supplemental files for 'development and evaluation of induced ...m...development and evaluation...

Development and Evaluation of Induced Partial Saturation (IPS), Delivery Method and Its Implementation in Large Laboratory

Specimens and in the Fieldby

Fritz Rudolph P. Nababan

Research part of NEESR Project

“Induced Partial Saturation (IPS) Through Transport and Reactivity for Liquefaction Mitigation”

CMMI/NEESRGrant Number: CMMI-1134940

PI: Prof. Mishac Yegian Co-PI: Prof. Akram Alshawabkeh

Seda Gokyer, Ph.D., Hadi Kazemiroodsari (Ph.D. Candidate)1

Scope of Presentation:

1 – Introduction to Liquefaction and IPS Technique

2 – Development of IPS Delivery System

3 – Testing of the Developed Delivery System

4 – Large Scale Laboratory Testin Laminar Box at NEES@UB

5 – Field Test at Wildlife Liquefaction Array (WLA) site NEES@UCSB

6 – Summary and Conclusions

2








3

1. Introduction to Liquefaction and IPS Technique

Induced Partial Saturation (IPS)

Building Response on Fully Saturated Liquefied Sand

Building Response on IPS Treated Sand

Contact stresses between sand particles, Excess pore water pressure, ∆u

Excess pore water pressure ratio, ru = ∆u/

u = '0 or ru = u/'0 = 1Soil becomes like liquid (liquefaction) during the earthquake, when

What is liquefaction?

4

in water

in water

(at the end of reaction)

( ideal conditions - 100% efficiency)

+1 2-Na CO .1.5H O 2Na + CO + 1.5H O2 3 2 2 3 2 21.5H O 1.5H O + O2 2 2 2

0.75

Hydrogen peroxide H2O2 is oxygen bubble source

1. IPS Technique

Gas Source: Sodium Percarbonate

1. IPS - DELIVERY SYSTEM AND EVALUATION OFLIQUEFACTION MITIGATION

BY FRITZ NABABAN

6

DELIVERY SYSTEM ANDLIQUEFACTION MITIGATION

1. IPS – MONITORING OF PARTIAL SATURATION

BY HADI KAZEMIROODSARI

7

GAS BUBBLE GENERATIONAND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING

OF PARTIAL SATURATION

1. IPS – SIMULATION OF PARTIAL SATURATION

BY SEDA GOKYER, PH.D.

8

NUMERICAL SIMULATION TOOLFOR

IPS DESIGN ANDIMPLEMENTATION








9

Strainer

Strainer

Pump

Pump

2-Solution Preparation

Water Source

Water Tanks

4- Solution Injection

1- Powder Delivery

3- Solution Pumping

2. Development of IPS Delivery System

10

4 Major Components

2. The developed IPS delivery system

Powder bottle (5 gals)

Acrylic powder box

Benchtop power supplyMiniature DC gear motorPVC shaft

Auger bit, ∅0.75"

Elbow pipe

Chemical powder

Cross section of controlled rate of powder dispenser

Miniature DCgear motor box

DC Power cord

PVC shaft

Auger bit, ∅0.75"

Aluminum angel

View of powder box seen from the back of auger

11

Component 1: Powder Delivery


Chemical powder (controlled by float switch)

Mixer motor and blade(Continuous operation)

Mixing barrel

Limiting upper water level

(Switch off)

Float switch

Clean water supply pump (controlled by float switch)Limiting lower

water level(Switch on)

Clear acrylic platform

Heading for pumping system

Figure 2-15 Schematic of automation of solution preparation12

Component 2: Automated Solution Preparation


Pressuregauges

Pneumatic expansion tank

Flow meter

Pressure gauge

Pressure controller

Constant pressure pump with manifold with four branches (capacity 40 GPM)

Constant pressure pump with manifold with six branches (capacity 70 GPM)

Manifold

13

Component 3: Solution Pumping

h

Pump pressure

Pumping system

Injection tube

H

Saturated loose sand

Injection tip

dw


Schematic of Field Injection

14

Component 4: Solution Injection


Open-ended (PVC tube, ∅1.25")

Closed-ended, Side perforation

(PVC pipe, ∅1.25")

Sharp edge Sharp

edge1.66"

1.36"

~2"

1.66"

PVC Cone

1.36"

Type of injection tips explored in the research

15

Component 4: Solution Injection

Clear PVC

tube

Pressure

coupler

Gas relief valve

Connection to pumping system








16

3. Testing of the Developed Delivery System

Powder bottle

Powder box

Bench-top power supply

Electric digital scale

Plastic wrap

Set-up for calibrating the rate of powder dispenser

Miniature DCGear motor

468

1012141618202224

Req

uire

d vo

ltage

s (V

)

Intake pump15 GPM

Intake pump 10 GPM

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Required voltages (V)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Pow

der R

ate

requ

ired

(gr/m

in)

Targeted Concentration (% W)

Intake pump15 GPM

Intake pump 10 GPM

Relationship of voltage, powder delivery rate, and targeted concentration

Testing of Powder Delivery Rate

Observation: • The minimum voltage to run the motor at full load is 3.5Volt• The rate of powder delivery is constant for a particular voltage• The rate of powder delivery is proportional to the speed of the screw turning with the voltage• Maximum concentration is 1.8 (%W) for 10GPM supply water

17

Soil restrictions in the field was simulated by:1 - both the textile at the tip 2 - the number of valves opened in the manifold

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Man

ifold

s' Pr

essu

re, P

SI

Actual Pressure (Pr. 62), PSI

Set up a d a o ds essu es e at o s p

InlineG3G2G1

1 Manifold

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Actual Pressure (Pr. 62), PSI

Set up a d a o ds essu es e at o s p

InlineG3G2G1

2 Manifolds

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Man

ifold

s' Pr

essu

re, P

SI

Actual Pressure (Pr. 62), PSI

InlineG3G2G1

3 Manifolds

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Actual Pressure (Pr. 62), PSI

InlineG3G2G1

4 Manifolds

Pres

sure

at t

he M

anifo

lds,

PSI

1 Valve open 2 Valves open

4 Valves open3 Valves open

(b)

(c)

(a)

Digital flowmeter


0

10

20

30

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Dis

char

ge, G

PM

Set-up Pressure, PSI

Set-up Pressures vs. Pump Discharge

4 Manifolds

1 Manifold

2 Manifolds

3 Manifolds

4 Valves open

2 Valves open

3 Valves open

1 Valve open

Set-up Pressure vs. Pump DischargeTesting of the Constant Pressure Pump

18

Soil plug

Driving

Cleaning/ (washing)

InjectionDriven tube

Gardenhose

3. Testing of the Developed Delivery SystemTesting of Injection System

Driving Cleaning (washing)

Washed sample

Aligning Driving Cleaning (washing)

Driving open ended tube

Driving closed-ended tube with side perforation

19

Tube jetting

InjectionJetted tube

Annulus

Annular space created by water jetting


Aligning Jetting

Jetted tube

Jetting open ended tube

Jetting closed-ended tube with side perforation

20

Testing of Injection System

3. Testing of the Developed Delivery SystemTesting of Extraction of Injection Tubes

Extraction of driven injection tube Extraction of jetted injection tube

Come-along mounted on a wooden reaction frame

Pulling by bare-hand

21








22

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar Box

LVDT (Potentiometer)

Accelerometers

Overview of Laminar box of NEES@UB, Buffalo, NYNorth

EastWest

South

Scale, ft0 1 2 3 4 5

W ECL

9ft

16.5ft

20ft

Shaking direction

Laminar box details:• 20ft height, 9ft wide, 16.5ft long • 39 stacked laminates rest on shaking table, 6 inch height/laminate• Accelerometers and potentiometers (LVDT) on laminates

23

Two IPS tests were performed in Laminar Box at NEES@UB in 2014:

IPS Test 1: April 30 - May 20, 2014• Partly treatment of laminar box (only the top of 13.5ft)• Six pre-installed injection tubes (tip @10ft below the surface)

IPS Test 2: July 7 - July 21, 2014 • Treatment of the entire laminar box sand specimen• Jetted injection tubes

Pre-installed injection tube

Jetting of injection tube

24


IPS Test 1 Specimen IPS Test 2 Specimen

Piezometer

Wire Mesh

Conductivity Probes

Instrumentation placement: Piezometer and Conductivity probes were bundled in a wire mesh Wire meshes hung to instrumentation frame above the laminar box

Wire Meshes

Instrumentation frame Gantry cane


Placement of Instruments Within the Sand Specimen

25


N

EW

Mesh #1IP 1,IP 2, & IP 3

CP 1, CP 2, & CP 3

Mesh #2IP 7,IP 8, & IP 9

CP 7, CP 8, & CP 9

Mesh #5IP 10 & IP 11

CP 10 & CP 11

Mesh #4IP 12 & IP 13

CP 12 & CP 13

CP21CP20

CP19CP18

CP14 CP15 CP16 CP17

S

IT3

IT2

IT5 IT1 IT4

IT6

IT7

IT8

IT9 IT11

IT10

IT13

IT12

IT15

IT16IT17

IT18

IT19

IT20 IT21

IT22

IT23IT30

IT31

IT32

IT24

IT25

IT26 IT27

IT28

IT29

Laminar Box

IT14

Sand Specimen

CL

CL CL

CL

Scale, ft0 1 2 3 4 5 Mesh #3

IP 4,IP 5, & IP 6CP 4, CP 5, & CP 6

11

22

Note:Mesh indicates location of bundled Piezometers and Conductivity Probes

Instrumentation of IPS Test 2

26


Instrumentation - Section 1-1 Conductivity Probe

PiezometerPotentiometer (LVDT)Accelerometer

LEGEND:

HX

AEX

IP

CP

W ECL

Mesh #4 Mesh #1 Mesh #2 Mesh #5

Soil Surface

IP9CP9

IP11CP11

IP3CP3

IP2CP2

IP1CP1

IP10CP10

IP13CP13

IP12CP12

IP8CP8

IP7CP7

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

3

1

H31X

H29X

H27X

H25X

H23X

H21X

H19X

H17X

H15X

H13X

H11X

H9X

H7XH6XH5X

H3XH2XH1X

AE27X

AE35X

AE32X

AE30X

AE25X

AE23X

AE20X,Y

AE18X

AE15X

AE13X

AE10X,Y

AE5X,Y

AE2XAE1X

H0X

H4X

AE0X,Y

AE28X

AE3X

27

28

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxIPS Delivery Set-up

Pumping system

Two units automated mixing system joined

Hoses, ∅1"

29

Jetted Injection TubeAligning Injection Tube Jetting

Cone tip

Top and bottom injection tube

Injection tip Injection head

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxJetting of Injection Tube

30

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxIPS Treatment by Injection Tube

W ECL

Soil Surface

LEGEND:

Injection Tube (Bottom) (IT1-IT13)

N

EW

S

IT3

IT2

IT5 IT1 IT4

IT6

IT7

IT8

IT9 IT11

IT10

IT13

IT12

Laminar Box

Sand Specimen

Scale, ft0 1 2 3 4 5

Depth(ft)0.0

6.0

16.0

Untreated fully saturated Zone

Treated zone by bottom injections

IT1

Bottom injection

Bottom Injection Top Injection

W ECL

Soil Surface

LEGEND:

Injection Tube (Bottom) (IT1-IT13)Injection Tube (Top) (IT14 - IT32)

N

EW

S

IT3

IT2

IT5 IT1 IT4

IT6

IT7

IT8

IT9 IT11

IT10

IT13

IT12

IT15

IT16IT17

IT18

IT19

IT20 IT21

IT22

IT23IT30

IT31

IT32

IT24

IT25

IT26 IT27

IT28

IT29

Laminar Box

IT14

Sand Specimen

Scale, ft0 1 2 3 4 5

Depth(ft)0.0

6.0

16.0

Treated zone by bottom injections

Treated zone by surface injections

IT 14

Surface injection

(Bottom-up Injection)

31

• Total solution injected = 6,300 gallonsDepth (0ft – 15ft)

• Bottom injection = 4,500 gallons Depth (6ft – 15ft)

• Solution Concentration:- bottom injection = 0.9% - 1.4 % - during top injection = 1% - 2 %

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxSummary of All Injections

Cumm.Inflow IT Stage (gals)1 37:00 1.0-1.3 535.0 535.02 25:02 1.0 373.0 908.03 29:30 0.9-1.4 418.6 1326.64 0 0.9-1.1 414.4 1741.05 23:47 1.0 350.0 2091.06 21:30 0.8-1.0 361.0 2452.07 27:00 1.0 328.0 2780.08 24:37 0.9-1.1 431.0 3211.09 18:00 0.9-1.1 322.0 3533.010 25:10 0.9-1.1 372.0 3905.011 8:00 0.9-1.1 95.0 4000.012 28:30 0.9-1.1 342.0 4342.013 17:36 1.0-1.1 242.0 4584.014 17:40 0.9 0.0 4584.015 10:50 0.9 54.0 4638.016 14:56 1.1 87.0 4725.017 17:30 1.1 104.0 4829.018 16:25 1.0 72.0 4901.019 17:25 1.0 104.0 5005.020 14:36 1.0 80.0 5085.021 16:34 1.0 90.0 5175.022 13:50 1.0 80.0 5255.023 15:50 1.1 96.0 5351.024 13:23 1.0 30 5381.025 14:40 1.5-1.7 53 5434.026 41:13 1.5 208 5642.027 16:48 1.5 74 5716.028 6:12 1.5 21 5737.029 19:00 1.6 42 5779.030 39:00 1.7 191 5970.031 36:34 2.0 178 6148.032 39:30 2.0 97 6245.0

Inflow (gals)

Bot

tom

Inje

ctio

n

6 -1

6

Injection Depth (ft)

Duration (min)

Conc. (%)

Surfa

ce In

ject

ion

0 - 6

Bubbles escaping

Bubbles escaping at mesh and jetted locations

Some of the dry zones observed during IPS injection32

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxCorrection on the Degree of Saturation due to Bubble Escape

After Injection day#2

After Injection day# 3

After Injection day# 5

HW = 12″ HW = 23″ HW = 8″

CP #Before Bubble

Escape(%)

Final degree of saturation

(%)CP1 67 85*

CP2 64 76*

CP3 85 95*

CP4 81 99**

CP5 71 89**

CP6 80 89*

CP7 79 97**

CP8 59 77**

CP9 77 84**

CP10 76 94**

CP11 77 87**

CP12 61 96*

CP13 84 100*

CP14 81 88**

CP15 74 100*

CP16 47 68*

CP17 80 90**

CP18 72 100*

CP19 CP data not reliableCP20 84 100**

CP21 CP data not reliable

Note: *): Based on CPs data interpretation**): Based on volume calculation

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxFinal Corrected Degree of Saturation due to Bubble Escape

33

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxSpatial Distribution of Final Corrected Degree of Saturation

Mesh #3

W ECL

Mesh #4 Mesh #1 Mesh #2 Mesh #5

Soil Surface

96%

100%

100%

88%

76%

95%

85%

100% 77%

84%

97%

94%

87%

99%

89%

89%

100%

68%

90%

34

Date Test No.

Input Motion

Amax (g) Cycle Duration

(s) Note

6/30/14 C0 -- CPT, VS7/16/14 T1 IM1 0.015g 5 2.5s Shaking7/16/14 T2 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/16/14 T3 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/17/14 C3 -- CPT, VS7/18/14 T4 IM1 0.015g 5 2.5s Shaking7/18/14 T5 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/18/14 T6 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/18/14 C6 -- CPT, VS7/21/14 T7 IM1 0.015g 5 2.5s Shaking7/21/14 T8 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/21/14 T9 IM3 0.1g 15 7.5s Shaking7/21/14 C9 -- CPT, VS7/21/14 T10 IM1 0.015g 5 2.5s Shaking7/21/14 T11 IM5 0.2g 15 7.5s Shaking7/21/14 T12 IM5 0.2g 15 7.5s Shaking

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxShaking Tests of IPS Test 2 Specimen

35

Observation:• No free water on the surface of the specimen

• During and right after shaking, no water on the surface of the specimen

• One minute after the shaking water was over, water seeped out from the surface

• Observed settlement of the specimen was approximately 2“

36

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxVisual Observations (on top of the soil specimen)

1) Before shaking 2) During shaking

3) Right after shaking

Water table just under the surface of the sand

No water on the surface

About 2” of water on the surface, due

to settlementNo water on the surface

4) One minute after shaking

Observations:• Surface of the IPS Test 2 specimen after the surface was water drained

• There were no sand boils found on the surface of IPS Test 2 specimen

• Piezometer results confirmed this visual observations in which the excess pore water pressure ratios were all less than 1 (no liquefaction)

No sand boils anywhere

37

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxVisual Observations on top of IPS Test 2 Specimen, After Shaking T2

38

Sand boils

Fully Saturated (Dr = 35%) IPS2 Specimen (Dr = 36%)

Measured average settlement = 2″

Sand boils observed on the surface

Measured average settlement = 4.5″

No sand boilson the surface

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxVisual Comparison of the Surface of Specimen of Fully Saturated and IPS Test 2 Specimens

39

Fully Saturated (Dr = 35%) IPS Test-2 Specimen (Dr = 36%)

VIDEO - 1 VIDEO - 2

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxVideo Comparison of the Surface of Specimen of Fully Saturated and IPS

Test 2 Specimens during and after the shaking

0.76

0.76

0.71

0.94

0.73

0.78

Max. Ru

0.75

0.73

0.61

0.80

Laminate

Top of Laminar Box

Otta

wa

Sand

Shaking Motion

0.0′

2.75′

4.75′

7.75′

10.75′

14.75′

5.75′

11.75′

12.75′

13.75′

6.75′

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Time, sec

Excess Pore Pressure Ratio Histories (T2-0.1g)

40


Excess Pore Pressure Comparison

41

Observation:• Excess pore pressure (∆U) build up in fully saturated specimen was instantaneous, in which it reached

its maximum excess pore pressure in about 2 sec. While in IPS Test 2 specimen was the build up was more gradual, in which it reached its maximum at the end of the shaking (7.5 sec).

• All piezometers in the fully saturated specimen except at the shallowest depth showed that thespecimen liquefied (∆ ), whereas piezometers in IPS Test 2 specimen showed that liquefactiondid not occur (∆ ) in the specimen (also confirmed by visual observation)


Fully-Saturated Specimen(DR = 35 %)

IPS Test 2 Specimen(DR = 36 %)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8

Dep

th, f

t

ΔU, psi

Δu=σvo'

0.25 sec

1.25 sec

2 sec

3.25 sec

4.5 sec

6 sec

7.5 sec

'(liquefaction)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8

Dep

th, f

t

ΔU, psi

Δu=σvo'

0.25 sec

1.25 sec

2 sec

3.25 sec

4.5 sec

6 sec

7.5 sec

'(liquefaction)

4. Large Scale Laboratory Test in Laminar BoxCumulative Settlement Comparison of Fully Saturated and IPS Test 2

due to only the Large Shakings

42

0 52

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Test Number for Fully Saturated Specimen

Cum

ulat

ive

Settl

emen

t, in

Test Number for IPS Treated Specimen

0.1g0.1g

0.1g0.1g

0.1g0.1g

0.2g0.2g0.1g

0.1g0.1g

0.1g0.1g

0.1g0.1g

0.1g

T2 T3 T5 T6 T8 T9 T11 T12

T3 T10 T17 T24 T31 T38 T45 T52

IPS Test 2

Fully Saturated








43

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBSatellite Photos

44

Salton Sea, Southern California

Wildlife Array, WLA

Map of 14 CPT locations around the USGS old site (Holzer et al., 1989 and Holzer and Youd, 2007)

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSB

Observed sand ejecta near to the IPS site after the Superstition Hills Earthquake M6.6, 1987 (source: USGS)

Challenge: Heterogeneity of the site

45

7Cg WSW 4Cg ENE 1Cg3CgWest EastESE


Cross Section (with factors of safety, FS), liquefaction susceptible analysis WLA using the Superstition Hills Earthquake, 1987 (Holzer and Youd)

Heterogeneity of the Site

46

Exploratory Test Site (First trip)

Exploratory Test Site (Second trip)

Final Test Site (Third trip)

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBExploratory tests and final IPS site Locations at WLA

Trip 1: January 23rd to February 4th, 2014 (exploratory test 1)

Trip 2: March 3rd to March 18th, 2014 (exploratory test 2)

Trip 3: May 20th to June 25th, 2014 (pilot test and full scale production) 47

(1) Split spoon sampling

(2) Washing boring with casing

Independent soil investigations

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBExploratory Test Findings: Soil Stratigraphy

Depth (ft)0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Silt

Clay

Silty Sand/ Sand

Findings:

1- Groundwater level was about 5ft below the ground surface2- The top soil is a medium to high plasticity Clay layer.3- The Sand deposit is found at about 10ft below the ground surface4- A thin silt interlayer separates the clay on top and sand below

48

Casing of PVC∅1.25"

Inner/extraction tube Extraction Pump

River water & Extracted ground water tested in the lab

Alamo River Water

Groundwater

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBExploratory Test Findings: Water Supply

49

One of the Challenge in field Implementation at WLA site

50

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBExploratory Test Findings: Injection and Extraction Tubes Installation

Aligning Driving Cleaning (Washing)

51

Injection tube

Extraction tube

IPS delivery system

Relief valve

Field monitoring by CPs

Findings:1 – Injection by gravity driven flow works well

2 – Treatment using simultaneous injection and extraction tubes gave better results

3 – Conductivity Probes in three level depths to better capture the solution flow and estimate the degree of saturation

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBExploratory Test Findings: IPS Field Delivery

52


24"

Driven Injection Tube(Directional Perforation)

Driven Extraction Tube(3600 Perforation)

Cone tip

Clay

Silty Sand/ Sand

Collapsed sand

Landscape fabric wrapped

Inner tube, PVC ∅3/4"

PVC ∅1.25"

PVC ∅1.25"

Landscape fabric wrapped

24"-Perforation

Cone tip

Exploratory Test Findings: Injection and Extraction Tubes

53

Pilot test site

IPS treated site Untreated site

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBDetails of the final IPS test site

54

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBIPS Test: Pattern of IPS injections and extraction tubes

IPS treated

site

1.2

m2.

4 m

1.2m2.4m

1 58

3 67

12 4 2 10

9 1316

11 1415

Injection Tube Location

LEGEND:

Extraction Tube Location

Injection onlyInjection and extraction

55

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBIPS Test: During the Treatment

IPS treated

site

Injection and extraction Monitoring using Conductivity Probes

56

IPS treated

site

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBIPS Test: Delivery System after Treatment

Extraction tube

Relief valve

Powder delivery and mixing

system

2.4 m

2.4 m

Dissolved solids & conductivity probes

Injection tubes

57

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBSite Instrumentation

Dep

th (f

t)

Dep

th (m

)

0

1

2

3

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

5

14

16

P1

P4

P5

Sand

Clay

P2P3

Silty Sand

1.2m

2.4m P1

P3P4

P2P5

1.2m2.4m

G1 G2 G3 G4

G7G6G5

Piezometer

GeophoneG8

IPS treated

site

Untreated site

Dep

th (f

t)

1.2m

2.4m P1

P2

P3P4

P5

1.2m2.4m

Dep

th (m

)

0

1

2

3

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

5

14

16

P1

P4P5 Sand

Clay

P2P3

G1 G2 G3G4

G7G6G5

Injection Tube

Extraction Tube

Piezometer

Silty Sand

Geophone

IPS Treated SiteUntreated Site

58

Treated zone

Presumed treated

(IPS Site is permanently Instrumented)

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBSite Characterization: CPTs

IPS treated

site

Untreated site

Silty sand interface

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400

Dep

th (f

t)

qc (ksf)

CPT 1

CPT 1a

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20Rf (%)

CPT 1

CPT 1a

Silty sand interface

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400

Dep

th (f

t)

qc (ksf)

CPT 5

CPT 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20Rf (%)

CPT 5 CPT 4


59

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBSite Characterization: Wave velocity measurement

(a) (b)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500

Dep

th (f

t)

VP (fps)

Untreated

Treated Site

0

5

10

15

20

0 250 500 750

Dep

th (f

t)

VS (fps)

UntreatedTreated Site

Vs Profiles Vp Profiles

IPS treated

site

Untreated site

60

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBShaking Tests

IPS treated

site

Untreated site

61

5. Field Test in WLA site at NEES@UCSBShaking Results – Untreated Site vs. IPS Treated Site

IPS treated

site

Untreated site

62

End of shakingEnd of shaking


Challenges Faced at WLA:• Silty medium dense sands, (not easy to liquefy)• Contaminated silty river and ground water, (accelerated reaction, and reduced permeability)• High temperatures, (accelerated reaction and shortened injection time)• 10 feet of clay over sand, (difficult to penetrate to silty sand and difficult to shake silty

sand) • Small area of shaking, (spatial variability of density became important)• Silty sand at treated site was looser than untreated site• Shaking energy at depth of silty sand was small, (excess pore pressure ratios were less than

0.2)Because of above, test results were inconclusive.

Future field tests should be performed at favorable sites (New Zealand per NSF)

63


IPS treated

site

Untreated site








64

6. Summary and Conclusions

65

Automated IPS Delivery System has been designed and manufactured

The IPS Delivery System was tested in the laboratory and in the field. The system is

capable of inducing partial saturation efficiently and reliably.

IPS implemented in the laminar box and then shaken demonstrated its effectiveness as

a liquefaction mitigation measure.

The field IPS implementation identified important fundamental knowledge gaps that

need to be further investigated, including effect of: spatial variability in soil density and

permeability, temperature, natural sand gradation, contaminated water with ions,

interaction between injection holes, and large energy needed to liquefy sand in the field.

The field IPS tests indicated need for further field research.

Acknowledgement

Prof. M. K. YegianProf. Akram AlshawabkehProf. Thomas C. SheahanProf. Luca Caracoglia

Prof. S. ThevanayagamProf. Kenneth StokoeProf. T.L. YoudDr. Jamieson Steidl

Seda Gokyer, Ph.D.Hadi Kazemiroodsari (Ph.D. Candidate)Ata Firat Karamanle (Master Student)

Michael McNeilKurt BraunDavid WhelpheyArmando & Jesse

The Fulbright Program, IIE, US Department of State

66

supplemental files for 'development and evaluation of induced ...m...development and evaluation...

Documents