You are on page 1of 42

# 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 dam?

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.

Lecture 9 - 2D Dynamic Analyses Page 1

General Types of 2D Seismic Analysis
Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:32 PM

○ Pseudostatic Analysis ○ Newmark Sliding Block Analysis  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  FEM □ Quake/W □ Plaxis  FDM □ FLAC

This course will focus on Pseudostatic and Newmark Sliding Block Analyses using the Makdisi-Seed (1978) Method

Lecture 9 - 2D Dynamic Analyses Page 2

Effects of Liquefaction
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 is an advanced topic taught in CVEEN 7330.

Lecture 9 - 2D Dynamic Analyses Page 3

Pseudostatic Analysis
Sunday, August 14, 2011 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

Lecture 9 - 2D Dynamic Analyses Page 4

○ Some dams have failed with F.e.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 5 .S. ○ Method has been shown to be unreliable for soils with significant pore pressure buildup during cycling (i. Bartlett. > 1 from the pseudostatic technique ○ Cannot predict deformation. More elaborate techniques are generally warranted and are rather easy to do with modern computing software. 2011 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. transient. unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is quite crude. August 14. 2011 Lecture 9 . Limitations of Pseudostatic Technique ○ Representation of the complex.Pseudostatic Analysis (cont.. constant. dynamics of earthquake shaking by a single. ○ Is only a relative index of slope stability © Steven F. not valid for liquefaction).) Sunday.

5 204.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 6 .4286 0.37 0.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 © Steven F.385 34.37 0.496 55.85 34.9 147.Example Sunday.9 Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.72 16.22 115 135 250000 300000 0.556 76.3 5 emban 18.923 24.5873 0.205 128.000 96. August 14.205 166.85 0 0 0 0 0.4 230.85 0 0 0.333 250. Bartlett.3 128.4286 150.Pseudostatic Analysis . 2011 Lecture 9 .37 27. 2011 3:32 PM Example Geometry Example Soil Properties Layer γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa)  (top to (kN/m3) bottom) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ c (kPa) Ko Vs (m/s) 1 2 3 4 15.667 36.3 208.3 177.08 100 105 110 115 100000 100000 150000 200000 0.35 0.667 166.51 17.4286 228.29 18.3 0.08 21.37 24.5873 0.49 34.154 115.5385 0.496 36.

Bartlett. FS. 2011 3:32 PM Pseudostatic Results FS = 1. To do this. K h) The analysis has been repeated by selecting only the critical circle.Example Sunday. only one radius point. August 14.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 7 . 2011 Lecture 9 . © Steven F.Pseudostatic Analysis .252 (static with no seismic coefficient. This result can then be used with a Kh value to determine the factor of safety.

August 14.3 -0.15 1.6 g Kh = 0.5 0.65 0. 2011 3:32 PM Acceleration time history 0.7 0.3 g (This is applied in the software as a horizontal acceleration).15 0.4 1.8 0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time [sec] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Response Spectrum for acceleration time history 1.1 -0.2 1.9 Response Acceleration [g] 0. 2011 Lecture 9 .3 0.1 1.Pseudostatic Analysis .25 0. 5.4 Acceleration [g] 0.05 1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.55 0. © Steven F.6 0.35 0.6 0.45 0.Example Sunday.85 0.25 1.5 * pga ah = 0.75 0.4 0.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 8 .2 -0. Bartlett.1 0 -0.05 0 0 1 2 Period [sec] 3 Damp.3 1.2 0.5 0.35 1.0% pga = 0.95 0.

4162 0.5571 29.72 16.92 22.205 166.651 24 29 32 33 34 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 1 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 4 108 101 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5 25 149 143 150 144 138 132 126 121 117 109 110 103 97 87 77 67 57 47 37 27 17 7 127 122 116 104 98 88 78 68 58 48 38 28 18 8 151 145 139 133 140 134 152 146 154 148 142 136 130 124 114 112 105 99 89 79 69 59 49 39 29 19 9 153 147 141 135 128 119 113 107 106 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 26 28 27 137 131 31 30 125 120 118 11 111 129 123 115 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 102 96 86 76 66 56 46 36 26 16 6 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 4 The resulting factor of safety is 0.333 250.4530 0.5571 New phi angle for analysis 19.xls> The analysis is redone with Kh = 0.496 36. FDM methods. (See table below.) © Steven F. 35 0.667 36.556 76.85 0.12 1 2 3 4 15. August 14.3 0.51 17.37 0.3624 0.29 18. 2011 Lecture 9 .205 128.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 9 .35 0.3 208. Newmark.496 55.923 24. Makdisi-Seed.37 24. Deformation is expected for this system and should be calculated using deformation analysis (e.Example Sunday.Pseudostatic Analysis .85 0.92 19.6963 0.) Layer γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa)  3 (top to (kN/m ) bottom) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ Tan φ 80 percent Tan φ 0.12 29.3 and reduced shear strength (see below).49 34.5571 0. Bartlett. FEM.5203 0.08 100 105 110 115 100000 100000 150000 200000 0.385 34.85 34.3 128.g.000 96.37 27.37 0.3624 0. 2011 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.6963 0.651 (too low).60 29.12 Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.154 115.) (If liquefaction is expected.08 21.22 115 135 250000 300000 0..667 166.6963 5 embank 18. This is to account for pore pressure generation during cycling of non-liquefiable soils.4530 0. this method is not appropriate.

gov/of/1998/ofr-98-113/ ofr98-113. 4. TRR 1411). or sensitive soils. Newmark’s method is best applied to translational block slides and rotational slumps.html> Newmark’s method treats the mass as a rigid-plastic body. and deforms plastically along a discrete basal shear surface when the critical acceleration is exceeded. This is not valid for loose sands or normally consolidated. that is. Other limiting assumptions commonly are imposed for simplicity but are not required by the analysis (Jibson. Bartlett.Newmark Sliding Block Analysis Sunday. experiences no permanent displacement at accelerations below the critical or yield level. (This is not strictly true due to strain rate effects 2. The upslope resistance to sliding is taken to be infinitely large such that upslope displacement is prohibited. the mass does not deform internally. August 14.usgs. 1. The static and dynamic shearing resistance of the soil are assumed to be the same. the effects of dynamic pore pressure are neglected. 2011 Lecture 9 . The critical acceleration is not strain dependent and thus remains constant throughout the analysis. for slope stability. 3. This assumption generally is valid for compacted or overconsolidated clays and very dense or dry sands. Thus.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 10 . TRR 1411) © Steven F. In some soils. (Jibson. 2011 3:32 PM Pasted from <http://pubs.

The following approach is implemented using the QUAKE/WTM and SLOPE/WTM. Bartlett. 4. Consider horizontal displacement is possible for each time interval where the horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page). 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. © Steven F. time at base of slope from 2D response analysis in Quake/W. 3. This is called the yield acceleration.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 11 .e. August 14. Integrate the velocity and displacement time history for each interval where the horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page). 2011 Lecture 9 .) Sunday. surface with the lowest factor of safety) for the given soil conditions with no horizontal acceleration present in the model.Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont. 2011 3:32 PM Steps 1. 5. Perform a slope stability analysis with a limit equilibrium method and find the critical slip surface (i. Use this 2D ground response analysis to calculate average horizontal acceleration in potential slide mass. Develop a 2D ground response model and complete 2D response analysis for the particular geometry. Acceleration vs. 2..

2 1.e.) Sunday. August 14. 35 1. Time 2.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 12 . no shear strength loss during cycling).530 24 29 32 33 34 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 1 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 4 108 101 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5 25 149 143 150 151 145 139 133 127 122 116 110 103 97 87 77 67 57 47 37 27 17 7 152 146 140 134 129 123 115 111 104 98 88 78 68 58 48 38 28 18 8 154 148 142 136 130 124 114 112 105 99 89 79 69 59 49 39 29 19 9 153 147 141 135 128 119 113 107 106 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 144 138 132 126 121 117 26 28 27 137 131 31 30 125 120 118 11 109 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 102 96 86 76 66 56 46 36 26 16 6 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 4 Factor of Safety vs. 2011 3:32 PM Analysis perfromed using shear strength = 100 percent of peak value for all soils (i. Bartlett.4 1.Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.8 Factor of Safety 1.0 0 5 Time 10 15 20 © Steven F..0 Note that the same circle is used as obtained from the pseudostatic analysis ! 1.6 1. 2011 Lecture 9 .

0 0 5 Time 10 15 20 © Steven F. Time 1. August 14.2 1. 2011 Lecture 9 .6 Factor of Safety 1.365 24 29 32 33 34 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 1 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 4 108 101 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5 25 149 143 150 151 145 139 133 127 122 116 110 103 97 87 77 67 57 47 37 27 17 7 152 146 140 134 129 123 115 111 104 98 88 78 68 58 48 38 28 18 8 154 148 142 136 130 124 114 112 105 99 89 79 69 59 49 39 29 19 9 153 147 141 135 128 119 113 107 106 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 144 138 132 126 121 117 26 28 27 137 131 31 30 125 120 118 11 109 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 102 96 86 76 66 56 46 36 26 16 6 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 4 Factor of Safety vs.) Sunday.Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 13 . Bartlett.4 1.8 1. 2011 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.

August 17.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 14 .Seed Analysis Wednesday.Makdisi . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. Bartlett. 2011 Lecture 9 .

Makdisi . 2011 Lecture 9 .Seed Analysis (cont. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 15 . Bartlett. August 17.) Wednesday.

Seed Analysis Wednesday. August 17. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. Bartlett. 2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 16 .Makdisi .

August 17. 2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 17 .Seed Analysis Wednesday.

2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 18 .Makdisi . August 17.Seed Analysis Wednesday. Bartlett.

2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. August 17. 2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi .Seed Analysis Wednesday. Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 19 .

August 17.Makdisi . 2011 Lecture 9 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 20 .

2011 Lecture 9 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. August 17. Bartlett.Makdisi .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 21 .

2011 Lecture 9 . Bartlett. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.Seed Analysis Wednesday.Makdisi .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 22 . August 17.

Seed Analysis Wednesday. 2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 23 . August 17. Bartlett.

Makdisi . Bartlett. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. August 17.Seed Analysis Wednesday.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 24 . 2011 Lecture 9 .

2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 25 . Bartlett.Seed Analysis Wednesday. August 17.

2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 26 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. August 17. Bartlett.

August 17.Makdisi . 2011 Lecture 9 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 27 . Bartlett.

2D Dynamic Analyses Page 28 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. 2011 Lecture 9 . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. August 17.Makdisi . Bartlett.

Seed Analysis Wednesday.Makdisi . 2011 Lecture 9 . Bartlett. August 17.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 29 . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.

Seed Analysis Wednesday. Bartlett. August 17.Makdisi .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 30 . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 .

2D Dynamic Analyses Page 31 . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 .Seed Analysis Wednesday. August 17. Bartlett.Makdisi .

Makdisi . August 17. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 . Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 32 .Seed Analysis Wednesday.

31 (unitless) © Steven F. a y. August 17. The yield coefficient. Bartlett. used for the embankment properties. ky. The yield acceleration for the example below varies from 0.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 33 . is equal to the yield acceleration (g) divided by g.Seed Analysis Wednesday. Su. 2011 Lecture 9 . It can be determine from limit equilibrium or other methods. 2011 12:45 PM More on the yield acceleration The yield acceleration.31 g depending on the undrained shear strength.Makdisi .0 (see example below). hence it is unitless.26 to 0. is equal to the horizontal acceleration (g) applied to the potential failure mass that produces a factor of safety of 1. The yield coefficient for the below example varies from 0.26 to 0.

1 of 2 Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. August 17. 2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 34 .Seed Analysis with Deformation Analysis p.Makdisi . Bartlett.

2011 Lecture 9 .Makdisi . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 35 . August 17. 2 of 2 Wednesday.Seed Analysis with Deformation Analysis p. Bartlett.

Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 36 . August 17. 2011 Lecture 9 .Advanced Numerical Methods Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM • Dealt with in more detail in CVEEN 7330 ○ Based on finite difference or finite element techniques ○ Full dynamics modeled ○ Deformation can be estimated using elasto-plastic or other constitutive models ○ Required advanced training Slope geometry for analysis for FDM © Steven F.

Bartlett.Advanced Techniques (cont.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 37 . 2011 12:45 PM Acceleration time history (m/s^2 ) applied at base of model Acceleration time history (m/s^2 ) applied at crest of embankment Horizontal displacement (m) predicted by model for weak shallow foundation layer with phi = 20 deg.) Wednesday. 2011 Lecture 9 . at end of 35 s of strong motion © Steven F. August 17.

at end of 35 s of strong motion © Steven F. August 17.Advanced Techniques (cont. Bartlett.) Wednesday. 2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 38 . 2011 12:45 PM Horizontal displacement (m) predicted by model for liquefied shallow foundation layer with phi = 10 deg.

2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 39 . Bartlett. August 17.Summary of Embankment Stability Analyses Wednesday. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.

Bartlett. 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F.) Wednesday.Summary of Embankment Stability Analyses (cont. August 17. 2011 Lecture 9 .2D Dynamic Analyses Page 40 .

2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. Bartlett.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 41 .Summary of Embankment Stability Analyses (cont. 2011 Lecture 9 . August 17.) Wednesday.

August 17.2D Dynamic Analyses Page 42 . 2011 12:45 PM © Steven F. 2011 Lecture 9 . Bartlett.Blank Wednesday.