Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
During seismic loading, natural soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses at different amplitudes and frequencies
that will induce transient and permanent deformations. Literatures demonstrate the significant influence of dynamic
soils properties on the response and stability of soil layers. The objective of this paper is to address some of these
issues. Strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests were conducted at +/-0.4% cyclic shear strains and 1Hz frequency on
large 100mm diameter and 200mm high reconstituted triaxial samples prepared using soil samples collected from
a pilot area in Mumbai, and a clean sand sample. The response of soil samples to applied shear strains are
presented as decrease in cyclic stress and development of pore pressure with number of loading cycles. Further,
response of the soil is compared with that of clean sand. Results showed that the soil samples are less susceptible
to liquefaction compared to clean sand, with G and D values around 9 104kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4%
shear strains, .
Table 1: Properties of the Soil Samples Collected from the Pilot Area
Sample Specific Gravity, GS Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay % Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Sample-1 2.67 0 13 40 47 48 23
Sample-2 2.66 15 60 17 8 44 25
Sample-3 2.68 7 53 30 10 48 26
Sample-4 2.67 21 46 15 18 38 18
the site showed the presence of rocky strata within a shallow back pressure increments. Saturation was continued till the
depth of 0.1- to 4.0m, and the top layers composed of loose Skemptons (1954) B-factor was achieved close to 1. At
fills of sandy and gravelly soils with varied percent of clay. the end of saturation, the samples were consolidated at
Samples were collected from the top layer (1.0m depth). required effective stress (c) and then sheared under cyclic
Table 1 shows the properties of all the soil samples as loading with drainage valve closed. Shear strains of
obtained from various soil test reports. Also, it is noted +/ 0.4% were maintained in the tests. Figure 2a-c shows
that all the samples collected were above the ground water the input loading in terms of cyclic axial strains and
table, with 10 to 12% water content and dry density around recorded data of cyclic deviator stress and pore water
18kN/m2. pressure with number of loading cycle from a cyclic triaxial
Also used for comparison is a river bed sand obtained test conducted on sand sample.
from Gujarat region. Figure 1 shows the particle size 0.3
distribution curves of all the samples. Results that the sand (a)
sample used is uniformly graded with very less fines, having Cyclic axial strain (%) 0.2
(c)
150
60
100
40 Sample-1 50
Sample-2 0
Sample-3
20 -50
Sample-4
Sand sample -100
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Number of cycles
Sieve size (mm)
Fig. 1: Grain Size Distribution Plots of Soil Samples Used in 1
Pore pressure ratio, ru
= 0.75%
1 = 0.90%
0.6
= 1.05%
ru at N=500 0.5
0.4 Sample-1 0.74
Sample-2 0.62 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sample-3 0.62 Normalised number of cycles, N/NL
0.2
Sample-4 0.64
1.2
Sand NL = 10 (b)
0
1
Pore pressure ratio, ru
liquefaction (NL) from around 8 to 45 cycles. Hence, the CSR reached to zero at 32 cycles indicating liquefaction.
number of cycles is normalised with the number of cycles G and D values for all the samples were observed around 9
required for liquefaction, N/NL. Figure 5a shows CSR value
4
kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4% shear strains, .
1 0
40
(a)cyc = 0.25% Geotechnique. 34(3), 323-340.
AT Juneja, A., and Raghunandan, M.E. (2011). Effect on cyclic
Cycle No. 3
0 response and liquefaction resistance due to de-saturation
of sand. Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE
AL (GEO-FRONTIERS-2011) (Accepted).
-40 Kokusho, T. (2004). Nonlinear site response and strain
dependent soil properties. Current science 87(10), 1363-
1369.
-80 Ladd R.S. (1977). Specimen preparation and cyclic stability
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 of sands. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
Axial strain (%) engineering ASCE. 103(6), 535-547.
Fig. 6: Loading-Unloading (Hysteresis) Loop of Third Lee, C.J. and Sheu, S.F. (2007). The stiffness degradation
Cycle on Sample-4
and damping ratio evolution of Taipei silty clay under
Recent works on dynamic soil properties explains the cyclic straining. Soil dynamics and earthquake
importance of dynamic material properties to evaluate engineering. 27, 730740.
response and stability of surface soil layers, basic dynamic
Lee, K.L. and Seed, H.B. (1967). Drained strength
soil characteristics needed for dynamic analyses including
characteristics of sands. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
shear modulus and damping ratio (Kokusho 2004, Lee and
Foundation Division ASCE, 93(SM6), 117-141.
Sheu 2007, Okur and Ansal 2007). In this study, shear
modulus (G) and damping ratio (D) are calculated using Mulilis, J.P., Seed, H.B., Chan, C.K., Mitchell, J.K., and
the hysteresis loop as suggested in ASTM D 3999-91. The Arulanandan, K. (1977). Effects of sample preparation
third loading cycle was considered as the representative on sand liquefaction. Journal of geotechnical
cycle and hence used to calculate G and D. Figure 6 shows engineering division ASCE. 103(2), 91107.
a typical hysteresis loop obtained from test conducted on Okur, D.V., and Ansal, A. (2007). Stiffness degradation of
sample-4. G and D values for all the samples varied within natural fine grained soils during cyclic loading. Soil
a range of 9 104kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4% dynamics and earthquake engineering. 27, 843854.
shear strains, . Raghunandan, M.E., and Juneja, A. (2011). Effect of sample
preparation on particle packing. International Journal
4. CONCLUSIONS
of Geomechanics and Geoengineering (tentatively
Much useful data obtained from laboratory strain controlled accepted, under review).
cyclic triaxial tests on soil samples obtained from the study Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I. (1970). Soil moduli and damping
area is presented, and further compared with a clean sand factors for dynamic response analysis, Report No. EERC
sample. Results showed that the soil samples are less 70-10, Fundamental of Soil Mechanics, Elsvier.
susceptible to liquefaction with, CSR value of about 0.15
Skempton, A.W. (1954). The pore-pressure coefficients A
even after 500 loading cycles, whilst in case of sand sample,
and B. Geotechnique. 4(4), 143-147.