ارزیابی خرابی های پیش‌رونده پی های سطحی در شرایط روانگرایی با استفاده از مطالعات سانتریفیوژ

نوع مقاله : Articles

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه سمنان

2 پژوهشکده مهندسی ژئوتکنیک، پژوهشگاه بین المللی زلزله شناسی و مهندسی زلزله

3 دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه سمنان

چکیده

در این مقاله با استفاده از نتایج سه سری آزمایش سانتریفیوژ چگونگی اثر گسترش عمق روانگرایی و خرابی­های پیش‌رونده بر نشست حین و پس از تحریکات دو پی­ سطحی با فشارهای استاتیکی متفاوت مورد مطالعه قرارگرفته است. اعماق مختلف گسترش روانگرایی با اعمال تحریکات ورودی هارمونیک با دامنه­های شتاب مختلف به مدل سانتریفیوژ به‌دست‌آمده است. نتایج بیانگر سه مکانیسم (فاز) مجزا در نشست پی است که عبارتند از: (1) حین تحریک، (2) خرابی پیش‌رونده و (3) باز تحکیم. بر خلاف میدان آزاد که در آن نشست­ها از نوع حجمی بوده، بیشتر نشست پی­ها از نوع برشی بوده و در فازهای (1) و (2) اتفاق افتاده است. عمق گسترش روانگرایی رفتار پس از تحریک را به‌طور قابل­ملاحظه­ای تحت تأثیر قرار داده است. پاسخ شتاب پی­ها تحت تأثیر گسترش عمق روانگرایی بوده، به‌گونه‌ای که پی­ها در قوی­ترین تحریک علیرغم تجربه‌ی نشست بزرگ­تر پاسخ ضعیف­تری داشته­اند. به نظر می­رسد که نشست­های پس از تحریک و خرابی­های پیش‌رونده در پی­های سطحی از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار باشند که در کاربردهای مهندسی مورد ارزیابی قرار نمی­گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Centrifuge Study on Progressive Failure of Shallow Foundations due to Soil Liquefaction

نویسندگان [English]

  • Behrooz Mehrzad 1
  • Yaser Jafarian 2
  • Abdolhossein Haddad 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Iran
2 Geotechnical Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Iran
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Iran
چکیده [English]

The effect of liquefaction depth on co-seismic and post-seismic settlements of shallow foundation has been studied using three centrifuge test series. The models were constructed in 1/80 scale and subjected to the centrifugal acceleration of 80g. They involved two rigid foundations with two different static surcharges and sufficient spacing to minimize the interaction. Poorly graded sand known as No. 306 sand with a relative density of 55% was used. The model was excited with a 15-cycle sinusoidal base motion having constant amplitude and 2 Hz frequency.
In the free-field, liquefaction occurred in the shallower layers first, propagated rapidly to the deeper layers. The full depth of soil profile was liquefied in the strongest event. The liquefied depths were about 2.4 m and 7.2 m for amax=0.04g and amax=0.07g, respectively. Liquefaction caused severe deterioration of soil stiffness resulted in significant decay of accelerations. After excitation ceased, upward seepage from deeper layers enforced the shallower layers to remain in liquefied state for longer time. The free-field settlement commenced immediately after the first cycles and accumulated until excitation ceased. Its rate stopped for a while. The free-field settlement began again and continued up to full EPWP dissipation.
Large negative EPWP was observed beneath the foundations, which are attributed to the deviatoric stress induced by their surcharge and soil dilation due to lateral movement of subsoil. Amplification was observed in acceleration time histories within the foundation soil, which is attributed to the negative EPWP generated in this zone. Large horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradient was developed during shaking, causing water flow towards the foundations. Once the water pressure equalized in each level, reconsolidation commenced. The foundations settled linearly with time during shaking with decreasing rate after excitation ceased. The extent of liquefaction had a major impact on the foundation settlement in this period. The higher the extent of liquefaction, the more the foundation settlement occurred. It seems that partial bearing failure and the inertial forces are two dominant mechanisms.
The settlement and EPWP time histories can be separated into three different phases: (1) shaking, (2) progressive failure, and (3) reconsolidation. The rate of settlement significantly decreased during the second phase. Previous researchers noted that most of foundation settlement occurs during shaking period, but the results of this research show that most of the foundation settlement occurs after shaking. Foundation settlement continued progressively due to partial bearing failure and strength loss in the foundation soil. It seems that liquefaction extent and soil permeability have major impact on Phase (2). The thicker the liquefied layer or the lower the permeability of foundation soil, the longer time the foundation has to settle. Although the foundation settlement is significant in this phase, it has been neglected in geotechnical designs.
The foundation settlement mechanisms are clearly different from that of the free-field. Volumetric-induced deformations are dominant mechanisms in the free-field, whereas, deviatoric-induced strains are the main cause of foundation settlement. It seems that the widely used procedure for the estimation of liquefaction-induced settlements of shallow foundations that is based on volumetric strains might be revised.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Shallow Foundation
  • Settlement Mechanism
  • Progressive failure
  • Liquefaction Depth
  • Centrifuge Study
  1. . Seed H. B., Idriss I. M., 1967. Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divission, ASCE, 93(3), pp. 83-108.
  2. . Yoshimi Y., Tokimatsu K., 1977. Settlement of buildings on saturated sand during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, vol. 171, pp. 23–38.
  3. . Nagase H., Ishihara K., 1988. Liquefaction-induced compaction and settlement of sand during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 28(1), pp. 65–76.
  4. . Adachi T., Iwai S., Yasui M., Sato Y., 1992. Settlement and inclination of reinforced concrete buildings in Dagupan City due to liquefaction during the 1990 Philippine earthquake. Proc., 10thWorld Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), Madrid, Spain, pp. 147–152.
  5. . Acacio A. A., Kobayashi Y., Towhata I., Bautista, R. T., Ishihara K., 2001. Subsidence of building foundation resting upon liquefied subsoil case studies and assessment. Soils and Foundations, 41(6), pp. 111–128.
  6. . Yoshida N., Tokimatsu K., Yasuda S., Kokusho T., and Okimura T., 2001. Geotechnical aspects of damage in Adapazari city during 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 41(4), pp. 25–45.
  7. . Tokimatsu K., Tamura S., Suzuki H. and Katsumata K., 2012. Building damage associated with geotechnical problems in the 2011 Tohoku Pacific Earthquake. Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, 52(5), pp. 956-974.
  8. . Bertalot, D., Brennan, A. J., Villalobos, F., 2013. Influence of bearing pressure on liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations. Geotechnique, 63(5), pp. 391–399.
  9. . Liu L., Dobry R., 1997. Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(6), pp. 557–67.
  10. . Coelho P., Haigh S. K., Madabhushi S. P., O'brien T., 2004. Centrifuge modeling of the use of densification as a liquefaction resistance measure for bridge foundations. 13 the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
  11. . Dashti S., Bray J. D., Pestana J. M., Riemer M., Wilson D., 2010a. Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(1), pp. 151-164.
  12. . Marques A., Coelho P., Cilingir U., Haigh S.K., Madabhushi G., 2012. Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Effects on a Shallow Foundation. WCEE conference 2012.
  13. . Ishikawa A., Zhou Y. G., Shamoto Y. Mano H., Chen Y. M., Ling D. S., 2015. Observation of post-liquefaction progressive failure of shallow foundation in centrifuge model tests. Soils and Foundations. 55(6), pp. 1501-1511.
  14. . Mehrzad B., Haddad A., Jafarian Y., 2016. Centrifuge and Numerical Study of Liquefaction-Induced Response of Shallow Foundations with Different Contact Pressures. Int. J. Civil Eng., 14, pp. 117-131.
  15. . Chian, S.C., and Madabhushi, S.P.G., 2010. Influence of Fluid Viscosity on the Response of Buried Structures. Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, Zurich, Switzerland, pp.111-115.
  16. . Hausler E. A., 2002. Influence of ground improvement on settlement and liquefaction: a study based on field case history evidence and dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  17. . Adalier K., Elgamal A., Meneses J., Baez J. I., 2003. Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23(7), pp. 571–584.
  18. . Ishihara K., and Yoshimine M., 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, vol. 321, pp. 173–188.
  19. . Tokimatsu K., and Seed H. B., 1987. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of Geotechnical and geoenvironmental Engineering. 1138, pp. 861– 878.