Liquefaction On Sands

Page 1 of 45
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
1 Influence of State and Compressibility on Liquefied Strength of Sands

2
3 Abouzar Sadrekarimi
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITA STUDI NAPOLI FED II on 09/20/13
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University,
5 London, ON. asadrek@uwo.ca
6 Abstract
7 Critical state soil mechanics is a useful framework to understand sand behavior. In this paper, a
8 relationship is developed for estimating undrained critical shear strength of sands based on the
9 critical state framework. The application of this relationship is demonstrated by comparison with
10 laboratory test results and sand liquefied strength from field liquefaction flow failure case
11 histories. Using this relationship, the effects of effective stress variation and density on
12 undrained critical shear strength are studied for different combinations of critical state line
13 parameters corresponding to several reference sands. The parametric study indicates that
14 depending on sand void ratio, undrained critical shear strength may increase, remain the same, or
15 decrease as sand shearing-compressibility (represented by the slope of the critical state line)
16 increases. The underlying mechanisms of field failures in dense sands and reverse behaviour of
17 compressible sands are explained through this relationship. It is suggested that the critical state
18 parameter alone is insufficient for describing the behavior of liquefiable sands and sand
19 shearing-compressibility should be also taken into account for estimating undrained shear
20 strength corresponding to the changes in density and effective confining stress.
21 Keywords: critical state, undrained shear strength, liquefaction, compressibility, void ratio.
1
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 2 of 45
22 Introduction
23 Liquefaction flow failure occurs when shear resistance of soil drops below the existing initial
24 driving shear stress by monotonic (e.g. erosion at toe of a slope, oversteeping of a slope,
25 dredging, rapid sediment accumulation, drawdown conditions, reservoir filling), cyclic (e.g.,
26 earthquake, tidal waves), or dynamic (e.g. blast, vibration) loading at constant volume (Castro
27 1969; Terzaghi et al. 1996). The soil mass will then undergo large shear displacements and flow
28 until the driving shear stress becomes lower than the reduced liquefied shear strength. Failure of
29 the Fort Peck Dam in Montana during construction in 1938 (Casagrande 1965) and the slide of
30 the upstream slope of the Lower San Fernando Dam in California (Seed et al. 1975) following
31 the 1971 San Fernando earthquake are typical examples of liquefaction flow failures triggered by
32 static and cyclic mechanisms, respectively. Olson and Stark (2002) summarize many other cases
33 of liquefaction flow failures. Soil undrained shear strength mobilized during liquefaction flow
34 failures is an important parameter in undrained stability analysis for evaluating the occurrence of
35 flow liquefaction. Correct estimation of undrained liquefied shear strength is particularly
36 necessary for the design of large soil structures such as mine tailings impoundments, earth dams,
37 and building foundations in order to protect them against liquefaction failure.
38 Undrained liquefied shear strength of soil is either determined through empirical correlations
39 with in-situ penetration tests based on earlier cases of liquefaction failures (Seed and Harder
40 1990; Stark and Mesri 1992; Baziar and Dobry 1995; Olson and Stark 2002; Idriss and
41 Boulanger 2008), or laboratory shear tests on representative field samples obtained by ground
42 freezing (Robertson et al. 2000), or high-quality tube sampling techniques and correcting the
43 undrained strength for sample disturbance effects (Poulos et al. 1985). While each approach has
44 some advantages and limitations, both methods are limited to the specific soil conditions
2
Page 3 of 45
45 involved in the earlier liquefaction flow failures or samples used in laboratory element tests.
46 Particularly the empirical methods based on in-situ penetration tests are subject to significant
47 uncertainties and simplifying assumptions in relation to the back analysis of case histories (e.g.
48 identification of the liquefied soil layer, void redistribution) leading to a wide range of undrained
49 liquefied shear strengths from in-situ tests. Accordingly, our knowledge of soil behaviour is
50 merely within the range of soils that have been tested in the laboratory or encountered in past
51 field failures. This has limited our current understanding of the underlying mechanisms of field
52 failures in dense sands, or the “reverse behavior” of decreasing strain-softening behavior at
53 larger consolidation stresses observed in some highly compressible sandy soils. Several factors
54 (e.g. in-situ density, stress level, and compressibility) significantly affect the in-situ strength of
55 sands. The separate and combined roles of these factors on sand behaviour need to be properly
56 characterized in order to design safeguards against their adverse effects and failures. This study
57 presents a framework for estimating the undrained liquefied shear strength using critical state
58 soil mechanics and demonstrates the significance of sand shearing-compressibility in the failure
59 of sandy soils. Parametric analyses are carried out to investigate the roles of sand friction angle,
60 fabric, density, stress, and compressibility on sand undrained liquefied shear strength.
61 Understanding the effects of these factors on sand shear behavior would be helpful for selecting
62 the appropriate shear strength for many practical problems.
63
64 Background Information
65 Before further progress into the details of this study, some terminologies which are used
66 throughout the paper are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Figure 1 shows the
67 behaviour of saturated loose Illinois River sand specimens in undrained triaxial compression
3
68 shear (TxC) test (Sadrekarimi 2009). Stress conditions on the failure plane (shear stress: τ, and
69 effective normal stress: σ'n) formed in the triaxial specimen are presented. Points A1 and A2
70 represent sand specimen states after preparation. The specimens are compressed to consolidation
71 normal stresses (σ'nc) of 569 kPa (B1) and 298 kPa (B2) at which consolidation void ratios (ec) of
72 0.659 and 0.756 (corresponding to consolidation relative densities of 33% and 0%, respectively)
73 are achieved. Lines A1B1 and A2B2 in Figure 1b are normal compression lines (NCL) that are
74 formulated as below:
75
 σ′ 
76 [1] e = N − CC log n 
 1kPa 
77
78 Where N is soil void ratio at σ'n = 1 kPa, and CC is the NCL slope in e - log σ'n space. As these
79 specimens are sheared under undrained (constant volume) conditions, σ'n decreases as excess
80 pore water pressure develops in the loose sand fabric which undergoes strain-softening at
81 constant void ratio (ec). During this process, Illinois River sand specimens reach peak undrained
82 shear strengths (su(yield)) at C1 and C2 corresponding to an axial strain of about 1%. Flow
83 liquefaction is triggered when shear stress applied on the soil attempts to exceed su(yield) as a
84 result of static or cyclic loading (Castro 1969; Terzaghi et al. 1996). After exceeding su(yield),
85 the soil yields, excess porewater pressure develops, and strain-softening occur in the specimens.
86 Strain-softening continues until particle reorientation and rearrangement, and possible particle
87 breakage are all complete. This occurred after an axial strain of 10% in the Illinois River sand
88 specimens as shown in Figure 1. At this “critical state” (states D1 and D2), sand deforms at
89 constant volume, constant shear stress, and constant effective stress (Schofield and Wroth 1968;
4
Page 5 of 45
90 Jefferies and Been 2006; Sadrekarimi and Olson 2009). This condition has been also described
91 as “steady state” (Poulos 1981), “residual state” (Seed and Harder 1990), and “ultimate state”
92 (Infante-Sedano 1998) of sands, all of which represent the same phenomenon (Verdugo and
93 Ishihara 1996; ; Jefferies and Been 2006). Undrained shear strength at the critical state is termed
94 undrained critical shear strength, su(critical), which is also the minimum undrained shear strength
95 mobilized in liquefaction flow failures. The locus of void ratio and σ'n data at critical state (D1-
96 D2 in Fig. 1b) is the critical state line (CSL) that is expressed as below:
97
 σ′ 
98 [2] e = Γcs − λcs log n 
 1kPa 
99
100 where Γcs is sand critical void ratio at σ'n = 1 kPa, and λcs is the slope of the CSL in e-log σ'n
101 plane. As described by Poulos et al. (1985), λcs is a function of particle shape, while Γcs changes
102 by differences in particle size distribution. Note that although these parameters are presented in
103 terms of σ'n on the failure plane, λcs will be the same and Γcs will very slightly change (less than
104 0.008 for the sand studied here) if effective mean stress is used.
105
106 Analytical Framework:
107 Characterizing su(critical) is improved and made simpler by using su(critical)/σ'nc. This
108 normalization allows the variation of su(critical) corresponding to the variations of void ratio
109 (density) and σ'nc throughout a zone of failure to be incorporated in a stability analysis. Olson
5
110 and Stark (2002) discuss the application of su(critical)/σ'nc for liquefaction analysis, design of
111 stabilizing berms, and soil densification. In the following paragraphs, a relationship is developed
112 for su(critical)/σ'nc based on sand critical state parameters and initial void ratio.
113 According to Figure 1b, the difference in void ratio from consolidation (B1) to the CSL (ecs) at
114 σ'nc is the critical state parameter, ψcs (Jefferies and Been 2006). Negative values of ψcs
115 generally correspond to dilative and strain-hardening behaviour, while positive values
116 correspond to contractive and strain-softening response, with the severity of strain-softening
117 increasing with increasing ψcs. The following relationship defines ψcs:
118
σ nc
′
119 [3] ψ cs = ec − ecs = (Γcs − λcs log σ ncs
′ ) − (Γcs − λcs log σ nc
′ ) = λcs log
′
σ ncs
120
121 Where σ'ncs is the effective normal stress on the CSL at the void ratio of ec. Accordingly, ψcs
122 represents the initial soil state as a combined function of ec and σ'nc, and thus Equation [3] relates
123 soil initial state to its post-shear critical state behavior. By rearranging Equation [3] the following
124 equation is established:
125
126 [4] σ nc ′ 10ψ

′ = σ ncs cs λcs
127
128 Assuming Mohr-Coulomb shear failure at the critical state, su(critical) and σ'ncs become related
129 through the critical state friction angle (φ'cs) as below:
6
Page 7 of 45
130
 su (critical ) 
131 [5] φcs′ = tan −1  
 σ ′
ncs 
132
133 Subsequently, the following relationship is developed for calculating su(critical)/σ'nc based on
134 sand critical state characteristics (λcs, ψcs, φ'cs):
135
su (critical )
136 [6] = 10 −ψ cs λcs
tan φcs′ ≤ tan φcs′
′
σ nc
137
138 For strain-hardening sands (ψcs < 0), su(critical) exceeds the drained shear strength due to
139 negative excessive pore water pressure (suction) generation, whereas in real field conditions
140 cavitation will occur (Brandon et al. 2006) and limits su(critical) to the drained critical strength
141 ratio (= tan φ'cs). Hence, su(critical)/σ'nc is limited to tan(φ'cs) in Equation [6] for sands that strain
142 harden in undrained shear.
143
144 Application of Equation [6] for Estimating su(critical)/σ'nc
145 The application of Equation [6] for estimating su(critical) is demonstrated in the following
146 paragraphs by comparison with su(critical) back-calculated from liquefaction flow failures or
147 measured in laboratory element tests.
148
149 Comparison with liquefaction flow failure case histories:
7
150 Information regarding the in-situ void ratio, σ'nc, and critical state parameters are only available
151 for a limited number of liquefaction flow failure case histories. These include: Duncan Dam,
152 Merriespruit tailings dam, Nerlerk embankment, Suncor Tar Island Dyke, and North Dyke of
153 Wachusett Dam. Despite their limited number, these cases constitute a sufficient database for
154 evaluating Equation [6] and estimating su(critical). In the following paragraphs, the application
155 of Equation [6] for estimating su(critical) for each of these cases is described.
156
157 Duncan Dam
158 Duncan Dam is located on the Duncan river, British Columbia, Canada. Although there has not
159 been any failure history of the Duncan Dam, the extensive amount of data of the critical state
160 parameters and in-situ state make this an ideal case for estimating su(critical) through Equation
161 [6]. Pillai and Stewart (1994) performed several direct simple shear tests (DSS) on reconstituted
162 specimens of Duncan Dam sand and obtained critical state parameters of Γcs = 1.484, λcs =
163 0.274, and φ'cs = 30o. Based on high quality double core barrel sand samples, ground freezing and
164 borehole density logging (Plewes et al. 1994), the average in-situ void ratio (ec) of Duncan Dam
165 sand is estimated about 1.0. Accordingly, an average su(critical)/σ'nc = 0.22 is calculated from
166 Equation [6] for these parameters which is similar to the average su(critical)/σ'nc = 0.21 (ranging
167 from 0.13 to 0.31) obtained from DSS tests on undisturbed samples (Pillai and Salgado 1994).
168
169 Merriespruit Tailings Dams
170 Merriespruit gold tailings dam was a 31 m high dam in South Africa that underwent static
171 liquefaction flow failure in February 1994, resulting in 17 deaths and extensive damage to the
172 village of Merriespruit. The failure was initiated by effective stress reduction as a result of
8
Page 9 of 45
173 overtopping, erosion, and localized steepening of an outer perimeter slope of the embankment by
174 a heavy rainfall (Fourie and Tshabalala 2005). Equation [6] is employed to calculate the post-
175 failure su(critical) for an average σ'nc = 240 kPa on the failure plane (Muhammad 2012). As the
176 tailings material associated with the failure was a sandy silt with FC > 50% (Fourie et al. 2001),
177 CSL parameters (λcs = 0.033 and Γcs = 0.819) obtained for FC = 60% (Fourie and Tshabalala
178 2005) are used with an average void ratio of 0.8 (ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 in Shelby tube and
179 block samples taken from the tailings adjacent to the failure) to calculate ψcs. A critical state
180 friction angle of 38o is selected based on undrained triaxial compression tests on Merriespruit
181 tailings samples (Fourie and Papageorgiou 2001). Accordingly, su(critical) = 2.9 kPa is
182 calculated from Equation [6] which is very close to the minimum residual shear strength of 3 kPa
183 (in the range of 3 to 13 kPa) measured with in-situ vane test (Fourie et al. 2001) and the range of
184 back-calculated su(critical) = 1 to 6 kPa from stability analysis of the post-failure slope
185 (Muhammad 2012).
186
187 Nerlerk Embankment
188 Nerlerk embankment was constructed by underwater hydraulic filling for the support of
189 exploration structures in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. However, not long after construction had
190 begun, the work was interrupted in 1983 by a series of large static liquefaction flow slides within
191 the Nerlerk silty sand berm (Mitchell 1984). The Nerlerk silty sand had average D50 = 0.22 mm,
192 emax = 0.960, emin = 0.423, and fines content (FC) = 12%. Sladen et al. (1985) present a detailed
193 investigation of the undrained strength and critical state behavior of the Nerlerk silty sand. From
194 TxC tests they obtained λcs = 0.046, Γcs = 0.8, and φ'cs = 31o. Based on the post-failure
195 geometries of the flow slides, Sladen et al. (1985) backcalculated su(critical) = 0.25 - 1.0 kPa
9
196 from limit equilibrium stability analyses corresponding to σ'nc = 10 – 60 kPa. Assuming that the
197 liquefaction flow failure of the Nerlerk embankment was controlled by the looser soil layers, an
198 in-situ relative density range of 25 - 35% (corresponding to void ratios of 0.772 - 0.826) was
199 interpreted by Sladen et al. (1985) from CPT data using an empirical relationship developed by
200 Baldi et al. (1982). A range of su(critical) = 0.2 – 2.4 kPa is obtained from Equation [6] using the
201 above parameters that closely covers the range of su(critical) = 0.25 – 1 kPa backcalculated by
202 Sladen et al. (1985).
203
204 Suncor Tar Island Dyke
205 The Suncor open pit mine is located in northern Alberta and produces waste tailings of bitumen
206 extraction. These oil sand tailings are predominantly subangular fine sand with 10 - 15% average
207 fines content. Between 1972 to 1974, several static liquefaction flow failures occurred in the
208 subaqueous loose beach sands at the upstream face of the Tar Island dyke. Plewes et al. (1989)
209 estimated an average σ'nc = 134 kPa at the middle of the liquefied layer just before the 1974
210 failure. Average critical state line parameters of Γcs = 0.864, λcs = 0.053, and φcs = 30o were
211 obtained by Plewes et al. (1989) from undrained TxC tests on reconstituted and undisturbed
212 samples. Based on the down-hole nuclear logging technique, the loose tailings sand had an
213 average void ratio of 0.805 at the time of failure in 1974 (ranging from 0.77 – 0.84). Using these
214 parameters in Equation [6], an average su(critical) = 7.5 kPa is obtained that is close to the lower
215 boundary of su(critical) (ranging from 7.7 to 21.6 kPa) from post-failure stability analysis of the
216 Tar Island dyke (Olson and Stark 2002).
217
218 North Dyke of Wachusett Dam
10
Page 11 of 45
219 Wachusett Dam is the main water supply reservoir for the city of Boston which is located about
220 48 km west of the city. On April 11th, 1907, the upstream of an adjacent dyke at the north of
221 Wachusett dam underwent static liquefaction flow failure during the initial filling of its reservoir.
222 Olson et al. (2000) estimated σ'nc = 142 – 151 kPa, and su(critical) = 10.4 - 19.1 kPa (with a best
223 estimate of 16.0 kPa) by back-analysis of the post-failure slope geometry. Although there has
224 been no direct laboratory measurement of the critical state characteristics of the dyke material, as
225 liquefaction occurred in a medium sand with about 5 – 10% silt, typical λcs = 0.1, and φ'cs = 31o
226 are applicable (Jefferies and Been 2006). By interpreting CPT data, Jefferies and Been (2006)
227 estimated an upper bound ψcs = +0.07 for the liquefied dyke sand. Using these parameters,
228 su(critical) = 17.0 – 18.1 kPa is obtained from Equation [6] which is close to the best estimate (16
229 kPa) and within the range of su(critical) = 10.4 to 19.1 kPa calculated by Olson et al. (2000) from
230 the kinetics of failure.
231 According to the above discussion, despite some uncertainties with respect to soil variability
232 (non-uniform density, soil layering, anisotropy), the assumptions made by various investigators
233 (with respect to the zone of liquefaction, strength contribution of the non-liquefied soils,
234 locations of the initial and final surfaces of sliding, location of the phreatic surface within the
235 slope, drainage or pore-water pressure redistribution), and the selection of a representative value
236 of su(critical), Equation [6] provides good estimates of su(critical) mobilized in the
237 aforementioned cases of liquefaction flow failures.
238
239 Comparison with laboratory element tests:
240 Several sands for which their critical state characteristics have been determined from laboratory
241 element tests are considered for the validation of Equation [6] and analytical parametric study.
11
242 Table 1 presents these sands and their critical state parameters. Note that contrary to clayey soils
243 that exhibit unique NCL, the NCL is not unique for sands and depending on the initial void ratio
244 at specimen preparation, a particular sand can have an infinite number of parallel NCL with
245 different N values (Ishihara 1993; Pestana and Whittle 1995; Jefferies and Been 2006).
246 Therefore, the N values (in Eq. [1]) are not included in Table 1. Although NCL is required to
247 estimate ec and ψcs for the application of Equation [6], in most cases (particularly for the
248 liquefaction case histories discussed earlier), the in-situ void ratio (ec) was directly (by sampling
249 or by assuming for parametric studies) or indirectly (from the interpretation of in-situ tests)
250 available.
251 Figure 2 shows the decrease of su(critical)/σ'nc with increasing ψcs obtained from Equation [6] for
252 some of the sands presented in Table 1. Laboratory data from TxC tests on the same sands
253 (Castro 1969; Dennis 1988; Been et al. 1991; Tsukamoto et al. 2009) are also included in this
254 figure. The comparison demonstrates the ability of the critical state approach (Eq. 6) to capture
255 the trends in strength ratio observed in each set of laboratory data. According to Figure 2,
256 su(critical)/σ'nc decreases more rapidly for Erksak 330/0.7 sand because of its flatter CSL (low
257 λcs), however as the CSL becomes steeper (see Table 1 for these sands), su(critical)/σ'nc exhibits a
258 more gentle decrease with increasing ψcs. Figure 2 also includes the su(critical)/σ'nc and ψcs data
259 from the liquefaction flow failure case histories discussed earlier. These data show that soils with
260 greater shearing-compressibility (λcs) can be deposited at much larger ψcs (looser) while
261 providing the same or even greater su(critical)/σ'nc. For example, the silty sand in the North dyke
262 of Wachusett dam (λcs ≈ 0.10) was more compressible in shear than the gold tailings at the
263 Merriespruit tailings dam (λcs = 0.033). As a result, despite the looser state of the North dyke
264 silty sand (ψcs = 0.07 at North dyke compared to ψcs = 0.06 at Merriespruit tailings dam), a
12
Page 13 of 45
265 greater su(critical)/σ'nc was mobilized at the North dyke of Wachusett dam. Therefore, for a given
266 ψcs, a soil with a steeper CSL (being more compressible in shear) will mobilize a greater
267 su(critical)/σ'nc.
268 Figure 3 illustrates the excellent agreement of Equation [6] applied for the Lower San Fernando
269 Dam sand with the su(critical)/σ'nc boundaries of Baziar and Dobry (1995) and Olson and Stark
270 (2003). The slight concave upward curvature of the su(critical) – σ'nc relationship from Equation
271 [6] reflects the steeper NCL compared to the CSL for this sand that leads to the increasing
272 su(critical)/σ'nc (slope of the tangent to the su(critical) - σ'nc curve) with increasing σ'nc (the
273 “reverse behaviour” which will be explained later). As shown in Figure 3, the su(critical)
274 estimated from Equation [6] for some of the other case histories are also within the
275 su(critical)/σ'nc boundaries of Baziar and Dobry (1995) and Olson and Stark (2003).
276 Figure 4 presents su(critical)/σ'nc estimates from Equation [6] versus relative density (Dr) using
277 CSL parameters for some of the sands presented in Table 1. These relationships agree very well
278 with the ranges from TxC tests reported by Olson and Stark (2003), further validating Equation
279 [6]. In fact, the relationship for Tia Juana silty sand (at FC = 12%) lies very close to the FC =
280 12% upper bound curve of Olson and Stark (2003) for silty sands.
281 As demonstrated in Figure 4, the su(critical)/σ'nc - Dr data from DSS tests on clean Toyoura sand
282 (Yoshimine et al. 1999) also exhibit good agreement with the estimates of Equation [6]. For
283 clean sands (Lower San Fernando Dam, Ottawa banding, Sacramento River, and Toyoura sands),
284 these relationships approach vertical asymptotes at Dr < 40%. However, for Tia Juana silty sand
285 (as well as Olson and Stark’s boundaries for silty sands with 12% < FC < 50%) and Lagunillas
286 sandy silt a vertical asymptote is reached at greater Dr (> 50%). This indicates the role of fines in
287 producing large Dr with little contribution to the load bearing fabric of the soil and thus
13
288 producing smaller values of su(critical)/σ'nc. As a result, the range of variability of su(critical)/σ'nc
289 becomes smaller (< 0.05) for loose silty sands (Dr < 40%).
290 Finally, Figure 5 presents the very close agreement of su(critical)/σ'nc mobilized in DSS tests on
291 Fraser River Delta sand (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996) with those estimated by Equation [6]
292 using the sands CSL parameters. In summary, the comparisons provided in Figures 2 to 5 as well
293 as in the liquefaction flow failure case histories described earlier demonstrate that Equation [6]
294 captures important aspects of real soil behavior and provides a reasonable estimate of
295 su(critical)/σ'nc. The application of Equation [6] for estimating su(critical) requires precise
296 determination of in-situ void ratio (using ground freezing) as well as the CSL. The CSL can be
297 established from laboratory shear tests on reconstituted loose specimens of field representative
298 soil samples. It is critically important that the CSL is defined from data at which shear stress,
299 effective stress, and sample void ratio remain unequivocally constant, corresponding to complete
300 particle rearrangement, reorientation, and any particle crushing. In fact, because of the failure to
301 meet these conditions, the undrained shear strength measured at the end of direct simple shear or
302 triaxial shear tests often suggests fabric dependency (Vaid et al. 1999; Murthy et al. 2007; Della
303 et al. 2011) which cannot be considered as su(critical). Accordingly, the results of shear tests
304 should be carefully evaluated in order to ensure that a true critical state is reached.
305 There are a number of experimental limitations and difficulties in determining the correct CSL
306 that warrants careful consideration. The critical state generally takes place at large shear strains
307 (> 15%) which can exceed the shear strain capacity of most laboratory shear equipment (triaxial,
308 direct simple shear, and hollow cylindrical torsion shear). Undrained shear tests reach critical
309 state at relatively smaller shear strains compared to drained shear tests, and therefore undrained
310 shear tests of fully saturated loose specimens are preferred for critical state testing (Jefferies and
14
Page 15 of 45
311 Been 2006). Accurate measurement of specimen void ratio is also necessary for precise location
312 of the CSL. Sample freezing can be used for accurate measurement of the void ratio at the end of
313 the test. In this technique subsequent to the completion of triaxial shearing the specimen drainage
314 lines are closed in order to preserve all moisture during specimen disassembly. The cell pressure
315 is gradually released, the cell fluid is then drained, and the saturated specimen is placed in a
316 fridge to freeze. After the specimen is completely frozen (which could take several hours), the
317 specimen is dismantled and the latex membrane is cut and removed from the specimen along
318 with the specimen top and bottom caps as well as any latex discs used to develop lubricated ends.
319 The frozen sample is subsequently weight and placed in the oven to dry. This allows the
320 calculation of specimen moisture content after shearing and therefore an accurate estimate of
321 specimen’s final void ratio. Extreme care should be exercised in order to ensure that all ice and
322 soil fragments are collected upon the removal of the latex membrane and specimen caps so that
323 the total weight of the saturated specimen is precisely measured.
324 One of the major limitations of most laboratory shear tests for critical state studies is that at large
325 shear strains the specimen may bifurcate into a localized shear band (Finno et al. 1996) and only
326 the portion of the specimen within the shear band will be at the critical state. Therefore, global
327 measurements of stress and volume change will not be representative of the critical state
328 behavior within the shear band (Sadrekarimi and Olson 2010). However, as shown by Desrues et
329 al. (1996), in loose samples the global void ratio would be very close to the void ratio of the
330 shear band. In triaxial tests, lubricated and enlarged end platens are essential for improving
331 specimen uniformity at large axial strains which are often required to reach critical states. The
332 measured data should be corrected for membrane penetration and cross-sectional area changes
333 during the test.
15
334 Although Equation [6] is developed based on sand behaviour and CSL from monotonic shear
335 tests (Fig.1), it is also applicable to describe su(critical) resulting from post-cyclic monotonic
336 loadings as liquefaction flow failure triggered by cyclic loading in the laboratory arrives at the
337 same CSL as monotonic loading of contractive sands (Castro et al. 1982; Dobry et al. 1984; Vaid
338 and Sivathayalan 2000; Naeini and Baziar 2004). In addition, as the correct CSL is independent
339 of stress path, mode of shear (Infante-Sedano 1998; Wong 1999; Jefferies and Been 2006), and
340 shear strain rate (Infante-Sedano 1998; Sassa 2000; Sadrekarimi and Olson 2012), therefore
341 su(critical)/σ'nc obtained from Equation [6] is also independent of these variables. Note that
342 Equation [6] implicitly assumes that failure is undrained. If drainage occurs in the failure zone,
343 the calculated su(critical) would be much smaller than the actual mobilized shear strength. Other
344 phenomena such as void redistribution, pore water pressure migration, water layer formation,
345 and strain localization (e.g., Kokusho and Kojima 2002; Kulasingam et al. 2004; Seid-Karbasi
346 and Byrne 2007; Malvick et al. 2008) may cause a large reduction in su(critical) mobilized in
347 field flow failures. These phenomena also occur to some extent in laboratory shear tests (e.g.,
348 Casagrande and Rendon 1978; Gilbert and Marcuson 1988; Boulanger and Truman 1996;
349 Ayoubian and Robertson 1998; Batiste et al. 2004; Sadrekarimi and Olson 2010), and it is
350 difficult to account for their role in these or in-situ field tests. More research is needed to
351 explicitly quantify such effects and their potential impact on field and laboratory studies of
352 liquefied and critical shear strengths.
353 In summary, because of the aforementioned testing difficulties (limited strain capacity, strain
354 localization, void redistribution) in locating the correct CSL and large expenses associated with
355 ground freezing and undisturbed sampling for determining the in-situ void ratio, the critical state
356 method and Equation [6] should be reserved for important structures for which the risk of failure
16
Page 17 of 45
357 could be significant. The information obtained from Equation [6] could be a valuable addition to
358 current approaches based primarily on empirical correlations. Consideration should be given to
359 the limitations of each approach when evaluating liquefied strengths.

360
361 Parametric Study
362 The significance of each of the parameters of Equation [6] and their impact on su(critical) are
363 discussed in the following paragraphs.
364
365 Influence of Critical State Friction Angle, φ'cs
366 Critical state friction angle (φ'cs) typically decreases up to an effective stress of about 150 kPa,
367 and remains constant (assuming that no particle damage or crushing occurs) at about 37o to 30o
368 thereafter, independent of ec, σ'nc, and mode of shear (Bolton 1986; Sadrekarimi and Olson
369 2011a; Andersen and Schjetne 2012). The relative percentage of error by using the average φ'cs =
370 32o of the sands presented in Table 1 (instead of using the actual φ'cs of the sand) in estimating
371 su(critical)/σ'nc from Equation [6] is calculated as below:
372
 su (critical )   s (critical ) 
  −  u 
373 [7] Error (% ) =
 ′
σ nc φcs′  ′
σ nc φ cs′ = 32 o
× 100 =
( )
tan (φcs′ ) − tan 32o
× 100
 su (critical )  tan (φcs′ )
 
 σ ′
nc φ ′
cs
374
375 Figure 6 illustrates that the assumption of an average φ'cs = 32o could produce su(critical)/σ'nc
376 estimates of (up to) 15% smaller or larger than the actual value. For example, without
377 experimental data the assumption of φ'cs = 32o would result in su(critical)/σ'nc of 9% less than the
17
378 actual su(critical)/σ'nc for Fraser River Delta sand. Therefore, unless laboratory data are available,
379 φ'cs = 32o could be used to obtain estimates of su(critical)/σ'nc from Equation [6] that would be
380 within ±15% of the actual value.

381
382 Effect of Depositional Method and Sand Fabric
383 Figure 2 illustrated that ψcs has a considerable impact on su(critical)/σ'nc. Therefore, according to
384 Equations [1] and [3] besides ecs, ec and thus N (ec at σ'n = 1 kPa) also have large impact on
385 su(critical)/σ'nc. The magnitude of N depends on sand fabric developed during specimen
386 preparation method in the laboratory, or the in-situ depositional process (fluvial, alluvial, moist
387 dumped, hydraulically transported) in the field. The significance of N highlights the importance
388 of replicating in-situ sand fabric and void ratio, and the influence of sample disturbance in
389 laboratory element tests for measuring su(critical). However, a particular sand layer which has
390 been formed at the same depositional environment (eolian, fluvial or alluvial) would have a
391 unique NCL, corresponding to the particular depositional process, and thus su(critical)/σ'nc would
392 only change with the depth of the deposit (σ'nc).
393
394 Effect of In-situ Void Ratio and Sample Disturbance
395 Because of the relatively flat CSL of sandy soils, even relatively small changes in void ratio
396 could result in a several fold change in the calculated su(critical), thereby making Equation [6]
397 very sensitive to the accurate measurement of in-situ void ratio. On the other hand, in-situ void
398 ratio is the most difficult parameter to define with adequate accuracy. Determination of the in-
399 situ void ratio of cohesionless soils requires minimum sampling disturbance. Among soil
400 sampling techniques, ground freezing and coring provides relatively undisturbed samples of
18
Page 19 of 45
401 cohesionless soils for determining in-situ void ratio (Hofman et al. 2000). Considerable care
402 should be exercised in order to ensure sample quality during sampling, transportation, and
403 storage.
404
405 Effect of σ'nc and the relative slopes of NCL and CSL
406 The variation of su(critical)/σ'nc with σ'nc closely depends on whether the NCL is flatter, parallel,
407 or steeper than the CSL for a particular sand. According to Figure 1b, ψcs remains constant only
408 if NCL and CSL are parallel and subsequently a constant su(critical)/σ'nc (according to Eq. [6])
409 would ensue. The concept of a constant su(critical)/σ'nc was first introduced by Rutledge (1947)
410 to describe the undrained shear strength of clays normalized by the preconsolidation pressure.
411 For normally consolidated clays, su(critical)/σ'nc is typically about 0.22 (Terzaghi et al. 1996).
412 This is because of the large compressibility of clay soils that makes NCL roughly parallel to CSL
413 (Rutledge 1947; Henkel 1960; Muir Wood 1990), and thus ψcs and su(critical)/σ'nc remain
414 constant according to Equation [6]. As shown in Figure 7, which compares Cc and λcs for the
415 sands of Table 1, Lagunillas sandy silt, and Tia Juana silty sand have similar Cc and λcs and a
416 constant su(critical)/σ'nc applies for these sands (e.g, see Figure 8 for Tia Juana silty sand). This
417 also agrees with the findings of Olson and Stark (2003) that for silty sands with fines content of
418 12% or more, the NCL is roughly parallel to the CSL. Particle damage as a result of large
419 stresses (Verdugo and Ishihara 1996; Yamamuro and Lade 1996) and/or large shear
420 displacements (Coop 1990; Sadrekarimi and Olson 2011b) also contributes to increasing
421 compressibility and parallel NCL and CSL.
422 For incompressible quartz sands however, CSL is typically steeper than NCL, and thus as
423 demonstrated in Figure 1b, with increasing σ'nc the distance between the NCL and CSL (= ψcs)
19
424 increases and su(critical)/σ'nc decreases (Bolton 1986; Verdugo and Ishihara 1996; Fannin et al.
425 2005; Chakraborty and Salgado 2010). This is typically called “normal sand behavior”.
426 According to Figure 7, Hokksund, Monterey #0, Ottawa, and Ticino sands have CSL steeper
427 than NCL, and the normal behaviour of decreasing su(critical)/σ'nc with increasing σ'nc applies for
428 these sands (e.g., Ticino sand in Fig. 8). On the other hand, Fraser River Delta, Lower San
429 Fernando Dam, and Toyoura sands have NCLs steeper than their CSLs and exhibit a “reverse
430 behaviour” of decreasing contractiveness (ψcs) and increasing su(critical)/σ'nc with increasing
431 σ'nc. This is illustrated for the Lower San Fernando Dam sand in Figure 8. Similar reverse
432 behaviors have been also reported by other investigators (Dawson et al. 1998; Bobei et al. 2009;
433 Lade and Yamamuro 2011) for other sands.
434
435 Influence of Sand Shearing - Compressibility (λcs)
436 The above discussion and in particular Figure 8 indicate the significance of sand compressibility
437 and λcs. In the following a more in depth discussion of the impact of λcs is presented. Figure 9
438 compares CSLs of clean Hokksund and Sacramento River sands of Table 1. Hokksund sand has
439 a steeper CSL and would undergo larger compression during drained shear than Sacramento
440 River sand. The CSLs of these two sands intersect at σ'n = 21.5 kPa, and ec = 0.858. At similar ec
441 and σ'nc below the intersection point (ec < 0.858) in Figure 9a (state A), a Hokksund sand
442 specimen is at a looser state (greater ψcs), would undergo larger excess pore water pressure
443 generation, and thus mobilize a smaller su(critical) compared to a Sacramento River sand
444 specimen. On the other hand, at similar ec and σ'nc above the intersection point (ec > 0.858), a
445 very loose Sacramento River sand specimen (sand A in Fig. 9b) by even being at a relatively
446 denser state (ψcs = 0.042) than a Hokksund sand specimen (ψcs = 0.050) with a greater shearing-
20
Page 21 of 45
447 compressibility, develops greater excess pore water pressure and mobilize a smaller su(critical).
448 In either case (whether ec is above or below the intersection void ratio), even though both
449 Hokksund sand specimen B and Sacramento River sand specimen A are at similar ψcs (0.020 in
450 Fig. 9a or 0.042 in Fig. 9b), a larger excess pore water pressure would develop during undrained
451 shear in the Sacramento River sand specimen, and thus a larger su(critical) would be mobilized in
452 Hokksund sand. In other words, similar su(critical) would mobilize in both sands only if the
453 Hokksund sand specimen was at a looser state (i.e. sand C at ψcs = 0.027 compared to the
454 Sacramento River sand specimen A at ψcs = 0.027 in Fig. 9a, or Hokksund sand C at ψcs = 0.060
455 compared to the Sacramento River sand specimen A at ψcs = 0.042 in Fig. 9b).
456 At similar liquefaction susceptibility potential (ψcs) and σ'nc, a sand which is more compressible
457 in shear (e.g. Hokksund sand in Fig. 9) would undergo less σ'n reduction and exhibit a larger
458 su(critical) than a sand with a relatively smaller shearing-compressibility (e.g. Sacramento River
459 sand in Fig. 9). In other words, sands with soft, friable or flaky particles compress more and
460 reach denser packing (ec) during compression, and as a result become less vulnerable to
461 catastrophic liquefaction flow failure than less compressible cohesionless soils at similar critical
462 state parameters. In support of this discussion, Hird and Hassona (1990) show that at similar ψcs
463 (= 0.1) the mobilized su(critical) increased from about 0 kPa to 17 kPa for Leighton Buzzard
464 sand when its shearing-compressibility was increased by adding 17% mica.
465 Accordingly, although ψcs could be used for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility and
466 demarcating sand samples which would strain-soften from those which would not, ψcs is not a
467 sufficient parameter to characterize su(critical) and describe the severity of liquefaction flow
468 failure. For post-liquefaction stability analysis and the evaluation of whether a liquefaction flow
469 failure could occur or not, driving stress on a slope should be compared with sand su(critical)
21
470 which is controlled by shear-induced excess pore water pressure generation and sand shearing-
471 compressibility (λcs). Sand shearing-compressibility reflects sand intrinsic characteristics
472 (gradation, FC, mineralogy, grain shape, and particle compressibility) and Equation [6] combines
473 these characteristics with specimen properties (ec, σ'nc and ψcs) to describe su(critical). In fact,
474 Figure 10 demonstrates that the different su(critical)/σ'nc – ψcs relationships obtained by Equation
475 [6] for the sands presented in Figure 2 as well as those from field liquefaction flow failures
476 become less sensitive to differences in λcs (sand type) if plotted versus a state-compressibility
477 ratio (ψcs/λcs). Using ψcs/λcs incorporates the effect of shearing-compressibility and potential for
478 pore water pressure generation during undrained loading. Thus ψcs/λcs is a more comprehensive
479 parameter that includes both the effects of soil shearing-compressibility (λcs) and fabric density
480 (ψcs) to describe soil susceptibility to liquefaction flow failures. This implies that while high
481 compressible sands (large λcs) would undergo large contractive volume change in drained shear,
482 they may not present significant strain-softening behavior or brittleness in undrained shear.
483 Equation [6] and the role of ψcs/λ cs can be used to describe the behavior of carbonate sands.
484 These sands are composed of considerable amounts of calcium carbonate and largely exist in
485 tropical shallow sea environments. In comparison to quartz sands, carbonate sands have high
486 initial void ratios (large ψcs) because of their angular particles and large intraparticle voids
487 (Kwag et al. 1999). Carbonate sands also present steep CSL by the damage of their delicate shell
488 particles and compressible mineralogy (Coop 1990). As a result, although these sands may have
489 very loose fabrics (large ψcs), compared to relatively less compressible quartz sands, carbonate
490 sands may not be as brittle and develop relatively larger su(critical) at similar states (ψcs). In
491 support of this discussion, su(critical)/σ'nc are compared for Ottawa and Dogs Bay (a biogenic
492 carbonate sand) sands. The normal compression and critical state line parameters of Dogs Bay
22
Page 23 of 45
493 carbonate sand are N = 1.8421, CC = 0.021 (for σ'nc < 700 kPa), Γcs = 3.415, λcs = 0.787, and φ'cs
494 = 40o (Coop 1990). Accordingly, at σ'nc = 150 kPa for example: ec = 1.796, ecs = 1.702, and
495 according to Equation [6] a much larger su(critical)/σ'nc = 0.637 would be mobilized in Dogs Bay
496 carbonate sand (because of its much steeper CSL) compared to su(critical)/σ'nc ≈ 0 in Ottawa
497 sand. This is one of the potential mechanisms for the lower liquefaction susceptibility (),
498 relatively larger strength, and bearing capacity of carbonate sands compared to less compressible
499 quartz sands (Brandes 2011; Stark et al. 2012).
500
501 Conclusions
502 An analytical relationship for estimating post-liquefaction strength, su(critical) of sand was
503 presented in this paper based on the principles of critical state soil mechanics. Critical state soil
504 mechanics was chosen to fundamentally combine sand intrinsic characteristics (friction angle
505 and shearing-compressibility characterized by the critical state line slope) and initial sand state
506 (initial void ratio and effective stress, characterized by the critical state parameter) to estimate
507 su(critical). Based on data collected from case histories of field liquefaction flow failures and
508 laboratory experimental data, it was shown that sand behavior can be evaluated in a critical state
509 soil mechanics context and the proposed relationship (Eq. [6]) is valid for liquefiable sands.
510 According to this relationship, sand shearing-compressibility, critical state parameter, and
511 effective stress play major roles in su(critical), whereas su(critical) is less sensitive to the
512 variations of the critical state friction angle. Sand fabric and sample preparation method have
513 significant impact on the in-situ void ratio and thus su(critical). In order to estimate su(critical) of
514 field soils, high quality undisturbed samples that closely replicate the in-situ sand void ratio
515 should be used. In contrast to clays, su(critical)/σ'nc is not constant for a specific sand and
23
516 depending on sand shearing-compressibility it may decrease (for less compressible quartz sands),
517 or exhibit a reverse behavior and increase (for compressible sands) with increasing σ'nc. As
518 explained in the paper, greater su(critical) is mobilized in sands with larger shearing-
519 compressibility at the same critical state parameter. Accordingly, the application of the critical
520 state parameter (ψcs) alone for comparing the undrained strength of different sands could be
521 misleading as sand shearing-compressibility (λcs) also controls su(critical). Therefore, ψcs is not
522 sufficient to characterize and describe sand potential for liquefaction flow failure. The critical
523 state parameter method should be only used for identifying strain-softening sands (ψcs > 0) and
524 the evaluation of su(critical) for a particular sand deposit rather than among several different
525 sands. A state-compressibility ratio (ψcs/λcs) is introduced in this study that is a more inclusive
526 parameter for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility, post-liquefaction strength, and the likelihood
527 for the occurrence of a catastrophic liquefaction flow failure.
528
529 In summary, although the outcome of this study does not provide any direct solution to any
530 stability problem, it illustrates the significance of soil shearing-compressibility (λcs) in the failure
531 of cohesionless soils. Taking into account sand shearing-compressibility would help to devise
532 more effective ground improvement strategies to mitigate post-liquefaction hazards at sites
533 containing compressible sand deposits. More importantly, the current empirical relationships for
534 liquefaction evaluation and the estimation of in-situ sand liquefied strength from in-situ
535 penetration resistance do not explicitly address the effect of sand shearing-compressibility.
536 Therefore, their application for compressible sands, sands that exhibit reverse behavior, sands
537 with angular particle shapes, or compressible fine particles need to be re-evaluated based on sand
538 shearing-compressibility.
24
Page 25 of 45
References
Andersen, K. H. and Schjetne, K. 2012. Data base of friction angles of sand and consolidation
characteristics of sand, silt, and clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, posted ahead of print September 19, 2012.
Ayoubian, A. and Robertson, P. K. 1998. Void ratio redistribution in undrained triaxial extension
tests on Ottawa sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 351 – 359.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Chionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E. 1982. Design
parameters for sands from CPT. In Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, ESOPT II, Amsterdam, Holland, pp. 425 – 432.
Batiste, S. N., Alshibli, K. A., Sture, S., and Lankton, M. 2004. Shear band characterization of
triaxial sand specimens using computed tomography. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
ASTM, 27(6): 1 – 10.
Baziar, M.H., and Dobry, R. 1995. Residual strength and large deformation potential of loose
silty sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvirionmental Engineering, ASCE,
121(12): 896 - 906.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G., and Hachey, J. 1991. The critical state of sands. Geotechnique, 41(3):
365 - 381.
Bobei, D. C., Lo, S. R., Wanatowski, D., Gnanendran, C. T., and Rahman, M. M. 2009.
Modified state parameter for characterizing static liquefaction of sand with fines.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(3): 281 – 295.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique, 36(1): 65 - 78.
Boulanger, R. W. and Truman, S. P. 1996. Void redistribution in sand under post-earthquake
loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33: 829 – 834.
Brandes, H. G. 2011. Simple shear behavior of calcareous and quartz sands. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 29(1): 113 – 126.
Brandon, T.L., Rose, A.T., and Duncan, J.M. 2006. Drained and undrained strength
interpretation for low-plasticity silts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 132(2): 250-257.
Casagrande, A. 1965. Role of the 'calculated risk' in earthwork and foundation engineering.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the ASCE,
91(SM4): 1 - 40.
25
Casagrande, A., and Rendon, F. 1978. Gyratory shear apparatus design, testing procedures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Technical
Report S-78-15.
Castro, G. 1969. Liquefaction of sands, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Castro, G., Enos, J.L., France, J.W., and Poulos, S.J. 1982. Liquefaction induced by cyclic
loading, Report NSF/CEE-82018, Washington D.C.
Chakraborty, T., and Salgado, R. 2010. Dilatancy and shear strength of sand at low confining
pressures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136(3):
527 – 532.
Coop, M.R. 1990. The mechanics of uncemented carbonate sands. Geotechnique, 40(4): 607 -
626.
Dawson, R. F., Morgenstern, N. R., and Stokes, A. W. 1998. Liquefaction flowslides in Rocky
Mountain coal mine waste dumps. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(2): 328 – 343.
Della, N., Arab, A., and Belkhatir, M. 2011. Influence of specimen-reconstituting method on the
undrained response of loose granular soil under static loading. Acta Mechanica Sinica,
27(5):796 – 802.
Dennis, N.D. 1988. Influence of specimen preparation techniques and testing procedures on
undrained steady state shear strength. In Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock,
ASTM STP 977. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 642 -
654.
Desrues, J., Chambon, R., Mokni, M., and Mazerolle, F. 1996. Void ratio evolution inside shear
bands in triaxial sand specimens studied by computed tomography. Geotechnique, 46(3):
529 - 546.
Dobry, R., Mohamad, R., Dakoulas, P., and Gazetas, G. 1984. Liquefaction evaluations of earth
dams - a new approach. In 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., San Francisco, California, pp. 333 - 348.
Fannin, R. J., Eliadorani, A. and Wilkinson, J. M. T. 2005. Shear strength of cohesionless soils at
low stress, Geotechnique, 55(6): 467-478.
Finno, R.J., Harris, W., Mooney, M., and Viggiani, G. 1996. Strain localization and undrained
steady state of sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(6): 462 - 473.
26
Page 27 of 45
Fourie, A. B., and Tshabalala, L. 2005. Initiation of static liquefaction and the role of K-0
consolidation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(3): 892-906.
Fourie, A. B., Blight, G. E., and Papageorgiou, G. 2001. Static liquefaction as a possible
explanation for the Merriespruit tailings dam failure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
38(4): 707-719.
Fourie, A. B., and Papageorgiou, G. 2001. Defining an appropriate steady state line for
Merriespruit gold tailings. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38(4): 695 - 706.
Gilbert, P. and Marcuson, W. 1988. Density Variation in Specimens Subjected to Cyclic and
Monotonic Loads. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(1): 1–20.
Henkel, D.J. 1960. The shear strength of saturated remolded clays. In Shear Strength of Cohesive
Soils. American Society of Civil Engineers, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 533 - 554.
Hird, C. C., and Hassona, F. A. K. 1990. Some factors affecting the liquefaction and flow of
saturated sands in laboratory tests. Engineering Geology, 28: 149 – 170.
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco.
Infante-Sedano, J.A. 1998. Constant volume ring shear tests for sand. M. Sc. thesis, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa.
Ishihara, K. 1993. Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique, 43(3): 351 -
415.
Jefferies, M., and Been, K. 2006. Soil liquefaction - a critical state approach. Taylor & Francis,
New York.
Kokusho, T., and Kojima, T. 2002. Mechanism for postliquefaction water film generation in
layered sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
128(2): 129–137.
Kulasingam, R., Malvick, E. J., Boulanger, R. W., and Kutter, B. L. 2004. Strength loss and
localization at silt interlayers in slopes of liquefied sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 130(11): 1192 – 1202.
Kwag, J. M., Ochiai, H., and Yasufuku, N. 1999. Yielding stress characteristics of carbonate
sand in relation to individual particle fragmentation strength. Engineering for Calcareous
Sediments, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 79 – 86.
27
Lade, P.V., and Yamamuro, J.A. 2011. Evaluation of static liquefaction potential of silty sand
slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(2): 247-264.
Malvick, E., Kutter, B., and Boulanger, R. 2008. Postshaking shear strain localization in a
centrifuge model of a saturated sand slope. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(2): 164–174.

Mitchell, D. E. 1984. Liquefaction slides in hydraulically placed sands. Proceedings of 4th
International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto.
Muhammad, K. 2012. Case history-based analysis of liquefaction in sloping ground, in:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, pp.
489.
Muir Wood, D. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England.
Murthy, T. G., Loukidis, D., Carraro, J. A. H., Prezzi, M., and Salgado, R. 2007. Undrained
monotonic response of clean and silty sands. Geotechnique, 57(3): 273 – 288.
Naeini, S.A., and Baziar, M.H. 2004. Effect of fines content on steady-state strength of mixed
and layered samples of a sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(3): 181 -
187.
Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. 2002. Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case
histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(3): 629-647.
Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. 2003. Use of laboratory data to confirm yield and liquefied strength
ratio concepts. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(6): 1164-1184.
Olson, S. M., Stark, T. D., and Walton, W. H. 2000. 1907 static liquefaction flow failure of
North Dike of Wachusett Dam. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 126(12): 1184 – 1193.
Pestana, J.M., and Whittle, A.J. 1995. Compression model for cohesionless soils. Geotechnique,
45(4): 611-631.
Pillai, V. S., and Salgado, F. M. 1994. Post-liquefaction stability and deformation analysis of
Duncan Dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(6): 967 – 978.
Pillai, V. S., and Stewart, R. A. 1994. Evaluation of liquefaction potential of foundation soils at
Duncan Dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(6): 951 – 966.
28
Page 29 of 45
Plewes, H. D., O'Neil, G. D., McRoberts, E. C., and Chan, W. K. 1989. Liquefaction
considerations for Suncor tailings ponds. 2nd Alberta Dam Safety Seminar, pp. 61 - 89.
Plewes, H.D., Pillai, V.S., Morgan, M.R., and Kilpatrick, B.L. 1994. In-situ sampling, density
measurements, and testing of foundation soils at Duncan dam. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 31(6): 927 - 938.

Poulos, S.J. 1981. The steady state of deformation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 107(GT5): 553 - 563.
Poulos, S.J., Castro, G., and France, J.W. 1985. Liquefaction evaluation procedure. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111(6): 772-792.
Robertson, P., Wride, C.E., List, B.R., Atukorala, U., Biggar, K.W., Byrne, P.M., Campanella,
R.G., Cathro, D.C., Chan, D.H., Czajewski, K., Finn, W.D.L., Gu, W.H., Hammamji, Y.,
Hofmann, B.A., Howie, J.A., Hughes, J., Imrie, A.S., Konrad, J.M., Kupper, A., Law, T.,
Lord, E.R.F., Monahan, P.A., Morgenstern, N.R., Phillips, R., Piche, R., Plewes, H.D.,
Scott, D., Sego, D.C., Sobkowicz, J., Stewart, R.A., Watts, B.D., Woeller, D.J., Youd,
T.L., and Zavodni, Z. 2000. The Canadian Liquefaction Experiment: an overview.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(3): 499-504.
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests: Part I
(sand). Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 718-733.
Rutledge, P.C. 1947. Review of cooperative triaxial research program, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Sadrekarimi, A. 2009. Development of a new ring shear apparatus for investigating the critical
state of sands. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2009. A new ring shear device to measure the large
displacement shearing behavior of sands. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 32(3):
197 - 208.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S. M. 2010. Shear band formation observed in ring shear tests on
sandy soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136(2):
366-375.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2011a. Critical state friction angle of sands. Geotechnique,
61(9): 771 - 783.
29
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2011b. Yield strength ratios, critical strength ratios, and
brittleness of sandy soils from laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechincal Journal, 48(3):
493 - 510.
Sadrekarimi, A. and Olson, S. M. 2012. Effect of sample preparation method on critical state
behavior of sands. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 35(4).

Sassa, K. 2000. Mechanism of flows in granular soils. In International Conference on
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (GeoEng 2000). Technomic Publishing
Company, Inc., Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1671 - 1702.
Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
Seed, H.B., Makdisi, F.I., Lee, K.L., and Idriss, I.M. 1975. Dynamic analysis of the slide in the
Lower San Fernando Dam during the earthquake of February 9, 1971. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 101(9): 889 - 911.
Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F. 1990. SPT-Based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength. In H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, Edited by J.M.
Duncan, May 1990, pp. 351-376.
Seid-Karbasi, M., and Byrne, P. M. 2007. Seismic liquefaction, lateral spreading, and flow
slides: a numerical investigation into void redistribution. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
44: 873 – 890.
Sladen, J. A., D'Hollander, R. D., Krahn, J. and Mitchell, D. E. 1985. Back analysis of the
Nerlerk berm liquefaction slides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22(4): 579 – 588.
Stark, T.D., and Mesri, G. 1992. Undrained shear strength of liquefied sands for stability
analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 118(11): 1727-1747.
Stark, N., Wilkens, R., Ernstsen, V. B., Lambers-Huesmann, M., Stegmann, S. and Kopf, A.
2012. Geotechnical properties of sandy seafloors and the consequences for dynamic
penetrometers interpretations: quartz sand versus carbonate sand. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 30(1): 1- 14.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice, Wiley, 3rd
Edition, 592 p.
Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., and Harada, K. 2009. Evaluation of Undrained Shear Strength of
Soils from Field Penetration Tests. Soils and Foundations, 49(1): 11-23.
30
Page 31 of 45
Vaid, Y.P., and Sivathayalan, S. 1996. Static and cyclic liquefaction potential of Fraser River
delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(2): 281-
289.
Vaid, Y. P., and Sivathayalan, S. 2000. Fundamental factors affecting liquefaction susceptibility
of sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(3): 592 – 606.

Vaid, Y. P., Sivathayalan, S., and Stedman, D. 1999. Influence of specimen-reconstituting
method on the undrained response of sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 22(3): 187 -
195.
Verdugo, R., and Ishihara, K. 1996. The steady state of sandy soils. Soils and Foundations,
36(2): 81 - 91.
Wong, R. C. K. 1999. Mobilized strength components of Athabasca oil sand in triaxial
compression. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(4): 718 – 735.
Yamamuro, J.A., and Lade, P.V. 1996. Drained sand behaviour in axisymmetric tests at high
pressures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(2): 109 - 119.
Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. 1999. Undrained shear strength of clean sands
to trigger flow liquefaction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(5): 891-906.
31
List of Figure Captions

Figure 1: (a) stress paths, (b) stress-strain, and (c) void ratio – σ'n plots from undrained triaxial
compression tests on moist tamped specimens of Illinois River sand (Sadrekarimi 2009)
Figure 2: su(critical)/σ'nc - ψcs curves for several sands with different CSL obtained using
Equation [6], and data points from laboratory shear tests (Castro 1969; Dennis 1988; Been
et al. 1991; Tsukamoto et al. 2009) and liquefaction flow failure case histories (DD:
Duncan Dam; MP: Merriespruit tailings dam; NK: Nerlerk embankment; STI: Suncor Tar
Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam)
Figure 3: su(critical) - σ'nc data from Equation [6] for the liquefaction flow failure case histories
(DD: Duncan Dam; MP: Merriespruit tailings dam; NK: Nerlerk embankment; STI:
Suncor Tar Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam) and the ranges of
su(critical) - σ'nc relationships suggested by Baziar and Dobry (1995) and Olson and Stark
(2003)
Figure 4: su(critical)/σ'nc - Dr relationships estimated from Equation [6] for Lower San Fernando
Dam, Ottawa banding, Sacramento River, silty Tia Juana, and Toyoura sands and
Lagunillas sandy silt , boundaries for clean sands and silty sands from TxC test data
(Olson and Stark 2002), and data from DSS tests on clean Toyoura sand (Yoshimine et al.
1999)
Figure 5: su(critical)/σ'nc mobilized in DSS tests on Fraser River Delta sand (Vaid and
Sivathayalan 1996), and estimated by Equation [6]
Figure 6: Error in estimating su(critical)/σ'nc with φ'cs variations
Figure 7: Cc and λcs for sands of Table 1
32
Page 33 of 45
Figure 8: Effect of sand shearing-compressibility on su(critical)/σ'nc variation with σ'nc based on
Equation [6] and sand parameters of Table 1
Figure 9: Comparison of states and CSLs of Hokksund and Sacramento River sands for: (a) ec <
0.858, and (b) ec > 0.858
Figure 10: State-compressibility ratio (ψcs/λcs) for characterizing su(critical) of sands (DD:
Duncan Dam; MP: Merriespruit tailings dam; NK: Nerlerk embankment; STI: Suncor Tar
Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam)
33
al use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version Page 34 of 45
Table 1: Index properties and critical state characteristics of sands used in this study
Sand D50 (mm) FC (%) emax emin λcs Γcs φ'cs (o) CC Reference
Fraser River Delta sand 0.25 3 – 15 1.00 0.68 0.067 1.11 34.5 0.120 Vaid and Sivathayalan (1996)
Hokksund sand 0.39 0 0.91 0.55 0.054 0.93 32.0 0.018 Been et al. (1986)
Lagunillas sandy silt - 74 1.39 0.77 0.093 1.21 31.0 0.099 Ishihara (1993)
Lower San Fernando Dam sand 0.075 25 – 30 0.72 0.34 0.113 0.82 33.7 0.145 Baziar and Dobry (1995)
Monterey #0 sand 0.37 0 0.82 0.54 0.062 0.964 32.0 0.021 Jefferies and Been (2006)
Sacramento River sand 0.20 0 0.87 0.53 0.039 0.91 33.0 0.014 Riemer et al. (1990)
Tia Juana silty sand 0.16 12 1.10 0.62 0.075 1.026 30.5 0.073 Ishihara (1993)
Ticino sand 0.53 0 0.99 0.57 0.056 0.986 31.0 0.026 Jefferies and Been (2006)
Toyoura sand 0.21 0 0.87 0.66 0.039 1.00 31.0 0.099 Jefferies and Been (2006)
Sand B 0.097 0 0.84 0.50 0.044 0.782 30.0 - Castro (1969)
Erksak 330/0.7 sand 0.330 0 0.75 0.53 0.031 0.820 31.0 - Been et al. (1991)
Ottawa Banding sand 0.19 0 0.82 0.51 0.053 0.86 30.0 0.005 Dennis (1988)
181x149mm (300 x 300 DPI)

compression tests on moist tamped specimens of Illinois River sand (Sadrekarimi 2009)
Figure 1: (a) stress paths, (b) stress-strain, and (c) void ratio – σ'n plots from undrained triaxial
Figure 2: su(critical)/σ'nc - ψcs curves for several sands with different CSL obtained using Equation [6], and
data points from laboratory shear tests (Castro 1969; Dennis 1988; Been et al. 1991; Tsukamoto et al.
2009) and liquefaction flow failure case histories (DD: Duncan Dam; MP: Merriespruit tailings dam; NK:
Nerlerk embankment; STI: Suncor Tar Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam)
89x65mm (600 x 600 DPI)
Page 37 of 45
Figure 3: su(critical) - σ'nc data from Equation [6] for the liquefaction flow failure case histories (DD: Duncan
Dam; MP: Merriespruit tailings dam; NK: Nerlerk embankment; STI: Suncor Tar Island dyke; WD: North
Dyke of Wachusett Dam) and the ranges of su(critical) - σ'nc relationships suggested by Baziar and Dobry
(1995) and Olson and Stark (2003)
88x64mm (600 x 600 DPI)
Figure 4: su(critical)/σ'nc - Dr relationships estimated from Equation [6] for Lower San Fernando Dam,
Ottawa banding, Sacramento River, silty Tia Juana, and Toyoura sands and Lagunillas sandy silt ,
boundaries for clean sands and silty sands from TxC test data (Olson and Stark 2002), and data from DSS
tests on clean Toyoura sand (Yoshimine et al. 1999)
88x64mm (300 x 300 DPI)
88x64mm (300 x 300 DPI)

and estimated by Equation [6]
Figure 5: su(critical)/σ'nc mobilized in DSS tests on Fraser River Delta sand (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996),
88x64mm (300 x 300 DPI)

Figure 6: Error in estimating su(critical)/σ'nc with φ'cs variations
Page 40 of 45
88x84mm (300 x 300 DPI)

Figure 7: Cc and λcs for sands of Table 1
88x63mm (300 x 300 DPI)

and sand parameters of Table 1
Figure 8: Effect of sand shearing-compressibility on su(critical)/σ'nc variation with σ'nc based on Equation [6]
Page 42 of 45
(b) ec > 0.858

88x64mm (300 x 300 DPI)
Figure 9a: Comparison of states and CSLs of Hokksund and Sacramento River sands for: (a) ec < 0.858, and
(b) ec > 0.858

88x64mm (300 x 300 DPI)
Figure 9b: Comparison of states and CSLs of Hokksund and Sacramento River sands for: (a) ec < 0.858, and
Page 44 of 45
Wachusett Dam)
88x64mm (600 x 600 DPI)
Merriespruit tailings dam; NK: Nerlerk embankment; STI: Suncor Tar Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of
Figure 10: State-compressibility ratio (ψcs/λcs) for characterizing su(critical) of sands (DD: Duncan Dam; MP:

Liquefaction On Sands

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Liquefaction On Sands

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page 1 of 45

1 Influence of State and Compressibility on Liquefied Strength of Sands

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University,

5 London, ON. asadrek@uwo.ca

20 strength corresponding to the changes in density and effective confining stress.

35 flow liquefaction. Correct estimation of undrained liquefied shear strength is particularly

37 and building foundations in order to protect them against liquefaction failure.

52 failures in dense sands, or the “reverse behavior” of decreasing strain-softening behavior at

62 the appropriate shear strength for many practical problems.

106 Analytical Framework:

124 equation is established:

126 [4] σ nc ′ 10ψ

129 through the critical state friction angle (φ'cs) as below:

134 sand critical state characteristics (λcs, ψcs, φ'cs):

142 harden in undrained shear.

144 Application of Equation [6] for Estimating su(critical)/σ'nc

147 measured in laboratory element tests.

149 Comparison with liquefaction flow failure case histories:

157 Duncan Dam

169 Merriespruit Tailings Dams

185 (Muhammad 2012).

187 Nerlerk Embankment

202 Sladen et al. (1985).

204 Suncor Tar Island Dyke

216 Tar Island dyke (Olson and Stark 2002).

218 North Dyke of Wachusett Dam

230 the kinetics of failure.

237 aforementioned cases of liquefaction flow failures.

239 Comparison with laboratory element tests:

323 the total weight of the saturated specimen is precisely measured.

333 during the test.

352 liquefied and critical shear strengths.

359 the limitations of each approach when evaluating liquefied strengths.

361 Parametric Study

363 discussed in the following paragraphs.

365 Influence of Critical State Friction Angle, φ'cs

371 su(critical)/σ'nc from Equation [6] is calculated as below:

380 within ±15% of the actual value.

382 Effect of Depositional Method and Sand Fabric

392 only change with the depth of the deposit (σ'nc).

394 Effect of In-situ Void Ratio and Sample Disturbance

421 compressibility and parallel NCL and CSL.

433 Lade and Yamamuro 2011) for other sands.

435 Influence of Sand Shearing - Compressibility (λcs)

471 compressibility (λcs). Sand shearing-compressibility reflects sand intrinsic characteristics

499 quartz sands (Brandes 2011; Stark et al. 2012).

527 for the occurrence of a catastrophic liquefaction flow failure.

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(2): 164–174.

Journal, 31(6): 927 - 938.

behavior of sands. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 35(4).

of sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(3): 592 – 606.

List of Figure Captions

Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam)

Sivathayalan 1996), and estimated by Equation [6]

Figure 6: Error in estimating su(critical)/σ'nc with φ'cs variations

Figure 7: Cc and λcs for sands of Table 1

Figure 8: Effect of sand shearing-compressibility on su(critical)/σ'nc variation with σ'nc based on

Equation [6] and sand parameters of Table 1

0.858, and (b) ec > 0.858

Island dyke; WD: North Dyke of Wachusett Dam)

Sand B 0.097 0 0.84 0.50 0.044 0.782 30.0 - Castro (1969)

181x149mm (300 x 300 DPI)