Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and triaxial shearing: a comparative study

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While cyclic triaxial (CTX) tests are widely used in liquefaction studies due to their simplicity, direct simple shear (DSS) tests and their ilk (e.g., the combined triaxial simple shear, TxSS) are more representative of stress conditions produced during an earthquake. Therefore, the CTX results should be properly correlated to simulate field conditions. In the current study, a series of CTX testing results performed on reconstituted samples of Baie-Saint-Paul, Ottawa C-109, and Quebec CF6B sands are compared to the corresponding TxSS and DSS results under both stress- and strain-controlled conditions. The cyclic TxSS stress-controlled tests are numerically simulated by adopting a coupled energy-based pore water pressure model using the computer code, FLAC. The TxSS numerical results are successfully compared with those obtained experimentally from (1) alternative stress-controlled TxSS, (2) available liquefaction potential curves (CSR-Nliq) in the literature, and (3) stress-controlled DSS testing results. As anticipated, the outcomes of the cyclic stress-controlled CTX testing results in the form of liquefaction potential curves are usually higher than that of the TxSS testing results. In contrast, due to the difference in the applied (strain-controlled tests) and the induced (stress-controlled tests) strains, the liquefaction resistance curves of TxSS are higher than those of CTX under cyclic strain-controlled test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen KH (1975) Research project summary repeated loading on clay and interpretation of test results. Report, 74037–9. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo

  2. Amer MI, Kovacs WD, Aggour MS (1987) Cyclic simple shear size effects. J Geotech Eng 113(7):693–707. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:7(693)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Archambault-Alwin X, Karray JM, Chekired M (2017) The influence of back pressure on the cyclic resistance of saturated tailings using the triaxial-simple shear device. In: Proceedings of the 70th Canadian geotechnical conference, 1–4 October, Ottawa

  4. Ardoino F, Bertalot D, Piatti C, Zanoli O (2015) Effect of pore pressure build-up on the seismic response of sandy deposits. In: Meyer V (ed) Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III. Taylor & Feancis Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. ASTM D6528–17 (2017) Standard test method for consolidated undrained direct simple shear testing of fine grain soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, www.astm.org

  6. Berrill JB, Davis RO (1985) Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction of sands: revised model. Soil Found 25(2):106–118

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bhatia SK, Schwab J, Ishibashi I (1985) Cyclic simple shear, torsional shear and triaxial—a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the advanced in the art of testing soils under cyclic conditions. ASCE, New York, pp 232–254

  8. Bjerrum L, Landva A (1966) Direct simple-shear test on a norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique 16(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boulanger R, Chan C, Seed H, Seed R, Sousa J (1993) A low-compliance bi-directional cyclic simple shear apparatus. Geotech Test J 16(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10265J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyland N, Long M (2009) Development of a direct simple shear apparatus for peat soils. Geotech Test J 32(2):126–138

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bradshaw AS, Baxter CD (2007) Sample preparation of silts for liquefaction testing. Geotech Test J 30(4):324–332

    Google Scholar 

  12. Budhu M (1984) On comparing simple shear and triaxial test results. J Geotech Eng 110(12):1809–1814

    Google Scholar 

  13. Budhu M (1985) Lateral stresses observed in two simple shear apparatus. J Geotech Eng 111(6):698–711

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carroll MD, Zimmie TF (1979) Sample size effects using the NGI direct simple shear apparatus. NSF Directorate for ASRA, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy

    Google Scholar 

  15. Casagrande A (1976) Liquefaction and cyclic deformation of sands: a critical review. Proc Panam Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 88:79–133

    Google Scholar 

  16. Castro G, Poulos SJ (1977) Factors affecting liquefaction and cyclic mobility. J Geotech Eng Div 103(GT6):501–516

    Google Scholar 

  17. Castro G (1975) Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands. J Geotech Eng Div 101(GT6):551–569

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chang WJ, Phantachang T, Ieong WM (2016) Evaluation of size and boundary effects in simple shear tests with distinct element modeling. J Geo Eng 11(3):133–142. https://doi.org/10.6310/jog.2016.11(3).3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang WJ, Rathje EM, Stokoe KH, Hazirbaba K (2007) In situ pore-pressure generation behavior of liquefiable sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(8):921–931

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chang WJ, Hong ML (2008) Effects of clay content on liquefaction characteristics of gap-graded clayey sands. Soils Found 48(1):101–114

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Chehat A, Hussein MN, Abdelazize M, Chekired M, Harichane Z, Karray M (2019) Stiffness- and damping-strain curves of sensitive champlain clays through experimental and analytical approaches. Can Geotech J 56(3):364–377. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chekired M, Lemire R, Karray M, Hussien MN (2015) Experiment setup for simple shear tests in a triaxial cell: TxSS. In: Proceedings of the 68th conference on Canadian of Geotechnical, Quebec, paper no. 365

  23. Chen G, Zhao D, Chen W, Juang CH (2019) Excess pore-water pressure generation in cyclic undrained testing. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 145(7):04019022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DeGroot DJ, Germaine JT, Ladd CC (1994) Effect of nonuniform stresses on measured DSS stress–strain behavior. J Geotech Eng 120(5):892–912. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:5(892)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dobry R (1982) Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method. National Bureau of Standards US Department of Commerce, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dobry R, Abdoun T (2017) Recent findings on liquefaction triggering in clean and silty sands during earthquakes. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 143(10):04017077. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dobry R, Vucetic M (1987) Dynamic properties and seismic response of soft clay deposits. In: International symposium on geotechnical engineering of soft soils, Mexico City. pp 51–87

  28. Doherty J, Fahey M (2011) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the direct simple shear test. Comput Geotech 38(7):917–924

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dyvik R, Berre T, Lacasse S, Raadim B (1987) Comparison of truly undrained and constant volume direct simple shear tests. Géotechnique 37(1):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dyvik R, Zimmie TF (1982) Lateral stress measurements during static and cyclic direct simple shear testing. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on the behavior of off-shore structures, vol 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 363–372

  31. Finn WD, Pickering DJ, Bransby PL (1971) Sand liquefaction in triaxial and simple shear tests. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(SM4):639–659

    Google Scholar 

  32. Franke E, Kiekbusch M, Schuppener B (1979) New direct simple shear device. Geotech Test J 2(4):190–199

    Google Scholar 

  33. Frost JD, Park JY (2003) A critical assessment of the moist tamping technique. Geotech Test J ASTM 26(1):57–70

    Google Scholar 

  34. Green RA, Mitchell JK, Polito CP (2000) An Energy-based excess pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils. In: John booker memorial symposium. Developments in theoretical geomechanics. Rotterdam, pp 383–390.

  35. Ishibashi I, Kawamura M, Bhatia SK (1985) Effect of initial shear on cyclic behavior of sand. Geotech J Eng 111(12):1395–1410

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ishihara K, Li S (1972) Liquefaction of saturated sand in triaxial torsion shear test. Soils Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 12(2):19–39

    Google Scholar 

  37. Itasca Consulting Group, FLAC (2010) Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 2-dimensions 6.0, manual. Itasca, Minneapolis

  38. Kang X, Ge L, Chang K-T, Kwok AO-L (2015) Strain-controlled cyclic simple shear tests on sand with radial strain measurements. J Mater Civ Eng 28(4):04015169

    Google Scholar 

  39. Karray M, Chekired M (2019) Triaxial simple shear test: TxSS. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on deformation characteristics of geomaterials (IS Glasgow 2019). Paper no. 02014, pp 1–6

  40. Karray M, Hussien MN, Chekired M (2015) Evaluation of compatibility between existing liquefaction charts in Eastern Regions of North America. In: 68e Conférence Canadienne de Géotechnique et 7e Conférence Canadienne Sur Le Pergélisol, 20 Aug, 23 Sep 2015, Québec

  41. Khashila M (2019) Assessment of liquefaction potential using the new combined triaxial simple shear apparatus (TxSS). Ph.d. dissertation, Université de Sherbrooke

  42. Khashila MM, Hussien MN, Karray M, Chekired M. 2018. Use of pore pressure build-up as damage metric in computation of equivalent number of uniform strain cycles. Can Geotech J.: 55(4): 538–550. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0231.

  43. Kjellman W (1951) Testing the shear strength of clay in Sweden. Géotechnique 2(3):225–232. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1951.2.3.225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Konstadinou M, Georgiannou VN (2013) Cyclic behaviour of loose anisotropically consolidated Ottawa sand under undrained torsional loading. Géotechnique 63(13):1144–1158

    Google Scholar 

  45. Konstadinou M, Georgiannou VN (2014) Prediction of pore water pressure generation leading to liquefaction under torsional cyclic loading. Soils Found 54(5):993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kovacs WD, Leo E (1981) Cyclic simple shear of large scale samples: effects of diameter to height ratio. In: International conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering. University of Missouri, Rolla, pp 897--904

  47. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education India , Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ladd RS (1978) Preparing test specimens using under compaction. Geotech Test J 1(1):16–23

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ladd RS, Dobry R, Dutko P, Yokel FY, Chung RM (1989) Pore water pressure buildup in clean sands because of cyclic straining. Geotech Test J 12(1):77–86

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lenart S (2008) The use of dissipated energy at modeling of cyclic loaded saturated soils. Earthquake engineering: new research. . Nova Science Publishers, New York (Chapter 8)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lo KY (1961) Stress-strain relationship and pore water pressure characteristics of a normally-consolidated clay. In: Proceedings of the international conference mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, pp 219–224

  52. Mandokhail SUJ, Park D, Yoo JK (2017) Development of normalized liquefaction resistance curve for clean sands. Bull Earthq Eng 15(3):907–929

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mao X, Fahey M (2003) Behaviour of calcareous soils in undrained cyclic simple shear. Géotechnique 53(8):715–727

    Google Scholar 

  54. Martin GR, Liam Finn WD, Bolton Seed H (1975) Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng 101(5):423–438

    Google Scholar 

  55. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng 119(11):1805–1822

    Google Scholar 

  56. Moreno-Torres O, Hashash YM, Olson SM (2010) A simplified coupled soil-pore water pressure generation for use in site response analysis. In: Advances in analysis, modeling and design proceedings. GeoFlorida 2010 conference, pp 3080–3089. https://doi.org/10.1061/41095(365)314

  57. Mulilis JP, Seed HB, Chan CK, Mitchell JK, Arulanandan K (1977) Effect of sample preparation on sand liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div 103(G2):91–108

    Google Scholar 

  58. National Research Council (1985) Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nemat-Nasser S, Shokooh A (1979) A unified approach to densification and liquefaction of cohensionless sand in cyclic shearing. Can Geotech J 16:659–678

    Google Scholar 

  60. Okada N, Nemat-Nasser S (1994) Energy dissipation in inelastic flow of saturated cohesionless granular media. Géotechnique 44(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1994.44.1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pan K, Yang ZX (2016) Effects of initial static shear on cyclic resistance and pore pressure generation of saturated sand. Acta Geotech 13:473–487

    Google Scholar 

  62. Peacock WH, Seed H (1968) Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading simple shear conditions. J Soil Mech Found Div 94(SM3):689–708

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ravishankar BV, Sitharam TG, Govindaraju L (2005) Dynamic properties of Ahmedabad sands at large strains. In: Proceedings, Indian geotechnical conference. Ahmedabad, pp 369–372

  64. Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl Daily NBWD (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(5):396–405

    Google Scholar 

  65. Roscoe KH (1953) An apparatus for the application of simple shear to soil samples. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on soil mechanics, Zurich, vol 1. pp 186–191

  66. Saada AS, Townsend FC (1981) State of the art: laboratory strength testing of soils. In: Young RN, Townsend FC (eds) ASTM special technical publication 740. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ASTM, pp 7–77

  67. Scott RF (1963) Principles of soil mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Seed HB (1983) Earthquake-resistant design of earth dams. In: Howard TR (ed) Proceedings of the symposium on seismic design of earth dams and caverns, Philadelphia, 16–20 May 1983. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 41–64

  69. Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1975) The generation and dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. report no. EERC, pp 75–26

  70. Seed HB, Peacock WH (1971) Test procedures for measuring soil liquefaction characteristics. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(SM9):1249–1273

    Google Scholar 

  71. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shen CK, Sadigh K, Herrmann LR (1978) An analysis of NGI simple shear apparatus for cyclic soil testing. ASTM Dyn Geotech Test STP 654:148–162

    Google Scholar 

  73. Silver ML, Park TEDK (1976) Liquefaction potential evaluated from cyclic strain-controlled properties tests on sands. Soil Found 16(3):51–65

    Google Scholar 

  74. Silver ML, Tatsuoka F, Phukunhaphan A (1980) Cyclic undrained strength of sand by triaxial test and simple shear test. In: Proceeding of the 7th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 281–288

  75. Sitharam TG, Ravishankar BV, Patil SM (2012) Liquefaction and pore water pressure generation in sand: cyclic strain controlled triaxial tests. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng IJGEE 3(1):57–85

    Google Scholar 

  76. Skempton AW (1954) The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. Géotechnique 4(4):143–147

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tatsuoka F, Ochi K, Fujii S, Okamoto M (1986) Cyclic undrained triaxial and torsional shear strength of sands for different sample preparation methods. Soils Found 26(3):23–41

    Google Scholar 

  78. Vanden Berghe JF, Holeyman A, Dyvik R (2001) Comparison and modeling of sand behavior under cyclic direct simple shear and cyclic triaxial testing. In: International conferences on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, paper no. 34

  79. Vaid YP, Finn WDL (1979) Static shear and liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng Div 105(GT10):1233–1246

    Google Scholar 

  80. Vaid YP, Sivathayalan S (1996) Static and cyclic liquefaction potential of fraser delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests. Can Geotech J 33(2):281–289

    Google Scholar 

  81. Vaid YP, Stedman JD, Sivathayalan S (2001) Confining stress and static shear effects in cyclic liquefaction. Can Geotech J 38(3):580–591. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Vipulanantham M (2011) Initial stress state and stress history effects on liquefaction susceptibility of sands. M.Sc. thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

  83. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Cyclic triaxial strain-controlled testing of liquefiable sands. ASTM special technical publication 977. Advanced methods for triaxial testing of soil and rock. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp 475–485

  84. Vucetic M, Lacasse S (1982) Specimen size effect in simple shear test. J Geotech Eng Div 108(12):1567–1585

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wang S, Luna R, Yang J (2016) Reexamination of effect of plasticity on liquefaction resistance of low-plasticity fine-grained soils and its potential application. Acta Geotech 11:1209–1216

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wichtmann T, Triantafyllidis T (2016a) 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 11:739–761

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wichtmann T, Triantafyllidis T (2016b) An experimental database for the development, calibration and verification of constitutive models for sand with focus to cyclic loading: part II—tests with strain cycles and combined loading. Acta Geotech 11:763–774

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wijewickreme D, Sriskandakumar S, Byrne P (2005) Cyclic loading response of loose air-pluviated Fraser River sand for validation of numerical models simulating centrifuge tests. Can Geotech J 42(2):550–561

    Google Scholar 

  89. Woods RD (1978) Measurement of dynamic soil properties. In: From volume I of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics-proceedings of the ASCE geotechnical engineering division specialty conference, Pasadena, California

  90. Xia H, Hu T (1991) Effects of saturation and back pressure on sand liquefaction. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1347–1362

    Google Scholar 

  91. Yang ZX, Pan K (2018) Energy-based approach to quantify cyclic resistance and pore pressure generation in anisotropically consolidated sand. J Mater Civ Eng 30(9):04018203

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  92. Yang J, Sze HY (2011a) Cyclic behaviour and resistance of saturated sand under non-symmetrical loading conditions. Geotechnique 61(1):59–73

    Google Scholar 

  93. Yang J, Sze HY (2011b) Cyclic strength of sand under sustained shear stress. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(12):1275–1285

    Google Scholar 

  94. Youd BTL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 Nceer and 1998 Nceer/Nsf workshops on evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833

    Google Scholar 

  95. Youd TL, Craven TN (1975) Lateral stress in sands during cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng Div 101(GT2):217–221

    Google Scholar 

  96. Zekkos D, Athanasopoulos-Zekkos A, Hubler J, Fei X, Zehtab K, Marr W (2018) Development of a largesize cyclic direct simple shear device for characterization of ground materials with oversized particles. Geotech Test J. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20160271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Zhang L, Evans TM (2018) Boundary effects in discrete element method modeling of undrained cyclic triaxial and simple shear element tests. Granular Matter 20(4):60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Hydro-Québec and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) throughout this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada

    Marwan Khashila, Mahmoud N. Hussien & Mourad Karray

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

    Marwan Khashila & Mahmoud N. Hussien

  3. Hydro-Québec, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Mohamed Chekired

Authors
  1. Marwan Khashila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahmoud N. Hussien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mourad Karray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed Chekired
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mourad Karray.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khashila, M., Hussien, M.N., Karray, M. et al. Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and triaxial shearing: a comparative study. Acta Geotech. 16, 1735–1753 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01104-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01104-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation