Liquefaction Mitigation Project

Class A Prediction of Centrifuge Test CT6

Ernest Naesgaard, Peter M. Byrne, Mahmood Seid-Karbasi, and Sung Sik Park
University of British Columbia
February 13, 2005
Introduction
A prediction of the behavior of Centrifuge Test CT6 has been made using the
program FLAC with the UBCSAND (version 904a) constitutive model (Byrne et.
al., 2003). UBCSAND is an effective stress model with mechanical loading and
pore pressure generation and flow fully coupled. Test CT6 consists of loose sand
with a submerged 2H:1V slop as shown in figure 1. The centrifuge testing has
been conducted by C-Core in Newfoundland, however at the time of this
prediction the results of the centrifuge tests are not known. The tests are being
run at 70 g with a fluid with 35 times the viscosity of water. Predictions have
been made assuming 99.83% saturation of the pore water. This saturation
should theoretically give a compression wave velocity of around 550m/s and
mid-height of the sample when spun up to 70 g.
Figure 1 shows proposed centrifuge test layout. Figure 2 shows the proposed
location of the instrumentation. Figure 3 shows the FLAC grid and vertical
permeability layout and applied fluid pressure at upper boundary. The input
earthquake motion, as shown in Fig. 4, was 2 times the 2475 earthquake motion.
Figures 5 to 7 show the predictions at various model transducers. Figure 8
shows the horizontal displacement and vertical displacement at 120s (end of
analysis). Figure 9 shows pressure head distribution and flow vectors at 45s.
Numerical Modeling methodology
The FLAC numerical analyses have been carried out in prototype (1g) scale.
Comparisons have shown that numerical analyses in prototype scale give
identical results to those run in centrifuge model scale. The model was set up
and run as follows:
1.

The grid is built with fixed left, right and bottom boundaries

2.

Fluid flow is set to off, gravity to 1/70 g, model to Mohr Coulomb. The fluid
pressures are initialized as being hydrostatic with a level one meter above
final top of model. Pressures are applied to the top model boundary to
emulate the fluid.

3.

Shear modulus is set as a function of mean effective stress

(Used G = Gmax / 9

&

k=3 x G).

4.

The model was then "Spun-up" to 1 g in seven steps. During each step the
soil moduli are reset as a function of effective stress and the applied
pressures and pore pressures along the top boundary are adjusted.

5.

Set flow on, fluid modulus to 1kPa, permeability to K11=K22 = 2 x k/(unit wt

water) = 6.6x10-8 for the loose sand and bring to equilibrium (Units used
are m, Pa, s & density in kg/m3).

6.

Set dynamic on with local damping of 0.6 and bring to equilibrium

7.

Damping is changed to Raleigh. A damping ratio of 2% centered at 3hz is

used. Equilibrium is re-established.

8.

The constitutive model is changed to UBCSAND904a with properties as back

calculated from FLAC numerical analyses of the simple shear laboratory
tests with allowance for stress densification during the centrifuge spin-up
(Park & Byrne, 2003).

9.

Fluid modulus is calculated as a function of saturation and absolute pore

water pressure and assuming no gas goes into or comes out of solution
during the dynamic analysis.
The fluid modulus is updated at s
increments during the dynamic analysis.

10. Displacements, velocities, UBCSAND "stress" subroutine, applied top

boundary pressures are reset and x and y velocities of zero are applied to
the bottom, left, and right boundaries. This is then stepped for 10s of
dynamic time so all is at equilibrium.
11. Initial pore pressure, initial effective stress, initial pore pressure ratio, and x
& y displacements are set.
12. A volumetric strain cap is introduced which sets dilation to zero if the
increment volumetric strain from the start of dynamic shaking exceeds
0.5%.
13. A sub-routine is introduced which inserts force vectors to account for
friction on the sides of the model. The force vectors are calculated using
the out of plane effective stress and a boundary friction of 12 degrees.
14. Histories and dynamic time are reset and the earthquake x-velocity time
history is applied to the bottom, left, and right boundaries. Zero y-velocity
is also applied at the same time.
15. Solve for the duration of the earthquake with the applied pressures, side
friction force vectors and pore pressures on the upper surface being
adjusted every 0.5 seconds (this increment is adjustable). A movie with
frames at the same period can be made using the same subroutine if
desired.
2

16. Following completion of the earthquake record at approximately 45s the

model is run up to 100s dynamic time to monitor pore pressure dissipation.
The stiffness and strength properties for the UBCSAND model are correlated with
(N1)60 values rather than relative density or state parameter, as the model was
developed to capture field liquefaction data. The (N1)60 values used in the
UBCSAND model to capture the Fraser River sand cyclic simple shear data were
calculated as follows:
1.

A FLAC analysis of the simple shear test model (file SS10.dat) for a loose
Dr=40% and dense Dr=80% was carried out and (N1)60 was iteratively
adjusted until the best match to the lab data was obtained. The key
parameter being the number of cycles to liquefaction. Some of the other
parameters in the UBCSAND properties file were also changed, namely
m_kge = 20.7 x 15.0 x m_n1600.33 (used 15 instead of the default 20) and
m_kgp = m_kge x m_n1602 x .003 + 75.0 (used 75 instead of the 100).
From this a (N1)60 of 7.1 for the loose sand with 100kPa vertical effective
stress and 21.7 for the dense sand at 100kPa was obtained.

2.

It is assumed that the model is initially being built with a lower relative
density of 32% for the loose sand and 78% for the dense sand (in
accordance with Tu, 2003) and that densification will occur due to handling
and spin-up. It is assumed that Dr would increase from 32% to 35% due to
handling and that the increase from 35% to 40% will be in accordance with
the following equation from Park and Byrne et al..
Dr = (Dr)o + x ('vo/Pa)0.5
= [ (1+emax)/(emax-emin) - (Dr)o ] x F / ((Dr)o +0.4)) Assumed F= 0.0065.
(N1)60 is equal to C x (Dr)2 where C is a constant that is back calculated
from the lab test data.
Using the above an (N1)60 that is variable with depth is obtained. At the
depth that gives an effective stress of 100kPa the (N1)60 value in the model
should reflect that back calculated from the lab data. We could even get
lower (N1)60 values near the surface if we assume that that the increase in
relative density due to handling is less.

UBCSAND has been calibrated to predict the correct number of cycles to

liquefaction for ko = 0.5. For portions of the model where ko is appreciably
higher the model will under predict the number of cycles to liquefaction. To

correct for this the (N1)60 in zones with high ko has been increased. The amount
of increase was derived from single element tests with varying ko.
Previous Centrifuge Test Results
The previous centrifuge tests COSTA-D and CT2 were similar to CT6. The
COSTA-D test was identical to CT6 except it is postulated that the model
saturation in COSTA-D was lower then that in CT6. The fluid in model CT6 was
injected in a similar manner to that used in COSTA-D, however in CT6 the fluid
was held under a pressure of 140 kPa for two days prior to testing. This
pressure is believed to have allowed more air to go into solution. CT2 is similar
to COSTA-D in saturation and construction; however the input earthquake
motion had the amplitude to that used in COSTA-D and CT6.
Discussion & conclusions for CT6 Predictions
1.

The numerical analyses indicate that a flow slide does not occur when
there is no low permeability barrier within the model even though
significant zones liquefy (Ru=1). Significant deformations only occur
during the period of strong shaking and stop at end of strong shaking.

2.

Dilation within the soil below the sloping face prevents flow failure of
the face.

Figure 1. CT6 Model Configuration (dimensions are in prototype scale)

Figure 2. Instrumentation layout (A=accelerometer; P=pore pressure transducer;

L=LVDT; red dot= gravel marker)

31-Jan-05 1:08
step 115966
Cons. Time 3.4406E+04
-2.889E+00 <x< 5.489E+01
-1.667E+01 <y< 4.111E+01
k22
4.422E-08
6.600E-08
3.200E-07
Grid plot
0

1E 1

Net Applied Forces

Max Vector = 1.377E+05
0

2E 5

Figure 3 Model grid (52m wide by 24m high prototype scale) showing vertical FLAC permeability
(mobility coefficient) and applied pressures to emulate free fluid in container (applied pressures are
updated as model deforms) (note FLAC permeability (mobility coefficients) are in units of m3sec/kg.
This can be converted to hydraulic conductivity (k) in m/s by multiplying by 9810.)

3.000

2.000

1.000

0.000

-1.000

-2.000

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 4 Acceleration time history applied to base & sides of model during dynamic analyses
(vertical axis units are m/s2 and horizontal axis is in seconds)

Acc. (m/s/s)
Acc. (m/s/s)
Acc. (m/s/s)

4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
4 0
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
4 0
3

Acc. (m/s/s)

A6

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

10

20

30
A2

10

20

30

A3

2
1
0
-1

-4
40
4 0
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
40
4 0

10

20

40

30
A7

10

20

40

30

A8

3
2
1
0
-1

-2
-3
-4

-2
-3

4 0
3

10

20

30
A4

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
4 0
3
2

Acc. (m/s/s)

A1

10

20

30

A5

-4
40
40
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
40
4 0

10

20

40

30

A9

10

20

40

30

A10

3
2

1
0

-1
-2

-1

-3
-4

-3

0
-2

10

20

-4
40 0

30

10

20

30

Fig. 5 Predicted acceleration time histories for CT6 (horizontal axis is time in
seconds)

40

300000

300000

U (Pa)

P1
250000

200000

200000

150000

150000

100000

100000

50000

50000

U (Pa)

0
300000 0

U (Pa)

20

30

0
40 0
300000

P2
250000

200000

200000

150000

150000

100000

100000

50000

50000

250000

0
300000
40 0
P3
250000

200000

200000

150000

150000

100000

100000

50000

50000

10

20

30

250000

0
300000
40 0
P4
250000

200000

200000

150000

150000

100000

100000

50000

50000

0
300000 0

U (Pa)

10

250000

0
300000 0

0
300000 0

10

20

30

10

20

30

10

20

30

10

20

30

40

40
P8

40

P9

10

20

30

10

Time (s) 20

30

P5

40 0

10 Time (s)

20

200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0

P7

250000

U (Pa)

P6

250000

40

Fig. 6. Predicted pore pressure time histories of CT6

30

40

1.3

L1

Disp. (m)

0.8
0.3
-0.2
-0.7
-1.2

10

20

30

40

1.3
L2

Disp. (m)

0.8
0.3
-0.2
-0.7
-1.2
0

10

20

30

40

1.3
L3

Disp. (m)

0.8
0.3
-0.2
-0.7
-1.2
0

10

20

30

40

1.3

L4

Disp. (m)

0.8
0.3
-0.2
-0.7
-1.2
0

10

20

30

40

1.3

L5

Disp. (m)

0.8
0.3

-0.2
-0.7
-1.2

10

Time (s)

20

30

40

Fig. 7. Predicted time histories for displacements.

9

Cons. Time 1.2002E+02

-2.889E+00 <x< 5.489E+01
-1.624E+01 <y< 4.154E+01
2.000

X-displacement contours
0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01
1.00E+00
1.25E+00
1.50E+00
1.75E+00
2.00E+00
2.25E+00

1.000

0.000

step 835260
Cons. Time 1.2002E+02
-2.889E+00 <x< 5.489E+01
-1.624E+01 <y< 4.154E+01
2.000

Y-displacement contours
-1.00E+00
-7.50E-01
-5.00E-01
-2.50E-01
0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01

1.000

Contour interval= 2.50E-01

Y di l
t
t

0.000

Figure 8 Horizontal (x) displacement (m) and Vertical (y) displacement (m), for CT6
analysis at 120s (end of analysis).

10

3.000

13-Feb-05 5:09
step 415476
Cons. Time 4.5508E+01
-2.889E+00 <x< 5.489E+01
-1.624E+01 <y< 4.154E+01

2.000

Head
2.50E+01
2.60E+01
2.70E+01
2.80E+01
2.90E+01
3.00E+01

1.000

Contour interval= 1.00E+00

Head
0.000

Contour interval= 1.00E+00

Minimum: 2 50E+01

Figure 9: Hydraulic head in meters and flow vectors at 45s for CT6 analysis.

11