In-Situ Liquefaction Testing of a Medium Dense Sand Deposit and Comparison to Case History- and Laboratory-Based Cyclic Stress and Strain Evaluations

Abstract

AbstractObservations of the dynamic loading and liquefaction response of a deep medium dense sand deposit to controlled blasting have allowed quantification of its large-volume dynamic behavior from the linear-elastic to nonlinear-inelastic regimes under in-situ conditions unaffected by the influence of sample disturbance or imposed laboratory boundary conditions. The dynamic response of the sand was shown to be governed by the S-waves resulting from blast-induced ground motions, the frequencies of which lie within the range of earthquake ground motions. The experimentally derived dataset allowed ready interpretation of the in-situ γ-ue responses under the cyclic strain approach. However, practitioners have more commonly interpreted cyclic behavior using the cyclic stress-based approach; thus this paper also presents the methodology implemented to interpret the equivalent number of stress cycles, Neq, and deduce the cyclic stress ratios, CSRs, generated during blast-induced shearing to provide a comprehensive comparison of the cyclic resistance of the in-situ and constant-volume, stress- and strain-controlled cyclic direct simple shear (DSS) behavior of reconstituted sand specimens consolidated to the in-situ vertical effective stress, relative density, and Vs. The multi-directional cyclic resistance of the in-situ deposit was observed to be larger than that derived from the results of the cyclic strain and stress interpretations of the uniaxial DSS test data, indicating the substantial contributions of natural soil fabric and partial drainage to liquefaction resistance during shaking. The cyclic resistance ratios, CRRs, computed using case history-based liquefaction triggering procedures based on the SPT, CPT, and Vs are compared to that determined from in-situ CRR-Neq relationships considering justified, assumed slopes of the CRR-N curve, indicating variable degrees of accuracy relative to the in-situ CRR, all of which were smaller than that associated with the in-situ cyclic resistance.KeywordsLiquefactionIn-situ testingSoil dynamics