Liquefaction Resistance of Geologically Aged Sand Deposits David Saftner University of Minnesota Duluth.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Educational Resource Library

Advertisements

JP Singh and Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., P.E. Gary Norris, Ph.D., P.E. March 2004 COMPUTER PROGRAM S-SHAFT FOR LATERALLY LOADED.

Calculation of Heave of Deep Pier Foundations By John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E., Hon. M. SEAGS, F. ASCE, Kuo-Chieh (Geoff) Chao, Ph.D., P.E., M. SEAGS, M.

Meisina C., Lo Presti D., Persichillo M.G.. modified by EMERGEO W.G., NHESS, 2013 TWO MAIN SHOCKS: 20th May: Mw= 5.9;

The standard penetration test (SPT) is an in-situ dynamic penetration test designed to provide information on the geotechnical.

3-D Dynamic Base Shaking Model 2-D Static BNWF Pushover Model

Time-Lapse Monitoring of CO2 Injection with Vertical Seismic Profiles (VSP) at the Frio Project T.M. Daley, L.R. Myer*, G.M. Hoversten and E.L. Majer.

Development of an In-Situ Test for Direct Evaluation of the Liquefaction Resistance of Soils K. H. Stokoe, II, E. M. Rathje and B.R. Cox University of.

The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT): and Recent Developments

Wenchuan Earthquake The Geology Problem and Engineering Solution Yuan Chen Shuopu Chen Wei Liang.

Course : S0705 – Soil Mechanic

Pore-Pressure Generation During CPT Probe Advancement By Michael Fitzgerald.

Direct Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Liquefiable Sand Wen-Jong Chang, National Chi Nan University Ellen M. Rathje, University.

Chapter (1) Geotechnical Properties of Soil

The Liquefaction Resistance and Maximum Shear Modulus of Frozen Samples Yao-Chung Chen Department of Construction Engineering National Taiwan University.

Lessons Learned and Need for NEES Instrumented Liquefaction Sites T. Leslie Youd Brigham Young University.

Soil void ratioSoil densitySoil permeabilityGeological history of siteGround water levelNature of the.

Geotechnical Site Characterization by Cone Penetration Testing

Application of CPT data for evaluation of ground liquefaction in Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan D.H. Lee 1, C.S. Ku 2, C.S. Chen 1, C.H. Juang 3 &J.H. Wu 3.

Basic design of stilts based on the CPT Julio R. Valdes Geo-Innovations Research Group Civil Engineering SDSU.

Test Site Platt 4 at Hornsby Bend as a NEES Site.

Time-dependent increase in CPT tip resistance following explosive compaction. Time-dependent increase in V s following explosive compaction, as measured.

“LIQUEFACTION” Prepared By: Husni M. Awwad Talal Z. Zammar

Tim Rushton, Phoebe Martin and Amy Fitzgerald. History  Faulting of an uplifted plateau, between the ‘North American Plate’ and the ‘Cocos Plate’. 

LIQUEFACATION OF SILTS AND SILT-CLAY MIXTURES US TAIWAN WORKSHOP ON LIQUEFACTION November-2003 Vijay K. Puri Professor Southern Illinois University Carbondale,

AN-najah National University Faculty of Engineering Civil engineering Department Prepared by: Eng. Imad A. F. Jarara’h. Submitted.

SURFACE WAVE SURVEYS LIMITED

Modeling Seismic Response for Highway Bridges in the St. Louis Area for Magnitude 6.0 to 6.8 Earthquakes J. David Rogers and Deniz Karadeniz Department.

Liquefaction: Behavior Evidence, Prediction, and Prevention.

Liquefaction: Behavior Evidence, Prediction, and Prevention Richard P. Ray, Ph.D, P.E.

Factors that Influence Erosion

Estimation of the Uncertainty of the Robertson and Wride Model for Reliability Analysis of Soil Liquefaction C. Hsein Juang and Susan H. Yang Clemson University.

Liquefaction Analysis For a Single Piled Foundation By Dr. Lu Chihwei Moh and Associates, Inc. Date: 11/3/2003.

Effects of Material Properties on Cratering Kevin Housen The Boeing Co. MS 2T-50 P.O. Box 3999 Seattle, WA Impact Cratering: Bridging the Gap between.

Reference Manual Chapter 9

FE model implementation of seismically driven GG noise in subterranean gravitational wave detectors David Rabeling, Eric Hennes, and Jo van den Brand

1 Interpretation and Visualization of Model Test Data for Slope Failure in Liquefying Soil Bruce L. Kutter Erik J. Malvick R. Kulasingam Ross Boulanger.

A Study on Liquefaction Evaluation Using Shear Wave Velocity for Gravelly Sand Deposits Ping-Sien Lin, National Chung-Hsing University Fu-Sheng Chen, China.

Feasibility Level Evaluation of Seismic Stability for Remedy Selection Senda Ozkan, Tetra Tech Inc. Gary Braun, Tetra Tech Inc.

EESC Influence of Local Soil Conditions on Ground Response and Damage Pattern Due to Earthquake By Dr. Abdul Samad Khan.

June 21, NEES 4 th Annual Meeting Instrumentation for the NEESR Sand Aging Field Experiment David A. Saftner University of Michigan PhD Student.

Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)

OMAE 2009 Honolulu, HI - May 31 to June

Name : Abdulrahman Al-bedah ID : KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA KING SAUD UNIVERSITY CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CE DEEP COMPACTION.

Comparing Liquefaction Evaluation Methods Using Penetration-V S Relationships Ronald D. Andrus Clemson University with P. Piratheepan, Brian S. Ellis,

Jason A. Roney, Bruce R. White Estimating fugitive dust emission rates using an environmental boundary layer wind tunnel 2012/04/30 報告人：趙彥勛.

Landslides - brittle failure Modeling Landslides - Force Balance Rockslide spawns debris flow in British Columbia, GSC.

Definition of Fines and Liquefaction Resistance of Maoluo River Sand

1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS – II CFAC Review Conventional Facilities Geotechnical Conditions Tom Joos Civil/Structural Engineer BNL Plant Engineering.

INCORPORATION OF EARTHQUAKE SOURCE, PROPAGATION PATH AND SITE UNCERTAINTIES INTO ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Bob Darragh Nick Gregor Walt Silva.

U.S.-Taiwan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction A Practical Reliability-Based Method for Assessing Soil Liquefaction Potential Jin-Hung Hwang National Central.

Correlating, V s, q c and Cyclic Resistance of a Silty Sand through Laboratory Calibration Tests An-Bin Huang, Yao-Tao Huang, and Yu-Chen Kuo Department.

William J. Likos, Ph.D. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison GLE/CEE 330 Lecture Notes Soil Mechanics Phase.

Liquefaction Mitigation using GeoComposite Vertical Drains

Microtremor method Saibi. Dec, 18, 2014.

Lateral spreading in interbedded deposits of sand, silt, and clay

Evaluation of undisturbed sampling techniques for pumiceous soils

U.S.-Taiwan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction

QuakeCoRE Project Update

The Hungtsaiping landslides- from a rock slide to a colluvial slide

Pavement Design Al-Balqa’ Applied University

Evaluating the long-term future of fine sediment in Lake Powell

Liquefaction Soil Dynamics.

WHAT IS LIQUEFACTION.

Christopher R. McGann, Ph.D. Student University of Washington

Arnim B. Haase and Robert R. Stewart

by Agus M. Ramdhan, and Neil R. Goulty

Liquefaction Hazard Mapping

Flagship Project 2 Comparison between deterministic and probabilistic liquefaction triggering assessment approaches over the Christchurch area V Lacrosse,

Presentation transcript:

Liquefaction Resistance of Geologically Aged Sand Deposits David Saftner University of Minnesota Duluth

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

Photo from Penzien, 1964

Photo courtesy of Rebecca Teasley

 Whitman (1971)  Seed and Idriss (1971)  Updated several times since 1971 “Simplified” Method

Normalized Tip Resistance, q c1N Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR Robertson & Wride (1998) Moss et al. (2006) Idriss & Boulanger (2008)

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

Photo from USGS, 2009

Photo from South Carolinian Library Archives, 2012

From Andrus et al., 2009

Measured to Estimated Shear Wave Velocity Ratio (Hayati and Andrus, 2009)

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

(from Hryciw, 1986)

CPT tip resistance, q c (MPa) Pre-Blast Range (7 tests) One Week Range (6 tests) Depth, z (m)

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

Blast site Paleo-liquefaction sites Photo courtesy of Mulzer Crushed Stone, Inc. Griffin, IN North

Clay Loose ~GWT Sand Dense Sand Loose Gravelly Sand 2m 1m 2m 5m 4m Lower Liquefiable Layer Upper Liquefiable Layer 0 m 2 m 4 m 6 m 8 m 10 m 12 m 14 m

Paleo-liquefaction feature

Tip resistance, q c (MPa) Depth, z (m) Pre-Blast Mean (7 tests) One Week Mean (6 tests)

Shear Wave Velocity, V s (m/sec) Depth, z (m) Pre-Blast V s Post-Blast V s

 Jebba Dam, Jebba, Nigeria Explosive Compaction Projects in Aged Sand Deposits  Douglas Lake, Michigan  Harriet’s Bluff, Georgia  Greeley, Colorado

Pre-Blast Tip Resistance (MPa) Post-Blast Tip Resistance (MPa) Strength Gain Factor Geologic Age (years before present) Griffin, IN ,000 Jebba, Nigeria (Mitchell and Solymar, 1984) ,000 Harriet’s Bluff, GA (Hryciw and Dowding, 1988) ,000 Greeley, CO (Charlie et al., 1992) ,000 Douglas Lake, MI (Thomann and Hryciw, 1992) ,000

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

Pre- Blast V s (m/sec) Post- Blast V s (m/sec) Predicted MEVR ± 1 σ Calculated MEVR Griffin, IN – Douglas Lake, MI (Thomann and Hryciw, 1992) –

 Liquefaction Overview  Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis  Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects  Griffin, Indiana  Comparison of Current Methods  Conclusions Outline

Questions?

GRAVITY LOAD U=U hs BEFORE LIQUEFACTIONINITIAL LIQUEFACTION U=U hs +U xs =  v

GRAVITY LOAD U=U hs POST LIQUEFACTION

LOOSE SATURATED SAND