Course Notes Earthquake Engineering

CVEEN 7330 - Course Notes
Thursday, March 11, 2010

11:43 AM
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:
• Design Spectra from Building Code

• 2D Embankment Response (Simplified)
• Equivalent Linear Method
• Introduction to Nonlinear Methods
• Design of Buried Structures
• Design of Retaining Systems
• Earthquake Loadings on Shallow
Foundations
• Machine Vibrations
• Earthquake Loadings on Deep
Foundations
• Liquefaction
• Dynamic Slope Stability and
Deformation Analyses
Course Information Page 1

Course Information (cont.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011
3:32 PM
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.

3:32 PM
Course Level of Effort

This is an introductory graduate course and will be taught as such. The time
requirement for such a course is considered to be 3 hours of out-of-class time for
each hour of in-class time. The total time commitment to this class should then
be 3 hours (in-class) and 9 hours (out-of-class) for a total of 12 hours per week.
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
Course Grading (Total Score from All Assignments and Exams)

Weight (%) Grade Grade Score (% of class
total)
Homework 50% A 94-100 A- 90-93
Midterm Exam I 20% B+ 87-89 B 84-86
Midterm Exam II 30% B - 80-83 C+ 77-79
Final Exam 25% C 74-76 C- 70-73
D+ 67-69 D 64-66
D- 60-63 E < 60

3:32 PM
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:
On my honor as a student of the University of Utah, I have neither given nor

received unauthorized aid on this 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.

Design Spectra
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
2:32 PM
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.
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
Design Spectra Page 5

Design Spectra (cont.)
Monday, January 06, 2014
2:32 PM
Definition - Plot of maximum response (acceleration, velocity displacement

amplitude) of a single degree of freedom system (SDOF) for a particular input
ground motion as a function of frequency or period and damping ratio of the
SDOF.
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:

Stiffness and Damping Representation

Plotting Response Spectra for an Earthquake (cont.)
3:32 PM
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]
Acceleration time history (ground surface)
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]
Acceleration Response Spectrum for above time history from Seismosignal TM
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

Representing Earthquake Motion in Design
3:32 PM
Methods of Developing Design Spectra and Design Strong Motion

○ Empirical attenuation relations (CVEEN 6330)
○ Building code design spectra (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
○ Site-specific Ground Response Analyses (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
 Equivalent Linear Techniques (computer program SHAKE or DEEPSOIL)
(CVEEN 7330)
 Nonlinear Techniques (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
□ FEM (finite element methods) (computer program DEEPSOIL)
(CVEEN 7330)
□ FDM (finite difference methods) (computer program FLAC)
(CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)

Development of Design Spectra using ASCE 7-05
3:32 PM
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.

ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM

ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM

ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM
Generic Design Spectrum from ASCE 7-05
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)

ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM

Blank
3:32 PM

Processing of Time Histories
2:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ UDOT Ground Response Analyses Report (p. 34 - 51)
Other Materials Material

○ Caltranstimehistory.pdf
○ 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).
Processing of Time Histories Page 16

Processing of Time Histories (cont.)
2:32 PM
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.
○ plot of both components of time history selected in problem 1

○ plot of both components of rotated time histories
○ plot of spectrally matched time histories (fault normal and fault parallel
components)
○ plot of target spectrum versus matched spectrum for both components
○ plot of match and non matched time histories superimposed on each
other
○ plot of baseline-corrected, spectrally-matched time histories for the fault
normal and fault parallel directions

Recommendations
2:32 PM
Recommendations for selecting of candidate time histories for spectral

matching and ground response analyses
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/
3. The earthquake magnitude, M, of candidate time histories should be within +

0.5 M of the controlling fault magnitude for the proposed site. For example, a
site with a controlling earthquake magnitude of 7.0 should have candidate
time histories selected from earthquakes with M between 6.5 and 7.5.

Recommendations (cont.)
2:32 PM
4. In addition to earthquake magnitude, it is important that the candidate time

histories have the appropriate source-to-site distance. This criterion is often
difficult to meet for moderate to large earthquake that are close to the seismic
source because there is only a handful of appropriate records. To aid in
determining the appropriate distance for the candidate time history, we
propose dividing the source-to-site distance into the following four categories:
a. R < 15 km
b. 15 < R < 30 km
c. 30 < R < 50 km
d. R > 50 km
5. We recommend that the candidate time histories be selected for the

appropriate M and from events that fall within the same source-distance
category. For example, if the controlling source distance for the design event is
20 km, then candidate time histories should be selected from source distances
that fall between 15 and 30 km,
6. Whenever possible, we recommend the selection of candidate time histories

from the appropriate tectonic regimes. For Utah, the tectonic regime is
extensional.
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.
8. It is recommended that the selection include at least 3 and as many as 7 time

histories for the ground response analyses. The number of time histories to be
used in nonlinear dynamic analyses should take in account the dependence of
the response on the time domain characteristics of the time history (e.g.,
duration, pulse shape, pulse sequencing) and its spectral response content.
ASCE 4-98 recommends that at least 3 independent time histories be used for
non-linear analyses.

Adjustment of Spectrum for Near Fault Effects
2:32 PM
Note that the increase spectral values to account for directivity begins at 0.5
seconds.
The maximum value of a 1.2 factor or 20 percent increase is reached at a

period of 2.0 s and continues at 1.2 for the remaining part of the spectrum.
Based on recommendations from CALTRANS

Rotation of Time Histories
2:32 PM
The candidate acceleration time histories should be rotated to find their

principal components and the principal component used for spectral matching.
If the candidate time histories have been selected to represent near-field
motions having strong velocity pulses in the fault-normal component, it is
important the horizontal components of these motions be transformed into
their principal components so that these align with the direction of fault
directivity. The major and minor principal components are the directions that
best correlate with the fault-normal and fault-parallel directions. To accomplish
this, the horizontal motion of the two recorded components, ax(t) and ay(t) are
transformed into a new set of orthogonal axes x’ and y’ as shown in the below
figure.
The transformed accelerations in the x’ and y’ directions are calculated

from:
ax’(t) = ax(t) cos q1 + ay(t) sin q1

ay’(t) = -ax(t) sin q1 + ay(t) cos q1

Rotation of Time Histories (cont.)
2:32 PM
The principal components are found by minimizing the covariance between

ax’(t) and ay’(t). The covariance is calculated from:
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).
When the above function is minimized (found to be zero), the

corresponding rotation angle (theta1) defines the orientation of the major
and minor principal components. The major principal component is the
component with the highest accelerations and should be used to represent
the ground motion in the direction of the fault directivity. (Sometimes is
also useful to examine the magnitude of the pulses in the corresponding
velocity time histories to determine which of the two components
represent the major component.
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.

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

3:32 PM

Filtering
2:32 PM
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.
Butterworth filtering can be accomplished in Seismosignal.
It is recommend to use a low pass Butterworth filter to remove frequencies

greater than 15 Hz from the rotated acceleration time histories prior to spectral
matching. It is also recommended to use a high pass Butterworth filter for
frequencies less than 0.14 Hz (T = 7.0s) as recommended by Geomatrix (1999).
The high and low pass filters are included Seismosignal.
See next page

Filtering (cont.)
2:32 PM
Screen shot from Seismosignal
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.
Note the effects of filtering and baseline correction

on the time history (blue line = unfiltered,
uncorrected, grey line = filtered, corrected)

Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Spectral Matching
Spectral Matching creates high-quality design ground motion time histories by

taking actual earthquake accelerograms and adjusting them to match a target
response spectrum. These time histories are used by structural engineers in non-
linear analyses of the dynamic response of buildings and soil structures to
earthquake ground shaking.
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>
Pasted from <http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/research/spectral_matching.html>

Spectral Matching using Seisomatch
3:32 PM
Program is available at:
http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoMatch.aspx
SeismoMatch is an application capable of adjusting earthquake accelerograms

to match a specific target response spectrum, using the wavelets algorithm
proposed by Abrahamson [1992] and Hancock et al. [2006]. Some of its features
are:
• Simultaneous matching of a number of accelerograms, and then creation of
a mean matched spectrum whose maximum misfit respects a pre-defined
tolerance
• Possibility of using this software in combination with records selection tools
and records appropriateness verification algorithms to define adequate
suites of records for nonlinear dynamic analysis of new or existing
structures
• Capability of reading single accelerograms defined in both single- or
multiple-values per line formats (the two most popular formats used by
strong-motion databases) or of reading a number of accelerograms at the
same time (if they are defined in the single-value per line format)
• Creation of the target spectrum by following Eurocode 8 rules, by
computing the spectrum of a specific accelerogram or by simply loading a
user-defined spectrum
The following strong-motion parameters are then computed for the matched
accelerograms:
• Elastic response spectra and pseudo-spectra
• Overdamped and constant-ductility inelastic response spectra
• Root-mean-square (RMS) of acceleration, velocity and displacement
• Arias (Ia) and characteristic (Ic) intensities
• Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and specific energy density (SED)
• Acceleration (ASI) and velocity (VSI) spectrum intensity
• Housner intensity
• Sustained maximum acceleration (SMA) and velocity (SMV)
• Effective design acceleration (EDA)
• Predominant (Tp)
• Significant duration
Pasted from <http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoMatch.aspx>

Spectral Matching in Seismomatch
3:32 PM
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
Unmatched Kobe Record (candidate record for spectral matching)
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)
Acceleration Response Spectrum (Kobe Record - 5 percent damped)
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.

Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
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

Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
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
1.1 Target Spectrum

Kobe.d
1
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.

Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Results from the spectral matching.
0.4
Acceleration (g)
Original acceleration values

0.2 Matched acceleration values
0
-0.2
-0.4
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
100
Velocity (cm/sec)

50 Matched acceleration values
0
-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
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

Baseline correction
2:32 PM
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
When applying the baseline correction, a quadratic correction is usually sufficient,

as shown below; however inspection of the uncorrected displacement time
history can be used to determine the best function (constant, linear, quadratic,
cubic) for correcting the time history.
Note that a quadratic correction is usually appropriate for cases where an

acceleration time history has been double integrated to calculate a displacement
time history. An error in the acceleration time histories creates a linear drift
when integrated to a velocity time history and a quadratic error when integrated
again to a displacement time history.

Blank
3:32 PM

1D Analysis - Simplified Methods
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 255 - 275 Kramer (EQL method)
○ p. 562 Kramer (Trigonometric Notation - Fourier Series)
○ Shake Theory.pdf
Other Materials
○ none
1. Download and install DEEPSOIL on your computer. (10 points)

2. Obtain the Matahina Dam, New Zealand record from the PEER database
(http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database) and scale this record
to a pga value of 0.65 g (20 points)
a. Use the fault normal component of this scaled record
b. Plot the scaled acceleration time history
c. Plot the scaled response spectrum
3. Develop a soil profile for ground response analysis using soil properties for the
I-15 project at 600 South Street (see attached). The shear wave velocity data are
also available on the website as: SLCvsprofile.xls. (20 points)
a. For sands, use Seed and Idriss upper bound curves
b. For silts, use Vucetic and Dorby curves with PI = 0
c. For clays, use Vucetic and Dorby curves with PI = 20
d. Treat the bottom layer of the soil log as a silty clay with 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
4. Perform a site-specific, equivalent-linear (EQL) ground response analysis for this
soil profile and provide the following plots: (10 points)
a. Response spectrum summary
b. Acceleration time histories for layer 1
c. pga profile
d. Convergence check
1D Equivalent Linear Method Page 36

Homework Assignment Attachment
3:32 PM
SHALLOW PROFILE: 0 - 65m
Vs (m/s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0
SLC Airport East, Wong & Silva (1993)
5 Lacustrine-alluvial silt and clay (Northern CA Bay

Mud), Wong et al. (2002, published)
Ashland & Rollins average
10
Ashland & Rollins + 1SD
Ashland & Rollins - 1SD

15
600 South, Gerber (1995)
I-80, Gerber (1995)

20
25
depth (m)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

1D Equivalent Linear Method
3:32 PM
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.

1D Wave Equation
3:32 PM
1D Wave Equation for elastic material
1D Wave Equation for visco-

elastic material
Damping in a Visco-elastic material

Visco-elastic model
3:32 PM

Visco-elastic model (cont.)
3:32 PM

Visco-elastic model (cont.)
3:32 PM

Equivalent Linear Method - Flow Chart
3:32 PM
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.

Fourier Transform
3:32 PM

Fourier Transform (cont.)
3:32 PM
0.14
0.13 Fourier amplitude

0.12
spectrum from
0.11
0.1
Seismosignal for the
0.09 Matahina Dam, New
Fourier Amplitude
0.08 Zealand record.

0.07
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]
In addition to a Fourier amplitude spectrum there is also a corresponding

Fourier phase spectrum that gives the phase angle as a function of frequency.
Unfortunately, Seismosignal does not provide this plot.

3:32 PM
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)
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users

\sfbartlett\Documents\My%
20Courses\6330
\Fourier_sqwave.xls>
3.00
2.00
Blue line equals sum of series

1.00 for 13 terms
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

3:32 PM
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
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users

\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses
\6330\Fourier_sqwave.xls>
t 1st 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th sum

term term term term term term term
0.00 2.55 -0.85 0.51 -0.36 0.28 -0.23 0.20 2.09
0.01 2.54 -0.83 0.48 -0.33 0.24 -0.18 0.13 2.06
0.02 2.53 -0.79 0.41 -0.23 0.12 -0.04 -0.01 1.98
0.03 2.50 -0.72 0.30 -0.09 -0.04 0.11 -0.15 1.92
Note
0.04 2.47 -0.62 0.16 0.07 -0.18 0.22 -0.19 1.91
because of 0.05 2.42 -0.50 0.00 0.21 -0.27 0.22 -0.12 1.97
space 0.06 2.37 -0.36 -0.16 0.32 -0.27 0.12 0.04 2.05
limitations 0.07 2.30 -0.21 -0.30 0.36 -0.19 -0.03 0.17 2.10
only the first 0.08 2.23 -0.05 -0.41 0.34 -0.05 -0.17 0.19 2.07
0.18 s of the 0.09 2.15 0.11 -0.48 0.25 0.10 -0.23 0.09 1.99
series is 0.10 2.06 0.26 -0.51 0.11 0.23 -0.19 -0.06 1.91
shown here. 0.11 1.96 0.41 -0.48 -0.05 0.28 -0.06 -0.18 1.89
0.12 1.86 0.54 -0.41 -0.19 0.25 0.10 -0.18 1.95
0.13 1.74 0.65 -0.30 -0.31 0.14 0.21 -0.07 2.06
0.14 1.62 0.74 -0.16 -0.36 -0.02 0.22 0.08 2.14
0.15 1.50 0.81 0.00 -0.35 -0.17 0.14 0.19 2.11
0.16 1.36 0.84 0.16 -0.27 -0.26 -0.01 0.17 1.99
0.17 1.23 0.85 0.30 -0.13 -0.28 -0.16 0.05 1.85
0.18 1.08 0.82 0.41 0.02 -0.21 -0.23 -0.10 1.80
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses\6330\Fourier_sqwave.xls>

3:32 PM

Transfer Functions
3:32 PM
Development of Transfer Function - Function to relate base rock motion to

surface soil motion.

Transfer Functions (cont.)
3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Transfer function for 2-layer system

(rock and soil)
The same process can be used to calculate the transfer functions for a multiple
layer system.

3:32 PM
For more details, see Shake Theory.pdf

3:32 PM
a. Period function (earthquake acceleration time history)

b. Fast Fourier transform (FFT) yield Fourier series with 2 n terms
c. Each term of the Fourier series is inputted into transfer function.
d. The transfer function is used to calculate the soil response for each
layer (i.e., complex response) and is represented for each term in
the series.
e. The complex response with all it terms is converted back into a
single response by use an inverse Fast Fourier transform (IFFT).
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.

Iteration to Determine Strain Compatible Properties
3:32 PM
○ Goal of Equivalent Linear Analysis is to determine values of Gsec and

equivalent damping that are consistent for each soil layer with the level of
strain produced in that layer. These are called strain compatible
properties.
○ Note that the transfer functions develop on the previous pages are only
valid only for an elastic material and prescribed damping
○ However, a nonlinear system can be express by using the secant shear
modulus, Gsec and equivalent damping
○ Hysteretic behavior approximated by Gsec and equivalent damping
○ 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.

Development of Input Motion - Time Domain
3:32 PM
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/

Development of Input Motion - Time Domain (cont.)
3:32 PM
Search Criteria for Earthquake Records

Tuesday, March 04, 2014
2:32 PM
Search Results

2:32 PM
Double click on individual record to show its components
Note that the fault normal

component of the Matahina
0.65 g Dam, New Zealand has a
target response spectrum that is
generally above the target
spectrum. It would be a
good candidate for analysis,
if we are only using 1
record.
Fault normal component

3:32 PM
Note that the PEER

website does appear Fault normal
to scale properly, component of the
so the time history was
Matahina Dam,
adjusted to that pga =
0.65 g New Zealand

2:32 PM
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
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

Blank
3:32 PM

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
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 "Slide" software,
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.
2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 65

2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
Sand (Seed and Idriss) Average
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
shear strain (%)

2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs

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

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
3:32 PM
○ 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
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
3:32 PM
○ 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.)
3:32 PM
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
3:32 PM
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 3
(kN/m )
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

3:32 PM
Pseudostatic Results
FS = 1.252 (static with no seismic coefficient, K h )
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.

3:32 PM
Acceleration time history

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration [g]
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]
Response Spectrum for acceleration time history
1.4
1.35
1.3
Damp. 5.0%
1.25
1.2
1.15
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]
pga = 0.6 g
Kh = 0.5 * pga
ah = 0.3 g (This is applied in the software as a horizontal acceleration).

3:32 PM
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 3
(kN/m ) 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).
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.)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
3:32 PM
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)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
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.

3:32 PM
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
Note that critical

Factor of Safety vs. Time circle is obtained
2.0 from the
pseudostatic
analysis
1.8
Factor of Safety
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time

3:32 PM
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
Factor of Safety vs. Time

1.8
1.6
Factor of Safety
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time

3:32 PM
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
Deformation vs. Time

2.5
2.0
Note that more than 2 m of

Deformation
1.5
displacement have
1.0
accumulated.
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Acceleration
3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
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

3:32 PM
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

3:32 PM
Eq. 5
See p. 533
Kramer
Eq. 6
Eq. 7a
Eq. 7b
Eq. 7c

3:32 PM
Eq. 8
Eq. 9

3:32 PM
y/ h

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Accelerati
3:32 PM
Eq. 10

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Deformations
3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
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
3:32 PM
Values in red must be adjusted until convergence
Example Is obtained
Design Spectra

3:32 PM
Shear modulus reduction and damping curves
Calculations

3:32 PM
Calculations (cont.)
toe circle
Charts for deformation analysis
Z = depth to
base of
potential
failure plane
(i.e., critical
circle from
pseudostatic
analysis)

3:32 PM
(See regression equations on next page for M7.5 and M6.5 events

3:32 PM
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 7.5
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
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 6.5
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

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

Bray and Travasarou (cont.)
2:32 PM

2:32 PM
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).

2:32 PM
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.

2:32 PM
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.

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

2:32 PM

Blank
3:32 PM

Dynamic Earth Pressures - Simplified Methods
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ Ostadan and White paper
○ Wu and Finn paper
1. Use an 1D EQL ground response model and acceleration time history

developed in homework assignment #3 (Matahina Dam - unscaled) to do
the following:
a. Calculate the dynamic thrust against a buried rigid wall using the
Ostadan-White method for a buried structure that is 10 m below the
ground surface. (20 points)
b. Calculate the dynamic pressure distribution to be applied against the
buried structure using the Ostadan-White method for the same
structure. Show this distribution versus depth on a depth plot. (10
points)
2. Use the Wu-Finn method to calculate the dynamic thrust against the same
buried rigid wall in problem 1. (20 points)
3. Use the M-O method to estimate the factor of safety against sliding and
overturning for a gravity wall using the acceleration time history from the
previous homework assignment 3. (20 points)
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.
Assume that the horizontal acceleration used in the design is 50 percent of

the peak ground acceleration. You may also neglect the vertical component
of acceleration.
Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 125

Coulomb Theory
3:32 PM
Note Eq. 11.13

of Kramer has
an error.

Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case
3:32 PM

Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case (cont.)
3:32 PM

Mononobe - Okabe Passive Case
3:32 PM

(from AASHTO LRFD
Mononobe - Okabe Application Bridge Design
2:32 PM
Specifications, 2012)

Mononobe - Okabe Application (cont.)
2:32 PM
(from AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design

Other Methods Allowed within AASHTO
2:32 PM
(from AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design

Gravity Wall Example
3:32 PM

Gravity Wall Example (cont.)
3:32 PM

Cantilevered Wall Example
3:32 PM

Cantilevered Wall Example (cont.)
3:32 PM

Cantilevered Wall Example (cont.)
3:32 PM
Summary Results
static dynamic
F.S. Sliding = 2.29 1.36 FS static 1.25 to 2
F.S. Overturning = 2.97 1.51 FS static 2 to 3
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses\7330\Spreadsheets

\CantileveredWall.xls>

Seed and Whitman - Simplified Method
3:32 PM
the base.

Choudhury et al. 2006
3:32 PM

Choudhury et al. 2006 (cont.)
3:32 PM

3:32 PM
horizontal
acceleration
vertical
acceleration
mass of wedge
weight of wedge

3:32 PM
T = period of
wave
active

3:32 PM
passive

3:32 PM
Results - Active case
Static case
kh and kv = 0

3:32 PM
kv = 0

3:32 PM
kv = 0.5 kh

3:32 PM
Results - Passive Case
Static case
kh and kv = 0

3:32 PM
kv = 0

3:32 PM
kv = 0.5 kh

3:32 PM
Comparison with Mononobe-Okabe Method

3:32 PM
Comparison with Mononobe-Okabe Method

Non-Yielding Walls
3:32 PM

Non-Yielding Walls (cont.)
3:32 PM

Non-Yielding Walls -Observations from Earthquakes
3:32 PM

Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White
3:32 PM

Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White (cont.)
3:32 PM
Amplitude at low frequency

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Recall that M-O method

is only valid for yielding
wall; hence it forms a
lower bound
The use of the low frequency (i.e., long period) amplitude is based on the
findings of the Lotung experiment site (see previous).

3:32 PM
L = infinite

3:32 PM

Ostadan and White (Steps)
3:32 PM
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.
2. Obtain the total mass using:
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.
p(y) = - .0015 + 5.05y - 15.84y2 + 28.25y3 - 24.59y4 + 8.14y5
where y is the normalized height (Y/H) measured from the base of the wall.

Ostadan and White (Summary)
3:32 PM
• 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.
Solution! Perfect isolation!

Wu and Finn (1999)
3:32 PM

Analytical Solution - Homogenous Backfill - Shear Beam Theory
3:32 PM

Analytical Solution (cont.)
3:32 PM

Analytical Solution (cont.)
3:32 PM

Wu and Finn - Numerical Model
3:32 PM
Finite element model by Wu and Fin

Comparison of Analytical Solution with FE Modeling -
Homogeneous Backfill - Non Harmonic Motion
3:32 PM

Solutions for Non-homogeneous backfill
3:32 PM
Solution for simple harmonic motion

Non Harmonic Motion
3:32 PM

Blank
3:32 PM

1D Nonlinear Numerical Methods
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 275 - 280 Kramer
○ DEEPSOIL.pdf
○ 2001 Darendeli, Ch. 10
Other Materials
○ DeepSoil User's Manual
○ 2001 Darendeli
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).
1D Nonlinear Numerical Methods Page 172

Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
Homework Assignment #6 (cont.)

5. Modify the finite difference spreadsheet provided on the course website to
include (20 points):
a. Heterogeneous layers
i. Varying thickness
ii. Varying unit weight
iii. Varying shear modulus
b. Damping
c. Given the information below, use the modified spreadsheet to perform a
dynamic analysis for a duration of 1.3 s. Plot the displacement of the
surface node versus time for verification. Also include the spreadsheet
calculation at t = 1.3 s.
Layer # layer thickness unit weight Vs Damping
(m) kN/m^3 (m/s)
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. Verify your solution in 5 by performing an linear elastic analysis in DEEPSoil

or FLAC for the same soil properties and velocity input (10 points). Include
your FLAC code used for the verification.

Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
5. Solution (Excel) for uniform Vs = 80 m/s and 10 damping
6. Solution (FLAC)

Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
5. Solution (Excel) (first 5 time steps)

Comparison of 1D Equivalent Liner vs. 1D Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
EQL Method
Nonlinear Methods

EQL vs NL Comparisons
3:32 PM
Target Spectrum for Comparisons

EQL vs NL Comparisons (cont.)
3:32 PM
EQL (Shake) Results at Surface from 5 km Convolution
Nonlinear Results (DEEPSoil at Surface from 5 km Convolution

Lumped Mass System used in DeepSoil
3:32 PM
Fundamental Equation of Motion

DEEPSoil - Hyperbolic Model
3:32 PM
Modified Soil Hyperbolic Model used in DeepSoil

DEEPSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
Introducing Pressure Dependency (Important for Deep Sediments)

DeepSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
Incorporating Pressure Dependency in Damping
[K] = stiffness
matrix small strain
viscous damping
hysteretic damping
incorporated by the
hysteretic behavior of the
soil

DEEPSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
Pressure-dependent
parameters b and d
used to adjust curves
in DEEPSoil.
However, DARENDELI, 2001 has

published newer curves based
on confining pressure and PI.
These are also incorporated in
DEEPSoil.

Shear Modulus and Damping Curves from DARENDELI, 2001
3:32 PM
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.

Effects of Mean Effective Stress on Shear Modulus and Damping
Curves
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
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

Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
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

Effects of Plasticity on Shear Modulus and Damping Curves
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

Effects of Plasticity on Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
Shearing Strain (%) PI = 0 % PI = 15 % PI = 30 % PI = 50 % PI = 100 %

1.00E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999
1.00E-04 0.995 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.999
2.20E-04 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997
4.84E-04 0.981 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.994
1.00E-03 0.964 0.973 0.979 0.984 0.989
2.20E-03 0.928 0.947 0.958 0.967 0.978
4.84E-03 0.861 0.896 0.917 0.934 0.956
1.00E-02 0.761 0.816 0.849 0.878 0.917
2.20E-02 0.607 0.682 0.732 0.778 0.843
4.84E-02 0.428 0.509 0.569 0.629 0.722
1.00E-01 0.277 0.348 0.404 0.465 0.571
2.20E-01 0.157 0.205 0.248 0.296 0.392
4.84E-01 0.083 0.111 0.137 0.169 0.238
1.00E+00 0.044 0.060 0.076 0.095 0.138

1.00E-05 0.804 0.997 1.191 1.450 2.096
2.20E-05 0.808 1.000 1.193 1.451 2.097
4.84E-05 0.820 1.008 1.199 1.456 2.100
1.00E-04 0.839 1.021 1.209 1.464 2.105
2.20E-04 0.884 1.053 1.234 1.482 2.117
4.84E-04 0.982 1.122 1.287 1.523 2.143
1.00E-03 1.174 1.257 1.392 1.603 2.193
2.20E-03 1.602 1.562 1.628 1.786 2.309
4.84E-03 2.474 2.198 2.128 2.175 2.560
1.00E-02 3.953 3.317 3.028 2.888 3.029
2.20E-02 6.579 5.440 4.803 4.343 4.029
4.84E-02 10.184 8.650 7.664 6.824 5.876
1.00E-01 13.788 12.217 11.092 10.024 8.541
2.20E-01 17.199 15.951 14.966 13.941 12.279
4.84E-01 19.565 18.829 18.185 17.458 16.132
1.00E+00 20.716 20.460 20.178 19.815 19.069
DARENDELI, 2001

Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (' = 0.25 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (' = 0.25 atm)
3:32 PM

1.00E-05 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000
4.84E-05 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999
1.00E-04 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.998
2.20E-04 0.986 0.990 0.992 0.994 0.996
4.84E-04 0.971 0.979 0.983 0.987 0.991
1.00E-03 0.944 0.959 0.968 0.975 0.983
2.20E-03 0.891 0.919 0.936 0.949 0.966
4.84E-03 0.799 0.847 0.876 0.900 0.932
1.00E-02 0.671 0.739 0.783 0.822 0.876
2.20E-02 0.497 0.579 0.637 0.692 0.774
4.84E-02 0.324 0.400 0.459 0.521 0.625
1.00E-01 0.197 0.255 0.303 0.358 0.461
2.20E-01 0.107 0.142 0.174 0.213 0.293
4.84E-01 0.055 0.074 0.093 0.116 0.167
1.00E+00 0.029 0.040 0.050 0.063 0.093

1.00E-05 1.201 1.489 1.778 2.164 3.129
2.20E-05 1.207 1.493 1.781 2.166 3.131
4.84E-05 1.226 1.506 1.791 2.174 3.136
1.00E-04 1.257 1.528 1.808 2.187 3.144
2.20E-04 1.330 1.579 1.848 2.217 3.163
4.84E-04 1.487 1.690 1.933 2.282 3.204
1.00E-03 1.792 1.906 2.101 2.411 3.286
2.20E-03 2.458 2.387 2.476 2.702 3.472
4.84E-03 3.762 3.358 3.249 3.310 3.868
1.00E-02 5.821 4.977 4.581 4.386 4.593
2.20E-02 9.097 7.778 7.010 6.441 6.070
4.84E-02 12.993 11.489 10.477 9.589 8.579
1.00E-01 16.376 15.064 14.088 13.137 11.798
2.20E-01 19.181 18.334 17.640 16.904 15.716
4.84E-01 20.829 20.515 20.208 19.849 19.213
1.00E+00 21.393 21.507 21.542 21.547 21.544
DARENDELI, 2001

Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (' = 1 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

3:32 PM

1.00E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999
1.00E-04 0.995 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.999
2.20E-04 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997
4.84E-04 0.981 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.994
1.00E-03 0.964 0.973 0.979 0.984 0.989
2.20E-03 0.928 0.947 0.958 0.967 0.978
4.84E-03 0.861 0.896 0.917 0.934 0.956
1.00E-02 0.761 0.816 0.849 0.878 0.917
2.20E-02 0.607 0.682 0.732 0.778 0.843
4.84E-02 0.428 0.509 0.569 0.629 0.722
1.00E-01 0.277 0.348 0.404 0.465 0.571
2.20E-01 0.157 0.205 0.248 0.296 0.392
4.84E-01 0.083 0.111 0.137 0.169 0.238
1.00E+00 0.044 0.060 0.076 0.095 0.138

1.00E-05 0.804 0.997 1.191 1.450 2.096
2.20E-05 0.808 1.000 1.193 1.451 2.097
4.84E-05 0.820 1.008 1.199 1.456 2.100
1.00E-04 0.839 1.021 1.209 1.464 2.105
2.20E-04 0.884 1.053 1.234 1.482 2.117
4.84E-04 0.982 1.122 1.287 1.523 2.143
1.00E-03 1.174 1.257 1.392 1.603 2.193
2.20E-03 1.602 1.562 1.628 1.786 2.309
4.84E-03 2.474 2.198 2.128 2.175 2.560
1.00E-02 3.953 3.317 3.028 2.888 3.029
2.20E-02 6.579 5.440 4.803 4.343 4.029
4.84E-02 10.184 8.650 7.664 6.824 5.876
1.00E-01 13.788 12.217 11.092 10.024 8.541
2.20E-01 17.199 15.951 14.966 13.941 12.279
4.84E-01 19.565 18.829 18.185 17.458 16.132
1.00E+00 20.716 20.460 20.178 19.815 19.069
DARENDELI, 2001

3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

3:32 PM

1.00E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000
1.00E-04 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999
2.20E-04 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.998
4.84E-04 0.988 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996
1.00E-03 0.976 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.993
2.20E-03 0.952 0.965 0.972 0.978 0.986
4.84E-03 0.906 0.931 0.945 0.956 0.971
1.00E-02 0.832 0.873 0.898 0.918 0.945
2.20E-02 0.706 0.770 0.810 0.845 0.893
4.84E-02 0.538 0.618 0.673 0.725 0.802
1.00E-01 0.374 0.454 0.514 0.575 0.675
2.20E-01 0.225 0.287 0.339 0.396 0.501
4.84E-01 0.123 0.163 0.199 0.241 0.327
1.00E+00 0.067 0.091 0.113 0.140 0.200

1.00E-05 0.539 0.668 0.798 0.971 1.404
2.20E-05 0.541 0.670 0.799 0.972 1.405
4.84E-05 0.548 0.675 0.803 0.975 1.407
1.00E-04 0.560 0.683 0.809 0.980 1.410
2.20E-04 0.588 0.703 0.824 0.991 1.417
4.84E-04 0.649 0.745 0.857 1.016 1.433
1.00E-03 0.769 0.829 0.922 1.066 1.464
2.20E-03 1.039 1.021 1.070 1.180 1.537
4.84E-03 1.607 1.428 1.388 1.426 1.693
1.00E-02 2.618 2.173 1.977 1.886 1.991
2.20E-02 4.572 3.684 3.206 2.871 2.648
4.84E-02 7.621 6.235 5.387 4.693 3.934
1.00E-01 11.134 9.482 8.357 7.333 5.972
2.20E-01 14.946 13.400 12.231 11.056 9.226
4.84E-01 17.990 16.866 15.935 14.917 13.118
1.00E+00 19.792 19.158 18.571 17.876 16.513
DARENDELI, 2001

3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001

3:32 PM

1.00E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
1.00E-04 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
2.20E-04 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999
4.84E-04 0.992 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.998
1.00E-03 0.985 0.989 0.991 0.993 0.996
2.20E-03 0.969 0.977 0.982 0.986 0.991
4.84E-03 0.938 0.954 0.964 0.972 0.981
1.00E-02 0.885 0.915 0.932 0.946 0.964
2.20E-02 0.789 0.839 0.869 0.895 0.929
4.84E-02 0.645 0.716 0.763 0.804 0.863
1.00E-01 0.482 0.564 0.623 0.679 0.764
2.20E-01 0.311 0.386 0.444 0.506 0.610
4.84E-01 0.179 0.233 0.279 0.331 0.431
1.00E+00 0.101 0.135 0.166 0.203 0.280

1.00E-05 0.361 0.448 0.534 0.650 0.941
2.20E-05 0.362 0.449 0.535 0.651 0.941
4.84E-05 0.367 0.452 0.538 0.653 0.942
1.00E-04 0.374 0.457 0.541 0.656 0.944
2.20E-04 0.391 0.469 0.551 0.663 0.949
4.84E-04 0.429 0.495 0.571 0.678 0.958
1.00E-03 0.503 0.547 0.611 0.709 0.978
2.20E-03 0.673 0.667 0.704 0.780 1.023
4.84E-03 1.035 0.924 0.903 0.934 1.120
1.00E-02 1.702 1.407 1.281 1.227 1.308
2.20E-02 3.075 2.433 2.100 1.871 1.729
4.84E-02 5.449 4.318 3.659 3.138 2.589
1.00E-01 8.573 7.021 6.022 5.151 4.049
2.20E-01 12.483 10.780 9.557 8.381 6.651
4.84E-01 16.070 14.619 13.472 12.268 10.241
1.00E+00 18.528 17.522 16.655 15.677 13.847
DARENDELI, 2001

Finite Difference Approach
12:45 PM
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.

Finite Difference Approach (cont.)
12:45 PM
Finite difference calculation loop written with differential calculus

Finite Difference Approach (cont.)
3:32 PM
Finite difference calculation loop written with incremental approach

1D Finite Difference Solution for Wave Propagation
12:45 PM

1D Finite Difference Solution for Wave Propagation (cont.)
11:45 AM

12:45 PM

Wednesday, March 05, 2014
11:45 AM

12:45 PM
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

12:45 PM
;FLAC verification of solution without damping

config dynamic extra 5
grid 1 10
model elastic
ini y mul 1
;set dy_damp rayl 0.05 5; 5 percent damping at 5 hz
fix y
prop dens 2000 bulk 9.6E6 shear 3.2E6
def wave
wave=amp*cos(omega*dytime)
if dytime>=100
wave=0
endif
end
set amp=0.3
set omega = 6.283
apply xvel 1 hist wave yvel=0 j=1
his 1 xdisp i 1 j 1
his 2 xdisp i 1 j 11
his 3 xvel i 1 j 1
his 4 dytime
set dytime = 0
;set dydt = 0.0002; Flac can calc automatically
solve dytime 5.01
save model2.sav 'last project state'

Incorporating Damping
3:32 PM
Note that shear resistance

has two components:
elastic and damping.

Incorporating Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Stiffness due to viscous damping

Hysteretic Damping as Implemented in FLAC
3:32 PM
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.

Hysteretic Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Formulation
Modulus degradation curves, as illustrated in Figure 3.23, imply a nonlinear

stress/strain curve. If we assume an ideal soil, in which the stress depends only
on the strain (not on the number of cycles, or time), we can derive an
incremental constitutive relation from the degradation curve, described by τe /γ
= Ms , where τe is the normalized shear stress, γ the shear strain and Ms the
normalized secant modulus.
τe = Msγ (elastic component)
Mt = dτe / dγ = Ms + γ dMs / dγ (elastic and viscous component)
where Mt is the normalized tangent modulus. The incremental shear modulus

in a nonlinear simulation is then given by G Mt , where G is the small-strain
shear modulus of the material.

Hysteretic Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
FLAC code for single zone model with hysteretic damping
conf dyn ext 5

grid 1 1
model elas
prop dens 1000 shear 5e8 bulk 10e8
fix x y
set dydt 1e-4
ini dy_damp hyst default -3.5 1.3
his sxy i 1 j 1
his xdis i 1 j 2
his nstep 1
ini xvel 1e-2 j=2
cyc 1000
ini xvel mul -1
cyc 250
ini xvel mul -1
cyc 500

Hysteretic Damping - Types of Tangent-Modulus Functions
3:32 PM

Hysteretic Damping - Tangent-Modulus Functions (cont.)
3:32 PM
Default Model (cont)

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
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

3:32 PM
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'

Rayleigh Damping
3:32 PM

Rayleigh Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM

Hysteretic vs Rayleigh Damping Comparison
3:32 PM
ξ gamma vs thickness G G' K E

(%) kN/m^3 m/s m kPa kPa kPa kPa
--- --- --- --- --- ---

5 19.00 150 1.0 43601 4360 130801.9 117721.7
5 19.00 170 1.0 56003 5600 168008.8 151208
5 19.00 190 1.0 69907 6991 209722.2 188750
5 20.00 150 0.5 45872 4587 137614.7 123853.2
5 20.00 150 1.0 45872 4587 137614.7 123853.2
5 20.00 150 0.5 45872 4587 137614.7 123853.2
5 20.00 150 2.0 45872 4587 137614.7 123853.2
5 21.00 170 1.0 61865 6187 185596.3 167036.7
5 21.00 170 1.0 61865 6187 185596.3 167036.7
5 21.00 170 1.0 61865 6187 185596.3 167036.7
Dt max 5.26357E-05

Hysteretic vs Rayleigh Damping Comparison (cont.)
3:32 PM
Solution from FLAC for 1.68 seconds
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
Solution from Excel spreadsheet for 1.68 second

2D Finite Difference Method
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
○ Pp. 73 - 75 Kramer
Other Materials
○ FLAC User Manual Theory and Background, Section 1 - Background -
The Explicit Finite Difference Method
1. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 1 (in class)

2. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 2 (30 points - plot, 10 points other
calculations and discussion)
2D Finite Difference Method Page 224

Finite Difference Method
11:43 AM
Modeling Steps for Applying Finite Difference Method
1. Generate a grid for the domain where we want an approximate solution.

2. Assign material properties to the model (density, shear and bulk modulus)
3. Assign boundary conditions
a. fixed versus free
4. apply loading conditions
a. for dynamic modeling this is usually assigned at the base as a velocity
time history
5. Use the finite difference equations as a substitute for the ODE/PDE system
of equations. The ODE/PDE, thus substituted, becomes a linear or non-
linear system of algebraic equations that can be solved incrementally with
time
6. Solve for the system of algebraic equations using the initial conditions and
the boundary conditions. This usually done by time stepping in an explicit
formulation.
7. Implement the solution in computer code to perform the calculations.
8. Interpret the results
9. Check the results with known solutions, if possible
Steven F. Bartlett, 2010

Grid Generation
11:43 AM

Grid Generation (continued)
11:43 AM
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.

Irregular Grids
11:43 AM
Tunnel
Slope or Embankment
Rock Slope with groundwater

Irregular grids (cont.)
11:43 AM
Braced Excavation
Concrete Diaphragm Wall

Material Properties
11:43 AM
Elastic and Mohr Coulomb Models

• Density
• Bulk Modulus
• Shear Modulus
• Cohesion (MC only)
• Tension (MC only)
• Drained Friction Angle (MC only)
• Dilation Angle (MC only)
Hyperbolic Model
Function Form of Hyperbolic Model
Required Input for Hyperbolic Model

Units for FLAC
11:43 AM
FLAC accepts any consistent set of engineering units. Examples of

consistent sets of units for basic parameters are shown in Tables
2.5. 2.6 and 2.7. The user should apply great care when converting
from one system of units to another. No conversions are
performed in FLAC except for friction and dilation angles. which
are entered in degrees.

Sign Conventions for FLAC
11:43 AM
Normal or direct stress

○ Positive = tension
○ Negative = compression
Shear stress
With reference to the above figure, a positive shear stress points in

the positive direction of the coordinate axis of the second subscript
if it acts on a surface with an outward normal in the positive
direction. Conversely, if the outward normal of the surface is in the
negative direction, then the positive shear stress points in the
negative direction of the coordinate axis of the second subscript.
The shear stresses shown in the above figure are all positive (from
FLAC manual).
In other words,  xy is positive in the counter-clockwise direction;
likewise  yx is positive in the clockwise direction.

Sign Conventions (cont.)
11:43 AM
DIRECT OR NORMAL STRAIN
○ Positive strain indicates extension: negative strain indicates

compression.
SHEAR STRAIN
○ Shear strain follows the convention of shear stress (see figure

above). The distortion associated with positive and negative shear
strain is illustrated in Figure 2.44.
PRESSURE
○ A positive pressure will act normal to. and in a direction toward.

the surface of a body (i.e.. push), A negative pressure will act
normal to. and in a direction away from. the surface of a body
(i.e.. pull). Figure 2.45 illustrates this convention.

Sign Conventions (cont.)
11:43 AM
PORE PRESSURE
○ Fluid pore pressure is positive in compression. Negative pore

pressure indicates fluid tension.
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
○ This is a FISH parameter (see Section 2 in the FISH volume which

denotes the net fluid flow associated with a gridpoint. A positive
gflow corresponds to flow into a gridpoint. Conversely, a negative
gflow corresponds to flow out of a gridpoint.

Boundary Conditions
11:43 AM
Boundary Conditions
○ Fixed (X or Y) or both (B)

○ Free
X means fixed
in x direction
B means fixed in
both directions
Applied Conditions at Boundary
○ Velocity or displacement
○ Stress or force
Yellow line
with circle
means force,
velocity or
stress has
been applied
to this
surface.

Fundamentals of FDM
11:43 AM
Finite-difference methods approximate the solutions to differential

equations by replacing derivative expressions with approximately
equivalent difference quotients. That is, because the first derivative of
a function f is, by definition,
then a reasonable approximation for that derivative would be to take
for some small value of h. In fact, this is the forward difference

equation for the first derivative. Using this and similar formulae to
replace derivative expressions in differential equations, one can
approximate their solutions without the need for calculus
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference_method>
Only three forms are commonly considered: forward, backward, and

central differences.
A forward difference is an expression of the form
Depending on the application, the spacing h may be variable or held

constant.
A backward difference uses the function values at x and x − h, instead
of the values at x + h and x:
Finally, the central difference is given by
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_difference>

Fundamentals of FDM (cont.)
11:43 AM
Higher-order differences
2nd Order Derivative
In an analogous way one can obtain finite difference approximations

to higher order derivatives and differential operators. For example, by
using the above central difference formula for f'(x + h / 2) and f'(x − h
/ 2) and applying a central difference formula for the derivative of f' at
x, we obtain the central difference approximation of the second
derivative of f:
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference>
Examples
Groundwater flow
equation
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_flow_equation>
2D wave equation
Pasted from <https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/D_Mesh_Wave.html>

Fundamentals of FDM - Explicit vs Implicit Methods
11:43 AM
Explicit and implicit methods are approaches used in numerical analysis

for obtaining numerical solutions of time-dependent ordinary and
partial differential equations, as is required in computer simulations of
physical processes.
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
while for an implicit method one solves an equation
to find Y(t + Δt).
It is clear that implicit methods require an extra computation (solving

the above equation), and they can be much harder to implement.
Implicit methods are used because many problems arising in real life are
stiff, for which the use of an explicit method requires impractically small
time steps Δt to keep the error in the result bounded (see numerical
stability). For such problems, to achieve given accuracy, it takes much
less computational time to use an implicit method with larger time
steps, even taking into account that one needs to solve an equation of
the form (1) at each time step. That said, whether one should use an
explicit or implicit method depends upon the problem to be solved.
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_method>

Explicit versus Implicit Formulation
11:43 AM
The previous page contains explains the explicit method which is

implemented in FLAC. The central concept of an explicit method is
that the calculational “wave speed” always keeps ahead of the
physical wave speed, so that the equations always operate on known
values that are fixed for the duration of the calculation. There are
several distinct advantages to this (and at least one big
disadvantage!): most importantly, no iteration process is necessary.
Computing stresses from strains in an element, even if the
constitutive law is wildly nonlinear.
In an implicit method (which is commonly used in finite element

programs), every element communicates with every other element
during one solution step: several cycles of iteration are necessary
before compatibility and equilibrium are obtained.
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 versus Implicit Formulation (cont.)
11:43 AM
Table 1.1 Comparison of Explicit versus Implicit Formulations
Explicit Implicit
• Timestep must be smaller than a • Timestep can be arbitrarily large

critical value for stability with unconditionally stable
• Small amount of computational schemes
effort per timestep. • Large amount of computational
• No significant numerical damping effort per timestep.
introduced for dynamic solution • Numerical damping dependent
• No iterations necessary to follow on timestep present with
nonlinear unconditionally stable schemes.
constitutive law. • Iterative procedure necessary
• Provided that the timestep to follow nonlinear constitutive
criterion is always satisfied, law.
nonlinear laws are always • Always necessary to
followed in a valid physical way. demonstrate that the above-
• Matrices are never formed. mentioned procedure is: (a)
• Memory requirements are stable: and (b) follows the
always at a minimum. No physically correct path (for
bandwidth limitations. path-sensitive problems).
Since matrices are never formed • Stiffness matrices must be
large displacements and strains stored. Ways must be found to
are accommodated without overcome associated problems
additional computing effort. such as bandwidth.
• Memory requirements tend to
be large.
• Additional computing effort
needed to follow large
displacements and strains.

Explicit Method Used in FLAC
11:43 AM
Explicit, Time-Marching Scheme
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.

Lagrangian Analysis
11:43 AM
Lagrangian analysis is the use of Lagrangian coordinates to analyze various

problems in continuum mechanics.
Lagrangian analysis may be used to analyze currents and flows of various

materials by analyzing data collected from gauges/sensors embedded in the
material which freely move with the motion of the material. [1] A common
application is study of ocean currents in oceanography, where the movable
gauges in question called Lagrangian drifters.
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_analysis>
Example of Lagrangian analysis

of golf club head striking ball.
Note that the tracking and
movement of the sand with the
striking of the ball requires a
Lagrangian analysis. (from
ANSYS)
Pasted from <http://www.ansys.com/products/images/new-

features-1.jpg>
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.

Equation of Motion
11:43 AM
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.

Constitutive Relations
11:43 AM
The constitutive relation that is required in the PDE given before relates changes
in stress with strain.
However, since FLAC's formulation is essentially a dynamic formulation, where

changes in velocities are easily calculated, then strain rate is used and is related
to velocity as shown below.
The mechanical constitutive law has the form:

FDM - Elastic Example (cont.)
11:43 AM
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
bc velocity pulse applied to boundary condition

dis_calc displacements from velocity
constit stresses are derived from strain
motion velocity calculated stress

FDM - Elastic Example from FLAC manual
11:43 AM
Stress Strain Constitutive Law (Hooke's

Law)
Equation of Motion for Dynamic

Equilibrium (wave equation)
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.
Numbering scheme for a 1-D body using FDM.

11:43 AM
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.
Rearrange the above equation, produces Eq. 1.3
Integrating this equation, produces displacements as shown in Eq. 1.4
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.

11:43 AM
The following is an example of implementing the FDM for to calculate the

behavior of an elastic bar. To do this, we must write FISH code. The primary
subroutine, scan_all, and the other routines described in the following pages can
be obtained from bar.dat in the Itasca folder.
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 bc ; boundary conditions - cosine pulse applied to left end

if time >= twave then
xvel(1,1) = 0.0
else
xvel(1,1) = vmax * 0.5 * (1.0 - cos(w * time))
end_if
End
The subroutine, dis_calc, calculates the displacements from the velocities.
def dis_calc
loop i (1,nel)
xdisp(i,1) = xdisp(i,1) + xvel(i,1) * dt
end_loop
end

11:43 AM
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


11:43 AM
As described previously, the explicit-solution procedure is not unconditionally

stable, the speed of the “calculation front” must be faster than the maximum
speed at which information propagates.
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
where C is the maximum speed at which information can propagate —

typically, the p-wave speed. C where

FDM - Elastic Example (cont.) - Solution
11:43 AM
nel = 50 ; no. of elements

e = 1.0 ; Young's modulus
ro = 1.0 ; density
dx = 1.0 ; element size
p = 15.0 ; number of wavelengths per elements
vmax = 1.0 ; amplitude of velocity pulse
frac = 0.2 ; fraction of critical timestep

Blank
3:32 PM

2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical)
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ FLAC Manual
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
○ Equivalent Linear Method ( EQL)

 QUAD4 and QUAD4M
 Quake/W
○ Nonlinear Finite Element Method
 Quake/W
 Plaxis?
○ Nonlinear Finite Difference Method
 FLAC
2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical) Page 256

2D Equivalent Linear Methods for Dynamic Analysis
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
3:32 PM
A variety of finite element and finite difference computer programs are

available for use in two- dimensional seismic site response analyses. The
computer program QUAD4, originally developed by Idriss and his co-workers
(Idriss et al., 1973) and recently updated as QUAD4M by Hudson et al. (1994), is
among the most commonly used computer programs for two-dimensional site
response analysis. QUAD4M uses an equivalent-liner soil model similar to the
model used in SHAKE. Basic input to QUAD4M includes the two-dimensional
soil profile, equivalent-linear soil properties, and the time history of horizontal
ground motion. Time history of vertical ground motion may also be applied at
the base of the soil profile. The base can be modeled as a rigid boundary, with
design motions input directly at the base, or as a transmitting boundary which
enables application of ground motions as hypothetical rock outcrop motions.
With respect to the input soil properties, QUAD4M is very similar to SHAKE91.
However, the ability to analyze two-dimensional geometry and the option for
simultaneous base excitation with horizontal and vertical acceleration
components make QUAD4M a more versatile analytical tool than SHAKE91.
A major difference between the QUAD4M and SHAKE91 equivalent-linear

models is that the damping ratio in QUAD4M depends on the frequency of
excitation or rate of loading. In QUAD4M, the equivalent-linear viscous
damping ratio is used to fix the frequency dependent damping curve at the
natural frequency of the soil deposit in order to optimize the gap between
model damping and the damping ratio. A major drawback of QUAD4M is its
limited pre- and post- processing capabilities. These limited capabilities make
finite element mesh generation and processing and interpretation of the
results difficult and time consuming. QUAD4M is available from the National
Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE) at University Of
California at Berkeley for a nominal cost.
Similar software is available commercially and can be purchased such as

QUAKE/W. Generalized material property functions allow you to use any
laboratory or published data. Three constitutive models are supported: a
Linear-Elastic model, an Equivalent Linear model, and an effective stress Non-
Linear model.
Pasted from <http://www.geo-slope.com/products/quakew.aspx>

Incremental Building of Model
3:32 PM
Total Vertical Stress from incremental building of model (homogenous case)
Total Vertical Stress from non-incremental building of model (homogenous case)

Incremental Building of Model
3:32 PM
Total Vertical Stress from incremental building of model (heterogeneous

case)
Total Vertical Stress from non-incremental building of model

(heterogeneous case) (not exactly the same as above)

FLAC code for incremental building of model
3:32 PM
model null i 19 j 3 10
config dynamic group 'null' i 19 j 3 10
set dynamic off group delete 'null'
grid 21 10 model null i 20 j 2 10
; group 'null' i 20 j 2 10
model elastic group delete 'null'
; model null i 21 j 2 10
prop density=1 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 group 'null' i 21 j 2 10
; note very low density assigned to this layer group delete 'null'
; model null i 21 j 1
model null i 1 j 2 10 group 'null' i 21 j 1
group 'null' i 1 j 2 10 group delete 'null'
group delete 'null' ini x 0.56119156 y 0.5621834 i 1 j 2
model null i 2 j 3 10 ini x 1.5523796 y 1.5533707 i 2 j 3
group 'null' i 2 j 3 10 ini x 2.4985127 y 2.4995043 i 3 j 4
group 'null' i 8 j 9 10 ;
group delete 'null' fix x y j 1
model null i 9 j 10 set gravity=9.81
group 'null' i 9 j 10 his 999 unbalanced
group delete 'null' ;
model null i 12 j 10 ; heterogeneous case - layers 6 -10 are 10 x stiffer
group 'null' i 12 j 10 prop density=1900 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 j 1
group delete 'null' solve
model null i 13 j 9 10 prop density=1900 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 j 2
group 'null' i 13 j 9 10 solve
group delete 'null' prop density=1900 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 j 3
model null i 14 j 8 10 solve
group 'null' i 14 j 8 10 prop density=1900 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 j 4

2D Numerical Methods vs Limit Equilibrium
11:43 AM
Numerical Modeling
Numerical model such as FLAC offers these advantages over Limit

Equilibrium methods:
• Any failure mode develops naturally; there is no need to specify a range
of trial surfaces in advance.
• No artificial parameters (e.g., functions for inter-slice angles) need to be
given as input.
• Multiple failure surfaces (or complex internal yielding) evolve naturally,
if the conditions give rise to them.
• Structural interaction (e.g., rock bolt, soil nail or geogrid) is modeled
realistically as fully coupled deforming elements, not simply as
equivalent forces.
• Solution consists of mechanisms that are feasible kinematically.
There are a number of methods that could have been employed to

determine the factor of safety using FLAC. The FLAC shear strength
reduction (SSR) method of computing a factor of safety performs a series
of computations to bracket the range of possible factors of safety. During
SSR, the program lowers the strength (friction angle) of the soil and
computes the maximum unbalanced force to determine if the slope is
moving. If the force unbalance exceeds a certain value, the strength is
increased and the original stresses returned to the initial value and the
deformation analyses recomputed. This process continues until the force
unbalance is representative of the initial movement of the slope and the
angle for this condition is compared to the angle available for the soil to
compute the factor of safety.

Slope Stability Example - No Groundwater
11:43 AM

Slope Stability - No Groundwater (cont.)
11:43 AM
Generating the slope

11:43 AM
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'

11:43 AM
At step 1200
Factor of safety = 0.27 (However, this is surficial slip is not of particular

interest. This slip surface will be eliminated, see next page. )

11:43 AM
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

11:43 AM
Factor of safety = 0.58
(This is the true factor of safety of the slope for a rotation, slump failure.)

2D Dynamic Modeling - FLAC (cont.)
3:32 PM
Dynamic Loading and Boundary Conditions
FLAC models a region of material subjected to external and/or internal dynamic

loading by applying a dynamic input boundary condition at either the model
boundary or at internal gridpoints. Wave reflections at model boundaries are
minimized by specifying either quiet (viscous), free-field or three-dimensional
radiation-damping boundary conditions. The types of dynamic loading and
boundary conditions are shown schematically in Figure 3.4; each condition is
discussed in the following sections.
Application of Dynamic Input
In FLAC, the dynamic input can be applied in one of the following ways:
(a) an acceleration history;

(b) a velocity history;
(c) a stress (or pressure) history; or
(d) a force history.
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.

3:32 PM
○ 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).

3:32 PM
Free field boundary condition
Numerical analysis of the seismic response of surface structures such as dams

requires the discretization of a region of the material adjacent to the
foundation. The seismic input is normally represented by plane waves
propagating upward through the underlying material. The boundary conditions
at the sides of the model must account for the free-field motion which would
exist in the absence of the structure. In some cases, elementary lateral
boundaries may be sufficient. For example, if only a shear wave were applied
on the horizontal boundary, it would be possible to fix the boundary along the
sides of the model in the vertical direction only (see the example in Section
3.6.3 in FLAC manual). These boundaries should be placed at sufficient
distances to minimize wave reflections and achieve free-field conditions. For
soils with high material damping, this condition can be obtained with a
relatively small distance (Seed et al., 1975).
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.


3:32 PM
Instructions for free field boundaries
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.

3:32 PM
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'
group 'null' i 6 j 5 10
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
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

3:32 PM
;
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

3:32 PM
acceleration applied to sides of model and base
acceleration applied to base with free field boundary on sides

3:32 PM

Blank
3:32 PM

Geofoam Embankments Seismic Stability
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ FLAC manual on interfaces
1. Complete FLAC model 7.pdf (10 points)

2. Complete FLAC model 8.pdf (20 points)
3. Analyze the pseudo static factor of safety against sliding for each layer and
the base of the geofoam embankment using the geometry shown on the next
page and properties from FLAC model 7. Use the design spectrum shown
below to determine the appropriate accelerations in each layer. Determine
how much shear key coverage is required to achieve a factor of safety of 1.3.
Develop a spreadsheet to do this analysis (20 points).
Geofoam Embankments Page 278

Geofoam Embankments Seismic Stability (cont.)
3:32 PM

Geofoam Embankments
3:32 PM
Topics
• Typical Geofoam Construction

• Seismic Hazard in Utah
• Modeling Approach
• Seismic Evaluations
• Sliding
• Rocking/Uplift
• Overstressing (yielding)
Geofoam Advantages
• Light weight material

• Reduces seismic loads to wall & buried structures
• Improves slope stability (static & dynamic)
• Reduces consolidation settlement on soft ground
• Controlled Compression (Compression Inclusion)
• Can undergo elastic and plastic deformation but maintains shape

Geofoam Construction
3:32 PM
Typical EPS System for Freestanding Embankment

Geofoam Construction (cont.)
3:32 PM I-15 Reconstruction Project
I-180 W to I-15 N
I-180 W to I-15 N
I-15 at S. Temple

3:32 PM
UTA Trax Line - North Temple

3:32 PM
UTA Trax Line - 600 W and 2200 S.

3:32 PM

Failure Modes and Seismic Inputs
3:32 PM
• Develop a more comprehensive numerical method for evaluating seismic stability

of geofoam embankments
• Evaluate potential failure modes
• sliding performance at horizontal layer interfaces
• rocking/uplift at edge of the embankment
• overstressing of geofoam block from seismic forces
○ Compression
○ Tension
○ Shear
Selected Time History
Case Earthquake M R Component PGA (g)

(km)
1 1989 Loma Prieta, CA 6.9 8.6 Capitola 000 0.52
2 1989 Loma Prieta, CA 6.9 8.6 Capitola 090 0.44
3 1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.1 8.2 Duzce 180 0.35
4 1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.1 8.2 Duzce 270 0.54
5 1992 Cape Mendocino, 7.1 9.5 Petrolia 000 0.59

CA
6 1992 Cape Mendocino, 7.1 9.5 Petrolia 090 0.66
CA
7 1994 Northridge, CA 6.7 6.2 Sylmar 052 0.61
8 1994 Northridge, CA 6.7 6.2 Sylmar 142 0.90

Seismic Inputs (cont.)
3:32 PM

Modeling Approach
3:32 PM
• FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua)

• 2D or 3D
• Explicit Finite Difference Method
• Large Strain Mode
• Sliding and Separation at Nodal Interfaces
• Nonlinear Modeling capability
• Elasto-Plastic Model w/ Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria and Plastic Post-Yield Behavior
• Hysteretic damping

Elastic Properties
3:32 PM

Interface Sliding
11:43 AM
Typical freestanding geofoam embankment at bridge approach. Note

that continuous horizontal planes are created by the block placement
pattern. Question: Could sliding occur along these interface planes
during a major earthquake?

Interface Properties
11:43 AM
More on interface properties
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.

Interface Sliding (cont.)
11:43 AM

Interface Sliding (cont.)
11:43 AM
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.

Pseudo-static Sliding Calculation
3:32 PM
The potential for initiation of interlayer and basal sliding of a geofoam

embankment can also be evaluated using pseudo static techniques. This type of
analysis is useful for evaluating the stability of simple systems when the
embankment cross-section is a simple rectangle. In this approach, the inertial
horizontal force acting on the geofoam embankment is applied at the centroid
of the mass, which is usually at the top of the embankment. To calculate the
appropriate acceleration, the geofoam is treated as a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) oscillator (Horvath, 1995) and its fundamental period, T0, is estimated
using Horvath (2004):
T0 = 2[(v H)/(E*g)[4(H/B) 2 + (12/5)(1+ 0.5
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.
The horizontal inertial force, Fh , produced by the earthquake is applied to the

centroid of the lumped mass, which is approximately located at the top of the
embankment near the mid-point of the pavement section:
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).
An example 5 percent damped AASHTO spectrum for such an event is shown in

on the next page.

Pseudo-static Sliding Calculation (cont.)
3:32 PM
Material Type Layer No. Thickness ρ 4 E5 6 K7 G8

(m) (kg/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Foundation 1-10 varies 1840 174 0.4 290.0 62.1
Soil
Geofoam 11-18 8 18 10 0.103 4.2 4.5
UTBC1 19 0.610 2240 570 0.35 633 211
LDS2 & PCCP3 19 0.508 2400 30000 0.18 15625 12712
1Untreated base course, 2 Load distribution slab, 3 Portland concrete cement pavement, 4
Mass density, 5 Initial Young’s modulus, 6 Poisson’s ratio, 7 Bulk modulus, 8 Shear modulus
In applying pseudo static techniques to interlayer and basal sliding evaluations,

values of horizontal acceleration at various heights within the embankment are
linearly interpolated, starting at the top of the EPS embankment and continuing
to its base (NCHRP 529) . The horizontal acceleration acting at the top interface
of the embankment is the Sa value from the design spectrum at T=0.52s, which is
of 0.848 g for the example case ; the horizontal acceleration at the basal
EPS/foundation soil interface is peak horizontal ground acceleration (pga), which
is 0.339 g for the example case and corresponds to the spectral acceleration at T=
0 s.

3:32 PM
Subsequently, force equals mass time acceleration is applied to the interpolated

acceleration values at each interface elevation to estimate the inertial sliding
force acting at that interface (see table next page). The frictional sliding
resistance of the interface is calculated using the normal stress (i.e., vertical
stress) acting at the interface multiplied by interface coefficient of friction and
by the percentage of area available to resist sliding (expressed in decimal
fraction). (The weight of the EPS is usually neglected in calculating the normal
stress.) In this calculation, the coefficient of friction for geofoam-to-geofoam
and geofoam-to-soil interfaces was estimated to be 0.8 and 0.6, respectively,
based on direct shear testing from the I-15 Reconstruction Project (Bartlett et al.
2000). In addition, any potential bonding that develops between the EPS and the
overlying concrete load distribution slab was ignored in this example at interface
9 ; but such a bond shear strength could be include if: (1) it can be reasonably
obtained from experimental data, and (2) such a bond can be shown to persist
throughout the design life of the embankment.
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>

3:32 PM
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
Horiz. mass inertial resisting shear resisting FS

interface Accel. (kg/m3) force sliding key force sliding
# (g) (N/m3) force coverage from key (w / key)
(N/m3) (%) (N/m3)
9 0.848 2585 21497 19073 6 9439 1.33

8 0.791 2585 20064 19478 4 6293 1.28
7 0.735 2585 18631 19681 3 4720 1.31
6 0.678 2585 17198 19884 2 3146 1.34
5 0.622 2585 15765 20087 1 1573 1.37
4 0.565 2585 14332 20290 0 0 1.42
3 0.509 2585 12898 20290 0 0 1.57
2 0.452 2585 11465 20290 0 0 1.77
1 0.396 2585 10032 20290 0 0 2.02
0 0.339 2585 8599 15217 0 0 1.77
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Papers\UDOT%20Geofoam\UDOT%20EPS%20Report.docx>

Shear Key
3:32 PM

More on Interfaces in FLAC
11:43 AM
There are several instances in geomechanics in which it is desirable to

represent planes on which sliding or separation can occur:
○ joint, fault or bedding planes in a geologic medium
○ interface between a foundation element and the soil
○ contact plane between a bin or chute and the material that it contains
○ contact between two colliding objects.
FLAC provides interfaces that are characterized by Coulomb sliding and/or
tensile separation. Interfaces have one or more of the following properties:
○ Friction
○ Cohesion
○ Dilation
○ Normal stiffness
○ Shear stiffness
○ Tensile Strength
Although there is no restriction on the number of interfaces or the complexity

of their intersections, it is generally not reasonable to model more than a few
simple interfaces with FLAC because it is awkward to specify complicated
interface geometry. The program UDEC (Itasca 2004) is specifically designed to
model many interacting bodies; it should be used instead of FLAC for the more
complicated interface problems.
An interface can also be specified between structural elements and a grid, or

between two structural elements. Interfaces may also be used to join regions
that have different zone sizes. In general, the ATTACH command should be
used to join sub-grids together. However, in some circumstances it may be
more convenient to use an interface for this purpose. In this case, the
interface is prevented from sliding or opening because it does not correspond
to any physical entity.

Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Interface Properties

Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM

Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Shear and normal stiffness (cases)

○ Interface Used to Join Two Sub-Grids
○ Real Interface — Slip and Separation Only
○ Real Interface — All Properties Have Physical Significance
Interface Used to Join Two Sub-Grids

Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Real Interface — Slip and Separation Only

Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Real Interface — All Properties Have Physical Significance

Dilatancy Angle
12:45 PM
How does dilatancy affect the behavior of soil?
The angle of dilation controls an amount of plastic volumetric strain developed

during plastic shearing and is assumed constant during plastic yielding. The value
of ψ=0 corresponds to the volume preserving deformation while in shear.
Clays (regardless of overconsolidated layers) are characterized by a very low
amount of dilation (ψ≈0). As for sands, the angle of dilation depends on the
angle of internal friction. For non-cohesive soils (sand, gravel) with the angle of
internal friction φ>30° the value of dilation angle can be estimated as ψ=φ-30°. A
negative value of dilation angle is acceptable only for rather loose sands. In most
cases, however, the assumption of ψ = 0 can be adopted.
Pasted from <http://www.finesoftware.eu/geotechnical-software/help/fem/angle-of-dilation/>
No dilatancy, dilatancy angle = 0. Note that

the unit square has undergone distortion
solely.
Dilatancy during shear. Note that the unit

square has undergone distortion and
volumetric strain (change in volume).

Dilatancy Angle Relationships
12:45 PM
Soils dilate (expand) or contract upon shearing and the degree of this dilatancy
can be explained by the dilatancy angle,  .
This element is dilating

during shear. This is
plastic behavior.
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.

Dilatancy Angle (cont.)
11:43 AM
Solution for dilation angle for Fig. 3.58 in FLAC manual

.
Note: A negative sign was added here to be
consistent with Salgado Eq. 4-15. Also, the
relation between dev and de1 and de3 is
solving for the dilation angle: from Eq. 4-17 in Salgado
taking the sin of the dilation angle:
simplifying:
from Eq. 4.18 in Salgado
simplifies to:
the results are the same

Dilatancy Angle from Triaxial Test
11:43 AM

Dilatancy Angle - Typical Values
11:43 AM

Simple Interface Model - Direct Shear FLAC Example
11:43 AM
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

Simple Interface Model (cont.)
11:43 AM
; 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

11:43 AM
; functions to calculate shear stress and displacements

call int.fin ; this needs to be in default folder
def ini_jdisp
njdisp0 = 0.0
sjdisp0 = 0.0
pnt = int_pnt
loop while pnt # 0
pa = imem(pnt+$kicapt)
loop while pa # 0
sjdisp0 = sjdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp0 = njdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pa = imem(pnt+$kicbpt)
loop while pa # 0
sjdisp0 = sjdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp0 = njdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pnt = imem(pnt)
end_loop
end
ini_jdisp
;

11:43 AM
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

11:43 AM
hist sstav nstav sjdisp njdisp

step 22000
save directshear.sav 'last project state'

11:43 AM
JOB TITLE : .
FLAC (Version 5.00)

04
(10 )
LEGEND
6-Oct-10 6:59 3.500

step 27927
HISTORY PLOT 3.000

Y-axis :
Rev 1 sstav (FISH)
2.500
X-axis :
3 sjdisp (FISH)
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
2 4 6 8 10
-03
(10 )
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
JOB TITLE : .
FLAC (Version 5.00)

-04
(10 )
LEGEND
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

Blank
3:32 PM

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations
3:32 PM
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
From this information, calculate the following:
○ D for adequate FS against bearing capacity failure (15 points)

○ Maximum soil pressure (5 points)
○ D for FS against sliding (neglect passive pressure) (10 points)
2. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 5 (40 points)
Shallow Foundations Page 317

Introduction
3:32 PM
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.
2. In a manner similar to evaluation of seismic stability of slopes, earthquake

effects on foundations can be modeled using either pseudo-static approach or a
dynamic response approach.
a. In the pseudo-static analysis, the effects of the dynamic earthquake-

induced loads on the foundation are represented using static forces and
moments. Typically, the pseudo-static forces and moments are calculated
by applying a horizontal force equal to the weight of the structure times a
seismic coefficient through the center of gravity of the structure. The
seismic coefficient is generally a fraction of the peak ground acceleration for
the design earthquake and may also be dependent upon the response
characteristics of the structure, the behavior of the foundation soils, and the
ability of the structure to accommodate permanent seismic displacement.
b. In a dynamic response analysis, the dynamic stiffness and damping of the

foundation is incorporated into a numerical model of the structure to
evaluate the overall seismic response of the system and the interaction
between the soil, foundation and structure.

Pseudostatic Approach
3:32 PM
The bearing capacity and lateral resistance of a foundation is evaluated using

static formulations and compared to pseudo-static loads.
○ 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.
 The resultant load will usually have to be inclined or applied

eccentrically to account for vertical loads and moment loadings.
 Alternatively, vertical bearing capacity and horizontal sliding resistance
of the foundation can be determined independently. However, the
influence of the applied moments on the vertical and horizontal loads
must be considered in the bearing capacity and sliding calculations (see
figure on next page).

Dynamic Response Analysis Approach
3:32 PM
1. The dynamic stiffness of the foundation is incorporated into an analytical model

of the superstructure to evaluate the overall seismic response of the system.
2. The foundation of a structure typically has six degrees of freedom (modes of

motion) (Fig. 66)
a. horizontal sliding (two orthogonal directions)
b. vertical motion
c. rocking about two orthogonal axis
d. torsion (rotation) about the vertical axis.
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).
4. Similarly, a 6 x 6 matrix is needed to described the damping of the foundation.

a. Internal damping of the soil is commonly incorporated in the site response
model used to calculate design ground motions, and not in the foundation
model.

Dynamic Response Analysis Approach (cont.)
3:32 PM
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.
8. If a dynamic response of the structure-foundation is performed, the bearing

capacity, sliding, overturning and settlement of the shallow foundation should
be evaluated using pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis.

Dynamic Response Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
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 stiffness matrix, K, of an irregularly shaped and/or embedded footing can

be expressed by the following general equation:
where KECF is the stiffness matrix of an equivalent circular surface footing,  is

the foundation shape correction factor, and  is the foundation embedment
factor.

Stiffness
3:32 PM
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 torsional rotation, the stiffness coefficient K 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).

Damping for Circular, Rigid Footings
3:32 PM
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 evaluation of damping matrix coefficients is complex and little guidance is

available to practicing engineers. Damped vibration theory is usually used to
form the initial foundation damping matrix. The theory, commonly used to
study (small-strain) foundation vibration problems, assumes that the soil
damping can be expressed via a damping ratio, D, defined as the ratio of the
damping coefficient of the footing to the critical damping for the six-degree-of-
freedom system.
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.

Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Damping Table (Circular Footing)

Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Definition of variables on previous page

Damping for Rectangular Footings
3:32 PM
Application of the foundation stiffness general equation (K =  KECF) for

rectangular footings involves the following two steps:
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.

Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)
3:32 PM
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.

3:32 PM
Embedment
The influence of embedment on the response of a shallow foundation is

described in detail in Lam and Martin (1986). The values of the foundation
embedment factor  from that study are presented in figure 70 for values of D/R
less than or equal to 0.5 and in Figure 71 for values of D/R larger than 0.5. For
cases where the top of the footing is below the ground surface, it is
recommended that the thickness of the ground above the top of the footing be
ignored and the thickness of the footing (not the actual depth of embedment
Df) be used to calculate the embedment ratio (D/R) in determining the
embedment factor .

3:32 PM
Embedment (cont.)

Load Evaluation - Loads from Dynamic Response Analysis
3:32 PM
Method 1 - Seismic loads from dynamic response analysis
○ Potential for amplification of ground motion by the structure is included in

the peak loads from the dynamic response analysis
○ Combination of loads from dynamic response analysis (vertical and
horizontal) for use in bearing capacity, sliding and overturning evaluations.
○ Common Approach for bearing capacity

 Assume 100% peak vertical (2 cases; 100 percent upward and 100
percent downward) and 40% peak horizontal, applied in the direction
that is most critical for stability. Generally 100 percent peak vertical in
the downward directions controls the design.
 Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both horizontal and
vertical) and static moments. These should be added to the seismic
loads.

Load Evaluation (cont.) - Loads from Pseudostatic Analysis
3:32 PM
Method 2 - Pseudostatic seismic loads from pga and seismic coefficient
○ seismic loads = (weight of structure) x (seismic coefficient)

○ no general guidance for selection of seismic coefficient, some possible
approaches are:
 use peak ground acceleration from AASHTO maps (10 probability of
exceedance in 50 years, or
 0.5 x pga (for structures that can tolerate some deformation, or
 use pga (for structures that can not tolerate large deformations)
 consider potential amplification of horizontal acceleration for slender
flexible structures.
□ for such structures, the design acceleration should be the spectral
acceleration associated with the fundamental period of the
structure. This acceleration should be factored according to
requirements outlined in the appropriate design code.
○ Combination of loads (vertical and horizontal)
(Common Approach for Bearing Capacity). Assume the horizontal and

vertical loading is independent, (i.e., assume that it is highly unlikely that
peak vertical and peak horizontal force will occur at the same time during
the earthquake strong ground motion record, thus vertical and horizontal
inertial loads can be considered separately for bearing capacity calculation).
 vertical load, if applied centrically will generate only vertical forces on

the foundation
 if vertical load is applied eccentrically, it will generate a vertical force
and a moment
 both compressive and tensile vertical loads should be considered
 horizontal load, if applied eccentrically, will generate a horizontal load
and a moment.
 Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both vertical and
horizontal) to the seismic loads.

Evaluation Steps - Bearing Capacity
3:32 PM
1. Compute the earthquake loads (from Method 1 or Method 2 above) and

combine
into a single resultant force with an inclination of α and an eccentricity, e (fig
65).
○ For Method 1, use the 100% and 40% of peak inertial force rule to
determine the lowest factor of safety.
○ For Method 2, remember that vertical and horizontal earthquake loads are
treated separately (do not apply peak horizontal and peak vertical ground
acceleration at the same time).
2. Adjust of Bearing Capacity Equation for Eccentric (Moment) Loading

○ Load eccentricity is caused by the applied moment to the foundation
○ Applied moment causes a non-uniform pressure distribution on the bottom
of the footing.
○ Equivalent footing width (B') is computed for the footing, where the width
of the footing is reduced, to account for load eccentricity
○ Commonly used relations for B'
B' = (B-2e) (Meyerhof, 1953)
B' = (3B/2-3e) (linear soil pressure distribution)
(The calculated values from the above equations tend to be
conservative the contact area is usually larger than the calculated
values)
○ limit to eccentricity (to prevent uplift)
e < B/6 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah < 0.4 g)
e < B/4 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah > 0.4 g)
3. Check bearing capacity with loadings from Method 1 or 2.
4. Report the lowest factor of safety that controls the design.
5. Check sliding factor of safety.
FHWA guidance


Sliding Calculations
3:32 PM
○ Sliding resistance should be assessed separately from the bearing capacity

evaluation.
○ Load combinations (Method 1 or 2) Common approach for sliding
 Assume 100% peak horizontal inertial load and 40% peak vertical
inertial load (2 cases; 40% upward and 40% downward).
 Also, check 40% peak horizontal and 100% peak vertical (2 cases; 100
percent upward and 100 percent downward).
 Apply combinations in the direction that is most critical for sliding
and gives the lowest factor of safety.
○ Resistance to sliding:
 frictional resistance (σv tan φ)
 adhesion (a)
□ adhesion and the interface frictional resistance of the base
depend on the type of soil and the type and finish of the
foundation material.
□ For pre-cast concrete foundations , the adhesion and interface
friction coefficient should be reduced by approximately 20 to 33
percent from the cohesion and friction coefficient of the
underlying soils (see Navy Design Manual DM 7.2). Values from
this manual can be used for both shallow foundations and
retaining wall.
□ For foundations poured directly on the foundation soil, the phi
of the soil is often used.
 For eccentrically loaded foundations, the effective base area (B' x L')
should be used in evaluating sliding resistance.
 For embedded foundations the passive seismic resistance in front
(leading edge) of the foundation is sometimes neglected; however, if
included, the passive earth pressure is typically reduced by a factor of
two to account for the large deformation required to mobilize full
passive resistance.
 active seismic force on the back (trailing edge) of the foundation is
sometimes added to the seismic driving force, but is usually
neglected if passive pressure on the leading edge has been
neglected. Thus, in many cases, the net result calculated from
factoring the passive seismic resistance and adding the active seismic
force, produces very little change in the overall sliding factor of
safety for shallow foundations; hence the embedment is sometimes
ignored in sliding calculations.

Myerhof's Method
3:32 PM
Definitions for use

of Myerhof's
equations
○ Need to use general bearing capacity equation to account for eccentric

loads, moments, inclined loads, and different foundation shapes.

Myerhof's Method (cont.)
3:32 PM
Bearing capacity factors
Inclination factors

Myerhof's Method (cont.)
3:32 PM
Shape factors for L < 6B

Example Calculation
3:32 PM
Myerhof (Example) - Loading from Dynamic Analysis

Example Calculation
3:32 PM
Myerhof (Example) - Loading from Dynamic Analysis

Soil Pressure
3:32 PM
© Evert C. Lawton, 2011

Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source (cont.)
3:32 PM

Machine Vibrations
3:32 PM

Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source
3:32 PM


3:32 PM
Idealization of a system using a spring with a dynamic stiffiness, Kz and a

viscous dashpot Cz undergoing a harmonic loading of Pz.

3:32 PM
Do not need these

for FLAC modeling
Dynamic stiffness = static stiffness x dynamic

stiffness coefficient. See chart A, next page for
k(w) values.

3:32 PM

FLAC modeling of Machine Vibration (Vertical Source)
3:32 PM
FLAC Model with 3-D (i.e., radiation) damping

FLAC modeling of Machine Vibration (cont.)
3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
FLAC formulation for radiation damping

Blank
3:32 PM

Lateral Spread Analysis
11:43 AM
Overview
○ Evaluate the amount of lateral spread displacement expected

along the Willamete River in Portland for M9.0 and M8.0 events
○ Develop FLAC modeling procedure using uncoupled analysis that
includes shear stiffness and strength degradation resulting from
liquefaction
○ Select time histories appropriate for the analysis
○ Use selected time histories to estimate the required composite
strength of the treated soil required to mitigate the liquefaction
hazard.
Liquefaction Modeling Page 357

Portland and Willamete River
11:43 AM
Google image of downtown Portland and Willamete River
Interstate 405 crossing Fremont Bridge

11:43 AM
Fremont Bridge
Swan Island

11:43 AM
Dock facilities at Swan Island
Tank Farm Across from Swan Island


Seismic Hazards - Subduction Zone Event pga
11:43 AM
Contours of peak ground acceleration (% pga) for M9.0 scenario

event on the Cascadian Subduction zone.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/Casc9.0_se/
#Peak_Ground_Acceleration

Seismic Hazard Deaggregation
11:43 AM
975 year return period
Contours of peak ground acceleration (% pga) for M9.0 scenario

event on the Cascadian Subduction zone.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/Casc9.0_se/
#Peak_Ground_Acceleration

1msoil time history
11:43 AM
1msoil time history (Frankel) (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time [sec]
Original (gray)
Baseline corrected (blue)

1ssoil time history
11:43 AM
1ssoil time history (Frankel) (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
9
Damp. 5.0%
8
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Time [sec]
Velocity [m/sec]
0.5
0
-0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time [sec]
Original (gray)

Ch_1 Chile time history
11:43 AM
Ch_1 Chile (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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]

Ch_2 Chile time history
11:43 AM
Ch_2 Chile (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
10
9 Damp. 5.0%
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
Acceleration [m/sec2]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time [sec]
0.15
Velocity [m/sec]
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time [sec]
Displacement [m]
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [sec]

La Union 90 time history
11:43 AM
Union 90 (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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]

La Union 360 time history
11:43 AM
Union 360 (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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]

Valparaiso 70 time history
11:43 AM
Val70 (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)

9
Damp. 5.0%
8
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]

Valparaiso 160 time history
11:43 AM
Val 160 (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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]
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]

Shannon and Wilson CZ1 time history
11:43 AM
SWCZ1 (Shannon and Wilson) (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
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]

Shannon and Wilson CZ2 time history
11:43 AM
SWCZ2 (Shannon and Wilson) (Scaled to 0.3 g pga)
8 Damp. 5.0%
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 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]

Comparison of Response Spectra and Time Histories
11:43 AM
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
0 50 100 150 200 250
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

Liquefaction Hazard
11:43 AM

Liquefaction Analysis
11:43 AM
Assumptions
○ Predominate lateral spread zone is about 17 to 40 feet (5 to 10

m) (see CPT penetration resistances less than 60 tsf, next page)
(Bartlett, 1992)
○ Ground slope varies from 0.5 to 5 percent
○ Depth to water table (5 m)
○ Liquefaction zones deeper than 50 feet do not contribute to
displacement (Bartlett, 1992)

CPT Log
11:43 AM
Liquefied zone where

N160 < 16 or qc1 < 60
tst

Lateral Sread
11:43 AM

M 9.0 Event Lateral Spread Hazard from Youd et al. 2002
11:43 AM
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
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\Owner\Documents\My%20Data\data1\EXCEL\LATERAL.XLS>
Lateral spread displacement from Youd et al. 2002
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 (%)

M 8.0 Event Lateral Spread Hazard from Youd et al. 2002
11:43 AM
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
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\Owner\Documents\My%20Data\data1\EXCEL\LATERAL.XLS>
Lateral spread displacement from Youd et al. 2002
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 (%)

Model Development
11:43 AM
JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)
FLAC (Version 5.00)
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

Modeling Approach/Assumptions
11:43 AM
○ 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.

Typical Results - Untreated Slope
11:43 AM
JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND
4.000
29-Dec-10 13:09
step 47788
-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
max vector = 4.396E-01

Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900
(*10^3)

Comparison of Displacement and Selection of Records for
Remediation Analyses
11:43 AM
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

Conversion of treated phi angle to undrained shear strength
11:43 AM
(From FLAC manual)
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.

11:43 AM
JOB TITLE : Effective vertical stress (pa) y axis vs depth m x axis
FLAC (Version 5.00)

05
(10 )
LEGEND
31-Dec-10 10:23 -1.000

step 3785
-5.556E+01 <x< 1.056E+03
-5.056E+02 <y< 6.056E+02 -2.000
Linear Profile -3.000

Y-axis :
Effective YY-Stress
X-axis : -4.000
Distance
From ( 5.00E+02, 7.50E+01)
-5.000
To ( 5.00E+02,-7.04E-01)
-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.

11:43 AM
JOB TITLE : Effective horizontal stress (pa) y axis vs depth m x axis
FLAC (Version 5.00)

05
(10 )
LEGEND
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.
Mean effective stress is: (170 + 2(80))/3 = 110 kPa

Composite Strength of Soil Required to Mitigate Lateral Spread
11:43 AM
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
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\Owner\Documents\FLAC\Lateral%20Spread%20Model%20-%20Portland\Bartlett-FLAC%

20scenarios%20Rev1%20.xls>

Conclusions
11:43 AM
○ Liquefaction remediation analysis of the treated zone was conservatively estimated

using the 1msoil time history for the M=9 event at R=100 km.
○ Liquefaction remediation analysis of the treated zone is conservatively estimated
using the SWCZ1 for M8.0 event at R =100 km.
○ These analyses show that the treated soil must have a minimum composite strength
o f about 30 to 50 kPa (600 to 1000 psf) to mitigate the lateral spread hazard for a
M9.0 event (see previous page).
○ These analyses show that the treated soil must have a minimum composite strength
of about 20 to 45 kPa (400 to 900 psf) to mitigate the lateral spread hazard for a M8.0
event.

Simple FLAC Lateral Spread Model
11:43 AM
;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
;
;

Simple FLAC Lateral Spread Model (cont.)
11:43 AM
; BUILDS FOUNDATION SOIL IN STAGES

;
model mohr j 1
prop bulk=333.3e6 shear=200.0e6 density 1800 friction = 30 j 1; sand
solve
;
model mohr j 2
solve
;
model mohr j 3
solve
;
model mohr j 4
solve
;
model mohr j 5
solve
;
; BUILDS EMBANKMENT IN STAGES
;
model mohr j 6 i 9 16
prop bulk=1033e6 shear=620e6 density 2000 friction = 35 j 6 i 9 16
solve
;
solve
;
solve
;
solve
;
solve

11:43 AM
; install phreatic surface in slope

;
water table 1 den 1000
table 1 (-30,4) (10,4) (20,6) (20,7) (40,8) (60,9)
def wetden
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
if model(i,j)>1 then
xa=(x(i,j)+x(i+1,j)+x(i+1,j+1)+x(i,j+1))
xc=0.25*xa
ya=(y(i,j)+y(i+1,j)+y(i+1,j+1)+y(i,j+1))
yc=0.25*ya
if yc<table(1,xc) then
density(i,j) = 2200; saturated density
endif
endif
endloop
endloop
end
wetden
solve

11:43 AM
;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
;

11:43 AM
;
; 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

11:43 AM
;
; hysteresis loops
;
def strain1
deltay = 2; 2 m vertical spacing between nodes
strain1 = (xdisp(9,5) - xdisp(9,4))/deltay
strain2 = (xdisp(16,5) - xdisp(16,4))/deltay
if dytime < 0.01
inishear = sxy(9,4) ; initial static shear stress
inieffvert = syy(9,4)+pp(9,4) ; ini. eff. vert. stress (compression is neg.)
endif
CSRL = 0.11; for N160 = 10; M7.5 earthquake
CSREQ = 0.65*(sxy(9,4)-inishear)/inieffvert
if CSREQ = 0 ; doesn't allow FS to be undefined
CSREQ = 0.01
endif
if CSREQ < 0 ; changes neg. values to positive
CSREQ = CSREQ*(-1)
endif
if CSREQ > 0
CSREQ = CSREQ
endif
FS = CSRL/CSREQ
if FS > 5 ; place a cap on FS for plotting.
FS = 5
endif
end
;
his 101 xacc i 12 j 1; xacc base of model
his 102 xacc i 9 j 11; xacc at crest point
his 103 xacc i 12 j 6; xacc at base of embamkment
his 104 xdisp i 9 j 11; displacement at crest
his 105 xdisp i 9 j 6 ; displacement at toe
his 106 dytime
his 107 strain1
his 108 strain2
his 109 sxy i=9, j=4
his 110 sxy i=16, j=4
his 111 friction i=9, j=4
his 112 shear_mod i=9, j=4
his 113 bulk_mod i=9, j=4
his 114 CSREQ
his 115 syy i=9, j=4
his 116 FS
set dytime 0
solve dytime 20
history 999 unbalanced
solve

Blank
11:43 AM

Advanced Lateral Spread Modeling
3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○
1. Complete FLAC model 7.pdf

2. Use the analysis approach discussed in the liquefaction remediation section
to design a remediation for the problem presented in FLAC model 7.pdf
Adv. Liquefaction Modeling Page 396

Liquefaction Modeling
3:32 PM
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.
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/

~liquefaction/html/what/what2.html>
Pasted from <http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Hazards/Natural/Seismic/Liquefaction.aspx>

Accelerations and Pore Pressure Generation During Liquefaction
3:32 PM

Flow Failure versus Deformation Failure
3:32 PM
Flow Failure (large displacement)
Deformation Failure - sometime called

cyclic mobility (smaller displacement)

Flow Failure versus Deformation Failure
3:32 PM
Stable Slope
Deformation Failure
Flow Failure

Flow Failures
3:32 PM
Sheffield Dam
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/selectpiclique/dams/sheffielddam1.jpg>
1971 San
Fernando
Dam

Deformation Failures
3:32 PM
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/

~liquefaction/selectpiclique/rivers/motagua.jpg>
Pasted from <http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Tecoman_2003/c-liq.html>

Definition of Liquefaction
3:32 PM
Definition of Liquefaction, ru = 1, where ru is the pore pressure ratio
For field
For laboratory
Ru = u / 'c
'c = effective confining stress in the triaxial cell
(NRC, 1985)

Cyclic Behavior of Loose Sand
3:32 PM
Note the onset of large

deformation noting
liquefaction

Cyclic Behavior of Dense Sand
3:32 PM

Counting Cycles to Liquefaction
3:32 PM

Equivalent Stress Cycles Versus Earthquake Magnitude
3:32 PM
Earthquake Number of
magnitude, representativ
M e
uniform
cycles at
0.65τma x
26
15
10
5-6
2-3
Seed et al., (1975)

Number of Cycles to Liquefaction
3:32 PM

Pore Pressure Buildup Versus No. of Cycles
3:32 PM
For  = 1

Pore Pressure Generation Scheme for Modeling
3:32 PM
When ru reaches 1.0, then complete liquefaction has occurred.
Functions to degrade residual strength and shear modulus according to r u
= ( max -  residual) (1-ru) +  residual
G = (Gmax - Gresidual) (1-ru)1/2 + Gresidual

Relating Residual Strength with Residual Shear Modulus
3:32 PM
Sr/Gr ratio = shear strain (decimal fraction)
0
0
0

0
Sr /G r
0
0
Strain - Strain Loops
3:32 PM
Beaty and Byrne, 1999
Soft reloading curve = 10 percent of stiff unloading curve

Model Verification
3:32 PM
Input motion
Model Geometry

Model Verification (cont.)
3:32 PM
Hysteresis loops for site soil with low (5 k Pa) residual strength
○ Flat top part of loop shows perfectly plastic yielding

○ Loading curve is soft
○ Reloading curve is stiffer (10 x modulus of loading curve)

3:32 PM
Comparison with Kobe Site
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

3:32 PM
JOB TITLE : . (*10^1)
5.500
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND 4.500
1-Jun-08 20:00
step 987
3.500
-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)
FLAC model for Kobe Site
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)

3:32 PM
Comparison of surface response spectra for predicted vs. measure motions
Comparison of strain-strain loops at 8 m

3:32 PM
Comparison of pore pressure generation plot

3:32 PM
Wildlife site - liquefied sand

3:32 PM
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)
FLAC (Version -0.2

5.00)
-0.25
LEGEND
2.750
30-May-07 16:20
0 10 20 30 2.250
40 50
step 12965
-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)
FLAC model for Wildlife site

3:32 PM
Predicted vs. measured surface acceleration time histories

3:32 PM
The difference may due to:

• The relatively low permeability of the liquefied silty around piezometer.
• Pore pressure need to migration to reach the piezometer.
• Thus the pore pressure records at the WLA may not indicate when
liquefaction (ru = 1) was reached.
• Possible that this area reached the liquefied state later, on average, than
typical liquefied site.
• FLAC modeling approach does not consider pore pressure migration or
redistribution , also it based on average soil properties.

3:32 PM
Stress-Strain loops for Wildlife

Model Calibration
3:32 PM
Case history sites used in the calibration process
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

Model Calibration Results
3:32 PM
Back-calculated values of Sr (residual strength) normalized to the effective

vertical stress v'
Regression equation from Meng (2011) to predict the normalized residual

strength:
Sr / v' = 0.007639 N160CS + 0.05042 * D50 (mm)

Correlation with In situ Properties
3:32 PM
Mesri and Stark (1992)
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).

Determining the Residual Shear and Bulk Modulus
3:32 PM
Sr = residual shear strength

Gr = residual shear modulus

Liquefaction Remediation
3:32 PM
Step 1 - Determine the required area replacement ratio, R a, based on the

pre-improvement factor of safety against liquefaction, FSpre, and the ratio
of the shear modulus of the gravel column to the shear modulus of the
matrix soil, RG.
Lawton, E. C. (2001). "Soil Improvement and Stabilization: Non-Grouting Techniques." Section 6A

in Practical Foundation Engineering Handbook, Edited by R. W. Brown, McGraw -Hill, 2001, pp.
6.1 - 6.340.
Ra = area of column/area total
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.
Liquefaction Remediation Page 428

Ground Improvement (cont.)
3:32 PM
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.
 comp = tan -1 [ c Ra tan  C +  m (1-Ra) tan  M]
Approximate values of Rs for preliminary design

○ Rs = 2 to 5 for stone columns
○ Rs = 8 for Geopiers TM
○ Rs = 10 for lime cement columns
Stress Concentration Factors

 C = Rs/[Ra(Rs-1)+1]
 m= 1/[Ra(Rs-1)+1]

3:32 PM
Step 3 - Determine the composite shear modulus for the treated soil, G comp
Gcomp = (GC * AC + GM*AM)/A
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 .
Estimates of GC and GM can be obtained from the following paper.
78.5/15.7=5 Thus, use GC/GM = 5 for calculations.

3:32 PM
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
Pre-earthquake configuration of embankment
Post-earthquake configuration of embankment (yellow zone) is liquefied zone.

3:32 PM M
7.50
Design Spectrum
RRUP (km)
3.54
RJB (km)
0.00
RX (km)
5.00
U
0
FRV
0
FNM
1
FHW
1
ZTOR (km)
0.00

45
VS30 (m/sec)
300
FMeasured
0
Z1.0 (m)
DEFAULT
Z2.5 (km)
DEFAULT
W (km)
20.00
FAS
0
HW Taper
0
Pasted from <file:///C:

\Users\sfbartlett
\Documents\GeoSlope
\NGA_Models_Version2.
xls>

3:32 PM
Input Acceleration Time History (Spectrally-matched)
1.4
1.3
Damp. 5.0%
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]
Response spectrum from above acceleration time history. Spectrally matched to

plus or minus 10 percent of the target spectrum.
Peak ground acceleration (pga) = 0.6 g
This was put into base of DEEPSOIL Model

Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
Determining site-specific response
Embankment and shallow soil properties

g r γ E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) φ c (kPa)
(kN/m3) (kg/m3) (lb/ft3)
Soil 1 15.72 1603 100 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0
Soil 2 16.51 1683 105 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0
Soil 3 17.29 1763 110 150000 0.35 166,667 55,556 27.49 0
Soil 4 18.08 1843 115 200000 0.3 166,667 76,923 34.85 0
Soil 5 18.08 1843 115 250000 0.3 208,333 96,154 34.85 0
Embankment 21.22 2163 135 500000 0.3 416,667 192,308 34.85 25
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\GeoSlope\miscdynamic1.xls>
Soil Properties for 1D Deep Soil Analysis

Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
Determining site-specific response (cont.)

Acceleration time history in layer 5 from DeepSoil
Black= base motion

Blue = surface motion
Orange = motion in layer 5
(i.e., base of FLAC model)

Ground Improvement, Sample Calculation
3:32 PM
Calculate the pre-improvement factor of safety against liquefaction. This was

done using Quake/W.
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
Input motion at base of Quake/W model for liquefaction calculations

Ground Improvement, Sample Calculation (cont.)
3:32 PM
Number of cycle to cause liquefaction versus shear stress ratio
Chart for N160 = 12

Clean sand

3:32 PM
Ks correction
Ka correction

3:32 PM
For  = 1

3:32 PM
Cyclic stress ratio (CSRE) from QUAKE/W
CRSE = 0.25 in critical zone
0.35 0. 3 0.2
45 0.4 0. 2
0. 5
0.15
Maximum shear strain without liquefaction from QUAKE/w
3
0.0
-0.01
0. 01 0.03 0.0
2

3:32 PM
Calculations
FS pre = CSRL / CSRE = 0.12 / 0.25 ≈ 0.5
CSRL = 0.12 (clean sand from chart below)

3:32 PM
Ra = 0.25 (chart) for FS = 0.5

RG = 5 (previous)
Rs = 5 (Stone columns)
 C = 37 deg
 M = 25 deg
 C = Rs /[Ra (Rs -1)+1] = 5/[0.25(5-1)+1] = 2.5

 m= 1/[Ra (Rs -1)+1] = 1/[0.25(5-1)+1] = 0.5
 comp = tan -1 [ c Ra tan  C +  m (1-Ra ) tan  M]

 comp = tan -1 [2.5*0.25 tan 37 + 0.5 (1-0.25) tan 25]
 comp = 33 deg
Gcomp = (GC * AC + GM*AM)/A

Gcomp = (78.5 *0.25 + 15.7 * 0.75)/1
Gcomp = 31.4 MPa

Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
front
toe
crest

Blank
3:32 PM

Introduction to Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)
2:32 PM
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION (SSI):
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:
○ Traditional Structural Engineering methods disregard SSI effects, which

is acceptable only for Light structures on relatively stiff soil (low rise
structures and simple rigid retaining walls).
○ SSI effects become prominent and must be regarded for structures
where P delta effects play a significant role structures with massive or
deep seated foundations, slender tall structures and structures
supported on a very soft soils with average shear velocity less than 100
m/s.(Euro Code 8).
Introduction to SSI Page 445

Introduction to SSI (cont.)
2:32 PM
Simplified Method
(from Kramer, Ch. 7)
Semi-infinite half space
SDOF system on elastic soil deposit
Replacement of semi-infinite
half space with springs and
dashpots
rigid, finite base
Idealized discrete system in which compliant base is represented by

translational and rotational springs (k) and dashpots (c); note that horizontal
and rotational modes are allowed in this diagram.

Introduction SSI (cont.)
2:32 PM

2:32 PM
Accounting for Energy Loss (Damping)
General types of damping

○ Material Damping
 Damping to inelastic, hysteretic behavior of material under cyclic loading
○ Radiation or Geometric Damping

 Damping due to loss of wave energy into the semi-infinite half space
Waves caused
by the
vibration of the
structure are
lost from the
system (no
reflections) in
the semi
infinite half
space

2:32 PM
Modeling of Radiation Damping (3D Damping) in FLAC
Note that the dynamic

input can be either internal
(e.g., blast) or external
(earthquake). In this model
absorption of the waves on
the edges of the model is
performed by the quiet
boundary. Absorption of
the wave in the out-of-
plane direction is done by
using the 3-D damping
boundary feature.
In this case, a compliant

(deformable base is modeled
using a quiet boundary
placed at the base.

2:32 PM

Course Notes Earthquake Engineering

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

Course Notes Earthquake Engineering

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CVEEN 7330 - Course Notes

Thursday, March 11, 2010

• Design Spectra from Building Code

Course Information Page 1

Course Information Page 2

Course Level of Effort

Course Grading (Total Score from All Assignments and Exams)

Course Information Page 3

On my honor as a student of the University of Utah, I have neither given nor

Course Information Page 4

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 5

Definition - Plot of maximum response (acceleration, velocity displacement

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Design Spectra Page 6

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 7

Acceleration time history (ground surface)

Acceleration Response Spectrum for above time history from Seismosignal TM

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 8

Methods of Developing Design Spectra and Design Strong Motion

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 9

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 10

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 11

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 12

Generic Design Spectrum from ASCE 7-05

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Design Spectra Page 13

Design Spectra Page 14

Design Spectra Page 15

Other Materials Material

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 16

○ plot of both components of time history selected in problem 1

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 17

Recommendations for selecting of candidate time histories for spectral

3. The earthquake magnitude, M, of candidate time histories should be within +

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 18

4. In addition to earthquake magnitude, it is important that the candidate time

5. We recommend that the candidate time histories be selected for the

6. Whenever possible, we recommend the selection of candidate time histories

8. It is recommended that the selection include at least 3 and as many as 7 time

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 19

The maximum value of a 1.2 factor or 20 percent increase is reached at a

Based on recommendations from CALTRANS

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 20

The candidate acceleration time histories should be rotated to find their

The transformed accelerations in the x’ and y’ directions are calculated

ax’(t) = ax(t) cos q1 + ay(t) sin q1

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 21

The principal components are found by minimizing the covariance between

When the above function is minimized (found to be zero), the

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

Processing of Time Histories Page 22