Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 473–487 | Cite as

Effects of initial static shear on cyclic resistance and pore pressure generation of saturated sand

Research Paper
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

In practical engineering, cyclic shear stresses induced by earthquakes, traffic, and waves are superimposed on the initial static shear stress in sand fills or deposits, leading to complex responses of soils such as their deformation characteristics, pore pressure generation, and susceptibility (or cyclic resistance) to liquefaction. To experimentally investigate the undrained cyclic response of saturated sand, a series of triaxial tests were performed, covering a broad range of initial static and cyclic deviatoric stress levels. The results indicate that different stress conditions lead to two types of cyclic behavior: cyclic mobility and residual deformation accumulation. The compressional static stress is beneficial to the cyclic resistance of the dense sand, whereas the extensional static stress is regarded as detrimental as it tended to reduce the cyclic strength. Moreover, by comparing the available test data obtained from the same sand with varying initial densities and confining pressures, the static shear effect on cyclic resistance was found to be dependent on the state of the sand. Compared to the interpretation made using the limiting pore pressure-based criterion, the conventional failure criterion using a cyclic axial strain of 5% may lead to a substantial overestimation of the cyclic resistance, thus resulting in unsafe assessment and design. Hence, by employing the pore pressure criterion, the pore pressure generated in the cyclic tests was investigated and was found to be significantly influenced by the static shear stress. A pore pressure generation model is proposed to obtain the pore pressure characteristics of sand under various static shear stress conditions.

Keywords

Cyclic resistance Cyclic triaxial tests Failure criterion Pore pressure Saturated sand Static shear 

List of symbols

a, b

Fitting parameters for the pore pressure model

CRR

Cyclic resistance ratio

CSR

Cyclic stress ratio

Dr

Relative density of sand

e0

Initial void ratio of sand

ec

Critical state void ratio

Nf

Number of cycles required to obtain axial strain of 5%

Nlim

Number of cycles required to attain limiting pore pressure

Nn

Normalized number of cycles

\(p_{0}^{{\prime }}\)

Initial mean normal effective stress

qs, qcyc

Static and cyclic deviatoric stresses

SSR, SSRth

Static stress ratio and threshold static stress ratio

ur

Residual pore pressure ratio

ur,lim

Limiting values of residual pore pressure ratio

ur,n

Normalized residual pore pressure ratio

εa

Axial strain

σh, σv

Horizontal and vertical normal stresses

τs

Static shear stress

ψ, ψth

State parameter and threshold state parameter

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research described was funded by the National Key R & D program of China (No. 2016YFC0800204), the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51578499, 51761130078) and the National Key Basic Research Program of China (No. 2015CB057801).

References

  1. 1.
    Aghakouchak A, Sim WW, Jardine RJ (2015) Stress-path laboratory tests to characterize the cyclic behaviour of piles driven in sands. Soils Found 55(5):917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen KH (2009) Bearing capacity under cyclic loading-offshore, along the coast, and on land. Can Geotech J 46(5):513–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 35(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booker JR, Rahman MS, Seed HB (1976) GADFLEA—a computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading. Rep. no. EERC 76-24, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CalifGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boulanger RW, Ziotopoulou K (2013) Formulation of a sand plasticity plane-strain model for earthquake engineering applications. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiaro G, Koseki J, Sato T (2012) Effects of initial static shear on liquefaction and large deformation properties of loose saturated Toyoura sand in undrained cyclic torsional shear tests. Soils Found 52(3):498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiaro G, Kiyota T, Koseki J (2013) Strain localization characteristics of loose saturated Toyoura sand in undrained cyclic torsional shear tests with initial static shear. Soils Found 53(1):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fioravante V, Giretti D (2016) Unidirectional cyclic resistance of Ticino and Toyoura sands from centrifuge cone penetration tests. Acta Geotech 11(4):953–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flora A, Lirer S, Silvestri F (2012) Undrained cyclic resistance of undisturbed gravelly soils. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 43:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hosono Y, Yoshimine M (2000) Effect of anisotropy of sand on results of undrained triaxial test. Memoirs of Graduate School of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University 50:158–169Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosono Y, Yoshimine M (2004) Liquefaction of sand in simple shear condition. In: Triantafyllidis T (ed) Proceedings of the international workshop on cyclic behaviour of soils and liquefaction phenomena, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 129–136Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hyde AF, Higuchi T, Yasuhara K (2006) Liquefaction, cyclic mobility, and failure of silt. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(6):716–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hyodo M, Hyde AFL, Aramaki N, Nakata Y (2002) Undrained monotonic and cyclic shear behavior of sand under low and high confining stresses. Soils Found 42(3):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hyodo M, Tanimizu H, Yasufuku N, Murata H (1994) Undrained cyclic and monotonic triaxial behavior of saturated loose sand. Soils Found 34(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, 264. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), OaklandGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique 43(3):351–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishihara K (1996) Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kammerer AM, Pestana JM, Seed RB (2005) Behavior of Monterey 0/30 sand under multidirectional loading conditions. In: Geomechanics: testing, modeling, and simulation (pp 154–173). ASCEGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kokusho T (2016) Major advances in liquefaction research by laboratory tests compared with in situ behavior. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Konstadinou M, Georgiannou VN (2013) Cyclic behaviour of loose anisotropically consolidated Ottawa sand under undrained torsional loading. Géotechnique 63(13):1144–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mao X, Fahey M (2003) Behaviour of calcareous soils in undrained cyclic simple shear. Géotechnique 53(8):715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamad R, Dobry R (1986) Undrained monotonic and cyclic triaxial strength of sand. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 112(10):941–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee KL, Seed HB (1967) Dynamic strength of anisotropically consolidated sand. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 93(5):169–190Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li XS (2002) A sand model with state-dependent dilatancy. Géotechnique 52(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pan K, Yang ZX (2017) Undrained behavior of sand under cyclic paths that match storm-wave loading conditions. Mar Georesour Geotechnol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1279697 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Polito CP, Green RA, Lee J (2008) Pore pressure generation models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(10):1490–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porcino D, Diano V (2016) Laboratory study on pore pressure generation and liquefaction of low-plasticity silty sandy soils during the 2012 earthquake in Italy. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(10):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Randolph MF (2012) Offshore design approaches and model tests for sub-failure cyclic loading of foundations. Mech Behav Soils Under Environ Induc Cycl Loads 534:441–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sassa K, Wang G, Fukuoka H, Vankov DA (2005) Shear-displacement-amplitude dependent pore-pressure generation in undrained cyclic loading ring shear tests: an energy approach. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(6):750–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div 92(6):105–134Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1975) The generation and dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction. Rep. no. EERC 75-26, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CalifGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sivathayalan S, Ha D (2011) Effect of static shear stress on the cyclic resistance of sands in simple shear loading. Can Geotech J 48(12):1471–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sze HY, Yang J (2014) Failure modes of sand in undrained cyclic loading: impact of sample preparation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 140(1):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vaid YP, Chern JC (1983) Effect of static shear on resistance to liquefaction. Soils Found 23(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vaid YP, Stedman JD, Sivathayalan S (2001) Confining stress and static shear effects in cyclic liquefaction. Can Geotech J 38(3):580–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils. Soils Found 36(2):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang ZL, Dafalias YF, Shen CK (1990) Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for sand. J Eng Mech ASCE 116(5):983–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang R, Zhang JM, Wang G (2014) A unified plasticity model for large post-liquefaction shear deformation of sand. Comput Geotech 59:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wichtmann T, Triantafyllidis T (2016) An experimental database for the development, calibration and verification of constitutive models for sand with focus to cyclic loading: Part I—tests with monotonic loading and stress cycles. Acta Geotech 11(4):739–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang J, Sze HY (2011) Cyclic behaviour and resistance of saturated sand under non-symmetrical loading conditions. Géotechnique 61(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang ZX, Li XS, Yang J (2007) Undrained anisotropy and rotational shear in granular soil. Géotechnique 57(4):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang ZX, Pan K (2017) Flow deformation and cyclic resistance of saturated loose sand considering initial static shear effect. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang JM, Wang G (2012) Large post-liquefaction deformation of sand, Part I: physical mechanism, constitutive description and numerical algorithm. Acta Geotech 7(2):69–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ziotopoulou K, Boulanger RW (2016) Plasticity modeling of liquefaction effects under sloping ground and irregular cyclic loading conditions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 84:269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Research Center of Coastal and Urban Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations