Advertisement

Assessment of Dynamic Response of Cohesionless Soil Using Strain-Controlled and Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests

  • Shiv Shankar KumarEmail author
  • A. Murali Krishna
  • Arindam Dey
Original Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Soils subjected to earthquake motions undergo random variations in stress, strain and frequency during the entire period of shaking. The spatial and temporal complexity of the strong motions is commonly addressed through simplistic strain-controlled or stress-controlled cyclic loading tests as a part of laboratory investigations. Such a methodology is utilized and reported in the present study for assessing the dynamic response of cohesionless sand obtained from River Brahmaputra, India. In order to assess the dynamic response and liquefaction potential of the cohesionless Brahmaputra sand, both stress-controlled and strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests were performed on reconstituted cylindrical specimens prepared at different relative densities (Dr) ranging from 30 to 90%. The specimens were subjected to varying effective confining pressures (σc: 50–200 kPa), shear strain amplitudes (γ: 0.015–4.5%) and cyclic stress ratios (CSR: 0.05–0.3). For all the tests, the frequency of the applied harmonic loading was maintained at 1 Hz. The magnitude of excess pore-water pressure (PWP) generated during successive loading cycles of the strain-controlled tests was found to be considerably lower than that generated in a stress-controlled test. The strain-controlled test reveals a reduction in the development of excess PWP with the increase in confining pressure and relative density, thereby indicating a decrease in liquefaction potential with increasing confining pressure. The stress-controlled test highlighted that based on a particular CSR, an increase in confining pressure results in the requirement of higher deviatoric stress and smaller numbers of cycles are required to initiate liquefaction. Although apparently misleading, it is imperative that during earthquake, same deviatoric stress is applied on the entire soil deposit. Thus, for specimens at larger depths having higher confining pressure, the CSR value is smaller, and thereby successive deeper layers require more number of stress cycles to liquefy. Hence, the study revealed that both stress-controlled and strain-controlled tests can be successfully used to assess the dynamic properties and liquefaction potential of cohesionless specimens. Based on the findings, the developed cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR) = 0.5 and cyclic shear strain amplitude (γ) = 0.5% are considered as the limiting conditions to achieve the onset of liquefaction through strain-controlled and stress-controlled approaches, respectively.

Keywords

Strain-controlled Stress-controlled Cyclic triaxial test Cyclic stress ratio Pore water pressure Dynamic soil properties 

Notes

References

  1. ASTM D0854 (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D0854-14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D2487 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D2487-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM D3999/D3999 M (2011) Standard test methods for the determination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D3999_D3999M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM D4253-16 (2016) Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D4253-16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D4254-16 (2016) Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D4254-16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM D5311 (2011) Test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil. Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM International, West ConhohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM D6913/D6913 M (2017) Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D6913_D6913M-17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya S (2007) Design and foundations in seismic areas: principles and applications. National information Centre of Earthquake Engineering. IIT Kanpur, India, pp. 477Google Scholar
  9. Brennan AJ, Thusyanthan NI, Madabhushi SPG (2005) Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1488–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne PM, Park SS, Beaty M, Sharp M, Gonzalez L, Abdoun T (2004) Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Can Geotech J 41:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castro G (1975) Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sand. J Geotech Eng ASCE 113(8):827–845Google Scholar
  12. Chattaraj R, Sengupta A (2016) Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai river sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 90:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chattaraj R, Sengupta A (2017) Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai River sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 90:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dammala PK, Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Bhattacharya S (2019) Dynamic soil properties and liquefaction potential of northeast Indian soil for non-linear effective stress analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 17(6):2899–2933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobry R, Ladd RS, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D (1982) Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sand during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method. National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 138, Washington, p 154Google Scholar
  16. Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Taboada V, Dobry R (1996) Analysis of site liquefaction and lateral spreading using centrifuge testing records. Soils Found 36:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Govindaraju L (2005) PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Science, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  18. Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique 43(3):351–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford Science Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishihara K, Yasuda S (1972) Soil liquefaction due to irregular excitation. Soils Found 12:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishihara K, Troncoso J, Kawase Y, Takahashi Y (1980) Cyclic strength characteristics of tailings materials. Soils Found 20(4):127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Takagi Y (1978) Shear modulus of sands under torsional shear loading. Soils Found 18(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakka RS, Datta M, Ramana GV (2010) Liquefaction behaviour of loose and compacted pond ash. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:580–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiku H, Yoshida N (2000) Dynamic deformation property tests at large strains. In Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirar B, Maheshwari BK (2013) Effects of silt content on dynamic properties of solani sand. In: 7th international conferences on case histories in geotechnical engineering, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Kokusho T (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils Found 20(2):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2015) Cyclic response of sand using stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, 2015, Pune, India, Paper No. 242Google Scholar
  29. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2017a) Evaluation of dynamic properties of sandy soil at high cyclic strains. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 99:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2017b) High strain dynamic properties of perfectly dry and saturated cohesionless soil. Indian Geotech J 48(3):549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2018a) Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 9(1):78–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2018b) Response of saturated cohesionless soil subjected to irregular seismic excitations. Nat Hazards 93(1):509–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladd RS, Dobry R, Dutko P, Yokel FY, Chung RM (1989) Pore-water pressure build-up in clean sands because of cyclic straining. Geotech Test J 12(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee KL, Seed HB (1967) Cyclic stress conditions causing liquefaction of sand. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 93(1):47–70Google Scholar
  35. Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Hyodo M, Kaneko T (2014) Undrained behaviour of two silica sands and practical implications for modelling SSI in liquefiable soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maheshwari BK, Kale SS, Kaynia AM (2012) Dynamic properties of Solani sand at large strains: a parametric study. Int J Geotech Eng 6:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mashiri MS (2014) Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of sand-tyre chip (STCh) mixtures. Dissertation School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, p 290Google Scholar
  38. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1992) A pore pressure model for cyclic straining of clay. Soils Found 32(3):156–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 119(11):1805–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Movahed V, Sharafi H, Baziar M, Shahnazari H (2011) Comparison of strain controlled and stress controlled tests in evaluation of fines content effect on liquefaction of sands—an energy approach. In: Han J, Alzamora DE (eds) Geo-Frontiers. ASCE, Dallas, pp 1804–1814Google Scholar
  41. Peck RB (1979) Liquefaction potential: science versus practice. J Geotech Eng ASCE 105(5):553–562Google Scholar
  42. Poddar SMC (1950) A short note on the Assam earthquake of August 15, 1950. A compilation of papers on the Assam earthquake of August 15, 1950, Government of India 1953Google Scholar
  43. Qu M, Xie Q, Cao X, Zhao W, He J, Jin J (2016) Model test of stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in sandy soils. Front Struct Civ Eng 10:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raghukanth STG (2008) Simulation of strong ground motion during the 1950 great Assam earthquake. Pure appl Geophys 165:1761–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ravishankar BV, Sitharam TG, Govindaraju L (2005) Dynamic properties of Ahmedabad sands at large strains. In: Pro Indian geotechnical conference, Ahmedabad, India, pp 369–372Google Scholar
  46. Seed HB (1968) Design problems in soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng ASCE 113(8):827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report EERC 70-10. Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  48. Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found ASCE 92(6):105–134Google Scholar
  49. Seed HB, Peacock WH (1971) Test procedures for measuring soil liquefaction characteristics. J Soil Mech Found ASCE 101(6):551–569Google Scholar
  50. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112(11):1016–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simatupang M, Okamura M (2017) Liquefaction resistance of sand remediated with carbonate precipitation at different degrees of saturation during curing. Soils Found 57(4):619–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sitharam TG, Ravishankar BV, Patil SM (2012) Liquefaction and pore water pressure generation in sand: cyclic strain controlled triaxial tests. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 3(1):57–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sreng S, Okochi Y, Kobayashi K, Tanaka H, Sugiyama H, Kusala T, Miki H, Makino M (2015) Centrifuge model tests of embankment with a new liquefaction countermeasure by ground improvement considering constraint effect. In: 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, 1–4 November 2015, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  54. Stokoe KH, Hwang SH, Lee JNK, Andrus RD (1995) Effects of various parameters on the stiffness and damping of soils at small to medium strains. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on pre-failure deformation characteristics of geomaterials, Sapporo, Japan, Pre-failure deformation of geo-materials. A. A. Balkema, pp 785–816Google Scholar
  55. Teachavorasinskun S, Thongchim P, Lukkunaprasit P (2002) Shear modulus and damping of soft Bangkok clays. Can Geotech J 39:1201–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tumi HOZ (1983) Effect of confining pressure and particle angularity on resistance to liquefaction. M. Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia.  https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0062968
  57. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Cyclic triaxial strain-controlled testing of liquefiable sands. In: Donaghe RT, Chaney RC, Silver ML (eds) Advanced triaxial testing soil and rock. ASTM, West Conshohocken, p 475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Xenaki VC, Athanasopoulos GA (2003) Liquefaction resistance of sand-mixtures: an experimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yilmaz MT, Pekcan O, Bakir BS (2004) Undrained cyclic shear and deformation behaviour of silt-clay mixtures of Adapazari, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiv Shankar Kumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Murali Krishna
    • 2
  • Arindam Dey
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringKalinga Institute of Industrial Technology BhubaneswarBhubaneswarIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology TirupatiTirupatiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations