Investigation of the seismic behavior of grouted sandy gravel foundations using shaking table tests

doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0865-6

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (9) : 1196-1211 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0865-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Investigation of the seismic behavior of grouted sandy gravel foundations using shaking table tests

Tiancheng WANG¹, Yu LIANG¹, Xiaoyong ZHANG¹(

), Zhihuan RUAN¹, Guoxiong MEI²(

)

¹. Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety of Ministry of Education, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
². Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Zhoushan 316021, China

Download: PDF(10245 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Sandy gravel foundations exhibit non-linear dynamic behavior when subjected to strong ground motions, which can have amplification effects on superstructures and can reveal insufficient lateral resistance of foundations. Grouting methods can be used to improve the seismic performance of natural sandy gravel foundations. The strength and stiffness of grouted sandy gravel foundations are different from those of natural foundations, which have unknown earthquake resistance. Few studies have investigated the seismic behavior of sandy gravel foundations before and after grouting. In this study, two shaking table tests were performed to evaluate the effect of grouting reinforcement on seismic performance. The natural frequency, acceleration amplification effect, lateral displacement, and vertical settlement of the non-grouted and grouted sandy gravel foundations were measured and compared. Additionally, the dynamic stress-strain relationships of the two foundations were obtained by a linear inversion method to evaluate the seismic energy dissipation. The test results indicated that the acceleration amplification, lateral displacement amplitude, and vertical settlement of the grouted sandy gravel foundation were lower than that of the non-grouted foundation under low-intensity earthquakes. However, a contrasting result was observed under high-intensity earthquakes. This demonstrated that different grouting reinforcement strategies are required for different sandy gravel foundations. In addition, the dynamic stress-strain relationship of the two foundations exhibited two different energy dissipation mechanisms. The results provide insights relating to the development of foundations for relevant engineering sites and to the dynamic behavior of grouted foundations prior to investigating soil-structure interaction problems.

Keywords sandy gravel foundation grouting-treated reinforcement shaking table test seismic behavior

Corresponding Author(s): Xiaoyong ZHANG,Guoxiong MEI

Just Accepted Date: 09 September 2022 Online First Date: 17 November 2022 Issue Date: 22 December 2022

Cite this article:

Tiancheng WANG,Yu LIANG,Xiaoyong ZHANG, et al. Investigation of the seismic behavior of grouted sandy gravel foundations using shaking table tests[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 1196-1211.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-022-0865-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2022/V16/I9/1196

Fig.1 Particle grading curve of the test sandy gravel soil.

Tab.1 Physical parameters of the sandy gravel soil

Fig.2 Injectability pre-test of cement slurry with different water-cement ratio.

Tab.2 Detailed information of the test system

Fig.3 Shaking table test equipment.

Tab.3 Test cases for the shaking table tests

Fig.4 Test procedure for the two cases of shaking table tests.

Fig.5 Observation of grouting zone before and after the test: (a) grouting process; (b) observation after test.

Fig.6 Arrangement of sensors in shaking table tests: (a) Case 1: Non-grouted foundation; (b) Case 2: Grouted foundation.

Tab.4 Test cases for input seismic waves

Fig.7 Acceleration time-history records and response spectra of input seismic waves: (a) El Centro wave; (b) Kobe wave; (c) Artificial wave; (d) Acceleration response spectrum.

Fig.8 The acceleration amplification ratio of the non-grouted and grouted foundations under different seismic wave excitations: (a) EL-1; (b) EL-2; (c) EL-3; (d) KB-1; (e) KB-2; (f) KB-3; (g) AT-1; (h) AT-2; (i) AT-3.

Fig.9 The difference between the non-grouted and grouted foundation at grouted zone and free field under different intensities: (a) EL-2; (b) KB-2; (c) AT-2; (d) EL-3; (e) KB-3; (f) AT-3.

Fig.10 The acceleration response spectrum of bedrock and surface under different seismic waves: (a) El Centro waves; (b) Kobe waves; (c) artificial waves.

Fig.11 The lateral displacement amplitude of the non-grouted (red) and grouted (yellow) foundations: (a) El Centro waves; (b) Kobe waves; (c) artificial waves.

Fig.12 The surface settlement time-history of the non-grouted and grouted foundations: (a) El Centro waves; (b) Kobe waves; (c) artificial waves.

Tab.5 Surface settlement amplitude of the non-grouted and grouted foundations

Fig.13 Inversion method of dynamic shear stress and shear strain.

Fig.14 The dynamic shear-strain relationship of the non-grouted and grouted foundations along with soil depths under different earthquakes: (a) El Centro waves; (b) Kobe waves; (c) artificial waves.

1	T L Youd, E L Harp, D K Keefer, R C Wilson. The Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1983—Landslides. Earthquake Spectra, 1985, 2(1): 71–89 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585303
2	R Upadhyay. Earthquake-induced soft-sediment deformation in the lower Shyok river valley, northern Ladakh, India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2003, 21(4): 413–421 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1367-9120(02)00033-0
3	G Lanzo, M Tallini, G Milana, G Di Capua, F Del Monaco, A Pagliaroli, S Peppoloni. The Aterno valley strong-motion array: seismic characterization and determination of subsoil model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 9(6): 1855–1875 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9301-3
4	P Sbarra, V De Rubeis, E Di Luzio, M Mancini, M Moscatelli, F Stigliano, P Tosi, R Vallone. Macroseismic effects highlight site response in Rome and its geological signature. Natural Hazards, 2012, 62(2): 425–443 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0085-9
5	X B Chen, J S Zhang, Z Y Li. Shear behavior of a geogrid-reinforced coarse-grained soil based on large-scale triaxial tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2014, 42(4): 312–328 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.05.004
6	I Cavarretta, M Coop, C Osullivan. The influence of particle characteristics on the behavior of coarse-grained soils. Geotechnique, 2010, 60(6): 413–423 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2010.60.6.413
7	J S Dhanya, A Boominathan, S Banerjee. Response of low-rise building with geotechnical seismic isolation system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 136(3): 106187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106187
8	C Liu, J Cui, Z Zhang, H Liu, X Huang, C Zhang. The role of TBM asymmetric tail-grouting on surface settlement in coarse-grained soils of urban area: Field tests and FEA modelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 111(1): 103857 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.103857
9	Y Mei, X Y Zhang, X Z Nong, L Y Fu. Experimental study of the comprehensive technology of grouting and suspension under an operating railway in the cobble stratum. Transportation Geotechnics, 2021, 30(1): 100612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100612
10	T G S Kumar, B M Abraham, A Sridharan, B T Jose. Bearing capacity improvement of loose sandy foundation soils through grouting. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2011, 1(3): 1026–1033
11	G Y LiuB L Wang. Study on the effect of jet grouting pile reinforcing soft soil subgrade. Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 594–597: 1420–1428
12	C E HoC H LimC G Tan. Jet grouting applications for large-scale basement construction in soft clay. Innovations in Grouting and Soil Improvement. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Geo-Frontiers Congress. Texas: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, 1−15
13	S L Shen, Z F Wang, C E Ho. Current state of the art in jet grouting for stabilizing soft soil. Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics. In: Proceedings of the Geo-Shanghai 2014 International Conference. Shanghai: ASCE Press, 2014, 107–116
14	M Akin, I Akkaya, M K Akin, A Ozvan, Y Ak. Impact of jet-grouting pressure on the strength and deformation characteristics of sandy and clayey soils in the compression zone. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2019, 23(8): 3340–3352 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-2274-5
15	T G Santhoshkumar, B M Abraham, A Sridharan, B T Jose. Role of bentonite in improving the efficiency of cement grouting in coarse sand. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 2016, 47(3): 1–8
16	P M Gallagher, A Pamuk, T Abdoun. Stabilization of liquefiable soils using colloidal silica grout. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2007, 19(1): 33–40 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:1(33
17	R Meite, L Wotherspoon, R Green. Influence of extent of remedial ground densification on seismic site effects via 2-D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 152(1): 107041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107041
18	A Hasheminezhad, H Bahadori. Seismic response of shallow foundations over liquefiable soils improved by deep soil mixing columns. Computers and Geotechnics, 2019, 110(1): 251–273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.02.019
19	S Montoya-Noguera, F Lopez-Caballero. Modeling added spatial variability due to soil improvement: Coupling FEM with binary random fields for seismic risk analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 104(1): 174–185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.10.009
20	L L Gu, Z Wang, W X Zhu, B Jang, X Z Ling, F Zhang. Numerical analysis of earth embankments in liquefiable soil and ground improvement mitigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 146(1): 106739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106739
21	I Towhata. Developments of soil improvement technologies for mitigation of liquefaction risk. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht, 2007, 355–383 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5893-6_15
22	X L Zhang, Y M Chen, H L Liu, Z Zhang, X C Ding. Performance evaluation of a MICP-treated calcareous sandy foundation using shake table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 129(1): 105959 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105959
23	I Banović, J Radnic, N Grgic. Shake table study on the efficiency of seismic base isolation using natural stone pebbles. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 2018: 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1012527
24	L Yang, Q Q Ji, Y L Zheng, C Yang, D L Zhang. Design of a shaking table test box for a subway station structure in soft soil. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2007, 1(2): 194–197 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-007-0022-2
25	C Guoxing, C Su, Z Xi, D Xiuli, Q I Chengzhi, W Zhihua. Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 76(1): 13–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.012
26	Z Haiyang, W Xu, M Yu, Y Erlei, C Su, R Bin, C Guoxing. Seismic responses of a subway station and tunnel in a slightly inclined liquefiable ground through shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 116(1): 371–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.051
27	Y Yang, W Gong, Y P Cheng, G Dai, Y Zou, F Liang. Effect of soil-pile-structure interaction on seismic behaviour of nuclear power station via shaking table tests. Structures, 2021, 33(1): 2990–3001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.051
28	F Goktepe, E Celebi, A J Omid. Numerical and experimental study on scaled soil-structure model for small shaking table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 119(1): 308–319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.016
29	S Deb Roy, A Pandey, R Saha. Shake table study on seismic soil-pile foundation-structure interaction in soft clay. Structures, 2021, 29(1): 1229–1241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.009
30	C Xu, P Dou, X Du, M H El Naggar, M Miyajima, S Chen. Seismic performance of pile group-structure system in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil from large-scale shake table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 138(1): 106299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106299
31	JTG 3430-2020 CNS. Test methods of soils for highway engineering. Beijing: Chinese National Standard, 2020 (in Chinese)
32	H J Chen, S Chen, S C Chen, X M Zhang, L H Wang. Dynamic behavior of sawdust-mixed soil in shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 142(1): 106542 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106542
33	M Zeghal, A W Elgamal, H T Tang, J C Stepp. Lotung downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1995, 121(4): 363–378 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:4(363

[1]	Mahrad FAHIMINIA, Aydin SHISHEGARAN. Evaluation of a developed bypass viscous damper performance[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 773-791.
[2]	Yunlin LIU, Shitao ZHU. Finite element analysis on the seismic behavior of side joint of Prefabricated Cage System in prefabricated concrete frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1095-1104.
[3]	Yan XU, Shijie ZENG, Xinzhi DUAN, Dongbing JI. Seismic experimental study on a concrete pylon from a typical medium span cable-stayed bridge[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 401-411.
[4]	Mengfei QU,Qiang XIE,Xinwen CAO,Wen ZHAO,Jianjun HE,Jiang JIN. Model test of stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in sandy soils[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 481-487.
[5]	Jianzhuang XIAO, Tao DING. Research on recycled concrete and its utilization in building structures in China[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(3): 215-226.
[6]	Yundong SHI, Tracy C BECKER, Masahiro KURATA, Masayoshi NAKASHIMA. H_∞ control in the frequency domain for a semi-active floor isolation system[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(3): 264-275.
[7]	Wanlin CAO, Jianwei ZHANG, Jingna ZHANG, Min WANG, . Experimental study on seismic behavior of mid-rise RC shear wall with concealed truss[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 370-377.
[8]	Shuchun LI, Bo DIAO, Youpo SU, . Seismic behavior experimental study of frame joints with special-shaped column and dispersed steel bar beam[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 378-383.
[9]	Yiyi CHEN, Dazhao ZHANG, Weichen XUE, Wensheng LU. Seismic performance of prestressed concrete stand structure supporting retractable steel roof[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2009, 3(2): 117-124.
[10]	LI Peizhen, REN Hongmei, LU Xilin, SONG Heping, CHEN Yueqing. Shaking table testing of hard layered soil-pile-structure interaction system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(3): 346-352.
[11]	YANG Linde, ZHENG Yonglai, ZHANG Dongliang, JI Qianqian, YANG Chao. Design of a shaking table test box for a subway station structure in soft soil[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(2): 194-197.
[12]	LU Xilin, LI Xueping, WANG Dan. Modelling and experimental verification on concrete-filled steel tubular columns with L or T section[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(2): 163-169.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed