Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil: Updates and New Developments

10/28/2021
Shear strength of liquefied soil:

updates and new developments
Scott M. Olson, PhD, PE Jiarui Chen
Professor Ph.D. Candidate
University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign
GEOWEEK │ Interna onal Congress of Geotechnics
GeoPUCP, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
October 29, 2021
© Scott M. Olson 2021 October 29, 2021
Slide 1
Acknowledgements
• National Science Foundation
• Prof. Mandar Dewoolkar, University of Vermont
• Soham Banjeree, PhD Candidate
• Prof. Yves Dubief, University of Vermont
Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Slide 2
1
10/28/2021
The motivation
• High‐profiles failures:
High‐profiles failures: 2008 Kingston

Slide 3
The motivation
High‐profiles failures: 2010 Las Palmas

Slide 3
2
10/28/2021
The motivation
• High‐profiles failures: 2014 Mount Polley
High‐profiles failures:

Slide 3
The motivation
High‐profiles failures: 2015 Samarco

Slide 3
3
10/28/2021
The motivation
• High‐profiles failures: 2019 Brumandinho

Slide 3
The motivation
• High‐profiles failures: 2019 Cadia

Slide 3
4
10/28/2021
The motivation
• ~130 failures reported from 1960‐2009, but undoubtedly many more
Bowkers and Chambers
(2015)

Slide 4
The motivation
• ~33 serious to very serious failures reported from 2010‐2019
(2015)

Slide 4
5
10/28/2021
The motivation
• Failure rate ~1:700 to 1:1750 (water dams ~ 1:10,000; Davies 2001)
(2015)

Slide 4
Saturated, contractive, brittle soil behavior
su(liq) = liquefied shear strength

Slide 5
6
10/28/2021
su(liq)/'vo = liquefied strength ratio

Slide 5
Flow failure possible if static > su(liq)
Slide 5
7
10/28/2021
Lateral spreading, settlement possible if static < su(liq)
Slide 5
Flow liquefaction case histories
• Case histories are the primary element of popular empirical approaches
− Seed (1987)/Seed & Harder (1990)
− Olson & Stark (2002, 2003)
− Boulanger & Idriss (2008)
− Robertson (2010)
− Weber (2015)
− Kramer & Wang (2016)
• Despite the importance of these empirical correlations, very few efforts to
systematically increase the number of available case histories

Slide 6
8
10/28/2021
• Systematic case history collections
− Seed (1987)/Seed & Harder (1990)  15 flow liquefaction cases (3 lateral spreads)

Slide 7
− Stark & Mesri (1992)  2 new flow liquefaction cases (17 total)

Slide 7
9
10/28/2021
− Olson (2001)  17 new cases, 1 removed (33 total)

Slide 7

0.4
Kinetics analysis or limit equilibrium (LE) slope stability analysis with measured CPT • 33 case histories
Liquefied strength ratio, su(liq)/'vo
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with CPT converted from SPT
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with estimated CPT • Kinetics (momentum)
0.3 Infinite slope stability analysis with measured, converted, or estimated CPT
analysis for 10 cases
• Linear relationship
0.2 between su(liq) and
pre‐failure 'vo
0.1
after Olson & Stark (2002)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CPT tip resistance, qc1 (MPa)
Slide 8
10
10/28/2021
− Jefferies & Been (2006)  2 new cases (35 total)

Slide 9
− Idriss & Boulanger (2007, 2008)  no new cases (used 18)

Slide 9
11
10/28/2021
• 18 case histories
• Considers void
redistribution based
on judgement only
• Nonlinear relations
between su(liq) and
pre‐failure 'vo at
large (N1)60cs‐Sr
modified from Idriss & Boulanger (2007, 2008)
Slide 10
− Robertson (2010)  1 new (unpublished) case (36 total)

Slide 11
12
10/28/2021
− Muhammad (2012)  25 new cases (61 total)

Slide 11

0.4
Kinetics analysis or limit equilibrium (LE) slope stability analysis with measured CPT • 25 new cases
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with estimated CPT • 61 cases total
Blue = Olson (2001); Orange = Muhammad (2012)
• Kinetics (momentum)
0.2 • Linear relationship
between su(liq) and
0.1
Olson & Stark (2002)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 12
13
10/28/2021
− Weber (2015)  no new cases (used 29)

Slide 13
− Kramer & Wang (2016)  no new cases (used 30)

Slide 13
14
10/28/2021
• 30 case histories
• Incorporates
influence of lateral
spreading cases
• Nonlinear relation
between su(liq) and
Kramer & Wang (2016)
Slide 14
− Kramer & Wang (2016)  no new cases (used 30)
− Chen (forthcoming)  12 new cases (73 total)

Slide 15
15
10/28/2021

0.4
Kinetics analysis or limit equilibrium (LE) slope stability analysis with measured CPT • 12 new cases
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with estimated CPT (pending)
Blue = Olson (2001); Orange = Muhammad (2012); Green = Chen (forthcoming)
• 73 cases total
0.2 analysis for 23 cases
• Linear relationship
0.1
between su(liq) and
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 16
New case histories (?) – Boundary value problems

• Boundary value problem
− Soil system with known boundaries
− Measure forces and displacements
− Extract constitutive behavior via inverse analysis
• Combine soil mechanics and fluid dynamics
− Kawakami et al. (1994)
− Miyajima et al. (1994, 1995)
− Towhata et al. (1999)
− de Alba & Ballestero (2005, 2006)
− Hwang et al. (2006)
− Dewoolkar et al. (2010, 2015)
− Chen (forthcoming)
Slide 17
16
10/28/2021
Early boundary value problems in flow liquefaction

• Most early studies involved dropping or pulling a cylinder or sphere
through soil liquefied by shaking or upward hydraulic gradients
• All involved very low effective stresses
Miyajima et al. (1995)
Towhata et al. (1999)
Slide 18
Simpler boundary value problems
• de Alba & Ballestero (2005, 2006) introduced the concept
of pulling a thin metal coupon through liquefied soil to
reduce hydrodynamic effects
0.16 cm
2.54 cm

Slide 19
17
10/28/2021
Centrifuge boundary value problems

• Dewoolkar et al. (2010, 2015) further improved the BVP set‐up
• Pulled a coupon through a liquefied model sand in a centrifuge
Torque measurement
Using slip ring transducer
Wiper
Directional change pulley box
Slide 20

• Dewoolkar et al. (2010, 2015) further improved the BVP set‐up
• Pulled a coupon through a liquefied model sand in a centrifuge

Slide 20
18
10/28/2021

• Dewoolkar et al. (2010, 2015) typical results
Dr = 38.6%, σ'vo=57kPa, v=5cm/s
Pore fluid: water
Fast dissipation after shaking
Pulling force during shaking: 33‐42 N
su(mob) = 7.1 – 9.0 kPa

Slide 21

• Dewoolkar et al. (2010, 2015) typical results
Dr = 38.6%, σ'vo=57kPa, v=5cm/s Dr = 51.0%, σ'vo=129kPa, v=5cm/s
Pore fluid: water
Fast dissipation after shaking Pore fluid: Methylcellulose
Slow dissipation after shaking
su(mob) = 6.9 – 13.8 kPa
su(mob) = 7.1 – 9.0 kPa Stabilized pulling force: 83 N
su(liq) = 17.9 kPa

Slide 21
19
10/28/2021
• Chen (forthcoming) introduced a number of improvements
− Piezometer located on the coupon body
− Beveled leading edge to further reduce plowing/hydrodynamic effects
Sand glued to
2 μm stainless steel coupon surface Coupon with porewater pressure
porous disc on top measurement, T6061 Aluminum
76.2 mm x 25.4 mm x 3.5 mm
Beveled
leading
edge
Keller 2Mi PA200

Pulling wire hole
pressure transducer
Slide 22

Cone penetration actuator
• Chen (forthcoming) introduced Motor
a number of improvements assembly
− Newly fabricated pulling box,
direction change pulley box,
and wiper system
− In‐flight bender elements
− In‐flight CPT
Pulling
wire
Directional
change pulley
box
Aluminum container Shaking & pulling direction

77.47 cm x 30.48 cm x 30.48 cm
Slide 23
20
10/28/2021

Directional change pulley box
• Chen (forthcoming) introduced
a number of improvements PPT
− Newly fabricated pulling box,
direction change pulley box,
and wiper system
Accelerometer
− In‐flight bender elements
− In‐flight CPT
CPT locations Bender elements
PPT
Coupon, glued with sand

Slide 24

Compatibility among
• Chen (forthcoming) typical results pulling force/strength,
displacement and ru
Dr = 27.3%, ψ = ‐0.028, σ'vo=57kPa, v=5cm/s
Force‐relative displacement
Free‐field ru reaches 0.95

Slide 25
21
10/28/2021
Interpreting centrifuge boundary value problems
• Shear stress
− Assume uniform distribution along coupon top, bottom Top surface
and side surfaces
− Calculate resistance at leading edge using solution for
deep horizontal anchors under undrained conditions
Leading
− Compare with CPT bearing capacity interpretations edge
• Shear strain
− Estimate as relative displacement/shear band thickness
− Shear band thickness ~14D50 (Sadrekarimi & Olson 2010)
2 𝑐𝑚
𝛾 ≅ 612%
14 0.23 𝑚𝑚
Slide 26
Interpreting centrifuge boundary value problems
• Criteria for interpreting centrifuge results
− Relative displacement ≥ 0.5 cm (to permit shear band formation)
− Porewater pressure ratio, ru, measured at coupon surface ≥ 0.8
(lower values corresponded to highly dilative response at coupon)
• 11 pulls completed on clean sands
• Regrettably, COVID travel restrictions since March 2020 have
prevented team from testing silty sand and sandy silt gradations

Slide 27
22
10/28/2021
Reinterpreting laboratory boundary value problems

• de Alba & Ballestero (2005) coupon tests can be
reinterpreted using cyclic lab behavior
Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
1. Displacement
2. Effective stress
3. Load cell (apparent drag)

Slide 28

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
1. Displacement
2. Effective stress

Slide 28
23
10/28/2021

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
1. Displacement
2. Effective stress

Slide 28

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
1. Displacement
2. Effective stress

Slide 28
24
10/28/2021

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
1. Displacement
2. Effective stress

Slide 28

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
Shearing resistance
spikes when the
coupon hits the
1. Displacement
bottom platen
2. Effective stress

Slide 28
25
10/28/2021

Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
Dr = 34.6%, ξ = ‐0.15, σ'vo=140kPa
Critical states?
1. Displacement Dr = 31.2%, ξ = ‐0.14, σ'vo=70kPa

2. Effective stress

Slide 28
Adding BVPs to flow liquefaction case histories

0.4
Kinetics analysis or limit equilibrium (LE) slope stability analysis with measured CPT • Flow liquefaction
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with estimated CPT field case histories
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 29
26
10/28/2021

0.4
• Adding centrifuge
BVP cases from
0.2 Chen (forthcoming)
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 29

0.4
Nearly dilative response BVP cases from
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 29
27
10/28/2021

0.4
BVP cases from
• Reinterpreted BVP
0.1
cases from
Dewoolkar et al.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 29

0.4
BVP cases from
• Reinterpreted BVP
0.1
cases from
Dewoolkar et al.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slide 29
28
10/28/2021
Application – role of compressibility

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
• Flow liquefaction susceptibility =
0.06-0.12
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.04-0.05
f(density, effective stress, and
Pre-failure effective vertical stress, 'vo (kPa)
0.15-0.25
0.10-0.15
0.1-0.2
0.15-0.25
~0.06
compressibility)
100
0.1-0.2
10 ~ 0.03
(low compressibility) • Boundary shifts to the left with
150 0.06-0.10
10 ~ 0.06
increasing compressibility
0.09-0.11
(medium
200 compressibility)
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
CONTRACTIVE DILATIVE
after Olson (2009) with  data from Jefferies and Been (2006)
400
Slide 30

0.4
Kinetics analysis or limit equilibrium (LE) slope stability analysis with measured CPT
0.3
Kinetics analysis or LE slope stability analysis with estimated CPT
Infinite slope stability analysis with measured, converted, or estimated CPT
• Susceptibility and compressibility affect
0.2
both yield strength ratios (triggering)
and liquefied strength ratios (post‐
0.1
triggering)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
• Limits the combinations of density and
Effective vertical stress, v'ovo (kPa)
effective stress that correspond to
0.06-0.12 0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.2 0.10-0.15
0.15-0.25
contractive states
100 ~0.06
10 ~ 0.03
0.1-0.2 (low compressibility)
150 0.06-0.10
0.09-0.11 10 ~ 0.06

(medium
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
400

Slide 31
29
10/28/2021

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
triggering)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
0.06-0.12 0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.2 0.10-0.15
0.15-0.25
contractive states
100 ~0.06
10 ~ 0.03
150 0.06-0.10
0.09-0.11 10 ~ 0.06

(medium
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
400

Slide 31

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
triggering)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
0.06-0.12 0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.2 0.10-0.15
0.15-0.25
contractive states
100 ~0.06
10 ~ 0.03
150 0.06-0.10
0.09-0.11 10 ~ 0.06

(medium
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
400

Slide 31
30
10/28/2021

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
triggering)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
0.06-0.12 0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.2 0.10-0.15
0.15-0.25
contractive states
100 ~0.06
10 ~ 0.03
150 0.06-0.10
0.09-0.11 10 ~ 0.06

(medium
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
400

Slide 31

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
triggering)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.04-0.05
0.06-0.12 0.04-0.05
0.04-0.05
50 0.08-0.13 0.08-0.13
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.2 0.10-0.15
0.15-0.25
contractive states
100 ~0.06
10 ~ 0.03
150 0.06-0.10
0.09-0.11 10 ~ 0.06

(medium
250 10 ~ 0.17

(high
compressibility)
300
0.07-0.15
0.19
350
400

Slide 31
31
10/28/2021
Application – clean sand

Liquefied shear strength, su(liq) (kPa) SPT blow count, (N1)60
0 10 20 30 40 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
0
0
• Clean, silica sand
• 'cs = 30°
drained strength
50 50
• (N1)60 = 10
Effective vertical stress, 'vo (kPa)
• FC = 0
100 100
liquefied strength
150 150
• Low compressibility
Idriss & Boulanger
(2008)
200 200
High
250 250
Medium
Low
Compressibility
300 300
Seed & Harder (1990)
minimum to 33rd
percentile
350 350
Slide 32
Application – silty tailings sand

Liquefied shear strength, su(liq) (kPa) SPT blow count, (N1)60
0 10 20 30 40 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
0
0
• Silty tailings sand
• 'cs = 36°
drained strength
50 50
• (N1)60 = 5
• FC = 35%
100 100
150
liquefied strength
150
• (N1)60cs‐Sr = 8
Idriss & Boulanger
(2008)
• High compressibility
200 200
High
250 250
Medium
Low
Compressibility
300 300
Seed & Harder (1990) DILATIVE
minimum to 33rd
CONTRACTIVE
percentile
350 350
Slide 33
32
10/28/2021
Summary and conclusions
• The number of flow liquefaction field case histories has increased from about
30 in 2001 to over 70 today
• Field cases are still scattered, but trend proposed by Olson & Stark (2002)
still appears reasonable
• Boundary value problems (BVPs) involving pulling an object through liquefied
soil can be used to increase number of flow liquefaction “case histories”
• Centrifuge test BVPs using coupon with PWP transducer provide more
realistic free‐field effective stress levels and improve interpretation of stress
field around coupon
• Laboratory test BVPs being reviewed and re‐interpreted considering results
and interpretation from centrifuge tests
The story continues…
Slide 34
Thanks for your attention!
Questions?
olsons@illinois.edu

Slide 35
33

Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil: Updates and New Developments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil: Updates and New Developments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/28/2021

Shear strength of liquefied soil:

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Saturated, contractive, brittle soil behavior

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Saturated, contractive, brittle soil behavior

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Saturated, contractive, brittle soil behavior

Saturated, contractive, brittle soil behavior

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

Flow liquefaction case histories

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Flow liquefaction case histories

New case histories (?) – Boundary value problems

Early boundary value problems in flow liquefaction

Simpler boundary value problems

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Keller 2Mi PA200

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Aluminum container Shaking & pulling direction

Centrifuge boundary value problems

Coupon, glued with sand

Overview │ Strength ra os │ Case histories │ Centrifuge BVPs │ Lab BVPs │ Applica ons │ Summary