NIST GCR 96-701
ENERGY-BASED METHOD FOR LIQUEFACTIONPOTENTIAL EVALUATION, PHASE IFEASIBILITY STUDY
Farhang OstadanNan DengIgnacio Arango
Bechtel CorporationSan Francisco, CA 94119
A Report to:
U.S. Department of CommerceTechnology AdministrationNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyBuilding and Fire Research LaboratoryGaithersburg, MD 20899
August 1996
u.s. Department of CommerceMichael Kantor, SecretaryTechnology AdministrationMary L. Good, Under Secretary for TechnologyNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyArati Prabhakar, Director
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of the fIrst phase of a three-phase study on thedevelopment and application of the energy-based method for prediction of theliquefaction potential of sandy soils. The formulation of the method is based on theconvolution of the basic elements from both the "stress" and "strain" approaches and isvery flexible in incorporating the special characteristics of ground motion such as thenear-field effects. The feasibility phase consists of the tasks: 1) to collect and synthesizelaboratory data; 2) to perform ground response analyses at the Wildlife Site, whichsuffered a massive ground liquefaction failure during the Superstition Hills Earthquake;and fInally 3) to compare and to assess the differences between the field and thelaboratory data. Even though the scope of the feasibility study did not permit cyclictesting of the soil samples from the Wildlife Site, the correlation of the fIeld responsedata and the applicable laboratory data are strong. The results of this phase suggest thatdevelopment of an energy-based method to evaluate liquefaction potential is feasible.
KEYWORDS: building technology; liquefaction; strain energy; earthquake; groundresponse; cyclic testing; laboratory measurements; ground motion; pore pressure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The study was sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)under the Contract No. 50SBNB5C8640. Drs. R. Andrus and R. Chung of NISTprovided support and guidance throughout the course of the study. The authors gratefullyacknowledge the support and supply of laboratory data by Dr. J. Koester from the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers. Dr. S. Glaser from the Colorado School of Mines generouslyprovided the data recorded at the Wildlife Site and made many helpful suggestions duringthe course of the study. The report was reviewed by Mr. M. Lewis, geotechnicalmanager, in Bechtel National.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
UNITS CONVERSION FACTORS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 PURPOSE
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
CHAPTER 2
COLLECTION AND SYNTHESIS OF LABORATORY DATA
2.1 STRAIN ENERGY COMPUTATION
2.2 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON MONTEREY NO. 0 SAND,PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,BERKELEY (UCB)
2.3 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROMTHE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, PERFORMED AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY (DCB)
2.4 CYCLIC TORSIONAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES,PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO(DOC)
iii
PAGE
i
ii
iii
vi
vii
xv
xvi
1-1 through 1-3
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
2-1 through 2-36
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2.5 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROMTHE NORTHRIDGE SITE, PERFORMED AT THEUNNERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY (VCB)
2.6 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON CLEAN SANDSPERFORMED AT THE WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY(WSU)
2.7 SUMMARY DATA BY FIGUEROA et aI.
2.8 SUMMARY OF ALL LABORATORY DATA
CHAPTER 3
WILDLIFE SITE: SOILS AND EARTHQUAKE DATA
3.1 BACKGROUND
3.2 WILDLIFE SITE
3.3 STRATIGRAPHY AND SOIL PROPERTIES AT THEWILDLIFE SITE
3.4 INSTRUMENTATION AT THE WILDLIFE SITE
3.5 RECORDED EARTHQUAKE DATA
CHAPTER 4
GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES AND COMPARISON~THTHELABORATORYDATA
4.1 METHODS OF ANALYSES
4.2 RESULTS OF THE GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSESUSING THE COMPUTER PROGRAM SHAKE
4.3 RESULTS OF THE GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSESUSING THE COMPUTER PROGRAM BDESRA(MODIFIED DESRA)
iv
PAGE
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
3-1 through 3-20
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1 through 4-64
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
PAGE
4.4 RESULTS OF THE GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES 4-4BASED ON DIRECT INTERPOLATION OF RECORDEDMOTIONS
4.5 RESULTS OF THE GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES 4-5USING THE COMPUTER PROGRAM SHAKE ANDEPRI SOIL CURVES
4.6 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF GROUND 4-5RESPONSE ANALYSES
4.7 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF GROUND 4-6RESPONSE ANALYSES WITH THE LABORATORY DATA
CHAPTERS
SUMMARY AND RECOM:MENDATION
CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TESTS ON MONTEREY NO. 0 SAND,PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THESAVANNAH RIVER SITE, PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
APPENDIXC
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES, PERFORMED ATTHE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
APPENDIXD
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THENORTHRIDGE SITE, PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
v
5-1 through 5-2
5-1
6-1 through 6-4
6-1
A-I through A-42
B-1 through B-46
C-l through C-20
D-l through D-18
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of the Cyclic Triaxial Test Data on Monterey No. 0 SandPerfonned at University of California, Berkeley
Average Material Properties at the SRS Site
Summary of the Cyclic Triaxial Test Data on SRS Soil Samples Perfonnedat University of California, Berkeley
Summary of the Cyclic Torsional Test Data on Clean and Silty SandsPerfonned at University of Colorado
Summary of the Cyclic Triaxial Test Data on Northridge SamplesPerfonned at University of California, Berkeley
Summary of the Cyclic Triaxial Test Data on Clean Sands Perfonned atWayne State University
Summary of the Wildlife Site Earthquake Data and Recorded TimeHistories
Summary of Strain Energy Computation from Ground Response Analyses(November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake)
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Relationships Between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction and (N 1)60
Values for Silty Sands for M = 7-1/2 Earthquakes (Seed et al., 1985)
Figure 2.1 Typical Time History Records of a Strain-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test
Figure 2.2 A Typical Plot of Shear Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops Developed DuringCyclic Triaxial Tests
Figure 2.3 Grain Size Distribution for Monterey No. 0 Sand (Arango, 1994)
Figure 2.4 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Relative Density forMonterey No. 0 Sand - UCB Data
Figure 2.5 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Frequencies ofLoading for Monterey No. 0 Sand - UCB Data
Figure 2.6 Generalized Subsurface Soil Profile at the SRS Site
Figure 2.7 Typical Grain Size Distribution Curve for Tobacco Road Soil MaterialSRS (Riemer and Seed, 1994)
Figure 2.8 Strain Energy as a Function of Confining Pressure for SRS Soil Samples UCBData
Figure 2.9 Grain Size Distribution of Silty Sands - UOC Samples (Koester, 1992)
Figure 2.10 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Relative Density forClean Sands - DOC Data
Figure 2.11 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Confining Pressurefor Silty Sands - VOC Data
Figure 2.12 Grain Size Distribution Curves for the Northridge Site Soil Samples(Arango and Migues, 1996)
Figure 2.13 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Relative Density forthe Northridge Samples - VCB Data
Figure 2.14 Grain Size Distribution Curves for Monterey No. 0 and KasumigauraSands (AI-Khatib, 1994)
vii
Figure 2.15 Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of Relative Density forMonterey No. 0 and Kasumigaura Sands - WSU Data
Figure 2.16 Effect of Cyclic Loading Types on Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onsetfor Monterey No. 0 Sand - WSU Data
Figure 2.17 Effect of Cyclic and Transient Loading on Strain Energy at LiquefactionOnset for Monterey No. 0 Sand - WSU Data
Figure 2.18 Grain Size Distribution Curves for Soil Samples for the Lower SanFernando Dam and the Reid Bedford Sand (Figueroa et al., 1995)
Figure 2.19 Comparison of Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset for All Test Groups Clean Sands
Figure 2.20 Comparison of Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset for All Test Groups Silty Sands
Figure 3.1 Map of California with Locations of Parkfield and Wildlife LiquefactionArrays
Figure 3.2 Wildlife Liquefaction Array - Geotechnical Properties (Bennett et al.,1984)
Figure 3.3 Main Geological Units at the Wildlife Site and Their GeotechnicalCharacteristics (Bennett et al., 1984)
Figure 3.4 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles from Crosshole and SASWTests at Wildlife Site (Bierschwale and Stokoe, 1984)
Figure 3.5 Variation in Normalized Shear Modulus with Shearing Strain for ChannelFill Sand (Ladd, 1982)
Figure 3.6 Variation in Normalized Shear Modulus with Shearing Strain for ImperialValley Clays (Turner and Stokoe, 1982)
Figure 3.7 Variation in Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain for Imperial Valley Soils(Ladd, 1982; Turner and Stokoe, 1982)
Figure 3.8 Instrumentation of the Wildlife Site (Bennett et aI., 1984)
Figure 3.9 Location Map of the Wildlife Site and the Epicenters of the Elmore Ranch(Ms = 6.2) and Superstition Hills (Ms = 6.6) Earthquakes (Porcella et al.,1987)
VlIl
Figure 3.10 Earthquake Time Histories at 1315 GMT, November 24, 1987 at WildlifeArray - Horizontal Motions in 3600 Direction
Figure 3.11 Earthquake Time Histories at 1315 GMT, November 24, 1987 at WildlifeArray - Horizontal Motions in 900 Direction
Figure 3.12 Earthquake Time Histories at 1315 GMT, November 24,1987 at WildlifeArray - Vertical Motions
Figure 3.13 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison oitheSpectral Characteristics of Horizontal Motions
Figure 3.14 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison of theSpectral Characteristics of Vertical Motions
Figure 3.15 Normalized Pore Water Pressure Ratios - Wildlife Liquefaction Array,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Event (Matasovic et aI., 1993)
Figure 4.1 Wildlife Site Soil Profile Used in Response Analysis Based on Average ofSASW and Crosshole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements
Figure 4.2 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 360 Degree Direction - SHAKE Output at GroundSurface Calculated Using Crosshole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements
Figure 4.3 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 360 Degree Direction - SHAKE Output at GroundSurface Calculated Using SASW Shear Wave Velocity Measurements
Figure 4.4 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 360 Degree Direction - SHAKE Output at GroundSurface Calculated Using Average of SASW and Crosshole Shear WaveVelocity Measurements
Figure 4.5 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 360 Degree Direction - SHAKE Output at Depth of7.5 m with Cutoff Frequency of 25 Hz
ix
Figure 4.6 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 90 Degree Direction - SHAKE Output at GroundSurface Calculated Using Average of SASW and Crosshole Shear WaveVelocity Measurements
Figure 4.7 Maximum Acceleration Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction
Figure 4.8 Maximum Acceleration Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900
Direction
Figure 4.9 Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction
Figure 4.10 Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900
Direction
Figure 4.11 Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction
Figure 4.12 Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from SHAKE Results Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900
Direction
Figure 4.13 Shear Stress Time History at Depth 4.21 m from SHAKE Output Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction
Figure 4.14 Shear Strain Time History at Depth 4.21 m from SHAKE OutputWildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction
Figure 4.15 Shear Stress-Shear Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth 4.2 I m. Calculatedfrom SHAKE Output - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake in 3600 Direction. Soil Properties are Based on the Average ofSASW and Crosshole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements
x
Figure 4.16 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction - SHAKEAnalysis Output
Figure 4.17 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction - SHAKEAnalysis Output
Figure 4.18 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24,1987,1315 GMT Earthquake - Summation of SHAKEAnalysis Output in both 360° and 900 Directions
Figure 4.19 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 3600 Direction - BDESRA Output, Total StressAnalysis
Figure 4.20 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 90° Direction - BDESRA Output, Total StressAnalysis
Figure 4.21 Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofTotal Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
Figure 4.22 Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofTotal Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
Figure 4.23 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction - BDESRAOutput, Total Stress Analysis
Figure 4.24 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 90° Direction - BDESRAOutput, Total Stress Analysis
Figure 4.25 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Summation of BDESRATotal Stress Analysis Output in both 3600 and 900 Directions
xi
Figure 4.26 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 3600 Direction - BDESRA Output, Effective StressAnalysis
Figure 4.27 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 900 Direction - BDESRA Output, Effective StressAnalysis
Figure 4.28 Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofEffective Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
Figure 4.29 Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofEffective Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
Figure 4.30 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction - BDESRAOutput, Effective Stress Analysis
Figure 4.31 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction - BDESRAOutput, Effective Stress Analysis
Figure 4.32 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Summation ofBDESRAEffective Stress Analysis Output in both 3600 and 900 Directions
Figure 4.33 Normalized Pore Water Pressure Generation in Liquefied Sand LayerWildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600
Direction, BDESRA Output, Effective Stress Analysis
Figure 4.34 Normalized Pore Water Pressure Generation in Liquefied Sand LayerWildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900
Direction, BDESRA Output, Effective Stress Analysis
Figure 4.35 Methodology Adopted in Estimating the Dynamic Stress and Strain TimeHistories in a Soil Layer from Field Records (After Zeghal and Elgamal,1994)
Figure 4.36 Shear Stress Time History at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft) Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
xii
Figure 4.37 Shear Strain Time History at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft) Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
Figure 4.38 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft) Based onDirect Interpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24,1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
Figure 4.39 Shear Stress Time History at Depth of 5.06 In (16.6 ft) Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction
Figure 4.40 Shear Strain Time History at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft) Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction
Figure 4.41 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft) Based onDirect Interpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24,1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction
Figure 4.42 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
Figure 4.43 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction
Figure 4.44 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer Based on DirectInterpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake - Summation of Strain Energy in both 3600 and900 Directions
Figure 4.45 Comparison of Shear Modulus Degradation Curves used in SHAKEAnalyses
Figure 4.46 Comparison of Damping Curves used in SHAKE Analyses
Figure 4.47 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 3600 Direction - SHAKE Output with EPRI (1993)Soil Curves
xiii
Figure 4.48 Acceleration Response Spectra at 5% Damping - Wildlife LiquefactionArray, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Comparison ofHorizontal Motions in 900 Direction - SHAKE Output with EPRI (1993)Soil Curves
Figure 4.49 Shear Stress Time History at Depth of 4.21 m (13.8 ft) from SHAKEOutput with EPRI (1993) Soil Curves - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
Figure 4.50 Shear Strain Time History at Depth of 4.21 m (13.8 ft) from SHAKEOutput with EPRI (1993) Soil Curves - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction
Figure 4.51 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of 4.21 m (13.8 ft).Calculated from SHAKE Output - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction. Soil Properties are Based on theAverage of SASW and Crosshole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements.The EPRI (1993) G/Gmax and Damping Curves are used in theCalculation
Figure 4.52 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT EarthqUake in 3600 Direction - SHAKEOutput Using EPRI (1993) Soil Curves
Figure 4.53 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT EarthqUake in 900 Direction - SHAKEOutput Using EPRI (1993) Soil Curves
Figure 4.54 Accumulation of Strain Energy in Liquefied Sand Layer - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake - Summation of Strain Energyin both 3600 and 900 Directions - SHAKE Output Using EPRI (1993) SoilCurves
Figure 4.55 Total Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset. Calculated from GroundResponse Analyses
Figure 4.56 Total Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset. Calculated from GroundResponse Analyses (with All Points in Unliquefied Layers Removed)
Figure 4.57 Comparison of Total Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset. GroundResponse Analyses and Laboratory Data - Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake
xiv
a, aCt)
CPT
d, d(t)
FC
G
Gmax
N
N 1
(Nl)60
v, vet)
oE,E1iq
~)'(t)
y, )'(t)
Yd
SPT
L
t, t(t)
:ret)
LIST OF SYMBOLS
acceleration at time t in cm/sec2
cone penetration data
displacement at time t in em
relative density - %
fines content
soil shear modulus
maximum soil shear modulus
SPT, blow-count
blow-count normalized to 1 ksc
normalized blow-count for a 60 percent energy ratio
velocity at time t in em/sec
energy per volume at the onset of liquefaction, Joules/m3
shear strain increment from time t to t +~ t
shear strain
dry unit weight, kN/m3
pore pressure ratio
effective confining pressure, kPa
standard penetration test
summation
shear stress
average shear stress at times t and t +~ t
xv
UNITS CONVERSION FACTORS
1 Joules 0.0007376 ft-kip
1 kg/cm2 2.048 kip/tr
1 km 0.621 miles
I kN 0.225 kips
1 kN/m2 0.02088 kip/fe
1 kN/m3 6.3661b/fe
1m 3.281ft
1 m2 10.76 ft2
1 m3 35.31 fe
xvi
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Liquefaction failure has been and continues to be a major cause of damage duringearthquakes. The direct and indirect costs associated with ground failure may far exceedthe damage caused by other types of failures such as structural collapses. Due to theenormous damage potential, research in the areas of liquefaction prediction andmitigation has continued, and the respective technologies have significantly improvedover the years.
Two basic methods are currently used to predict liquefaction potential. The most widelyused method, based on laboratory data and field performance data, was developed bySeed et al. (1983, 1985). In this method, the cyclic stress ratio in the field is predictedbased on a simple or a more detailed ground response analysis, and the demand resultingfrom the design earthquake is established. The cyclic shear strength of the material canbe obtained from laboratory testing of the soil samples or from the penetration data(Standard Penetration Test [SPT] data or Cone Penetration Test [CPT] data) along withthe index and gradation properties of the soil samples. The most widely used curves topredict the capacity of the soil in terms of cyclic shear strength are the set of curves bySeed et al. (1985), shown in Figure 1.1. From knowledge of the penetration resistanceand the fines content in the soil materials, the cyclic shear strength can be determined.However, the application of this method involves several empirical factors, including thecorrections for sample disturbance, earthquake magnitude, and overburden pressure.Recently, Arango (1994) presented the new developments for this method, including theeffects of higher frequency of loading on the cyclic shear strength of the soil and mostnotably, the recommendations made for revising the correction factors for earthquakemagnitudes. Another recent study (Koester, 1992) has shown that the correction foroverburden pressure is also a function of the fines content and that a reduction of thecyclic shear strength due to overburden pressure will significantly decrease if the finescontent of the materials increases. The recent publication by Ishihara (1993) alsoprovides an adjustment factor to incorporate the plasticity effects of the fines on thecyclic shear strength of the materials. Over the years, the "stress" method has proved tobe a conservative and reliable method for the prediction of liquefaction potential,especially for distant earthquake events, which was the basis of the data used fordevelopment of this method. However, the method lacks the flexibility to incorporaterecently recognized characteristics of the earthquake ground motions such as the nearfield effects. For example, the "fling" effect resulting from the source and directivity ofthe rupture which was recently observed in the Kobe and the Northridge earthquakes,concentrates most of the energy in a short period of time. Such effects, combined with amuch higher intensity of the ground motion in excess of 19 peak ground acceleration
I-I
recorded in urban areas in recent major earthquakes, require a more robust approach toinvestigate the liquefaction potential in such regions.
The second method for predicting liquefaction potential is based on the "strain"approach. This method was developed among others by Dobry et al. (1982). In thismethod, the shear strain in the field is compared with the laboratory data relating cyclicshear strain to excess pore pressure to determine the liquefaction potential. Similar to the"stress" method, the "strain" method also requires ground response analyses andlaboratory testing of the soil samples. The "strain" method is fundamentally differentfrom the "stress" method and lacks the wide range of the field and the laboratory databases that exist for the "stress" approach.
The "strain energy" method discussed in this report incorporates the basic elements ofboth the stress and strain approaches in the formulation. In this method, the amount oftotal strain energy at the onset of liquefaction is obtained from the stress and strain timehistories from laboratory testing and is compared with the same energy in the field due tothe design earthquake motion. The basis for this method is the observation made on thelaboratory data that the build-up of the excess pore pressure is proportional to the totalstrain energy in all loading cycles up to the initial liquefaction. This observation hasprompted the formulation of the "energy-based" method. This method has beeninvestigated in recent years by several researchers, including Figueroa et al. (1994, 1995)and Kagawa et al. (1990).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of the development and applicationof the strain energy method for general use. The study is expected to continue with twoadditional phases that will develop generic "strain energy" liquefaction curves as afunction of the most relevant soil properties and generic "strain energy" demand as afunction of seismicity data and a wide range of site soil data and profiles. The limitedscope of the feasibility study did not permit laboratory testing for the purpose of the"strain energy" computation. Available laboratory data were used for this purpose.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
In this report, Chapter 1 includes the introduction and scope of the study. Chapter 2presents the collection and synthesis of the laboratory data. Chapter 3 discusses the soiland earthquake data from the Wildlife Site. The ground response analyses andcomparison of the results with the laboratory data are presented in Chapter 4. Finally,Chapter 5 presents the summary and the recommendation. The references are listed inChapter 6. All the laboratory data used in this report are presented in Appendices Athrough D.
1-2
50
NkJrginal NoLiquefoction Liquefaction
8
FINES CONTENT ~5%Mocified Chinese Code Proposal (cloy content=5%) @_
.29
0.4
0.2 :O"~IO r.G20· 4S ~10.o2lJ /10 "8 I
'Y\ 8:tJ --:>0 /.25 .i.!2 I""". _ /'l:.J I
22 / ....12 I~ / 13 ~
7S / P 1 ·12
75;:9" Sf 50+ i 8 30o I _60(.1T '';'''0 If)~ 02lJ
• 0, 0~' I 0O 1013 I 3027 •
;Y'! Liquefaction
31. I. Pan-Americor. data I
Japanese data _ 0 Q
I Chinese data A I ~oL.. ...L.-i -L1 ..l..-1 .l..-- ----I
o lO 20 30 40( N')60
O.6r------,...------;::;,...,:--r-.-----.-------r---------,CJ37 I
IPercent Rnes = 35 15 s 5II' . Ii U ;..l__-+.-( +- ~0.5,1-------+--!------4. I
. II 1/
I 1J J I'! I. I,: I
I il I :i ~ Ii 1 1 I
! l: fI t-...'....·2Q--L'---IT-+-------I-"""-------1
1 .fl' / /I I I J
I .J I / /
I ./ 1/ /en _20 ' I ~/ I
~ 031-----a::=.....-:!I----:---;r·--r---·I----I------I--------1
t .50+ I e12
/ /iIZl I / I I ._/
.;: I ! /}l/! 0~!M .27 I /18. )/;u 00 I ~+I "G 60··. ~20 i .A: ./ @ : II
10 .10 i3?£~ /f !;)
Figure 1.1 - Relationships Between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction and (Nr)6o Valuesfor Silty Sands for M = 7-112 Earthquakes (Seed et al., 1985)
1-3
CHAPTER 2
COLLECTION AND SYNTHESIS OF LABORATORY DATA
Computation of the strain energy requires access to the stress and strain time historiesfrom cyclic (triaxial or simple shear) tests in the laboratory. Such data are usuallycomputer storage-intensive and are not maintained for a long period. However, anattempt was made to collect the available and reliable data to characterize the strainenergy. Most of the data were obtained in connection with various recent Bechtelprojects. The laboratory data used in this study are from:
• The cyclic stress- and strain-controlled tests on Monterey No. 0 sand, performed atthe University of California, Berkeley.
• The stress-controlled tests on soil samples from the Savannah River Site (SRS),performed at the University of California, Berkeley.
• The cyclic torsional shear tests on clean and silty sands, performed at the Universityof Colorado.
• The cyclic triaxial tests on clean sands, performed at Wayne State University.
• The summary of the laboratory data reduced to a set of relationships to compute strainenergy, as developed by Figueroa et al.
Altogether, a total of 150 cyclic test data sets have been processed. A limited number ofthese were excluded in the process due to peculiar stress and strain patterns andincompleteness of the respective time histories. The computation of the strain energyfrom each data set and a discussion on the validity of each group of tests follow.
2.1 STRAIN ENERGY COMPUTATION
In a typical cyclic laboratory test, the stress, strain and pore pressure time histories arerecorded. Typical recorded time histories for a strain-controlled cyclic triaxial test areshown in Figure 2.1. Hysteresis loops can be developed from the shear stress and straintime histories. The hysteresis loops corresponding to the stress and strain time historiesshown in Figure 2.1 are shown in Figure 2.2. From the shear stress, 't(t), and the shearstrain, ')'(t) at time t, the time history of the total strain energy up to time t, E(t), iscomputed from:
2-1
T
E(T) = L ~ (t).L~:Y (t)t =0
(2.1)
where t is the time, r is summation over the time increment ~t up to time t, f (t) is theaverage shear stress from time t to t + ~t, and ~'Y(t) is the shear strain increment from timet to t + ~t. The strain energy for each cycle of loading amounts to the area inside thehysteresis loop. The computation of the instantaneous energy and its summation overtime intervals were performed until the onset of the liquefaction, at which time the porepressure ratio reached a value of unity. The summation of the energy at this time, ELiq,
was used as the measure of the capacity of the soil sample against initial liquefactionoccurrence in terms of the strain energy.
2.2 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON MONTEREY NO. 0 SAND,PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY(DeB)
The data were prepared as part of the Bechtel in-house technical research led by Arango(1994). The gradation curve for Monterey No. 0 sand is shown in Figure 2.3. The testswere both stress- and strain-controlled. The samples were prepared at relative densitiesranging from 40% to 60%, and the loads were applied at frequencies ranging from 0.10Hz to 20 Hz. All tests were conducted at a confining pressure of 100 kPa. More detailedinformation about the testing program and the testing apparatus may be obtained fromRiemer (Riemer et al., 1994). A total of 20 tests from this group were incorporated in thisstudy. A summary of the test data, including the computed total strain energy to the onsetof liquefaction for each test, is presented in Table 2.1. The recorded stress, strain, porepressure (in terms of the pore pressure ratio ru), and the computed ti~e history of thestrain energy for each test are shown in Appendix A. In addition to the strain energy timehistory, the energy time history normalized to the total energy at the time of ru =1, (ELiq),
is also plotted and compared with the ru time history, e. g. see Page A-3. As shown inthese plots, the normalized strain energy increase follows the pattern of the pore pressureratio increase and, on the average, shows a very good agreement for all the tests at a widerange of frequencies and at all the relative densities tested. The agreement holds whetherthe data are obtained from the stress- or the strain-controlled tests. As stated earlier, thisobservation was the basis for formulation of the strain energy method.
A summary of the results in terms of the total energy as a function of relative density isshown in Figure 2.4. As expected, the total energy to the onset of liquefaction increasesas the relative density of the sample increases. It can also be observed in this figure thatthe scatter in the strain-controlled test data is less severe than the scatter in the data fromthe stress-controlled test results.
2-2
The strain energy for each test as a function of the frequency of loading is plotted inFigure 2.5, which shows a decreasing total energy as the frequency of loading increases.In this figure, the frequency of loading has a more pronounced effect on the total energyobtained from the stress-controlled tests than the strain-controlled tests. In addition, thestrain-controlled tests require lower total energy to develop initial liquefaction ascompared to the stress-controlled tests. It should also be noted that for a typical straincontrolled test, the pore pressure build-up takes place at a much faster rate in the firstseveral cycles of loading. On the other hand, in the stress-controlled test, the rate of porepressure build-up increases towards the end of loading cycles. This observation can alsobe made from the shape and size of the respective hysteresis loops. In the straincontrolled tests, the largest loops are the earlier loops, and they decrease in size as thesample degrades due to the pore pressure build-up. The opposite trend takes place in astress-controlled test, as shown in Appendix A, e. g. Pages A-4 and A-16.
2.3 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THESAVANNAB RIVER SITE~PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA~BERKELEY (VCB)
The laboratory program for this group of tests was developed as part of one of theBechtel projects for the Department of Energy (DOE) at the Savannah River Site (SRS).Subsurface conditions for the site under consideration are shown in Figure 2.6. The soillayers of primary interest were the Tobacco Road (TR3 and TR4) and the Santeeformations.
A comprehensive site investigation program was conducted at the site. Relevant averagesoil properties of each soil layer at the SRS site, shown in Figure 2.6 are summarized inTable 2.2.
Most of the cyclic load tests were conducted on undisturbed soil samples from theTobacco Road formation from depths of 16 m to 23 m. As shown in Table 2.2, thismaterial has an average fines content of 23%, including 9% clay content (minus 2 micronparticle size) and an average plasticity index of 25%. A typical gradation curve for theTobacco Road Materials is shown in Figure 2.7. A total of 22 cyclic stress-controlledtests at 1 Hz were performed (Riemer and Seed, 1994). The confining pressure rangedfrom 200 kPa to 750 kPa. A summary of the test data and of the total strain energy foreach test in this group is presented in Table 2.3. Notable characteristic of this group oftests is the large confining pressure used in the tests and the relatively large fines contentin the soil samples tested. The plots of shear stress, strain, total energy and normalizedenergy, pore pressure ratios, and the hysteresis loops for this group are shown inAppendix B. As shown in this appendix, the increase of the normalized energy in generalfollows the pore pressure ratio ihcrease up to the pore pressure ratio of one. A summaryof the total energy as a function of the confining pressure is shown in Figure 2.8. Asexpected, the total strain energy is greater for the samples tested at higher confiningpressures. For the same confining pressure, tests on samples having a higher dry density
2-3
resulted in the development of a larger total energy. This trend is similar to the trendobserved in Figure 2.4 with respect to the relative density of the samples.
2.4 CYCLIC TORSIONAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES, PERFORMED ATTHE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO (DOC)
The time histories for this group of tests were provided by Koester (1992). The test datawere developed as part of the research work for a doctoral dissertation at the Universityof Colorado (DOC). Only the time histories from nine tests were available. The testswere performed using the stress-controlled hollow torsional simple shear test apparatus.The cyclic loading was applied at a frequency of 0.1 Hz. Both clean sands and sandswith fines content up to 45% were tested.
The silty sand samples were prepared with a density such that the void ratio of the samplematched that of the parent clean sand at the selected relative densities. The confiningpressure in the tests ranged from 200 kPa to 300 kPa. A summary of the soil data and thetest results in terms of the total energy is shown in Table 2.4, whereas the gradation curveis shown in Figure 2.9. A more detailed description of the sample preparation and testingprogram can be obtained from Koester (1992).
The time histories of the stress, strain, pore pressure ratio, total energy, and hysteresisloops for this group are presented in Appendix C. In general, the hysteresis loops in thisgroup of tests start with a few narrow loops followed by one or two large loops beforereaching the initial liquefaction stage, suggesting a sudden contraction and collapse of thesamples. This behavior may have been the cause of the relatively low densities of thesamples. The test results in terms of the total strain energy as a function of relativedensity for the clean sand are shown in Figure 2.10. The results show a relatively largescatter in the energy at low relative densities. The results of the silty sand samples as afunction of the confining pressure are shown in Figure 2.11. These results showrelatively less scatter in the data.
2.5 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THENORTHRIDGE SITE, PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA, BERKELEY (DCB)
The samples for this group of tests were prepared as part of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF)/Bechtel research work led by Arango (Arango and Migues, 1996). Aspart of the test program, a total of 8 reconstituted clean sand samples were prepared andtested in a stress-controlled cyclic triaxial test device. The samples were prepared atrelative densities ranging from 35% to 90%. The gradation curves for two soil samplesare shown in Figure 2.12. A summary of the test data and of the computed total strainenergy is presented in Table 2.5. Time history plots are included in Appendix D. Testresults in terms of the total strain energy as a function of relative density is presented in
2-4
Figure 2.13. As shown previously, the total strain energy increases as the relative densityincreases.
2.6 CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ON CLEAN SANDS, PERFORMED ATWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY (WSU)
The summary results of 91 cyclic triaxial stress-controlled tests on clean sands waspresented in the doctoral dissertation by AI-Khatib (1994). The tests were perfonned atWayne State University (WSU). All tests were perfonned on clean sands consisting ofMonterey No. 0 and Kasumigaura sand (K-sand). The gradation curves for the two sandsare shown in Figure 2.14. The breakdown of the tests is as follows:
• 28 tests on K-sand at low frequency with cyclic reversal loading (two-way cyclicloading)
• 28 tests on Monterey No. 0 sand at low frequency with cyclic reversal loading• 25 tests on Monterey No. 0, low frequency and one-way loading• 10 tests on Monterey No. 0 with earthquake simulated loading using the EI Centro
and Taft records
Time histories of the test data were not available; however, the total energy in terms ofaxial stress/strain has been reported by AI-Khatib (1994). The total energy was convertedto the total energy in terms of the shear strain and shear stress attributes and aresummarized in Table 2.6. The results in terms of the total strain energy as a function ofrelative density for the cyclic reversal loading cases are shown in Figure 2.15 whichshows a similar trend to the one observed in the UCB data (see Figure 2.4). As shown inthis figure, both the K-sand and the Monterey No. 0 sand have similar capacity in termsof total energy and consistently show an increase of the total energy with an increase inthe relative density. The scatter in the data appear to be minimal.
The results in terms of the cyclic one-way and two-way loadings are compared in Figure2.16. As shown, the two-way loading results in lower total energy capacity as comparedto the one-way loading. This trend is consistent with the intuitive indication that soilresistance to liquefaction will be higher due to the less damaging effects of the one-wayloading. Finally, the results of the two-way loading are compared with the earthquakeloading in Figure 2.17. The earthquake loading results in the lower total energy.Altogether, the results of this group of tests appear to be more unifonn with little scatterin tenns of the total energy.
2.7 SUMMARY DATA BY FIGUEROA et al.
A series of torsional shear hollow cylinder tests were perfonned on both clean sand andsilty sand by Figueroa et aI. (1994, 1995). Samples from the Reid Bedford sand (cleansand) were tested at relative densities ranging from 50% to 70%. The silty sand from the
2-5
Lower San Fernando Dam (LSFD) were tested at relative densities of 57% to 92%. Thegradation curves for both materials are shown in Figure 2.18. Each sample wassuccessively tested at confining pressures of 41.4 kPa, 82.7 kPa, and 124.1 kPa Actualdata points for this group of tests are not available. However, the authors performedregression analyses of the test results in terms of total strain energy and identified themost relevant parameters affecting the results of clean sand and silty sand. Based on thetest results, the authors recommended the following relationships (Figueroa et al., 1995):
Clean sand
Silty sand
Log BE = 2.062 + 0.0039 cr'e + 0.0124 Dr
Log BE = 2.529 + 0.00474 cr~
(2.2)
(2.3)
where oE is the total strain energy in Joules/m3, cr~ is the effective confining pressure in
kPa, and Dr is the relative density in percent. The relationship for clean sand shows theconfining pressure as one of the variables. However, the importance of this parameter isvery small due to the small coefficient associated with this parameter in Equation 2.2.
2.8 SUMMARY OF ALL LABORATORY DATA
Based on the results of the five groups of tests outlined above, summary plots have beenprepared to evaluate consistency between the various test groups.
For clean sand, the results of tests on Monterey No. 0 performed at the DCB (20 tests),the data on clean sands from the WSD (81 tests), the data from the Northridge samples(8 tests) also tested at the DCB, and the data from the DOC (4 tests) are compared withthe relationship by Figueroa et al. in Figure 2.19. As shown in this figure, except for thedata from the DOC, the remaining groups show a quite consistent pattern of the rate ofenergy dissipation and of the total energy absorbed. The confining pressure used in thetests at the DOC was at least 2 to 3 times larger than the pressure used for the rest of thetests. Also, the differences in the shape and size of the sand particles may havecontributed to some of the differences in the results. For relative densities in the range of40% to 70%, the data from DCB, WSD, and Figueroa et al. are in relatively goodagreement.
For silty sands, the results from the Savannah River Site (SRS) are compared with thedata from the DOC and the relationship by Figueroa et al. in Figure 2.20. The finescontent in each group are: 28% for the samples from the lower San Fernando Dam(Figuero et aI., 1995), 20% to 45% for soil samples tested at DOC (Koester, 1992), andthe average 23% for samples taken from the SRS site. The Plasticity Index of the
2-6
materials in the groups also varies from 10 to 25%. Unfortunately, the confiningpressures used for each group of tests do not overlap. Nevertheless, each group of resultsfollows the pattern of the previous group and a consistent trend is maintained.
All of the results indicate that for clean sands, the energy to liquefaction can be quantifiedin terms of the relative density and the confining pressure. However, the limited dataavailable does not pennit a study of effects of the grain size and shape on the totalenergy.
Summary of the results for silty sands also shows that the energy to liquefaction can bequantified in tenns of the effective confining pressure. However, the effects of theplasticity index, the amount, and the type of fine need to be studied in the future.
As stated earlier in the report, the scope of this feasibility study did not include laboratorytesting. However, comparison of the data available from the various researchers andpractitioners at different institutes shows remarkably good agreement. This observationleads to the conclusion that development of generic total strain energy relationship as ameasure of soil resistance against liquefaction by means of laboratory testing is feasible.If consistent sampling, sample handling, and testing methods and specifications arefollowed, the results are expected to be more consistent and vary within narrower limits.
2-7
N I 00
Tab
le2.
1-
Sum
mar
yo
fth
eC
ycli
cT
riax
ialT
estD
ata
onM
onte
rey
No.
0S
and
Per
form
edat
Uni
vers
ity
of
Cal
ifor
nia,
Ber
kele
y
No.
Te
st10
Sam
ple
Or(%
)E
llq(J
/m3 )
FC
(%)
'Yd(k
N/m
3 )C
on
tro
lC1
c'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.(H
z)L
oa
dS
hape
1M
ON
T4
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
61.8
2677
215
.6S
tres
s1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
2M
ON
T1
0M
onte
rey
No.
O61
.01
93
32
15.5
Str
ess
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
v
3M
ON
T11
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
60.6
98
82
15.5
Str
ess
100
10
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
4M
ON
T1
2M
onte
rev
No.
O61
.024
812
15.5
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
5M
ON
T1
4M
onte
rey
No.
O60
.215
832
15.5
Str
ess
100
20
Sin
usoi
dal2
-waY
6M
ON
T1
5M
onte
rey
No.
O60
.512
452
15.5
Str
ess
100
10
Sin
usoi
dal2
-waY
7M
ON
T1
7M
onte
rey
No.
O6
1.0
1878
215
.5S
trai
n10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
8M
ON
T1
8M
onte
rey
No.
O61
.011
872
15.5
Str
ain
100
10
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
9M
ON
T1
9M
onte
rev
No.
O6
0.6
1483
215
.5S
trai
n10
01
5S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
10M
ON
T2
0M
onte
rey
No.
O4
0.9
851
21
5.0
Str
ain
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
11M
ON
T21
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
41
.888
02
15.0
Str
ain
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
v
12M
ON
T2
2M
onte
rev
No.
O4
2.3
1078
215
.0S
trai
n10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
v
13M
ON
T2
4M
onte
rev
No.
O5
1.8
2736
215
.3S
tres
s10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
14M
ON
T2
5M
onte
rey
No.
O50
.429
852
15.3
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
aY
15M
ON
T2
6M
onte
rey
No.
O4
9.9
2769
215
.2S
tres
s1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
16M
ON
T3
0M
onte
reY
No.
O4
1.9
708
215
.0S
trai
n10
01
0S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
17
MO
NT
33
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
40
.582
92
15.0
Str
ain
100
10
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
18M
ON
T3
5M
onte
reY
No.
O6
1.8
4211
215
.6S
tres
s1
00
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
19M
ON
T3
7M
onte
rev
No.
O6
1.6
1388
215
.5S
trai
n1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-W
8V
20M
ON
T3
8M
onte
rev
No.
O6
1.8
70
42
15
.6S
trai
n1
00
10
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
Table 2.2 - Average Material Properties at the SRS Site
PARAMETER/SOIL LAYER TR31fR4 SANTEEAVG AVG
SPTN-VALUE 15 58SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY, mlsec (ftls) 364 (1193) 381 (1251)CONE TIP RESISTANCE, Qc, tsf 52 111FRICTION RATIO 3 1IQclN 3.5 1.9PERCENT FINES «.074 mm) 23 25PERCENT SILT 9 12PERCENT CLAY «.002 mm) 14 13PLASTICITY INDEX, % 25 31LIQUID LIMIT, % 45 55PLASTICITY INDEX (-200 MATERIAL), % 101 78LIQUID LIMIT (-200 MATERIAL), % 144 112
DRY DENSITY, KN/m3 (pef) 16 (102) 13.8 (88)WATER CONTENT, % 22 32
WET DENSITY, KN/m3 (pef) 19.6 (125) 6.4 (116)SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.68 2.67VOID RATIO 0.625 0.876AT-REST LAT. EARTH PRESS. COEFF 0.46 0.44OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO 1.89 1.26TOTAL COHESION, !cPa (ksf) 91 (1.9) -TOTAL FRICTION ANGLE, de~ee 13 -EFFECTIVE COHESION, kPa (ksf) 0 0EFFECTIVE FRICTION ANGLE, de~ee 33 34DILAnON ANGLE, degree 1.7 1.3
2-9
N I ......
o
Tab
le2.
3-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
licT
riax
ial
Tes
tDat
aon
SRS
Soil
Sam
ples
Per
form
edat
Uni
vers
ity
ofC
alif
orni
a,B
erke
ley
No
.T
est
10S
am
ple
Dr(
%)
Ellq
(J/m
J)
FC
(%)
'Yd(k
N/m
J)
Co
ntr
ol
(Jc'
(kP
a)
Fre
q.
(Hz)
Lo
ad
Sh
ap
e
18
23
P2
8C
YS
ante
eNf
A14
675
33.7
16.0
Str
ess
40
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
28
23
P2
MC
YS
ante
eNf
A16
782
35.6
16.4
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
38
23
P2
TC
YS
ante
eNf
A11
402
32.6
16.8
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
48
23
P3
8C
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A49
2916
.616
.4S
tres
s20
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
58
23
P3
MC
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A55
8518
.515
.2S
tres
s20
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
68
23
P3
TC
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A29
2420
.516
.6S
tres
s20
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
78
12
P5
8C
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A14
918
27.0
15.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
88
12
P5
MC
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A49
114
26.8
16.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
98
12
P5
TC
YT
obac
coR
d.Nf
A54
5022
.318
.0S
tres
s30
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
10
81
2P
78
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
7666
15.7
15.9
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
118
12
P7
MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
482
17.0
16.3
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
128
12
P7
TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A38
5215
.716
.2S
tres
s37
51
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
138
2P
58
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A11
672
25.4
14.7
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
148
2P
5M
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
344
29.6
15.4
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
158
2P
5T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A88
1926
.616
.7S
tres
s50
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
168
23
P4
8C
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A21
667
11.4
14.6
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
178
23
P4
MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A36
680
16.5
15.5
Str
ess
700
1S
inus
oida
l2-
way
'18
82
3P
4T
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1796
828
.0N/
AS
tres
s75
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
198
29
P2
TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
637
23.0
16.7
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-
way
208
2P
68
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1798
518
.916
.7S
tres
s72
51
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
218
2P
6M
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1983
120
.116
.5S
tres
s74
31
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
228
2P
6T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
446
22.4
16.0
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
N I I-'
I-'
Tab
le2.
4-
Sum
mar
yo
fth
eC
yclic
Tor
sion
alT
est
Dat
aon
Cle
anan
dSi
ltySa
nds
Per
form
edat
Uni
vers
ity
ofC
olor
ado
No.
Tes
t10
Sam
ple
Or(
%)
E"q
(J/m
3 )FC
(%)
¥d(k
N/m
3 )P
.I.
Co
ntr
ol
ae'
(kP
a)F
req
.(H
z)L
oad
Sh
ape
1U
OF
C5
F11
32.6
3728
014
.5st
ress
199.
90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
2U
OF
C7
F11
41.0
1249
50
14.7
Str
ess
204.
80.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
3U
OF
C9
F11
42.0
1699
70
14.8
Str
ess
304.
10.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
4U
OF
C13
F43
N/A
3450
2015
.310
.0S
tres
s29
9.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
5U
OF
C14
F46
N/A
4753
2015
.225
.0S
tres
s1
99
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
6U
OF
C15
F46
N/A
2485
2015
.225
.0S
tres
s20
1.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
7U
OF
C17
F64
N/A
3427
4516
.215
.0S
tres
s20
3.4
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
8U
OF
C18
F64
N/A
3993
4516
.215
.0S
tres
s19
0.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
9U
OF
C23
F11
45.3
7437
014
,9S
tres
s19
9.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
N I ..... N
Tab
le2.
5-
Sum
mar
yo
fth
eC
ycli
cT
riax
ialT
estD
ata
onN
orth
ridg
eS
ampl
esP
erfo
rmed
atU
nive
rsit
yo
fCal
ifor
nia,
Ber
kele
y
No.
Te
st10
Sa
mp
le0,
(%)
Enq
(J/m
3 )F
C(%
)'Y
d(k
N/m
3 )C
on
tro
lCJ
c'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.(H
z)L
oa
dS
ha
pe
1B
TC
2CY
1N
orth
ridge
San
d58
.35
93
05
14.5
Str
ess
10
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
2B
TC
2CY
2N
orth
ridae
San
d78
.42
24
75
15.5
Str
ess
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
v
3B
TC
3CY
1N
orth
ridge
San
d82
.351
465
15.7
Str
ess
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
4B
TC
3CY
2N
orth
ridge
San
d89
.938
135
16.1
Str
ess
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
5B
TC
3CY
3N
orth
ridae
San
d97
.236
156
516
.5S
tres
s1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
6B
TC
4CY
1N
orth
ridae
San
d9
3.7
7874
516
.3S
tres
s1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
7B
TC
4CY
2N
orth
ridae
San
d10
0.0
6647
516
.7S
tres
s1
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
8B
TC
6CY
1N
orth
ridae
San
d35
.232
065
13.5
Str
ess
10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
\'-,) J ..... lJ,)
Tab
le2.
6-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
lic
Tri
axia
lT
estD
ata
onC
lean
San
dsP
erfo
rmed
atW
ayne
Sta
teU
nive
rsit
y
No.
Te
stID
Sam
ple
Dr(
%)
Euq
(J/m
3 )FC
(%)
'Yd
(kN
/m3 )
Co
ntr
ol
Ge'
(kP
a)F
req.
(Hz)
Lo
ad
Sha
pe
1W
S6-
1-1
K-S
and
67.0
2211
2.5
15.8
Str
ess
44.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
2W
S6-
1-2
K-S
and
65.0
2397
2.5
15.7
Str
ess
56.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
3W
S6-
1-3
K-S
and
59.0
1893
2.5
15.4
Str
ess
68.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
4W
S6-
1-4
K-S
and
40.0
39
72.
514
.7S
tres
s33
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
5W
S6-
1-5
K-S
and
32.0
29
32.
514
.4S
tres
s38
.60.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
6W
S6-
1-6
K-S
and
74.0
2163
2.5
16.1
Str
ess
26.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
7W
S6-
1-7
K-S
and
52.0
424
2.5
15.2
Str
ess
22.8
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
8W
S6-
1-8
K-S
and
66.0
1690
2.5
15.7
Str
ess
36.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
9W
S6-
1-9
K-S
and
34.0
289
2.5
14.5
Str
ess
35.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
10W
S6-
1-10
K-S
and
48.0
486
2.5
15.0
Str
ess
31.8
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
11W
S6-
1-11
K-S
and
42.0
39
42.
514
.8S
tres
s31
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
12W
S6-
1-12
K-S
and
23.0
1857
2.5
14.1
Str
ess
35.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
13W
S6-
1-13
K-S
and
29.0
22
32.
514
.3S
tres
s35
.30.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
14W
S6-
1-14
K-S
and
50.0
463
2.5
15.1
Str
ess
27.0
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
15W
S6-
1-15
K-S
and
38.0
32
02.
514
.6S
tres
s32
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
16W
S6-
1-16
K-S
and
55.0
64
22.
515
.3S
tres
s32
.40.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
17W
S6-
1-17
K-S
and
51.0
615
2.5
15.1
Str
ess
35.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
18W
S6-
1-18
K-S
and
58.0
899
2.5
15.4
Str
ess
35.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
19W
S6-
1-19
K-S
and
37.0
309
2.5
14.6
Str
ess
34.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
20W
S6-
1-20
K-S
and
47.0
46
72.
515
.0S
tres
s33
.10.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
21W
S6-
1-21
K-S
and
39.0
379
2.5
14.7
Str
ess
34.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
22W
S6-
1-22
K-S
and
61.0
1120
2.5
15.5
Str
ess
35.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
23W
S6-
1-23
K-S
and
56.0
739
2.5
15.3
Str
ess
34.6
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
24W
S6-
1-24
K-S
and
30.0
237
2.5
14.3
Str
ess
36.0
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
25W
S6-
1-25
K-S
and
57.0
76
82.
515
.4S
tres
s33
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
26W
S6-
1-26
K-S
and
38.0
358
2.5
14.6
Str
ess
35.2
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
27
WS
6-1-
27K
-San
d44
.045
62.
514
.9S
tres
s34
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
N I ..... ~
Tab
le2.
6-
Sum
mar
yo
fth
eC
ycli
cT
riax
ialT
estD
ata
onC
lean
San
dsP
erfo
nned
atW
ayne
Sta
teU
nive
rsit
y(C
onti
nued
)
No
.T
est
10S
amp
leD
r(%)
Ella
(J/m
3 )F
C(%
)'Yd
(kN
/m3 )
Co
ntr
ol
C1c'
(kP
a)F
req
.(H
z)L
oad
Sh
ape
28W
S6
·1-2
8K
-San
d31
.026
82.
514
.4S
tres
s37
.20.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
29
WS
6-2·
1M
onte
rey
No.
062
.011
622
15.8
Str
ess
32.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
30W
S6
-2-2
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
57.0
802
215
.6S
tres
s33
.60.
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
ay
31W
S6
·2-3
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
36.0
302
214
.8S
tres
s32
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
32W
S6
·2·4
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
39.0
361
214
.9S
tres
s34
.30.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
33
WS
6·2
·5M
onte
rey
No.
038
.042
42
14.8
Str
ess
43.1
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
34W
S6
·2-6
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
52.0
710
215
.4S
tres
s41
.40.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
35W
S6
-2·7
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
58.0
1083
215
.6S
tres
s42
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
36W
S6
·2-8
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
60.0
1264
215
.7S
tres
s39
.60.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
37
WS
6-2-
9M
onte
rey
No.
065
.017
472
15.9
Str
ess
42
.70.
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
ay
38W
S6
-2·1
0M
onte
rey
No.
059
.092
62
15.7
Str
ess
34.4
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
39W
S6-
2-11
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
66.0
1749
215
.9S
tres
s40
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
40
WS
6·2
-12
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
26
.021
52
14.4
Str
ess
34.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-Way
41W
S6
·2·1
3M
onte
rev
No.
032
.025
22
14.6
Str
ess
31.0
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
42W
S6-
2-14
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
30.0
239
214
.6S
tres
s31
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
ay
43W
S6
·2-1
5M
onte
rey
No.
055
.076
22
15.5
Str
ess
37.0
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
44
WS
6·2
-16
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
54.0
615
215
.5S
tres
s32
.40.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
45
WS
6-2-
17M
onte
rey
No.
047
.043
62
15.2
Str
ess
33.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
46
WS
6-2-
18M
onte
rey
No.
044
.041
32
15.1
Str
ess
32.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
47
WS
6-2-
19M
onte
rey
No.
042
.032
02
15.0
Str
ess
27
.70.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
48W
S6
·2-2
0M
onte
rey
No.
072
.011
792
16.2
Str
ess
16.5
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
49W
S6-
2-21
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
28.0
194
214
.5S
tres
s28
.10.
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
ay
50W
S6
·2-2
2M
onte
rey
No.
041
.037
42
15.0
Str
ess
33.4
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
51W
S6-
2-23
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
35.0
251
214
.7S
tres
s28
.20.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
52W
S6·
2-24
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
51.0
533
215
.3S
tres
s33
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
53W
S6·
2-25
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
53.0
462
215
.4S
tres
s25
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
54W
S6-
2-26
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
33.0
232
214
.7S
tres
s27
.30.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
N I .... \JI
Tab
le2.
6-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
lic
Tri
axia
lT
estD
ata
onC
lean
San
dsP
erfo
rmed
atW
ayne
Sta
teU
nive
rsit
y(C
onti
nued
)
No.
Te
stID
Sam
ple
Dr(%
)ell
Cl(J
/m3 )
FC
(%)
'Yd
(kN
/m3 )
Co
ntr
ol
Ge'
(kP
a)F
req.
(Hz)
Lo
ad
Sha
pe
55W
S6-
2-27
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
49
.053
22
15.3
Str
ess
35.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
56W
S6-
2-28
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
56.0
606
215
.5S
tres
s2
7.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
v
57
WS
6-3·
1M
onte
rey
No.
051
.02
42
32
15.3
Str
ess
61.0
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
1-w
ay
58W
S6
-3·2
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
33.0
1114
214
.7S
tres
s67
.60.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
ay
59
WS
B-3
-3M
onte
rey
No.
030
.075
52
14.6
Str
ess
60.4
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
1-w
av
60
WS
6-3
-4M
onte
rev
No.
054
.031
512
15.5
Str
ess
67.1
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
1-w
av
61W
S6-
3-5
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
53.0
2589
215
.4S
tres
s58
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
av
62W
S6-
3-6
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
43.0
1306
215
.0S
tres
s4
5.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-way
63
WS
6-3-
7M
onte
rey
No.
02
8.0
547
214
.5S
tres
s51
.80.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
ay
64
WS
6-3-
8M
onte
rev
No.
071
.044
682
16.1
Str
ess
45.6
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
1-w
ay
65W
S6-
3-9
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
46.0
1679
215
.1S
tres
s52
.50.
1S
inu
soid
al1
-wa
v
66W
S6-
3-10
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
61.0
1944
215
.7S
tres
s33
.10.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
ay
67
WS
6-3-
11M
onte
rev
No.
062
.02
04
72
15.8
Str
ess
32.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-way
68W
S6-
3-12
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
38.0
633
214
.8S
tres
s2
9.6
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-wav
69
WS
6-3-
13M
onte
rey
No.
066
.02
95
22
1B.0
Str
ess
34
.70.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
ay
70W
S6
-3-1
4M
onte
rey
No.
066
.03
81
32
15.9
Str
ess
48.6
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-wa
v
71W
S6-
3-15
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
73.0
50
14
216
.2S
tres
s44
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
av
72W
S6-
3-16
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
56.0
21
48
215
.5S
tres
s43
.10.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
ay
73W
S6-
3-17
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
55.0
2031
215
.5S
tres
s4
2.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
1-w
ay
74W
S6-
3-18
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
56.0
26
22
215
.6S
tres
s4
6.6
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-way
75W
S6-
3-19
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
49
.011
842
15.3
Str
ess
31.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-way
76W
S6
-3·2
0M
onte
rev
No.
032
.044
12
14.6
Str
ess
31
.70.
1S
inus
oida
l1-
way
77W
S6-
3·21
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
82.0
51
03
216
.6S
tres
s40
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l1-
way
78
WS
6-3
·22
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
50.0
1073
215
.3S
tres
s2
6.8
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal1
-wav
79W
S6
-3·2
3M
onte
rey
No.
052
.01
65
52
15.4
Str
ess
40.3
0.1
Sin
uso
ida
l1-w
ay
80W
S6-
3-24
Mon
tere
vN
o.0
36.0
511
214
.8S
tres
s27
.50.
1S
inus
oida
l1-w
av
81W
S6-
3-25
Mon
tere
vN
o.a
37.0
666
214
.8S
tres
s34
.10.
1S
inus
oida
l1-
wav
N I ..... 0'\
Tab
le2.
6-
Sum
mar
yo
fth
eC
ycli
cT
riax
ialT
estD
ata
onC
lean
San
dsP
erfo
rmed
atW
ayne
Sta
teU
nive
rsit
y(C
onti
nued
)
No
.T
est
10S
amp
le0,
(%)
Ella
(J/m
3 )F
C(%
)'Yd
(kN
/m3 )
Co
ntr
ol
CJc'
(kP
a)F
req
.(H
z)L
oad
Sh
ape
82
WS
6-4·
1M
onte
rey
No.
049
.051
215
.3S
tres
s42
.0E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
83W
S6-
4-2
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
61.0
792
15.7
Str
ess
40
.7E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
84W
S6-
4-3
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
53.0
57
215
.4S
tres
s40
.1E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
85W
S6
·4-4
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
40.0
362
14.9
Str
ess
42.6
Ear
thqu
ake
Ear
thqu
ake
86W
S6
·4·5
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
89.0
105
217
.0S
tres
s15
.2E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
87
WS
6·4
·6M
onte
rey
No.
044
.04
02
15.1
Str
ess
41.3
Ear
thqu
ake
Ear
thqu
ake
88W
S6
·4·7
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
35.0
33
214
.7S
tres
s43
.2E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
89W
S6-
4-8
Mon
tere
yN
o.0
31.0
282
14.6
Str
ess
41.6
Ear
thqu
ake
Ear
thqu
ake
90
WS
6·4
-9M
onte
rey
No.
071
.071
216
.1S
tres
s23
.4E
arth
quak
eE
arth
quak
e
91W
S6
·4·1
0M
onte
rey
No.
080
.019
02
16.5
Str
ess
43.9
Ear
thqu
ake
Ear
thqu
ake
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10015
80 T"'""----------------------------------...,Ci' 60Q..:.::'";40rn~ 20-enIii 0+-'--+-+-+-1--+-+--+-,1--+-!'--\-f1---'\---f----:\---t---1r-fi'---1-+-\-+-l,-;4-\:-+---l,,--f-~+;_~.;_~,L_-'=_I
~ 0 1.2
en :I }time, t (sec)
0.3..,.------------------------------------.~ 0.2e:- 0.1C~ 0.0 -J=I--+--I--+-_!__+-H-+-+-+-+-+---t1--+--+-l--~f___t,~____j_+__t_+_f_+_+_+_I__+__l__+__t__+__!__+-1
~ 0
1-0·1 ten -0.2
-0.3 -----------------------------------time, t (sec)
2000 ,..----------------------------------..,waiE 1500=0_> ..... .€ 1000~~>-E' 500CIlcw
0.2 0.4 0.6time, t (sec)
0.8 1.2
1.20.80.6
time, t (sec)
0.40.2
1.2,..-----------------------------------,1.0 !-RU-ElEliql
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 ~..;;.-.:..o.---_-----_-----_+_-----;__----_----~o
Figure 2.1 - Typical Time History Records ofa Strain-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test
2-17
Test 1.0.:Relative Density COlo):Applied Shear Strain COlo):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10015
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
.-----------------70-:------------------,
0.30.2
,
I1..o---------------30f--"------- ---------'
-0.3
l;...IiiIIIeo...m.=rh
Shear Strain, "{ (%)
Figure 2.2 • A Typical Plot ofShear Stress - Shear Strain Hysteresis Loops DevelopedDuring Cyclic Triaxial Tests
2-18
0.10.20.5Grain Size-mm
I.- ~ -\
I- \ -~
~ -
I- \ -(oJ
- -.
-:-o2
20
80
roo
-c~ 40Q)Q.
Figure 2.3 - Grain Size Distribution Curve for Monterey No. 0 Sand (Arango, 1994)
2-19
10080604020
Fines Content =2.0 percent2-Way Sinusoidal LoadingInitial Effective Confining Pressure (creo') =100 kPaMonterey No. 0 Sand
I
...
••<> Strain Controlled, Frequency=1 Hz •
- ~Strain Controlled, Frequency=10 Hz ..o Strain Controlled, Frequency=15 Hz
+Stress Controlled, Frequency=O.1 Hz
- • Stress Controlled, Frequency=1 Hz
•£ Stress Controlled, Frequency=10 Hz <>• Stress Controlled, Frequency=20 Hz
~
"'"<>
~<>
~
~~ ~
Ioo
500
4000
5000
4500
1000
3500
-..E-2.E"
Iii 3000.:CI)enc0c0 2500:::u~CI)~C"
:::i- 2000CIS>-~CI)cw
1500
Relative Density, Dr(%)
Figure 2.4 - Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function ofRelativeDensity for Monterey No. 0 Sand - DeB Data
2-20
10010Frequency (Hz)1
IFines Content =2.0 percent2-Way Sinusoidal Loading
I Initial Effective Confining Pressure (creo') =100 kPa -c-II Monterey No. 0 Sand!
I
I I<> Strain Controlled, Dr=41-42%
f--I I
• Strain Controlled, Dr=61-62%
o Stress Controlled, Dr=49-52%
f-c-I i • Stress Controlled, Dr=60-62%
I I
I II
I
~II
••I
I
I • I
1Ii
I ..•
•I
j~
I
I i Ib
I
~
II ~.
I
i I
I I ,
II I I I II,a
0.1
SOD
1000
5000
1500
3500
4000
4500
...,~~
W 3000'SftilCoc~ 2500u
~:;,r:r::i1U 2000>-~CDCW
Figure 2.5 - Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function ofFrequenciesofLoading for Monterey No. 0 Sand - DeB Data .
2-21
Ground Surface
0 0
Fill eSC)
4.2714
G.W.L. Tobacco Road 1 (SC with CM and CH)
34 10.36
Tobacco Road 2 (SM with SP)
53 16.15,......r::::: 8'-- Tobacco Road 3 (SC - SM) --..c t....fr 65 ----------------------------------- 19.81 Q)
0Tobacco Road 4 (SC - SM) 0
75 22.86
Dry Branch 1/3 (SP - SM)
104
Dry Branch 4 (CH - SC)
Santee eSC)
Figure 2.6 - Generalized Subsurface Soil Profile at SRS Site
2-22
31.70
c .~c
c:c:
Cc:
•N
.....
.......
C...
..C
o<::
>....
........-
......,~~
2~
00
~0
I....
..,.;;t
ID..
..('0
1
10
0CD
(I'J
l\l
....
....
(1)
....
lI'l
.....
....
.....
I•
11
1'1
II
I'I'
I"o
I'll
II
1'1
II
90
80
1,
70
::
:·
.:
:~
a:1
OJ ~
60
·.
·.
~1IJ.
.~
~5
0·
.·
.~~
OJ
..,
N(J
,0
:.
..
NO
J4
0~
i\
w0
.·
.
":111
1:1~
..3
0I
:"1
:111
I:I:
I::
1:11
"I:
I1
1"'!
:~
~I"wj
20
II
1111
1111
1--
10 0 2
00
fOO
10
.01
.00
.10
.01
0.0
01
GR
AIN
SIZ
E-
mill
Fig
ure
2.7
-T
ypic
alG
rain
Siz
eD
istr
ibut
ion
Cur
vefo
rT
obac
coR
oad
Soi
lM
ater
ial,
SR
S(R
iem
eran
dS
eed,
1994
)
•t--- Frequency =1 Hz
Stress Controlled2-Way Sinusoidal LoadingSilty Sand
Io santee Soil, FC=32.6-35.6 %, Dry Unit Weight = 16.04-16.75 kN/m30
o Tab. Rd. FC=11.4-18.5 %, Dry Unit Weight = 14.6-15.91 kN/m3 If-- .Tab. Rd. FC=15.7-18.9 %, Dry Unit Weight = 16.24-16.73 kN/m3
<> Tab. Rd. FC=25.4-27 %, Dry Unit Weight = 14.65-15.82 kN/m3
I I• Tab. Rd. FC=20.1-26.8 %, Dry Unit Weight = 16.03-16.78 kN/m3I
A Tab. Rd. FC=22.3 %, Dry Unit Weight=18.02 kN/m3i,--- • Tab. Rd. FC=29.6 %, Dry Unit Weight = 15.37 kN/m3
IX Tab. Rd. FC=28 %, Dry Unit Weight = N/A ii
IIn
II
•0
I
I ...• X
I(
I ;
I.(
I•I I
I I
1
0 i
1 0 t[)
I
••III
50000
45000
40000
35000-(")E-::lE
W 30000.:CDU)
C0c.2 25000-uoS!CD::::l0"::i1U 20000>.CD"-CDCw
15000
10000
5000
oa 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Initial Effective Confining Pressure, (JeO' (kPa)
Figure 2.8 - Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function ofConfiningPressure for SRS Soil Samples - DCB Data
2-24
U.S
.st
an
da
rdsi
eve
nu
mb
er
48
2040
6010
020
0
0.00
1
-/--/-7-r-/-/-~-/-'-"
-_....
_....
-.~_.-
0.1
Gro
insi
ze,
mm
1
10 go
100
90-<
-'8
0..c C
Jl -70
OJ s >-·6
0..D I-
50
OJ c .-40
4-
-<-' c
30
Q)
lRa
ng
eo
fg
rad
ati
on
s.
u I-
20
fin
ep
are
nt
san
dm
ixtu
res
Q)
0.-
N I N VI
Figu
re2.
9-
Gra
inSi
zeD
istr
ibut
ion
ofSi
ltySa
nds
-U
nive
rsity
ofC
olor
ado
Sam
ples
(Koe
ster
,19
92)
10080604020
• IIFines Content =0 %2-Way Sinusoidal LoadingFrequency = 0.1 HzStress Controlled
[J Init. Eff. Con. Pre. =200-205 (kPa)
.Init. Eff. Con. Pre. =304 (kPa)I-
e
, ,ao
15000
20000
5000
2500
17500
..:Q)encoco 10000~~Q)
=tT::i;;>. 7500e'Q)c
W
....E.,"'i 12500W
Relative Density, Dr (%)
Figure 2.10 - Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function ofRelativeDensity for Clean Sands - University ofColorado Data
2-26
500400300200100
2-Way Sinusoidal LoadingFrequency = 0.1 HzStress Controlled
Cl FC=20 'lb, Dry Unit Weight =15.18-15.24kN/m3
.FC=45 'lb, Dry Unit Weight =16.18kN/m3i
[
•• []
I
oo
5000
2500
17500
15000
20000
-....e..,- 12500EuJ,.;Q)Ulc:0c:0 10000;;u~cv=c:r::J1ii>. 7500Cl...cvc:W
Initial Effective Confining Pressure, crea' (kPa)
Figure 2.11 - Strain Energy at Liquefaction Onset as a Function of ConfiningPressure for Silty Sands - University of Colorado Data
2-27
SANDCLAYSILT
u.S. standardseivesizes
~ £o c:iz z
Fine
2 fa ~c:i d 0Z Z Z
Coarse tomedium
GRAVEL
c: c: c .5 .E.E - I I V• I
~ ~I I It') 0N CD If) f() fC') z• I I • f..
'''''"",~
• A1X A4 (after testing)
.I
I.,
,,
~ III: •
80
20
100
o
; 60cu:cCDE~ 40
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Diameter, mm
Figure 2.12 - Grain Size Distribution Curves for the Northridge Site Soil Samples(Arango and Migues, 1996)
2-28
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT461.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
o
A A A A A 1\ A A A A . A ~ 1\ A f\ f\1\ ~
\ I I
0 5
vD
V V \Jk \ ~ \ 2I VV~ V V V V V V V V , I
4030
Iic.:. 20..Vi 10III
~Ci) 0
~ -10.:::.U) .20
-30
time, t (sec)
5
-5.1.-----------------------------------'time, t (sec)
20155oL.---=:!~=:=:::::::::::::::::::==--_-___J
o
...CI>Cl.>- 1000E'CIII::W
_4000.,...----------------------------------~
!w 3000ojE~ 2000::>
1.5,..----------------------------------....
1.0
0.5
!-RU-EJEliql
201510time, t (sec)
50.0~D~~~~~==::::::::::::=----_+___----J
o
d:\nit\itp\cy_files'lMONT4.xLS 8/20/96 12:57 PM
A-3
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT461.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
-5 -4
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain.! (%)
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\MONT4.XLSA-4
8120/9612:57 PM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT10610.27
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
.
'II \0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3
~
20i:. 10..iii~ 0
en 5
l:f 1
30
time, t (sec)
5" n
0 5 10 15 2o~~Vl130 3
o ~V
V
5
,...e
0~
C'iii..0..<II -5III.cC/)
-10 .J- ~~~~~-----------------J
time, t (sec)
3530252015105
;;" 7000 ,.---------------------------------------,
~ 6000
~ 5000CIl
§ 4000'0:> 3000..CIll:l. 2000::0-
f:' 1000
S ol-----..,.--~!!!!!:!!!!!:~==~=::;:::=:::::~=::;::=~-__I,_----_t_----__Jo
time, t (sec)
3...-----------------------------------,2 j-Ru-ElEIiQI
3530252015105
o~~~~~~~g~=:::::~~~~~__;__-____Jo
time, t (sec)
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\MONT10XLSA-S
8f21196 9:46 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT10610.27
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-------------------------aD-r-------.-------..
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
d:\nit\itpIcLfiles\MONT10.XLS
A-68/21/969:46 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1160.60.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10010
5
lime, 1 (seC)
~ A 10 A ~ h f\
~ \ I"
f\
(\ " \I1\ I,I
I
~'! \ 1
'I
I\ ~ ~. 10 0.5 1
~1.5
I J ~ ~I
~ IJ V V V v ~ ~-30
30
_ 20
:.:. 10..~
:J 0..Ci):; -10ell.c(/) -20
J
~:~ 1"-'D"'V-rC"V-r"''"'V--r='"';-V:-t='<\~7",v-r;-v~v--;-<V\;---r~iV\i\f\riJr;--~-=-----fI-------+------1-;;- -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2.5a:;:: -0.4
~ -0.6
i -0.8
re -1.0.c'(/) -1.2
-1.4-1.6 .1.-. --:::---:-:---:- --.J
time, t (sec)
2.521.5time, t (sec)
0.5
..ellQ.
>. 500
I oL-~~===::::::::;:::::::::::=::::===:=:=-----_l_-----Jo
_ 2000 .,.----------------------------------,
!w 1500orE::l"6 1000>
2.0..,---------------------------------,
1.5
1.0
I-RU-ElEliq!
time, t (sec)1.5 2 2.5
d:lnit\itp\CLfilesIMONT11.XLS BI15/9611:18AM
A-7
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1160.60.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10010
l;...rnIII!en -1.6...~.cen
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r ("A,)
0.2
d:\nit\itp\CLfiles\MONT11 XLS
A-8B/15/9611:18AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT12610.23
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
40
time, t (sec)
I I:
I fI I i , ,
'itlttttlttt,
I II
m
I I I 110C0 0 ,
] 0 ' I 1 1
11I1
!
III
11I1 ~III
30
'ill20
0.;. 10..iiiUl 0G.l..iii.. ·10'llG.l.c(/)
-20
-30
5
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT12610.23
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-----------------------------;3~-------.,
-6
Shear Strain, ., (%)
2
d:\nit\itp\cy_filesIMONT12.xLSA-IO
8/15/96 11:22 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1460.20.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10020
40..-------------------------------------.30
ii~ 20 Ai 10 I ! ~ ~ It /I rIu; 0 -fl--+-,f-H-++-t-t-++-H--+-+-H-+-H-II-+-t-+-++-H-l-t-l-H-\--H-H-++~rt-iI\H-+1\J+-H-\-\J\J++-I'.J'-4:~-:f--I<:,J,--\;:------1
!: I v v __~_·5__vv_v_,.,\!-v.,...,._\i_._IJ-~-v-_\J---------'rtime, t (sec)
0.2 ,..-----------------------------------~0.0 +'--''M-''ri--\-;r-:>.;--A--A-f'r;--t~,...,__...,...._h<_~___:--------_+----_:___rr__Pr__t\_rt_-__1
~ -0.2 0~
.5 -0.4E;; -0.6...III
l:! -0.8(/)
1.5
-1.0
-1.2 ........---------------~-~~-----------------'time, t (sec)
1.5time, t (sec)0.5
o~::::::::::::::::::::::=_--r_-__Jo
2000 ,..--------------------------------------,
~w1500arE::l'01000:>...ellQ.
>. 500EJellCW
1.2,--------------------------------------,
1.5time, t (sec)0.5
I-Ru-ElEliq!0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.2L~~~:::::::::=----- __-----_J0.0o
8/15/96 11 :24 AM
A-ll
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1460.20.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress·10020
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.2
d:\nitlitplcy_files\MONT14XLS
A-128/15/96 11 :24 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1560.50.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
stresS10010
30.,.....-----------------------------------..,20
~;. 10..iii~ 0en 0ia -10Ql.ctI) -20
5
~10
m15
-30 .-.-----------------------------------....time, t (sec)
-2 .1.- ~_:__~~----------------1
time, t (sec)
2000 -r-----------------------------------,
1510time, t (sec)5
ar$'0 1000:>liiQ.,
>- 500L=:::::=::=========-_~~~UJ o
o
i:iUJ 1500
1.5.,.....-----------------------------------,
1.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I
0.5
0.0 '"o 5 time, t (sec) 10 15
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\MONT15.xLS 8/15/96 11 :28 AM
A-13
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1560.50.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'10010
-1.2
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.2
d:\nitlilp\cLfiles\MONT15.xLS
A-148/15/96 11 :28 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT17610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
SO-r------------------------------------,_60tll
Co
;'40...rngJ 20...enl:; O~+_t+_+_+_t_+_+_jt_H__++_t_r++_l_++_+_t_;'_I_+_T_+__Hi_++~f__';_+_'<:+_\::_f!__'<::_f~"'__'::~d_~_'<:f'-----___lc»~ 0 ~
0:1 ---=~----1time, t (sec)
30
" II " II n
0 5 10 15
~ ~ ~ ~25
1 v lJ v II V V II V 1/ v u I
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
,....,~';: 0.1Ct;.. 00- .C/)
i -0.1~C/)
0.3
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT17610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.3
d:\nitlitp\CLfiles\MONT17.xLS
A-168/15/96 11 :31 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT18610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
80.,.....----------------------------------,7060
i 50:!-.. 40
:f30~ 20
CiS... 10l'll~ O¥-+-!----+-+---\--+--I-I---I-ff--\,..+---\-+-~'--..>.d_'--'_'+_-"""----=------+_-------__l
(/) -10 0 2
~~t----_-----~------------1time, t (sec)
f\ f\ f\ A {\ f\ A A fI f\ f\
nn f\ f\ {'
I
~ ~~20 0·t5
VV V V V V V V V V
0.2
0.3
......"$.-;::: 0.1C~ 0.0(I)
1-0.11-0.2 _-0.3 -J
time, t (sec)
21.51time, t (sec)
0.5
~ 1500..,..-------------------------------------,E:i 1250wGJ- 1000E-5 7SO:-...~ SOD
~ 2SOGJC
W
21.51
time, t (sec)0.5
0.2
0.0 ~.~':+ _+_--------_;_-------___;---------'lo
0.4
1.2 -r-----------------------------------,1.0
0.8
0.6
d:\nit\itp\cyjiles\MONT18.XLS 8.(15/96 11 :37 AM
A-I7
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT18610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain·10010
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, "( (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT18.XLS
A-IS8/15/9611:37 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10015
70....-;-----::---------------------------------........60
:50=.40...fA 30:ll 20..(i) 10..al O+'--+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--Il--+-+--+--/--\-i+--\-f--+--cf---'<:--J'+-T-f'---'~---''<c++--'<::_f_---''d_--->.=_J
~ -100 1.2
: t---:::. ~~~-__- __-_---.,;Itime, t (sec)
0.3....--------------------------------------.
~ A ~~~ 0.1CI::r4='---t--t---:1--I--+-++-0.2 -+-+-+-+-t--t+0.4-t---+--t-+---1,...--f0:6-t-+--t-+-+-l
JB
'-+-V--+-+-V-+--+--lH-+-+--I--\--I'I
-0.3 -----------------------------------time, t (sec)
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
_ 2000 -r------------------------------------,1w 1500
~~ 1000:>..GICo:>. 500E!GICW
1.2....-----------------------------------..,
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
I-Ru -ElEliq I0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.0 ~...;;......l.I----_-----_-----;_----__;-----_+-----"'""'o
d:lnitlitp\cy-files\MONT19XLS 8/15/96 11 :42 AM
A-19
Testl.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain·10015
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain,., (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\Cy-files\MONT19XLS
A-208/15/96 11 :42 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2040.90.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
70 T,-::-----------------------------------...,
60
'l 50=.40...Ii 30
! 20Cii 10...~ O-jl-+--f--\---f+---\--f--\--f+--+-f-+--f+--+--f~__I.::::__7'_+--__'_::=":.--...i.""d+_~~=---__1
~ -100 12
~~~ t ~------------------'Itime, t (sec)
0.3 -r-'"I~---------------------------------.....,
0.2,.,~';:: 0.1C~ 0.0 fL----l---I--+-+--+--f--+-+--+--I--+-+----l---I----l---f--I---I---+-+--+-+----1en 0 12
~ ::1 I-D.3 --;;;.-.---------------------------------
time, t (sec)
121086time, t (sec)
42
- 1000 .,..-------------------------------------,
!w 800
arE 600:::I
~... 400Gle-
El 400GIs:::W
1.2 -r-----------------------------------....,
121086time, t (sec)
42
)-Ru -ElEliq I
0.4
0.2
0.0 ~,:-..----_+_------t-------t-------t------_+_-------!o
1.0
0.8
0.6
d:lnitlitp\cy-filesIMONT20.xLS
A-218/15/96 11 :47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2040.90.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.3 -0.2
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-20
Shear strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\MONT20.XLSA-22
8115/96 11 :47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2141.80.15
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
60
50
Ii 40~;. 30..rn 20IIIGI... 10iii... 0 (",GI
~ -10 0 25
~! Itime, t (sec)
5
A f\ A A n fI
~ ~1\ 1\ f\ fI
' ~ A A 1\
0 5
~b " ~5 V ~v ~2
V V V V V v v v v V v V v V
-0.2
0.2
~ 0.1'-';-
c~ 0.0..=GI
~ -0.1
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (0/0):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2141.80.15
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
0.200.150.10
40
30'
-~tII
-0.20
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itP\CLfiles\MONT21,XLS
A-248/15/96 11 :53 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain:
MONT2242.30.08%
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain:
MONT2242.30.08%
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.15
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
0.15
~----------------3:Q--l.---------------_---I
Shear Strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT22.xLS
A-26
8121196 9:47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2451.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
'A f\ f\ 1\ f\ f\ f\ . A A ~ (\ ~ ~\
VV
\ " I \0
Va ~52
V V V V V V V V V
40
30
i 20:... 10Iie 0en -10 0
!:t 1
time, t (sec)
o
l
r'\
n~- ...........
'\(;VV~0 5 \15 2
U
5
~ 0:-C'f! -5en~
IIIIII
~ -10
-15.1.-------------------------------------'
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2451.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
-10 -6 6
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\MONT24XLS
Shear Strain, y (%)
A-288/21/96 9:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2550.40.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2550.40.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
l;.....nell
!u; -7...fIlell.crn
-6 -5
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-4
Shear Strain, r (%)
2
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\MONT2S.xLS
A-308/20196 8:23 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2649.90.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
40...-------------------------------------.30
120;.... 10og: O+----+----1-----+---'f-----'<----r----T----lf---~--_+-----__l..;; _100 5 6
!:t 1
time, t (sec)
5...--------------------------------------.,~O+-----.::::::==±:=---=:::----+-;:::'--~--+jc::::::.==~----+-+--+----;------j:.-- 0 2 5 6C'! -5;;..IIIIII
c5i -10
~15 .L- --J
time, t (sec)
6543time, t (sec)
2
~
0~-~=;::::::=~___i1___--~---__+---__+---_1o
_ 5000 -r--------------------------------------,-:e~ 4000worE 3000='0~2000IIICo
~ 1000..IIICW
2.0...------------------------------------..,
1.5
1.0
0.5
I-RU-ElEIiQI
6543time, t (sec)
2
o.o.l..'O;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,~~~===~~---~~--~::::::...._T__--~:......----__1o
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\MONT26.XLS 8/21/96 8:58 AM
A-31
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2649.90.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-8 -6 4
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\MONT26.XLS
Shear Strain, r (%)
A-328/21/96 8:58 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3041.90.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'10010
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5time, t (sec)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0.90.80.70.60.4 0.5time, t (sec)
0.30.20.1
0.2
0.0 .w..:-----l.,..,t-/------!-----+----i----+-----------+----+----..;-------!o
1.2 ......------------------------------------,
1.0 I-Ru-EJEliq!
0.8
0.6
0.4
d:\nit\itp\cy_filesIMONT30.XLS 8/21/96 9:08 AM
A-33
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3041.90.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
-0.4
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-2
Shear strain, y (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIesIMONT30XLS
A-348/21/96 9:08 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3340.50.08
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
o
time, t (sec)
~rN\11 ~ ~M~~~~~~~~A~A~AAAIV
0 2 4 6 8 1
1 I I
40
- 30IIIa.;. 20..IAIII 10ell...
<is... 0IIIell.=en -10
-20
0.10 -r--...-------------------------------------,~ 0.05:-C ._A~ QOO ~ I(;) 0 2 4 6 8 10
j ~05t I I I \ I-0.10 -----------------------------------......
time, t (sec)
1000-§:2- 800worE 600::I"0:>
400...ellQ.
>.E! 20011)
cW
0
0 2 4 time, t (sec) 6 8 10
1.2
1.0I-RU -ElEliq I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 time, t (sec) 6 8 10
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT33.xLS 8/20/96 9:22 AM
A-35
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (Ufo)Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3340.50.08
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
-0.10
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
L---------------_:2O-:-- ...J
Shear Strain,., ('Vo)
d:lnit\itp\cy_filesIMONT33.xLS
A-368/20/96 9:22 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%)Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT3561.80.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1000.1
120
120
I
100
time, t (sec)
40
30ii
20l1.;... 10~CIl 0CI)...
Ci) -10 0
! :14
2......e 0:-C _2 0~- -4(I)...ftJCI) -6.c(I)
-8
-10time, t (sec)
1201008060time, t (sec)
4020
_8000,..-------------------------------------,
~;;6000ajE:l'04000::>...GlCo>2000E'Gl
.n oL-...e!!~~c~=~:::=~"'"!_-----_;_-----_;_-----_t_----_Jo
2.0..---------------------------------------,
!-RU-ElEliql1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 .~
o 20 40 60time, t (sec)
80 100 120
d:\nit\itp\cy_fiIes\MONT35.xLS 8/20/9610:42AM
A-37
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT3561.80.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress·1000.1
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:lnit\itp\cLfilesIMONT35.xLS
A-388/20/9610:42AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3761.60.17
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
60 -r--------------------------------------,50
'ii40~
:. 30.. 20
f 10(i) O-H--H-+t-+-t-H+H-H--H-++-H-H-H-H'-t-H--H-++-H-++-H-+i-f--lh'-'t-+'r+t-+t-+H+-f-H'hi'-h'-h----!i -100 35
~ :f ---JItime, t (sec)
5
~0 5
~o15 20
~30 3
-0.2
0.2
~ 0.1'""?-
C~ 0.0o..IIIGl
~ -0.1
time, t (sec)
- 1500 r-------------------~=::==:===::=::::;;:;;;;:---llwaj 1000E:=g~ 500Co>.ElGlCW
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (0/0):Applied Shear Strain (0/0)
MONT3761.60.17
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.25
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, "{ (%)
0.25
d:lnit\itp\cy-ftles\MONT37XLS
A-408120196 10:47 AM
Test to.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3861.80.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
70
60Ii 50I:l.:'40..
30rAen 20S1- 10CI)..0ClI
QI
~ -100 1.2
:i Itime, t (sec)
0.3
0.2.....~
';:: 0.1CE 0.0c;; a
~1.2..
~ ~.1II-0.2
-0.3time, t (sec)
1.20.80.6
time, t (sec)
0.40.2
~ 1000 .,.-------------------------------------,
~w 800oJE 600:='0~ 400CIlQ.
Ei 200CIcW
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
1.4 ,.-------------------------------------,
1.2 1-Ru -ElEliq!
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 ~~....:..:.---+-------_-----_-----_-----,.....------!o
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\MONT38.XLSA-41
8120/96 10:54 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3861.80.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
...------------------70--,.------------------.
60
0.3
]
-0.1
50
-D.3
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itp\cr-fi1es\MONT38XLS 8/20/96 10:54 AM
A-42
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THE SAVANNAB RIVERSITE, PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
B-1
t>:I I N
Tab
le8.
1-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
licT
riaxi
alT
estD
ata
onSR
SSo
ilSa
mpl
esPe
rfor
med
atU
nive
rsity
ofC
alifo
rnia
,B
erke
ley
No.
Te
st10
Sam
ple
Dr(
%)
Ella
(JIm
")FC
(%)
Yd(k
N/m
")C
on
tro
l(J
e'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.
(Hz)
Lo
ad
Sh
ap
e
1B
23P
2BC
YS
ante
eN/
A14
675
33.7
16.0
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l 2-w
ay
2B
23P
2MC
YS
ante
eN/
A16
782
35.6
16.4
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2
-wa
y
3B
23P
2TC
YS
ante
eN/
A11
402
32.6
16.8
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
4B
23P
3BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A49
2916
.616
.4S
tres
s2
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
5B
23P
3MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A55
8518
.515
.2S
tres
s20
01
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
6B
23P
3TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A29
2420
.516
.6S
tres
s2
00
1S
inu
soid
al2
-wa
y
7B
12P
5BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
918
27.0
15.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
8B
12P
5MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A49
114
26.8
16.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
9B
12P
5TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A54
5022
.318
.0S
tres
s30
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
108
12
P7
8C
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A76
6615
.715
.9S
tres
s37
51
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
11B
12P
7MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
482
17.0
16.3
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
1281
2P7T
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
3852
15.7
16.2
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
13B
2P58
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A11
672
25.4
14.7
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
14B
2P5M
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
344
29.6
15.4
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
15B
2P5T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A88
1926
.616
.7S
tres
s50
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
16B
23P
4BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A21
667
11.4
14.6
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
17B
23P
4MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A36
680
16.5
15.5
Str
ess
700
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
18B
23P
4TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A17
968
28.0
N/A
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
19B
29P
2TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
637
23.0
16.7
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2
-wa
y
20B
2P
68
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1798
518
.916
.7S
tres
s72
51
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
21B
2P6M
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1983
120
.116
.5S
tres
s74
31
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
22B
2P6T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
446
22.4
16.0
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
Test
Res
ults
Follo
win
gth
eS
eque
nce
ofTe
stID
'sar
eA
ttach
ed.
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2BCY33.716.04
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·400
100 -r-------------------------------------,80
iii 60~ 40.. 20:§ O+L---+---+l----+---+l----\----t+-----\----t+-----\----H------l
i_~l 'I-120 f ~-~~----------------.
time, t (sec)
5..---------------------------------------.
6..... 0f----"""""""-+--=-"='"---1-""/'"-===-.;----t--r-~---+-_f_-_t--_+__{_-----1
~ 0~
C -5~en... -10IIIQl.ct/) -15
-20 ........-----------------------------------'time, t (sec)
6543time, t (sec)
2
;;--50000 ......-----------------------------------.......e24D000wcjE30000::::l'0~ 20000QlQ,
~ 10000
~ 0 I. 000111!~:;::::=::::::::::::=:~-_;_-----+__----~-----Jo
3.0 -r------------------------------------,
!-RU -EJEliq I2.0
1.0
6543time, t (sec)
2
0.0 ~:::::::::;;;;..tCZ.~::::::::=:::::~---=~----=_+_---__+---_lo
d:lnitlitp\cLfiJes\B23P2BCYXLSB-3
8120/96 5:01 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2BCY33.716.04
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
,----------------------------'100--,.------......,
l:...iiiIII
~en -16..ftIell.cC/)
-14
Shear Strain, 'Y (%) .
4
d:\nitutp\CLfiles\B23P2BCYXLSB-4
8120/96 5:01 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2MCY35.616.43
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'400
2.0
1.0
0.0 Ao
d:\nitlitp\CLfiles\B23P2MCYXLS
!-RU-ElEliq!
2 4 time, t (sec)
B-S
6 8 10
8/21/96 9:49 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2MCY35.616.43
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·400
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
.-----------------------------'10Q-ro-----...,
::.:.:..rAtil
!en -10..III.....:o
-8
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
2
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B23P2MCYXLS
B-68/21/96 9:49 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2TCY32.616.75
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
o
time, t (sec)
~ I I1
\ ~ ~0 10 20 30 40 5
t ~ ~ ~ ~ I-60
-80
80
60
l40=-.. 20iii! 0u; -20..III
ll-40U)
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P2TCY32.616.75
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
-14
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, ., (%)
6
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\B23P2TCYXLSB-8
8/21/96 7:44 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P3BCY16.616.4
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
40.-----------------------------------...,
~: 1
1
\fA I~+m~W+Ull1mt~W~~Wf}W+mwOOU++l~~J.U.ljfW.J++mlW.UW~W~.w.uW+W./1.Jj~ 0+1
~ _100 \ 20 40 60 80
!:f--,-_!iI_~I~~~:-----_~_---IItime, t (sec)
15.------------------------------------,
10......~';:: 5~
~ O+---~------....,...";-,,......,.....""""'r=_..nt'tt'I1't1'rf'r.frfi"fTf\i9rfrftitltJ'HtttHfl+tHffil_fttttti*H_I'tt_h
~ -510 20 8
1
0
;; -10
-15 ---J
time, t (sec)
806040time, t (sec)
20
w 60000arE::J"0 40000:>..II>
~ 20000E!
~ oL--------.oIIi!--=~========:=:=:;:::::=-----_;__--------Jo
_ 80000.---------------------------------~__.~::!.
20.0.----------------------------------~
15.0
l-Ru-ElEliq!10.0
5.0
806040time, t (sec)
20
o.oJ---~~~ ........--~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~Jo
d:\nit\itP\CLfiles\B23P3BCy.xLS
B-98/21/96 7:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P3BCY16.616.4
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
'i:...iii'"~rn -15..~QI.crn
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy_files\B23P3BCY.XLSB-lO
8/21/96 7:48 AM
Dep
th5.
06m
(16.
6ft.
)--"
-~
Sol
ipro
pert
ies
used
inth
ean
alys
isw
ere
p!.
I--"
base
don
aver
age
ofth
eC
ross
hole
and
--J'-
,.,...
SA
SW
shea
rw
ave
velo
city
mea
sure
men
ts.
Dep
th4.
21m
(13.
8ft.
)
l'
FD
epth
5.91
m(1
9.4
ft.)
J_
..Jl
,y-
~rJ·r
r-.J
"
~D
epth
3.3
5m
(11.
0ft.
)
~~~
~~
.If"
~~
500
40
0
-.., E30
03- ~ .. CI
) c W c~
'e20
0I
UiN W
100 o
o5
1015
20
Tim
e(S
eco
nd
)
25
303
540
Fig
ure
4.16
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edSa
ndL
ayer
-W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in36
00D
irec
tion
-S
HA
KE
Ana
lysi
sO
utpu
t
--
Soi
lpro
pe
rtie
su
sed
inth
ea
na
lysi
sw
ere
ba
sed
ona
vera
ge
oft
he
Cro
ssh
ole
an
dS
AS
Wsh
ea
rw
ave
velo
city
me
asu
rem
en
ts.
---
--
Dep
th5.
06m
(16
.6ft.
)
~~
I-1
------------.-
--
-
~D
ep
th4.
21m
(13
.8ft.
)
(I
De
pth
5.91
m(1
9.4
ft.)
--~
~I
/.
..r
.."J
-D
ep
th3
.35
m(1
1.0
ft.)
~
.~
-~
50
0
40
0
II'
E3
00
::::i - e; CI) c UJ c
tg
200
N(J
).I:
-
10
0 oo
51
01
52
0
Tim
e(S
econ
d)
25
30
35
40
Figu
re4.
17-
Acc
umul
atio
nof
Stra
inE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefie
dSa
ndL
ayer
-W
ildlif
eSi
te,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in90
0D
irec
tion
-SH
AK
EA
naly
sis
Out
put
800
-.iii
iiiii
40
35
30
Dep
th3.
35m
(11.
0ft.
)
25
Dep
th5.
06m
(16.
6ft.
)
20
Tim
e(S
eco
nd
)
1510
5
Soi
lpro
pert
ies
used
Inth
ean
alys
isw
ere
ba
sed
onav
erag
eo
fthe
Cro
ssho
lean
dS
AS
Wsh
ea
rw
ave
velo
city
mea
sure
men
ts.
o,
1""
'--
II
II
II
,
o
600
-
r- oE :2 >- 140
0-1
II
IH
lePt~
c 'iij
~l-
I
Nen
l.J1
20
0-I
II
.111'-
I:/
-IfI
II
II
Fig
ure
4.18
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
athq
uake
-S
umm
atio
no
fSH
AK
EA
naly
sis
Out
puti
nbo
th36
00an
d90
0D
irec
tion
s
Rec
orde
dM
otio
na
tG
rou
nd
Sur
lace
-R
ecor
ded
Mot
ion
at
Dep
tho
f7.5
m(U
sed
asB
DE
SR
AIn
put)
••
•B
DE
SR
AO
utpu
tat
Gro
und
Sur
lace
,. l'•
,I'
I'
, ...•
~~
• •I
IhW
I\~ ~
r~
II~~
\~~
•\'.
J"
-,'
~/'
A
V~
,.f\V
\ ~i'\
,. '> rZ\
~u
..rv
~•
\~~
...-
.~
[,I,.
.. t\"
,.
l)--
'VIf~
~/I-
"".....
.....
•..
rt.t'
J~
.p I N ()'\
1.2
_0.
8S a ~ Q
) '80.
6~ ~ 8- en
0.4
0.2 o 0.
11
Fre
quen
cy(H
z)10
100
Figu
re4.
19-
Acc
eler
atio
nR
espo
nse
Spec
traat
5%D
ampi
ng-W
ildlif
eL
ique
fact
ion
Arr
ay,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
-Com
paris
onof
Hor
izon
talM
otio
nsin
3600
Dir
ectio
n-B
DE
SRA
Out
put,
Tot
alSt
ress
Ana
lysi
s
100
101
II Rec
orde
dM
otio
na
tGro
un
dS
urf
ace
Rec
orde
dM
otio
na
tD
epth
of7
.5m
(Use
das
BD
ES
RA
Inpu
t)
••
•B
DE
SR
AO
utp
uta
tGro
un
dS
urf
ace
, ·,~
·, ••
•'I-
-"
•",
•,
•'"
,~,
•~"
J•
r\...''--
••
t\
", II1\
V~//
"
1J\
,..."
...
r~AN
~V' I\L
Jf\
MI)
hA
r'\JI
\."
II, V,.
to... e?
,...\-=
.....
-..
•I-
~f.!
.~
'"~~
lJ/
o 0.1
0.21
1.2
0.8
:§l c o ~ .. .9! 8
0.6
.'i '!!
\1"
g,.
en0.
4
Freq
uenc
y(H
z)
Figu
re4.
20-A
ccel
erat
ion
Res
pons
eSp
ectr
aat
5%D
ampi
ng-W
ildlif
eL
ique
fact
ion
Arr
ay,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
-Com
pari
son
ofH
oriz
onta
lMot
ions
in90
0D
irec
tion
-BD
ESR
AO
utpu
t,T
otal
Stre
ssA
naly
sis
Maximum Shear Stress (pst)
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
o,...---"!-----,..-.---....--~---.....jo----!----"""i_. 0
2
Initial soil properties were based onthe average of SASW and Cross Holeshear wave velocity measurements.5
10
4- Range of Liquefied -e. 15 ESand Layer -CI) CI)
0 0ca~'t:= =rn en
'0 '0C 6 c= 20 =0 0.. ..
CJ C'E E0 0.. ..- ....c Elevation of Downhole .c- -go 25 Earthquake Record Co
CI)c 8 c
30
-A-90 Degrees (EW)Motion
10
35-+-360 Degrees (NS)
Motion
12
3025201510540 -+.----....---~---____l----~---...,.--- ....--...
oMaximum Shear Stress (kPa)
Figure 4.21 - Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofTotal Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
4-28
Maximum Shear Stain (%)
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
o+--~"""-""'---!---'!----!o---+---"'-""';---+---"" 0
5
Initial soil properties were based on theaverage of SASW and Crosshole shearwave velocity measurements.
2
10
4
- Range of Liquefied -£ 15 eSand Layer -Cl) Gla a
o{! Cll1::s :sen f/)
'a 'aC
6 c:s 20 :se 0..C ce e0 0.. ..- -.c
Elevation of Downhole .c- -Q. Q.Cl) 25 Earthquake Record Cl)Q Q
8
30
35
-.-90 Degrees (EW)Motion
-+-360 Degrees (NS)Motion
10
40~-------------------------_..
Figure 4.22 - Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofTotal Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
4-29
12
De
pth
5.4
9m
(18
.0ft.
)
1/
rD
ep
th4
.63
m(1
5.2
ft.)
~r;;
De
pth
6.3
6m
(20
.9ft.
)
----
V rD
ep
th3
.78
m(1
2.4
ft.)
~
De
pth
2.9
3m
(9.6
ft.)~
/
V~,..
,...-
~V
50
0
40
0
r- .e3
00
~ ~ .. CI) c w .6
.j:'
-,g:
20
0I
tJ)
w 0
10
0 oo
510
15
20
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
30
35
40
·4
55
0
Fig
ure
4.23
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
3600
Dir
ecti
on-
BD
ES
RA
Out
put,
Tot
alS
tres
sA
naly
sis
De
pth
5.4
9m
(18
.0ft.
)
~~
II
De
pth
4.6
3m
(15
.2ft
.)
V,....
II
~D
ep
th6
.36
m(2
0.9
ft.)
~
1I
./
De
pth
3.7
8m
(12
.4ft
.)
~l.--
I ~
JD
ep
th2
.93
m(9
.6ft.
)
...
~~
.....
~'e.
~:J
/
250
200
- '" 15
0.€ ::2
- ~ .. CD C w .5+:
-2!
100
ItiS
w .......
50 oo
51
01
520
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
30
35
40
45
50
Fig
ure
4.24
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
of
Str
ain
Ene
rgy
inL
ique
fied
San
dL
ayer
-W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in90
°D
irec
tion
-B
DE
SR
AO
utpu
t,T
otal
Str
ess
Ana
lysi
s
Dep
th5
.49
m(1
8.0
ft.)
~
(D
ep
th4
.63
m(1
5.2
ft.)
wr-
Dep
th6
.36
m(2
0.9
ft.)
)~V
.lf~
~D
epth
3.78
m(1
2.4
ft.)
~61
____
"/---
Dep
th2
.93
m(9
.6ft.
)
I---
~'/
.-d
'./"
800
700
600
;:""
500
.€ 3 ~ Gi40
0c w .5
~~
~fI
)30
0N
200
100 o
o5
1015
20
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
3035
40
455
0
Fig
ure
4.25
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
e-
Sum
mat
ion
ofB
DE
SR
AT
otal
Str
ess
Ana
lysi
sO
utpu
tin
both
3600
and
90°
Dir
ecti
ons
100
10Fr
eque
ncy
(Hz)
1
Rec
orde
dM
otio
nat
Gro
und
Sur
face
Rec
orde
dM
otio
nat
7.5m
Dow
nhol
e(S
peci
fied
asB
DE
SR
AIn
put)
....
..B
DE
SR
AO
utpu
tatG
roun
dS
urfa
ce
-
~\, •
j•
~~:
~r,
\CA~
I~~
\ 'oJ
~J
~'o
J\
~A.
A
VV
f\V
'.\VI
"'f\
\'/"
rvU
".. ~
~, -
•,
•~
",
••
,-
~,11
""!':
r'-
It,..~
li~
1/~
""'-
"-. .
.... .
..~...
...
...~
rv--
o 0.1
0.21
1.2
0.8
tn - c o i ~ CD 1l0.
6u ocr
: i U)
0.4
.p I W W
Fig
ure
4.26
-A
ccel
erat
ion
Res
pons
eS
pect
raat
5%D
ampi
ng-
Wil
dlif
eL
ique
fact
ion
Arr
ay,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
-C
ompa
riso
no
fHor
izon
tal
Mot
ions
in36
00D
irec
tion
-B
DE
SR
AO
utpu
t,E
ffec
tive
Str
ess
Ana
lysi
s
100
101
II
Rec
orde
dM
otio
na
tG
rou
nd
Sur
face
Rec
orde
dM
otio
nat
Dep
tho
f7.5
m(U
sed
as
BD
ES
RA
Inpu
t)
--
-B
DE
SR
AO
utp
ut
atG
rou
nd
Sur
face
.'1\
...-
•I
•I
•,
\•
..,-
,\.A
J,1
:\
"I
.1,
rtr\~,
~I
YiW
V;•
f~
~~~~
M~
JI\.
1I ..
If\I/
~.'"':
f"o, ~
oW
~
~[,
-., V
~.~~
l/-
.. -
•
/o 0.
1
0.21
1.2
_0.
8m - c o ~ CD ~
0.6
i f/)
0.4
~ I W ~
Fre
quen
cy(H
z)
Figu
re4.
27-
Acc
eler
atio
nR
espo
nse
Spec
traat
5%D
ampi
ng-W
ildlif
eL
ique
fact
ion
Arr
ay,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
-Com
paris
onof
Hor
izon
talM
otio
nsin
900
Dire
ctio
n-B
DE
SRA
Out
put.
Eff
ectiv
eSt
ress
Ana
lysi
s
Maximum Shear Stress (pst)
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
O+----+----,...---~--__!---~---__+_---..... O
2
Initial soil properties were based onthe average of SASW and Crossholeshear wave velocity measurements.5
10
4- Range of Liquefied -5. 15 ESand Layer -C) CD
() ()
o! 4!;:, ;:,tn tn'C 'CC 6 c;:, 20 ;:,
~ 0..<:J <:JE Ee e... -~ Elevation of Downhole ~- -go 25 Earthquake Record a.
CDQ
8Q
so-+-S60 Degrees (NS)
Motion
-.-90 Degrees (EW)Motion
10
35
12
so25201510540 ......----+----.....;.-----1----0+-----....----+---...
oMaximum Shear Stress (kPa)
Figure 4.28 - Maximum Shear Stress Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofEffective Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
4-35
Maximum Shear Strain (%)
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
o.....--!---....,.---!----!----i--~--~- ......--_+O--..... 0
5
Initial soil properties were based on theaverage of SASW and Crosshole shearwave velocity measurements.
2
10
4
- Range of Liquefied -== 15 E- -CI) Sand Layer CI)
u uCIS -!'t:::J :sen 0'g "c 6 c:s 20 :se e
Co:' Co:'E E0 0~ ..- -&: Elevation of Downhole .c- Q.Q, 25 Earthquake RecordCI) CI)
Q Q
8
......-360 Degrees (NS)
30Motion
-A-90 Degrees (EW)Motion
10
35
40 ....----------------------------12
Figure 4.29 - Maximum Shear Strain Distribution over Depth from BDESRA Results ofEffective Stress Analyses - Wildlife Site, November 24, 1987, 1315 GMTEarthquake
4-36
--
II
Dep
th6.
36m
(20.
9ft.
)
--
---
100
II
I"r
50-I
II
~I
Il-
-JI
o- o
510
1520
2530
354
045
50
Tim
e(s
ec.
)
I30
0D
epth
4.63
m(1
5.2
ft.)
~.-
~...
~
I ID
epth
5.49
m(1
8.0
ft.)
-L--l--+----k;~¥4~==t-_:t=1:~~1
20
0.~.
.D
epth
2.9
3m
(9.6
ft.)
--+
-
250
;)' .e 3 > tn ai
150
.fi c ~
~ I W '-l
Figu
re4.
30-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofSt
rain
Ene
rgy
inL
ique
fied
Sand
Lay
er-W
ildlif
eSi
te,N
ovem
ber2
4,19
87,1
315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
3600
Dire
ctio
n-B
DE
SRA
Out
put,
Eff
ectiv
eSt
ress
Ana
lysi
s
300
-.iiiiii
iii
i
II
II
II
I25
0I
II
I
5045
40
35
30
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
2015
105
JI~IIIIIII
o
50200
~ .€ ::l ~
150
c+
'-W
IC
w
~co
100 Figu
re4.
31-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofSt
rain
Ener
gyin
Liq
uefie
dSa
ndL
ayer
-Wild
life
Site
,Nov
embe
r24,
1987
,131
5G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in90
0D
irect
ion
-BD
ESR
AO
utpu
t,E
ffec
tive
Stre
ssA
naly
sis
.c-. I V
J\0
500
400
cr .e30
0::2
->
.~ CI
IC W C ~
200
100
Dep
th4
.63
m(1
5.2
ft.)
I
--r-
II
~D
epth
3.78
m(1
2.4
ft.)
~,.-/
---/' ,-/
I
~~
Dep
th5.
49m
(18.
0ft
.)
,..!"'&
-FI
I
7.---
Dep
th2.
93m
(9.6
ft.)
k~
II
~/
Dep
tha.
36m
(20.
9ft
.)
fYj/I
JJ'JV
::;.
r'
oo
'510
152
025
Tim
e(s
ec.)
30
35
40
45
50
Fig
ure
4.32
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite.
Nov
embe
r24
.19
87.
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
e_
.S
umm
atio
no
fBD
ES
RA
Eff
ecti
veSt
ress
Ana
lysi
sO
utpu
tin
both
3600
and
900
Dir
ecti
ons
Dep
th3.
78m
(12.
4ft.
)
Dep
th2.
93m
(9.6ft.~
!r-I
Dep
th4.
63m
(15.
2ft.
)J
Dep
th5.
49m
(18.
0ft.
)
r~
J-I
(jV~
~D~pth
6.36
m(2
0.9
ft.)
v:-~
~---
--J--
----
~~
II
J I
~~
".
I"""".-
-:..
t.
_V
1.2 1
-g ~ - f0.
8::J In In f Do .. .e CIS
0.6
~3=
I(1
)~
..0
0 Do "C (1)
.!::!
0.4
m E ... 0 z
0.2 o
o5
1015
2025
Tim
e(s
ec.
)
3035
4045
50
Fig
ure
4.33
-N
orm
aliz
edP
ore
Wat
erP
ress
ure
Gen
erat
ion
inL
ique
fied
San
dL
ayer
-W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in36
00D
irec
tion
,BD
ES
RA
Out
put,
Eff
ecti
veS
tres
sA
naly
sis
ID
eoth
2.93
m(
9.6
ft)
Dep
th3.
78m
12.4
ft.)
\D
epth
4.63
m(1
5.2
ft.)
\'
Dep
th5.
49m
(18.
0ft.
)\\t
\D
epth
6.36
m(2
0.9
ft.)~~\
\~~
r~,,-/----l----+---t-----j------t
rJ
-\\\
~~~=-
--+--
-jr-
----
t---
r--,
I~V--r-
~~p
£~:r
~
-~
~ I ~ f-'
1.2 1
- -g ~ - e0.8
::J 1/1 ~ a. a- .$ ~0.
6
2! ~ "C ~0.
4
~ z
0.2 o
o5
10
1520
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
30
3540
45
50
Fig
ure
4.34
-N
orm
aliz
edP
ore
Wat
erP
ress
ure
Gen
erat
ion
inL
ique
fied
San
dL
ayer
-W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in90
QD
irect
ion,
BD
ESR
AO
utpu
t,E
ffec
tive
Stre
ssA
naly
sis
Acc
eler
atio
nat
Dep
thz:
Za
z=
ato
p+
(ab
ott
om
-ato
p)·
- h
ato
p,
dto
p
She
arS
tres
sat
Dep
thz:
1't
=-
·p·z
·(a
+a
)f
z2
top
z.l:
N
hz •
az
She
arS
trai
nat
Dep
thz:
3b
ott
om
,d
bo
tto
m
h
d-d
"{=
top
bott
om
Fig
ure
4.35
-M
etho
dolo
gyA
dopt
edin
Est
imat
ing
the
Dyn
amic
Stre
ssan
dS
trai
nT
ime
His
tori
esin
aS
oil
Lay
erfr
omF
ield
Rec
ords
(Aft
erZ
egha
lan
dE
lgam
al,
1994
)
20 15 10 -5
~ .¥ - lI) ~0
tn .. m.p
-oe
IU
)-5
.p-
w
-10
--
..~~
I',~
~AA
.ft.~A~
~"N
\...,
J\AL
oaM
~A
Jt\
,-'1'
'•
,1'1
'1~yv
V\
~~
V~
V\
~...
--.
-15
-20
o5
1015
20
25T
ime
(se
c.)
30
354
04
55
0
Fig
ure
4.36
-S
hear
Str
ess
Tim
eH
isto
ryat
Dep
tho
f5.0
6m
(16.
6f1
.)-
Bas
edon
Dir
ectI
nter
pola
tion
ofR
ecor
ded
Mot
ions
,W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in36
00D
irec
tion
6 4 2 - "if. - .5 jg0
en a- m .c tJ)
-I:' I -I:'
-2-I
:'
--
----
An!~
N\/\
IIV
Vvr
\J\
.A!' .....
vv
\
-4 -6
o5
1015
2025
Tim
e(s
ec.)
3035
404
550
Fig
ure
4.37
-S
hear
Str
ain
Tim
eH
isto
ryat
Dep
tho
f5.
06m
(16.
6ft
.)-
Bas
edon
Dir
ectI
nter
pola
tion
of
Rec
orde
dM
otio
ns,
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
3600
Dir
ecti
on
20 ,..-----.,....-----..,...------r------,------,------.
321oShear Strain (%)
-1-2
15 1-------t-------!------+-----~-----f------1
10 1-------t-------!------+---.+-f-t--f-----1I---~-----1
-1 0 I------+------I----hr--~_+_.J-----I------__+_------I
-15 1------+------1------+---+11-----1-------1--------1
-20 L-- .J.- ....l...- -I- ...:... ...:... -'
-3
5-CISa.~-InInfl) 0~
(ji~
CISfl).J:.0
-5
Figure 4.38 - Shear Stress - Shear Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft.)- Based on Direction Interpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site,November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction.
4-45
20iiiiiiiii
i.'
II
II
II
15-I
II-
II
II
1I
10+
-I
II
-ell !2 - CIl CIl !
0tiS a- m .c
~(/
)-5
I ~ 0'1
-10
-15
-I-I
11
II
l-I
II
I 50
4540
35
30
25
Tim
e(s
ec.)
2015
105
-20
'!
!I
I!
!I
,!
I
o Fig
ure
4.39
-S
hear
Str
ess
Tim
eH
isto
ryat
Dep
tho
f5.0
6m
(16.
6ft
.).
-B
ased
onD
irec
tInt
erpo
lati
ono
fRec
orde
dM
otio
ns,
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
90°
Dir
ecti
on
6 4 2 -~ ~ c 'j!0
US .. m .c.p
-C
/)I -l:-
-...J
-2
-
~
)\10 '{'
v--
M. ~
~~
f\f\I
N-4 -6
o5
1015
2025
Tim
e(s
ec.)
30
3540
455
0
Fig
ure
4.40
-S
hear
Str
ain
Tim
eH
isto
ryat
Dep
tho
f5.0
6m
(16.
6ft
.)-
Bas
edon
Dir
ectI
nter
pola
tion
ofR
ecor
ded
Mot
ions
,W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in90
°D
irec
tion
20 ,....-----.,.-----...,.-----"""T"""----...,..-----...,..-----...,
321oShear Strain (%)
-1-2
15
10
-10 I-------+------+-----I-------j------+-----.,
-15
-20 L.- ..l.- ...l.- ......... ...l- ...l- -1
-3
5-t'CID..lIl:-(I)(I)
! 0-f1)
""asCD.cen
-5
Figure 4.41 - Shear Stress - Shear Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of 5.06 m (16.6 ft.)- Based on Direct Interpolation of Recorded Motions, Wildlife Site,
November 24, 1987, 1315 GMT Earthquake in 900 Direction
4-48
Dep
th5.
91m
(19.
4ft.
)
-~;h
5.D
6m(1
6.6
ft.)
~..r-
/
Vf
Oej
lh4.
21m
(13·
ift.)
J(
De~th
3.35
m(1
1.0
ft.)
J-
---I
~---
)
f-
~-
)'~
-~
rJtv
'jr
J
~t'
rr--
r-
~rJf
t'.~
..J~r~
~r-
J~
.j::-
.I .j::-
.\0
600
50
0
400
or ~ ~ :u
300
c w c 'e tiS2
00
100 o
o5
1015
2025
Tim
e(s
ec)
30
35
404
55
0
Fig
ure
4.42
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Bas
edon
Dir
ectI
nter
pola
tion
ofR
ecor
ded
Mot
ions
,W
ildl
ife
Sit
e,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in36
00D
irec
tion
Ii
II
,I
I2
50
II
II
50
45
40
35
30
25
TIm
e(s
ec)
20
1510
50l
II!l""'iI~1
II
II
II
20
0-I-
II
II
II
IJ"Ifc;J
VI
1
50
-II
II
I,.J
U...
,·""c
J"L
I1
--+
1-----
- E150
II
-I
II
II
,-4"
'""""
3 ~ ~ c w c
t~
10
0-I
II
r-----
II
If"I
1""'"
IU
II
II
VI o
Fig
ure
4.43
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Bas
edon
Dir
ectI
nter
pola
tion
of
Rec
orde
dM
otio
ns,
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
90°
Dir
ecti
on
5045
4035
3020
1510
5
II
Dep
th5.
91m
(19.
4ft.
)
.,.N
~;.06m
(16.
6ft.
)
JV
,~
~:.21m
(13.
8ft.
)A
-r
0~
~Pth
:.3
5m
(11.
0ft.
)
....
~~
V--
I"
/:;::~
-
jv~~
rv
JI'~
~
~r
rrJjr
;:;:::
{J~r-
.~/
25
Tim
e(s
ec)
Fig
ure
4.44
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
of
Str
ain
Ene
rgy
inL
ique
fied
San
dL
ayer
-B
ased
onD
irec
tInt
erpo
lati
ono
fR
ecor
ded
Mot
ions
,W
ildl
ife
Site
,Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
e-
Sum
mat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
both
3600
and
90°
Dir
ecti
ons
oo
100
700
800
600
-50
0"'E :::, - >. m ...
400
cu c w c 'e.j:
:-.tiS
300
I V1 ......
200
1\
(}"y
=9.
6kP
a/V
~I
11
11
11
11
I1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
I1
III
~~
IIJJ
EP
RI
Sat
urat
edS
and,
Effe
ct.
rIi!
1~t'
--.
Ver
t.S
tres
s=9
5.8
kPa
II
1-+
-+-1
+-I
",n
":~:
")l'
'-
~--
EP
RI
Sat
urat
edS
and,
Effe
ct.
I"
..~~~~
(}'y=9
5.8
kPa
Ver
t.S
tres
s=9
.6kP
a~
:.:~~
/-
-.-.
-Int
erpo
late
d,E
ffect
.V
ert.
'-I---I--~-
··':llI..~~
Str
ess
=47
.9kP
a1\
.:::.
-...
--In
terp
olat
ed,
Effe
ct.
Ver
t.1\
'.::.
',S
tres
s=
57.5
kPa
H--
H+
II
I1
\"'\
.,~
..•••
-Int
erpo
late
d,E
ffect
.V
ert.
.:: :
.S
tres
s=6
7.0
kPa
\•:
::::.
.-
-.-
-Int
erpo
late
d,E
ffect
.V
ert.
I--I
--+
-+--
H+
HI
I-H~++-I
\'.,:~\.
Str
ess=7
6.6
kPa
'.t::·,
--C
ha
nn
el
Fill
San
d(L
add,
.:::~
1982
),
-~III
--.;~
--I=
=t=
I=t
F+
lF
II
II
III
i\:::
:~N-1
--+-
1--1
--1
H1
-->
-+-1
-H
+H
-1\
':':W--I
II-
jI
II
II
II
II
I
"~
1.0
0.9
1-·-
-
0.8 0.7
0.6
1--
--_.
-
~ E C>0.
5-C>
+:-- I
0.4
.,-V
!N
~-
0.3
101
0.01
0.1
Cyc
licS
hear
Str
ain
(%)
0.00
1
0.2
l-----l-I---+----l--~-I--I
II
I1-
+-1
III
I+
-1
II
IH
0.1
+-
II
1--+
+--1
-++-
1I
III-++~
II
--~
II
III
I-I
II
II
-t-I
-++
H
O.0
.1--...I--l...-.L..J-l--L.l..J...I----l.-..I.-.I.-.1.-L.J.-U..f---...l.--l--l-...J....l......I-l...l..I-_--l.._.l-L...-L..J-l.~t__--I---1..~-i.-..l~_9
0.00
01
Fig
ure
4.45
-C
ompa
riso
no
fShe
arM
odul
usD
egra
dati
onC
urve
sU
sed
inS
HA
KE
Ana
lyse
s
~I
EP
RI
Sat
urat
edS
and,
Effe
ct.
Ver
t.S
tres
s=
95.8
kPa
.~
~Ioo"
EP
RI
Sat
urat
edS
and,
Effe
ct.
".".
Ver
t.S
tres
s=
9.6
kPa
..;'
·-•.
.-I
nter
pola
ted,
Eff
ect.
Ver
t.J.,..lI~
Str
ess
=47
.9kP
a\.I
·-•
...
Inte
rpol
ated
,E
ffec
t.V
ert.
j,oI,;'
Str
ess=5
7.5
kPa
I.t -·.•
-.-I
nter
pola
ted,
Eff
ect.
Ver
t.V
/f\
Str
ess
=67
.0kP
a
/I
:.1\·.
••-
-Int
erpo
late
d,E
ffec
t.V
ert.
(j'y
=9.6
kPa
I..
f-:.'
Str
ess=7
6.6
kPa
,'.
::~n,
--C
ha
nn
el
Fill
San
d(L
add,
V~ VV
I~~
(:'..
1982
)I
'" ..LI
l:".
~,j
'" ,;)
---
-1
--.,.
'"
W~
.._-
1Iti",
, ,""
(j'y
=95.
8kP
aV
,'
,
'Ii,
~~
./
"..~~
I--
1--
-'.
V,h~Cf
.v,~
tI. ~
V
l.1~~V
I.-~
l,..-oI;
'
~v
~~
~'..=
=:="
~, ~
i:_
.-JJ
.~I-
--
-~
1-
1-1-
1--
!J!.
• J,...
...1
1.l
~-;
.,.
35 30
_25
"#. - C) c: 'Q. ~
20
iU CJ ,- :e.j:
-.0
I'0
15\J
1 wc: 0 n e! u.
10 5 o 0.00
010.
001
0.01
0.1
110
Cyc
licS
hear
Str
ain
(%)
Figu
re4.
46-
Com
paris
onof
Dam
ping
Cur
ves
Use
din
SHA
KE
Ana
lyse
s
100
10Fr
eque
ncy
(HZ)
1
Rec
orde
dM
otio
nat
Gro
und
Sur
face
Rec
orde
dM
otio
nat
Dep
tho
f7.5
m(S
peci
fied
as
SH
AK
EIn
put)
-•
-S
HA
KE
Ou
tpu
tatG
roun
dS
urf
ace
"(W
ithE
PA
IC
urve
s)... •
I•
•/)
- ••
•,.
, ~•
•,
••
r}f•
~r I'
~lJ
~II~
t~~
l ~J
•V
Ul
AIi
Vf
~
..f\J
\~'~
V\
~
~lJ
•'II
iV
1\:::-~
,,
,, 1\
",•
'"-... ..
--I-
..I
~-
.ri
I,..
lt...
.,vIf~
..V
I-'
.......
I':jV
o 0.1
0.2
m0.
8- c o ~ C
I) B0.
6~ ~
.j::-
.C
I)I
g,
~(J
J0.
41
1.2
Figu
re4.
47-A
ccel
erat
ion
Res
pons
eSp
ectra
at5%
Dam
ping
-Wild
life
Liq
uefa
ctio
nA
rray
,Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
e-C
ompa
rison
ofH
oriz
onta
lMot
ions
in36
00D
irec
tion
-SH
AK
EO
utpu
twith
EPR
I(1
993)
Soil
Cur
ves.
100
10F
requ
ency
(Hz)
1
IR
ecor
ded
Mot
ion
atG
roun
dS
urfa
ce
-R
ecor
ded
Mot
ion
atD
epth
of7.
5m-
-
(Spe
cifie
das
SH
AK
EIn
put)
--
•S
HA
KE
Out
puta
tGro
und
Sur
face
(With
EP
RI
Cur
ves)
•~
,' . • ,,
•,
,
\~,
,.',
,,
,,
",
",
J•
\,l"\'
,
't~V~I
h0,
ft'I
f~,'A
N1\
"l/f\M
~[}
J~
,•
II, 1/,...
r...~
I'-'
'...
..L
~If-
o.V
r-•••
10
.-•
•..- ""
...
~J
..~~
/,
o 0.1
1
1.2
0.2
m0.
8
- S ~ .. CD ~0.
6u <C li! 13 8. U)
0.4
.J:' I \J1
\J1
Fig
ure
4.48
-A
ccel
erat
ion
Res
pons
eS
pect
raat
5%D
ampi
ng-
Wil
dlif
eL
ique
fact
ion
Arr
ay,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,13
15G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
-C
ompa
riso
no
fHor
izon
tal
Mot
ions
in90
°D
irec
tion
-S
HA
KE
Out
putw
ith
EP
RI
(199
3)S
oilC
urve
s
20 15 10 -5
III
Q.~ - II) II
) ~0
en .. lB~
.cI
fI)
-5V
10
\
-10
~-
I.-
-"
W.~
~II
An~.
a~
~nn
,.A
IA
l/V1A
~A
V,
-"
V,UV
n~\
V1
VVV
-Vv-.
V~
V
-15
-20
o5
1015
20
Tim
e(s
ec.)
25
30
3540
Figu
re4.
49-S
hear
Stre
ssT
ime
His
tory
atD
epth
of4.
21m
(13.
8ft.
)fr
omSH
AK
EO
utpu
twith
EPR
I(1
993)
Soil
Cur
ves
W
ildlif
eSi
te,N
ovem
ber
24,
1987
,131
5G
MT
Ear
thqu
ake
in36
00D
irect
ion
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
'0'
0.1
~ -c: .~
0(;) .. (l
J CD .c:
~en
-0.1
I 1Il
'-l
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
---
JtI
}~
~AN
AI\
A_
.....~
AIN
III\A
IV"
1\V
wIV
V v\
~~
!
-0.5
o5
1015
20
Tim
e(s
ec.)
2530
3540
Fig
ure
4.50
-S
hear
Str
ain
Tim
eH
isto
ryat
Dep
tho
f4.2
1m
(13.
8ft
.)fr
omS
HA
KE
Out
putw
ith
EP
RI
(199
3)S
oilC
urv
es
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
3600
Dir
ecti
on
0.50.40.30.20.1o-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4
20 1----f----f----f----f----f-------lf-----t-----i----+-----1
25
15
10 J----t----t------,I---t----t-------j~'-----t---+-----t-_T_--1
-1 0 1--+-t------:~~:.--~I£---t----l------ii__--+----+-----I----1
-15 1----f----f----f----f----;-------lf-----t---t----+-----1
-20 J----t----t------;I---t----I------j----t---+-----t----1
-25 L..-__l..-__l..-_--"L...-__l..-__L...-_--"__--.l.__---'-__-..:..__.......
-0.5
- 5faa..¥-rnrne 0-(I)..faCD~
rn -5
Shear Strain (%)
Figure 4.51 - Shear Stress - Shear Strain Hysteresis Loop at Depth of4.21 m (13.8 ft.).Calculated from SHAKE Output - Wildlife SIte, November 24, 1987,1315 GMT Earthquake in 3600 Direction. Soil Properties Are Based onthe Average of SASW and Crosshole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements.The EPRI (1993) G/Gmax and Damping Curves Are Used in the Calculation.
4-58
IS
olip
rope
rtie
sus
edin
the
anal
ysis
wer
e.-
base
do
nav
erag
eof
the
Cro
ssho
lea
nd
Dep
th4.
21m
(13.
8ft
.)S
AS
Wsh
ea
rw
ave
velo
city
mea
sure
men
ts.
~~
.r--
&.J
-"'"
Th
eE
PRI
(199
3)so
ilde
grad
atio
ncu
rves
rr.---
_:3~
wer
eus
edin
the
anal
ysis
.
~>
-D
epth
5.0
6m
(16.
6ft
.)
r~p-
II-
Dep
th3
.35
m(1
1.0
ft.)
r~
bYD
epth
5.91
m(1
9.4
ft.)
~~
-~
N---
.~
_..I.~
-:::;-
IJIJ
I
oJ
.p I Vt
1.0
500
400
¥30
0
~ CD C W C ~2
00
100 o
o5
1015
20
Tim
e(s
ec.)
25
303
540
Fig
ure
4.52
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
3600
Dir
ecti
on-
SH
AK
EO
utpu
tUsi
ngE
PR
I(1
993)
Soi
lCur
ves
~ I 0'\ o
500
400
;;-' ~
300
f c w c '!20
0(j)
100
Soi
lpro
pert
ies
used
inth
ean
alys
isw
ere
base
don
aver
age
oft
he
Cro
ssho
lean
dS
AS
Wsh
ear
wav
eve
loci
tym
easu
rem
ents
.
EP
RI
(199
3)so
ilde
grad
atio
ncu
rves
wer
eus
edin
the
anal
ysis
.S
oilp
rope
rtie
sw
ere
first
itera
ted
by
the
36
0de
gree
mot
ion,
then
used
dire
ctly
Inth
e90
degr
eem
otio
nru
nw
ithou
tfu
rthe
rite
ratio
n.
Dep
th4.
21m
(13.
8ft.
)
l..r-
f~
lJ.-I
'"\
1\-
De
pth
5.0
6m
(16.
6ft.
)
VI\-
De
pth
3.3
5m
(11.
0ft.
)
f~D
epth
5.91
m(1
9.4
ft.)
,r-/'
"'"-
-<I
'lV
-~.
oo
510
15
20
Tim
e(s
ec.
)
253
03
54
0
Fig
ure
4.53
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
ein
90°
Dir
ecti
on-
SH
AK
EO
utpu
tUsi
ngE
PR
I(1
993)
Soi
lCur
ves
II
I\
Soi
lpro
pe
rtie
su
sed
inth
ea
na
lysi
sw
ere
De
pth
4.21
m(1
3.8
ft.)
--'"
ba
sed
on
ave
rag
eo
fthe
Cro
ssh
ole
an
d
~S
AS
Wsh
ea
rw
ave
velo
city
me
asu
rem
en
ts.
/"
.-:.
----
Th
eE
PR
I(1
993)
soli
de
gra
da
tion
curv
es
/'-
k-
we
reu
sed
inth
ean
alys
is.
V~
~f-
De
pth
5.06
m(1
6.6
ft.)
,I-
De
pth
3.35
m(1
1.0
ft.)
~~
A~
Dep
th5.
91m
(19.
4ft.
)
~~
~~~
.Jr
--
r/'
~~J
,.,.
YJ
-
.p. I 0
'\t-
o
800
70
0
600
'"50
0~ :2
->0
m :u
400
c w c 'i! Ui30
0
20
0
100 o
o5
1015
20
Tim
e(s
ec.
)
25
30
35
40
Fig
ure
4.54
-A
ccum
ulat
ion
ofS
trai
nE
nerg
yin
Liq
uefi
edS
and
Lay
er-
Wil
dlif
eS
ite,
Nov
embe
r24
,19
87,
1315
GM
TE
arth
quak
eS
umm
atio
no
fStr
ain
Ene
rgy
inbo
th36
00an
d90
0D
irec
tion
s-
SH
AK
EO
utpu
tUsi
ngE
PR
I(1
993)
Soi
lC
urve
s
•S
HA
KE
·Im
peria
lVal
ley
Sol
iCur
ves
oS
HA
KE
-E
PR
ISol
iCur
ves
~B
DE
SR
A-T
otal
Stre
ss
11B
DE
SR
A-E
ffect
ive
Stre
ss
oB
ased
onD
irect
Inte
rpol
atio
nof
Rec
orde
dM
otio
ns
00
[JC •
• 0~
0t
11•
"•
110
~~
11 •
1,50
0
- '" .s .., - g1,0
00UJ i c 0 c .2 t5 -m
-l:'-
:JI
.2"(j\
-I
N1U >-
500
tn .. Ql
C UJ
oo
2550
Initi
alE
ffec
tive
Con
finin
gP
ress
ure,
CJc
o'(k
Pa)
7510
0
Fig
ure
4.55
-T
otal
Str
ain
Ene
rgy
atL
ique
fact
ion
Ons
et.
Cal
cula
ted
from
Gro
und
Res
pons
eA
naly
ses
•S
HA
KE
-Impe
rialV
alle
yS
oliC
UlV
es
oS
HA
KE
-EP
AIS
oliC
urve
s
&B
DE
SA
A-T
otal
Stre
ss--
AB
DE
SA
A-E
ffect
ive
Stre
ss
oB
ased
onD
irect
Inte
rpol
atio
nof
Rec
orde
dM
otio
ns[J
[J
• 0
0t
•A
A&
A
1,50
0
-.., E ~ - g1,00
0w i c 0 C 0 'fi J!! (I
)::
lg
o~
::iI
1U50
00
\W
>- ~ (I) c W
oo
2550
Initi
alE
ffec
tive
Con
finin
gP
ress
ure,
(JcO
'(k
Pa)
7510
0
Figu
re4.
56-T
otal
Stra
inE
nerg
yat
Liq
uefa
ctio
nO
nset
.Cal
cula
ted
from
Gro
und
Res
pons
eA
naly
ses
(All
Poin
tsin
Unl
ique
fied
Lay
ers
Rem
oved
)
.SH
AK
E·
Impe
rialV
alle
yS
oliC
urve
s
AB
DE
SR
A·
Tot
alS
tres
s
AB
DE
SR
A•
Effe
ctiv
eS
tres
s
oB
ased
onD
irect
Inte
rpol
atio
no
fRec
orde
dM
otlo
ns-_
.-
•W
ildlif
e·
Ext
rapo
late
dLa
bora
tory
Dat
a(F
igue
roa
etal
..199
4)
0
0 •• 0
A•
..•
• 0t
•to
AA
•A
~A A
500
~
I (J'\~
1,50
0
c:>" .e 3 g
1,00
0w i c o 6 U J! CI
l::I 0
" :::; 1U >- e' CIl c W
oo
2550
Initi
alE
ffect
ive
Con
finin
gP
ress
ure,
CJc
o'(k
Pa)
7510
0
Figu
re4.
57-C
ompa
rison
ofT
otal
Stra
inE
nerg
yat
Liq
uefa
ctio
nO
nset
:Gro
und
Res
pons
eA
naly
ses
and
Lab
orat
ory
Dat
a-W
ildlif
eSi
te,N
ovem
ber2
4,19
87,1
315
GM
TE
arth
quak
e.
CHAPTERS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A feasibility study was conducted to detennine the applicability of the strain energymethod for liquefaction potential evaluation. This study consisted of collection andsynthesis of available laboratory test data and evaluation of the strain energy as a measureof soil resistance to liquefaction. The data obtained by several groups of researchersconfirm the observation that the strain energy (in normalized form) follows the timehistory of the pore pressure ratio increase up to the onset of liquefaction. The data alsoshow that by using the relative density for clean sands and the confining pressure for siltysands, development of the generic strain energy relationships for liquefaction resistance isfeasible. However, other factors such as the shape and size of the sand particles, the typeand the amount of fines content, and the effect of the rate and type of loading on thestrain energy need to be investigated and quantified.
The feasibility study also successfully predicts the strain energy required for liquefactionto take place in the field based on the recorded data at the Wildlife Site. The groundresponse analyses performed for this site, using the conventional methods of the groundresponse analyses, resulted in consistent results, with a scatter typically expected in suchanalyses. However, all methods used in the ground response analyses were onedimensional, and the summation of the strain energy due to shaking in each direction is atbest an approximation. Nevertheless, the comparison of the laboratory data with theresults of ground response analyses is encouraging. Such favorable comparison suggestsalso that the goal of developing the strain energy approach for generic application to theevaluation of the soil liquefaction potential should be pursued in future phases of theproject.
Based on the results of the feasibility study, it is recommended to:
• Perform laboratory testing, preferably on soil samples from the Wildlife Siteat confining pressures in the range of 26 kPa to 50 kPa to cover the low end ofthe test results.
• Perform ground response analyses using a nonlinear computer program withmulti-directional shaking capability to validate or modify the summation ofthe total strain energy calculated by the methods limited to uni-directionalshaking capability as used in the current study.
• Apply the energy based method to liquefaction/no liquefaction sites atNorthridge, Kobe in Japan where recorded motions are available, and at theWildlife Site for the Elmore Ranch earthquake during which no liquefactionoccurrence was observed.
5-1
The energy method provides a sound approach to the evaluation of liquefaction potential.It is based on the basic principles of the "stress" and "strain" approaches in which the soilcapacity to resist liquefaction is measured in terms of the strain energy. It can also handlethe special characteristics of the ground motion, such as the near-field effects. Themethod also has the capability of providing an estimate of the amount of pore pressurebuild-up before the onset of liquefaction. In this approach, the laboratory data can alsobe corroborated as more field data from the sites that have or have not liquefied becomeavailable.
5-2
CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
AI-Khatib, M. A. (1994). "Liquefaction Assessment by Strain Energy Approach,"Doctoral Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University,Detroit, Michigan.
Arango, I. (1994). "Methodology for Liquefaction Evaluation of Sites East of theRockies," Bechtel Corporation, Technical Grant. San Francisco, California, June.
Arango, 1., Migues, R. E. (1996), "Investigation of the Seismic Liquefaction of Old SandDeposits," a Report Prepared for the National Science Foundation Grant No. CMS9416169, Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California, March.
Bennett, M. 1., McLaughlin, P. V., Sarmiento, P. V., Youd, T. L. (1984). "GeotechnicalInvestigation of Liquefaction Sites, Imperial Valley, California," USGS Open-File Report84-252.
Bierschwale, J. G., Stokoe, K. H. (1984). "Analytical Evaluation of LiquefactionPotential of Sands Subjected to the 1981 Westmoreland Earthquake," GeotechnicalEngineering Report GR84-15, Geotechnical Engineering Center, Civil EngineeringDepartment, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Dobry, R., Elgamal, A. W., Baziar, M. (1989). "Pore Pressure and Acceleration Responseof Wildlife Site During the 1987 Earthquake," Proceedings from the 2nd US - JapanWorkshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground Deformation and Their Effects on Lifelines,held at the Grand Island Holiday Inn in Grand Island, New York from September 26-28and at the Cornell University in Ithaca, New York on September 29; also TechnicalReport NCEER-89-0032.
Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M., Powell, D. (1982). "Prediction ofPore Water Pressure Build-Up and Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes by theCyclic Strain Method," NBS Building Science Series 138, National Bureau of Standards,US Department of Commerce, July.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), (1993). Guidelines for Determining DesignBasis Ground Motion," EPRI Report No. TR-102293, November.
Etheredge, R. P., Maley, R., Switzer, J. (1987). Strong-Motion Data from the SuperstitionHills Earthquakes of 0154 and 1315 (GMT), November 24, 1987," USGS Open-FileReport 87-672, December.
6-1
Figueroa,1. L., Saada, A. S., Liang, L., Dahisaria, N. M. (1994). "Evaluation of SoilLiquefaction by Energy Principles," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120,No.9, September.
Figueroa, J. L., Saada, A. S., Liang, L., (1995). "Effect of the Grain Size on the Energyper Unit Volume at the Onset of Liquefaction," Proceedings of the 3rd InternationalConference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and SoilDynamics, April 2-7, St. Louis, Missouri, Vol. 1.
Haag, E. D., Stokoe, K. (1985). "Laboratory Investigation of Static and DynamicProperties of Sandy Soils Subjected to the 1981 Westmoreland Earthquake,"Geotechnical Engineering Report GR85-11, Geotechnical Engineering Center, CivilEngineering Department, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Youd, T. L. (1989). "Lateral Spreading Field Experimentsby the US Geological Survey," Proceedings from the 2nd US - Japan Workshop onLiquefaction, Large Ground Deformation and Their Effects on Lifelines, held at theGrand Island Holiday Inn in Grand Island, New York from September 26-28 and at theCornell University in Ithaca, New York on September 29; also Technical ReportNCEER-89-0032.
Holzer, T. L., Youd, L., Bennett, M. J. (1988). "In Situ Measurement of Pore PressureBuild-Up During Liquefaction," Proceedings of the 20th Joint Meeting of The US - JapanCooperative Program in Natural Resources, Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, NISTReport SP 760.
Ishihara, K. (1993). "Liquefaction and Flow Failure During Earthquakes," 33rd RankineLecture, Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No.3, pp. 351-415.
Kagawa, T., AI-Khatib, M. A. (1990). "Use of Shear-Strain Energy for LiquefactionPrediction," Proceedings of 4th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,May 20-24, Palm Springs, California, Vol. 3.
Koester, J.P. (1992). "Cyclic Strength and Pore Pressure Generation Characteristics ofFine-Grained Soils," A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of theUniversity of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.
Ladd, R. S., (1982). "Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Program for Study and Evaluationof Liquefaction Ground Failure Using Stress and Strain Approaches: Heber Site, October15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Wayne, NewJersey, February.
6-2
Lee, M. K., Finn, W. L. (1978). "DESRA-2C, Dynamic Effective Stress Analysis of SoilDeposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of LiquefactionPotential," the University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; Modified byBechtel Corporation to include Martin-Davidenkov Soil Model, Bechtel Corporation, SanFrancisco, California.
Magistrale, H., Jones, L., Kanamori, H. (1989). "The Superstition Hills, California,Earthquake of 24 November 1987," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol. 79, April.
Matasovic, 1., Vucetic, M. (1993). "Analyses of Seismic Records Obtained on November24, 1987 at the Wildlife Liquefaction Array," Research Report, Civil EngineeringDepartment, University of California, Los Angeles, California, May.
Porcella, R., Etheredge, E., Maley, R., Switzer, J. (1987). "Strong-Motion Data from theSuperstition Hills Earthquakes of 0154 and 1315 (GMT), November 24, 1987," USGSReport, 87-672.
Riemer, M. F., Gookin, W. B., Bray, J. D, Arango,!. (1994). "Effects of LoadingFrequency and Control on the Liquefaction Behavior of Clean Sands," GeotechnicalEngineering report No. UCB/GT/94-07, Geotechnical Engineering, Department of CivilEngineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Riemer, M. F., Seed. R. B. (1994). "Dynamic Testing of Soils from the SRSIITPFacility," Geotechnical Engineering Report No. UCB/GT/94-02, GeotechnicalEngineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, May.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., Seed, H. B. (1972), "SHAKE, A Computer Program forEarthquake Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered Sites," Report EERC 72-12,University of California, Berkeley; Modified by Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco,California, 1995.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, 1. M., Arango, 1. (1983). "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential UsingField Performance Data," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No.3, March.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. (1985). "Influence of SPT Procedures in SoilLiquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111,No. 12, February.
Thilakaratne, V., Vucetic, M. (1990). "Analysis of the Seismic Response at the ImperialWildlife Liquefaction Array in 1987," Proceedings of the 4th US National Conference onEarthquake Engineering, May 20-24, Palm Springs, California, Vol. 3.
6-3
Turner, E., Stokoe, K. H. (1982). "Static and Dynamic Properties of the Clayey SoilsSubjected to the 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," Geotechnical Engineering ReportGR82-86, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, October.
Vucetic, M., Thilakaratne, V. (1989). "Liquefaction at the Wildlife Site - Effect of SoilStiffness on Seismic Responses," Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on SoilDynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Mexico City, October.
Wald, D 1., HeImberger, D. V., Hartzell, S. H. (1990). "Rupture Process of the 1987Superstition Hills Earthquake from the Inversion of Strong-Motion Data," Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America, Vol. 80, No.5, October.
Youd, T. L., Holtzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J. (1989). "Liquefaction Lessons Learned fromthe Imperial Valley, California," Proceedings of the 12th International Conference onSoil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro.
Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A. W. (1994). "Analysis of Site Liquefaction Using EarthquakeRecords," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No.6, June.
6-4
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TESTS ON MONTEREY NO. 0 SAND, PERFORMED AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
A-I
:r N
Tab
leA
.I-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
lic
Tri
axia
lT
estD
ata
onM
onte
rey
No.
0S
and
Per
form
edat
Uni
vers
ity
ofC
alif
orni
a,B
erke
ley
No.
Te
st10
Sa
mp
leO
r(%)
ElIQ
(J/m
3 )F
C(%
)'Y
d(k
N/m
3 )C
on
tro
lG
e'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.(H
z)L
oa
dS
hape
1M
ON
T4M
onte
rey
No.
O61
.826
772
15.6
Stre
ss10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
·wav
2M
ON
T10
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
61.0
1933
215
.5S
tress
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
3M
ON
T11
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
60.6
988
215
.5S
tress
100
10S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
4M
ON
T12
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
61.0
2481
215
.5S
tress
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
5M
ON
T14
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
60.2
1583
215
.5S
tress
100
20S
inus
oida
l2·w
ay
6M
ON
T15
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
60.5
1245
215
.5S
tress
100
10S
inus
oida
l 2-w
ay
7M
ON
T17
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
61.0
1878
215
.5S
train
100
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
av
8M
ON
T18
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
61.0
1187
215
.5S
train
100
10S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
9M
ON
T19
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
60.6
1483
215
.5S
train
100
15S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
10M
ON
T20
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
40.9
851
215
.0S
train
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
11M
ON
T21
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
41.8
880
215
.0S
train
100
1S
inus
oida
l 2-w
ay
12M
ON
T22
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
42.3
1078
215
.0S
train
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
13M
ON
T24
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
51.8
2736
215
.3S
tress
100
1S
inus
oida
l2·w
av
14M
ON
T25
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
50.4
2985
215
.3S
tress
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
15M
ON
T26
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
49.9
2769
215
.2S
tress
100
1S
inus
oida
l 2-w
ay
16M
ON
T30
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
41.9
708
215
.0S
train
100
.10
Sin
usoi
dal2
·wav
17M
ON
T33
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
40.5
829
215
.0S
train
100
10S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
18M
ON
T35
Mon
tere
vN
o.O
61.8
4211
215
.6S
tress
100
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
·wav
19M
ON
T37
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
61.6
1388
215
.5S
train
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
aY
20M
ON
T38
Mon
tere
yN
o.O
61.8
704
215
.6S
train
100
10S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
Tes
tR
esul
tsF
ollo
win
gth
eS
eque
nce
ofT
est1
0's
are
Atta
ched
.
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT461.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
o
A A A A A 1\ A A A A . A ~ 1\ A f\ f\1\ ~
\ I I
0 5
vD
V V \Jk \ ~ \ 2I VV~ V V V V V V V V , I
4030
Iic.:. 20..Vi 10III
~Ci) 0
~ -10.:::.U) .20
-30
time, t (sec)
5
-5.1.-----------------------------------'time, t (sec)
20155oL.---=:!~=:=:::::::::::::::::::==--_-___J
o
...CI>Cl.>- 1000E'CIII::W
_4000.,...----------------------------------~
!w 3000ojE~ 2000::>
1.5,..----------------------------------....
1.0
0.5
!-RU-EJEliql
201510time, t (sec)
50.0~D~~~~~==::::::::::::=----_+___----J
o
d:\nit\itp\cy_files'lMONT4.xLS 8/20/96 12:57 PM
A-3
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT461.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
-5 -4
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain.! (%)
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\MONT4.XLSA-4
8120/9612:57 PM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT10610.27
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
.
'II \0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3
~
20i:. 10..iii~ 0
en 5
l:f 1
30
time, t (sec)
5" n
0 5 10 15 2o~~Vl130 3
o ~V
V
5
,...e
0~
C'iii..0..<II -5III.cC/)
-10 .J- ~~~~~-----------------J
time, t (sec)
3530252015105
;;" 7000 ,.---------------------------------------,
~ 6000
~ 5000CIl
§ 4000'0:> 3000..CIll:l. 2000::0-
f:' 1000
S ol-----..,.--~!!!!!:!!!!!:~==~=::;:::=:::::~=::;::=~-__I,_----_t_----__Jo
time, t (sec)
3...-----------------------------------,2 j-Ru-ElEIiQI
3530252015105
o~~~~~~~g~=:::::~~~~~__;__-____Jo
time, t (sec)
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\MONT10XLSA-S
8f21196 9:46 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT10610.27
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-------------------------aD-r-------.-------..
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
d:\nit\itpIcLfiles\MONT10.XLS
A-68/21/969:46 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1160.60.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10010
5
lime, 1 (seC)
~ A 10 A ~ h f\
~ \ I"
f\
(\ " \I1\ I,I
I
~'! \ 1
'I
I\ ~ ~. 10 0.5 1
~1.5
I J ~ ~I
~ IJ V V V v ~ ~-30
30
_ 20
:.:. 10..~
:J 0..Ci):; -10ell.c(/) -20
J
~:~ 1"-'D"'V-rC"V-r"''"'V--r='"';-V:-t='<\~7",v-r;-v~v--;-<V\;---r~iV\i\f\riJr;--~-=-----fI-------+------1-;;- -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2.5a:;:: -0.4
~ -0.6
i -0.8
re -1.0.c'(/) -1.2
-1.4-1.6 .1.-. --:::---:-:---:- --.J
time, t (sec)
2.521.5time, t (sec)
0.5
..ellQ.
>. 500
I oL-~~===::::::::;:::::::::::=::::===:=:=-----_l_-----Jo
_ 2000 .,.----------------------------------,
!w 1500orE::l"6 1000>
2.0..,---------------------------------,
1.5
1.0
I-RU-ElEliq!
time, t (sec)1.5 2 2.5
d:lnit\itp\CLfilesIMONT11.XLS BI15/9611:18AM
A-7
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1160.60.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10010
l;...rnIII!en -1.6...~.cen
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r ("A,)
0.2
d:\nit\itp\CLfiles\MONT11 XLS
A-8B/15/9611:18AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT12610.23
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
40
time, t (sec)
I I:
I fI I i , ,
'itlttttlttt,
I II
m
I I I 110C0 0 ,
] 0 ' I 1 1
11I1
!
III
11I1 ~III
30
'ill20
0.;. 10..iiiUl 0G.l..iii.. ·10'llG.l.c(/)
-20
-30
5
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT12610.23
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-----------------------------;3~-------.,
-6
Shear Strain, ., (%)
2
d:\nit\itp\cy_filesIMONT12.xLSA-IO
8/15/96 11:22 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1460.20.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress10020
40..-------------------------------------.30
ii~ 20 Ai 10 I ! ~ ~ It /I rIu; 0 -fl--+-,f-H-++-t-t-++-H--+-+-H-+-H-II-+-t-+-++-H-l-t-l-H-\--H-H-++~rt-iI\H-+1\J+-H-\-\J\J++-I'.J'-4:~-:f--I<:,J,--\;:------1
!: I v v __~_·5__vv_v_,.,\!-v.,...,._\i_._IJ-~-v-_\J---------'rtime, t (sec)
0.2 ,..-----------------------------------~0.0 +'--''M-''ri--\-;r-:>.;--A--A-f'r;--t~,...,__...,...._h<_~___:--------_+----_:___rr__Pr__t\_rt_-__1
~ -0.2 0~
.5 -0.4E;; -0.6...III
l:! -0.8(/)
1.5
-1.0
-1.2 ........---------------~-~~-----------------'time, t (sec)
1.5time, t (sec)0.5
o~::::::::::::::::::::::=_--r_-__Jo
2000 ,..--------------------------------------,
~w1500arE::l'01000:>...ellQ.
>. 500EJellCW
1.2,--------------------------------------,
1.5time, t (sec)0.5
I-Ru-ElEliq!0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.2L~~~:::::::::=----- __-----_J0.0o
8/15/96 11 :24 AM
A-ll
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1460.20.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress·10020
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.2
d:\nitlitplcy_files\MONT14XLS
A-128/15/96 11 :24 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1560.50.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
stresS10010
30.,.....-----------------------------------..,20
~;. 10..iii~ 0en 0ia -10Ql.ctI) -20
5
~10
m15
-30 .-.-----------------------------------....time, t (sec)
-2 .1.- ~_:__~~----------------1
time, t (sec)
2000 -r-----------------------------------,
1510time, t (sec)5
ar$'0 1000:>liiQ.,
>- 500L=:::::=::=========-_~~~UJ o
o
i:iUJ 1500
1.5.,.....-----------------------------------,
1.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I
0.5
0.0 '"o 5 time, t (sec) 10 15
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\MONT15.xLS 8/15/96 11 :28 AM
A-13
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT1560.50.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'10010
-1.2
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.2
d:\nitlilp\cLfiles\MONT15.xLS
A-148/15/96 11 :28 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT17610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
SO-r------------------------------------,_60tll
Co
;'40...rngJ 20...enl:; O~+_t+_+_+_t_+_+_jt_H__++_t_r++_l_++_+_t_;'_I_+_T_+__Hi_++~f__';_+_'<:+_\::_f!__'<::_f~"'__'::~d_~_'<:f'-----___lc»~ 0 ~
0:1 ---=~----1time, t (sec)
30
" II " II n
0 5 10 15
~ ~ ~ ~25
1 v lJ v II V V II V 1/ v u I
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
,....,~';: 0.1Ct;.. 00- .C/)
i -0.1~C/)
0.3
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT17610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
0.3
d:\nitlitp\CLfiles\MONT17.xLS
A-168/15/96 11 :31 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT18610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
80.,.....----------------------------------,7060
i 50:!-.. 40
:f30~ 20
CiS... 10l'll~ O¥-+-!----+-+---\--+--I-I---I-ff--\,..+---\-+-~'--..>.d_'--'_'+_-"""----=------+_-------__l
(/) -10 0 2
~~t----_-----~------------1time, t (sec)
f\ f\ f\ A {\ f\ A A fI f\ f\
nn f\ f\ {'
I
~ ~~20 0·t5
VV V V V V V V V V
0.2
0.3
......"$.-;::: 0.1C~ 0.0(I)
1-0.11-0.2 _-0.3 -J
time, t (sec)
21.51time, t (sec)
0.5
~ 1500..,..-------------------------------------,E:i 1250wGJ- 1000E-5 7SO:-...~ SOD
~ 2SOGJC
W
21.51
time, t (sec)0.5
0.2
0.0 ~.~':+ _+_--------_;_-------___;---------'lo
0.4
1.2 -r-----------------------------------,1.0
0.8
0.6
d:\nit\itp\cyjiles\MONT18.XLS 8.(15/96 11 :37 AM
A-I7
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT18610.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain·10010
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, "( (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT18.XLS
A-IS8/15/9611:37 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10015
70....-;-----::---------------------------------........60
:50=.40...fA 30:ll 20..(i) 10..al O+'--+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--Il--+-+--+--/--\-i+--\-f--+--cf---'<:--J'+-T-f'---'~---''<c++--'<::_f_---''d_--->.=_J
~ -100 1.2
: t---:::. ~~~-__- __-_---.,;Itime, t (sec)
0.3....--------------------------------------.
~ A ~~~ 0.1CI::r4='---t--t---:1--I--+-++-0.2 -+-+-+-+-t--t+0.4-t---+--t-+---1,...--f0:6-t-+--t-+-+-l
JB
'-+-V--+-+-V-+--+--lH-+-+--I--\--I'I
-0.3 -----------------------------------time, t (sec)
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
_ 2000 -r------------------------------------,1w 1500
~~ 1000:>..GICo:>. 500E!GICW
1.2....-----------------------------------..,
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
I-Ru -ElEliq I0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.0 ~...;;......l.I----_-----_-----;_----__;-----_+-----"'""'o
d:lnitlitp\cy-files\MONT19XLS 8/15/96 11 :42 AM
A-19
Testl.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT1960.60.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain·10015
-0.3
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain,., (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\Cy-files\MONT19XLS
A-208/15/96 11 :42 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2040.90.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
70 T,-::-----------------------------------...,
60
'l 50=.40...Ii 30
! 20Cii 10...~ O-jl-+--f--\---f+---\--f--\--f+--+-f-+--f+--+--f~__I.::::__7'_+--__'_::=":.--...i.""d+_~~=---__1
~ -100 12
~~~ t ~------------------'Itime, t (sec)
0.3 -r-'"I~---------------------------------.....,
0.2,.,~';:: 0.1C~ 0.0 fL----l---I--+-+--+--f--+-+--+--I--+-+----l---I----l---f--I---I---+-+--+-+----1en 0 12
~ ::1 I-D.3 --;;;.-.---------------------------------
time, t (sec)
121086time, t (sec)
42
- 1000 .,..-------------------------------------,
!w 800
arE 600:::I
~... 400Gle-
El 400GIs:::W
1.2 -r-----------------------------------....,
121086time, t (sec)
42
)-Ru -ElEliq I
0.4
0.2
0.0 ~,:-..----_+_------t-------t-------t------_+_-------!o
1.0
0.8
0.6
d:lnitlitp\cy-filesIMONT20.xLS
A-218/15/96 11 :47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2040.90.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.3 -0.2
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-20
Shear strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\MONT20.XLSA-22
8115/96 11 :47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2141.80.15
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
60
50
Ii 40~;. 30..rn 20IIIGI... 10iii... 0 (",GI
~ -10 0 25
~! Itime, t (sec)
5
A f\ A A n fI
~ ~1\ 1\ f\ fI
' ~ A A 1\
0 5
~b " ~5 V ~v ~2
V V V V V v v v v V v V v V
-0.2
0.2
~ 0.1'-';-
c~ 0.0..=GI
~ -0.1
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (0/0):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT2141.80.15
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
0.200.150.10
40
30'
-~tII
-0.20
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itP\CLfiles\MONT21,XLS
A-248/15/96 11 :53 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain:
MONT2242.30.08%
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain:
MONT2242.30.08%
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.15
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
0.15
~----------------3:Q--l.---------------_---I
Shear Strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT22.xLS
A-26
8121196 9:47 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2451.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
'A f\ f\ 1\ f\ f\ f\ . A A ~ (\ ~ ~\
VV
\ " I \0
Va ~52
V V V V V V V V V
40
30
i 20:... 10Iie 0en -10 0
!:1 1
time, t (sec)
o
l
r'\
n~- ...........
'\(;VV~0 5 \15 2
U
5
~ 0:-C'f! -5en~
IIIIII
~ -10
-15.1.-------------------------------------'
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2451.80.31
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
-10 -6 6
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\MONT24XLS
Shear Strain, y (%)
A-288/21/96 9:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2550.40.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2550.40.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
l;.....nell
!u; -7...fIlell.crn
-6 -5
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-4
Shear Strain, r (%)
2
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\MONT2S.xLS
A-308/20196 8:23 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2649.90.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
40...-------------------------------------.30
120;.... 10og: O+----+----1-----+---'f-----'<----r----T----lf---~--_+-----__l..;; _100 5 6
!:1 1
time, t (sec)
5...--------------------------------------.,~O+-----.::::::==±:=---=:::----+-;:::'--~--+jc::::::.==~----+-+--+----;------j:.-- 0 2 5 6C'! -5;;..IIIIII
c5i -10
~15 .L- --J
time, t (sec)
6543time, t (sec)
2
~
0~-~=;::::::=~___i1___--~---__+---__+---_1o
_ 5000 -r--------------------------------------,-:e~ 4000worE 3000='0~2000IIICo
~ 1000..IIICW
2.0...------------------------------------..,
1.5
1.0
0.5
I-RU-ElEIiQI
6543time, t (sec)
2
o.o.l..'O;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,~~~===~~---~~--~::::::...._T__--~:......----__1o
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\MONT26.XLS 8/21/96 8:58 AM
A-31
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT2649.90.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress1001
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-8 -6 4
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\MONT26.XLS
Shear Strain, r (%)
A-328/21/96 8:58 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3041.90.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'10010
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5time, t (sec)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0.90.80.70.60.4 0.5time, t (sec)
0.30.20.1
0.2
0.0 .w..:-----l.,..,t-/------!-----+----i----+-----------+----+----..;-------!o
1.2 ......------------------------------------,
1.0 I-Ru-EJEliq!
0.8
0.6
0.4
d:\nit\itp\cy_filesIMONT30.XLS 8/21/96 9:08 AM
A-33
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3041.90.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
-0.4
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-2
Shear strain, y (%)
0.3
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIesIMONT30XLS
A-348/21/96 9:08 AM
Test I.D.:Relative Density (%)Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3340.50.08
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
o
time, t (sec)
~rN\11 ~ ~M~~~~~~~~A~A~AAAIV
0 2 4 6 8 1
1 I I
40
- 30IIIa.;. 20..IAIII 10ell...
<is... 0IIIell.=en -10
-20
0.10 -r--...-------------------------------------,~ 0.05:-C ._A~ QOO ~ I(;) 0 2 4 6 8 10
j ~05t I I I \ I-0.10 -----------------------------------......
time, t (sec)
1000-§:2- 800worE 600::I"0:>
400...ellQ.
>.E! 20011)
cW
0
0 2 4 time, t (sec) 6 8 10
1.2
1.0I-RU -ElEliq I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 time, t (sec) 6 8 10
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\MONT33.xLS 8/20/96 9:22 AM
A-35
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (Ufo)Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3340.50.08
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
-0.10
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
L---------------_:2O-:-- ...J
Shear Strain,., ('Vo)
d:lnit\itp\cy_filesIMONT33.xLS
A-368/20/96 9:22 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%)Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT3561.80.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress'1000.1
120
120
I
100
time, t (sec)
40
30ii
20l1.;... 10~CIl 0CI)...
Ci) -10 0
! :14
2......e 0:-C _2 0~- -4(I)...ftJCI) -6.c(I)
-8
-10time, t (sec)
1201008060time, t (sec)
4020
_8000,..-------------------------------------,
~;;6000ajE:l'04000::>...GlCo>2000E'Gl
.n oL-...e!!~~c~=~:::=~"'"!_-----_;_-----_;_-----_t_----_Jo
2.0..---------------------------------------,
!-RU-ElEliql1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 .~
o 20 40 60time, t (sec)
80 100 120
d:\nit\itp\cy_fiIes\MONT35.xLS 8/20/9610:42AM
A-37
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Stress Ratio:
MONT3561.80.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Stress·1000.1
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:lnit\itp\cLfilesIMONT35.xLS
A-388/20/9610:42AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%)
MONT3761.60.17
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain1001
60 -r--------------------------------------,50
'ii40~
:. 30.. 20
f 10(i) O-H--H-+t-+-t-H+H-H--H-++-H-H-H-H'-t-H--H-++-H-++-H-+i-f--lh'-'t-+'r+t-+t-+H+-f-H'hi'-h'-h----!i -100 35
~ :f ---JItime, t (sec)
5
~0 5
~o15 20
~30 3
-0.2
0.2
~ 0.1'""?-
C~ 0.0o..IIIGl
~ -0.1
time, t (sec)
- 1500 r-------------------~=::==:===::=::::;;:;;;;:---llwaj 1000E:=g~ 500Co>.ElGlCW
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (0/0):Applied Shear Strain (0/0)
MONT3761.60.17
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain'1001
-0.25
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, "{ (%)
0.25
d:lnit\itp\cy-ftles\MONT37XLS
A-408120196 10:47 AM
Test to.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3861.80.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
70
60Ii 50I:l.:'40..
30rAen 20S1- 10CI)..0ClI
QI
~ -100 1.2
:i Itime, t (sec)
0.3
0.2.....~
';:: 0.1CE 0.0c;; a
~1.2..
~ ~.1II-0.2
-0.3time, t (sec)
1.20.80.6
time, t (sec)
0.40.2
~ 1000 .,.-------------------------------------,
~w 800oJE 600:='0~ 400CIlQ.
Ei 200CIcW
1.20.80.6time, t (sec)
0.40.2
1.4 ,.-------------------------------------,
1.2 1-Ru -ElEliq!
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 ~~....:..:.---+-------_-----_-----_-----,.....------!o
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\MONT38.XLSA-41
8120/96 10:54 AM
Test 1.0.:Relative Density (%):Applied Shear Strain (%):
MONT3861.80.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):Frequency (Hz):
Strain10010
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
...------------------70--,.------------------.
60
0.3
]
-0.1
50
-D.3
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itp\cr-fi1es\MONT38XLS 8/20/96 10:54 AM
A-42
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THE SAVANNAB RIVERSITE, PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
B-1
t>:I I N
Tab
le8.
1-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
licT
riaxi
alT
estD
ata
onSR
SSo
ilSa
mpl
esPe
rfor
med
atU
nive
rsity
ofC
alifo
rnia
,B
erke
ley
No.
Te
st10
Sam
ple
Dr(
%)
Ella
(JIm
")FC
(%)
Yd(k
N/m
")C
on
tro
l(J
e'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.
(Hz)
Lo
ad
Sh
ap
e
1B
23P
2BC
YS
ante
eN/
A14
675
33.7
16.0
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l 2-w
ay
2B
23P
2MC
YS
ante
eN/
A16
782
35.6
16.4
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2
-wa
y
3B
23P
2TC
YS
ante
eN/
A11
402
32.6
16.8
Str
ess
400
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
4B
23P
3BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A49
2916
.616
.4S
tres
s2
00
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
5B
23P
3MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A55
8518
.515
.2S
tres
s20
01
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
6B
23P
3TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A29
2420
.516
.6S
tres
s2
00
1S
inu
soid
al2
-wa
y
7B
12P
5BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
918
27.0
15.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
8B
12P
5MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A49
114
26.8
16.8
Str
ess
300
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
9B
12P
5TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A54
5022
.318
.0S
tres
s30
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
108
12
P7
8C
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A76
6615
.715
.9S
tres
s37
51
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
11B
12P
7MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
482
17.0
16.3
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
1281
2P7T
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
3852
15.7
16.2
Str
ess
375
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
13B
2P58
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A11
672
25.4
14.7
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
14B
2P5M
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
344
29.6
15.4
Str
ess
500
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
15B
2P5T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A88
1926
.616
.7S
tres
s50
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
16B
23P
4BC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A21
667
11.4
14.6
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
17B
23P
4MC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A36
680
16.5
15.5
Str
ess
700
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
18B
23P
4TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A17
968
28.0
N/A
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
19B
29P
2TC
YT
obac
coR
d.N/
A23
637
23.0
16.7
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2
-wa
y
20B
2P
68
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1798
518
.916
.7S
tres
s72
51
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
21B
2P6M
CY
Tob
acco
Rd.
N/A
1983
120
.116
.5S
tres
s74
31
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wa
y
22B
2P6T
CY
CT
obac
coR
d.N/
A14
446
22.4
16.0
Str
ess
750
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
Test
Res
ults
Follo
win
gth
eS
eque
nce
ofTe
stID
'sar
eA
ttach
ed.
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2BCY33.716.04
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·400
100 -r-------------------------------------,80
iii 60~ 40.. 20:§ O+L---+---+l----+---+l----\----t+-----\----t+-----\----H------l
i_~l 'I-120 f ~-~~----------------.
time, t (sec)
5..---------------------------------------.
6..... 0f----"""""""-+--=-"='"---1-""/'"-===-.;----t--r-~---+-_f_-_t--_+__{_-----1
~ 0~
C -5~en... -10IIIQl.ct/) -15
-20 ........-----------------------------------'time, t (sec)
6543time, t (sec)
2
;;--50000 ......-----------------------------------.......e24D000wcjE30000::::l'0~ 20000QlQ,
~ 10000
~ 0 I. OOOIII!~:;::::=::::::::::::=:~-_;_-----+__----~-----Jo
3.0 -r------------------------------------,
!-RU -EJEliq I2.0
1.0
6543time, t (sec)
2
0.0 ~:::::::::;;;;..tCZ.~::::::::=:::::~---=~----=_+_---__+---_lo
d:lnitlitp\cLfiJes\B23P2BCYXLSB-3
8120/96 5:01 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2BCY33.716.04
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
,----------------------------'100--,.------......,
l:...iiiIII
~en -16..ftIell.cC/)
-14
Shear Strain, 'Y (%) .
4
d:\nitutp\CLfiles\B23P2BCYXLSB-4
8120/96 5:01 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2MCY35.616.43
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'400
2.0
1.0
0.0 Ao
d:\nitlitp\CLfiles\B23P2MCYXLS
!-RU-ElEliq!
2 4 time, t (sec)
B-S
6 8 10
8/21/96 9:49 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2MCY35.616.43
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·400
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
.-----------------------------'10Q-ro-----...,
::.:.:..rAtil
!en -10..III.....:o
-8
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
2
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B23P2MCYXLS
B-68/21/96 9:49 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P2TCY32.616.75
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
o
time, t (sec)
~ I I1
\ ~ ~0 10 20 30 40 5
t ~ ~ ~ ~ I-60
-80
80
60
l40=-.. 20iii! 0u; -20..III
ll-40U)
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P2TCY32.616.75
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress400
-14
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, ., (%)
6
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\B23P2TCYXLSB-8
8/21/96 7:44 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P3BCY16.616.4
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
40.-----------------------------------...,
~: 1
1
\fA I~+m~W+Ull1mt~W~~Wf}W+mwOOU++l~~J.U.ljfW.J++mlW.UW~W~.w.uW+W./1.Jj~ 0+1
~ _100 \ 20 40 60 80
! :f--,-_!!I_~I~~~:-----_~_---IItime, t (sec)
15.------------------------------------,
10......~';:: 5~
~ O+---~------....,...";-,,......,.....""""'r=_..nt'tt'I1't1'rf'r.frfi"fTf\i9rfrftitltJ'HtttHfl+tHffil_fttttti*H_I'tt_h
~ -510 20 8
1
0
;; -10
-15 ---J
time, t (sec)
806040time, t (sec)
20
w 60000arE::J"0 40000:>..II>
~ 20000E!
~ oL--------.oIIi!--=~========:=:=:;:::::=-----_;__--------Jo
_ 80000.---------------------------------~__.~::!.
20.0.----------------------------------~
15.0
l-Ru-ElEliq!10.0
5.0
806040time, t (sec)
20
o.oJ---~~~ ........--~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~Jo
d:\nit\itP\CLfiles\B23P3BCy.xLS
B-98/21/96 7:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P3BCY16.616.4
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
'i:...iii'"~rn -15..~QI.crn
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy_files\B23P3BCY.XLSB-lO
8/21/96 7:48 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P3MCY18.515.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
5
35
tllne, t (sec)
" A f'l {', ,n r f\ n .r- ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C' V V V V" VVVV' U I ~~ ~ 30 5 10 15 VO
v
f f ~f ~ I1\, ,
J~I .
11~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'[
0 5 10 30
t ~I J
I
50
40
Ii' 30a.:!.. 20..iii 10IIIGI... 0Ci)... -10tVGI.c -20en
-30
-40
5
.....e0>-
c~...in..tV -5GI.cen
-10time, t (sec)
~ 30000
~w~ 20000:::l'0:>! 10000>.e'GIs::::W 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35time, t (sec)
5.0
4.0
3.0 !-Ru-ElEliql
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35time, t (sec)
d:\nit\itp\cy_files\B23P3MCY.XLS 8/21/96 7:52 AM
B-ll
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P3MCY18.515.22
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
l=-..'Ii'"~o ·10-:g.cC/)
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
6
d:\nit\ilp\cy_files\B23P3MCY.XLS
B-128/21/96 7:52 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P3TCY20.516.63
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
5
tllne, t (sec)
\ ~ f
AI
~b 'I\
I
I0 5 15 20 2
V v v V v v v l v v v v V Vv
5040
l 30
==- 20..Iii 10~ 0..(j) ~10
~ -20~ ~30
-40~50
15.,------------------------------------..,
10......e 5~
C O+-~---=-="""<_"'""'__rr="t__1=r_p'r__f_+_++_H__\_!'_t__f_ii_++_1_+_+I_+__1Y__t_!_+_+_+_+_H_+_I_+_+_+_--_1
~ -510 20 2
1
5! ~10~15
-20 -------------------------------------'time, t (sec)
252015time, t (sec)105oL--~~::::::=-___+--_+___-_J
o
..CI)Q"
>0 20000E'CI)cw
_ 80000 -r------------------------------------.-:e:2-w 60000arE.g 40000:>
25.0...---------------------------------------.
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
I-RU-ElEliq!
252010 time, t (sec) 155
0.0 L.--.....~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::~::::::::::::::.-_Jo
d:lnit\itP\CLfiles\B23P3TCYXLSB-13
8/21/967:57 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P3TCY20.516.63
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress200
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
15
""'------------------_6:Q--Io-- ----I
Shear Strain,., (%)
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\B23P3TCY.XLS
B-148/21196 7:57 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P5BCY2715.82
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'300
40
II
];II - I I'---
I I80 r I
1~II
0 12 1
Ii II Ii III I Iii!-60
-80
80
60
:40;... 20vi~ 0...c;; -20...l'O
~-40In
time (sec)
0.5,.....-------------------------------------,,...~;:: 0.0c~U)
~ -0.5.cIn
20ViI
I40
m60
mI
80
m140
-1.0..1.------------------------------------'time, t (sec)
14012010060 80time, t (sec)
40205OO~ L~~~:::~::::::=----_+_----_+_---__!----_+_------J
o
;:- 35000 ...---------------------------------.
! 30000
~ 25000d)
§ 20000o:::0 15000ta. ooסס1>.
iow
2.5.,----------------------------------,
i- Ru -ElEliq I2.0
1.5
1.0
0.50.0
o 20 40 60 80
time, t (sec)
100 120 140
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\B12P5BCYXLSB-15
8/20/96 4:34 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P5BCY2715.82
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·300
ii'll.;.....rnIII
l!!Ci) -0.8...IIIGI.cU)
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
0.4
d;\nitUtP\cLfiles\B12P5BCYXLSB-16
8/20/96 4:34 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (0/0):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P5MCY26.816.78
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'300
80.,...--------------------------------------.50
l40:... 20~ I~ O++++++++++++++++H-!++H+H-i+t+-H-H-H-f++++++++++++l-l++i+H-H-H-++++++++-H-H++H+i-H++H+H-i++H+H-H-H-i+t+-i+t+-H-H-i+t+-H-f+I------1
i: 0 Ii i ~ ir ~ t-80.L.-----------------~~~------------------'time (sec)
15,..------------------------------------,10,....
~
; : ~AAMAAAA~,M~~ OVVVVVVVVVUVV
III -5s::en
-10
20
-15.J.--------------------------------------'time, t (sec)
6040time, t (sec)20o.l-~:=:::::::=:=---+__------+__-----__+-----.J
o
..... 350000 .,...-------------------------------::-------,
§ 300000::!.~ 250000G)
$ 200000'0:> 150000li;~ 100000OlIii 50000cw
70605030 40time, t (sec)
2010
7.0.,...------------------------------,..-----,6.0
5.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 T.c~~~~~~~~JY}.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:!!.~---_JO.O.ji; fI
o
d:lnit\itp\cy-files\B12P5MCYXLS 8/20/95 4:42 PM
B-17
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P5MCY26.816.78
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress300
"ie....viCIlell..Cii -15..IIIell.::r.n
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
15
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\B12P5MCYXLSB-18
8120/964:42 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
812P5TCY22.318.02
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress300
80
60c;-
40c.;... 20iiiUl 0Q)...en -20...1lI
~-40C/)
-60
-80
10
,...,5e
:--CE 0en...1lIell.c -5C/)
-10
,1~ ~
I0 20 40
~ ~tllne (sec)
~r"'Annnf\nnnnnnn nr0
vvvvvvvvvuuuuvu hb 40v
~ ~
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
812PSTCY22.318.02
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'300
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
60
Shear Strain, r (%)
6
d:\nitlitp\cr-fi1es\B12PSTCYXLSB-20
8/20/96 4:45 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P7BCY15.715.91
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'375
A '\\
0
~10
~ l ~20 3
v v V
80
60
: 40=. 20..~ 0~ 0
~ :t Iili -60
-1-: ---:':_~_:__-----------------Jtime (sec)
/' rr r
.r r1 r..... n n n n
0 '-' V V U UU~b
~3
\) v'-'
\.,
v
......e 5~
.5 0
i:it----------------I'
15
10
time, t (sec)
3020time, t (sec)10o.l---~~::::::=--__+_--------_+__-------__J
o
ooסס10_ -r------------------------------------,lw 75000orE::::I'0 ooסס5:>..Glg.
>- 25000E!GlCW
15.0 -r-----------------------------------.
10.0 !--Ru -ElEliq I
5.0
3020time, t (sec)10
0.0 j....~~;;;;,.;~~~~::::::::C:::::::::::=:::::::::::;;::::;;::~~~~-------___Jo
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\B12P7BCYXLS B-21 8/20/96 4:50 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P7BCY15.715.91
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'375
l.:II:
"";: -20uiIII
l!!<;;..I'CIGI.=(I)
d:\nit\itp\cY-files\B12P7BCYXLS
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain,"( (%)
B-22
15·
8/20/96 4:50 PM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P7MCY1716.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress375
I
~ fl ~ d1
0
~~o20 30
1
II
40
~ ~ I ~
40
60
'iii~ 20..iii 0III~ ~
i~1 ~~ -J1time (sec)
.~ " rl Ii n nnnnnfI nn ~0 10
v v v V V V IJ kbIJ ~ U~U
.J> 5
~
,.....~-;:: 5c~ 0o 0
j :::! I
15
10
40 50
5.0
I-Ru-EJEliql
504020 time, t (sec) 3010
0.0 1-.~~~~~~~::::~~~~:=~~~::::::~~::::~-Jo
d:\nitlitpI.cLfiles\B12P7MCYXLSB-23
8/20/96 4:54 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P7MCY1716.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·375
"iiic.;. .15..oltl
!(;)..:B.::f/)
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain,., (%)
15
d:lnit\itp\cy_files\B12P7MCYXLS
B-248/20/96 4:54 PM
--------------- _.-------
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/mJ
):
B12P7TCY15.716.24
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'375
fA ,A ~ f\ f\ f\ 1\ A ~ f\
tA n A A {\
I0
V V VV ~ 05 2
V V V V V
80
60
l40=-.. 20<Ii~ 0...
i~t----_-----------Jrtime, t (sec)
10.,__--------------------------------,
~ 5l-
e~ O+--'--=--..=-'"""=,........~""""__t_r=~_f_'t__t_r__t__t_t_+_H__+__+_~I_i__+__+__I_1Ht_+__+_+_----_1
... 0 ~
~ ~t I-101--------------------------------.
time, t (sec)
201510time, t (sec)
5
~40000.,-----------------------------------,
iw 30000(jjE::l
~ 20000...Gl
~ 10000~
~ 0 1.-------~~::::::::::==-___1~-------+__------_Jo
10.0.,---------------------------------...,
1-Ru -EJEliq I5.0
201510time, t (sec)
5
0.0 l.-~....,;;;;;;;;~~¥~~~~~~~:::::::::::=::::~~::::::::~--_Jo
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\B12P7TCYXLSB-25
8f21/96 9:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B12P7TCY15.716.24
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress"375
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, y (%)
d:\nitlitp\cy_files\B12P7TCy.xLSB-26
8/21/96 9:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):
Dry Density (kN/m3):
82P58CYC25.4
14.65
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·500
150...-------------------------------------___.
..cA! Oi'--+-+-\---+---+----;----j-+-+-,...-4;-+-+--+--i.--+---+--+---'\---l/--+--+-i--I--------j~ 0 15
JOSOl IU) -100
-150 ~=~=~--------~--------J
_ 100
:.=.. 50
S...------------------------------~-----___.
15
15
10
10
time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
5
5
1-Ru -EJEliq I
-20
120000
! 100000war ooסס8E:::J'0 60000::-...ell 40000Co>.til 20000...ellCW
0
0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B2PSBCYCXLSB-27
8/21/96 8:59 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P5BCYC25.414.65
Controlled Parameter:j Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'500
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
....---------------------------15,o-r-------.,
'i::...viCIl
!CiS -20..11l.cen
1---------------------15 IShear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy_fiIes\B2P5BCYC.xLSB-28
8/21/96 8:59 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P5MCYC29.615.37
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress500
n
r~ ~
f ~ ~. I
0
~ ~ ~ J~ 10 J .15 20 25
l~~ I3
V ~
125100
1 75::. 50..rn 25~ 0
i ::i 1
5
en -75
-100-125 ~~~__:__--------------....J
time, t (sec)
5
.......~0"-' 0~
: 0 5 30 35T!
~-fJ)~
lIS -5GI.=.en
-10time, t (sec)
.t:"" 100000.§~ 80000wa;E 60000:l'0:> 40000~
GIC.>. 20000ell...ellCW 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35time, t (sec)
5.0.,.------------------------------------,
!-Ru -ElEliql
4.0
3.0
2.0
5 10 15 20time, t (sec)
25 30 35
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B2P5MCYC.XlS
B-298/21/968:21 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
82P5MCYC29.615.37
Controlled Parameter:Initi~1 Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress500
l:,;..IiIII
~o -10..tilell
.s::.o
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
'-------------------------15 IShear Strain, r (%)
d:lnit\itp\CLfiles\82P5MCYC.xLS
B-308121/968:21 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (0/0):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
82P5TCYC26.616.71
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress500
fI f\
~ ~fI f\ fI f\ fI
~fI fI f'1 f\ (\ I'i f\ fI
f
VI
0
V15 20
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
125
10075
l 50;... 25
~ 0
~ :~~il! -75en -100
-125
-150 ---------------~__:__:___:__----------------'time, t (sec)
10-r---------------------------------~
5
-15
20
-20~---------------------------------'time, t (sec)
201510time, t (sec)
5
_ 140000,.------------------------------------,
!120000
w 100000~
§ 80000'0> ooסס6"elia. 40000>.
r20~ L---~~~::::::~:::::::=::=~,..._-------~-------Jo
201510time, t (sec)
5
I-RU-ElEliq!
16.0 -r-----------------------------------,14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0 l __~~~~~~~:;~~:::::::::::::::::::::::C:::::~:::::::::::::~:C-~0.0o
d:\nitVtP\cLfiles\B2P5TCYC.XLS 8/21/96 8:25 AM
B-31
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
82P5TCYC26.616.71
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress500
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
.-----------------------150-,.------------.
~;-..IIi(I)
~;; -20..IIICl.co
Shear Strain, r (%)
100
10
d:lnitlitpI.cLfiles\B2PSTCYC.XLSB-32
8/21/96 8:25 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P4BCY11.414.6
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
120 -r-----------------------------------..,10080
'l 60e;. 40.. 20~ 0 -fI--I--__+-f---I--+--+-l-+-+--il-1-+-I---\--I--l---i-J,--I--\--+l----lr---!-+--+----':--/-----1
i ~iO Iv5 10 \J 1
1
5.~:_ V
-140 -----------------~-':""':"'"__:_----------------time, t (sec)
10...---------------------------------------,
~ 5 I?- 0 +--~--=~--=----="..---=:~-~:::__..."...._r=r-f_+__I__+_H-r__+__t___+__!'---+I----l
r:: 0 5 I 15.~ -5ii)...~ -10
.:::o
-15-20 .L- -J
time, t (sec)
1510time, t (sec)5O~-------~~~::=:c-----_t__-------~
o
60000.,--------------------------------------.~was 40000E=g~20000>-~GlJ::W
3.0 -r--------------------------------------,
2.0
1.0
0.0 . r-....
o
I-Ru-E1Eliqj
5 time, t (sec) 10 15
d:\nitUtp\cLfiles\B23P4BCY.XLS
B-338/21/96 8:01 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P4BCY11.414.6
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
d:lnitlitplcLfilesl823P4BCY.XLS
B-348121/96 8:01 AM
Test J.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P4MCY16.515.53
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress700
200 -r------------------------------------,150
faQ. 100:!... 50iii~ Ot..<.----\----++-----';---H---\-----+-,f----+---+-I---4c-----1~ aD 5
I ::1 -:-:---:-:--:-- ----J1time, t (sec)
10.,-----------------------------------...,
,..... 5e?-c 0+---===-~--t-~::::::::==~--_+__+_--*--_+__!_--_+_--_+__!_--_\_--_1
i::1 1time, t (sec)
543time, t (sec)2
o.L---~=:;:=:~::::::=-__+_---__;_---____+---____Jo
50000 -r------------------------------------.l40000wasE 30000="5~ 20000Gla.>-El10000GIcW
1.5 -r------------------------------------,
1.0
0.5
j-Ru-ElEliQI
543time, t (sec)20.0 Lo;;;;;;;;;;=;;;;;;;;;;;~==~::::::::.-------- __----_'!_----_t
a
d:lnit\itp\cr-fi1es\623P4MCY.XLS
B-358/21/96 8:05 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B23P4MCY16.515.53
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress700
-12 -10
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
6 8
'----------------------:200-'---------------'Shear Strain, 1 (%)
d:\nit\itplcr-files\B23P4MCYXLSB-36
8/21/968:05 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P4TCY28N/A
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
5
tune, t (sec)
A n
~ rn
O~I '~f~r~~~~"n ~
, I I \ \ I\0
~5
.~ ~o ~ ~5 III IIf ~2
1 Ii
Vv jv~\"v V V \I V V IJ ~ V \I
o
150
-150
la -50Ql
.s::.(I) -100
100l:::. 50
5,...--------------------------------,
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
823P4TCY28N/A
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
6
.......------------------15D-"---------------...IShear Strain, 1 (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B23P4TCYXLS
B-388/21/96 8:09 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
829P2TCY2316.7
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
r f\ r f\ r ~
~r (I (\, r 0 (\, f\ !\ f1 0
\J \ ,
o V ~l I
~5 10 15 2
I I
V\j \j \J V \i V ~ \ V V V V V V
oo
j -501 Io ~::: _
time, t (sec)
150
100iiiC1.::5. 50
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
829P2TCY2316.7
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
....----------------------15D-r-----------..,
4
1...----------------------'150--"------------...1
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itp\cr-fi1es\B29P2TCYXLS B-40 8/21/968:13 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P6BCY18.916.73
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress725
150
100:.=- 50..iii! 0enlii -50ell
.&:II) -100
-150
(I n 0 ~ n fI f\ n n
r r \ (i
I0 5 10 1
\j ~ V ~ ~ \J V ~ ~ \1 \, \time, t (sec)
5
5~----------------------------------..,
,.....e-
O....C 0
Cii..en..Il:l -5ell
.&:f/)
-10
n15
time, t (sec)
1510time, t (sec)
50.L--~~::=:~::::;:=------__+_-----_l
o
-. 60000.,.------------------------------------.!50000woS 40000E:I"0 30000:::-~ 20000>-e' 10000~w
4.0.,-----------------------------------,
3.0
2.0
1.0
I-RU-EJEJiQI
1510time, t (sec)50.0k~~~~~~:::~=-~=--=--=;__~~---__J
o
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\B2P6BCYXLS
B-418/21/96 8:29 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P6BCY18.916.73
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress725
::=- -10..viIII
!iii..IIIQl
.cen
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, r (%)
4 6
d:lnitlitp\cy_files\B2P6BCYXLS
B-428/21/96 8:29 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P6MCY20.116.5
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress743
200 -r--------------------------------------,150
l 100;... 50iiiXl Ofl--+--+--\,---i-/-_+--+--\--+/--+--+-----1,---hI---\---+--I--+l---I-----_l
IE -50 0 10
I::t --------Itime, t (sec)
10.,..--------------------------------------,
1082
......e~ O+-=-=.--.~_=::::_±:;::,..==-,;;:____"7=~-H-_';_-_+_-\___++___T-___I-_+-+_+-_+_----_l
C 0~ -5CD
~ -10.c:(I)
5
-15
-20 -'---------------------------------------....time, t (sec)
1086time, t (sec)42oL---~~~=:::::::=---_+___---+___--_J
o
woSE 60000~
'0:: 40000GlCo>.~ 20000ellCW
ooסס10 ..-------------------------------------~
180000
5.0,..--------------------------------------,
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
I-RU-ElEliq!
1086time, t (sec)42
0.0 L;:;;;;,....~~~~~:::::::::~=.::::::-~::_~~-~_~--~o
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiJes\B2P6MCY.XLSB-43
8/21/96 8:33 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P6MCY20.116.5
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress743
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
......---------------------20~-----------__r
150
100
-15 10
L....---------------------:200-.:..-.------------..JShear Strain, 'Y (%)
d:\nit\itp\cy_files\B2P6MCYXLSB-44
8/21/96 8:33 AM
Test J.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
):
B2P6TCYC22.416.03
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
2oo-r---------------------------------~--___,
150
;;-100~... 50vi~ O-J-L---+-----+-+----+------''r-f----'l----l-,f---+----+-I-----\r-----1fg _500 5
J::: ~ I-200 t ~-~-----------------.....J.
time, t (sec)
5-r------------------------------"'--------___,
5~ O+----=====--=:::::::::±:~'O::::::==="""'=_-~~--~---+-_f--_\----+IL-.--t_---f
:- 0Ce -5en..IIIG>
~ -10
_15.1.----------------------- ---1
time, t (sec)
543time, t (sec)2
50000,.-----------------------------------~
~::2. 40000UltiE 30000::I"S~ 20000Clc.::>-~10000 ~
~ oL----~~::;::~===:::::=:::::::::::::=:=--"i_------_t_------Jo
3.0...--------------------------------------,
2.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I
1.0
543time, t (sec)20.0W::::::~~~~~::::==:::::_---.:::---=J
o
d:\nit\itp\CLfiles\B2P6TCYC.xLS
B-458/21/968:36 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/rn3
):
82P6TCYC22.416.03
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress750
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
...-------------------------:200--,.---------.
-10 -8 -6 4
L....------------------------:20(}-l----------'Shear Strain,"( (%)
d:lnit\itp\cy-files\B2P6TCYCXLSB-46
8/21 f96 8:36 AM
APPENDIXC
LABORATORY TESTS ON SOIL SAMPLES, PERFORMED AT THEUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
C-l
(') I N
Tab
leC
.I-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
licT
orsi
onal
Tes
tDat
aon
Cle
anan
dSi
ltySa
nds
Perf
orm
edat
Uni
vers
ityo
fCol
orad
o
No
.Te
st10
Sam
ple
Or(
%)
Euq
(J/m
3 )FC
(%)
¥d(k
N/m
3 )P
.I.
Co
ntr
ol
ae'(
kPa)
Fre
q.
(Hz)
Lo
adS
hap
e
1U
OF
C5
F11
32.6
3728
014
.5S
tres
s19
9.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal
2-w
ay
2U
OF
C7
F11
41.0
1249
50
14.7
Str
ess
204.
80.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
3U
OF
C9
F11
42.0
1699
70
14.8
Str
ess
304.
10.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
4U
OF
C13
F43
N/A
3450
2015
.310
.0S
tres
s29
9.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
5U
OF
C14
F46
N/A
4753
2015
.225
.0S
tres
s1
99
.90.
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
ay
6U
OF
C15
F46
N/A
2485
2015
.225
.0S
tres
s20
1.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
7U
OF
C17
F64
N/A
3427
4516
.215
.0S
tres
s20
3.4
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
8U
OF
C18
F64
N/A
3993
4516
.215
.0S
tres
s19
0.3
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
9U
OF
C23
F11
45.3
7437
014
.9S
tres
s19
9.9
0.1
Sin
usoi
dal2
-way
Tes
tR
esul
tsF
ollo
win
gth
eS
eque
nce
ofT
est
ID's
are
Atta
ched
.
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC5Clean Sand32.6
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
60,..---------------------------------------.40::
::s-O' 20ene 0+------.J--H--+-+-+----tt-~-_\_-_I_-+_-+_---:~_+-_\f_--------1
o 0 100
1:1 1time, t (sec)
100806040 time, t (sec)20
-oJ----~~~~~==:::::::::;::::::::::::::..--!___--__l
o
5000
4000
3000
1000
7000 I----------~-------------___;=;:;:;;;;;:;:;;;;=-=-=-~
~6000~wmE::l
;g~
<II
~ 2000E!<IICW
1008040 time, t (sec) 6020
1-Ru -ElEliq I
~~---
0.5
0.0o
2.0
1.0
'1.5
d:\nitlitp\cy-files\UOFC5.XLS
C-38/19/964;18 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC5Clean Sand32.6
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·200
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
20
l=-..rnCIl
~o -15"lISCl).::(/)
-10 -5
-10
5 10
-20
-30
d:\nit\itp\cy_fiIes\UOFCS.xLS
lShear Strain• ., (%)
C-48/19/964:18 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC7Clean Sand41
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'205
r~
~
~ ~,
0 100 200 30C 40
~ ~ ~
80
60
:40;... 20Iig: 0'-
i ~t -,I'
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC7Clean Sand41
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress205
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
80
Shear Strain. y (%)
I
!
6 8
d:lnit\itp\CLfiles\UOFC7.XLS C-6 8/21/969:22 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC9Clean Sand42
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'304
2.5.,---------------------------------------,
2.0I-Ru-ElEliql
1.5
1.0
0.5
806040time, t (sec)
200.0.I-----.......;:;;;;.~~=:::::::::::::;:::::::::==----_;__---~~~
o
d:lnit\itp\cy-fiIes\UOFC9.XLSC-7
8/21/969:23 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC9Clean Sand42
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'304
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
...--------------!200-,...----------------------...,
150
-10 10 15 20 25
-1~1L..------------2DO--'-----------------------....
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nillitp\cLfiles\UOFC9XLSC-8
8/21/969:23 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC132015.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'300
~ I I r--I
J
0 I 100 200 3( 40
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
40
30
l 20:.... 10iiig: 0...(;) -10 0
J:t -----"I
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC132015.26
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress300
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
20
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10
2
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
-20
d:\nillitpIcLfiles\UOFC13XLS
C-IO8121/96 9:29 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC142015.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
oo
~
~ f.cI
~ I rr~50~0 100 200 400 600 70
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lin ~ ~
30
-30
IV -10Go>
.J:.(/) -20
ii 20Cl.
:. 10..iiiIII
~
time, t (sec)
00
time, t (sec)
"""""" ",""",,""" f\ fI fI f\ f\ A~ y " 600 v ~0 100 200 300 400 500 7
54
,.....3e 2~=11~ 0en~ -1III.! -2(/)-3
-4
-5
700600500300 time, t (sec) 400200100
7000.,...----------------------------------+-----,
g 6000:J,.w 5000aj
§ 4000'0:> 3000~
Go>
~ 2000
i 100: l----....-~~~~======:::=;:::::::::=:::====::::::-"=----Jo
3.0,..-------------------------------------'"1
2.0 !-Ru -ElEliq I
1.0
700600500300 . 400time, t (sec)
2001000.0 i,-----;;;;;;;;;;;;:::::::::;~~~~====::=;======::;::=====:::~-.....J
o
d:\nitlitp\cy-files\UOFC14.xLS 8/19196 4:57 PM
C-ll
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC142015.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
20
10
20-10-20-40
-40
-50
Shear Strain, 1 (%)
d:\nit\itplcy-fiIes\UOFC14XLSC-12
8/19/96 4:57 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry·Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC152015.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
40,....------------------------------------,30
'iia. 20;... 10~
gJ of-------++-+-----,f--+---I'--+-+-I-+---+--I--+--i-I---+--\---i--+-++--\--+-~-_1
~ _100 125
~:t 1
time, t (sec)
755025 100 \) 125
-------~~-:----- Itime, t (sec)
25
20......e 15?-
C 10iii"-- 5en"-II:!ou 0.s::C/)
50.
-;0 I
12510075time, t (sec)5025
7000 ...------------------------------------.,
16000
w 5000cr§ 4000'0:> 3000"ell
~ 2000CI~ 1000
Iii 0 L------..,..---~~~~:===:::=:~:::::=::::;::::==::::::=::::-=----.jo
3.0,-------------------------------------..,2.5
2.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I1.5
12510075time, t (sec)5025
::: t ,..._;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;~;~-:f::~~--J---J0.0o
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\UOFC15XLSC-13
8/20/96 7:35 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC152015.25
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-------------3Q-:---------------------------,
20
10
l::s. -10..iiienEc;;...IIIs:;en
-5
-10
o 5 10 25
d:\nit\itplcLfiles\UOFC15.xLS
30
Shear Strain, r (%)
C-148/20/96 7:35 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC174516.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress .203.4
50 -r---------------------------------------,40
iii'30a.::!. 20..iii 10~ 0+--------+--\---I---\--J+---+--+---\--f+----'\---I---\----+--------1t5 -100 80 100
!~l-----_-_---__-_1time, t (sec)
6-r-------------------------------------...,.., 4;f.~
:>0-
r: 2';;..;):a 0 +--------+'e:.-.~-+---'''''''__''--+-~---,f---'',,---fi---'<---i--+---+--------f
Q) 0 20 40 80 100
~ :t 1
time, t (sec)
4000 -r------------------------------::----------..,
1008060time, t (sec)4020ol----~~~~~::==---_I__---_I__--_J
o
~;; 3000~E::l"6 2000::-...Q)Q.
Eil 1000..CIlCW
1.2 -r-------------------------------------.1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1-Ru -ElEliq I
1008060time, t (sec)40200.0 L.----~~~~~:::::===-~----_;__---J
o
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\UOFC17.xLSC-lS
8/20/96 7:40 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (Ufo):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC174516.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·203.4
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
5432
I
-2-3
Shear Strain, "( (%)
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\UOFC17.xlS 8/20/967:40 AM
C-16
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC184516.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'190
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i0 50
~1150
"~ ~ J~ Jv~50 I
I ~ ~ ~
25
20
l 15:.. 10...iii 5gj 0
~~ a
! :~1 1
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
UOFC184516.18
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
StresS190
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r---------------:2S...,.---------------------,
Shear Strain, r (%)
2 3 4
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiIes\UOFC18XLS C-18 8/21/96 9:25 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density(%):
UOFC23Clean Sand45.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'200
75
______----.JI
120
100
Ii 8011-=.. 50..
40viIII 20ClI..- 0CI)..III -200ClI.c
:fCI)
time, t (sec)
4.,.----------------------------------------,
75
.-.~';: 2C~(;)..ZO+-----k----'l--+---..J,-----l/-----'t--...,/-----\--...,/----+--\--f----\--+-----jti 0
75
7550
50time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
25
25
!- Ru -ElEliq I
-2
10000
1 8000w~
E 6000:l'0:>
4000..ClIc.>.Cl 2000..ClICW
00
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0o.
d:lnitlitp\cLfiles\UOFC23.xLSC-19
8/19/96 4:37 PM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Relative Density (%):
UOFC23Clean Sand45.3
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·200
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
.---------------'120...,.----------------------.
-3 -2
-60
Shear Strain, r (%)
3 4
d:lnit\itP\cLfiles\UOFC23.XLSC-20
8/19/96 4:37 PM
APPENDIXD
LABORATORY DATA ON SOIL SAMPLES FROM THE NORTHRIDGE SITE,PERFORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
D-l
t:! I ""
Tab
leD
.I-
Sum
mar
yo
fthe
Cyc
lic
Tri
axia
lTes
tDat
aon
Nor
thri
dge
Sam
ples
Per
form
edat
Uni
vers
ity
ofC
alif
orni
a,B
erke
ley
No.
Te
st10
Sa
mp
leO
r(%)
Ellq
(J/m
3 )F
C(%
)'Y
d(k
N/m
3 )C
on
tro
l(J
e'(k
Pa)
Fre
q.(H
z)L
oa
dS
hape
1B
TC
2CY
1N
orth
ridge
San
d58
.359
305
14
.5S
tres
s10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
2B
TC
2CY
2N
orth
rldae
San
d78
.42
24
75
15.5
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
3B
TC
3CY
1N
orth
rldae
San
d82
.351
465
15.7
Str
ess
100'
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
4B
TC
3CY
2N
orth
ridge
San
d89
.938
135
16.1
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
5B
TC
3CY
3N
orth
rldae
San
d97
.236
156
516
.5S
tres
s10
01
Sin
usoi
dal2
-wav
6B
TC
4CY
1N
orth
rldae
San
d93
.778
745
16.3
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
7B
TC
4CY
2N
orth
ridge
San
d10
0.0
6647
51
6.7
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
8B
TC
6CY
1N
orth
ridae
San
d35
.23
20
65
13.5
Str
ess
100
1S
inus
oida
l2-w
av
Tes
tR
esul
tsF
ollo
win
gth
eS
eque
nce
ofT
est
!D's
are
Atta
ched
.
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC2CY1514.51
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
50,-------------------------------------....,
l 25=-..Ii"~ 0+-k------~----_t__rL-----~""'""----_t_~"'-----------__I
en 0 3
):1 1
time, t (sec)
/r '\\ 1 / l ~ I 3
J )I
time, t (sec)
30,----------------------------------------,20
,...~ 10:-
.5 O-l----------.",,---_t_--f-------+-----+---I------------1III
i -10 to.c -20(I)
-30
-40 -------------------------------------'
12000
110000war 8000E::::IC 6000:>...IV 4000Q.>.l:l 2000IVCW
00
2.0
(time, t (sec) 2
-
3
1.5
1.0
0.5
I-Ru-ElEfiq!
32time, t (sec)
0.0 ~._~ tI!!- -----------+_------------!o
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\BTC2CY1.xLSD-3
8/21/96 8:39 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC2CY1514.51
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·100
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
,.....----------------------3,~-----------__,
20
10
-30 -20
-30
Shear Strain, '1 (%)
20
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\BTC2CY1.xLSD-4
8/21/96 8:39 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC2CY2515.5
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
1\ 1\ {\ 1\ 1\ 1\ f\
(1\ II Ii J\ )', A "
~ J ~ ~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~0 15 2
V vv V V
20l:.. 10...fA! 0- 5
i :t --=-~------Itime, t (sec)
30
r- r- n ~~
,......, ,..., ,-,
,--r-r"""""""" ),....., r-
,...., r-
r-,--,/I
n0 U lJ
U~ ~ l 10 15 20 2
'-' '-' u ~ J '-' ~ '-' '-' u '-''-' '-' w '-'
30
C 10E;;... 0Ie 5
~ ::1 ---J1
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC2CY2515.5
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
r-------------2!5-;----------------------,
20
L..------------3,Q-l------------------------'Shear Strain,., (%)
d:\nitlitp\cLfiles\BTC2CY2.xLSD-6
8/15/9610:35 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC3CY1515.7
Controlle~ Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
6
6
5
5
f
43time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
time, t (sec)
2
6
_____1
40
30ti"
20a.=-.. 10IIiCIl 0III
~ _10 0
J:15
--.0e.... 0
c~ -5(;)"-IIIQl
c7i -10
-15
_ 8000
":E~w 6000OJ·
E::lo 4000>"-OJCo>.2000Cl..IIIC rw 0
0
1.5
1.0
0.5
!-Ru-EJEliq!
6543time, t (sec)
20.0 -+-O,--.......i£---+-------i__-----t-------+-------;-------l
o
d:\nit\itp\cy_files\BTC3CY1.xLSD-7
8/15/9610:40 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC3CY1515.7
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
l:!5...oCIl
l!!en -12..~.c
f/)
4
~jI
Shear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itP\cLfiles\BTC3CV1.xLSD-8
8/15/9610:40 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC3CY2516.12
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
40.....---------------------------------------,30
ii'c. 20;.... 10en:g Ot'--+-r-+--H----1~_+__+_+/'--+__f__+---ff_+__+__\-ff_+_+-'r__+f__+-f__+__+t_-----t
~ _100 14
~~1 1
time, t (sec)
10 -r--------------------------------------,'""" 5e:-C Ot--r--r--'1--!f-f--I-_+-+i---t--t--t---l!-/--t--t--f--t+--t--f--+---H---j-+-_+-+1-----1
1::I 6_8 'I_ltime, t (sec)
1412108642O.;-......~--_----_I_----_I_----_;_---- __----_+-----I
o
_ 15000.....--------------------------------------,
!waj 10000E::r"S:>
time, t (sec)
4-r------------------------------------,3
2
I-Ru-ElEliql
1412108time, t (sec)
642
o ~.O"-iil-----t------t------;-----__-I----__;.------+-----!o
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\BTC3CY2XLSD-9
8/15/96 10:45 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC3CY2516.12
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
·30
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain,., (%)
6
d:\nitlitp\cy_fiIes\BTC3CY2.XLS
D-IO8/15/96 10:45 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
) ,
BTC3CY3516.55
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress'100
, ~
(I ~ 111 II ~iI
~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,
0 10 40 5
~ ~ l
40
30
l 20:.... 10~
:fi 0..Ci) -10 0
! :i ~~---------'Itime, t (sec)
r. n n.r nr nnr ~ roUU~l
\'j
~ I ~ ~I'
10 30 40 5
U ~U ~~ ~ U
""' 5e,...c 0
i:::1 1
0
10
time, t (sec)
5040302010
_ 60000 -r-------------------------=or--,1war 40000E::J"0::>
~ 20000>.El
~ 0 l-~=:::::::::=----_l__----_+__----_+__---~o
time, t (sec)
2.0.,.-------------------------,
1.5 !-RU -ElEliq I
:: ~~~mWtMr1M~0 U,0.0
o 10 20 time, t (sec) 30 40 50
d:lnitlitp\cLfifes\8TC3CY3.XLSD-ll
8/15/96 10:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC3CY3516.55
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
1~..IiUl
~en -12...10
l!en
d:\nit\itp\cLfiles\BTC3CY3XLS
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
-10
~~-30
Shear Strain,"( (%)
D-12
8
8/15/9610:48 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC4CY1516.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
~ ~ ~ ,~ II
0
J
10 0 1 30
~ ~ V
40
30
"i 20:... 10iii~ 0"-
US -10 40
~:i ~~ 1time, t (sec)
10,..-----------------------------------.,
,... 5'#........~
r£ 0-f-<~--=''"""='""'<:7"'''<'7"'<::7"<:_7"'\"7"<"""irr"c,........,"'''''".,...,....~....,...,....,..,...1''''n'''l_lf'T_f':_++_f+_H_1_H_++_\_H:+t_+++_H1_H++----__1
1::1 1time, t (sec)
403020time, t (sec)
10
oL-~~::::::::::::::==___+_--___t_--_Jo
...ClJ
~ 5000ElClJcW
_.20000.,-----------------------------------..,
lw 15000ojE::J'0 10000:>
2.5 -r----------------------------------.......,2.0 1-Ru -ElEliq I1.5
1.0
10 20time, t (sec)
30 40
d:lnit\itp\cLfiles\BTC4CY1XLS 8/15/96 10:53 AM
D-13
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC4CY1516.35
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·100
:.:!...iiiCIl
f!en -12..<aCIl.c(/)
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Shear Strain, "{ (%)
6
d:\nit\itp\cy-fiJes\BTC4CY1.XLS
D-148/15/96 10:53 AM
Test I.D.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC4CY2516.72
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
30
Iv
40...-----------------------------------.....i: I A A A ! I A! r ~ I A A A A
~ 1~ -f-l-IH--H-+--t-H---H--H-H--+-H-HH-++-H-f i--+-++++-++-+-+-+-\---J!--J-iI-1\ +++-+-+\-++-H--t-++--H--\~
!~I'~ ",",","~b , ,"" ~ J ~ ~ ,time, t (sec)
,...., ,-
r r r1nr"..,
~ rr r n ,r " "..., r
o U~U ~uv '--' '"" v v v J'"" v
'-'
10
,.... 5~'-';0-
rE 0
~ -51 30
1
j.lO
-15 ------------------------------------time, t (sec)
3020time, t (sec)10
35000 -r------------------------------------,~ 30000::!.II.!. 25000
CD
§ 20000o:>15000...
CD
~ 10000E'
~ 5aa:L~:::=~~==::= __;_----------_..,----------Jo
5-r------------------------------------,4
3
2
I-RU-EJEliq/
3020time, t (sec)10
o~~~~~~~~~o
d:\nit\itpl.cy-files\BTC4CY2XLSD-15
Sf15f9610:55 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC4CY2516.72
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
l:i!:-
t>
oCIl
Een -12...IIIGl.c(I)
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
30
Shear Strain, r (%)
6
d:lnit\itp\cy-files\BTC4CY2.xLS
D-168/15/96 10:55 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC6CY1513.51
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress100
20,----------------------------------------,Iia. 10;...vi~ Ot'-~__i'--+__+__\"-t__t__+~r___+t__+__+-\___+___\___+-_\__+__+_fi'---+__+___+-7I?_-----__1
o 0 15
!:::1 ~------1time, t (sec)
3D ,-----------------------------------------,
20~ 10'"'":::- Oi-------------~-----------~----..,.__+_-----____j
:~15
1_0w
1time, t (sec)
1510time, t (sec)5O+----------~---------.._01!~~~~-----__1o
4DOO -r----------------------------------.,~Iii" 3000arE~2000:::-~
GlQ.
>- 1000E'GlCW
1.5,---------------------------------------,I-RU-ElEliql
1.0
0.5
0.0 /'-..o 5 time, t (sec) 10 15
d:\nit\itp\cy-files\BTC6CY1.xLS
D-178/15/9610:59 AM
Test 1.0.:Fines Content (%):Dry Density (kN/m3
)
BTC6CY1513.51
Controlled Parameter:Initial Effective Stress (kPa):
Stress·100
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
10
5
-20 -10
-5
-10
-15
o 10 20 30
'"----------------------2()-'----------------JShear Strain, r (%)
d:\nit\itp\cUiles\BTC6CY1.xLSD-18
8/15196 10:59 AM