You are on page 1of 15

Earthquake Induced Damage Mitigation from Soil Liquefaction

CLASS A PREDICTION FOR LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION INITIATIVE CENTRIFUGE TEST 5 (LRICT5)

By: Ahmad Jafari

Supervisor: Dr. Radu Popescu Memorial University of Newfoundland November, 2004

Introduction
In this report Class A prediction of the 5th LRI (Liquefaction Remediation Initiative) centrifuge test (LRICT5) is presented and discussed. The recalibrated soil parameters, used in class A prediction of the LRICT4 centrifuge experiment, have been used to predict the behavior of soil due to seismic loads.

LRICT5 geometry and input motion


General layout and input motion used for class A prediction of LRICT5 are shown in Figures1 and 2. The slope has an inclined silt layer with a slope of 1:5.7 and the mitigation strategy includes three drainage dykes as shown in Figure 1. The input acceleration time history used in this test is A2475 with a magnification factor of 2, i.e. 2 A2475 as shown in Figure 2. The FE model for this prediction is shown in Figure 3. The model consists of 588 nodes and 542 elements.

Figure 1. Geometry and instrumentation layout of LRICT5 given by C-CORE

Figure 2. Input acceleration time history used for LRICT5

Figure 3. FE mesh used in class A prediction of LRICT5

Soil properties
Regarding loose sand and drainage dyke the same material properties, previously used in class A prediction of LRICT4, have been used in class A prediction of LRICT5. It is mentioned that there has been no relevant information on the silt and only general test results have been made available for the gravel; therefore, the required constitutive parameters have been estimated based on engineering judgment and previous experience

with similar materials. Table 1 includes the assumed set of soil properties of silt used in this class A prediction. Hydraulic conductivity of silt is considered to be 1/100 of the hydraulic conductivity of loose sand, as used by UBC in their class A predictions for COSTA-B. The material properties of sand and drainage dyke were reported in class A prediction of LRICT4.
Constitutive parameters Mass density (kg/m3) Porosity Hydraulic conductivity (permeability) (cm/s) Low-strain shear modulus (Mpa) Reference effective mean normal stress Powe exponent Poisson ratio Friction angle at failure Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest Soil cohesion Maximum deviatoric strain (C= compression, E=extension) Dilation angle (phase transformation angle) Dilation parameter Symbol s
n
w

Assumed Values 2670 0.448 0.000084 2 100 0.8 0.4 22o 1 0 0.10 (C), 0.10 (E) 17o 0.04

Type State Parameters Elastic Parameters

k
G0
p0

k0 c
max dev

Yield Parameters

X PP

Dilation Parameters

Table 1. Assumed set of silt constitutive parameters

Results of Class A prediction of LRICT5


Results of class A prediction of the 5th centrifuge test are discussed hereafter. Figure 4 shows vertical displacement contours at the end of analysis (t = 42.56s). The predicted settlement at upslope free field is larger than 0.4m. The predicted maximum shear strain contours are shown in Figure 5 along with the deformed shape of the model. The predicted excess pore water pressure contours at different instants are shown in Figures 6 to 10. Due to the presence of dykes considerable reduction in excess pore pressure is predicted in regions close to the dykes; however, in the free field, U/S of the drainage dykes, significant pore water pressure generation is predicted. The large values predicted near the lateral boundaries are due to boundary effects. As it can be seen in Figures 9 and 10, after the end of the strong shaking at about t=20s, the maximum pore water pressure

values below the U/S region move upwards towards the silt layer. In the D/S region pore pressures are predicted to dissipate after the end of shaking (t >20 s). Figures 11 to 33 show the predicted responses at different transducers. It is mentioned that LVDT2 measures displacement time history in a direction parallel to the silt layer. Up to about 0.25 m heave is predicted at LVDT4 location (Figure 14). As discussed earlier in the free field, U/S of the drainage dykes, e.g. EPP5, remarkably large excess pore water pressure generation is predicted after the end of shaking, and it results in occurring of liquefaction in that area as shown in Figure 19. The numerical model predicts significant dilation (i.e. large negative excess pore water pressures) between t= 12 s and t= 17s, especially at very shallow locations (EPP4, EPP5, EPP8 and EPP9).

Figure 4. Predicted vertical displacement contours at t=42.56 s

Figure 5. Predicted maximum shear strain contours at t=42.56 s (Deformed shape magnification factor= 1)

Figure 6. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio contours at t=12 s

Figure 7. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio contours at t=16 s

Figure 8. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio contours at t=20 s

Figure 9. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio contours at t=30 s

Figure 10. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio contours at t=42.56 s
L V D T 1 tim e h is to r y 0 .0 5 0 -0 .0 5 Displacement ( m ) -0 .1 -0 .1 5 -0 .2 -0 .2 5 -0 .3 -0 .3 5 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 11. Predicted vertical displacement time history at LVDT1


L V D T 2 t im e h is to r y 1 .2 1 Displacement ( m ) 0 .8 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 -0 .2

10

20 30 T im e ( s )

40

50

Figure 12. Predicted total displacement time history at LVDT2 along the silt layer 8

L V D T 3 tim e h is to r y 0 .0 5 0 -0 .0 5 Displacement ( m ) -0 .1 -0 .1 5 -0 .2 -0 .2 5 -0 .3 -0 .3 5 -0 .4 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

Figure 13. Predicted vertical displacement time history at LVDT3


L V D T 4 0 .3 0 .2 5 Displacement ( m ) 0 .2 0 .1 5 0 .1 0 .0 5 0 -0 .0 5 tim e h is to r y

1 0

2 0 T im e

3 0 ( s )

4 0

5 0

Figure 14. Predicted vertical displacement time history at LVDT4


P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 1 0 .2 0 .1 0 -0 .1 RU -0 .2 -0 .3 -0 .4 -0 .5 -0 .6 -0 .7 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

IEVS=50 KPa

Figure 15. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP1

P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 2 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 RU 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 -0 .1 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

IEVS=121 KPa

Figure 16. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP2
P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 3 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 RU 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 -0 .1 -0 .2 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

IEVS=88.5 KPa

Figure 17. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP3
P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 4 2 0 -2 RU -4 -6 -8 -1 0

IEVS=12 KPa

1 0

2 0 3 0 T im e ( s )

4 0

5 0

Figure 18. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP4

10

P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 5 1

0 .5

0 RU -0 .5

-1

IEVS=31 KPa

-1 .5

1 0

2 0 3 0 T im e ( s )

4 0

5 0

Figure 19. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP5
P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 6 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 RU 0 -0 .1 -0 .2 -0 .3 -0 .4 -0 .5 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

IEVS=47 KPa

Figure 20. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP6
P o re 0 .4 0 .2 0 -0 .2 RU -0 .4 -0 .6 -0 .8 -1 P re s s u re R a tio tim e h is to r y a t E P P 7

IEVS=44 KPa

1 0

2 0 T im e

( s

3 0 )

4 0

5 0

Figure 21. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP7

11

P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 8 0 .5 0 -0 .5 -1 RU -1 .5 -2 -2 .5 -3 -3 .5 -4 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

IEVS=15 KPa

Figure 22. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP8
P o r e P r e s s u r e R a tio t im e h is to r y a t E P P 9 1 0 .5 0 RU -0 .5 -1 -1 .5 -2

IEVS=15 KPa
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 23. Predicted excess pore water pressure ratio time history at EPP9
A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 1 4 3 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 24. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC01

12

A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 2 3 2 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 1 0 -1 -2 -3

1 0

2 0 3 0 T im e ( s )

4 0

5 0

Figure 25. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC02


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 3 4 3 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 26. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC03


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 4 4 3 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

Figure 27. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC04

13

A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 5 5 4 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

Figure 28. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC05


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 6 5

Acceleration ( m / s2 )

-5

10

20 30 T im e ( s )

40

5 0

Figure 29. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC06


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 7 4 3 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 30. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC07

14

A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 8 5 4 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 10 20 30 T im e ( s ) 40 50

Figure 31. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC08


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 0 9 5

Acceleration ( m / s2 )

-5

1 0

2 0 3 0 T im e ( s )

4 0

5 0

Figure 32. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC09


A c c e le r a tio n tim e h is to r y a t A C C 1 0 5 4 Acceleration ( m / s2 ) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 T im e ( s ) 4 0 5 0

Figure 33. Predicted acceleration time history at ACC010

15