Liquefaction Testing of Stratified Silty Sands

Farshad Amini, Guilin Qi

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2000 · 257 citations · 22 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The cyclic behavior of stratified silty sandy soils is poorly understood, yet these materials are common in alluvial deposits and hydraulic fill that have a history of liquefaction during earthquakes. This study aimed to compare the seismic liquefaction behavior of stratified versus homogeneous silty sands across a range of silt contents and confining pressures. A total of 150 stress‑controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted using moist tamping for uniform samples and sedimentation for layered samples, with silt contents from 10 % to 50 % and confining pressures of 50 to 250 kPa. The results showed no significant difference in liquefaction resistance between layered and uniform soils, supporting the applicability of the laboratory findings to field conditions for the tested variables.

Abstract

The cyclic behavior of stratified silty sandy soils is at present poorly understood, yet these materials are commonly found in alluvial deposits and hydraulic fill, which have a history of liquefaction during earthquakes. The main objective of this research project was to compare the behavior of stratified and homogeneous silty sands during seismic liquefaction conditions for various silt contents and confining pressures. A comprehensive experimental program was undertaken in which a total of 150 stress-controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests were performed. Two methods of sample preparation were used for each soil type. These methods included moist tamping (representing uniform soil conditions) and sedimentation (representing layered soil conditions). The silt contents ranged from 10 to 50%, and confining pressures in the range of 50 to 250 KPa were considered. The results indicated that the liquefaction resistances of layered and uniform soils are not significantly different, despite the fact that the soil fabric produced by the two methods of sample preparation is totally different. The findings of this study justify applying the laboratory test results to the field conditions for the range of variables studied.

References

22