Effect of Field Drainage on Seismic Pore Pressure Buildup and under High Overburden Pressure
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 147, Issue 9
Abstract
This paper studies the effect of a high effective overburden pressure [ kPa (6 atm)] under two drainage conditions on the field liquefaction behavior of saturated Ottawa sand. A series of eight centrifuge experiments with relative densities and 80% and base shaking are considered that include a 5-m saturated sand layer under a pressure of either kPa (1 atm) or kPa (6 atm). Four of the tests had single drainage at the top of the layer (SD), whereas the other four tests had double drainage (DD) at top and bottom. The four SD test results had been reported before, whereas the four DD tests are new. A novel centrifuge technique was developed to achieve the double-drainage boundary condition of two pervious boundaries at the top and bottom of the sand layer, using a geocomposite at the bottom. Measured responses are compared at the same between SD and DD tests having the same input acceleration, as well as between SD and DD tests where the shaking induced a similar maximum excess pore pressure ratio . These comparisons include acceleration time histories, excess pore pressure time histories and profiles during and after shaking, and stress ratio and shear strain time histories. Comparisons between corresponding tests at and kPa (1 and 6 atm) revealed significantly more partial drainage at kPa (6 atm) than at kPa (1 atm), with even more significant variation in excess pore pressures in the DD than in the SD tests. Best estimates of field overburden pressure correction factors at kPa (6 atm), were obtained, were obtained from the centrifuge results with two independent methods for a failure criterion of . Those for both SD and DD drainage conditions due to the significantly lower compressibility of the sand at kPa (6 atm). The results further emphasize the important role partial drainage may play in the field during shaking at high on the excess pore pressures and values of .
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the RPI geotechnical centrifuge technical staff for their help in the project and the preparation of this paper. Professor Mourad Zeghal helped with the system identification of records, which is most appreciated. The authors also would like to thank Solmax.com for providing all geocomposite and geonet materials used in the research project, which is greatly appreciated. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1545026 and NYU Abu Dhabi; this support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Abdoun, T., M. A. Gonzalez, S. Thevanayagam, R. Dobry, A. Elgamal, M. Zeghal, and U. El Shamy. 2013. “Centrifuge and large-scale modeling of seismic pore pressures in sands: Cyclic strain interpretation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8): 1215–1234. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000821.
Abdoun, T., M. Ni, R. Dobry, A. Marr, K. Zehtab, and W. El-Sekelly. 2020. “Pore pressure and evaluation at high overburden pressure under field drainage conditions. II: Additional interpretation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 146 (9): 04020089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002302.
Andrus, R. D., and K. H. Stokoe II. 2000. “Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (11): 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015).
Benjamin, J. R., and C. A. Cornell. 1970. Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boulanger, R. W. 2003. “High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129 (12): 1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1071).
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2004. “State normalization of penetration resistance and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance.” In Proc., 11th SDEE and 3rd ICEGE, Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2012. “Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (10): 1185–1195. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000700.
Cetin, K. O., R. B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder Jr., R. E. Kayen, and R. E. Moss. 2004. “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (12): 1314–1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314).
Darendeli, M. B. 2001. “Development of a new family of normalized 865 modulus reduction and material damping curves.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Dobry, R., and T. Abdoun. 2015. “Cyclic shear strain needed for liquefaction triggering and assessment of overburden pressure factor .” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (11): 04015047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001342.
Dobry, R., and T. Abdoun. 2017. “Recent findings on liquefaction triggering in clean and silty sands during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (10): 04017077. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001778.
Elgamal, A. W., M. Zeghal, V. Taboada, and R. Dobry. 1996. “Analysis of site liquefaction and lateral spreading using centrifuge testing records.” Soils Found. 36 (2): 111–121. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.2_111.
Elgamal, A. W., M. Zeghal, H. T. Tang, and J. C. Stepp. 1995. “Lotung downhole array. I: evaluation of site dynamic properties.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 121 (4): 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:4(350).
El-Ghoraiby, M. A., H. Park, and M. T. Manzari. 2017. LEAP 2017: Soil characterization and element tests for Ottawa F65 sand. Washington, DC: George Washington Univ.
Gillette, D. 2013. “Liquefaction issues for dam safety—Bureau of Reclamation.” In Proc., Presentation in One-Day Workshop, Committee on State of the Art and Practice in Earthquake Induced Soil Liquefaction Assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies.
GSE Environmental. 2015. “Tri-axial geonets and geocomposites for drainage applications.” Accessed 5 April 2020. http://www.gseworld.com/content/documents/datasheets/Tri_Axial/DuraFlow_8.4_mm_Geocomp_METRIC_DS.pdf.
Harder, L. 1988. Use of penetration tests to determine the cyclic loading resistance of gravelly soils during earthquake shaking. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Holtz, R. D., W. D. Kovacs, and T. C. Sheahan. 2011. An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hynes, M. E., R. S. Olsen, and D. E. Yule. 1999. “Influence of confining stress on liquefaction resistance.” In Proc., Int. Workshop on Physics and mechanics of Soil Liquefaction, 145–152. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2006. “Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 26 (2–4): 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2010. SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures.. Davis, CA: Univ. of California.
Montgomery, J., R. W. Boulanger, and L. F. Harder Jr. 2012. Examination of the Kσ overburden correction factor on liquefaction resistance.. Davis, CA: Univ. of California.
National Academies. 2017. State of the art and practice in the assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and its consequences: A Report of the National Academies, Committee on State of the art and practice in earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ni, M., T. Abdoun, R. Dobry, A. Marr, K. Zehtab, and W. El-Sekelly. 2020. “Pore pressure and evaluation at high overburden pressure under field drainage conditions. I: Centrifuge experiments.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 146 (9): 04020088. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002303.
Reddi, L. 2003. Seepage in soils: Principles and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Robertson, P. K., and C. E. Wride. 1998. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J. 35 (3): 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-017.
Seed, H. B. 1983. “Earthquake-resistant design of earth dams.” In Proc., Seismic Design of Earth Dams and Caverns. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1971. “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1981. “Evaluation of liquefaction potential sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes.” In Session on in situ testing to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Seed, R. B., and L. F. Harder Jr. 1990. “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” In Proc., H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symp. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Vaid, Y. P., and S. Sivathayalan. 1996. “Static and cyclic liquefaction potential of Fraser Delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (2): 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-007.
Vaid, Y. P., and J. Thomas. 1995. “Liquefaction and postliquefaction behavior of sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (2): 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:2(163).
Youd, T. L., et al. 2001. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (10): 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817).
Zeghal, M., A. W. Elgamal, H. T. Tang, and J. C. Stepp. 1995. “Lotung downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (4): 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:4(363).
Zimmaro, P., et al. 2019. “Next-generation liquefaction database.” Next-Gener. Liquefaction Consortium https://doi.org/10.21222/C2J040.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 28, 2020
Accepted: Feb 23, 2021
Published online: Jul 2, 2021
Published in print: Sep 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Dec 2, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Armin W. Stuedlein, Amalesh Jana, Ali Dadashiserej, Xiao Yang, On the In Situ Cyclic Resistance of Natural Sand and Silt Deposits, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-10784, 149, 4, (2023).
- Waleed El-Sekelly, Tarek Abdoun, Ricardo Dobry, Min Ni, Interpretation of the Overburden Pressure Effect on Sand Liquefaction Behavior, Geo-Congress 2023, 10.1061/9780784484654.007, (60-69), (2023).
- Armin W. Stuedlein, Amalesh Jana, In-Situ Liquefaction Testing of a Medium Dense Sand Deposit and Comparison to Case History- and Laboratory-Based Cyclic Stress and Strain Evaluations, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (Beijing 2022), 10.1007/978-3-031-11898-2_32, (545-564), (2022).