Post-Liquefaction Strength

from

State Parameter Approach

F
Framework
k & Experience
E
i

Mike Jefferies
Jefferies, P
P.Eng.
Eng
22 January,
y 2007

Soil State versus Soil Properties

Soil properties are independent of density,
fabric or stress level
, , , , emin
Can measure on reconstituted samples

Soil state measures the current conditions

of the soil
e, , K0
Must
M t determine
d t
i from
f
insitu
i it or test
t t conditions
diti

Soil Behaviour = f(soil state) X g(soil properties)

What is an appropriate measure of state?

psi_piccy.xls

Critical State Locus (CSL)

void ratio
v

maximum void ratio

= e - ec

Current void ratio of the soil

minimum void ratio

mean effective stress

is a simple index to characterize particulate

materials that is independent of grain shape, size,
mineralogy, silt content etc

is something internal to every good constitutive

model for soil

Example of soil behaviour dependent on

Stress d
dilatancy frictio
on, peak - c

16
Erksak 330/0.7
Erksak 355/3
Erksak 320/1
Isserk 210/2
Isserk 210/10
Isserk 210/5
Nerlerk 270/1
Alaska 240/5
Al k 240/10
Alaska
Castro B
Castro C
Hilton Mines
Leighton Buzz
Monterey #0
Ottawa 530/0
Reid Bedford
Ticino
Toyoura
Oil Sands Tail
Chek Lap Kok

12

-4
-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

State Parameter,

0.00

Range of soil type applicability

0.75

Conventional semi-log idealization of CSL

0.70

Void ratio

0.65

0.60

Initial state of samples

Critical state at end of test

0.55

0.50

Improved (curved) idealization of CSL

G i d B l
GuindonB.xls

0.45
10

100

1000

Mean effective stress, p ' (kPa)

10000

Constitutive Modelling
400

400

D e v ia to r s tree s s , q (k P a )

Modelling tests the truth of concepts

300

300

NorSand
200

200

The validated model gives a vehicle on

which to hang the conceptual framework
250

250

100

200

200

150

10

15

150

800(%)
Axial strain

100

200

400

600

Mean stress, p'800(kPa)

100

NorSand

D e via to r stre sss, q (kP a )

D e via to r stre ss , q (kP a )

100

NorSand

The model gives a way forward to detailed

analysis through finite element and finite
difference methods
50

50

600

600

4005

10

15

400
200

Axial strain (%)

400

600

Mean stress, p' (kPa)

200

200

0
0

Axial strain (%)

200

400

600

800

Mean stress, p' (kPa)

Liquefaction is simply another aspect of soil constitutive behaviour.

behaviour
All good constitutive models for soil include the state parameter

History
1864 T
Tresca
Plasticity
1936 Casagrande
Existence of Critical State
1939 Lyman
Franklin Falls Dam
1942 Casagrande
Large slide, Magna Utah
1948 T
Taylor
l
Dilation as work transfer
1957 Drucker et al
Associated soil plasticity
1963-8 Roscoe et al
Critical State Soil Mechanics
1969 Castro
Reliable laboratory testing

CPT to determine insitu

CPT because

qc (MPa)
0
0

repeatable,
p
, precise
p
reference test offshore
quasi-static allows easy math

qc is not a soil property

Influence of stress level
Influence of soil type

Depth
h (m)

BUT
10

15

20

10

20

30

40

Insight on CPT from constitutive model

1000

= ln (Q p / k ) m

Q p = (qt p ) p

G = 64 MPa, p0 = 100 kPa

G = 64 MPa, p0 = 1000 kPa

G = 640 MPa, p0 = 1000 kPa

100

35

30

k = 6.2 ln(I r ) - 8

10
-0.3

CPT invesrion ccoefficients k,m

Qp

p = v (1 + 2 K 0 ) 3

25

20

-0.2
15

-0.1

m= 1.8 + 0.9 ln(I r )

10

0
10

100

1000

Soil rigidity, I r

k, m = f(M, )

Chamber tests

1000

100

10
-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

 = ln (Q p / k ) m

Post-liquefaction strength

1 + 2K0 M
sr
=
exp( o
v0
3
2

) . for semi-log CSL

0 = ln (Q p / k ) m for all drained penetration of soils

Q = (qt v ) v

11 m

sr 1 + 2 K o
=

v0 3

1 / m

M Q

2 k

Caution: (1) M()

(2) k, m, depend on soil gradation, type etc
(3) K0 depends on soil deposition and geological history

Variability
qc (MPa)
00

20

025

20

50
0

20 75
0

20 100
0

20 125
0

20 150

Denser zone

Depth (m)

10

Looser zone
20

MAC31

MAC04

MAC05 & 32

MAC06

MAC07

MAC08 & 33

Effect of variability on soil behaviour (1)

Popescu et al
(1997)

Insitu post-liquefaction strength

0.35
0.35
Calaveras

Residu
ual strength ratio
o, s / 'vo
Residua
al strength ratio
o, s rr /'vo

0.30
0
030
0.30
30

Fort Peck - no penetration

Calaveras
data available

Undrained in small scale

(no localization,)

NorSand
N
S d using
i soilil properties
ti
typical of clean sand

0.25
0.25
Jamuna
Jamuna

0.20
0.20

Sullivan
Mochikoshi 2

0.15
0.15

0.10
0.10

Increasing plastic hardness

(decreasing )

Sullivan

Mochikoshi 2

La Palma
Zeeland Coast

La Palma
Zeeland
La Marquesa
La Marquesa

Hokkaido
Nerlerk

Nerlerk

Wachussett

Hokkaido

Wachussett

Lower San Fernando

Mochikoshi 1

Lower San

Mochikoshi 1

0.05
0.05

Increasing plastic
hardness
Sheffield
Sheffield

Fort Peck

0.00
0.00
0
-2.5

-2.0

10
-1.5

-1.0

20

-0.5

0.0

30

0.5

1.0

40

Characteristic CPT Qk
Characteristic state p
parameter, /

1.5

50
2.0

2.5

60
3.0

Post-liquefaction strength
No unique relation between penetration
resistance and strength
Profession, as a whole, not doing enough
in measuring relevant things when
investigating case histories
Substantial uncertainty in characteristic
values
l
y
total stress stability
y
Should move beyond
evaluations into full stochastic finite
element/difference analyis

Shameless commerce
25 years work
Many papers
Archived data

Methodology
Theory
Data
Limit State
Case-Histories
C
Hi t i

Files to Download
www.golder.com/liq

Engineering Earths Development.

Preserving Earth
Earths
s Integrity
Integrity.

Effect of variability on soil behaviour (2)

Onisiphorou, 2000

g new /g
1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

average settlement on slope face (m

m)

0.000

0 002
0.002

0.004

0.006
stochastic
0.008

deterministic (d)

0.010
d
0.012

2.8