Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 4515–4532 | Cite as

The effect of clay mineral content on the dynamic response of reconstituted fine grained soil

  • Ersin Arel
  • Akın Önalp
  • Güney C. Olgun
Original Research Paper


Fine grained soils with considerable amount of silt may exhibit sand-like or clay-like behavior depending on several factors such as the amount of fines and clay content, as well as the consistency limits, other variables being kept unchanged. This unpredictable behavior makes silts highly problematic, especially under seismic conditions. This paper describes the laboratory behavior of low plasticity Adapazari silt, known to be highly sensitive to cyclic loading. In the first phase of the basic study reported herein, Adapazari silt was mixed with different percentages of bentonite and kaolin and the behavior of these reconstituted mixtures was investigated in cyclic triaxial and dynamic simple shear tests. The purpose was to identify basic index properties and their threshold values to delineate sand- and clay-like behavior. Such a distinction may make it possible to complement field penetration resistance with appropriate adjustment factors to evaluate the pore pressure development potential, thus the risk of ground failure during an earthquake. The results show that there is a range of liquid limit and plasticity index values above which cyclic failure is significantly mitigated. It can now be stated that silts of intermediate and high plasticity may be deemed of relatively low potential for ground failure during seismic loading.


Reconstituted samples Dynamic response Fine grained soil Bentonite Kaolin Sand-like Clay-like 



This work was conducted carried out by the support of the Turkish Foundation for Scientific and Technical Research TÜBITAK under project 106M042. The senior author is thankful for the encouragement given by the Virginia Tech during her stay in 2010–2011. Special thanks are due to Professor James. R. Martin for his support during the preparation of this paper.


  1. ASTM D6528 (2007) standard test method for consolidated undrained direct simple shear testing of cohesive soilsGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D5311 (2011) Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soilGoogle Scholar
  3. Bol E, Onalp A, Arel E, Sert S, Ozocak A (2010) Liquefaction of silts: the Adapazari criteria. Bull Earthq Eng 8:859–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2004) Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays. Report UCD/CGM 04/01, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulanger RW, Meyers MW, Mejia LH, Idriss IM (1998) Behavior of a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Can Geotech J 35:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(9):1165–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray JD, Sancio RB, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A, Youd TL, Stewart JP, Seed RB, Cetin KO, Bol E, Baturay MB, Christensen C, Karadayilar T (2004) Subsurface characterization at ground failure sites in Adapazari, Turkey. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BS1377 (1990) Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobry R, Ladd R, Yokel F, Chung R, Powell D (1982) Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method. NBS Building Science Series 138. National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Donahue JL, Bray JD, Riemer RM (2007) The liquefaction susceptibility, resistance and response of silty and clayey soils. USGS Research Report, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. EERInstitute, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique 43(3):351–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koester JP (1992) The influence of test procedure on correlation of Atterberg limits with liquefaction in fine-grained soils. Geotech Test J ASTM 15(4):352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kramer SL, Huang YM, Greenfield MW (2011) Performance based assessment of liquefaction hazards. In: Proceedings of geotechnics for catastrophic flooding events, Taylor & Francis, London, vol 1, pp 17–26Google Scholar
  16. Onalp A, Arel E, Bol E (2001) A general assessment of the effects of 1999 earthquake on the soil-structure interaction in Adapazari. XV ICSMFE-Jubilee Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. Ergun Togrol, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  17. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(SM9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  18. Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE, Faris A (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering. In: 26th annual, ASCE L. A. geotechnical seminarGoogle Scholar
  19. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang WS (1979) Some findings in soil liquefaction research. Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power, Beijing, PRCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIstanbul Kultur UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations