Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Golder Associates Inc., 3730 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, Georgia; phone (770)
496-1893; fax (770) 934-9476; email: yzhu@golder.com
2
Golder Associates Inc., 39899 Balentine Drive, Suite 200, Newark, California;
phone (510) 438-6865; fax (510) 438-6866; email: klee@golder.com
3
Golder Associates Inc., 3730 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, Georgia
Abstract
Two-dimensional (2D) seismic stability and deformation calculations for a 16.5-meter
high levee embankment are presented. The embankment is to be constructed on
potentially liquefiable foundation soil. A liquefaction triggering analysis is
conducted that includes stress calculations for the pre -earthquake condition under
steady-state seepage using the finite element program PLAXIS, seismic response
calculations using the finite element program TELDYN, and liquefaction resistance
estimates. The results of the 2D analysis suggest that the potentially liquefiable soil
is confined to approximately the uppermost 10 meters of the natural soil under a
limited area of the downstream embankment toe. The 2D analysis clearly illustrates
the increased liquefaction resistance and the safety factor against liquefaction in the
foundation soil beneath the major portion of the embankment due to the increased
confining stress of the embankment loading. The 2D liquefaction triggering analysis
results are used to estimate the end-of-earthquake strength using the procedure
proposed by Seed and Harder (1990). The two-dimensional distribution of end-ofearthquake strength is used for a limit equilibrium, post-earthquake, static stability
analysis to calculate the factor of safety of the embankment-foundation system. The
calculated factor of safety of 1.1 indicates that no excessive deformation is expected
after the duration of earthquake shaking. The limit equilibrium stability analysis
using the end-of-earthquake strength is repeated to locate the critical slip surface and
the corresponding yield acceleration. The acceleration time history for the mass
defined by this critical slip surface is calculated by TELDYN. The permanent
deformation of the embankment during the design earthquake is estimated based on
the acceleration time history and yield acceleration using the procedure developed by
Newmark (1965).
1
Copyright ASCE 2005
0.9
0.8
Damping Ratio = 5%
Damping Ratio = 10%
Damping Ratio = 20%
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frenquency (Hz)
2
Copyright ASCE 2005
analyses. Geotechnical properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 1 for
foundation soil and the embankment material.
NOT TO SCALE
10 m
Water Level
Bed Level
25 m
60 m
Sediment
Foundation Soil
109 m
60 m
229 m
10
15
20
Depth (m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
16.5 m
3
1
10
15
20
3
Copyright ASCE 2005
'
1
where
'
3
'
2
is the intermediate principal stress that is calculated from the major and
stress, and
minor principal stresses under the assumption of plane strain. Figures 4 and 5 show
the calculated effective confining stress and in-plane shear stress, respectively.
Foundation
Soil
Embankment
Notes:
Depth
(m)
05
525
E ' = Eref
c'
(kPa)
0
0
0
'
c
100 kPa
E'
(kPa)
'
(deg.)
30
30
37
Varies
Gmax
% Fines
Ip (%)
k (m/s)
Varies
15
5
-
5
5
0
3x10-5
2x10-4
2x10-4
20,000
0.5
'
c
, where
11,000 kPa;
'
c
in kPa
0.5
'
c
, where
stress and k2,max = 30 and 45 for foundation and embankment soils, respectively.
Effective Confining Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
200
250
20
10
-10
-20
-30
50
100
150
200
-82
-58
-33
-8
17
20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
10
-10
-20
-30
50
100
150
200
4
Copyright ASCE 2005
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The Finite Element program TELDYN (TAGAsoft 2000, version 1.39x) was used to
perform 2D equivalent linear dynamic response analyses. The material properties for
program input include:
1) Maximum (small strain) shear modulus, Gmax (Table 1)
2) Poissons ratio, , or constrained modulus, M. In the present analysis, the
value of the constrained modulus M, is assumed to equal 3.5 times the value
of the maximum shear modulus ( M = 3.5Gmax ) for a corresponding Poissons
ratio of 0.3. The constrained modulus thus varies with the confining stress but
for a given confining stress is assumed to remain unchanged during an
earthquake.
3) Variation of shear modulus ratio, G/Gmax, and the damping ratio, , as
functions of shear strain, . Equations proposed by Ishibashi and Zhang
(1993) were used to estimate the variation of shear modulus and damping ratio
as functions of shear strain ( ), effective confining stress ( c' in kPa), and
plasticity index (Ip in percent).
The average effective confining stress for the embankment was 58 kPa. This value
and a plasticity index, Ip, of zero were used to estimate the variation of shear modulus
ratio and damping ratio as functions of shear strain for the embankment material. The
average effective confining stresses for the foundation soil under the embankment
loading were 81, 146, and 193 kPa, respectively, for depths of zero to 10 meters, 10
to 20 meters, and 20 to 25 meters in the finite element model. These values of
effective confining stress and Ip = 5 were used to obtain the variation of shear
modulus ratio and the damping ratio as functions of shear strain for foundation soil.
Figures 6 and 7 show the variation of shear modulus ratio and the damping ratio used
for analyses, respectively. For comparison, curves without the embankment in place
are also shown.
5
Copyright ASCE 2005
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
Embankment Material
Foundation Soil (Depth = 0-10m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
30
Foundation Soil (Depth = 0-10m, with embankment)
Foundation Soil (Depth = 10-20m)
25
Damping Ratio (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.7
20
15
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
6
Copyright ASCE 2005
the most significant motion in the analysis corresponds to vertical shear waves, the
largest vertical element size was set to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
y=
1 vs
8 f max
where vs is the shear wave velocity and fmax is the maximum frequency of interest
(cutoff frequency). The cutoff frequency was estimated from the natural frequencies
using the average value of the maximum shear moduli of 70 MPa and a density of
2,100 kg/m3 for the embankment material. The corresponding shear wave velocity
was estimated at 183 m/s. The first three natural frequencies of embankment are
estimated as (Kramer 1996)
v
1
(2.404) s
H
2
vs
1
f2 =
(5.52)
H
2
v
1
f3 =
(8.654) s
H
2
f1 =
where H is embankment height = 16.5 meters. The corresponding frequencies for the
embankment are 4.2, 9.7, and 15.3 Hz. Since the bulk of the energy in a seismic
event is carried in the first three natural frequencies, a cutoff frequency of 20 Hz is
used in the analyses.
Using a cutoff frequency of 20 Hz and the estimated shear wave velocity of 183 m/s
for the embankment material, the largest vertical dimension of the elements is about
one meter. The finite element mesh used in TELDYN analysis has 9,457 nodes,
9,174 quadrilateral elements and satisfies the criteria that the vertical dimension of
the element be less than one meter. The coordinates of the centroid of each element
were calculated from those of the four corner nodes. The effective confining stress at
the centroid in each element was then interpolated from the results of the PLAXIS
stress calculations using an inverse-distance weighting scheme. Assuming that the
effective confining stress within each element equals the value at the centroid, the
interpolated effective confining stress was then used to estimate the maximum shear
modulus and constrained modulus for that element.
The program TELDYN requires that the input motion be provided at the base of the
model as an outcropping motion. In the present analysis, the base is located at 25
meters below the ground surface. The motion at the base was obtained by deconvoluting the site-specific design acceleration time history at the free ground
surface using the computer program SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun 1992).
Liquefaction Triggering Analysis
Figure 8 shows the maximum earthquake-induced shear stresses (not including preearthquake static shear stresses shown on Figure 5), max, calculated in the first
TELDYN run. The calculated maximum shear stress was used in the liquefaction
triggering analysis.
7
Copyright ASCE 2005
0.65 max
where max is the calculated maximum shear stress and L is the foundation soil
liquefaction resistance. The factor of 0.65 in the equation is an empirical value used
to convert the peak shear stress (which only lasts a fraction of a second) to sustained
uniform cycles of shear stress (Kramer 1996). The liquefaction resistance, L, of a
soil is defined as the maximum shear stress that can be sustained by the soil before
the onset of liquefaction. For the saturated foundation soil, the liquefaction resistance
was estimated from the design earthquake moment magnitude and soil parameters
that include fines content, the corrected SPT resistance (N1)60, and effective vertical
stress (Youd et al. 2001). The effect of initial static shear stress on liquefaction
resistance was not considered in this study as per the recommendations by Youd et al.
(2001).
Maximum Earthquake-Induced Shear Stress (kPa)
3.3653
11.5939
19.8224
28.0510
36.2796
44.5081
52.7367
20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FS Liq =
10
-10
-20
-30
0
50
100
150
200
8
Copyright ASCE 2005
0.5565
0.8762
1.1958
1.5155
1.8352
10
-10
-20
-30
50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
10
Depth (m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
20
15
20
Foundation soil at a location of 50 meters
left (downstream) of the downstream toe
25
Figure 10: Factor of safety against liquefaction at 50 meters left of downstream toe.
The safety factor against liquefaction triggering at the downstream toe, at the midpoint of the downstream slope, and at the downstream edge of the crest of the
embankment as calculated in the 2D analyses are shown on Figure 11. The increase
in the calculated safety factor from less than one at the toe to greater than one at the
9
Copyright ASCE 2005
crest of the embankment illustrates the positive effect of increasing confining stress.
Thus, the extent of the potentially liquefiable zone is limited to the immediate area of
the downstream toe.
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
At downstream toe
At mid-point of downstream slope
10
Depth (m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
End-of-Earthquake Strength
15
20
25
Figure 11: Factor of safety against liquefaction triggering under the embankment.
For the foundation soil, the end-of-earthquake shear strength (EES) was estimated by
the procedure proposed by Seed and Harder (1990) based on the calculated safety
factor against liquefaction:
10
Copyright ASCE 2005
If FS Liq
If FS Liq
The residual strength of the foundation soil was estimated from SPT (N1)60 for clean
sand, (N1)60cs (Youd et al. 2001), using two different procedures and adopting the
smaller value of the two for subsequent calculations. The first procedure for
estimating residual strength was based on the chart prepared by Seed and Harder
(1990) and the average values between the upper and lower bound values were used.
The second procedure was based on the equation proposed by Stark and Mesri
(1992):
sr
= 0.0055( N1 )60cs
'
v
'
v
10
20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
EES = interpolation between 75% drained static strength and residual strength.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
10
-10
-20
-30
50
100
150
200
11
Copyright ASCE 2005
strength of the embankment and the foundation soil during the beginning of
earthquake is also expected to be greater than the end-of-earthquake value.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A second TELDYN model run was conducted to calculate the acceleration time
history for the mass defined by the critical slip surface in Figure 14. The second
model run was identical to the first run except that in the second run the program was
used to calculate the acceleration time history of the critical sliding mass, which could
only be identified using the results of the first TELDYN run. TELDYN determines
the histories of average acceleration for the potential sliding mass by summing the
horizontal forces acting on the boundaries of the mass at each solution time step and
dividing the results by the mass to obtain accelerations. With the TELDYNcalculated acceleration time history for the critical slip mass and the yield
acceleration of 0.02g, deformation analyses were performed using procedures
developed by Newmark (1965). In the Newmark procedure, it is assumed that
displacement would occur only during those (typically brief) periods when the
acceleration of the mass exceeds its yield acceleration. Mathematically, the
permanent deformation is calculated by double integration of the difference between
the induced acceleration and yield acceleration. As shown in Figure 15, the estimated
horizontal permanent displacement for the critical slip mass during the design
earthquake is less than 0.3 meters.
Assuming that the vertical settlement of embankment during the design earthquake
would be of the same order of magnitude as the estimated horizontal displacement for
the critical slip mass, vertical settlements would also be of the order of a fraction of a
meter. In comparison, the difference between the elevations of the embankment crest
and the water surface for the design seismic event is 3.1 meters, far greater than the
estimated vertical settlement. The present analyses thus confirmed that the design
crest level is expected to provide sufficient freeboard to protect against overtopping
caused by vertical settlement that might occur during the design earthquake.
12
Copyright ASCE 2005
Global Minimum =
Method: gle/morgenstern-price
FS: 1.1
Center: 56.325, 30.305
Radius: 38.730
Sediment
Embankment
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit W eight: 21 kN/m3
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Friction Angle: 29.5 degrees
(75% drained shear strength)
10
Sand
End-of-Earthquake Strength
Unit W eight: 19.2 kN/m3
-10
-20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
1.0
Embankment
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit W eight: 21 kN/m3
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Friction Angle: 29.5 degrees
(75% drained shear strength)
10
Sediment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.1
Sand
End-of-Earthquake Strength
Unit W eight: 19.2 kN/m3
-10
-20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Figure 14: Critical slip surface and yield acceleration using end-of-earthquake
strength.
13
Copyright ASCE 2005
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
Yield acceleration = 0.02 g
0.0
Yield acceleration = -0.02g
-0.1
-0.2
10
20
30
40
30
40
30
40
Time (second)
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
10
20
Time (second)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
10
20
Time (second)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G. M. (1996). Slope Stability
and Stabilization Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Al-Khoury, R., Bakker, K. J., Bonnier, P. G., Brand, P. J. W.,
Broere, W., Burd, H. J., Soltys, G., Vermeer, P. A., and Haag, DOC Den
(2002). PLAXIS 2D Version 8 Full Manual, A.A. Balkema, Netherlands.
Finn, W. D. L. (1998). "Seismic safety of embankment dams developments in
research and practice 1988-1998." Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics III, Seattle, WA, 812-852.
Idriss, I. M. and Sun, J. I. (1992). Users Manual for SHAKE91, University of
California, Davis, California.
Ishibashi, I., and Zhang, X. (1993). "Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping
ratios of sand and clay." Soils and Foundations, 33(1), 182-191.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Marcuson, W. F., Hadala, P. F., and Ledbetter, R. H. (1996). "Seismic rehabilitation
of earth dams." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(1), 7-20.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). "Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments."
Geotechnique, 15(2), 139-160.
Rocscience Inc. (2003). Slide 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability for Soil and
Rock Slopes, Version 5, Toronto, Canada.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F. (1990). "SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure
generation and undrained residual strength." H. Bolton Seed Memorial
Symposium Proceedings, 351-376.
Stark, T. D., and Mesri, G. (1992). "Undrained shear strength of liquefied sands for
stability analysis." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(11), 1727-1747.
TAGAsoft Limited (1998). TELDYN Users Manual, Lafayette, California.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T.,
Dobry, R., Finn, W. D. L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester,
J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K.,
Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H.
(2001). "Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 127(10), 817-833.
15
Copyright ASCE 2005