2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods
Sunday, August 14, 2011

3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
Lecture Notes
Pp. 423 - 449 Kramer
Pp. 286-290 Kramer - Shear Beam Approach
Makdisi-Seed Analysis (EERC).pdf
Bray and Travasarou - 2007
Other Materials
None
Homework Assignment #2
1. Given the attached embankment properties and the attached shear modulus
reduction and damping curve and the attached acceleration response spectra,
determine the maximum crest acceleration (g) of the embankment (30 points)
2. For the information in problem 1, make a plot of embankment displacement, U
in meters, as a function of yield acceleration, ky, for a M = 7.5 earthquake. In
constructing this plot, assume that the bottom of the critical failure circle is
found at the toe of the embankment (10 points).
3. If the yield acceleration, ky, for the above embankment is 0.1 g, calculate the
amount of deformation that is expected using the information given in problem
2 (5 points).
Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 1
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2-D Seismic Embankment and Slope Assessment and Stability

Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
Lower San Fernando Dam - 1971 San Fernando Valley Earthquake, Ca.
Main Issues in Seismic Assessment of Earthen Embankments and Dam:
Stability: Is embankment stable during and after earthquake?
Deformation: How much deformation will occur in the embankment?
Two general types of analyses needed to answer these questions:

2D Dynamic Response Analysis
2D Deformation Analysis
In some approaches, these two analyses are coupled.
General Types of 2D Seismic Analysis

3:32 PM
Pseudostatic Analysis (Stability)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (Deformation)
Makdisi and Seed (1978) used average accelerations computed by the
procedure of Chopra (1966) and sliding block analysis to compute
earthquake-induced deformations of earth dams and embankments.
Numerically Based Analysis (Deformation)
FEM
Quake/W
Plaxis
FDM
FLAC
This course will focus on Pseudostatic and Newmark Sliding Block Analyses using
the Makdisi-Seed (1978) Method
Liquefaction Effects
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
from:
If the embankment and foundation materials are not susceptible to

liquefaction or strength reduction due to earthquake shaking, then the
embankment will generally he stable and no catastrophic failure is expected
(Seed, 1979).
However, if the embankment or/and foundation comprise liquefiable
materials, it may experience flow failure depending on post-earthquake factor
of safety against instability (FOSpe).
For high initial driving stress (steep geometry), the FOS will likely be much less
than unity, and flow failure may occur, as depicted by strain path A-B-C.
Example of this is the failure of the Lower San Fernando Dam.
In this lecture we will not address the effects of liquefaction on embankment
stability. This will be discussed later in this course.
Pseudostatic Analysis
3:32 PM
Pseudostaic apply a static (non-varying) force the centroid of mass to

represent the dynamic earthquake force.
Fh = ah W / g = kh W
Fv = av W/ g = kv W (often ignored)
Guidance on the Selection of Kh
Pseudostatic Analysis (cont.)

3:32 PM
Recommendations for implementation of pseudostatic analysis (Bartlett)

General comment: The pseudostatic technique is dated and should only be
used for screening purposes. More elaborate techniques are generally
warranted and are rather easy to do with modern computing software.
Limitations of Pseudostatic Technique

Representation of the complex, transient, dynamics of earthquake shaking by
a single, constant, unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is quite crude.
Method has been shown to be unreliable for soils with significant pore
pressure buildup during cycling (i.e., not valid for liquefaction).
Some dams have failed with F.S. > 1 from the pseudostatic technique
Cannot predict deformation.
Is only a relative index of slope stability
Pseudostatic Analysis - Example

3:32 PM
Example Geometry
Example Soil Properties

Layer
(lb/ft3) E (kPa)
(top to
(kN/m3)
bottom)
K (kPa)
G (kPa)
c (kPa)
Ko
15.72
100
100000
0.37
128,205
36,496
24.37
0.5873
150.9
16.51
105
100000
0.37
128,205
36,496
24.37
0.5873
147.3
17.29
110
150000
0.35
166,667
55,556
27.49
0.5385
177.5
18.08
115
200000
0.3
166,667
76,923
34.85
0.4286
204.3
18.08
115
250000
0.3
208,333
96,154
34.85
0.4286
228.4
emban
21.22
135
300000
0.3
250,000
115,385
34.85
0.4286
230.9
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>
E = Young's Modulus
= Poisson's ratio
K = Bulk modulus
G = Shear Modulus
= drained friction angle
c = cohesion
Ko = at-rest earth pressure coefficent
Vs = shear wave velocity
Vs (m/s)

3:32 PM
Pseudostatic Results
FS = 1.252 (static with no seismic coefficient, K h)
The analysis has been repeated by selecting only the critical circle. To do this,
only one radius point. This result can then be used with a Kh value to determine
the factor of safety, FS.

3:32 PM
Acceleration time history

0.6
0.5
Acceleration [g]
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
8
9
Time [sec]
10
11
12
13
14
15
Response Spectrum for acceleration time history

1.4
1.35
1.3
Damp. 5.0%
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
Response Acceleration [g]
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
2
Period [sec]
pga = 0.6 g
Kh = 0.5 * pga
ah = 0.3 g (This is applied in the software as a horizontal acceleration).
16

3:32 PM
Reduce shear strength in stability model for all saturated soils to 80 percent of
peak strength as recommended by the Army Corp of Engineers. This is to account
for pore pressure generation during cycling of non-liquefiable soils. (See table
below.) (If liquefaction is expected, this method is not appropriate.)
Layer
(lb/ft3) E (kPa)
3
(top to
(kN/m )
bottom)
K (kPa)
G (kPa)
Tan
80
percent
Tan
15.72
100
100000
0.37
128,205
36,496
24.37
0.4530
0.3624
19.92
16.51
105
100000
0.37
128,205
36,496
24.37
0.4530
0.3624
19.92
17.29
110
150000
0.35
166,667
55,556
27.49
0.5203
0.4162
22.60
18.08
115
200000
0.3
166,667
76,923
34.85
0.6963
0.5571
29.12
18.08
115
250000
0.3
208,333
96,154
34.85
0.6963
0.5571
29.12
embank
21.22
135
300000
0.3
250,000
115,385
34.85
0.6963
0.5571
29.12
New
phi
angle
for
analysis
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>
The analysis is redone with Kh = 0.3 and reduced shear strength (see below).
35 0.651
24
29
32
31
23
91
81
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
92
82
72
62
52
42
32
22
12
2
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
94
84
74
64
54
44
34
24
14
4
36
25
27
120
118
117
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
127
122
102
96
86
76
66
56
46
36
26
16
6
142
140
136
134
11
129
123
116
110
103
97
87
77
67
57
47
37
27
17
7
148
146
133
132
126
121
154
152
151
145
139
144
138
131
125
108
101
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
150
149
143
137
30
33
34
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
1
28
115
111
104
98
88
78
68
58
48
38
28
18
8
130
124
114
112
105
99
89
79
69
59
49
39
29
19
9
26
153
147
141
135
128
119
113
107
106
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
4
The resulting factor of safety is 0.651 (too low). Deformation is expected for this
system and should be calculated using deformation analysis (e.g., Newmark,
Makdisi-Seed, FEM, FDM methods.)
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis

3:32 PM
Pasted from
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-113/
ofr98-113.html>
Newmarks method treats the mass as a rigid-plastic body; that is, the
mass does not deform internally, experiences no permanent
displacement at accelerations below the critical or yield level, and
deforms plastically along a discrete basal shear surface when the critical
acceleration is exceeded. Thus, for slope stability, Newmarks method is
best applied to translational block slides and rotational slumps. Other
limiting assumptions commonly are imposed for simplicity but are not
required by the analysis (Jibson, TRR 1411).
1. The static and dynamic shearing resistance of the soil are assumed to
be the same. (This is not strictly true due to strain rate effects
2. In some soils, the effects of dynamic pore pressure are neglected. This
assumption generally is valid for compacted or overconsolidated clays
and very dense or dry sands. This is not valid for loose sands or normally
consolidated, or sensitive soils.
3. The critical acceleration is not strain dependent and thus remains
constant throughout the analysis.
4. The upslope resistance to sliding is taken to be infinitely large such that
upslope displacement is prohibited. (Jibson, TRR 1411)
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.)

3:32 PM
Steps
1. Perform a slope stability analysis with a limit equilibrium method and find the
critical slip surface (i.e., surface with the lowest factor of safety) for the given soil
conditions with no horizontal acceleration present in the model.
2. Determine the yield acceleration for the critical slip circle found in step 1 by
applying a horizontal force in the outward direction on the failure mass until a
factor of safety of 1 is reached for this surface. This is called the yield
acceleration.
3. Develop a 2D ground response model and complete 2D response analysis for the
particular geometry. Use this 2D ground response analysis to calculate average
horizontal acceleration in potential slide mass.
4. Consider horizontal displacement is possible for each time interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
5. Integrate the velocity and displacement time history for each interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
The following approach is implemented using the QUAKE/WTM and SLOPE/WTM.
Acceleration vs. time at base of slope from 2D response analysis in Quake/W.


3:32 PM
Analysis perfromed using shear strength = 100 percent of peak value for all soils
(i.e., no shear strength loss during cycling).
35 1.530
24
29
32
31
92
82
72
62
52
42
32
22
12
2
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
94
84
74
64
54
44
34
24
14
4
36
137
108
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
127
122
126
121
117
102
96
86
76
66
56
46
36
26
16
6
111
Factor of Safety
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
10
130
124
114
112
105
99
89
79
69
59
49
39
29
19
9
26
153
147
141
135
128
119
113
107
106
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
4
Note that critical

circle is obtained
from the
pseudostatic
analysis
2.0
129
123
104
98
88
78
68
58
48
38
28
18
8
Factor of Safety vs. Time
136
134
11
115
110
142
140
116
103
97
87
77
67
57
47
37
27
17
7
148
146
133
132
131
125
154
152
151
145
139
144
138
143
120
101
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
150
149
118
34
23
91
81
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
25
27
30
33
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
1
28
15
Time
20

3:32 PM
Analysis repeated using shear strength = 80 percent of peak value for all soils to
account for some pore pressure generation during cycling.
35 1.365
24
29
32
31
23
91
81
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
92
82
72
62
52
42
32
22
12
2
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
94
84
74
64
54
44
34
24
14
4
36
25
27
149
143
137
30
131
125
120
33
118
34
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
1
28
108
101
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
109
102
96
86
76
66
56
46
36
26
16
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
150
110
103
97
87
77
67
57
47
37
27
17
7
1.8
Factor of Safety
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0
10
15
Time
146
140
134
129
123
115
11
111
104
98
88
78
68
58
48
38
28
18
8
20
154
152
151
145
139
133
127
122
116
144
138
132
126
121
117
148
142
136
130
124
114
112
105
99
89
79
69
59
49
39
29
19
9
26
153
147
141
135
128
119
113
107
106
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
4

3:32 PM
Analysis repeated using shear strength in layer 1 equal to 5 kPa (100 psf) to
represent a very soft clay.
35 0.944
24
29
32
31
23
91
81
71
61
51
41
31
21
11
1
92
82
72
62
52
42
32
22
12
2
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
94
84
74
64
54
44
34
24
14
4
36
25
27
150
149
118
117
108
101
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
127
122
126
121
102
96
86
76
66
56
46
36
26
16
6
142
140
136
134
11
129
123
116
110
103
97
87
77
67
57
47
37
27
17
7
148
146
133
132
131
125
120
154
152
151
145
139
144
138
143
137
30
33
34
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
1
28
115
111
104
98
88
78
68
58
48
38
28
18
8
130
124
114
112
105
99
89
79
69
59
49
39
29
19
9
26
153
147
141
135
128
119
113
107
106
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
4
1.2
Note FS < 1 for a

significant part of the
time history.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0
10
15
20
Time
Deformation vs. Time

2.5
2.0
Deformation
Factor of Safety
1.1
Note that more than 2 m of

displacement have
accumulated.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
Time
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Acceleration

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Eq. 1
Eq. 2

3:32 PM
Eq. 3
Eq. 3a
Eq. 4

3:32 PM
Eq. 5
Eq. 6
Eq. 7a
Eq. 7b
Eq. 7c

3:32 PM
Eq. 8
Eq. 9

3:32 PM
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Accelerati

3:32 PM
Eq. 10

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Deformations

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Better chart for previous page
Exponent
Interpolation on semi-log plot
If U/kh(max)gT is halfway between 0.01 and 0.1, then the exponent value for this
number is -1.5 (see red arrow on graph above). This can be converted back by 1 x
10-1.5 which is equal to 3.16 x 10-2.
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Example

3:32 PM
Example
Values in red must be adjusted until convergence

Is obtained
Design Spectra

3:32 PM
Shear modulus reduction and damping curves
Calculations

3:32 PM
Calculations (cont.)
Charts for deformation analysis

Z = depth to
base of
potential
failure plane
(i.e., critical
circle from
pseudostatic
analysis)

3:32 PM
(See regression equations on next page for M7.5 and M6.5 events

3:32 PM
U / (kh max*g*T1)
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 7.5
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
y = 1.7531e-8.401x
R = 0.988
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
ky/khmax
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 6.5
0.80
U / (khmax*g*T1)
0.70
y = 0.7469e-7.753x
R = 0.9613
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
ky/khmax
0.8
Blank
3:32 PM

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011