Dynamic finite element analysis of a breakwater

under seismic and wave actions – A case study

Khoa Van NGUYEN,

Thierry JEANMAIRE, Jean-Marie ANFRAY,

Alain GUILLOUX, Julia de CACQUERAY.

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 1

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusions

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 2

 Geotechnical condition

• Marine sediments: very loose to loose carbonate silty sand;

• Coastal limestone: very weak to weak carbonated rock;
• Red sand: Sands, silty & clayed sands, variable density from very loose –
loose (Middle layer) to medium dense –dense (Lower layer), potentially
liquefiable soil;
• Sandstone substratum: alternation of medium dense to very dense sand and
extremely weathered to weathered sandstone.
Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 3
 Seismic input

• Design seismic: 1:1000 years, amax =

0.166g, ML = 7.1
• Input : seismic spectrum at the ground
surface
• Artificiel accelerograms : modification in
time domain of natural records preserving
the phases and altering the amplitudes

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 4

 Wave actions – Physical phenomena

Pore pressure built-up within the

sandy seabed beneath a caisson
breakwater under sea waves

• Caisson motion mode: by its

motion induced by the waves (time
dependent stress)
• Wave motion mode: by the
variation of the hydrodynamic
pressure (time dependent pressure)

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 5

 Wave input

• Millennium storm (1000 years return

period)
• Hydraulic test on basin (physical
reduced model) during 3h
• Wave load (caisson mode) modeled as
time-dependent point forces (f < 0.2 Hz)

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 6

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusions

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 7

 Finite element models
• Software: Plaxis 2D 2012 + dynamic modulus

• Seismic actions: time displacement imposed at the base of the model, av/ah = 0.4

• Wave actions: time-dependent point forces resulted from the hydraulic test

• Model size: classical limit conditions, no use of the special absorbent boundary
→ model large enough (200 x 700 m earthquake, 300 x 1000 m storm)

• Computation phases: construction phase + earthquake / storm during service

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 8

 Soil model and parameters

• Soil behavior model : elastic (structure + substratum inf), Mohr-Coulomb

(caprock + substratum sup.), Hardening (Red sand)

• Dynamic / cyclic parameters : Ed & Es ; (c’,f’, E) reduced 30%

• Behavior : drained during the construction, undrained during the events

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 9

 Numerical specific parameters for dynamic analysis
• Finite element size: fine enough to ensure the accuracy and to avoid the numerical
dispersion in the calculation of wave propagation
(f = [0.5, 10] Hz - earthquake ; [0.03, 0.2] Hz - wave)
• Time step: small enough to ensure the accuracy of the time integration procedure and to
model the wave propagation across finite element correctly
→ Dt = 0,0025 s ; 0.4s

• Newmark parameters: to ensure the unconditional stability of the time integration

→ (default values)

• Rayleigh coefficients to consider the material damping (however frequency-dependent)

→ a = 0.4 & b = 0.0022 ; a = 0.02 & b = 0.08

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 10

 Deconvolution of the seismic signals

• Deconvolution by the software EERA (Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response

Analysis) with hypothesis: 1D-model, non-linear elastic soil, damping 5%

• Verification by the Plaxis-1D model « soil column »

• Difference EERA – PLAXIS due to the damping modeling

- EERA : D = 5% constant
- PLAXIS : frequency-dependent damping

• Accordance EERA – PLAXIS for the domain f = [0. 5 Hz, 1.5 Hz] :
(f_soil~ 0.6 Hz, f_system (pseudo-analysis) = 0.6-1 Hz)

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 11

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusion

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 12

 HS model – Breakwater response

Pseudo-analysis design value: 0.16 g

result compatible with

that of pseudo-analysis
Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 13
 HS model – Red sand layer response (1)

• Pore pressure built-up • Development of plastic deformations

• Correlation with the peak of  pore pressure built-up
accelerations • Correlation with the peak of
• Ratio Dp/s’vo = 0.46 < 0.6  no risk accelerations
of liquefaction

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 14

 HS model – Red sand layer response (2)

s’vo= 60 kPa : Dp/s’vo = 0.42 < 0.6

s’vo= 350 kPa : Dp/s’vo = 0.46 < 0.6

Conclusions :

• Admissible displacement (< 8 cm)

• « Real » acceleration of the breakwater lower than design value (0.09 g < 0.16 g)
• Development of plastic zones, but no generalized failure
• Effective pore pressure built-up, but not enough to liquefaction (Dp/s’vo < 0.6 )

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 15

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusions

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 16

 Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (DSS) tests

Monotonic tests Cyclic tests

50
excess pore pressure (kPa)

-50

-100

-150
0 5 10 15
shear strain (%)

160 50
effective vertical stress (kPa)

140
120
25

shear stress (kPa)

100
80
0
60
40
20 -25
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
-50
shear stress (kPa)
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
shear strain (%)
post-cyclic monotonic test initial monotonic test phi ~ 34°

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 17

 Undrained cyclic behavior of sands
Cyclic action Monotonic action

Loose sand

Dense sand

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 18

 Undrained cyclic behavior of sands
Liquefaction Cyclic mobility

- loose sands - dense sands

- drop-down of the resistance  instability - no drop-down of the resistance
- large deformation - accumulation of deformation

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 19

 Models UBC3D-PLM & UBCSAND

- UBCSAND : developed at UBC (Canada), implanted in FLAC (2008)

- UBC3D-PLM : advanced user-defined soil model, added in PLAXIS since 2010

Characteristics :

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 20

 Evaluation of soil parameters (SoilLab tool)

- Step 1: Estimating of parameters using standard value and correlations

- Step 2: Fitting the curves of monotonic test and the first loading of cyclic tests.
- Step 3: Fitting the Du-N curves of cyclic tests to simulate the accumulation of excess
pore pressure. Note that it is impossible to fit the txy-gxy curves, due to the inherent
limit of the model.
Parameters Set 1 Set 2a Set 2b Set 3* Worley Parso
MRS LRS-MD LRS-MD LRS-D Case 3 MD-D
f cv (°) 29.5 33.5 32 33 32
f p (°) 30 34 34 38 33
c (kPa) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
K eG 890 1000 120 2000 1500
KpG 450 1600 300 3000 2500
e
KB 1150 1250 300 2000 1250
me 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
ne 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
np 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.5 0.5
Rf 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9
pa (kPa) 100 100 100 100 100
st (kPa) 0 0 0 0 0
fac_hard 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.7 1
N1_60 8.6 12 12 30 12
fac_post 0 0 0 0 0
Nota: MRD - Middle Red sand, LRS-Lower Red sand,
MD-medium dense, D-dense, * : hypothetical parameters

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 21

 Results of test fitting
Monotonic test fitting
50 40
45
30
40

excess pore pressure (kPa)

shear stress (kPa)

35 20
30 10
25
20 0
15 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
10
-20
5
0 -30
0 1 2 3 4 5
-40
shear strain (%) shear strain (%)

Test UBC-set2a UBC-set2b HSM Test UBC-set2a UBC-set2b HSM

Cyclic test fitting

NS-G11-BH t_xy = 15 kPa NS-J16-BH t_xy = 15 kPa
160 20
140 15
excess pore pressure (kPa)

120 10

shear stress (kPa)

100 5
80 0
Test -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
60 -5 0 1 2
Set 1 -10
40
20 -15

0 -20
shear strain (%)
0 20 40 60 80
numbre of cycles Test (up to 200 cycles) Set 2a

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 22

 UBC model – Earthquake computation results
- UBC vs. HSM : similar shape, divergence from 15s (peak acceleration)
- UBC : pore pressure built-up to critical value (PPR  1)
- UBC : development then extension of critical zones
- Important displacements, but remain admissible  OK for the stability of structure
p'O  p't
Breakwater settlement evolution of the variable PPR 
p'O
0,05
(p’c 0, PPR 1 : “liquefied” state)
vertical displacement (m)

-0,05
14.5s 18s
-0,1

-0,15

-0,2

-0,25
0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00
Time (s)

HSM UBC3D-PLM

Pore pressure built-up 50s

20
excess pore pressure (kPa)

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
Time (s)

HSM UBC3D-PLM

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 23

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusions

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 24

HS model – Breakwater response

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 25

 UBC model – Failure of the system

Point G Point H
1 15
0,5
displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0 10
-0,5
-1 5
-1,5
-2 0
-2,5
-3 -5
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600
Time (s) Time (s)

horizontal vertical horizontal vertical

H
G

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 26

 UBC model – Red sand layer response
Development of plastic zones Evolution of PPR variable
140s
140s

350s

350s

3600s 3600s

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 27

 UBC model – Reliability of the wave computations (1)

Main results:

• linear increase of displacements after only 200 s (first peak effort at 350 s)
• rapid pore pressure built-up to PPR ~ 1
• early onset and rapid development & extension of liquefied / critical zones
• HS vs. UBC: HSM  OK, UBC = failure  radical change in the conclusion

Reliability of the results ?

• Literature (> 20 failures experienced by vertical breakwater ): rare phenomenon

• Test with “daily small waves + medium dense sand”: sooner or later the failure
• Test with “storm waves + very dense sand”: sooner or later the failure

computation results no really reliable.

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 28

 UBC model – Reliability of the wave computations (2)

• Difficulty to simulate the cyclic mobility of dense sands  limit of the model
• Wave vs. Earthquake differences: duration (h / s), number of cycles (hundreds / tens),
frequency (0.1Hz / ~ 1 Hz), stress path  validity of the model
• Undrained behavior during storms: unrepresentative and pessimiste assumption
(partial drainage and soil compaction for the duration of the storm)  limit of the
computation method & software

Another approach needed (perspective of the present work)

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 29

 Presentation plan

1. Introduction / Input data

2. Dynamic finite element modeling
3. Earthquake - Numerical results with classical soil model
4. Earthquake - Numerical results with advanced soil model
5. Wave - Numerical results
6. Conclusions

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 30

• Study context : important structure, high seismicity, tropical
area, soil potentially liquefied

• Dynamic finite element computation :

o HSM : simple, not representative for cyclic behavior
o UBC3D-PLM : advanced, not fully corrected

• Conclusions :
o Necessity of such advanced study in this context
o Stability of the breakwater under the design earthquake
o Necessity of an another approach for wave computation

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 31

Thanks for your attention.

Seminar NAG 2015, Hanoi 20/08/2015 Page 32