Centrifuge Shake Table Tests on the Liquefaction Resistance of Sand with Clayey Fines

Gu, Xiaoqiang; Wu, Deshun; Zuo, Kangle; Tessari, Anthony

doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002708

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…this was rather an expected behavior for a saturated, potentially liquefiable sand with 𝐷 𝑟 = 35%, besides, the existence of a liquefaction zone below a non-liquefaction zone is a typical situation [37,38]. results, it is concluded that all water pressures acted on the caisson were hydrostatic.…”

Section: Comparison Against Press-in Cell Measurementmentioning

confidence: 78%

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Pantelidis

Christodoulou

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an exhaustive comparison of the earth pressure methods included in EN1998-5:2004 (use of Mononobe-Okabe method, M-O), prEN1998-5:2021 and AASHTO (M-O with half peak ground acceleration) standards, against contemporary centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the method proposed by the first author in 2019. The latter is a continuum mechanics approach for deriving earth pressure coefficients for any soil state between the “at-rest” state and the active or passive state, applicable to cohesive-frictional soils and both horizontal and vertical pseudo-static conditions. The same method also provides analytical expressions for the calculation of the required wall movement for the mobilization of the active (or passive) failure state, as well as for the mobilized shear strength values of soil. The comparison includes among others, centrifuge test results from two different studies, and results from 157 finite element models from two different programs. All experimental, numerical, and analytical results show that the EN19985-5:2004 method gives conservative to excessively conservative active earth pressure values, AASHTO’s approach fairly good behavior, while prEN1998-5:2021 excessively conservative values. For the passive state, all methods included in the above-mentioned standards, return unreliable and unconservative results. In contrast, the results obtained by the proposed method show a remarkable agreement with the respective ones obtained both by the finite element method and the various centrifuge tests. Also, it is shown that a pseudo-static earth retention analysis, can be replaced by a respective static analysis, just substituting the (c', φ') values of soil of the original problem with the mobilized ones.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Against Press-in Cell Measurementmentioning

confidence: 78%

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Pantelidis

Christodoulou

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The state that effectively describes this lower zone is the liquefaction state (𝐾=1). In this respect, it seems that liquefaction first occurred at a depth of (approximately) 5.7 m and propagated downward gradually; this was rather an expected behavior for a saturated, potentially liquefiable sand with 𝐷 𝑟 = 35%, besides, the existence of a liquefaction zone below a non-liquefaction zone is a typical situation [39,40]. results, it is concluded that all water pressures acted on the caisson were hydrostatic.…”

Section: Comparison Against Press-in Cell Measurementmentioning

confidence: 87%

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Pantelidis

Christodoulou

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an exhaustive comparison of the earth pressure methods included in EN1998-5:2004 (use of Mononobe-Okabe method, M-O), prEN1998-5:2022 and AASHTO (M-O with half peak ground acceleration) standards, against contemporary centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the method proposed by the first author in 2019. The latter is a continuum mechanics approach for deriving earth pressure coefficients for any soil state between the “at-rest” state and the active or passive state, applicable to cohesive-frictional soils and both horizontal and vertical pseudo-static conditions. The same method also provides analytical expressions for the calculation of the required wall movement for the mobilization of the active (or passive) failure state, as well as for the mobilized shear strength values of soil. The comparison includes among others, centrifuge test results from two different studies, and results from 157 finite element models from two different programs. All experimental, numerical, and analytical results show that the EN19985-5:2004 method gives conservative to excessively conservative active earth pressure values, AASHTO’s approach fairly good behavior, while prEN1998-5:2022 excessively conservative values. For the passive state, all methods included in the above-mentioned standards, return unreliable and unconservative results. In contrast, the results obtained by the proposed method show a remarkable agreement with the respective ones obtained both by the finite element method and the various centrifuge tests. Also, it is shown that a pseudo-static earth retention analysis, can be replaced by a respective static analysis, just substituting the (c’,φ’) values of soil of the original problem with the mobilized ones.

show abstract

Sustainable Method for Liquefaction Mitigation Using Natural Coir Fibers

Lakkimsetti,

Anagha,

Latha

2024

Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centrifuge Shake Table Tests on the Liquefaction Resistance of Sand with Clayey Fines

Cited by 17 publications

References 57 publications

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Comparing Eurocode 8-5 and AASHTO methods for earth pressure analysis against centrifuge tests, finite elements, and the Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure

Sustainable Method for Liquefaction Mitigation Using Natural Coir Fibers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About