Liquefaction Subsidence and Cyclic Loading as Design Factors for Stable Foundations in Deltaic Soils

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4337245/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Liquefaction Subsidence and Cyclic Loading as Design Factors for Stable Foundations in Deltaic Soils

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4337245/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The presence of high fines percentages in Deltaic soils near the surface necessitates consideration of the soil's engineering properties when designing structures for this environment. This study examines the fines content and engineering properties of soil in deltaic settings to ascertain potential risks associated with liquefaction and settlement issues. The findings reveal that the deeper layers of deltaic soil have a reduced plasticity and liquid limit, providing a more stable foundation with a lower susceptibility to liquefaction. Thus, deep foundations may be required in order to ensure the structural integrity of buildings during periods of cyclic loading and stress. Comprehensive foundation designs, such as the use of piles or caissons, are recommended in order to penetrate beyond the fine-grained surface layer. Moreover, particular attention should also be paid to soil improvement techniques, including compaction, grafting, or reinforcement, which can increase soil properties and therefore the load-bearing capacity and resistance to settlement. Ultimately, it is essential to comprehend the technical properties of soil to implement appropriate foundation designs. The higher concentrations of fines at the surface could lead to liquefaction and potentially reduced load capacities. Hence, deeper soil layers should be used as they present greater rigidity and improved fluid retention, helping to provide safer and more durable structures.

Deltaic soil

Soil liquefaction

Fines content

Soil properties

Consistency limits

The Evaluation of soil geotechnical properties is importance in assessment of parameters that trigger the occurrence of liquefaction, earth tremor and earthquake in a soil under cyclic stress or load [1]. [2, 3] Natural disaster such liquefaction is mainly observed in shallow, loose, saturated cohesion-less soils subjected to strong ground motions such as during earthquakes. [4] The type of soil most susceptible to liquefaction is one in which the resistance to deformation is mobilized by friction between particles. If other factors such as grain shape, uniformity coefficient and relative density are equal, the frictional resistance of cohesion-less soil decreases as the grain size of soils is reduced [2].

[5] summarized the results of sieve analyses performed on a number of alluvial and diluvial soils that were known to have either liquefied or not during earthquakes. He proposed ranges of grain size curves separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils. A soil with higher percentage of gravels has higher strength when it experiences shearing, and they dissipate excess pore pressures more rapidly than sands. However, there are cases where liquefaction has occurred in loose gravelly soils [6] during severe ground shaking or when the gravel layer is confined by impervious layer. [7] stated that clay-size or silt-size materials with low plasticity index will exhibit physical characteristics resembling those of cohesion-less soils, and hence have high degree of liquefaction potential.

[8] Also, have reported that non-plastic and low plasticity silts, even with grain size distribution curves outside of Tsuchida's boundaries for soils susceptible to liquefaction [5], have potential for liquefaction similar to that of sands, and increase in plasticity will reduce the level of pore pressure response in silts.

[9–13] The effects of fine contents and plasticity on liquefaction or shear strength of sandy soils have been investigated extensively. However, confusion still exists about the effect of fines on soil liquefaction: fines within soil structure may either increase or decrease the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. For example, in [13] empirical correlations from in-situ studies show that the presence of fines increases liquefaction resistance. Other studies have also shown that liquefaction resistance of a silty soil increased as the fine content increased [4, 14], while it has also been reported that liquefaction resistance decreased as the fine content increased. [15–17]

[18] have shown that the presence of fines is beneficial at relatively small effective stresses, i.e. the stresses prevailing at the liquefiable layers in-situ. [19] also showed that the liquefaction resistance of sand containing clay decreased as the clay content increased up to 15%. They insisted that small amounts of clay contents within sand matrix decreased the dilation of an entire specimen.

[20–22] Most of the published research on effect of plasticity and fines used for evaluation of liquefaction resistance are contradictory. For instance [20] stated that the plasticity index (PI) is less important than fines content in estimating liquefaction resistance, but on the contrary, [21] reported that soils with appreciable fines with high plasticity fundamentally changed the mechanism of excess pore pressure build-up. However, there is connection between PI and fines, and both properties are crucial for examination of soil characteristics. In a study by [22] on the effect of low fraction of plastic fines mixed with clean sand, which was evaluated in terms of cyclic stress ratio, it was shown that liquefaction resistance decreased as the PI of sand with 10% fines in the specimen increased, the liquefaction resistance only showed a marginal change in plasticity. However, in the case of dense specimens, liquefaction resistance decreased up to 40% when the PI of the specimen was increased.

[23] The fractions of plasticity and fines in a soil are significant in assessing of soil behaviour and their impact on liquefaction resistance as well as foundation for building and other civil works. Therefore, this study investigated the proportion of fines, plasticity index and liquid limit of deltaic soil as to determine the resistance of deltaic soil to liquefaction under cyclic load as well as their implication on building foundations.

2.1 Study Area

The soil samples were collected from three locations in Rivers State. River State is one of the states in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. The sites’ locations are:

Coordinates for Site I in Akabuka, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA are 5.0167° N and 6.8667° E.

Akabuka is situated in the Niger Delta's coastal lowland region of Rivers State. Freshwater swamp and mangrove swamp deposits can be found in the area. The Tertiary epoch saw the enormous continental sands and gravels known as the Benin Formation get deposited. Additionally, there are deposits of clays, natural levee sands, backswamp silts, and point bar sands. The Tertiary deltaic sandstone reservoirs in the area hold significant oil and gas deposits. The majority of the soils are gleying, waterlogged hydromorphic salty clays, silts, and sands. The presence of mangrove vegetation raises the organic matter content. The region has a tropical monsoon climate with regular flooding and a lot of rain.

Ogbo, Ahoada East LGA, Site II

5.2333 degrees north, 6.6500 degrees east

Ogbo is located in the upper deltaic plain's freshwater zone. The Tertiary-era Benin Formation, which is composed of sands with varying grained sizes and thin shale interbeds, makes up the region's geology. Alluvium deposits, which are made up of medium to fine-grained sands, silts, and clays, can be found along existing river channels. Natural levees are present in areas near rivers, whereas deposits from backswamps make up floodplains. On the levees, sandy clay loams and hydromorphic sandy loams with good drainage predominate. Backswamp soils are silty clays with mottling and poorly drained clays. The Tertiary sandstone reservoirs in the area include crude oil deposits. Forests of freshwater swamps make up the vegetation. Tropical weather dominates, with a long-wet season.

Site III - Asari-Toru, Buguma Coordinates for the LGA: 4.7333° N and 6.8667° E

The mangrove swamp habitat of the central deltaic plain is where Buguma is located. The Tertiary continental sands and gravels known as the Benin Formation were also alluvium deposits along rivers and creeks. Along the shoreline, there are marine sediments made up of sands, clays, and soft, ill-consolidated silts. The hydromorphic clays, silty clays, and gleying sands of the soils have very poor drainage. Because of the thick mangrove vegetation and tidal floods, the organic matter concentration is high. Natural gas reserves are plentiful in the area. Tropical weather features frequent storms and lots of rain. Tidal floods and river flooding are frequent threats.

2.2 Soil Sample Collection

All Soil samples were collected by subsurface exploration activities at the sites which included drilling and deep boring by standard penetration test (SPT). In-situ field test and laboratory test were adopted in this research work. The tests were conducted to estimate the dynamic soil properties. The soil samples were dried, crushed and sieved on sieve No 4(4.75mm) with standard and known weights taken, mixed with amount water which represented natural water content state. Soil samples were remolded to field density and natural moisture content stage. Samples were prepared with specimen standard measurements of 20mm height and 70mm diameter, placed in membrane of rubber, mounted on bottom plate of cyclic direct simple shear machine of confined rings of control lateral deformation at consolidation stages.

2.3. Test Procedures

BS1377 (1990) describes the procedure for determination of liquid limit of soil. Soil sample of air dried passing 425–µm sieve size of 200g was taken and was mixed with water and squeezed to achieve uniformity with blending time of 5–10 min. The soil paste was placed within the liquid limit cup and levelled off with the aid of spatula. A clean and sharp groove was cut within the middle using a rifling tool. The crank was turned at two revolutions per second to separate the variety of blows needed to form halves of the soil pat.

This operation was repeated many times at different wet contents and then, the liquid limit of the soil samples determined at less than 10 min and over 25 min: the link between the quantity of blows and corresponding wet contents.

The plastic limit (PL) is the water content at which soil starts to exhibit plastic behaviour. The proportion of fabric passing the sieve with aperture of 425µm that was used for the determination of liquid limit (LL) was additionally used for the determination of the plastic limit. The items of fragmented soil thread were collected and the wet content was recorded. Plastic index (PI) is computed as the different between the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL) as follows:

PI = (LL - PL) (1)

A series of cyclic triaxial tests were conducted to study the effect of fines, plasticity index and liquid limit of the soils on the liquefaction behaviour of the soils under various levels of cyclic loading. Specifically, this study prepared remoulded samples with various fines contents (FC) of the soil layers to conduct the experiments.

The percentage of fines, plastic index and liquid limit along the soil depth was investigated at three locations in Rivers State to ascertain the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence in deltaic soil under cyclic loading or seismic activity. The test results are shown in Figs. 1 to 3.

3.1 Fines Content

Figure 1 shows the profiles of fines content against the boring depth of soil across the sites. The values of fines content varied in a sinusoidal manner across the various sites. Thus, the percentage of fines increases at some depth layers and then decreases thereafter at other depth layers across the sites. The values of fines ranged from 0.02–62% between a depth of 0.95m and 30m at Site I, 0.4–51% between a depth of 1.25m and 30m at Site II, and 0–61% between a depth of 1.35m and 30m at Site III. Generally, the percentage of fines decreases irregularly with depth across the sites. Comparatively, Site III has lower fines content than Sites I and II.

A high percentage of fines content in soil layers can contribute to liquefaction susceptibility [1, 13]. Soil liquefaction occurs when saturated soil loses strength and behaves like a liquid under cyclic loading or seismic activity. Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, are generally more susceptible to liquefaction compared to coarse-grained soils [1, 2, 18]. Thus, the significant presence of fines along the soil depth at Site III suggests that the soil at this site has a relatively higher potential for liquefaction due to the fine-grained nature of the soil. Although high fines content was present near the surface, the low and negligible fines content recorded at depths beyond the groundwater table implies that the potential for soil liquefaction is reduced across the sites.

Nevertheless, in terms of structural foundation, the level of fines content recorded in the soil can influence the stability of the foundation. High percentages of fines can affect the load-bearing capacity and settlement behavior of soil [1, 3, 20]. It is important to consider the effects of high fines concentrations on the subsoil, especially regarding liquefaction potential. Under cyclic loading or seismic activity, saturated soil can lose strength, leading to liquefaction [18, 19].

Studies have found that fine-grained soils, such as silt and clay, are more susceptible to liquefaction than coarse-grained soils [1, 2]. Since Site III had significantly more fines per soil depth than Sites I and II, this suggests that the soil at Site III may be more susceptible to liquefaction. On the other hand, the low and negligible fines content observed at all locations at depths beyond the water table may indicate a reduced risk of soil liquefaction.

It is crucial to understand how fines affect the stability of structural foundations. The load-bearing capacity and settlement behavior of the soil can be significantly affected by the concentration of fines [1, 3, 20]. To avoid the potential consequences of high fines content, it is essential to consider variations in fines content at the site when planning and constructing buildings. The sinusoidal pattern observed in the variation of fines content at different soil locations should be considered. Site III often has lower concentrations of fines than Sites I and II, indicating a lower soil liquefaction potential. However, the effects of fines on the stability of structural foundations must be considered when planning and constructing structures in these areas, as they can significantly change the load-bearing capacity and settlement behavior. Care must be taken to ensure the long-term performance and safety of structures at the site due to the presence of fines in the soil.

3.2 Plasticity Index

Figure 2 shows the profiles of plasticity index (PI) against the boring depth of soil across the sites. The values of plasticity index varied in a sinusoidal manner across the sites. The values of PI ranged from 0–20% between a depth of 0.95m and 30m at Site I, 0–27% between a depth of 1.25m and 30m at Site II, and 0–22% between a depth of 1.35m and 30m at Site III. Generally, the plasticity index is low in the deeper layers of the soils, but it is most dominant at Site II compared to Sites I and III. Halfway down the soil depth to the 30m depth, the plasticity index is negligible across all the sites.

The range of plasticity index indicates the variability of the soil's dynamic properties across the sites, particularly in terms of moisture content, which influences the consistency limits of the soil [2]. Moreover, the layers of soil with higher PI values indicate regions of high plasticity, which is a sign that the soil could be susceptible to liquefaction under cyclic loading and stress conditions [1, 2]. Alternatively, low PI values imply a reduced risk of soil liquefaction and improved stability for the foundation of structures [2, 22]. Therefore, from the results, it can be observed that the PI values obtained from the sites gradually decrease with depth. This indicates that at shallow depths, the PI values are relatively higher, with a lower risk of liquefaction than the upper layers of deltaic soil.

In soil construction, the plasticity index (PI) is an important variable that provides information about the dynamic properties of the soil at various locations. The variation between sites, influenced by soil water content, shows the diversity of soil properties. Depending on the amount of moisture available, some locations exhibit greater plasticity than others. The soil consistency limit is the moisture level at which the soil changes from a partially solid to a plastic to a liquid state. The PI value should be considered when designing and constructing foundations to reduce the possibility of soil liquefaction. Differences in PI values at different locations can give a good idea of how the soil may liquefy. Higher plasticity poses a significant hazard, while lower PI values are preferred to ensure the safety and stability of the structures being built. Making informed decisions about foundation design and construction methods can help ensure safety and reduce risk. This is because we know that deeper layers of soil have the potential to offer more stability, as evidenced by the steady decrease in PI values with depth.

In summary, the plasticity index is a useful tool for assessing the liquefaction potential of a soil. A higher PI value is associated with an increased risk of soil liquefaction, whereas a lower PI value is often associated with increased stability and reduced risk [2, 22]. The increasing loss of plasticity with increasing depth suggests that the deeper soil layers may be more stable than the upper layers. This is important information to consider when planning and building a solid foundation.

Liquid Limit

Figure 3 shows the results of liquid limit (LL) against soil depth. The liquid limit also varied erratically across the sites. Generally, the liquid limit decreased with increasing depth and was negligible halfway down the soil depth in all the sites. The values of liquid limit ranged from 0–46% between a depth of 0.95m and 30m at Site I, 0–48% between a depth of 1.25m and 30m at Site II, and 0–48% between a depth of 1.35m and 30m at Site III. Generally, the liquid limit is low at the deeper depths of the soils, but it is relatively most dominant at Site II compared to Sites I and III.

When assessing a soil's vulnerability to liquefaction during seismic or cyclic stress, the liquid limit of the soil is a critical consideration. A higher liquid limit value often denotes a material's susceptibility to liquefaction [13]. After analyzing the data, it is clear that Site I have a somewhat lower liquid limit than Sites II and III. Additionally, at certain depths—14.85m at Site I, 18.85m at Site II, and 19.05m at Site III—the liquid limit decreases to negligible levels, similar to the plasticity index. This finding of negligible liquid limit values within a particular depth range suggests that the soils at the sites have some commonalities. As a result, if liquefaction is noted at one location, the risk to the other sites may be equivalent.

Based on the results, it can be concluded that the soils at the locations can maintain their stability under cyclic loading, which is necessary for laying proper foundations for construction [2]. Nevertheless, according to Seed and Idriss [13], a soil can be classified as "cohesionless" if it meets specific requirements, including having less than 15% of particles smaller than 0.005mm in grain size, having a liquid limit lower than 35%, or having a water content that is more than the liquid limit by 0.9 times. Under such circumstances, the soil is expected to have little liquefaction resistance.

To elaborate, the liquid limit has a significant impact on the ability of soils to liquefy. Liquefaction is the loss of strength and stiffness in saturated soils brought on by cyclic stress or seismic activity, occurring when the pore water pressure in the soil increases to the point where it exceeds the effective stress, causing the soil to lose its cohesion and strength [2]. Therefore, determining the liquid limit is crucial to understanding soil behavior in such situations.

The comparison of the liquid limit values for the three locations shows that Site I have a marginally lower liquid limit than Sites II and III, indicating that its soil may be somewhat less prone to liquefaction than the soil at the other two sites. However, it is remarkable that Site I can still exhibit liquefaction potential under high loading conditions while having a slight liquid limit reduction. The small liquid limit readings from certain depths show that the soil properties at the three sites share some similarities. This similarity in soil characteristics suggests that the liquefaction risk is comparable across the sites. Therefore, it is anticipated that the other sites may face a similar outcome under comparable loading conditions if one site experiences liquefaction.

In conclusion, the findings suggest that the soils at the investigated locations may maintain their stability under cyclic stress, making them suitable for use as building foundations. Additionally, according to Seed and Idriss [13], certain characteristics, including grain size distribution, liquid limit, and water content, might make it easier to classify a soil as "cohesionless." To effectively gauge the soil's ability to liquefy at the researched sites, a thorough evaluation of these properties should be acquired.

The presence of high percentages of fines near the surface suggests a potential for soil liquefaction and the need for appropriate engineering measures to mitigate liquefaction hazards.

Additionally, fines content can influence the settlement behaviour and load-bearing capacity of the soil, which should be considered during foundation design for structures on these soil environments. However, the findings indicated that the deeper layers of the deltaic soil possess lower plasticity and liquid limit which is more suitable for supporting stable foundations with low susceptibility to liquefaction.

These findings emphasize the importance of considering the engineering properties of soil when designing foundation for structures. Hence, special foundation design considerations, such as the use of deep foundations or soil improvement techniques, might be necessary to mitigate potential settlement issues and the risk of soil liquefaction and potential failure under cyclic loading and stress conditions. On the other hand, a deeper lower layer of the delta means less flexibility and fluid limitations. The liquid limit is the point at which the soil changes from plastic to liquid.

Plasticity in this case represents the ability of soil to change shape and maintain its shape regardless of its water content. The reduced flexibility and liquid limit lead to more stability and reduce the risk of liquefaction in deeper layers, encouraging the use of these foundations in structural design.

These results indicate that soil fineness, plasticity and liquid limit need to be investigated.

To mitigate potential risks, proper foundation design is essential to address potential subsidence problems, prevent soil liquefaction, and ensure the building remains intact through periods of cyclic loads and stresses. In general, deep foundations such as piles or caissons promise more stability as they reach below the fine-grained layer on the surface.

In addition, soil improvement techniques such as compaction, grafting or reinforcement can help improve soil properties and increase their carrying capacity and resistance to settlement.

The research results show how important it is to understand the technical properties of the soil to make a suitable foundation. Higher concentrations of fines near the surface increase the risk of liquidation and may result in lower loading capacities. Fortunately, deeper layers of soil offer greater rigidity and greater fluid retention. Therefore, foundation design should seek to utilize safer alternatives to protect the structure. Engineers must take this into account to ensure the safety of buildings constructed in deltas, both in the short and long term.

The underlisted formed some critical factors to the contributions to body of knowledge:

Fine-grained soils can often pose a liquefaction risk; therefore, an understanding of the implications of high fines content is paramount in order to guarantee structural stability.
The engineering characteristics of soils, particularly fines content, must be accurately gauged when designing foundations in order to avoid potential settling issues.
Deep layers of deltaic soils, having lower liquid limits and plasticity, are more suitable for achieving a solid foundation and decreasing the risk of liquefaction.
To ensure appropriate foundation design and reduce the chance of soil liquefaction and collapse, special considerations such as deep foundations or soil treatments may be necessary.
To this end, thorough research and characterization of the soil are required - examining fineness, plasticity, and liquid limits - in order to make informed decisions.
Ultimately, a comprehension of the technical properties of the soil makes possible the utilization of creative strategies for enhancing soil functioning and decreasing foundation-linked issues, even in difficult soil conditions.
Thus, appropriate consideration of fines content in the engineering design process is integral to preventing catastrophic structural failures.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Author Contribution

Essien Udo performed experimental work and contributed in drawing the graphs and organizing thetables, Charles Kennedy contributed in writing the paper and exploring the experimental results,

Data Availability

The data availability statement for the manuscript titled "Liquefaction Subsidence and Cyclic Loading as Design Factors for Stable Foundations in Deltaic Soils" is as follows:The data used in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The raw data collected during the field investigations, laboratory testing, and numerical simulations are not publicly available due to privacy concerns, proprietary data restrictions, and the need to protect participant confidentiality.Researchers interested in accessing the data can contact the corresponding author [provide contact details] to discuss the possibility of sharing the data, subject to certain conditions and restrictions. Access to the data will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the purpose of the request, the integrity of the research, and compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and data protection regulations.To ensure responsible data use and protect participant privacy, interested researchers will be required to provide a detailed description of their research objectives, the specific data required, and a plan for handling and safeguarding the data in accordance with applicable privacy and data protection laws. Any data sharing will be subject to appropriate data use agreements, non-disclosure agreements, or legal permissions, as required by the institution and regulations governing the study.In cases where data cannot be shared due to legal or ethical restrictions, the authors will provide comprehensive details of the methodology, testing procedures, and simulation techniques employed in the study. This information will enable other researchers to understand and replicate the study's findings to the extent possible.The authors are committed to promoting scientific transparency and collaboration while ensuring the protection of participant privacy and intellectual property rights. They will make every effort to facilitate data sharing in a manner that aligns with ethical guidelines and data protection regulations. Interested researchers are encouraged to contact the corresponding author for further inquiries regarding data availability and access.

Tsai PH, Lee DH, Kung GTC, Hsu CH. Effect of Content and Plasticity of Fines on Liquefaction Behaviour of Soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. 2014; 43:95–106.
Ige OO, Oyeleke TA, Baiyegunhi C, Oloniniyi TL. Liquefaction, Landslide and Slope Stability Analyses of Soils: A Case Study of Soils from Part of Kwara, Kogi and Anambra States of Nigeria. Natural Hazards Earth System Science Discussions. 2016. Available at http://www.doi:10.5194/nhess-2016-297.
Tsai PH, Lee DH, Kung GTC, Hsu CH. Effect of Content and Plasticity of Fines on Liquefaction Behaviour of Soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. 2010; 43:95–106.
Fei HC. The characteristics of liquefaction of silt soil. Soil dynamics and Earthquake Engineering V, Computational Mechanics Publications and Elsevier Applied Science, London. 1991:293–302.
Tsuchida H. Prediction and countermeasure against the liquefaction in sand deposits. Abstract of the Seminar in the Port and Harbor Research Institute (in Japanese). 1970.
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Roesset JM. Liquefaction of gravelly soil at pence ranch during the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake. First International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering V, Karlsruhe, Germany. 1991.
Ishihara K. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco. 1985.
Walker AJ, Steward HE. Cyclic undrained behavior of nonplastic and low plasticity silts. Technical Report NCEER-89-0035, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY at Buffalo. 1989.
Thevanayagam S. Effect of fines and confining stress on undrained shear strength of silty sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1998;124(6):479–491.
Guo T, Prakash S. Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1999;125(8):706–710.
Prakash S, Perlea VG, Koester JP. How liquefiable are cohesive soils. In proceedings of 2nd Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherland. 1999:611–618.
Chang WJ, Hong ML. Effects of clay content on liquefaction characteristics of gap-graded clayey sands. Soils Foundation. 2008;48(1):101–114.
Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung R. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. 1985;111(12):1425–1445.
Amini F, Qi GZ. Liquefaction testing of stratified silty sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 2000;126(3):208–217.
Finn WL, Ledbetter RH, Wu G. Liquefaction in silty soils: Design and analysis. Ground failure under seismic conditions. 1994:51–76.
Lade PV, Yamamuro JA. Effects of non-plastic on static liquefaction of sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1997;34(6):918–928.
Zlatovic S, Ishihara K. Normalized behavior of very loose non-plastic soils: Effects of fabric. Soils Foundation. 1997;37(4):47–56.
Andrianopoulos KI, Bouckovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG. A critical state evaluation of fines effect on liquefaction potential. In Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor W.D. Liam Finn, San Diego, California. 2001.
Bouferra R, Shahrour I. Influence of fines on the resistance to liquefaction of a clayey sand. Ground Improvement. 2004;8(1):1–5.
Koester JP. The influence of fine type and content on cyclic strength ground failure under seismic conditions. 1994:17–33.
Polito CP, Martin JR. Effects of nonplastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2001;127(5):408–415.
Park SS, Kim YS. Liquefaction resistance of sand containing plastic fines with different plasticity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 2013; 139:825–830.

Competing interest reported. No Competing interest

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Liquefaction Subsidence and Cyclic Loading as Design Factors for Stable Foundations in Deltaic Soils

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study Area

5.2333 degrees north, 6.6500 degrees east

2.2 Soil Sample Collection

2.3. Test Procedures

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Fines Content

3.2 Plasticity Index

4. CONCLUSION

5. CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

Declarations

Competing Interests

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1