Liquefaction Resistance of Geologically Aged Sand Deposits

1. Liquefaction Resistance of Geologically Aged Sand Deposits David Saftner University of Minnesota Duluth

2. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

3. Photo from Penzien, 1964

4. Photo courtesy of Rebecca Teasley

5. “Simplified” Method • Whitman (1971) • Seed and Idriss (1971) • Updated several times since 1971

6. 0.5 0.45 Robertson & Wride (1998) 0.4 Moss et al. (2006) Idriss & Boulanger (2008) 0.35 0.3 Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Normalized Tip Resistance, qc1N

7. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

9. Photo from USGS, 2009

10. Photo from USGS, 2009

11. Photo from South Carolinian Library Archives, 2012

12. From Andrus et al., 2009

13. Measured to Estimated Shear Wave Velocity Ratio (Hayati and Andrus, 2009)

15. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

16. (from Hryciw, 1986)

17. CPT tip resistance, qc (MPa) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 Pre-Blast Range (7 tests) One Week Range (6 tests) 2 4 6 8 Depth, z (m) 10 12 14 16 18 20

18. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

19. Griffin, IN Paleo-liquefaction sites North Blast site Photo courtesy of Mulzer Crushed Stone, Inc.

20. 0 m Clay 2m 2 m 1m Upper Liquefiable Layer Loose ~GWT Sand 2m 4 m 6 m 5m 8 m Dense Sand 10 m Lower Liquefiable Layer Loose Gravelly Sand 12 m 4m 14 m

21. Paleo-liquefaction feature

22. Paleo-liquefaction feature

25. Tip resistance, qc (MPa) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 10 10.5 Pre-Blast Mean (7 tests) One Week Mean (6 tests) 11 11.5 Depth, z (m) 12 12.5 13 13.5 14

26. Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/sec) 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 10 Pre-Blast V s 10.5 Post-Blast V s 11 11.5 Depth, z (m) 12 12.5 13 13.5 14

27. Explosive Compaction Projects in Aged Sand Deposits • Jebba Dam, Jebba, Nigeria • Douglas Lake, Michigan • Harriet’s Bluff, Georgia • Greeley, Colorado

29. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

33. Outline • Liquefaction Overview • Current Methods of Accounting for Age in Liquefaction Analysis • Additional Data from Explosive Compaction Projects • Griffin, Indiana • Comparison of Current Methods • Conclusions

34. Explosive compaction resets a deposit’s geotechnical age • Determine age using Andrus et al. (2009) MEVR approach • Strength gain factor using:

35. Questions?