Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E
E
R Ground Deformation and
Lateral Spreading
Steve Kramer
University of Washington
2001 Annual Meeting
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Geologic environments well established
Man-made deposits
2001 Annual Meeting
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Soil types well established:
Clean sands
Silty sands (up to ~35% fines)
Also observed:
Silts Conclusion:
Gravelly soils
Liquefaction susceptibility is
relatively well understood
not a pressing issue for
development of PBEE
2001 Annual Meeting
Initiation of Liquefaction
Current procedure:
max
CSR = 0.65
'v
amax v
CSR = 0.65 ' rd
g v
Initiation of Liquefaction
Current procedure:
CRR
Initiation of Liquefaction
Current procedure:
CRR
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Initiation of Liquefaction
Conclusion:
Advantages of current procedure:
Experience
Practical showsfor
procedures it works
evaluation of liquefaction
It is widely
potential embraced
exist, but are notbyreadily
practitioners
suited to
implementation in PBEE framework, in which
unbiased estimates of probability of liquefaction
Limitations
are required.of current procedure:
No insight into uncertainty
More high-quality
Mixes source field data
(M) and from
site sites
(amax of
) parameters
liquefaction and non-liquefaction
Pore pressures aremore
related to strains needed.
than stresses
Improvements are possible through the
identification of better parameters with which to
characterize loading and resistance.
2001 Annual Meeting
CRR CRR
Toprak et Seed et al
al (1999) (2001)
0.0 0.0
0 40 0 40
(N1)60 (N1)60
2001 Annual Meeting
http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu/turkey/adapazari/data/site_a/index.html
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Effects of Liquefaction
Phase transformation
Contractive behavior u increases, p decreases
Dilative behavior u decreases, p increases
q tiv e
D i l a
Phase transformation line
Contractive
Dila
tive
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Effects of Liquefaction
High
stiffness u
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
High
u
stiffness
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Effects of Liquefaction
Effects of Liquefaction
Low
stiffness
u
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Higher
stiffness
Stress-strain Stress path
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Stiffness changes
dramatically over
the course of a
cycle of loading
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Stiffness changes
dramatically over
the course of a
cycle of loading
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Response
Stiffness generally decreases
Longer period motion
Lower acceleration amplitudes
Higher displacement amplitudes
High Low
frequency frequency
2001 Annual Meeting
Wildlife Array
Effects of Liquefaction
Phase transformation
Increasing stiffness with strain
De-liquefaction shock waves
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Ground failure - permanent deformations
Horizontal
Lateral spreading
Flow slides
Vertical
Settlement
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Lateral spreading
Effects of Liquefaction
Lateral spreading
Loose layer
Lateral
spreading
Initial
shear
stress
What
What controls
controls displacements?
displacements?
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
Phase
Phase transformation
transformation behavior
behavior
We must be able to model
We must be able to model phase phase
transformation
transformationbehavior
behaviortotopredict
predictthe
the
performance
Shear 4
5
performance of
ofstructures
structures5 located on or
located on or
4
near
Stress
near 3sites
siteswhere
wherelateral
lateralspreading
spreading can
can
phase
phase
-2
-3
transformation
Shear Strain (%)
transformation behavior behavior
-2
-3
and
andthe the
factors
factors
-4 that
thataffect
affectit. it. -4 Effective Vertical Stress (kPa)
We
Weneed
needmore
morehigh-quality
high-qualityfield
fielddata
dataon
on
lateral
lateralspreading
spreadingcase
casehistories
histories
2001 Annual Meeting
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~kammerer/nevada.html
2001 Annual Meeting
http://geoinfo.usc.edu/gees/
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Lateral spreading can cause damage to pile foundations
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
We
We need
need to
to be
be able
able to
to predict
predict the
the
distribution
distributionof oflateral
lateralspreading
spreading
deformations
deformationswith withdepth.
depth.
2001 Annual Meeting
Centrifuge Model
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Flow slides
Occur relatively rarely
Involve very large deformations
Tremendously damaging
Fort Peck Dam
>1200 ft displ
Effects of Liquefaction
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Flow slides
Evaluation of flow slide potential
Residual
Residual strength,
strength, and
and the
the
Static, limit equilibrium analysis
factors
factors that
that affect
affect it,
it, needs
needs
Requires residual strength
totobe
bebetter
betterunderstood.
understood.
Uncertainty
Uncertaintyin
inresidual
residual
strength estimation
strength~400
estimation needs
needs
psf
to
tobe
bequantified.
quantified.
~100 psf
2001 Annual Meeting
Outer Inner
rings rings
2001 Annual Meeting
800 800
700 700
Shear Stress (psf)
500 500
400 400
300
200
= 100% 300
200
100 100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Shear Strain (%) Normal Stress (psf)
2001 Annual Meeting
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Performance-based
Performance-baseddesign
design
procedures
proceduresfor
forsoil
soilimprovement
improvement
are
areneeded
needed
2001 Annual Meeting
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~hausler/home.html
2001 Annual Meeting
Summary