Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PMH1 PROJECT
Lateral Displacement.
Contour lines
By:
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Numerical dynamic analyses using the program FLAC have been carried out for Reinforced Earth
retaining walls proposed to be used for the Port Mann Bridge / Gateway project. This report presents
the numerical dynamic analyses carried out on a generic 12m high MSE wall on improved soft ground
foundation. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall displacements
and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.
Maximum Total Displacements of MSE Wall
The maximum total horizontal displacement occurred at the top corner of the MSE wall. The average
values of total horizontal displacement at this point were about 200, 400 and 750 mm for 475, 975 and
2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
The maximum total vertical displacement occurred at the surface of the backfill behind the MSE volume
where the strips ended. The average values of total vertical displacement at top of backfill behind the
MSE volume were about 100, 200 and 400 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively.
Maximum Internal Displacements of MSE Wall
The total displacements were approximately broken down into internal and external displacements
(rotational and translational movements) of the MSE wall.
The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner of the MSE wall was about 50, 100
and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The average calculated internal vertical
displacement at top of fill behind the MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475
yr earthquakes, respectively.
Response of Reinforcing Strips
On average, 6, 6 and 8 rows of strips reached structural yield strength of corroded strips during 475, 975
and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. The maximum average axial strains were 0.7, 1.5 and 2.8% during
475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes, respectively. These strains were below the allowable rupture strains
of 15% and were indicative of internal stability of the MSE wall during design earthquakes.
1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
A 12M HIGH REINFORCED EARTH WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
Attachments:
Tables 1 to 10
Figures 1 to 19
Appendix A- Summary of SHAKE Analysis
Appendix B- UBCSAND Constitutive Model
Appendix C- UBCHYST Constitutive Model
2
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
1 INTRODUCTION
Naesgaard Geotechnical Limited (NGL) was retained by Reinforced Earth Company (RECO) to
perform a series of dynamic analyses on a few generic cases of MSE walls proposed for the
PMH1 project. The objectives of the numerical modelling were to calculate the MSE wall
displacements and assess its internal stability during design earthquakes.
The case presented in this report is a generic 12m high MSE wall resting on improved soft
ground foundation.
2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Backfill soil parameters: Geotechnical parameters for the backfill within the MSE volume
(MSE fill) and the backfill behind the MSE volume (backfill) are presented in Table 4.
Shear wave velocity and small strain shear modulus, Gmax of the backfill soils were estimated
(by NGL) as a function of depth and effective stress (See footnote of Table 4 and Figure 2)
and used in dynamic phase of analysis.
Design earthquake records
Three sets of outcropping firm ground earthquake records in two orthogonal directions with
return periods of 475, 975, and 2475 years were fitted to the design response spectra by
others and provided for use in the design (Golder Associates Memorandum July 24, 2007).
Each set included 6 earthquake records.
External dead loads:
Traffic load = 16 kPa at top of backfill and MSE wall
Soil conditions
Stratigraphy of foundations soils and their in situ geotechnical parameters were obtained
from MEG Consulting Ltd. as presented in Tables 5.
3
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Dynamic analyses have been carried out using the two dimensional finite difference
program FLAC, Version 6 (ITASCA 2008).
4
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Due to the method used in constructing the FLAC model, free field option was not available.
A detached column was modeled on both sides of the main FLAC model to simulate the free
field ground response (Figure 5). The sides of the main FLAC model and free field columns
were slaved in horizontal direction. This forced the vertical sides of the main FLAC model to
move similar to that of the free field columns.
3.4.1 UBCSAND
UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the
sand skeleton and pore water flow fully coupled. UBCSAND simulates the shear induced
volume changes. The tendency of the skeleton for volume change results in changes in pore
water pressure if the pores are filled with water.
The model has been calibrated so that liquefaction triggers in accordance with the CSR vs
(N1)60 relationship from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008. A more detailed description of the
model and its calibration is given in Appendix B.
3.4.2 UBCHYST
UBCHYST is a total stress constitutive model developed for dynamic analyses of soil
subjected to earthquake loading. The model is intended to be used with undrained
strength parameters in low permeability clayey and silty soils not expected to generate
significant pore pressure or in highly permeable or drained granular soils where excess pore
water would dissipate as generated. The essence of the proposed hysteretic model is that
5
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
the tangent shear modulus (Gt) is a function of the peak shear modulus (Gmax) times a
reduction factor that is a function of the developed stress ratio () relative to the stress
ratio at failure. UBCHYST is calibrated to approximately match laboratory based curves for
G/Gmax and damping ratio. Appendix C presents a brief description of UBCHYST and its
calibration.
FLAC analysis was carried out for all 18 design ground motions. Table 7 and 10 presents the
analyzed cases and their key results.
6
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
For discussion purposes, typical graphical behaviour of the MSE wall is presented for CHICHI-
NS-2475 ground motion unless otherwise stated. CHICHI-NS-2475 is considered to be one
the most severe motions among the project design ground motions.
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.
7
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Rotation of the fictitious rigid MSE wall was assumed equal to the rotation of the base of
MSE wall which in turn was calculated by fitting a linear trendline to the deformed grid
points at the base of the wall (Figure 15). The grid point underneath the wall facing was
excluded from the line fitting procedure. Rotational movement of the rigid MSE wall was
calculated assuming that the base of wall facing was the pivot point. Translational
movement of the rigid MSE wall was assumed to be equal to the total displacement of the
base of the wall. Table 8 presents the calculated external rigid body movements (sum of
rotational and translational movements).
The internal displacements at points of interest were calculated by subtracting the external
rigid body movements from the total displacements obtained from FLAC analyses and are
presented in Table 9.The average calculated internal horizontal displacement at top corner
of the MSE wall was about 50, 100 and 200 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,
respectively. The average calculated internal vertical displacement at top of fill behind the
MSE volume was about 50, 150 and 300 mm for 475, 975 and 2475 yr earthquakes,
respectively.
Figure 16 illustrates approximate patterns of total, external rigid body and internal
displacements. Note that the deformations are exaggerated.
8
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Numerical analysis provides much insight into behavioural patterns and modes of failure.
However, there is considerable uncertainty in the assumed parameters and analysis
methodology, and seismic design in general. This should be understood and considered
when using the results.
The calculated displacements and demand in the strips are based on the best-estimate
parameters and do not include any factor of safety (except for calculation of yield strength
which included allowance for 100 year corrosion).
9
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Tables
10
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Notes:
Gross section area was used for calculation of axial stiffness. Corroded cross section area (after
maximum corrosion in 100 years) was used for calculation of axial yield strength of strips
(44 kN/strip).
11
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Note 1: Shear wave velocity was estimated according to Chillarige et al. (1997) correlation as follows:
n
'
V s = (A B e ) v (K o )0 . 125
Pa
Where A=295, B=143 and n=0.26 for the Fraser River Sand. e is the void ratio assumed 0.68
equivalent to about 80% relative density.
Small strain shear modulus was calculated using: G max = V s2 where is density
12
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
13
Table 6 Soil Stratigraphy and parameters used in FLAC Model
Elavation Depth Soil Total Bulk Gmax Poisson`s P Su N160-cs Gs Porosity Dry UBCHYST UBCSAND
from to from to type Unit Weight Modul. ratio density calib. Fact. calib. Fact.
(m) (m) (m) (m) (kN/m3) (Mpa) (Mpa) (-) (degree) (kPa) Bls/0.3m (-) (-) (kg/m3) n Rf
Note (3) Note (4) Note (5) Note (6) Note (9) Note (7) Note (8)
15.9 3.9 -12 0 MSE fill 2.5 0.8 -
See Separate Table for fill and backfill parameters
19.5 3.9 -12 0 Backfill 2.5 0.8 -
Backfill
3.9 1 0 2.9 FILL 18.5 73 34 0.3 32 - - 2.68 0.47 1888 4 0.8 -
1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML 16.7 261 56 0.4 0 Note (6) - 2.68 0.58 1123 1.5 0.8 -
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
-2 -3.5 5.9 7.4 SG 19 169 78 0.3 35 - 30 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)
-3.5 -10 7.4 13.9 SP1 18.6 193 89 0.3 33 - 15 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
14
-10 -15 13.9 18.9 SP2 18.6 228 105 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
-15 -20 18.9 23.9 SP3 18.6 261 120 0.3 33 - 17 2.68 0.47 1432 - - Note (8)
In situ soils
-20 -30 23.9 33.9 SP4 19 331 153 0.3 35 - 25 2.68 0.44 1498 - - Note (8)
-30 -39 33.9 42.9 CL-ML 1 18 1596 165 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -
-39 -45 42.9 48.9 CL-ML 2 18 1293 134 0.45 0 85 - 2.7 0.51 1329 1 0.8 -
-45 -50 48.9 53.9 CL-GC 20 1437 149 0.45 0 140 - 2.7 0.39 1653 1.5 0.8 -
<-50 >53.9 TILL 22 Note (10)
NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD
3.9 -17 0 20.9 Densif. SP or SG 20 Note (4) 0.3 38 0 30 as before 1500 2 0.8 -
1 -2 2.9 5.9 SM/ML +stone col as before Note (4) 0.4 0 Note (6) - as before 1.5 0.8 -
Ground
Improved
Notes:
Notes on the next page
OCTOBER 20, 2010
Table 6 Continued
Notes:
(1) Information provided by MEG Consulting
(2) Additional assumptions made by NGL
(3) Depth below the original ground surface. Negative value signified above original ground surface.
(4) Small strain shear modulus
The values in Table are for insitu soils before backfill construction.
Gmax values were modified as a function of confining stresses during backfill construction as follows.
For SM/ML layer, Gmax was increased proportional to the ratio of post- to pre-construction Su.
For granular soils Gmas was increased proportional to sqaure root of the ratio of post- to pre-construction confining stress.
(5) Peak friction angle. For UBCSAND constitutive model, peak friction angles were recaclulated using N160/10
(6) Undrained shear strength
For SM/ML layer outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 `v was used as Su.
For SM/ML layer inside outside the ground improvement block, the maximum of 50 kPa and 0.35 s`v was used as Su and
the reinforcement effect of stone columns was considered as added undrained shear strength assuming =45 degree for stone columns.
(7) See Appendix 1 for definitions
(8) The following calibration factors were used for UBCSAND model for granular soils below water table and outside of stone column block.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
1.2
UBCSAND calibration factor m_hfac1
1.1
15
undensified soil N160=15
1
undensified soil N160=17 m_hfac1= 4.7 for SG layer
0.9 For other granular layers see graph
undensified soil N160=25
m_hfac2= 1
0.8
m_hfac3= 4
m_hfac1 (-)
0.7 m_hfac4= 1
0.6
0.5
NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD
0.4
0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05 5.E+05 6.E+05 7.E+05 8.E+05
`vo (N/m2)
(9) Standard Penetration Test blow counts normalized to energy, confining stress and equivalent to clean sand.
(10) Firm ground was assumed at depth of about 54m below original ground surface.
Accroding to NBCC 2005, firm ground is defined as very dense soils with shear wave velocity in the range of 360 m/s to 760 m/s.
For firm ground: shear wave velocity=400 m/s
OCTOBER 20, 2010
Table 7- Total Displacements at selected points obtained from FLAC analysis- See Figure 12 for location of selected points
FLAC Design MSE WALL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS at Specified Locations (Figure A-2)
Analysis Ground Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point
File Motion A B C D E F G H I J K
Record X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)
w315 CHICHI_EW_2475 530 200 880 200 880 120 850 120 720 450 700 420 630 360 530 270 390 140 370 120 360 110
w314 CHICHI_NS_2475 600 250 1080 260 1080 150 1030 120 840 660 800 610 710 540 570 420 360 240 330 210 320 190
w319 Lan_EW_2475 330 120 520 120 520 70 500 60 430 260 420 240 390 200 330 150 270 90 260 80 250 80
w318 Lan_NS_2475 630 260 1060 280 1060 170 1020 132 870 560 830 520 750 440 650 340 450 160 410 120 400 110
w317 LP_EW_2475 280 110 460 110 460 70 440 60 380 250 380 230 340 190 280 140 220 80 210 70 200 70
1:2475 yr EQ
w316 LP_NS_2475 310 90 460 90 460 60 450 50 390 200 390 190 360 160 300 110 260 70 250 60 250 60
Average 447 172 743 177 743 107 715 90 605 397 587 368 530 315 443 238 325 130 305 110 297 103
w313 CHICHI_EW_975 300 100 460 100 460 70 450 60 390 210 390 200 350 170 290 120 250 80 240 70 240 70
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND
w301 CHICHI_NS_975 370 150 620 150 620 90 590 80 500 330 490 300 450 250 370 180 280 100 270 90 260 80
w312 Lan_EW_975 180 50 240 50 240 40 240 40 210 110 210 100 200 90 170 70 150 50 150 50 150 50
w311 Lan_NS_975 290 90 420 90 420 60 400 60 350 200 350 190 330 160 280 110 240 80 230 70 230 70
16
w310 LP_EW_975
1:975 yr EQ
220 70 300 70 300 50 290 50 260 130 260 120 240 100 210 80 190 60 190 50 190 50
w309 LP_NS_975 200 50 260 50 260 40 250 40 230 110 230 100 210 90 190 70 170 50 170 50 170 50
Average 260 85 383 85 383 58 370 55 323 182 322 168 297 143 252 105 213 70 208 63 207 62
w308 LP_EW_475 120 40 160 40 160 30 150 30 140 80 140 70 130 60 110 50 110 40 110 40 100 30
w307 LP_NS_475 140 40 190 40 190 30 180 30 160 80 160 70 150 70 140 50 130 40 120 40 120 40
w306 OL_EW_475 170 70 230 60 230 50 220 50 200 120 200 110 190 100 160 70 140 60 140 50 140 50
w305 OL_NS_475 200 80 280 70 280 60 270 60 240 140 240 130 220 120 190 80 170 70 170 60 160 60
w304 SF_EW_475
1:475 yr EQ
80 30 110 30 110 30 110 30 100 50 100 50 90 40 80 30 70 30 70 30 70 30
NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD
w303 SF_NS_475 110 40 150 40 150 30 140 30 130 70 130 70 110 60 110 50 100 40 90 50 90 30
Average 137 50 187 47 187 38 178 38 162 90 162 83 148 75 132 55 120 47 117 45 113 40
OCTOBER 20, 2010
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
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
17
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
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
18
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
19
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Figures
20
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
21
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
2 Upper range:
Assume Dr=85%
3
Depth below top of MSE wall (m)
7
Lower range:
8 Assume Dr=50%
10
Average
11
12
Average
Figure 2 Estimated shear wave velocity for MSE fill and backfill
(average values were used)
22
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
23
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
3.000
FILL
SM/ML
SG
1.000
SP1 DENSIFIED
AREA
SP2
SP3 Y-coord.
(x 10 m)
SP4 -1.000
CL-ML-1
CL-ML-2
-3.000
CL-GC
24
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
0.41 x 0.375m
mesh
Interface
25
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
26
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
LEGEND
step 3477
Flow Time 1.7342E+01
Dynamic Time 1.7994E-03 2.000
-2.321E+01 <x< 7.381E+01
-4.704E+01 <y< 4.998E+01 UBCHYST
1.000
Material model
h_ubchyst
m_mss
0.000
Boundary plot
0 2E 1
UBCSAND
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
27
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
LEGEND
EX_ 4 Contours
0.00E+00
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
-1.000
6.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E+00
-5.000
28
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 19:10
step 1910521 3.250
Flow Time 2.4131E+03
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01
9.804E+00 <x< 4.375E+01
6.872E+00 <y< 4.082E+01
2.750
Displacement vectors
max vector = 1.109E+00
0 2E 0 2.250
0.750
29
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
6.000
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 18:41
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01
-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02
-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01
-2.000
-4.000
30
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
6.000
LEGEND
14-Oct-10 18:41
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03 4.000
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01
-2.768E+01 <x< 1.013E+02
-5.248E+01 <y< 7.646E+01
-4.000
31
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
27.0
24.0
Figure A-2 21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
12 m High Wall 9.0
Dimensions in meters 6.0
3.0
B C D E F G H I J K
A Toe of Wall
B Top of Wall at Face
C to K @ 3 meter intervals from face of wall to 27m
12.0
Figure 12- Location of displacement points for which results are presented in Table 6
(all measurements in meters)
32
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Displacement (m)
Horizontal displacement
Base of FLAC model (Input Motion)
0.000
-0.200
-0.400
Horizontal displacement
Base of wall facing (Point A)
-0.600
Vertical displacement
Surface of fill behind MSE wall (Point E)
-0.800
Horizontal displacement
-1.000 Top corner of MSE wall (Point B)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
Figure 13- Time history of horizontal displacements at top corner and vertical displacement
at backfill surface behind the wall for CHICHI-NS-2475 earthquake
(See Figure 12 for the location of Points A, B and E)
33
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Undeformed Shape
Rotational
Movement
Figure 14- Typical pattern of deformation of MSE wall (5 times exaggerated- after CHICHI-NS-2475)
34
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Average rotation of
MSE wall base
CHICHI-NS-2475 (w314.dat)
20.00
19.95
19.90
Y (m)
Liner Trendline
19.85
y = 0.017x + 19.48
19.80 R = 0.949
Rotation=0.017 rad
19.75
The point under wall facing ignored
19.70
19 21 23 25 27 29
X (m)
35
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
MSE volume
ORIGINAL SHAPE
Figure 16- Approximate pattern of external movements and Internal deformation of the MSE wall
(N.T.S- Deformations are exaggerated)
36
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
LEGEND
3.000
14-Oct-10 19:32
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800
1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01
1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01
Bottom
Strip Plot
# 2 (Strip) -8.775E+04 Row 2.600
# 3 (Strip) -8.774E+04
# 5 (Strip) -7.329E+04
# 6 (Strip) -7.319E+04
# 8 (Strip) -7.218E+04
# 9 (Strip) -5.741E+04 2.400
#11 (Strip) -5.668E+04
#12 (Strip) -4.699E+04
#14 (Strip) -4.093E+04
#15 (Strip) -3.762E+04
#17 (Strip) -3.069E+04 2.200
37
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
-3.000
Row #10
-4.000
-5.000
Row #6
-6.000
-7.000 Row #4
-8.000
Row #2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
Figure 18- Typical post-earthquake axial forces in strips
(Negative values signify tensile forces)
38
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
LEGEND
3.000
14-Oct-10 19:33
step 1910521
Flow Time 2.4131E+03
Dynamic Time 8.5006E+01 2.800
1.783E+01 <x< 3.080E+01
1.915E+01 <y< 3.212E+01
Strip Plot
# 2 (Strip) 3.987E-02 2.600
# 3 (Strip) 2.968E-02
# 5 (Strip) 2.340E-02
# 6 (Strip) 1.755E-02
# 8 (Strip) 1.109E-02
# 9 (Strip) 3.372E-03 2.400
#11 (Strip) 1.010E-03
#12 (Strip) 8.373E-04
#14 (Strip) 7.293E-04
#15 (Strip) 6.703E-04
#17 (Strip) 5.468E-04 2.200
39
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Appendix A
SHAKE analysis
Fill
Soil
Layers
Firm Ground
(TILL)
40
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Figure A-2- An example of comparison of outcropping firm ground motion with the convoluted
with-in ground motion for CHCHI-NS-2475.
41
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Appendix B
UBCSAND
UBCSAND is an elastic-plastic effective stress model with the mechanical behaviour of the sand skeleton
and pore water flow fully coupled (Beaty & Byrne 1998; Byrne et al. 2004). The model includes a yield
surface related to the developed friction angle, non-associative flow rule, and definitions for loading,
unloading, and hardening. Elastic properties are isotropic and nonlinear and yield loci are radial lines of
constant stress ratio from the origin in stress space. Increase in stress ratio is loading which is elastic-
plastic. Unloading is elastic. When the stress ratio is below the constant volume friction angle (cv) the
soil skeleton is contractive (when sheared) while above cv the soil is dilative (Figure B1). A hyperbolic
relationship is used between stress ratio and plastic shear strain (Figure B2). The yield envelope
(maximum developed stress ratio) is pushed out (hardened) according to a function between plastic shear
modulus and plastic shear strain increment. Unloading and reloading is elastic, however, when the stress-
ratio goes to zero and there is a cross-over (loading on the other side) the yield envelope is reset at zero
and must be hardened again according the function between plastic shear modulus and plastic shear strain
increment. The model is set-up to run as a separate constitutive model within the program FLAC (Itasca
2008). A small Raleigh damping (typically 1%) is used with the UBCSAND model to provide numerical
stability at small strain and damping. Key soil properties used are the small strain shear modulus (Gmax),
(N1)60-CS or relative density of the soil and constant volume friction angle (typically 33 degrees for quartz
based sands). Typically, Gmax is obtained from either in-situ shear wave velocity measurements or from
correlations with (N1)60 as follows:
UBCSAND Calibration
Three or four calibration parameters (depending on the version used) are in the model. In the calibration
process, a single undrained soil element is exercised so as to trigger liquefaction in the correct number of
cycles and to give post-liquefaction stress-strain behaviour consistent with that observed in laboratory
simple shear tests. The calibration procedure used is as follows:
42
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
1. Set up the 2D FLAC profile with a Mohr Coulomb constitutive model and bring it to static
equilibrium. Representative cohesionless soil elements are then selected for calibration. The
vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS are
recorded for each element to be calibrated.
2. An undrained single element model is set up in FLAC and is initialized with the representative
vertical and horizontal effective confining pressure, small strain shear modulus, and (N1)60-CS.
3. A cyclic shear stress (xy) compatible with a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) that will liquefy (pore
pressure ratio near 1.0) in 15 cycles (CRR15) from Idriss and Boulanger, 2008 empirical
liquefaction triggering chart and equation is calculated as follows:
43
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
44
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
References on UBCSAND
Beaty, M., and Byrne, P.M. 1998. An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand,
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. P. Dakou-las, M. Yegian, and R Holtz
(eds.), ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication 75 (1), pp. 766-777.
Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M.K., Gonzalez, L., & Abdoun, T. 2004. Numerical modeling
of liquefac-tion and comparison with centrifuge tests, Canadian Geot. J., V. 41(2):193-211.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, MNO-12.
ITASCA, 2008. FLAC Version 6.0 Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua Users Manuals, Itasca
Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis Minnesota.
Kokusho, T., 1999. Water film in liquefied sand and its effect on lateral spread, J. Geo-technical and
Geoenviron. Eng. 125(10), pp. 817- 826.
Naesgaard, E., Yang, D., Byrne, P.M., and Gohl, B., 2004. Numerical analyses for the seismic safety
retrofit design of the immersed-tube George Massey tunnel, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, August.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Seid-Karbasi, M., and Park, S.S., 2005. Modelling flow liquefaction, its
mitigation and comparison with centrifuge tests, Proc. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Satellite
Conf., Osaka, Sept. 10, TC4 committee ISSMGE, Publ. by Japanese Geotechncial Society, pp. 95-
102.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., and Seid-Karbasi, M., 2006. Modelling flow liquefaction and pore water
redistribution mechanisms, Proc. 8th National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, April.
Naesgaard, E. and Byrne, P.M., 2007. Flow liquefaction simulation using a combined effective stress -
total stress model, 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Ottawa,
Ontario, October.
Sriskandakumar, S., 2004. Cyclic loading response of Fraser River Sand for validation of numerical
models simulating centrifuge tests, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, March.
Yang., D., Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Adalier, K., and Abdoun, T., 2005. Numerical Model verification
and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models Canadian Geot. Journal, Vol. 41,
No. 5, April.
45
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
Appendix C
UBCHYST
UBCHYST Calibration
The UBCHYST model was calibrated to uniform cyclic response inferred from published modulus
reduction and damping curves. The UBCHYST calibration parameters used for all the analyses are in
Table 2a of the main body of the report. Figure C-2 shows an example of curve fitting procedure.
.
46
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
47
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A 12M HIGH RECO WALL ON IMPROVED SOFT GROUND NAESGAARD GEOTECHNICAL LTD OCTOBER 20, 2010
UBCHYST
Figure C2- An example of calibration of UBCHYST Constitutive Model to G/Gmax and Damping curves
48