Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OEEEEEEEE
lul
111111.11.53
36
ilII11
.1 nII'--L
111 L.II
'I*
9-
MISCELLANEOUS PAPER GL-84-13
COEFFICIENT METHOD
by
1- . 4
'V
: July 1984
I J.JFinal Report
• AUG 2 1 1984
J0
S"
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (09,.. Dete Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRRUCTONS
EORE COM.PLETING FORM
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER S
Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13 I| j4
0
4. TITLE (mnd Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK
AREA S WORK UNIT NUMBERS
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Geotechnical Laboratory CWIS Work Unit 31145 0
PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
Unclassified -
IS.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetrct entered in Block 20, if different from Report)
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree aide Ifnecessary mnd Identify by block nuwnber)
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wen Date Entered)
PREFACE
GL.
COL Tilford C. Creel, CE, was Commander and Director of WES during the
preparation of this report. Mr. F. R. Brown was Technical Director.
Accossicn For
: , :-n. o.I
n __ _
I 0
1 ' ', ; . . o:
i - "
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE. .. .......... ........... ........... I
PART I: INTRODUCTION .. ..... ........... .......... 3
PART II: PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS. .. .......... .... 5
Stability Analysis. ...... ........... ........ 5
Sliding Block Analysis. ...... ........... ..... 8
Embankment Response Analysis. ...... .............. 13
PART III: CONCLUSIONS .. .......... ........... ... 19
REFERENCES. ...... .......... ............ ... 20
TABLE 1
APPENDIX A: TABLES OF SLIDING BLOCK CALCULATIONS FOR STRONG-MOTION
DATA, EARTHQUAKES OF THE WSTERN UNITED STATES AND
OTHER COUNTRIES, AND SYNTHETIC ACCELEROGRAMS .. ........ Al
-0
2
RATIONALIZING THE SEISMIC COEFFICIENT METHOD
PART I: INTRODUCTION
S
, safe against earthquake-induced failure from those that require further anal-
ysis. A seismic coefficient analysis can serve this screening function, be-
cause the accumulated experience in permanent displacement analyses now pro- -
vides a rational basis for choosing the value of the coefficient. The
rationale is based on assuring that deformations will be limited to tolerable
values, assuming the worst combination of earthquake loads and resonant em-
bankment response. A procedure that uses this approach is proposed in this -
report.
0J
4S
0
PART II: PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS
GX UNDAMTION
GLATR II
INETGTO
INETIGtin
,1MAK
EMBANKMENT
C'' L'
RSL.
STA ET MOELRTION COMUT
r
Syampl~uing " ANALYSS Nvs h.
A uvs h
Stability Analysis
5
0•
~~TYPICAL SLICE-.
kW W
EI++
E+1
6
critical acceleration
methods such as those of Bishop (1955) or Morgenstern and Price (1965). Trial
values of acceleration may be used to find the value that reduces the factor
of safety to unity. The Sarma method (Sarma 1975), which employs a slip sur-...
face of arbitrary shape, determines the value of N directly.
7. In principle, the analysis can be performed on either a total or an
effective stress basis, but the problems of estimating pore pressures induced
70 analysis.
by cyclic shearing are avoided by using a total stress The usual
Corps of Engineers practice for static stability analyses is to use a compos-
ite shear strength envelope based on the S test (consolidated-drained) at low
confining pressures and the R test (consolidated-undrained) at high confining
pressures (Figure 4). This strength envelope, which conservatively takes into
account possible dissipation of shear-induced negative pore pressures that
might occur in the field but cannot occur in an undrained test in the labora-
tory, is recommended for pervious soils. For soils of low permeability, in
which undrained conditions are more likely to exist during an earthquake, an
undrained (R) strength envelope would be appropriate.
8. Makdisi and Seed (1977) point out that substantial permanent strains
may be produced by cyclic loading of soils to stresses near the yield stress,
while essentially elastic behavior is observed under many (>100) cycles of
loading at 80 percent of the undrained strength. They recommend the use of
80 percent of the undrained strength as the "dynamic yield strength" for soils
that exhibit small increases in pore pressure during cyclic loading, such as
clayey materials, dry or partially saturated cohesionless soils, or very dense
saturated cohesionless materials.
0 e
-e
!D
-o
0e
normal stress a
Figure 4. Composite "S-R" strength envelope
8
0
P
0
W
1L0
NW
a. POTENTIAL SLIDING MASS b. FORCE POLYGON
FOR F.S.=1.0
U DOWNHILL
o
NdW
S NW displacement
UPHILL S
Nuw
N fRELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
DURING ONE CYCLE
0
00
0 1
JNg time
e. COMPUTATION OF DISPLACEMENT
Figure 5. Elements of the sliding block analysis S
9
11. The force-displacement relation in Figure 5d is assumed to apply to
this system. The force in this diagram is the inertia force corresponding to
the instantaneous acceleration of the block, and the displacement is the slid-
assumed
ing displacement of the block relative to the base. It is usually
that resistance to uphill sliding is large enough that all displacements are
downhill. This assumption, in addition to simplifying the calculations, is
both realistic and conservative (Franklin and Chang 1977).
12. If the base (i.e., the inclined plane) is subjected to some se-
quence of acceleration pulses (the earthquake) large enough to induce sliding
of the block, the result will be that after the motion has abated, the block
will come to rest at some displaced position down the slope. The amount of
permanent displacement, which will be called u , can be computed by using
Newton's second law of motion, F = ma , to write the equation of motion for
the sliding block relative to the base, and then numerically or graphically
integrating (twice) to obtain the resultant displacement. During the time
intervals when relative motion is occurring, the acceleration of the block
relative to the base is given by
ua = (a-N) Cos -O )
rel abase J c os4 (1)
=(abase-N)• a
where
are = relative acceleration between the block and the inclined plane
abase = acceleration of the inclined plane, a function of time 0
N = critical acceleration level at which sliding begins
= direction of the resultant shear force and displacement, and the
inclination of the plane
6 = direction of the acceleration, measured from the horizontal 0
0 = friction angle between the block and the plane
10
a is a constant and is not involved in the integration. In the final stage
of analysis, the result of the integration is multiplied by the coefficient
a , the determination of which requires knowledge of the embankment properties
and the results of the pseudostatic stability analysis. For most practical 0
problems, the coefficient a differs from unity by less than 15 percent (Fig-
ure 6). For the purposes of this report, a value of unity will be assumed.
45
0.9
C15-
0 15 30 45 -
,, degrees
Figure 6. Values of the coefficient a
11
- -.- .-. . . . . . . .. . .
.
16. Kutter (1982) has done limited experimental testing of this method
by means of model embankments shaken by simulated earthquakes in the Cambridge
University geotechnical centrifuge. For these tests, the sliding block model
gave poor predictions of very small displacements (<I cm), but if strength
degradation was provided for, it produced good predictions when the displace-
ments at prototype scale were greater than about I cm.
17. The following example, drawn from Kutter's test results for embank-
ment model D and earthquake I , demonstrates the application of the dis-
placement calculation procedures described herein. If the yield acceleration
for the embankment model is calculated on the basis of 80 percent of the mea-
sured shear strength, and the measured amplification of the base motion is in-
cluded, the predicted displacement is 15.0 cm and the corresponding measured
displacement is 16.4 cm at the prototype scale.
18. Sliding block analyses have been done at the WES for 348 horizontal
earthquake components and 6 synthetic records. These calculations are tabu-
lated in Appendix A. The results are summarized in Figure 7, which shows the
mean, mean plus one standard deviation (a), and upper bound curves, for all
natural records and all synthetic records representing magnitudes smaller than
8.0. (Caution is recommended in interpreting these curves quantitatively in
terms of relative probability, because the data base is biased by over-
representation of a single earthquake, the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, which
produced records at many locations.)
19. The question of how much deformation is tolerable has no single
answer; it depends on such factors as the size and geometry of the dam, the
zonation, the location of the sliding surface, and the amount of freeboard
available. The authors have arbitratily chosen 1 m of permanent displacement
as a tolerable upper limit. Such a deformation would surely be considered
serious damage, but it could be tolerated in most dams without immediately
threatening the integrity of the reservoir. The unusual cases where a dam
could not tolerate 1 m of displacement, because of small freeboard or vulner-
ability of critical design features to small displacements, should be evalu-
ated by other methods. S
20. When Figure 7 is entered at 100 cm (1 m) of displacement, the cor-
responding N/A value is 0.17. Thus, deformations will be limited to less
than 1 m of displacement if the critical acceleration is as much as 0.17 times
the peak acceleration on the sliding surface. S
12
1000
6
0
100
100
N/A •
Figure 7. Permanent displacement u versus N/A , based on 348
horizontal components and 6 synthetic accelerograms
P2 . Both the wedge and foundation are linearly visco-elastic and have the
same damping ratio D . The earthquake motions are considered to be rigid-body
13
S1, P,
h2 S 2 -P 2 ,D
motions in the rock underlying the foundation layer, and it is assumed that
all motions are horizontal (hence, a shear-beam model). Shear-wave veloc-
ities and damping values are chosen so as to be consistent with expected
strain levels. The computation of accelerations is carried out in the time
domain.
22. Geometry and material properties are described in terms of the
dimensionless parameters m and q , which are defined as
ISI S h2
m- and q - (2)
p2S2 2 1
23. For use with the sliding block analysis, accelerations are averaged
over a wedge that is selected to be approximately equivalent in volume and
location to a potential sliding mass with its base at some chosen elevation,
as shown in Figure 9. The average acceleration acting on the wedge at any
instant is taken as
aav - fAa(z)
A(3)
dA
av A
14
0
z0
1V 00
-~ ------------- ~--
amplification factor -~
=
3.0 y/h
0.2
0.4
0
0 2.0 0.6
0
4- 0.8
, 1.0 m 0.5
. q O.51
E
' . damping =20%
0
0.1 0.5 1.0 4.0
fundamental period, seconds
are shown for wedges with their bases at various distances y/h1 (defined
in Figure 9) from the crest, for a single combination of m and q values
(m = 0.5, q = 0.5).
25. Amplification curves have been obtained from 27 strong-motion
earthquake records and a wide range of m and q values (representing em-
bankments on rock and on foundation layers of varied thickness, and with a
variety of relative embankment-foundation stiffnesses). Damping values used
ranged from 15 to 20 percent. Also, numerous computed amplification values
have been obtained from finite element analyses and from the literature.
15
" . - . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. 11 . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . I nl • .. .
- -
16
CREST 0
0.2
0.4
y/h 1
0.6
0.8
BASE 1.0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
amplif ication factor
Figure 11. Amplification factors for linearly viscoelastic
embankments at resonance
17
accordingly, they look for a limiting amplification factor representing slid-
ing surfaces at the base of the embankment. Figure 11 shows that the value at
the mean plus 2a limit is approximately 3.0. Applying this amplification fac-
tor to the N/A value, 0.17, which gives an upper bound of 1-m displacement 0
for the rigid-plastic sliding block, the ratio of critical acceleration to
peak bedrock acceleration is 0.5.
I 0
18
PART III: CONCLUSIONS
.
0
19
-.
REFERENCES
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Lee, K. L., and Makdisi, F. I. 1975a. "Dynamic
Analysis of the Slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam During the Earthquake of
9 February 1971," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 101, No. GT9, pp 889-911.
1975b. "The Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the Earthquake
of February 9, 1971," Journal of the Vol
Geotechnical
American Society of Civil Engineers, 101, No. Engineering Division,
GT7, pp 651-688.
2.1
21
ow 0
F GU 41 V v N
c..~ do 0* 0 O Wu k WW 1-4
0 tj 0 0 -
a, o. -11 - -CD D
* 0 416 C0Q~ . >* >
14 00 G a, a, 4) 41 0. 0. 1 w 10 0 0
00
. aw -0 -) - E-.4 - w0 w 0--2Z0""" 4
Ps
G3 0 wA w w 000." 0 0" . "4
410 0 U0 0 - - c'4 1% 4
a% 4)0 C2 -- .0 0. a, r-"4 "4
P1 v.44N m- Lf U n Na 0 -
410 r' v an a a 0 - - 0 42 0
014 C:3en 0 w U
0% aV M0 a- ft -
4~' 00 '0 4) 0) 0
0% ~~ ~ ~ ~
410 . *%
a9..- ~ % 4 P
% P 0
P~~~~~U~~
44U , U w10 0 0 0
A4 A- A am.J am ow -oca caa
00 oa ' .4 40%S% V 0
u C4 1E 00 0o "4 "4 4 - 1 41
a ~ c - -1 -0 ,V 1 I -~ 1 4 1
0
"4 a
041
00
I0
41j
a% P-
N 0 ws -n
w . 0 as
0
v
a~ -q r4 - N 0 4e C4 N - -- ---
4. - N r4' 000 r4 a~
(4 0%4 c40Ic -q 0%a 4 c
o c~ C4 " 04 -4 N4 N 04 4 -4 N Nq - q c c4e e 4 - 4
0, -C -D N Go
No -- -o N No N1 NoO c
- - N
v N
e n vN N N N
00
u
1
*~~~
-
~- ~ a 0 0 - 0
0 0 a aI
0 ~~ ~ ~
Il U Z-1 ~ . ~
411u,
03
. V
4113
- '
.Jf 411
.
to
..4 A0 'M N 0t 0 iN Ct- .... 4- . id
-r id i
-s a a b .a
w10~ 0~*
a1 CD113.
a.- r -~ a
~ In-
0 0
.M.-.0
s
1.010 ~
u- '4.. -- k33
4l 4D1 "a1 1l 3
w, *.4 *.T 00% ".T
MOO a. a', 0 cr 0,
a a aO Ma c; c
*44W4W 4 -4) -4.'CC0 -40 40 40 V0 M!
0 4 0 4 0 4 004 4 owl41 .0U CC, CID,0 .0.
1 4 4 1 0 0 - . ' . a a a a 0
M00 a'. b0 0
44a'. 4 14 1
4 40 - A .~0.~ N N .l a a 0 -C -C
3~c J J . 1 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 4 1
C,
- W. - - W~. W11
- O %0 % - 4.5j0.a
40 013
uea.) 4 40 40
kpp. 9-WA4r. . W1kn .1 13
04 W W. S. b. .w
a3 a3 a
cnA Aa
4o
a
4I
an
a.
a
n
a
'a
ao '.1,
.0
'13-
1.& H
0- 0-
P".
9:Qam~.~ E. ~ *
.1c, 00%
r- ~0a2~
-
0-10%
Z -
O-0 .- .- - , F,2 w1
. ' . ' . ' 1 4 u a a 4 4 .I 4 .. n 1 4
41 41 4 1 4 1 aa*44"4*41,41. ' 4 .s~4 0 0
1 4
aO
W.3 4 04 0 1 4 0 1 4 4 4 '04 '0 1. 4 '0 J I
3'. N9 -
en mn In tA 0% 00 0f0- 0 n - N 0
V n - - 00 0% I I F n - nCCIn I
On
a3 +
0 - - C Co e%
n 0 - In '0 0 '
en - a, C, NIn - - - -
-0 -? -- . . .- . 4 (n a InInS 00 n '
c4 0 00 0% % 0 -
co r= 00 0 o Go In '
In -n '0
e0 a.
en -C04 t a
~O . In . . .M . . C4..
00 N n M 0 n
e.0 -t m0
Nm % 0 %
N0 C,0 % 0 In 0 00 00 W, wlIn 0 00 In
0 NIn N N In In In N en en N" N n N
INn In In N, N, V, InIV I n
44-
U0
000
100
a 'N o cN
41S
00 4
APPENDIX A
_e
- Ir| lI • S • . . l I. . .. .
- C
-ao -0 - -
-~O --- --- ---
- - ---- - - - o
-- a~
a; ; 4 i ;-'I ,; a:;- ;: - = - - --
*A I
0 0 0 0 C C c 6 6, 66
-6 A I
j cC CCO~~adc
ad-ta0. *-..tac
~
cc-tad ~ ~ Ca ~ c caa
l ~ c.
Id..,.C.c Co.cXac-.e a -. ,cd. -
.]'s
ti.-
c-a22 t .
6S
o- - S oo oo - o o o --- o
0 4 !
... !... .. .. ... ... .---- - - - -
*3 ,, .. .. 0- a . ,,.
. . .- . 0 . .
o 2 2 z; . 2
i
. . . . . . . -
t sp a. -a 2!A n !! a- S. 85 2
2 2 3 x~ A.0~
*Z Z
..- . . . - : . . : .
3~~1
2 2 3 1
"i L
I *8i
cc~r a o0.020 a n 0 .
:i 40
it 3 3A A 3 z;z 2 5 -;--22$
Z *
4;4 - A.- A z0 z Za *. , 0
;,1 5 ,i 0 It I = -:, ,
0
a 0 1 1 C O
04 000 0 0 014 14
0 4 L
1 de
A, 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 -f c 0 0 0 0
j~~~~~~o~~
t0 3~ E0 0 OO03'009 000031 o o o NJS
um'j a~ s 3 a
.. - -1- . . . . . . . . . 1"! . . .
i!~1 .. . . . .. 11! .
•S
22 A! 1A 1!1?
A 2oon M,2 9f .S ~ iv*9 ;:mAn 6 .R.2 Q a 1.
1% 1 -4 04 4 14 ft 1 n 4 1
- -0 - -- --- --0 - - ,
-- --- ---
A 1 . - n o
p i
jai
lil a 32 Is% 1
V 4 -
.1_9
-- oA
S A 2I a A o o ,G
i . 6 .6 .
22 Mc c ..- CA-
. . .
+, -+ _. +..; -.,;,, ,.,,! .+
- + 1.7.. 1! ,,-: .+- .;+ . ;I + -,,
,-: ,.+ + 4,+.
" -- - - -
.-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I M. I .I .. I .. I I .. I .
+ +++ ~ ~ -l ~
!.++++++
:21~ !
1 3 11 ++
= 2&' ++ --' 2P
A -m
'A A I
0"0" "-" . ** *
;4 A
I 0 I
6 i c; '2 4. 6 i*; 6! 6 'S 1!~
.. . . . . . . . .
A V R
.. ...
.. .. t f
il ft r
ai . 3 3
1 E
-
3 - - - -- 00 - '4 - 1 - 3 - -- - -U 3 A
Z 2 e 2 to2 12 22 :z 2 3 A2
M
A 4
00 02o 00 00 - C o =:c o es t=
2p t t 2 0
1! 10 O 41!55 cP ~ ~ O 0
t -
I
. . -.. .-. . -. -. . - . .- .
.. . .... ;.4 aici c,
4 44 4. 4 4 4 Z4 4 .
5
j 2AtA 2 A n A~ 92 2 A A- A
a 2o ~ ~ 2 ...... 2 2~ 2 2
IM A -
0~ ~~ ~~~~~~~' 52 8S'03 2 5 t4O30o5..
A5 22 A322 22
- 221 22 2.2 2
2au1 W. aI a
001 00 0! 00
I=0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0
02 n as a2 A a 2- := I A ! . e
.. .~- . . - - -
1! C ! 4
10 0 0 4
'-2'- -o-0
"g '-3 4-00
0 o I" "I0 00 m - -I A 1- - - 0
33 2 St 0 0
00404~~~S~
On 0.40nO CO0 2,,
~ ~ ~A ~
*
-a
~ ~ ~~
79
oo
30
"o
o
V 02 a0 0
4 0
a
~
no
440n C ~040
a0
0
a03
0
00.
-80
.o
a0
..
as
o
8
.. 0
88
~O o
s
n
a
n
9
o-
s
0
2 A
A0 0 0 0 3 0 o ~
0
An A
A23 A2 2-:
0.~~~ ~A. 0
-00
-2
0-0 n.
h
-oo f-,-n
;
o
-o o -,.
n.... -0 - 0 -0O
A A
ii i22, 22 03022 22
03 00 4.0
3 3
0000
3 2
00.
2003o2~t2 22i32~2323232
t: edO 00 tleA 2
ai 23 sis .3 .~ jig i' i
o~~~ o ~ ~ Iil- i
fl P0 A, = 0 =jO jo 0 00 0 0 50
CC = 4A !Zf
. 2 2 : n o o o n 3 2
P oo ~ 2 2 3 9 9 9
3s
a= as 6 6a
-- -- - as as a
4c 0 0 0 0 g
li -i 6 '-il 1
- Z= .
-~~~1 2:Z - *
;=
0 0
401; 14 .4 - l ;1 66 i ;1 ;;
4 .0,
.0 .40
.0.5 . .. .. .
r0 T 7 I
000 40*
V - sI s is--
-s
8i A.. 4 A.3 44 8
. . . . . . . .. . . . .0.
Z A 0 3 1 28 -
3 3
S 3 -.
- 0 0;0 0 0 'S -
6n 0.;
a c 'A. .. cn c;- no
G n-I -i
0
A o iA A "A
AX to0 A ; U .I
-2~. o ~ . . ... .. ..
rl.4
Al A
I a
C4-
ON 0% 4 00 LU,
0 ,
0)
0
JA n N n 00 In 0 C
1:6a a.
0..
N4Ch m% aN
40 '1 a4
o n en C4-
-
0%
C4 4 4 00In
90 0000
- N (n e-
40
0 Go
40 *0 0 M LI) 0 c
00
q4 C4 N
CA9..v
4'
'4-
41
Vk I
4w
4k% a>
41
tt A,