Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 36 views

    Greggdrilling Webinars cRFbs Uqv8lg PDF

    Uploaded by

    Wong Jian Wen
    This document discusses evaluating soil liquefaction using cone penetration tests (CPTs). It defines cyclic and flow liquefaction and provides examples of level ground and steep slope site evaluations. For level sites, it outlines evaluating liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and post-earthquake deformations. Examples from Moss Landing, California compare CPT results to measured deformations. For steep slopes, it discusses evaluating susceptibility to strength loss, stability using reduced strengths, and strength loss triggering. The document concludes with a diagram outlining liquefaction evaluation regions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Greggdrilling Webinars cRFbs Uqv8lg PDF

    Uploaded by

    Wong Jian Wen
    36 views10 pages
    This document discusses evaluating soil liquefaction using cone penetration tests (CPTs). It defines cyclic and flow liquefaction and provides examples of level ground and steep slope site evaluations. For level sites, it outlines evaluating liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and post-earthquake deformations. Examples from Moss Landing, California compare CPT results to measured deformations. For steep slopes, it discusses evaluating susceptibility to strength loss, stability using reduced strengths, and strength loss triggering. The document concludes with a diagram outlining liquefaction evaluation regions.

    Original Title

    greggdrilling_webinars_cRFbs_uQv8lg.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses evaluating soil liquefaction using cone penetration tests (CPTs). It defines cyclic and flow liquefaction and provides examples of level ground and steep slope site evaluations. For level sites, it outlines evaluating liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and post-earthquake deformations. Examples from Moss Landing, California compare CPT results to measured deformations. For steep slopes, it discusses evaluating susceptibility to strength loss, stability using reduced strengths, and strength loss triggering. The document concludes with a diagram outlining liquefaction evaluation regions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views10 pages

    Greggdrilling Webinars cRFbs Uqv8lg PDF

    Uploaded by

    Wong Jian Wen
    This document discusses evaluating soil liquefaction using cone penetration tests (CPTs). It defines cyclic and flow liquefaction and provides examples of level ground and steep slope site evaluations. For level sites, it outlines evaluating liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and post-earthquake deformations. Examples from Moss Landing, California compare CPT results to measured deformations. For steep slopes, it discusses evaluating susceptibility to strength loss, stability using reduced strengths, and strength loss triggering. The document concludes with a diagram outlining liquefaction evaluation regions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 10

    7/10/2013

    Evaluation of soil liquefaction


    using the CPT -
    Worked Examples
    Dr. Peter K. Robertson
    Webinar #9
    2013

    Definitions of Liquefaction
    • Cyclic (seismic)
    Liquefaction
    – Zero effective stress
    (during cyclic loading)

    • Flow (static)
    Liquefaction
    – Strain softening
    response

    1
    7/10/2013

    Liquefaction - Level Ground Sites


    Sites defined as:
    Level ground, gently sloping (< 5 degrees) or level
    with nearby steep slope or free-face
    Sequence to evaluate (cyclic) liquefaction:
    1. Evaluate susceptibility to cyclic liquefaction
    2. Evaluate triggering of cyclic liquefaction
    3. Evaluate post-earthquake deformations
    a. Reconsolidation settlement
    b. Lateral spreading

    Worked Examples
    CLiq
    (slick)
    http://www.geologismiki.gr/
    John Th. Ioannides

    2
    7/10/2013

    Moss Landing State Beach


    0cm 10-30cm 30-60cm

    Example - Moss Landing


    Moss Landing Moss Landing Examples
    UC 14 UC 8
    UC 14 State Beach site
    Clean sand
    (FC < 5% , Ic < 1.6)

    UC 8 Marine Lab site


    Silty sand
    (FC ~20% , Ic ~ 2.2)

    Both had post-earthquake settlements


    Different CPT results and lateral spreading
    same ‘clean sand equivalent’
    Database based on ‘average’ values
    within critical layer

    3
    7/10/2013

    Moss Landing State Beach UC 14

    Liq. layer

    Example in I&B 2008 Appendix B: L = 20m, H = 5m


    a(max) = 0.28g, M = 6.9 Moss Landing UC 14

    UC 14 NCEER (R&W) Method

    Measured deformations:
    Vert: 10 to 30 cm
    Lat: 30 to 60cm

    Example in I&B 2008 Appendix B: L = 20m, H = 5m Moss Landing UC 14

    4
    7/10/2013

    Moss Landing - Lateral Spread

    Marine Lab

    Moss Landing Marine Lab UC 8

    Liq. layer

    L = 20m, H = 5m; a(max) = 0.28g, M = 6.9 Moss Landing UC 8

    5
    7/10/2013

    UC 8 NCEER (R&W) Method

    Measured deformations:
    Vert: 10 to 30 cm
    Lat: 100 to 200cm

    L = 20m, H = 5m Moss Landing UC 8

    Kornbloom (Imperial Valley)


    • 1981 Westmorland EQ
    – M = 6.0, a(max) = 0.19g
    (CSR = 0.09-0.11)
    – Liquefaction observed
    (sand boils, surface
    movement)
    – Silty sand deposit (i.e. large
    ‘correction’ to clean sand
    Kornbloom equivalent)
    • 1979 Imperial Valley EQ
    – M = 6.6, a(max) = 0.13g
    (CSR = 0.08-0.09)
    – No liquefaction observed
    (no sand boils, etc.)
    6 CPT’s at site

    6
    7/10/2013

    CRR7.5 vs Qtn,cs

    Measured

    Kornbloom, 1981 – ‘liquefaction’

    Kornbloom, 1979 – ‘no liquefaction’

    Clean sand equivalent

    Kornbloom, Imperial Valley 1979


    M= 6.6, a(max) = 0.13g: Silty Sand
    No Liquefaction observed

    Predicted post-earthquake settlements


    based on different methods

    7
    7/10/2013

    Flow (static) Liquefaction


    • Strain softening response in undrained
    shear
    • Trigger mechanism required
    • Static shear stress greater than minimum
    (liquefied) undrained shear strength
    • Kinematic mechanism required
    – Uncontained flow
    – Contained deformation

    Schematic undrained response of


    saturated, contractive sandy soil

    After Olson & Stark, 2003

    8
    7/10/2013

    Flow (static) liquefaction


    steeply 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 shear
    strengths
    3. Evaluate trigger for strength loss
    If soils are susceptible, and instability possible, it is often prudent
    to assume trigger will occur

    Regions of potential liquefaction


    Cohesionless soils (A1 & A2) - Evaluate
    potential behavior using CPT-based case-history
    liquefaction correlations.

    A1 Cyclic liquefaction possible depending on


    level and duration of cyclic loading.

    A2 Cyclic liquefaction and post earthquake


    strength loss possible depending on loading and
    ground geometry.

    Cohesive soils (B & C) – Evaluate potential


    behavior based on in-situ or laboratory test
    measurements or estimates of monotonic and
    cyclic undrained shear strengths.

    B Cyclic softening possible depending on level


    and duration of cyclic loading.

    C Cyclic softening and post earthquake strength


    loss possible depending on soil sensitivity, loading
    and ground geometry.

    9
    7/10/2013

    Questions?

    10

    You might also like