By: Shiela Laconsay Glenn Tamayo Andre Cruz

Geologic, hydrologic, topographic, seismic and material properties must be obtained Accuracy of the analysis is as good as the accuracy of the info

Earthquakes expose slopes to dynamic loads that can reduce the soil shear strength and cause instability

Are there materials in the slope that will lose significant strength during cyclic loading? (e.g.,soil liquefaction) Will the structure undergo significant deformation that may jeopardize satisfactory performance?

1. Analysis of Inertial Stability

FS =

Pseudostatic - FS Newmark Sliding Block Analysis Makdisi-Seed displacement Stress-Deformation Analysis

resisting moment (constant) static overturning moment + Earthquake Force

displacement

2. Analysis of Weakening Instability

-usually associated with liquefaction

Flow Failure Analysis Deformation Flow

FS =

resisting moment (decreasing) static overturning moment

Earthquake loading is represented by a seismic horizontal force, Fh Fh=kW

Seismic coefficient k=a/g Location of Fh is C.O.G of the slice (Terzhagi) Recent dynamic analysis shows that acceleration are amplified from bottom to top of dams

Terzaghi (1950) Severe -0.1 Violent -0.25 Catastrophic -0.5 Seed (1979) K=0.15, FS =>1.15 Hynes-Griffin & Franklin (1984) Use k=0.5*PGA, FS=> 1.0, 80% residual strengths

FS =

resisting moment static overturning moment

FS =

resisting moment static + pseudo static

Used to screen for potential seismic stability problems Especially for soils that are not expected to lose a significant amount of there strength when subjected to seismic loading

kh = ( aref /g) * (a/aref) = 0.2 * 0.5 = 0.1

k=0.15

Earth Dams

Landfills

<1.15, expected dislacements will be greater than 1m

An earth structure that satisfies the FS in the screening analysis criteria may still displace more than 1m. This does not mean it is safe for all levels of performance

Pseudostatic method of analysis provides an index of stability (FoS) but no information on deformations associated with slope failures Pseudostatic FoS varies throught an earthquake Newmark considers behavior of slope when Fos is less than 1.0 i.e. the potential failure mass is not in equilibrium

The yield coefficient, ky, is the horizontal pseudostatic coefficient that will produce an FoS of 1.0.

Accuracy of a sliding block analysis depends on the accuracy of the input motion Since the potential failure mass is assumed to be rigid, the ground motion at the level of the failure surface should be considered In-phase for slopes with very stiff soils and/orsubjected to low-frequency motion Out-of-phase for slopes with softer slopes and/or slopes subjected to higher frequency motion.

Simple yet rational approach based on an evaluation of the dynamic response of the embankment Assumes that failure occurs on a well-defined slip surface Assumes that material behaves elastically at stress levels below failure but perfectly plastic behavior above yield

1. Determine yield acceleration, ky

2. Determine earthquake-induced accelerations

3. If induced acceleration is greater than ky, movements are assumed to occur along the failure plane. Magnitude of displacement is evaluated by double integration procedure

Yield Acceleration

average acceleration producing a horizontal inertia force on a potential sliding mass so as to produce a factor of safety of unity and thus cause it to experience permanent displacements.
Inelastic behavior

Yield Acceleration

Very little permanent deformation

Substantial permanent strain

Time History of Earthquake- Induced Average Acceleration

Where: F(t) = force force acting along the boundary of the sliding mass Kav = average acceleration acting on the sliding mass at that instant in time

Kmax = maximum average acceleration max = maximum crest acceleration

Variation of Maximum Acceleration Ratio with the Depth of Sliding Mass

Factors Affecting Permanent Deformation due to Earthquake Loading:

1. Amplitude of induced average accelerations, amplifying characteristics of the embankment and location of the sliding mass within the embankment 2. Frequency content of the average acceleration time history 3. Duration of significant shaking

Summary for several earthquakes and dams and embankments

Average values

135 ft high Chabot Dam during the 1906 magnitude 8 San Francisco Earthquake
max = 0.57g To = 0.99 sec y/h =1.0 Ky= 0.14
0.14

Kmax /max= 0.35 Kmax = 0.35*0.57g = 0.2g

0.35

U/kmaxg To = 0.013 seconds Thus, U = 0.013*0.2*32.2*0.99 = 0.08 ft = 2.4 cm

Simple yet rational approach Approximate and involves simplifying assumptions, leading to conservative results Design curves need to be continually updated and refined as analytical results for embankments are obtained Significant improvement over the pseudo-static approach but needs to be used with caution and good judgment with regards to applicability Where soil conditions cannot be determined with a significant degree of accuracy, a more rigorous dynamic method would be more satisfactory