Design and Evaluation of Seismic Stability

of Free-Standing EPS Embankment for

Transportation Systems
1

Steven Bartlett, Ph.D. P.E., University of Utah

Zahra Amini

May 9th, 2018

Introduction

Many regions of the world are exposed to relatively high earthquake hazard requiring
seismic resilient design
Introduction – Light Rail Embankment

UTA –Light Rail – Salt Lake City, Utah

 Introduction – Free Standing Light Rail Embankments

UTA –Light Rail – Salt Lake City, Utah

Introduction - Modes of Excitation for Dynamic Evaluations

Interlayer Shear / Sliding Horizontal Sway and Overstressing

Basal Sliding
Rocking and Uplift

Interlayer and basal sliding appear to be most likely failure modes

Introduction - Experimental Work

Shake Table Test - EDO and Hokkaido CERI (Japan)

Introduction - Dynamic Behavior from Numerical Modeling

(8 m high x 20 m wide)

To = 0.5 s

Combined cap

geofoam Interfaces

soil
Free-field (infinite) side boundary)

Quiet boundary (non-reflective) base

Numerical Modeling Approach

• FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua)

• 2D
• Large Strain Mode
• Friction contact between EPS layers
• Sliding and Separation at Nodal Interfaces
• Nonlinear Modeling capability
• Elasto-Plastic Model w/ Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria and Plastic Post-Yield Behavior
• Light damping used for EPS in models
Introduction - Dynamic Behavior from Numerical Modeling
Introduction - Relative and Total Sliding Displacement
Introduction – Maximum Sliding for Simple Harmonic Motion at Fundamental Period

Geofoam embankments appear

to be relatively stable under
earthquake loadings
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

1. Calculate the fundamental period of the EPS embankment

2. Develop the design acceleration response spectrum
3. Determine the design acceleration at the base and top of the
embankment
4. Determine the sliding inertial force at each interface
5. Check that the sliding resistance exceed the inertial force.
Introduction - Simplified Approach (Single Degree of Freedom
System - SDOF)
Simplified Approach – Calculate Fundamental Period

(lds - geofoam)

(geofoam - soil)
Simplified Approach – Calculate Fundamental Period of
EPS Embankment

(Hotta. 2001)

flexural, shear and axial stiffness of the beam

(Stark et al. 2004)

Flexural and shear stiffness of the beam

Simplified Approach
Fundamental Period

Percent Error

Aspect Ratio (B/H)

Simplified Approach – Calculate Fundamental Period

Geofoam Embankment Geometry

H' = 5m (see notes below)
B= 13.3 m
g= 9.81 m/ s2
σ'v0 = 22602 Pa

Calculation of Fundamental Period

T0 (Eq. 1a) = 0.38 s ω0= 16.44
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

1. Calculate the fundamental period of the EPS embankment

2. Develop the design acceleration response spectrum
3. Determine the design acceleration at the base and top of the
embankment
4. Determine the sliding inertial force at each interface
5. Check that the sliding resistance exceed the inertial force.
 Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectra

Response Spectra (5% Damping)

2.5

2.0
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (sec)
Motion 1 Motion 2 Motion 3 Motion 4 Motion 5 Motion 6 Motion 7 Motion 8
Simplified Approach
Design Spectrum for Simplified Methods
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

1. Calculate the fundamental period of the EPS embankment

2. Develop the design acceleration response spectrum
3. Determine the design acceleration at the base and top of the
embankment
4. Determine the sliding inertial force at each interface
5. Check that the sliding resistance exceed the inertial force.
Simplified Approach (Sliding Only)
Acceleration Amplification within Embankment from Numerical Models
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

1. Calculate the fundamental period of the EPS embankment

2. Develop the design acceleration response spectrum
3. Determine the design acceleration at the base and top of the
embankment
4. Determine the sliding inertial force at each interface
5. Check that the sliding resistance exceed the inertial force.
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

m = lumped mass (i.e., mass at top of EPS embankment

a = acceleration in embankment at interface location, Sa
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

1. Calculate the fundamental period of the EPS embankment

2. Develop the design acceleration response spectrum
3. Determine the design acceleration at the base and top of the
embankment
4. Determine the sliding inertial force at each interface
5. Check that the sliding resistance exceed the inertial force.
Introduction – Steps of Simplified Approach

FS = capacity / demand
FS = f / Fapp
 Simplified Approach (Sliding Only)
H= 5 m
Block height = 1 m
number of interfaces 5
normal stress 23 kPa
interface friction 0.8 (geofoam - geofoam)
interface friction 0.6 (geofoam - soil)
geofoam shear strength 23.0 psi (EPS 19 used in shear key)
geofoam shear strength 157.3 kPa

Sa mass/unit area inertial frictional shear cohesive FS

interface (g) (kg/m2) force resisting key resisting sliding
# (N/m2) force coverage force (w/key)
(N/m2) (%) (N/m2)

5 0.800 2304 18088 18082 0.0 0 1.00

4 0.704 2304 15918 18082 0.0 0 1.14
3 0.608 2304 13747 18082 0.0 0 1.32
2 0.512 2304 11576 18082 0.0 0 1.56
1 0.416 2304 9406 18082 0.0 0 1.92
0 0.320 2304 7235 13561 0.0 0 1.87
Shear Keys to Prevent Sliding
Summary
• Horizontal accelerations of 0.5 to 0.6 g applied at the
fundamental period of the embankment are necessary to
initiate interlayer sliding and basal sliding. Geofoam
embankments appear to be relatively stable under most
earthquake loadings.

• Simplified techniques based on SDOF system are

recommended for seismic evaluations of routine projects,
However, for large, nearby earthquakes and irregular
embankment geometries, discrete block models should be
considered.

• Sliding can be easily prevented by using shear keys or

adhesive (glue) in strategic areas of the embankment, if
necessary.
Questions