Literature Review 1: Extracted from the book Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods written by Lee W.

e W. Abramson Thomas S. Lee Sunil Sharma Glenn M. Boyce

The extractions included in this report all come from this book unless otherwise stated

Extracted from literature 1

Similar to the recommendation in Eurocode 8 foe slope design under seismic

Ky (or kh commonly used in most textbook) is the horizontal seismic coefficient adopted in the slope design. Therefore for Hijo, kh = 0.2g

Referring to the section 6.12 (see page 2), cohesive materials are not generally affected by the cyclic loading and at least 80% of the static shear strength will be retained during and after the seismic event. With the presence of stone columns in the design, the excessive pore water pressure developed due to the cyclic loading will be dissipated quickly and it is assumed that there will be zero loss of shear strength under the design seismic case. Therefore the 20% strength reduction is not considered in the design.

Stone column arrangemernt for Slope/W and Quake/W analysis

Square pattern of stone columns is assumed for design Preliminarily, it is assumed that the diameter of the stone column is 1.2m with centre to centre spacing of about 1.5m. Ar is the replacement ratio of stone column.

Soil Parameters of soil layer with stone columns

These formulas are used to simulate the properties of soil layer treated with stone columns in Slope/W and Quake/W, of existing soil = 15deg (based on lab test results) Unit weight of existing soil = 17kN/m3 (based on lab test results) Undrained shear strength Su of existing soil at corresponding depth below ground is assumed based on the graph plotted using the lab test data (see next page) of stone = 42deg Unit weight of stone = 26kN/m3

Undrained shear strength of existing soil

Undrained Shear Strength (KPa)
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10

15

Direct Shear Test Traxial Test

Depth (m)

20

Traxial Test by HRC (2011)

Design line
25

30

35

40

The first 12.8m below ground is assumed to have undrained shear strength (Su) of minimum 25kPa and beyond the depth of 12.8m, Su is assumed to be increased linearly with depth.

Surcharge under normal operation:

Slope/W analysis soil profile

30m 70m +3.8mCD

20kPa for first 10m before cope line and 50kPa onwards p.s. Soil is sub-divided into 5m a layer 40m 30m

MSL = 0.75mCD Dredged level -12mCD

Diameter of stone column = 1.2m Spacing = 1.5m c/c Replacement ratio Ar = 0.5

Diameter of stone column = 1.2m Spacing = 1.27m c/c Replacement ratio Ar = 0.7

Preliminarily assume a 5m x 5m retaining structure; detailed design will be carried out once the slope design is finalized Rock core and rubble mound sloping seawall

Static analysis: (PGA = 0g, 100% live load, normal operation)

60m

30m

Determining the extent of critical slip surface under static condition

The critical slip surface under static condition is found between the extent of 60m behind cope line to approximately 30m in front of the toe. The critical slip surface is therefore reanalyzed using the pseudostatic method for seismic design.

Pseudostatic analysis: (PGA = 0.4g, kh = 0.5PGA=0.2, 50% live load)

60m 30m

Extent of critical slip surface determined from static analysis and reanalyzed by pseudostatic approach

The critical slip surface is reanalyzed using the pseudostatic method for seismic design and F.O.S. is larger than 1 (stable).

Quake/W analysis same soil profile with Slope/W

Static analysis: (PGA = 0g, normal operation)

Critical slip surface 1 (F.O.S.= 1.3), with extended length of stone columns
Critical extent of slip surface front of the toe

45m

40m

The lengths of stone columns in this region are extended from 25m to 30m in order to achieve a F.O.S. of 1.3 under normal operation. The discrepancies between the results of Slope W and Quake W might be arisen due to the uncertainties in the assumption of some soil parameters in Quake W.

Static analysis: (PGA = 0g, normal operation)

Critical slip surface 2 (F.O.S.= 1.3), with extended length of stone columns
Critical extent of slip surface behind cope line 60m

25m

There are two critical slip surfaces with lowest FOS of 1.3 identified by static analysis using Quake W. Therefore the critical slip surface to be reanalyzed using the dynamic analysis of Quake W is expected at around 45m to 60m behind the cope line, to 40m in front of the toe.

Dynamic analysis(PGA = 0.4g, duration = 10s)

0.4

Ground acceleration (g)

0 0s 10s Time (sec)

The design spectrum is a default spectrum in Quake W and adjusted to have a PGA of 0.4g (recommended value at Philippines). The duration of extreme seismic event is assumed to be 10 seconds since there is no real time history available.

Quake/W dynamic analysis: (PGA = 0.4g, duration = 10s, 50% live load)
60m 45m to 60m behind cope line

40m

The F.O.S. is 0.5 and far below 1 (unstable).

Graph of F.O.S. against time

Factor of Safety

0.5

Time (sec)

Quake/W dynamic analysis (PGA = 0.4g, duration = 10s, 50% live load), with extended length of the stone columns to increase F.O.S. from 0.5 to 0.91
60m 25m

The lengths of stone columns in this region are extended from 20m to 25m and the F.O.S. is increased from 0.5 to 0.91 (slightly less than 1, implying that the slope will not be totally collapsed under the extreme seismic case but with permanent deformation. Further study and literature review should be carried out to investigate if such permanent deformation is within an acceptable and repairable limit.

This is the most critical slip surface identified by Quake W. This shallower slip arises possibly due to the retaining wall is not yet properly designed and loses its stability under the seismic loading. This shallower slip surface can therefore be eliminated once the slope and retaining wall design is finalized.

Graph of F.O.S. against time

Factor of Safety

Approximately 0.9

Time (sec)

The below literature suggests that PGA slighly less than 0.4g can be adopted for the design at soft soil site:

This is exactly the case at Hijo, no bed rock was identified even the G.I. works had been carried out to a depth of 60m below ground

0.4g

Literature Review 2:
<0.4g

Extracted from the book Basic Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering written by Kamalesh Kumar

This implies that the design PGA at Hijo Port can adopt a value slightly less than 0.4g where has a thick layer (60m or more) of soft clay filtering out the high intensity short period energy waves

To sum up, a F.O.S. of slightly higher than 1 (stable) can be achieved if the design PGA is relieved to 0.3g for soft soil site.

Sensitivity analysis 1: Dynamic analysis(PGA = 0.35g, duration = 10s), with extended length of the stone columns

F.O.S. is 0.98 (slighly less than 1).

Sensitivity analysis 2: Dynamic analysis(PGA = 0.3g, duration = 10s), with extended length of the stone columns

F.O.S. is 1.07 (stable).

Possible Solutions
1. Generally, pseudostatic analysis should give more conseveraticve results than the dynamic analysis since pseudostatic method assumes that a constant ground accleration of 0.4g is applied on the whole soil mass. However, in this case the dynamic analysis gives slighly less FOS than the pesudostatic approach which might be due to the uncertainties of the soil parameters. Therefore, the soil parameters assumed in Quake W will be reviewed. 2. Adopt a slighly less PGA for design, based on the argument that there is a thick layer of clay material on top of the rigid bed rock. Refering to the previous figure, the PGA at soft soil site is less than that at stiff rock site. 3. If FOS is slighly less than 1 (says 0.95 or above), investigate the permanent deformation of the slope and justify if it is within a within an acceptable and repairable limit. (p.s. this idea is suggested by Parsons and Geosyntec consultants for the project Onondaga Lake In Lake Waste Deposit (ILWD) Stability).