2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Homework Assignment #4
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.
a.
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.
b.
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.
c.
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.
1.
From this information, calculate the crest acceleration using the design
spectrum attached with these notes.
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 "Slide" 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.
6.
Steven F. Bartlett, 2014
Lecture Notes
Pp. 423 - 449 Kramer
Pp. 286-290 Kramer - Shear Beam Approach
Makdisi-Seed Analysis (EERC).pdf
Bray and Travasarou - 2007
Reading Assignment
None
Other Materials
http://www.rocscience.com/products/8/feature/87
2D Analysis - Simplified Methods
Monday, February 03, 2014
2:32 PM
2D Analysis - Simplified Methods Page 1
Homework inputs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

(
%
)
G
/
G
m
a
x
shear strain (%)
Sand (Seed and Idriss) Average
2D Analysis (cont.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
damping 5 percent
damping 10 percent
damping 15 percent
damping 20 percent
2D Analysis (cont.)
Monday, February 03, 2014
2:32 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.
2-D Seismic Embankment and Slope Assessment and Stability
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
Pseudostatic Analysis (Stability)
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.
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (Deformation)

Quake/W
Plaxis
FEM
FLAC
FDM
Numerically Based Analysis (Deformation)
This course will focus on Pseudostatic and Newmark Sliding Block Analyses using
the Makdisi-Seed (1978) Method
General Types of 2D Seismic Analysis
3:32 PM
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.
from:
Liquefaction Effects
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
Pseudostaic apply a static (non-varying) force the centroid of mass to
represent the dynamic earthquake force.
F
h
= a
h
W / g = k
h
W
F
v
= a
v
W/ g = k
v
W (often ignored)
Guidance on the Selection of K
h
Pseudostatic Analysis
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.
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
Limitations of Pseudostatic Technique
Pseudostatic Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Layer
(top to
bottom)
(kN/m
3
)
(lb/ft
3
) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) c (kPa) Ko Vs (m/s)
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>
Example Geometry
Example Soil Properties
E = Young's Modulus
= Poisson's ratio
K = Bulk modulus
G = Shear Modulus
= drained friction angle
c = cohesion
K
o
= at-rest earth pressure coefficent
V
s
= shear wave velocity
Pseudostatic Analysis - Example
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
Time [sec]
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

[
g
]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Acceleration time history
Damp. 5.0%
Period [sec]
3 2 1 0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

[
g
]
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
Response Spectrum for acceleration time history
pga = 0.6 g
K
h
= 0.5 * pga
a
h
= 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
(top to
bottom)
(kN/m
3
)
(lb/ft
3
) E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) Tan
80
percent
Tan
New
phi
angle
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 K
h
= 0.3 and reduced shear strength (see below).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106
107 108 109 110 111 112
113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124
125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136
137 138 139 140 141 142
143 144 145 146 147 148
149 150 151 152 153 154
0.651
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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.)
3:32 PM
Pasted from
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-113/
ofr98-113.html>
Newmarks 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, Newmarks 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
3:32 PM
Steps
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.
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
Consider horizontal displacement is possible for each time interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
4.
Integrate the velocity and displacement time history for each interval where the
horizontal acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration (see previous page).
5.
The following approach is implemented using the QUAKE/W
TM
and SLOPE/W
TM
.
Acceleration vs. time at base of slope from 2D response analysis in Quake/W.
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Analysis perfromed using shear strength = 100 percent of peak value for all soils
(i.e., no shear strength loss during cycling).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106
107 108 109 110 111 112
113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124
125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136
137 138 139 140 141 142
143 144 145 146 147 148
149 150 151 152 153 154
1.530
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Factor of Safety vs. Time
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y
Time
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 5 10 15 20
Note that critical
circle is obtained
from the
pseudostatic
analysis
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106
107 108 109 110 111 112
113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124
125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136
137 138 139 140 141 142
143 144 145 146 147 148
149 150 151 152 153 154
1.365
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y
Time
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20
3:32 PM
Analysis repeated using shear strength in layer 1 equal to 5 kPa (100 psf) to
represent a very soft clay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106
107 108 109 110 111 112
113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124
125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136
137 138 139 140 141 142
143 144 145 146 147 148
149 150 151 152 153 154
0.944
1
2 3
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y
Time
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20
Note FS < 1 for a
significant part of the
time history.
Deformation vs. Time
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i o
n
Time
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 5 10 15 20
Note that more than 2 m of
displacement have
accumulated.
3:32 PM
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Acceleration
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
Eq. 1
Eq. 2
3:32 PM
Eq. 3
Eq. 3a
Eq. 4
3:32 PM
Eq. 5
Eq. 6
Eq. 7a
Eq. 7b
Eq. 7c
See p. 533
Kramer
3:32 PM
Eq. 8
Eq. 9
3:32 PM
y / h
3:32 PM
Eq. 10
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Crest Accelerati
3:32 PM
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
Better chart for previous page
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
.
Exponent
3:32 PM
Example
Design Spectra
Values in red must be adjusted until convergence
Is obtained
Makdisi - Seed Analysis - Example
3:32 PM
Shear modulus reduction and damping curves
Calculations
3:32 PM
Calculations (cont.)
Charts for deformation analysis
Z = depth to
base of
potential
failure plane
(i.e., critical
circle from
pseudostatic
analysis)
toe circle
3:32 PM
(See regression equations on next page for M7.5 and M6.5 events
3:32 PM
y = 1.7531e
-8.401x
R = 0.988
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
U

/

(
k
h
m
a
x
*
g
*
T
1
)
ky/khmax
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 7.5
y = 0.7469e
-7.753x
R = 0.9613
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
U

/

(
k
h
m
a
x
*
g
*
T
1
)
ky/khmax
Deformation versus ky/kymax curve for M = 6.5
3:32 PM
Bray and Travasarou
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
2:32 PM
Bray and Travasarou (cont.)
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 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 0.2510 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.
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
2:32 PM
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
2:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the embankment stability analysis trying to determine?

What are the two main types of analyses needed to assess seismic stability of earthen embankments?

Homework Assignment #4

Assume the embankment is 8 m high and has a crest of 12 m. Both side

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis (Deformation)

You might also like