Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 567–579 | Cite as

The effects of small particles on soil seismic liquefaction resistance: current findings and future challenges

Review Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

The natural and artificial sand soils always incorporate other small particles, which makes the soil liquefaction resistance difficult to predict. The particle size may change from 10−5 m (e.g., fine particles) to 10−8 m (e.g., ultrafine particles), and the soil behaviors change dramatically when such particles are present. Newly reported soil liquefaction cases involving fine particles provide great challenges to seismic design codes. To make it clear, this paper reviewed effects of small particles on soil liquefaction in three different types. The non-low plastic fines (5–75 μm), clay particles (0.1–5 μm), and ultrafine particles (1–100 nm) are discussed, respectively. Many scholars found that liquefaction resistance decreased at first but increased as fine particles (non-low plastic fines or clay particles) were added. This phenomenon can be attributed to the lubrication effect of fine particles. However, when particles in nanometer scale, the strong bond between particles and hydration adsorption of nano-suspension improve liquefaction resistance. There are still many challenges to understanding the roles of small particles in liquefaction, for example, determining relative density for a high fine content, determining particle shape effect (e.g., aspect ratio, flatness, and particle roundness), as well as the long-term reinforcement performance of ultrafine particles. In engineering practice, it suggests that the seismic design codes address the effects of non-plastic fines in laboratory tests. As for some new liquefaction mitigation methods by ultrafine particles, we believe that the standard penetration test may not be appropriate to evaluate soil improvement effect, because the test results cannot reflect the properties change of pore water.

Keywords

Liquefaction resistance Fine particles Clay particles Ultrafine particles Seismic design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41625011 and 41372355).

References

  1. Abedi M, Yasrobi SS (2010) Effects of plastic fines on the instability of sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(3):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006a) Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM D4253-2006, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006b) Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM D4254-00, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2011) Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM D2487-2011, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews DC, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. NZ Soc. for EQ Engrg, Upper HuttGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkhatir M, Schanz T, Arab A (2013) Effect of fines content and void ratio on the saturated hydraulic conductivity and undrained shear strength of sand–silt mixtures. Environ Earth Sci 70(6):2469–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beroya MAA, Aydin A, Katzenbach R (2009) Insight into the effects of clay mineralogy on the cyclic behavior of silt-clay mixtures. Eng Geol 106(3–4):154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya S, Hyodo M, Goda K, Tazoh T, Taylor CA (2011) Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(11):1618–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bol E, Onalp A, Arel E, Sert S, Ozocak A (2010) Liquefaction of silts: the Adapazari criteria. Bull Earthq Eng 8(4):859–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulanger RW, Idriss I (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(10):1185–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(9):1165–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1314–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang WJ, Hong ML (2008) Effects of clay content on liquefaction characteristics of gap-graded clayey sands. Soils Found 48(1):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang SY, Liu L, Asher SA (1994) Preparation and properties of tailored morphology, monodisperse colloidal silica–cadmium sulfide nanocomposites. J Am Chem Soc 116:6739–6744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen H, Shi M, Guo Z (2012) Comparative analysis on soil engineering classifications of China and America. Glob Geol 15(3):210–215Google Scholar
  17. Cubrinovski M, Rees S, Bowman E (2009) Effects of non-plastic fines on liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Geotech Geol Earthq Eng 17:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dai BB, Yang J, Zhou CY (2015) Observed effects of interparticle friction and particle size on shear behavior of granular materials. Int J Geomech 16(1):04015011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dejong JT, Mortensen BM, Martinez BC, Nelson DC (2010) Bio-mediated soil improvement. Ecol Eng 36:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Derakhshandi M, Rathje EM, Hazirbaba K, Mirhosseini SM (2008) The effect of plastic fines on the pore pressure generation characteristics of saturated sands. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(5):376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. El Hosri MS, Biarez H, Hicher PY (1984) Liquefaction characteristics of silty clay. In: Proceedings of 8th world conference on earthquake Engrg. ASCE, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 277–284Google Scholar
  22. El Howayek A, Bobet A, Johnston CT, Santagata M, Sinfield JV (2014) Microstructure of sand-laponite-water systems using Cryo-SEM. In: Proceedings of the 2014 geo-congress 2014 geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability. pp 693–702Google Scholar
  23. El Mohtar CS, Clarke J, Bobet A, Santagata M, Drnevich V, Johnston C (2008) Cyclic response of a sand with thixotropic pore fluid. Geotech Earthq Eng Soil Dyn IV:1–10Google Scholar
  24. El Mohtar CS, Bobet A, Santagata MC, Johnston CT, Drnevich VP (2013) Liquefaction mitigation using bentonite suspensions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(8):1369–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallagher PM, Mitchell JK (2002) Influence of colloidal silica grout on liquefaction potential and cyclic undrained behavior of loose sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9):1017–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallagher PM, Conlee CT, Rollins KM (2007a) Full-scale field testing of colloidal silica grouting for mitigation of liquefaction risk. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(2):186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallagher PM, Pamuk A, Abdoun T (2007b) Stabilization of liquefiable soils using colloidal silica grout. J Mater Civ Eng 19(1):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Georgiannou V, Burland J, Hight D (1990) The undrained behaviour of clayey sands in triaxial compression and extension. Geotechnique 40(3):431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghahremani M, Ghalandarzadeh A (2006) Effect of plastic fines on cyclic resistance of sands. Geotech Spec Publ 150:406Google Scholar
  30. Gilbert N (2009) Nanoparticle safety in doubt. Nature 460:937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham D, Elton D (2011) A new method of reducing liquefaction susceptibility through pore water modification. In: Proceedings of advances in geotechnical engineering. ASCE, pp 1785–1794Google Scholar
  32. Gratchev IB, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2006a) How reliable is the plasticity index for estimating the liquefaction potential of clayey sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(1):124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gratchev IB, Sassa K, Osipov VI, Sokolov VN (2006b) The liquefaction of clayey soils under cyclic loading. Eng Geol 86(1):70–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gratchev IB, Sassa K, Osipov VI, Fukuoka H, Wang G (2007) Undrained cyclic behavior of bentonite–sand mixtures and factors affecting it. Geotech Geol Eng 25(3):349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guo T, Prakash S (1999) Liquefaction of silts and silt–clay mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(8):706–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heng C, He M, Qiu Y (2001) Experimental study of liquefaction resistant characteristics of clayey sand. J Eng Geol 9(4):339–344 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  37. Huang Y, Jiang XM (2010) Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Nat Hazards 54(3):839–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huang Y, Wang L (2016a) Laboratory investigation of liquefaction mitigation in silty sand using nanoparticles. Eng Geol 204:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huang Y, Wang L (2016b) Experimental studies on nanomaterials for soil improvement: a review. Environ Earth Sci 75(6):497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huang Y, Wen ZQ (2015) Recent developments of soil improvement methods for seismic liquefaction mitigation. Nat Hazards 76(3):1927–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang Y, Yu M (2013) Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes of the twenty first century. Nat Hazards 65(3):2375–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hwang JH, Yang CW (2001) Verification of critical cyclic strength curve by Taiwan Chi–Chi earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(3):237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Japan Road Association (2002) Specifications for highway bridges part V: seismic design. Maruzen Publishing Co, Ltd, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  44. Juang CH, Li DK (2007) Assessment of liquefaction hazards in Charleston quadrangle, South Carolina. Eng Geol 92(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karim ME, Alam MJ (2014) Effect of non-plastic silt content on the liquefaction behavior of sand–silt mixture. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kiviranta L, Kumpulainen S (2011) Quality control and characterization of bentonite materials (No. POSIVA-WR–11-84) Posiva OyGoogle Scholar
  47. Kodaka T, Ohno Y, Takyu T (2005) Cyclic shear characteristics of treated sand with colloidal silica grout. In: Proceedings of the international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Aa Balkema Publishers, vol 16(2), pp 401Google Scholar
  48. Koester JP (1993) Effects of fines type and content on liquefaction potential of low-to-medium plasticity fine-grained soils. In: National earthquake conference. Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, pp 67–75Google Scholar
  49. Kroon M, Vos WL, Wegdam GH (1998) Structure and formation of a gel of colloidal disks. Phys Rev E 57:1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ministry of Construction of China (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011–2010). China Building Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  51. Ministry of Water Resources of China (2007) Soil engineering classification standard (GB/T50145-2007). China Planning Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  52. Nabeshima Y, El Mesmary M, Matsui T (2002) Effect of non-plastic fines on liquefaction characteristics of sandy soils under cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the twelfth (2002) international offshore and polar engineering conference, KitakyushuGoogle Scholar
  53. National Science and Technology Council (2007) The national nanotechnology initiative—strategic plan. Executive Office of the President of the United States, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Otterstedt JE, Brandreth DA (1998) Small particles technology. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Polito CP, Martin JR (2001) Effects of non-plastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(5):408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Polito CP, Green RA, Lee J (2008) Pore pressure generation models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(10):1490–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rugg D, Yoon J, Hwang H, El Mohtar CS (2011) Undrained shearing properties of sand permeated with a bentonite suspension for static liquefaction mitigation. In: Proceedings of the Geofrontiers, Dallas. pp 677–686Google Scholar
  59. Sadek S, Saleh M (2007) The effect of carbonaceous fines on the cyclic resistance of poorly graded sands. Geotech Geol Eng 25(2):257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  61. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder L, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111(12):1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss E, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual ASCE Los Angeles geotechnical spring seminar, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  63. Service RF (2003) American Chemical Society meeting. Nanomaterials show signs of toxicity. Science 300(5617):243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Singh S (1996) Liquefaction characteristics of silts. Geotech Geol Eng 14(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stamatopoulos CA (2010) An experimental study of the liquefaction resistance of silty sands in terms of the state parameter. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(8):662–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tan CS, Marto A, Leong TK, Teng LS (2013) The role of fines in liquefaction susceptibility of sand matrix soils. Electron J Geotech Eng L 18:2355–2368Google Scholar
  67. Thevanayagam S (1998) Effect of fines and confining stress on steady state strength of silty sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 124(6):479–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thevanayagam S (2000) Liquefaction potential and undrained fragility of silty soils. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  69. Tokinatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soil Found 23(4):56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Troncoso JH (1990) Failure risks of abandoned tailings dams. In: Proceedings of international symposium on safety and rehabilitation of tailing dams. International Commission on Large Dams, Paris, pp 82–89Google Scholar
  71. Turan A, Hinchberger SD, Naggar MHE (2009) Mechanical characterization of an artificial clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135:280–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. U.S. EPA (2004) Air quality criteria for particulate matter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington. Vol 3, 600/P-95-001CfGoogle Scholar
  73. Valencia GA, Moraes ICF, Hilliou LHG, Lourenço RVD, Amaral Sobral PJ (2015) Nanocomposite-forming solutions based on cassava starch and laponite: viscoelastic and rheological characterization. J Food Eng 166:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang WS (1979) Some findings in soil liquefaction research report. Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power Scientiific Research Institute, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  75. Wei LM, Yang J (2014) On the role of grain shape in static liquefaction of sand–fines mixtures. Géotechnique 64(9):740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wu CJ, Ye GL, Zhang LL, Bishop D, Wang JH (2015) Depositional environment and geotechnical properties of Shanghai clay: a comparison with Ariake and Bangkok clays. Bull Eng Geol Env 74(3):717–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xenaki VC, Athanasopoulos GA (2003) Liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures: an experimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(3):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yang J, Luo XD (2015) Exploring the relationship between critical state and particle shape for granular materials. J Mech Phys Solids 84:196–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang J, Wei LM (2012) Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Géotechnique 62(12):1111–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998. NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations