Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue II/April-June, 2012/119-123




Research Paper
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF KASWATI EARTH DAM
1
Patel Samir K.,
2
Prof. C.S.Sanghavi



Address for Correspondence
1
Applied Mechanics Department,
2
Professor , L. D. College of Engineering, Gujarat Technological University,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India)
ABSTRACT
A large number of water-retaining earthen dams were affected by the earthquake. This paper examines dynamic analysis
with time history methods of kaswati dam are located in Bhuj region by using of geo-studio 2007. The consequences of these
problems were the dams performed reasonably in spite of being shaken by free-field horizontal peak ground acceleration
(PGA) as high as 0.28g. The liquefaction occurred in upstream slope, downstream slope and foundation of dam due to
cohesion-less soil in foundation. The procedure for assessing liquefaction potential uses the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) as the
measure for earthquake load. The procedure for assessing liquefaction potential typically uses the Cyclic Resistance Ratio
(CRR) as a measure of the liquefaction resistance of soils and the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) as a measure of earthquake load.
For cohesion-less soils, CRR has been related to normalized SPT blow count, (N1)60, through correlations that depend on
the fines content of the soil from field performance observations from past earthquakes. Factor of safety is obtained by ratio
of Cyclic stress ratio to the critical stress ratio. For prevention of liquefaction replace liquefied soil with well graded soil in
foundation and get factor of safety above 1 which indicate non liquefied soil.
KEYWORDS Dynamic analysis, Time history method, Kaswati dam, Cyclic stress ratio, Critical stress ratio, Factor of
safety, Liquefaction potential
INTRODUCTION
A Magnitude 7.6 (Mw 7.6) earthquake occurred in
Gujarat state, India on 26 January 2001.The epicenter
of the main shock of the event was near Bachau at
23.36N and 70.34E with a focal depth of about 23.6
km. The event, commonly referred to as the Bhuj
Earthquake, was among the most destructive
earthquakes that affected India. A large number of
small-to moderate-size earthen dams and reservoirs,
constructed to fulfill the water demand of the area,
were affected by Bhuj Earthquake. Most of these
dams are embankment dams constructed across
discontinuous ephemeral streams. Although many of
these dams were within 150 km of the epicenter
(Figure 1), the consequences of the damage caused
by the earthquake to these facilities were relatively
light primarily because the reservoirs were nearly
empty during the earthquake.

Fig1. Location of kaswati dam
KASWATI DAM
Kaswati Dam, constructed in 1973, is an earth dam
with a maximum height of 8.8 m and crest length of
1455 m . The dam is underlain by loose to medium-
dense, alluvial, silt-sand mixtures. Limited amount of
subsurface exploration data indicate that the site is
underlain by 2 to 5 m thick granular soils
characterized with an SPT blow count between 13
and 19, below which relatively dense granular soils
with an SPT blow count typically above 25 is found
(Krinitzsky and Hynes 2002). Like the other
impoundments, Kaswati Reservoir was nearly empty
during Bhuj Earthquake. However the alluvium soils
underneath the upstream portion of the dam was
saturated during the earthquake. Bhuj Earthquake
triggered shallow sliding near the bottom portion of
upstream slope, and bulging of ground surface near
the upstream toe . Such distress may have been due to
localized liquefaction near the upstream toe of the
dam. EERI also report relatively narrow, longitudinal
cracks along the crest of the dam running the length
of the dam over which the lower portion of the
upstream slope exhibited distress. It appears that the
problem of development of longitudinal cracks along
the crest was indirectly due to localized liquefaction
of upstream foundation soils. The downstream slope,
on the other hand, remained largely unaffected.
ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The procedure for assessing liquefaction potential
typically uses the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) as a
measure of the liquefaction resistance of soils and the
Critical Stress Ratio (CSR) as a measure of
earthquake load. For cohesion-less soils, CRR has
been related to normalized SPT blow count, (N1)60,
through correlations that depend on the fines content
of the soil from field performance observations from
past earthquakes. The normalized SPT blow count is
given by
(N
1
)
60 =
N (P
a
/
vo
)
0.5
ER
where N is the raw SPT blow count, Pa is the
atmospheric pressure ( 100 kP a),
vo
is the
effective vertical stress at the depth of testing, and
ER is the energy ratio ( 0.92 in a typical Indian SPT
setup).

Fig2. CRR - (N1)60 Correlations
(from Youd et al. 2001)
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue II/April-June, 2012/119-123

Available SPT data from Kaswati Dam however
indicates that the shallow foundation soils underneath
the dam body were characterized with a blow count
between 13 and 19. For assessing liquefaction
potential of foundation soils we assumed that the
fines content of these shallow alluvium layers were
15% or less. The procedure for assessing liquefaction
potential uses the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) as the
measure for earthquake load, where
CSR =
0.65 (a
max
/ g) (
vo
/
vo
) r
d
K
-1
m
K
-1

K
-1


CRR = CRR
7.5


K
m
K

K
is the total vertical stress, rd is a correction factor to
account for the flexibility of the soil column, and Km,
K and K are correction factors to account for the
Magnitude of the earthquake, the presence of initial
static shear (i.e., whether the layers are in a slope)
and the depth of the layer (i.e., the level of initial
overburden pressure), respectively. We estimated the
value of rd for a given depth from Seed et al. (2003)
median relationship. Correction factors Km, K and
K were obtained from the relationships
recommended by Youd et al. (2001) using estimates
of relative density obtained from (Olson and Stark
2003b):
D
r
= ( ( N
1
)
60
/ 44)
1/2

Fig3: Magnitude Correction factor Km

Fig4: Stress correction factor

Fig5: Correction for initial static shear

Fig6: Relationship between CRR and (N1)60 for
sand for Mw, 7.5 earthquakes
Factor of safety against liquefaction
FS = CRR/ CSR
Table 1 Soil property of kaswati dam



Cross-section of kaswati dam with material
property

Definition of liquefaction of soil
Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein a mass of soil
losses a large percentage of its shear resistance when
subjected to monotonic , cyclic or shock loading and
flows in a manner resembling a liquid until the shear
stresses acting on the mass are as low as the reduced
shear resistance.
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue II/April-June, 2012/119-123

Behavior of saturated, cohesion-less soils in un-
drained shear
During earthquake, the upward propagation of shear
waves through the ground generates shear stresses
and strains that are cyclic in nature. If cohesion-less
soil is saturated, excess pore pressure may
accumulate during seismic shearing and lead to
liquefaction.
The behaviour of a saturated soil under both
monotonic and cyclic shear is depicted in fig. The
response of the same soil loose (contractive) and
dense (dilative) states is indicates part(a) and part(b)
respectively of this fig.
A loose soil tends to compact when sheared and
without drainage, pore water pressure increases As
indicate fig (a), a contractive soil sheared
monotonically reaches a peak shear strength and then
soften, eventually achieving a residual shear
resistance. If the residual shear strength is less than
the static driving shear, a liquefaction flow failure
results.
If the same soil sheared cyclically, also depicted in
fig (a), excess pore pressures are generated with each
cycle of load without drainage , pore pressure
accumulate and effective stress path moves towards
failures. If the shear strength falls below the static
driving stresses a flow failure results and deformation
continue after cyclic loading stops.
Shearing of dense, dilative soils will also produce
some excess pore pressure at small strains. However
at larger strains, the pore pressure decrease and can
become negative as the soil grains, moving up and
over one another, tend to cause an increase in soil
volume (dilation). Consequently as shown in fig (b).
monotonic shearing of a dilative soil results in an
increasing effective stress and shear resistance. Fig (b)
also shows the response of the same dilative soils to
dynamic loading. In this case pore pressures are
generated in each shear cycle resulting in an
accumulation of excess pore pressure and
deformation. However beyond some points the
tendency to dilate and develop negative pore pressure
limits further straining in additional load cycles. As
indicated in the bottom of fig (b), the effective stress
path moves to the left but never reaches the failure
surface.


Fig 7 : Response of (a) contdractive and (b)
dilative saturated sand to undrained shear
Susceptibility of soils to liquefaction in earthquakes
Liquefaction is most commonly observed in shallow,
loose, saturated deposits of cohesion-less soils
subjected to strong ground motions in large
magnitudes earthquakes. Unsaturated soils are not
subjected to liquefaction because volume
compression dose not generate excess pore pressure.
Liquefaction and contractive soils while cyclic
softening and limited deformation are associated with
dilative soils.
Flow liquefaction
Flow liquefaction can occur when the static shear
stresses in a liquefiable soil deposit is grater the
steady-state strength of the soil. In can produce
devastating flow slide failures during and after an
earthquake shaking. Flow liquefaction can occur only
in loose soil.
Cyclic mobility
Cyclic mobility can occur when the static shear stress
is less than the steady-state(residual) shear strength
and the cyclic shear stress large enough that the
steady-state strength is exceeded momentarily.
Deformations produced by cyclic mobility develop
incrementally but become substantial at the end of a
strong and/ or long-duration earthquake. Cyclic
mobility can occur in both loose and dense soils but
deformation decreases markedly with increased
density.
In the contractive region, an un-drained stress path
will tend to move to the left as the tendency for
contraction causes pore pressure to increase and p to
decrease. As the stress path approaches the
PTL(Phase transformation line), the tendency for
contraction reduces and the stress path become more
vertical. When the stress path reaches the PTL, there
is no tendency for contraction or dilation, hence p is
constant and the stress path is vertical. After the
stress path crosses the PTL, the tendency for dilation
causes the pore pressure to decrease and p to
increase, and the stress path moves to the right. Note
that, because the stiffness of soil depends on p, the
stiffness decreases (While the stress path is below the
PTL) but then increases (when the stress path moves
above the PTL).
q/p stress ratio under earthquake shaking
Figure shows contours of q/p stress ratios under the
initial static stresses. A point of significance is the
high q/p ratios in the central part of the hydraulic fill.
This means that there is a zone where the initial q/p
points are above the collapse surface. The soil
strength in this zone could easily fall down to the
steady-state strength with a small amount of shaking.
The yellow shaded area in Figure is the zone where
the stress ratios are initially above or on the collapse
surface. In QUAKE/W this is flagged as a liquefied
zone.

Fig 8. Zone of liquefaction based at the end of
shaking cohesion-less soil in foundation
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue II/April-June, 2012/119-123


Fig 9. Zone of liquefaction based at the end of
shaking well graded compacted soil in foundation

Fig 10. Excess pore water pressure contour













International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue II/April-June, 2012/119-123




CONCLUSION:-
Damaging effects of Bhuj Earthquake on
embankment dams have been considered in this
paper. This paper present dynamic analysis by time
history method of Kaswati Dam. Under earthquake
shaking earthen dam subjected cyclic motion. Due
to Saturated cohesion-less soil under oscillatory
motion during earthquake, loses all its shear strength
due to pore water pressure increased and q/p ratio
increased and cyclic stress ratio increased so that soil
behave as a liquid. In this analysis factor of safety
below 1, which indicate liquefaction occur in given
earthen dam. For prevention of liquefaction potential
replace liquefied soil with well graded compacted
soil so that pore water pressure, q/p ratio and cyclic
stress ratio decreased while mean effective stress
increased and get factor of safety above 1 which
indicate non-liquefied soil in earthen.
REFERENCES:-
1. Adalier, K., and Sharp, M. K. (2002b). Embankment dam
on liquefiablefoundationDynamic behavior and
ensification remediation. J.Geotech. Eng., in press.
2. Beaty, M.H. (2003). A Synthesized Approach for imating
Liquefaction-Induced Displacements of Geotechnical
Structures. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
3. Idriss I.M. 1990. Response of soft soil sites during
earthquakes. Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial
Symposium, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, 2, 273-289.
4. Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M. and Makadisi, F.I. (1975). The
Slides in the San Fernando Damsduring the Earthquake of
February 9, 1971 ASCE, J of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, GT7, pp. 651-688 Lee, K.L.,
5. Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D. 2003b. Use of laboratory data
to confirm yield and liquefied strength ratio concepts.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40, 1164-1184.
6. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro,
G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,W.D.L., Harder, L.F.,
Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao,
S.S.C.,Marcuson, W.F., III, Martin G.R., Mitchell, J.K.,
Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson,P.K., Seed, R.B. and
Stokoe, K.H., II. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils