Dynamic Properties

Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E.

Faculty Chair of Earthquake Engineering Excellence

Univ. of California at Berkeley

Thanks to the efforts of Drs. Sancio, Donahue, Chen & others,

and support of the U.S. National Science Foundation
 Small Strain Stiffness (Vs)
Gmax = Low-Strain Shear Modulus
= ρ (Vs)2
ρ = Soil Mass Density = γt/g
Vs = Shear Wave Velocity
γt = Soil (Total) Unit Weight
g = Acceleration of Gravity

Measure Vs ( Gmax = ρ Vs2 )

Vs profile critically important
 Geophysical Methods
Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW)

∆d
vR ( f ) =
∆t ( f )

vR ( f )
λR ( f ) =
f
Advantages: Quickly performed
No borehole required

Disadvantages: Specialized equipment

Experienced operators
Horizontal layering only
3
Geophysical Methods
Suspension Logging

4
Correlations
Strain-Dependent Shear Modulus Reduction
& Material Damping Curves
G/Gmax and Damping Curve Trends

Use Darendeli et al. strength corrected curves

Normalized Response
 Peak Dynamic Strength of Clays
Chen, Bray, and Seed (2006)

• Sdynamic, peak = Sstatic, peak (Crate) (Ccyc ) (Cprog) (Cdef)

• Rate of loading: Crate > 1

• Number of significant cycles: Ccyc < 1
• Progressive failure: Cprog < 1
• Distributed deformation: Cdef < 1

Typical values often lead to:

Sdynamic, peak ≈ Sstatic, peak (1.4) (0.85 ) (0.9) (0.9) ≈ Sstatic, peak
 Progressive Failure (Cprog < 1)
• Small vane – 2.5 cm diameter
• Medium vane – 5.7 cm diameter
• Large direct shear box – 30 cm
by 30 cm square
3.5
Small-scale Vane (2.5cm in diameter)
3 Median-scale Vane (5.7cm in diameter)

2.5
Shear stress (kPa)

1.5 Large-scale direct shear box (30.5 by 30.5 cm square)

1
Relative size of tests
0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (cm)
 Dynamic Strength of Clays
Chen, Bray, and Seed (2006)

Peak dynamic strength is used for strain-hardening

soils or limited displacements

As earthquake-induced strain exceeds failure strain,

dynamic strength reduces for strain-softening soils

Thus, ky is also a function of displacement

60

50
Peak Strength
ky
Shear strength (psf)

40

30

20

10
Residual Strength
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
perferential displacement (inches)

D
Lower San Fernando Dam- 1971 San Fernando EQ
From H.B. Seed
Lower San Fernando Dam- 1971 San Fernando EQ
From H.B. Seed
 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Flow Liquefaction Cyclic Mobility

(strain-softening large strain) (strain-hardening limited strain)
LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING
CRR

C
S FS = CRR / CSR
R Liquefaction No Liquefaction
FS =1.2

FS =1.2

Youd et al. 2001 based on Seed et al. 1985

LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS
Cyclic Mobility

Flow Liquefaction

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

15

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Soil Layering: Human-Made and Geologic

Lower San Fernando Dam: H.B. Seed

 Liquefaction Database
1999 Kocaeli EQ

CPT BORING with SPT

http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/turkey/adapazari/index.html
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils
Chinese Criteria (Seed & Idriss 1982; Youd et al. 2001):
Liquefaction can only occur if:
1) LL < 35 , 2) wc > 0.9 LL, & 3) Material Finer than 5 µm < 15%

70
Susceptible if Not
60 wc > 0.9LL Susceptible
Liquid Limit

50

40
Susceptible
30 Moderate Susceptibility
Not Susceptible
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 CTX Testing by
Percent weight corresponding to 5µm Bray & Sancio 2006
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils

Bray & Sanco (2006)

PI ≤ 12 & wc / LL ≥ 0.85

Idriss & Boulanger (2008)

PI < 7

Ishihara (1996)
PI ≤ 10 - CRRs are generally similar
 “Liquefaction” of Fine-Grained Soils

Bray & Sanco (2006)

cyclic response of low plasticity fine-grained soils that
are similar to that of sands are also called liquefaction

Idriss & Boulanger (2008)

the term liquefaction should be used only for soils that
are evaluated through penetration tests

Bray & Sancio (2008) & Boulanger & Idriss (2008)

Perform cyclic tests on slightly plastic soils as
“undisturbed” samples can be retrieved

Test because empirical field methods have limited data

CKC Automated Triaxial Testing System

Cyclic Triaxial Testing

Bray & Sancio 2006
“Undisturbed” Soil Sampling & Testing
Thin- Walled Piston Sampler

Careful Handling

Cut Extrude Test

 40 20
30 15

Deviator Stress (kPa)

20 10
10 5

q (kPa)
0 0
-10 -5
-20 -10
-30 -15
-40 -20
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30 40 50
Axial Strain (%) p' (kPa)

PI = 0 F7 - P3A: e =0.74 σ’m = 40 kPa CSR = 0.50 f = 0.005 Hz FC = 77%

40

20
q (kPa)

-20

-40
-0.5 0.0 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Axial Strain (%) p' (kPa)
PI = 26 A6 - P8A: e =1.15 LL = 55 σ’m = 50 kPa CSR = 0.30 f = 1 Hz FC = 99%
Effects of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Mobility
0.6
PI <= 12
12 < PI < 20
0.5
Soils with PI > 20 did
not lose strength
CSR

0.4

0.3
σ'c = 40 kPa

0.2
1 10 100 1000
Number of Cycles to 3% Axial Strain
Recommended Criteria for Cyclic Mobility Susceptibility
(Bray and Sancio 2006)

Susceptible Soils: PI ≤ 12 & wc/LL ≥ 0.85

Moderate Susceptibility: wc/LL > 0.8 & 12 < PI ≤ 20
50
Susceptible to Liquefaction
40 Moderate Susceptibility
Plasticity Index

Not Susceptible
30
Not Susceptible
20
Test

10 Susceptible

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
wc /LL
Comparison of Bray & Sancio 2006 Criteria with Other Data

50
1999 Kocaeli 50
1976 China
Bray et al. (2004a) Wang (1979)
Plasticity Index

Plasticity Index
40 40
Liquefaction Liquefaction
30 30 No Liquefaction

20 20
10 10
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
wc /LL wc /LL

1994 Northridge 50
1999 Chi-Chi
50
Bennet et al. (1998) Chu et al. (2004)

Plasticity Index
Plasticity Index

40 40 Wufeng Site C (Liq)

Potrero Canyon
30 30 Nantou Site A (No Liq)

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
wc /LL wc /LL
Cyclic Resistances of PI = 2 & PI = 10 Soils

Slurry Deposition CSS Testing

σ’v ≈ 137 kPa
Donahue et al. 2007
 PI = 2 PI = 5

Reconstituted
Soil Specimens
Donahue et al. 2007
CSS Testing:
PI = 11
Soil G has PI = 10

PI = 14 PI = 7
Cyclic Mobility Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils

1. % clay-size criterion is unreliable: Do not use Chinese Criteria

2. Focus on soil mineralogy & sensitivity (use PI and wc/LL):

- Soils with PI ≤ 12 & wc/LL ≥ 0.85 can undergo cyclic mobility
- Other soils can undergo severe strength loss

3. Use cyclic testing on “undisturbed” specimens

4. Cyclic response of silty soils depends on:

- Void ratio
- Stress history
- Time under confinement
- Loading frequency
- Specimen preparation method
- Testing device
 Evaluation of Ic < 2.6 Criterion

2.6 12 0.85

A liquefaction site in Adapazari (Bray & Sancio 2009)

 CONCLUSIONS
• Seismic stability evaluation of a heap leach pad
requires evaluation of dynamic properties
• Important dynamic properties are Vs and G/Gmax &
damping curves
• However, dynamic shear strength is most important
• For clays, adjust static undrained shear strength for
dynamic effects
• For sands, gravels, and silts, perform liquefaction
triggering assessment and liquefaction effects
evaluation (e.g., Sur)
• Use Bray & Sancio (2006) liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for fine-grained soils
 References
Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M., “Closure to ‘Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays,’” J. of
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 7, July, 2008, pp. 1027-1028.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,” J. of
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9, Sept., 2006, pp. 1165-1177.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., “Closure to ‘Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained
Soils,’” J. of Geotechnical & Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 7, July, 2008, pp. 1031-1034.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., “Performance of Buildings in Adapazari during the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey
Earthquake,” in Earthquake Geotechnical Case Histories for Performance Based Design, Kokusho,
T, Ed., TC4 Committee, ISSMFE, CRC Press/Balkema,The Netherlands, pp. 325-340 & Data on CD-
ROM, 2009.
Chen, W.Y., Bray, J.D., and Seed, R.B. “Shaking Table Model Experiments to Assess Seismic Slope
Deformation Analysis Procedures,” Proc. 8th US Nat. Conf. EQ Engrg., EERI, 2006, Paper 1322.
Donahue, J.L., Bray, J.D., and Reimer, M.F. “Liquefaction Testing of Fine-Grained Soil Prepared Using
Slurry Deposition,” Proc. 4th Inter. Conf. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Paper No. 1226,
June 25-28, 2007.
Idriss, I.M, and Boulanger, R.S. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, EERIMNO-12, Oakland, CA, 2008.
Sancio, R.B. and Bray, J.D., “An Assessment of the Effect of Rod Length on SPT Energy Calculations
Based on Measured Field Data,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 28(1), Paper GTJ11959,
pp. 1-9, Jan. 2005.
Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B.,
Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E., and Faris, A. “Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified
and Consistent Framework,” 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote
Presentation, Long Beach, Calif., April 30, 2003.