Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
1
Site Background and Design Earthquake
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Frenquency (Hz)
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
analyses. Geotechnical properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 1 for
foundation soil and the embankment material.
Water Level
Bed Level
3 3
16.5 m
1 1 w
b
Sediment
25 m
Foundation Soil
60 m 109 m 60 m
229 m
SPT (N 1)60
0 5 10 15 20
0
5
Depth (m)
10
15
20
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
where 1' is the major effective principal stress, 3' is the minor effective principal
stress, and 2' is the intermediate principal stress that is calculated from the major 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.
Notes: c'
0.5
E ' = Eref , where c' is the effective confining stress and Eref =
100 kPa
11,000 kPa;
(
Gmax (kPa) = 218.8k2, max c' in kPa ) 0.5
, where c' is the effective confining
stress and k2,max = 30 and 45 for foundation and embankment soils, respectively.
20
Vertical Distance (m)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 50 100 150 200
20
Vertical Distance (m)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 50 100 150 200
4
TELDYN Seismic Response Analysis
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:
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
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Modulus Ratio G /G max
0.6
0.5
15
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
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
the most significant motion in the analysis corresponds to vertical shear waves, the
largest vertical element size was set to be
1 vs
y =
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)
1 v
f1 = (2.404) s
2 H
1 vs
f2 = (5.52)
2 H
1 v
f3 = (8.654) s
2 H
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 de-
convoluting the site-specific design acceleration time history at the free ground
surface using the computer program SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun 1992).
Figure 8 shows the maximum earthquake-induced shear stresses (not including pre-
earthquake 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
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
FS Liq =
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).
20
Vertical Distance (m)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 50 100 150 200
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
Factor of Safety against Liquefaction Triggering
20
0.5565 0.8762 1.1958 1.5155 1.8352
-10
-20
-30
0 50 100 150 200
10
Depth (m)
15
20
Foundation soil at a location of 50 meters
left (downstream) of the downstream toe
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 mid-
point 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
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.
End-of-Earthquake Strength
At downstream toe
At mid-point of downstream slope
10
At downstream edge of embankment
Depth (m)
crest
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
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,
EES = interpolation between 75% drained static strength and residual strength.
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 )60 cs
'
v
where sr = residual strength and = effective vertical stress. Figure 12 shows the '
v
estimated end-of-earthquake strength for the foundation soil.
End-of-Earthquake Strength (kPa)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
20
Vertical Distance (m)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 50 100 150 200
11
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.
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 TELDYN-
calculated 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
Global Minimum =
Method: gle/morgenstern-price
FS: 1.1
1.1 Center: 56.325, 30.305
Radius: 38.730
Sediment
10 Embankment
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit W eight: 21 kN/m3
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Friction Angle: 29.5 degrees
(75% drained shear strength)
0
Vertical Distance (m)
Sand
-10 End-of-Earthquake Strength
Unit W eight: 19.2 kN/m3
-20
Sediment
10 Embankment
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit W eight: 21 kN/m3
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Friction Angle: 29.5 degrees
(75% drained shear strength)
0
Vertical Distance (m)
Sand
-10 End-of-Earthquake Strength
Unit W eight: 19.2 kN/m3
-20
Figure 14: Critical slip surface and yield acceleration using end-of-earthquake
strength.
13
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
Yield acceleration = 0.02 g
0.0
Yield acceleration = -0.02g
-0.1
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Time (second)
0.2
Relative Velocity (m/s)
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 10 20 30 40
Time (second)
0.20
Relative Displacement (m)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
0 10 20 30 40
Time (second)
Conclusion
14
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 pre-
earthquake 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