Stantec RPT Jag 20151007 Flac Ajv r2

Seismic Deformation Analysis
East Saint John Terminal, Saint

John, New Brunswick
Prepared for:
Conquest Engineering
575 Crown Street
Saint John NB E3L 5E9
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
845 Prospect Street
Fredericton NB E3B 2T7
File No. 121614561.700
October 7, 2015
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled Seismic Deformation Analysis East Saint John Terminal, Saint John, New
Brunswick was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Conquest
Engineering (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The
material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other
limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The
opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the
document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the
document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party
makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec
shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third
party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Jeff Gilchrist, P.Eng.
Prepared by
(signature)
Jeff Barrett, M.Sc.E., P.Eng.
Reviewed by
(signature)
Arun Valsangkar, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Reviewed by
(signature)
SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSIS EAST SAINT JOHN TERMINAL, SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 BACKGROUND ON FLAC ............................................................................................2.1
3.0 MODELING SEQUENCE ...............................................................................................3.1

3.1 NUMERICAL GRID........................................................................................................... 3.1
3.2 BOUNDARY AND INITIAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 3.1
3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES ................................................................................................... 3.1
3.4 STATIC ANALYSIS (DRAINED CONDITIONS) ................................................................. 3.3
3.5 STATIC ANALYSIS (UNDRAINED CONDITIONS) ............................................................ 3.3
3.6 INPUT MOTIONS .............................................................................................................. 3.3
3.6.1 SHAKE Analysis.............................................................................................. 3.3
3.6.2 FLAC Analysis................................................................................................ 3.3
3.7 DYNAMIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 3.4
3.8 WAVE PROPAGATION ................................................................................................... 3.4
3.9 DAMPING AND MODULUS REDUCTION ...................................................................... 3.5
4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................4.1
5.0 ALLOWABLE DEFORMATIONS AT THE CREST ...............................................................5.1
6.0 NEWMARK ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................6.1
7.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................7.1
8.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................8.1
9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................9.1
10.0 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................10.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Material Properties .................................................................................................... 3.2
Table 2 - Input Motions .............................................................................................................. 3.4
Table 3 - Summary of Deformations at Location A (Pipeline at crest of the slope) ......... 4.1
Table 4 – Summary of Maximum Deformations..................................................................... 4.2
Seismic Deformation Analysis East Saint John Terminal, Saint John, New Brunswick
INTRODUCTION
October 7, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As requested by Conquest Engineering Ltd. (Conquest), Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has
completed a seismic deformation analysis for an existing slope at the East Saint John Terminal,
Saint John, NB. The work for this project was carried out in general conformance to our proposal
date January 22, 2015. The primary objective of the numerical analysis was to determine
displacements at top of the slope where pipe racks are located. This infrastructure was considered
by the owner to be sensitive to very small displacements and a decision to do numerical
deformation analysis was made in this context. The uncertainty regarding the design earthquake
return period also contributed to this decision. This report summarizes the work completed and the
results obtained from our deformation analysis.
Stantec interpreted the sub surface conditions at the site based on the geotechnical
investigations carried out by Conquest (Conquest Report 2014). The data from supplemental field
and laboratory work done by Conquest and MEG in 2015 were also considered in the deformation
analysis. The analysis was carried out for one cross section identified as Cross Section 3 in the
Conquest report. Cross Section 3 from the Conquest report can be found in Appendix A.
It is our understanding that the seismic analysis of the subject slope is to be carried out for an
earthquake event with 1 in 475 years return period. It is further understood that Conquest has
performed limit equilibrium analysis for the subject slope using the same return period criteria.
1.1
BACKGROUND ON FLAC
October 7, 2015
2.0 BACKGROUND ON FLAC
The software program used for the dynamic numerical analysis of the East Saint John Terminal
(ESJT) site was FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) version 7.0.421 with the dynamic
option (developed by Itasca Consulting Inc.). FLAC is a two-dimensional finite difference program
that uses an explicit time marching scheme to calculate node velocities and displacements.
Equations of motion are solved to calculate velocities and displacements which are then used to
update forces and stresses. This process continues until the maximum ratio of the unbalanced
mechanical force between zones is less than 10-3.
The explicit finite difference program solves slope stability problems without the need for a user
specified failure plane as in limit equilibrium programs. The program automatically finds the critical
failure plane in any orientation. Materials are modeled by creating a series of zones that are
connected through grid points to form user defined geometries. One major advantage that FLAC
has over other numerical modeling software is that the program can accommodate large strains
allowing the grid to deform as the materials yield. This is a desirable feature for the ESJT site, as site
infrastructure is sensitive to deformation.
FLAC also contains a user defined code called FISH (FlacISH) that allows for generation of code to
address specific problem needs that can be used in conjunction with the built-in features. FLAC
version 7.0.421 also incorporates a menu based interface that eliminates the need for many basic
code based functions that were time consuming to create in previous versions of the program.
As some material properties are stress dependent, a FISH function was used to assign material
properties to the model.
2.1
MODELING SEQUENCE
October 7, 2015
3.0 MODELING SEQUENCE
3.1 NUMERICAL GRID

FLAC uses a series of grid points in i-j space that correspond to x-y coordinates in real space. Four
grid points are joined to form a zone in which stresses and strains are measured (velocities and
displacements are measured at grid points). The grid zone spacing is set by allocating a series of
zones in i-j space to the appropriate x-y coordinates. The grid used for the analyses is shown in
Figure 1, in Appendix B.
The grid configuration was specified before the model was created and properties assigned.
Different grid configuration modes require different material properties, boundary conditions and
initial conditions. The ESJT model was run in groundwater and dynamic configuration mode with
these modes turned on and off for different stages of the modeling. The groundwater
configuration mode allows for groundwater flow based on applied pore pressure boundaries and
permeabilities of the saturated materials. The groundwater flow model in FLAC allows for fully
saturated flow only, therefore saturation rates of individual zones were set to either 0.0 or 1.0 (dry
or completely saturated). Under the groundwater grid configuration, pore pressures were solved
independent of mechanical effects and were used only to establish initial pore pressures for the
dynamic simulations. The groundwater flow model was then turned off for the remainder of the
analysis as the dynamic loading occurs over a short period of time, therefore changes in pore
pressures are a result of cyclic loading only, not fluid flow. The dynamic configuration was turned
off until the entire model reaches initial equilibrium and the dynamic loading is applied.
As the grid deforms due to yielding of the materials, FLAC assesses the aspect ratio of each zone
to determine if accurate results are maintained. If the aspect ratio of any zone in the model goes
beyond 10:1 in any orientation the accuracy of the equations of motion is lost. This can be a
difficult issue to rectify if the model experiences large deformations. One method used to
overcome this problem was the “warp” function. The warp function allows grids to be aligned to
any user defined orientation. The warp function was used throughout the modeling and was
especially key in generating the sloping soil layers.
3.2 BOUNDARY AND INITIAL CONDITIONS

In the static analysis the vertical boundaries were fixed in the x direction to eliminate horizontal
movements but free in the y direction to allow for settlement as the model was constructed. The
horizontal lower boundary was fixed in both the horizontal and vertical direction.
3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material properties are assigned by selecting a series of zones to form a group. Each grouping has
a unique name and corresponding set of material properties. The soil groups can are shown in
3.1
MODELING SEQUENCE
October 7, 2015
Figure 2 located in Appendix B. The material properties required are based on the constitutive
model and grid configuration selected. For this problem the Mohr-Coulomb model was used with
the appropriate material properties as identified in Table 1. Drained static material properties were
assigned to carry out the static analysis to establish the initial stress state for the dynamic analysis.
Undrained material properties were assigned to the materials just prior to application of the
dynamic load.
The fill, fine sand and till materials were assumed to exhibit undrained behavior under very rapid
loading conditions (such as seismic events). In the absence of laboratory testing completed on till
samples, a reduced angle of friction was assumed in undrained analysis. Data from consolidated
undrained triaxial testing were available for sand which was used to determine the total shear
strength parameters c = 1000 psf and φ = 120. These parameters were assumed for the fill and
sand layers. It should be noted that using these parameters will result in higher strengths at lower
normal stresses and to account for this, a bilinear failure surface is typically used in undrained
analysis. The bi-linear surface assumes c = 0 psf and φ = 300 up to a normal stress of 2740 psf and
c = 1000 psf and φ = 120 for stresses higher than 2740 psf. However, initially the deformation
analysis was carried out by assuming c = 1000 psf and φ = 120. The results indicated that the fill and
fine sand layers do not govern the dynamic behavior of the slope and therefore the bi-linear
model was not used in the analysis.
As the displacements at the end of initial drained analysis to achieve equilibrium were set to zero,
only undrained values for bulk and shear modulus are presented in the following table.
Table 1 - Material Properties
Drained Undrained Static(Undrained) Dynamic

Dry Wet
Unit Unit Shear Modulus Shear Modulus
Material c' phi' c phi
Weight Weight (G) (G)*
(pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (psf) (deg)
(psf) (psf)
Fill 107 130 0 32 1000 12 1.3E+05 1.1E+06

Fine Sand 107 130 0 32 1000 12 1.3E+05 1.1E+06
Organic Su = 200 +
73 108 100 21 4.8E+04 7.8E+05
SILT/CLAY 0.2σv'
Lean Clay 96 123 100 24 1000 0 9.7E+04 1.0E+06
Till 115 135 0 36 0 28 4.8E+05 1.2E+06
Sandstone 143 153 0 40 0 40 1.8E+07 1.9E+08
*Gmax from shear wave velocity
The shear strength properties in the table above were provided by Conquest for use in the FLAC
analysis. The shear modulus values for undrained static analysis were based on material properties
presented in Conquest (2014) report and subsequent field and laboratory testing carried out.
3.2
MODELING SEQUENCE
October 7, 2015
3.4 STATIC ANALYSIS (DRAINED CONDITIONS)

The static analysis was conducted to establish initial stress conditions for the dynamic analysis.
Because settlements during construction are of no concern in this analysis, the static analysis was
carried out in small strain mode so that the grid points would remain in their original positions until
the start of the dynamic analysis. In order to establish appropriate initial equilibrium stresses the
model was constructed in stages. The in situ soils were constructed and brought to initial
equilibrium before the addition of the fill material. At the end of the static analysis all
displacements were set to zero so that displacements recorded during the dynamic simulations
would only reflect those caused by the dynamic input motions and undrained behavior of fine
grained soils during the seismic event. The limit equilibrium analysis carried out by Conquest for
seismic event also assumed undrained conditions for fine grained soils.
3.5 STATIC ANALYSIS (UNDRAINED CONDITIONS)

Prior to applying the seismic loading, undrained soil properties were assigned to the soil model and
a static analysis was carried out to achieve equilibrium. Undrained conditions were assumed
because due to the short term duration of the seismic loading, there is no time for water to flow in
or out of the soils.
3.6 INPUT MOTIONS

3.6.1 SHAKE Analysis
Seismic ground response analysis using SHAKE2000 software was carried out by Stantec to
evaluate dynamic response of soils at one cross section (Cross Section 3) in the event of the 475
year return period earthquake. This report by Stantec is included in Appendix C. A brief summary is
included below.
SHAKE2000 software was used to generate a total of eight (8) acceleration time histories (four (4)
sets of orthogonal pairs) for input at the bedrock surface. The time acceleration histories produced
by the analysis are presented in Appendix D. The following sub section explains how the input
motions from SHAKE2000 were used in the deformation analysis.
3.6.2 FLAC Analysis
Dynamic loads are applied in FLAC by using either a rigid boundary with an applied acceleration,
or a compliant boundary with an applied shear stress. Depending on the stratigraphy, the
appropriate boundary condition is chosen for application of a dynamic load. A rigid boundary is
appropriate where very soft soils are overlying sound bedrock. In this condition, both the upward
and downward propagating wave is reflected back up through the model. This boundary
condition can lead to unrealistic amplification if the bedrock is weathered, as was assumed to be
the case at the ESJT site.
3.3
MODELING SEQUENCE
October 7, 2015
A compliant base was used in the ESJT model, which assumes that the downward propagating
wave is absorbed by the bedrock and only a portion of it is reflected back into the overlying
sediments. In order to use a compliant boundary, a deconvolution analysis was completed in
SHAKE in order to extract the appropriate input motion.
The input motions from the deconvolution analysis were processed using the wave processing
software SeismoSignal, to correct for baseline drift and to convert the acceleration history into a
velocity history for application with a compliant base. The velocity history was then applied to the
base of the FLAC model as a shear stress using the following equation:
Sxy = −2(ρCs )vs
Where: Sxy = applied shear stress;

ρ = mass density;
Cs = speed of s-wave propagation through the bedrock; and
vs = input shear particle velocity in the bedrock.
The following table summarizes the input motions for the ESJT site:
Table 2 - Input Motions
1%-99% Arias 1%-99% Arias

File Duration Effective
Input Motion Intensity Range Intensity PGA (g)
(s) Duration (s)
(s) Duration (s)
San Fernando 185 20 14 0-13 13 0.028

CHY035N 82 56 18-48 30 0.032
HWA060N 82 40 22-50 29 0.037
Northbridge 090 41 26 1-22 21 0.045
For use in the FLAC analysis, the input motions were truncated at 1% - 99% Arias intensity in order to
reduce the processing time.
3.7 DYNAMIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In the static analysis the vertical boundaries were fixed to prevent lateral movements; however, in
the dynamic analysis the model boundary must allow for lateral movements. To simulate an infinite
medium extending beyond the model boundaries the boundaries must allow the waves to pass
through and not reflect them back into the model. This was achieved by using free-field
boundaries at the vertical boundaries and quiet boundaries at the horizontal boundaries.
3.8 WAVE PROPAGATION

To propagate shear waves through the numerical grid, the size of the grid must be small enough
to ensure that the frequency content of the input motions can be passed from one zone to the
3.4
MODELING SEQUENCE
October 7, 2015
next. The relationship of wave propagation to zone size is given by the following:
𝑧 = (√(𝐺 ⁄ 𝜌) ⁄ 𝑓)/𝑙
Where: z is the number of zones per wave length;

G is the shear modulus;
ρ is the mass density;
f is the maximum frequency content of the input motion; and
l is the maximum zone length in either the x or y direction.
Itasca recommends that a minimum of 8 to 10 zones per wave length be used in order to achieve
accurate propagation through the model. A FISH function developed by Itasca was used to
evaluate each zone and, where required, the mesh was made finer in order to achieve accurate
wave propagation. The minimum number of zones per wave length was calculated to be 50 for
the ESJT model.
3.9 DAMPING AND MODULUS REDUCTION

Conventional dynamic modeling methods use an equivalent linear approach assuming a
constant damping ratio throughout the dynamic simulation. The process is completed through an
iterative approach where the value of Gmax is varied until a strain compatible shear modulus is
achieved. This method is used extensively in 1D dynamic modeling software such as Shake and is
ideally suited for modeling materials that do not experience large levels of cyclic strain.
The non-linear method used in FLAC provides for a different representation of damping because it
is specified as a function of shear strain. As each element is subjected to cyclic shear strain, the
damping ratio is varied based on the shear strain at that point. This method is incorporated in
FLAC by using hysteretic damping. FLAC has four built-in modulus reduction curve equations that
match those proposed by Ishibashi-Zhang (1993). Hysteretic damping in FLAC also reduces the
shear modulus as a function of shear strain based on the modulus reduction curves proposed by
Ishibashi-Zhang (1993), eliminating the iterations needed to determine a strain compatible shear
modulus. The non-linear method used in FLAC also allows for mixing of compressional and shear
waves creating a more representative modeling scenario. Hysteretic damping curves for the soils
were selected by matching index properties to the FLAC Default curves.
3.5
RESULTS
October 7, 2015
4.0 RESULTS
The dynamic simulations were run on a Dell Optiplex 990 work station with an Intel Core i7 vPro
quad-core processor running at 3.2 GHz. The quad core processor allows for multithreading use
when run with FLAC Version 7.0. The dynamic time step for the geometry and material properties
specified was 1.56-e5, corresponding to approximately 64,000 calculation cycles per second of
input history. Run times are approximately 1 hour per second of input motion.
Four dynamic simulations were completed using the input motions outlined in Table 2. Table 3,
below, summarizes the horizontal and vertical displacements for each input motion at the pipeline
location (Location A) for each input motion. Table 4 summarizes the maximum displacement for
each input motion. The negative y displacements refer to settlement at a given location while
positive x displacements refer to lateral displacement towards the water side. Contour plots of the
total horizontal and vertical displacements for each input motion are shown on Figures 3 to 10, in
Appendix B. It should be noted that the maximum displacements occur at some depth below
crest of the slope as shown on the counter plots.
Table 3 - Summary of Deformations at Location A (Pipeline at crest of the slope)
X-Disp. Y-Disp.
Intensity Location A Location A
Input Motion PGA (g) Figures
Duration (s)
(ft) (ft)
San Fernando 185 13 0.028 1.36 -1.36 Fig. 3 and 4
CHY035N 30 0.032 1.36 -1.33 Fig. 5 and 6
HWA060N 29 0.037 1.41 -1.37 Fig. 7 and 8
Northbridge 090 21 0.045 1.31 -1.35 Fig. 9 and 10
4.1
RESULTS
October 7, 2015
Table 4 – Summary of Maximum Deformations
Intensity Max X-Disp. Max Y-Disp.

Input Motion Duration PGA (g) Figures
(s) (ft) (ft)
San Fernando 185 13 0.028 2.08 -1.36 Fig. 3 and 4

CHY035N 30 0.032 2.01 -1.33 Fig. 5 and 6
HWA060N 29 0.037 2.09 -1.37 Fig. 7 and 8
Northbridge 090 21 0.045 2.00 -1.35 Fig. 9 and 10
The displacements in Table 3 and Table 4 include displacements associated with the reduction in
soil strength due to undrained conditions as well as displacements associated with dynamic
loading due to the earthquake motions. The displacements due to the reduction in strength from
drained to undrained conditions are in the order of 1.15 ft vertically at the crest of the slope. The
displacements due to the earthquake movements are in the order of 0.15 to 0.25 ft vertically at
the crest of the slope.
It should be noted that deformation analysis of pile stabilized slope design done by Conquest was
not carried out by Stantec. We will be pleased to undertake this work if the design team considers
this additional input is needed to finalize the design.
4.2
Allowable Deformations at the Crest
October 7, 2015
5.0 ALLOWABLE DEFORMATIONS AT THE CREST
Moffatt and Nichol have carried out analysis of the pipe rack at the crest of the slope to
determine the maximum allowable displacements. This report was forwarded to Stantec on
September 30, 2015. The analysis by M&N indicates that displacements of the order of 1 ft to as
much as 2 ft can be tolerated at the pipe rack location without resulting in structural distress. The
results of FLAC analysis presented in this report are within this range and thus it can be concluded
that the displacements during the design earthquake of 1 in 475 years would be within
acceptable limits.
5.1
Newmark Analysis
October 7, 2015
6.0 NEWMARK ANALYSIS
A simplified analysis using Newmark’s sliding block equation was also carried out by Stantec. The
results of limit equilibrium slope stability analysis carried out by Conquest for “upper slope” along
cross section 3-3 were used to estimate yield acceleration. An inferred value, as low as 0.005g can
be estimated from the Conquest analysis. Using this yield acceleration value, a maximum
displacement value of 3.75 inches was calculated. To account for uncertainty in this simple
deformation analysis an uncertainty factor needs to be used in accordance with the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual. Thus the displacements at the crest of the slope could be
conservatively estimated as 9 inches. It should be recognized that this simple analysis is very
sensitive to the assumed value of yield acceleration. If an yield acceleration of 0.01g is assumed,
then the calculated displacement would be 0.25 inches and using a conservative uncertainty
factor, the maximum displacement can be estimated to be couple of inches. In summary, the
simplified analysis will yield a wide range of estimated displacements at the crest of the slope
depending on the value of yield acceleration used. However, it should be noted that even the
most conservative estimate of 9 inches is within the allowable limit of displacement determined by
M&N.
6.1
Summary
October 7, 2015
7.0 SUMMARY
The FLAC analysis and simplified Newmark analysis inevitably produce different results, although
within the expected variance between these two methods. The FLAC analysis makes the
conservative assumption that the soils will exhibit a completely undrained behavior during
earthquake shaking. The two methods of estimating deformation can be seen to represent an
upper and lower bound. Given the complex nature of the in-situ soils, tidal fluctuations, and prior
slope failure along with significance of the infrastructure, we recommend using the upper and
lower bound values from these methods for assessment purposes.
7.1
CLOSURE
October 7, 2015
8.0 CLOSURE
The FLAC modeling was completed by Jeffrey Gilchrist, P.Eng., this summary letter was completed
by Jeffrey Gilchrist and Jeffrey Barrett, M.Sc.E., P.Eng. , and reviewed by Arun Valsangkar, Ph.D.,
P.Eng.
We trust this information is all you require at the time. If you have any questions about this letter
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Jeff Gilchrist, P.Eng

Geotechnical Engineer
Phone: (506) 452-7000
Jeff.Gilchrist@stantec.com
flb v:\01216\active\121614561_esjt\report\2015\rpt_jag_20151007_flac_ajv_r2.docx
8.1
REFERENCES
October 7, 2015
9.0 REFERENCES
Conquest Engineering Ltd., 2014, “Slope Stabilization – Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Options Assessment, Irving Oil, East Saint John Terminal Courtney Bay, Saint John,” Report
submitted to Moffatt and Nichol.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2011, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) Users Guide,
Fifth Edition (FLAC Version 7.0)
9.1
APPENDICES
October 7, 2015
10.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Cross Section No.3, Conquest Report
Appendix B Deformation Analysis Results
Appendix C Seismic Ground Response Analysis
Appendix D Time Acceleration Histories
10.1
APPENDIX A
Cross Section No.3 , Conquest Report

APPENDIX B
Deformation Analysis Results

Figures 1 to 10
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - Model Grid (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND
Figure - Grid Model 2.000
10-Aug-15 12:59 Pipe Rack, 200 psf load

(Location A)
step 47564
Flow Time 3.9542E+02
1.000
-3.556E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.986E+02 <y< 3.126E+02
User-defined Groups
User:Sandstone 0.000
User:Till
'User:Lean Clay'
'User:Organic Silt'
'User:Fine Sand'
-1.000
User:Fill
Grid plot
0 2E 2
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - Soil Layers (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND
)LJXUH6RLO/D\HUV 2.000

(Location A)
step 47564
1.000
-3.556E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.986E+02 <y< 3.126E+02
User-defined Groups
User:Sandstone 0.000
User:Till
'User:Lean Clay'
'User:Organic Silt'
'User:Fine Sand'
-1.000
User:Fill
Boundary plot
0 2E 2
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - SF180 (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND
Figure - X-Displacement (ft) 2.000

(Location A)
step 887148
1.000
Dynamic Time 1.3000E+01
-3.557E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02
X-displacement contours 0.000

0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01
-1.000
1.00E+00
1.25E+00
1.50E+00
1.75E+00
2.00E+00 -2.000
Contour interval= 2.50E-01
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - SF180 (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND
Figure 4 - Y-Displacement (ft) 2.000

(Location A)
step 887148
1.000
-3.557E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02
Y-displacement contours 0.000

-2.00E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.00E+00
-5.00E-01
-1.000
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
1.00E+00
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - CHT035N (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND

(Location A)
step 1973555
1.000
-3.557E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02

0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01
-1.000
1.00E+00
1.25E+00
1.50E+00
1.75E+00
2.00E+00 -2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - CHT035N (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND
Figure - Y-Displacement (ft) 2.000

(Location A)
step 1973555
1.000
-3.557E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02

-2.00E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.00E+00
-5.00E-01
-1.000
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
1.00E+00
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - HWA060N (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND

(Location A)
step 1909650
1.000
-3.558E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02

0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01
-1.000
1.00E+00
1.25E+00
1.50E+00
1.75E+00
2.00E+00 -2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - HWA060N (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND

(Location A)
step 1909650
1.000
-3.558E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.979E+02 <y< 3.133E+02

-2.00E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.00E+00
-5.00E-01
-1.000
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
1.00E+00
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - Northbridge090 (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND

step 1398324 (Location A)

1.000
-3.563E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.980E+02 <y< 3.132E+02

0.00E+00
2.50E-01
5.00E-01
7.50E-01
-1.000
1.00E+00
1.25E+00
1.50E+00
1.75E+00
2.00E+00 -2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
JOB TITLE : 121614561 East Saint John Terminal Deformation Analysis - Northbridge090 (*10^2)
3.000
FLAC (Version 7.00)
LEGEND

(Location A)
step 1398324
1.000
-3.563E+01 <x< 6.756E+02
-3.980E+02 <y< 3.132E+02

-2.00E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.00E+00
-5.00E-01
-1.000
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
1.00E+00
-2.000
-3.000

Fredericton, NB
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500
(*10^2)
APPENDIX C
Seismic Ground Response Analysis

500 – 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC V5H 0C6
May 21, 2015

File: 121614561
Attention: Chris Carr, P.Eng.

Conquest Engineering Ltd.
575 Crown Street
Saint John, NB E2L 5E9
Dear Mr. Carr,
Reference: Seismic Ground Response Analysis for 475 Year Return Period Earthquake,
East Saint John Terminal, Saint John, NB
1 INTRODUCTION
As requested, Stantec Consulting Limited (Stantec) has completed a seismic ground response
analysis to evaluate the dynamic response of soils in the event of the 475 year return period
earthquake at the East Saint John Terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. The purpose of the
analysis was to develop representative earthquake motions for use in assessment of slope stability
and deformations at the East Saint John Terminal with FLAC ® software. The scope of work for our
seismic ground response analysis consisted of the following:
 Review of published geology mapping for the area of the East Saint John Terminal;
 Review of in-situ and laboratory test results for interpretation of the soil and rock conditions at
the project site;
 Review of seismic hazard and deaggregation data for the site location;
 Selection and scaling of earthquake records appropriate for use in the dynamic analysis;
 Seismic ground response analysis using SHAKE2000 software to evaluate the dynamic response
of soils at the East Saint John Terminal in the event of the 475 year return period earthquake.
This report outlines our analysis methodology and presents the results of our seismic ground
response analysis for the East Saint John Terminal. In addition, this report provides earthquake
motions for input into the FLAC® model for either a rigid base or a compliant base.
2 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS

Stantec interpreted the soil and rock conditions at the East Saint John Terminal based on our
review of surficial geology mapping and subsurface information from the previously completed
geotechnical investigation.
Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, the soil conditions along the slope at
Dock No. 2 consist of a 5 m thick layer of dark grey to black, organic silt/clay overlying reddish
brown, low plasticity clay that extends to a depth of approximately 19 m below the mudline. The
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 2 of 10
low plasticity clay is underlain by a deposit of till, which ranges in composition from grey,
silty/clayey sand with gravel to silty gravel with sand and extends to a depth of approximately
23 m below the mudline. The deposit of till is, in turn, underlain by bedrock. Based on the
Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) geology map for the Saint John – Saint George region of
New Brunswick1, bedrock in the vicinity of the East Saint John Terminal is inferred to consist of
sedimentary rock, with regions of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate.
It should be noted that the soil conditions encountered in the borehole situated at the top of the
subject slope (i.e., in BH-24), included upper layers of fill and silty sand to sand overtop the native
silt/clay soils, and did not include a deposit of till overtop the bedrock.
3 SEISMIC GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS
3.1 Analysis Methodology

As previously noted, Stantec completed a site-specific seismic ground response analysis to
evaluate the dynamic response of soils in the 475 year return period earthquake for the East Saint
John Terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. Stantec completed our analysis using SHAKE2000
software, which is a one-dimensional (1D), equivalent-linear, total stress program for computing
the response of soils to dynamic loading. As an equivalent-linear program, SHAKE2000 is best
suited for small strain problems that are typical for seismic analyses in areas where low ground
accelerations are anticipated, such as the site of the East Saint John Terminal.
SHAKE2000 requires definition of a soil/rock profile and dynamic properties for all materials within
the profile. Dynamic properties required for representation of each material include density and
small-strain shear modulus (or shear wave velocity). In addition, a series of shear modulus
reduction and damping curves are required for definition of shear stiffness and damping
properties at higher magnitudes of strain.
In addition, SHAKE2000 requires selection of input motions to represent the design earthquake
event for the site of interest. Appropriate input motions are acceleration time histories for which
the response spectra best match the “target” response spectrum for the site of interest. The
“target” response spectrum from the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) seismic
hazard model, modified to reflect the appropriate Site Class, is typically used for this purpose. The
acceleration time histories are input at the top of bedrock beneath the overburden soils, and are
typically specified to represent outcrop motions to reflect that they were recorded at outcrops.
1Currie, K.L. (1997). Geology, Saint John – St. George region, New Brunswick. Geological Survey of
Canada, Open File 3418, Scale 1:100,000.
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 3 of 10
The SHAKE2000 software utilizes the input motions, soil profile and dynamic material properties to
model the propagation of shear waves through horizontally-layered (i.e., 1D) soil deposits. Further
details regarding the selection of input motions and definition of the soil profile of interest are
presented in the following sections.
3.2 Soil Profile and Dynamic Material Properties

The soil profile utilized in our seismic ground response analysis was developed to reflect the soil
conditions in the slope at Dock No. 2 of the East Saint John Terminal. Accordingly, shear wave
velocities utilized to represent the subsurface soils were selected to approximately match those
measured in CPT 1 for similar levels of effective overburden stress for each soil type. The shear
wave velocities utilized to estimate the small-strain shear moduli for soils in the profile are illustrated
on Figure 1.
Figure 1. Shear Wave Velocity Profile for SHAKE2000 Analysis

May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 4 of 10
In addition to small strain shear moduli, SHAKE2000 utilizes a series of shear modulus reduction and
damping curves to model behavior of soils at higher levels of strain which occur during seismic
loading. For our seismic ground response analysis, the shear modulus reduction and damping
curves listed below were utilized to model the behavior of soils at higher magnitudes of strain that
occur during dynamic loading. Each of these shear modulus reduction and damping curves is
defined in SHAKE2000 for shear strains of up to 1%.
1. The shear modulus reduction and damping curves by Vucetic and Dobry 2 for soil with a
plasticity index of 15 were utilized to model the shear modulus and damping
characteristics for silt and clay soils.
2. The upper bound shear modulus reduction curve by Seed and Idriss3 was utilized to model
the shear modulus characteristics for the silty sand and gravel soils.
3. The lower bound damping curve by Seed and Idriss3 was utilized to model the damping
characteristics for the silty sand and gravel soils.
4. The shear modulus reduction and damping curves by Schnabel 4 were utilized to model the
shear modulus and damping characteristics of bedrock.
3.3 Input Motions

For selection of representative earthquake motions to be used in our seismic ground response
analysis, Stantec conducted a search of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center’s ground motion database5. Search criteria were selected based on seismic hazard and
deaggregation data for earthquakes in the vicinity of the East Saint John Terminal and the site-
specific ground conditions.
The peak ground acceleration and spectral accelerations for “firm ground” (i.e., Site Class C)
conditions in the 475 year return period earthquake were obtained from the National Resources
Canada (NRC) online seismic hazard calculator6. Based on our review of the GSC geology map
2 Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 1, ASCE, Pages 89 to 117.
3 Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1970). Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis.
Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkley.

4 Shnabel, P.B. (1973). Effects of Local Geology and Distance from Source on Earthquake Ground
Motions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkley.

5 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (2013). Ground Motions Database.
6 National Resources Canada (2013). 2010 National Building Code of Canada Seismic Hazard
Calculator. www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 5 of 10
for the Saint John – Saint George region of New Brunswick1, Stantec considers that the bedrock
conditions at the East Saint John Terminal would likely be encompassed within the range of Site
Class B conditions, as defined in the 2010 NBCC. Accordingly, the “firm ground” accelerations
were converted to Site Class B conditions based on the Fa and Fv factors defined in the 2010
NBCC. Characteristic magnitudes and distances considered in the search for representative
earthquake motions were reflective of the deaggregation data for spectral acceleration at a
period of 0.2 seconds (i.e., Sa(0.2s)), as presented by Halchuk et al.7 for Fredericton and Moncton,
New Brunswick.
Based on our review of earthquake data and geology as described above, Stantec searched the
PEER ground motion database for earthquake records meeting the following selection criteria to
represent the 475 year return period earthquake for the East Saint John Terminal.
 Response spectra best matching the uniform hazard spectrum for the 475 year return period
earthquake between periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds (i.e., to approximately match the natural
period of soil deposits at the site) for Site Class B conditions
 Moment magnitudes between 5.6 and 6.8;
 Joyner-Boore distances of 30 to 90 km;
 Recording sites identified as free-field locations, with average shear wave velocities within the
top 30 m (i.e., Vs30) of 560 to 1,500 m/s.
Each individual earthquake and recording station was selected no more than once, and smaller
scaling factors for the earthquake motions were generally preferred.
Our search of the PEER ground motion database yielded 8 earthquake records (i.e., 4 sets of
orthogonal pairs) for use in our seismic ground response analysis. Information regarding the
selected earthquake records and factors used to scale these records to the target response
spectrum for the period range of 0.2 to 1.0 seconds and Site Class B conditions are presented in
Table 1.
7Halchuk et al. (2007). Revised Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Selected Canadian Cities.
Ninth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper 1188. Ottawa.
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 6 of 10
Table 1. Earthquake Records for SHAKE2000 Analysis

Scaling
NGA No. Earthquake Type M RJB (km) Vs30 (m/s)
Factor
59 San Fernando (1971) Reverse 6.61 89 813 1.8242
946 Northridge – 01 (1994) Reverse 6.69 47 573 0.6635
2168 Chi Chi – 02 (1999) Reverse 5.90 56 573 1.2614
3040 Chi Chi – 05 (1999) Reverse 6.20 52 573 1.5914
Displacement time histories for each of the selected earthquakes were reviewed to identify
whether drift was an issue for any of the individual earthquake records. Drift is identified when the
displacement record suggests a permanent displacement after cessation of the earthquake
shaking. None of the selected records exhibit noticeable drift.
Figure 2 shows the response spectra of the selected earthquake records for a damping ratio of
5%, scaled to match the target response spectrum for the 475 year return period earthquake
between periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds for Site Class B conditions at the East Saint John Terminal.
Figure 2. Response Spectra of Selected Earthquake Records (5% Damping Ratio)

May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 7 of 10
4 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the SHAKE2000 analyses include peak accelerations, shear stresses and shear strains
versus depth, in addition to response spectra at specified depths. Furthermore, the SHAKE2000
results include acceleration, shear stress and shear strain time histories at specified depths. For the
East Saint John Terminal, Stantec obtained acceleration time histories at the top of bedrock from
our SHAKE2000 model for both “outcrop” and “within” conditions. For the proposed FLAC® model,
the “outcrop” motions are applicable for a compliant base analysis, and the “within” motions are
applicable for a rigid base analysis. Text files with the eight acceleration time histories are
attached to this report for both the outcrop and within cases.
For consideration in the development of seismic coefficients for simplified pseudo-static analysis of
seismic slope stability, Stantec examined the peak accelerations versus depth from our SHAKE2000
model. The peak acceleration versus depth for each of our analyses is presented in Figure 3.
Based on the plotted peak ground accelerations, Stantec considers that an appropriate
horizontal seismic coefficient (Kh) for the subject slope in the 475 year return period earthquake
would be 0.03. The vertical seismic coefficient (Kv) may be taken as zero.
The recommended value of Kh is equal to approximately half of the peak acceleration for the
anticipated slip surface depths. The use of half of the peak acceleration is consistent with the
approach by Kavazanjan et al.8, which appreciates that a brittle mode of slope stability failure is
unlikely to occur along the subject slope. Namely, as noted in our previous seismic assessment for
the East Saint John Terminal, we concluded that liquefaction of course grained soils within the
subject slope is unlikely to occur in the design earthquake. Based on our review of more recent
direct simple shear tests on silt and clay samples, we further consider that cyclic softening of silt
and clay soils is unlikely to occur in the 475 year return period earthquake.
8Kavazanjan, E. et al. (2011). LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical
Features and Structural Foundations. NHI Course No. 130094 Reference Manual. Geotecnical
Engineering Circular No. 3. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-11-032.
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 8 of 10
Figure 3. Peak Acceleration vs. Depth from SHAKE2000 Analysis
To validate the use of SHAKE2000 (i.e., equivalent linear software) for our analysis, Stantec
examined the maximum shear strains that occurred within each soil layer within our model. The
equivalent linear method for seismic ground response analysis is typically considered to be valid
for shear strains of up to approximately 1 to 2%. As shown in Figure 4, the maximum shear strain in
each of our SHAKE2000 analyses did not exceed 0.04%. As such, we consider that the equivalent
linear method is reasonable for the subject problem.
May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 9 of 10
Figure 4. Maximum Shear Strain vs. Depth from SHAKE2000 Analyses

May 21, 2015
Chris Carr, P.Eng.
Page 10 of 10
5 CLOSURE
Stantec has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Conquest Engineering Ltd. for specific
application to the East Saint John Terminal project in Saint John, New Brunswick. Any use of this
report or the material contained herein by third parties, or for other than the intended purpose,
should first be approved in writing by Stantec.
We trust that this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require any
additional information, please contact this undersigned.
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Chris Longley, M.Eng., EIT Wayne Quong, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training Senior Associate
Phone: (604) 235-1897 Phone: (604) 412-2990
Fax: (604) 436-3752 Fax: (604) 436-3752
chris.longley@stantec.com wayne.quong@stantec.com
cel u:\pc 1216 geotech new brunswick\121614561\2015\report\rpt_esjt_seismic_analysis.docx

APPENDIX D
Acceleration Time Histories

CHY035E
CHY035N
HWA060E
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
Acceleration [g]
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82
Time [sec]
HWA060N
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
Acceleration [g]
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
-0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82
Time [sec]
Northbridge_000
Northbridge_090
San_Fernando_095
San_Fernando_185

Stantec RPT Jag 20151007 Flac Ajv r2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stantec RPT Jag 20151007 Flac Ajv r2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Deformation Analysis

East Saint John Terminal, Saint

File No. 121614561.700

Jeff Gilchrist, P.Eng.

Jeff Barrett, M.Sc.E., P.Eng.

2.0 BACKGROUND ON FLAC ............................................................................................2.1

3.0 MODELING SEQUENCE ...............................................................................................3.1

4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................4.1

5.0 ALLOWABLE DEFORMATIONS AT THE CREST ...............................................................5.1

6.0 NEWMARK ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................6.1

8.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................8.1

10.0 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................10.1

2.0 BACKGROUND ON FLAC

3.0 MODELING SEQUENCE

3.1 NUMERICAL GRID

3.2 BOUNDARY AND INITIAL CONDITIONS

3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Table 1 - Material Properties

Drained Undrained Static(Undrained) Dynamic

Fill 107 130 0 32 1000 12 1.3E+05 1.1E+06

3.4 STATIC ANALYSIS (DRAINED CONDITIONS)

3.5 STATIC ANALYSIS (UNDRAINED CONDITIONS)

3.6 INPUT MOTIONS

3.6.2 FLAC Analysis

Sxy = −2(ρCs )vs

Where: Sxy = applied shear stress;

Table 2 - Input Motions

1%-99% Arias 1%-99% Arias

San Fernando 185 20 14 0-13 13 0.028

3.7 DYNAMIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

3.8 WAVE PROPAGATION

Where: z is the number of zones per wave length;

3.9 DAMPING AND MODULUS REDUCTION

Table 3 - Summary of Deformations at Location A (Pipeline at crest of the slope)

Table 4 – Summary of Maximum Deformations

Intensity Max X-Disp. Max Y-Disp.

San Fernando 185 13 0.028 2.08 -1.36 Fig. 3 and 4

5.0 ALLOWABLE DEFORMATIONS AT THE CREST

6.0 NEWMARK ANALYSIS

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Jeff Gilchrist, P.Eng

Appendix A Cross Section No.3, Conquest Report

Appendix B Deformation Analysis Results

Appendix C Seismic Ground Response Analysis

Appendix D Time Acceleration Histories

Cross Section No.3 , Conquest Report

Deformation Analysis Results

FLAC (Version 7.00)

10-Aug-15 12:59 Pipe Rack, 200 psf load

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

FLAC (Version 7.00)

11-Aug-15 14:30 Pipe Rack, 200 psf load

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

FLAC (Version 7.00)

17-Aug-15 7:56 Pipe Rack, 200 psf load

X-displacement contours 0.000

Contour interval= 2.50E-01

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

FLAC (Version 7.00)

17-Aug-15 11:29 Pipe Rack, 200 psf load

Y-displacement contours 0.000

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

FLAC (Version 7.00)