© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 12

© All Rights Reserved

- SEMINAR COVER PAGE.pdf
- Foundation Analysis and Design
- Chapter 10- WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual
- Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests (Mayne, 2001)
- flac tutorial
- A 0350110
- BHCitation Aug 2010
- Ground Imp.
- Mukabi Jn (Ph.d)_cv_edited Jan2012
- 6 Gravity platforms.pdf
- Planning for SI Works by Dr Ir Gue
- Full TextDesign of Embankments on Soft Soil Using Geosynthetics
- A Preview of Soil Behavior
- Deformation_and_strength_of_embankments_on_soft_Dutch_soil_dha_fma_AHEADofPRINT_6juli2012_geng900086h.pdf
- Triaxial Test (OBE)
- OMAE2004-51564FINAL
- Book Review 1
- 32 Geology&Soilmechanics Af 2017
- 1-s2.0-S0266352X1300102X-main
- earth pressure at-rest.pdf

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 49

PMH1 PROJECT

Lateral Displacement.

Contour lines

By:

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF

A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Numerical dynamic analyses using the program FLAC have been carried out for Reinforced Earth

retaining walls proposed to be used for the Port Mann Bridge / Gateway project. This report presents

the numerical dynamic analyses carried out on a generic 12m high MSE wall on improved soft ground

foundation. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall displacements

and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.

Maximum Total Displacements of MSE Wall

The maximum total horizontal displacement occurred at the top corner of the MSE wall. The average

values of total horizontal displacement at this point were about 200, 400 and 750 mm for 475, 975 and

2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.

The maximum total vertical displacement occurred at the surface of the backfill behind the MSE volume

where the strips ended. The average values of total vertical displacement at top of backfill behind the

MSE volume were about 100, 200 and 400 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.

Maximum Internal Displacements of MSE Wall

The total displacements were approximately broken down into internal and external displacements

(rotational and translational movements) of the MSE wall.

The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner of the MSE wall was about 50, 100

and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The average calculated internal vertical

displacement at top of fill behind the MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475

yr earthquakes, respectively.

Response of Reinforcing Strips

On average, 6, 6 and 8 rows of strips reached structural yield strength of corroded strips during 475, 975

and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The maximum average axial strains were 0.7, 1.5 and 2.8% during

475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. These strains were below the allowable rupture strains

of 15% and were indicative of internal stability of the MSE wall during design earthquakes.

1

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF

A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Soil Profile and Properties Used in the FLAC Model ................................................... 4

3.2 Model Geometry ......................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Input Ground Motion ................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Constitutive Models .................................................................................................... 5

3.4.1 UBCSAND ...................................................................................................... 5

3.4.2 UBCHYST ....................................................................................................... 5

3.5 General Procedure for Numerical Analysis ................................................................. 6

Attachments:

Tables 1 to 10

Figures 1 to 19

Appendix A- Summary of SHAKE Analysis

Appendix B- UBCSAND Constitutive Model

Appendix C- UBCHYST Constitutive Model

2

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

1 INTRODUCTION

Naesgaard Geotechnical Limited (NGL) was retained by Reinforced Earth Company (RECO) to

perform a series of dynamic analyses on a few generic cases of MSE walls proposed for the

PMH1 project. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall

displacements and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.

The case presented in this report is a generic 12m high MSE wall resting on improved soft

ground foundation.

2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Geometry of the MSE wall: Figure 1 shows the typical geometry of the MSE wall and its

reinforcing strips. Strips were 9m long.

Reinforcing strips: Table 1 and 2 present the configuration and the structural parameters of

the reinforcing strips, respectively.

Facing concrete segments: Table 3 presents properties of facing concrete segments.

Backfill soil parameters: Geotechnical parameters for the backfill within the MSE volume

(MSE fill) and the backfill behind the MSE volume (backfill) are presented in Table 4.

Shear wave velocity and small strain shear modulus, Gmax of the backfill soils were estimated

(by NGL) as a function of depth and effective stress (See footnote of Table 4 and Figure 2)

and used in dynamic phase of analysis.

Design earthquake records

Three sets of outcropping firm ground earthquake records in two orthogonal directions with

return periods of 475, 975, and 2475 years were fitted to the design response spectra by

others and provided for use in the design (Golder Associates Memorandum July 24, 2007).

Each set included 6 earthquake records.

External dead loads:

Traffic load = 16 kPa at top of backfill and MSE wall

Soil conditions

Stratigraphy of foundations soils and their in situ geotechnical parameters were obtained

from MEG Consulting Ltd. as presented in Tables 5.

3

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

provide stability during and after earthquake shaking and that an improved area of 20m

wide by 21m deep was considered below the MSE wall (Figure 3).

Dynamic analyses have been carried out using the two dimensional finite difference

program FLAC, Version 6 (ITASCA 2008).

The generalized soil profile included 12m of granular fill (MSE volume or backfill) overlying

54 m of soils overlying very dense till like material which was assumed firm ground. NBCC

2005 defines firm ground as very dense material with Shear wave velocity in the range of

360m/s to 760m/s. The soil layers below ground surface include the following from top to

bottom: 2.9m of fill (Fill), 3m of soft silty sand/sandy silt (SM/ML), 1.5m of gravelly sand

(SG), 26.5m of sand (SP1 to SP4), 15m of sitly clay (CL-ML) and 5m of clay to gravelly clay

(CL-GC). Water table was assumed at 2.5m depth below ground surface. Table 6 and

Figure 4 present the soil profile used in the FLAC model.

It was assumed that ground improvement would be designed and implemented such that

seismic induced excess pore water pressure and deterioration of strength and stiffness in

the granular soils would be negligible. Equivalent undrained shear strength of the SM/ML

layer was calculated assuming a 30% replacement ratio (See Table 6 and related footnotes).

It should be noted that ground improvement design and global stability of MSE wall are by

others.

The FLAC model was 875m wide and 54m or 66m high. It consisted of 0.375m by 0.4m wide

elements (Figure 5) in the proximity of the MSE wall. Elements became gradually wider with

distance from the MSE wall. The MSE fill and backfill was connected to the foundation

ground by an interface.

16 layers of 9m long reinforcing strips using FLAC built-in strip elements and 8 facing

segments using FLAC built-in beam elements were added to the model. One end of strips

was connected to their respective facing beams. Both ends of facing beams were pinned.

The bottom of the facing beam was connected to its respective grid point. The MSE fill and

facing beam elements were separated using interface elements with a friction angle of 23

degrees (Figure 6).

4

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Due to the method used in constructing the FLAC model, free field option was not available.

A detached column was modeled on both sides of the main FLAC model to simulate the free

field ground response (Figure 5). The sides of the main FLAC model and free field columns

were slaved in horizontal direction. This forced the vertical sides of the main FLAC model to

move similar to that of the free field columns.

The horizontal outcropping firm ground motions were input into program SHAKE2000 and

with-in firm ground motion at the depth equivalent to the base of the FLAC model was

derived (Appendix A). The with-in ground motions were baseline corrected (if required) and

then integrated to obtain the velocity time histories which were used as input motion in the

FLAC model.

Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model with average soil moduli (Table 4) was used for the

backfill and MSE volume soils during construction of the MSE wall in the FLAC model,.

UBCHYST and UBCSAND models were used during the dynamic analysis (earthquake

shaking). The fine grained soils, granular soils above water table and granular soils within

the densified area were modeled using UBCHYST (Figure 7). The granular soils outside the

densified area and located below the water table were modeled using UBCSAND (Figure 7).

Sections below give a brief description of each model.

3.4.1 UBCSAND

UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the

sand skeleton and pore water flow fully coupled. UBCSAND simulates the shear induced

volume changes. The tendency of the skeleton for volume change results in changes in pore

water pressure if the pores are filled with water.

The model has been calibrated so that liquefaction triggers in accordance with the CSR vs

(N1)60 relationship from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008. A more detailed description of the

model and its calibration is given in Appendix B.

3.4.2 UBCHYST

UBCHYST is a total stress constitutive model developed for dynamic analyses of soil

subjected to earthquake loading. The model is intended to be used with undrained

strength parameters in low permeability clayey and silty soils not expected to generate

significant pore pressure or in highly permeable or drained granular soils where excess pore

water would dissipate as generated. The essence of the proposed hysteretic model is that

5

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

the tangent shear modulus (Gt) is a function of the peak shear modulus (Gmax) times a

reduction factor that is a function of the developed stress ratio () relative to the stress

ratio at failure. UBCHYST is calibrated to approximately match laboratory based curves for

G/Gmax and damping ratio. Appendix C presents a brief description of UBCHYST and its

calibration.

In FLAC, the dynamic analyses were carried out in a chronological manner similar to the real

behaviour. The general procedure used for analyses included the following steps:

Set up model grid for the foundation soils above the till and bring to static

equilibrium using Elastic model.

Switch to Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model using average static soil moduli and

bring to static equilibrium.

Set up model grid, strip elements and facing beam elements for a 1.5m high

liftsand bring to static equilibrium using Elastic model.

Switch the lift elements to Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model using average static

soil moduli and bring to static equilibrium.

Repeat the above two steps until the full height of the wall and backfill is

constructed.

Switch to UBCHYST or UBCSAND constitutive models and bring to static

equilibrium.

Turn on dynamic configuration in large strain mode with a nominal 1% Rayleigh

damping and bring to equilibrium by running with input motion of zero at bottom

of the model.

Set displacements to zero, apply the with-in firm ground horizontal motion at the

base of the FLAC model, and solve past end of earthquake shaking.

Compile and summarize results of analyses.

FLAC analysis was carried out for all 18 design ground motions. Table 7 and 10 presents the

analyzed cases and their key results.

6

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

For discussion purposes, typical graphical behaviour of the MSE wall is presented for CHICHI-

NS-2475 ground motion unless otherwise stated. CHICHI-NS-2475 is considered to be one

the most severe motions among the project design ground motions.

Figure 8Bottom shows a snapshot of distribution of excess pore pressure ratio, Ru=pp/vo

at 50 seconds into the earthquake shaking. The results were indicative of low earthquake

induced Ru in the soils confined by the weight of the MSE wall and backfill. On the other

hand, large Ru values and extensive liquefaction occurred outside the MSE wall and

backfilled area. Figure 9-Top shows typical time histories of pore pressure ratio for two

selected points in the sandy layer SP1.

Total Displacements

Figure 9, 10 and 11 present the typical pattern of post-earthquake displacement vectors,

horizontal displacements and vertical displacements, respectively.

The maximum total horizontal displacement occurred at the top corner of the MSE wall wall

(Point B on Figure 12). The average values of total horizontal displacement at this point

were about 200, 400 and 750 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.

The maximum total vertical displacement occurred at the surface of the backfill behind the

MSE volume where the strips ended (Point E on Figure 12). The average values of total

vertical displacement at top of backfill behind the MSE volume were about 100, 200 and

400 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively

Table 7 presents the calculated displacements at the selected points (Figure 12) obtained

from FLAC analyses.

Figure 13 presents the time histories of horizontal displacement at the base of the FLAC

model, base of the MSE wall facing and top corner of the MSE wall. The time history of

vertical displacement at the surface of backfill behind the MSE wall is also shown for

comparison.

PMH1 design team requested for estimation of the external and internal deformations.

The typical pattern of the total deformation of the MSE wall obtained from FLAC analysis is

shown in Figure 14. It was assumed that the total displacement of MSE wall was a

combination of internal deformations and external displacements which in turn was a

combination of translational displacements and rotational movements. Furthermore, it was

assumed that the external movements of the MSE wall occurred as a rigid body movement.

7

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Rotation of the fictitious rigid MSE wall was assumed equal to the rotation of the base of

MSE wall which in turn was calculated by fitting a linear trendline to the deformed grid

points at the base of the wall (Figure 15). The grid point underneath the wall facing was

excluded from the line fitting procedure. Rotational movement of the rigid MSE wall was

calculated assuming that the base of wall facing was the pivot point. Translational

movement of the rigid MSE wall was assumed to be equal to the total displacement of the

base of the wall. Table 8 presents the calculated external rigid body movements (sum of

rotational and translational movements).

The internal displacements at points of interest were calculated by subtracting the external

rigid body movements from the total displacements obtained from FLAC analyses and are

presented in Table 9.The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner

of the MSE wall was about 50, 100 and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,

respectively. The average calculated internal vertical displacement at top of fill behind the

MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,

respectively.

Figure 16 illustrates approximate patterns of total, external rigid body and internal

displacements. Note that the deformations are exaggerated.

Figure 17 and Table 10 present the typical pattern of post-earthquake distribution of axial

forces in the strips. Figure 18 shows the typical time histories of axial forces in selected rows

of strips. Axial forces in strips generally increased with time and depth from the MSE wall

surface except for the very bottom row of strips. Some rows of strips reached the structural

yield strength of corroded strips. For example Row #2 reached the yield strength of 88

kN/row (88kN/row =2 strips/row x 44 kN/strip) at about 5 seconds into the earthquake. On

average, 6, 6 and 8 rows of strips were reached structural yield strength of corroded strips

during 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.

Figure 19 presents the typical pattern of post-earthquake axial strains in the strips. Strains in

the strips generally increased with depth. The maximum average axial strains were 0.7, 1.5

and 2.8% during 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively (Table 10). These strains

were below the allowable rupture strains of 15% and were indicative of internal stability of

the MSE wall during design earthquakes.

8

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Numerical analysis provides much insight into behavioural patterns and modes of failure.

However, there is considerable uncertainty in the assumed parameters and analysis

methodology, and seismic design in general. This should be understood and considered

when using the results.

The calculated displacements and demand in the strips are based on the best-estimate

parameters and do not include any factor of safety (except for calculation of yield strength

which included allowance for 100 year corrosion).

Yours Truly,

Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

9

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Tables

10

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Strip Row # Height from No. of strips per

From bottom wall base 3m width of wall

(m)

16 11.625 4

15 10.875 4

14 10.125 4

13 9.375 4

12 8.625 4

11 7.875 4

10 7.125 4

9 6.375 4

8 5.625 4

7 4.875 4

6 4.125 4

5 3.375 5

4 2.625 5

3 1.875 5

2 1.125 6

1 0.375 6

Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 2.1 x 105

2

Gross Cross section area (mm ) 50 x 4 = 200

2 50 x 2 = 100

Corroded cross section area (mm )

(see Notes)

Yield strength (MPa) 440

Rupture axial strain (-) 20%

Allowable rupture axial strain (-) 15%

Initial apparent friction coefficient (-) 2

Minimum apparent friction coefficient (-) 0.67

Transition confining pressure (kPa) 120

Notes:

Gross section area was used for calculation of axial stiffness. Corroded cross section area (after

maximum corrosion in 100 years) was used for calculation of axial yield strength of strips

(44 kN/strip).

11

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

2

Gross area (m /m) 0.14

Young's modulus, E (MPa) 2.5 x 104

4

Moment of inertia, I (m /mL) 2.30 x 10-4

2

Modified area (m /mL) (see Notes) 0.001

3

Density (kg/m ) (see Notes) 2500

Notes:

Based on the information provided by RECO, the facing elements cross section area were reduced to

account for the effect of rubber pads on the overall axial stiffness of the wall facing elements.

A modified density of 350,000 kg/m3 was used associated with the modified facing elements area to

give the actual mass of the facing elements.

Soil Parameters MSE Fill Backfill

Unit weight (kN/m3) 20 21

Peak Friction angle (deg) 34 36

Dilation angle (deg) 4 0

Cohesion 0 0

Poissons ratio (-) 0.3 0.3

Shear modulus in static phase, G (MPa) 22.6 22.6

Note 1: Shear wave velocity was estimated according to Chillarige et al. (1997) correlation as follows:

n

'

V s = (A B e ) v (K o )0 . 125

Pa

Where A=295, B=143 and n=0.26 for the Fraser River Sand. e is the void ratio assumed 0.68

equivalent to about 80% relative density.

Small strain shear modulus was calculated using: G max = V s2 where is density

12

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

obtained from MEG Consulting Ltd.

13

Table 6 Soil Stratigraphy and parameters used in FLAC Model

Note (1) Note (2)

Soil Parameters Constitutive Model

Elavation Depth Soil Total Bulk Gmax Poisson`s P Su N160-cs Gs Porosity Dry UBCHYST UBCSAND

from to from to type Unit Weight Modul. ratio density calib. Fact. calib. Fact.

(m) (m) (m) (m) (kN/m3) (Mpa) (Mpa) (-) (degree) (kPa) Bls/0.3m (-) (-) (kg/m3) n Rf

Note (3) Note (4) Note (5) Note (6) Note (9) Note (7) Note (8)

15.9 3.9 -12 0 MSE fill 2.5 0.8 -

See Separate Table for fill and backfill parameters

19.5 3.9 -12 0 Backfill 2.5 0.8 -

Backfill

3.9 1 0 2.9 FILL 18.5 73 34 0.3 32 - - 2.68 0.47 1888 4 0.8 -

1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML 16.7 261 56 0.4 0 Note (6) - 2.68 0.58 1123 1.5 0.8 -

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

-2 -3.5 5.9 7.4 SG 19 169 78 0.3 35 - 30 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)

-3.5 -10 7.4 13.9 SP1 18.6 193 89 0.3 33 - 15 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)

14

-10 -15 13.9 18.9 SP2 18.6 228 105 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)

-15 -20 18.9 23.9 SP3 18.6 261 120 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)

In situ soils

-20 -30 23.9 33.9 SP4 19 331 153 0.3 35 - 25 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)

-30 -39 33.9 42.9 CL-ML 1 18 1596 165 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -

-39 -45 42.9 48.9 CL-ML 2 18 1293 134 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -

-45 -50 48.9 53.9 CL-GC 20 1437 149 0.45 0 140 - 2.7 0.39 1653 1.5 0.8 -

<-50 >53.9 TILL 22 Note (10)

NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD

3.9 -17 0 20.9 Densif. SP or SG 20 Note (4) 0.3 38 0 30 as before 1500 2 0.8 -

1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML +stone col as before Note (4) 0.4 0 Note (6) - as before 1.5 0.8 -

Ground

Improved

Notes:

Notes on the next page

OCTOBER 20, 2010

Table 6 Continued

Notes:

(1) Information provided by MEG Consulting

(2) Additional assumptions made by NGL

(3) Depth below the original ground surface. Negative value signified above original ground surface.

(4) Small strain shear modulus

The values in Table are for insitu soils before backfill construction.

Gmax values were modified as a function of confining stresses during backfill construction as follows.

For SM/ML layer, Gmax was increased proportional to the ratio of post- to pre-construction Su.

For granular soils Gmas was increased proportional to sqaure root of the ratio of post- to pre-construction confining stress.

(5) Peak friction angle. For UBCSAND constitutive model, peak friction angles were recaclulated using N160/10

(6) Undrained shear strength

For SM/ML layer outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 `v was used as Su.

For SM/ML layer inside outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 s`v was used as Su and

the reinforcement effect of stone columns was considered as added undrained shear strength assuming =45 degree for stone columns.

(7) See Appendix 1 for definitions

(8) The following calibration factors were used for UBCSAND model for granular soils below water table and outside of stone column block.

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

1.2

UBCSAND calibration factor m_hfac1

1.1

15

undensified soil N160=15

1

undensified soil N160=17 m_hfac1= 4.7 for SG layer

0.9 For other granular layers see graph

undensified soil N160=25

m_hfac2= 1

0.8

m_hfac3= 4

m_hfac1 (-)

0.7 m_hfac4= 1

0.6

0.5

NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD

0.4

0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05 5.E+05 6.E+05 7.E+05 8.E+05

`vo (N/m2)

(9) Standard Penetration Test blow counts normalized to energy, confining stress and equivalent to clean sand.

(10) Firm ground was assumed at depth of about 54m below original ground surface.

Accroding to NBCC 2005, firm ground is defined as very dense soils with shear wave velocity in the range of 360 m/s to 760 m/s.

For firm ground: shear wave velocity=400 m/s

OCTOBER 20, 2010

Table 7- Total Displacements at selected points obtained from FLAC analysis- See Figure 12 for location of selected points

FLAC Design MSE WALL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS at Specified Locations (Figure A-2)

Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point

File Motion A B C D E F G H I J K

Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)

w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 530 200 880 200 880 120 850 120 720 450 700 420 630 360 530 270 390 140 370 120 360 110

w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 600 250 1080 260 1080 150 1030 120 840 660 800 610 710 540 570 420 360 240 330 210 320 190

w319 Lan_EW_2475 330 120 520 120 520 70 500 60 430 260 420 240 390 200 330 150 270 90 260 80 250 80

w318 Lan_NS_2475 630 260 1060 280 1060 170 1020 132 870 560 830 520 750 440 650 340 450 160 410 120 400 110

w317 LP_EW_2475 280 110 460 110 460 70 440 60 380 250 380 230 340 190 280 140 220 80 210 70 200 70

1:2475 yr EQ

w316 LP_NS_2475 310 90 460 90 460 60 450 50 390 200 390 190 360 160 300 110 260 70 250 60 250 60

Average 447 172 743 177 743 107 715 90 605 397 587 368 530 315 443 238 325 130 305 110 297 103

w313 CHICHI_EW_975 300 100 460 100 460 70 450 60 390 210 390 200 350 170 290 120 250 80 240 70 240 70

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

w301 CHICHI_NS_975 370 150 620 150 620 90 590 80 500 330 490 300 450 250 370 180 280 100 270 90 260 80

w312 Lan_EW_975 180 50 240 50 240 40 240 40 210 110 210 100 200 90 170 70 150 50 150 50 150 50

w311 Lan_NS_975 290 90 420 90 420 60 400 60 350 200 350 190 330 160 280 110 240 80 230 70 230 70

16

w310 LP_EW_975

1:975 yr EQ

220 70 300 70 300 50 290 50 260 130 260 120 240 100 210 80 190 60 190 50 190 50

w309 LP_NS_975 200 50 260 50 260 40 250 40 230 110 230 100 210 90 190 70 170 50 170 50 170 50

Average 260 85 383 85 383 58 370 55 323 182 322 168 297 143 252 105 213 70 208 63 207 62

w308 LP_EW_475 120 40 160 40 160 30 150 30 140 80 140 70 130 60 110 50 110 40 110 40 100 30

w307 LP_NS_475 140 40 190 40 190 30 180 30 160 80 160 70 150 70 140 50 130 40 120 40 120 40

w306 OL_EW_475 170 70 230 60 230 50 220 50 200 120 200 110 190 100 160 70 140 60 140 50 140 50

w305 OL_NS_475 200 80 280 70 280 60 270 60 240 140 240 130 220 120 190 80 170 70 170 60 160 60

w304 SF_EW_475

1:475 yr EQ

80 30 110 30 110 30 110 30 100 50 100 50 90 40 80 30 70 30 70 30 70 30

NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD

w303 SF_NS_475 110 40 150 40 150 30 140 30 130 70 130 70 110 60 110 50 100 40 90 50 90 30

Average 137 50 187 47 187 38 178 38 162 90 162 83 148 75 132 55 120 47 117 45 113 40

OCTOBER 20, 2010

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

FLAC Design MSE WALL RIGID BODY Displacements Rigid

File Motion A B C D E Rotation

Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) (rad)

w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 530 200 662 200 662 167 662 134 662 101 0.011

w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 600 250 804 250 804 199 804 148 804 97 0.017

1:2475 yr EQ

w319 Lan_EW_2475 330 120 402 120 402 102 402 84 402 66 0.006

w318 Lan_NS_2475 630 260 882 260 882 197 882 134 882 71 0.021

w317 LP_EW_2475 280 110 328 110 328 98 328 86 328 74 0.004

w316 LP_NS_2475 310 90 358 90 358 78 358 66 358 54 0.004

Average 447 172 573 172 573 140 573 109 573 77 0.011

w313 CHICHI_EW_975 300 100 348 100 348 88 348 76 348 64 0.004

w301 CHICHI_NS_975 370 150 490 150 490 120 490 90 490 60 0.010

1:975 yr EQ

w311 Lan_NS_975 290 90 338 90 338 78 338 66 338 54 0.004

w310 LP_EW_975 220 70 244 70 244 64 244 58 244 52 0.002

w309 LP_NS_975 200 50 212 50 212 47 212 44 212 41 0.001

Average 260 85 306 85 306 74 306 62 306 51 0.004

w307 LP_NS_475 140 40 152 40 152 37 152 34 152 31 0.001

1:475 yr EQ

w305 OL_NS_475 200 80 236 80 236 71 236 62 236 53 0.003

w304 SF_EW_475 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 0.000

w303 SF_NS_475 110 40 122 40 122 37 122 34 122 31 0.001

Average 137 50 153 50 153 46 153 42 153 38 0.001

17

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point

File Motion A B C D E

Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)

w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 0 0 276 10 276 -49 226 -28 36 563

1:2475 yr EQ

w318 Lan_NS_2475 0 0 178 20 178 -27 138 -2 -12 489

w317 LP_EW_2475 0 0 132 0 132 -28 112 -26 52 176

w316 LP_NS_2475 0 0 102 0 102 -18 92 -16 32 146

Average 0 0 171 5 171 -34 142 -18 32 320

w313 CHICHI_EW_975 0 0 112 0 112 -18 102 -16 42 146

w301 CHICHI_NS_975 0 0 130 0 130 -30 100 -10 10 270

1:975 yr EQ

w312 Lan_EW_975 0 0 36 0 36 -4 36 2 6 78

w311 Lan_NS_975 0 0 82 0 82 -18 62 -6 12 146

w310 LP_EW_975 0 0 56 0 56 -14 46 -8 16 78

w309 LP_NS_975 0 0 48 0 48 -7 38 -4 18 69

Average 0 0 77 0 77 -15 64 -7 17 131

w308 LP_EW_475 0 0 28 0 28 -7 18 -4 8 49

w307 LP_NS_475 0 0 38 0 38 -7 28 -4 8 49

1:475 yr EQ

w305 OL_NS_475 0 0 44 -10 44 -11 34 -2 4 87

w304 SF_EW_475 0 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 20

w303 SF_NS_475 0 0 28 0 28 -7 18 -4 8 39

Average 0 0 34 -3 34 -8 26 -4 9 52

18

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

19

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Figures

20

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Strip length = 9m

(Adapted from RECo)

21

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

0

2 Upper range:

Assume Dr=85%

3

Depth below top of MSE wall (m)

7

Lower range:

8 Assume Dr=50%

10

Average

11

12

Average

Figure 2 Estimated shear wave velocity for MSE fill and backfill

(average values were used)

22

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

(Obtained from Kiewit Flatiron General Partnership)

23

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

3.000

FILL

SM/ML

SG

1.000

SP1 DENSIFIED

AREA

SP2

SP3 Y-coord.

(x 10 m)

SP4 -1.000

CL-ML-1

CL-ML-2

-3.000

CL-GC

(*10^1)

X-coordinate (x 10 m)

(Refer to Table 6 for definition and parameters of layers)

24

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

To simulate Width= 875m To simulate

Free field Height=54m to 66m Free field

0.41 x 0.375m

mesh

Interface

25

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

26

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

4.000

LEGEND

step 3477

Flow Time 1.7342E+01

Dynamic Time 1.7994E-03 2.000

-2.321E+01 <x< 7.381E+01

-4.704E+01 <y< 4.998E+01 UBCHYST

1.000

Material model

h_ubchyst

m_mss

0.000

Boundary plot

0 2E 1

UBCSAND

-1.000

-2.000

-3.000

-4.000

(*10^1)

27

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Liquefied

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (sec)

LEGEND

step 1357899

Flow Time 2.3786E+03

Dynamic Time 5.0503E+01

-7.036E+01 <x< 5.098E+01

-6.434E+01 <y< 5.700E+01

1.000

EX_ 4 Contours

0.00E+00

2.00E-01

4.00E-01

-1.000

6.00E-01

8.00E-01

1.00E+00

-3.000

-5.000

(*10^1)

Top: Time history of excess pore pressure ratio for the two selected points

Bottom: Typical distribution of excess pore pressure ratio at 50 sec and the location of the

two selected points (Numbers in the legend are Ru values and are dimensionless)

28

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

3.750

LEGEND

14-Oct-10 19:10

step 1910521 3.250

Flow Time 2.4131E+03

Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01

9.804E+00 <x< 4.375E+01

6.872E+00 <y< 4.082E+01

2.750

Displacement vectors

max vector = 1.109E+00

0 2E 0 2.250

Magnification = 3.500E+00

Max Disp = 1.109E+00

Strip Plot 1.750

Exaggerated Disp.

Magnification = 3.500E+00

Max Disp = 1.317E+00

1.250

0.750

(*10^1)

Deformed shape is exaggerated 3.5 times

29

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

6.000

LEGEND

14-Oct-10 18:41

step 1910521

Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000

Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01

-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02

-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01

-1.00E+00

-8.00E-01

-6.00E-01

-4.00E-01

-2.00E-01 0.000

0.00E+00

Contour interval= 1.00E-01

-2.000

-4.000

(*10^2)

(Numbers in the legend are horizontal displacement in meters)

30

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

6.000

LEGEND

14-Oct-10 18:41

step 1910521

Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000

Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01

-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02

-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01

-6.00E-01

-5.00E-01

-4.00E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.00E-01 0.000

-1.00E-01

0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

-2.000

-4.000

(*10^2)

(Numbers in the legend are horizontal displacement in meters)

31

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

27.0

24.0

Figure A-2 21.0

18.0

15.0

12.0

12 m High Wall 9.0

Dimensions in meters 6.0

3.0

B C D E F G H I J K

A Toe of Wall

B Top of Wall at Face

C to K @ 3 meter intervals from face of wall to 27m

12.0

Figure 12- Location of displacement points for which results are presented in Table 6

(all measurements in meters)

32

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Displacement (m)

Horizontal displacement

Base of FLAC model (Input Motion)

0.000

-0.200

-0.400

Horizontal displacement

Base of wall facing (Point A)

-0.600

Vertical displacement

Surface of fill behind MSE wall (Point E)

-0.800

Horizontal displacement

-1.000 Top corner of MSE wall (Point B)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (sec)

Figure 13- Time history of horizontal displacements at top corner and vertical displacement

at backfill surface behind the wall for CHICHI-NS-2475 earthquake

(See Figure 12 for the location of Points A, B and E)

33

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Undeformed Shape

Rotational

Movement

Figure 14- Typical pattern of deformation of MSE wall (5 times exaggerated- after CHICHI-NS-2475)

34

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

(5 times exaggerated)

Average rotation of

MSE wall base

CHICHI-NS-2475 (w314.dat)

20.00

19.95

19.90

Y (m)

Liner Trendline

19.85

y = 0.017x + 19.48

19.80 R = 0.949

Rotation=0.017 rad

19.75

The point under wall facing ignored

19.70

19 21 23 25 27 29

X (m)

35

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

MSE volume

ORIGINAL SHAPE

Figure 16- Approximate pattern of external movements and Internal deformation of the MSE wall

(N.T.S- Deformations are exaggerated)

36

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

LEGEND

3.000

14-Oct-10 19:32

step 1910521

Flow Time 2.4131E+03

Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800

1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01

1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01

Bottom

Strip Plot

# 2 (Strip) -8.775E+04 Row 2.600

# 3 (Strip) -8.774E+04

# 5 (Strip) -7.329E+04

# 6 (Strip) -7.319E+04

# 8 (Strip) -7.218E+04

# 9 (Strip) -5.741E+04 2.400

#11 (Strip) -5.668E+04

#12 (Strip) -4.699E+04

#14 (Strip) -4.093E+04

#15 (Strip) -3.762E+04

#17 (Strip) -3.069E+04 2.200

#20 (Strip) -2.049E+04

#21 (Strip) -2.195E+04

#23 (Strip) -2.241E+04

2.000

#24 (Strip) -2.546E+04 Top

Row

1.900 2.100 2.300 2.500 2.700 2.900

(*10^1)

for 2 strips per meter density

(Numbers in the legend are in N. Negative values signify tensile force.)

37

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

(10 04(x10

) kN/m)

-3.000

Row #10

-4.000

-5.000

Row #6

-6.000

-7.000 Row #4

-8.000

Row #2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (sec)

Figure 18- Typical post-earthquake axial forces in strips

(Negative values signify tensile forces)

38

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

LEGEND

3.000

14-Oct-10 19:33

step 1910521

Flow Time 2.4131E+03

Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800

1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01

1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01

Strip Plot

# 2 (Strip) 3.987E-02 2.600

# 3 (Strip) 2.968E-02

# 5 (Strip) 2.340E-02

# 6 (Strip) 1.755E-02

# 8 (Strip) 1.109E-02

# 9 (Strip) 3.372E-03 2.400

#11 (Strip) 1.010E-03

#12 (Strip) 8.373E-04

#14 (Strip) 7.293E-04

#15 (Strip) 6.703E-04

#17 (Strip) 5.468E-04 2.200

#20 (Strip) 3.651E-04

#21 (Strip) 3.910E-04

#23 (Strip) 3.993E-04

2.000

#24 (Strip) 4.537E-04

(*10^1)

39

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Appendix A

SHAKE analysis

Fill

Soil

Layers

Firm Ground

(TILL)

40

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Figure A-2- An example of comparison of outcropping firm ground motion with the convoluted

with-in ground motion for CHCHI-NS-2475.

41

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Appendix B

UBCSAND

UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the sand skeleton

and pore water flow fully coupled (Beaty & Byrne 1998; Byrne et al. 2004). The model includes a yield

surface related to the developed friction angle, non-associative flow rule, and definitions for loading,

unloading, and hardening. Elastic properties are isotropic and nonlinear and yield loci are radial lines of

constant stress ratio from the origin in stress space. Increase in stress ratio is loading which is elastic-

plastic. Unloading is elastic. When the stress ratio is below the constant volume friction angle (cv) the

soil skeleton is contractive (when sheared) while above cv the soil is dilative (Figure B1). A hyperbolic

relationship is used between stress ratio and plastic shear strain (Figure B2). The yield envelope

(maximum developed stress ratio) is pushed out (hardened) according to a function between plastic shear

modulus and plastic shear strain increment. Unloading and reloading is elastic, however, when the stress-

ratio goes to zero and there is a cross-over (loading on the other side) the yield envelope is reset at zero

and must be hardened again according the function between plastic shear modulus and plastic shear strain

increment. The model is set-up to run as a separate constitutive model within the program FLAC (Itasca

2008). A small Raleigh damping (typically 1%) is used with the UBCSAND model to provide numerical

stability at small strain and damping. Key soil properties used are the small strain shear modulus (Gmax),

(N1)60-CS or relative density of the soil and constant volume friction angle (typically 33 degrees for quartz

based sands). Typically, Gmax is obtained from either in-situ shear wave velocity measurements or from

correlations with (N1)60 as follows:

where: = moist or saturated soil density

Vs = shear wave velocity

Pa = atmospheric pressure and

m' = mean normal effective confining pressure

(N1)60-CS = Fines corrected (equivalent coarse sand) normalized standard

penetration test N-value (blows/foot)

From Gmax and (N1)60 the program determines elastic and plastic moduli, and peak friction angle.

UBCSAND Calibration

Three or four calibration parameters (depending on the version used) are in the model. In the calibration

process, a single undrained soil element is exercised so as to trigger liquefaction in the correct number of

cycles and to give post-liquefaction stress-strain behaviour consistent with that observed in laboratory

simple shear tests. The calibration procedure used is as follows:

42

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

1. Set up the 2D FLAC profile with a Mohr Coulomb constitutive model and bring it to static

equilibrium. Representative cohesionless soil elements are then selected for calibration. The

vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS are

recorded for each element to be calibrated.

2. An undrained single element model is set up in FLAC and is initialized with the representative

vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS.

3. A cyclic shear stress (xy) compatible with a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) that will liquefy (pore

pressure ratio near 1.0) in 15 cycles (CRR15) from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008 empirical

liquefaction triggering chart and equation is calculated as follows:

where xy = applied cyclic shear stress

vo' = vertical effective stress

CRR15 = cyclic resistance ratio

k = confinement correction 1.0

4. The single element is then repeatedly cyclically loaded with the xy from step (3) and calibration

parameters are adjusted until the element liquefies in 15 cycles and the post-liquefaction stress-

strain cycles are compatible with typical laboratory tests (used tests data by Sriskandakumar,

2004). Liquefaction is assumed to occur when the pore pressure ratio (Ru).

The calibration parameters are introduced as material parameters in the larger 2D model. These

parameters are either fixed within zones that have similar stresses, Gmax and (N1)60, or are set as a

function of confining stress and/or (N1)60. Calibration parameters (m_hfac1 to 4) that were used are in

Table 2a of the main report.

43

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

44

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

References on UBCSAND

Beaty, M., and Byrne, P.M. 1998. An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand,

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. P. Dakou-las, M. Yegian, and R Holtz

(eds.), ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication 75 (1), pp. 766-777.

Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M.K., Gonzalez, L., & Abdoun, T. 2004. Numerical modeling

of liquefac-tion and comparison with centrifuge tests, Canadian Geot. J., V. 41(2):193-211.

Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute, MNO-12.

ITASCA, 2008. FLAC Version 6.0 Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua Users Manuals, Itasca

Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis Minnesota.

Kokusho, T., 1999. Water film in liquefied sand and its effect on lateral spread, J. Geo-technical and

Geoenviron. Eng. 125(10), pp. 817- 826.

Naesgaard, E., Yang, D., Byrne, P.M., and Gohl, B., 2004. Numerical analyses for the seismic safety

retrofit design of the immersed-tube George Massey tunnel, 13th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Vancouver, August.

Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Seid-Karbasi, M., and Park, S.S., 2005. Modelling flow liquefaction, its

mitigation and comparison with centrifuge tests, Proc. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Satellite

Conf., Osaka, Sept. 10, TC4 committee ISSMGE, Publ. by Japanese Geotechncial Society, pp. 95-

102.

Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., and Seid-Karbasi, M., 2006. Modelling flow liquefaction and pore water

redistribution mechanisms, Proc. 8th National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, April.

Naesgaard, E. and Byrne, P.M., 2007. Flow liquefaction simulation using a combined effective stress -

total stress model, 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Ottawa,

Ontario, October.

Sriskandakumar, S., 2004. Cyclic loading response of Fraser River Sand for validation of numerical

models simulating centrifuge tests, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. Civil Engineering, University of British

Columbia, March.

Yang., D., Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Adalier, K., and Abdoun, T., 2005. Numerical Model verification

and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models Canadian Geot. Journal, Vol. 41,

No. 5, April.

45

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Appendix C

UBCHYST

with a Mohr Coulomb failure envelope and is used to simulate the non-linear hysteretic behaviour

of soils during cyclic loading. The shear modulus is a function of stress ratio as presented in the

equation of Figure C-1.

n

Gt = G max 1 1 R f

f

Where

Gt= tangent shear modulus

= developed stress ratio = (xy /'v)

1= - max = change in stress ratio since last reversal

max = maximum at last reversal

1f = f - max = change in to reach failure envelope in direction of loading

f = (sin(f) + Cohesion * cos(f)/ 'v)

xy = developed shear stress in horizontal plane

'v = vertical effective stress

f =peak friction angle

Rf and n = calibration parameters

UBCHYST Calibration

The UBCHYST model was calibrated to uniform cyclic response inferred from published modulus

reduction and damping curves. The UBCHYST calibration parameters used for all the analyses are in

Table 2a of the main body of the report. Figure C-2 shows an example of curve fitting procedure.

.

46

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

47

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010

Upper & Lower bounds

UBCHYST

Figure C2- An example of calibration of UBCHYST Constitutive Model to G/Gmax and Damping curves

48

- SEMINAR COVER PAGE.pdfЗагружено:Souradeep Sen
- Foundation Analysis and DesignЗагружено:Yoshua Yang
- Chapter 10- WSDOT Geotechnical Design ManualЗагружено:tryabcdef
- Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests (Mayne, 2001)Загружено:paduco
- flac tutorialЗагружено:Siddeshkn Siddesh
- A 0350110Загружено:Shreyash Naik
- BHCitation Aug 2010Загружено:Bob Fazlee
- Ground Imp.Загружено:Adam Tang
- Mukabi Jn (Ph.d)_cv_edited Jan2012Загружено:John Ngaya Mukabi
- 6 Gravity platforms.pdfЗагружено:mctimlim
- Planning for SI Works by Dr Ir GueЗагружено:Katheresan Murugan
- Full TextDesign of Embankments on Soft Soil Using GeosyntheticsЗагружено:Phalgun Moturu
- A Preview of Soil BehaviorЗагружено:Teodomiro Firmo
- Deformation_and_strength_of_embankments_on_soft_Dutch_soil_dha_fma_AHEADofPRINT_6juli2012_geng900086h.pdfЗагружено:Maulana Rizkiansyah
- Triaxial Test (OBE)Загружено:Indunil Herath
- OMAE2004-51564FINALЗагружено:Andro Amellonado
- Book Review 1Загружено:Anonymous D5s00DdU
- 32 Geology&Soilmechanics Af 2017Загружено:PabasaraWijewickrama
- 1-s2.0-S0266352X1300102X-mainЗагружено:BookAncestor
- earth pressure at-rest.pdfЗагружено:vpb literatura
- CPTu FormulasЗагружено:Pieter Oelofse
- ISC5-Presentation_Taeseo-Ku-final.pdfЗагружено:eiudk
- Soleiman Beig i 2013Загружено:PedroLancellota
- Phase Relationship DiagramЗагружено:Rajesh Khadka
- 246 Guidance Notes on Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Formations GN E-Jan18Загружено:Arpit Parikh
- Lecture 2,3. Direct Shear Test PptxЗагружено:Jawad Ali
- Diaz-Rodriguez_2001b.pdfЗагружено:Agustin HerTa
- MSCE Geotechnical Engineering (Thesis Option)Загружено:Jeric Sarte
- Numerical study on bearing capacity of single stone columnЗагружено:Ng Kok Shien
- BulletinЗагружено:Zainab Farooq

- David MooreЗагружено:nehawln
- 13 38 Casing Preparation and Running ChecklistЗагружено:rajkumarf
- SULLAIR ST712.pdfЗагружено:Balotile
- Emergency Power SystemsЗагружено:rand.campbell@pgnmail.com
- IOM_B3_Manual_10.07116Загружено:Ivan Rojas
- Filtration Technology for the Food and Beverage IndustryЗагружено:Travis Radford
- Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support StructuresЗагружено:Giuseppe Failla
- Common PlasticsЗагружено:MinhAnh
- 1.4982335Загружено:Gregorius Budianto
- SCLogic Vanderbilt Mail Magazine ArticleЗагружено:SCLogic
- R8141BЗагружено:anurag_jay12464
- Detailed Calculation for Box Girder DesignЗагружено:leodegarioporral
- sequencingЗагружено:Rahul Patel
- Annexure - Bolt Torque CalculationЗагружено:Darshan Panchal
- Introduction to Hydrolog by Anwar453Загружено:ahmedzeeshan007
- Requirements Engeineering HandBook_(1)Загружено:Liz Santa Cruz
- Rsi-r2 Super Rsi FaqЗагружено:Sapta Wirman
- Modular ConstructionЗагружено:anser_ti68400
- Acknowledgement 1Загружено:Raihanur Kiran
- L-2.pdfЗагружено:Ankit Gupta
- Report on Internship in MOL PakistanЗагружено:Zulkeefal Dar
- iapmo.umc.2009 (uniform mechanical code).pdfЗагружено:Gastón Melgratti
- mebs6000_1011_05_DrainageЗагружено:smartysky
- java 8 tips documentationЗагружено:dlkfa
- 2010-09-26_202624_NEHS0610-09_3100_fuel_setting_toolingЗагружено:Roberto Manriques Estrada
- 1097Загружено:scscs
- Center of ResistenceЗагружено:mutans
- 54Загружено:harshharshharsh
- UAIS DEBEG 3400 Technical ManualЗагружено:borisgolodenko
- High Frequency VCO Design and SchematicsЗагружено:bardaris

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.