACTIVE atlarge strains
• Can we identify soils that are eitherCONTRACTIVE or DILATIVE (at largestrains) using CPT?
6/12/2013
5
State parameter in coarse-gainedsoils (sands)
State Parameter after Jefferies and Been, 1985 Relative State Parameter indexafter Boulanger, 2003
‘Loose’
(-) DenseDILATIVE
‘Dense’
(+) LooseCONTRACTIVE
y
State Parameter from CPT
• Jefferies and Been (2006) summarized ~30yrs ofresearch related to evaluation of liquefaction using aCritical State Soil Mechanics (CSSM) approach
• Problem is complex & depends mainly on: in-situstresses, shear stiffness, shear strength, compressibility& plastic hardening
• Requires combination of in-situ tests (SCPT) and labtesting (reconstituted samples to get CSL)
• Based on extensive calibration chamber test results, fieldresults (frozen undisturbed samples), lab testing &numerical simulation – estimate of state from CPT
6/12/2013
6
State Parameter
Approx.contours of soilstate for young,
uncementedsoils
(shape controlled bysoil compressibility –
i.e. slope of CSL)
Boundary for strain-softening response
y > -0.05
(After Robertson, 2009)
Same in-situ StateDifferent penetration resistance
DILATIVE
CONTRACTIVE
Seismic liq. – case histories
• Based on the early work of Seed & Idriss(1971) penetration resistance (SPT & CPT) hasbeen used to evaluate the ‘state’ of sandy soilsto evaluate the potential for liquefaction basedon extensive case histories
• Concept of “clean sand equivalent” (Qtn,cs) isused to extend liq. evaluation to wider range ofsandy soils (Robertson & Wride, 1998)
Qtn,cs = Kc Qtn [Kc = fn (Ic)]
6/12/2013
7
Seismic liq. case histories
Updated Moss database
Clean sand equivalent, Qtn,cs
Soils with same‘clean sand
equivalent’ Qtn,cs
have similarbehavior
(based on casehistories with
young,uncemented soils)
Increased resistanceto loading
same ‘clean sand equivalent’penetration resistance
- same in-situ state
6/12/2013
8
State parameter & clean sand equivalent
Robertson, 2013
Based on liq. case historiesBased on CSSM theory & CC
Increased resistanceto loading
Increased resistanceto loading
~ 0.56 – 0.33 log Qtn,cs
Qtn,cs = 70 at y = -0.05
DILATIVE
CONTRACTIVE
Link between Qtn,cs and y
• CPT-based clean sand equivalent, Qtn,cs curvesbased on case histories of seismic liquefaction
• CPT-based State Parameter (y) curves basedon CSSM theory, laboratory, field andnumerical studies
• Both produce very similar relationships
• Hence, CPT Qtn,cs can be used to estimate in-situ state
6/12/2013
9
Dilative/Contractive boundary
CPT-based boundary
Jefferies and Been (2006)suggested that when
Y > - 0.05soils are strain softening at
large strain
Y = - 0.05Qtn,cs ~ 70
DILATIVE
CONTRACTIVE
After Robertson, 2010
Case histories – flow liquefaction
• Many publications (over past 25 years) thathave studied case histories:
– e.g. Seed (1987), Seed & Harder (1990), Stark &Mesri (1992), Wride et al (1999), Olson & Stark(2002), Jefferies and Been (2006), Olson &Johnson (2008) and Robertson (2010)
– Some uncertainty with some seismically triggeredcases that involved either strength loss (flow liq.)or cyclic liq./modility (lateral spreading)?
6/12/2013
10
Case histories – flow liquefaction• Case histories involve soils that are:
– Very young
– Very loose
– Non- or low-plastic
• ~78% recent fills
• ~40% hydraulically placed
• ~16% tailings
• ~50% triggered by earthquakes
• several triggered by very minor disturbance
Failures tend to occur without warning, arerapid and can flow large distance
Stava, Italy, 1985; 268 deaths, 190,000m3
Kolontar, Hungary,2010, 700,000m3No warning
Very fast
Travel longdistances
6/12/2013
11
Case histories - flow-liquefaction
All case histories fall in‘contractive’ portion of
CPT SBT chart
DILATIVE
CONTRACTIVE
After Robertson, 2010
Nerlerk (sand) – 19,20,21Jamuna (sand) - 34Fraser River (silty sand) - 27Sullivan mines (silty tailings) - 35Northern Canada (silty clay) – 36L. San Fernado Dam (silt) – 15
CPT data in critical layers +/- 1 sd.
Case histories with CPT
Tennessee Valley, Kingston CoalAsh Failure 2008
April, 2008 Pre-slide
December, 2008 Post-slide
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
5 million m3 flowed ~1 km
6/12/2013
12
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Kingston failure sequence
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Kingston failure sequence
6/12/2013
13
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Kingston failure sequence
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Kingston failure sequence
6/12/2013
14
Cross section through slide
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Cross section through slide
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
6/12/2013
15
Cross section through slide
After AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Laboratory test results (TVA)
Most of the Ash andSlimes are contractive andstrain softening at largestrain
6/12/2013
16
Fine-grained - Slimes• High water content: 40 to 140%
• Very high Liquidity Indices: 3 to 7
– Sensitivity, St > 30 (i.e. brittleness > 0.98)
• Low undrained shear strength at large strain
When water content > Liquid LimitSensitivity can be high
Post-failure CPT (CPT 09-104)
Fly Ash
Slimes
Data from AECOM: www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
Clay
Alluvium
Weakest slimes
Confirmed with adjacent borehole & samples
6/12/2013
17
Post-failure CPT (CPT 09-104)
Fly Ash
Slimes
Clay
Contractive
Dilative
Weakest slimes
Peak
CPeT-IT software: www.geologismiki.gr
TVA Fly Ash Failure
CPT results(+/- 1 standard
deviation) in coarse-grained fly ash and
fine-grained (slimes)
Weakest slimes
6/12/2013
18
Ground Improvement example
After Campanella et al., 1983
Ground Improvement example
Before After
SPT, N 5 7
CPT, qt (MPa) 0.45 1.0
Peak, su/s’v 0.2 1.2
CRR (CTX) 0.15 >0.29
Silt went from softnormally consolidated
(before) to stiffoverconsolidated (afterground improvement) –Contractive to Dilative
6/12/2013
19
Contractive/Dilative boundary• Case histories suggest that when Qtn,cs < 70
soils are potentially susceptible to strainsoftening and hence, flow liquefaction
• Criteria of Qtn,cs < 70 slightly conservative sincemean + one standard deviation of CPT data fallbelow this criteria
– if using mean values, Qtn,cs < 50 to 60 maybe moreappropriate
– but very thin weak layers may not be adequatelycaptured by ‘mean’ values
Contractive/Dilative boundary
CPT-based SBT chart provides a reasonableestimate of soils that are likely eitherCONTRACTIVE or DILATIVE (at large strains)
Are all CONTRACTIVE soils at risk for flow(static) liquefaction?
– depends on brittleness (sensitivity), strain to peakstrength and static shear stress
6/12/2013
20
Generalized soil behavior(undrained shear – NC fine-grained soils)
Low PI soils tend to have smaller strain to peak strengthand tend to be more brittle
After Ladd et al, 1977
Low PIHigh PI
Both CONTRACTIVE
τ
γ
Su(p)
Su(min)
High Brittleness
Low Brittleness
Brittleness versus undrained strength ratio
Range for NC soils
Regardless of fabric and direction of loading
After Yoshimine et al, 1999
6/12/2013
21
Liquefied undrained strength ratio
Most casehistories have acalculated liq.strength ratiosu/s’v ~ 0.1 or
slightly smaller
DilativeContractive
After Robertson, 2010
Liquefied strength ratio relationships based on normalized CPTtip resistance
Modified from Olsen & Stark (CGJ, 2002)
Robertson, 2010Clean sand equivalent
Low Brittleness
High Brittleness
Dilative
Olsen & Stark (2002)
6/12/2013
22
Generalized CPT Soil Behaviour Type
A
B C
D
CPT Soil Behaviour
A: Drained-dilative
B: Drained-contractive
C: Undrained-dilative
D: Undrained-contractive
Regions of potential liquefaction
Cohesionless soils (A1 & A2) - Evaluatepotential behavior using CPT-based case-historyliquefaction correlations.
A1 Cyclic liquefaction possible depending onlevel and duration of cyclic loading.
A2 Cyclic liquefaction and post earthquakestrength loss possible depending on loading andground geometry.
Cohesive soils (B & C) – Evaluate potentialbehavior based on in-situ or laboratory testmeasurements or estimates of monotonic andcyclic undrained shear strengths.
B Cyclic softening possible depending on leveland duration of cyclic loading.
C Cyclic softening and post earthquake strengthloss possible depending on soil sensitivity, loadingand ground geometry.
6/12/2013
23
Summary• Strong link between ‘clean sand equivalent’
cone resistance (Qtn,cs) based on seismic casehistories and State Parameter (y)
• Contractive soil response when Qtn,cs < 70(based on mean +1 SD)
• Young, very loose, non- to low plastic soilstend to be more brittle than older, denser, moreplastic soils
Summary
• Since case histories show that failures canoccur without warning, are rapid and can flowlarge distances – “Observation approach” maynot work
If soils are susceptible, and instability possible(i.e. FS << 1.0), it is often prudent to assume
that a trigger will occur - unless you can designaway all possible triggers