Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19
W .F. MARCUSON, IH, P.F. HADALA and A.G. FRANKLIN Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss. (U.S.A.) (Received January 25, 1979; accepted December 31, 1979)
ABSTRACT
Marcuson HI, W.F., Hadala, P.F. and Franklin, A.G., 1980. Current methods of dynamic analysis for seismic stability of earth dams. In: S.L. Koh (Editor), Mechanics of Landslides and Slope Stability. Eng. Geol., 16: 19--28.
Two methods of analysis of the seismic stability of earth dams, as used by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), are presented in outline form. Analysis of the potential for liquefaction under seismic loading is based on the equivalent linear two-dimensional analysis developed by Seed, Lee, and Idriss. Procedures for analysis of permanent displacements, or safety against failure by sliding, have been developed by WES on the basis of work by Newmark, Ambraseys, and Sarma. INTRODUCTION w h e n assessing the seismic stability of an earth dam, one of the first questions that should be asked is: 'Do the e m b a n k m e n t and foundation soils suffer serious loss of shear strength as a result of cyclic loading?' If the answer to this question is 'Yes,' then the potential for liquefaction and postearthquake stability must be evaluated. The m e t h o d used to do this is the analysis of liquefaction or cyclic mobility (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1978) developed by Seed (Seed et al., 1969, 1973, and 1975), using a two~iimensional analysis of dynamic stresses. If the answer is 'No,' then liquefaction is n o t a significant problem and the seismic stability of the dam may be evaluated using the Sliding Block m e t h o d of analysis of permanent displacements (Newmark, 1965; Ambraseys and Senna, 1967; Sarma, 1975; Makdisi and Seed, 1977). CHOICE OF METHODS In general, in unsaturated portions of the dam and foundation, loss of shear strength under seismic excitation is negligible. The question of loss of shear strength and its effects in the saturated portions of the e m b a n k m e n t and foundation are first addressed on the basis of: (1) the results of the field investigation of the site, including modes of deposition and geologic history 0013--7952/80/0000---0000/$02.25 1980 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
20
of foundation materials after deposition, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data, gradation and classification of materials, and the in situ density of the materials; and (2)the possible failure mechanisms that have been either identiffed or eliminated by considering the geometry and zoning of the dam and the stratigraphy of the foundation as they affect drainage and the kinematics of possible slides. A working hypothesis as to the appropriate method of analysis is established and a program of tests on undisturbed samples is planned to evaluate the validity of that hypothesis. Such laboratory tests might include stress-controlled, isotropically and/or anisotropically consolidated, undrained, cyclically loaded, triaxial shear tests with pore pressure measurements (hereafter referred to as Rcy tests). Other tests performed would include stress-controlled, isotropically consolidated, undrained, monotonically loaded, triaxial shear tests with pore pressure measurements (stress-controlled R tests). Conditions leading to the choice of the liquefaction an~ysis include large compressive strains and high excess pore pressures in the Rcy tests at stress levels and numbers of cycles of load judged reasonable for the earthquake threat in question. These conditions are present in materials which have a strong tendency to collapse (i.e., decrease in porosity) in cyclic shearing. Small compressive strains and no serious loss in shear strength in the Rcy test after a number of cycles consistent with the earthquake lead to the choice of the sliding block analysis. These conditions are generally present in clays and materials which dilate in shear. In cases of materials whose behavior does not clearly fit either of these categories, the prudent course may be to perform the liquefaction analysis which, though relatively expensive, is conservative for these cases. Where the stress-controlled R test indicates a liquefaction response (Casagrande, 1976), no further analysis is necessary unless the earth. quake threat is very small because such materials always show large strains and 100% pore pressure response (ASCE, 1978) after only a few cycles of load in the Rcy tests and are unsuitable as embankment or foundation materials in the presence.of any significant earthquake load. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The evaluation of the seismic stability of an earth dam is a complex problem, the solution of which involves an interdisciplinary team approach. As a minimum, this team should include a seismologist, an engineering geologist, and a geotechnical earthquake engineer. Each dam must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as almost all the design parameters are site-specific.
Liquefaction analysis
There are several techniques for evaluating the liquefaction potential of a dam. These range from semi-empirical approaches based largely on past history and SPT blow counts to the sophisticated two-dimensional equivalent linear finite element analyses. This discussion will be limited to the equival-
21
DESIGN ]
FIELD INVESTIGATION
p $ n..
'
'
/
i I~TE~U~L~ I
\ FACTORS// [ STR!
F i g . l . F l o w chart for a liquefaction analysis.
ent linear two-dimensional analysis developed by H.B. Seed (Seed at al., 1973, 1975), as used by the WES (Marcuson and Krinitzsky, 1976). The m e t h o d is shown in the flow chart in Fig.1.
Field investigation
The usual field investigation for seismic stability analyses includes drilling and sampling to obtain undisturbed samples of the subsurface material and geophysical investigations to determine the in situ shear and compression . wave velocities (Vs and Vp) of the materials in question. In situ density (~d) and relative density (R) are needed for analysis and comparison with other sites. Normally, test fills of the embankment materials are constructed to establish compaction criteria. Use of test fills permits field investigations of the e m b a n k m e n t materials prior to the initiation of construction and the acquisition of undisturbed samples representative of the compacted embankment materials. Routine laboratory tests Routine laboratory tests such as index tests (mechanical analysis,Atterberg limits,etc), drained and undrained strength tests,permeability tests,and tests to evaluate the stress--strainproperties of the various materials are performed on samples obtained during the field investigation.
22
Seepage analysis
A seepage analysis is conducted for the design pool to determine the phreatic surface and the seepage forces through the embankment and the foundation soils.Materials below the phreatic surface are assumed to be saturated. The seepage analysis can be performed using hand drawn flow nets or finite element computer methods.
Static analysis
A static finite element analysis is conducted to evaluate the state of stress in the dam prior to the earthquake (Kulhawy et al., 1969). This is an effective stress analysis and, consequently, the seepage forces are needed as input to obtain the effective stresses in the soil before the earthquake. It turns out that the horizontal static stresses are strongly related to the value of Poisson's ratio used as input. This value is usually assumed to be between 0.3 and 0.45 and is based on judgment and experience. The current state of the art allows for nonlinear elasticstress--strainproperties to be used. However, this degree of sophistication is not always required or justified.
23
Dynamic analysis
A two-dimensional, equivalent linear,total stress,dynamic finiteelement an~ysis is performed on a cross section of the d a m (Idrisset ah, 1973; Lysmer et al.,1974, 1975). The criticalinputs are the bedrock acceleration-time history and the modulus and damping parameters. This analysisuses an iterativeprocedure to obtain stress--strain--dampingcompatibility, but within any one iterationit assumes linearelasticmaterial response. This program is couched in small strain theory. The principal output from the analysis consistsof the dynamic stressesgenerated by the earthquake, which are superimposed on the staticstate of stress.
24
uniform dynamic stress generated by the earthquake is greater than the cyclic stress required to cause 5% strain, then the in situ material is assumed to undergo more than 5% strain if subjected to the design earthquake. This, by arbitrary definition, is failure. On the other hand, if the dynamic stresses generated by the earthquake are less than the dynamic strength of the material at 5% strain, then the in situ material is assumed to undergo less than 5% strain if subjected to the design earthquake, and is said to be safe, with a factor of safety defined by the ratio of the two stress levels. An analysis such as this is conducted for each element of interest in the finite element grid.
Factor of safety
In general, failure is defined as exceeding 5% strain. There is nothing magical about this value, which is based only on judgment; however, it is believed that if the factor of safety against 5% strain is greater than unity, then the dam should be safe against the earthquake threat. The specific value required as an acceptable factor of safety ia site~lependent and is a function of all of the input parameters, including the design earthquake. To say it should be greater than 1.25 in all cases is an over-simplification; however, it should certainly be greater than 1.
25
sTep )
SAPLESl
)
EMBANKMENT RESPONSE
C . TA.T
EARTN' OAKE
Stability analysis
The stability analysis is similar to the conventional static stability analyses (Bishop, 1955; Morgenstern and Price, 1965) b u t introduces t w o special features. First, the stability is evaluated in terms of a pseudostatic earthquake acceleration level required to reduce the factor of safety to 1.0. This acceleration level is called the critical acceleration (N). Second, because the ground acceleration varies over the height o f the embankment, critical accelerations must be determined for sliding masses whose bases lie at various elevations in the critical section. The analysis may be performed using consolidatedundrained strength values, b y means of conventional methods such as those of Bishop (1955) or Morgenstern and Price (1965), in which trial values of critical acceleration are used to find that value which reduces the factor of safety to unity. The Sarma m e t h o d (Sarma, 1975), which employs a slip surface of arbitrary shape, determines the value of N directly. In principle, the analysis can be performed on either a total or an effective stress basis, b u t the problems of estimating shear-induced pore pressures are avoided b y using a total stress analysis. In total stress analyses, WES uses a shear strength envelope that is based on the S test total stress strength circles at low confining pressures and R test total stress circles at intermediate and high confining pressures. This is done because it conservatively deals with possible dissipation o~ the shear-induced pore pressures which might occur in the field b u t cannot occur in the laboratory. The result o f the suite of stability analyses is a curve of critical acceleration (N) versus elevation (h) in the embankment.
26
Embankment response analysis A closed-form, one-dimensional viscoelastic wave propagation analysis (Sarma, 1979) is performed to determine the amplification of the base motion as a function of elevation in the embankment. In this analysis, the emb a n k m e n t - f o u n d a t i o n system is idealized as a triangular untruncated wedge on a layer overlying a rigid base. The earthquake motion is applied at the base. Shear modulus and damping values estimated to be consistent with the expected strain levels are the governing material properties. The advantages of the one-dimensional analysis are speed and economy. A disadvantage is that, under some circumstances, a one<limensional m e t h o d of analysis can seriously overestimate the e m b a n k m e n t response. If the conservatism introduced by such an overestimate is found to be excessive, recourse may be had to two<limensional finite element methods. Sliding block analysis A potential sliding mass in an e m b a n k m e n t may be idealized as a rigid block resting on an inclined plane, with both cohesive and frictional components of the shear stress resisting sliding motion at the contact. This idealization is justified by the similarity of the force polygons for the two cases (Newmark, 1965; Franklin and Chang, 1977). If the base (i.e., the inclined plane) is subjected to some sequence of acceleration pulses (the design earthquake) large enough to induce sliding Of the block, the result will be that after the earthquake motion has abated the block will come to rest at some displaced position down the slope. The a m o u n t of that permanent displacement, which will be called u, can be computed by using Newton's second law of motion (F = ma) to write the equation of motion for the sliding block, relative to the base, and then numerically integrating to obtain the resultant displacement. In this analysis, the characteristics of the potential sliding mass in the embankment are represented only by their critical acceleration, N, which is the base acceleration required to make sliding imminent. Thus, the permanent displacement (u) for a particular earthquake record can be deterinined as a function of N, and the u versus N curve can be determined from the specific earthquake record. In practice, because scaled time histories are c o m m o n l y used, the permanent displacements (u) and critical accelerations are normalized by the peak acceleration (A), and peak velocity (V) of the earthquake record. The product of the analysis is then a curve, representing the design earthquake, of Agu/V 2 versus N/A, in which g is the acceleration of gravity and the other symbols are as defined above. Both N and A are expressed as a fraction of gravity. Computation of ldisplacement potential The displacement potential for a sliding surface with its base at a particular level in the e m b a n k m e n t is calculated using the following elements: (1) the value of critical acceleration N for a particular elevation as determined from the stability analysis; (2) the peak acceleration value (A) for that elevation determined as the product of the peak base acceleration and the amplifica-
27 tion factor, from the dynamic reponse analysis; (3) the peak velocity (V) for that elevation, determined as the peak base velocity times the amplification factor; and (4) the normalized displacement curve for the design earthquake, determined from the sliding block analysis. The resulting displacement versus elevation plot does not represent the deformed shape of the embankment. Rather, an individual point on the curve represents the potential residual displacement of the centre of gravity of a mass contained within a sliding surface with its base at that elevation. Only one of these surfaces is likely to develop because the intense accelerations propagating from the base will not be transmitted above the sliding surface. For this reason, the choice of the largest displacement determined from the curve is considered to be conservative.
Procedures to evaluate the seismic stability of earth dams and foundations have been discussed. These procedures are complex and involve an interdisciplinary approach. A choice must be made between the liquefaction and sliding block analyses based on the potential for strength degradation under seismic loading. When the liquefaction analysis is used, the dynamic shear stresses generated by the earthquake are compared to the available shear strength as determined in the laboratory for a specific strain criterion. If the dynamic stress is greater than the available strength, then the material is assumed to strain beyond the failure criterion, or to fail. If the sliding block analysis is used, the dam is judged safe if the computed displacements are clearly too small to impair its function. Presently, neither method is adequately calibrated or validated against field performance of dams because of a very limited number of documented case histories (Peck, 1979). However, the purpose of these analyses is not to compute numbers but to provide insight so that the proper engineering judgment can be made on a case-by-case basis, based on all the facts available at the end of the investigation.
REFERENCES Ambraseys, N.N. and Sarma, S.K., 1967. The response of earth dams to strong earthquakes. Geotechnique, 17(2): 181--213. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1978. Definition of terms related to liquefaction. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 104(GT9): 1197--1200. Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique, 5(1): 7--17.
28
Casagrande, A., 1976. Liquefaction and cyclic deformation of sands, a critical review. Harvard Soil Mech. Ser. 88. Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K., 1977. Earthquake resistance of earth and rock-fill dams: permanent displacements of earth embankments by Newmark sliding block analysis. Misc. Paper. S-71-17(5)U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Idriss, I.M., Lysmer, J., Hwang, R. and Seed, H.B., 1973. QUAD-4: A computer program for evaluating the seismic response of soft structures by variable damping finite element procedures. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept. EERC 73-6. Kulhawy, F.H., Duncan, J.M. and Seed, H.B., 1969. Finite element analyses of stresses and movements in embankments during construction. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Contract Rept., S-69-8. Lee, K.L. and Chan, K., 1972. Number of equivalent significant cycles in strong-motion earthquakes. Proc. Intern. Conf. Microzonation Safer Construction Res. Application, Seattle, 1972, pp. 609---628. Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Seed, H.B. and Hwang, R., 1974. LUSH -- a computer program for complex response analysis of soil structure systems. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept., EERC 74-4. Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C.F. and Seed, H.B., 1975. FLUSH -- a computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil structure interaction problems. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept., EERC 75-30. Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B., 1977. A simplified procedure for estimating earthquakeinduced deformations in dams and embankments. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept. UCB/EERC-77/19. Marcuson, III, W.F. and Krinitzsky, E.L., 1976. Dynamic analysis of Fort Peck Dam. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Teeh. Rep., S-76-1. Morgenstern, N.R. and Price, V.E., 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique, 15(1): 79--93. Newmark, N.M., 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2): 139---160. Peck, R.B., 1979. Liquefaction potential: science versus practice. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 105(GT3): 393--398. Sarma, S.K., 1975. Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 25(4): 743--761. Sarma, S.IC, 1979. Response and stability of earth dams during strong earthquakes. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Misc. Pap. GL-,79-13. Seed, H.B., Arango, I. and Chan, C.K., 1975. Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept. No. EERC 75-28. Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L. and Idriss, I.M., 1969. Analysis of the Sheffield Dam failure. J. Soil Mech. Foundations Div., 95(SM6): 1453--1490. Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M. and Makdisi, F.I., 1973. Analysis of the slide in the San Fernando dams during the earthquake of 9 February 1971. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Rept., EERC 73-2. Seed, I-LB., Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M. and Makdisi, F.I., 1975. The slides in the San Fernando dams during the earthquake of February 9, 1971. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(GT7): 651--688.