The presentation summarizes the geological history, basic properties, monotonic and cyclic shearing responses, field CPT and Vs data of Fraser River Sand (FRS). FRS was formed by sediment deposition in the Fraser River delta during the last ice age. Laboratory tests on FRS show strain-softening and limited liquefaction behavior under static loading and a reduction in liquefaction resistance with increasing number of loading cycles. CPT logs from the Fraser River delta indicate areas susceptible to liquefaction to depths of 10-20 meters.

1. 1

2. Fraser River Sand
(FRS)
Thursday, April 9th 2015
Hasan J.M Rakibul
Muhammad Safdar
Muhammad Umar
Civil and Environmental Engineering 2

3. Contents of Presentation
1. Geological History of Fraser River Sand
2. Basic Properties
3. Monotonic/Static Shearing Response
4. Cyclic Shearing Response
5. Field CPT and Vs Data
6. Conclusions
7. References
Fraser River Sand 3

4. 1. Geological History of Fraser River Sand
Fraser River Sand 4

5. Geological History of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
Reference: Google Map
5

6. Geological History of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
Reference: Google Map
6

7. Geological History of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
(Clague et al., 1983)
7

8. Geological History of FRS:
(Clague et al., 1983)
8

9. 2. Basic Properties of Fraser River Sand
Fraser River Sand 9

10. Basic Properties of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
Average grain size distribution of the Fraser
River sand (Safdar and Sadrekarimi, 2015)
SEM images of Fraser River sand particles at 400 and 100
magnifications (Safdar and Sadrekarimi, 2015)
10

11. Basic Properties of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
The Fraser River sand has;
Specific gravity of sand particles (GS) = 2.69 (ASTM-D-854)
Maximum Void Ratio (emax) = 0.96 (ASTM-D-4253)
Minimum void ratios (emin) = 0.63 (ASTM-D-4254)
D10 = 0.17
D30 = 0.19
D50 = 0.24
D60 = 0.26
Cu = 1.56
The particles are generally sub-angular to angular based on scanning electron
microscopic (SEM) images in the previous slide and they are composed of 55%
orthoclase feldspar, 35% quartz, and 10% muscovite based on X-ray diffraction
analysis conducted by (Safdar and Sadrekarimi, 2015).
11

12. 3. Monotonic/Static Shearing Response of
Fraser River Sand
Fraser River Sand 12

13. Monotonic/Static Shearing Response of FRS
Fraser River Sand
The UDFR sand tests
exhibited a strain-softening
response to their ultimate
steady states of low stress
values at large strains while
DFR tests shows strain
hardening response.
Results of consolidated drained triaxial tests
(a)Stress–strain curves. (b) Volume change
Results of consolidated undrained triaxial tests
(a) Stress–strain curves. (b) Pore pressure
variation
(Chillarige et al., 1997)
Laboratory Triaxial
Compression Tests
13

14. Monotonic/Static Shearing Response of FRS
Fraser River Sand
Monotonic stress-path and stress–strain response of loose air-pluviated sand
(Wijewickreme et al., 2005)
Stress path and stress–strain response from a constant-volume, monotonic, strain-
controlled DSS test on air-pluviated Fraser River sand consolidated to a vertical
stress (σ′vc ) of 100 kPa (Drc = 40%)
14

15. Monotonic/Static Shearing Response of FRS
Fraser River Sand
Under this static loading, the specimen deformed with a slight strain softening
response, which was then followed by a strain hardening response.
This behaviour is essentially similar to the response described as “limited
liquefaction” or “quasi steady state” type by Vaid et al. (2001) on the basis of
observations mainly from cyclic undrained tests conducted on water-pluviated
sands.
15

16. 4. Cyclic Shearing Response of Fraser River
Sand
Fraser River Sand 16

17. Cyclic Shearing Response of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
(Wijewickreme et al., 2005)
17

18. Cyclic Shearing Response of FRS:
Fraser River Sand
CSR versus number of loading cycles required to reach γcyc = 3.75% from constant-volume cyclic ring shear and cyclic
direct simple shear tests on Fraser River sand specimens (Safdar and Sadrekarimi, 2015)
(Safdar and Sadrekarimi, 2015)(Wijewickreme et al., 2005)
18

19. 5. Field CPT and Vs data for FRS
Fraser River Sand 19

20. Field CPT Data for FRS:
Fraser River Sand
Profile CPT1 in the Fraser River delta.
Depth increment = 0.05 m;
Maximum depth = 30.0 m.
P.P., Pore pressure. 1 bar = 100 kPa
(Christian et al., 1997)
20

21. Field CPT Data for FRS:
Fraser River Sand
Profile CPT2 in the Fraser River delta.
Depth increment = 0.05 m;
Maximum depth = 30.95 m.
P.P., pore pressure. 1 bar = 100 kPa
(Christian et al., 1997)
21

22. Field CPT Data for FRS:
Fraser River Sand
CPT Interpretation -
Soil Type
P. K. Robertson
CPT in Geotechnical
Practice Santiago,
Chile July, 2014
22

23. Field CPT Data for FRS:
Fraser River Sand 23
CPT Interpretation -
Soil Type
P. K. Robertson
CPT in Geotechnical
Practice Santiago,
Chile July, 2014

24. Lab and Field Vs data for FRS:
Fraser River Sand
(Chillarige et al., 1997)
Assessment of
liquefaction
potential from
shear wave
velocity
measurements
24
Fear and Robertson (1994) suggested that Vs1 = 160
m/s can be used as the approximate dividing line for
contractive and dilatant behavior at large strains for
most quartz sands

25. 6. Conclusions
Fraser River Sand 25

26. 6. Conclusions
Fraser River Sand
• The Fraser River delta is a young, rapidly sedimented basin that occupies
a significant area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
• Fraser River sand has been extensively used in large quantities for fill
marine shipping terminals and warehouses, bridges and roads, rail yard
and rail lines, the Vancouver International Airport, maintenance yards,
and recreational facilities.
• Advanced laboratory tests, Field cone-penetration tests and shear-wave
velocity analyses suggest that much of the delta is susceptible to cyclic
liquefaction within the top 10 to 20 m.
• Further details of each topic is mentioned in literature survey report.
26

27. 7. References
Fraser River Sand 27

28. 7. References
Fraser River Sand 28
 ASTM Standard D854, “Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, 2014
 ASTM D-4253, “Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory”ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, 2014
 ASTM D-4254, “Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of and calculation of relative
density”ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, 2014
 Chillarige, A.V., Morgenstern, N.R., Robertson, P.K., and Christian, H.A. “Liquefaction and seabed instability in the
Fraser River delta” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34: 520–533, 1997
 Chillarige, A.V., Morgenstern, N.R., Robertson, P.K., and Christian, H.A. “Evaluation of the in situ state of Fraser
River sand” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34: 510–519, 1997
 Christian, H.A., Woeller, D.J., Robertson, P.K., and Courtney, R.C. “Site investigations to evaluate flow liquefaction
slides at Sand Heads, Fraser River delta” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34: 384–397, 1997
 Robertson, P. K., “CPT Interpretation - Soil Type CPT in Geotechnical Practice” Santiago, Chile July, 2014
 Clague, J. J., John L. Luternauer and Richard J. Hebd. “Sedimentary environments and postglacial history of the
Fraser Delta and lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia” Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 20, 1314-1326, 1983
 Manmatharajan, V.“Initial Stress State and Stress History Effects on Liquefaction Susceptibility of Sands” Master of
Applied Science Thesis submitted at Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, 2011
 Safdar, M. and Sadrekarimi, A. “Cyclic Shear Response of Fraser River Sand using Cyclic Ring Shear” XV
PanAmerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and GeotechnicalEngineering Buenos Aires Conference November 15 to
18, 2015 (under review)
 Vaid, Y.P., and Sivathayalan, S. “Static and Cyclic Liquefaction Potential of Fraser Delta Sand in Simple Shear and
Triaxial Tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(2):281-289, 1996
 Wijewickreme, D. Sriskandakumar, S. and Byrne, P.“Cyclic loading response of loose air-pluviated Fraser River sand
for validation of numerical models simulating centrifuge tests” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42:2, 550-561, 2005

29. Fraser River Sand 29