1 / 20

Liquefaction Mitigation with Colloidal Silica

Liquefaction Mitigation with Colloidal Silica. Carolyn Conlee Advisor: Patricia M. Gallagher Co-advisor: Ross Boulanger. Purpose of This test. To evaluate the effectiveness of colloidal silica grout for liquefaction remediation →NEES GRAND CHALLENGE

trudy
Download Presentation

Liquefaction Mitigation with Colloidal Silica

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. Liquefaction Mitigationwith Colloidal Silica Carolyn Conlee Advisor: Patricia M. Gallagher Co-advisor: Ross Boulanger

  2. Purpose of This test To evaluate the effectiveness of colloidal silica grout for liquefaction remediation →NEES GRAND CHALLENGE This centrifuge tests will complement both the centrifuge drain test and separate field experiments performed by UT Austin

  3. Colloidal Silica • nontoxic, biologically and chemically inert (Iler, 1979) • Low, initial viscosity with controllable gel times (Gallagher, 2000) • excellent durability characteristics (Whang, 1995) • Strength gain for up to 1 yr (Persoff et al., 1999) • Majority of strength gain = RESONANT TIME = 10*initial gel time (Gallagher 2000)

  4. Colloidal Silica • Gel times vary from minutes to months (Noll et al,1993) • Controllable by: (1) Silica Concentration (2)Ionic Strength (NaCl, NH4Cl) (3) pH of solution (DuPont, 1996)

  5. Laboratory Testing of Colloidal Silica Performance • Monterey sand treated with colloidal silica (5 to 10 wt%) increases the deformation resistance tested in cyclic triaxial shear (Gallagher and Mitchell, 2002) Failure @ 13 Cycles liquefaction 2% Strain after 40 cycles 5% Strain after 40 cycles

  6. Liquefiable layer surrounding pile caps treated with 6 wt % colloidal silica (Pamuk et al, 2006) 50 g test acceleration; sinusoidal input motion (prototype: .25 g, 2 Hz) Significant liquefaction Resistance: Reduced deformation in free field (71 vs. 3.4 cm) reduced imposed moments on piles (220 vs. 10 kN-m) reduced permanent ground deformation by 95% Centrifuge Testing of Colloidal Silica Performance Free-field lateral displacement

  7. Research Objectives RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: 1. Quantify soil behavior after treatment (accelerations, displacements, pore pressure response) during and after shaking 2. Determine if improvement due to the treatment can be measured using conventional geotechnical/geophysical methods (i.e. shear wave velocity, CPT) 3. Adequately characterize stress-strain behavior of treated soil for future use in numerical models 4. Compare/contrast response of soil using colloidal silica to earthquake drain

  8. MODEL GEOMETRY TREATED AREA W. COLLOIDAL SILICA UNTREATED AREA

  9. INSTRUMENTATION • CPT in treated zone: 1g→4g→1g→15g • CPT in untreated zone: 1g and 15g

  10. Accelerometers

  11. PPTs

  12. LPs and Benders

  13. Data Reduction and Analysis In general: • Want to compare the response of treated and untreated areas • Study the response of colloidal silica and earthquake drain improvement mechanisms • Provide parameters for numerical models • Accelerometers: calculate stresses and strains in liquefiable and top crust layers

  14. Data Reduction and Analysis • Accelerometers and LVDTs: determine progression/extent of lateral spreading and settlement in crust and liquefiable layer • Pore pressure transducers: calculate excess pore water pressures → characterize extent of liquefaction as a function of time • Benders: compare shear wave velocities for improved and unimproved areas • Surface Markers: determine surface displacements due to lateral spreading

  15. UNRESOLVED ISSUES • Saturation Method (treqd≈4hr) - Target initial gel time = 8 hr→Resonates in 80 hr • Monitoring coverage of colloidal silica in liquefiable layer after saturation but befor shaking (P-wave tests?) • Quantifying improvement with conventional geotechnical methods (e.g. CPT, Vs) • Reaction of CO2 w/ Colloidal silica • Impermeable Barrier (Flexible but water-tight)

  16. Saturation Results of the Model

  17. SATURATION TESTS • Grouting Tubes for 2D Flow; Reduce Drainage Path • (time = drainage path2) →13.7 mm vs. 1325 mm • Issue:non-uniform coverage

  18. SATURATION TESTS • Flow appears to stop at about 25 cm of head • Capillary Rise of at least 20 cm for each case was observed • Greatest concern is large gradients: sand boiling

  19. Treated (1 mo. later) Treated (7 mo. later) Untreated (7 mo. later) Untreated (1 mo. later) Treatment Area Quantifying Treatment using Conventional Geotechnical/Geophysical Methods • Full scale-field test showed 30% reduction in surface settlement • No correlation between treatment and CPT data

  20. Quantifying Treatment using Conventional Geotechnical/Geophysical Methods Big questions: • Where did it go and did it saturate soil? • Has it been there long enough? • Can the improved soil be correlated to CPT and/or shear wave velocity data? • Test: (i) Bender Element Arrays for Vs (ii)CPT (iii) Other geotechnical/geophysical methods?

More Related