Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Overview:
Seismicity, influence of soil conditions on site response, seismic site response
analysis, evaluation and modeling of dynamic soil properties, analysis of seismic
soil-structure interaction, evaluation and mitigation of soil liquefaction and its
consequences, seismic code provisions and practice, seismic earth pressures,
seismic slope stability and deformation analysis, seismic safety of dams and
embankments, seismic performance of pile foundations, and additional current
topics.
Course Material:
• Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering - Kramer
• Lecture Notes
• Handouts
• Professional Papers
Topics:
Instructor:
Dr. Steven Bartlett Office - MCEB 2nd Floor, Office Phone: 587-7726
bartlett@civil.utah.edu
Office Hours: M W 2-3 p.m. or by appointment (e mail)
Web Site: http://www.civil.utah.edu/~cv7330/
Professional Background:
B.S., 1983, Geology, BYU
Ph.D., 1992, Civil Engineering, BYU
Construction and Materials, Utah Department of Transportation
Senior Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Project Engineer, Woodward Clyde Consultants
Research Project Manager, Utah Department of Transportation
Assistant Professor, University of Utah
Associate Professor, University of Utah
T.A. none
Class Preparation:
To facilitate the learning, each student will be required to read the assignment
and be prepared to discuss in class the material that was read. Because it is
nearly impossible to cover the material exactly according to the schedule, it is
each student's responsibility to follow the lectures in class to determine what the
appropriate reading assignment is for the next class period. PLEASE BRING THE
TEXTBOOK, LECTURE NOTES, AND/OR OTHER APPROPRIATE REFERENCES TO
EACH CLASS!
At various times during each lecture, students will be asked questions or be given
the opportunity to answer questions posed by the instructor. Each student is
expected to participate in these discussions during the lectures throughout the
semester. Relevant information from students with practical working experience
on a particular topic is encouraged. Sleeping or reading material, such as internet
content not relevant to the class is not appropriate.
Attendance
No seats will be assigned and no attendance taken during the semester.
However, attendance at the lectures is necessary to learn the material. Non-
attendance decreases the amount of time you spend on the course and reduces
the quality of your educational experience. You are responsible for all
announcements and material covered in class. Also, examination questions will
come from items covered in lecture that may not be present on the course notes
or textbook.
Grading
Homework:
CVEEN Dept. has adopted formatting rules that will be followed. They are posted
on the course web site. Homework is due at the beginning of class on the due
date. Homework assignments will be accepted up to 2 class periods after the
due date but will be assessed a penalty of 20% per class period. For example, if
homework is due on Tuesday morning and it is turned in on Thursday morning,
then a 20% late penalty will be assessed. Homework that is more than one week
late will receive 50 percent credit and will not be checked.
All assignments must have the following signed pledge at the front of the
assignment:
If the pledge is missing or is not signed, the assignment will not be graded.
By signing this pledge, you are certifying that the homework is your own work.
This is a graduate level class and working in groups is not allowed unless
directed by the instructor.
A grade of zero for the course will be given on any homework or exam
questions that have been copied from someone else or where unauthorized
help has been received.
Reading Assignment
○ Course Information
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 73 - 75 Kramer
○ Appendix B2 Kramer
Other Materials
○ Responsespectra.pdf (Chopra)
○ ASCE 7-10.pdf
○ Sakaria time history
Homework Assignment #1
○ Install Seismosignal software on your computer
For the Sakaria acceleration time history do the following:
□ Baseline correct the time history and plot the acceleration,
velocity and displacement records. Use the quadratic function for
the baseline correction. (5 points)
□ Determine peak ground acceleration (pga) from the time history.
(5 points)
□ Develop and plot a pseudo acceleration response spectrum for
this record at 5 percent damping using Seismosignal. (5 points)
□ Determine the predominate period. (5 points)
□ Scale the record by 1.5 (increase the acceleration values by 50
percent) and replot the pseudo acceleration response spectrum.
(5 points)
○ Install the ground motion hazards java program from the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) on your computer
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/grdmotion.php
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
○ Install Google Earth on your computer and find the latitude and longitude
of the Meldrum Civil Engineering (MCEB).
○ Use these coordinates and USGS java software to find the Ss and S1 values
for the MCEB. (10 points)
○ Use the Ss and S1 values above and ASCE 7-10 to develop a design
spectrum for the MCEB. (20 points)
Assume the MCEB is found on a site class C soil.
Show all calculations and inputs to calculations. Check your solution
against the design spectrum calculated by the USGS java calculator.
The equation that relate the response of the SDOF to the input ground motion
for a linear elastic, damped system is Duhamel's integral (see Kramer p. 566)
If a response spectrum has been developed, then the spectral displacement Sd,
spectral velocity, Sv and spectral acceleration Sa for lightly damped systems can
be approximated by:
0.8
0.6
Acceleration [g]
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [sec]
1.8
1.7
1.6 Damp. 5.0%
1.5
1.4
1.3
Response Acceleration [g]
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3
Period [sec]
Important Concepts:
○ An acceleration response spectrum, such as that above, is widely used in
geotechnical and structural engineering.
○ It expresses the maximum acceleration response of a single degree of
freedom system (SDOF) as a function of period for a given level of structural
damping (usually 5 percent, unless otherwise stated.)
○ The above spectrum is not a design spectrum. It is jagged because it
represents a spectrum for a given time history.
○ An acceleration time history can be converted to an acceleration response
spectrum which represents the response of the SDOF for the given input
motion.
Software is usually used to do this conversion.
□ Seismosignal is recommended
Ss and S1 are obtained from the United States Geological Survey National Strong
Motion Program. The link for this computer program (Java Script) is given in the
homework assignment.
2.10
2.00 To Ts = SD1/SDS
1.90 ASCE 7-05 Spectrum - Site
1.80
Sa = SDS Class D
1.70
1.60
1.50 Sa = SD1/T
Spectral acceleration (g)
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
Sa =0.4 SDS a T = 0
0.70
0.60 Sa = pga
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (s)
Reading Assignment
○ Course Information
○ UDOT Ground Response Analyses Report (p. 34 - 51)
Homework Assignment #2
○ Install Seismosignal software on your computer
○ Install Seismomatch software on your computer
You are to develop the input acceleration time histories for the seismic
evaluation of a hospital addition in Hurricane, Utah. Using the information
provided in this lecture do the following:
1. Using the USGS mapping for 2002, determine the controlling earthquake in
terms of magnitude (M) and distance from the seismic source to the project site
(R) for this area. The deaggregation information can be found at:
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/
Show how you use this information to determine the M and R values that are
appropriate for the subsequent steps in this homework (10 points). Select from
the PEER strong motion database, one candidate time history that is consistent
with the controlling earthquake.
2. Use ASCE 7-05 to develop a design target spectrum for this site for site class C
conditons. State all assumptions that you made in developing the target
spectrum (20 points).
3. Adjust the target spectrum developed in problem 2 for near fault effects (i.e.,
fault directivity). Adjust the target spectrum as described in this lecture for the
fault normal component only (10 points).
4. Geological mapping has shown that the Hurricane fault is a significant seismic
source (http://gis.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/HurricaneFault.jpg). This fault
is a normal fault. Using the selected time history in problem 1, develop 1 set of
spectrum-compatible horizontal acceleration time histories for analyses of the
dam for potential rupture of this fault system. This set should consist two
components: fault normal component and a fault parallel component. Use
Seismosignal and Seismomatch to process the time histories and match them
to the target spectrum. This processing should include, rotation, filtering,
spectral matching and baseline correction, as appropriate (20 points).
Please provide the following plots for the fault normal and fault parallel
components of ground motion.
1. The candidate time histories for the analyses should come from earthquakes
that have earthquake magnitude and source-to-site distance that are
approximately the same as the controlling earthquake magnitude and source
distance associated with the proposed site. The controlling earthquake is that
earthquake and its associated fault that has the largest contribution to the
seismic hazard for a given site. This information can be determined from the
candidate site by a deagregation of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PHSA) using the tools from the following website:
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/
2. The candidate time histories for spectral matching should be selected from the
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), U.S.G.S., PEER and California Strong
Ground Motion Instrumentation Program, or other appropriate strong motion
databases. We found that the PEER web site was particularly useful because its
records had been already pre-processed for engineering evaluations.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/
a. R < 15 km
b. 15 < R < 30 km
c. 30 < R < 50 km
d. R > 50 km
7. Whenever possible, we recommend that the candidate time histories have peak
ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground
displacement (PGD) with minus 25 percent and plus 50 percent of the target
spectral values (CALTRANS 1996a). This will allow the spectral matching process
to be completed with less difficulty. In addition, the spectral matching process
will not introduce as large of change in the spectral content of the matched time
history.
Note that the increase spectral values to account for directivity begins at 0.5
seconds.
Substituting x' and y' for x and y, respectively, in the above equation yields
the corresponding relations that define the covariance of components ax'(t)
and ay'(t).
For example, the figure on the next page shows the unrotated 1987
Superstition Hills acceleration time history. The covariance between the
ax(t) and ay(t) is minimized at theta1 angle of 25 degrees counterclockwise).
At this angle, the rotated 135 degree component becomes the major
principal component (i.e., the principal component is found at an azimuth of
95 degrees). The rotated time history are also shown on the subsequent
page. Note that the peak acceleration has increased in each of the rotated
time history in the major principal component direction. The Excel
spreadsheet (rotation.xls) was used to perform the rotations and is included
on the course website.
If the candidate time history has not been filtered, then this is done prior to the
spectral matching process. (Note this step is not required for records from the
PEER website, because filtering has already been done.)
If filtering is required, this will remove any additional unwanted noise in the
candidate time history. This can be reduced through the use of filters at both
high and low pass frequencies. The BAP manual (1992) suggests that high
frequency noise (i.e., between 30 and 50 Hz) may originate in several ways: (1)
from earthquake-induced vibrations in equipment close to the recorder, (2)
from an unexpected higher-mode oscillation in the mechanical transducer, (3)
or from the inability of the automatic trace-following digitizer to cope with an
unclear photographic trace. The BAP manual suggests that unless it can be
verified that high-frequency content is in fact useful earthquake input, the high
frequencies should be filtered out. The use of a high and low pass filtering
removes unwanted noise and produces a frequency range over which the
recorded signal of the earthquake ground motion significantly exceeds the noise
level. Generally it is recommended that an anti-aliasing filter such as a
Butterworth filter should be used rather than an abrupt cut-off frequency that
is used by the program SHAKE.
Note that a Butterworth filter has been applied and the filter configuration is
set as a bandpass. The order is a 4th order filter and freq 1 is set at 0.07 Hz and
freq 2 is set at 15 Hz.
Spectral Matching
The ground motion time histories used in analyses need to accurately reflect a
design level of safety and have realistic time-dependent characteristics.
Pasted from <http://www.ez-frisk.com/Tech/SpectralMatching/Spectral.html>
http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoMatch.aspx
0.3
0.25 Kobe.d
0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1.15
1.1
1.05
Target Spectrum
1
Kobe.d
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
Acceleration (g)
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 1 2 3
Period (sec)
Note that this is acceleration time history is one that has been provided by
Seismomatch in its default folder. We will use it as a candidate time history for
this example, even though it may not be strictly applicable for a real site and a
real design case.
1.4
1.2
Design - Target
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (s) SA (g)
0 0.59
0.01 0.595
This represents the design spectrum at the surface for a
0.02 0.605
given site. This design spectrum is referred to as the target
0.03 0.642
spectrum and it is often determined using methodologies
0.05 0.731
such as:
0.075 0.857
0.1 1.001
1. Code-based design procedures such as ASCE 7-05
0.15 1.15
2. Attenuation relations
0.2 1.219
3. Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PHSA)
0.25 1.244
0.3 1.249
0.4 1.222
0.5 1.212
0.75 1.09
1 0.975
1.5 0.768
2 0.622
3 0.43
4 0.324
5 0.269
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014
Importing the target spectrum within Seismomatch using the Load Spectrum
from file option. This is target spectrum is the same as the design spectrum
given previously.
1.2
0.9
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2 3
Period (sec)
Comparison of the Kobe response spectrum with the target spectrum. Note
that the Kobe record is has lower amplitudes for all periods. The goal of
spectral matching is to increase the amplitude of this record so it more closely
matches the target spectrum.
0.4
Acceleration (g)
100
Velocity (cm/sec)
-50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time
Displacement (cm)
30
Original acceleration values
20
Matched acceleration values
10
0
-10
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time
Recording and processing of time history can introduce drift in the record. This
drift is noticed in the displacement time history which has been accentuated
by the double integration process of the acceleration time history.
Displacement [m]
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time [sec]
blue line = base line corrected time history, grey line = uncorrected time history
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 255 - 275 Kramer (EQL method)
○ p. 562 Kramer (Trigonometric Notation - Fourier Series)
○ Shake Theory.pdf
Other Materials
○ none
Homework Assignment #3
Vs (m/s)
25
depth (m)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1. Dynamic behavior of soils is quite complex and requires models which capture
the primary aspects of cyclic behavior, but these models need to be simple,
rational models so they can be applied
2. Three classes of 1D dynamic soil models:
a) equivalent linear method
b) cyclic nonlinear
c) advanced constitutive models
3. The equivalent linear method was developed a the U. of California at Berkeley
and is incorporated in the program SHAKE.
○ vertically 1-D propagation of shear waves in a multi-layered system is
assumed in SHAKE.
○ SHAKE produces an approximation to the nonlinear response of soils
under earthquake loading, but is very efficient computationally.
○ nonlinear stress strain loop is approximated by a single equivalent linear
strain-compatible shear modulus that decreases with increasing shear
strain
○ Material damping is also estimated by a constant, strain-compatible value.
○ The material properties for the model are usually developed from
geotechnical laboratory testing, or estimated from typical values in
literature.
○ Limitations of EQL method (i.e., SHAKE)
SHAKE cannot be used directly to solve problems involving ground
deformation (linear model, which does not follow the hysteresis loop
to model strain)
final strain is zero (after cycling has stopped) because it is an elastic
model
no limiting value in shear strength, so failure does occur in the model
failure of the soil has to be judged by the estimate of the maximum
shear stress calculated by the model.
1. Express the input (rock outcrop) motion in the frequency domain as a Fourier
series (as the sum of a series of sine waves of different amplitudes, frequencies,
and phase angles). For an earthquake motion, this Fourier series will have both
real and imaginary parts.
2. Define the transfer function . The transfer function will have both real and
imaginary parts.
3. Compute the Fourier series of the output (ground surface) motion as the product
of the Fourier series of the input (bedrock) motion and the transfer function.
This Fourier series will also have both real and imaginary parts.
4. Express the output motion in the time domain by means of an inverse Fourier
transform.
5. Calculate the shear strains from the displacement output of 4. Verify that the
strain is compatible with the assumed shear modulus and damping values
assumed. If not, iterate until strain compatible properties are obtained by
changing the estimate of the effective shear modulus and associated damping.
0.14
0.1
Seismosignal for the
0.09 Matahina Dam, New
Fourier Amplitude
0.06
0.05
The Fourier amplitude
0.04 values (y-axis) are equal
0.03 to the cn values in the
0.02
above equation.
0.01
0
0.1 1 10
Frequency [Hz]
Example
The Fourier series can be used to match any periodic function, if enough terms
are included.
For example, lets use a Fourier series to generate a square function of the form:
-2
A= 2
Tf = 1 A = amplitude
6.283185 Tf = time of function (duration)
to= Frequency (rad/s)
dt= 0.01
dt = time step (s)
3.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Other lines shows the individual
terms.
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
a1=4A/(n*pi) = 2.546479
a2 = 0 Amplitude of each of the terms in the series. For this
a3 = -0.84883 case the even terms are not needed, so their Fourier
a4 = 0 amplitude is set to zero for the even terms.
a5 = 0.509296
a6 = 0
a7 = -0.36378 an
a8 = 0
a9 = 0.282942
a10= 0 an = 4A/(n*pi)
a11= -0.2315
a12= 0
a13 0.195883
The same process can be used to calculate the transfer functions for a multiple
layer system.
Once this is completed, the program checks to see if the G (shear modulus) and D
damping are consistent with those assumed at the beginning of the analysis, if not
then the program adjust the input G and D values and recalculates the associated
strain until convergence is achieved.
○ Equivalent damping is the damping ratio that produces the same energy
loss in a single cycle as the equivalent actual hysteresis loop
○ Earthquakes produce earthquake motion that is highly irregular with a peak
amplitude that may only be approached in a few spikes in the record.
○ As a result, it is common practice to characterize the effective strain level of
a transient record as 50 to 70 percent of the peak value, based on statistical
analysis of the number of significant cycles in earthquake records and a
comparison of their peaks with the maximum peak.
○ Usually a value of 0.65 is used for the effective strain level in practice. The
results, however are not very sensitive to this assumed value.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/
Search Results
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65 Damp. 5.0%
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
Response Acceleration [g]
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
Period [sec]
Fault normal
component of the
Matahina Dam,
New Zealand
scaled to 0.65 pga
using
Seismosignal
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 423 - 449 Kramer
○ Pp. 286-290 Kramer - Shear Beam Approach
○ Makdisi-Seed Analysis (EERC).pdf
○ Bray and Travasarou - 2007
Other Materials
○ None
Homework Assignment #4
Homework inputs
1.00 30
0.90
25
0.80
0.70
20
Damping (%)
0.60
G/Gmax
0.50 15
0.40
10
0.30
0.20
5
0.10
0.00 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Homework inputs
Homework inputs
1.2
1.1
1 damping 5 percent
damping 10 percent
0.9 damping 15 percent
damping 20 percent
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Lower San Fernando Dam - 1971 San Fernando Valley Earthquake, Ca.
This course will focus on Pseudostatic and Newmark Sliding Block Analyses using
the Makdisi-Seed (1978) Method
from:
For high initial driving stress (steep geometry), the FOS will likely be much less
than unity, and flow failure may occur, as depicted by strain path A-B-C.
Example of this is the failure of the Lower San Fernando Dam.
Fh = ah W / g = kh W
Fv = av W/ g = kv W (often ignored)
Example Geometry
E = Young's Modulus
= Poisson's ratio
K = Bulk modulus
G = Shear Modulus
= drained friction angle
c = cohesion
Ko = at-rest earth pressure coefficent
Vs = shear wave velocity
Pseudostatic Results
The analysis has been repeated by selecting only the critical circle. To do this,
only one radius point. This result can then be used with a Kh value to determine
the factor of safety, FS.
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time [sec]
1.4
1.35
1.3
Damp. 5.0%
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
Response Acceleration [g]
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
Period [sec]
pga = 0.6 g
Kh = 0.5 * pga
ah = 0.3 g (This is applied in the software as a horizontal acceleration).
Reduce shear strength in stability model for all saturated soils to 80 percent of
peak strength as recommended by the Army Corp of Engineers. This is to account
for pore pressure generation during cycling of non-liquefiable soils. (See table
below.) (If liquefaction is expected, this method is not appropriate.)
The analysis is redone with Kh = 0.3 and reduced shear strength (see below).
35 0.651
24 25 26
27 149 150 151 152 154 153
28 143 144 145 146 148 147
29 137 138 139 140 142 141
30 131 132 133 134 136 135
31
32 120
125
121
126 127
122
11 129
123
130
124
128
119
33 118 117 116 115 114 113
34 108 109 110 111 112 107
2 23 101 102 103 104 105 106 3
6 91 92 93 94 95 1 96 97 98 99 100 5
8 36 7
10
81 82 83 84 85 2 86 87 88 89 90
9
12
71 72 73 74 75 3 76 77 78 79 80
11
14
61 62 63 64 65 4 66 67 68 69 70
13
16
51 52 53 54 55 5 56 57 58 59 60
15
18
41 42 43 44 45 6 46 47 48 49 50
17
20
31 32 33 34 35 7 36 37 38 39 40
19
22
21 22 23 24 25 8 26 27 28 29 30
21
1
11 12 13 14 15 9 16 17 18 19 20
4
1 2 3 4 5 10 6 7 8 9 10
The resulting factor of safety is 0.651 (too low). Deformation is expected for this
system and should be calculated using deformation analysis (e.g., Newmark,
Makdisi-Seed, FEM, FDM methods.)
Pasted from
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-113/
ofr98-113.html>
Newmark’s method treats the mass as a rigid-plastic body; that is, the
mass does not deform internally, experiences no permanent
displacement at accelerations below the critical or yield level, and
deforms plastically along a discrete basal shear surface when the critical
acceleration is exceeded. Thus, for slope stability, Newmark’s method is
best applied to translational block slides and rotational slumps. Other
limiting assumptions commonly are imposed for simplicity but are not
required by the analysis (Jibson, TRR 1411).
1. The static and dynamic shearing resistance of the soil are assumed to
be the same. (This is not strictly true due to strain rate effects
2. In some soils, the effects of dynamic pore pressure are neglected. This
assumption generally is valid for compacted or overconsolidated clays
and very dense or dry sands. This is not valid for loose sands or normally
consolidated, or sensitive soils.
3. The critical acceleration is not strain dependent and thus remains
constant throughout the analysis.
4. The upslope resistance to sliding is taken to be infinitely large such that
upslope displacement is prohibited. (Jibson, TRR 1411)
Steps
1. Perform a slope stability analysis with a limit equilibrium method and find the
critical slip surface (i.e., surface with the lowest factor of safety) for the given soil
conditions with no horizontal acceleration present in the model.
2. Determine the yield acceleration for the critical slip circle found in step 1 by
applying a horizontal force in the outward direction on the failure mass until a
factor of safety of 1 is reached for this surface. This is called the yield
acceleration.
3. Develop a 2D ground response model and complete 2D response analysis for the
particular geometry. Use this 2D ground response analysis to calculate average
horizontal acceleration in potential slide mass.
4. Consider horizontal displacement is possible for each time interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
5. Integrate the velocity and displacement time history for each interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
Analysis perfromed using shear strength = 100 percent of peak value for all soils
(i.e., no shear strength loss during cycling).
35 1.530
24 25 26
27 149 150 151 152 154 153
28 143 144 145 146 148 147
29 137 138 139 140 142 141
30 131 132 133 134 136 135
31
32 120
125
121
126 127
122
11 129
123
130
124
128
119
33 118 117 116 115 114 113
34 108 109 110 111 112 107
2 23 101 102 103 104 105 106 3
6 91 92 93 94 95 1 96 97 98 99 100 5
8 36 7
10
81 82 83 84 85 2 86 87 88 89 90
9
12
71 72 73 74 75 3 76 77 78 79 80
11
14
61 62 63 64 65 4 66 67 68 69 70
13
16
51 52 53 54 55 5 56 57 58 59 60
15
18
41 42 43 44 45 6 46 47 48 49 50
17
20
31 32 33 34 35 7 36 37 38 39 40
19
22
21 22 23 24 25 8 26 27 28 29 30
21
1
11 12 13 14 15 9 16 17 18 19 20
4
1 2 3 4 5 10 6 7 8 9 10
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time
Analysis repeated using shear strength = 80 percent of peak value for all soils to
account for some pore pressure generation during cycling.
35 1.365
24 25 26
27 149 150 151 152 154 153
28 143 144 145 146 148 147
29 137 138 139 140 142 141
30 131 132 133 134 136 135
31
32 120
125
121
126 127
122
11 129
123
130
124
128
119
33 118 117 116 115 114 113
34 108 109 110 111 112 107
2 23 101 102 103 104 105 106 3
6 91 92 93 94 95 1 96 97 98 99 100 5
8 36 7
10
81 82 83 84 85
2 86 87 88 89 90
9
12
71 72 73 74 75 3 76 77 78 79 80
11
14
61 62 63 64 65 4 66 67 68 69 70
13
16
51 52 53 54 55 5 56 57 58 59 60
15
18
41 42 43 44 45 6 46 47 48 49 50
17
20
31 32 33 34 35 7 36 37 38 39 40
19
22
21 22 23 24 25 8 26 27 28 29 30
21
1
11 12 13 14 15 9 16 17 18 19 20
4
1 2 3 4 5 10 6 7 8 9 10
1.6
Factor of Safety
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time
Analysis repeated using shear strength in layer 1 equal to 5 kPa (100 psf) to
represent a very soft clay.
35 0.944
24 25 26
27 149 150 151 152 154 153
28 143 144 145 146 148 147
29 137 138 139 140 142 141
30 131 132 133 134 136 135
31
32 120
125
121
126 127
122
11 129
123
130
124
128
119
33 118 117 116 115 114 113
34 108 109 110 111 112 107
2 23 101 102 103 104 105 106 3
6 91 92 93 94 95 1 96 97 98 99 100 5
8 36 7
10
81 82 83 84 85
2 86 87 88 89 90
9
12
71 72 73 74 75 3 76 77 78 79 80
11
14
61 62 63 64 65 4 66 67 68 69 70
13
16
51 52 53 54 55 5 56 57 58 59 60
15
18
41 42 43 44 45 6 46 47 48 49 50
17
20
31 32 33 34 35 7 36 37 38 39 40
19
22
21 22 23 24 25 8 26 27 28 29 30
21
1
11 12 13 14 15 9 16 17 18 19 20
4
1
Factor of Safety vs. Time
2 3 4 5 10 6 7 8 9 10
1.2
1.1
Factor of Safety
1.0
Note FS < 1 for a
significant part of the
time history.
0.9
0.8
0 5 10 15 20
Time
2.0
1.5
displacement have
1.0
accumulated.
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time
Eq. 1
Eq. 2
Eq. 3
Compare with
values in Table
7.2 of Kramer
for m = 0,
where m is the
stiffness
parameter Eq. 3a
(bottom p. 289)
Eq. 4
Eq. 5
See p. 533
Kramer
Eq. 6
Eq. 7a
Eq. 7b
Eq. 7c
Eq. 8
Eq. 9
y/ h
Eq. 10
Exponent
If U/kh(max)gT is halfway between 0.01 and 0.1, then the exponent value for this
number is -1.5 (see red arrow on graph above). This can be converted back by 1 x
10-1.5 which is equal to 3.16 x 10-2.
Design Spectra
Calculations
Calculations (cont.)
toe circle
Z = depth to
base of
potential
failure plane
(i.e., critical
circle from
pseudostatic
analysis)
(See regression equations on next page for M7.5 and M6.5 events
2.00
1.80
1.60 y = 1.7531e-8.401x
1.40 R² = 0.988
U / (khmax*g*T1)
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ky/khmax
0.80
0.70
0.60
y = 0.7469e-7.753x
R² = 0.9613
U / (khmax*g*T1)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ky/khmax
(2) computing the joint hazard of the conditioning ground motion variables,
The results from this model have been shown to compare favorably with those
from a fully nonlinear D-MOD-type stick-slip analysis (Rathje and Bray 2000), but
this model can be utilized in a more straightforward and transparent manner.
The model used herein is one dimensional (i.e.. a relatively wide vertical column
of deformable soil) to allow for the use of a large number ground motions with
wide range of properties of the potential sliding mass in this study. One-
dimensional (1D) analysis has been found to provide a reasonably conservative
estimate of the dynamic stresses at the base of two-dimensional (2D) sliding
systems
The ground motion database used to generate the seismic displacement data
comprises available records from shallow crustal earthquakes (hat occurred
in active Plate margins (PEER strong motion database)
(http://peer.bcrkeley.edu/smcat/index.html)).
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ Ostadan and White paper
○ Wu and Finn paper
Homework Assignment #5
The wall is a yielding wall retaining wall and is 4 m high and is 1 m thick at
the base and tapers to 0.6 m at the top. The retained backfill behind the is
flat (i.e., horizontal) and has a unit weight of 22 kN/m^3 with a drained
friction angle of 35 degrees and the backfill is unsaturated. Also, the base of
the wall rests on backfill material and is embedded 0.6 m in this material at
its base.
Summary Results
static dynamic
the base.
horizontal
acceleration
vertical
acceleration
mass of wedge
weight of wedge
T = period of
wave
active
passive
Static case
kh and kv = 0
kv = 0
kv = 0.5 kh
Static case
kh and kv = 0
kv = 0
kv = 0.5 kh
The use of the low frequency (i.e., long period) amplitude is based on the
findings of the Lotung experiment site (see previous).
L = infinite
1. Perform seismic ground response analysis (using SHAKE) and obtain the
acceleration response spectrum at the base mat level in the free-field at 30%
damping.
m = 0.50 ρ H2 Ψν
3. Obtain the total seismic lateral force by multiplying the mass from Step 2 by the
spectral amplitude of the free-field response (Step 1) at the soil
column frequency.
F = m Sa
where Sa is the spectral acceleration at the base mat level for the free field at
the fundamental frequency of the soil column with 30 percent damping.
4. Calculate the max. lateral earth pressure (ground surface) by dividing the results
for step 3 by the area under the normal soil pressure curve (normalized area =
0.744 H)
5. Calculate the lateral pressure distribution verses depth by multiply the max.
lateral earth pressure by the p(y) function below.
where y is the normalized height (Y/H) measured from the base of the wall.
• The method was verified by comparing the results of the simple computational
steps with the direct solution from SASSI.
• The verification included 4 different wall heights, 6 different input time histories
and 4 different soil properties.
• The method is very simple and only involves free-field (e.g. SHAKE) analysis and
a number of hand computational steps.
• The method has been adopted by building code (NEHRP 2000) and will be
included in the next version of ASCE 4-98.
• The Ostadan-White method is by no means a complete solution to the seismic
soil pressure problem. It is merely a step forward at this time.
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 275 - 280 Kramer
○ DEEPSOIL.pdf
○ 2001 Darendeli, Ch. 10
Other Materials
○ DeepSoil User's Manual
○ 2001 Darendeli
Homework Assignment #6
1. Obtain the Matahina Dam, New Zealand record from the PEER database
(http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database). Use the fault normal
component of this scaled record and scale this record to a pga value of 0.65 g.
(20 points)
a. Plot the scaled acceleration time history
b. Plot the scaled response spectrum
2. Develop a soil profile for ground response analysis using soil properties for the
I-15 project at 600 South Street (see attached) and the shear wave velocities
found in SLC Vs profile.xls. (20 points)
a. For sands, Darendeli, 2001 curves
b. For silts, use Darendeli, 2001 with PI = 0
c. For clays, use Darendeli, 2001 curves with PI = 20
d. Treat the bottom layer of the soil log as a clay with a PI =20
e. Below this layer assume that the soil profile extends to the deepest depth in
SLCvsprofile.xls (200 m/s = clay; 440 m/s = sand)
f. For the bedrock velocity, use the velocity corresponding to the deepest Vs
measurement in the vs profile with 2 percent damping.
3. Perform a site-specific, non-linear time domain ground response analysis for this
soil profile using the pressure dependent hyperbolic model and Masing critera.
Provide the following plots of the results: (15 points)
a. Response spectrum summary
b. Acceleration time histories for layer 1
c. pga profile
4. Repeat problem 3 but perform a EQL analysis using the directions given in HW#3
problem 3. Plot a comparative plot of the response spectra using the spectrum
from the nonlinear pressure dependent model (previous problem) versus the
EQL pressure independent model (HW3 problem 4). (10 points).
1 1 19 150 5
2 1 19 170 5
3 1 19 190 5
4 0.5 20 150 5
5 1 20 150 5
6 0.5 20 150 5
7 2 20 150 5
8 1 21 170 5
9 1 21 170 5
10 1 21 170 5
Poisson ratio = 0.35
v(t) = A cos(t + )
A= 0.3
6.283
0.000
6. Solution (FLAC)
EQL Method
Nonlinear Methods
[K] = stiffness
matrix small strain
viscous damping
hysteretic damping
incorporated by the
hysteretic behavior of the
soil
Pressure-dependent
parameters b and d
used to adjust curves
in DEEPSoil.
As part of various research projects [including the SRS (Savannah River Site)
Project AA891070. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) Project 3302. and
ROSRINE (Resolution of Site Response Issues from the Northridge Earthquake)
Project], numerous geotechnical sites were drilled and sampled. Intact soil
samples over a depth range of several hundred meters were recovered from
20 of these sites. These soil samples were tested in the laboratory at The
University of Texas at Austin (UTA) to characterize the materials dynamically.
The presence of a database accumulated from testing these intact specimens
motivated a re-evaluation of empirical curves employed in the state of
practice. The weaknesses of empirical curves reported in the literature were
identified and the necessity of developing an improved set of empirical curves
was recognized. This study focused on developing the empirical framework
that can be used to generate normalized modulus reduction and material
damping curves. This framework is composed of simple equations. which
incorporate the key parameters that control nonlinear soil behavior. The data
collected over the past decade at The University of Texas at Austin are
statistically analyzed using First-order. Second-moment Bayesian Method
(FSBM). The effects of various parameters (such as confining pressure and soil
plasticity on dynamic soil properties are evaluated and quantified within this
framework. One of the most important aspects of this study is estimating not
only the mean values of the empirical curves but also estimating the
uncertainty associated with these values. This study provides the opportunity
to handle uncertainty in the empirical estimates of dynamic soil properties
within the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis framework. A refinement in
site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment is expected to materialize
in the near future by incorporating the results of this study into the state of
practice.
DARENDELI, 2001
Shearing Strain (%) σo' = 0.25 atm σo' = 1.0 atm σo' = 4.0 atm σo' = 16 atm
1.00E-05 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.000
4.84E-05 0.996 0.998 0.998 0.999
1.00E-04 0.993 0.995 0.997 0.998
2.20E-04 0.986 0.991 0.994 0.996
4.84E-04 0.971 0.981 0.988 0.992
1.00E-03 0.944 0.964 0.976 0.985
2.20E-03 0.891 0.928 0.952 0.969
4.84E-03 0.799 0.861 0.906 0.938
1.00E-02 0.671 0.761 0.832 0.885
2.20E-02 0.497 0.607 0.706 0.789
4.84E-02 0.324 0.428 0.538 0.645
1.00E-01 0.197 0.277 0.374 0.482
2.20E-01 0.107 0.157 0.225 0.311
4.84E-01 0.055 0.083 0.123 0.179
1.00E+00 0.029 0.044 0.067 0.101
Shearing Strain (%) σo' = 0.25 atm σo' = 1.0 atm σo' = 4.0 atm σo' = 16 atm
1.00E-05 1.201 0.804 0.539 0.361
2.20E-05 1.207 0.808 0.541 0.362
4.84E-05 1.226 0.820 0.548 0.367
1.00E-04 1.257 0.839 0.560 0.374
2.20E-04 1.330 0.884 0.588 0.391
4.84E-04 1.487 0.982 0.649 0.429
1.00E-03 1.792 1.174 0.769 0.503
2.20E-03 2.458 1.602 1.039 0.673
4.84E-03 3.762 2.474 1.607 1.035
1.00E-02 5.821 3.953 2.618 1.702
2.20E-02 9.097 6.579 4.572 3.075
4.84E-02 12.993 10.184 7.621 5.449
1.00E-01 16.376 13.788 11.134 8.573
2.20E-01 19.181 17.199 14.946 12.483
4.84E-01 20.829 19.565 17.990 16.070
1.00E+00 21.393 20.716 19.792 18.528
DARENDELI, 2001
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
Curve 1 - Sand
Curve 1
Darendeli, 2001
v' (psf) = 11357
OCR = 1
Curve 2
Ko = 0.4
N = 10
F = 1 Hz
Curve 2 - Sand
Darendeli, 2001
v' (psf) = 576
OCR = 1
Ko = 0.4
N = 10
F = 1 Hz
Curve 2
Curve 1
DEEPSoil V4.0
DARENDELI, 2001
DARENDELI, 2001
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
DARENDELI, 2001
DARENDELI, 2001
DARENDELI, 2001
DARENDELI, 2001
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
DARENDELI, 2001
DARENDELI, 2001
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
DARENDELI, 2001
Note that with this approach we can approximate the change of things that
vary either in space or time, or both. In regards to time, we will use the
forward differencing approach in formulating the finite difference approach.
1
Displacement of Top Node vs Time
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Background
The equivalent-linear method (see Section 3.2) has been in use for many years
to calculate the wave propagation (and response spectra) in soil and rock, at
sites subjected to seismic excitation. The method does not capture directly any
nonlinear effects because it assumes linearity during the solution process;
strain-dependent modulus and damping functions are only taken into account
in an average sense, in order to approximate some effects of nonlinearity
(damping and material softening). Although fully nonlinear codes such as FLAC
are capable—in principle—of modeling the correct physics, it has been difficult
to convince designers and licensing authorities to accept fully nonlinear
simulations. One reason is that the constitutive models available to FLAC are
either too simple (e.g., an elastic/plastic model, which does not reproduce the
continuous yielding seen in soils), or too complicated (e.g., the Wang model
[Wang et al. 2001], which needs many parameters and a lengthy calibration
process). Further, there is a need to accept directly the same degradation
curves used by equivalent-linear methods (see Figure 3.23 for an example), to
allow engineers to move easily from using these methods to using fully
nonlinear methods.
Formulation
The parameters for the various tangent-modulus functions can be changed to fit
or types of modulus reduction and damping data.
To judge the fit of the function parameters to the experimental data, the
following FLAC subroutine can be used.
conf dy
def setup
givenShear = 1e8 ; shear modulus
CycStrain = 0.01 ; cyclic strain (%) / 10
;---- derived ..
setVel = 0.1 * min(1.0,CycStrain/0.1)
givenBulk = 2.0 * givenShear
timestep = min(1e-4,1e-5 / CycStrain)
nstep1 = int(0.5 + 1.0 / (timestep * 10.0))
nstep2 = nstep1 * 2
nstep3 = nstep1 + nstep2
nstep5 = nstep1 + 2 * nstep2
end
setup
;
gri 1 1
;m mohr
m elastic
prop den 1000 sh givenShear bu givenBulk cohesion = 50e3
fix x y
ini xvel setVel j=2
set dydt 1e-4
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.325 0.823; hysteretic damping
his sxy i 1 j 1
his xdis i 1 j 2
his nstep 1
cyc nstep1
ini xv mul -1
cyc nstep2
ini xv mul -1
cyc nstep2
his write 1 vs 2 tab 1
def HLoop
emax = 0.0
emin = 0.0
tmax = 0.0
tmin = 0.0
loop n (1,nstep5)
emax = max(xtable(1,n),emax)
emin = min(xtable(1,n),emin)
tmax = max(ytable(1,n),tmax)
tmin = min(ytable(1,n),tmin)
endLoop
slope = ((tmax - tmin) / (emax - emin)) / givenShear
oo = out(' strain = '+string(emax*100.0)+'% G/Gmax = '+string(slope))
Tbase = ytable(1,nstep3)
Lsum = 0.0
loop n (nstep1,nstep3-1)
meanT = (ytable(1,n) + ytable(1,n+1)) / 2.0
Lsum = Lsum + (xtable(1,n)-xtable(1,n+1)) * (meanT - Tbase)
endLoop
Usum = 0.0
loop n (nstep3,nstep5-1)
meanT = (ytable(1,n) + ytable(1,n+1)) / 2.0
Usum = Usum + (xtable(1,n+1)-xtable(1,n)) * (meanT - Tbase)
endLoop
Wdiff = Usum - Lsum
Senergy = 0.5 * xtable(1,nstep1) * yTable(1,nstep1)
Drat = Wdiff / (Senergy * 4.0 * pi)
oo = out(' damping ratio = '+string(Drat*100.0)+'%')
end
HLoop
save singleelement.sav 'last project state'
Dt max 5.26357E-05
displacement
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00 disp
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
Reading Assignment
○ Course Information
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 73 - 75 Kramer
Other Materials
○ FLAC User Manual Theory and Background, Section 1 - Background -
The Explicit Finite Difference Method
Homework Assignment #7
The finite difference grid also identifies the storage location of all
state variables in the model. The procedure followed by FLAC is that
all vector quantities (e.g.. forces. velocities. displacements. flow
rates) are stored at gridpoint locations. while all scalar and tensor
quantities (e.g.. stresses. pressure. material properties) are stored
at zone centroid locations. There are three exceptions: saturation
and temperature are considered gridpoint variables: and pore
pressure is stored at both gridpoint and zone centroid locations.
Tunnel
Slope or Embankment
Braced Excavation
Hyperbolic Model
Function Form of Hyperbolic Model
Shear stress
SHEAR STRAIN
PRESSURE
PORE PRESSURE
GRAVITY
○ Positive gravity will pull the mass of a body downward (in the
negative y-direction). Negative gravity will pull the mass of a body
upward.
GFLOW
Boundary Conditions
X means fixed
in x direction
B means fixed in
both directions
○ Velocity or displacement
○ Stress or force
Yellow line
with circle
means force,
velocity or
stress has
been applied
to this
surface.
Higher-order differences
Examples
Groundwater flow
equation
2D wave equation
Explicit methods calculate the state of a system at a later time from the
state of the system at the current time, while implicit methods find a
solution by solving an equation involving both the current state of the
system and the later one. Mathematically, if Y(t) is the current system
state and Y(t + Δt) is the state at the later time (Δt is a small time step),
then, for an explicit method
Table 1.1 (next page) compares the explicit amid implicit methods.
The disadvantage of the explicit method is seen to be the small
timestep, which means that large numbers of steps must be taken.
Overall, explicit methods are best for ill-behaved systems e.g.,
nonlinear, large—strain, physical instability; they are not efficient for
modeling linear, small—strain problems.
Explicit Implicit
Even though we want FLAC to find a static solution to a problem, the dynamic
equations of motion are included in the formulation. One reason for doing this is
to ensure that the numerical scheme is stable when the physical system being
modeled is unstable. With nonlinear materials, there is always the possibility of
physical instability—e.g., the sudden collapse of a pillar. In real life, some of the
strain energy in the system is converted into kinetic energy, which then radiates
away from the source and dissipates. FLAC models this process directly, because
inertial terms are included — kinetic energy is generated and dissipated. In
contrast, schemes that do not include inertial terms must use some numerical
procedure to treat physical instabilities. Even if the procedure is successful at
preventing numerical instability, the path taken may not be a realistic one. One
penalty for including the full law of motion is that the user must have some
physical feel for what is going on; FLAC is not a black box that will give “the
solution.” The behavior of the numerical system must be interpreted.
Since FLAC does not need to form a global stiffness matrix, it is a trivial matter
to update coordinates at each timestep in large-strain mode. The incremental
displacements are added to the coordinates so that the grid moves and deforms
with the material it represents. This is termed a “Lagrangian” formulation. in
contrast to an “Eulerian” formulation. in which the material moves and deforms
relative to a fixed grid. The constitutive formulation at each step is a small—
strain one, but is equivalent to a large-strain formulation over many steps.
Eq. (1.1)
Note that the above partial differential equation is a 2nd order partial differential
equation because u dot is a derivative of u (displacement). This equation
expresses dynamic force equilibrium which relates the inertial and gravitational
forces to changes in stress. It is essentially the wave equation, which is further
discussed in soil dynamics.
The constitutive relation that is required in the PDE given before relates changes
in stress with strain.
In the explicit method. the quantities on the right-hand sides of all difference
equations are “known”; therefore. we must evaluate Eq. 1.2) for all zones before
moving on to Eqs. (1.3) and (1.4). which are evaluated for all grid points.
Conceptually. this process is equivalent to a simultaneous update of variables.
bc
dis_calc motion
constit
Eq. (1.2)
FDM formulation using central finite
difference equation.
The central finite difference equation corresponding is for a typical zone i is given
by the above equation. Here the quantities in parentheses — e.g.. (i) — denote
the time, t, at which quantities are evaluated: the superscripts. i, denote the zone
number, not that something is raised to a power.
Finite difference equation for equation of motion using central finite difference
equation. Note that on the left side of the equation a change in velocity (i.e.,
acceleration) is represented; on the right side of the equation a change in stress
with respect to position is represented for the time step. In other words, an
acceleration (unbalanced force) causes a change is the stress, or stress wave.
This equation says that the position and time t + delta t is equal to the position
and time t + (velocity at time t + 1/2 delta t) * delta t.
def scan_all
while_stepping
time = time + dt
bc ; pulse applied to boundary condition
dis_calc ; displacements calculated from velocity
constit ; stresses are derived from strain
motion ; velocity calculated stress
end
The subroutine, bc, applies a one-sided cosine velocity pulse to the left end of the
rod.
def dis_calc
loop i (1,nel)
xdisp(i,1) = xdisp(i,1) + xvel(i,1) * dt
end_loop
end
The subroutine, called constit, calculates the stress as derived from strain using
Hooke's law. The value of e is Young's modulus.
def constit
loop i (1,nel)
sxx(i,1) = e * (xdisp(i+1,1) - xdisp(i,1)) / dx
end_loop
end
This subroutine, called motion, calculates the new velocity from stress. Recall
that an unbalanced stress causes an unbalanced force, which in turn produces an
acceleration which is a change in velocity.
def motion
loop i (2,nel)
xvel(i,1) = xvel(i,1) + (sxx(i,1) - sxx(i-1,1)) * tdx
end_loop
end
A timestep must be chosen that is smaller than some critical timestep. The
stability condition for an elastic solid discretized into elements of size x is
dt = frac * dx / c
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ FLAC Manual
Homework Assignment #8
1. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 10a (30 points)
2. Analyze a 30-m high triangular-shaped embankment (50 points)
a. Assume the embankment has 2H:1V slope and a crest of 30m. Note that
you do not have to construct the model incrementally.
b. Properties for embankment (prop density=2080 bulk=419E6 shear=193E6)
c. Use FLAC's default hysteretic damping model for sand for embankment
d. Use the Taft_Match.TXT acceleration time history record on the course
website for the FLAC analysis.
e. Provide all inputs and outputs including
i. Input time history for FLAC analysis
ii. FLAC model geometry
iii. Acceleration time history at base of model
iv. Acceleration time history at crest of model
v. Shear Stress vs. shear strain at crest of embankment
vi. FLAC code
Introduction
Numerical Modeling
config ats
grid 20,10
;Mohr-Coulomb model
mm
; soil properties --- note large cohesion to force initial elastic
; behavior for determining initial stress state. This will prevent
; slope failure when initializing the gravity stresses
prop s=.3e8 b=1e8 d=1500 fri=20 coh=1e10 ten=1e10
; warp grid to form a slope :
gen 0,0 0,3 20,3 20,0 j 1,4
gen same 9,10 20,10 same i 6 21 j 4 11
mark i=1,6 j=4
mark i=6 j=4,11
model null region 1,10
; displacement boundary conditions
fix x i=1
fix x i=21
fix x y j=1
; apply gravity
set grav=9.81
; displacement history of slope
his ydis i=10 j=10
; solve for initial gravity stresses
solve
;
; reset displacement components to zero
ini xdis=0 ydis=0
; set cohesion to 0
; this is done to explore the failure mechanism in the cohesionless slope
prop coh=0
; use large strain logic
set large
step 1200; comment this line out to calculate factor of safety of undeformed slope
solve fos
save dry_slope.sav 'last project state'
At step 1200
Note that the surficial failure at the top of the slope can be prevented by
slightly increasing the cohesive strength of the soil at the slope face. This often
done to explore deeper failure surfaces in the soil mass.
The last part of the FLAC code has been modified to look like this:
; set cohesion to 0
prop coh=0
group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity' i 6 j 4 10
model mohr group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity'
prop density=1900.0 bulk=1.33E6 shear=8E5 cohesion=100e3 friction=30.0 dilation=0.0 tension=0.0
group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity'
; use large strain logic
set large
;step 1200
solve fos
(This is the true factor of safety of the slope for a rotation, slump failure.)
In FLAC, the dynamic input can be applied in one of the following ways:
Dynamic input is usually applied to the model boundaries (i.e., exterior) with
the APPLY command. Accelerations, velocities and forces can also be applied to
interior gridpoints by using the INTERIOR command.
○ Note that the free-field boundary, shown in Figure 3.4, is not required if the
dynamic source is only within the model (i.e., applied interior to the model.)
○ Note that the quiet boundary shown on the sides of Figure 3.4 is not
required if the dynamic source is applied at the base or top (i.e., applied
exterior to the model).
However, when the material damping is low, the required distance may lead to
an impractical model. An alternative procedure is to “enforce” the free-field
motion in such a way that boundaries retain their non-reflecting properties —
i.e., outward waves originating from the structure are properly absorbed. This
approach was used in the continuum finite-difference code NESSI (Cundall et
al., 1980). A technique of this type was developed for FLAC, involving the
execution of a one-dimensional free-field calculation in parallel with the main-
grid analysis.
The following conditions are required in order to apply the free-field boundary
condition.
1. The lateral boundaries of the grid must be vertical and straight.
2. The free field boundaries may be applied to the whole grid or to a sub-grid,
starting at (1,1), with the left-hand boundary being i = 1. The right-hand
boundary corresponds to the last-encountered non-null zone, scanning along j
= 1 with increasing i numbers. Any other disconnected sub-grids are not
considered when the free-field boundaries are created. Therefore, if sub-grids
are used in a simulation that requires free-field boundaries to the main grid,
this grid must be the “first” one—i.e., its left and bottom sides must be lines i=
1 and j = 1, respectively. The optional keyword ilimits forces the free field to be
applied on the outer i limits of the grid (as specified in the GRID command).
This keyword should be used if null zones exist on the j = 1 row of zones. It is
advisable to perform PLOT apply to verify that the free field is applied to the
correct boundary before starting a dynamic simulation.
3. The bottom zones (j = 1) at i = 1 and i = imax must not be null.
4. The model should be in static equilibrium before the free-field boundary is
applied.
5. The free-field condition must be applied before changing other boundary
conditions for the dynamic stage of an analysis. Damping properties must be
declared before issuing the free field command.
6. The free-field condition can only be applied for a plane-strain or plane-stress
analysis. It is not applicable for axisymmetric geometry.
7. Both lateral boundaries of the grid must be included in the free field because
the free field is automatically applied to both boundaries when the APPLY ff
command is given.
8. The free field can be specified for a groundwater flow analysis (CONFIG gw).
A one-dimensional fluid flow model will also be created when APPLY ff is
issued, and pore pressures will be calculated in the free field.
9. Interfaces and attach-lines do not get transferred to the free-field grid. Thus,
an INTERFACE or ATTACH condition should not extend to the free-field
boundary. The effect of an interface can be reproduced with a layer of zones
having the same properties of the interface.
10. The use of 3D damping when the free field is derived from the sides of a
subgrid may not work.
Modeling of Slope Using FLAC without and with free field boundary
config dynamic
set dynamic off
grid 20,10
model elastic
; fill material
group 'Soil-Sand:uniform - coarse' j 4 10
model mohr group 'Soil-Sand:uniform - coarse'
prop density=1600.0 bulk=1.67E8 shear=1E8 friction = 35 cohesion=10e3 group 'Soil-
Sand:uniform - coarse'
;
; foundation
group 'Soil-Sand:uniform - coarse - elastic' j 1 3
model elastic group 'Soil-Sand:uniform - coarse - elastic'
prop density=1600.0 bulk=1.67E8 shear=1E8 group 'Soil-Sand:uniform - coarse - elastic'
;
;
model null i 1 5 j 4 10
group 'null' i 1 5 j 4 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 6 j 5 10
group 'null' i 6 j 5 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 7 j 6 10
group 'null' i 7 j 6 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 8 j 7 10
group 'null' i 8 j 7 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 9 j 8 10
group 'null' i 9 j 8 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 10 j 9 10
group 'null' i 10 j 9 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 11 j 10
group 'null' i 11 j 10
group delete 'null'
ini x 5.534771 y 3.5359905 i 6 j 5
ini x 6.535177 y 4.536397 i 7 j 6
ini x 7.4623833 y 5.4880033 i 8 j 7
ini x 8.56039 y 6.56161 i 9 j 8
ini x 9.536397 y 7.5620165 i 10 j 9
ini x 10.488003 y 8.489223 i 11 j 10
ini x 11.56161 y 9.538429 i 12 j 11
;
fix x y j 1
fix x i 21
set gravity=9.81
solve
set dynamic on
set large
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.325 0.823; sand
;
;
; BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (OPTION 1 or OPTION 2)
;
;free x i 21; OPTION 1 - FIX IN Y ONLY
;fix y i 1; OPTION 1 - FIX IN Y ONLY
;fix y i 21; OPTION 1 - FIX IN Y ONLY
;
apply ff ; OPTION 2 - free field
free x i 21 ; OPTION 2 - free field
fix x y j 1 ; OPTION 2 - free field
;
his read 100 TAFT_FLAC.acc
;apply xacc 9.81 his 100 j 1 ; acceleration in m /s^2 ; OPTION 1 - FIX in Y ONLY
;apply xacc 9.81 his 100 i 1 j 2 4 ; acceleration in m /s^2 ; OPTION 1 - FIX in Y ONLY
;apply xacc 9.81 his 100 i 21 j 2 11 ; acceleration in m /s^2 ; OPTION 1 - FIX in Y ONLY
apply xacc 9.81 his 100 j 1 ; acceleration in m /s^2 ; OPTION 2 - free field
;
apply yvel 0 j 1 ; keeps base of model from moving
;
def strain1 ;
deltay = 1.0; one m vertical spacing between nodes
strain1 = (xdisp(7,5) - xdisp(7,4))/deltay ; shear strain at toe
end
;
his 2 dytime
his 3 sxy i 11 j 9
his 4 strain1
his 5 xdisp i 13 j 11; crest
his 6 xacc i 13 j 11; crest
his 7 xacc i 1 j 4; free field
his 8 xdisp i 6 j 5 ; toe
ini xdisp=0
ini ydisp=0
set dytime 2
solve dytime 17
;
;
set hisfile flac-0001.his
his write 7 vs 2 ;accn
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ FLAC manual on interfaces
Homework Assignment #9
Topics
Geofoam Advantages
I-180 W to I-15 N
I-180 W to I-15 N
I-15 at S. Temple
Normal and shear stiffness at the interfaces are also required by FLAC. These are
spring constants that represent the respective stiffness between two planes that
are in contact with each other. Interfacial stiffness is often used in FLAC to
represent the behavior of rock joints where some elastic deformation in the joint
is allowed before slippage occurs. However for geofoam block placed in layers,
such elastic behavior before slippage occurs is probably small. Thus, for the case
where only slippage and separation are considered at the interface (i.e., one
geofoam subgrid is allowed to slide and/or open relative to another subgrid), the
normal and shear stiffnesses used in the FLAC model are not important (Itasca.
2005). For this case, the FLAC user’s manual recommends that the normal and
shear interface stiffness (kn and ks, respectively) be set to ten times the stiffness
of the neighboring zone.
CONCLUSIONS
In general. the majority of the evaluated cases suggest that interlayer sliding is
within tolerable limits (0.01 to 0.1 m) however, two input time histories
produced interlayer sliding that was greater than 0.5 in.. which is considered
unacceptable from a performance standpoint Because the model predicted a
wide range of interlayer sliding displacement for the cases analyzed, this
suggests that sliding is a highly nonlinear process and is strongly governed by
the frequency content and long period displacement pulses present in the input
time histories.
The model also suggests that interlayer sliding displacement can, in some
cases1 increase when the vertical component of strong motion is included in
the analysis For cases where interlayer sliding is just initiating, the sliding
displacement increases by a factor of 2 to 5 times when the vertical component
of strong motion is added to the analyses However, when the interlayer sliding
displacements are larger. the presence of the vertical component in the model
is less important and the displacements remain the same or only slightly
increase. Thus, we conclude that it is generally unconservative to ignore the
vertical component of strong motion when estimating sliding displacement, but
its inclusion is less important when the interlayer sliding displacement is well
developed. All models showed that the interlayer sliding is generally
concentrated in the basal layers and diminishes greatly in the higher layers. The
potential for interlayer sliding displacement in geofoam embankments can be
resolved by constructing shear keys within the geofoam mass to disrupt
continuous horizontal layers that are being created by current construction
practices
The numerical model also suggests that internal deformation caused by rocking
and sway can cause local tensile yielding of some blocks within the
embankment, usually near the base.. In some cases, this yielding can propagate
upward and cause the embankment to begin to decouple dynamically.
Consideration should be given to using blocks with higher strengths than Type
VIII geofoam in the basal zones of geofoam embankments undergoing high
levels of strong motion.
where: v is the vertical effective stress acting on the top of the geofoam from
applied dead loads (i.e., pavement section), H is the geofoam embankment
height, E is the initial Young’s modulus of the geofoam, g is the gravitational
constant, B is the width of the geofoam embankment and is Poisson’s ratio.
Fh = Sa * m
where: Sa is the spectral acceleration corresponding to T0 obtained from the
design basis earthquake acceleration response spectrum and m is the lumped
mass of the system (combined mass of the pavement, road base and concrete
load distribution slab). In the U.S., geofoam embankment is often considered to
be a “retaining” structure/wall and as such, it is designed for a 5 percent
damped Sa value that has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years
(i.e., average return period of 475 years) as specified by the American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2010).
The recommended factor of safety against interlayer and basal sliding is 1.2 to
1.3, which may not be achieved at all interfaces relying on frictional resistance
solely. For interfaces where unacceptably low safety factors are calculated,
shear keys can be constructed during the placement of the geofoam block to
reduce the potential for interlayer sliding. Such keys disrupt the development of
horizontal sliding planes during earthquake shaking and are constructed by
periodically placing half-height blocks in the geofoam mass followed by placing
full-height block in the successive layer . The full-height block placed in the key
acts as a barrier to sliding and the shear resistance of the block is mobilized to
resist sliding. Therefore, the key greatly improves the factor of safety against
interlayer sliding due to the relatively high shear strength of the EPS block. The
resisting force provided by the key is calculated by multiplying the shear
strength of the block by the percentage of area occupied by the key. We note
that if a shear key is used at a particular interface, the area available for
frictional contact must be reduced correspondingly when calculating the
resisting sliding force.
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Papers\UDOT%20Geofoam\UDOT%20EPS%20Report.docx>
H= 8 m
Block thickness 0.81 m
=
number of 9
interfaces
normal stress 25.36 kPa
interface 0.8 (geofoam -
friction geofoam)
interface 0.6 (geofoam - soil)
friction
geofoam shear 23 psi (EPS19 used
strength in shear key)
geofoam shear 157.3 kPa
strength
Interface Properties
Soils dilate (expand) or contract upon shearing and the degree of this dilatancy
can be explained by the dilatancy angle, .
The dilatancy angle can be calculated from the Mohr's circle of strain, see
previous page. It can also be estimated from the following formulas.
simplifying:
simplifies to:
Interface
config
set large
g 20 21
model elas
gen 0,0 0,10 21,10 21,0
; scales model to 1 cm
ini x mul 0.01
ini y mul 0.01
; creates horz. gap in grid
model null j 11
; creates gap on both sides of upper part of grid
model null i 1,4 j 12,21
model null i 17,20 j 12,21
; reconnects the grid
ini x add .005 j 12 22
ini y add -.00475 j 12 22
; creates interface
int 1 Aside from 1,11 to 21,11 Bside from 5,12 to 17,12
int 1 kn 10e7 ks 10e7 cohesion 0 fric 35 dil 5
; elastic properties for model
prop dens 2000 bulk 8.3e6 shear 3.85e6
; boundary conditions
fix x y j=1
fix x i=1 j 1,11
fix x i=21 j=1,11
; apply pressure at top of model
apply p=50e3 i=5,17 j=22
;
his 999 unb
; consolidates sample under applied pressure
solve
;
; starts shear part of test
ini xvel 5e-7 i= 5,17 j 12,22
fix x i= 5,17 j 12,22
; reinitializes displacements to zero
ini xdis 0.0 ydis 0.0
def av_str
whilestepping
sstav = 0.0
nstav = 0.0
njdisp = 0.0
sjdisp = 0.0
ncon = 0
jlen = 0.0
pnt = int_pnt
loop while pnt # 0
pa = imem(pnt+$kicapt)
loop while pa # 0
sstav = sstav + fmem(pa+$kidfs)
nstav = nstav + fmem(pa+$kidfn)
jlen = jlen + fmem(pa+$kidlen)
sjdisp = sjdisp + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp = njdisp + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pa = imem(pnt+$kicbpt)
loop while pa # 0
ncon = ncon + 1
sstav = sstav + fmem(pa+$kidfs)
nstav = nstav + fmem(pa+$kidfn)
jlen = jlen + fmem(pa+$kidlen)
sjdisp = sjdisp + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp = njdisp + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pnt = imem(pnt)
end_loop
if ncon # 0
sstav = sstav / jlen
nstav = nstav / jlen
sjdisp = (sjdisp-sjdisp0) / (2.0 * ncon)
njdisp = (njdisp-njdisp0) / (2.0 * ncon)
endif
end
JOB TITLE : .
1.500
1.000
0.500
2 4 6 8 10
-03
(10 )
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
JOB TITLE : .
6-Oct-10 6:59
5.000
step 27927
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 4.000
4 njdisp (FISH)
X-axis :
3 sjdisp (FISH) 3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
2 4 6 8 10
-03
(10 )
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ Ch. 9 FHWA manual
○ Foundations_vibrations.pdf
Homework Assignment 10
1. The factored forces for the design of a sign post foundation are:
○ B = 2 feet
○ L = 2.6 feet
○ D = ? feet (you determine this)
○ Vertical static = 12 kips
○ Vertical dynamic = 2.4 kips (upward or downward, most critical)
○ Horizontal dynamic = 4 kips (in X direction = longest footing
dimension)
○ Moment about y axis = 9 kip feet
1. All ground response consider thus far has not considered the effect of
the structure on ground response. The presence of a structure, either buried or
at the surface, changes the free-field motion.
○ Used often for "unimportant structures," where the gross stability of the
foundation is to be evaluated.
○ The static shear strength may be either decreased or increased, depending
on soil type and groundwater conditions, to account for dynamic loading
conditions.
○ Dynamic forces are represented as pseudostatic forces and moments and
are calculated by applying a horizontal force (weight time seismic
coefficient) through the center of gravity of the structure. Seismic
coefficients are usually a fraction of pga.
○ In cases where a dynamic analysis has been completed for the structure, the
peak loads, reduced by a peak load reduction factor, is used in the pseudo-
static analysis.
Seismic loads in structures are typically dominated by the inertial forces
from the superstructure, which are predominantly horizontal.
However, these horizontal forces are transmitted to the foundation in
the form of horizontal and vertical forces, and rocking and torsional
moments.
3. The response of the foundation to the above modes of motion is thus described
by a 6 x 6 stiffness matrix, having 36 stiffness coefficients (Fig. 66).
5. Typically, the geotechnical engineer provides the values of the stiffness and
damping matrix to the structural engineer for use in the dynamic response
analysis of the structure.
6. Based on the results of the analysis, the structural engineer should then provide
the peak dynamic loads and deformations of the foundation elements back to
the geotechnical engineer.
7. The geotechnical engineer then compares the dynamic loads and deformations
to acceptable values to ascertain if the seismic performance of the foundation is
acceptable. This sometimes is an iterative process to achieve a satisfactory
design.
Dynamic response analyses incorporate the foundation system into the general
dynamic model of the structure. The combined analysis is commonly referred
to as the soil-structure-interaction, SSI analysis. In SSI analyses, the foundation
system can either be represented by a system of springs (classical approach), or
by a foundation stiffness (and damping) matrix. The latter approach,
commonly used for SSI analyses of highway facilities, is commonly referred to
as the stiffness matrix method approach.
The general form of the stiffness matrix for a rigid footing was presented in
figure 66 . The 6 x 6 stiffness matrix can be incorporated in most structural
engineering programs for dynamic response analysis to account for the
foundation stiffness in evaluating the dynamic response of the structural
system. The diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix represent the direct
response of a mode of motion to excitation in that mode while the off diagonal
terms represent the coupled response. Many of the off diagonal terms are zero
or close to zero, signifying that the two corresponding modes are uncoupled
(e.g. , torsion and vertical motion) and therefore may be neglected. In fact, for
symmetric foundations loaded centrically, rocking and sliding (horizontal
translation) are the only coupled modes of motion considered in a dynamic
analysis.
Often, all of the off-diagonal (coupling) terms are neglected for two reasons :
(1) the values of these off-diagonal terms are small, especially for shallow
footings; and (2) they are difficult to compute. However, the coupling of the
two components of horizontal translation to the two degrees of freedom of
rocking (tilting) rotation may be significant in some cases. For instance,
coupled rocking and sliding may be important for deeply embedded footings
where the ratio of the depth of embedment to the equivalent footing diameter
is greater than five. The reader is referred to Lam and Martin (1986) for more
guidance on this issue.
The solution for a circular footing rigidly connected to the surface of an elastic
half space provides the basic stiffness coefficients for the various modes of
foundation displacement, translation, the stiffness coefficient K33 can be
expressed as:
For horizontal translation, the stiffness coefficients and K22 can be expressed as:
For rocking rotation, the stiffness coefficients K44 and K55 can be expressed as:
In these equations, G and v are the dynamic shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio
for the elastic half space (foundation soil) and R is the radius of the footing.
The dynamic shear modulus, G, used to evaluate the foundation stiffness should
be based upon the representative, or average, shear strain of the foundation
soil. However, there are no practical guidelines for evaluating a representative
shear strain for a dynamically loaded shallow foundation. Frequently, the value
of G, the shear modulus at very low strain, is used to calculate foundation
stiffness. However, this is an artifact of the original development of the above
equations for foundation stiffness for the design of machine foundations for
vibrations. For earthquake loading, it is recommended that values of G be
evaluated at shear strain levels calculated from a seismic site response
analysis (i.e., use strain-compatible values of G).
One of the advantages of the stiffness matrix method over the classical approach
is that a damping matrix can be included in SSI analysis. The format of the
damping matrix is the same as the format of the stiffness matrix shown on
figure 66. While coefficients of the damping matrix may represent both an
internal (material) damping and a radiation (geometric) damping of the soil, only
radiation damping is typically considered in SSI analysis.
The internal damping of the soil is predominantly strain dependent and can be
relatively accurately represented by the equivalent viscous damping ratio, . At
the small strain levels typically associated with foundation response, is on the
order of 2 to 5 percent. Radiation damping, i.e., damping that accounts for the
energy contained in waves that ‘radiate” away from the foundation, is
frequency-dependent and, in a SSI analysis, significantly larger than the material
damping. Consequently, radiation damping dominates the damping matrix in
SSI analyses.
The damping ratio for a shallow foundation depends upon the mass (or inertia)
ratio of the footing. The following table lists the mass ratios and the damping
coefficients and damping ratios for the various degrees of freedom of the
footing. The damping ratios should be used as shown on figure 66 to develop
the damping matrix of the foundation system. It should be noted that this
approach only partially accounts for the geometry of the foundations and
assumes that small earthquake strains are induced in the soil deposit. For pile
foundations or for complex foundation geometry, a more rigorous approach,
commonly referred to as the soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) analysis,
may be warranted. SFSI is beyond the scope of this lecture.
1. Calculate the radius of an equivalent circular footing for the various modes of
displacement using damping table and Figure 68. For vertical and horizontal
(translational) displacements, the equivalent radius, r0, is the radius of a circular
footing with the same area as the rectangular footing. For rocking and torsional
motions, the calculation of the equivalent radius is more complicated, as it
depends on the moment of inertia of the footing. The equivalent radius is then
used in the stiffness equations to solve for the baseline stiffness coefficients
required in the following formula: K = KECF.
2. Find the shape factor a to be used in (K = KECF) using Figure 69. This figure
gives the shape factors for various aspect ratios (LIB) for the various modes of
foundation displacement.
Embedment
Embedment (cont.)
Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both horizontal and
vertical) and static moments. These should be added to the seismic
loads.
FHWA guidance
Inclination factors
Overview
Fremont Bridge
Swan Island
Steven F. Bartlett, 2010
9 Damp. 5.0%
8
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time [sec]
Velocity [m/sec]
0.5
0
-0.5
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time [sec]
Original (gray)
Baseline corrected (blue)
9
Damp. 5.0%
8
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
-2
0.5
0
-0.5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time [sec]
Original (gray)
Baseline corrected (blue)
9 Damp. 5.0%
8
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [sec]
Velocity [m/sec]
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
0.05
-0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [sec]
10
9 Damp. 5.0%
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
Acceleration [m/sec2]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0.15
Velocity [m/sec]
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [sec]
7.5
7 Damp. 5.0%
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
3
2
1
0
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
Velocity [cm/sec]
40
20
0
-20
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
Displacement [cm]
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
8
7.5
Damp. 5.0%
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
3
2
1
0
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
Velocity [cm/sec]
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
Displacement [cm]
50
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [sec]
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
Velocity [cm/sec]
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
Displacement [cm]
50
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
6.5
6 Damp. 5.0%
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
Acceleration [m/sec2]
3
2
1
0
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
Velocity [cm/sec]
40
20
0
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
Displacement [cm]
40
20
0
-20
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]
12
11 Damp. 5.0%
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time [sec]
Velocity [m/sec]
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time [sec]
8 Damp. 5.0%
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
Acceleration [m/sec2]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time [sec]
0.2
Velocity [m/sec]
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
0.05
-0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time [sec]
12
11 Target Spectrum
10 1msoil
9 1ssoil
8 ch1_ch
7 ch2_ch
6 SWCZ1.
5
4
3
2
1
0 1 2 3
Period (sec)
3
1msoil
2 1ssoil
ch1_ch
1 ch2_ch
SWCZ1.
0
-1
-2
9
8 Target Spectrum
SWCZ2.
7 Union0
6 Union3
Val70.
5 Val160
4
3
2
1
0 1 2 3
Period (sec)
2.5 SWCZ2.
2 Union0
1.5 Union3
1 Val70.
0.5 Val160
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Assumptions
Dh (m)2002 log Dh B0f f M R W (%) S (%) T15 (m) F15 (%) D5015 (mm)
2.2 0.337413 0 9 100 1 0.5 7.5 15 0.1
2.7 0.439161 0 9 100 1 1 7.5 15 0.1
3.5 0.540909 0 9 100 1 2 7.5 15 0.1
4.7 0.675413 0 9 100 1 5 7.5 15 0.1
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
DH (m)
2.5
2.0 Dh…
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
S (%)
Dh (m)2002 log Dh B0f f M R W (%) S (%) T15 (m) F15 (%) D5015 (mm)
0.2 -0.61857 0 8 100 1 0.5 7.5 15 0.1
0.3 -0.51682 0 8 100 1 1 7.5 15 0.1
0.4 -0.41507 0 8 100 1 2 7.5 15 0.1
0.5 -0.28057 0 8 100 1 5 7.5 15 0.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
DH (m)
0.3
Dh…
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
S (%)
LEGEND
4.000
12-Oct-10 15:02
step 8350
Dynamic Time 4.0004E+01
-5.562E+01 <x< 1.056E+03
-5.206E+02 <y< 5.906E+02 2.000
User-defined Groups
Grid plot
104
103 105 X
X
X
X
X X
X
0 2E 2 X
X 102 X
X
X
X X
X
X
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 100 X
B BB B B BB B B BB B B BB B B BB B BB
101 0.000
Fixed Gridpoints
X X-direction
B Both directions
Applied Velocities
max vector = 1.489E-03
-2.000
0 5E -3
History Locations
-4.000
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900
(*10^3)
Model Dimensions
○ 1000 m wide
○ Height (left side) varies
○ Height (right side) varies
○ Slope varies (0.5 to 5 deg)
○ Depth to groundwater = 5 m
○ Thickness of liquefied zone = 7.5 m
○ Depth to base of liquefied zone = 12.5 m
○ Static Equilibrium
Model brought to static equilibrium for groundwater conditions and effective
stress calculated using hydrostatic conditions
Drained friction angle of 32 degrees used for initial conditions
Shear modulus (Gmax) calculated using a shear wave velocity of 500 feet/s (152
ms).
○ Uncoupled Dynamic Analysis with Liquefaction Softening
Input time histories were scaled and adjusted so that the FLAC model produced
0.3 g pga at the ground surface for each candidate time history.
Shear stiffness and shear strength are degraded during cycling in the FLAC model
from maximum values to residual values
□ Maximum values are used at the onset of strong motion
□ Residual values are used at the first 0.1 g spike in the acceleration record
□ Linear degradation versus time was used between the maximum values
and the residual values
Initial shear modulus degraded from G max to 10 percent of Gmax when
full liquefaction is achieved (i.e., at first 0.1 g spike)
The soil's friction angle was degraded from 32 degrees to 6 degrees in
the liquefied zone. (A friction angle of six degrees was selected so
that the residual shear strength is approximately 10 percent of the
initial mean effective stress under hydrostatic conditions.)
The lateral spread displacements were calculated for each candidate time
history using the above assumptions. The slope used in the model varied from
0.5 to 5 degrees. The FLAC displacement results were compared with estimates
of horizontal lateral spread displacement from the Youd et al. 2002 ground slope
regression model for a M9.0 and M8.0 earthquakes using several input motions
that had been scaled to 0.3 g pga (surface).
□ Based on this comparison, representative time histories were selected for
the M9.0 and M8.0 events.
○ Liquefaction Remediation Analysis
The representative time histories were used to estimate what treatment was
required to mitigate the lateral spread hazard.
The residual friction angle in the liquefied zone was increased in the FLAC model
for the representative time histories until the deformations became small. From
this, the undrained shear strength required to ameliorate the lateral spread was
calculated.
This approach assumed
□ The residual shear modulus for the treated zone was 30 percent of Gmax
□ The undrained shear strength required to mitigate the lateral spread was
uniformly distributed throughout the liquefied zone.
□ Excess pore pressure generation from cycling (partial liquefaction) does not
affect the undrained shear strength of the improved ground.
LEGEND
4.000
29-Dec-10 13:09
step 47788
Dynamic Time 1.0000E+02
-5.558E+01 <x< 1.056E+03
-5.056E+02 <y< 6.055E+02
2.000
X-displacement contours
-4.00E-01
-3.50E-01
-3.00E-01
-2.50E-01
0.000
-2.00E-01
-1.50E-01
-1.00E-01
-5.00E-02
0.00E+00
-2.000
Contour interval= 5.00E-02
Grid plot
0 2E 2
Displacement vectors -4.000
1msoil
Lateral Spread Displacement vs. Slope
1ssoil
18
Ch_1 Chile
16
Ch_2 Chile
14
Union_90
12
Union_360
10
Union_360
8 Val 70
6 Val 160
4 SWCZ1
2 SWCZ2
0 Youd et al.
M9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Youd et al.
M8
1msoil
Lateral Spread Displacement vs. Slope
1ssoil
6
Use 1msoil record for M9 Ch_1 Chile
5 Event,R = 100 km
Ch_2 Chile
Union_90
4
Union_360
3 Union_360
Val 70
2 Val 160
Use SWCZ1 record for M8
Event, R=100 km SWCZ1
1
SWCZ2
0 Youd et al.
M9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Youd et al.
M8
If the drained cohesion is set equal to zero, then the undrained shear strength, Cu, can be
calculated as the mean effective stress times the sine of the drained friction angle.
-6.000
-7.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
Effective vertical stress from profile line at middle of model. The effective vertical stress at
the base of the liquefied zone (z = 12.5 m) is about 170 kPa.
31-Dec-10 10:31
-0.500
step 3785
-5.556E+01 <x< 1.056E+03
-5.056E+02 <y< 6.056E+02
-1.000
Linear Profile
Y-axis : -1.500
Effective XX-Stress
X-axis :
Distance -2.000
From ( 5.00E+02, 7.50E+01)
To ( 5.00E+02,-7.04E-01)
-2.500
-3.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
Effective horizontal stress from profile line at middle of model. The effective vertical stress
at the base of the liquefied zone (z = 12.5 m) is about 80 kPa.
Polarity Untreated Untreated Depth Untreated Treated Mean eff. Equivalent Treated
Cu
Time slope (%) residual phi' Grd Water Predicted phi' (deg) stress (kPa) Predicted
History (deg) (m) Displacement (kPa) Displacement
(m) (m)
1msoil + 0.5 6 5 0.7 15 110.00 28 0.05
1msoil - 0.5 6 5 0.35
1msoil + 1 6 5 1.9 19 110.00 36 0.05
1msoil - 1 6 5 2.4
1msoil + 2 6 5 4.5 22 110.00 41 0.05
1msoil - 2 6 5 5
1msoil + 5 6 5 17 27 110.00 50 0.15
1msoil - 5 6 5 17
SWCZ1 + 0.5 6 5 0.1 10 110.00 19 0.05
SWCZ1 - 0.5 6 5 0
SWCZ1 + 1 6 5 0.25 15 110.00 28 0
SWCZ1 - 1 6 5 0.2
SWCZ1 + 2 6 5 0.6 20 110.00 38 0.05
SWCZ1 - 2 6 5 0.5
SWCZ1 + 5 6 5 2 25 110.00 46 0.05
SWCZ1 - 5 6 5 2
;STATIC PART
;
config dynamic
set dynamic off
;
grid 16,10
;
gen (-30.0,-5.0) (-30.0,5.0) (10.0,5.0) (10.0,-5.0) i 1 9 j 1 6
gen (10.0,-5.0) (10.0,5.0) (60.0,5.0) (60.0,-5.0) i 9 17 j 1 6
gen (10.0,5.0) (30.0,15.0) (60.0,15.0) (60.0,5.0) i 9 17 j 6 11
;
;
model null
;
fix y j 1
fix x j 1
fix x i 1
fix x i 17
;
;
his unbalanced 999
set gravity 9.81
;
;
;DYNAMIC PART
;
set dynamic on
set large
;
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.325 0.823 j 6 17 ; embankment
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.325 0.823 j 1 3; nonliquefied foundation
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.325 0.823 j 5; nonliquefied foundation
;
; note that no hysteretic damping is assigned to liquefied j = 4
;
apply ffield
free x i 1 j 2 6
free x i 17 j 2 11
fix y i 1
fix y i 17
;
;
his read 200 layer5FLAC.txt
apply xacc 9.81 his 200 yvel=0 j 1
;
;
; changes friction angle for liquefaction
;
def liq
;
startliq = 2.5; start time for liquefaction
liqtime = 5.9; time for complete liquefaction
liqfric = 5.7; liquefied friction angle
drainedfric = 30
drainedbulk = 33.3e6
drainedshear = 20e6
liqshear = 0.04*drainedshear
liqbulk = 2.2e9 ; undrained modulus = modulus water
liqzonej1 = 4
liqzonej2 = 4
whilestepping
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (liqzonej1,liqzonej2)
if pp(i,j) > 999
if dytime < startliq
reduced = drainedfric
reducedshear = drainedshear
reducedbulk = drainedbulk
else
if dytime > liqtime
reduced = liqfric
reducedshear = liqshear
reducedbulk = liqbulk
else
ratio = ((liqtime-startliq)-(dytime-startliq))/(liqtime-startliq)
ratio1 = sqrt(ratio)
reduced = liqfric+(drainedfric-liqfric)*ratio
reducedshear = liqshear+(drainedshear-liqshear)*ratio1
reducedbulk = liqbulk+(drainedbulk-liqbulk)*ratio1
endif
endif
friction(i,j)= reduced
shear_mod(i,j)= reducedshear
bulk_mod(i,j)= reducedbulk
endif
endloop
endloop
end
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○
During strong earthquake shaking. loose. saturated cohesionless soil deposits may
experience a sudden loss of strength and stiffness. sometimes resulting in loss of
bearing capacity. large permanent lateral displacements. And/or seismic
settlement of the ground. This phenomenon is called soil liquefaction.
Stable Slope
Deformation Failure
Flow Failure
Sheffield Dam
1971 San
Fernando
Dam
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
For field
For laboratory
Ru = u / 'c
'c = effective confining stress in the triaxial cell
(NRC, 1985)
Earthquake Number of
magnitude, representativ
M e
uniform
cycles at
0.65τma x
26
15
10
5-6
2-3
For = 1
0
0
0
0
0
Adv. Liquefaction Modeling Page 411
Strain - Strain Loops
Sunday, August 14, 2011
3:32 PM
Input motion
Model Geometry
Hysteresis loops for site soil with low (5 k Pa) residual strength
0.6
16m depth motion
0.5
0.4 ground surface motion
Acceleration (g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
Earthquake N-S,Port Island
Note that liquefaction has caused a significant decreases in the surface ground
motion
5.500
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND 4.500
1-Jun-08 20:00
step 987
3.500
Dynamic Time 4.1469E+00
-4.446E+00 <x< 8.445E+01
-3.045E+01 <y< 5.845E+01
2.500
friction
0.000E+00
8.000E+00
1.500
3.500E+01
Grid plot
0 2E 1 0.500
-0.500
-1.500
-2.500
CIVIL DEPT. UU
UU
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500
(*10^1)
4
Ground surface motion predicted
3
Ground surface motion recorded
2
Acceleration (m/s2)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
0.25
Actual Downhole
0.2 Actual Surface
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
JOB TITLE : . (*10^1)
-0.25
LEGEND
2.750
30-May-07 16:20
0 10 20 30 2.250
40 50
step 12965
Dynamic Time 3.0001E+01
-2.374E+00 <x< 4.236E+01
Time (sec)
-1.231E+01 <y< 3.242E+01 1.750
Grid plot
1.250
0
Measured down hole vs. surface acceleration
friction
1E 1
0.000E+00 0.750
8.000E+00
3.500E+01
Grid plot
0.250
0 1E 1
-0.250
-0.750
CIVIL DEPT. UU
UU
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750
(*10^1)
For each case history without recorded ground motion, 7 synthetic strong
motions were selected from 30 synthetic strong motion recorded generated by
the SGMSV5 program (Papagorgiou, 2004). These 7 motions were selected at
the following according to the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period
of the liquefied soil column.
i. mean value
ii. maximum value
iii. minimum value
iv. +1/2 standard deviation
v. –1/2 standard deviation
vi. +1 standard deviation
vii. –1 standard deviation
Note that the data from this study (red diamonds) suggest that the correlation
with N160CS (N160 adjusted to a clean sands value) is approximately between
the mean value and lower bound value determined by Stark and Mesri (1992).
RG = shear modulus of
column / shear modulus
of matrix soil
RG = GC/GM
Note: The shear moduli in this equation are not low strain moduli, Gmax, but should be
selected consistent with the strains that develop in the column and matrix soil from the
applied loading.
Step 2 - Determine the composite friction angle of the treated soil, C, from the
stress concentration ratio, R S, the replacement ratio, R a, friction angle of the
column, C, and the friction angle of the matrix soil, M.
Step 3 - Determine the composite shear modulus for the treated soil, G comp
Note: The shear moduli in this equation are not low strain moduli, Gmax, obtained from
geophysical tests. The values should be selected consistent with the stresses and strains that
develop in the column and matrix soil from the applied loading .
Example
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
40 40
38 38
36 36
34 34
32 32
30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
meters
22 22
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 11 14
12 12
10 1 10
8 2 8
3
6 4 6
5
4 6 4
7
2 8 2
9
0 10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
meters
45
VS30 (m/sec)
300
FMeasured
0
Z1.0 (m)
DEFAULT
Z2.5 (km)
DEFAULT
W (km)
20.00
FAS
0
HW Taper
0
1.4
1.3
Damp. 5.0%
1.2
1.1
1
Response Acceleration [g]
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3
Period [sec]
Soil Properties
○ Liquefied zone is between z = 6 and 7 m (i.e., 2-4 m below ground surface)
○ N160 value = 12
○ Fines content < 5 percent
○ Watertable 2 m below ground surface at toe of slope
Ks correction
Ka correction
For = 1
0.35 0. 3 0.2
45 0.4 0. 2
0. 5
0.15
3
0.0
-0.01
0. 01 0.03 0.0
2
Calculations
front
toe
crest
Definition:
The process in which the response of the soil influences the motion of the
structure and the motion of the structure influences the response of the soil
is termed as SSI. In this case neither the structural displacements nor the
ground displacements are independent from each other.
Application:
Simplified Method
(from Kramer, Ch. 7)
Replacement of semi-infinite
half space with springs and
dashpots
Waves caused
by the
vibration of the
structure are
lost from the
system (no
reflections) in
the semi
infinite half
space