Pore Pressure and Kσ Evaluation at High Overburden Pressure under Field Drainage Conditions. I: Centrifuge Experiments

Dynamic, in situ, nonlinear-inelastic response and post-cyclic strength of a plastic silt deposit

“…7f), and serves to explain the higher G observed for larger shear strains (Figure 11c). This observation is corroborated by the recent centrifuge studies on reconstituted sand reported by Adamidis and Madabhushi (2018) and Ni et al (2020), as well as the observations of the Sand Array reported by . Since drainage is unavoidable during earthquakes (Beyzaei et al 2018(Beyzaei et al , 2019 and owing to the frequency content of the ground motions, the in-situ tests reported herein produce realistic soil responses to seismic shaking.…”

“…Whereas significant progress has been made in understanding the elemental cyclic response of silt in the D r a f t laboratory, researchers have identified differences between the observed in-situ penetration testbased Yost et al 2019) and laboratory-predicted response of natural silts (Beyzaei et al 2018(Beyzaei et al , 2019. The complexity of the in-situ dynamic response arises from excess pore pressure diffusion, soil variability, interlayering, and multi-directional seismic shaking (Dobry and Abdoun 2015;Adamidis and Madabhushi 2018, Beyzaei et al 2018, 2019Ni et al 2020;, which are difficult to simulate in laboratory settings.…”