1 / 25

Direct Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Liquefiable Sand

U.S.-Taiwan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction. Direct Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Liquefiable Sand. Wen-Jong Chang, National Chi Nan University Ellen M. Rathje, University of Texas at Austin Kenneth H. Stokoe, II , University of Texas at Austin

jamese
Download Presentation

Direct Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Liquefiable Sand

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. U.S.-Taiwan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction Direct Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Liquefiable Sand Wen-Jong Chang, National Chi Nan University Ellen M. Rathje, University of Texas at Austin Kenneth H. Stokoe, II , University of Texas at Austin Brady R. Cox, University of Texas at Austin 11/03/2003~11/04/2003 @ NCTU

  2. Outline • Introduction • Drainage Techniques • Experiment Methodology • Test Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Liquefaction-induced damages: Key role: pore pressure generation

  4. Mitigation Methods • Reducing the excess pore pressure generation • Densification: dynamic compaction etc. • Reinforcement: compaction grouting etc. • Quickly remove the accumulated pore water pressure • Drainage: gravel drains, stone columns, prefabricated vertical drains Combination of both effects

  5. Research Significances • Problems of conventional gravel drains • mixing, clogging, installation disturbance • Advantages of prefabricated drains • minimum mixing, better discharge and storage capacity, developed sites applicable • Goals: Quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of drainage alone

  6. Drainage Techniques : Analytical Background • Seed and Booker: develop chart-based approach • Onoue et al. : consider drain resistance, chart-based approach • Pestana et al. : includes drain resistance and reservoir capacity, FEM code (FEQDrain)

  7. Drainage Techniques : Experimental Works • Onoue et al. : large-scale in situ experiments • Iai et al. : shaking table test • Yang and Ko : centrifuge test on a trench shape drain • Brennan and Madabhushi : centrifuge test on a “cell”

  8. Field Performance of Gravel Drains • Japan’s experiences: sand drains performed well in 1993 Kushiro-Oki and 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu EQ. • Sand drains reduced ground settlements more than 50% • Performance cannot be solely attributed to drainage

  9. Prefabricated Drains • Components: • Features: better discharge capacity & storage capacities • Installation: statically/dynamically • Rollins et al. blasting test: reducing 40~80% settlements Open slot Filter fabric Plastic pipe

  10. Experiment Methodology • Two full-scale reconstituted specimens • In situ dynamic liquefaction test • Data reduction • Test setup

  11. In Situ Dynamic Liquefaction Test • Components: • Dynamic source : Vibroseis truck • Embedded instrumentation: Liquefaction test sensor & DAQ • Test layout

  12. Vibroseis Truck Hydraulic Ram

  13. Liquefaction Test Sensor

  14. Test Layout Vibroseis truck Waterproof liner PVC pipe Backfill soil Footing 2 1 0.3 m 3.3 m 1.2 m 5 Liquefaction sensor 0.3 m Accelerometer 4 3 Settlement platform 0.3 m 0.3 m 1.2 m

  15. Data Analysis • Pore pressure data: separate static, hydrodynamic, and residual excess pore pressure via digital filter • Shear strain calculation: • Displacement-Based (DB) method • Apparent Wave (AW) method • Pore pressure generation curve & time histories

  16. Test Setup Drain pipe Drain Test No Drain Test

  17. Specimen Preparation • Both specimens using water pluviation to construct loose, saturated specimens • Prefabricated drain were installed prior water pluviation  no densification • Sensors were installed during water pluviation process

  18. Testing Procedure • Loading frequency=20 Hz for 3 seconds • Interactive stage loading: • From small loading to largest loading level • Fully dissipation of excess pore pressure between loading • Determine threshold shear strain • Generate pore pressure generation curve

  19. Threshold shear strain Test Results:Pore Pressure Generation Curve

  20. Time Histories No Drain Test Drain Test

  21. Dissipation Behavior Ru-time histories at different radial distances

  22. Dissipation Rate

  23. Conclusions • Drainage alone can considerably • reduce pore pressure generation • minimize settlement • accelerate after shaking dissipation • With single prefabricated drain, max. pore pressure ratio only 35% instead of 100% in No Drain Test

  24. Conclusions (cont.) • Drainage alone can reduce volumetric strain up to 75% • Prefabricated drain can be an effective alternative for liquefaction mitigation • Same testing procedure can be implemented to evaluate other remediation techniques and current treated sites

  25. Thank You Research Supported by National Science Foundation

More Related