Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2016, Vol. 10 Issue (4): 481-487   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0355-9
  本期目录
Model test of stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in sandy soils
Mengfei QU1(),Qiang XIE1,Xinwen CAO2,Wen ZHAO1,Jianjun HE1,Jiang JIN1
1. Faculty of Geosciences and Environmental Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031,China
2. School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
 全文: PDF(679 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

The shaking table model test was conducted to investigate earthquake resistant behavior of stone columns under the intensity of an earthquake resistance of buildings is VIII. The test results show that when acceleration is less than 0.20 g, composite foundation is not liquefied, settlement is also small and pile dislocation is not observed; when acceleration is 0.3g, ground outside embankment’s slope toe is liquefied and ground within stone column composite foundation is not. It is suggesting that reinforcement scale of stone column foundation should be widened properly. The designed stone column composite foundation meets the requirements for seismic resistance.
Key words： stone column composite foundation    seismic liquefaction    shaking table test
收稿日期: 2016-02-26      出版日期: 2016-11-29
Corresponding Author(s): Mengfei QU   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2016, 10(4): 481-487.
Mengfei QU,Qiang XIE,Xinwen CAO,Wen ZHAO,Jianjun HE,Jiang JIN. Model test of stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in sandy soils. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 481-487.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-016-0355-9
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2016/V10/I4/481
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
physical quantity similarity coefficient physical quantity similarity coefficient
geometry L CL = 1/10 input acceleration A CA = 1.0
mass density r Cr = 1 input shaking duration T CT = 10-1/2
dynamic elastic module E CE = 1/10 dynamic response stress s Cs = 1/10
dynamic Poisson's ratio m Cm = 1 dynamic response angular displacement q Cq = 1.0
frequency w Cw = 101/2 dynamic response linear displacement S CS = 1/10
damping coefficient R CR = 10-5/2 dynamic response strain e Ce = 1.0
subgrade deadweight P CP = 10-3 dynamic response speed v Cv = 1
effective overlying stress sv Csv’ = 1/10 dynamic response acceleration a Ca = 1.0
gravitational acceleration g Cg = 1.0 excess pore pressure u Cu = 1/10
Tab.1  
gravel size (mm) >0.075 0.075–0.01 0.01–0.002 <0.002
content (%) 34.4 24.9 37.1 3.6
Tab.2  
gravel size (mm) >0.5 0.5–0.25 0.25–0.075 <0.075
content (%) 2.8 13.9 52.5 30.8
Tab.3  
gravel size (mm) >2 2–0.5 0.5–0.25 0.25–0.075 <0.075
content (%) 12.4 41.0 33.1 11.2 2.3
Tab.4  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
0.25 g 0.3 g 0.25 g 0.3 g
WP1 0.09 1.00 WP9 0.15 1.70
WP2 0.12 0.52 WP10 0.48 1.60
WP3 0.07 0.29 WP11 0.07 0.27
WP4 0.07 0.35 WP12 0.05 0.19
WP5 0.08 1.78 WP13 0.34 0.52
WP6 0.18 1.20 WP14 - -
WP7 0.06 0.34 WP15 0.02 0.10
WP8 0.03 0.25 WP16 0.01 0.19
Tab.5  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
1 Yang G Q. Construction technique for treating vibrating liquefied foundation of high-speed railway line by dry vibrating crushed stone pile. Journal of railway engineering society, 2004, (2): 31–34
2 Englehardt K, Golding H C. Field testing to evaluate stone column performance in a seismic area. Geotechnique, 1975, 25(1): 61–69
3 Sasaki Y, Taniguchi E. Shaking table tests on gravel drains to prevent liquefaction of sand deposits. Soil and Foundation, 1982, 22(3): 1–14
4 Baez J I, Martin G R. Permeability and shear wave velocity of vibro-replacement stone columns. Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, 1995, 49: 66–81
5 Boulanger R W, Idriss I M, Stewart D P, Hashash Y, Schmidt B. Draigage capacity of stone columns or gravel drains for mitigating liquefaction. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, 1998, 1:678–690
6 Adalier K, Elgamal A, Meneses J, Baez J I. Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2003, 23(7): 571–584
7 Huang C X, Zhang H Y, Sui Z L, Jin J J. Shaking table test on liquefaction properties of saturated sand ground. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2006, 28(12): 2098–2103
8 Jiang G L, Liu X F, Zhang J W, Zhao R Y. Shaking table test of composite foundation reinforcement of saturated silty soil ground for high speed railway. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2006, 41(2): 190–196
9 Bhattacharya S, Hyodo M, Goda K, Tazoh T, Taylor C A. Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 31(11): 1618–1628
10 Li J Y. Application of foundation treatment with vibro-replacement stone piles to Yinping hydropower station. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2013, 32(S): 2968–2976
11 Asgari A, Oliaei M, Bagheri M. Numerical simulation of improvement of a liquefiable soil layer using stone column and pile-pinning techniques. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 51: 77–96
12 Zhan Y X, Jiang G L, Yao H L. Dynamic characteristics of saturated silty soil ground treated by stone column composite foundation. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2014, 3: 1–7
13 Forcellini D, Tarantino A M. Assessment of stone columns as a mitigation technique of liquefaction-induced effects during Italian earthquakes (May 2012). The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 2014(1): 1–8
14 Liang T, Cong S Y, Ling X Z, Lu J C, Elgamal A. Numerical study on ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation using stone columns encased with geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2015, 43(2): 190–195
15 Finn W D L, Fujita N. Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis and design issues. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 22(9-12): 731–742
16 Zhuang X, Augarde C, Mathisen K. Fracture modelling using meshless methods and level sets in 3D: framework and modelling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 92(11): 969–998
17 Zheng W B, Zhuang X Y, Dwayne D. Tannant, Cai Y C, Samuel Nunoo. A continuous/discontinuous deformation analysis (CDDA) method based on deformable blocks for fracture modeling. Frontiers of Structural & Civil Engineering, 2013, 7(4)
18 Budarapu P R, Javvaji B, Sutrakar V K, Roy Mahapatra D, Zi G, Rabczuk T. Crack propagation in graphene. Journal of Applied Physics, 2015, 118(6): 064307
19 Sudhir Sastry Y B, Budarapu P R, Madhavi N, Krishna Y. Buckling analysis of thin wall stiffened composite panels. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96B: 459–471
20 Budarapu P R, Narayana T S S, Rammohan B, Rabczuk T. Directionality of sound radiation from rectangular panels. Applied Acoustics, 2015, 89: 128–140
21 Yang S W, Budarapu P R, Mahapatra D R, Bordas S P A, Zi G, Rabczuk T. A meshless adaptive multiscale method for fracture. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96(B): 382–395
22 Sudhir Sastry Y B, Budarapu P R, Krishna Y, Devaraj S. Studies on ballistic impact of the composite panels. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 2–12
23 Budarapu P R, Sudhir Sastry Y B, Javvaji B, Mahapatra D R. Vibration analysis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes embedded in elastic medium. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(2): 151–159
24 Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Yang S W, Zhaung X, Rabczuk T. Efficient coarse graining in multiscale modeling of fracture. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 126–143
25 Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Bordas S P A, Rabczuk T. An adaptive multiscale method for quasi-static crack growth. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(6): 1129–1148
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed