Course Notes of Earthquake

Overview:
Seismicity, influence of soil conditions on site response, seismic site response

analysis, evaluation and modeling of dynamic soil properties, analysis of seismic
soil-structure interaction, evaluation and mitigation of soil liquefaction and its
consequences, seismic code provisions and practice, seismic earth pressures,
seismic slope stability and deformation analysis, seismic safety of dams and
embankments, seismic performance of pile foundations, and additional current
topics.
Course Material:
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering - Kramer
Lecture Notes
Handouts
Professional Papers
Topics:
Design Spectra from Building Code
2D Embankment Response (Simplified)
Equivalent Linear Method
Introduction to Nonlinear Methods
Design of Buried Structures
Design of Retaining Systems
Earthquake Loadings on Shallow
Foundations
Machine Vibrations
Earthquake Loadings on Deep
Foundations
Liquefaction
Dynamic Slope Stability and
Deformation Analyses
Course Information
Thursday, March 11, 2010
11:43 AM
Course Information Page 1
Dr. Steven Bartlett Office - MCEB 2nd Floor, Office Phone: 587-7726
bartlett@civil.utah.edu
Office Hours: M W 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or by appointment (e mail)
Web Site: http://www.civil.utah.edu/~cv7330/
Instructor:
B.S., 1983, Geology, BYU
Ph.D., 1992, Civil Engineering, BYU
Construction and Materials, Utah Department of Transportation
Senior Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Project Engineer, Woodward Clyde Consultants
Research Project Manager, Utah Department of Transportation
Assistant Professor, University of Utah
Associate Professor, University of Utah
Professional Background:
T.A. none
Class Preparation:
To facilitate the learning, each student will be required to read the assignment
and be prepared to discuss in class the material that was read. Because it is
nearly impossible to cover the material exactly according to the schedule, it is
each student's responsibility to follow the lectures in class to determine what the
appropriate reading assignment is for the next class period. PLEASE BRING THE
TEXTBOOK, LECTURE NOTES, AND/OR OTHER APPROPRIATE REFERENCES TO
EACH CLASS!
At various times during each lecture, students will be asked questions or be given
the opportunity to answer questions posed by the instructor. Each student is
expected to participate in these discussions during the lectures throughout the
semester. Relevant information from students with practical working experience
on a particular topic is encouraged. Sleeping or reading material, such as internet
content not relevant to the class is not appropriate.
Course Information (cont.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011
3:32 PM
Course Level of Effort
This is an introductory graduate course and will be taught as such. The time
requirement for such a course is considered to be 3 hours of out-of-class time for
each hour of in-class time. The total time commitment to this class should then
be 3 hours (in-class) and 9 hours (out-of-class) for a total of 12 hours per week.
Attendance
No seats will be assigned and no attendance taken during the semester.
However, attendance at the lectures is necessary to learn the material. Non-
attendance decreases the amount of time you spend on the course and reduces
the quality of your educational experience. You are responsible for all
announcements and material covered in class. Also, examination questions will
come from items covered in lecture that may not be present on the course notes
or textbook.
Grading
Course Grading (Total Score from All Assignments and Exams)
Weight (%) Grade Grade Score (% of class
total)
Homework 50% A 94-100 A- 90-93
Midterm Exam I 20% B+ 87-89 B 84-86
Midterm Exam II 30% B - 80-83 C+ 77-79
Final Exam 25% C 74-76 C- 70-73
D+ 67-69 D 64-66
D- 60-63 E < 60
3:32 PM
Homework:
CVEEN Dept. has adopted formatting rules that will be followed. They are posted
on the course web site. Homework is due at the beginning of class on the due
date. Homework assignments will be accepted up to 2 class periods after the
due date but will be assessed a penalty of 20% per class period. For example, if
homework is due on Tuesday morning and it is turned in on Thursday morning,
then a 20% late penalty will be assessed. Homework that is more than one week
late will receive 50 percent credit and will not be checked.
All assignments must have the following signed pledge at the front of the
assignment:
On my honor as a student of the University of Utah, I have neither given nor
received unauthorized aid on this assignment.
If the pledge is missing or is not signed, the assignment will not be graded.
By signing this pledge, you are certifying that the homework is your own work.
This is a graduate level class and working in groups or receiving help from
others is not allowed unless directed by the instructor.
A grade of zero for the course will be given on any homework or exam
questions that have been copied from someone else or where unauthorized
help has been received.
3:32 PM
Course Information
Lecture Notes
Pp. 73 - 75 Kramer
Appendix B7 Kramer
Reading Assignment
Responsespectra.pdf (Chopra)
ASCE 7-05.pdf
Other Materials
Baseline correct the time history and plot the acceleration,
velocity and displacement records. Use the quadratic function for
the baseline correction. (5 points)
Determine peak ground acceleration (pga) from the time history.

(5 points)
Develop and plot a pseudo acceleration response spectrum for

this record at 5 percent damping using Seismosignal. (5 points)
Determine the predominate period. (5 points)

Scale the record by 1.5 (increase the acceleration values by 50
percent) and replot the pseudo acceleration response spectrum.
(5 points)
For the Sakaria acceleration time history do the following:

Install Seismosignal software on your computer
Install the ground motion hazards program from the United States
Geological Survey on your computer
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/javacalc.php
Use this software to find the Ss and S1 values for the Meldrum Civil
Engineering Building (MCEB). (10 points)
Assume the MCEB is found on a site class C soil.

Show all calculations and inputs to calculations. Check your solution
against the design spectrum calculated by the USGS java calculator.
Use the Ss and S1 values above and ASCE 7-05 to develop a design spectrum
for the MCEB. (20 points)
Homework Assignment #1
Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
Design Spectra
3:32 PM
Design Spectra Page 5
Design Spectra (cont.)
3:32 PM
Effects of Damping on Response Spectra
3:32 PM
Empirical attenuation relations (CVEEN 6330)
Building code design spectra (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
Equivalent Linear Techniques (computer program SHAKE or DEEPSOIL)
(CVEEN 7330)
FEM (finite element methods) (computer program DEEPSOIL)

(CVEEN 7330)
FDM (finite difference methods) (computer program FLAC)

(CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
Nonlinear Techniques (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)

Ground Response Analyses (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)
Methods of Developing Design Spectra and Design Strong Motion
Development of Design Spectra (cont.)
3:32 PM
An acceleration response spectrum, such as that above, is widely used in
geotechnical and structural engineering.
It expresses the maximum acceleration response of a single degree of

freedom system (SDOF) as a function of period for a given level of structural
damping (usually 5 percent, unless otherwise stated.)
The above spectrum is not a design spectrum. It is jagged because it

represents a spectrum for a given time history.
Seismosignal is recommended
Software is usually used to do this conversion.
An acceleration time history can be converted to an acceleration response
spectrum which represents the response of the SDOF for the given input
motion.
Important Concepts:
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
]
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Time [sec]
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

[
g
]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
Acceleration time history
Acceleration Response Spectrum for above time history from Seismosignal
TM
Plotting Response Spectra for an Earthquake (cont.)
3:32 PM
Ss and S1 are obtained from the United States Geological Survey National Strong
Motion Program. The link for this computer program (Java Script) is given in the
homework assignment.
Development of Design Spectra ASCE 7-05
3:32 PM
ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM
ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

(
g
)
Period (s)
Generic Design Spectrum from ASCE 7-05
ASCE 7-05 Spectrum - Site
Class D
Sa =0.4 SDS a T = 0
Sa = pga
To
Sa = SDS
Ts = SD1/SDS
Sa = SD1/T
ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM
ASCE 7-05 (cont.)
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Pp. 255 - 275 Kramer (EQL method)
p. 562 Kramer (Trigonometric Notation - Fourier Series)
Shake Theory.pdf
Reading Assignment
Bray and Travasarou - 2007 (Optional)
Other Materials
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 (30 points)
1.
For the information in problem 1, make a plot of embankment displacement, U
in meters, as a function of yield acceleration, ky, for a M = 7.5 earthquake. In
constructing this plot, assume that the bottom of the critical failure circle is
found at the toe of the embankment (10 points).
2.
If the yield acceleration, ky, for the above embankment is 0.1 g, calculate the
amount of deformation that is expected using the information given in problem
2 (5 points).
3.
2D Embankment and Slope Analysis
3:32 PM
2D Embankment Analysis Page 17
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Homework inputs
2D Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
Pseudostatic Analysis
Makdisi and Seed (1978) used average acceleratins 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

FEM
FDM
Deformation Based Analysis
General Types of Analysis
3:32 PM
Pseudostaic apply a static (non-varying) force the centroid of mass to
represent the dynamic earthquake force.
Fh = ah W / g = kh W
Fv = av W/ g = kv W (often ignored)
Selection of Kh
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 and 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
v = Poisson's ratio
K = Bulk modulus
G = Shear Modulus
| = drained friction angle
c = cohesion
Ko = at-rest earth pressure coefficent
Vs = shear wave velocity
Pseudostatic Analysis - Example
3:32 PM
Pseudostatic Results
FS = 1.252 (static with no seismic coefficient, Kh)
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
Kh = 0.5 * pga
Kh = 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
The analysis is redone with Kh = 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 a
landslide 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, 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 the same
circle is used as
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 quick clay that has liquefied.
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
Note that more than 2 m of
displacement have
accumulated.
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
3:32 PM
Eq. 8
Eq. 9
3:32 PM
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)
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
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Pp. 423 - 449 Kramer
Pp. 286-290 Kramer - Shear Beam Approach
Makdisi-Seed Analysis (EERC).pdf
Reading Assignment
Bray and Travasarou - 2007 (Optional)
Other Materials
Download and install DEEPSOIL v.4.0 on your computer. (10 points) 1.
Use the fault normal component of this scaled record a.
Plot the scaled acceleration time history b.
Plot the scaled response spectrum c.
Obtain the Matahina Dam, New Zealand record from the PEER database and
scale it to a design target spectrum using the parameters shown in this lecture.
(20 points)
2.
For sands, use Seed and Idriss upper bound curves a.
For silts, use Vucetic and Dorby curves with PI = 0 b.
For clays, use Vucetic and Dorby curves with PI = 20 c.
Treat layer 18 as a clay with PI = 20 d.
Treat layer 19 as a sand e.
For the bedrock velocity, use the velocity corresponding to the deepest Vs
measurement in the soil profile with 2 percent damping
f.
Develop a soil profile for ground response analysis using soil properties for the
I-15 project at 600 South Street (see attached). The shear wave velocity data are
also available on the website as: SLCvsprofile.xls. (20 points)
3.
Response spectrum summary a.
Acceleration time histories for layer 1 b.
pga profile c.
Convergence check d.
Perform a site-specific, equivalent-linear (EQL) ground response analysis for this
soil profile and provide the following plots: (10 points)
4.
1D Equivalent Linear (EQL) Method
3:32 PM
1D Equivalent Linear Method Page 63
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Vs (m/s)
SHALLOW PROFILE: 0 - 65m
SLC Airport East, Wong & Silva (1993)
Lacustrine-alluvial silt and clay (Northern CA Bay
Mud), Wong et al. (2002, published)
Ashland & Rollins average
Ashland & Rollins + 1SD
Ashland & Rollins - 1SD
600 South, Gerber (1995)
I-80, Gerber (1995)
Homework Assignment Attachment
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
Dynamic behavior of soils is quite complex and requires models which
characterize the
1.
important aspects of cyclic behavior, but need to be simple, rational models.
Three classes of dynamic soil models: 2.
a) equivalent linear
b) cyclic nonlinear
c) advanced constitutive
vertically 1-D propagation of shear waves in a multi-layered system is
assumed in SHAKE.
SHAKE produces an approximation to the nonlinear response of soils under

earthquake loading, but is very efficient computationally.
nonlinear stress strain loop is approximated by a single equivalent linear

modulus that decreases with increasing strain and by an estimated damping
ratio that increases with strain.
SHAKE cannot be used directly to solve problems involving ground

deformation (linear model, which does not follow the hysteresis loop to
model strain)
final strain is zero (after cycling has stopped).

no limiting value in shear strength, so failure is not allowed to occur in the
model
The equivalent linear method has been developed in the program SHAKE. 3.
1D Equivalent Linear Method
3:32 PM
1D Wave Equation for elastic material
1D Wave Equation for visco-elastic
material
Damping in a Visco-elastic material
1D Wave Equation
3:32 PM
Visco-elastic model
3:32 PM
Visco-elastic model (cont.)
3:32 PM
Visco-elastic model (cont.)
3:32 PM
Express the input (rock outcrop) motion in the frequency domain as a Fourier
series (as the sum of a series of sine waves of different amplitudes, frequencies,
and phase angles). For an earthquake motion, this Fourier series will have both
real and imaginary parts.
1.
Define the transfer function . The transfer function will have both real and
imaginary parts.
2.
Compute the Fourier series of the output (ground surface) motion as the product
of the Fourier series of the input (bedrock) motion and the transfer function.
This Fourier series will also have both real and imaginary parts.
3.
Express the output motion in the time domain by means of an inverse Fourier 4.
transform.
Calculate the shear strains from the displacement output of 4. Verify that the
strain is compatible with the assumed shear modulus and damping values
assumed. If not, iterate until strain compatible properties are obtained by
changing the estimate of the effective shear modulus and associated damping.
5.
Equivalent Linear Method
3:32 PM
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/
Input Motion - Time Domain
3:32 PM
Search Criteria for Earthquake Records
Input Motion - Time Domain (cont.)
3:32 PM
Search Results
3:32 PM
Note that the fault normal
component of the Matahina
Dam, New Zealand has a
response spectrum that is
generally above the target
spectrum. It would be a
good candidate for analysis,
if we are only using 1
record.
Fault normal component
Double click on individual record to show its components
3:32 PM
Fault normal
component of the
Matahina Dam,
New Zealand
3:32 PM
Fourier Transform
3:32 PM
Frequency [Hz]
0.1 1 10
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Fourier amplitude
spectrum from
Seismosignal for the
Matahina Dam, New
Zealand record.
The Fourier amplitude
values (y-axis) are equal
to the cn values in the
above equation.
In addition to a Fourier amplitude spectrum there is also a corresponding Fourier
phase spectrum that gives the phase angle as a function of frequency.
Unfortunately, Seismosignal does not provide this plot.
Fourier Transform (cont.)
3:32 PM
Example
The Fourier series can be used to match any periodic function, if enough terms
are included.
For example, lets use a Fourier series to generate a square function of the form:
2
-2
A = 2
Tf = 1
e
6.283185
to=
dt= 0.01
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users
\sfbartlett\Documents\My%
20Courses\6330
\Fourier_sqwave.xls>
A = amplitude
Tf = time of function (duration)
e = Frequency (rad/s)
dt = time step (s)
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Blue line equals sum of series
for 13 terms
Other lines shows the individual
terms.
3:32 PM
a1=4A/(n*pi) = 2.546479
a2 = 0
a3 = -0.84883
a4 = 0
a5 = 0.509296
a6 = 0
a7 = -0.36378
a8 = 0
a9 = 0.282942
a10= 0
a11= -0.2315
a12= 0
a13 0.195883
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users
\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses
\6330\Fourier_sqwave.xls>
Amplitude of each of the terms in the series. For this
case the even terms are not needed, so their Fourier
amplitude is set to zero for the even terms.
an = 4A/(n*pi)
E an
t 1st
term
3rd
term
5th
term
7th
term
9th
term
11th
term
13th
term
sum
0.00 2.55 -0.85 0.51 -0.36 0.28 -0.23 0.20 2.09
0.01 2.54 -0.83 0.48 -0.33 0.24 -0.18 0.13 2.06
0.02 2.53 -0.79 0.41 -0.23 0.12 -0.04 -0.01 1.98
0.03 2.50 -0.72 0.30 -0.09 -0.04 0.11 -0.15 1.92
0.04 2.47 -0.62 0.16 0.07 -0.18 0.22 -0.19 1.91
0.05 2.42 -0.50 0.00 0.21 -0.27 0.22 -0.12 1.97
0.06 2.37 -0.36 -0.16 0.32 -0.27 0.12 0.04 2.05
0.07 2.30 -0.21 -0.30 0.36 -0.19 -0.03 0.17 2.10
0.08 2.23 -0.05 -0.41 0.34 -0.05 -0.17 0.19 2.07
0.09 2.15 0.11 -0.48 0.25 0.10 -0.23 0.09 1.99
0.10 2.06 0.26 -0.51 0.11 0.23 -0.19 -0.06 1.91
0.11 1.96 0.41 -0.48 -0.05 0.28 -0.06 -0.18 1.89
0.12 1.86 0.54 -0.41 -0.19 0.25 0.10 -0.18 1.95
0.13 1.74 0.65 -0.30 -0.31 0.14 0.21 -0.07 2.06
0.14 1.62 0.74 -0.16 -0.36 -0.02 0.22 0.08 2.14
0.15 1.50 0.81 0.00 -0.35 -0.17 0.14 0.19 2.11
0.16 1.36 0.84 0.16 -0.27 -0.26 -0.01 0.17 1.99
0.17 1.23 0.85 0.30 -0.13 -0.28 -0.16 0.05 1.85
0.18 1.08 0.82 0.41 0.02 -0.21 -0.23 -0.10 1.80
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses\6330\Fourier_sqwave.xls>
Note
because of
space
limitations
only the first
0.18 s of the
series is
shown here.
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
Development of Transfer Function - Function to relate base rock motion to
surface soil motion.
Transfer Functions
3:32 PM
Transfer Functions (cont.)
3:32 PM
The same process can be used to calculate the transfer functions for a multiple
layer system.
Transfer function for 2-layer system
(rock and soil)
3:32 PM
For more details, see Shake Theory.pdf
3:32 PM
Period function (earthquake acceleration time history) a.
Fast Fourier transform (FFT) yield Fourier series with 2
n
terms b.
Each term of the Fourier series is inputted into transfer function. c.
The transfer function is used to calculate the soil response for each
layer (i.e., complex response) and is represented for each term in
the series.
d.
The complex response with all it terms is converted back into a
single response by use an inverse Fast Fourier transform (IFFT).
e.
Once this is completed, the program checks to see if the G (shear modulus) and D
damping are consistent with those assumed at the beginning of the analysis, if not
then the program adjust the input G and D values and recalculates the associated
strain until convergence is achieved.
3:32 PM
Goal of Equivalent Linear Analysis is to determine values of Gsec and
equivalent damping that are consistent for each soil layer with the level of
strain produced in that layer. These are called strain compatible
properties.
Note that the transfer functions develop on the previous pages are only
valid only for an elastic material and prescribed damping
However, a nonlinear system can be express by using the secant shear

modulus, Gsec and equivalent damping
Hysteretic behavior approximated by Gsec and equivalent damping

Equivalent damping is the damping ratio that produces the same energy
loss in a single cycle as the equivalent actual hysteresis loop
Earthquakes produce earthquake motion that is highly irregular with a peak

amplitude that may only be approached in a few spikes in the record.
As a result, it is common practice to characterize the effective strain level of

a transient record as 50 to 70 percent of the peak value, based on statistical
analysis of the number of significant cycles in earthquake records and a
comparison of their peaks with the maximum peak.
Usually a value of 0.65 is used for the effective strain level in practice. The
results, however are not very sensitive to this assumed value.
Iteration to Determine Strain Compatible Properties

3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Reading Assignment
Ostadan and White paper
Wu and Finn paper
Other Materials
Calculate the dynamic thrust against a buried rigid wall using the
Ostadan-White method for a buried structure that is 10 m below the
ground surface. (20 points)
a.
Calculate the dynamic pressure distribution to be applied against the
buried structure using the Ostadan-White method for the same
structure. Show this distribution versus depth on a depth plot. (10
points)
b.
Use the DEEPSOIL ground response model and acceleration time history
developed in the previous homework assignment to do the following:
1.
Use the Wu-Finn method to calculate the dynamic thrust against the same
buried rigid wall in problem 1. (20 points)
2.
Use the M-O method to estimate the factor of safety against sliding and
overturning for a gravity wall using the acceleration time history from
homework assignment 3. (20 points)
3.
The wall is a yielding wall retaining wall and is 4 m high and is 1 m thick at
the base and tapers to 0.6 m at the top. The retained backfill behind the is
flat (i.e., horizontal) and has a unit weight of 22 kN/m^3 with a drained
friction angle of 35 degrees and the backfill is unsaturated. Also, the base of
the wall rests on backfill material and is embedded 0.6 m in this material at
its base.
Assume that the horizontal acceleration used in the design is 50 percent of
the peak ground acceleration. You may also neglect the vertical component
of acceleration.
Pressures
3:32 PM
Dynamic Earth Pressure Page 91
Coulomb Theory
3:32 PM
Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case
3:32 PM
Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case (cont.)
3:32 PM
Mononobe - Okabe Passive Case
3:32 PM
the base.
Seed and Whitman - Simplified Method
3:32 PM
Gravity Wall Example
3:32 PM
Gravity Wall Example
3:32 PM
Non-Yielding Walls
3:32 PM
Non-Yielding Walls (cont.)
3:32 PM
Non-Yielding Walls -Observations from Earthquakes
3:32 PM
Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White
3:32 PM
Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White (cont.)
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
Perform seismic ground response analysis (using SHAKE) and obtain the
acceleration response spectrum at the base mat level in the free-field at 30%
damping.
1.
Obtain the total mass using: 2.
m = 0.50 H
2
Obtain the total seismic lateral force by multiplying the mass from Step 2 by the
spectral amplitude of the free-field response (Step 1) at the soil
3.
column frequency.
F = m Sa
where Sa is the spectral acceleration at the base mat level for the free field at
the fundamental frequency of the soil column with 30 percent damping.
Calculate the maximum lateral earth pressure (ground surface) by dividing the
results for step 3 by the area under the normal soil pressure curve (normalized
area = 0.744 H)
4.
Calculate the lateral pressure distribution verses depth by multiply the max.
lateral earth pressure by the p(y) function below.
5.
p(y) = - .0015 + 5.05y - 15.84y
2
+ 28.25y
3
- 24.59y
4
+ 8.14y
5
where y is the normalized height (Y/H) measured from the
base of the wall.
Ostadan and White (Steps)
3:32 PM
The method was verified by comparing the results of the simple computational
steps with the direct solution from SASSI.
The verification included 4 different wall heights, 6 different input time histories
and 4 different soil properties.
The method is very simple and only involves free-field (e.g. SHAKE) analysis and
a number of hand computational steps.
The method has been adopted by building code (NEHRP2000) and will be
included in the next version of ASCE 4-98.
The Ostadan-White method is by no means a complete solution to the seismic

soil pressure problem. It is merely a step forward at this time.
Solution! Perfect isolation!

Ostadan and White (Summary)
3:32 PM
Wu and Finn
3:32 PM
Analytical Solution - Homogenous Backfill - Shear Beam Theory
3:32 PM
Analytical Solution (cont.)
3:32 PM
Analytical Solution (cont.)
3:32 PM
Finite element model by Wu and Fin
Wu and Finn - Numerical Model
3:32 PM
Comparison of Analytical Solution with FE Modeling -
Homogeneous Backfill - Non Harmonic Motion
3:32 PM
Solution for simple harmonic motion
Solutions for Non-homogeneous backfill
3:32 PM
Non Harmonic Motion
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Pp. 275 - 280 Kramer
DEEPSOIL.pdf
2001 Darendeli, Ch. 10
Reading Assignment
DeepSoil User's Manual
2001 Darendeli
Other Materials
Plot the scaled acceleration time history a.
Plot the scaled response spectrum b.
Obtain the scale Matahina Dam, New Zealand record from the course website
and plot the following: (10 points)
1.
For sands, Darendeli, 2001 curves a.
For silts, use Darendeli, 2001 with PI = 0 b.
For clays, use Darendeli, 2001 curves with PI = 20 c.
Treat layer 18 as a clay with PI = 20 and use Darendeli, 2001 curves d.
Treat layer 19 as a sand and use Darendeli, 2001 curves e.
For the bedrock velocity, use the velocity corresponding to the deepest Vs
measurement in the soil profile with 2 percent damping
f.
Develop a soil profile for ground response analysis using soil properties for the
I-15 project at 600 South Street (see attached) and the shear wave velocities
found in SLC Vs profile.xls. (20 points)
2.
Response spectrum summary a.
Acceleration time histories for layer 1 b.
pga profile c.
Perform a site-specific, non-linear time domain ground response analysis for this
soil profile using the pressure dependent hyperbolic model and Masing critera.
Provide the following plots of the results: (15 points)
3.
Repeat problem 3 but perform a EQL analysis using the directions given in HW#3
problem 3. Plot a comparative plot of the response spectra using the spectrum
from the nonlinear pressure dependent model (previous problem) versus the
EQL pressure independent model (HW3 problem 4). (10 points).
4.
(SEE NEXT PG.)
Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
Nonlinear Methods Page 123
Homework Assignment #5 (cont.)
Varying thickness i.
Varying unit weight ii.
Varying shear modulus iii.
Heterogeneous layers a.
Damping b.
Given the information below, use the modified spreadsheet to perform a
dynamic analysis of 5 second duration. Plot the response of the surface node
versus time for verification:
c.
Layer # layer thickness unit weight Vs Damping
(m) kN/m^3 (m/s)
1 1 19 150 10
2 1 19 170 10
3 1 19 200 10
4 0.5 20 210 10
5 1 20 230 10
6 0.5 20 250 10
7 2 20 270 10
8 1 21 300 10
9 1 21 330 10
10 1 21 350 10
v(t) = A cos(et + |)
A = 3.000
e =
12.566
| =
0.000
Verify your solution in 5 by performing an linear elastic analysis in DEEPSoil
or FLAC for the same soil properties and velocity input (10 points).
6.
Modify the finite difference spreadsheet provided on the course website to
include (20 points):
5.
Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
Solution (Excel) for uniform Vs = 80 m/s and 10 damping 5.
Solution (FLAC) 6.
Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
Solution (Excel) (first 5 time steps) 5.
Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
EQL Method
Nonlinear Methods
Comparison of 1D Equivalent Liner vs. 1D Nonlinear Methods
3:32 PM
Target Spectrum for Comparisons
EQL vs NL Comparisons
3:32 PM
Nonlinear Results (DEEPSoil at Surface from 5 km Convolution
EQL (Shake) Results at Surface from 5 km Convolution
EQL vs NL Comparisons (cont.)
3:32 PM
Fundamental Equation of Motion
Lumped Mass System used in DeepSoil
3:32 PM
Modified Soil Hyperbolic Model used in DeepSoil
DEEPSoil - Hyperbolic Model
3:32 PM
Introducing Pressure Dependency (Important for Deep Sediments)
DEEPSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
Incorporating Pressure Dependency in Damping
DeepSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
Pressure-dependent
parameters b and d
used to adjust curves
in DEEPSoil.
However, DARENDELI, 2001
has published newer
curves based on confining
pressure and PI. These are
also incorporated in
DEEPSoil.
DEEPSoil (cont.)
3:32 PM
As part of various research projects [including the SRS (Savannah River Site)
Project AA891070. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) Project 3302. and
ROSRINE (Resolution of Site Response Issues from the Northridge Earthquake)
Project], numerous geotechnical sites were drilled and sampled. Intact soil
samples over a depth range of several hundred meters were recovered from
20 of these sites. These soil samples were tested in the laboratory at The
University of Texas at Austin (UTA) to characterize the materials dynamically.
The presence of a database accumulated from testing these intact specimens
motivated a re-evaluation of empirical curves employed in the state of
practice. The weaknesses of empirical curves reported in the literature were
identified and the necessity of developing an improved set of empirical curves
was recognized. This study focused on developing the empirical framework
that can be used to generate normalized modulus reduction and material
damping curves. This framework is composed of simple equations. which
incorporate the key parameters that control nonlinear soil behavior. The data
collected over the past decade at The University of Texas at Austin are
statistically analyzed using First-order. Second-moment Bayesian Method
(FSBM). The effects of various parameters (such as confining pressure and soil
plasticity on dynamic soil properties are evaluated and quantified within this
framework. One of the most important aspects of this study is estimating not
only the mean values of the empirical curves but also estimating the
uncertainty associated with these values. This study provides the opportunity
to handle uncertainty in the empirical estimates of dynamic soil properties
within the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis framework. A refinement in
site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment is expected to materialize
in the near future by incorporating the results of this study into the state of
practice.
Shear Modulus and Damping Curves fromDARENDELI, 2001
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
Effects of Mean Effective Stress on Shear Modulus and Damping
Curves
3:32 PM
Shearing Strain (%) o' = 0.25 atm o' = 1.0 atm o' = 4.0 atm o' = 16 atm
1.00E-05 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.000
4.84E-05 0.996 0.998 0.998 0.999
1.00E-04 0.993 0.995 0.997 0.998
2.20E-04 0.986 0.991 0.994 0.996
4.84E-04 0.971 0.981 0.988 0.992
1.00E-03 0.944 0.964 0.976 0.985
2.20E-03 0.891 0.928 0.952 0.969
4.84E-03 0.799 0.861 0.906 0.938
1.00E-02 0.671 0.761 0.832 0.885
2.20E-02 0.497 0.607 0.706 0.789
4.84E-02 0.324 0.428 0.538 0.645
1.00E-01 0.197 0.277 0.374 0.482
2.20E-01 0.107 0.157 0.225 0.311
4.84E-01 0.055 0.083 0.123 0.179
1.00E+00 0.029 0.044 0.067 0.101
Shearing Strain (%) o' = 0.25 atm o' = 1.0 atm o' = 4.0 atm o' = 16 atm
1.00E-05 1.201 0.804 0.539 0.361
2.20E-05 1.207 0.808 0.541 0.362
4.84E-05 1.226 0.820 0.548 0.367
1.00E-04 1.257 0.839 0.560 0.374
2.20E-04 1.330 0.884 0.588 0.391
4.84E-04 1.487 0.982 0.649 0.429
1.00E-03 1.792 1.174 0.769 0.503
2.20E-03 2.458 1.602 1.039 0.673
4.84E-03 3.762 2.474 1.607 1.035
1.00E-02 5.821 3.953 2.618 1.702
2.20E-02 9.097 6.579 4.572 3.075
4.84E-02 12.993 10.184 7.621 5.449
1.00E-01 16.376 13.788 11.134 8.573
2.20E-01 19.181 17.199 14.946 12.483
4.84E-01 20.829 19.565 17.990 16.070
1.00E+00 21.393 20.716 19.792 18.528
DARENDELI, 2001
Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
Curve 1
Curve 2
Curve 1 - Sand
Darendeli, 2001
ov' (psf) = 11357
OCR = 1
Ko = 0.4
N = 10
F = 1 Hz
Curve 2 - Sand
Darendeli, 2001
ov' (psf) = 576
OCR = 1
Ko = 0.4
N = 10
F = 1 Hz
Curve 2
Curve 1
DEEPSoil V4.0
Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
Effects of Plasticity on Shear Modulus and Damping Curves
3:32 PM
Shearing Strain (%) PI = 0 % PI = 15 % PI = 30 % PI = 50 % PI = 100 %
1.00E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999
1.00E-04 0.995 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.999
2.20E-04 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997
4.84E-04 0.981 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.994
1.00E-03 0.964 0.973 0.979 0.984 0.989
2.20E-03 0.928 0.947 0.958 0.967 0.978
4.84E-03 0.861 0.896 0.917 0.934 0.956
1.00E-02 0.761 0.816 0.849 0.878 0.917
2.20E-02 0.607 0.682 0.732 0.778 0.843
4.84E-02 0.428 0.509 0.569 0.629 0.722
1.00E-01 0.277 0.348 0.404 0.465 0.571
2.20E-01 0.157 0.205 0.248 0.296 0.392
4.84E-01 0.083 0.111 0.137 0.169 0.238
1.00E+00 0.044 0.060 0.076 0.095 0.138
1.00E-05 0.804 0.997 1.191 1.450 2.096
2.20E-05 0.808 1.000 1.193 1.451 2.097
4.84E-05 0.820 1.008 1.199 1.456 2.100
1.00E-04 0.839 1.021 1.209 1.464 2.105
2.20E-04 0.884 1.053 1.234 1.482 2.117
4.84E-04 0.982 1.122 1.287 1.523 2.143
1.00E-03 1.174 1.257 1.392 1.603 2.193
2.20E-03 1.602 1.562 1.628 1.786 2.309
4.84E-03 2.474 2.198 2.128 2.175 2.560
1.00E-02 3.953 3.317 3.028 2.888 3.029
2.20E-02 6.579 5.440 4.803 4.343 4.029
4.84E-02 10.184 8.650 7.664 6.824 5.876
1.00E-01 13.788 12.217 11.092 10.024 8.541
2.20E-01 17.199 15.951 14.966 13.941 12.279
4.84E-01 19.565 18.829 18.185 17.458 16.132
1.00E+00 20.716 20.460 20.178 19.815 19.069
DARENDELI, 2001
Effects of Plasticity on Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (cont.)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
Shear Modulus and Damping Curves (o
0
' = 0.25 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
1.00E-05 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000
4.84E-05 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999
1.00E-04 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.998
2.20E-04 0.986 0.990 0.992 0.994 0.996
4.84E-04 0.971 0.979 0.983 0.987 0.991
1.00E-03 0.944 0.959 0.968 0.975 0.983
2.20E-03 0.891 0.919 0.936 0.949 0.966
4.84E-03 0.799 0.847 0.876 0.900 0.932
1.00E-02 0.671 0.739 0.783 0.822 0.876
2.20E-02 0.497 0.579 0.637 0.692 0.774
4.84E-02 0.324 0.400 0.459 0.521 0.625
1.00E-01 0.197 0.255 0.303 0.358 0.461
2.20E-01 0.107 0.142 0.174 0.213 0.293
4.84E-01 0.055 0.074 0.093 0.116 0.167
1.00E+00 0.029 0.040 0.050 0.063 0.093
1.00E-05 1.201 1.489 1.778 2.164 3.129
2.20E-05 1.207 1.493 1.781 2.166 3.131
4.84E-05 1.226 1.506 1.791 2.174 3.136
1.00E-04 1.257 1.528 1.808 2.187 3.144
2.20E-04 1.330 1.579 1.848 2.217 3.163
4.84E-04 1.487 1.690 1.933 2.282 3.204
1.00E-03 1.792 1.906 2.101 2.411 3.286
2.20E-03 2.458 2.387 2.476 2.702 3.472
4.84E-03 3.762 3.358 3.249 3.310 3.868
1.00E-02 5.821 4.977 4.581 4.386 4.593
2.20E-02 9.097 7.778 7.010 6.441 6.070
4.84E-02 12.993 11.489 10.477 9.589 8.579
1.00E-01 16.376 15.064 14.088 13.137 11.798
2.20E-01 19.181 18.334 17.640 16.904 15.716
4.84E-01 20.829 20.515 20.208 19.849 19.213
1.00E+00 21.393 21.507 21.542 21.547 21.544
0
' = 0.25 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
0
' = 1 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
1.00E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999
1.00E-04 0.995 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.999
2.20E-04 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.997
4.84E-04 0.981 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.994
1.00E-03 0.964 0.973 0.979 0.984 0.989
2.20E-03 0.928 0.947 0.958 0.967 0.978
4.84E-03 0.861 0.896 0.917 0.934 0.956
1.00E-02 0.761 0.816 0.849 0.878 0.917
2.20E-02 0.607 0.682 0.732 0.778 0.843
4.84E-02 0.428 0.509 0.569 0.629 0.722
1.00E-01 0.277 0.348 0.404 0.465 0.571
2.20E-01 0.157 0.205 0.248 0.296 0.392
4.84E-01 0.083 0.111 0.137 0.169 0.238
1.00E+00 0.044 0.060 0.076 0.095 0.138
1.00E-05 0.804 0.997 1.191 1.450 2.096
2.20E-05 0.808 1.000 1.193 1.451 2.097
4.84E-05 0.820 1.008 1.199 1.456 2.100
1.00E-04 0.839 1.021 1.209 1.464 2.105
2.20E-04 0.884 1.053 1.234 1.482 2.117
4.84E-04 0.982 1.122 1.287 1.523 2.143
1.00E-03 1.174 1.257 1.392 1.603 2.193
2.20E-03 1.602 1.562 1.628 1.786 2.309
4.84E-03 2.474 2.198 2.128 2.175 2.560
1.00E-02 3.953 3.317 3.028 2.888 3.029
2.20E-02 6.579 5.440 4.803 4.343 4.029
4.84E-02 10.184 8.650 7.664 6.824 5.876
1.00E-01 13.788 12.217 11.092 10.024 8.541
2.20E-01 17.199 15.951 14.966 13.941 12.279
4.84E-01 19.565 18.829 18.185 17.458 16.132
1.00E+00 20.716 20.460 20.178 19.815 19.069
0
' = 1 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
0
' = 4 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
1.00E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000
1.00E-04 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999
2.20E-04 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.998
4.84E-04 0.988 0.991 0.993 0.995 0.996
1.00E-03 0.976 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.993
2.20E-03 0.952 0.965 0.972 0.978 0.986
4.84E-03 0.906 0.931 0.945 0.956 0.971
1.00E-02 0.832 0.873 0.898 0.918 0.945
2.20E-02 0.706 0.770 0.810 0.845 0.893
4.84E-02 0.538 0.618 0.673 0.725 0.802
1.00E-01 0.374 0.454 0.514 0.575 0.675
2.20E-01 0.225 0.287 0.339 0.396 0.501
4.84E-01 0.123 0.163 0.199 0.241 0.327
1.00E+00 0.067 0.091 0.113 0.140 0.200
1.00E-05 0.539 0.668 0.798 0.971 1.404
2.20E-05 0.541 0.670 0.799 0.972 1.405
4.84E-05 0.548 0.675 0.803 0.975 1.407
1.00E-04 0.560 0.683 0.809 0.980 1.410
2.20E-04 0.588 0.703 0.824 0.991 1.417
4.84E-04 0.649 0.745 0.857 1.016 1.433
1.00E-03 0.769 0.829 0.922 1.066 1.464
2.20E-03 1.039 1.021 1.070 1.180 1.537
4.84E-03 1.607 1.428 1.388 1.426 1.693
1.00E-02 2.618 2.173 1.977 1.886 1.991
2.20E-02 4.572 3.684 3.206 2.871 2.648
4.84E-02 7.621 6.235 5.387 4.693 3.934
1.00E-01 11.134 9.482 8.357 7.333 5.972
2.20E-01 14.946 13.400 12.231 11.056 9.226
4.84E-01 17.990 16.866 15.935 14.917 13.118
1.00E+00 19.792 19.158 18.571 17.876 16.513
0
' = 4 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
0
' = 16 atm)
3:32 PM
DARENDELI, 2001
1.00E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.20E-05 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4.84E-05 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000
1.00E-04 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
2.20E-04 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999
4.84E-04 0.992 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.998
1.00E-03 0.985 0.989 0.991 0.993 0.996
2.20E-03 0.969 0.977 0.982 0.986 0.991
4.84E-03 0.938 0.954 0.964 0.972 0.981
1.00E-02 0.885 0.915 0.932 0.946 0.964
2.20E-02 0.789 0.839 0.869 0.895 0.929
4.84E-02 0.645 0.716 0.763 0.804 0.863
1.00E-01 0.482 0.564 0.623 0.679 0.764
2.20E-01 0.311 0.386 0.444 0.506 0.610
4.84E-01 0.179 0.233 0.279 0.331 0.431
1.00E+00 0.101 0.135 0.166 0.203 0.280
1.00E-05 0.361 0.448 0.534 0.650 0.941
2.20E-05 0.362 0.449 0.535 0.651 0.941
4.84E-05 0.367 0.452 0.538 0.653 0.942
1.00E-04 0.374 0.457 0.541 0.656 0.944
2.20E-04 0.391 0.469 0.551 0.663 0.949
4.84E-04 0.429 0.495 0.571 0.678 0.958
1.00E-03 0.503 0.547 0.611 0.709 0.978
2.20E-03 0.673 0.667 0.704 0.780 1.023
4.84E-03 1.035 0.924 0.903 0.934 1.120
1.00E-02 1.702 1.407 1.281 1.227 1.308
2.20E-02 3.075 2.433 2.100 1.871 1.729
4.84E-02 5.449 4.318 3.659 3.138 2.589
1.00E-01 8.573 7.021 6.022 5.151 4.049
2.20E-01 12.483 10.780 9.557 8.381 6.651
4.84E-01 16.070 14.619 13.472 12.268 10.241
1.00E+00 18.528 17.522 16.655 15.677 13.847
0
' = 16 atm)
3:32 PM
Finite Difference Method
3:32 PM
Finite Difference Method (cont.)
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Course Information
Lecture Notes
Pp. 73 - 75 Kramer
Reading Assignment
FLAC User Manual Theory and Background, Section 1 - Background -
The Explicit Finite Difference Method
Other Materials
Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 1 (in class) 1.
Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 2 (30 points - plot, 10 points other
calculations and discussion)
2.
2D Finite Difference Method
3:32 PM
2D Finite Difference Page 159
Steps
Generate a grid for the domain where we want an approximate
solution.
1.
Assign material properties 2.
Assign boundary/loading conditions 3.
Use the finite difference equations as a substitute for the
ODE/PDE system of equations. The ODE/PDE, thus substituted,
becomes a linear or non-linear system of algebraic equations.
4.
Solve for the system of algebraic equations using the initial
conditions and the boundary conditions. This usually done by
time stepping in an explicit formulation.
5.
Implement the solution in computer code to perform the
calculations.
6.
Finite Difference Method
11:43 AM
Grid Generation
11:43 AM
The finite difference grid also identifies the storage location of all
state variables in the model. The procedure followed by FLAC is that
all vector quantities (e.g.. forces. velocities. displacements. flow
rates) are stored at gridpoint locations. while all scalar and tensor
quantities (e.g.. stresses. pressure. material properties) are stored at
zone centroid locations. There are three exceptions: saturation and
temperature are considered gridpoint variables: and pore pressure is
stored at both gridpoint and zone centroid locations.
Grid Generation (continued)
11:43 AM
Tunnel
Slope or Embankment
Rock Slope with groundwater
Irregular Grids
11:43 AM
Braced Excavation
Concrete Diaphragm Wall
Irregular grids (cont.)
11:43 AM
Elastic and Mohr Coulomb Models
Density
Bulk Modulus
Shear Modulus
Cohesion (MC only)
Tension (MC only)
Drained Friction Angle (MC only)
Dilation Angle (MC only)
Hyperbolic Model
Required Input for Hyperbolic Model
Function Form of Hyperbolic Model
Material Properties
11:43 AM
FLAC accepts any consistent set of engineering units. Examples of
consistent sets of units for basic parameters are shown in Tables
2.5. 2.6 and 2.7. The user should apply great care when converting
from one system of units to another. No conversions are
performed in FLAC except for friction and dilation angles. which
are entered in degrees.
Units for FLAC
11:43 AM
Positive = tension
Negative = compression
Normal or direct stress
Shear stress
With reference to the above figure, a positive shear stress points in
the positive direction of the coordinate axis of the second subscript
if it acts on a surface with an outward normal in the positive
direction. Conversely, if the outward normal of the surface is in the
negative direction, then the positive shear stress points in the
negative direction of the coordinate axis of the second subscript.
The shear stresses shown in the above figure are all positive (from
FLAC manual).
In other words, t
xy
is positive in the counter-clockwise direction;
likewise t
yx
is positive in the clockwise direction.
Sign Conventions for FLAC
11:43 AM
DIRECT OR NORMAL STRAIN
Positive strain indicates extension: negative strain indicates
compression.
SHEAR STRAIN
Shear strain follows the convention of shear stress (see figure
above). The distortion associated with positive and negative shear
strain is illustrated in Figure 2.44.
PRESSURE
A positive pressure will act normal to. and in a direction toward.
the surface of a body (i.e.. push), A negative pressure will act
normal to. and in a direction away from. the surface of a body
(i.e.. pull). Figure 2.45 illustrates this convention.

Sign Conventions (cont.)
11:43 AM
PORE PRESSURE
Fluid pore pressure is positive in compression. Negative pore
pressure indicates fluid tension.
GRAVITY
Positive gravity will pull the mass of a body downward (in the
negative y-direction). Negative gravity will pull the mass of a body
upward.
GFLOW
This is a FISH parameter (see Section 2 in the FISH volume which
denotes the net fluid flow associated with a gridpoint. A positive
gflow corresponds to flow into a gridpoint. Conversely, a negative
gflow corresponds to flow out of a gridpoint.
Sign Conventions (cont.)

11:43 AM
Boundary Conditions
Fixed (X or Y) or both (B)
Free
Applied Conditions at Boundary
Velocity or displacement
Stress or force
X means fixed
in x direction
B means fixed in
both directions
Yellow line
with circle
means force,
velocity or
stress has
been applied
to this
surface.
Boundary Conditions
11:43 AM
Finite-difference methods approximate the solutions to differential
equations by replacing derivative expressions with approximately
equivalent difference quotients. That is, because the first derivative of
a function f is, by definition,
then a reasonable approximation for that derivative would be to take
for some small value of h. In fact, this is the forward difference
equation for the first derivative. Using this and similar formulae to
replace derivative expressions in differential equations, one can
approximate their solutions without the need for calculus
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference_method>
Only three forms are commonly considered: forward, backward, and
central differences.
A forward difference is an expression of the form
Depending on the application, the spacing h may be variable or held
constant.
A backward difference uses the function values at x and x h, instead
of the values at x + h and x:
Finally, the central difference is given by
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_difference>
Fundamentals of FDM
11:43 AM
Higher-order differences
2nd Order Derivative
In an analogous way one can obtain finite difference approximations
to higher order derivatives and differential operators. For example, by
using the above central difference formula for f'(x + h / 2) and f'(x h
/ 2) and applying a central difference formula for the derivative of f' at
x, we obtain the central difference approximation of the second
derivative of f:
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference>
Examples
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_flow_equation>
Groundwater flow
equation
Pasted from <https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/D_Mesh_Wave.html>
2D wave equation
Fundamentals of FDM (cont.)
11:43 AM
Explicit and implicit methods are approaches used in numerical analysis
for obtaining numerical solutions of time-dependent ordinary and
partial differential equations, as is required in computer simulations of
physical processes.
Explicit methods calculate the state of a system at a later time from the
state of the system at the current time, while implicit methods find a
solution by solving an equation involving both the current state of the
system and the later one. Mathematically, if Y(t) is the current system
state and Y(t + t) is the state at the later time (t is a small time step),
then, for an explicit method
while for an implicit method one solves an equation
to find Y(t + t).
It is clear that implicit methods require an extra computation (solving
the above equation), and they can be much harder to implement.
Implicit methods are used because many problems arising in real life are
stiff, for which the use of an explicit method requires impractically small
time steps t to keep the error in the result bounded (see numerical
stability). For such problems, to achieve given accuracy, it takes much
less computational time to use an implicit method with larger time
steps, even taking into account that one needs to solve an equation of
the form (1) at each time step. That said, whether one should use an
explicit or implicit method depends upon the problem to be solved.
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_method>
Fundamentals of FDM - Explicit vs Implicit Methods
11:43 AM
The previous page contains explains the explicit method which is
implemented in FLAC. The central concept of an explicit method is
that the calculational wave speed always keeps ahead of the
physical wave speed, so that the equations always operate on known
values that are fixed for the duration of the calculation. There are
several distinct advantages to this (and at least one big
disadvantage!): most importantly, no iteration process is necessary.
Computing stresses from strains in an element, even if the
constitutive law is wildly nonlinear.
In an implicit method (which is commonly used in finite element
programs), every element communicates with every other element
during one solution step: several cycles of iteration are necessary
before compatibility and equilibrium are obtained.
Table 1.1 (next page) compares the explicit amid implicit methods.
The disadvantage of the explicit method is seen to be the small
timestep, which means that large numbers of steps must be taken.
Overall, explicit methods are best for ill-behaved systems e.g.,
nonlinear, largestrain, physical instability; they are not efficient for
modeling linear, smallstrain problems.
Explicit versus Implicit Formulation
11:43 AM
Table 1.1 Comparison of Explicit versus Implicit Formulations
Explicit
Timestep must be smaller
than a critical value for
stability
Small amount of
computational effort per
timestep.
No significant numerical
damping introduced for
dynamic solution
No iterations necessary to
follow nonlinear
constitutive law.
Provided that the timestep
criterion is always satisfied,
nonlinear laws are always
followed in a valid physical
way.
Matrices are never formed.

Memory requirements are
always at a minimum. No
bandwidth limitations.
Since matrices are never

formed large displacements
and strains are
accommodated without
additional computing effort.
Implicit
Timestep can be arbitrarily
large with unconditionally
stable schemes
Large amount of computational

effort per timestep.
Numerical damping dependent

on timestep present with
unconditionally stable
schemes.
Iterative procedure necessary

to follow nonlinear constitutive
law.
Always necessary to
demonstrate that the above-
mentioned procedure is: (a)
stable: and (b) follows the
physically correct path (for
path-sensitive problems).
Stiffness matrices must be

stored. Ways must be found to
overcome associated problems
such as bandwidth.
Memory requirements tend to

be large.
Additional computing effort

needed to follow large
displacements and strains.
Explicit versus Implicit Formulation (cont.)

11:43 AM
Explicit, Time-Marching Scheme
Even though we want FLAC to find a static solution to a problem, the
dynamic equations of motion are included in the formulation. One
reason for doing this is to ensure that the numerical scheme is stable
when the physical system being modeled is unstable. With nonlinear
materials, there is always the possibility of physical instabilitye.g.,
the sudden collapse of a pillar. In real life, some of the strain energy in
the system is converted into kinetic energy, which then radiates away
from the source and dissipates. FLAC models this process directly,
because inertial terms are included kinetic energy is generated and
dissipated. In contrast, schemes that do not include inertial terms
must use some numerical procedure to treat physical instabilities.
Even if the procedure is successful at preventing numerical instability,
the path taken may not be a realistic one. One penalty for including
the full law of motion is that the user must have some physical feel
for what is going on; FLAC is not a black box that will give the
solution. The behavior of the numerical system must be interpreted.
Explicit Method Used in FLAC
11:43 AM
Lagrangian analysis is the use of Lagrangian coordinates to analyze
various problems in continuum mechanics.
Lagrangian analysis may be used to analyze currents and flows of
various materials by analyzing data collected from gauges/sensors
embedded in the material which freely move with the motion of the
material.
[1]
A common application is study of ocean currents in
oceanography, where the movable gauges in question called
Lagrangian drifters.
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_analysis>
Pasted from <http://www.ansys.com/products/images/new-features-1.jpg>
Since FLAC does not need to form a global stiffness matrix, it is a
trivial matter to update coordinates at each timestep in large-strain
mode. The incremental displacements are added to the coordinates
so that the grid moves and deforms with the material it represents.
This is termed a Lagrangian formulation. in contrast to an Eulerian
formulation. in which the material moves and deforms relative to a
fixed grid. The constitutive formulation at each step is a smallstrain
one, but is equivalent to a large-strain formulation over many steps.
Example of Lagrangian analysis
of golf club head striking ball.
Note that the tracking and
movement of the sand with the
striking of the ball requires a
Lagrangian analysis. (from
ANSYS)
Lagrangian Analysis
11:43 AM
Eq. (1.1)
Note that the above partial differential equation is a 2nd order partial
differential equation because u dot is a derivative of u (displacement).
This equation expresses dynamic force equilibrium which relates the
inertial and gravitational forces to changes in stress. It is essentially
the wave equation, which is further discussed in soil dynamics.
Equation of Motion
11:43 AM
The constitutive relation that is required in the PDE given before
relates changes in stress with strain.
However, since FLAC's formulation is essentially a dynamic
formulation, where changes in velocities are easily calculated, then
strain rate is used and is related to velocity as shown below.
The mechanical constitutive law has the form:
Constitutive Relations
11:43 AM
Stress Strain Constitutive Law
(Hooke's Law)
Equation of Motion for Dynamic
Equilibrium (wave equation)
Eq. (1.2)
FDM formulation using central
finite difference equation.
The central finite difference equation corresponding is for a typical
zone i is given by the above equation. Here the quantities in
parentheses e.g.. (i) denote the time, t, at which quantities are
evaluated: the superscripts. i, denote the zone number, not that
something is raised to a power.
Numbering scheme for a 1-D body using FDM.
FDM - Elastic Example from FLAC manual
11:43 AM
Finite difference equation for equation of motion using central finite
difference equation. Note that on the left side of the equation a
change in velocity (i.e., acceleration) is represented; on the right side
of the equation a change in stress with respect to position is
represented for the time step. In other words, an acceleration
(unbalanced force) causes a change is the stress, or stress wave.
Rearrange the above equation, produces Eq. 1.3
Integrating this equation, produces displacements as shown in Eq. 1.4
This equation says that the position and time t + delta t is equal to the
position and time t + (velocity at time t + 1/2 delta t) * delta t.
FDM - Elastic Example (cont.)
11:43 AM
In the explicit method. the quantities on the right-hand sides of all
difference equations are known; therefore. we must evaluate Eq.
1.2) for all zones before moving on to Eqs. (1.3) and (1.4). which are
evaluated for all grid points. Conceptually. this process is equivalent
to a simultaneous update of variables.
motion
bc velocity pulse applied to boundary condition
dis_calc displacements from velocity
constit stresses are derived from strain
motion velocity calculated stress
dis_calc
constit
bc
11:43 AM
The following is an example of implementing the FDM for to
calculate the behavior of an elastic bar. To do this, we must write
FISH code. The primary subroutine, scan_all, and the other routines
described in the following pages can be obtained from bar.dat in the
Itasca folder.
def scan_all
while_stepping
time = time + dt
bc ; pulse applied to boundary condition
dis_calc ; displacements calculated from velocity
constit ; stresses are derived from strain
motion ; velocity calculated stress
end
def bc ; boundary conditions - cosine pulse applied to left end
if time >= twave then
xvel(1,1) = 0.0
else
xvel(1,1) = vmax * 0.5 * (1.0 - cos(w * time))
end_if
End
The subroutine, dis_calc, calculates the displacements from the
velocities.
The subroutine, bc, applies a one-sided cosine velocity pulse to the
left end of the rod.
def dis_calc
loop i (1,nel)
xdisp(i,1) = xdisp(i,1) + xvel(i,1) * dt
end_loop
end
11:43 AM
The subroutine, called constit, calculates the stress as derived from
strain using Hooke's law. The value of e is Young's modulus.
def motion
loop i (2,nel)
xvel(i,1) = xvel(i,1) + (sxx(i,1) - sxx(i-1,1)) * tdx
end_loop
end
def constit
loop i (1,nel)
sxx(i,1) = e * (xdisp(i+1,1) - xdisp(i,1)) / dx
end_loop
end
This subroutine, called motion, calculates the new velocity from
stress. Recall that an unbalanced stress causes an unbalanced force,
which in turn produces an acceleration which is a change in velocity.
11:43 AM
As described previously, the explicit-solution procedure is not
unconditionally stable, the speed of the calculation front must be
faster than the maximum speed at which information propagates.
A timestep must be chosen that is smaller than some critical
timestep. The stability condition for an elastic solid discretized into
elements of size x is
where C is the maximum speed at which information can
propagate typically, the p-wave speed. C where
dt = frac * dx / c
11:43 AM
nel = 50 ; no. of elements
e = 1.0 ; Young's modulus
ro = 1.0 ; density
dx = 1.0 ; element size
p = 15.0 ; number of wavelengths per elements
vmax = 1.0 ; amplitude of velocity pulse
frac = 0.2 ; fraction of critical timestep
FDM - Elastic Example (cont.) - Solution
11:43 AM
Blank
3:32 PM
QUAD4 and QUAD4M
Quake/W
Equivalent Linear Method ( EQL)
Quake/W
Plaxis?
Nonlinear Finite Element Method
FLAC
Nonlinear Finite Difference Method
Lecture Notes
Reading Assignment
FLAC Manual
Other Materials
Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 3 (30 points) 1.
Assume the embankment has 2H:1V slope and the crest is a point a.
Use FLAC's hysteretic model for sand embankment b.
Use the Taft record on the course website and spectrally match it to the 5
percent damped spectrum used in HW#2 problem 1.
c.
Provide all inputs and outputs d.
Compare the crest acceleration with that calculated in HW#2 problem 1
(max acc. = 1.06 g)
e.
Analyze HW#2 problem 1 using FLAC (50 points) 2.
Introduction
2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical)
3:32 PM
2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical) Page 189
A variety of finite element and finite difference computer programs are available
for use in two- dimensional seismic site response analyses. The computer
program QUAD4, originally developed by Idriss and his co-workers (Idriss et al.,
1973) and recently updated as QUAD4M by Hudson et al. (1994), is among the
most commonly used computer programs for two-dimensional site response
analysis. QUAD4M uses an equivalent-liner soil model similar to the model used
in SHAKE. Basic input to QUAD4M includes the two-dimensional soil profile,
equivalent-linear soil properties, and the time history of horizontal ground
motion. Time history of vertical ground motion may also be applied at the base of
the soil profile. The base can be modeled as a rigid boundary, with design
motions input directly at the base, or as a transmitting boundary which enables
application of ground motions as hypothetical rock outcrop motions. With
respect to the input soil properties, QUAD4M is very similar to SHAKE91.
However, the ability to analyze two-dimensional geometry and the option for
simultaneous base excitation with horizontal and vertical acceleration
components make QUAD4M a more versatile analytical tool than SHAKE91.
A major difference between the QUAD4M and SHAKE91 equivalent-linear models
is that the damping ratio in QUAD4M depends on the frequency of excitation or
rate of loading. In QUAD4M, the equivalent-linear viscous damping ratio is used
to fix the frequency dependent damping curve at the natural frequency of the
soil deposit in order to optimize the gap between model damping and the
damping ratio. A major drawback of QUAD4M is its limited pre- and post-
processing capabilities. These limited capabilities make finite element mesh
generation and processing and interpretation of the results difficult and time
consuming. QUAD4M is available from the National Information Service for
Earthquake Engineering (NISEE) at University Of California at Berkeley for a
nominal cost.
Development of 2D Methods
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Numerical Modeling (FDM and FEM)
Any failure mode develops naturally; there is no need to specify a range
of trial surfaces in advance.
No artificial parameters (e.g., functions for inter-slice angles) need to be

given as input.
Multiple failure surfaces (or complex internal yielding) evolve naturally,

if the conditions give rise to them.
Structural interaction (e.g., rock bolt, soil nail or geogrid) is modeled

realistically as fully coupled deforming elements, not simply as
equivalent forces.
Solution consists of mechanisms that are feasible kinematically.

Numerical model such as FLAC offers these advantages over Limit
Equilibrium methods:
Pasted from <http://www.itascacg.com/flacslope/overview.html>
There are a number of methods that could have been employed to
determine the factor of safety using FLAC. The FLAC shear strength
reduction (SSR) methodof computing a factor of safety performs a series
of computations to bracket the range of possible factors of safety. During
SSR, the program lowers the strength (friction angle) of the soil and
computes the maximum unbalanced force to determine if the slope is
moving. If the force unbalance exceeds a certain value, the strength is
increased and the original stresses returned to the initial value and the
deformation analyses recomputed. This process continues until the force
unbalance is representative of the initial movement of the slope and the
angle for this condition is compared to the angle available for the soil to
compute the factor of safety.
Numerical Methods
11:43 AM
Total Vertical Stress from incremental building of model (homogenous case)
Total Vertical Stress from non-incremental building of model (homogenous case)
Incremental Building of Model
3:32 PM
Total Vertical Stress from incremental building of model (heterogeneous case)
Total Vertical Stress from non-incremental building of model (heterogeneous
case) (not exactly the same as above)
Incremental Building of Model
3:32 PM
config dynamic
set dynamic off
grid 21 10
;
model elastic
;
prop density=1 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7
; note very low density assigned to this layer
;
model null i 1 j 2 10
group 'null' i 1 j 2 10
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
model null i 9 j 10
group 'null' i 9 j 10
group delete 'null'
model null i 12 j 10
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
group delete 'null'
model null i 21 j 1
group delete 'null'
ini x 0.56119156 y 0.5621834 i 1 j 2
ini x 1.5523796 y 1.5533707 i 2 j 3
ini x 2.4985127 y 2.4995043 i 3 j 4
ini x 3.512227 y 3.5132189 i 4 j 5
ini x 4.5484686 y 4.5494604 i 5 j 6
ini x 5.494602 y 5.4955935 i 6 j 7
ini x 6.508317 y 6.5543623 i 7 j 8
ini x 7.499504 y 7.5455494 i 8 j 9
ini x 8.5808 y 8.581791 i 9 j 10
ini x 9.54946 y 9.527925 i 10 j 11
ini x 10.518121 y 9.527925 i 12 j 11
ini x 11.576889 y 8.469156 i 13 j 10
ini x 12.523023 y 7.4779687 i 14 j 9
ini x 13.536737 y 6.4642544 i 15 j 8
ini x 14.48287 y 5.5406475 i 16 j 7
ini x 15.6092205 y 4.3917713 i 17 j 6
ini x 16.487774 y 3.5132189 i 18 j 5
ini x 17.47896 y 2.5445583 i 19 j 4
ini x 18.515202 y 1.5083168 i 20 j 3
ini x 19.461334 y 0.5621834 i 21 j 2
;
fix x y j 1
set gravity=9.81
his 999 unbalanced
;
; heterogeneous case - layers 6 -10 are 10 x stiffer
prop density=1900 bulk=1.33E7 shear=8E7 j 1
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
solve
FLAC code for incremental building of model
3:32 PM
Slope Stability Example - No Groundwater
11:43 AM
Generating the slope
Slope Stability - No Groundwater (cont.)
11:43 AM
config ats
grid 20,10
;Mohr-Coulomb model
m m
; soil properties --- note large cohesion to force initial elastic
; behavior for determining initial stress state. This will prevent
; slope failure when initializing the gravity stresses
prop s=.3e8 b=1e8 d=1500 fri=20 coh=1e10 ten=1e10
; warp grid to form a slope :
gen 0,0 0,3 20,3 20,0 j 1,4
gen same 9,10 20,10 same i 6 21 j 4 11
mark i=1,6 j=4
mark i=6 j=4,11
model null region 1,10
; displacement boundary conditions
fix x i=1
fix x i=21
fix x y j=1
; apply gravity
set grav=9.81
; displacement history of slope
his ydis i=10 j=10
; solve for initial gravity stresses
solve
;
; reset displacement components to zero
ini xdis=0 ydis=0
; set cohesion to 0
; this is done to explore the failure mechanism in the cohesionless slope
prop coh=0
; use large strain logic
set large
step 1200; comment this line out to calculate factor of safety of undeformed slope
solve fos
save dry_slope.sav 'last project state'
11:43 AM
At step 1200
Factor of safety = 0.27 (However, this is surficial slip is not of
particular interest. This slip surface will be eliminated, see next
page. )
11:43 AM
Note that the surficial failure at the top of the slope can be
prevented by slightly increasing the cohesive strength of the soil at
the slope face. This often done to explore deeper failure surfaces in
the soil mass.
The last part of the FLAC code has been modified to look like this:
; set cohesion to 0
prop coh=0
group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity' i 6 j 4 10
model mohr group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity'
prop density=1900.0 bulk=1.33E6 shear=8E5 cohesion=100e3 friction=30.0 dilation=0.0 tension=0.0
group 'Soil-Clay:low plasticity'
; use large strain logic
set large
;step 1200
solve fos
11:43 AM
Factor of safety = 0.58
(This is the true factor of safety of the slope for a rotation, slump
failure.)
11:43 AM
Need to add here
Dynamic Response Analysis
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Reading Assignment
Ch. 9 FHWA manual
Foundations_vibrations.pdf
Other Materials
B = 2 feet
L = 2.6 feet
Vertical static = 12 kips
Vertical dynamic = 2.4 kips (upward)
Horizontal dynamic = 4 kips (in X direction = longest footing dimension)
Moment about y axis = 9 kip feet
The peak forces for the sign post from the dynamic numerical analysis are: 1.
From this information, calculate the following:
FS bearing capacity failure
FS sliding
Maximum soil pressure
Eccentricity in the x-direction
Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 4 (FLACmodel4.pdf) 2.
Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations
3:32 PM
Shallow Foundation Page 205
All ground response consider thus far has not considered the effect of 1.
the structure on ground response. The presence of a structure, either buried or
at the surface, changes the free-field motion.
In a manner similar to evaluation of seismic stability of slopes, earthquake
effects on foundations can be modeled using either pseudo-static approachor a
dynamic response approach.
2.
In the pseudo-static analysis, the effects of the dynamic earthquake-
induced loads on the foundation are represented using static forces and
moments. Typically, the pseudo-static forces and moments are calculated
by applying a horizontal force equal to the weight of the structure times a
seismic coefficient through the center of gravity of the structure.
a.
The seismic coefficient is generally a fraction of the peak ground
acceleration for the design earthquake and may also be dependent upon
the response characteristics of the structure, the behavior of the foundation
soils, and the ability of the structure to accommodate permanent seismic
displacement.
b.
In a dynamic response analysis, the dynamic stiffness and damping of the
foundation is incorporated into a numerical model of the structure to evaluate
the overall seismic response of the system and the interaction between the soil,
foundation and structure.
3.
Introduction
3:32 PM
The bearing capacity and lateral resistance of a foundation is evaluated using
static formulations and compared to pseudo-static loads.
Used often for "unimportant structures," where the gross stability of the
foundation is to be evaluated.
The static shear strengthmay be either decreased or increased, depending

on soil type and groundwater conditions, to account for dynamic loading
conditions.
Dynamic forces are represented as pseudostatic forces and moments and

are calculated by applying a horizontal force (weight time seismic
coefficient) through the center of gravity of the structure. Seismic
coefficients are usually a fraction of pga.
Seismic loads in structures are typically dominated by the inertial forces

from the superstructure, which are predominantly horizontal.
However, these horizontal forces are transmitted to the foundation in

the form of horizontal and vertical forces, and rocking and torsional
moments.
In cases where a dynamic analysis has been completed for the structure, the
peak loads, reduced by a peak load reduction factor, is used in the pseudo-
static analysis.
The resultant load will usually have to be inclined or applied

eccentrically to account for vertical loads and moment loadings.
Alternatively, vertical bearing capacity and horizontal sliding resistance

of the foundation can be determined independently. However, the
influence of the applied moments on the vertical and horizontal loads
must be considered in the bearing capacity and sliding calculations (see
figure on next page).
Pseudostatic Approach
3:32 PM
The dynamic stiffness of the foundation is incorporated into an analytical model
of the superstructure to evaluate the overall seismic response of the system.
1.
horizontal sliding (two orthogonal directions) a.
vertical motion b.
rocking about two orthogonal axis c.
torsion (rotation) about the vertical axis. d.
The foundation of a structure typically has six degrees of freedom (modes of
motion) (Fig. 66)
2.
The response of the foundation to the above modes of motion is thus described
by a 6 x 6 stiffness matrix, having 36 stiffness coefficients (Fig. 66).
3.
Internal damping of the soil is commonly incorporated in the site response
model used to calculate design ground motions, and not in the foundation
model.
a.
Similarly, a 6 x 6 matrix is needed to described the damping of the foundation. 4.
Dynamic Response Analysis Approach
3:32 PM
Typically, the geotechnical engineer provides the values of the stiffness and
damping matrix to the structural engineer for use in the dynamic response
analysis of the structure.
5.
Based on the results of the analysis, the structural engineer should then provide
the peak dynamic loads and deformations of the foundation elements back to
the geotechnical engineer.
6.
The geotechnical engineer then compares the dynamic loads and deformations 7.
to acceptable values to ascertain if the seismic performance of the foundation is
acceptable. This sometimes is an iterative process to achieve a satisfactory
design.
If a dynamic response of the structure-foundation is performed, the bearing
capacity, sliding, overturning and settlement of the shallow foundation should
be evaluated using pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis.
8.
Dynamic Response Analysis Approach (cont.)
3:32 PM
Dynamic response analyses incorporate the foundation system into the general
dynamic model of the structure. The combined analysis is commonly referred
to as the soil-structure-interaction, SSI analysis. In SSI analyses, the foundation
system can either be represented by a system of springs (classical approach), or
by a foundation stiffness (and damping) matrix. The latter approach, commonly
used for SSI analyses of highway facilities, is commonly referred to as the
stiffness matrix method approach.
The general form of the stiffness matrix for a rigid footing was presented in
figure 66 . The 6 x 6 stiffness matrix can be incorporated in most structural
engineering programs for dynamic response analysis to account for the
foundation stiffness in evaluating the dynamic response of the structural
system. The diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix represent the direct
response of a mode of motion to excitation in that mode while the off diagonal
terms represent the coupled response. Many of the off diagonal terms are zero
or close to zero, signifying that the two corresponding modes are uncoupled
(e.g. , torsion and vertical motion) and therefore may be neglected. In fact, for
symmetric foundations loaded centrically, rocking and sliding (horizontal
translation) are the only coupled modes of motion considered in a dynamic
analysis.
Often, all of the off-diagonal (coupling) terms are neglected for two reasons :
(1) the values of these off-diagonal terms are small, especially for shallow
footings; and (2) they are difficult to compute. However, the coupling of the
two components of horizontal translation to the two degrees of freedom of
rocking (tilting) rotation may be significant in some cases. For instance,
coupled rocking and sliding may be important for deeply embedded footings
where the ratio of the depth of embedment to the equivalent footing diameter
is greater than five. The reader is referred to Lam and Martin (1986) for more
guidance on this issue.
The stiffness matrix, K, of an irregularly shaped and/or embedded footing can
be expressed by the following general equation:
where KECF is the stiffness matrix of an equivalent circular surface footing, o is
the foundation shape correction factor, and | is the foundation embedment
factor.
Dynamic Response Analysis (cont.)
3:32 PM
The solution for a circular footing rigidly connected to the surface of an elastic
half space provides the basic stiffness coefficients for the various modes of
foundation displacement. translation, the stiffness coefficient K33 can be
expressed as:
For horizontal translation, the stiffness coefficients and K22 can be expressed as:
For torsional rotation, the stiffness coefficient K can be expressed as:
For rocking rotation, the stiffness coefficients K44 and K55 can be expressed as:
In these equations, G and v are the dynamic shear modulus and Poissons ratio
for the elastic half space (foundation soil) and R is the radius of the footing.
The dynamic shear modulus, G, used to evaluate the foundation stiffness should
be based upon the representative, or average, shear strain of the foundation
soil. However, there are no practical guidelines for evaluating a representative
shear strain for a dynamically loaded shallow foundation. Frequently, the value
of G, the shear modulus at very low strain, is used to calculate foundation
stiffness. However, this is an artifact of the original development of the above
equations for foundation stiffness for the design of machine foundations. For
earthquake loading, it is recommended that values of G be evaluated at shear
strain levels calculated from a seismic site response analysis.
Stiffness
3:32 PM
One of the advantages of the stiffness matrix method over the classical approach
is that a damping matrix can be included in SSI analysis. The format of the
damping matrix is the same as the format of the stiffness matrix shown on
figure 66. While coefficients of the damping matrix may represent both an
internal (material) damping and a radiation (geometric) damping of the soil, only
radiation damping is typically considered in SSI analysis.
The internal damping of the soil is predominantly strain dependent and can be
relatively accurately represented by the equivalent viscous damping ratio, . At
the small strain levels typically associated with foundation response, is on the
order of 2 to 5 percent. Radiation damping, i.e., damping that accounts for the
energy contained in waves that radiate away from the foundation, is
frequency-dependent and, in a SSI analysis, significantly larger than the material
damping. Consequently, radiation damping dominates the damping matrix in
SSI analyses.
The evaluation of damping matrix coefficients is complex and little guidance is
available to practicing engineers. Damped vibration theory is usually used to
form the initial foundation damping matrix. The theory, commonly used to
study (small-strain) foundation vibration problems, assumes that the soil
damping can be expressed via a damping ratio, D, defined as the ratio of the
damping coefficient of the footing to the critical damping for the six-degree-of-
freedom system.
The damping ratio for a shallow foundation depends upon the mass (or inertia)
ratio of the footing. The following table lists the mass ratios and the damping
coefficients and damping ratios for the various degrees of freedom of the
footing. The damping ratios should be used as shown on figure 66 to develop
the damping matrix of the foundation system. It should be noted that this
approach only partially accounts for the geometry of the foundations and
assumes that small earthquake strains are induced in the soil deposit. For pile
foundations or for complex foundation geometry, a more rigorous approach,
commonly referred to as the soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) analysis,
may be warranted. SFSI is beyond the scope of this document.
Damping for Circular, Rigid Footings
3:32 PM
Damping Table (Circular Footing)
Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Definition of variables on previous page
Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Application of the foundation stiffness general equation (K = o|KECF) for
rectangular footings involves the following two steps:
Calculate the radius of an equivalent circular footing for the various modes of
displacement using damping table and Figure 68. For vertical and horizontal
(translational) displacements, the equivalent radius, r0, is the radius of a circular
footing with the same area as the rectangular footing. For rocking and torsional
motions, the calculation of the equivalent radius is more complicated, as it
depends on the moment of inertia of the footing. The equivalent radius is then
used in the stiffness equations to solve for the baseline stiffness coefficients
required in the following formula: K = o|KECF.
1.
Damping for Rectangular Footings
3:32 PM
Find the shape factor a to be used in (K = o|KECF) using Figure 69. This figure
gives the shape factors for various aspect ratios (LIB) for the various modes of
foundation displacement.
2.
Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)
3:32 PM
Embedment
The influence of embedment on the response of a shallow foundation is described
in detail in Lam and Martin (1986). The values of the foundation embedment
factor | from that study are presented in figure 70 for values of D/R less than or
equal to 0.5 and in Figure 71 for values of D/R larger than 0.5. For cases where the
top of the footing is below the ground surface, it is recommended that the
thickness of the ground above the top of the footing be ignored and the thickness
of the footing (not the actual depth of embedment Df) be used to calculate the
embedment ratio (D/R) in determining the embedment factor |.
3:32 PM
Embedment (cont.)
3:32 PM
Method 1 - Seismic loads from dynamic response analysis
Potential for amplification of ground motion by the structure is included in
the peak loads from the dynamic response analysis
Combination of loads from dynamic response analysis (vertical and

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

Load Evaluation - Loads from Dynamic Response Analysis
3:32 PM
Method 2 - Pseudostatic seismic loads from pga and seismic coefficient
seismic loads = (weight of structure) x (seismic coefficient)
use peak ground acceleration from AASHTO maps (10 probability of
exceedance in 50 years, or
0.5 x pga (for structures that can tolerate some deformation, or

use pga (for structures that can not tolerate large deformations)
for such structures, the design acceleration should be the spectral
acceleration associated with the fundamental period of the
structure. This acceleration should be factored according to
requirements outlined in the appropriate design code.
consider potential amplification of horizontal acceleration for slender

flexible structures.
no general guidance for selection of seismic coefficient, some possible

approaches are:
Combination of loads (vertical and horizontal)

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

and a moment
both compressive and tensile vertical loads should be considered

horizontal load, if applied eccentrically, will generate a horizontal load
and a moment.
Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both vertical and
horizontal) to the seismic loads.
Load Evaluation (cont.) - Loads from Pseudostatic Analysis

3:32 PM
Compute the earthquake loads (from Method 1 or Method 2 above) and combine 1.
For Method 1, use the 100% and 40% of peak inertial force rule to determine
the lowest factor of safety.
For Method 2, remember that vertical and horizontal earthquake loads are
treated separately (do not apply peak horizontal and peak vertical ground
acceleration at the same time).
into a single resultant force with an inclination of and an eccentricity, e (fig 65).
Load eccentricity is caused by the applied moment to the foundation
Applied moment causes a non-uniform pressure distribution on the bottom
of the footing.
Equivalent footing width (B') is computed for the footing, where the width of
the footing is reduced, to account for load eccentricity
B' = (B-2e) (Meyerhof, 1953)

B' = (3B/2-3e) (linear soil pressure distribution)
(The calculated values from the above equations tend to be
conservative the contact area is usually larger than the calculated
values)
Commonly used relations for B'
e < B/6 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah < 0.4 g)
e < B/4 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah > 0.4 g)
limit to eccentricity (to prevent uplift)
Adjust of Bearing Capacity Equation for Eccentric (Moment) Loading 2.
Check bearing capacity with loadings from Method 1 or 2. 3.
Report the lowest factor of safety that controls the design. 4.
Check sliding factor of safety. 5.
Evaluation Steps - Bearing Capacity
3:32 PM
Sliding resistance should be assessed separately from the bearing capacity
evaluation.
Assume 100% peak horizontal inertial load and 40% peak vertical
inertial load (2 cases; 40% upward and 40% downward).
Also, check 40% peak horizontal and 100% peak vertical (2 cases; 100
percent upward and 100 percent downward).
Apply combinations in the direction that is most critical for sliding and
gives the lowest factor of safety.
Load combinations (Method 1 or 2) Common approach for sliding

frictional resistance (v tan )
adhesion and the interface frictional resistance of the base depend
on the type of soil and the type and finish of the foundation
material.
For concrete foundations, the adhesion and interface friction

coefficient should be reduced by approximately 20 to 33 percent
from the cohesion and friction coefficient of the underlying soils
(see Navy Design Manual DM 7.2). Values from this manual can be
used for both shallow foundations and retaining wall.
adhesion (a)
For eccentrically loaded foundations, the effective base area (B' x L')
should be used in evaluating sliding resistance.
For embedded foundations the passive seismic resistance in front

(leading edge) of the foundation may be included, however the passive
earth pressure is typcially reduced by a factor of two to account for the
large deformation required to mobilize full passive resistance.
active seismic force on the back (trailing edge) of the foundation should
be added to the seismic driving force.
In many cases, the net result calculated from factoring the passive
seismic resistance and adding the active seismic force, produces very
little change in the overall sliding factor of safety for shallow
foundations; hence embedment is sometimes ignored in sliding
calculations
Resistance to sliding:
Sliding Calculations
3:32 PM
Definitions for use
of Myerhof's
equations
Need to use general bearing capacity equation to account for eccentric
loads, moments, inclined loads, and different foundation shapes.
Myerhof's Method
3:32 PM
Bearing capacity factors
Inclination factors
Myerhof's Method (cont.)
3:32 PM
Shape factors for L < 6B
Myerhof's Method (cont.)
3:32 PM
Myerhof (Example) - Loading from Dynamic Analysis
Example Calculation
3:32 PM
Evert C. Lawton, 2011
Soil Pressure
3:32 PM
Machine Vibrations
3:32 PM
Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source
3:32 PM
Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source (cont.)
3:32 PM
Idealization of a system using a spring with a dynamic stiffiness, Kz and a
viscous dashpot Cz undergoing a harmonic loading of Pz.
3:32 PM
Dynamic stiffness = static stiffness x dynamic
stiffness coefficient. See chart A, next page for
k(w) values.
Do not need these for FLAC modeling
3:32 PM
3:32 PM
FLAC Model with 3-D (i.e., radiation) damping
3:32 PM
FLAC formulation for radiation damping
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Reading Assignment
FLAC manual on interfaces
Other Materials
Complete FLAC model 5.pdf 1.
Analyze the pseudo static factor of safety against sliding for each layer and
the base of the geofoam embankment using the geometry and properties
given FLAC model 6.pdf. Use the design spectrum shown below to determine
the appropriate accelerations in each layer. Develop a spreadsheet to do this
analysis.
3.
Geofoam Embankments Seismic Stability
3:32 PM
Geofoam Embankments Page 240
Typical Geofoam Construction
Seismic Hazard in Utah
Modeling Approach
Sliding
Rocking/Uplift
Overstressing (yielding)
Seismic Evaluations
Topics
Reduces seismic loads to wall & buried structures
Improves slope stability (static & dynamic)
Reduces consolidation settlement on soft ground
Light weight material
Can undergo elastic and plastic deformation but maintains shape
Controlled Compression (Compression Inclusion)
Geofoam Advantages
Geofoam Embankments
3:32 PM
Geofoam Construction
3:32 PM
Geofoam Construction (cont.)
3:32 PM
Geofoam Construction (cont.)
3:32 PM
Develop a more comprehensive numerical method for evaluating seismic stability
of geofoam embankments
sliding performance at horizontal layer interfaces

rocking/uplift at edge of the embankment
Compression
Tension
Shear
overstressing of geofoam block from seismic forces
Evaluate potential failure modes
Case Earthquake M R
(km)
Component PGA (g)
1 1989 Loma Prieta, CA 6.9 8.6 Capitola 000 0.52
2 1989 Loma Prieta, CA 6.9 8.6 Capitola 090 0.44
3 1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.1 8.2 Duzce 180 0.35
4 1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.1 8.2 Duzce 270 0.54
5 1992 Cape Mendocino,
CA
7.1 9.5 Petrolia 000 0.59
6 1992 Cape Mendocino,
CA
7.1 9.5 Petrolia 090 0.66
7 1994 Northridge, CA 6.7 6.2 Sylmar 052 0.61
8 1994 Northridge, CA 6.7 6.2 Sylmar 142 0.90
Selected Time History
Failure Modes and Seismic Inputs
3:32 PM
Response Spectra (5% Damping)
Motion 1 Motion 2 Motion 3 Motion 4 Motion 5 Motion 6 Motion 7 Motion 8
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

(
g
)
Period (sec)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal Spectra
Response Spectra (5% Damping)
Motion 4 Motion 1 Motion 2 Motion 3
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

(
g
)
Period (sec)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical Spectra
Seismic Inputs (cont.)
3:32 PM
FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua)
2D or 3D
Explicit Finite Difference Method
Large Strain Mode
Sliding and Separation at Nodal Interfaces
Nonlinear Modeling capability
Elasto-Plastic Model w/ Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria and Plastic Post-Yield Behavior
Hysteretic damping
Modeling Approach
3:32 PM
Elastic Properties
3:32 PM
Typical freestanding geofoam embankment at bridge approach. Note
that continuous horizontal planes are created by the block placement
pattern. Question: Could sliding occur along these interface planes
during a major earthquake?
Interface Sliding
11:43 AM
Normal and shear stiffness at the interfaces are also required by FLAC. These are
spring constants that represent the respective stiffness between two planes that
are in contact with each other. Interfacial stiffness is often used in FLAC to
represent the behavior of rock joints where some elastic deformation in the joint
is allowed before slippage occurs. However for geofoam block placed in layers,
such elastic behavior before slippage occurs is probably small. Thus, for the case
where only slippage and separation are considered at the interface (i.e., one
geofoam subgrid is allowed to slide and/or open relative to another subgrid), the
normal and shear stiffnesses used in the FLAC model are not important (Itasca.
2005). For this case, the FLAC users manual recommends that the normal and
shear interface stiffness (kn and ks, respectively) be set to ten times the stiffness
of the neighboring zone.
More on interface properties
Interface Properties
11:43 AM
Interface Sliding (cont.)
11:43 AM
CONCLUSIONS
In general. the majority of the evaluated cases suggest that interlayer sliding is
within tolerable limits (0.01 to 0.1 m) however, two input time histories
produced interlayer sliding that was greater than 0.5 in.. which is considered
unacceptable from a performance standpoint Because the model predicted a
wide range of interlayer sliding displacement for the cases analyzed, this
suggests that sliding is a highly nonlinear process and is strongly governed by
the frequency content and long period displacement pulses present in the input
time histories.
The model also suggests that interlayer sliding displacement can, in some
cases1 increase when the vertical component of strong motion is included in
the analysis For cases where interlayer sliding is just initiating, the sliding
displacement increases by a factor of 2 to 5 times when the vertical component
of strong motion is added to the analyses However, when the interlayer sliding
displacements are larger. the presence of the vertical component in the model
is less important and the displacements remain the same or only slightly
increase. Thus, we conclude that it is generally unconservative to ignore the
vertical component of strong motion when estimating sliding displacement, but
its inclusion is less important when the interlayer sliding displacement is well
developed. All models showed that the interlayer sliding is generally
concentrated in the basal layers and diminishes greatly in the higher layers. The
potential for interlayer sliding displacement in geofoam embankments can be
resolved by constructing shear keys within the geofoam mass to disrupt
continuous horizontal layers that are being created by current construction
practices
The numerical model also suggests that internal deformation caused by rocking
and sway can cause local tensile yielding of some blocks within the
embankment, usually near the base.. In some cases, this yielding can propagate
upward and cause the embankment to begin to decouple dynamically.
Consideration should be given to using blocks with higher strengths than Type
VIII geofoam in the basal zones of geofoam embankments undergoing high
levels of strong motion.
Interface Sliding (cont.)
11:43 AM
The potential for initiation of interlayer and basal sliding of a geofoam
embankment can also be evaluated using pseudo static techniques. This type of
analysis is useful for evaluating the stability of simple systems when the
embankment cross-section is a simple rectangle. In this approach, the inertial
horizontal force acting on the geofoam embankment is applied at the centroid
of the mass, which is usually at the top of the embankment. To calculate the
appropriate acceleration, the geofoam is treated as a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) oscillator (Horvath, 1995) and its fundamental period, T0, is estimated
using Horvath (2004):
T0 = 2t{[(o'v H)/(E*g)[4(H/B)
2
+ (12/5)(1+v)|}
0.5

where: o'v is the vertical effective stress acting on the top of the geofoam from
applied dead loads (i.e., pavement section), H is the geofoam embankment
height, E is the initial Youngs modulus of the geofoam, g is the gravitational
constant, B is the width of the geofoam embankment and v is Poissons ratio.
The horizontal inertial force, Fh, produced by the earthquake is applied to the
centroid of the lumped mass, which is approximately located at the top of the
embankment near the mid-point of the pavement section:
F
h
= S
a
* m

where: Sa is the spectral acceleration corresponding to T0 obtained from the
design basis earthquake acceleration response spectrum and m is the lumped
mass of the system (combined mass of the pavement, road base and concrete
load distribution slab). In the U.S., geofoam embankment is often considered to
be a retaining structure/wall and as such, it is designed for a 5 percent
damped Sa value that has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years
(i.e., average return period of 475 years) as specified by the American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2010).
An example 5 percent damped AASHTO spectrum for such an event is shown in
on the next page.
Pseudo-static Sliding Calculation
3:32 PM
Material Type Layer No. Thickness
(m)
4
(kg/m
3
)
E
5
(MPa)
v
6
K
7
(MPa)
G
8
(MPa)
Foundation Soil 1-10 varies 1840 174 0.4 290.0 62.1
Geofoam 11-18 8 18 10 0.103 4.2 4.5
UTBC
1
19 0.610 2240 570 0.35 633 211
LDS
2
& PCCP
3
19 0.508 2400 30000 0.18 15625 12712
1
Untreated base course,
2
Load distribution slab,
3
Portland concrete cement pavement,
4
Mass density,
5
Initial Youngs modulus,
6
Poissons ratio,
7
Bulk modulus,
8
Shear modulus
In applying pseudo static techniques to interlayer and basal sliding evaluations,
values of horizontal acceleration at various heights within the embankment are
linearly interpolated, starting at the top of the EPS embankment and continuing
to its base (NCHRP 529) . The horizontal acceleration acting at the top interface
of the embankment is the Sa value from the design spectrum at T=0.52s, which is
of 0.848 g for the example case ; the horizontal acceleration at the basal
EPS/foundation soil interface is peak horizontal ground acceleration (pga), which
is 0.339 g for the example case and corresponds to the spectral acceleration at T=
0 s.
Pseudo-static Sliding Calculation (cont.)
3:32 PM
Subsequently, force equals mass time acceleration is applied to the interpolated
acceleration values at each interface elevation to estimate the inertial sliding
force acting at that interface (see table next page). The frictional sliding resistance
of the interface is calculated using the normal stress (i.e., vertical stress) acting at
the interface multiplied by interface coefficient of friction and by the percentage
of area available to resist sliding (expressed in decimal fraction). (The weight of
the EPS is usually neglected in calculating the normal stress.) In this calculation,
the coefficient of friction for geofoam-to-geofoam and geofoam-to-soil interfaces
was estimated to be 0.8 and 0.6, respectively, based on direct shear testing from
the I-15 Reconstruction Project (Bartlett et al. 2000). In addition, any potential
bonding that develops between the EPS and the overlying concrete load
distribution slab was ignored in this example at interface 9 ; but such a bond
shear strength could be include if: (1) it can be reasonably obtained from
experimental data, and (2) such a bond can be shown to persist throughout the
design life of the embankment.
The recommended factor of safety against interlayer and basal sliding is 1.2 to
1.3, which may not be achieved at all interfaces relying on frictional resistance
solely. For interfaces where unacceptably low safety factors are calculated, shear
keys can be constructed during the placement of the geofoam block to reduce the
potential for interlayer sliding. Such keys disrupt the development of horizontal
sliding planes during earthquake shaking and are constructed by periodically
placing half-height blocks in the geofoam mass followed by placing full-height
block in the successive layer . The full-height block placed in the key acts as a
barrier to sliding and the shear resistance of the block is mobilized to resist
sliding. Therefore, the key greatly improves the factor of safety against interlayer
sliding due to the relatively high shear strength of the EPS block. The resisting
force provided by the key is calculated by multiplying the shear strength of the
block by the percentage of area occupied by the key. We note that if a shear key
is used at a particular interface, the area available for frictional contact must be
reduced correspondingly when calculating the resisting sliding force.
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Papers\UDOT%20Geofoam\UDOT%20EPS%20Report.docx>
3:32 PM
H = 8 m
Block thickness
=
0.81 m
number of
interfaces
9
normal stress 25.36 kPa
interface
friction
0.8 (geofoam -
geofoam)
interface
friction
0.6 (geofoam - soil)
geofoam shear
strength
23 psi (EPS19 used in
shear key)
geofoam shear
strength
157.3 kPa
Horiz. mass inertial resisting shear resisting FS
interface Accel. (kg/m
3
) force sliding key force sliding
# (g) (N/m
3
) force coverag
e
from
key
(w /
key)
(N/m
3
) (%) (N/m
3
)
9 0.848 2585 21497 19073 6 9439 1.33
8 0.791 2585 20064 19478 4 6293 1.28
7 0.735 2585 18631 19681 3 4720 1.31
6 0.678 2585 17198 19884 2 3146 1.34
5 0.622 2585 15765 20087 1 1573 1.37
4 0.565 2585 14332 20290 0 0 1.42
3 0.509 2585 12898 20290 0 0 1.57
2 0.452 2585 11465 20290 0 0 1.77
1 0.396 2585 10032 20290 0 0 2.02
0 0.339 2585 8599 15217 0 0 1.77
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Papers\UDOT%20Geofoam\UDOT%20EPS%20Report.docx>
3:32 PM
Shear Key
3:32 PM
joint, fault or bedding planes in a geologic medium
interface between a foundation element and the soil
contact plane between a bin or chute and the material that it contains
contact between two colliding objects.
There are several instances in geomechanics in which it is desirable to
represent planes on which sliding or separation can occur:
Friction
Cohesion
Dilation
Normal stiffness
Shear stiffness
Tensile Strength
FLAC provides interfaces that are characterized by Coulomb sliding and/or
tensile separation. Interfaces have one or more of the following properties:
Although there is no restriction on the number of interfaces or the complexity
of their intersections, it is generally not reasonable to model more than a few
simple interfaces with FLAC because it is awkward to specify complicated
interface geometry. The program UDEC (Itasca 2004) is specifically designed to
model many interacting bodies; it should be used instead of FLAC for the more
complicated interface problems.
An interface can also be specified between structural elements and a grid, or
between two structural elements. Interfaces may also be used to join regions
that have different zone sizes. In general, the ATTACH command should be
used to join sub-grids together. However, in some circumstances it may be
more convenient to use an interface for this purpose. In this case, the
interface is prevented from sliding or opening because it does not correspond
to any physical entity.
More on Interfaces in FLAC
11:43 AM
Interface Properties
Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Interface Used to Join Two Sub-Grids
Real Interface Slip and Separation Only
Real Interface All Properties Have Physical Significance
Shear and normal stiffness (cases)
Interface Used to Join Two Sub-Grids
Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Real Interface Slip and Separation Only
Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
Real Interface All Properties Have Physical Significance
Interfaces (cont.)
11:43 AM
The angle of dilation controls an amount of plastic volumetric strain developed
during plastic shearing and is assumed constant during plastic yielding. The value
of =0 corresponds to the volume preserving deformation while in shear.
Clays (regardless of overconsolidated layers) are characterized by a very low
amount of dilation (0). As for sands, the angle of dilation depends on the
angle of internal friction. For non-cohesive soils (sand, gravel) with the angle of
internal friction >30 the value of dilation angle can be estimated as =-30. A
negative value of dilation angle is acceptable only for rather loose sands. In most
cases, however, the assumption of = 0 can be adopted.
Pasted from <http://www.finesoftware.eu/geotechnical-software/help/fem/angle-of-dilation/>
How does dilatancy affect the behavior of soil?
No dilatancy, dilatancy angle = 0. Note that
the unit square has undergone distortion
solely.
Dilatancy during shear. Note that the unit
square has undergone distortion and
volumetric strain (change in volume).
Dilatancy Angle
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
Soils dilate (expand) or contract upon shearing and the degree of this dilatancy
can be explained by the dilatancy angle, .
The dilatancy angle can be calculated from the Mohr's circle of strain, see
previous page. It can also be estimated from the following formulas.
This element is dilating
during shear. This is
plastic behavior.
Dilatancy Angle Relationships
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
12:45 PM
Solution for dilation angle for Fig. 3.58 in FLAC manual
.
solving for the dilation angle:
taking the sin of the dilation angle:
simplifying:
from Eq. 4.18 in Salgado
simplifies to:
the results are the same
Note: A negative sign was added here to be
consistent with Salgado Eq. 4-15. Also, the
relation between dev and de1 and de3 is
from Eq. 4-17 in Salgado
Dilatancy Angle (cont.)
11:43 AM
Dilatancy Angle from Triaxial Test
11:43 AM
Dilatancy Angle - Typical Values
11:43 AM
Interface
config
set large
g 20 21
model elas
gen 0,0 0,10 21,10 21,0
; scales model to 1 cm
ini x mul 0.01
ini y mul 0.01
; creates horz. gap in grid
model null j 11
; creates gap on both sides of upper part of grid
model null i 1,4 j 12,21
model null i 17,20 j 12,21
; reconnects the grid
ini x add .005 j 12 22
ini y add -.00475 j 12 22
Simple Interface Model - Direct Shear FLAC Example
11:43 AM
; creates interface
int 1 Aside from 1,11 to 21,11 Bside from 5,12 to 17,12
int 1 kn 10e7 ks 10e7 cohesion 0 fric 35 dil 5
; elastic properties for model
prop dens 2000 bulk 8.3e6 shear 3.85e6
; boundary conditions
fix x y j=1
fix x i=1 j 1,11
fix x i=21 j=1,11
; apply pressure at top of model
apply p=50e3 i=5,17 j=22
;
his 999 unb
; consolidates sample under applied pressure
solve
;
; starts shear part of test
ini xvel 5e-7 i= 5,17 j 12,22
fix x i= 5,17 j 12,22
; reinitializes displacements to zero
ini xdis 0.0 ydis 0.0
Simple Interface Model (cont.)
11:43 AM
; functions to calculate shear stress and displacements
call int.fin ; this needs to be in default folder
def ini_jdisp
njdisp0 = 0.0
sjdisp0 = 0.0
pnt = int_pnt
loop while pnt # 0
pa = imem(pnt+$kicapt)
loop while pa # 0
sjdisp0 = sjdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp0 = njdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pa = imem(pnt+$kicbpt)
loop while pa # 0
sjdisp0 = sjdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp0 = njdisp0 + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pnt = imem(pnt)
end_loop
end
ini_jdisp
;
11:43 AM
def av_str
whilestepping
sstav = 0.0
nstav = 0.0
njdisp = 0.0
sjdisp = 0.0
ncon = 0
jlen = 0.0
pnt = int_pnt
loop while pnt # 0
pa = imem(pnt+$kicapt)
loop while pa # 0
sstav = sstav + fmem(pa+$kidfs)
nstav = nstav + fmem(pa+$kidfn)
jlen = jlen + fmem(pa+$kidlen)
sjdisp = sjdisp + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp = njdisp + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pa = imem(pnt+$kicbpt)
loop while pa # 0
ncon = ncon + 1
sstav = sstav + fmem(pa+$kidfs)
nstav = nstav + fmem(pa+$kidfn)
jlen = jlen + fmem(pa+$kidlen)
sjdisp = sjdisp + fmem(pa+$kidasd)
njdisp = njdisp + fmem(pa+$kidand)
pa = imem(pa)
end_loop
pnt = imem(pnt)
end_loop
if ncon # 0
sstav = sstav / jlen
nstav = nstav / jlen
sjdisp = (sjdisp-sjdisp0) / (2.0 * ncon)
njdisp = (njdisp-njdisp0) / (2.0 * ncon)
endif
end
11:43 AM
hist sstav nstav sjdisp njdisp
step 22000
save directshear.sav 'last project state'
11:43 AM
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND
6-Oct-10 6:59
step 27927

HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Rev 1 sstav (FISH)
X-axis :
3 sjdisp (FISH)
2 4 6 8 10
(10 )
-03
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
(10 )
04
JOB TITLE : .
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND
6-Oct-10 6:59
step 27927

HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
4 njdisp (FISH)
X-axis :
3 sjdisp (FISH)
2 4 6 8 10
(10 )
-03
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
(10 )
-04
JOB TITLE : .
Steven Bartlett
University of Utah
11:43 AM
Blank
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Lecture Notes
Reading Assignment
Other Materials
Use the analysis approach discussed in the liquefaction remediation section
to design a remediation for the problem presented in FLAC model 7.pdf
2.
Liquefaction
3:32 PM
Liquefaction Page 278
During strong earthquake shaking. loose. saturated cohesionless soil deposits may
experience a sudden loss of strength and stiffness. sometimes resulting in loss of
bearing capacity. large permanent lateral displacements. And/or seismic
settlement of the ground. This phenomenon is called soil liquefaction.
Pasted from <http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Hazards/Natural/Seismic/Liquefaction.aspx>
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/
~liquefaction/html/what/what2.html>
Liquefaction Modeling
3:32 PM
Accelerations and Pore Pressure Generation During Liquefaction
3:32 PM
Flow Failure (large displacement)
Deformation Failure - sometime called
cyclic mobility (smaller displacement)
Flow Failure versus Deformation Failure
3:32 PM
Flow Failure
Deformation Failure
Stable Slope
Flow Failure versus Deformation Failure
3:32 PM
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/selectpiclique/dams/sheffielddam1.jpg>
1971 San
Fernando
Dam
Sheffield Dam
Flow Failures
3:32 PM
Pasted from <http://www.ce.washington.edu/
~liquefaction/selectpiclique/rivers/motagua.jpg>
Pasted from <http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Tecoman_2003/c-liq.html>
Deformation Failures
3:32 PM
Definition of Liquefaction, ru = 1, where ru is the pore pressure ratio
For laboratory
Ru = Au / o'c
o'c = effective confining stress in the triaxial cell
(NRC, 1985)
For field
Definition of Liquefaction
3:32 PM
Note the onset of large
deformation noting
liquefaction
Cyclic Behavior of Loose Sand
3:32 PM
Cyclic Behavior of Dense Sand
3:32 PM
Counting Cycles to Liquefaction
3:32 PM
Earthquake
magnitude,
M
Number of
representativ
e
uniform
cycles at
0.65max
26
15
10
5-6
2-3
Seed et al., (1975)
Equivalent Stress Cycles Versus Earthquake Magnitude
3:32 PM
Number of Cycles to Liquefaction
3:32 PM
For o = 1
Pore Pressure Buildup Versus No. of Cycles
3:32 PM
When ru reaches 1.0, then complete liquefaction has occurred.
t = (t
max
- t
residual
) (1-r
u
) + t
residual
Functions to degrade residual strength and shear modulus according to ru
G = (G
max
- G
residual
) (1-r
u
)
1/2
+ G
residual
Pore Pressure Generation Scheme for Modeling
3:32 PM
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0 5 10 15 20
(N
1
)60cs
S
r
/
G
r
Sr/Gr ratio = shear strain (decimal fraction)
Relating Residual Strength with Residual Shear Modulus
3:32 PM
Beaty and Byrne, 1999
Soft reloading curve = 10 percent of stiff unloading curve
Strain - Strain Loops
3:32 PM
Input motion
Model Geometry
Model Verification
3:32 PM
Hysteresis loops for site soil with low (5 k Pa) residual strength
Flat top part of loop shows perfectly plastic yielding
Loading curve is soft
Reloading curve is stiffer (10 x modulus of loading curve)
Model Verification (cont.)
3:32 PM
Comparison with Kobe Site
Earthquake N-S,Port Island
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
16m depth motion
ground surface motion
Note that liquefaction has caused a significant decreases in the surface ground
motion
3:32 PM
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND
1-Jun-08 20:00
step 987
Dynamic Time 4.1469E+00
-4.446E+00 <x< 8.445E+01
-3.045E+01 <y< 5.845E+01
friction
0.000E+00
8.000E+00
3.500E+01
Grid plot
0 2E 1
-2.500
-1.500
-0.500
0.500
1.500
2.500
3.500
4.500
5.500
(*10^1)
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500
(*10^1)
JOB TITLE : .
CIVIL DEPT. UU
UU
FLAC model for Kobe Site
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Ground surface motion predicted
Ground surface motion recorded
3:32 PM
Comparison of surface response spectra for predicted vs. measure motions
Comparison of strain-strain loops at 8 m
3:32 PM
Comparison of pore pressure generation plot
3:32 PM
Wildlife site - liquefied sand
3:32 PM
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Actual Downhole
Actual Surface
FLAC (Version 5.00)
LEGEND
30-May-07 16:20
step 12965
Dynamic Time 3.0001E+01
-2.374E+00 <x< 4.236E+01
-1.231E+01 <y< 3.242E+01
Grid plot
0 1E 1
friction
0.000E+00
8.000E+00
3.500E+01
Grid plot
0 1E 1
-0.750
-0.250
0.250
0.750
1.250
1.750
2.250
2.750
(*10^1)
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750
(*10^1)
JOB TITLE : .
CIVIL DEPT. UU
UU
Measured down hole vs. surface acceleration
FLAC model for Wildlife site
3:32 PM
Predicted vs. measured surface acceleration time histories
3:32 PM
The difference may due to:
The relatively low permeability of the liquefied silty around piezometer.
Pore pressure need to migration to reach the piezometer.
Thus the pore pressure records at the WLA may not indicate when
liquefaction (ru = 1) was reached.
Possible that this area reached the liquefied state later, on average, than
typical liquefied site.
FLAC modeling approach does not consider pore pressure migration or

redistribution , also it based on average soil properties.

3:32 PM
Stress-Strain loops for Wildlife
3:32 PM
Case history sites used in the calibration process
mean value i.
maximum value ii.
minimum value iii.
+1/2 standard deviation iv.
1/2 standard deviation v.
+1 standard deviation vi.
1 standard deviation vii.
For each case history without recorded ground motion, 7 synthetic strong
motions were selected from 30 synthetic strong motion recorded generated by
the SGMSV5 program (Papagorgiou, 2004). These 7 motions were selected at
the following according to the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period
of the liquefied soil column.
Model Calibration
3:32 PM
Back-calculated values of Sr (residual strength) normalized to the effective
vertical stress ov'
Model Calibration Results
3:32 PM
Note that the data from this study (red diamonds) suggest that the correlation
with N160CS (N160 adjusted to a clean sands value) is approximately between the
mean value and lower bound value determined by Stark and Mesri (1992).
Regression equation from Meng (2011) to predict the normalized residual
strength:
Sr / ov' = 0.007639 N160CS + 0.05042 * D50
Correlation with In situ Properties
3:32 PM
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0 5 10 15 20
(N
1
)60cs
S
r
/
G
r
Sr = residual shear strength
Gr = residual shear modulus
Determining the Residual Shear and Bulk Modulus
3:32 PM
Step 1 - Determine the required area replacement ratio, Ra, based on the
pre-improvement factor of safety against liquefaction, FSpre, and the ratio
of the shear modulus of the gravel column to the shear modulus of the
matrix soil, RG.
Ra = area of column/area total
RG = GC/GM
RG = shear modulus of
column / shear modulus
of matrix soil
Note: The shear moduli in this equation are not low strain moduli, Gmax, but should be
selected consistent with the strains that develop in the column and matrix soil from the
applied loading.
Lawton, E. C. (2001). "Soil Improvement and Stabilization: Non-Grouting Techniques." Section 6A
in Practical Foundation Engineering Handbook, Edited by R. W. Brown, McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp.
6.1 - 6.340.
Liquefaction Remediation
3:32 PM
Liquefaction Remediation Page 310
Step 2 - Determine the composite friction angle of the treated soil, |C, from the
stress concentration ratio, RS, the replacement ratio, Ra, friction angle of the
column, |C, and the friction angle of the matrix soil, |M.
|comp = tan
-1
[c Ra tan |C + m (1-Ra) tan |M]
Rs = 2 to 5 for stone columns
Rs = 8 for Geopiers
TM
Rs = 10 for lime cement columns

Approximate values of Rs for preliminary design
C = Rs/[Ra(Rs-1)+1]
m= 1/[Ra(Rs-1)+1]
Ground Improvement (cont.)
3:32 PM
Step 3 - Determine the composite shear modulus for the treated soil, Gcomp
Gcomp = (GC * AC + GM*AM)/A
Note: The shear moduli in this equation are not low strain moduli, Gmax, obtained from
geophysical tests. The values should be selected consistent with the stresses and strains that
develop in the column and matrix soil from the applied loading.
Estimates of GC and GM can be obtained from the following paper.
78.5/15.7=5 Thus, use GC/GM = 5 for calculations.
3:32 PM
Example
Pre-earthquake configuration of embankment
Post-earthquake configuration of embankment (yellow zone) is liquefied zone.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
meters
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
m
e
t
e
r
s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
3:32 PM
Design Spectrum
M
7.50
RRUP (km)
3.54
RJ B (km)
0.00
RX (km)
5.00
U
0
FRV
0
FNM
1
FHW
1
ZTOR (km)
0.00
o
45
VS30 (m/sec)
300
FMeasured
0
Z1.0 (m)
DEFAULT
Z2.5 (km)
DEFAULT
W (km)
20.00
FAS
0
HW Taper
0
Pasted from <file:///C:
\Users\sfbartlett
\Documents\GeoSlope
\NGA_Models_Version2.
xls>
3:32 PM
Input Acceleration Time History (Spectrally-matched)
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
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Response spectrum from above acceleration time history. Spectrally matched to
plus or minus 10 percent of the target spectrum.
Peak ground acceleration (pga) = 0.6 g
This was put into base of DEEPSOIL Model
3:32 PM
Determining site-specific response
Embankment and shallow soil properties
g
(kN/m
3
)
r
(kg/m
3
)

(lb/ft
3
)
E (kPa) v K (kPa) G (kPa) c (kPa)
Soil 1 15.72 1603 100 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0
Soil 2 16.51 1683 105 100000 0.37 128,205 36,496 24.37 0
Soil 3 17.29 1763 110 150000 0.35 166,667 55,556 27.49 0
Soil 4 18.08 1843 115 200000 0.3 166,667 76,923 34.85 0
Soil 5 18.08 1843 115 250000 0.3 208,333 96,154 34.85 0
Embankment 21.22 2163 135 500000 0.3 416,667 192,308 34.85 25
Soil Properties for 1D Deep Soil Analysis
Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
Determining site-specific response (cont.)
Acceleration time history in layer 5 from DeepSoil
Black= base motion
Blue = surface motion
Orange = motion in layer 5
(i.e., base of FLAC model)
Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
Calculate the pre-improvement factor of safety against liquefaction. This was
done using Quake/W.
Liquefied zone is between z = 6 and 7 m (i.e., 2-4 m below ground surface)
N160 value = 12
Fines content < 5 percent
Watertable 2 m below ground surface at toe of slope
Soil Properties
Input motion at base of Quake/W model for liquefaction calculations
Ground Improvement, Sample Calculation
3:32 PM
Number of cycle to cause liquefaction versus shear stress ratio
Chart for N160 = 12
Clean sand
Ground Improvement, Sample Calculation (cont.)
3:32 PM
Ks correction
Ka correction
3:32 PM
For o = 1
3:32 PM
Cyclic stress ratio (CSRE) from QUAKE/W
Maximum shear strain without liquefaction from QUAKE/w
-0.01 0.01

0
.
0
2

0.03
0
.0
3

0.15
0.2
0
.2
5

0
.3

0.35
0.4
0
.4
5

CRSE = 0.25 in critical zone
3:32 PM
Calculations
FS pre = CSRL / CSRE = 0.12 / 0.25 0.5
CSRL = 0.12 (clean sand from chart below)
3:32 PM
Ra = 0.25 (chart) for FS = 0.5
RG = 5 (previous)
Rs = 5 (Stone columns)
|C = 37 deg
|M= 25 deg
C = Rs/[Ra(Rs-1)+1] = 5/[0.25(5-1)+1] = 2.5
m= 1/[Ra(Rs-1)+1] = 1/[0.25(5-1)+1] = 0.5
|comp = tan
-1
[c Ra tan |C + m (1-Ra) tan |M]
|comp = tan
-1
[2.5*0.25 tan 37 + 0.5 (1-0.25) tan 25]
|comp = 33 deg
Gcomp = (GC * AC + GM*AM)/A
Gcomp = (78.5 *0.25 + 15.7 * 0.75)/1
Gcomp = 31.4 MPa
3:32 PM
toe
crest
front
Ground Improvement
3:32 PM
Blank
3:32 PM
Spectral Matching
Spectral Matching creates high-quality design ground motion time histories by
taking actual earthquake accelerograms and adjusting them to match a target
response spectrum. These time histories are used by structural engineers in non-
linear analyses of the dynamic response of buildings and soil structures to
earthquake ground shaking.
The ground motion time histories used in analyses need to accurately reflect a
design level of safety and have realistic time-dependent characteristics.
Pasted from <http://www.ez-frisk.com/Tech/SpectralMatching/Spectral.html>
Pasted from <http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/research/spectral_matching.html>
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Spectral Matching Page 327
http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoMatch.aspx
Program is available at:
Simultaneous matching of a number of accelerograms, and then creation of a
mean matched spectrum whose maximum misfit respects a pre-defined
tolerance
Possibility of using this software in combination with records selection tools

and records appropriateness verification algorithms to define adequate
suites of records for nonlinear dynamic analysis of new or existing structures
Capability of reading single accelerograms defined in both single- or multiple-

values per line formats (the two most popular formats used by strong-
motion databases) or of reading a number of accelerograms at the same time
(if they are defined in the single-value per line format)
Creation of the target spectrum by following Eurocode 8 rules, by computing

the spectrum of a specific accelerogram or by simply loading a user-defined
spectrum
SeismoMatch is an application capable of adjusting earthquake accelerograms to

match a specific target response spectrum, using the wavelets algorithm
proposed by Abrahamson [1992] and Hancock et al. [2006]. Some of its features
are:
Elastic response spectra and pseudo-spectra
Overdamped and constant-ductility inelastic response spectra
Root-mean-square (RMS) of acceleration, velocity and displacement
Arias (Ia) and characteristic (Ic) intensities
Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and specific energy density (SED)
Acceleration (ASI) and velocity (VSI) spectrum intensity
Housner intensity
Sustained maximum acceleration (SMA) and velocity (SMV)
Effective design acceleration (EDA)
Predominant (Tp)
Significant duration
The following strong-motion parameters are then computed for the matched
accelerograms:
Pasted from <http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoMatch.aspx>
Spectral Matching using Seisomatch
3:32 PM
Recommendations on selection of candidate time histories for spectral
matching
The candidate time histories for the analyses should come from earthquakes
that have earthquake magnitude and source-to-site distance that are
approximately the same as the controlling earthquake magnitude and source
distance associated with the proposed site.
1.
The candidate time histories should be selected from the National Geophysical
Data Center (NGDC), U.S.G.S., PEER and California Strong Ground Motion
Instrumentation Program, or other appropriate strong motion databases. We
found that the PEER web site was particularly useful because its records had
been already pre-processed for engineering evaluations.
2.
The earthquake magnitude, M, of candidate time histories be within + 0.5 M of
the controlling fault magnitude for the proposed site. For example, a site with a
controlling earthquake magnitude of 7.0 should have candidate time histories
selected from earthquakes with M between 6.5 and 7.5.
3.
a. R < 15 km
b. 15 < R < 30 km
c. 30 < R < 50 km
d. R > 50 km
In addition to earthquake magnitude, it is important that the candidate time
histories have the appropriate source-to-site distance. This criterion is often
difficult to meet for moderate to large earthquake that are close to the seismic
source because there is only a handful of appropriate records. To aid in
determining the appropriate distance for the candidate time history, we
propose dividing the source-to-site distance into the following four categories:
4.
We recommend that the candidate time histories be selected for the
appropriate M and from events that fall within the same source-distance
category. For example, if the controlling source distance for the design event is
20 km, then candidate time histories should be selected from source distances
that fall between 15 and 30 km,
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Whenever possible, we recommend the selection of candidate time histories
from the appropriate tectonic regimes. For Utah, the tectonic regime is
extensional.
5.
Whenever possible, we recommend that the candidate time histories have peak
ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground
displacement (PGD) with minus 25 percent and plus 50 percent of the target
spectral values (CALTRANS 1996a). This will allow the spectral matching process
to be completed with less difficulty. In addition, the spectral matching process
will not introduce as large of change in the spectral content of the matched time
history.
6.
We recommend the selection of at least 3 and as many as 7 time histories for
the ground response analyses. The number of time histories to be used in
nonlinear dynamic analyses should take in account the dependence of the
response on the time domain characteristics of the time history (e.g., duration,
pulse shape, pulse sequencing) and its spectral response content. ASCE 4-98
recommends that at least 3 independent time histories be used for non-linear
analyses.
7.
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Kobe.d
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 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
)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Unmatched Kobe Record (candidate record for spectral matching)
Target Spectrum
Kobe.d
Period (sec)
3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

(
g
)
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
Acceleration Response Spectrum (Kobe Record - 5 percent damped)
Note that this is acceleration time history is one that has been provided by
Seismomatch in its default folder. We will use it as a candidate time history for
this example, even though it may not be strictly applicable for a real site and a
real design case.
Spectral Matching in Seismomatch
3:32 PM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Design - Target
This represents the design spectrum at the surface for a
given site. This design spectrum is referred to as the target
spectrum and it is often determined using methodologies
such as:
Code-based design procedures such as ASCE 7-05 1.
Attenuation relations 2.
Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PHSA) 3.
T (s) SA (g)
0 0.59
0.01 0.595
0.02 0.605
0.03 0.642
0.05 0.731
0.075 0.857
0.1 1.001
0.15 1.15
0.2 1.219
0.25 1.244
0.3 1.249
0.4 1.222
0.5 1.212
0.75 1.09
1 0.975
1.5 0.768
2 0.622
3 0.43
4 0.324
5 0.269
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Importing the target spectrum within Seismomatch using the Load Spectrum
from file option. This is target spectrum is the same as the design spectrum
given previously.
Target Spectrum
Kobe.d
Period (sec)
3 2 1 0
A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

(
g
)
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Comparison of the Kobe response spectrum with the target spectrum. Note
that the Kobe record is has lower amplitudes for all periods. The goal of
spectral matching is to increase the amplitude of this record so it more closely
matches the target spectrum.
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM
Results from the spectral matching.
Original acceleration values
Matched acceleration values
Time
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
A
c
c
e
l e
r
a
t
i o
n

(
g
)
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
Time
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
V
e
l o
c
i t
y

(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)100
50
0
-50
Time
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
D
i s
p
l a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
Spectral Matching
3:32 PM

Course Notes of Earthquake

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

Course Notes of Earthquake

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overview:

Seismicity, influence of soil conditions on site response, seismic site response

Determine peak ground acceleration (pga) from the time history.

Develop and plot a pseudo acceleration response spectrum for

Determine the predominate period. (5 points)

For the Sakaria acceleration time history do the following:

Assume the MCEB is found on a site class C soil.

FEM (finite element methods) (computer program DEEPSOIL)

FDM (finite difference methods) (computer program FLAC)

Nonlinear Techniques (CVEEN 6330 and CVEEN 7330)

It expresses the maximum acceleration response of a single degree of

The above spectrum is not a design spectrum. It is jagged because it

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis

SHAKE produces an approximation to the nonlinear response of soils under

nonlinear stress strain loop is approximated by a single equivalent linear

SHAKE cannot be used directly to solve problems involving ground

final strain is zero (after cycling has stopped).

However, a nonlinear system can be express by using the secant shear

Hysteretic behavior approximated by Gsec and equivalent damping

Earthquakes produce earthquake motion that is highly irregular with a peak

As a result, it is common practice to characterize the effective strain level of

Iteration to Determine Strain Compatible Properties

The Ostadan-White method is by no means a complete solution to the seismic

Solution! Perfect isolation!

Steven F. Bartlett, 2010

Sign Conventions (cont.)

Matrices are never formed.

Since matrices are never

Large amount of computational

Numerical damping dependent

Iterative procedure necessary

Stiffness matrices must be

Memory requirements tend to

Additional computing effort

Explicit versus Implicit Formulation (cont.)

No artificial parameters (e.g., functions for inter-slice angles) need to be

Multiple failure surfaces (or complex internal yielding) evolve naturally,

Structural interaction (e.g., rock bolt, soil nail or geogrid) is modeled

Solution consists of mechanisms that are feasible kinematically.

The static shear strengthmay be either decreased or increased, depending

Dynamic forces are represented as pseudostatic forces and moments and

Seismic loads in structures are typically dominated by the inertial forces

However, these horizontal forces are transmitted to the foundation in

The resultant load will usually have to be inclined or applied

Alternatively, vertical bearing capacity and horizontal sliding resistance

Combination of loads from dynamic response analysis (vertical and

Common Approach for bearing capacity

0.5 x pga (for structures that can tolerate some deformation, or

consider potential amplification of horizontal acceleration for slender

no general guidance for selection of seismic coefficient, some possible

Combination of loads (vertical and horizontal)

if vertical load is applied eccentrically, it will generate a vertical force

both compressive and tensile vertical loads should be considered

Load Evaluation (cont.) - Loads from Pseudostatic Analysis

B' = (B-2e) (Meyerhof, 1953)

Load combinations (Method 1 or 2) Common approach for sliding

For concrete foundations, the adhesion and interface friction

For embedded foundations the passive seismic resistance in front

sliding performance at horizontal layer interfaces

FLAC modeling approach does not consider pore pressure migration or

Model Verification (cont.)

Rs = 10 for lime cement columns

Possibility of using this software in combination with records selection tools

Capability of reading single accelerograms defined in both single- or multiple-