2021
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical State Soil Mechanics for Cyclic Liquefaction and Postliquefaction Behavior: DEM study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, taking N ɛa as the failure criterion was more conservative due to its smaller soil deformation under this condition. The dynamic strength relationship of soil is defined as the relationship between the cyclic stress [for cyclic triaxial shear tests (σ d ) or for cyclic direct simple shear tests (σ τ )] and N f , and their relationship can be expressed as a power function (Rahman et al 2021) as σ d /p a or σ τ / p a = χ σ (N f ) −ϑ σ , where the normalized dynamic strengths (σ d /p a and σ τ / p a ) are defined as the ratio of dynamic strength to p a , and χ σ and ϑ σ are the fitting parameters. Then, ϑ σ was set at the same value (i.e., 0.15) for all sands, for example, calcareous (Xiao 2020), Snake River (Burbank et al 2013), Ottawa O'Donnell et al 2017b), Nevada , and Fraser River sands (Riveros and Sadrekarimi 2020b) with biotreatment or no treatment.…”
Section: Cyclic Resistance Strength Of Biotreated Soilsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, taking N ɛa as the failure criterion was more conservative due to its smaller soil deformation under this condition. The dynamic strength relationship of soil is defined as the relationship between the cyclic stress [for cyclic triaxial shear tests (σ d ) or for cyclic direct simple shear tests (σ τ )] and N f , and their relationship can be expressed as a power function (Rahman et al 2021) as σ d /p a or σ τ / p a = χ σ (N f ) −ϑ σ , where the normalized dynamic strengths (σ d /p a and σ τ / p a ) are defined as the ratio of dynamic strength to p a , and χ σ and ϑ σ are the fitting parameters. Then, ϑ σ was set at the same value (i.e., 0.15) for all sands, for example, calcareous (Xiao 2020), Snake River (Burbank et al 2013), Ottawa O'Donnell et al 2017b), Nevada , and Fraser River sands (Riveros and Sadrekarimi 2020b) with biotreatment or no treatment.…”
Section: Cyclic Resistance Strength Of Biotreated Soilsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CS data points in the classical e-log(p ) space formed a unique equation of e = 0.68 − 0.02 × p p a 0.73 ; where p a is the reference stress which is approximately 101 kPa [3,7,19]. The CSL is well known as the reference line to predict the liquefaction or instability behaviour of granular materials in the CSSM framework [2,3,69,70]. The specimen with the initial state starting above the CSL exhibits flow liquefaction under undrained conditions, whereas the specimen with the initial state starting below the CSL shows dilative or non-flow behaviour.…”
Section: Critical State Soil Mechanics Framework In Demmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, the discrete element method (DEM) proposed by Cundall and Strack 29 has been widely employed to investigate sand liquefaction behaviors. [30][31][32][33] The DEM could not only ensure the repeatability of simulation results and the stability of the deformed sample but also capture the particle-scale mechanism underlying the macroscopic stressstrain response. Therefore, the DEM was employed in this study to explore the evolution of sand reliquefaction resistance with residual EPWP under the mainshock-aftershock sequences and simultaneously reveal the mesoscopic mechanism.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, large shear strain was caused after initial liquefaction, and thereby the liquefied sample may not be stable and the cross‐section area of the tested sample may change greatly when employing conventional element test apparatus. Alternatively, the discrete element method (DEM) proposed by Cundall and Strack 29 has been widely employed to investigate sand liquefaction behaviors 30–33 . The DEM could not only ensure the repeatability of simulation results and the stability of the deformed sample but also capture the particle‐scale mechanism underlying the macroscopic stress–strain response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%