Está en la página 1de 15

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

A 2D Seismic Stability and Deformation Analysis


Yi Zhu1, Kuantsai Lee2, and Gary H. Collison3
1

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

A project located in a seismically active region involves construction of an


embankment of moderate height with a chosen design earthquake having a 980-year
return period (10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years). In one area of the
project site, the corresponding free surface peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.28g
for an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 6.5. The response spectra of the free
surface motion for the site-specific design acceleration time histories for the study
area are shown on Figure 1.
1

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.

Site Background and Design Earthquake

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Frenquency (Hz)

Figure 1: Response spectra of design free surface motion.


Design Profile and Soil Properties
Figure 2 shows a typical design cross section of the embankment and foundation soil.
The subsurface materials in the study area are predominantly loose to medium dense
granular sediments consisting mostly of silt and fine to medium sand, occasionally
with coarse sand and gravel. A major source of information used in the evaluation of
the granular foundation soil is from the SPT blow counts (N). The field-recorded
blow counts were corrected for an energy ratio of 60 percent to obtain a standard SPT
value N60, and then corrected for depth by normalizing the N60 to an effective
overburden pressure of 100 kPa, yielding corrected SPT values of (N1)60. The
resulting (N1)60 values and soil descriptions were used to estimate other geotechnical
properties, except for fines content which was determined from laboratory tests.
Figure 3 shows the SPT (N1)60 profile of the granular foundation soil used in the

2
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

analyses. Geotechnical properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 1 for
foundation soil and the embankment material.
NOT TO SCALE

Water and bed levels for design:


w - water level, 15.9 m for static related analyses, 13.4 m for dynamic related analyses;
b - bed level, 13.4 m for both static and dynamic related analyses.

10 m

Water Level
Bed Level

25 m

Original Ground and Groundwater Level

60 m

Sediment

Foundation Soil

109 m

60 m

229 m

Figure 2: Design cross section of embankment and foundation soil.


SPT (N 1)60
0

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

Figure 3: SPT (N1)60 profile of subsurface material used in the analyses.


Pre-Earthquake Condition Stress Calculations
The 2D finite element program PLAXIS was used to perform stress calculations for
the pre-earthquake condition under steady-state seepage. Effective stresses calculated
by PLAXIS were used to calculate the effective confining stress, c' , as
1 '
'
'
'
(
c =
1 +
2 + 3)
3

3
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

'
1

where

'
3

is the major effective principal stress,

is the minor effective principal

'
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

is the effective confining stress and Eref =

11,000 kPa;

Gmax (kPa) = 218.8k2, max

'
c

in kPa

0.5

'
c

, where

is the effective confining

stress and k2,max = 30 and 45 for foundation and embankment soils, respectively.
Effective Confining Stress (kPa)

50

100

150

200

250

Vertical Distance (m)

20

10

-10

-20

-30

50

100

150

200

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 4: Effective confining stress distribution from PLAXIS.


Static Shear Stress (kPa)

-82

-58

-33

-8

17

20

Vertical Distance (m)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1: Assumed geotechnical properties of granular foundation soil and


embankment material.

10

-10

-20

-30

50

100

150

200

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 5: In-plane static shear stress distribution from PLAXIS.

4
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

TELDYN Seismic Response Analysis

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

0.9

0.8

Modulus Ratio G /G max

0.6

0.5

0.4

Embankment Material
Foundation Soil (Depth = 0-10m)

0.3

0.2

Foundation Soil (Depth = 0-10m, with embankment)


Foundation Soil (Depth = 10-20m)
Foundation Soil (Depth = 10-20m, with embankment)

0.1

Foundation Soil (Depth = 20-25m)


Foundation Soil (Depth = 20-25m, with embankment)

0
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Shear Strain (%)

Figure 6: Variation of modulus ratio as functions of shear strain.


35
Embankment Material
Foundation Soil (Depth = 0-10m)

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

Foundation Soil (Depth = 10-20m, with embankment)


Foundation Soil (Depth = 20-25m)

20

Foundation Soil (Depth = 20-25m, with embankment)

15

10

0
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Shear Strain (%)

Figure 7: Variation of damping ratio as functions of shear strain.


As in all dynamic finite element analyses, the sizes of the largest mesh elements are
limited by the wavelength of the earthquake motion in the TELDYN model. Since

6
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

The calculated maximum shear stress allowed the embankment material to be


specified and the embankment constructed to resist liquefaction under the design
earthquake. For the foundation soil, the factor of safety against liquefaction was
calculated by
L

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

Vertical Distance (m)

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

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 8: TELDYN calculated maximum shear stresses.


Figure 9 shows the variation in the calculated safety factor against liquefaction
throughout the finite element model where regions susceptible to liquefaction (those
with safety factors of one or less) are indicated by the warmer colors of red and
orange. Zones of potential liquefaction exist in the foundation soil outside the
embankment. Sediment that exists above the foundation soil on the upstream side
(e.g., above the level of the bottom of the embankment, to the right of embankment
shown on Figure 9) was not included in the analysis. The additional confining stress
from the sediment is expected to decrease, or potentially eliminate, the liquefaction
potential in the foundation soil on the upstream side.

8
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Factor of Safety against Liquefaction Triggering

0.5565

0.8762

1.1958

1.5155

1.8352

10

-10

-20

-30

50

100

150

200

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 9: Foundation soil factor of safety against liquefaction triggering.


Figure 10 shows the safety factor against liquefaction triggering calculated at
different depths from the present 2D analysis and from the 1D analysis following the
established simplified method (Youd et al. 2001) at a location 50 meters downstream
(left) of the downstream embankment toe. The distance of 50 meters was selected to
minimize the potential influence of the embankment on the confining stresses and
thus the liquefaction potential. The results of both analyses showed reasonable
agreement at shallow depths, although at deeper depths the 2D analysis indicates
higher factors of safety against liquefaction than 1D analysis.
Factor of Safety against Liquefaction Triggering
0.0

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.

Vertical Distance (m)

20

15

20
Foundation soil at a location of 50 meters
left (downstream) of the downstream toe

Level ground, no embankment, one-dimensional analysis using Youd et al. (2001)

25

With embankment, two-dimensional analysis using TELDYN

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

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.

During a seismic event, the compacted, granular embankment material is expected to


experience little, if any, strength loss during and shortly after the design earthquake.
However, it is recognized (Seed and Harder 1990; Marcuson et al. 1996; Finn 1998)
that current knowledge on end-of-earthquake strength or residual strength is still
incomplete. In recognition of the uncertainty associated with assigning end-ofearthquake shear strength, Seed and Harder (1990) recommended that the end-ofearthquake strength be taken at no more than 75 percent of the drained static strength.
Accordingly, the end-of-earthquake shear strength for the embankment material was
selected to be 75 percent of its drained static shear strength.
With Embankment, 2D Analysis Using TELDYN
Factor of Safety against Liquefaction Triggering
0.5

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

At downstream edge of embankment


crest

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

If FS Liq

1.4, EES = 75% drained static strength;

If FS Liq

1.1, EES = residual strength;

If 1.4 > FS Liq > 1.1,

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

where sr = residual strength and


= effective vertical stress. Figure 12 shows the
estimated end-of-earthquake strength for the foundation soil.
End-of-Earthquake Strength (kPa)

10

20

Vertical Distance (m)

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

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 12: Foundation soil end-of-earthquake strength.


Post-Earthquake Static Stability

Post-earthquake static stability analyses using the end-of-earthquake strength were


performed using the limit equilibrium slope stability program SLIDE, version 5
(Rocscience 2003). The generalized limit equilibrium method that satisfies both force
and moment equilibrium (Abramson et al. 1996) was chosen for the analyses. A
factor of safety of 1.1 was calculated as shown in Figure 13. This calculated factor of
safety indicates that no excessive deformation is expected after the duration of
earthquake shaking. The analysis was repeated to locate the critical slip surface and
the corresponding yield acceleration, defined as the pseudo-static seismic coefficient
resulting in a factor of safety of unity in a limit equilibrium slope stability analysis.
Figure 14 illustrates the critical slip circle and the corresponding yield acceleration of
0.02g. The actual yield acceleration is expected to be larger than this value since the

11
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

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.

Earthquake Induced Deformation

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

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

Vertical Distance (m)

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

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 13: Critical slip surface using end-of-earthquake strength.


0.0 2

Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.02g


Global Minimum =
Method: gle/morgenstern-price
FS: 1.0
Center: 56.039, 29.860
Radius: 38.272

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

Vertical Distance (m)

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

Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 14: Critical slip surface and yield acceleration using end-of-earthquake
strength.

13
Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

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)

Relative Velocity (m/s)

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

Relative Displacement (m)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10

20

Time (second)

Figure 15: Estimate displacement by the Newmark procedure.


Conclusion

The results of the 2D liquefaction triggering analysis are consistent with 1D


analysis results indicating that there is a potential for liquefaction of the
granular foundation during the 10 percent 100-year design earthquake in areas
where the presence of the embankment has little influence on the stress
conditions.
The results of the 2D liquefaction triggering analysis indicate that only limited
portions of the granular foundation soil surrounding the downstream toe of the
embankment are susceptible to liquefaction during the 10 percent 100-year
design earthquake. Liquefaction is not expected during the design earthquake
within most of the foundation soil beneath the embankment.
The 2D analyses provided values of maximum shear stress in the embankment
to aid the selection and the design of embankment material to resist
liquefaction.
The 2D analyses also indicate that the overall embankment-foundation system
is expected to be stable during the design earthquake.
Both the dynamic embankment displacement during the design earthquake
and the permanent embankment displacement induced by such an earthquake
are estimated to be less than 0.3 meters.
14

Copyright ASCE 2005

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY on 08/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The available freeboard of 3.1 meters is expected to provide protection against


overtopping due to potential embankment settlement that might occur during
the design earthquake.
The current analyses do not consider the in-plane static shear stress at preearthquake condition, which could be an important factor for liquefaction
triggering and liquefaction induced deformation. However, there is no
consensus in literature on how to take this factor into account.

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

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics


Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

También podría gustarte