P e e R

P 2001 Annual Meeting
E
E
R Ground Deformation and
Lateral Spreading
Steve Kramer
University of Washington
2001 Annual Meeting
Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Response modification
Soil conditions can change:
Amplitude
Frequency content
Duration
2001 Annual Meeting

Ground failure
Permanent deformations
2001 Annual Meeting

Ground failure
Flow failure
2001 Annual Meeting

Ground failure
Flow failure
Lateral spreading
2001 Annual Meeting

Ground failure
Flow failure
Lateral spreading
Settlement
2001 Annual Meeting
Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards
Three primary questions to consider:
Is the soil susceptible to liquefaction?

Will the anticipated loading trigger liquefaction?
What will be the effects of liquefaction?

2001 Annual Meeting
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Geologic environments well established
Fluvial deposits Alluvial deposits
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:
Characterize loading by cyclic shear stress
max
CSR = 0.65
'v
amax v
CSR = 0.65 ' rd
g v
and earthquake magnitude

2001 Annual Meeting
Current procedure:
Characterize resistance by cyclic shear stress
CRR
(N1)60, qc1, Vs1,

2001 Annual Meeting
Current procedure:
Characterize resistance by cyclic shear stress
CRR
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
(N1)60, qc1, Vs1,

2001 Annual Meeting
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
What are we doing about these issues?

Probabilistic 0.5 0.5
evaluation of
liquefaction potential CRR CRR
Seed, Der
Kiureghian, et al. Liao et al Youd et al
(1988) (1998)
0.0 0.0
0 40 0 40
(N1)60 (N1)60
0.5 0.5
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

Ground Failure and
Building
Performance in
Adapazari, Turkey
Bray et al.
http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu/turkey/adapazari/data/site_a/index.html
2001 Annual Meeting
Effects of Liquefaction
Effects can be divided into two categories:

Response
Amplitude
Frequency content
Duration Both are influenced
by phase
Ground Failure transformation
Lateral deformations behavior of soil
Vertical deformations
2001 Annual Meeting
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
Stress-strain Stress path

2001 Annual Meeting
High
stiffness u
2001 Annual Meeting
High
u
stiffness
2001 Annual Meeting
After several more cycles

2001 Annual Meeting

2001 Annual Meeting
Low
stiffness
u
2001 Annual Meeting
Higher
stiffness
2001 Annual Meeting
Stiffness changes
dramatically over
the course of a
cycle of loading
2001 Annual Meeting
Stiffness changes
dramatically over
the course of a
cycle of loading
2001 Annual Meeting
Response
Stiffness generally decreases
Longer period motion
Lower acceleration amplitudes
Higher displacement amplitudes
High Low
frequency frequency
2001 Annual Meeting
Wildlife Array
Increasing stiffness with strain
De-liquefaction shock waves
2001 Annual Meeting
Ground failure - permanent deformations
Horizontal
Lateral spreading
Flow slides
Vertical
Settlement
2001 Annual Meeting
Lateral spreading
Estimation of permanent displacement

DH
log DH = -17.614 + 1.581 M 1.518 log R*
- 0.011 R + 0.343 log S + 0.547log T15
+ 3.976 log (100 F15)
0.923 log (D5015 + 0.1mm)
15 N
Based solely on regression
Provides only ground surface displacement

2001 Annual Meeting
Lateral spreading
Loose layer
Lateral
spreading
Initial
shear
stress
What
What controls
controls displacements?
displacements?
2001 Annual Meeting
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
Phase
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
Shear Stress (kPa)

3
(kPa)
occur.
occur.
2
1
2
1
0 0
-10 We
We
-5 need
need
-1 0 more
more
5 experimental
10experimental
15 -1 0 data
data
10 on
on
20 30 40 50
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

Evaluation of Post-
Liquefaction
Residual Strength
and Stress-Strain
Behavior
Seed, Pestana,
Kammerer
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~kammerer/nevada.html
2001 Annual Meeting

Modeling of Lateral
Spreading and Effects on
Foundations and Super-
structure
Elgamal, Yang
Middle Channel bridge

at Humboldt Bay
2001 Annual Meeting

Liquefaction-
Induced Ground
Deformation and
Failure
Bardet
http://geoinfo.usc.edu/gees/
2001 Annual Meeting
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 Modeling of
Cyclic Mobility and
Lateral Spreading
Kutter, Dafalias
2001 Annual Meeting

Seismic Performance of
Pile-Supported Wharf
Structures
Dickenson, Kutter,
McCullough,
Schlechter
Centrifuge Model
2001 Annual Meeting
Flow slides
Occur relatively rarely
Involve very large deformations
Tremendously damaging
Fort Peck Dam
>1200 ft displ
San Fernando Dam

>200 ft
2001 Annual Meeting
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

Uncertainty in
residual strength
evaluation Ring Simple Shear
Kramer Device (RSSD)
Outer Inner
rings rings
2001 Annual Meeting

Uncertainty in
residual strength
evaluation
Kramer
1000 1000
900 Test 1 900 Test 1
800 800
700 700
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Stress (psf)

600 600
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
The Next Question:
What do we do about liquefaction?

Abandon the site
Improve the site
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Performance-based
Performance-baseddesign
design
procedures
proceduresfor
forsoil
soilimprovement
improvement
are
areneeded
needed
2001 Annual Meeting

Performance of
Improved Ground
Sitar, Hausler
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~hausler/home.html
2001 Annual Meeting
Summary
Consideration of liquefaction-related phenomena in

PBEE will require:
Additional laboratory testing of liquefiable soils
focusing on behavior after initial liquefaction
Model testing of soil-structure systems
Acquisition of high-quality field performance data
Development of improved numerical modeling
capabilities

P e e R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P e e R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P 2001 Annual Meeting

Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Geotechnical Impacts on Structural Performance

Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards

Three primary questions to consider:

Is the soil susceptible to liquefaction?

What will be the effects of liquefaction?

Fluvial deposits Alluvial deposits

Characterize loading by cyclic shear stress

and earthquake magnitude

Characterize resistance by cyclic shear stress

(N1)60, qc1, Vs1,

Characterize resistance by cyclic shear stress

(N1)60, qc1, Vs1,

What are we doing about these issues?

What are we doing about these issues?

Effects can be divided into two categories:

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

After several more cycles

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

Stress-strain Stress path

Estimation of permanent displacement

Provides only ground surface displacement

Shear Stress (kPa)

What are we doing about these issues?

What are we doing about these issues?

Middle Channel bridge

What are we doing about these issues?

What are we doing about these issues?

What are we doing about these issues?

San Fernando Dam

What are we doing about these issues?

What are we doing about these issues?

900 Test 1 900 Test 1

Shear Stress (psf)

The Next Question:

What do we do about liquefaction?

What are we doing about these issues?

Consideration of liquefaction-related phenomena in

You might also like