Science & Engineering Campus

of Chuo University in Downtown Tokyo

RESEARCH TOPICS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENG.

Earthquake-induced slope failures.

Liquefaction of silty or gravelly soils.

Post-liquefaction flow mechanisms.

Seismic ground response during strong earthquakes.

http://const.civil.chuo-u.ac.jp/lab/doshitu/
UNDRAINED STRENGTH OF
GRAVELLY SOILS
DURING EARTHQUAKES

Takaji Kokusho
Professor of Chuo University
 REFERENCES FOR THIS PRESENTATION(1)
Research in CRIEPI
Kokusho,T. and Tanaka,Y.(1994): Dynamic properties of gravel
layers investigated by in-situ freezing sampling, ASCE
Geotechnical Eng. Div. Sessions, ASCE Convention (Atlanta),
pp.121-140.
Kokusho,T., Tanaka,Y., Kawai, T., Kudo, K., Suzuki, K., Tohda, S.
and Abe, S. (1995): Case study of rock debris avalanche gravel
liquefied during 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki Earthquake, Soils
and Foundations, Vol.35, No.3, pp83-95.
Kokusho,T. and Yoshida,Y. (1997): SPT N-value and S-wave
velocity for gravelly soils with different grain size distribution,
Soils & Foundations, Vol.37, No.4, pp105-113, 1997.
 REFERENCES FOR THIS PRESENTATION(2)
Research in Chuo University
Hara, T. (1999): Study on liquefaction strength of gravelly soil by means
of cyclic triaxial test, Masters Thesis, Science and Engineering School,
Chuo University.
Hiraoka, R. (2000): Effects of physical properties on liquefaction
strength in gravelly soils, Masters Thesis, Science and Engineering
School, Chuo University.
Komiyama, Y. (2002): Undrained shear characteristics of gravelly soil
containing non-plastic fine fraction, Masters Thesis, Science and
Engineering School, Chuo University.
Kokusho, T., Hara, T. and Hiraoka, R. (2004): Undrained shear strength
of granular soils with different particle gradations, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.130, No.6,
621-629.
 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF GRAVELLY
SOILS IN NATURAL GROUND
In situ density or void ratio is dependent on grain size
distribution. Density is larger for larger Uniformity Coeff. Uc.
Difference (emax-emin) is normally 0.3-0.2, smaller than sand,
indicating a smaller change of void ratio makes a bigger
change in relative density Dr and in properties.
Like sand, relative density Dr can be an important index to
evaluate properties of gravelly soils.
Besides sand, standardization of max. & min. density test for
gravel is undertaken in Japan for reliable evaluation of the
relative density.
In situ freezing sampling of gravels
Innovated sampling method of gravels
using polymer developed recently
Particle grading versus Void ratio of
Quaternary gravelly soils
(Kokusho,T. and Tanaka,Y. 1994)
 SOME BACKGROUNDS ON
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF
GRAVELLY SOILS
Normally well-graded and dense.
Dense gravelly soils serve as bearing strata for pile
foundations and shallow foundations of important
structures.
Loose gravelly soils are susceptible to liquefaction.
Liquefaction potential of gravelly soils are not well
established in relation with penetration resistance.
The effects of fines content on gravelly soils is poorly
understood.
Liquefied gravel at Pence Ranch during the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake
(Andrus, R. D. 1994)
Erupted Masa (DG) with large gravel in Port Island during 1995 Kobe EQ.
 (Kokusho et al. 1995)

Volcanic debris avalanche liquefied during 1993 Hokkaido Nansei-Oki EQ

Erupted silt in a pension yard

(Kokusho et al. 1995) Erupted silt vane in volcanic ash

 Liquefied zone

(Kokusho et al. 1995)

Penetration resistance and Vs in volcanic debris avalanche gravel
liquefied during 1993 Hokkaido Nansei-Oki EQ.
 300

S-wave velocityVs(m/s)
Kobe Port
250
Island
200 Italy
Avasin
150 USA
Borah Peak
100
Hokkaido
Morimachi
50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SPT N-value

(Kokusho et al. 1995)

SPT N-value versus S-wave velocity

for recently liquefied gravels
 300

Uniformity coefficientUc 250

Hokkaido-Morimachi
200

150
Kobe-Port island
100
Kobe-Mayahuto USA-Borah peak
50
Typical sand
0
0.1 1 10 100
Mean grain size D (mm)
50

(Kokusho et al. 1995)

Mean grain size versus Uc for recently liquefied gravels
 SUBJECTS TO DISCUSS
Effect of grain size distribution on N-value and Vs
Effect of grain size distribution on cyclic and
monotonic undrained strength
Effect of fines content on cyclic and monotonic
undrained strength
 Effect of grain size distribution
on N-value and Vs
2000

100

Percentage Finer by Weight (%)

Rubber bag
350

80
Tested
1100
1500

soil
350

Pressure cell 60

40
TKS
TS
G25
20 G50
Pressure
cell G75
Penetration 0
test hole 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Mesh Size (mm)

Tested soils with different gradings

Soil container for SPT and

Vs-measurement Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)
 TS(HC)
1000
G25(HC)
N0max G50(HC)
G75(HC)
TS(LC)
n
N = N / ( /p )

100 G25(LC)
0

G50(LC)
m

G75(LC)
N min
0
10 N max
0

0
Original data
for G75
N0min N min
0
1 N max
0
0.1 1
Void ratio e

Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)

Normalized N-value versus void ratio for

soils with different gradings
 1000
N min
0
N max
0
N = N / ( '/p )n
0
m 100
0.46
N max = 42.6Uc
0

10
0

N min = 5.8
0

1
1 10 100
Uniformity Coefficient Uc

Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)

Normalized N-value vs Uniformity coefficient for

soils with different gradings
 Vs (e ) TS(HC)
0 min G25(HC)
G50(HC)
G75(HC)
O>'>'@ TS(LC)
G25(LC)
G50(LC)
n

G75(LC)
Vs/{( /p )( /p )}

TKGS(LC)
0
h

200
0
v

Vs (e )
0 max

100
90
80
0.1 1
Void ratio: e
Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)
Normalized Vs versus void ratio for soils
with different gradings
 Vs min(HC)
0
600 Vs0max(HC)
Vs min(LC)
0
500 Vs max(LC)
0

Vs min and Vs max

400
0

300
Vs max = 420Uc/(Uc+1)
0

200 Vs min =120m/s

0
0

100

0
1 10 100
Uniformity coefficient: Uc

Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)

Normalized Vs versus Uniformity coefficient for

soils with different gradings
Proposed Empirical Formula of N-value and
S-wave velocity for Soils
with Different Gradings
given by Uc, Dr and confining stress
N-value:

N=5.8 ( 42.6U 5.8 )

Dr* ( )
( m p0 )
0.64 n Dr*
c

S-wave velocity:

Vs= 120+ {420U c ( U c +1) -120} Dr ( v h )

0.125
2
p0

Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)

 N=5.8 ( 42.6U 5.8 )
Dr * ( )
( m 0)
n Dr *
0.64
p

Normalized SPT N-value N/( ' m/p 0) n

250 c

G75
200
TS
G25
150 G50
G75 G50

100 p =98kPa
0 G25
TS
50

0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Relative density Dr(%)

Kokusho and Yoshida (1997)

Empirical equation of N-value versus Dr
compared with test results
 SUMMARY-1
Effect of particle grading on N-value and Vs
Vs is linearly related to e, while log N is linearly related
to log e.
The relationships are dependent on particle gradation.
Vsmin and Nmin are almost constant, while Vsmax and
Nmax are very different for soils with different Uc.
Empirical formulas are proposed, in which Vs and N-
value may be evaluated from Uc, Dr, and confining
stress.
Effect of grain size distribution on cyclic
and monotonic undrained strength
Loadi ng
pi st on

Loadi ng
cap Load cel l
Luci t e
33. 0 Por ous
100
met al
200

20 20 Pedest al
Cel l
pr essur e
Por epr essur e
32. 0

gauge
gauge

(Kokusho et al. 2004)

 5. 0 195. 0

45. 0 5. 0

168. 0
200. 0

277. 0 192. 0

a) Mol d wi t h b) Vi br at or
cul l ar and cap

400 Max. and Min.

density test
300. 0 tools
30. 0 20. 0
70. 0 Uni t
50. 0

c' ) Mout h- pi ece (Kokusho et al. 2004)

c) Funnel f or sand
 100

Percent finer by weight (%)

80

60

40
SG1
20 SG2
SG3
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain size ()

(Kokusho et al. 2004)

Fluvial sand & gravel used in undrained triaxial tests

SG1

SG2

SG3

Fluvial sand & gravel used in undrained triaxial tests

 1

SG1(Uc=1.44) NL=20
0.8 SG2(Uc=3.79)
Stress Ratio RL20
SG3(Uc=13.1)
0.6
DA=5%
Wet tamping
Modified for MP
0.4
c'=98kPa

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative density Dr (%)

(Kokusho et al. 2004)

Liquefaction strength versus Dr plots

for three granular soils
 Excess pore-pressure u (MPa
2

Deviatoric stress q (MPa)

q-
1.5 u-

SG1 SG3
0.5

0
SG2
Dr50%
-0.5 Wet tamping
c ' =0.098 MPa
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Axial strain (%)

(Kokusho et al. 2004)

Axial strain versus Deviatoric stress/Excess pore-pressure
in Montonic Undrained Tests without cyclic loading
 1.5
Wet tamping q-

Excess pore-pressure u (MPa)

Dr~50% u-

Deviatoric stress q (MPa)

c' =0.098 MPa
1 SG2'
(Dr=49% d/2 c
=0.185)

0.5 SG1
'
(Dr=50.9% d/2 c
=0.197)

-0.5
SG3
'
(Dr=51.6% d/2 c
=0.187)

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Axial strain (%)

(Kokusho et al. 2004)

Axial strain versus Deviatoric stress/Excess pore-pressure

in Post-Liquefaction Montonic Undrained Tests
 SUMMARY-2
Effect of particle grading on undrained strength
Undrained cyclic strength is not strongly dependent on
Uc. Cyclic strength for DA =5% is almost identical
between poor-graded sand and well-graded gravel and
uniquely defined by Dr.
Undrained strength for larger strain is strongly
dependent on Uc. It is considerably larger for well-
graded gravel than for poor-graded sand.
Post-liquefaction undrained residual strength is also
strongly dependent on Uc.
 Effect of low-plasticity fines content on
cyclic and monotonic undrained strength

100

Fc=0
Fc=2.5%
80 Fc=5%
Finer by weight (%)

Fc=10%
Fc=20%
Fc=30%
60
SG3
40 Fines are from
decomposed
20 granite with
Ip~5.
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain size (mm)
Sandy gravel SG3, Fc=0%

SG3 mixed with Masa fines, Fc=10%

 0.4
Fc=0%
Stress ratio RL for DA=5% Dr~32% Fc=2.5%
0.3 Fc=5%
Fc=10%
Fc=20%
0.2
Fc=30%

0.1

0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles NL

Stress ratio (DA=5%) versus Number of cycles for Dr~32%

 0.4 Fc=0%

Stress ratioRL for DA = 5%

Dr~50% Fc=2.5%
Fc=5%
0.3 Fc=10%
Fc=20%
Fc=30%
0.2

0.1

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

Number of Cycles NL

Stress ratio (DA=5%) versus Number of cycles for Dr~50%

 Fc=0%
F=2.5%
0.50
Fc=5%

Stress ratioRL for DA=5%

Fc=10%
0.40 Dr~73% Fc=20%

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

Number of Cycles NL

Stress ratio (DA=5%) versus Number of cycles for Dr~73%

 Critical fines content CFc
RL20 for Dr=70%
0.6 RL20 for Dr=50%
2
RL20 for Dr=30%

Stress ratio RL20 DA=5%, NL=20

d for Dr=50%
0.5 d for Dr=30%1.9

Dry density (/ cm3)

d for Dr=70%
0.4 1.8

0.3 Dr=70 1.7

% Dr=50
0.2 Dr=30 1.6
%
%
0.1 1.5

0 1.4
0 10 20 30 40 50

Fine cont ent s (%)

Liquefaction strength / Dry density versus Fines content relationship

 sand +fines: Dr~30%
Wet tamping sand +fines: Dr~50%
sand +fines: Dr~70%
sandy gravel +fines: Dr~30%
sandy gravel +fines: Dr~50%
sandy gravel +fines: Dr~70%

CFc=14~17% CFc=22~23% for

Cyclic stress ratio

for sand sandy gravel

Fines content Fc (%)

Comparison of Fc-dependent Liquefaction strength

between S & G and sand
Coarse soil particles Void of coarse soil Fines filling the void

Total soil Skeleton Matrix

Concept of void in coarse soil skeleton
filled by fines
 Fc < Critical Fc Fc > Critical Fc
Fines in the void of coarse grains Coarse grains floating in fines

e Void of fines
nc e
Fine nf Void of fines
Fc

1-nf Fine Fc
1
Coarse 1-Fc
1
1-nc
Coarse
1-Fc

Composition of Coarse soils including fines

 Dr=50%
2.5
1 Fc 1+ e = 1+
nf
1+ e = Fc
1 nf

Total volume (=1+e)

2 1 nc

1.5
1
1 Volume of Total volume
1 nf
(1+e)
1 coarse soils
1 nc 0.5
Volume of fines

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CFc=18% Fines content (%)

1+ e =
1 Void volume nc
(1 nc ) (1 + nc nc n f ) of coarse soil (1 nc ) (1 + nc nc n f )

Volume of coarse and fine soils varying with fines

 0.07 Fc=0%
Dr~30% Fc=2.5%
0.06 Fc=5%

Deviatoric stress (MPa)

Fc=10%
0.05 Fc=20%
Fc=30%
0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 5 10 15 20

Axial strain (%)

Stress-Strain relationship for monotonic undrained

loading test for Dr~30%
 Fc=0%
0. 14 Fc=2.5%
Fc=5%

Devi at or i c st r essq( MPa)

0. 12 Dr~50% Fc=10%
Fc=20%
0. 1 Fc=30%

0. 08

0. 06

0. 04

0. 02

0
0 5 10 15 20

Axi al st r ai n ( %)

Stress-Strain relationship for monotonic undrained

loading test for Dr~50%
 1.8
Dr~70%
1.6 Fc=0%

MPa
Fc=2.5%
Deviatric stress 1.4 Fc=5%
1.2 Fc=10%
Fc=20%
1

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20

Axial strain%

Stress-Strain relationship for monotonic undrained

loading test for Dr~70%
 1.6 Critical fines content
Undrained shear strength
1.4
Dr30%
1.2
Dr50%
1
Dr70%
(MPa)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fines content Fc(%)

Monotonic undrained strength versus Fc

for different relative density
 SUMMARY-3
Effect of content of low-plasticity fines (Fc)

Undrained cyclic strength of gravelly soils decreases with

increasing Fc up to a certain critical Fc. The trend is
basically similar to sand but the critical Fc is lower.
The critical Fc may be somehow related with a critical
fines content at which fines fill the void of coarse soils. Fc
for gravel is 10-20% while that for sand is larger.
Monotonic undrained strength of gravelly soils decreases
with increasing fines content. The decrease in dense soils
is drastic, being less than 1/10 for Fc=10%.
 FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Nmin,Vsmin are almost constant while Nmax, Vsmax is highly
dependent on gradings in granular soils.
Clean gravelly soil is as susceptible as sand to 100%
pore-pressure rise and limited strain, but difficult to
develop drastic failure with large strain.
Gravelly soil containing low-plasticity fines tend to
liquefy more easily and develop larger strain than clean
gravel. The effect of fines is very variable for different Dr.
More systematic research is needed to establish design
formula directly correlating undrained strength to
penetration resistance for granular soils containing fines.