seismic analysis

© All Rights Reserved

27 views

seismic analysis

© All Rights Reserved

- LP2012 Technical Manual
- nchrp_rpt_611appendix
- What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?
- The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures.pdf
- ESTIMATION OF EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SETTLEMENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN SANDY SOIL
- ad de Taludes by SteveYaeger
- Paper 38 Non-linear Soil-structure Interaction of Bridge Foundations in Highly Seismic Regions
- List of All Geotechnical Programs
- App Bl Iq Brochure
- Pb 286504
- Rock Slope Failure
- Mbeya Lwanjilo Trunnnk Road Project REPORT Executive Summary
- GDP-9bمهم.pdf
- Liquefaction Analysis Report
- Micky Kololuu
- %28ASCE%29GT%2E1943-5606%2E0001597
- 3. Del Gaudio 2014, What we can learn about slope response to earthquakes from ambient noise analysis.pdf
- How Pore Water Pressure Reduce Soil Strength
- 16525005
- Deepening Seismic Rehabilitation Terminal5

You are on page 1of 17

8.1 Introduction

Stability of a slope can be affected by seismicity in two ways: earthquake and blasting. These

seismic motions are capable of inducing large destabilizing inertial forces. In general, three

methods of analysis have been proposed for the evaluation of slopes response under such

conditions.

1. Pseudostatic Method: The earthquakes inertial forces are simulated by the inclusion of

static horizontal and vertical forces in limit equilibrium analysis.

2. Newmarks Diaplacement Method: This method is based on the concept that the actual

slope accelerations may exceed the static yield acceleration at the expense of generating

permanent displacements (Newmark, 1965).

3. Dynamic Finite Element Analysis: This is a coupled two or three dimensional analyses

using appropriate constitutive material model that will provide details of concerning

stresses, strains, and permanent displacement.

When a seismic motion occurs, different types of seismic waves are produced. The main seismic

wave types are Compression (P), Shear (S), Rayleigh (R) and Love (L) waves. P and S waves are

known as body waves, because they propagate outward in all directions from source (such as an

earthquake) and travel through the interior of the earth. Love and Rayleigh waves are surface

waves and propagate approximately parallel to the earths surface.

P wave is primary compression type, characterized by alternative compressions and dilations,

with their direction same as the direction in which the wave is propagating. Its is around 5-7

Km/s. among all the seismic waves, P wave travels fastest in materials, so it obtained first on a

seismogram.

The motion of S (secondary wave) is transverse in nature and is in the direction perpendicular to

the direction of propagation. Typical velocity of S wave in earth crust is 3-4 Km/s. These do not

travel through fluids, so do not exist in earths outer core (inferred to be primarily liquid iron) or

in air or water or molten rock (magma). S waves travel slower than P waves.

The motion of L (love) or surface wave is transverse horizontal, perpendicular to the direction of

propagation and generally parallel to the earths surface. This wave exists because of the earths

surface. The amplitude is largest at the surface and decrease with depth. Love waves are

dispersive, i.e. the wave velocity is dependent on frequency; with low frequencies propagating at

higher velocity. Depth of penetration of the Love waves is also dependent on frequency, with

lower frequencies penetrating to greater depth.

R (Rayleigh) wave is another surface wave which has its motion both in the direction of

propagation and perpendicular and phased, so that the motion is generally elliptical either

prograde or retrograde. Rayleigh waves are also dispersive and its amplitudes generally

decreases with depth. Appearance and particle motion are similar to water waves. Depth of

penetration of the Rayleigh waves is also dependent on frequency, with lower frequencies

penetrating to greater depth.

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the amount of energy released during the event.

Seismic energy attenuates as it travels away from the zone of energy release and spreads out over

a greater volume of material. Hence, intensity of the bedrock motion decreases as the distance of

a particular site from the zone of energy release increases. Measurement of mechanical

properties of soil and rock masses is, to a certain extent, possible with seismic methods. If P and

S waves are measured, a so-called seismic E modulus and seismic Poissons ratio can be

determined:

+ 2

P wave velocity = Vp =

S wave velocity = Vs =

Seismic Young s modulus = E =

(3 + 2)

( + )

2( + )

The relation between the frequency and the wavelength is:

V=f X

Where, V is the velocity of seismic wave, f is its frequency, and is the wavelength

The relation by deere et. al. relates Rock Quality Designation to seismic velocities measured in

the field and in the laboratory:

Vield

VLaboratory

X 100 % RQD

V laboratory = seismic velocity measured in the laboratory

Where, RQD is the Rock Quality Designation. The seismic velocity measured in the laboratory is

done on intact rock. The velocity measured in the field is the velocity of a signal passing through

intact rock but also through or around discontinuities and will hence result in a lower velocity.

Inhomogeneities in soil or rock mass, such as boulders in a soil or joints in rock mass will not

individually be detected if the wavelength of seismic wave is low compared to the dimensions of

the inhomogeneities.

Important elements in a seismic response analysis are: input motions, site profile, static soil

properties, dynamic soil properties, constitutive models of soil response to loading and methods

of analysis using computer programs. The contents include: earthquake response spectra, site

seismicity, soil response to seismic motion, seismic loads on structures, liquefaction potential,

lateral spread from liquefaction, and foundation base isolation.

The properties that are most important for dynamic analyses are the stiffness, material damping,

and unit weight. These properties enter directly into the computations of dynamic response. In

addition, location of the water table, degree of saturation, and grain size distribution may be

important, especially when liquefaction is a potential problem. One method of direct

determination of dynamic soil properties in the field is to measure the velocity of shear waves in

the soil. The waves are generated by impacts produced by a hammer or by detonating charges of

explosives and travel times are recorded. This is usually done in between bore holes.

Figure 3: Relation between number of blows per foot in standard penetration test and velocity of

shear waves

6

Direct measurement of soil or rock stiffness in the field has the advantage of minimal material

disturbance. The measurements are not constrained by the size of a sample. Dissipation of energy

during strain, i.e. material damping, requires significant strains to occur. In situ techniques are

based on measurement of the velocity of propagation of stress waves through the soil. The Pwaves or compression waves are dominated by the response of the pore fluid in the saturated

soils. Consequently, most techniques measure S-waves or shear waves. If the velocity of the

shear wave through a soil deposit is determined to be Vs, the shear modulus G is given as:

Where,

G = pVs2 =

Y 2

V

g s

Y = unit weight of soil.

There are three techniques for measuring shear wave velocity in in-situ soil; cross- hole, downhole, and uphole. All the three techniques require boring to be made in the in-situ soil. In the

cross-hole method, sensors are placed at one elevation in one or more bore holes. A source of

energy is triggered in another bore hole at the same elevation. The waves travel horizontally

from the source to the receiving hole. The arrival of the S-waves is noted on the traces of the

response of the sensors. The velocity of S-wave can be calculated by dividing the distance

between bore holes by the time for a wave to travel between them. Thus, the measured travel

time reflects the cumulative travel through layers with different wave velocities. Interpreting the

data requires sorting out the contribution of the layers.

Ground motion attenuation equations are used to determine the level of acceleration as a function

of distance from the source as well as the magnitude of the earthquake. Correlations have been

made between peak acceleration and other descriptions of ground motion with distance for

various events. These equations allow the engineers to estimate the ground motions at a site from

a specified event. They also allow engineers to find out the uncertainty associated with the

estimate. There are a number of attenuation equations that have been developed by various

researchers. Donovan and Bornstein (1978), developed the following equation for peak

horizontal acceleration.

Y = (a)(exp(bM))(r + 25)d

a = (2,154,000)(r)2.10

Where,

M = earthquake magnitude and

Several methods for evaluating the effect of local soil conditions on ground response during

earthquakes are now available. Most of these methods are based on the assumption that the main

responses in a soil deposit are caused by the upward propagation of horizontally polarized shear

waves (SH waves). These waves are propagated from the underlying rock formation. Analytical

procedures based on this concept incorporating linear approximation to nonlinear soil behavior

have been shown to give results in fair agreement with field observations in a number of cases.

The analytical procedure generally involves the following steps:

(a) Determining the characteristics of the motions likely to develop in the rock formation

underlying the site. The maximum acceleration, predominant period, and effective duration are

the most important parameters of an earthquake motion. Empirical relationships between these

9

parameters and the distance from the causative fault to the site have been established for

earthquakes of different magnitudes.

(b) Determining the dynamic properties of the soil deposit. Average relationships have been

established to estimate dynamic shear modulus as a function of shear strain and static properties

for various soil types (Seed and Idriss, 1970). Average relation between the damping ratios of

soils as functions of shear strain and static properties have also been established. Thus a testing

program to obtain the static properties for use in these relationships will often serve to establish

the dynamic properties with a sufficient degree of accuracy.

(c) Computing the response of the soil deposit to the base rock motions. A one-dimensional

method of analysis can be used if the soil structure is essentially horizontal.

Factors that affect strong ground motion include:

(a) Wave typesS and P waves that travel through the earth, as well as the surface waves that

propagate along the surfaces or interfaces.

(b) Earthquake magnitudeThere are several magnitude scales. Even a small magnitude event

may produce large accelerations in the near field. Consequently, a wide variety of acceleration

for the same magnitude may be expected.

(c) Distance from epicenter or from center of energy release.

(d) Site conditions.

(e) Fault type, depth, and the recurrence interval.

(a) Known design-level and maximum credible earthquake magnitudes. These are associated

with a fault whose seismicity has been estimated.

(b) Specification of probability of occurrence of the earthquake for a given life of the structure

(such as having a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years).

(c) Specification of a required level of ground motion. This specification is available in the code

provision.

(d) Fault length empirical relationships.

10

Slope movement is secondary effect of earthquake or blasting. For rock slopes, earthquake

induced slope movement is divided into falls and slides. In general there are two basic

approaches to incorporate the seismic effect on slope stability i.e. Inertia slope stability analysis

and weakening slope stability analysis.

It is preferred if material retains its shear strength during earthquake. Weakening slope stability

analysis is preferred if material experiences significant shear strength reduction during

earthquake. During liquefaction, there are two cases of weakening slope stability analyses. Flow

slide develops when the static driving forces exceed shear strength of soil along failure surface.

In lateral spreading, static driving forces do not exceed shear strength of soil along slip surface.

Instead, driving forces only exceed resisting forces during those portions of earthquake that

impart net inertial forces in the downward direction. This results in progressive and incremental

lateral movement.

Soils which dilate during seismic shaking, or do not exhibit reduction in shear strength with

strain, clay with low sensitivity, soils located above water table and landslides having distinct

rupture surface are examples, where material retain shear strength during earthquake. Inertia

slope analysis is preferred for these cases. Foliated or friable rock, which undergo fracture during

earthquake, sensitive clays, overloaded soft and organic soils as well as loose soils located below

water table and under liquefaction induced excess pore water pressure are examples where

material experiences sufficient shear strength reduction during earthquake. Weakening slope

stability analyses is preferred for them.

11

In pseudo-static methods, the cyclic earthquake motion is replaced with a constant horizontal

acceleration equal to kc(g), where kc is the seismic coefficient, and g is the acceleration of

gravity. A force is applied to the soil mass equal to the product of the acceleration and the weight

of the soil mass.

The limit equilibrium method is modified to include horizontal and vertical static seismic forces

that are used to simulate the potential inertial forces due to ground accelerations in an

earthquake. In pseudostatic slope stability analyses, a factor of safety against failure is computed

using a static limit equilibrium stability procedure, in which a pseudostatic, horizontal inertial

force, which represents the destabilizing effects of the earthquake, is applied to the potential

sliding mass.

This method is easy to understand and is applicable for both total and effective stress slope

stability analyses. The method ignores cyclic nature of earthquake. It assumes that additional

static force is applied on the slope due to earthquake. In actual analysis, a lateral force acting

through centroid of sliding mass, is applied which acts out of slope direction. This pseudostatic

lateral force F h is calculated as follows:

Where,

Fh = ma =

Wa Wamax

=

= khW

g

g

F h = horizontal pseudostatic force acting through centroid of sliding mass out of slope direction.

m=total mass of slide material

W=total weight of slide mass

a= acceleration, maximum horizontal acceleration at ground surface due to earthquake (= amax )

a max /g=seismic coefficient

12

A considerable limitation of the pseudostatic approach is that the horizontal force representing

the effects of seismicity is constant and acts in only one direction. With dynamically applied

loads, the force may be applied for only a few tenths of a second before the direction of motion is

reversed. The result of these transient forces will be a series of displacement pulses rather than

complete failure of the slope.

Seismicity subjects sliding mass to vertical as well as horizontal pseudostatic forces. However,

the effect of vertical pseudostatic force on sliding mass is ignored as it has very little effect on its

slope stability. Although, the weight of the sliding mass W can be readily estimated, selection of

seismic coefficient requires considerable experience and judgement. Certain guidelines regarding

selection of seismic coefficient are as follows:

For small slide mass, k h =

amax

g

amax

g

.

amax

For large slide mass, k h =0.1 for sites never generating 6.5 magnitude earthquake and,

k h =0.1 for severe earthquake, = 0.2 for violent and destructive earthquake and=0.5 for

catastrophic earthquake.

Wedge Method

This is simplest type of slope stability analysis. A wedge failure has planar slip surface, inclined

at an angle to horizontal. Analysis could be performed for the case of planar slip surface

intersecting the face of slope or passing through toe of slope. Factor of safety for pseudostatic

analysis is obtained as follows:

13

FOS =

cL + Ntan

cL + (Wcos Fh sin )tan

resisting force

=

=

Wsin +Fh cos

driving force

Wsin +Fh cos

Where,

FOS =

c L + N tan

=

Wsin +Fh cos

W sin +Fh cos

u= average pore water pressure along slip surface

c and are the effective cohesion and friction angle material

For total stress analysis, total stress parameters of soil should be known and is often performed

for cohesive soils. For effective stress analysis, effective stress parameters of soil should be

known and is often performed for cohesionless soils. For this purpose pore water pressure along

slip surface should also be known. For soil layers above water table, pore water pressure is

assumed zero. If the soil is below water table and water table is horizontal, pore water pressure

below water table is hydrostatic. In case of sloping water table, flow net can be used to estimate

pore water pressure below water table.

Method of Slices

In this method, failure mass is subdivided into vertical slices and factor of safety is determined

based on force equilibrium equations. A circular arc slip surface and a rotational failure mode is

often used in this method. The resisting and the driving forces are calculated for each slice and

then summed to obtain factor of safety of the slope. Factor of safety can be calculating the

resisting forces to driving forces for each slice and then summed to obtain factor of safety.

However, this method involves more unknowns than equilibrium equations in the method of

slices. Consequently, an assumption is to be made concerning interslice forces. In ordinary

method of slices, resultant of interslice forces is parallel to average inclination of slice, . Bishop

simplified, Janbu simplified, Janbu generalized, Spencer method and Morgenstern Price method

14

are other methods of slices. Because of the tedious nature of calculations, computer programs are

routinely used to perform the pseudostatic slope stability analysis using the method of slices.

The Newmark [1965] analysis assumes that relative slope movements would be initiated when

the inertial force on a potential sliding mass is large enough to overcome the yield resistance

along the slip surface, and these movements stop when the inertial force decreases below the

yield resistance and the velocities of the ground and sliding mass coincides. The yield

acceleration is defined as the average acceleration producing a horizontal inertial force on a

potential sliding mass which gives a factor of safety of one and can be calculated as the seismic

coefficient in pseudostatic slope stability analyses that produces a safety factor of one.

Newmarks method assumes: existence of a well-defined slip surface, a rigid, perfectly plastic

slide material, negligible loss of shear strength during shaking, and that permanent strains occur

if the dynamic stress exceeds the shear resistance. Also, the slope is only presumed to deform in

the downslope direction, thus implying infinite dynamic shear resistance in the upslope direction.

The procedure requires that the value of a yield acceleration or critical seismic coefficient, ky, be

determined for the potential failure surface using conventional limit equilibrium methods.

15

Purpose of this method is to estimate the slope deformation for those cases where the

pseudostatic factor of safety is less than 1.0, which corresponds to failure condition. It is

assumed that slope will deform during those portions of earthquake when out of slope earthquake

forces make pseudostatic factor of safety below 1.0 and the slope accelerates downwards. Longer

the duration for which pseudostatic factor of safety is zero, greater the slope deformation. Figure

3 shows horizontal acceleration of slope during earthquake. Accelerations plotting above zero

line are out of slope and accelerations plotting below zero line are into slope accelerations. Only

out of slope accelerations cause downslope movement and are used in the analysis. In Figrue , a y

is horizontal yield acceleration and corresponds to pseudostatic factor of safety exactly equal to

1. Portion of acceleration pulses above ay (darkened portion in Fig. 9.2(a)), causes lateral

movement of slope. Fig. 9.2(b) and (c) represent horizontal velocity and slope displacement due

to darkened portion of acceleration pulse. Slope displacement is incremental and occurs only

when horizontal acceleration due to earthquake exceeds a y .

Figure 3: Diagram illustrating Newmark method (a) Accelertion versus time (b) velocity versus

time for darkened portion of acceleration pulse (c) corresponding downslope displacement

versus time in response to velocity pulse (Day, 2002)

16

Magnitude of slope displacement depends on variety of factors. Higher the ay value, more stable

the slope is for a given earthquake. Greater the difference between peak ground acceleration a max

due to earthquake and a y , larger the down slope movement. Longer the earthquake acceleration

exceeds a y , larger the down slope deformation. Larger the number of acceleration pulses

exceeding a y , greater the cumulative down slope movement during earthquake. Most common

method used in Newmark method is as follows:

Where,

ay 253 ay 1.09

amax

amax

ay =yield acceleration and

Essentially amax must be greater than ay . While using Eq. (9.3), pseudostatic factor of safety is

determined first using the technique described in Fig. 9.2. If it is less than 1, k h is reduced till

pseudostatic factor becomes equal to 1. This value of k h is used to determine ay using Eq. (9.1).

ay and amax are used to determine slope deformation.

17

- LP2012 Technical ManualUploaded byalicarlos13
- nchrp_rpt_611appendixUploaded byguillermo
- What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?Uploaded bysamuel200879
- The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures.pdfUploaded bydyc123
- ESTIMATION OF EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SETTLEMENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN SANDY SOILUploaded byv2brother
- ad de Taludes by SteveYaegerUploaded byctorres_88
- Paper 38 Non-linear Soil-structure Interaction of Bridge Foundations in Highly Seismic RegionsUploaded byM.Waqas Liaqat
- List of All Geotechnical ProgramsUploaded byGEOMAHESH
- App Bl Iq BrochureUploaded byRollan F. Komaji
- Pb 286504Uploaded byjinesh shah
- Rock Slope FailureUploaded byNasyafa Kasyura Abdikas
- Mbeya Lwanjilo Trunnnk Road Project REPORT Executive SummaryUploaded byYoseph Birru
- GDP-9bمهم.pdfUploaded byمحمد عبدالرازق عبدالله
- Liquefaction Analysis ReportUploaded byDaljeet Sidhu
- Micky KololuuUploaded bySalam Daeng Bengo
- %28ASCE%29GT%2E1943-5606%2E0001597Uploaded byJorge Carrillo
- 3. Del Gaudio 2014, What we can learn about slope response to earthquakes from ambient noise analysis.pdfUploaded byJosé Quiroz Olmos
- How Pore Water Pressure Reduce Soil StrengthUploaded byahmedaboeid
- 16525005Uploaded bySateesh
- Deepening Seismic Rehabilitation Terminal5Uploaded byGoran Brncic
- Rapport 2013-04 SoA II 2011 - Earthquake Design IssuesUploaded byOanh Phan
- Borowiec_1_2014Uploaded byjojomarbun
- Hungr Et Al 2005_Landslide Travel DistanceUploaded byJosé Ignacio Ramírez
- MalayampayaUploaded byAlnie Demoral
- 2014 Volume 1.pdfUploaded byDidik Junaidi
- 3D Stability Analysis Method of Concave Slope Based on the Bishop MethodUploaded byDanny Daniel Sibuea
- The Arup Journal Issue 2 1969Uploaded byjuanjosefontana
- Statement of Purpose for a ScholarshipUploaded byedsa mendpza
- natural disasters paperUploaded byapi-341197501
- Seismic Update - Chile EarthquakeUploaded byRodríguez Jose

- Power System GroundingsUploaded bymilan9b
- 2015 the Nepal Earthquake of April 2015 PhotosUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Response Spectrum SKJUploaded byoneakshay
- 364-P10037.pdfUploaded byjhoward2012np
- M6L6Uploaded byNiranjan
- Design of Liquid Retaining Structure R D AngorUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Chapter 3 Waste and Wastewater ManagementUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Chapter 5 EcosystemUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Report Format for Field Discharge MeasurementUploaded byjhoward2012np
- ISRM 2007 Rock Bolt TestingUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Is 1893 PART1 Exp.examplesUploaded byjonnyprem
- 2 Full Lecture 2006Uploaded byjhoward2012np
- Bp Statistical Review of World Energy 2016 Full ReportUploaded byKiranPadman
- Procurement of Works for Above 6 Million Rupees Ncb July 2010Uploaded byjhoward2012np
- Procurement of Goodsicbjanuary 2012Uploaded byjhoward2012np
- Theory Of Financial Risks From Statistical Physics To Risk Management Cambridge University Press 2000.pdfUploaded byjhoward2012np
- ValueEngineering_Practical.pdfUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Open Channel Hydraulics, ChowUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Machine Foundation DesignUploaded byjhoward2012np
- A Procedure for Combining Vertical and Horizontal Seismic Action EffectsUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Radial GatesUploaded byFatima Chelihi
- Site Management of Building Services Contractors_1Uploaded byjhoward2012np
- PPA Process PresentationUploaded byjhoward2012np
- Bricklayers Pocket BookUploaded byTiong V Yen
- 14WCEE TG Machine FoundationsUploaded bybehdad736
- expo machines vibrating.pdfUploaded bymancas50
- crane+rating+chartsUploaded byjhoward2012np

- Cyclotron - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded bydonodoni0008
- gek46074.pdfUploaded byJose Alberto Uribe Minier
- Properties of Matter and Its Chemical StructureUploaded byanalingling alcasid
- Lect11-Other Beams and Pinned FramesUploaded byChris
- Machinability of Nickel and Titanium Alloys Under OfUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Day1.docxUploaded byishan
- Shell Stress &ForceUploaded byKutty Mansoor
- Flexible Concrete Report[1]Uploaded byGowtham Kichcha
- chapter 2.pptUploaded byArkew Bogale
- Design MethodologyUploaded byRaviJoshi
- Lift calculation DemoUploaded bya_toups
- Experiment 6Uploaded byeelya93
- EEC-301 Fundamentals of Electronic Devices 11-12Uploaded bySakshi Upadhyay
- body in wUploaded bynixchavan
- VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE MEASUREMENTUploaded bywhoelse_i
- Fusing MachineUploaded byAkshita Sabharwal
- Module - I - Dr. S. Mathava KumarUploaded byRitesh Kumar
- Roger 3000Uploaded byPratik
- APHUploaded byDipti Bhanja
- Flash Strobist TutorialUploaded byAgung PrihRaharjo
- 7 Abaqus Conv GuidelinesUploaded byFerhan Öztürk
- Lesson Plan -Tides - CopyUploaded byKavita Gupta
- Sidekaziz Glass 131007191634 Phpapp01Uploaded byAntonValy
- EM_1110-2-1601.pdfUploaded byrgscribd61
- chapter17 PhysicsUploaded bynallilatha
- Slab Culvert Irc 21 Irc 112Uploaded byimamta
- 1-s2.0-S187551001400300X-mainUploaded byFernan
- Plastics in AerospaceUploaded byIniyan Thiruselvam Navaladi Karthikeyan
- Quiz on Electromagnetism and Electromagnetic SpectrumUploaded byNeptune Lopez
- Sample Mechanical Basis of Design for UW_Chiller SystemsUploaded bydaveleycons