Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

The geotechnical test site in the greater Lisbon area for liquefaction characterisation and sample quality control of cohesionless soils

CONSTRUCT-GEO, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (FEUP), Portugal

Special Issues: Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils used for geotesting

In the greater Lisbon area, widespread alluvial sandy deposits can be found that, due to its geology, geomorphology and high seismicity satisfy the criteria to trigger soil liquefaction if subjected to a cyclic action. Within the scope of a research project on liquefaction (LIQ2PROEARTH), an extensive geological, geotechnical, and geophysical database was established, including specific site investigation campaigns in four testing locations, in the municipalities of Benavente and Vila Franca de Xira, near Lisbon. In particular, the campaigns focused on the performance of SPT, CPTu, SDMT and geophysical tests, as well as on the collection of high-quality soil samples using advanced sampling techniques. This paper addresses the geotechnical characterization of a test site and describes the advanced sampling processes for liquefaction assessment. High-quality samples were retrieved by means of three different samplers: Mazier, Dames & Moore and Gel-Push. Preliminary assessment of the sampling quality of the collected samples has been made through the comparison of normalised field and laboratory measurements of shear wave velocity, emphasising the divergences between the different samplers. A comparative analysis of the results is presented and discussed, highlighting the identification of the layers with higher liquefaction susceptibility.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Saldanha S, et al. (2018) Comparative analysis of liquefaction susceptibility assessment by CPTu and SPT tests. In Cone Penetration Testing 2018 Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT'18), Hicks MA, Pisano F, Peuchen F (Eds.), 669–675.

2. Azevedo J, Guerreiro L, Bento R, et al. (2010) Seismic vulnerability of lifelines in the greater Lisbon area. Bull Earthq Eng 8: 157–180.    

3. Molina-Gómez F, Ramos C, Viana da Fonseca A, et al. (2018) Cyclic liquefaction assessment by the criterion of shear wave velocity in high-quality undisturbed samples. XVI Congreso Colombiano de Geotecnia, 1–12.

4. Jorge C, Vieira AM (1997) Liquefaction Potential Assessment-Application to the Portuguese Territory and to the Town of Setúbal. Seismic Behaviour of Ground and Geotechnical Structures, Seco and Pinto (Eds.): 33–43.

5. Saldanha S, Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C (2018) Microzonation of the liquefaction susceptibility: case study in the Lower Tagus Valley. Geotecnia 142: 7–24.    

6. Gouveia F, Viana da Fonseca A, Carrilho Gomes R, et al. (2018) Deeper VS profile constraining the dispersion curve with the ellipticity curve: A case study in Lower Tagus Valley, Portugal. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109: 188–198.    

7. Taylor ML (2015) The geotechnical characterisation of Christchurch sands for advanced soil modelling. PhD thesis. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

8. Hight DW (2001) Sampling methods: evaluation of disturbance and new practical techniques for high quality sampling in soils. 7th National congress of the Portuguese geotechnical society, Porto, Portugal, 1–35.

9. La Rochelle P, Sarrailh J, Tavenas F, et al. (1981) Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a new sampler for sensitive soils. Can Geotech J 18: 52–66.    

10. Viana da Fonseca A, Pineda J (2017) Getting high-quality samples in "sensitive" soils for advanced laboratory tests. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2: 1–34.    

11. Osterberg JO (1973) An improved hydraulic piston sampler. 8th ICSMFE, Moscow, 317–321.

12. Taylor ML, Cubrinovski M, Haycock I (2012) Application of new "Gel-push" sampling procedure to obtain high quality laboratory test data for advanced geotechnical analyses. NZSEE Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–8.

13. Long M (2001) The influence of plasticity on sample disturbance in soft clays. International conference on In Situ Measurements of soil properties and case Histories, Bali, Indonesia, 385–389.

14. Ferreira C, Viana da Fonseca A, Nash D (2011). Shear wave velocities for sample quality assessment on a residual soil. Soils Found 51: 683–692.    

15. Rowe PW (1972) The relevance of soil fabric to site investigations practice. Géotechnique 22: 195–300.    

16. Ladd CC, Lambe TW (1963) The strength of unditurbed clay determined from undrained systems. Symposium on Laboratory Shear Testing of Soils, ASTM, STP, 342–371.

17. Ladd CC, DeGroot DJ (2003) Recommended practice for soft ground characterization. Arthur Casagrande Lecture, Proceedings of 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Boston, USA, 3–75.

18. Terzaghi K, Peck R, Mesri G (1996) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

19. Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1997) Sample disturbance effects in soft low plastic Norwegian clay. Recent Developments in Soil and Pavements Mechanics (ed. by Almeida), Balkema, Rotterdam, 81–102.

20. Landon MM, DeGroot DJ, Sheahan TC (2007) Non-destructive sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenvirinmental Eng 133: 424–432.    

21. Nash D, Lings M, Benahmed N, et al. (2006) The effects of controlled destructing on the small shear stiffness G 0 of Bothkennar clay, Geomechanis: Laboratory Testing, Modeling Applications. A collection of papers of the Geotechnical Symposium in Rome.

22. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, USA.

23. Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Ramos C, et al. (2019) Liquefaction susceptibility assessment based on in situ geotechnical and geophysical characterisation of a pilot site in the greater Lisbon area. Bull Earthq Eng, submitted.

24. Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests-a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46: 1337–1355.    

25. GeoLogismiki (2018) CLiq.   Available from: https://geologismiki.gr/products/cliq/ (accessed in July 2018).

26. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 97: 1249–1273.

27. Marchetti S (2016) Incorporating the Stress History Parameter KD of DMT into the Liquefaction Correlations in Clean Uncemented Sands. Geotech Geoenvironmental J 142: 04015072.    

28. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26: 115–130.    

29. Robertson PK (2012) Mitchell lecture: Interpretation of in-situ tests-Some insights. Procedings of 4th Int. Conference on Site Characterization ISC-4, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1: 3–24.

30. Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2010) Estimating soil unit weight from CPT. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 1–8.

31. Ferreira C (2009) The use of seismic wave velocities in the measurement of stiffness of a residual soil. PhD thesis. University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

32. Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Fahey M (2009) A Framework Interpreting Bender Element Tests, Combining Time-Domain and Frequency-Domain Methods. Geotech Test J 32: 100974.    

33. Lo Presti DCF, Jamiolkowski M, Pallara O, et al. (1997) Shear modulus and damping of soils. Géotechnique 47: 603–617.    

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved