Advertisement

Dynamic characterization of fine-grained soils in Central Italy by laboratory testing

  • Andrea CianciminoEmail author
  • Giuseppe Lanzo
  • Giorgio Andrea Alleanza
  • Sara Amoroso
  • Roberto Bardotti
  • Giovanni Biondi
  • Ernesto Cascone
  • Francesco Castelli
  • Anita Di Giulio
  • Anna d’Onofrio
  • Sebastiano Foti
  • Valentina Lentini
  • Claudia Madiai
  • Giovanna Vessia
S.I. : Seismic Microzonation of Central Italy

Abstract

The investigation of soil response to dynamic loads is necessary to predict site-specific seismic hazard. This paper presents the results of cyclic and dynamic laboratory tests carried out after the 2016–2017 Central Italy Earthquake sequence, within the framework of the seismic microzonation studies of the most damaged municipalities in the area. The database consists of 79 samples investigated by means of dynamic resonant column tests, cyclic torsional shear tests or cyclic direct simple shear tests. Results are firstly analysed in terms of field and laboratory values of small-strain shear wave velocity, highlighting the influence of the sample disturbance and of the mean effective consolidation pressure. The cyclic threshold shear strains as a function of plasticity index are then compared with findings from the published literature and the outliers are analysed. Subsequently, the dynamic soil behaviour is investigated with reference to the small-strain damping ratio. Differences between results from different tests are analysed in the light of the loading frequencies. Finally, the database is used to develop a predictive model for soil nonlinear curves according to plasticity index, mean effective confining stress, and loading frequency. The model represents a useful tool to predict the nonlinear stress–strain behaviour of Central Italy soils, necessary to perform site-specific ground response analyses.

Keywords

Soil dynamics Laboratory tests Shear modulus and damping ratio Small-strain material damping Shear wave velocity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project was carried out with the funding from Italian Government within the Level 3 Seismic Microzonation of 138 municipalities severely shaken by the Central Italy earthquakes. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. The Seismic Microzonation Center (“Centro per la Microzonazione Sismica e le sue Applicazioni”), entrusted with the task of providing scientific support and coordination of the activities, is also gratefully acknowledged. The Authors want to thank all the people who contributed in the execution of the laboratory tests: Silvano Silvani and Marco Bonaventura (Sapienza Università di Roma), Oronzo Pallara, Giovanni Bianchi, Viviana Chetry and Irene Coppetta (Politecnico di Torino), Antonio Cammarota and Alfredo Ponzo (Università di Napoli Federico II), Valeria Bandini and Giuseppe Di Filippo (Università di Messina), Eusebio Castellano and Francesco Contino (Università Kore di Enna).

References

  1. Akeju OV, Senetakis K, Wang Y (2019) Bayesian parameter identification and model selection for normalized modulus reduction curves of soils. J Earthq Eng 23:305–333.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1323051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DG, Woods RD (1975) Comparison of field and laboratory shear moduli. In: In situ measurement of soil properties, Raleigh, NC, ASCE, pp 66–92Google Scholar
  3. ASTM International (2011) ASTM D2487-11 Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjerrum L, Landva A (1966) Direct simple-shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Geotechnique 16:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caielli MG, de Franco R, Di Fiore V, Albarello D, Amanti M, Catalano S, Martino S, Pagliaroli A, Pergalani F, Cavuoto G, Cercato M, Compagnoni M, Facciorusso J, Famiani D, Ferri F, Imposa S, Martini G, Paciello A, Passeri F, Piscitelli S, Puzzilli LM, Vassallo M (2019) Extensive surface geophysical prospecting for seismic microzonation. Bull Earthq Eng. Special Issue on “Seismic Microzonation of Central Italy” (submitted)Google Scholar
  6. Cascante G, Vanderkooy J, Chung W (2003) Difference between current and voltage measurements in resonant-column testing. Can Geotech J 40:806–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciancimino A, Foti S, Lanzo G, Alleanza GA, d’Onofrio A, Amoroso S, Bardotti R, Madiai C, Biondi G, Cascone E, Castelli F, Lentini V, Di Giulio A, Vessia G (2019) Dynamic characterization of ine-grained soils for the seismic microzonation of Central Italy. Paper accepted at the 7th International Conference On Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - 7ICEGE, Rome, 17–20 June, 2019Google Scholar
  8. D’Elia B, Lanzo G, Pagliaroli A (2003) Small-strain stiffness and damping of soils in a direct simple shear device. In: Engineering NZSfE (ed) Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobry R, Vucetic M (1987) Dynamic properties and response of soft clay deposits. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Geotechnical engineering of soft soils, vol 2, pp 51–87Google Scholar
  11. Dobry R, Ladd R, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D (1982) Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method, vol 138. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F, Vinale F (1999) Strain rate dependent behaviour of a natural stiff clay. Soils Found 39:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doroudian M, Vucetic M (1995) A direct simple shear device for measuring small-strain behavior. Geotech Test J 18:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doroudian M, Vucetic M (1998) Small-strain testing in an NGI-type direct simple shear device. In: Proceedings of 11th Danube-European conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Porec, Croatia, AA Balkema, pp 687–693Google Scholar
  15. EPRI (1993) Modeling of dynamic soil properties. Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div 98:667–692Google Scholar
  17. Hwang SK (1997) Dynamic properties of natural soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  18. Isenhower WM (1979) Torsional simple shear/resonant column properties of San Francisco Bay mud. University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  19. Isenhower WM, Stokoe K (1981) Strain-rate dependent shear modulus of San Francisco Bay mud. Paper presented at the international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri,Google Scholar
  20. Ishibashi I, Zhang X (1993) Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found 33:182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim DS (1991) Deformational characteristics of soils at small to intermediate strains from cyclic test. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  22. Kishida T (2016) Comparison and correction of modulus reduction models for clays and silts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143:04016110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kokusho T, Yoshida Y, Esashi Y (1982) Dynamic properties of soft clay for wide strain range. Soils Found 22:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lanzo G, Vucetic M (1999) Effect of soil plasticity on damping ratio at small cyclic strains. Soils Found 39:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lanzo G, Vucetic M, Doroudian M (1997) Reduction of shear modulus at small strains in simple shear. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123:1035–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lanzo G, Doroudian M, Vucetic M (1999) Small-strain cyclic behavior of Augusta clay in simple shear. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on pre-failure deformations characteristics of geomaterials, pp 213–220Google Scholar
  27. Lo Presti DC (1989) Proprietà dinamiche dei terreni. In: XIV CGT, Torino. Politecnico di Torino, pp 1-62Google Scholar
  28. Lo Presti DC (1991) Discussion on “threshold strain in Soils”. In: X ECSMFE on deformation of soils and displacements of structures, Firenze, Italy. AA Balkema, pp 1282–1283Google Scholar
  29. Lo Presti DC, Jamiolkowski M, Pallara O, Cavallaro A, Pedroni S (1997) Shear modulus and damping of soils. Geotechnique 47:603–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Masing G (1926) Eigenspannumyen und verfeshungung beim messing. In: Proceedings of international congress for applied mechanics, pp 332–335Google Scholar
  31. Matešić L, Vucetic M (2003) Strain-rate effect on soil secant shear modulus at small cyclic strains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:536–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meng J, Rix G (2003) Reduction of equipment-generated damping in resonant column measurements. Géotechnique 53:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mortezaie A, Vucetic M (2016) Threshold shear strains for cyclic degradation and cyclic pore water pressure generation in two clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142:04016007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Régnier J et al (2018) PRENOLIN: international benchmark on 1D nonlinear site-response analysis—Validation phase exercise. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108:876–900Google Scholar
  35. Seed H, Idriss I (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses, Report No. EERC 70-10. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  36. Senetakis K, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2015) A comparison of material damping measurements in resonant column using the steady-state and free-vibration decay methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 74:10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shibuya S, Mitachi T, Fukuda F, Degoshi T (1995) Strain rate effects on shear modulus and damping of normally consolidated clay. Geotech Test J 18:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silver ML, Seed HB (1971) Volume changes in sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1171–1182Google Scholar
  39. Stewart JP (2008) Benchmarking of nonlinear geotechnical ground response analysis procedures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart JP, Afshari K, Hashash YM (2014) Guidelines for performing hazard-consistent one-dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction. PEER Report 2014:16Google Scholar
  41. Stokoe K, Santamarina JC (2000) Seismic-wave-based testing in geotechnical engineering. In: ISRM international symposium. International Society for Rock MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  42. Stokoe K, Hwang S, Lee J-K, Andrus RD (1995) Effects of various parameters on the stiffness and damping of soils at small to medium strains. In: Pre-failure deformation of geomaterials. Proceedings of the international symposium, 12–14 Sept 1994, Sapporo, Japan, 2 volsGoogle Scholar
  43. Stokoe K, Darendeli M, Andrus R, Brown L (1999) Dynamic soil properties: laboratory, field and correlation studies. In: Proceedings 2nd international conference earthquake geotechnical engineering, pp 811–846Google Scholar
  44. Stoll RD, Kald L (1977) Threshold of dilation under cyclic loading. J Geotechn Eng Div 103:1174–1178Google Scholar
  45. Tabata K, Vucetic M (2010) Threshold shear strain for cyclic degradation of three clays. In: 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, Missouri University of Science and Technology, San Diego, May 24th–May 29th 2010Google Scholar
  46. Vardanega P, Bolton M (2013) Stiffness of clays and silts: normalizing shear modulus and shear strain. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 139:1575–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vucetic M (1992) Soil properties and seismic response. In: Proceedings 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 1199–1204Google Scholar
  48. Vucetic M (1994) Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J Geotech Eng 120:2208–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang Y-H, Cascante G, Santamarina JC (2003) Resonant column testing: the inherent counter emf effect. Geotech Test J 26:342–352Google Scholar
  51. Youd TL (1972) Compaction of sands by repeated shear straining. J Soil Mech Found Div 98:709–725Google Scholar
  52. Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141:04015053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Ciancimino
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giuseppe Lanzo
    • 2
  • Giorgio Andrea Alleanza
    • 3
  • Sara Amoroso
    • 4
    • 5
  • Roberto Bardotti
    • 6
  • Giovanni Biondi
    • 7
  • Ernesto Cascone
    • 7
  • Francesco Castelli
    • 8
  • Anita Di Giulio
    • 9
  • Anna d’Onofrio
    • 3
  • Sebastiano Foti
    • 1
  • Valentina Lentini
    • 8
  • Claudia Madiai
    • 6
  • Giovanna Vessia
    • 5
  1. 1.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaL’AquilaItaly
  5. 5.Università degli Studi G. d’Annunzio, Chieti – PescaraChietiItaly
  6. 6.Università degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  7. 7.Università degli Studi di MessinaMessinaItaly
  8. 8.Università degli Studi di Enna KoreEnnaItaly
  9. 9.Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNRRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations