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

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and triaxial shearing: a comparative study.
Authors:	Khashila, Marwan^1,2 (AUTHOR), Hussien, Mahmoud N.^1,2 (AUTHOR), Karray, Mourad¹ (AUTHOR) Mourad.Karray@Usherbrooke.ca, Chekired, Mohamed³ (AUTHOR)
Source:	Acta Geotechnica. Jun2021, Vol. 16 Issue 6, p1735-1753. 19p.
Subjects:	Biomass liquefaction, R-curves, Comparative studies, Computer simulation, Sand, Computer programming, Pore water pressure
Abstract:	While cyclic triaxial (CTX) tests are widely used in liquefaction studies due to their simplicity, direct simple shear (DSS) tests and their ilk (e.g., the combined triaxial simple shear, TxSS) are more representative of stress conditions produced during an earthquake. Therefore, the CTX results should be properly correlated to simulate field conditions. In the current study, a series of CTX testing results performed on reconstituted samples of Baie-Saint-Paul, Ottawa C-109, and Quebec CF6B sands are compared to the corresponding TxSS and DSS results under both stress- and strain-controlled conditions. The cyclic TxSS stress-controlled tests are numerically simulated by adopting a coupled energy-based pore water pressure model using the computer code, FLAC. The TxSS numerical results are successfully compared with those obtained experimentally from (1) alternative stress-controlled TxSS, (2) available liquefaction potential curves (CSR-Nliq) in the literature, and (3) stress-controlled DSS testing results. As anticipated, the outcomes of the cyclic stress-controlled CTX testing results in the form of liquefaction potential curves are usually higher than that of the TxSS testing results. In contrast, due to the difference in the applied (strain-controlled tests) and the induced (stress-controlled tests) strains, the liquefaction resistance curves of TxSS are higher than those of CTX under cyclic strain-controlled test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Acta Geotechnica is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	While cyclic triaxial (CTX) tests are widely used in liquefaction studies due to their simplicity, direct simple shear (DSS) tests and their ilk (e.g., the combined triaxial simple shear, TxSS) are more representative of stress conditions produced during an earthquake. Therefore, the CTX results should be properly correlated to simulate field conditions. In the current study, a series of CTX testing results performed on reconstituted samples of Baie-Saint-Paul, Ottawa C-109, and Quebec CF6B sands are compared to the corresponding TxSS and DSS results under both stress- and strain-controlled conditions. The cyclic TxSS stress-controlled tests are numerically simulated by adopting a coupled energy-based pore water pressure model using the computer code, FLAC. The TxSS numerical results are successfully compared with those obtained experimentally from (1) alternative stress-controlled TxSS, (2) available liquefaction potential curves (CSR-Nliq) in the literature, and (3) stress-controlled DSS testing results. As anticipated, the outcomes of the cyclic stress-controlled CTX testing results in the form of liquefaction potential curves are usually higher than that of the TxSS testing results. In contrast, due to the difference in the applied (strain-controlled tests) and the induced (stress-controlled tests) strains, the liquefaction resistance curves of TxSS are higher than those of CTX under cyclic strain-controlled test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	18611125
DOI:	10.1007/s11440-020-01104-6