WITTHOEFT, A. & OTHERS - 2012 - Congress - Numerical Study of The Effectiveness of Bentonite Treatment For Liquefaction Mitigation
WITTHOEFT, A. & OTHERS - 2012 - Congress - Numerical Study of The Effectiveness of Bentonite Treatment For Liquefaction Mitigation
WITTHOEFT, A. & OTHERS - 2012 - Congress - Numerical Study of The Effectiveness of Bentonite Treatment For Liquefaction Mitigation
2
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West
Lafayette, IN 47907
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1959
and the time required for the gelation of the slurry once inside the sand pore space.
This study demonstrated that the addition of 0.5% SPP (by mass of the bentonite) to
10% bentonite suspensions yields materials characterized by minimal yield stress and
thixotropy, significantly reduced storage modulus and viscosity, which can be
permeated in laboratory prepared sand columns. The treatment is reversible, in that
with time the gel-like structure typical of untreated suspensions is redeveloped.
El Mohtar (2008) evaluated the mechanical properties of bentonite-treated sand and
the effectiveness of the treatment in preventing liquefaction by performing undrained
cyclic triaxial tests on sand specimens (skeleton relative density below 40%) with 3-
5% bentonite (by dry mass of the sand). The experimental program included tests on
specimens of sand dry-mixed with bentonite and subsequently saturated with water,
as well as on specimens of clean sand permeated with concentrated (10% bentonite
corresponding to the concentration of the clay suspension formed inside the pores
with 3% bentonite by mass of sand) suspensions treated with SPP. Findings of this
portion of the experimental program relevant to the present investigation are: (i)
bentonite treatment increases the number of loading cycles for a given cyclic stress
ratio (CSR) to which a sand specimen under undrained cyclic triaxial conditions may
be subjected before reaching liquefaction; (ii) based on resonant column test results,
the treatment appears to work in part by extending the elastic region of the material
behavior over a greater range of strain values; and iii) the gel-like structure of the
pore fluid is responsible for suppressing volumetric straining during cyclic loading.
NUMERICAL APPROACH
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1960
Bouckovalas (2002) was implemented in the numerical software and calibrated based
on a database of laboratory test results for Ottawa sand.
The constitutive model selected incorporates Critical State Soil Mechanics
(CSSM, Schofield and Wroth, 1968) and the state parameter (Been and Jefferies,
1985). This model is well-suited for studying conditions leading to liquefaction
because it combines stress-dependent non-linear elastic behavior at relatively small
strains with fabric-dependent plastic behavior at relatively large strains.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 1. Listing of parameters, typical ranges, and values for Ottawa sand.
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1961
100
90 Model
80 Data
70
60
u (kPa)
50
40
30
20
10 (a)
0
0 5 10 15 20
0.20 N
Model
0.15
Data
0.10 εv =0.0
0.05
εv (%)
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
(b)
-0.20
0 5 10 15 20
N
Figure 1. Model-predicted and measured (a) u-N response and (b) εv-N response
for an undrained cyclic triaxial test with p0’=100 kPa and CSR=0.15 on clean
Ottawa sand. Data reproduced from test results reported by El Mohtar (2008).
Reproducing the Effects of Bentonite Treatment. Results of undrained cyclic
triaxial testing by El Mohtar (2008) show at least two readily observable effects of
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1962
bentonite treatment: (i) delayed buildup of excess pore pressure and (ii) delayed
buildup of axial strain during cyclic loading. Figure 2 illustrates these effects using
undrained cyclic triaxial data for tests with p’0 = 100 kPa and CSR = 0.125.
These effects are captured within the modeling framework by modifying
parameter values as shown in Table 1. Figure 3 shows sample model results
comparing the behavior for clean sand and bentonite-treated sand.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bentonite
delays Δu
buildup
(a)
Bentonite
delays εv
buildup
(b)
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1963
During the dynamic simulation, the total load applied to the footing was equal to the
sum of two components: the static load of 150 kPa and the dynamic load of variable
magnitude. This may be expressed as:
qtotal = qstatic + qdynamic (1a)
where q denotes a footing load and the subscript indicates the total value or a
component value. While the static load was held constant at qstatic = 150 kPa, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
In order to interpret the model results and assess the impact of soil treatment,
the loss of mean effective stress in the foundation soil and the settlement of the
footing were used as performance indicators. The results of the analysis are reported
in terms of these indicators.
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1964
Loss of Mean Effective Stress. The performance dimension most closely related to
the topic of liquefaction is that of mean effective stress changes under dynamic
loading. This was evaluated by introducing an index variable, Δp’/p0’, where p0’ is
the mean effective stress at the beginning of the dynamic loading phase and Δp’ is the
change of mean effective stress during the dynamic phase (i.e., the ever-changing
current value of p’ minus the fixed value of p0’). The index Δp’/p0’ is physically
meaningful for values in the interval -1≤ Δp’/p0’<∞. When the value reaches the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lower bound of the interval (i.e., when Δp’/p0’= -1), a complete loss of effective
confining stress has occurred. While large positive values of Δp’/p0’ might raise
physical concerns of consolidation settlement and/or particle crushing, these are
thought not to be relevant for this particular problem.
½B=2m
Footing load
(variable)
H = 10 m
Saturated soil mass
+x, +i
L = 10 m
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1965
end boundary. The magnitude of mean effective stress loss suggests that the material
in the vicinity of the footing is at or near liquefaction for the untreated case.
In contrast, Figure 5(b) shows that with treatment, the mean effective stress
reduction is largely confined to the area near the corner of the footing. The maximum
magnitude of Δp’ (i.e., 40%-60% of p0’) is significantly lower than that observed for
the untreated case (i.e., 80%-100% of p0’), suggesting that the bentonite treatment
prevents or significantly delays the onset of liquefaction.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-0.2
-0.9
-0.4
-0.3
-0.1
-0.8 -0.2
-0.7 -0.1
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Contours of change in mean effective stress, Δp’, normalized by initial
mean effective stress, p0’ = p’|t=0, at simulation time t = 5 s (a) untreated and (b)
bentonite treated soil. Positive values of Δp’ are shown as -0.2 < Δp’/p0’ < 0.0.
Vertical Displacement of the Footing. Figure 6 shows the time history of vertical
footing displacement during the dynamic phase of the simulation. Four points along
the left boundary were tracked: one at the ground surface (i.e., the footing) and three
more at depths of 2 m, 4 m, and 6 m below the ground surface.
As Figure 6(a) indicates, the average movement of the footing with time was
relatively constant for the first two seconds of simulation time (~20 cycles).
Thereafter, the accumulation of vertical displacement accelerated, and a footing
settlement of 25 mm was reached around t = 3.5 s (~35 cycles). It is also observed
that the magnitude of the ground displacement decreases with increasing depth. The
displacement at a depth of 2 m followed closely that of the footing. In contrast, at a
simulation time of t = 2 s (when footing settlement began to accelerate) the
displacement at 4 m depth was dramatically less (by a factor > 3) than that of the
footing, and the displacement at 6 m depth was smaller still. This suggests that the
dynamic footing load is limited in its depth of influence.
Figure 6(b) shows the history of footing settlement for the treated case. The
displacement of the footing for the untreated case is shown for reference. Although
the same four points were tracked as for the untreated case, for clarity only two (i.e.,
at the footing and at 6 m depth) are plotted in the figure. It is observed from the
figure that the treatment regime is effective in delaying the settlement of the footing.
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1966
Whereas for the untreated case the footing reached a settlement of approximately 25
mm at 3.5 s of simulation time, the application of bentonite treatment held footing
settlement to approximately 1 mm in the same amount of simulation time.
0.005
0.000 Depth = 6 m
-0.005
Depth = 4 m
-0.010
-0.015
Ground Depth = 2 m
-0.020
(a) Surface
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5
Simulation Time (s)
0.005
Depth = 6 m
0.000
Footing Settlement (m)
Ground
-0.005 Surface
-0.010
-0.015 Ground
Surface
-0.020 (Untreated)
(b)
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5
Simulation Time (s)
Figure 6. Footing settlement with simulation time for (a) untreated and (b)
bentonite treated sand. Note that, since the dynamic load is applied at a
frequency of 10 Hz, each 1 s of simulation time corresponds to 10 cycles.
CONCLUSIONS
GeoCongress 2012
GeoCongress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1967
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Been, K., & Jefferies, M. (1985). A State Parameter for Sands. Géotechnique , 35 (2),
99-112.
Carraro, J. (2004). Mechanical Behavior of Silty and Clayey Sands. Ph.D. Thesis,
Purdue University.
Clarke, J. P. (2008). Investigation of Time-Dependent Rheological Behavior of
Sodium Pyrophosphate – Bentonite Suspensions. West Lafayette, IN, USA:
MS Thesis, Purdue University.
Dafalias, Y., & Popov, E. (1975). A Model of Nonlinearly Hardening Materials for
Complex Loading. Acta Mechanica , 21 (3), 173-192.
Dafalias, Y., & Popov, E. (1976). Plastic Internal Variables Formalism of Cyclic
Plasticity. Journal of Applied Mechanics , 97, 645-651.
El Mohtar, C. (2008). Pore Fluid Engineering: An Autoadaptive Design for
Liquefaction Mitigation. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University.
Itasca Consulting Group. (2005). FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua.
Version 5.00. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Loukidis, D. (2006). Advanced Constitutive Modeling of Sands and Applications to
Foundation Engineering. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University.
Loukidis, D., & Salgado, R. (2009). Modeling Sand Response using Two-Surface
Plasticity. Computers and Geotechnics , 36, 166-186.
Murthy, T. (2006). Study of the Undrained Static Response of Sandy Soils in the
Critical State Framework. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University.
Ni, B. (2007). Implementation of a Bubble Model in FLAC and its Application in
Dynamic Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Auckland.
Papadimitriou, A. G., & Bouckovalas, G. D. (2002). Plasticity Model for Sand under
Small and Large Cyclic Strains: A Multiaxial Formulation. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering , 22, 191-204.
Papadimitriou, A. G., Bouckovalas, G. D., & Dafalias, Y. F. (2001). Plasticity Model
for Sand Under Small and Large Cyclic Strains. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering , 127 (11), 973-983.
Schofield, A., & Wroth, P. (1968). Critical State Soil Mechanics. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill.
Witthoeft, A. F. (2009). Modeling of Liquefaction Mitigation using Bentonite. West
Lafayette, IN, USA: MS Thesis, Purdue University.
Yasuda, S. (2007). Remediation Methods against Liquefaction which Can Be Applied
to Existing Structures. In K. Pitilakis (Ed.), Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering (pp. 385-406). Springer.
GeoCongress 2012