Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 336
Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils

Carmine P. Polito, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE1; and Henry H. M. Moldenhauer, S.M.ASCE2
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Valparaiso Univ., 1900 Chapel Dr., Valparaiso, IN
46383. E-mail: carmine.polito@valpo.edu
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 537 Bissell Rd., Ames, IA
50011. E-mail: hhmolden@iastate.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Under cyclic loading, loose, saturated cohesionless soils develop excess pore pressures and
decreased effective stresses and thus, decreased strengths. Lee and Albaisa showed that when
pore pressure ratio is plotted against cycle ratio (the ratio of the current cycle of loading to the
number of cycles of loading required to initiate liquefaction), the results plotted within a
relatively narrow band. Excess pore pressure generation during cyclic loading has also been
shown to be proportional to the energy dissipated in the soil during loading. The study reported
here used the results of over 135 cyclic triaxial tests performed on sands and non-plastic silts to
determine that when pore pressure ratio was plotted against dissipated energy ratio (the ratio of
the cumulative dissipated energy to the dissipated energy required to initiate liquefaction), the
relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio is independent of the
specimen’s relative density, silt content, magnitude of loading, number of cycles of loading
required to initiate liquefaction, and normalized dissipated energy per unit volume required to
cause liquefaction in the specimen.
INTRODUCTION
As part of a larger study examining the factors that affect the relationships between the
energy dissipation in a soil during cyclic loading and pore pressure development, the influence of
relative density, silt content, the magnitude of loading, the number of cycles of loading required
to initiate liquefaction were investigated, and the normalized dissipated energy per unit volume
required to cause liquefaction in the specimen. In this paper, the effects of these factors on the
relationship between pore pressure development, as quantified by pore pressure ratio, ru, the rate
of energy dissipation, as quantified by the dissipated energy ratio, are discussed.
In their study of the settlement of sands following cyclic loading, Lee and Albaisa (1974)
showed that when the pore pressure ratio, ru, was plotted against the cycle ratio (i.e. the ratio of
the current cycle of loading to the number of cycles of loading required to initiate liquefaction)
for different cyclic triaxial tests, the results plotted within a relatively narrow band regardless of
relative density, initial effective confining stress, magnitude of loading or number of cycles of
loading required to initiate liquefaction. Figure 1 presents their findings for 30 cyclic triaxial
tests performed on specimens of Sacramento River sand with relative densities between 36% and
100% and initial effective confining stresses ranging from 15 to 210 psi.
Dissipated energy ratio is defined as the amount of cumulative normalized dissipated energy
per unit volume, that has been dissipated in a soil mass at a given instant during cyclic loading,
to the total normalized dissipated energy per unit volume required to initiate liquefaction in the
soil mass. The study reported in this paper was performed to determine if relationships similar to
those found by Lee and Albaisa exists between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio
and, if such relationships exist, are they independent of relative density, silt content, magnitude
© ASCE
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

of loading or number of cycles of loading required to initiate liquefaction or the normalized

dissipated energy per unit volume required to cause liquefaction in the specimen.
Figure 1: Pore pressure ratio versus cycle ratio for Sacramento River sand (after Lee and
Albaisa, 1974).
Following a review of normalized dissipated energy per unit volume, the characteristics of
the soils tested in the cyclic triaxial tests analyzed will be presented. Lastly, the findings of the
study will be discussed and conclusions drawn.
BACKGROUND
Energy-based methods for evaluating liquefaction and excess pore pressure generation were
first proposed in the 1970s as an alternative to stress-based procedures (Nemat-Nasser and
Shokooh, 1979) and their development has continued to this day (e.g., Berrill and Davis, 1985;
Figueroa et al., 1994; Green et al., 2000; Kokusho, 2013).
The normalized unit energy, Ws, is the energy dissipated per unit volume of soil divided by
the initial mean effective stress. The energy dissipated during a cyclic laboratory tests can be
determined and then used to predict pore pressure generation in the field. The level of excess
pore pressures developed under cyclic loading is proportional to the amount of energy dissipated
in the soil. This relationship exists because both energy dissipation and the generation of excess
pore pressures result from the permanent deformation of the soil skeleton under the cyclic
loading.
During a cyclic triaxial test, the normalized unit energy can be calculated from the stresses
and strains measured using Equation 1 (Green, 2001).
dWs   σ'v dε v  2σ 'hdε h  τ vhdγ vh  τ hv dγ hv 
1
(1)
σ'o
where: dWs is the incremental dissipated energy per unit volume of soil normalized by the initial
mean effective stress; 'o is the initial mean effective stress; dv is the incremental vertical strain;
'h is the effective horizontal stress; dh is the incremental radial strain; vh is the horizontal shear
stress acting on a horizontal plane; dvh is the incremental shear strain resulting from vh;hv is
© ASCE

the vertical shear stress acting on a vertical plane; dhv is the incremental shear strain resulting
from hv; and 'o is the mean initial effective confining stress.
For a cyclic triaxial test, Equation 1 becomes (Green, 2001):
1 n1
Ws  '   σ d, i1  σd, i  εa, i 1  εa, i  (2)
2σ o i1
where: n is the number of applied load increments; d,i and d,i+1 are the applied deviator stress at
load increment i and i+1, respectively; and a,i and a,i+1 are the axial strain at load increment i
and i+1, respectively.
THE CURRENT STUDY

The cyclic triaxial test results used in this study were collected from the first author’s
personal files, although the majority have been reported elsewhere. A total of 137 individual
cyclic triaxial tests were analyzed. All the test data was collected from stress-controlled cyclic
triaxial tests performed on specimens that were 70 mm in diameter and 154 mm in height. The
specimens were prepared either by moist tamping or by dry deposition.
The soils tested were sands, silty sands and sandy silts produced from four sands: Yatesville
sand, Monterey #0/30 sand, Ottawa 20/30 sand and Ottawa C-109 sand. The Yatesville,
Monterey and 20/30 sands were also mixed with silts. Two silts were used: Yatesville silt and
#106 Sil-Co-Sil silt. The silt contents of the soils ranged from 0% to 100%. Figure 2(a) contains
a histogram detailing the distribution of silt contents.
The soils were prepared to relative densities between 8% and 98% with a distribution shown
in Figure 2(b). Relative density was used to describe the soil’s density because there is no
applicable ASTM procedure for determining minimum index void ratio over the entire range of
silt contents investigated for this study. The vibratory table method, ASTM D 4253 (ASTM,
2016), is limited to a maximum fines content of 15%, conversely Proctor tests do not always
produce accurate, repeatable results for clean sands. Vibratory table and standard and modified
Proctor tests were all performed upon each soil mixture. In agreement with the findings of Lee
and Fitton (1968), the vibratory table tests yielded maximum dry densities similar to those
produced by the modified Proctor test. Because the vibratory table tests were found to give more
repeatable results, they were used to define the maximum index densities and minimum index
void ratios used in this study. Similarly, there is no ASTM procedure for determining minimum
density for cohesionless soils which is applicable over the entire range of silt contents
investigated in this study. The minimum density method, ASTM D- 4254 (ASTM, 2016), is
limited to soils with a maximum fines content of 15%. Despite this limitation, the maximum
index void ratio and corresponding minimum index density for each soil mixture was determined
in general accordance with the method presented in the specification.
During cyclic loading the specimens were subjected to cyclic stress ratios ranging from 0.065
to 0.396 and had failed in between 3 and 914 cycles of loading. Figures 2(c) and 2(d) contain
histograms of the cyclic stress ratios and the cycles of loading respectively.
Once collected, the data was analyzed. At each point during the tests when the deviator stress
equaled zero (which occurs twice during each cycle of loading), the pore pressure ratio, the cycle
ratio and the dissipated energy ratio were calculated. The pore pressure ratio was then plotted
against the cycle ratio as shown in Figure 3 and against the dissipated energy ratio as shown in
Figure 4 for all tests.
© ASCE

Figure 2: Distribution of parameters used in the study

FINDINGS
Lee and Albaisa (1974) showed that, over wide ranges of relative density, initial effective
confining stress, magnitude of loading and number of cycles of loading required to initiate
liquefaction, when the pore pressure ratio, ru, was plotted against the cycle ratio for different
cyclic triaxial tests, the results plotted within a relatively narrow band. The cyclic triaxial test
data used in this study was plotted in a similar manner in Figure 3, along with Lee and Albaisa’
range for Sacramento River sand. It is evident that the new data largely follows the trend
reported by Lee and Albaisa.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that when the test data was plotted in a similar manner to
Figure 3 but replacing cycle ratio with dissipated energy ratio the data once more falls within a
relatively narrow band. However the band has a distinctly different shape than the band in Figure
3.
To determine whether the relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy
ratio is independent of relative density, silt content, magnitude of loading, number of cycles of
loading required to initiate liquefaction or the normalized dissipated energy per unit volume
required to cause liquefaction in the specimen, for each factor, the data was subdivided into five
ranges (for example, the silt contents were divided into 0% to 10% silt, 10% to 20% silt, 20% to
30% silt, 30% to 50% silt and 50 to 100% silt). For each range, a plot of pore pressure ratio
versus dissipated energy ratio was created using the data for that range. The limits of the data
(minus some outliers) and their mean values were selected. This procedure is illustrated in Figure
© ASCE

5, which uses the data for sands with silt contents between 10% and 20%. The limits and the
means for all five ranges were then combined on a single plot. These plots are presented in
Figures 6 through 10.
Figure 3: Pore pressure ratio as a function of cycle ratio
Figure 4: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio

Figure 6 plots the pore pressure ratio against the dissipated energy ratio for the data
© ASCE

examined. The data is subdivided into groups based on the silt content of the specimen. Both the
limits and the mean of the relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio
are largely independent of silt content.
Figure 5: Mean and limit curves for pore pressure ratio versus energy ratio for sands with
silt contents between 10% and 20%
Figure 6: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio and silt content.
Figure 7 plots the pore pressure ratio against the dissipated energy ratio for the data
examined, which has been subdivided into groups based on the relative density of the specimen.
The data once more plots within a relatively narrow band. Both the limits and the mean of the
relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio are largely independent of
relative density.
Similarly, Figure 8 presents the data, this time subdivided into groups based on the
magnitude of loading placed on the specimen, as quantified by the cyclic stress ratio. The figure
shows that both the limits and the mean of the relationship between pore pressure ratio and
dissipated energy ratio are largely independent of magnitude of loading.
© ASCE

Figure 7: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio and relative density
Figure 9 once more presents the data, this time subdivided into groups based on the number
of cycles of loading required to cause liquefaction in the specimen. The figure shows that both
the limits and the mean of the relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy
ratio is largely independent of number of cycles of loading.
Lastly, Figure 10 presents the data, this time subdivided by the normalized dissipated energy
per unit volume required to cause liquefaction in the specimen. The figure shows that both the
limits and the mean of the relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio
are largely independent of the quantity of normalized dissipated energy per unit volume required
to cause liquefaction in the specimen.
Figure 8: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio and cyclic stress ratio
Figure 9: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio and cycles to trigger
liquefaction
© ASCE

Figure 10: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio and normalized
dissipated energy per unit volume required to trigger liquefaction
CONCLUSIONS
As part of a larger study examining the factors that affect the relationships between the
energy dissipation in a soil during cyclic loading and pore pressure development, the influence of
relative density, silt content, the magnitude of loading, the number of cycles of loading required
to initiate liquefaction were investigated, and the normalized dissipated energy per unit volume
required to cause liquefaction in the specimen.
This study examined the relationship between pore pressure generation under cyclic loading,
quantified by the pore pressure ratio, ru, and the dissipated energy ratio which is the ratio of the
energy dissipated in a soil mass at some time during cyclic loading to the total dissipated energy
required to cause liquefaction of the soil mass. The study did this through the examination of the
results of 137 stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests.
The chief conclusions drawn from the study are:
 the relationship between pore pressure ratio and dissipated energy ratio is independent of
the soil’s silt content.
the soil’s relative density.
the applied level of loading as quantified by the applied cyclic stress ratio.
the number of cycles required to initiate liquefaction.
the normalized dissipated energy per unit volume required to initiate liquefaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his gratitude to the Richardson Summer Research Grant
program at Valparaiso University, which funded Mr. Moldenhauer’s participation in the study.
REFERENCES
ASTM D4253-16, (2016). Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight
of Soils Using a Vibratory Table, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016,
www.astm.org
© ASCE

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, PA,
2016, www.astm.org
Berrill, J.B. and Davis, R.O., (1985). “Energy Dissipation and Seismic Liquefaction of Sands:
Revised Model,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 25, No. 2. 1985. pp.106-118.
Figueroa, J., Saada, A., Liang, L., and Dahisaria, N., (1994). “Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction by
Energy Principles,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 9, 1994, pp. 1554-
1569.
Green, R.A. (2001). Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable soils. PhD Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Green, R.A., Mitchell, J.K. and Polito, C.P., (2000). “An Energy-Based Pore Pressure
Generation Model for Cohesionless Soils,” In the Proceedings of the John Booker Memorial
Symposium – Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics, November 16-17, 2000,
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 383-390.
Kokusho, T., (2013). “Liquefaction Potential Evaluation: Energy-Based Method Compared to
Stress-Based Method,” In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, April 29 – May 4, 2013, Chicago, IL.
Lee, K.L., and Albaisa, A., (1974). “Earthquake Induced Settlements In Saturated Sands” Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100(4), pp. 387 - 406.
Lee, K.L., and Fitton, J.A., (1968). “Factors Affecting The Cyclic Loading Strength Of Soil,”
Vibration Effects of Earthquakes on Soils and Foundations, ASTM STP 450, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 71-95.
Nemat-Nasser S, and Shokooh, A., (1979). “A Unified Approach to Densification and
Liquefaction of Cohesionless Sand in Cyclic Shearing,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
16 No. 4, 1979, pp. 659–78.
Shen, C.K., Vrymoed, J.L., and Uyeno, C.K., (1977). “The Effects of Fines on Liquefaction of
Sands,” Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng.,
Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, 1977, pp.381-385.
© ASCE

Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils

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

Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 336

Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

of loading or number of cycles of loading required to initiate liquefaction or the normalized

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

THE CURRENT STUDY

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Figure 2: Distribution of parameters used in the study

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Figure 3: Pore pressure ratio as a function of cycle ratio

Figure 4: Pore pressure ratio as a function of dissipated energy ratio

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

You might also like