2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods
Monday, February 03, 2014 2:32 PM
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
1. Given the attached embankment properties and the attached shear

modulus reduction and damping curve and the attached acceleration
response spectra, determine the maximum crest acceleration (g) of the
embankment using the design spectrum attached with these notes.
a. Assume the embankment is 8 m high and has a crest of 12 m. Both
side slopes are constructed on a 1H to 1V slope.
b. Assume the embankment is constructed of granular material with
an effective stress friction angle of 25 degree, 10 kPa cohesion and
a total unit weight of 2 Mg/m^3. The shear wave velocity is 175
m/s.
c. The foundation soil below the embankment is a clayey soil with an
effective stress friction angle of 20 degrees, 30 kPa cohesion, dry
unit weight of 1.2 Mg and a porosity of 0.3.
2. From this information, calculate the pseudostatic factor of safety against
slope failure using the average acceleration that develops within the
critical circle. This may be done use the "Snailz" software in conjunction
with the Makdisi Seed method.
3. Using the Makidisi-Seed approach, make a plot of embankment
displacement, U in meters, as a function of yield acceleration, ky, for a M
= 7.5 earthquake.
4. Using the information given in problem 1 and the slope stability
software (e.g., Snailz or other), calculate the yield acceleration of the
slope/foundation system.
5. Use the yield acceleration determined in problem 5 to estimate the
displacement of the embankment/foundation system.
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014
2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 1

2D Analysis (cont.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:32 PM
Homework inputs

2D Analysis (cont.)
Homework inputs

2D Analysis (cont.)
Monday, February 03, 2014 2:32 PM
Homework inputs

2-D Seismic Embankment and Slope Assessment and Stability
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:45 PM
Lower San Fernando Dam - 1971 San Fernando Valley Earthquake, Ca.
Main Issues in Seismic Assessment of Earthen Embankments and Dam:
• Stability: Is embankment stable during and after earthquake?

• Deformation: How much deformation will occur in the embankment?
Two general types of analyses needed to answer these questions:
○ 2D Dynamic Response Analysis

○ 2D Deformation Analysis
In some approaches, these two analyses are coupled.

General Types of 2D Seismic Analysis
○ Pseudostatic Analysis (Stability)

○ Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (Deformation)
 Makdisi and Seed (1978) used average accelerations computed by the
procedure of Chopra (1966) and sliding block analysis to compute
earthquake-induced deformations of earth dams and embankments.
○ Numerically Based Analysis (Deformation)
 FEM
□ Quake/W
□ Plaxis
 FDM
□ FLAC
This course will focus on Pseudostatic and Newmark Sliding Block Analyses using
the Makdisi-Seed (1978) Method

Liquefaction Effects
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:45 PM
from:
If the embankment and foundation materials are not susceptible to

liquefaction or strength reduction due to earthquake shaking, then the
embankment will generally he stable and no catastrophic failure is expected
(Seed, 1979).
However, if the embankment or/and foundation comprise liquefiable

materials, it may experience flow failure depending on post-earthquake factor
of safety against instability (FOSpe).
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.
In this lecture we will not address the effects of liquefaction on embankment

stability. This will be discussed later in this course.

Pseudostatic Analysis
○ Pseudostaic apply a static (non-varying) force the centroid of mass to

represent the dynamic earthquake force.
 Fh = ah W / g = kh W
 Fv = av W/ g = kv W (often ignored)
Guidance on the Selection of Kh

Pseudostatic Analysis (cont.)
Recommendations for implementation of pseudostatic analysis (Bartlett)
General comment: The pseudostatic technique is dated and should only be

used for screening purposes. More elaborate techniques are generally
warranted and are rather easy to do with modern computing software.
Limitations of Pseudostatic Technique

○ Representation of the complex, transient, dynamics of earthquake shaking by
a single, constant, unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is quite crude.
○ Method has been shown to be unreliable for soils with significant pore
pressure buildup during cycling (i.e., not valid for liquefaction).
○ Some dams have failed with F.S. > 1 from the pseudostatic technique
○ Cannot predict deformation.
○ Is only a relative index of slope stability

Pseudostatic Analysis - Example
Example Geometry
Example Soil Properties
Layer  γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ c (kPa) Ko Vs (m/s)

(top to (kN/m3)
bottom)
1 15.72 100 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0 0.5873 150.9
2 16.51 105 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0 0.5873 147.3
3 17.29 110 150000 0.35 166,667 55,556 27.49 0 0.5385 177.5
4 18.08 115 200000 0.3 166,667 76,923 34.85 0 0.4286 204.3
5 18.08 115 250000 0.3 208,333 96,154 34.85 0 0.4286 228.4
emban 21.22 135 300000 0.3 250,000 115,385 34.85 0 0.4286 230.9
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>
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
FS = 1.252 (static with no seismic coefficient, Kh)
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.

Acceleration time history
Response Spectrum for acceleration time history
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.)
Layer  γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ Tan 80 New

(top to (kN/m3) φ percent phi
bottom) Tan angle
φ for
analysis
1 15.72 100 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0.4530 0.3624 19.92
2 16.51 105 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0.4530 0.3624 19.92
3 17.29 110 150000 0.35 166,667 55,556 27.49 0.5203 0.4162 22.60
4 18.08 115 200000 0.3 166,667 76,923 34.85 0.6963 0.5571 29.12
5 18.08 115 250000 0.3 208,333 96,154 34.85 0.6963 0.5571 29.12
embank 21.22 135 300000 0.3 250,000 115,385 34.85 0.6963 0.5571 29.12
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>
The analysis is redone with Kh = 0.3 and reduced shear strength (see below).
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.)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
Pasted from
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-113/ofr98-113.htm
Jibson, R., Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacement using Newmark's l>
sliding block analysis, TRR 1411, Transportation Research boards, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994.
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)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.)
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).
The following approach is implemented using the QUAKE/WTM and SLOPE/WTM.
Acceleration vs. time at base of slope from 2D response analysis in Quake/W.

Analysis perfromed using shear strength = 100 percent of peak value for all soils
(i.e., no shear strength loss during cycling).
Note that critical

circle is obtained
from the
pseudostatic
analysis

Analysis repeated using shear strength = 80 percent of peak value for all soils to
account for some pore pressure generation during cycling.

Analysis repeated using shear strength in layer 1 equal to 5 kPa (100 psf) to
represent a very soft clay.
Note FS < 1 for a

significant part of the
time history.
Note that more than 2 m of

displacement have
accumulated.

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Acceleration



Eq. 1
For more information on the shear beam approach see

Kramer section 7.3.4.1 compare with
Kramer eq. 7.61
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

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Accelerati
Eq. 10






Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Deformations




Better chart for previous page
Exponent
Interpolation on semi-log plot
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.

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Example
Values in red must be adjusted until convergence

Example Is obtained
Design Spectra

Shear modulus reduction and damping curves
Calculations

Calculations (cont.)
toe circle
Charts for deformation analysis
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


Bray and Travasarou
Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:32 PM

Bray and Travasarou (cont.)

In this application, probabilistic methodologies usually involve three steps:
(I) establishing a model for prediction of seismic slope displacements. where

seismic displacements are conditioned on a number of variables characterizing
the important ground motion characteristics and slope properties:
(2) computing the joint hazard of the conditioning ground motion variables,
(3) integrating the above-mentioned two steps to compute the seismic

displacement hazard. Focusing on the first step.
Step 1 - Developing the Model
Compared to the rigid sliding block model, a nonlinear coupled stick-slip

deformable sliding block model offers a more realistic representation of
the dynamic response of an earth/waste structure by accounting for (he
deformability of the sliding mass and by considering the simultaneous
occurrence of its nonlinear dynamic response and periodic sliding
episodes. In addition, its validation against shaking table experiments
provides confidence in its use (Wartman et al. 2003).

Step 1 - Developing the Model (cont.)
The seismic response of the sliding mass is captured by:
1. 1D equivalent-linear viscoelastic modal

2. strain-dependent material properties to capture the nonlinear response
3. single mode shape. but the effect of including three modes was shown to be
small.
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)).
These records conform to the following criteria:
(1) 5.5 < Mw < 7.6
(2) R < 100 km
(3) Simplified Geotechnical Sites B C, or D

(4) frequencies in the range of 0.25— 10 Hz have not been filtered out.
Earthquake records totaling 688 from 41 earthquakes comprise the ground

motion database for this study [see Travasarou (2003) for a list of records
used]. The two horizontal components of each record were used to calculate
an average seismic displacement for each side of the records, and the
maximum of these values was assigned to that record.

This nonlinear coupled stick-slip deformable sliding model can be

characterized by: (1) its strength as represented by its yield coefficient (ky.).
and (2) its dynamic stiffness as represented by its initial fundamental period
(Ts). Seismic displacement values were generated by computing the response
of the idealized sliding mass model with specified values of its yield
coefficient (i.e., ky=0.02. 0.05, 0.075. 0.1, 0.15. 0.2, 0.25. 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4)
and its initial fundamental period (i.e., T=0. 0.2, 0.3. 0.5. 0.7, 1.0. 1.4. and 2.0
s) to the entire set of recorded earthquake motions described previously.










Blank

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Monday, February 03, 2014 2:32 PM

1. Given the attached embankment properties and the attached shear

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 1

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 2

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 3

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 4

Main Issues in Seismic Assessment of Earthen Embankments and Dam:

• Stability: Is embankment stable during and after earthquake?

Two general types of analyses needed to answer these questions:

○ 2D Dynamic Response Analysis

In some approaches, these two analyses are coupled.

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 5

○ Pseudostatic Analysis (Stability)

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 6

If the embankment and foundation materials are not susceptible to

However, if the embankment or/and foundation comprise liquefiable

In this lecture we will not address the effects of liquefaction on embankment

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 7

○ Pseudostaic apply a static (non-varying) force the centroid of mass to

Guidance on the Selection of Kh

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 8

Recommendations for implementation of pseudostatic analysis (Bartlett)

General comment: The pseudostatic technique is dated and should only be

Limitations of Pseudostatic Technique

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 9

Example Soil Properties

Layer  γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ c (kPa) Ko Vs (m/s)

Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 10

FS = 1.252 (static with no seismic coefficient, Kh)

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 11

Acceleration time history

Response Spectrum for acceleration time history

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 12

Layer  γ (lb/ft3) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ Tan 80 New

Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 13

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 14

The following approach is implemented using the QUAKE/WTM and SLOPE/WTM.

Acceleration vs. time at base of slope from 2D response analysis in Quake/W.

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 15

Note that critical

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 16

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 17

Note FS < 1 for a

Note that more than 2 m of