Cookies Notification

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy.
×

Dynamic response of a low plasticity silt deposit: comparison of in-situ and laboratory responses

Publication: Canadian Geotechnical Journal
1 May 2024

Abstract

This study compares the in-situ dynamic response of a low plasticity silt deposit subjected to multidirectional loading from vibroseis shaking and controlled blasting to a suite of element-scale, cyclic laboratory test specimens. The agreement between excess pore pressures and simple shear strain relationships over a wide range in strains is remarkable. Slightly larger excess pore pressures observed in-situ are attributed to three-dimensional loading and pore pressure migration/redistribution in the shallower portions of the deposit. Noted differences in shear modulus, G, are attributed to strain rate effects, spatial variability in the in-situ stiffness, and hydraulic boundary conditions. The variation in in-situ G/Gmax follows the trend from torsional shear specimens up to 0.4% shear strain; larger strains in the silt deposit imposed by controlled blasting yielded a stiffer response than that from cyclic torsional shear and direct simple shear specimens due in part to field drainage for deeper portions of the deposit. The in-situ cyclic resistance ratio for the deeper portion of the deposit in which plane body waves could be assumed and for the selected excess pore pressure ratio criterion was larger than that of stress-controlled cyclic direct simple shear (CDSS) test specimens, despite the detrimental effect of multidirectional shaking in the field. The effect of strain history, spatial variability, and drainage boundary conditions to drive differences between the in-situ and laboratory test specimens is identified.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

Adamidis O., Madabhushi S.P.G. 2018. Experimental investigation of drainage during earthquake induced liquefaction. Géotechnique, 68(8): 655–665.
Agaiby S.S., Mayne P.W. 2019. CPT evaluation of yield stress profiles in soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(12): 04019104.
Andrus R.D., Mohanan N.P., Piratheepan P., Ellis B.S., Holzer T.L. 2007. Predicting shear-wave velocity from cone penetration resistance. In Proceeding of 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, New York. Springer.
Beyzaei C.Z., Bray J.D., Cubrinovski M., Riemer M., Stringer M. 2018. Laboratory-based characterization of shallow silty soils in southwest Christchurch. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 110: 93–109.
Beyzaei C.Z., Bray J.D., Cubrinovski M., Bastin S., Stringer M., Jacka M., Wentz R. 2020. Characterization of silty soil thin layering and groundwater conditions for liquefaction assessment. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 57(2): 263–276.
Bjerrum L., Landva A. 1966. Direct simple-shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique, 16(1): 1–20.
Boulanger R.W., Meyers M.W., Mejia L.H., Idriss I.M. 1998. Behavior of a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(1): 146–158.
Boulanger R.W., Idriss I.M. 2006. Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(11): 1413–1426.
Bray J.D., Sancio R.B. 2006. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(9): 1165–1177.
Brooker E.W., Ireland H.O. 1965. Earth pressures at rest related to stress history. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2(1): 1–15.
Cappa R., Brandenberg S.J., Lemnitzer A. 2017. Strains and pore pressures generated during cyclic loading of embankments on organic soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(9): 04017069.
Castro G., Poulos S.J. 1977. Factors affecting liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 103(6): 501–516.
Chandrupatla T.R., Belegundu A.D., Ramesh T., Ray C. 2002. Introduction to finite elements in engineering(Vol. 10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chang W.J. 2011. Evaluation of undrained shear strains in multi-directional horizontal shaking. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(7): 906–920.
Chen A., Stokoe K.H. 1979. Interpretation of strain dependent modulus and damping from torsional soil tests(Report No. USGS-GD-79-002). US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Cox B.R. 2006. Development of a direct test method for dynamically assessing the liquefaction resistance of soils in situ. PhD Thesis, Department of of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
Cox B.R., Stokoe K.H. II., Rathje E.M. 2009. An in -situ test method for evaluating the coupled pore pressure generation and nonlinear shear modulus behavior of liquefiable soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 32(1): 11–21.
Cubrinovski M., Rhodes A., Ntritsos N., Van Ballegooy S. 2019. System response of liquefiable deposits. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 124: 212–229.
Dadashiserej A., Jana A., Ortiz S.C., Walters J.J., Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M. 2022a. Monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic response of Willamette River silt at the Van Buren Bridge. In Geo-Congress 2022. pp. 431–443.
Dadashiserej A., Jana A., Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M. 2022b. Effect of strain history on the monotonic and cyclic response of natural and reconstituted silts. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 160: 107329.
Dadashiserej A., Jana A., Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M., Zhang B., Xu Z., et al. 2022c. In-situ and laboratory cyclic response of an alluvial plastic silt deposit. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney.
Dahl K.R., DeJong J.T., Boulanger R.W., Pyke R., Wahl D. 2014. Characterization of an alluvial silt and clay deposit for monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic behavior. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(4): 432–440.
Dahl K., Boulanger R.W., DeJong J.T. 2018. Trends in experimental data of intermediate soils for evaluating dynamic strength. In Proceedings of 11th US National Conferences on Earthquake Engineering. Los Angeles: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Darendeli B.M. 2001. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
Dobry R., Abdoun T. 2015. Cyclic shear strain needed for liquefaction triggering and assessment of overburden pressure factor Kσ. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(11): 04015047.
Dyvik R., Lacasse S., Berre T., Raadim B. 1987. Comparison of truly undrained and constant volume direct simple shear tests. Géotechnique, 37(1): 3–10.
Gohl W.B., Howie J.A., Rea C.E. 2001. Use of controlled detonation of explosives for liquefaction testing. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechenical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor W. D. Liam Finn, San Diego, March 26-31.
Idriss I.M., Dobry R., Singh R.D. 1978. Nonlinear behavior of soft clays during cyclic loading. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 104(12): 1427–1447.
Idriss I.M., Boulanger R.W. 2008. Soil Liquefaction during earthquakes. EERI Monograph No. 12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 237pp.
Isenhower W.M., Stokoe K.H. II. 1981. Strain-rate dependent shear modulus of San Francisco Bay Mud. Proceedings of International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, Vol. 2, pp. 597–602.
Iwasaki T., Tatsuoka F., Takagi Y. 1978. Shear moduli of sands under cyclic torsional shear loading. Soils and Foundations, 18(1): 39–56.
Jana A. 2021. Use of controlled blasting to quantify the dynamic, in-situ, nonlinear inelastic response of soils. PhD Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Jana A., Donaldson A.M., Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M. 2021. Deep, in-situ nonlinear dynamic testing of soil with controlled blasting: instrumentation, calibration, and example application to a plastic silt deposit, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 44(5): 20190426.
Jana A., Stuedlein A.W. 2021a. Monotonic, cyclic and post-cyclic response of an alluvial plastic silt deposit. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 147(3): 04020174.
Jana A., Stuedlein A.W. 2021b. Dynamic in-situ response of a deep, medium dense sand deposit. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 147(6): 04021039.
Jana A., Stuedlein A.W. 2022. Dynamic, in-situ, nonlinear-inelastic response and post-cyclic strength of a plastic silt deposit. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 59(1): 111–128.
Jana A., Dadashiserej A., Zhang B., Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M., Stokoe K.H., Cox B.R. 2023. Multi-directional Vibroseis shaking and controlled blasting to determine the dynamic in-situ response of a low plasticity silt deposit. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 149(3): 04023006.
Joyner W.B., Chen A.T. 1975. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 65(5): 1315–1336.
Kammerer A.M., Pestana J.M., Seed R.B. 2002. Undrained response of Monterey 0/30 sand under multidirectional cyclic simple shear loading conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report No UCB/GT/02-01, University of California, Berkeley.
Keene A. 2017. Next-generation equipment and procedures for combined resonant column and torsional shear testing. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.
Kokusho T. 1980. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils and foundations, 20(2): 45–60.
Matsuda H., Nhan T.T., Ishikura R. 2013. Prediction of excess pore water pressure and post-cyclic settlement on soft clay induced by uni-directional and multi-directional cyclic shears as a function of strain path parameters. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 49: 75–88.
Mortezaie A., Vucetic M. 2016. Threshold shear strains for cyclic degradation and cyclic pore water pressure generation in two clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(5): 04016007.
Ni S.H. 1987. Dynamic properties of sand under true triaxial stress states from resonant/column torsional shear tests. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Oda M., Konishi J. 1974. Rotation of pricipal stresses in granular material during simple shear. Soils and foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 14(4): 39–53.
Price A., DeJong J., Boulanger R. 2017. Cyclic loading response of silt with multiple loading events. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(10): 04017080.
Ouyang Z., Mayne P.W. 2018. Effective friction angle of clays and silts from piezocone penetration tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 55(9): 1230–1247.
Rix G.J., Wainaina N., Ebrahimi A., Bachus R.C., Limas M., Sancio R., Mayne P.W. 2019. Manual on subsurface investigations. No. NCHRP Project 21-10.
Robertson P. 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(11): 1337–1355.
Roberts J.N., Stokoe K.H., Hwang S., Cox B.R., Wang Y., Menq F.Y., van Ballegooy S. 2016. Field measurements of the variability in shear strain and pore pressure generation in Christchurch soils. In Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, ICS. pp. 627–632.
Sanin M.V., Wijewickreme D. 2006. Cyclic shear response of channel-fill Fraser River Delta silt. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26(9): 854–869.
Singh S. 1994. Liquefaction characteristics of silts. Ground Failures under Seismic Conditions, GSP No. 44, ASCE, pp. 105–116.
Stokoe K.H., Santamarina J.C. 2000. Seismic-wave-based testing in geotechnical engineering. Proceedings of the GeoEngineering, Melbourne, CD-Rom; 2000.
Stokoe K.H., Roberts J.N., Hwang S., Cox B.R., Menq F.M. 2016. Effectiveness of inhibiting liquefaction triggering by shallow ground improvement methods: field shaking trials with T-Rex at one area in Christchurch, New Zealand. 24th Geotechnical Conference of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Stokoe K.H. II, Cox B.R., Clayton P., Menq F.M. 2017. NHERI@UTEXAS experimental facility: large-scale mobile shakers for natural-hazards field studies. 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chile, January 9–13, 2017.
Stuedlein A.W., Evans T.M., Dadashiserej A., Jana A. 2021. Oregon State University Blast Array with T-Rex. In Collaborative Research: bridging the in-situ and elemental cyclic response of transitional soils. DesignSafe-CI.
Stuedlein A.W., Jana A., Dadashiserej A., Xiao Y. 2023a. On the in-situ cyclic resistance of natural sand and silt deposits. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 149(4): 04023015.
Stuedlein A.W., Dadashiserej A., Jana A., Evans T.M. 2023b. Liquefaction susceptibility and cyclic response of intact nonplastic and plastic silts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 149(1): 04022125.
Vardanega P.J., Bolton M.D. 2013. Stiffness of clays and silts: normalizing shear modulus and shear strain. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(9): 1575–1589.
Vucetic M., Dobry R. 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1): 89–107.
Vucetic M., Tabata K. 2003. Influence of soil type on the effect of strain rate on small-strain cyclic shear modulus. Soils and Foundations, 43(5): 161–173.
Wang Y., Stokoe K.H. 2022. Development of constitutive models for linear and nonlinear shear modulus and material damping ratio of uncemented soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 148(3): 04021192.
Wijewickreme D., Soysa A., Verma P. 2019. Response of natural fine-grained soils for seismic design practice: a collection of research findings from British Columbia, Canada. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 124: 280–296.
Wood D.M. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Xu Z., Li S., Wang Y., Zhang B., Stokoe K.H. 2023. An experimental study on excess pore-water pressure generation of a poorly graded sand using combined RCTS device. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 47.
Xu Z. 2022. Improvements in the pore-water pressure measurements and free-vibration decay with combined resonant column and torsional shear te. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Yniesta S., Janati-Idrissi M. 2021. Integration of viscoplastic effects in a one-dimensional constitutive model for ground response analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 58(4): 468–478.
Youd T.L., Holzer T.L. 1994. Piezometer performance at Wildlife liquefaction site, California. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 120(6): 975–995.
Youd T.L., Idriss I.M. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(4): 297–313.
Zhang B., Stokoe K.H. II, Cox B.R., Stuedlein A.W., Roberts J.N., Hwang S., et al. 2021. Collaborative study on dynamic response of transitional soils. Collaborative Research: Bridging the In-situ and Elemental Cyclic Response of Transitional Soils.
Zeghal M., Elgamal A.W. 1994. Analysis of site liquefaction using earthquake records. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(6): 996–1017.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 7.64 MB).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
e-First

History

Received: 28 October 2022
Accepted: 22 September 2023
Accepted manuscript online: 5 October 2023
Version of record online: 1 May 2024

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or codes generated or used during the study are available in a repository or online with funder data retention policies. These data are available in Stuedlein et al. (2021) and in the Next Generation Liquefaction Database (https://nextgenerationliquefaction.org/about/index.html).

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Key Words

  1. dynamic loading
  2. cyclic loading
  3. silt
  4. in-situ testing
  5. liquefaction

Authors

Affiliations

Ali Dadashiserej
Jacobs Engineering Group, Portland, OR, USA
Author Contributions: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, and Writing – original draft.
Amalesh Jana
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Author Contributions: Data curation, Formal analysis, and Writing – review & editing.
Zhongze Xu
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
Author Contributions: Data curation, Investigation, and Writing – review & editing.
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, and Writing – review & editing.
Armin Stuedlein served as Editorial Board Member at the time of manuscript review and acceptance and did not handle peer review and editorial decisions regarding this manuscript.
T. Matthew Evans
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, and Writing – review & editing.
Kenneth H. Stokoe II
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, and Writing – review & editing.
Brady R. Cox
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, and Writing – review & editing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: AWS, TME, KHS, BRC
Data curation: AD, AJ, ZX
Formal analysis: AD, AJ
Funding acquisition: AWS, TME, BRC, KHS
Investigation: AD, ZX, AWS, TME, KHS, BRC
Methodology: AD, AWS, TME
Project administration: AWS, TME, KHS, BRC
Resources: AWS, TME, KHS, BRC
Supervision: AWS, TME, KHS
Validation: AWS, TME
Visualization: AD, AWS
Writing – original draft: AD
Writing – review & editing: AJ, ZX, AWS, TME, KHS, BRC

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Funding Information

National Science Foundation (NSF): CMMI 1520808, CMMI 1663531, CMMI 1663654

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cite As

Export Citations

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.

There are no citations for this item

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Subscribe

Click on the button below to subscribe to Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Purchase options

Purchase this article to get full access to it.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF

View PDF

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Media

Other

Tables

Share Options

Share

Share the article link

Share on social media