You are on page 1of 116

Istituto Universitario

di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Università degli Studi di Pavia
Facoltà di Ingegneria

European Centre for Training and
Research in Earthquake Engineering

Carlo  G.  Lai  
Aussois,  October  3-­‐5,  2013  
1

acknowledgements
The case-studies presented herein are taken from scientific research, PhD
and MSc theses conducted by:

• Armando Calabrese, PhD (ROSE School)
• Ali Ozcebe, MSc (ROSE School)
• Abolfazl Mirfattah, MSc (ROSE School)
• Chiara Prearo, MSc (UNIFE)
• Heidy Sanchez, PhD (ROSE School)
• Luis Rosell, MSc (ROSE School)
• Mario Martinelli, PhD (UNIPV-EUCENTRE)
• Prof. Fioravante (UNIFE)
• Prof. Spacone and Dr. Camata (UNICH)
2

outline

• 

MOTIVATION

• 

SEISMIC-GEOTECHNICAL NUMERICAL ANALYSES
- Peculiarities (radiation, mesh size, stability)
- (Constitutive modeling of soils) (not treated)
- Boundary conditions (static and dynamic)
- Definition of seismic input

• 

CASE – STUDIES
- Seismic analyses of a maritime blockwork wharf structure
- Seismic analyses of a maritime pile-supported wharf structure
- Dynamic soil-structure interaction – direct approach
- Numerical modeling to support physical modeling: model of the model !
- (Seismic analysis of an embankment dam) ⇒ if time permits !
3

Motivation 4 .

nested multi-yield surfaces .plastic potentials (flow rules) .motivation Constant progress occurred in latest decades on computational side and on development of specialized software has spread also in geotechnical engineering the recourse to advanced dynamic numerical analyses.hardening rules theory of incremental elasto-plasticity 5 . Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion bounding surface plasticity .

Often soil-structure interaction problems üff (from Conte. Newmark method. 2007) (from Macchi and Pavese. etc).g. pseudo-static analyses. 1999) 6 .motivation Advanced numerical analyses allow to simulate very complex problems which would be difficult if not impossible to study by means of simplified modeling (e.

. Possible lack of data may be overcome through use of parametric or even stochastic analyses (research).motivation MOSE PROJECT VENICE LAGOON. (from Jamiolkowski et al. 7 . 2007) Advanced numerical analyses require refined geotechnical characterization of a construction site.

Seismic-geotechnical numerical analyses 8 .

(from Andersen. SEM. BEM. FDM or hybrids methods in geotechnical engineering.g. with respect to corresponding analysis in structural engineering.peculiarities Peculiarities of numerical dynamic analyses with FEM. are multi-faceted: 1. deep tunnels) or semi-infinite (e.  unbounded physical domain (e. PML • paraxial approximation 9 . above-ground structures) ! introduce tricks or stratagems to simulate energy radiation through the boundaries of the model. 2004) • infinite elements • adsorbing layers • non-reflecting boundaries • local or integral boundaries • consistent boundaries.g.

2008) 10 . (from Andersen.peculiarities •  most common approach consists on imposing discrete elements along the boundaries of the domain constituted by purposely-oriented viscous dashpots whose efficiency in energy dissipation depends on the angle of incidence of seismic waves. 2004) (from ITASCA.

peculiarities 2.  definition of seismic input. velocity or acceleration time series which should take into account the differences between the outcropping ground motion recorded at the free-surface and ground motion recorded at depth (deconvolution ⇒ ill-posed problem) accelerazione alla base üff üdec üdec tempo (s) time (s) üdec 11 . represented by displacement.

FDM) To be accurate up to a frequency fmax if the minimum shear wave velocity of the model is VSmin at least 10 points per minimum wavelength are needed in the finite difference method (FDM) to avoid grid dispersion.peculiarities 3. SEM are very accurate: 3-4 points per lmin ⇒ useful in large-size models 12 .  GRID DISPERSION: proper energy transmission within the domain for different excitation frequencies requires definition of maximum size of mesh discrete elements to achieve accurate modeling of the deformability of the continuum in relation to wavelengths propagating through the model: G = constant (5÷10 FEM.

(from Andersen. Value of C depends on numerical method. If Courant-Friederichs-Levy stability condition is satisfied error magnitude is bounded and algorithm is stable. 2004) 13 .peculiarities 4.  STABILITY: time step (Δt) and size (Δx) of discrete elements cannot be two independent variables ⇒ Courant-Friederichs-Levy stability condition : C = CFL number Meaning of CFL stability condition is that time step cannot be larger than the time required for any perturbation to propagate over distance Δx.

  geomaterials and thus soils and rocks are particulate multi-phase systems constituted by solid skeleton interacting with one/more fluid phases.peculiarities Soil constitutive modeling and hydraulic boundary conditions 5. Refined constitutive modeling of porous media requires to take into account hydro-mechanical coupling. Mechanical response arising from seismic input followed by hydraulic response (seepage and dynamic consolidation). pore fluid solid particle inter-granular forces (from Kramer. 2001) 14 .

peculiarities Soil constitutive modeling and hydraulic boundary conditions 5. There is a problem of proper simulating hydraulic boundary conditions at the boundaries where the seismic input is applied. (from Albers. 2005) 15 .  time evolution of two phenomena may be very different depending on soil hydraulic conductivity and frequency content of seismic excitation.

peculiarities Initialization of geo-static stresses & dynamic boundary conditions 6. 2008) absorbing boundary 16 .  Dynamic analysis of a geotechnical boundary value problem requires initialization of the litho-static (or geo-static) stress tensor. Application of seismic input which follows this phase should be accompanied by modification of initial boundary conditions applied along the boundaries of the model and of soil mechanical impedance. litho-static stresses seismic input (from Lai and Paolucci.

  Almost always in numerical modeling of geotechnical problems soil is in contact with one or more structural elements. 1996) 17 . Modification of the incident wave field close to anomaly.peculiarities Near-field effects (kinematic interaction) 7. In dynamic analyses mechanical impedance contrast caused by finite-size geometrical components may generate multiple diffractions of seismic waves having wavelengths comparable with the dimensions of component. This must be taken into account in relation to the choice of geometric dimensions of numerical model ⇒ avoid to set boundaries close to near field. kinematic interaction (from Kramer.

  Soils exhibit inelastic and nonlinear behavior even at low-strain levels. 2006) 18 . Liquefied soil is not able to transmit energy associated with S waves. coarse-grained materials such nonlinearities may lead to instability phenomena (liquefaction or cyclic mobility). saturated. In loose. This must be taken into account in defining the seismic input ! avoid to introduce boundaries in soil zones susceptible of severe nonlinear response.peculiarities Effects of soil nonlinearities and instability 8. S wave propagation of shear waves horizontal motion of bedrock (from Sawicki & Mierczyński.

  Numerical (i.peculiarities Computational resources and costs 9. discrete) models of geotechnical systems have in general relevant geometric dimensions associated to a dense computational grid. Adoption of complex constitutive models to simulate soil hydro-mechanical response and interface conditions between soil and structural elements. Demand of computational resources required to carry out these analyses may be very onerous also in terms of time duration This aspect must be taken into account when selecting accelerograms particularly in relation to duration and sampling frequency 19 .e.

Case – study seismic analysis of a maritime blockwork wharf structure 20 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure Seismic hazard Selection of spectrum compatible records 21 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure Geotechnical characterization Liquefaction assessment Factor of safety against liquefaction at different depths 22 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure Geotechnical model 23 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure   Two-dimensional finite difference program FLAC2D   Realistic modelling of boundary conditions   Hydrodynamic effects of the pool of water taken into account with Weestergard’s added masses [Weestergard. 1933] 24 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure   Nonlinear time history Tr=475 years   Displacement time history Residual Horizontal Displacement (RHD) = 36 cm 25 .

it can be used to predict the response of similar systems under the same input conditions 26 .seismic analysis of a wharf structure  Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are composed of simple elements operating in parallel   Inspired by biological nervous systems   Train to perform a particular function by adjusting the values of the connections   VERY IMPORTANT: Once the network is calibrated.

G foundation.seismic analysis of a wharf structure   Architecture= 1 hidden layer. φ block-backfill PGA. residual tilting towards the sea 27 . 30 neurons   9 Input variables: φ backfill. IA (takes into account the record to record variability)   Output variables = residual horizontal displacement (RHD) at top of the wharf. PGV. G backfill. φ block-foundation. φ foundation.

seismic analysis of a wharf structure Calibration FLAC input files used with random properties for input variables 30 input files for each magnitude level (270 analyses) 50% of set used to calibrate. 25% to validate and 25% to test Training R=0.99 28 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure Design charts   Generation of design charts using closed-form expression derived from calibrated ANN Closed-form expression   Prediction of wharf displacement for different values of Vs30 (200. 400 m/s) at 9 intensity levels 29 . 300.

2.659.445.495.seismic analysis of a wharf structure Three foundation lengths considered: 8m.27. 4.887.07. 1. 12m and 14m MATLAB script created to generate random geotechnical stratigraphies and to make correspondences with a random selected ground motion 30 input files generated for each intensity level (PGA= [0.572. 1.907]) Process repeated for each configuration (810 input files) Nonlinear dynamic analyses Calibration of ANN with input/output set 30 . 3.778. 1. 0. 1.

64 – 0.2.seismic analysis of a wharf structure   Closed-form expression used 1000 times at 5 intensity levels (0. 0.25.1.5 g) for each wharf configuration   RHD normalized by heigth and mean value used to generate charts (8m – 11m – 14m base widht .corresponding to ratios: 0.12) Effects of width-to height ratio for different values of Vs30 Vs30 = 200 m/s Vs30 = 200 m/s ±σ 31 .35 and 0. 0.88 – 1. 0.

88 W/H = 1.12 32 .seismic analysis of a wharf structure Effect of input excitation level for different values of W/H W/H = 0.

Case – study seismic analysis of a maritime pile-supported wharf structure 33 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 34 .

18  m   seismic analysis of a wharf structure 55  m   Loose  sand   Silty  clay-­‐Clay   35  m   Silty  sand   Bed  Rock   110  m   dominant soil types according to observations at different Italian port sites 35 .

63m   1m   1m   1m   grid size upward is 1m to comply with the highest ground motion frequency 36 .seismic analysis of a wharf structure 18  m   55  m   35  m   110  m   0.

Free  Field  CondiFon   Quiet  boundary   Quiet  boundary   Free  Field  CondiFon   seismic analysis of a wharf structure Quiet  boundary   wave reflections at model boundaries are minimized by specifying quiet boundaries 37 .

PlasFc  hinge   18  m   seismic analysis of a wharf structure 35  m   Pile  Element     with  interface     55  m   Beam  Element     with  axial  constraint   110  m   nonlinear inelastic structural elements (lumped plasticity) ⇒ plastic hinges 38 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure interaction of each structural node with soil element simulated by nonlinear coupling springs 39 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure internal grid elements are assigned pore pressure and equivalent hydrostatic pressure is applied at the boundaries 40 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 41 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure displacement measurement “sensors” of pile-supported wharf structure 42 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 43 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 44 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 45 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 46 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure typical response showing soil liquefied zone & plastic hinges in piles 47 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure methodology 48 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure mean and CoV of soil properties 49 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 1   Loose  to  medium  sand   Silty    Sand   Silty  Clay-­‐Clay   Bedrock   2   Medium  Sand  -­‐  Gravel   Coarse  sand  -­‐  Gravel   Silty  Sand   Bedrock   50 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure random selection of layer thickness of soil model 51 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure sample  of  20   realiza/ons  is  sufficient   to  capture  variability  in   stochas/c  model  of   target  wharf   52 .

seismic analysis of a wharf structure 53 .

Case – study dynamic soil-structure interaction – direct approach 54 .

dynamic soil-structure interaction Dynamic analysis of Santa Maria Maggiore tower at Guardiagrele (Chieti) 55 .

dynamic soil-structure interaction Mechanical characterization of materials constituting the tower 56 .

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Mechanical characterization of materials constituting the tower

57

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Geological characterization of construction site
Excerpt of geomorphological map of Guardiagrele (CH)

(from Di Francesco, 2007)

58

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Geological characterization of construction site

59

2007) 60 .dynamic soil-structure interaction Geotechnical characterization of construction site Geotechnical parameters from field and laboratory tests inferred from adjacent sites water table is absent (from Di Francesco.

2007) 61 .dynamic soil-structure interaction Geotechnical characterization of construction site Geophysical parameters obtained using seismic down-hole tests (from Di Francesco.

dynamic soil-structure interaction Historical seismicity in the area of study (from Di Francesco. 2007) 62 .

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Topographic modeling of construction site

63

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Topographic and geotechnical modeling of construction site

64

dynamic soil-structure interaction
Geotechnical modeling of subsurface and boundary conditions

65

dynamic soil-structure interaction Definition of design seismic action 66 .

dynamic soil-structure interaction Computational resources and integration algorithm Solution Scheme: Explicit Dynamics Solver: Abaqus/Explicit (double precision) Calculation Time Step: 5x10-5 s Computer: 2 Xeon 5520 (2.27 GHz) 16 Threads 12 GB RAM 64 bits Performance: ~6 increments per second about 1 second of record in 1 hour of calculation 67 .

ςαριαβλεσ ορ ΔΟΦ 723 588 ςελοχιτψ Πλοτ µ/σ (Λατεραλ ωαλλσ αρε νοτ δισπλαψεδ φορ σιµπλιχιτψ) Φορ ρεαλ ΕΘ τηε πλαστιχ στραινσ αρε χηεχκεδ ασ ινδιχατιον οφ δαµαγε Tower excited by a pulse 68 .dynamic soil-structure interaction Results dynamic analyses (ABAQUS) Ν. Ελεµεντσ 211 111 Ν. Νοδεσ 240 811 Ν.

Case – study numerical modeling to support physical modeling 69 .

numerical and physical modeling 70 .

numerical and physical modeling 71 .

movement type) of unstable layer.numerical and physical modeling Stabilization of slopes with large diameter shafts Pressures regimes acting on stabilizing piles and structures depend on response (i. CENTRIFUGE MODELLING OF DISCRETE PILES USED FOR SLOPE STABILISATION Nottingham University 72 .e.

numerical and physical modeling 73 .

numerical and physical modeling 74 .

numerical and physical modeling Seismic geotechnical centrifuge 75 .

numerical and physical modeling Seismic geotechnical centrifuges in Europe 76 .

numerical and physical modeling ISMGeo seismic geotechnical centrifuge (courtesy of Fioravante et al. 2011) 77 ..

. 2011) ISMGeo seismic geotechnical centrifuge 78 .numerical and physical modeling (courtesy of Fioravante et al.

  large-diameter stabilizing shafts Materials used for to build physical model chosen to correctly reproduce mechanical characteristics of prototype FINE SAND to simulate unstable slope LIGHT CONCRETE to simulate bedrock 79 .numerical and physical modeling Physical model and geotechnical properties The system to be reproduced is made of:   bedrock.   slope of fine granular soil.

numerical and physical modeling Preparation of physical model (courtesy of Fioravante et al. 2011) 80 ..

numerical and physical modeling Monitoring system of physical model for static loading 81 .

numerical and physical modeling Monitoring system of physical model for static loading 82 .

numerical and physical modeling Monitoring system of physical model for static loading 83 .

numerical and physical modeling Monitoring system of physical model for seismic loading 84 .

numerical and physical modeling Numerical modeling Monotonic tests simulations Seismic tests simulations •  Modeled in FLAC3D •  Modeled in FLAC2D •  Performed under large-strain conditions •  Large strain interfaces are introduced •  Performed under large-strain conditions between material discontinuities •  LDS are modeled with continuum elements •  LDS are modeled with continuum elements •  Dynamic input is simulated velocity controlled 85 .

numerical and physical modeling Numerical modeling of monotonic tests 86 .

numerical and physical modeling Numerical modeling of monotonic tests 87 .

numerical and physical modeling Numerical modeling of seismic tests 88 .

numerical and physical modeling Numerical modeling of seismic tests 89 .

numerical and physical modeling Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: static tests 90 .

numerical and physical modeling Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests 91 .

numerical and physical modeling Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests 92 .

numerical and physical modeling Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests 93 .

numerical and physical modeling Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests Close-up view 94 .

 October  3-­‐5.Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia Università degli Studi di Pavia Facoltà di Ingegneria European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering Carlo  G.  2013   95 .  Lai   Aussois.

Case – study seismic analysis of an embankment dam 96 .

org/wiki/Imachen:Map_Region_of_Molise.svg Castel San Vincenzo Dam is a zoned earth-dam situated at 41° 39’ North Latitude and 14°03’ Longitude.com/photo/6405926 41° 39’ Latitude 14° 03’ Longitude http://an.seismic stability of earth-dam http://www.panoramio.wikipedia. in the Province of Isernia in the Italian region of Molise 97 .

5 m Dam Zone Upstream and downstream slope f’ [°] c’ [kPa] 24 30 Width of crest 6m Length of crest 292 m Core 30 40 400.5 m Above maximum water level 2.seismic stability of earth-dam General characteristics Height of crest Above lowest foundation 34 m Above downstream riverbed 25 m Strength parameters Free height Above normal water level 2.000 m3 Foundation 35 50 Total volume of dam 98 .

ingv.455 99 .mi. Spectral ordinates for other periods needed to generate the Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) were obtained from INGV study [2004]. Probability of exceedance Return period [years] PGA [g] 39% probability of exceedance in 50 years 100 0.it/s1_en.php) The ground Intensity Measure (IM) used in this study was taken as the Peak Retunmotion Periods considered Ground Acceleration (PGA).434 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years 2475 0.seismic stability of earth-dam (http://esse1-gis.191 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years 475 0.337 2.265 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years 950 0.141 22% probability of exceedance in 50 years 200 0.5%probability of exceedance in 50 years 1950 0.

100 .seismic stability of earth-dam Selected set for the 475 years return period The plot shows the compatibility of the mean response spectra of the selected natural records to the probabilistic UHS for the same return period Tr=475 years.

101 .seismic stability of earth-dam Computational model of Castel San Vincenzo dam A two-dimensional. nonlinear finite difference plane-strain model of the Castel San Vincenzo dam-foundation system was developed using FLAC 2D.

Excess pore pressure IS NOT taken into account ! total stresses Create appropriate model grid for accurate wave propagation Define representative static and dynamic soil parameters Define boundary conditions Calculate state of geo-static equilibrium Define seismic input at the boundaries of the model Perform dynamic analysis and process output 102 .seismic stability of earth-dam The soil behaviour idealized as the nonlinear visco-elastic Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model.

seismic stability of earth-dam Residual displacements at the end of time history analysis 103 .

000 0.705 0. (1991) Jibson (1994) b 0.088 0.015 0.050 h 0.000 0.000 0.seismic stability of earth-dam Results obtained with simplified (displacement-based) methods Zone Newmark (1965) Makdisi and Seed (1978) Yegian et al.130 104 .030 0.155 0.000 a’ 0.075 0.

. 1975) and Byrne [1991] model and other models available in FLAC .seismic stability of earth-dam For this study only a simplified method was used due to the lack of geotechnical data which was needed to implement a more sophisticated methodology. Source: Boulanger and Idriss. (Seed et al. 2003). 2004 liquefaction susceptibility assessment 105 . such as the Finn (Martin et al.

A set of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) is defined to characterize the structural seismic demand in terms of structural global and/or local response Engineering Demand Parameters: • Maximum vertical residual displacement the the top of crest • Maximum horizontal residual displacement at upstream slope • Maximum horizontal residual displacement at downstream slope 106 .seismic stability of earth-dam Probabilistic demand analysis estimates the seismic demand that a possible earthquake ground motion will impose on a specific structure.

In order to do so. a series of nonlinear time history analyses were performed Variability due only to ground motion 107 .seismic stability of earth-dam Conditional Response Analysis The first step to obtain the conditional response of a given EDP is to carry out a probabilistic seismic response analysis.

seismic stability of earth-dam This dispersion mainly occurs because of the acknowledged inadequacy of PGA as a ground motion intensity measure for the seismic response of soil systems A lognormal distribution was assumed 108 .

seismic stability of earth-dam Uncertainty of Model Parameters: Probabilistic Analysis Which input parameters are the most influential? 109 .

f’) using MCS Generation of N uncorrelated random field (shear modulus) using MCS Mapping of the obtained value in the centroid of each grid element Running N FLAC analyses 110 .seismic stability of earth-dam Definition of grid dimensions and number of simulations=N Definition of mean value and CoV Definition of horizontal/vertical correlation coefficient Definition of cross-correlation coefficient Generation of N cross-correlated random fields (c’.

seismic stability of earth-dam Realization of cross-correlated random field 111 .

seismic stability of earth-dam Correlation distance The correlation distances θh and θv were fixed for each scenario in order to observe only the influence of the variation of CoV Realization of random field of cohesion [Pa] with Coefficient of Variation CoV=10% Realization of random field of cohesion [Pa] with Coefficient of Variation CoV=40% 112 .

L/2 & L/3).seismic stability of earth-dam FLAC analyses to perform: θh CoV=10% CoV=20% CoV=40% θv θv θv L 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m L/2 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m L/3 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m 4m 10m 20m For each value of CoV nine realizations are carried out. and 20m) Assumption of no cross-correlation between cohesion and friction angle (r=0) is made 113 . θv (4m. 10m. Each horizontal correlation distance is fixed for analyzing each of the three vertical correlation distances. Three for each value of the assumed horizontal correlation distance (θh=L.

seismic stability of earth-dam Conditional Response Analysis:Random properties The variability of the response of the dam due to the uncertainty of the most influential input variables becomes more evident if compared with the results obtained where the analysis was carried out using best estimate values for the input parameters (homogeneous soil assumption) 114 .

seismic stability of earth-dam The fitted probability distributions of these two sets of simulated EDPs are relatively close at low seismic hazard levels and become considerably different at high seismic hazard levels 115 .

seismic stability of earth-dam For this study the random modelling of soil properties in the probabilistic seismic demand analysis INCREASES the seismic demand hazard. Accounting for the uncertainty of soil parameters is therefore a significant factor in assessing the seismic demand on the dam. 116 .