Sei sulla pagina 1di 116

Istituto Universitario

di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Universit degli Studi di Pavia


Facolt di Ingegneria

European Centre for Training and


Research in Earthquake Engineering

Carlo G. Lai
Aussois, October 3-5, 2013
1

acknowledgements
The case-studies presented herein are taken from scientific research, PhD
and MSc theses conducted by:

Armando Calabrese, PhD (ROSE School)


Ali Ozcebe, MSc (ROSE School)
Abolfazl Mirfattah, MSc (ROSE School)
Chiara Prearo, MSc (UNIFE)
Heidy Sanchez, PhD (ROSE School)
Luis Rosell, MSc (ROSE School)
Mario Martinelli, PhD (UNIPV-EUCENTRE)
Prof. Fioravante (UNIFE)
Prof. Spacone and Dr. Camata (UNICH)
2

outline

MOTIVATION

SEISMIC-GEOTECHNICAL NUMERICAL ANALYSES


- Peculiarities (radiation, mesh size, stability)
- (Constitutive modeling of soils) (not treated)
- Boundary conditions (static and dynamic)
- Definition of seismic input

CASE STUDIES
- Seismic analyses of a maritime blockwork wharf structure
- Seismic analyses of a maritime pile-supported wharf structure
- Dynamic soil-structure interaction direct approach
- Numerical modeling to support physical modeling: model of the model !
- (Seismic analysis of an embankment dam) if time permits !
3

Motivation

motivation
Constant progress occurred in latest decades on computational side and on
development of specialized software has spread also in geotechnical
engineering the recourse to advanced dynamic numerical analyses.
Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion

bounding
surface
plasticity

- nested multi-yield surfaces


- plastic potentials (flow rules)
- hardening rules

theory of incremental elasto-plasticity


5

motivation
Advanced numerical analyses allow to simulate very complex problems
which would be difficult if not impossible to study by means of simplified
modeling (e.g. Newmark method, pseudo-static analyses, etc).
Often soil-structure interaction problems

ff
(from Conte, 2007)

(from Macchi and Pavese, 1999)

motivation

MOSE PROJECT
VENICE LAGOON,

(from Jamiolkowski et al., 2007)

Advanced numerical analyses require refined geotechnical characterization


of a construction site. Possible lack of data may be overcome through use
of parametric or even stochastic analyses (research).

Seismic-geotechnical
numerical analyses

peculiarities
Peculiarities of numerical dynamic analyses with FEM, SEM, BEM, FDM or
hybrids methods in geotechnical engineering, with respect to corresponding
analysis in structural engineering, are multi-faceted:
1. unbounded physical domain (e.g. deep tunnels) or semi-infinite (e.g.
above-ground structures) ! introduce tricks or stratagems to simulate
energy radiation through the boundaries of the model.

(from Andersen, 2004)

infinite elements
adsorbing layers
non-reflecting boundaries
local or integral boundaries
consistent boundaries, PML
paraxial approximation
9

peculiarities

most common approach consists on imposing discrete elements along the

boundaries of the domain constituted by purposely-oriented viscous


dashpots whose efficiency in energy dissipation depends on the angle of
incidence of seismic waves.

(from Andersen, 2004)


(from ITASCA, 2008)

10

peculiarities
2. definition of seismic input, represented by displacement, velocity or
acceleration time series which should take into account the differences
between the outcropping ground motion recorded at the free-surface and
ground motion recorded at depth (deconvolution ill-posed problem)
accelerazione alla base

ff

dec

dec

tempo
(s)
time (s)

dec
11

peculiarities
3. GRID DISPERSION: proper energy transmission within the domain for
different excitation frequencies requires definition of maximum size of mesh
discrete elements to achieve accurate modeling of the deformability of the
continuum in relation to wavelengths propagating through the model:
G = constant (510 FEM, FDM)
To be accurate up to a frequency fmax if the minimum shear wave velocity of
the model is VSmin at least 10 points per minimum wavelength are needed in
the finite difference method (FDM) to avoid grid dispersion.
SEM are very accurate: 3-4 points per lmin useful in large-size models
12

peculiarities
4. STABILITY: time step (t) and size (x) of discrete elements cannot be
two independent variables Courant-Friederichs-Levy stability condition :
C = CFL number
Meaning of CFL stability condition is that time step cannot be larger than the
time required for any perturbation to propagate over distance x.
If Courant-Friederichs-Levy stability condition is satisfied error magnitude is
bounded and algorithm is stable. Value of C depends on numerical method.

(from Andersen, 2004)

13

peculiarities
Soil constitutive modeling and hydraulic boundary conditions
5. geomaterials and thus soils and rocks are particulate multi-phase
systems constituted by solid skeleton interacting with one/more fluid phases.
Refined constitutive modeling of porous media requires to take into account
hydro-mechanical coupling. Mechanical response arising from seismic
input followed by hydraulic response (seepage and dynamic consolidation).
pore fluid
solid particle
inter-granular forces
(from Kramer, 2001)

14

peculiarities
Soil constitutive modeling and hydraulic boundary conditions
5. time evolution of two phenomena may be very different depending on soil
hydraulic conductivity and frequency content of seismic excitation.
There is a problem of proper simulating hydraulic boundary conditions at
the boundaries where the seismic input is applied.

(from Albers, 2005)

15

peculiarities
Initialization of geo-static stresses & dynamic boundary conditions
6. Dynamic analysis of a geotechnical boundary value problem requires
initialization of the litho-static (or geo-static) stress tensor.
Application of seismic input which follows this phase should be accompanied
by modification of initial boundary conditions applied along the
boundaries of the model and of soil mechanical impedance.

litho-static stresses
seismic input
(from Lai and Paolucci, 2008)

absorbing boundary
16

peculiarities
Near-field effects (kinematic interaction)
7. Almost always in numerical modeling of geotechnical problems soil is in
contact with one or more structural elements.
In dynamic analyses mechanical impedance contrast caused by finite-size
geometrical components may generate multiple diffractions of seismic waves
having wavelengths comparable with the dimensions of component.
Modification of the incident wave field close to anomaly. This must be taken
into account in relation to the choice of geometric dimensions of numerical
model avoid to set boundaries close to near field.

kinematic interaction

(from Kramer, 1996)

17

peculiarities
Effects of soil nonlinearities and instability
8. Soils exhibit inelastic and nonlinear behavior even at low-strain levels. In
loose, saturated, coarse-grained materials such nonlinearities may lead to
instability phenomena (liquefaction or cyclic mobility).
Liquefied soil is not able to transmit energy associated with S waves.
This must be taken into account in defining the seismic input ! avoid to
introduce boundaries in soil zones susceptible of severe nonlinear response.

S wave

propagation of
shear waves

horizontal motion of bedrock

(from Sawicki & Mierczyski, 2006)

18

peculiarities
Computational resources and costs
9. Numerical (i.e. discrete) models of geotechnical systems have in general
relevant geometric dimensions associated to a dense computational grid.
Adoption of complex constitutive models to simulate soil hydro-mechanical
response and interface conditions between soil and structural elements.
Demand of computational resources required to carry out these
analyses may be very onerous also in terms of time duration
This aspect must be taken into account when selecting accelerograms
particularly in relation to duration and sampling frequency
19

Case study
seismic analysis of a maritime
blockwork wharf structure

20

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Seismic hazard

Selection of spectrum compatible records

21

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Geotechnical characterization

Liquefaction assessment

Factor of safety against


liquefaction at different depths
22

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Geotechnical model

23

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

Two-dimensional finite difference program


FLAC2D
Realistic modelling of boundary conditions
Hydrodynamic effects of the pool of water
taken into account with Weestergards added
masses [Weestergard, 1933]
24

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Nonlinear time history Tr=475 years

Displacement time history

Residual Horizontal
Displacement (RHD)
= 36 cm
25

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are composed of simple elements
operating in parallel
Inspired by biological nervous systems
Train to perform a particular function by adjusting the values of the
connections
VERY IMPORTANT: Once the network is calibrated, it can be used to
predict the response of similar systems under the same input conditions

26

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Architecture= 1 hidden
layer, 30 neurons

9 Input variables:

backfill, foundation,
G backfill, G foundation,
block-foundation,
block-backfill

PGA, PGV, IA (takes into account the


record to record variability)

Output variables = residual horizontal displacement (RHD) at top of the


wharf; residual tilting towards the sea
27

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

Calibration
FLAC input files used with
random properties for input
variables

30 input files for each


magnitude level (270 analyses)
50% of set used to calibrate,
25% to validate and 25% to test

Training
R=0.99
28

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Design charts
Generation of design charts using closed-form expression derived from
calibrated ANN

Closed-form expression

Prediction of wharf displacement for different values of Vs30 (200, 300, 400
m/s) at 9 intensity levels

29

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Three foundation lengths considered:
8m, 12m and 14m
MATLAB script created to generate random
geotechnical stratigraphies and to make
correspondences with a random selected ground
motion
30 input files generated for each intensity level
(PGA= [0.659, 0.887, 1.07, 1.27, 1.495, 1.778, 2.572,
3.445, 4.907])
Process repeated for each configuration (810
input files)
Nonlinear dynamic analyses
Calibration of ANN with input/output set
30

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Closed-form expression used 1000 times at 5 intensity levels (0.1, 0.2,
0.25, 0.35 and 0.5 g) for each wharf configuration
RHD normalized by heigth and mean value used to generate charts
(8m 11m 14m base widht - corresponding to ratios: 0.64 0.88 1.12)
Effects of width-to height ratio for different values of Vs30

Vs30 = 200 m/s

Vs30 = 200 m/s


31

seismic analysis of a wharf structure


Effect of input excitation level for different values of W/H

W/H = 0.88

W/H = 1.12

32

Case study
seismic analysis of a maritime
pile-supported wharf structure

33

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

34

18 m

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

55 m

Loose sand

Silty clay-Clay

35 m

Silty sand

Bed Rock

110 m

dominant soil types according to observations at different Italian port sites


35

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

18 m

55 m
35 m

110 m

0.63m
1m

1m

1m
grid size upward is 1m to comply with the highest ground motion frequency
36

Free Field CondiFon

Quiet boundary

Quiet boundary

Free Field CondiFon

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

Quiet boundary

wave reflections at model boundaries are minimized by specifying quiet boundaries


37

PlasFc hinge

18 m

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

35 m

Pile Element
with interface

55 m

Beam Element
with axial constraint

110 m

nonlinear inelastic structural elements (lumped plasticity) plastic hinges


38

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

interaction of each structural node with soil element simulated by nonlinear coupling springs
39

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

internal grid elements are assigned pore pressure and


equivalent hydrostatic pressure is applied at the boundaries
40

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

41

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

displacement measurement sensors of pile-supported wharf structure


42

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

43

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

44

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

45

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

46

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

typical response showing soil liquefied zone & plastic hinges in piles
47

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

methodology

48

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

mean and CoV of soil properties


49

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

Loose to medium sand


Silty Sand

Silty Clay-Clay
Bedrock

Medium Sand - Gravel


Coarse sand - Gravel

Silty Sand
Bedrock

50

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

random selection of layer


thickness of soil model
51

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

sample of 20
realiza/ons is sucient
to capture variability in
stochas/c model of
target wharf

52

seismic analysis of a wharf structure

53

Case study
dynamic soil-structure
interaction direct approach

54

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Dynamic analysis of Santa Maria Maggiore tower at Guardiagrele (Chieti)

55

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Mechanical characterization of materials constituting the tower

56

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Mechanical characterization of materials constituting the tower

57

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Geological characterization of construction site
Excerpt of geomorphological map of Guardiagrele (CH)

(from Di Francesco, 2007)

58

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Geological characterization of construction site

59

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Geotechnical characterization of construction site
Geotechnical parameters from field and laboratory tests inferred from adjacent sites

water table is absent

(from Di Francesco, 2007)

60

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Geotechnical characterization of construction site

Geophysical parameters obtained using seismic down-hole tests

(from Di Francesco, 2007)

61

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Historical seismicity in the area of study

(from Di Francesco, 2007)

62

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Topographic modeling of construction site

63

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Topographic and geotechnical modeling of construction site

64

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Geotechnical modeling of subsurface and boundary conditions

65

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Definition of design seismic action

66

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Computational resources and integration algorithm
Solution Scheme:
Explicit Dynamics
Solver:
Abaqus/Explicit (double precision)
Calculation Time Step: 5x10-5 s
Computer:
2 Xeon 5520 (2.27 GHz) 16 Threads
12 GB RAM
64 bits
Performance:

~6 increments per second


about 1 second of record in 1 hour of calculation

67

dynamic soil-structure interaction


Results dynamic analyses (ABAQUS)
.

211 111

.

240 811

.
723 588

/
(

)




Tower excited by a pulse


68

Case study
numerical modeling to
support physical modeling

69

numerical and physical modeling

70

numerical and physical modeling

71

numerical and physical modeling


Stabilization of slopes with large diameter shafts
Pressures regimes acting on stabilizing piles and structures depend on
response (i.e. movement type) of unstable layer.

CENTRIFUGE MODELLING OF DISCRETE PILES USED FOR SLOPE STABILISATION Nottingham University

72

numerical and physical modeling

73

numerical and physical modeling

74

numerical and physical modeling


Seismic geotechnical centrifuge

75

numerical and physical modeling


Seismic geotechnical centrifuges in Europe

76

numerical and physical modeling


ISMGeo seismic geotechnical centrifuge

(courtesy of Fioravante et al., 2011)

77

numerical and physical modeling

(courtesy of Fioravante et al., 2011)

ISMGeo seismic geotechnical centrifuge

78

numerical and physical modeling


Physical model and geotechnical properties
The system to be reproduced is made of:
bedrock;
slope of fine granular soil;
large-diameter stabilizing shafts
Materials used for to build physical
model chosen to correctly reproduce
mechanical characteristics of prototype
FINE SAND
to simulate unstable slope

LIGHT CONCRETE
to simulate bedrock

79

numerical and physical modeling


Preparation of physical model

(courtesy of Fioravante et al., 2011)

80

numerical and physical modeling


Monitoring system of physical model for static loading

81

numerical and physical modeling


Monitoring system of physical model for static loading

82

numerical and physical modeling


Monitoring system of physical model for static loading

83

numerical and physical modeling


Monitoring system of physical model for seismic loading

84

numerical and physical modeling


Numerical modeling
Monotonic tests simulations

Seismic tests simulations

Modeled in FLAC3D

Modeled in FLAC2D

Performed under large-strain conditions


Large strain interfaces are introduced

Performed under large-strain conditions

between material discontinuities

LDS are modeled with continuum elements

LDS are modeled with continuum

elements
Dynamic input is simulated velocity
controlled

85

numerical and physical modeling


Numerical modeling of monotonic tests

86

numerical and physical modeling


Numerical modeling of monotonic tests

87

numerical and physical modeling


Numerical modeling of seismic tests

88

numerical and physical modeling


Numerical modeling of seismic tests

89

numerical and physical modeling


Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: static tests

90

numerical and physical modeling


Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests

91

numerical and physical modeling


Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests

92

numerical and physical modeling


Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests

93

numerical and physical modeling


Comparison of physical and numerical modeling: seismic tests

Close-up view

94

Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Universit degli Studi di Pavia


Facolt di Ingegneria

European Centre for Training and


Research in Earthquake Engineering

Carlo G. Lai
Aussois, October 3-5, 2013

95

Case study
seismic analysis of an
embankment dam

96

seismic stability of earth-dam

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6405926

41 39 Latitude
14 03 Longitude

http://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imachen:Map_Region_of_Molise.svg

Castel San Vincenzo Dam is a zoned earth-dam


situated at 41 39 North Latitude and 1403
Longitude, in the Province of Isernia in the
Italian region of Molise
97

seismic stability of earth-dam

General characteristics
Height of crest
Above lowest foundation

34 m

Above downstream riverbed

25 m
Strength parameters

Free height
Above normal water level

2.5 m

Above maximum water level

2.5 m

Dam Zone
Upstream and
downstream
slope

f []

c [kPa]

24

30

Width of crest

6m

Length of crest

292 m

Core

30

40

400,000 m3

Foundation

35

50

Total volume of dam

98

seismic stability of earth-dam

(http://esse1-gis.mi.ingv.it/s1_en.php)

The ground
Intensity
Measure (IM) used in this study was taken as the Peak
Retunmotion
Periods
considered
Ground Acceleration (PGA). Spectral ordinates for other periods needed to generate
the Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) were obtained from INGV study [2004].

Probability of exceedance

Return period [years]

PGA [g]

39% probability of exceedance in 50 years

100

0.141

22% probability of exceedance in 50 years

200

0.191

10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

475

0.265

5% probability of exceedance in 50 years

950

0.337

2.5%probability of exceedance in 50 years

1950

0.434

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years

2475

0.455

99

seismic stability of earth-dam


Selected set for the 475 years return period

The plot shows the compatibility of the mean response spectra of the selected
natural records to the probabilistic UHS for the same return period Tr=475 years.
100

seismic stability of earth-dam


Computational model of Castel San Vincenzo dam
A two-dimensional, nonlinear finite difference plane-strain model of the Castel
San Vincenzo dam-foundation system was developed using FLAC 2D.

101

seismic stability of earth-dam


The soil behaviour idealized as the nonlinear visco-elastic Mohr-Coulomb
plasticity model. Excess pore pressure IS NOT taken into account ! total stresses

Create appropriate model grid for accurate wave propagation


Define representative static and dynamic soil parameters
Define boundary conditions
Calculate state of geo-static equilibrium
Define seismic input at the boundaries of the model
Perform dynamic analysis and process output
102

seismic stability of earth-dam


Residual displacements at the end of time history analysis

103

seismic stability of earth-dam


Results obtained with simplified (displacement-based) methods
Zone

Newmark
(1965)

Makdisi and Seed


(1978)

Yegian et al.
(1991)

Jibson (1994)

0.088

0.030

0.015

0.050

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.705

0.075

0.155

0.130

104

seismic stability of earth-dam


For this study only a simplified method was used due to the lack of geotechnical data
which was needed to implement a more sophisticated methodology, such as the Finn
(Martin et al. 1975) and Byrne [1991] model and other models available in FLAC .

(Seed et al., 2003). Source: Boulanger and Idriss, 2004

liquefaction susceptibility assessment

105

seismic stability of earth-dam


Probabilistic demand analysis estimates the seismic demand that a possible
earthquake ground motion will impose on a specific structure.
A set of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) is defined to characterize the
structural seismic demand in terms of structural global and/or local response

Engineering Demand Parameters:


Maximum vertical residual displacement the the top of crest
Maximum horizontal residual displacement at upstream slope
Maximum horizontal residual displacement at downstream slope

106

seismic stability of earth-dam


Conditional Response Analysis
The first step to obtain the conditional response of a given EDP is to carry out a
probabilistic seismic response analysis. In order to do so, a series of nonlinear
time history analyses were performed

Variability due only to ground motion


107

seismic stability of earth-dam

This dispersion mainly occurs because of the acknowledged inadequacy of PGA


as a ground motion intensity measure for the seismic response of soil systems
A lognormal distribution was assumed
108

seismic stability of earth-dam


Uncertainty of Model Parameters:
Probabilistic Analysis
Which input parameters are the most influential?

109

seismic stability of earth-dam


Definition of grid dimensions and number of simulations=N
Definition of mean value and CoV
Definition of horizontal/vertical correlation coefficient
Definition of cross-correlation coefficient
Generation of N cross-correlated random fields (c,f) using MCS
Generation of N uncorrelated random field (shear modulus) using MCS
Mapping of the obtained value in the centroid of each grid element
Running N FLAC analyses
110

seismic stability of earth-dam


Realization of cross-correlated random field

111

seismic stability of earth-dam


Correlation distance
The correlation distances h and v were fixed for each scenario in order to observe
only the influence of the variation of CoV

Realization of random field of cohesion


[Pa] with Coefficient of Variation
CoV=10%

Realization of random field of cohesion


[Pa] with Coefficient of Variation
CoV=40%
112

seismic stability of earth-dam


FLAC analyses to perform:
h

CoV=10%

CoV=20%

CoV=40%

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

L/2

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

L/3

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

4m

10m

20m

For each value of CoV nine realizations are carried out. Three for each value of the
assumed horizontal correlation distance (h=L, L/2 & L/3). Each horizontal correlation
distance is fixed for analyzing each of the three vertical correlation distances, v (4m,
10m, and 20m)
Assumption of no cross-correlation between cohesion and friction angle (r=0) is made

113

seismic stability of earth-dam


Conditional Response Analysis:Random properties

The variability of the response of the dam due to the uncertainty of the most influential
input variables becomes more evident if compared with the results obtained where the
analysis was carried out using best estimate values for the input parameters
(homogeneous soil assumption)
114

seismic stability of earth-dam

The fitted probability distributions of these two sets of simulated EDPs are relatively
close at low seismic hazard levels and become considerably different at high seismic
hazard levels

115

seismic stability of earth-dam

For this study the random modelling of soil properties in the probabilistic seismic
demand analysis INCREASES the seismic demand hazard.
Accounting for the uncertainty of soil parameters is therefore a significant factor in
assessing the seismic demand on the dam.
116

Potrebbero piacerti anche