Analisis Dinamico Tem Flac PDF

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
PMH1 PROJECT
Lateral Displacement.
Contour lines
Prepared for REINFORCED EARTH COMPANY
By:
Ali Amini, P.Eng. & Ernest Naesgaard, P.Eng.
Naesgaard Geotechnical Ltd.
October 20, 2010

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Numerical dynamic analyses using the program FLAC have been carried out for Reinforced Earth
retaining walls proposed to be used for the Port Mann Bridge / Gateway project. This report presents
the numerical dynamic analyses carried out on a generic 12m high MSE wall on improved soft ground
foundation. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall displacements
and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.
Maximum Total Displacements of MSE Wall
The maximum total horizontal displacement occurred at the top corner of the MSE wall. The average
values of total horizontal displacement at this point were about 200, 400 and 750 mm for 475, 975 and
2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
The maximum total vertical displacement occurred at the surface of the backfill behind the MSE volume
where the strips ended. The average values of total vertical displacement at top of backfill behind the
MSE volume were about 100, 200 and 400 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
Maximum Internal Displacements of MSE Wall
The total displacements were approximately broken down into internal and external displacements
(rotational and translational movements) of the MSE wall.
The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner of the MSE wall was about 50, 100
and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The average calculated internal vertical
displacement at top of fill behind the MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475
yr earthquakes, respectively.
Response of Reinforcing Strips
On average, 6, 6 and 8 rows of strips reached structural yield strength of corroded strips during 475, 975
and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The maximum average axial strains were 0.7, 1.5 and 2.8% during
475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. These strains were below the allowable rupture strains
of 15% and were indicative of internal stability of the MSE wall during design earthquakes.
1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
2 Available Information .......................................................................................................... 3
3 FLAC Numerical Modeling.................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Soil Profile and Properties Used in the FLAC Model ................................................... 4
3.2 Model Geometry ......................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Input Ground Motion ................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Constitutive Models .................................................................................................... 5
3.4.1 UBCSAND ...................................................................................................... 5
3.4.2 UBCHYST ....................................................................................................... 5
3.5 General Procedure for Numerical Analysis ................................................................. 6
4 FLAC analyses results and discussions ............................................................................. 6
5 Limitations and Uncertainties ............................................................................................. 9
Attachments:
Tables 1 to 10
Figures 1 to 19
Appendix A- Summary of SHAKE Analysis
Appendix B- UBCSAND Constitutive Model
Appendix C- UBCHYST Constitutive Model
2
1 INTRODUCTION
Naesgaard Geotechnical Limited (NGL) was retained by Reinforced Earth Company (RECO) to
perform a series of dynamic analyses on a few generic cases of MSE walls proposed for the
PMH1 project. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall
displacements and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.
The case presented in this report is a generic 12m high MSE wall resting on improved soft
ground foundation.
2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION
The information provided by RECO to NGL is as follows:

Geometry of the MSE wall: Figure 1 shows the typical geometry of the MSE wall and its
reinforcing strips. Strips were 9m long.
Reinforcing strips: Table 1 and 2 present the configuration and the structural parameters of
the reinforcing strips, respectively.
Facing concrete segments: Table 3 presents properties of facing concrete segments.
Backfill soil parameters: Geotechnical parameters for the backfill within the MSE volume
(MSE fill) and the backfill behind the MSE volume (backfill) are presented in Table 4.
Shear wave velocity and small strain shear modulus, Gmax of the backfill soils were estimated
(by NGL) as a function of depth and effective stress (See footnote of Table 4 and Figure 2)
and used in dynamic phase of analysis.
Design earthquake records
Three sets of outcropping firm ground earthquake records in two orthogonal directions with
return periods of 475, 975, and 2475 years were fitted to the design response spectra by
others and provided for use in the design (Golder Associates Memorandum July 24, 2007).
Each set included 6 earthquake records.
External dead loads:
Traffic load = 16 kPa at top of backfill and MSE wall
Soil conditions
Stratigraphy of foundations soils and their in situ geotechnical parameters were obtained
from MEG Consulting Ltd. as presented in Tables 5.
3
It is understood that vibro-replacement technique (Vibro-stone column) would be utilized to

provide stability during and after earthquake shaking and that an improved area of 20m
wide by 21m deep was considered below the MSE wall (Figure 3).
3 FLAC NUMERICAL MODELING
Dynamic analyses have been carried out using the two dimensional finite difference
program FLAC, Version 6 (ITASCA 2008).
3.1 Soil Profile and Properties Used in the FLAC Model

The generalized soil profile included 12m of granular fill (MSE volume or backfill) overlying
54 m of soils overlying very dense till like material which was assumed firm ground. NBCC
2005 defines firm ground as very dense material with Shear wave velocity in the range of
360m/s to 760m/s. The soil layers below ground surface include the following from top to
bottom: 2.9m of fill (Fill), 3m of soft silty sand/sandy silt (SM/ML), 1.5m of gravelly sand
(SG), 26.5m of sand (SP1 to SP4), 15m of sitly clay (CL-ML) and 5m of clay to gravelly clay
(CL-GC). Water table was assumed at 2.5m depth below ground surface. Table 6 and
Figure 4 present the soil profile used in the FLAC model.
It was assumed that ground improvement would be designed and implemented such that
seismic induced excess pore water pressure and deterioration of strength and stiffness in
the granular soils would be negligible. Equivalent undrained shear strength of the SM/ML
layer was calculated assuming a 30% replacement ratio (See Table 6 and related footnotes).
It should be noted that ground improvement design and global stability of MSE wall are by
others.
3.2 Model Geometry

The FLAC model was 875m wide and 54m or 66m high. It consisted of 0.375m by 0.4m wide
elements (Figure 5) in the proximity of the MSE wall. Elements became gradually wider with
distance from the MSE wall. The MSE fill and backfill was connected to the foundation
ground by an interface.
16 layers of 9m long reinforcing strips using FLAC built-in strip elements and 8 facing
segments using FLAC built-in beam elements were added to the model. One end of strips
was connected to their respective facing beams. Both ends of facing beams were pinned.
The bottom of the facing beam was connected to its respective grid point. The MSE fill and
facing beam elements were separated using interface elements with a friction angle of 23
degrees (Figure 6).
4
Due to the method used in constructing the FLAC model, free field option was not available.
A detached column was modeled on both sides of the main FLAC model to simulate the free
field ground response (Figure 5). The sides of the main FLAC model and free field columns
were slaved in horizontal direction. This forced the vertical sides of the main FLAC model to
move similar to that of the free field columns.
3.3 Input Ground Motion

The horizontal outcropping firm ground motions were input into program SHAKE2000 and
with-in firm ground motion at the depth equivalent to the base of the FLAC model was
derived (Appendix A). The with-in ground motions were baseline corrected (if required) and
then integrated to obtain the velocity time histories which were used as input motion in the
FLAC model.
3.4 Constitutive Models

Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model with average soil moduli (Table 4) was used for the
backfill and MSE volume soils during construction of the MSE wall in the FLAC model,.
UBCHYST and UBCSAND models were used during the dynamic analysis (earthquake
shaking). The fine grained soils, granular soils above water table and granular soils within
the densified area were modeled using UBCHYST (Figure 7). The granular soils outside the
densified area and located below the water table were modeled using UBCSAND (Figure 7).
Sections below give a brief description of each model.
3.4.1 UBCSAND
UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the
sand skeleton and pore water flow fully coupled. UBCSAND simulates the shear induced
volume changes. The tendency of the skeleton for volume change results in changes in pore
water pressure if the pores are filled with water.
The model has been calibrated so that liquefaction triggers in accordance with the CSR vs
(N1)60 relationship from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008. A more detailed description of the
model and its calibration is given in Appendix B.
3.4.2 UBCHYST
UBCHYST is a total stress constitutive model developed for dynamic analyses of soil
subjected to earthquake loading. The model is intended to be used with undrained
strength parameters in low permeability clayey and silty soils not expected to generate
significant pore pressure or in highly permeable or drained granular soils where excess pore
water would dissipate as generated. The essence of the proposed hysteretic model is that
5
the tangent shear modulus (Gt) is a function of the peak shear modulus (Gmax) times a
reduction factor that is a function of the developed stress ratio () relative to the stress
ratio at failure. UBCHYST is calibrated to approximately match laboratory based curves for
G/Gmax and damping ratio. Appendix C presents a brief description of UBCHYST and its
calibration.
3.5 General Procedure for Numerical Analysis

In FLAC, the dynamic analyses were carried out in a chronological manner similar to the real
behaviour. The general procedure used for analyses included the following steps:
Set up model grid for the foundation soils above the till and bring to static
equilibrium using Elastic model.
Switch to Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model using average static soil moduli and
bring to static equilibrium.
Set up model grid, strip elements and facing beam elements for a 1.5m high
liftsand bring to static equilibrium using Elastic model.
Switch the lift elements to Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model using average static
soil moduli and bring to static equilibrium.
Repeat the above two steps until the full height of the wall and backfill is
constructed.
Switch to UBCHYST or UBCSAND constitutive models and bring to static
equilibrium.
Turn on dynamic configuration in large strain mode with a nominal 1% Rayleigh
damping and bring to equilibrium by running with input motion of zero at bottom
of the model.
Set displacements to zero, apply the with-in firm ground horizontal motion at the
base of the FLAC model, and solve past end of earthquake shaking.
Compile and summarize results of analyses.
4 FLAC ANALYSES RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
FLAC analysis was carried out for all 18 design ground motions. Table 7 and 10 presents the
analyzed cases and their key results.
6
For discussion purposes, typical graphical behaviour of the MSE wall is presented for CHICHI-
NS-2475 ground motion unless otherwise stated. CHICHI-NS-2475 is considered to be one
the most severe motions among the project design ground motions.
Pore pressure response of granular soils

Figure 8Bottom shows a snapshot of distribution of excess pore pressure ratio, Ru=pp/vo
at 50 seconds into the earthquake shaking. The results were indicative of low earthquake
induced Ru in the soils confined by the weight of the MSE wall and backfill. On the other
hand, large Ru values and extensive liquefaction occurred outside the MSE wall and
backfilled area. Figure 9-Top shows typical time histories of pore pressure ratio for two
selected points in the sandy layer SP1.
Total Displacements
Figure 9, 10 and 11 present the typical pattern of post-earthquake displacement vectors,
horizontal displacements and vertical displacements, respectively.
The maximum total horizontal displacement occurred at the top corner of the MSE wall wall
(Point B on Figure 12). The average values of total horizontal displacement at this point
were about 200, 400 and 750 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
The maximum total vertical displacement occurred at the surface of the backfill behind the
MSE volume where the strips ended (Point E on Figure 12). The average values of total
vertical displacement at top of backfill behind the MSE volume were about 100, 200 and
400 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively
Table 7 presents the calculated displacements at the selected points (Figure 12) obtained
from FLAC analyses.
Figure 13 presents the time histories of horizontal displacement at the base of the FLAC
model, base of the MSE wall facing and top corner of the MSE wall. The time history of
vertical displacement at the surface of backfill behind the MSE wall is also shown for
comparison.
Internal Deformations and External Displacements of the MSE Wall

PMH1 design team requested for estimation of the external and internal deformations.
The typical pattern of the total deformation of the MSE wall obtained from FLAC analysis is
shown in Figure 14. It was assumed that the total displacement of MSE wall was a
combination of internal deformations and external displacements which in turn was a
combination of translational displacements and rotational movements. Furthermore, it was
assumed that the external movements of the MSE wall occurred as a rigid body movement.
7
Rotation of the fictitious rigid MSE wall was assumed equal to the rotation of the base of
MSE wall which in turn was calculated by fitting a linear trendline to the deformed grid
points at the base of the wall (Figure 15). The grid point underneath the wall facing was
excluded from the line fitting procedure. Rotational movement of the rigid MSE wall was
calculated assuming that the base of wall facing was the pivot point. Translational
movement of the rigid MSE wall was assumed to be equal to the total displacement of the
base of the wall. Table 8 presents the calculated external rigid body movements (sum of
rotational and translational movements).
The internal displacements at points of interest were calculated by subtracting the external
rigid body movements from the total displacements obtained from FLAC analyses and are
presented in Table 9.The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner
of the MSE wall was about 50, 100 and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,
respectively. The average calculated internal vertical displacement at top of fill behind the
MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,
respectively.
Figure 16 illustrates approximate patterns of total, external rigid body and internal
displacements. Note that the deformations are exaggerated.
Response of the Reinforcing Strips to Earthquake Shaking

Figure 17 and Table 10 present the typical pattern of post-earthquake distribution of axial
forces in the strips. Figure 18 shows the typical time histories of axial forces in selected rows
of strips. Axial forces in strips generally increased with time and depth from the MSE wall
surface except for the very bottom row of strips. Some rows of strips reached the structural
yield strength of corroded strips. For example Row #2 reached the yield strength of 88
kN/row (88kN/row =2 strips/row x 44 kN/strip) at about 5 seconds into the earthquake. On
average, 6, 6 and 8 rows of strips were reached structural yield strength of corroded strips
during 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
Figure 19 presents the typical pattern of post-earthquake axial strains in the strips. Strains in
the strips generally increased with depth. The maximum average axial strains were 0.7, 1.5
and 2.8% during 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively (Table 10). These strains
were below the allowable rupture strains of 15% and were indicative of internal stability of
the MSE wall during design earthquakes.
8
5 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
Numerical analysis provides much insight into behavioural patterns and modes of failure.
However, there is considerable uncertainty in the assumed parameters and analysis
methodology, and seismic design in general. This should be understood and considered
when using the results.
The calculated displacements and demand in the strips are based on the best-estimate
parameters and do not include any factor of safety (except for calculation of yield strength
which included allowance for 100 year corrosion).
Please call if you have any questions on this report.

Yours Truly,
NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD.
Ali Amini, P.Eng. Ernest Naesgaard, P.Eng

Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
9
Tables
10
Table 1- Density of strips per 3m of width of MSE wall

Strip Row # Height from No. of strips per
From bottom wall base 3m width of wall
(m)
16 11.625 4
15 10.875 4
14 10.125 4
13 9.375 4
12 8.625 4
11 7.875 4
10 7.125 4
9 6.375 4
8 5.625 4
7 4.875 4
6 4.125 4
5 3.375 5
4 2.625 5
3 1.875 5
2 1.125 6
1 0.375 6
Table 2 Properties of reinforcing strips

Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 2.1 x 105
Poissons ratio (-) 0.3

2
Gross Cross section area (mm ) 50 x 4 = 200
2 50 x 2 = 100
Corroded cross section area (mm )
(see Notes)
Yield strength (MPa) 440
Rupture axial strain (-) 20%
Allowable rupture axial strain (-) 15%
Initial apparent friction coefficient (-) 2
Minimum apparent friction coefficient (-) 0.67
Transition confining pressure (kPa) 120
Notes:
Gross section area was used for calculation of axial stiffness. Corroded cross section area (after
maximum corrosion in 100 years) was used for calculation of axial yield strength of strips
(44 kN/strip).
11
Table 3- Properties of facing concrete segments

2
Gross area (m /m) 0.14
Young's modulus, E (MPa) 2.5 x 104
4
Moment of inertia, I (m /mL) 2.30 x 10-4
2
Modified area (m /mL) (see Notes) 0.001
3
Density (kg/m ) (see Notes) 2500
Notes:
Based on the information provided by RECO, the facing elements cross section area were reduced to
account for the effect of rubber pads on the overall axial stiffness of the wall facing elements.
A modified density of 350,000 kg/m3 was used associated with the modified facing elements area to
give the actual mass of the facing elements.
Table 4- Geotechnical parameters of MSE fill and backfill material

Soil Parameters MSE Fill Backfill
Unit weight (kN/m3) 20 21
Peak Friction angle (deg) 34 36
Dilation angle (deg) 4 0
Cohesion 0 0
Poissons ratio (-) 0.3 0.3
Shear modulus in static phase, G (MPa) 22.6 22.6
Shear wave velocity, VS Note 1 Note 1
Constitutive model in dynamic phase UBCHYST UBCHYST
UBCHYST parameters, Rf, n 0.8, 2.5 0.8, 2.5
Note 1: Shear wave velocity was estimated according to Chillarige et al. (1997) correlation as follows:
n
'
V s = (A B e ) v (K o )0 . 125
Pa

Where A=295, B=143 and n=0.26 for the Fraser River Sand. e is the void ratio assumed 0.68
equivalent to about 80% relative density.
Small strain shear modulus was calculated using: G max = V s2 where is density
12
Table 5 Generalized stratigraphy and geotechnical parameters of in-situ soils,

obtained from MEG Consulting Ltd.
13
Table 6 Soil Stratigraphy and parameters used in FLAC Model
Stratigraphy and Soil Parameters Additional Interpretation/Calculation

Note (1) Note (2)
Soil Parameters Constitutive Model
Elavation Depth Soil Total Bulk Gmax Poisson`s P Su N160-cs Gs Porosity Dry UBCHYST UBCSAND
from to from to type Unit Weight Modul. ratio density calib. Fact. calib. Fact.
(m) (m) (m) (m) (kN/m3) (Mpa) (Mpa) (-) (degree) (kPa) Bls/0.3m (-) (-) (kg/m3) n Rf
Note (3) Note (4) Note (5) Note (6) Note (9) Note (7) Note (8)
15.9 3.9 -12 0 MSE fill 2.5 0.8 -
See Separate Table for fill and backfill parameters
19.5 3.9 -12 0 Backfill 2.5 0.8 -
Backfill
3.9 1 0 2.9 FILL 18.5 73 34 0.3 32 - - 2.68 0.47 1888 4 0.8 -
1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML 16.7 261 56 0.4 0 Note (6) - 2.68 0.58 1123 1.5 0.8 -
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
-2 -3.5 5.9 7.4 SG 19 169 78 0.3 35 - 30 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)
-3.5 -10 7.4 13.9 SP1 18.6 193 89 0.3 33 - 15 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
14
-10 -15 13.9 18.9 SP2 18.6 228 105 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
-15 -20 18.9 23.9 SP3 18.6 261 120 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
In situ soils
-20 -30 23.9 33.9 SP4 19 331 153 0.3 35 - 25 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)
-30 -39 33.9 42.9 CL-ML 1 18 1596 165 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -
-39 -45 42.9 48.9 CL-ML 2 18 1293 134 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -
-45 -50 48.9 53.9 CL-GC 20 1437 149 0.45 0 140 - 2.7 0.39 1653 1.5 0.8 -
<-50 >53.9 TILL 22 Note (10)
NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD
3.9 -17 0 20.9 Densif. SP or SG 20 Note (4) 0.3 38 0 30 as before 1500 2 0.8 -
1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML +stone col as before Note (4) 0.4 0 Note (6) - as before 1.5 0.8 -
Ground
Improved
Notes:
Notes on the next page
OCTOBER 20, 2010
Table 6 Continued
Notes:
(1) Information provided by MEG Consulting
(2) Additional assumptions made by NGL
(3) Depth below the original ground surface. Negative value signified above original ground surface.
(4) Small strain shear modulus
The values in Table are for insitu soils before backfill construction.
Gmax values were modified as a function of confining stresses during backfill construction as follows.
For SM/ML layer, Gmax was increased proportional to the ratio of post- to pre-construction Su.
For granular soils Gmas was increased proportional to sqaure root of the ratio of post- to pre-construction confining stress.
(5) Peak friction angle. For UBCSAND constitutive model, peak friction angles were recaclulated using N160/10
(6) Undrained shear strength
For SM/ML layer outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 `v was used as Su.
For SM/ML layer inside outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 s`v was used as Su and
the reinforcement effect of stone columns was considered as added undrained shear strength assuming =45 degree for stone columns.
(7) See Appendix 1 for definitions
(8) The following calibration factors were used for UBCSAND model for granular soils below water table and outside of stone column block.
1.2
UBCSAND calibration factor m_hfac1
1.1
15
undensified soil N160=15
1
undensified soil N160=17 m_hfac1= 4.7 for SG layer
0.9 For other granular layers see graph
undensified soil N160=25
m_hfac2= 1
0.8
m_hfac3= 4
m_hfac1 (-)
0.7 m_hfac4= 1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05 5.E+05 6.E+05 7.E+05 8.E+05
`vo (N/m2)
(9) Standard Penetration Test blow counts normalized to energy, confining stress and equivalent to clean sand.
(10) Firm ground was assumed at depth of about 54m below original ground surface.
Accroding to NBCC 2005, firm ground is defined as very dense soils with shear wave velocity in the range of 360 m/s to 760 m/s.
For firm ground: shear wave velocity=400 m/s
OCTOBER 20, 2010
Table 7- Total Displacements at selected points obtained from FLAC analysis- See Figure 12 for location of selected points
FLAC Design MSE WALL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS at Specified Locations (Figure A-2)
Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point
File Motion A B C D E F G H I J K
Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)
w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 530 200 880 200 880 120 850 120 720 450 700 420 630 360 530 270 390 140 370 120 360 110
w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 600 250 1080 260 1080 150 1030 120 840 660 800 610 710 540 570 420 360 240 330 210 320 190
w319 Lan_EW_2475 330 120 520 120 520 70 500 60 430 260 420 240 390 200 330 150 270 90 260 80 250 80
w318 Lan_NS_2475 630 260 1060 280 1060 170 1020 132 870 560 830 520 750 440 650 340 450 160 410 120 400 110
w317 LP_EW_2475 280 110 460 110 460 70 440 60 380 250 380 230 340 190 280 140 220 80 210 70 200 70
1:2475 yr EQ
w316 LP_NS_2475 310 90 460 90 460 60 450 50 390 200 390 190 360 160 300 110 260 70 250 60 250 60
Average 447 172 743 177 743 107 715 90 605 397 587 368 530 315 443 238 325 130 305 110 297 103
w313 CHICHI_EW_975 300 100 460 100 460 70 450 60 390 210 390 200 350 170 290 120 250 80 240 70 240 70
w301 CHICHI_NS_975 370 150 620 150 620 90 590 80 500 330 490 300 450 250 370 180 280 100 270 90 260 80
w312 Lan_EW_975 180 50 240 50 240 40 240 40 210 110 210 100 200 90 170 70 150 50 150 50 150 50
w311 Lan_NS_975 290 90 420 90 420 60 400 60 350 200 350 190 330 160 280 110 240 80 230 70 230 70
16
w310 LP_EW_975
1:975 yr EQ
220 70 300 70 300 50 290 50 260 130 260 120 240 100 210 80 190 60 190 50 190 50
w309 LP_NS_975 200 50 260 50 260 40 250 40 230 110 230 100 210 90 190 70 170 50 170 50 170 50
Average 260 85 383 85 383 58 370 55 323 182 322 168 297 143 252 105 213 70 208 63 207 62
w308 LP_EW_475 120 40 160 40 160 30 150 30 140 80 140 70 130 60 110 50 110 40 110 40 100 30
w307 LP_NS_475 140 40 190 40 190 30 180 30 160 80 160 70 150 70 140 50 130 40 120 40 120 40
w306 OL_EW_475 170 70 230 60 230 50 220 50 200 120 200 110 190 100 160 70 140 60 140 50 140 50
w305 OL_NS_475 200 80 280 70 280 60 270 60 240 140 240 130 220 120 190 80 170 70 170 60 160 60
w304 SF_EW_475
1:475 yr EQ
80 30 110 30 110 30 110 30 100 50 100 50 90 40 80 30 70 30 70 30 70 30
w303 SF_NS_475 110 40 150 40 150 30 140 30 130 70 130 70 110 60 110 50 100 40 90 50 90 30
Average 137 50 187 47 187 38 178 38 162 90 162 83 148 75 132 55 120 47 117 45 113 40
OCTOBER 20, 2010
Table 8- Calculated rigid body displacements

FLAC Design MSE WALL RIGID BODY Displacements Rigid
Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point Body

File Motion A B C D E Rotation
Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) (rad)
w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 530 200 662 200 662 167 662 134 662 101 0.011
w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 600 250 804 250 804 199 804 148 804 97 0.017
1:2475 yr EQ
w319 Lan_EW_2475 330 120 402 120 402 102 402 84 402 66 0.006
w318 Lan_NS_2475 630 260 882 260 882 197 882 134 882 71 0.021
w317 LP_EW_2475 280 110 328 110 328 98 328 86 328 74 0.004
w316 LP_NS_2475 310 90 358 90 358 78 358 66 358 54 0.004
Average 447 172 573 172 573 140 573 109 573 77 0.011
w313 CHICHI_EW_975 300 100 348 100 348 88 348 76 348 64 0.004
w301 CHICHI_NS_975 370 150 490 150 490 120 490 90 490 60 0.010
1:975 yr EQ
w312 Lan_EW_975 180 50 204 50 204 44 204 38 204 32 0.002

w311 Lan_NS_975 290 90 338 90 338 78 338 66 338 54 0.004
w310 LP_EW_975 220 70 244 70 244 64 244 58 244 52 0.002
w309 LP_NS_975 200 50 212 50 212 47 212 44 212 41 0.001
Average 260 85 306 85 306 74 306 62 306 51 0.004
w308 LP_EW_475 120 40 132 40 132 37 132 34 132 31 0.001

w307 LP_NS_475 140 40 152 40 152 37 152 34 152 31 0.001
1:475 yr EQ
w306 OL_EW_475 170 70 194 70 194 64 194 58 194 52 0.002

w305 OL_NS_475 200 80 236 80 236 71 236 62 236 53 0.003
w304 SF_EW_475 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 0.000
w303 SF_NS_475 110 40 122 40 122 37 122 34 122 31 0.001
Average 137 50 153 50 153 46 153 42 153 38 0.001
17
Table 9- Calculated MSE wall internal deformations
FLAC Design MSE WALL INTERNAL Displacements

Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point
File Motion A B C D E
Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)
w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 0 0 218 0 218 -47 188 -14 58 349

w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 0 0 276 10 276 -49 226 -28 36 563
1:2475 yr EQ
w319 Lan_EW_2475 0 0 118 0 118 -32 98 -24 28 194

w318 Lan_NS_2475 0 0 178 20 178 -27 138 -2 -12 489
w317 LP_EW_2475 0 0 132 0 132 -28 112 -26 52 176
w316 LP_NS_2475 0 0 102 0 102 -18 92 -16 32 146
Average 0 0 171 5 171 -34 142 -18 32 320
w313 CHICHI_EW_975 0 0 112 0 112 -18 102 -16 42 146
w301 CHICHI_NS_975 0 0 130 0 130 -30 100 -10 10 270
1:975 yr EQ
w312 Lan_EW_975 0 0 36 0 36 -4 36 2 6 78
w311 Lan_NS_975 0 0 82 0 82 -18 62 -6 12 146
w310 LP_EW_975 0 0 56 0 56 -14 46 -8 16 78
w309 LP_NS_975 0 0 48 0 48 -7 38 -4 18 69
Average 0 0 77 0 77 -15 64 -7 17 131
w308 LP_EW_475 0 0 28 0 28 -7 18 -4 8 49
w307 LP_NS_475 0 0 38 0 38 -7 28 -4 8 49
1:475 yr EQ
w306 OL_EW_475 0 0 36 -10 36 -14 26 -8 6 68

w305 OL_NS_475 0 0 44 -10 44 -11 34 -2 4 87
w304 SF_EW_475 0 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 20 20
w303 SF_NS_475 0 0 28 0 28 -7 18 -4 8 39
Average 0 0 34 -3 34 -8 26 -4 9 52
18
19
Figures
20
Figure 1- Typical MSE wall section and strip configurations

Strip length = 9m
(Adapted from RECo)
21
Assumed Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s)
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

0
2 Upper range:
Assume Dr=85%
3
Depth below top of MSE wall (m)
7
Lower range:
8 Assume Dr=50%
10
Average
11
12
Estimated lower range
Estimated upper range
Average
Figure 2 Estimated shear wave velocity for MSE fill and backfill
(average values were used)
22
Figure 3- Design section and dimensions of the improved ground,

(Obtained from Kiewit Flatiron General Partnership)
23
3.000
MSE Fill BACKFILL
FILL
SM/ML
SG
1.000
SP1 DENSIFIED
AREA
SP2
SP3 Y-coord.
(x 10 m)
SP4 -1.000
CL-ML-1
CL-ML-2
-3.000
CL-GC
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

(*10^1)
X-coordinate (x 10 m)
Figure 4 Soil profile in FLAC model

(Refer to Table 6 for definition and parameters of layers)
24
1-D column 1-D column

To simulate Width= 875m To simulate
Free field Height=54m to 66m Free field
0.41 x 0.375m
mesh
Interface
Figure 5- Geometry of the FLAC model
25
Figure 6- Geometry of the structural elements in FLAC model
26
JOB TITLE : pmh1-Reco-12mw-improved soft found-w301.dat-01June10 (*10^1)
FLAC (Version 6.00)

4.000
LEGEND
23-Jun-10 21:45 3.000
step 3477
Flow Time 1.7342E+01
Dynamic Time 1.7994E-03 2.000
-2.321E+01 <x< 7.381E+01
-4.704E+01 <y< 4.998E+01 UBCHYST
1.000
Material model
h_ubchyst
m_mss
0.000
Boundary plot
0 2E 1
UBCSAND
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-1.500 -0.500 0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500

(*10^1)
Figure 7 Constitutive models used in FLAC model
27
Ru= pp/vo (-)

Liquefied
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
FLAC (Version 6.00) 5.000
LEGEND
15-Oct-10 7:09 3.000

step 1357899
Dynamic Time 5.0503E+01
-7.036E+01 <x< 5.098E+01
-6.434E+01 <y< 5.700E+01
1.000
EX_ 4 Contours
0.00E+00
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
-1.000
6.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E+00
Contour interval= 2.00E-01

-3.000
-5.000
-6.000 -4.000 -2.000 0.000 2.000 4.000

(*10^1)
Figure 8 Pore pressure response during earthquake shaking (CHICHI-NS-2475)

Top: Time history of excess pore pressure ratio for the two selected points
Bottom: Typical distribution of excess pore pressure ratio at 50 sec and the location of the
two selected points (Numbers in the legend are Ru values and are dimensionless)
28
FLAC (Version 6.00)

3.750
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 19:10
step 1910521 3.250
9.804E+00 <x< 4.375E+01
6.872E+00 <y< 4.082E+01
2.750
Displacement vectors
max vector = 1.109E+00
0 2E 0 2.250
Exaggerated Boundary Disp.

Magnification = 3.500E+00
Max Disp = 1.109E+00
Strip Plot 1.750
Exaggerated Disp.
Magnification = 3.500E+00
Max Disp = 1.317E+00
1.250
0.750
1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 4.250

(*10^1)
Figure 9- Typical pattern of post-earthquake displacement vectors (CHICHI-NS-2475)

Deformed shape is exaggerated 3.5 times
29
FLAC (Version 6.00)
6.000
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 18:41
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000
-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02
-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01
X-displacement contours 2.000

-1.00E+00
-8.00E-01
-6.00E-01
-4.00E-01
-2.00E-01 0.000
0.00E+00
-2.000
-4.000
-0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10^2)
Figure 10 Typical pattern of post-earthquake horizontal displacements (CHICHI-NS-2475)

(Numbers in the legend are horizontal displacement in meters)
30
FLAC (Version 6.00)
6.000
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 18:41
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000
-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02
-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01
Y-displacement contours 2.000

-6.00E-01
-5.00E-01
-4.00E-01
-3.00E-01
-2.00E-01 0.000
-1.00E-01
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
-2.000
-4.000
-0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10^2)
Figure 11 Typical pattern of post-earthquake vertical displacements (CHICHI-NS-2475)

(Numbers in the legend are horizontal displacement in meters)
31
27.0
24.0
Figure A-2 21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
12 m High Wall 9.0
Dimensions in meters 6.0
3.0
B C D E F G H I J K
A Toe of Wall
B Top of Wall at Face
C to K @ 3 meter intervals from face of wall to 27m
12.0
Figure 12- Location of displacement points for which results are presented in Table 6
(all measurements in meters)
32
Displacement (m)
Horizontal displacement
Base of FLAC model (Input Motion)
0.000
-0.200
-0.400
Base of wall facing (Point A)
-0.600
Vertical displacement
Surface of fill behind MSE wall (Point E)
-0.800
-1.000 Top corner of MSE wall (Point B)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
Figure 13- Time history of horizontal displacements at top corner and vertical displacement
at backfill surface behind the wall for CHICHI-NS-2475 earthquake
(See Figure 12 for the location of Points A, B and E)
33
Undeformed Shape
Rotational
Movement
Figure 14- Typical pattern of deformation of MSE wall (5 times exaggerated- after CHICHI-NS-2475)
34
Deformed shape of the MSE wall

(5 times exaggerated)
Average rotation of
MSE wall base
CHICHI-NS-2475 (w314.dat)
20.00
19.95
19.90
Y (m)
Liner Trendline
19.85
y = 0.017x + 19.48
19.80 R = 0.949
Rotation=0.017 rad
19.75
The point under wall facing ignored
19.70
19 21 23 25 27 29
X (m)
Figure 15 Simplified method for estimation of rotation of MSE wall base
35
MSE volume
ORIGINAL SHAPE
Figure 16- Approximate pattern of external movements and Internal deformation of the MSE wall
(N.T.S- Deformations are exaggerated)
36
FLAC (Version 6.00)
LEGEND
3.000
14-Oct-10 19:32
step 1910521
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800
1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01
1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01
Bottom
Strip Plot
# 2 (Strip) -8.775E+04 Row 2.600
# 3 (Strip) -8.774E+04
# 5 (Strip) -7.329E+04
# 6 (Strip) -7.319E+04
# 8 (Strip) -7.218E+04
# 9 (Strip) -5.741E+04 2.400
#11 (Strip) -5.668E+04
#12 (Strip) -4.699E+04
#14 (Strip) -4.093E+04
#15 (Strip) -3.762E+04
#17 (Strip) -3.069E+04 2.200
#18 (Strip) -2.652E+04

#20 (Strip) -2.049E+04
#21 (Strip) -2.195E+04
#23 (Strip) -2.241E+04
2.000
#24 (Strip) -2.546E+04 Top
Row
1.900 2.100 2.300 2.500 2.700 2.900
(*10^1)
Maximum axial force = 88 kN/m

for 2 strips per meter density
Figure 17- Typical post-earthquake axial forces in strips

(Numbers in the legend are in N. Negative values signify tensile force.)
37
Strip Axial Load CHICHI-NS-2475

(10 04(x10
) kN/m)
-3.000
Row #10
-4.000
-5.000
Row #6
-6.000
-7.000 Row #4
-8.000
Row #2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
(Negative values signify tensile forces)
38
FLAC (Version 6.00)
LEGEND
3.000
14-Oct-10 19:33
step 1910521
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800
1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01
1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01
Strip Plot
# 2 (Strip) 3.987E-02 2.600
# 3 (Strip) 2.968E-02
# 5 (Strip) 2.340E-02
# 6 (Strip) 1.755E-02
# 8 (Strip) 1.109E-02
# 9 (Strip) 3.372E-03 2.400
#11 (Strip) 1.010E-03
#12 (Strip) 8.373E-04
#14 (Strip) 7.293E-04
#15 (Strip) 6.703E-04
#17 (Strip) 5.468E-04 2.200
#18 (Strip) 4.725E-04

#20 (Strip) 3.651E-04
#21 (Strip) 3.910E-04
#23 (Strip) 3.993E-04
2.000
#24 (Strip) 4.537E-04
1.900 2.100 2.300 2.500 2.700 2.900

(*10^1)
39
Appendix A
SHAKE analysis
Fill
Soil
Layers
Firm Ground
(TILL)
Soil profile used in SHAKE analysis
Figure A-1-SHAKE Column soil profile
40
Outcropping firm ground motion
With-in firm ground motion (after deconvolution)
Figure A-2- An example of comparison of outcropping firm ground motion with the convoluted
with-in ground motion for CHCHI-NS-2475.
41
Appendix B
UBCSAND Constitutive Model Description & calibration
UBCSAND
UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the sand skeleton
and pore water flow fully coupled (Beaty & Byrne 1998; Byrne et al. 2004). The model includes a yield
surface related to the developed friction angle, non-associative flow rule, and definitions for loading,
unloading, and hardening. Elastic properties are isotropic and nonlinear and yield loci are radial lines of
constant stress ratio from the origin in stress space. Increase in stress ratio is loading which is elastic-
plastic. Unloading is elastic. When the stress ratio is below the constant volume friction angle (cv) the
soil skeleton is contractive (when sheared) while above cv the soil is dilative (Figure B1). A hyperbolic
relationship is used between stress ratio and plastic shear strain (Figure B2). The yield envelope
(maximum developed stress ratio) is pushed out (hardened) according to a function between plastic shear
modulus and plastic shear strain increment. Unloading and reloading is elastic, however, when the stress-
ratio goes to zero and there is a cross-over (loading on the other side) the yield envelope is reset at zero
and must be hardened again according the function between plastic shear modulus and plastic shear strain
increment. The model is set-up to run as a separate constitutive model within the program FLAC (Itasca
2008). A small Raleigh damping (typically 1%) is used with the UBCSAND model to provide numerical
stability at small strain and damping. Key soil properties used are the small strain shear modulus (Gmax),
(N1)60-CS or relative density of the soil and constant volume friction angle (typically 33 degrees for quartz
based sands). Typically, Gmax is obtained from either in-situ shear wave velocity measurements or from
correlations with (N1)60 as follows:
Gmax = Vs2 or Gmax = 21.7*20*((N1)60)0.333*Pa*(m'/Pa)0.5 (Equation B1)

where: = moist or saturated soil density
Vs = shear wave velocity
Pa = atmospheric pressure and
m' = mean normal effective confining pressure
(N1)60-CS = Fines corrected (equivalent coarse sand) normalized standard
penetration test N-value (blows/foot)
From Gmax and (N1)60 the program determines elastic and plastic moduli, and peak friction angle.
UBCSAND Calibration
Three or four calibration parameters (depending on the version used) are in the model. In the calibration
process, a single undrained soil element is exercised so as to trigger liquefaction in the correct number of
cycles and to give post-liquefaction stress-strain behaviour consistent with that observed in laboratory
simple shear tests. The calibration procedure used is as follows:
42
1. Set up the 2D FLAC profile with a Mohr Coulomb constitutive model and bring it to static
equilibrium. Representative cohesionless soil elements are then selected for calibration. The
vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS are
recorded for each element to be calibrated.
2. An undrained single element model is set up in FLAC and is initialized with the representative
vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS.
3. A cyclic shear stress (xy) compatible with a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) that will liquefy (pore
pressure ratio near 1.0) in 15 cycles (CRR15) from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008 empirical
liquefaction triggering chart and equation is calculated as follows:
xy = vo' * CRR15 * k (Equation B2)

where xy = applied cyclic shear stress
vo' = vertical effective stress
CRR15 = cyclic resistance ratio
k = confinement correction 1.0
4. The single element is then repeatedly cyclically loaded with the xy from step (3) and calibration
parameters are adjusted until the element liquefies in 15 cycles and the post-liquefaction stress-
strain cycles are compatible with typical laboratory tests (used tests data by Sriskandakumar,
2004). Liquefaction is assumed to occur when the pore pressure ratio (Ru).
The calibration parameters are introduced as material parameters in the larger 2D model. These
parameters are either fixed within zones that have similar stresses, Gmax and (N1)60, or are set as a
function of confining stress and/or (N1)60. Calibration parameters (m_hfac1 to 4) that were used are in
Table 2a of the main report.
43
44
References on UBCSAND
Beaty, M., and Byrne, P.M. 1998. An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand,
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. P. Dakou-las, M. Yegian, and R Holtz
(eds.), ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication 75 (1), pp. 766-777.
Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M.K., Gonzalez, L., & Abdoun, T. 2004. Numerical modeling
of liquefac-tion and comparison with centrifuge tests, Canadian Geot. J., V. 41(2):193-211.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, MNO-12.
ITASCA, 2008. FLAC Version 6.0 Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua Users Manuals, Itasca
Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis Minnesota.
Kokusho, T., 1999. Water film in liquefied sand and its effect on lateral spread, J. Geo-technical and
Geoenviron. Eng. 125(10), pp. 817- 826.
Naesgaard, E., Yang, D., Byrne, P.M., and Gohl, B., 2004. Numerical analyses for the seismic safety
retrofit design of the immersed-tube George Massey tunnel, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, August.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Seid-Karbasi, M., and Park, S.S., 2005. Modelling flow liquefaction, its
mitigation and comparison with centrifuge tests, Proc. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Satellite
Conf., Osaka, Sept. 10, TC4 committee ISSMGE, Publ. by Japanese Geotechncial Society, pp. 95-
102.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., and Seid-Karbasi, M., 2006. Modelling flow liquefaction and pore water
redistribution mechanisms, Proc. 8th National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, April.
Naesgaard, E. and Byrne, P.M., 2007. Flow liquefaction simulation using a combined effective stress -
total stress model, 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Ottawa,
Ontario, October.
Sriskandakumar, S., 2004. Cyclic loading response of Fraser River Sand for validation of numerical
models simulating centrifuge tests, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, March.
Yang., D., Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Adalier, K., and Abdoun, T., 2005. Numerical Model verification
and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models Canadian Geot. Journal, Vol. 41,
No. 5, April.
45
Appendix C
UBCHYST Constitutive Model Description & Calibration
UBCHYST
UBCHYST is developed at the University of British Columbia. It is a hyperbolic constitutive model

with a Mohr Coulomb failure envelope and is used to simulate the non-linear hysteretic behaviour
of soils during cyclic loading. The shear modulus is a function of stress ratio as presented in the
equation of Figure C-1.
n

Gt = G max 1 1 R f
f

Where
Gt= tangent shear modulus
= developed stress ratio = (xy /'v)
1= - max = change in stress ratio since last reversal
max = maximum at last reversal
1f = f - max = change in to reach failure envelope in direction of loading
f = (sin(f) + Cohesion * cos(f)/ 'v)
xy = developed shear stress in horizontal plane
'v = vertical effective stress
f =peak friction angle
Rf and n = calibration parameters
UBCHYST Calibration
The UBCHYST model was calibrated to uniform cyclic response inferred from published modulus
reduction and damping curves. The UBCHYST calibration parameters used for all the analyses are in
Table 2a of the main body of the report. Figure C-2 shows an example of curve fitting procedure.
.
46
Figure C1- UBCHYST Constitutive Model
47
Seed & Idriss (1970)

Upper & Lower bounds
UBCHYST
Figure C2- An example of calibration of UBCHYST Constitutive Model to G/Gmax and Damping curves
48

Analisis Dinamico Tem Flac PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Analisis Dinamico Tem Flac PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF

A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND

Prepared for REINFORCED EARTH COMPANY

Ali Amini, P.Eng. & Ernest Naesgaard, P.Eng.

Naesgaard Geotechnical Ltd.

October 20, 2010

2 Available Information .......................................................................................................... 3

3 FLAC Numerical Modeling.................................................................................................. 4

4 FLAC analyses results and discussions ............................................................................. 6

5 Limitations and Uncertainties ............................................................................................. 9

The information provided by RECO to NGL is as follows:

It is understood that vibro-replacement technique (Vibro-stone column) would be utilized to

3 FLAC NUMERICAL MODELING

3.1 Soil Profile and Properties Used in the FLAC Model

3.2 Model Geometry

3.3 Input Ground Motion

3.4 Constitutive Models

3.5 General Procedure for Numerical Analysis

4 FLAC ANALYSES RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Pore pressure response of granular soils

Internal Deformations and External Displacements of the MSE Wall

Response of the Reinforcing Strips to Earthquake Shaking

5 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

Please call if you have any questions on this report.

NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD.

Ali Amini, P.Eng. Ernest Naesgaard, P.Eng

Table 1- Density of strips per 3m of width of MSE wall

Table 2 Properties of reinforcing strips

Poissons ratio (-) 0.3

Table 3- Properties of facing concrete segments

Table 4- Geotechnical parameters of MSE fill and backfill material

Shear wave velocity, VS Note 1 Note 1

Constitutive model in dynamic phase UBCHYST UBCHYST

UBCHYST parameters, Rf, n 0.8, 2.5 0.8, 2.5

Table 5 Generalized stratigraphy and geotechnical parameters of in-situ soils,

Stratigraphy and Soil Parameters Additional Interpretation/Calculation

Table 8- Calculated rigid body displacements

Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point Body

w312 Lan_EW_975 180 50 204 50 204 44 204 38 204 32 0.002

w308 LP_EW_475 120 40 132 40 132 37 132 34 132 31 0.001

w306 OL_EW_475 170 70 194 70 194 64 194 58 194 52 0.002

Table 9- Calculated MSE wall internal deformations

FLAC Design MSE WALL INTERNAL Displacements

w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 0 0 218 0 218 -47 188 -14 58 349

w319 Lan_EW_2475 0 0 118 0 118 -32 98 -24 28 194

w306 OL_EW_475 0 0 36 -10 36 -14 26 -8 6 68

Figure 1- Typical MSE wall section and strip configurations

Assumed Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s)

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Estimated lower range

Estimated upper range

Figure 3- Design section and dimensions of the improved ground,

MSE Fill BACKFILL

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

Figure 4 Soil profile in FLAC model

1-D column 1-D column

Figure 5- Geometry of the FLAC model

Figure 6- Geometry of the structural elements in FLAC model

JOB TITLE : pmh1-Reco-12mw-improved soft found-w301.dat-01June10 (*10^1)

FLAC (Version 6.00)

23-Jun-10 21:45 3.000

-1.500 -0.500 0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500

Figure 7 Constitutive models used in FLAC model

Gmax = Vs2 or Gmax = 21.720((N1)60)0.333Pa(m'/Pa)0.5 (Equation B1)