Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Society For Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
International Society For Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library
ABSTRACT: This paper presents newly developed three types sounding equipment for evaluating the lique-
faction susceptibility of soils. The first one is a Piezo Drive Cone (PDC) which is a dynamic penetrometer
with pore pressure transducer that measures pore pressure of the ground generated during dynamic penetration
at the cone tip. The second one is dynamic cone penetration test equipment with measurement of the pull-out
resistance, which is named “Penetration & Pull-out Test (PPT)”. The last one is a Dynamic Weight Sounding
(DWS), in which an electrical hammer drill is installed at the top of Swedish weight sounding rod. The valida-
tion test results indicate that PDC, PPT and DWS are highly useful for evaluation of liquefaction-induced
problems due to earthquakes. In addition, liquefaction risks assessment in teams of the factor of safety can be
evaluated in a short time. Therefore, liquefaction risks for a large area can be evaluated in a relatively short
period.
1 INTRODUCTION
2 THREE TYPES SOUNDING EQUIPMENT
Many case histories on earthquake disasters have
2.1 Type of evaluation related to performance
been showing that significant damages due to the
soil liquefaction. In particular, the liquefaction sus- grade
ceptibility in an area is judged based on sparse data. Three kinds of equipment devices have different
Therefore, a more precise evaluation is required for grade in terms of accuracy for the evaluation of liq-
the reliable design against soil liquefaction. Some uefaction strength of soils.
cost-effective methods are required from the engi- Table 1 shows the performance grade of subject
neering point of view. matter for evaluation. Table 2 shows the type of
The sounding is one of the most important and evaluation related to performance grade. As a matter
convenient tests for soil investigations. In recent of course, if you would like to conduct an in-
decades, many efforts have been made to extend its vestigation precision highly, the cost rises, and the
applications to various fields in geotechnical engi- cost is proportional to precision of the ground infor-
neering. mation.
The present paper addresses the three types of
new developed sounding equipment for evaluating
the liquefaction susceptibility of soils. The first one 3 PIEZO DRIVE CONE (PDC)
is a Piezo Drive Cone (PDC) which is a dynamic
penetrometer with pore pressure transducer that 3.1 Mechanism of PDC
measures pore pressure of the ground generated dur- PDC enables evaluation of soil liquefaction strength
ing dynamic penetration at the cone tip. The second in an in-situ test by measuring pore water pressure
one is dynamic cone penetration test equipment with during the dynamic penetration test.
measurement of the pull-out resistance, which is PDC measures at every blow not only the pene-
named “Penetration & Pull-out Test (PPT)”. The last tration resistance value, Nd (correlated N-value), but
one is a Dynamic Weight Sounding (DWS), in also the pore water pressure. The pore water pressure
which an electrical hammer drill is installed at the can be converted into fine fraction content (FC) ac-
top of Swedish weight sounding rod. The validation cording to the correlation between the residual pore
test results indicate that PDC, PPT and DWS are water pressure ratio and fine fraction content. PDC
highly useful for evaluation of liquefaction-induced estimates liquefaction strength from the results of Nd
problems due to earthquakes. and FC values.
651
Table 1. Performance grade A, B, and C.
__________________________________________________ Table 2. Type of evaluation related to performance grade.
__________________________________________________
Performance grade Subject matter to evaluate
__________________________________________________ Type of evaluation Performance grade
_________ ________________
Grade C Qualitative evaluation of the subsistent Grade C Grade B Grade A
__________________________________________________
of liquefiable soils. Dynamic Weight Sounding
Grade B Qualitative evaluation of the susceptibil- (DWS)
ity to liquefaction based on soil classifi-
cation. Penetration & Pull-out Test
Grade A Quantitative evaluation of liquefaction (PPT)
strength based on estimated to SPT N
values and Fine contents FC of soils.
_________________________________________________ Piezo Drive Cone
(PDC)
__________________________________________________
Index : Standard or final investigation
Preliminary or roughly investigation
Sounding Rod
28mm
Reducer
Electrical
Cable
Disposable
Cone
Transducer
Housing Pressure
Transducer
Porous 0
90 cone
Stone
ended
36.5mm
652
3
Flow chart for data processing to estimate lique-
Eecess pore water pressure ratio Sandy soil Clayey soil
faction susceptibility using PDC is shown in Figure
2
5. Residual cumulative pore pressure (uR), penetra-
tion displacement and the depth of investigation
Δu/σ'v
1
without unit weight (t) are able to be obtained by
PDC. As far as t, Ground water table (GWT), FC, N
0
value are clear, we can estimate liquefaction suscep-
tibility which is indicated in design specifications.
-1
0 50 100 150 200
Time (msec)
3.3 Example Data
Figure 3. Typical pore water pressure change during cone pene- The liquefaction risk is assessed in two ways. First,
tration .
as widely practiced, the factor of safety, FL, is de-
100 termined. As illustrated in Figure 4, the liquefaction
resistance, R or otherwise called CRR, is determined
80 by using the equivalent Nspt Nd together with the
Fine fraction content
40
GWT. After assessing the fines content FC, the unit
Silt weight of soil t is obtained and if it is different from
20 the initial guess, the effective vertical stress has to be
Sand modified corrected and leading to the new cumula-
0 Gravel tive pore pressure ratio and FC. Thus, there is a pro-
0 2 4 6 8 10
Residual pore water pressure ratio (uR/σ'v) vision for feed-back flow in the bottom left of Figure
5. An example of assessed liquefaction risk is illus-
Figure 4. Determination of fine content on the basis of pore wa- trated in Figure 6.
ter pressure record.
Residual
Maximum excess pore Penetration
Depth cumulative pore
pressure (Dumax ) resistance Nd
pressure (uR )
Assumption of unit
weight (t )
Maximum excess pore pressure ratio
(Dumax /v )
Residual cumulative
Effective overburden pressure porepressure ratio
(' v ) (uR /' v )
Yes
Liquefaction resistance (R )
653
N value, Nd value Fine fraction content (%) Liquefaction resistance RL Factor of safety for liquefaction FL
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
PDC PDC PDC
Grain size distribution test SPT SPT
1
2 PDC
SPT
4
Depth (m)
10
4 PENETRATION AND PULL-OUT TEST (PPT) ment is shown in Figure 7(b). The pull-out resistance
is measured between the bottom plate and hydraulic
4.1 Mechanism of PPT cylinders. When the hydraulic cylinders are extend-
Figure 7 shows a schematic figure of the dynamic ing, the pull-out resistance is measured. Figure 8
penetration test with measurement of the pull-out re- shows the cone apex of PPT.
sistance which is named “Penetration & Pull-out
Test (PPT)” proposed in this paper. The test con-
sists of two stage tests, first stage, of which the dy- 4.2 Test Equipment and Data Processing
namic penetration test is conducted to the depth of The flow chart for data processing to evaluate the
interest; second, the pull-out test, of which the cone liquefaction susceptibility by PPT-method is shown
apex is pulled out while measuring the resistance. in Figure 9. All data except the unit weight can be
A light-weight dynamic penetration device obtained by PPT consisting of the dynamic penetra-
(MRS) was used. tion test and the pull-out resistance test by the quasi-
The PPT system is equipped with the displace- static pull-out operation.
ment sensor, triggering sensor, handy terminal and
data logger. In addition, load cell is introduced to the 69.0mm
pull-out equipment.
A view of the newly developed pull-out equip-
90º
36.6mm
28.0mm
654
Wroth (1984) suggested that CPT data should be 5 DYNAMIC WEIGHT SOUNDING (DWS)
normalized as follows:
5.1 Mechanism of DWS
q v0
Qt t A new index DNSW is proposed for estimating lique-
v0 (2)
faction susceptibility of soils. The index is calculat-
fs ed using the results of two types of Swedish weight
Ft 100 sounding test. One test is the traditional quasi-static
qt v 0 (3) weight sounding test, from which, NSW-S (Static), the
where Qt= normalized penetrated cone resistance numbers of half turns per 1 m of penetration is ob-
tained. The other is a newly developed Dynamic
Ft= normalized pull-out resistance Weight Sounding (DWS) in which while applying
qt = cone resistance corrected for the unequal vibration generated by an electrical hammer drill in-
end area effect, qt=392×Nd (kN/m2) stalled at the top of sounding rod. The number of
half turns per 1 m of penetration NSW-D (Dynamic) is ob-
fs = pull-out resistance at the cone tip (kN/m2)
v0 = total vertical stress (kN/m2) tained. Existing of liquefiable soils layer can be in-
'v0 = effective vertical stress, v0 – u0 (kN/m2) vestigated by DNsw which is the difference between
NSW-S and NSW-D.
10
Qt
【記号凡例】
(SYMBOLS)
●:0≦Nd<5
▲:5≦Nd<10
■:10≦Nd<20 ⑤
◆:20≦Nd<25
① Handle
1 ② Weight
③ Cramp
0.01 0.1 1 10 ④ Rod
Ft (%) ⑤ Joint rod with penetrometer tip
⑥ Penetrometer tip
⑦ Vibrator
Figure 10. Example for soil classification chart based on PPT. ⑧ Dynamo
Colors of the legend show the range of fine con- Figure 11. Schematic illustration of DWS.
tents. The warm colors, for instance from orange to
red color indicate the high fine contents that is clay- NSW-S indicates the static resistance of SWS. On
ey soil, and cool colors, for instance from yellow to the other hand, NSW-D indicates the dynamic re-
blue color indicate the low fine contents that is sistance of DWS. The difference at the same depth
sandy soil. The distribution of the relationship be- between NSW-S and NSW-D indicates the liquefaction
tween normalized penetrated cone resistance (Qt) susceptibility of soils as follows,
and normalized pull-out resistance (Ft) based on DNSW = NSW-S - NSW-D (4)
PPT data shows that these data can be used for the
soil classification. The flow chart for data processing to estimate
depths with high possibility of liquefaction by SWS
& DWS-method is shown in Figure 12. All data can
be obtained by SWS & DWS measurement.
655
SWS &DWS masureing data tentials at each step of DWS, a new index DNSW is
The number of half turns The number of half turns now defined as equation (4). The discontinuity of
per 1m of penetrate per 1m of penetrate DNSW is seen in the layers between 1.2 m and 2.0 m
Depth
without Vibration (SWS) with Vibration (DWS) and between 2.5 m and 3.2m below the ground sur-
NSW-S NSW-D face. Therefore, the liquefaction potential index
DNSW directly indicates the degree of liquefaction
susceptibility. The threshold value of this index, in-
DNSW ≤ 0 DNSW > 0
dicating whether the soil layers are liquefiable or
Difference between NSW-S and NSW-D
( DNSW=NSW-S - NSW-D)
not, is 0.0 in this study. An example of in-situ quasi-
static and dynamic weight sounding tests was con-
ducted in order to show the effectiveness of the new
Low possibility of High possibility of
index. This DWS is an economically sounding and
liquefaction liquefaction simple in-situ test method for estimating the lique-
faction susceptibility of soils
Judgment of distribution of
high possibility to liquefaction with depth 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Figure 12. Fow chart of evaluating liquefaction possibility us- The degree of accuracy is in a relation of the trade-
ing DWS. off with economy. The material for reclamation be-
comes inhomogeneous by the reclaimed method. It
5.3 Mechanism of DWS is essential for the high-resolute information (ad-
vancement of the spatial resolution) on performing
The soil profile and the number of half turns per 1 m the evaluation of soil liquefaction. The most suitable
penetration are shown in Figure 13. The sandy soil solution which balances degree of accuracy (reliabil-
like an intermediate soil layer (BSC) is deposited ity of the ground information) with economy de-
from 0.9 m to 2.3 m in depth. And the uniformed pends on field conditions. The agenda that is the
medium sand with some fine contents layer (BS) is most important for us is to take care of the field en-
from 2.3 m to 3.5 m in depth. These numbers of NSW gineer who can select the most suitable technique of
observed within the sandy soil is under 100 NSW ; the ground investigation technique.
indicating SWS results are almost greater than DWS
result.
7 REFERENCES
(a)The number of half turns (b)Diffrence between
per 1m of penetrate NSW-S and NSW-D Clayton, C.R.I. & S.S. Dikran, 1982. Pore water pressure gen-
(NSW) (⊿NSW =NSW-S-NSW-D)
erated during dynamic penetration. Proceedings of the Sec-
0 0
SWS
ond European Symposium on Penetrating Testing, Amster-
F
DWS dam, 245-250.
1 1 Janbu, N. & K. Senneset, 1974. Effective stress interpretation
Bsc
of in-situ static penetration test. Proceedings European
2 2
Symposium on Penetrating Testing, Stockholm, Vol. 2.2,
181-193.
Japan Road Association, 2002. Seismic Design Specifications
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Bs 3 3
for Highway Bridges, pp.120-126, 2002 (in Japanese)
ISO/TS 22476-10, 2005. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION,
4 4 Geotechnical investigation and testing – Field testing –
Part 10: Weight sounding test.
Ac Sawada, S., 2009. Evaluation of differential settlement follow-
5 5
ing liquefaction using. Piezo Drive Cone, 17th International
Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria,
6 6 Egypt, 1064-1067.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1974. Penetration pore pressure effect on
Figure 13. An example data of Dynamic Weight Sounding quasi-static cone penetration testing. Proceedings European
(DWS) Symposium on Penetrating Testing, Stockholm, Vol. 2.2,
345-352.
Figure 13(b) illustrates the distribution DNSW Terzaghi, K. & R. B. Peck, 1948. Standard penetration test
method for relative density of cohensionless soils. American
along depth. The result of the different between the Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, D2049-69.
numbers of half turns DWS and SWS show locally Robertson, P.K., 1990. Soil classification using the cone pene-
higher value in the loose sandy soil layer rather than tration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1), 151-
in the clay layer which implies that the vibration ap- 158.
plied to DWS test affect NSW for sandy soils, more Wroth, C. P., 1984. The interpretation of in situ soil test. 24 th
significant. In order to evaluate the liquefaction po- Rankine Lecture, Geotecnique, 34(4), pp449-489.
656