licuacion flac model fin
Post on 13-Apr-2018
228 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 1/11
- 407 -
Determination of Liquefaction Potential
of Soil Using (N1)60 by Numerical
Modeling Method
Gholam Moradi Assistant professor
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: gmoradi@tabrizu.ac.ir
Behnam Rahro Khatibi, Mehdi Hosseinzade Sutubadi Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: behnam.rahro@gmail.com
mhsc60@gmail.com
ABSTRACTOne of the important design considerations for structures situated on sand deposits is the
potential for instability caused by the development of excess pore pressure as a result of
earthquake loading. A build-up of excess pore pressure may lead to initial liquefaction. In the
present study, an alluvium with saturated sand was simulated in FLAC software. Three typesof soil mass with various primary condensation (loose, medium dense and dense) were used.Parameter (N1)60 was defined to the software as a main soil property to calculate the other soil
parameters such as internal friction angle, relative density, etc. As dynamic loading,
acceleration time histories of three earthquakes with various magnitudes (low, medium andhigh) were applied to the model. To examine pore water pressure variation in the soil mass
during the earthquake loading, the parameter r u was defined for the software by a Fish
function. r u is the pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure incrementdivided by the primary effective stress in soil. The results showed that FLAC can identify the
regions with liquefaction potential by calculation of generated excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading. Time histories of r u showed that liquefaction potential in the soil mass
changes with depth variations.
KEYWORDS: Liquefaction Potential, FLAC, Standard Penetration Test, Pore Water
Pressure Ratio, Dynamic Loading.
INTRODUCTION
When earthquake loading is applied to saturated sand deposits, pore water pressure in the soil
starts to increase leading that the soil strength is lost. Liquefaction is the ultimate appearance of
this phenomenon (Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G. 2002). At the initiation of soil
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 2/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 408
liquefaction, the effective stress in the soil becomes zero and pore pressure in the soil becomes
equal to the initial confining pressure of the soil mass. During past earthquakes, liquefaction
induced displacements have caused serious damages to marine structures (such as quay walls,
piers, breakwater, etc.). Therefore, the prediction of liquefaction is the main concern for
structures located in medium to high seismicity regions (Jafarian et al. 2010). Field experienceduring past earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001) shows that liquefaction has generally occurred at
depths less than 15 m, and recently, some dynamic centrifuge model testing (Steedman et al.
2000) proposes a depth on the occurrence of liquefaction.
Although simplified methods (Seed and Idriss, 1971) are available in calculating the
liquefaction potential of a soil mass, these methods can’t be applied to all earthquakes with the
same accuracy. In addition, they can’t predict the pore pressure developed in the soil due to
earthquake loading. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a numerical simulation to obtain pore
water pressures and shear stresses in the soil due to earthquake loading. The numerical simulation
of liquefaction is essential in understanding the liquefaction mechanism. To perform the
simulation, an applicable constitutive model of saturated soils and a suitable formulation of
numerical method for the two-phase coupled problem are required.
Numerical simulation performed by Shun-gun Li et al . (2010) shows that the cusp
catastrophe model can simulate increment of excess pore water pressure and occurrence of
liquefaction due to earthquake loading. This model can predict pore water pressure increment and
liquefaction potential. Presented results by Jafarian et al . (2010) show that numerical simulation
of liquefaction can predict both excess pore water pressure and displacements of marinestructures. Therefore, implementation of numerical simulation is necessary for examination of
liquefaction potential. Their numerical analysis was performed by FLAC software.
In this paper liquefaction potential of saturated sandy soil is studied. For this purpose, an
alluvium with saturated sand is simulated in FLAC software using Finn constitutive model. The
effect of soil densification and magnitude of earthquake loading (as a dynamic loading) inliquefaction potential of the soil and level (or depth) of liquefied regions in the soil mass is
considered. Furthermore, the effect of depth variation on liquefaction potential is studied by
definition of time histories of r u in various points of the soil mass. Generally, it is tried to simulate
liquefaction phenomenon in FLAC using parameter (N1)60 as a main factor for soil parameters
required to the software and identifying liquefiable regions in the soil mass.
THEORY AND PROCEDURE OF NUMERICALMODELING
For modeling the soil mass with liquefaction potential, the FLAC software is used. The finite
difference method for analysis of soil mass is used in FLAC. Finn constitutive model isconsidered as default in FLAC that facilitates the ability of soil modeling in liquefaction states.
Also, equivalent linear method (Seed and Idriss 1969) and Finn constitutive method are used.
With FLAC, the effects of pore water pressure with or without loss of pore water pressure can
be obtained. Also, the generation of pore water pressure can be calculated by considering the
irrecoverable volumetric strain on basic model Finn with dynamic option. In Finn constitutive
model, it is assumed that void ratio is constant, also it can be calculate as a function of volumetric
strain and other parameters can be defined by void ratio.
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 3/11
an eq
occur
the i
presu
B
cases,
(Boul
T
nume
simulrock
1980)
ol. 16 [20
artin et al . (
uation linkin
red during t
crement of
ed to be th
here C 1 , C 2 ,
yrne (1991)
here C 1 and
C 2 = 0.4/C 1,
sing an empanger 2004),
hen:
2 is then cal
rical simulati
soil mass
ation. In Figand both lef
.
11], Bund.
1975) propos
the increm
at particular
volume dec
“engineerin
3 and C 4 are
roposed a m
C 2 are const
so Eq. (2) in
irical relatio
(N 1 )60:
culated from
on in Finn C
efinitio
ith 30 met
re (1), the m and right b
D
inn Con
ed an effecti
nt of the vol
cycle. They
ease, Δεvd ,
” shear strai
∆ = ( constants.
odified and s
∆ =nts with dif
volves only
between Dr
C 2 = 0.4/C 1nstitutive m
n of Soil
rs height an
esh model isoundaries of
Figure 1:
stitutive
ve stress ana
umetric strai
supply the f
o the cyclic
:
− )
impler volu
exp−
erent interpr
ne independ
=7600(
and the nor
=15()
=8.7()
in this case
odel in FLA
Mass a
d 400 mete
shown. It isthe model h
The soil mas
Model
lysis approac
per cycle o
ollowing em
shear-strain
+
e change mo
etations fro
ent constant.
.)alized stan
.
. Parameter
.
d Mesh
s length is
assumed thaave free-fiel
mesh
h. Their pro
f loading to t
irical equati
amplitude,
del with two
those of E
ard penetrat
N 1 )60 is the
Model
ssumed for
the bed of td condition
40
osed model
he shear strai
on that relat
γ, where γ
(
parameters:
(. (1). In ma
(on test valu
( (
ain factor
the numeric
e soil massCundall et a
9
is
n
s
is
)
)
y
)
s
)
)
f
al
isl .
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 4/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 410
Then, the values of bulk modulus and water density and gravity are given to the program.
Next, the parameters of Finn model are defined by introducing (N1)60 for all the regions of soil
mass. The software calculates the values of C1 and C2 for all the regions of soil mass.
Also the quantity of (N1)60 is used to calculate the other soil parameters such as internalfriction angle, relative density and also the required parameters for the model to calculate
volumetric strains such as shear modulus and initial bulk modulus. The relationship between
these parameters with (N1)60 is defined to the software by a Fish function. For example, for
determining the relative density (Dr ) with (N1)60, the Boulanger formula (2004) is used.
Also, internal friction angle φ is defined by Eq. (6):
= 15.4×() +18 (6)
Finally, Rayleigh damping is used for the model and relevant coefficients are given to the
software.
For observation of effective stress and pore water pressure variations, special time histories
are defined in some points of the mesh. These time histories are defined to the software by a Fish
function.
For observation of the earthquake magnitude, acceleration time history of three earthquakes
with low magnitude ( Karebass earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.2g), average magnitude
(San Fernando earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.29g) and high magnitude (Bam
earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.42g) are used as dynamic loading for the soil mass.
EXAMINATION OF THE RESULTS
To distinguish between liquefiable and non-liquefiable areas, parameter r u is defined. r u is the
pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure increment divided by the primary
effective stress in soil. It is defined to the software by a Fish function.
Theoretically, if r u inclines to 1, effective stress inclines to zero and liquefaction should
occur. But r u=1 is only theoretic definition for liquefaction occurrence. Previously, it is
experienced that liquefaction phenomenon occurred at r u=0.93. Therefore in this research, if r u
reaches a value greater than 0.9 liquefaction happens.
Examination of Liquefaction Potential of Soil Mass withVarious Condensations by Applying Karebass Earthquake
As previously described, to introduce the soil condensation, parameter (N1)60 is used.
According to Table (1) which is presented by Clayton et.al (1993), classification of soil regarding
(Dr ) and (N1)60 is denoted. By use of this table, values of (N1)60 equal to 8,15 and 25 are chosen.
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 5/11
F
earth
I
pore
lique
lique
depth
F part o
maxi
that r
in de
maxi
and d
ol. 16 [20
C
igure (2) sh
uake ( Kareb
Figure
Figure (2-
water pressu
ied and arou
iable areas.
s 12 and 30
igure (2-B)f it in that de
um value o
egion with li
pth of 30m
um values
enerally, Figecrease of li
11], Bund.
Table 1: Re
assification
ery loose
LooseMedium
Dense
ery dense
ows the ma
ass) (A-loos
2: Maximum
), the soil m
re. Accordin
d the region
urthermore,
.
bviously sho pth reaches t
r u is more th
uefaction po
is not lique
f r u become
ure (2) showuefaction po
D
ationship be
ximum valu
sand, B-me
values of r u
Kareb
ass in two v
g to this fig
s marked in
this figure s
ws that lique liquefactio
an 0.9 and th
tential is onl
ied at all.
maller (yello
s that increaential in dee
ween (N1)60
D (%)
0 – 15
15 – 3535 – 65
65 – 85
85 - 100
es of r u in
ium dense s
n different d
ass earthqua
rious depths
ure, the soil
ink is on th
ows that loo
fied area inn boundary.
erefore the s
y in depth of
lso it show
w color).
se of soil de area of the
and soil cond
(N1)60
soil mass i
nd, C-dense
ensities of th
e
have experie
around the
boundary b
se sand is li
depth of 30But in depth
oil mass is li
12m from t
that, in th
sity leads toil mass.
ensation
(blows/300m
0 – 3
3 – 88 – 25
25 – 42
42 - 58
duced by l
sand).
e soil induce
nced maxim
regions mar
tween lique
uefied in bot
reduces anof 12m in th
uefied. Figu
e surface an
regions ne
decrease of
41
)
w magnitu
by
m increase i
ed in blue
iable and no
h approxima
d only a sm soil mass, t
e (2-C) sho
the soil ma
r the surfac
liquefied ar
1
e
n
is
-
e
lle
s
s
e,
a
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 6/11
F
earth
to Fi
in de
sand,
lique
Figur
I
lique
F
(Bam
Fi
ol. 16 [20
ExaminVario
igure (3) sh
uake (San F
ure (2), Figu
th of 12m.
a deep area
ied region i
e (3-B), the s
Figure 3:
Figure (3-
action poten
ExaminVariou
igure (4) sho
) (A-loose sa
ure 4: Maxi
11], Bund.
tion ofs Cond
ws the max
ernando) (A-l
re (3-A) sho
On the othe
of soil mas
depth of 30
oil mass hav
Maximum v
) the area w
ial is approxi
tion ofConde
ws the maxi
nd, B-mediu
um values
D
iquefacnsation
Ea
imum values
oose sand, B
s that lique
hand, by a
s has more
m reduces a
liquefaction
alues of r u in
Ferna
ith liquefacti
mately in de
iquefacsations
um values o
dense sand
f r u in differ
ion Pot by Apthquak
of r u in soi
-medium de
ied area in d
plying the
liquefaction
d liquefied r
potential in
different den
do earthqua
on potential
th of 12m.
ion Potby Appl
f r u in soil m
, C-dense san
nt densities
ntial oflying Sa
l mass indu
se sand, C-d
epth of 30m
edium mag
potential. In
egion obvio
oth depth of
sities of the s
e
in depth of
ntial ofing Ba
ass induced
d).
f the soil in
oil Masn Ferna
ed by medi
ense sand).
is larger than
itude earthq
Figure (3-B
sly is seen.
12 and 30m.
oil induced b
0m reduces
oil Mas Earthq
y medium h
uced by Ba
41
withdo
m magnitu
n the contra
liquefied ar
uake on loo
), the area
n contrary
y San
and maximu
withuake
gh earthqua
earthquake
2
e
y
a
e
f
o
e
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 7/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 413
According to Figure (4-A), approximately all the regions of the soil mass by applying high
magnitude earthquake is liquefied and on the contrary to Figure (2-A) and Figure (3-A), a specific
region cannot be distinguished as an area with liquefaction potential.
From Figure (4-B) it is seen that by increasing the soil density, liquefaction potentialdecreases from bottom to top of the soil mass. In this figure on the contrary to previous figures,
only one liquefied region is seen. On the other hand, shallow regions of the soil mass have
maximum liquefaction potential.
In Figure (4-C) it is obviously seen that in depth of 12m there is maximum liquefaction
potential. However, by comparison with previous corresponding figures, larger area of the soil
mass is in the liquefaction boundaries.
General Results From Above Figures
- In Figure (2) and Figure (3) which are related to low and medium magnitude earthquakesrespectively, the soil mass has maximum potential of liquefaction in two separated regions.
According to these figures, when soil densification increases, the area of liquefied region
decreases in depth of 30m.
- According to Figure (4), on the contrary to Figure (2) and Figure (3) in the soil mass with
applied high magnitude earthquake, only one specific region with liquefaction potential is seen.
- Comparing Figure (2) and Figure (3), shows no particular difference between liquefied
region area. It is due to the small difference between maximum accelerations of two earthquakes,
which are applied.
-All figures show that maximum potential of liquefaction in the soil mass is between depthsof 10 and 15m. This range of depth is similar to results of Seed and Idriss method (1971).
The Effect of Depth Variations on Liquefaction Potential ofSoil Mass
To examine the modeling exactness, several time histories are defined in various points of the
model mesh to score variations of soil parameters during earthquake loading (such as r u, effective
stress and pore water pressure). For example in this section, time history of r u in middle region of
the soil mass in depth of 10 and 20m is studied.
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 8/11
ol. 16 [20
igure 5: Ti
igure 6: Ti
11], Bund.
e history of
e history of
D
u in depth of
earth
u in depth of
earth
10m related
quake loadin
20m related
quake loadin
o dense soil
o dense soil
induced by h
induced by h
41
gh magnitud
gh magnitud
4
e
e
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 9/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 415
Both of two figures show that the soil mass has experienced maximum value of r u in tenth
second of earthquake loading. Maximum value and variations slope of r u in Figure (5) are more
than corresponding values in figure (6). It shows that liquefaction potential in low depth is more
than liquefaction potential in high depth. The maximum value of r u in Figure (5) is 0.93, it means
that soil mass in that point is liquefied, while maximum value of r u in figure (6) is 0.87 and thesoil mass is not liquefied in that point.
At both states, the final value of r u is 0.83 after peak point. In Figure (5), value of r u after tenth
second suddenly falls and it inclines to 0.83 with a lightly ascending slope. In figure (6), value of
r u after tenth second inclines to 0.83 with lightly descending slope.
Generally, if depth increases, less reduction occurs in effective stress and there will be less
increase in r u as well. On the other hand, minimum effective stress in depth of 20m is more than
corresponding value in depth of 10m. It shows that when depth increases, liquefaction potential
decreases.
CONCLUSION
Based on numerical results the following conclusion can be obtained.
1. Results show that Finn constitutive model can calculate excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading by measurement of irrecoverable volumetric strain. By introducing r u as a
liquefaction potential index, the liquefied regions are specified.
2. In the loose and medium dense sand with applied low and medium magnitude earthquake
loading, two separated regions with liquefaction potential are seen in depth of 12 and 30m. The
volume of liquefied region located in approximate depth of 30m is less than volume of liquefied
region in approximate depth of 12m.
3. In all types of soils (with various densities) by applying high magnitude earthquake
loading, only one area with liquefaction potential is seen. When soil condensation becomes high,
the liquefied region moves to the surface. This result shows that the effect of high magnitude
earthquake shows its effect in low depth of the soil mass.
4. During earthquake loading, in all types of the soils with various densities, liquefaction
potential in low depth is more than liquefaction potential in high depth.
5. Results show that variations slope of r u (or pore water pressure) in lower depth (10m) is
more than variation slope of r u in higher depth (20m). On the other hand, the soil mass near the
surface reaches sooner to the liquefaction state.
6. Schema of variations of r u in depth of 10m is different from variations of r u in depth of
20m. In depth of 10m, the value of r u after tenth second suddenly falls and it inclines to constant
value (0.83) with lightly ascending slope. In depth of 20m, value of r u after tenth second inclines
to constant value (0.83) with lightly descending slope.
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 10/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 416
REFERENCES
1.
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M (2004) “State normalization of penetration resistances and
the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance,” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, D. Doolin et al ., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, 484-491.
2. Byrne, P (1991) “A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and Pore-Pressure Model for Sand,”
Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics (St. Louis, Missouri, March, 1991), No. 1.24, 47-55.
3. Cundall, P. A., H. Hansteen, S. Lacasse and P. B. Selnes (1980) “NESSI — Soil Structure
Interaction. Program for Dynamic and Static Problems,” Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
Report 51508-9.
4. Clayton, C. R. I., Milititsky, J and Woods, R. T (1993) “Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining
Structures,” London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
5. Idriss, M., Boulanger, R. W (2004) “Semi-Empirical Procedures For Evaluating Liquefaction
Potential During Earthquakes,” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA 95616-5924, 11th International Conference on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (ICSDEE), and The 3rd International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (ICEGE), Berkeley, California, USA.
6.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2000) FLAC, version 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minn.
7. Jafarian, Y., Alielahi, H., Sadeghi, A. A. and Vakili, R (2010) "Seismic Numerical
Simulation of Breakwater on a Liquefiable Layer: IRAN LNG Port," Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15.
8.
Li, S.g., Chai, S.x., Ren, Q.x and Wang, Y.h (2010) "Prediction of Liquefaction Potential and
Pore Water Pressure due to Earthquake," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 15.
9.
Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G (2002) “Numerical simulation of soil liquefaction due to
earthquake loading,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22, 511–523
10.
Martin, GR, WDL. Finn and HB. Seed (1975) “Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under CyclicLoading,” J. Geotech. Div. ASCE, 101(GT5), 423-438.
11. Seed, H. B., and I. Idriss (1969) “Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motion During
Earthquakes,” J. Soil Mech. Found., Div. ASCE, 95, 99-137.
12. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M (1971) “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential,” Jnl GED, ASCE, 97(9), 1249-1273.
7/26/2019 Licuacion Flac Model Fin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licuacion-flac-model-fin 11/11
Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D 417
13.
Steedman, R.S., Ledbetter, R.H., and Hynes, M.E (2000) “The influence of high confining
stress on the cyclic behavior of saturated sand,” In Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000:
Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colo., 5–8 Aug. 2000. Edited by
R.Y.S. Pak and J. Yamamuro. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special
Publication 107, pp. 35–57.
14. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson,
W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, R.K., Seed,
H.B., and Stokoe, K.H (2001) “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of
soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817–
833.
© 2011 ejge
top related