AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Nason J. McCullough for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering presented on February 23, 1998. Title: The Seismic Vulnerability of Sheet Pile Walls. Abstract approved: Redacted for privacy Stephen E. Dickenson The seismic performance of port structures has been well documented following recent earthquakes, and indicates that port structures are highly susceptible to earthquakeinduced damages. These damages are primarily due to soil liquefaction and the associated ground failures. Sheet pile bulkheads provide vital intermodal and lifeline transportation links between water-side and land-side traffic, and are waterfront structures particularly vulnerable to liquefaction-induced damages. Due to the prevalence of liquefactioninduced damages, many ports are utilizing soil improvement techniques to mitigate these hazards. Many port authorities have proposed utilizing performance-based design criteria to limit potential earthquake-induced damages. The current design method for sheet pile walls (Mononobe-Okabe) is based on simple, limit equilibrium analysis techniques, which are poorly suited for performance-based design. Recent advancements in the seismic design of sheet pile walls have addressed some of the limitations of the current design methods, but are still inadequate for performing a complete, performance-based design for locations that contain potentially liquefiable soils and/or where soil improvement strategies have been instituted. This study has focused on conducting an empirical investigation and numerical modeling to determine the seismic performance of sheet pile walls, and the performance- based benefit of soil improvement through densification. A case history validated, nonlinear effective stress computer program was used to perform numerical parametric studies on various design parameters (earthquake properties, depth of sheet pile embedment, sheet pile wall stiffness, tie rod length, density of the backfill, and extent of soil densification). The results have been presented as a performance-based design method, and include a design chart that provides practitioners with a preliminary design tool that may be used to estimate the seismic deformations of sheet pile walls with or without soil improvement. The study has demonstrated that soil densification can greatly reduce the seismically- induced deformations, especially when the magnitude of soil improvement extends beyond the location of the anchor. The study has also demonstrated that the use of soil densification techniques for mitigating seismic hazards may not be adequate in limiting deformations to allowable limits, and that other methods of soil improvement (cementation, drainage, etc.) or structural improvements may also be required. C Copyright by Nason J. McCullough February 23, 1998 All Rights Reserved THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF SHEET PILE WALLS by Nason J. McCullough A THESIS submitted to OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Presented February 23, 1998 Commencement June 1998 Master of Science thesis of Nason J. McCullough presented on February 23, 1998 APPROVED: Redacted for privacy Major Professor, representing Civil Engineering Redacted for privacy Head or Chair:4 Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Redacted for privacy Dean of Gradu School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. Redacted for privacy Nason J. McCullough, Autho ACKNOWLEDGMENT The completion of this project would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my major professor, Stephen Dickenson. My minor professor, Charles Sollitt, has also provided much support and guidance during my academic pursuits. I am indebted to my parents, who have supported and encouraged me in all of my endeavors, my sister who has always been a friend, and finally, and most importantly my wife Amelia, who I love tremendously, and is the source of my joy and happiness. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Susumu Iai (Director) and Mr. Koji Ichii (Technical Official), both with the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Laboratory, Port and Harbour Research Institute of the Japan Ministry of Transport. Many aspects of this research would not have been possible without their assistance with the case studies and valuable insights on Japanese design and construction of anchored bulkheads. This work was supported by grant no. NA36RG0451 (project no. R/CP-33) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Oregon State University Sea Grant College Program and by appropriations made by the Oregon State legislature. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of NOAA and Oregon Sea Grant. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Statement of Objectives and Scope of Work 1.2.1 1.2.2 Objectives Report Organization 2 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF WATERFRONT SOILS 10 10 12 13 Introduction 13 2.2 Cyclic Shear Method of Liquefaction Assessment 14 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 4 1 2.1 2.2.1 3 1 Determination of the Earthquake Induced Cyclic Shear Stresses Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Initiate Liquefaction Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction Effects of Liquefaction MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS 14 17 24 24 28 3.1 Introduction 28 3.2 Techniques for Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards 28 3.3 Design of Soil Mitigation 30 3.4 Design for the Area of Soil Mitigation 33 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SHEET PILE BULKHEADS 35 4.1 Introduction 35 4.2 Pseudo-Static Design 36 4.2.1 4.2.2 Non-Liquefiable Soil Liquefiable Soil 40 43 iii 4.3 Recent Advancements in Flexible Wall Design 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.4 5 Non-Liquefiable Soils Liquefiable Soils Discussions of Sheet Pile Bulkhead Design Methods 45 45 48 50 NUMERICAL MODELING 52 5.1 Constitutive Soil Model 53 5.2 Pore Pressure Generation 55 5.3 General Modeling Parameters 57 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.4 Modeling of Soil Elements Modeling of Structural Elements Modeling of the Earthquake Motion Modeling of the Water Boundary Conditions Validation of Numerical Model 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 Akita Port Ishinomaki Port Kushiro Port Discussion of Numerical Validation Results 6 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SHEET PILE BULKHEADS 57 59 60 60 61 61 62 72 79 91 93 6.1 Introduction 93 6.2 Depth of Sheet Pile Embedment 96 6.3 Tie Rod Length 96 6.4 Sheet pile Stiffness 97 6.5 Penetration Resistance of the Backfill 99 6.6 Soil Improvement 101 iv Comparison of the Parametric Study with an Existing Deformation-Based Design Method 102 6.8 Development of a New Seismic Design Method 103 6.9 Recommendation Design Procedures 107 6.7 6.10 Example Design Problem 108 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY 115 APPENDICES 122 APPENDIX A (Earthquake Motions Used in the Parametric Study) APPENDIX B (Table of Parametric Study Results) 123 125 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure Lateral Displacements at: a) Shiohama Wharf, Akita Port following the 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake (PHRI, 1997) and b) Kushiro Port following the 1993 Kushiro Oki Earthquake (PHRI, 1993) 2 Settlements at: a) Ohama Wharf, Akita Port following the 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake (PHRI, 1997) and b) U.S. Navy Port Facilities, Guam following the 1993 Guam Earthquake (Vandani et al., 1994) 3 Disruption of Crane Operations at Guam, following the 1993 Guam Earthquake (Swan and Harris, 1993) 4 1.4 Typical Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkhead 5 1.5 Geotechnical Failures of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls; a) embedment failure; b) anchor failure; and c) global failure 7 Structural Failures of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls; a) anchor, tie rod, and/or whale system failure; and b) sheet pile wall failure 7 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 2.1 Range of rd Values for Different Soil Profiles (after Seed and Idriss, 1982) 15 2.2 Earthquake Induced Shear Stresses (Seed and Idriss, 1982) 16 2.3 Typical Results of Cyclic Shear Tests (PHRI, 1997) 18 2.4 Empirical Relationship Between the Cyclic Stress Ratio Initiating Liquefaction and (N/)60 Values for Silty Sands in M=7.5 Earthquakes (after Seed et al., 1979) 21 2.5 Relationship between a and Ka (Seed & Harder, 1990) 22 2.6 Relationship between the Effective Vertical Stress and Ka (Seed & Harder, 1990) 22 Proposed CPT-based liquefaction curves based on field CPT and liquefaction data (Stark & Olson, 1995) 23 2.8 Graphical Plot on the Evaluation of the Initiation of Liquefaction 24 2.9 Relationship Between Residual Excess Pore Pressure and Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction for Level-Ground Sites (after Marcuson and Hynes, 1990) 25 Estimation of Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain for Clean Sands (after Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992) 26 2.7 2.10 vi Undrained Critical Strength Ratio vs. Equivalent Clean Sand Blow Count (Stark and Mesri, 1992) 27 3.1 Example Remediation Design for a Sheet Pile Wall (PHRI, 1997) 32 3.2 Improvement area for sheet pile walls (PHRI, 1997) 33 3.3 Improvement Area for Sheet Pile Wall Anchors (PHRI, 1997) 34 4.1 Relation between Seismic Coefficient and Ground Acceleration (Noda et al., 1975) 37 Seismic Coefficient Estimated from Damaged Quaywall (after Nozu et al., 1997) 37 4.3 Definition Sketch for Pseudo-Static Design Parameters 38 4.4 Definition Sketch for the Location of the Resultant Dynamic Active Earth Pressure 42 4.5 Definition of Effective Anchor Index, EAI (after Gazetas et al., 1990) 47 4.6 The Developed Seismic Design Chart (Gazetas et al., 1990) 48 5.1 Basic Explicit Calculation Cycle 53 5.2 Modeled Liquefaction Resistance Curve 55 5.3 Plan of Akita Port, Japan after the 1983 M 7.7 Earthquake (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 63 5.4 Akita Ohama Wharf 1 Wall Profile (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 64 5.5 Akita Ohama Wharf 2 Wall Profile (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 64 5.6 Deformed Cross-Sections for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 65 5.7 Soil Profile and Grain Size for Ohama Wharf 1 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 65 5.8 Soil Profile and Grain Size for Ohama Wharf 2 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 66 5.9 Shear Wave Velocity Profile for Ohama Wharf 3 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 67 5.10 Soil and Velocity Profile at the Akita Strong Motion Site (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 68 Recorded Time Histories for the 1983 M 7.7 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake at Akita Port 69 5.12 Input Time History for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 69 5.13 Input Time History for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 70 5.14 Deformed Grid for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 (deformations to scale) 70 5.15 Time Displacement Plot for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 71 5.16 Deformed Grid for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 (deformations to scale) 72 2.11 4.2 5.11 vii 5.17 Time Displacement Plot for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 72 5.18 Measured a) Horizontal and b) Vertical Displacements along the Face of the Bulkhead (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 73 Layout of Ishinomaki Port during the M 7.4 Miyagi-Ken-Oki Earthquake (Iai et al, 1985) 74 5.20 Shiomi (-4.5m, Site D) Bulkhead Profile (Iai et al., 1985) 74 5.21 Boring logs at Shiomi Wharf (Iai et al., 1985) 75 5.22 Recorded Time Histories at Ishinomaki Port 77 5.23 Input Time History for Ishinomaki Wharf 77 5.24 Deformed Grid for Ishinomaki, Shiomi Wharf (deformations to scale) 78 5.25 Time Displacement Plot of Ishinomaki, Shiomi Wharf 79 5.26 Measured Horizontal Deformations at Shiomi Wharf (-4.5 m), displacements in mm (Iai et al., 1985) 80 5.19 5.27 Measured Vertical Displacements at Shiomi Wharf (-4.5 m) (Iai et al., 1985) 80 5.28 Location of Kushiro Port (Iai et al., 1994) 81 5.29 Layout of Kushiro Port (Iai et al., 1994) 81 5.30 Geometry of Kushiro Port Site C Wharf (Iai et al., 1994) 82 5.31 Geometry of Kushiro Port Site D Wharf (Iai et al., 1994) 82 5.32 Soil Profile at Kushiro Port Site C (Iai et al., 1994) 83 5.33 Soil Profile at Kushiro Port Site D (Iai et al., 1994) 84 5.34 Soil Profile at the Kushiro Port Strong Motion Site (Iai et al., 1994) 86 5.35 Earthquake Motions Recorded at the Ground Surface at Kushiro Port on January 15, 1993 87 Earthquake Motions Recorded at a depth of 77 meters at Kushiro Port on January 15, 1993 88 5.37 Input Time History for Kushiro Port Site C and Site D 88 5.38 Kushiro Site C Deformed Grid (deformations to scale) 89 5.39 Time Displacements for Kushiro Site C 89 5.40 Kushiro Site D Deformed Grid (deformations to scale) 90 5.41 Time Displacements for Kushiro Site D 90 6.1 Top of Wall Displacements for the Depth of Embedment Study 97 5.36 viii 6.2 Top of Wall Displacements for the Tie Rod Length Study 98 6.3 Top of Wall Displacements for the Sheet Pile Stiffness Study 99 6.4 Top of Wall Displacements for the Penetration Resistance of the Backfill Study 100 6.5 Definition of Soil Improvement Variables 101 6.6 Horizontal Displacments at the Top of the Wall for Variations in the Zone of Soil Improvement 102 The Developed Seismic Design Chart (Gazetas et al., 1990), Including Data from the Parametric Study for Models with Improved Soils (solid stars) 104 6.8 Design Chart for Lateral Displacements 106 6.9 Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkhead Design Problem 108 6.10 Lateral Displacements for the Design Problem 111 6.7 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Page Selected Historical Earthquake Damage to Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkheads 6 2.1 Values of CSR Correction Factor, c,. (after Seed, 1979) 18 2.2 Magnitude Scaling Factors, MSF (Arango, 1996) 21 2.3 Recommended Fines Correction for Estimation of Residual Undrained Strength (Stark & Mesri, 1992) 27 3.1 Liquefaction Remediation Measures (after Ferritto, 1996) 29 4.1 Qualitative and Quantitative Description of the Reported Degrees of Damage (after Kitajima and Uwabe, 1979) 47 5.1 Comparison of FLAC and Finite Element Numerical Programs 54 5.2 Model Soil Properties for Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 66 5.3 Model Structural Properties for Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 68 5.4 Model Soil Properties for Ishinomaki Port 75 5.5 Model Structural Properties for Ishinomaki Port 76 5.6 Model Soil Properties for Kushiro Port 84 5.7 Model Structural Properties for Kushiro Port 85 5.8 Summary of Case Study Results 92 6.1 Bulkhead Properties for Parametric Study 94 6.2 Parametric Study Earthquake Motions 95 6.3 Plotted Case History Validations 106 6.4 Magnitude Scaling Factors for Design Example 109 6.5 Lateral Displacements for Design Example 110 THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF SHEET PILE WALLS 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Experience at ports has demonstrated that waterfront earth-retention structures are highly susceptible to earthquake-induced damage. A significant percentage of the damage is due to the liquefaction of adjacent soils. Liquefaction susceptible soils consist of loose, saturated, non-cohesive soils, and are frequently found in the port environment. These soils are prevalent in the port environment due to hydraulic backfilling of waterfront retaining structures and/or loose sediments deposited in alluvial and marine environments. Earthquake-induced bulkhead failures due only to large seismic inertia forces have also been noted in locations that were reported as not experiencing liquefaction (Werner and Hung, 1982), although it has also been noted that the occurrence of liquefaction at depth may be masked on the ground surface by large wall deformations (Towhata et al., 1996). Earthquake-induced damage to waterfront retaining structures is usually manifested as excessive lateral displacements, and/or settlements, with several recent examples presented in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2. There are also many cases of widespread damage to backland structures (e.g., gantry cranes, cargo handling components, buildings, bridges, pavements, etc.) that are a result of the lateral displacements and settlements, as seen in Figure 1.3 with the spreading of the gantry crane rails. The economic losses associated with damaged port structures and the suspension of port operations due to earthquake induced damages has been substantial. For example, the Port of Oakland following the 1989 Mw 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake, had repair costs estimated at $75 million (Werner, 1990). The U.S. Navy Facilities suffered a total of approximately $275 million in direct 2 .7.74,..74.441,..;, .., . *o....41, It y 0% kel,..1,,,,.., ,Ac".or-cs,....- , , .4,1 Al..,,,C,.'1-71v 0,' +,..,,..,14,..t.,' fi +A, ..10.,,..-v. '.'"Ve. Il..,,V.". t.,,...,,,"........,,, ,.,O '..-, t=4,tgIt'';:.;:''',...v,.1.tYr" .. ' ',.:':tilr7,;"7.2;ia. ,...,,,,,,,,, 411 r .1.1-r., .... 'il ....M. A-44.4 ,, ,,,, *44 , .^ . . ' , ,I 1,1; ....r.,, , .'.:Ii' triCr4,417 4.:111-'-'1;;:1VittiH J :#,V...1,41.1 E'. V, ''..'''."'"*."."" t,;:..1..i*%:. V lf 1 .1, ,...lo . .1 , 0 )4{1 ,. OA* r ,Ite 111401,64..,.. 4a11,14.,l011.r4.;111;1;01=.41 ':, '.1: It('tt1::::"4;1121.1',7o"'g -' µ .ms 13) Figure 1.1: Lateral Displacements at: a) Shiohama Wharf, Akita Port following the 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake (PHRI, 1997) and b) Kushiro Port following the 1993 Kushiro Oki Earthquake (PHRI, 1993) 1 3 a) b) Figure 1.2: Settlements at: a) Ohama Wharf, Akita Port following the 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake (PHRI, 1997) and b) U.S. Navy Port Facilities, Guam following the 1993 Guam Earthquake (Vandani et al., 1994) 4 Figure 1.3: Disruption of Crane Operations at Guam, following the 1993 Guam Earthquake (Swan and Harris, 1993) losses during the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the 1993 Mw 8.1 Guam Earthquake (Ferritto, 1997). The U.S. Navy damage from both earthquakes was noted to be due primarily to liquefaction (Ferritto, 1997). Another example of commercial port damage is to the Port of Kobe following the 1995 Mw 6.9 Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake, with repair costs estimated at $5.5 billion (CKPHB, 1997), and the costs due to port downtime during the first nine months following the earthquake estimated at $6 billion (PHRI, 1996). Anchored sheet pile bulkheads (Figure 1.4) are particularly vulnerable to earthquake- and liquefaction-induced damage. Seismic damage to anchored sheet pile bulkheads following numerous international earthquakes has been well documented by Kitajima and Uwabe (1979), Werner and Hung (1982), and Werner (1998). Table 1.1 provides a cursory overview of earthquake damage to anchored sheet pile bulkheads, and also includes a note on the observed occurrence of liquefaction. It is readily apparent from the table that for the majority of anchored sheet pile bulkheads subjected to medium- to high- 5 intensity earthquake motions, liquefaction occurred, and was likely the primary cause of the reported damage. Al H =03 dredge line 3 wale .).3z. tie rod anchor backfill soil Figure 1.4: Typical Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkhead The damaging effects of earthquakes (for cases with or without liquefaction) include increased active pressures due to the loss of soil strength and the seismic inertia of the backfill, and the loss of passive soil resistance adjacent to the toe of the wall beneath the dredge line and in front of the anchor. The increase in active pressures and decrease in passive pressures leads to possible geotechnical failures including: a) the loss of embedment resistance, b) the loss of anchor resistance, and/or c) a deep seated global failure for bulkheads situated on weak foundation soils (Figure 1.5). Possible structural failures of sheet pile walls include exceeding the yield capacity of the a) tie rod, tie rod connections, wale system; or b) sheet pile wall (Figure 1.6). A structural interlock failure between the sheet pile sections is also possible. The geotechnical and/or structural failures can produce lateral deformations and/or settlements in the backland. 6 Table 1.1: Selected Historical Earthquake Damage to Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkheads Lateral Movement Liquefaction Noted? Nagoya Osaka 4m 3m Yes Yes 8.1 Nagoya Osaka 4m 3m Yes Yes May 22, 1960 8.4 Puerto Montt 1m Yes Alaska, USA Mar 27, 1964 8.4 Whittier Niigata, Japan Jun 16, 1964 7.5 Niigata +2 m Yes Tokachi-Oki, Japan May 15,1968 7.8 Hachinohe Hakodate 0.9 m 0.6 m No Yes Nemuro-Hanto-Oki, Japan Jun 17, 1973 7.4 Hanasaki Kiritappu 2m negligible Yes Yes Miyagi-Ken-Oki, Japan Jun 12, 1978 7.4 Ishinomaki Yuriage Sendai 1.2 m 1.2 m negligible Yes Yes Yes Nihonkai- Chubu, Japan May 26, 1983 7.7 Akita 1.8 m Yes Kushiro-Oki, Japan Jan 15, 1993 7.8 Kushiro 0.6 m Yes Guam Aug 8, 1993 8.1 Cabras Island Apra Harbor 0.6 m 0.6 m Yes Yes Earthquake Date Magnitude Tonankai, Japan Dec 7, 1944 8.3 Nankai, Japan Dec 21, 1946 Chile Port Yes Limiting earthquake-induced deformations of waterfront retaining walls is a primary seismic design issue at many ports, and subsequently, many ports have adopted deformation-based seismic performance requirements. For example, the following guidelines have been proposed for U.S. Naval facilities (Ferritto, 1997); Design of anchored sheet pile retaining walls shall limit permanent displacement at the top of the sheet pile to the following; 1) Less than 2.5 cm for a Level 1 earthquake (50% probability of exceedance in 50 years) 2) Less than 10 cm for a Level 2 earthquake (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) These standards are intended to insure that following a Level 1 (operating level) earthquake motion, the earthquake-induced damages will be negligible and non-structural 7 b) a) c) Figure 1.5: Geotechnical Failures of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls; a) embedment failure; b) anchor failure; and c) global failure a) b) Figure 1.6: Structural Failures of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls; a) anchor, tie rod, and/or whale system failure; and b) sheet pile wall failure and that the port operations will be unimpeded. They are also intended to insure that following a larger, Level 2 (contingency level) earthquake motion, the damages will be non-catastrophic and repairable. 8 In response to the liquefaction-induced damage that has occurred during recent earthquakes, and the development of performance-based design requirements, many ports are instigating programs to mitigate liquefaction hazards in waterfront areas. Common remediation objectives for increasing the liquefaction resistance of soils include densification, increased strength/stiffness, and/or improved soil drainage. These improvement objectives are accomplished through many methods, including deep dynamic compaction, vibro-compaction, stone columns, soil mixing, and many others. Although the use of soil improvement methods is increasing, there are currently very few tools available for designing the extent of ground treatment necessary to limit the earthquake-induced damage of waterfront retaining structures. The only comprehensive reference known to the author is provided by the Japanese Port and Harbour Research Institute (PHRI, 1997), which provides guidance on soil improvement strategies at waterfront facilities. The recommendations provided in this useful reference are largely based on limit state analysis and model testing. The guidelines provided do not address the wall deformations associated with varying design-level ground motions, a primary concern in performance-based design. Current "standard of practice" seismic design for anchored sheet pile bulkheads involves using pseudo-static, limit equilibrium mechanics, developed for rigid retaining walls by Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). This method, which is based on the Coulomb earth pressure theory, is frequently referred to as the Mononobe-Okabe method. The seismic portion of the design is controlled by empirically determined seismic coefficients, which are functions of the maximum ground accelerations. The coefficients are used to estimate the seismically-induced inertial forces. Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) have noted that even with increasing values of the design seismic coefficients during the last fifty years, the percentage of earthquake-damaged sheet pile bulkheads has not decreased. This could be due to several design factors, including: inadequate maximum ground accelerations used in the wall design, the use of maximum ground accelerations fails to account for the frequency and duration of actual earthquake ground motions, 9 the relationships used to estimate the seismic coefficients from the maximum accelerations may be deficient, sheet pile walls are commonly designed using limit-equilibrium methods, but most seismic failure criterion is based on permanent deformations, sheet pile walls are flexible, but designed using rigid body mechanics, and excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction is usually not accounted for, therefore the actual active earth pressures may be much larger and the passive earth pressures much smaller than the earth pressures used in design. The Mononobe-Okabe method can be used to account for the presence of potentially liquefiable soils, but only in a simplistic manner by decreasing the soil strength or increasing the active earth pressures. The Mononobe-Okabe method is also restricted by being limit-equilibrium based, and therefore not applicable for deformation-based analysis. There have been several recent additions to the Mononobe-Okabe seismic design method. These methods may be divided into two categories; 1) procedures which include the possibility of liquefaction, and 2) those that do not include the possibility of liquefaction. The methods that do not include the possibility of liquefaction include Dennehy (1985) and Gazetas et al. (1990); Neelakantan et al. (1992); and Steedman and Zeng (1990). A method that attempts to account for liquefaction has been developed by Towhata and Islam (1987). These recent methods have contributed to the knowledge of seismic behavior and design of sheet pile bulkheads, but they are limited in their use as design methods, as discussed in Section 4.4. In summary, the prevalent issues for the deformation-based, seismic analysis of sheet pile bulkheads includes the need to estimate lateral deformations for: non-liquefiable soils, potentially liquefiable soils, varying design-level ground motions, and bulkheads with partial soil improvement. 10 1.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK Objectives 1.2.1 Primary objectives of this project were to determine the seismic vulnerability and necessary remediation methods for flexible, waterfront retaining structures. Several objectives were determined at the onset of this project that included; a) review the extensive technical literature and establish a data base of case histories, b) identify common failure modes and evaluate the applicability of current "standard of practice" methods for the seismic design of anchored sheet pile bulkheads, c) perform numerical soil-structure interaction studies, and d) develop design recommendations for the performance-based seismic design of anchored sheet pile walls. The scope of work for each of these objectives is outlined below. 1.2.1.1 Establish a Data Base of Case Histories An extensive technical literature search was conducted to collect case histories on the seismic performance of sheet pile bulkheads. The search was conducted intensely during the first six months of the project, and to a lesser extent during the remainder of the research. A review of the literature was used to evaluate the performance of sheet pile bulkheads, and to determine the controlling variables used in design. Five of the case histories collected during the literature search contained the necessary data for use in validating the numerical model. 1.2.1.2 Evaluation of Current Methods An extensive literature search was also conducted to determine the current "standard of practice" design method, and the applicability of the design method against the failure modes identified from the case histories. The search resulted in a literature collection of 11 the traditional methods used in the seismic design of sheet pile bulkheads, and recent additions that account for limitations of the "standard of practice" design method. 1.2.1.3 Perform Analytical Soil-Structure Interaction Studies Analytical soil-structure interaction studies were performed to model the behavior of sheet pile retaining walls in liquefiable and improved soils. This objective utilized the geomechanical-modeling program FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group, 1995). There were two phases of this portion of the study, the first involved validating FLAC by modeling case histories to assess the capabilities and accuracy of FLAC. Phase two utilized the validated FLAC model to perform parametric studies of the seismic performance of sheet pile bulkheads. The parametric studies were used to determine the influence of several design and remediation factors, including: embedment depth of the sheet pile wall, length of the tie rod, stiffness of the sheet pile wall, penetration resistance of the backfill, zone of soil densification, and ground motion characteristics. 1.2.1.4 Development of Design Recommendations The results of the analytical numerical analyses were used to develop an improved seismic design procedure that incorporates all of the parametric study data, and includes field performance data incorporated from the literature review. Design recommendations were also developed that highlight the usage of a simple design chart and, importantly, the assumptions and limitations of using the chart for design purposes. 12 1.2.2 Report Organization The remaining chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2 highlights the necessary aspects of performing a liquefaction assessment for waterfront structures, and includes aspects on field exploration, laboratory testing and liquefaction assessment. Chapter 3 highlights the current methods available and commonly used in soil improvement for liquefaction remediation. Chapter 4 details the current design method for sheet pile bulkheads, and also includes summaries of recent contributions to the design of sheet pile bulkheads. Chapter 5 deals with the aspects of the numerical model used in the analytical studies, and includes the results of the validation case histories. Chapter 6 presents the results of the numerical parametric study and the recommended design procedures. Chapter 7 provides a summary and conclusion of the research project and recommendations for future work. 13 2 2.1 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF WATERFRONT SOILS INTRODUCTION There have been several extensive reports indicating that the most significant source of earthquake damage to waterfront structures has been due to the liquefaction of loose to medium-dense saturated sands (Kitajima and Uwabe, 1979; Werner and Hung, 1982; Werner, 1998). Liquefaction is the result of cyclic shearing of loose to medium-dense, saturated granular soils. To determine the liquefaction susceptibility of soils, a liquefaction assessment needs to be conducted. The common simplified method used to perform a liquefaction assessment in the United States is the cyclic shear method, and is described in the following sections of this chapter. Prior to the liquefaction assessment, it is necessary to first complete the following: 1) Perform a Geotechnical/Geological Exploration to provide an assessment of the soil types, stratigraphy, location of the water table, site profile and geometry, and hydraulic conditions. It may also necessary, depending on the liquefaction assessment analysis, to perform in-situ field testing (SPT, CPT, shear and pressure wave velocities, etc.) and collect samples for laboratory testing. 2) Determine the Soil Engineering Properties through laboratory tests and stress calculations. Laboratory tests for liquefaction assessment are conducted to determine one or more of the following; density, cyclic shear resistance, damping characteristics, soil structure, dynamic shear modulus, and grain size. It is also necessary to determine the static soil stresses (vertical, horizontal and shear) with depth. The sample disturbance that takes place during sample collecting, transportation, and laboratory testing needs to be acknowledged and accounted for in the interpretation of the test results. Descriptions on the determination of soil engineering properties can be found in USACE (1984), Terzaghi et al. (1996), and PHRI (1997). 14 3) Determine the Earthquake Motion(s) using either simple estimation procedures that are prescribed by regulatory bodies (e.g. FEMA, UBC, etc.), or perform a site-specific deterministic or probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. A complete description of these methods can be found in Dickenson et al. (1998) and Kramer (1996). 2.2 CYCLIC SHEAR METHOD OF LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT Several steps are involved in using the cyclic shear method for liquefaction assessment; 1) determine the earthquake induced cyclic shear stresses, 2) determine the cyclic shear stress required to initiate liquefaction, and 3) compare the results of steps 1 and 2 to assess the liquefaction susceptibility of the soil. These steps are described in Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.3. A short discussion on the estimation of liquefaction-induced effects (residual excess pore pressure, post-liquefaction volumetric strain, and undrained residual shear strength) is also provided in Section 2.2.4. Determination of the Earthquake Induced Cyclic Shear Stresses 2.2.1 The shear stresses developed at any location within a soil deposit during an earthquake appear to be due primarily to the vertical propagation of shear waves. There are two common methods for estimating the earthquake induced cyclic shear stresses; 1) perform a simple empirical analysis, or 2) perform a site specific ground response analysis. 2.2.1.1 Simplified Empirical Analysis The simplified procedure developed by Seed and Idriss (1971, 1982) uses the concept of vertically propagating shear waves producing cyclic shear stresses within the soil column. The first step involves estimating the maximum acceleration within the soil column at depth z (am.,z) from the maximum ground surface acceleration (am,), using Equation 2.1 and the data plotted in Figure 2.1. 15 Amax z = amax rd 2.1 a max,z rd 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 a max 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Figure 2.1: Range of rd Values for Different Soil Profiles (after Seed and Idriss, 1982) The empirical data plotted in Figure 2.1 indicates a wide range between the upper and lower bound values, especially below a depth of approximately 12 m. It is recommended that the average values (or for a conservative analysis, the upper bound values) be used for depths between 0 and 12 m, and that a site specific dynamic ground response analysis be conducted to estimate the maximum acceleration for depths exceeding 12 m. 16 After the maximum acceleration values with depth are estimated, the earthquake- induced cyclic shear stresses at the depth of interest (1-,,,,,) can be calculated using Equation 2.2, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and o is the total overburden stress. The value of rm,Z is then converted to an equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress (ray) to account for the transient time history behavior of the shear stresses. Seed and Idriss recommend reducing z-,, by 65% to account for the irregular loading (Figure 2.2). The value of rav,z is then estimated using Equation 2.3. The value of ra,,, is then normalized by the effective overburden stress (o, ') to produce the cyclic stress ratio induced by the earthquake (CSReq), which is given in Equation 2.4. a max, z MaXZ 2.2 VO g T T max av 0.65 T max TIME Figure 2.2: Earthquake Induced Shear Stresses (Seed and Idriss, 1982) 1- QV, Z CSR = 0 65 z- MaXZ = av' a vo z 2.3 2.4 17 2.2.1.2 Site Specific Analysis A more in-depth method of estimating the CSReq involves calculating anza,z or i-max,z directly using a dynamic ground response analysis. A ground response analysis is conducted using a numerical computer model, such as the equivalent linear program SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972) or a fully nonlinear dynamic program, such as DESRA2C (Lee and Finn, 1991) or SUMDES (Li et al., 1992). The advantages and disadvantages of each program should be thoroughly examined before use. 2.2.2 Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Initiate Liquefaction The cyclic shear stress ratio required to initiate liquefaction (CSRfidd) can be determined from either laboratory or field tests. Each method is discussed in the following sections, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each method. 2.2.2.1 Laboratory Tests Laboratory tests are used to determine the number of loading cycles necessary to produce liquefaction failure (N1) for various amplitudes of shear stress. Liquefaction failure is usually defined as the point at which liquefaction is initiated, or a set amount of strain is exceeded. It should be noted that the denser the material, the larger the values of N1. Typical results of cyclic shear tests are shown in Figure 2.3. There are two different laboratory tests commonly conducted to determine the cyclic stress ratio; the cyclic simple shear and the cyclic triaxial shear. The cyclic shear strengths obtained from either the simple shear or triaxial shear tests are normalized by the effective overburden pressure to produce CSRSS and CSR,x, respectively. Because the cyclic simple shear and the cyclic triaxial shear tests impose different loadings, the CSRSS and CSR,x are not equivalent, but are related by the following equation; CSRSS = Cr CSRIx 2.5 18 where recommended values of cr have been compiled in Table 2.1 as a function of the static coefficient of earth pressure (K0). 0.4 CC 6, w,. 0.3 cr, -J uj 0.2 UI >- (1) 0 ISHINOMAKI PORT SAND Dr 0. 50.0% HANASAIG PORT SAND Dr = 38.5% 1 0 KUSHIRO PORT SAND Di 51.3% 0 3 30 10 300 100 NUMBER OF WAVES NI Figure 2.3: Typical Results of Cyclic Shear Tests (PHRI, 1997) Table 2.1: Values of CSR Correction Factor, c (after Seed, 1979) Cr Reference Finn et al. (1971) Equation Cr = Ko = 0.4 Ko = 1.0 0.7 1.0 1+ K 2 varies Seed and Peacock (1971) Castro (1975) cr = 0.55 0.72 1.0 2(1+ 21C0) 315 0.69 1.15 The cyclic simple shear and cyclic triaxial shear produce shear stresses in only one direction, in contrast to the actual earthquake motions, which produce shear stresses in different directions simultaneously. Boulanger and Seed (1995) conclude from laboratory tests that the CSR for unidirectional simple shear tests was approximately 5 to 25% less than multidirectional earthquake shaking. This is consistent with the recommendation of 19 Seed (1979), that the CSR for unidirectional simple shear tests be approximated as 10% less than that for multidirectional shaking. Utilizing the work of these researchers, it is concluded that multidirectional shaking reduces the liquefaction resistance of soils by an average of approximately 10%. Therefore, the recommended laboratory CSR values are related to the field CSR values by; CSR field = 0.9 . CSR,s = 0.9.c, CSRt, 2.6 Cyclic laboratory tests are normally conducted on re-constituted samples, due to the extreme difficulty in obtaining relatively undisturbed samples of cohesionless soils. The re-constituted cyclic laboratory tests are able to reproduce the in-situ density and effective confining pressures, but due to the depositional and historical environment of many waterfront areas, there are several conditions that cyclic tests are unable to reproduce accurately. These conditions include the soil fabric, past earthquake loading, overconsolidation ratio, lateral earth pressure coefficient, and the duration of sustained pressure before testing. Relatively undisturbed sampling (e.g. in-situ ground freezing) is necessary to confidently perform a liquefaction assessment using cyclic laboratory tests, otherwise, caution should be taken in using the results of re-constituted laboratory specimens. 2.2.2.2 Field Tests The recommended method of characterizing the liquefaction resistance of a soil deposit is based on the results of in-situ tests, due to the disturbance inherent in the sampling and laboratory testing of cohesionless soils. The standard penetration test (SPT) has historically been used for liquefaction assessments. Another method that is becoming more common for liquefaction assessments is the cone penetration test (CPT). These methods are discussed in detail in the following sections. Information on correlations between other field test results (e.g. shear wave velocity, dilatometer) and the cyclic stress ratio can be found in Kramer (1996). 20 Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Seed and Idriss (1982) noted that the specifics of the SPT testing method have a very large influence on the measured results. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the measured results of the SPT test (N blows/30 cm). Seed et al. (1985) provide a method for standardizing SPT results that has been used extensively since it was first introduced. The resulting standardized SPT results are presented as (A/1)60, in which the subscript 1 represents being normalized for an overburden pressure of 1 kg/cm2, and the subscript 60 represents being normalized for an applied energy of 60% of the theoretical maximum free-fall energy. Seed et al. (1979) plotted standardized SPT values versus the cyclic shear stress ratios for earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 (CSRm=75) for locations with and without the occurrence of liquefaction (Figure 2.4). This plot provides a very practical method of estimating the cyclic stress ratio necessary to initiate liquefaction using normalized SPT values and the percentage fines of the sandy soil. It should be noted that the CSRM=7.5 values in the figure are for earthquake magnitudes of 7.5 only, and for level sites that have relatively shallow liquefaction susceptible soils. Because variations in earthquake magnitudes lead to an increased number of earthquake induced shear cycles, the CSRA1=75 should be modified to account for different earthquake magnitudes. The CSRm=75 should also be modified to account for the presence of large overburden pressures and for static shear stresses (my). The CSRfieid can be calculated from the CSRm=75 with the following equation; CSR field = Ka Ka MSF CSRA1,7.5 2.7 where Ka is the correction for the static shear stresses on horizontal planes in the soil deposit (Figure 2.5), K0- is the correction for large overburden pressures (Figure 2.6), and MSF is the correction for different magnitude earthquakes (Table 2.2). The MSF factor is used to account for the variations in the duration (and corresponding cycles of loading) between earthquake motions of different magnitude. 21 0.6 0 Percent fines = 35 <5 15 0.5 I J A 0.4 CSRm = 7.5 r A 0.3 0.2 Fines content 25% Modified Chinese code proposal (clay content 0.1 Liquefaction Marginal Liquefaction 0 0 A Pan-American data Japanese data A Chinese data 0 10 0 20 30 40 (NOso Figure 2.4: Empirical Relationship Between the Cyclic Stress Ratio Initiating Liquefaction and (A11)60 Values for Silty Sands in M=7.5 Earthquakes (after Seed et al., 1979) Table 2.2: Magnitude Scaling Factors, MSF (Arango, 1996) Earthquake Magnitude MSF 5%) No Liquefaction 5.50 6.00 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.25 3.00 2.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.63 50 22 rho I oC Figure 2.5: Relationship between a and KG, (Seed & Harder, 1990) 2.0 1.2 3.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 ° \ 0 \0 1.0 0 0.8 0 ... N. *X"..... 6 °o ..4.1 ...... V ..... K, , .....:, ....... 0.6 0 V C1 0.4 A V 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 SHEFFIELD DAM SHELL UPPER SAN LEANDRO DAM SHELL LONER SAN FERNANDO DAM SHELL UPPER SAN FERNANDO DAM SHELL LOS ANGELES DAM SHELL ERRiS DAM SHELL, AC o 0 H.,.. N.. ...... FAIRMONT DAM LAKE ARROWHEAD DAY V 0 ..,. ...H., "... NH., ...... ......, V 95,100% SARDIS DAM SHELL SARDIS DAM FOUNDATION THERIAAL110 AFTERRAY DAY FOUNDATION THERMALITO FOREMAY DAM FOUNDATION ANTELOPE DAM IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL FORT PECK DAM SHELL SR, NO, TO, PO% SACRAMENTO RIVER SANG, D. MONTEREY 0 SAND, 0. SO% V REID BEDFORD SAND, Dr.. 40, O% NEw JERSEY 'MCNEILL, FPI RC OS% 1.0 40 60 5.0 2.0 3.0 EFFECTIVE CONFINING PRESSURE (tsf ) or (kW 7.0 Figure 2.6: Relationship between the Effective Vertical Stress and K, (Seed & Harder, 1990) 8.0 23 Cone Penetration Test (CPT). The use of the CPT has increased dramatically in recent years, due to several advantages over the SPT, including rapid and inexpensive testing, and it also provides a continuous soil profile with depth. It is also possible to enhance the CPT with the addition of pore pressure transducers and instruments to measure the seismic wave velocity. The cone penetration resistance (qc) and the shaft friction resistance (fs) are measured continuously during the testing. Stark and Olson (1995) have proposed a relationship between liquefaction field data and CPT penetration resistance (Figure 2.7). The seismic shear stress ratio is equivalent to CSRA,f=7.5. The value of qa is the qc value has been normalized by a vertical effective overburden stress of approximately 100 kPa. The CSRm=75 value can then be substituted into Equation 2.7 to estimate the CSRfierd 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 02 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 CORRECTED CPT TIP RESISTANCE, cio (MPa) Figure 2.7: Proposed CPT-Based Liquefaction Curves Based on Field CPT and Liquefaction Data (Stark & Olson, 1995) 24 2.2.3 Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction After the cyclic stress ratio caused by the earthquake (CSReq) and the cyclic stress ratio necessary to induce liquefaction (CSRfi ) are determined at the depths of interest, the potential for liquefaction can be evaluated. A graphical representation is the simplest method of determining the liquefaction potential, and is accomplished by plotting the CSReq and CSRfierd versus depth (Figure 2.8). Liquefaction is likely to occur at any depth where the CSReq exceeds the CSRfield A factor of safety against liquefaction (FS1) can also be evaluated at specific depths with the following equation; FS i= CSR field 2.8 CSReq CSR Zone of Liquefaction 0a) CSRfiwd CSReq Figure 2.8: Graphical Plot on the Evaluation of the Initiation of Liquefaction 2.2.4 Effects of Liquefaction The liquefaction of soils is caused by the generation of excess pore pressures, which result in decreased effective stresses, soil stiffness and soil strength. Volumetric strains due to the dissipation of generated excess pore pressures and consolidation of the 25 densified soil are also an effect of liquefaction. It should be noted that excess pore pressures are still generated even with FS1 values in excess of one. Marcuson and Hynes (1990) developed a figure relating the excess pore pressure ratio (ru) to the factor of safety against liquefaction for both gravel and sand (Figure 2.9). The excess pore pressure ratio is the relationship between the residual excess pore pressure (uexcess) and the effective overburden pressure (cry° ') given by; ru = U excess VO 2.9 ' 1.0 ;= 0.8 Gravel Sand 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 10 1.2 1:1:"Zzi 2.2 11 2.1.0 1.6 FACTOR OF SAFETY At:MIST L1OUEFAACTION. FSL 1.4 sie, 2.4 '6 Figure 2.9: Relationship Between Residual Excess Pore Pressure and Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction for LevelGround Sites (after Marcuson and Hynes, 1990) Several researchers have evaluated the post-liquefaction volumetric strain due to the dissipation of excess pore pressures. An approach that utilizes the FS/ was developed by 26 Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992), and relates the factor of safety to the post-liquefaction volumetric strain for clean sands of various relative densities (Dr), given in Figure 2.10. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 .3 FS, 1.0 -3.5% 4% 0.8 D, =40 0, 60 0.6 0.4 6% ( N, (NI = 20, ?max = 10% N, = 6 = q qct = 45 Dr= 30 N, = 3 . qc, = = 60 = 80 ) / 8% D, = 50 13, = gc, = no) 80 = 25,00 = 147) 0.2 Dr = 90% N, = 30 200kg cm2 1,0 20 30 40 50 Post-liquefication volumetric strain, Ev(%) Figure 2.10: Estimation of Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain for Clean Sands (after Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992). The most common method of estimating the residual undrained shear strength was developed by Stark and Mesri (1992) and utilizes SPT results corrected for the percentage of fines contained in the soil. The relationship between the clean sand SPT ((Aid 6o-cs) and the undrained residual shear strength (normalized by the effective overburden pressure 27 and plotted as critical) is given in Figure 2.11. The clean sand SPT is calculated using the data from Table 2.3 and the following equation; (N1)60-CS = (N1)60 Ncorr 2.10 Recommended Fines Correction for Estimation of Residual Undrained Strength (Stark & Mesri, 1992) Table 2.3: Percent Fines Ncorr (blows/30 cm) 0 0.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 10 15 20 25 30 35' 0.6 0.5 FIELD CASE HISTORIES O CYCUC TRIAXIAL CRITICAL STRENGTH 0 CYCUC TRIAXIAL CRITICAL STRENGTH AT 100 CYCLES CYCLIC TRIAXIAL AND BLOWCOUNT FROM EON. (6) v SIMPLE SHEAR AND TORSIONAL SHEAR TESTS 0.4 Su (YIELD. MOB) 0.3 CVO 0.011 (N 1 )6o_cS M7.5 Su (CRITICAL) (:)" 0.2 z 0.1 0 0.0055 04 1 1 60-CS VO : 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 EQUIVALENT CLEAN SAND SPT BLOWCOUNT, (N1)60 36 -CS Figure 2.11: Undrained Critical Strength Ratio vs. Equivalent Clean Sand Blow Count (Stark and Mesri, 1992) 40 28 3 3.1 MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS INTRODUCTION If a liquefaction assessment (Chapter 2) demonstrates that liquefaction is likely to occur in the waterfront soils during the specified design earthquake, and the liquefaction- induced damage exceeds the performance criteria, mitigation strategies should be evaluated. Mitigation strategies should be designed to limit the earthquake-induced soil displacements and settlements within acceptable levels. There are two categories of mitigation, soil improvement and structural enhancement. Only the soil improvement techniques are addressed herein. 3.2 TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATING LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS Common remediation objectives of soil improvement are to increase the liquefaction resistance of soils through densification, increased strength, and/or improved soil drainage. Table 3.1 presents the most common remediation methods, and the principle, suitable soil conditions, effective treatment depth and relative costs for the tabulated methods. Many of the tabulated remediation methods have limited the occurrence of liquefaction during recent earthquakes. Sand compaction piles, vibro-compaction, sand drains and surcharge soil mitigation techniques were successful used in preventing liquefaction in Kobe Port during the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake (Yasuda et al., 1996). Sand compaction piles and gravel drains were successfully used in the Port of Kushiro prior to the 1993 Kushiro Oki Earthquake (Iai et al., 1994). Hayden and Boulanger (1995) describe the use of compaction grouting of liquefiable soils at a number of different sites. Baez and Martin (1992) provide an evaluation on the use of stone column (vibro-compaction) techniques for liquefaction mitigation. Egan and others (1992) describe the installation of stone columns at the Port of Oakland for the mitigation of liquefaction hazards. 29 Table 3.1: Liquefaction Remediation Measures (after Ferritto, 1996) 1) Most Suitable Soil Conditions or Types Maximum Effective Treatment Depth Densification by vibration; liquefaction-induced settlement and settlement in dry soil under overburden to produce a higher density. Saturated or dry clean sand; sand. 20 m routinely (ineffective above 34 m depth); > 30 m sometimes; vibrowing, 40 m. Moderate Densification by vibration and compaction of backfill material of sand or gravel. Cohesion less soils with less than 20% fines. > 20 m Low to moderate Method Principle Vibratory Probe a) Terraprobe b) Vibrorods Relative Costs c) Vibrowing 2) Vibrocompaction a) Vibrofloat b) VibroComposer system. 3) Compaction Piles Densification by displacement of pile volume and by vibration during driving, increase in lateral effective earth pressure. Loose sandy soil; partly saturated clayey soil; loess. > 20 m Moderate to high 4) Heavy tamping (dynamic compaction) Repeated application of highintensity impacts at surface. Cohesionless soils best, other types can also be improved. 30 m (possibly deeper) Low 5) Displacement (compaction grout) Highly viscous grout acts as radial hydraulic jack when pumped in under high pressure. All soils. Unlimited Low to moderate 6) Surcharge or buttress The weight of a surcharge/buttress increases the liquefaction resistance by increasing the effective confining pressures in the foundation. Can be placed on any soil surface. Dependent on size Moderate if vertical drains are used Relief of excess pore water pressure to prevent liquefaction. (Wick drains have comparable permeability to sand drains). Primarily gravel drains; sand/wick may supplement gravel drain or relieve existing excess pore water pressure. Permanent dewatering with pumps. Sand, silt, clay. Gravel and sand > 30 m; depth limited by vibratory equipment; wick, > 45 m Moderate to high Penetration grouting-fill soil pores with soil, cement, and/or Medium to coarse sand and gravel. Unlimited Lowest of grout methods 7) Drains a) Gravel b) Sand c) Wick d) Wells (for permanent dewatering) 8) Particulate grouting clay. of surcharge/buttress 30 Table 3.1 (Continued) Most Suitable Soil Conditions or Types Maximum Effective Treatment Depth Relative Costs Solutions of two or more chemicals react in soil pores to form a gel or a solid precipitate. Medium silts and coarser. Unlimited High Penetration grouting-fill soil pores with lime Medium to coarse sand and gravel. Unlimited Low Stabilizing chemical moved into and fills soil pores by electroosmosis or colloids in to pores by electrphoresis. Saturated sands, silts, silty clays. Unknown Expensive 12) Jet grouting High-speed jets at depth excavate, inject, and mix a stabilizer with soil to form columns or panels. Sands, silts, clays. Unknown High 13) Mix-in-place piles and walls Lime, cement or asphalt introduced through rotating auger or special in-place mixer. Sand, silts, clays, all soft or loose inorganic soils. > 20 m (60 m obtained in Japan) High 14) Vibro- Hole jetted into fine-grained soil and backfilled with densely compacted gravel or sand hole formed in cohesionless soils by vibro techniques and compaction of backfilled gravel or sand. For grouted columns, voids filled with a grout. Sands, silts, clays. > 30 m (limited by vibratory equipment) Moderate Small-diameter inclusions used to carry tension, shear, and compression. All soils. Unknown Moderate to high Shock waves and vibrations cause limited liquefaction, displacement, remolding, and settlement to higher density. Saturated, clean sand; partly saturated sands and silts after flooding. > 40 m Low 9) Method Principle Chemical grouting 10) Pressure injected lime 11) Electrokinetic injection replacement stone and sand columns a) Grouted b) Not grouted 15) Root piles, soil nailing 16) Blasting 3.3 DESIGN OF SOIL MITIGATION The design of soil mitigation strategies involves investigating the cost/benefit ratio, the performance, and the effect on adjacent structures of the mitigation technique(s). The mitigation methods listed in Table 3.1 may be placed into one of three different categories; compaction, drainage, and cementation. The design for each of these 31 remediation categories is briefly discussed below. A more in-depth discussion on the design of soil mitigation strategies and procedures may be found in PHRI (1997). Compaction. Compaction remediation methods mitigate liquefaction hazards through soil densification with vibration or impact (examples include methods 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 from Table 3.1). Compaction methods are more suitable for use in saturated, cohesionless soils with a limited percentage of fines. Compaction remediation methods cause noise and vibration during installation, and also increase horizontal earth pressures against adjacent structures. The increase of horizontal earth pressures is the major disadvantage of compaction methods in close proximity to retaining walls, and must be accounted for during the design of a soil improvement program. The major advantage of compaction methods for soil improvement is the relatively low cost/benefit ratio. The degree of compaction that is necessary can be evaluated using penetration resistances that have been back-calculated from an acceptable factor of safety against liquefaction (Chapter 2). Drainage. Drainage remediation methods mitigate liquefaction hazards by enhancing the rate of excess pore pressure dissipation. The most common methods of drainage remediation are through the use of gravel, sand or wick drains. Drains are suitable for use in sands, silts or clays. One of the greatest advantages of drains is that they induce relatively small horizontal earth pressures during installation. Therefore, they are suitable for use adjacent to sensitive existing structures. In the design of drains, it is necessary to select a suitable drain material that has a coefficient of permeability substantially larger than the in-situ soils. Cementation. Cementation remediation methods mitigate liquefaction hazards through increased soil strength. The soil strength is increased with the addition of a cementatious material (i.e. cement, grout, lime, chemicals, asphalt). Cementation techniques (methods 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 from Table 3.1) can be used with any type of soil. Cementation methods are advantageous because the installation methods are relatively quiet and induce relatively small vibrations compared with compaction methods. The induced horizontal earth pressures are also less with cementation methods than with compaction methods, but are greater than induced pressures from drainage 32 methods. The disadvantage of cementation methods is their relatively high cost/benefit compared with compaction and drainage methods. The relative performance of a specific improvement method is also of concern in the design of a mitigation program. Experience has demonstrated that compaction and cementation techniques reduce the liquefaction susceptibility of soils to a larger extent than drainage methods. The design of a mitigation strategy usually includes the combination of two or more improvement techniques. An example is provided in Figure 3.1, in which a drainage method was used adjacent to the sheet pile wall to limit the induced horizontal earth pressures, and compaction techniques were used in front of the wall and behind the anchor, likely to reduce the economic costs and for the better performance offered by compaction methods in increasing the liquefaction resistance of the soil. 17m 20m 25m +4.00 H W.L* 2.00m L.W1,+ 0.00m STEEL PIPE SHEET PILE 0711. / SEABED -corn 5 20.00m 23m -21 .5m Figure 3.1: Example Remediation Design for a Sheet Pile Wall (PHRI, 1997) The influence on existing structures during soil improvement is a primary design consideration. The construction of mitigation methods may lead to increased horizontal earth pressures, which can result in increased bending stresses in sheet pile walls. Mitigation methods may also induce excess pore pressures and vibration, which will also 33 affect the sheet pile wall and adjacent structures. Compaction techniques have the largest influence on adjacent structures, followed by cementation and drainage methods, which have the least amount of influence. 3.4 DESIGN FOR THE AREA OF SOIL MITIGATION The Japan Port and Harbour Research Institute (PHRI, 1997) has produced one of the few design guidelines that exist for specifying the extent of soil improvement adjacent to sheet pile bulkheads. This recommended extent of treated soil is shown in Figure 3.2 for a sheet pile wall and in Figure 3.3 for sheet pile wall anchors. The area of soil improvement indicated was developed primarily to limit the effect of the propagation of excess pore pressures. It was noted by PHRI (1997) that during shaking table tests, the area enclosed by the 30° triangle exhibited unstable characteristics, and therefore led to the recommended design guidelines. IMPROVEMENT AREA LIQUEFACTION LAYER NONLIQUEFACTION LAYER Figure 3.2: Improvement area for sheet pile walls (PHRI, 1997) There is much uncertainty in the effectiveness of varying ground treatment strategies for limiting lateral deformations of sheet pile bulkheads due to the lack of data on the performance of improved soil sites during design-level earthquakes. A limited amount of research has been performed in evaluating seismically-induced lateral deformations of 34 improved soil sites. The guidelines provided by PHRI, though not deformation-based, provide an applicable method of estimating the necessary extent of ground treatment that is based on "state-of-the-art" numerical and laboratory modeling. IMPROVEMENT AREA AS I V E FAILURE SURFACE DURING EARTHQUAKE ACTIVE FAILURE. SURFACE DURING EARTHQUAKE LIQUEFACTION LAYER NONLIQUEFACTION LAYER (a) FOR ANCHOR PLATE IMPROVEMENT AREA 2.,13 211111111.1111illai'lliV 30° PASSIVE FAILURE SURFACE DURING EARTHQUAKE 30. NONLIQUEFACTION LAYER LIQUEFACTION LAYER 1.1: POINT OF CONTRAFLEXURE (b) FOR ANCHOR PILE IMPROVEMENT AREA LIQUEFACTION LAYER AV NONLIQUEFACTION LAYER (c) FOR BATTER ANCHOR PILES Figure 3.3: Improvement Area for Sheet Pile Wall Anchors (PHRI, 1997) 35 4 4.1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SHEET PILE BULKHEADS INTRODUCTION The static design of flexible retaining walls involves using limit-equilibrium methods that have been developed for rigid walls. An addition to the rigid-body design procedures has been made to account for the reduced moment observed in flexible walls (Rowe, 1952). The static design procedures are very well established and will not be discussed herein. For a complete description of static design, the reader is referred to Terzaghi (1954), United States Steel (1975), Arbed (1991), Ebeling and Morrison (1993), or USACE (1994). The "standard of practice" design method for incorporating earthquake forces on flexible retaining walls utilizes pseudo-static earth pressures. Pseudo-static pressures are a function of the estimated maximum horizontal acceleration, and an addition to the static Coulomb earth pressures. The pseudo-static design of flexible walls also uses Rowe's (1952) flexible wall moment reduction, and for potentially liquefiable soils, empirical estimations of pore pressure generation are also included. There are several limitations of pseudo-static design, which includes the assumptions inherent in Coulomb's earth pressure theory (e.g. planar failure surface, soil is isotropic and homogeneous, the failure wedge behaves as an elastic-perfectly plastic rigid body, etc.); 1) the soil profiles must be simple (only one soil layer) and uniform into the backland; 2) the transient seismic motion is modeled with a single parameter; 3) very simplified inclusion of pore pressure generation; and, 4) pseudo-static design is not deformation-based. The "standard of practice" pseudo-static design procedures are summarized in Section 4.2. There have been several recent modifications, or different approaches to the pseudo-static design of flexible walls that can be categorized into either design methods for potentially liquefiable or non-liquefiable soils. Several of these methods are summarized in Section 4.3 36 4.2 PSEUDO-STATIC DESIGN The standard of practice for earthquake design of flexible retaining walls utilizes pseudo-static earth pressures calculated from a modified representation of the Coulomb earth pressure theory developed by Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). This method is commonly referred to as the Mononobe-Okabe method. The pseudo-static earth pressures are represented as static earth pressures increased by the earthquake induced inertia of the soil. The inertial forces are estimated using the horizontal (kh) and vertical (10 seismic coefficients. The seismic coefficients are empirical functions of the estimated maximum acceleration at the bulkhead. One method commonly used to estimate the horizontal seismic coefficient is to take 65% of the maximum acceleration (Ebeling and Morrison, 1993). Another common method for estimating kh was developed by Noda et al. (1975), and is given by Equation 4.1, utilizing the data of Figure 4.1. kh=a 0.2g g 4.1 1(a) 3 3 g a> 0.2g where a is the maximum earthquake acceleration and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The figure developed by Noda and others (1975) has been updated by Nozu et al. (1997), and is shown in Figure 4.2, and includes a more recent assessment of the seismic performance of retaining structures. There has been very little research into the effect of 1c, on the pseudo-static earth pressures, even though the vertical acceleration values can equal or exceed the horizontal values, especially in epicentral regions (Ebeling and Morrison, 1993). The difference between the upward and downward vertical accelerations also needs to also be addressed during design. Ebeling and Morrison recommend that a vertical seismic coefficient be used for anchored sheet pile walls when the horizontal seismic coefficient exceeds 0.05g. 37 0.3 th-a/s =-1-(g )I 3 t23 26 /7(19 15 I 8(19 3::11 2 ' 9:134 3 ? 2 Al 17.(1964) ...". it t 1 Pt.Mont t 33 1 /1'24t5(1973) 731,1 ,. 0.1 e 4 i .* A !..3.'...29.. .121 "...14 ..._ " '' 27 t (195?) )' 0.2 24 28(1935) 21'1)1,13.5a/8 2 719 123 716 18 28(1930) s Gravitational Acceleration Ground Accel d Acceleration OD 0 500 400 300 200 100 Ground Accelerationgals Figure 4.1: Relation between Seismic Coefficient and Ground Acceleration (Noda et al., 1975) 035 I 0.30 0.25 i 0.20 I VV ! 5 i e AvA 0 0 . AI 1 v° I U) i 9 a) A ! I i 1 $ i i el It. °e 161,1 A cI tibia j 'qv A 1 I 3 i bti , flk! 0.1 h=( ag )3 1 Ica AZ: Ai 1 v1 ---t- I i i I 1 1 1 0.0 0. Al A I Upper and lower limits of seismic coefficient estimated from stability analysis of damaged quaywalls without liquefaction. Lower limits of seismic coefficient of 7 quaywalls estimated from stability analysis of damaged quaywalls. i 100 ii 1 1 1 I 1 I 200 300 400 500 Peak Ground Acceleration for SMAC-type Accelerograph (gal) Figure 4.2: Seismic Coefficient Estimated from Damaged Quaywall (after Nozu et al., 1997) 600 38 They do not, however, recommend any relationships or values for kv. The vertical seismic coefficient is often neglected in design. The Mononobe-Okabe method is a modification of the static Coulomb earth pressure theory and the resultant forces are the combined static and dynamic forces. The resulting dynamic earth pressure forces and angles are defined in Figure 4.3 and given in Equations 4.2 through 4.8 for the passive and active cases of dry, uniform soils. Pee = Ka, Ppe = Kpe where: 1 r [y t (1 1 c v)1H2 4.2 1 v1(1-k)]H2 4.3 P = dynamic plus static earth pressure force K= lc, = = H= coefficient of dynamic earth pressure total unit weight of the soil vertical seismic coefficient height of the wall Figure 4.3: Definition Sketch for Pseudo-Static Design Parameters 39 The coefficients of earth pressures are given by the following; ae cos2 (0 = cos coo + 0[1 4.4 2 sin(q$ + Ilsin(fb + 99) cos(8 + (o)cosp cos2 (0 Kpe V) 4.5 2 cos co cos(8 where: V) 0[1 ilsn° 4- sin(Ch fi CI)) cos(8 + go)cosfl K= active and passive dynamic earth pressure coefficient angle of internal friction for the soil seismic inertia angle = angle of friction between the soil and wall slope of the backfill /6 The seismic inertia angle is given by; = arctan [ 4.6 khk, )1 The angle of the failure plane to the horizontal is given by the following; a=0 co + arctan[ tan(0 co /6)+ 1 + [tan(8 + yokan(( P)+ cot(0 P)A1 ape = 0 + p arctank tan(fb [tan(8 + gokan(0 /6)+ C2 + /6)+ cot(93 4.7 4.8 P))]] 40 where; = Vtan(0 /3)[tan(cb c2 = Vtan(0 p +13){tan(0 co M+ cot(q + tan(8 + Ocot(g) co)] co + ,(3)+ cot(q$ 41+ tan(8 + yo)cot(0 (0)] These equations are applicable for dry backfill only. If the backfill is saturated, it is necessary to modify the above equations (as described in the following sections), depending on whether the backfill soils are potentially non-liquefiable or liquefiable. Non-Liquefiable Soil 4.2.1 The following equations are used for non-liquefiable soils, and they are dependent on the behavior of the pore water relative to the soil matrix. If the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is less than 1x10-3 cm/sec, the pore water is assumed to be restrained and if the "3 hydraulic conductivity is greater than 1x10 cm/sec, the pore water is assumed to be free. The term restrained is used to define the condition where the pore water moves with the soil skeleton and there is no fluid flow, and the term free is the condition where the pore water moves relative to the surrounding soil during shaking. These conditions do not affect the generation of excess pore pressures, and are only used to approximately describe the pore water behavior during an earthquake. 4.2.1.1 Restrained Water Case For submerged backfill with restrained water and without excess pore pressure generation the following equation is commonly used to determine an effective horizontal seismic coefficient; 71 7, nh'=--mh Yb 4.9 41 where: total unit weight of the soil Yb = buoyant unit weight of the soil y, = The effective horizontal seismic coefficient (kh') should then be substituted for kh in Equation 4.6. It is also necessary to use yb in Equations 4.2 and 4.3, and to include the hydrostatic water forces on the wall. 4.2.1.2 Free Water Case For the case of free pore water, Equations 4.10 and 4.11 should be used to estimate the effective seismic coefficient and hydrodynamic force. k h ' = 21 kh 4.10 Yb where: yd = dry unit weight of the soil Yb = buoyant unit weight of the soil If Equation 4.10 is used to calculate Equation 4.6, it is necessary to use yb in calculating Pa, and Ppe. Because the water is now treated as acting independently from the soil, it is necessary to include the inertia force of the water within the backfill. The inertia forces from the free water are estimated using the following relationship developed by Westergaard (1931). The resultant P,, is assumed to act at 0.4(H+D) above the base of the wall. P, = ukhr (H + D)2 where: Pi = inertial water pressure force = horizontal seismic coefficient y, = unit weight of the water H = wall height D = depth of embedment kh 4.11 42 The location of the resultant earth pressure forces from the Mononobe-Okabe method cannot be determined from the above relationships. To determine the point of action for the resultant forces, the following procedures developed by Seed and Whitman (1970) are commonly used. Equation 4.12 (Seed and Whitman, 1970) provides the dynamic active earth pressure force (Pae) as the sum of the static active earth pressure force (Pa) and the dynamic active earth pressure force increment (AP,e); 4.12 Pae = Pa + APae The static analysis for a uniform soil deposit, gives Pa acting at one third the total wall height above the bottom of the wall. Seed and Whitman (1970) present APae as acting at 0.6 times the total wall height above the bottom of the wall. Utilizing the known points of action and Equation 4.12, Equation 4.13 was derived by Seed and Whitman to determine the point of action for Pae above the bottom of the wall. A definition sketch is given in Figure 4.4. (H + Y= pa APae[0.6(H + D)] 3 4.13 Pae APae g 0.6(H+D) 1/3(H+D) Figure 4.4: Definition Sketch for the Location of the Resultant Dynamic Active Earth Pressure 43 9.2.2 Liquefiable Soil A potentially liquefiable soil is defined as a soil having the possibility of excess pore pressure generation during cyclic shaking. The common method for representing excess pore pressure generation in design was given by Equation 2.8 (ru = uexcessl crvo), where ru represents the excess pore pressure ratio. Full liquefaction is defined as the state when the excess pore pressures equal the effective overburden pressure, or rt, is equal to unity. Potentially liquefiable soils will behave in one of three ways during dynamic excitation; 1) no excess pore pressure generation will occur (ru= 0), 2) partial excess pore pressures will be generated, but full liquefaction will not occur (0 < ru < 1), or 3) full liquefaction will occur (ru = 1). There is also the question of whether the pore water will flow freely or be restrained during the cyclic loading, similar to the non-liquefaction case. The different procedures are described below. 4.2.2.1 Restrained Water Case There are two ways to analyze the restrained water case with excess pore pressure generation using simple analytical procedures. The first is to have the excess pore pressures reduce the unit weight of the soil and increase the unit weight of the water, until full liquefaction, where the unit weight of the water equals the summation of the unit weights of the soil and water. The effective unit weight of the soil and water are given by; 7 6' = 7 b(1 4.14 ru) Twt= 7w + I b ru 4.15 44 It is then necessary to compute an effective horizontal seismic coefficient (Equation 4.16) and corresponding seismic inertial angle (Equation 4.6). 'ch.= 11--, kh 4.16 Yb The effective unit weights should be substituted in all preceding calculations, in place of the soil and water unit weights. As rz, approaches unity, m' approaches zero, and 7w' becomes the total weight of the soil and water combined. Therefore, during full liquefaction the soil-water matrix is treated as a heavy fluid. When full liquefaction occurs, the unit weight of the heavy fluid (70 should be used with Equation 4.11 to determine the dynamic fluid pressure. The second method of including pore pressure generation involves decreasing the effective angle of internal friction of the soil, as given in Equation 4.17. Ebeling and Morrison (1993) describe this procedure in detail, and based on their calculations, it is not recommended that this procedure be used because it over predicts Pae, notably when kh approaches zero. tan 01,q = (1 ru) tan 0' 4.17 4.2.2.2 Free Water Case If the water acts independently from the soil, the pressures are due to the thrust from the soil, and the thrust from the water. The thrust from the soil is estimated by using an effective horizontal seismic coefficient (Equation 4.18), calculated from the effective soil unit weight (Equation 4.14) and substituted into Equation 4.6. =L-1 ,kh kh' b 4.18 45 The thrust from the water is estimated using Equation 4.11 with 7w, and the static water pressure using 7w' from Equation 4.15. 4.3 RECENT ADVANCEMENTS IN FLEXIBLE WALL DESIGN There have been numerous recent advancements in the design of flexible walls that either enhance the pseudo-static design methods that propose alternative methods of analysis. These methods are used for two different potential cases, liquefiable and nonliquefiable soils. The following sections summarize these recent advancements for both cases, and the sub-sections are differentiated by the lead researchers. 4.3.1 Non-Liquefiable Soils Neelakantan et al. Neelakantan et al. (1992) developed a balanced seismic design method for anchored bulkheads without liquefaction, and validated the design method with large shaking table tests. The method determines a factor of safety against wall failure by dividing the driving moment (active seismic earth pressures) by the resisting moment (passive seismic earth pressures). A balanced seismic design method was also developed for use in anchor design. The researchers note that the balanced seismic design method for anchored sheet pile walls enhances the seismic resistance as obtained from the Mononobe-Okabe method, based on the results of the large shaking table tests. Steedman and Zeng. Steedman and Zeng (1990) performed centrifuge model studies and developed an analytical design method for anchored walls. The effects of varying the shear modulus with depth, ground motion amplification with depth, the hydrodynamic water pressure, and the natural frequency of the wall were analyzed. The study indicates that their results are in good agreement with the Mononobe-Okabe design method. It was also noted that in certain situations, the actual hydrodynamic water pressure on the wall is larger than that predicted by Westergaard's (1931) formulation. It was also noted that the response of a flexible wall during earthquake ground motions is highly dependent on the natural frequency of the bulkhead. 46 Dennehy, Gazetas, and Dakoulas. In a modification of the "standard of practice" pseudo-static design method to include deformation based analysis, Dennehy (1985) and Gazetas et al. (1990), developed an empirical relationship between sheet pile damage and sheet pile wall geometry for locations that were reported as not experiencing liquefaction flow failures during the specific earthquake. Two non-dimensional factors, the effective anchor index (EAI) and the embedment participation index (EPI) were related to the degree of damage recorded for the bulkheads. Referring to Figure 4.5, EAI is used to quantify the amount of available anchor capacity with; EAI =d H 4.19 The EPI provides the contribution of the wall embedment as; EPI = P e Pae 4.20 f+H For uniform soils, EPI can be approximated as; EPI = KPe Kae f ) (1 f+H f+H 4.21 The relationships between the EAI and EPI factors were plotted for 75 Japanese case histories (Figure 4.6), with the descriptions of the degrees of damage given in Table 4.1. Although this chart has greatly enhanced the deformation based design of sheet pile bulkheads, several limitations are noted; 1) the design chart applies only to non-liquefiable soils, 2) the criteria for the occurrence of liquefaction is based on surface evidence (whereas the lateral displacements of retaining structures masks the evidence of 47 liquefaction at depth), it is therefore questionable whether liquefaction did not occur at all of the 75 case histories, 3) there is no direct contribution from the wall stiffness or earthquake characteristics (i.e. intensity, frequency, duration) to the deformations, and 4) the EAI and EPI factors are indirectly a function of the seismic coefficients used in design, which has been noted by Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) to be unsatisfactory in relation to seismically induced deformations. active failure surface effective "point" of rotation Figure 4.5: Definition of Effective Anchor Index, EAI (after Gazetas et al., 1990) Table 4.1: Degree of Damage Qualitative and Quantitative Description of the Reported Degrees of Damage (after Kitajima and Uwabe, 1979) Description of Damage 2 no damage negligible damage to the wall itself; noticeable damage to related structures (i.e. concrete apron) noticeable damage to the wall itself 3 general shape of anchored sheet pile preserved, but 0 1 Permanent Displacement at Top of Sheet pile (cm) <2 10 30 60 significantly damaged 4 complete destruction, no recognizable shape of wall remaining 120 48 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0.5 0 1 Embedment participation index (EPI) Figure 4.6: The Developed Seismic Design Chart (Gazetas et al., 1990) The design chart provides a useful method of estimating deformations for flexible bulkheads embedded in non-liquefiable soils. For cases where liquefaction is expected, this method is unsatisfactory for deformation-based design. 4.3.2 Liquefiable Soils Towhata and Islam. Towhata and Islam (1987) developed a method of estimating the critical seismic coefficient necessary to initiate displacements. Their approach is similar to the method developed by Newmark (1965) to estimate lateral deformations of rigid 49 retaining structures. Towhata and Islam used the simplified expressions of the dynamic earth pressure coefficients proposed by Seed and Whitman (1970), given as; 3 Kae = Ka + AK = Ka +-4kh Kpe = Kp + AKpe 4.22 =K p 178 kh 4.23 and equilibrating the forces in the vertical and Neglecting wall friction and horizontal, Towhata and Islam developed the following equation for estimating the critical horizontal seismic coefficient (kcr). a tanaae kcr = btan(cb aae)(1+btanaae) 1+ ctanaae where: m7; + P + 1 P a= W, tan0+ AU sinaae yw(hw b=2 c= 23mn7; 1 = tang, W. Wra Wm ,(h, + D) 2 + 8(Kp Ka) 17 Pp)/ t 7 ywhw2 8Kpr b 12 r -i[rt(h.-FD)2 ±rd(H h,)(H + 2D + hi,)1 4.24 50 where: m = 0 for no anchor capacity, 1 for full anchor capacity (dependant on the amount of excess pore pressure generation around the anchor) T, = the static anchor force AU= excess pore water pressure due to cyclic shearing n =1 when the anchor block is above the water table, and y/yb when the anchor is completely submerged Using Equation 4.24 it is possible to determine the limiting kh for lateral deformations to occur. Towhata and Islam also performed numerical studies on the effects of the anchor capacity and depth of embedment for a specific case. No generalized guidelines are provided. Byrne et al. Byrne et al. (1994) developed a rational method of estimating the seismic displacements of earth dams using post-liquefaction stress-strain relations and energy concepts. Even though this method was not developed specifically for the seismic design of sheet pile bulkheads, it may be applied (with considerable judgement) to a performance-based design of sheet pile bulkheads. 4.4 DISCUSSIONS OF SHEET PILE BULKHEAD DESIGN METHODS The seismic performance of anchored sheet pile walls in non-liquefiable soils designed with Mononobe-Okabe has been mixed. The cases of non-liquefaction failures have been due primarily to inadequate depth of embedment, anchor design and/or the partial generation of excess pore pressures. These deficiencies have been addressed to a degree in the current design methods (Ebeling and Morrison, 1993) and by the work of Dennehy (1985) and Gazetas et al. (1990). Neelakantan and his co-workers developed a straightforward balanced seismic design method that also accounts for the past seismic failures due to inadequate anchor design. Steedman and Zeng (1990) have highlighted other limitations, such as the need to include the dynamic amplification of ground motions due to the response of the backfill and phase effects on the behavior of flexible bulkheads. These methods, though useful for non-liquefaction design (competent or improved soils), are severely limited in that the majority of anchored bulkhead failures 51 have been caused by the liquefaction of backfill soils (which is only addressed in a simplified manner by the Mononobe-Okabe method and its derivatives). The majority of these methods also lack the ability to evaluate deformations (except for the method by Dennehy and his co-workers). The only design methods that account for liquefaction are Mononobe-Okabe (in a simplified method) and Towhata and Islam, neither method allowing for deformation estimations. A serious limit to all of these methods is that the transient earthquake motions are approximated by single seismic coefficients that do not account for the duration or frequency content of actual ground motion time histories. 52 5 NUMERICAL MODELING The database of case histories on the seismic performance of sheet pile bulkheads is very limited. In order to supplement the case history data, a numerical modeling study was conducted to analyze the seismic performance of sheet pile bulkheads. The numerical model is advantageous for this study because numerous scenarios can be analyzed, and the various design parameters can easily be adjusted to determine their influence on the seismic performance of the bulkhead. The major concern in applying a numerical model to soil-structure interaction problems is the numerical uncertainty, which is limited in this study by performing a series of validation studies using the available case history data on the seismic performance of sheet pile bulkheads. The numerical modeling was accomplished utilizing a commercial finite difference computer program entitled Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) version 3.30 (Itasca Consulting Group, 1995). FLAC is a non-linear, two-dimensional finite difference program capable of modeling both static and dynamic situations. Elements or zones represent the materials (structural and soil), with all of the elements and zones constituting the grid (mesh). The numerical formulation of FLAC utilizes a timemarching scheme, where during each timestep the following procedures take place within FLAC (Figure 5.1); 1) nodal velocities and displacements are calculated from stresses and forces using the equations of motion, 2) a constitutive model is then used to calculate strain rates from the velocities and stresses from the strain rates. These two procedures are then repeated until the computed unbalanced forces within the mesh are within a user specified limit. FLAC uses an explicit method, where the calculation timestep is very short compared with the time necessary for information (acceleration, velocity, displacement) to physically pass from one element to another. FLAC also utilizes a Lagrangian formulation, in which the incremental displacements are added to the coordinates at each timestep so that the grid moves and deforms with the material that it represents. 53 There are several advantages and disadvantages in using FLAC, compared to implicit finite element programs as outlined in Table 5.1. Because of the explicit Lagrangian methodology and the explicit use of the equations of motion, FLAC is advantageous in modeling nonlinear, large strain, physically unstable situations (Itasca, 1995). Equilibrium Equation (Equation of Motion) new stresses or forces new velocities and displacements Stress/Strain Relationship (Constitutive Model) Figure 5.1: Basic Explicit Calculation Cycle This chapter presents the aspects of the numerical modeling program used in this study. Section 5.1 describes the constitutive soil model, Section 5.2 describes the pore pressure generation scheme, Section 5.3 describes the general modeling parameters (for soils, structures, water, earthquake, and the boundary conditions), and Section 5.4 describes the extensive program used to validate FLAC for use in modeling seismicallyinduced liquefaction and the performance sheet pile bulkheads. 5.1 CONSTITUTIVE SOIL MODEL An effective stress Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was used for this study. The constitutive model is able to model plastic deformations utilizing a plastic flow rule. The 54 Table 5.1: Comparison of FLAC and Finite Element Numerical Programs FLAC (explicit) Timestep must be smaller than a critical value for stability. Finite Element (implicit) Timestep can be arbitrarily unconditionally stable schemes. large, with Small amount of computation effort per timestep. Large amount of computational timestep. No significant numerical damping introduced for dynamic solution. Numerical damping dependent on timestep present with unconditionally stable schemes. No iterations necessary to follow nonlinear constitutive law. Iterative procedure necessary to follow nonlinear constitutive law. effort per Provided that the timestep criterion is always Always necessary to demonstrate that the above satisfied, nonlinear laws are always followed in a mentioned procedure is a) stable, and b) follows the physically correct path (for path-sensitive valid physical way. problems). Matrices are never formed. Memory requirements are always limitations. at a minimum. No band-width Stiffness matrices must be stored. Ways must be found to overcome associated problems such as band-width. Memory requirements tend to be large. Since matrices are never formed, large displacements and strains are accommodated without additional computing effort. Additional computing effort needed to follow large displacements and strains. elastic behavior of the soil is defined by the bulk and shear modulus, and the strength is defined by the angle of friction and cohesion. This significantly simplifies the dynamic soil behavior and is not capable of accounting for the strain dependent dynamic properties such as damping and shear modulus. Despite the use of this simplified constitutive soil model, it has been demonstrated to yield satisfactory displacement results for a variety of applications involving seismically-induced deformations of earth structures and retaining walls (e.g. Roth et al., 1986; Roth & Inel, 1993; Dickenson & Yang, 1998). The elastic and strength properties of the soil were estimated from established correlations with normalized SPT values ((Nd60), unless otherwise noted. 55 5.2 PORE PRESSURE GENERATION The pore pressure generation scheme utilized in these analyses uses several empirical procedures developed by Seed and others over the last 25 years (Martin et al., 1975, Seed et al., 1976, Seed 1979). During each timestep of the dynamic analysis, the effective stresses decrease and pore pressures gradually increase in liquefiable soils, until a state of full liquefaction is reached. Liquefaction resistance curves are developed using the cyclic stress ratio (CSRfi ) and number of cycles to liquefaction (Nijq) at 3 and 30 cycles (Figure 5.2). The values of 3 and 30 are used because they cover the range of number of shear cycles for earthquake magnitudes in the range of engineering interest (M = 5 to 8). The linear relationship provides a fairly good representation of the majority of CSRfied curves (Figure 2.3). CSR @ 3 cycles CSR CSR @ 30 cycles 3 30 Number of Cycles Required for Liquefaction (Nhz) Figure 5.2: Modeled Liquefaction Resistance Curve There are two methods of inputting the CSRfidd data; 1) directly from the results of cyclic testing (e.g. simple shear, triaxial), or 2) utilize in-situ penetration resistances (e.g. SPT, CPT) and empirical relationships. Method 1 is straightforward, as long as the CSRfieid is corrected for the testing method, in-situ stresses and various earthquake magnitudes, as described in Section 2.2.2. For method 2, the CSRfidd is corrected for initial static shear stresses and initial overburden stresses (Section 2.2.2), and the values 56 of CSR at 3 and 30 cycles are determined by multiplying CSRfidd value by 1.5 and 0.89, respectively. The multiplication factors were determined from Arango (1996) for various numbers of shear cycles. Cyclic stress ratios caused by the earthquake motion (CSReq) are monitored during each timestep, and if CSReq exceeds CSRfield, a numerical curve fitting is conducted to determine Nhq at CSRfieid. The earthquake-induced damage (a function of the excess pore pressure generation) is monitored in the FLAC model using a damage parameter (D). The damage parameter is updated at each shear cycle, and is defined as the summation of the inverse number of cycles to liquefaction (Equation 5.1). After each cycle, D is related to the pore pressure by an empirical function. The simplest function was used in the current study, based on the satisfactory results of Roth and Inel (1993) for liquefaction studies. D =E 1 5.1 Niiq A simplification was made in the models in which pore pressures were allowed to generate using the above formulation, but were not allowed to dissipate. This simplification was used because the results from validation case studies in which the dynamic motion and groundwater dissipation where coupled proved to be unsatisfactory. The reasons for the unsatisfactory modeling of dynamic motion and groundwater dissipation are unclear. The simplification that was made can be somewhat justified by noting that expected flow in sand during the 10 to 40 seconds of earthquake motion would be very small (-0.1 to 0.4 cm3/cm2). It should also be noted that the largest effect of pore pressure dissipation is ground surface settlement, which was calculated following the analyses using the proposed post-liquefaction volumetric strain relationship by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). Therefore, for this study, the neglect of pore pressure dissipation is an acceptable simplification. 57 5.3 GENERAL MODELING PARAMETERS The numerical modeling involved two solutions; static and dynamic. After generating the model geometry, a static solution was sought to equilibrate the initial stresses within the soil. After the static solution, the dynamic modeling was performed. The modeling for the validation case histories and the parametric studies (Chapter 6) followed the same procedures, as outlined in the following sections. 5.3.1 Modeling of Soil Elements The known site properties for most of the analysis included the uncorrected standard penetration test (SPT) results, and the elevation of the soil layers. In order to conduct a FLAC analysis, the soil density (p), angle of internal friction (0), cohesion (c), bulk modulus (K), shear modulus (G), Poisson's ratio ( v), corrected penetration resistance (Wd60), relative density (DR) and undrained residual shear strength of the liquefied soil (Sr) are also needed. The soil density and angle of internal friction were estimated from the SPT results using well-established correlations, when the values were not provided in the references. The low-strain shear modulus (Gmar) was calculated from the shear wave velocity (Vs) and total density of the soil (Equation 5.2). The shear wave velocity was estimated from the SPT, when not provided in the references. Several different established methods were used to estimate the shear wave velocity of the soils, depending on the specific site profile and soil conditions. Gmax = Vs2 Ptotal 5.2 Once the shear modulus was determined, Equation 5.3 was used to estimate the bulk modulus of the soil, using Poisson's ratio. K= 2G(1+ 0) 3(1 2v) 5.3 58 The corrected penetration resistance was calculated using Equation 5.4. The initial static analysis provided the effective overburden pressures (o-') in the model, which was then used to determine CN using Equation 5.5 (Liao & Whitman, 1986). Because all of the case histories were from Japanese cases, the efficiency (Er) of the SPT method was assumed to be 72% of the maximum, which is the average of the free-fall and throw release type hammers, as given by Seed et al. (1985). (N1)60 CN = Er N 'LN 60 95760 Pa 5.4 5.5 avo If the shear wave velocity was unknown, it was estimated from SPT data using the relationship given in Equation 5.6, formulated by Imai et al. (1975) from Japanese case history data. Vs = 89.8N0341 5.6 The relative density of the soil was estimated using Equation 5.7 (Yoshida et al., 1988), with the following; SPT values uncorrected for overburden pressure (N60), the effective overburden pressure (cr), and the best fit values of Co = 25, Cl = 0.12 and C2 = 0.46. Equation 5.7 was used to estimate relative density because it was formulated from Japanese case history data, and all of the validation case studies were from Japanese locations. 5.7 59 The undrained residual shear strength was estimated using Equation 5.8 (from Figure 2.11), developed by Stark and Mesri (1992) for SPT results corrected for fines content. S,. = 0.0055 avo '*(N1)60-cs 5.8 The constitutive model used during the numerical analysis followed the MohrCoulomb failure criteria (r=cr'tan0), and as the pore pressures increase during cyclic shearing, the effective stresses decrease, until the limiting shear stress value (undrained residual shear strength) is reached. The strength of the soil at full liquefaction was then as the undrained residual shear strength. 5.3.2 Modeling of Structural Elements The sheet pile walls and anchors were modeled using FLAC pile elements. These elements allow relative movement between the soil and pile elements. The relationship between the pile and soil elements is simulated with springs that have a stiffness and yield value for both the normal and shear directions. The stiffness was calculated as the minimum value of Equation 5.9 for all soil elements adjacent to the pile elements. The same calculated stiffness value was used for both the shear and normal directions. The yield value for the normal direction was set very large to prevent the soil moving through the wall, whereas the yield value for the shear direction was set equal to zero, assuming that there was no static friction between the soil and pile. A frictional shear resistance angle (b) was input for the dynamic (not earthquake) friction between the wall and soil. If the wall was continuous (sheet pile wall, or a continuous anchor wall), the modulus of elasticity was increased to account for the effect of plane strain using Equation 5.10 (Itasca, 1995) to determine the new modulus. If the tie rods or anchor were not continuous, the modulus of the tie rod and anchor were divided by the spacing of the tie rod or anchor to provide a modulus value per unit depth. The tie rods were modeled as cable elements, which are able to transfer tension loads, but unable to transmit moments. 60 Stiffness = +yG K 3 62min 5.9 E E plane strain 1 5.3.3 5.10 02 Modeling of the Earthquake Motion The input earthquake motions were recorded accelerograms that had been corrected for the recording instrument. For simplification, the vertical motion was not used, and the horizontal motions were vectorally summed to the motion perpendicular to the face of the wall. The motions were input at the base of each model as acceleration time histories. The damping of the earthquake motions for numerical stability utilized the Rayleigh damping method within FLAC. The acceptable Rayleigh damping used in the models was determined from the validation studies to be 5% at 5 Hz. There is an inherent displacement in recorded earthquake motions due to various factors (e.g. movement of the recording instrument, permanent earthquake displacements), and is termed baseline shift. The baseline shift has been removed from all of the presented FLAC displacements. It should also be noted that the applied acceleration time histories do not always correspond to the same time scale as the recorded motions. This is because some of the small amplitude portions of the recorded motions were removed to decrease the solution time for the numerical runs. 5.3.4 Modeling of the Water The water in front of the wall was modeled indirectly by including the resulting water pressures along the boundaries. This allows a simple modeling of the water, but does not account for the dynamic interaction of the wall and water. The water within the soil was modeled directly, and was allowed to flow during the static solutions. During the dynamic 61 solutions excess pore pressures were allowed to generate, but the dissipation of these pore pressures was not modeled (as discussed in Section 5.2). 5.3.5 Boundary Conditions The boundary conditions for the static solutions consisted of the bottom boundary being fixed in both the horizontal and vertical directions, while the sides of the model were treated as rollers (by fixing only the horizontal direction). During the dynamic analysis the bottom boundary was freed in the horizontal direction to allow application of the horizontal acceleration, and the sidewalls were treated as an infinite medium (free field), having the same properties as the adjacent model perimeter zones. The lateral dimensions of the model were determined as optimum from the validation case studies as seven times the total wall height (H+D) in the backland and three times the total wall height in front of the wall. 5.4 VALIDATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL The use of FLAC for the seismic modeling of generic sheet pile walls in ports required that the numerical model be validated and calibrated. The validation of FLAC for this study, involved modeling well-documented case histories and comparing the calculated and measured displacements. Five case histories were chosen, including: two wharves at Akita Port during the MJMA 7.7 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake, a wharf at Ishinomaki Port during the MJMA 7.4 1973 Miyagi Ken Oki Earthquake, and two wharves at Kushiro Port during the MJMA 7.8 1993 Kushiro Oki Earthquake. These were the most detailed case histories available for typical sheet pile bulkheads. The modeled geometries were the same as given in the references, except for the noted differences and simplifications. Several notes on the calculated displacements include; a) the horizontal displacements were measured at the top of the sheet pile wall. The vertical displacements were measured at the top of the soil column, adjacent to the wall, therefore the reported 62 vertical displacements take into account the relative vertical movement between the wall and soil. b) the vertical time history displacement plots are a result of the volume change due to horizontal movements only, and do not account for the volumetric strain due to pore pressure dissipation. The volumetric strain due to pore pressure dissipation was calculated following the analysis using the proposed post-liquefaction volumetric strain relationship by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). The post-liquefaction vertical displacements are noted in the text. Akita Port 5.4.1 The 1983 Mjmik 7.7 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake struck Akita Port, Japan, causing severe liquefaction damage in some locations, while other locations were left undamaged. Two case histories were chosen from this earthquake. One site suffered severe damage, while the other suffered negligible damage. There is considerable data available on the earthquake, site conditions, and structure properties for both case histories (Iai & Kameoka, 1993). The layout of the port (Figure 5.3) includes the location of the strong motion observation station where the modeled earthquake acceleration time histories were recorded. Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 bulkheads are almost identical. The differences include the soil properties of the backfill, depth of wall penetration, and structural details of the anchors. Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 bulkhead geometries are show in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5, respectively. 5.4.1.1 Soil Conditions The soil conditions, including standard penetration and sieve analysis results, for Wharf 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8, respectively. The numerical modeling utilized the following soil layers and conditions. For Wharf 1, the soil profile was simplified into two layers for the numerical analysis, the top layer, a hydraulically backfilled sand, extends to a depth of approximately 22.5 m below the ground surface. The second layer is also a sand layer, and extends to the base of the model (24 m). For Wharf 2, four soil layers were modeled. The hydraulically backfilled sand layer, which 63 has a sloping base (Figure 5.5), is 12 m thick adjacent to the sheet pile wall. The backfill is underlain by 6 m of naturally deposited sandy soil. The third layer, a medium stiff clay, is 4.5 m thick, and underlain by another sand layer to the base of the model (24 m). The soil properties used in the numerical analysis are presented in Table 5.2. The strength properties were based on the laboratory test results by Iai and Kameoka (1993). I30°E 135° 14.° awn, Akita 0 Japan Sea okyo (a) Location of Akita Closer View (b) Ohoma No.l Wharf Shinio River Ohamo No. 2 Wharf Akita part51- / , 'Japan Sea , o .14 o' Observation Sto ion ca 4 , Contours of Base i.,k' ;--o Liquefied Area ; / S,trong,-Motion , , p 7 .,,e 0 . ...yo ,.-Jorn (c) Plan of Akita Port Figure 5.3: Plan of Akita Port, Japan after the 1983 M 7.7 Earthquake (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 64 20.00 12.00 0.00_ " SEMI HIGH TENSILE STRENGTH STEEL TIE ROD 0 0: -10.00 -10.10 Layer 2 ( Sand) -15.50 Unit in Meters 20.50 Loyer 4 ( Sand) Figure 5.4: Akita Ohama Wharf 1 Wall Profile (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 20.00 t 2.00 _zr I 0 00 10 HIGH STRENGTH STEEL TIE ROD 11 _11 -11 Layer CRA C I Bockfill Sand) O W -10.00 I Layer 2 ( Sand) a. -14.50 -20.50 Layer 3 ( Cloy) Layer 4 (Sand) - BEFORE THE EARTHQUAKE AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE UNIT IN METERS Figure 5.5: Akita Ohama Wharf 2 Wall Profile (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 65 3 2 r-1 2 (m) (m) (m) (m) 0 0 2 EI 1 IL 0 I I r I 0 1 0 5 \-110 10 m) (m) 1-110 (m) 10 (m) (m) Figure 5.6: Deformed Cross-Sections for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 Cr 100 90 60 -(No.58-22) U" X 70 _ (9 60 Z,W 50 030 - W 0- .---- Iiv --- -7'DEPTH / , ...,,/ 10 .-_ 001 01 I CC 100 L 70 7 1 03 20 °0001 I, 3m ---6 mm) I 10.0 10 i 500 DEPTH 7 9m-1 ---- 10-16 5.g y a0 20 10 0 0001 0.01 01 1.0 10.0 50.0 InIrn1 Figure 5.7: Soil Profile and Grain Size for Ohama Wharf 1 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) The SPT values were input exactly as shown in the figures. Shear wave velocity (V3) measurements were obtained from an exploratory borehole at a neighboring wharf, Ohama Wharf 3. The measured shear wave velocity and soil profiles at Ohama Wharf 3 are given in Figure 5.9. Because the SPT data for the soil layers at Ohama Wharves 1, 2 and 3 are similar (except for the backfill), the shear wave velocities were assumed the same between the three sites. 66 100 LC5 Elev- Soil otion Type S PT N -VALUE 10 (m) 20 30 40 500.01 Z ( mm ) D50 0.1 LT: 1.0 x w 0 +0.33m ''''' i Wf`. Wy 7/' 90 -(No 58-2 ) 80 70 60 ORIGINAL GROUND - LI BACKFILL SAND 1/ 10 0 11mm) 0.01 100 / 7 _ 8: ,71 60 50 10 <, IO 10.0 f----.--- 90 -(No.48-10) .. 12 40 30 o 0.001 ix 2m 4-10 V SOIL W 20 , DEPTH 500 I DEPTH 16m- ...-- 18 , 20 % 40 to 3 -a 2 10 -15 o --------- 0 v 0.001 __- ..--- 0.01 01 1.0 10.0 50.0 tk -25 -30 o-o 48 5 58 - 2 Figure 5.8: Soil Profile and Grain Size for Ohama Wharf 2 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) Table 5.2: Model Soil Properties for Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 Wharf 1 Layer 1 Layer 2 Density (kg/m3) Friction Angle (0) Cohesion (kPa) Poisson's Ratio Porosity Layer 1 Wharf 2 Layer 2 Layer 3 1500 43 1500 44 1500 37 1500 0 0.3 0.4 0 0.3 0.4 0 0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 41 1500 39 48 0.3 0.4 Layer 4 1600 44 0 0.3 0.4 5.4.1.2 Structural Properties Ohama Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 were constructed with the same wall section, FSP 6L, manufactured by Nippon Steel. The properties of the modeled structural elements are presented in Figure 5.9. The anchor and tie rod spacing was 2 m for both Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 (Iai & Ichii, 1997). The friction between the sheet pile wall and the soil was modeled as 14 degrees for Wharf 1, where limited pore pressure generation was expected, and 0 degrees for Wharf 2, where significant pore pressure generation was expected. 67 5.4.1.3 Earthquake Motion The acceleration time histories recorded at the strong motion site (Figure 5.3) were vectorally summed to yield the acceleration time history normal to the wall. The motion normal to the wall was then deconvolved to bedrock using the equivalent linear dynamic soil response model, SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun, 1992). The soil profile at the strong motion site is shown in Figure 5.10. The computed bedrock motion was then propagated to the base of the models (24 m below the ground surface) for Ohama Wharves 1 and 2 using SHAKE91. The earthquake time histories recorded at the strong motion site are shown in Figure 5.11. The transformed time histories for Wharf 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 5.12 and Figure 5.13, respectively. x 1w 0 tai 0. ,I- SPT N-VALUE (1.3 ---- Vp (m/sec) 1090 2000 Vs .7,1, (m) 0 cr) lo j , ( m / sec I 10203040500 400 13 4 _ 1200 L -I 11, 0 (90 1900 15 290 20 lI 4. 11 25 vt li 1: 1;.. I 210 1760 30 Figure 5.9: Shear Wave Velocity Profile for Ohama Wharf 3 (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 68 Table 5.3: Model Structural Properties for Ohama Wharf 1 and 2 Property Sheet Pile Wall: Type Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m2) Wharf 1 Wharf 2 FSP6L 8.60e-4 2.20e11 0.0306 FSP6L 8.60e-4 2.20e 1 1 0.0306 Anchor: Type Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m2) Cable: Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Radius (m) SOIL TYPE DE (m1 12 1.66e-3 1.00el1 0.0236 7.84e-4 1.00el1 0.0207 1.00el1 0.10 1.00el1 0.10 SPY N -VALUE S WAVE P WAVE m/s ) 0 (m/s ) CCIARSE SAND 900 ' 5 550 10 I 203040500 200 400 ECO I 0 ec. ' 2 Identical Pipe Piles Pipe Pile 750 E=TIE 1.132ii Si GRAVEL MIXED WITH SAND I0 SANDY GRAVEL . SAND MIXED SANDY GRAVEL 15 I .5/ II GRAYEL MIX 0 WITH SAND 0 20 SAND STONE 570 25 Figure 5.10: Soil and Velocity Profile at the Akita Strong Motion Site (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) 69 North 3.0 M 2.0 1.0 2 0.0 e -1.0 IMIRIPPIIIMPIPPIMITSITANIIIITINATIMIF 7/ § -2.0' 3.0 East 3.0 'a C 2.0 s IMIIMPIPIIMIT111113WIT1111.1111INFRNIfillTrir 0.0 ti 11141111,1,1111MIMEALMia -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 Vertical 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 0 10 5 20 15 25 30 35 40 Time (seconds) Figure 5.11: Recorded Time Histories for the 1983 M 7.7 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake at Akita Port 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 I MINI& 111111111% MAI A "w 0111111111111111Wall Al r A A 11" -1.0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (seconds) Figure 5.12: Input Time History for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 30 35 70 1.0 0.5 C 0.0 WilliglillEMIEMIFIVI AI A -0.5 -1.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (seconds) Figure 5.13: Input Time History for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 5.4.1.4 Results of Ohama Wharf 1 The deformed grid for Wharf 1 is shown in Figure 5.14, with calculated horizontal and vertical displacements of 0.03 m 0.055 m, respectively. The calculated vertical displacement, including the post-liquefaction volumetric strain, was 0.055 m. The time histories of the displacements (not including the post-volumetric strain) are shown in Figure 5.15. The maximum measured horizontal displacement was 0.05 m. The measured vertical displacements were not available. The results for Ohama Wharf 1 are consistent with the measured displacements. Figure 5.14: Deformed Grid for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 (deformations to scale) 71 0.01 - Horizontal Displacement 0.00 Vertical Displacement -0.01 E t -0.02 E es a. -0.03 1\\*NOVO -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (seconds) Figure 5.15: Time Displacement Plot for Akita Ohama Wharf 1 5.4.1.5 Results of Ohama Wharf 2 The deformed grid for Wharf 2 is shown in Figure 5.16, with the horizontal and vertical time displacements are given in Figure 5.17. The measured displacements are presented in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.18. The maximum horizontal displacement calculated in FLAC was 1.30 m at the top of the wall, where the measured displacements had a maximum of about 1.6 m and an average of about 1.1 m. The calculated vertical displacements in the backfill adjacent to the wall, including and not including postliquefaction volumetric strain, were 0.78 and 0.60 m, respectively. The measured vertical displacements ranged between an average of 0.5 and a maximum of 1.4 m. It should be noted that the formation of a plastic hinge was evident during post-earthquake inspections of the bulkhead (Figure 5.6). A plastic hinge developed only to a small degree in the numerical model. The difference between the measured and calculated profiles could be contributed to several reasons; 1) inadequacies in the numerical model, 2) lack of structural integrity in the field due to corrosion, physical imperfections, etc. 72 10 meters Figure 5.16: Deformed Grid for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 (deformations to scale) 0.20 -Horizontal Displacement 0.00 Vertical Displacement -0.20 -0.40 0 -0.60 0. -0.80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (seconds) Figure 5.17: Time Displacement Plot for Akita Ohama Wharf 2 5.4.2 Ishinomaki Port The 1978 MimA 7.4 Miyagi-Ken-Oki Earthquake caused severe liquefaction damage in the Ishinomaki Port. The case study utilizes the data from Shiomi Wharf (-4.5 m) that was presented by Iai, Tsuchida and Finn (1985). The general location of the city, strong 73 APPROACH SECTION A SECTION B 105m 80m Horizontal Displacement at the Top of Sheet Pile APPROACH 20m 30m 2 I Cm> a) (m) I 1 1 Elevation of Sheet Pile Design Elevation +1 b) (m) (m) +I +0.5 +0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Figure 5.18: Measured a) Horizontal and b) Vertical Displacements along the Face of the Bulkhead (Iai & Kameoka, 1993) motion site and Shiomi Wharf (-4.5 m, Site D), are shown in Figure 5.19. The bulkhead profile is presented in Figure 5.20. 5.4.2.1 Soil Conditions Four borings were conducted along the wharf, one previous to (CB-10 dashed), and three after (CB-2, CB-6, CB-10 solid) the earthquake (Figure 5.21). The boring before the earthquake was used to determine the soil properties to approximately 14 m below the ground surface, where the combination of the other three borings were used for the deeper soil profile. The generalized profile used in the FLAC model consisted of two soil layers, a medium to fine sand backfill extending from the ground surface to a depth of 15 m, and underlain by a sandy silt that extends to the base of the model (23 m). A rubble mound is located directly behind the wall and in front of the anchor. The mound behind the wall is small and was not modeled, but the mound in front of the anchor was incorporated into the FLAC model. The uncorrected SPT values were input directly from the boring logs. The modeled soil properties are given in Table 5.4. The shear wave velocities were estimated from the SPT values. 74 141°E Ofunato 142° 39° N Strong-motion I Fault plane Ishinomaki Accelerogroph Site Send 2i Xj hiogama 38° Kaihoku Bridge Epicenter Pacific Ocean mi ISHINOMAKI CITY ISHINOMAKI PORT. Site-C(Non-Liquefaction) Site -D (Liquefaction Ishinomaki Fisting Port 000ctoo orn000cloocIT Site- B(Liquefaction ) Site-F(Liquefaction Site -A(Liquefaction) Site -E(Non Liquefaction ISHINOMAKI BAY 9 icrr/ Figure 5.19: Layout of Ishinomaki Port during the M 7.4 MiyagiKen-Oki Earthquake (Iai et al, 1985) 15.00 14.20 0 K.P+3.00 K.P +1.50 020.0(TP-0.8745) 01.0.0(KP-0.025) li emu Hugh Tensile Stren th Steel t :20.80m Ao:. 400 TO Steel sheet pile anchorage 1) type 400x 10x 10.5 K.P :4.50 +3.50 +250 +328 325 =4.0m -1.50 Steel sheet pile IIA type 400x 150x 13.1 C: 11.5m -10.00 Figure 5.20: Shiomi (-4.5m, Site D) Bulkhead Profile (Iai et al., 1985) 75 ' ii Soil Tyne 'N -Value 0 ra N - value Soil Type 1 0 203040 50 20 3040 50 Asphalt Block Gravel Gravel Stone ___w___' rk Groy Medium 10 20 30 40 50 93 Asphalt O'ir CB-I0 N - volu4 au-value(kgt/cmt)-00.6 09 1.0 1.2 14 1.6 CB-2 2( 03m4,N4; Brown 0.94 I 20m N.4 N.2 Stone San;ii 111111111111 11/111111111 '' 11M11111111 ffIr41333:22 11E111111111 111111111111 Sandy 111111111111 '''''''''d1 111111111111 11 111 '') (Medium c'. 1 I 8I0 N.13 I )1(2,4,2) / '1111 -506 m IN = 16 1110m N.) (3,4,4) IIIII N.I6 10.0m N.15 (4,5,6)11 (4,4,5) 11111 (5,7,4) 12.0m N.18 N 1 I 4.5m N.I5 (5,4,6)1 ;''' (F'n.sad) 111111111111 Dark grey ( N 18 5. 1 Fine sand -1506 lue gray Measured in 97 18.0m N =S 11 1 1 1 1 -14 IIIII1 11 2t/Om N.6 20.3m N 6 Silt mixed with sells 1 Measured112967. 181m N.10 ( 2,2,6) v 1 140m N.16 (4,6,6 III I 8m WI 6.2m N.8 1111111111 (a ) CB -2 1111111 o Very fine xnd (20w N =16 ,,;:..0::,., I %,6.0m NOB 100m N =13 1.: 1mo ''.1 Scm soli 111111111111111111111111 (Script " 1 (5,5,6 Fine to Medium Sand 11M 11111111 111111111111 111111111111 1aiCloy 1 (3,5,5) 111111111111 :, 1 I (2,3,2) - Fine sand 60m N =13 11111111E11 --4 II 4.0rn N.7 2., Medium send 40m N.6 :..4.-, 1 Sandy Silt 2.3m N.5 220m III III 24.0m N.5 24.0m Medium sand mixed with shells iBlue gr ay 2825m N.7 Tirr with shells 30.0m N 8 --e-Dark gray (1,1 1.11 (b) CB-6 Cc) CB -10 Figure 5.21: Boring logs at Shiomi Wharf (Iai et al., 1985) Model Soil Properties for Ishinomaki Port Shionzi Wharf (-4.5m, Site D) Layer 1 Layer 2 Rubble Density (kg/m3) Friction Angle (0) 1500 36 Poisson's Ratio Porosity 0.30 0.40 1500 36 0.30 0.40 4 Dark gray -12 Table 5.4: /4 1800 42 0.20 0.40 N.8 27.5m N-9 (4,23) 11111 29.0 m N.4 76 5.4.2.2 Structural Properties The wall section was constructed from Nippon FSP3A sheet pile sections, and the anchor was constructed from Nippon FSP2 sheet piles sections. The total height of the sheet pile wall is 13 m, with 5.5 m embedment, the anchor embedment is 4 m, with a tie rod length of 20 m. The spacing of the tie rod was unknown, and assumed to be one meter. This introduces an error into the calculated displacements because of the uncertainty in the elastic behavior of the tie rod system. Because the backfill within the model was expected to liquefy, the friction between the sheet pile sections and soil was assumed to be zero. The modeled structural properties are presented in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: Model Structural Properties for Ishinomaki Port Property Sheet Pile Wall: Type Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m2) Shiomi Wharf (-4.5m, Site D) FSP3A 2.281e-4 2.20e1 l 0.0186 Anchor: Type Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m2) FSP2 8.740e-5 2.20e1 l 0.0153 Cable: Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Radius (m) 5.4.2.3 2.00e11 0.10 Earthquake Motion The strong motion time histories were recorded on bedrock, and were assumed to be the same as the bedrock motions beneath the site. The transformed time history was propagated from bedrock to the base of the model (23 m below the ground surface) using SHAKE91. The earthquake time histories recorded at the strong motion site (Kaihoku 77 Bridge) are shown in Figure 5.22. The transformed time history for Shiomi wharf is given in Figure 5.23. S42W 3.0 a 2.0 3 -2.0 -3.0 W42N 3.0 2.0 1.0 1111111111,1111111111MITIFI1111, 0.0 IN 111 -1.0 WAIN "Nil 'UM -2.0 3.0 0 10 14 12 16 20 18 Time (seconds) Figure 5.22: Recorded Time Histories at Ishinomaki Port 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 111111 7 .1 Ail Ai. 11 r. V -1.0 -1.5 8 2 Time (seconds) Figure 5.23: Input Time History for Ishinomaki Wharf 10 12 78 5.4.2.4 Results of Ishinomaki Shiomi (-4.5 m) Wharf The deformed grid at 12 seconds is given in Figure 5.24. The calculated horizontal and vertical time displacements are shown in Figure 5.25. The time displacement plot extends for 50 seconds, where the earthquake motion was only 12 seconds long, and it should be noted that the displacements continued to increase after 12 seconds at a steady rate. This is theorized to be due to the modeling limitation of not allowing the excess pore pressures to dissipate. If excess pore pressures were allowed to dissipate, the displacements would likely taper off after 12 seconds. Therefore, the calculated displacements are from 12 seconds. The calculated horizontal displacement is 0.60 m and the vertical displacements, including and not including post-liquefaction volumetric strain are 0.30 and 0.25 m, respectively. The measured results are presented in Figure 5.26 and Figure 5.27, and indicate a large variation in the horizontal deflections along the top of the bulkhead. This is theorized to be partly due to the end effects of the bulkhead. It was also noted by Iai et al. (1985) that a landslide of unknown extent was noted at the site, and may have also caused the large variations in the displacements. The maximum measured displacement of the wall was 1.16 m, with an average horizontal displacement of approximately 0.60 m. The measured vertical displacements ranged between an average of 0.05 and a maximum of 0.10 m. Figure 5.24: Deformed Grid for Ishinomaki, Shiomi Wharf (deformations to scale) 79 0.20 Horizontal Displacement 0.00 Vertical Displacement -e- -0.20 -0.40 E tv ct.) o -0.60 a. co 6 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (seconds) Figure 5.25: Time Displacement Plot of Ishinomaki, Shiomi Wharf 5.4.3 Kushiro Port The MRAA 7.8 Kushiro Earthquake occurred on January 15, 1993, and caused severe liquefaction damage to the Port of Kushiro at Kushiro City. The majority of the data for this case study was taken from Iai et al. (1994) and Ueda et al. (1993). The location of Kushiro City is shown in Figure 5.28. The case study used two wharves from Kushiro Port, indicated as Site C and Site D in Figure 5.29. The location of the strong motion site is also indicated in Figure 5.29. The geometry of Site C is shown in Figure 5.30, and consists of a sheet pile wall, backed by a rubble mound, and supported by a battered pile anchor, located 20 m into the backland. The geometry of Site D is shown in Figure 5.31, and consists of a steel pipe wall, backed by a rubble mound, and supported by a continuous sheet pile wall, 30 m into the backland. Site D was also an area of soil improvement prior to the earthquake, including both sand compaction piles and gravel drains. 80 N No.16 6 No.15 23 No.1 4 40 No.l 3 37 No.12 Boring CB-10 E O o co to O O N o Figure 5.26: Measured Horizontal Deformations at Shiomi Wharf (-4.5 m), displacements in mm (Iai et al., 1985) (2' za z6 za za zd za z6 6 z za z6 II3 z 6 z z6 o z z6 ID 6 ID zei Design I levation M +3.000 4.2.900 +2.800 __ 4-2.700 +2_600 Figure 5.27: Measured Vertical Displacements at Shiomi Wharf (4.5 m) (Iai et al., 1985) 81 x Epicenter 1993. 1.15 (M = 7.8) Pacific Ocean (a) Location of Kushiro Closer View Figure 5.28: Location of Kushiro Port (Iai et al., 1994) KUSHIRO PORT f OrI /EOSI Port 0 500 I000m Site A Site C Site D West Port Site S Pt, ormer Beach Line Figure 5.29: Layout of Kushiro Port (Iai et al., 1994) 82 20.0 *2.7 L.W. Unit (ml 0 % t. 0.0 2.9 *2.2 .1.0 Tie rod SS 41 065 L22.8 . . Rubble E tft of Filled Sand Steel Pipe -7.5 ISheet Pile in O Original Ground N o. before eorthquoke otter eorthquoke -14.5 co -10.3 -14.3 Figure 5.30: Geometry of Kushiro Port Site C Wharf (Iai et al., 1994) 30.0 3.0 4 20.0 2% 3.4 2.0 H.W.L1.5 L 0.0 Tie- Rod ctcl 98 0 -J Grovel ()rain # 400mrr u ,- Sond Cornpoct ion Pi le 2. # .700mm -12.0 4.rakraiorriAa 22.7 Unit(m) Figure 5.31: Geometry of Kushiro Port Site D Wharf (Iai et al., 1994) .& 83 5.4.3.1 Soil Conditions The boring logs for Site C and Site D are shown in Figure 5.32 and Figure 5.33, respectively. The simplified soil conditions for the numerical analysis at Site C consisted of 10 m of hydraulically backfilled sand, underlain by the naturally deposited sandy soil to the depth of the model (26 m). At Site D, the soil compaction was modeled as extending infinitely into the backland. The soil layers where simplified as a coarse sand extending to a depth of 6 m below the surface, underlain by 12 m of fine sand, which is underlain by another layer of coarse sand to the depth of the model (32 m). The area of soil compaction was modeled as a uniformly compacted zone, individual gravel drains and sand compaction piles were not modeled. The rubble mounds were modeled in both Site C and Site D as indicated in the wharf geometries. Model soil properties used in the analyses are given in Table 5.6. The SPT values were input as shown in the boring logs, with the shear wave velocities estimated from the SPT values. De p th ml Soil Type SPT-N Value 0 10 20304050 'Elevotiol s2.34rn -5 Sand Gravelly -10 Sand Fine Sand Gravelly Sond Fine -15 Sand Course Sand Sand and -20 Grave . Figure 5.32: Soil Profile at Kushiro Port Site C (Iai et al., 1994) 84 Depth cm) Soil Type 0 I SPT - N Volue 01020304050 levationl 2.94m J ", ?"'ZI4 Coarse Sond - Coarse Sond mixed with r, Gravel Fine Sand -10 :t Fine Sand Silt Fine Sond mixed with and _ -1- "": : Shells -15 Shelly Sond - Coarse Sand mixed with e. Grovel Coarse Sond before compaction__: : Figure 5.33: Soil Profile at Kushiro Port Site D (Iai et al., 1994) Table 5.6: Model Soil Properties for Kushiro Port Layer 1 Density (kg/m3) Friction Angle (q) 1300 32 Poisson's Ratio Porosity 0.30 0.40 Site C Layer 2 1500 42 0.30 0.40 Site D Layer 2 Layer 3 Rubble Layer 1 1800 42 1500 45 1400 40 1500 45 1800 42 0.20 0.40 .0.30 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.40 Rubble 5.4.3.2 Structural Properties The model structural geometry of Site C consisted of a sheet pile wall (Nippon SPZ25) anchored with battered pipe piles. The wall is 17.2 m tall, with 7 m embedment, and the left and right anchors extend to a depth of 13 and 17 m below the ground surface, respectively. The tie rod and anchor spacing were unknown, and assumed to be 1 m. The model wall for Site D consisted of a steel pipe pile wall, anchored with a continuous sheet pile wall (Nippon FSP4). The tie rod spacing is 1.98 m. The radius of the tie rod was 85 unknown for Site D, and conservatively assumed to be 1 m. The model structural properties are given in Table 5.7. Table 5.7: Model Structural Properties for Kushiro Port Property Sheet Pile Wall: Type Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m2) Site C Site D FSPZ25 Pipe Pile 914.4 --- 16 3.824e-4 2.20e11 0.0236 4.804E-3 2.20e11 0.0460 Pipe Pile 400 FSP4 Front Anchor: Type Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E pcPa) Cross-Sectional Area (m) 9 --- 2.262e-4 1.00el1 0.0113 3.86e-4 2.20e11 0.0240 Pipe Pile 700mm ------- Back Anchor: Type Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Moment of Inertia, I (m4) Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Cross- Sectional Area (m2) 12mm 1.616e-3 1.00e 11 0.0264 Cable: Modulus of Elasticity, E (kPa) Radius (m) 5.4.3.3 1.00ell 0.10 _ __ 1.00e 11 1.0 Earthquake Motion The strong motion recording station included a surface and downhole seismograph array. The downhole record was recorded at a depth of 77 m. The depth to bedrock at the strong motion site was unknown, and assumed to be 77 m. The soil profile at Site C and Site D was unknown for depths greater than approximately 20 m, but because the strong motion site and wharf sites are in close proximity, the same profiles were used for depths exceeding 20 m. The soil profile at the strong motion site is shown in Figure 5.34. The 86 Density Elevo- Soil 1 SPT ( 1 /m3) tionfrn) Type N-volue 5 15 2.0 0 K) 203340 is. 36 In Groun. Surface 41.6 Seismograph 0- 1 i 5 r=--. i.. I0 r4. 11111 1111 oorse Sand 11 ine and 15 111 i. ravel ly 0 Sand Silt 30 Ali qualg 6., 40 11 Ii :...: .1 4 --qv - 45 - : M. - d. ....ili bud r 1 4 -70 Oownhole Seismograph .- 73. Figure 5.34: Soil Profile at the Kushiro Port Strong Motion Site (Iai et al., 1994) 87 recorded time histories are given in Figure 5.35 and Figure 5.36 for the surface and downhole array, respectively. It is evident from the North record at the surface, that at approximately 30 seconds, the predominant period of the ground motion increases. It has been noted by Iai et al. (1995) that this is probably due to the dilatancy behavior of the sandy soil. Regardless, the surface histories are unsatisfactory for use in the numerical model, therefore the downhole histories were used. The recorded downhole acceleration time histories were propagated through the soil to the depth of the model (26 and 32 m below the ground surface for Sites C and D, respectively) using SHAKE91. Because the orientations of Site C and Site D are almost identical, the same transformed time history was used for both sites. The transformed record is given in Figure 5.37 North 5.0 t7, 3.0 1.0 0 -1.0 -3.0 5.0 East 5.0 fi; 3.0 E 1.0 0 =7NIZ,1:1C:!, -1.0 -3.0 5.0 Vertical 5.0 3.0 1.0 19111.1i i i i -1.0 I, 1 ,1.1 1 71! I, ILL 771rril JJahl -3.0 5.0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (seconds) Figure 5.35: Earthquake Motions Recorded at the Ground Surface at Kushiro Port on January 15, 1993 60 88 North 5.0 a 3.0 1.0 e 1.0 -3.0 5.0 East 5.0 3.0 1.0 0 1.0 8 3.0 .0 5.0 Vertical 5.0 3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (seconds) Figure 5.36: Earthquake Motions Recorded at a depth of 77 meters at Kushiro Port on January 15, 1993 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 10 15 20 25 Time (seconds) Figure 5.37: Input Time History for Kushiro Port Site C and Site D 30 89 5.4.3.4 Results of Site C The deformed grid is shown in Figure 5.38. The calculated vertical and horizontal time displacements at the top of the wall are shown in Figure 5.39. The measured horizontal and vertical displacements at the top of the wall were approximately 0.6 and 0.4 m, respectively. The calculated horizontal and vertical displacements are 0.45 and 0.25 m, respectively. The post-liquefaction volumetric strain was negligible, due to limited pore pressure generation directly adjacent to the sheet pile wall. Figure 5.38: Kushiro Site C Deformed Grid (deformations to scale) 0.10 - Horizontal Displacement 0.00 Vertical Displacement A -0.10 i..- a A. -0.30 V. V -0.40 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 Time (seconds) Figure 5.39: Time Displacements for Kushiro Site C 25 30 90 5.4.3.5 Results of Site D The deformed grid is shown in Figure 5.40. There were no reported deformations at Site D, but it was noted that no damage was observed. The calculated horizontal and vertical time displacements are shown in Figure 5.41. The horizontal and vertical displacements were calculated as 0.070 and 0.085 m, respectively. The post-liquefaction volumetric strain was negligible, due to limited excess pore pressure generation in the improved backfill soils. Figure 5.40: Kushiro Site D Deformed Grid (deformations to scale) 0.01 0.00 Horizontal Displacement Vertical Displacement -0.01 -0.02 g -0.03 m -0.04 0 al -0.05 a o -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.10 0 5 10 15 20 Time (seconds) Figure 5.41: Time Displacements for Kushiro Site D 25 30 91 5.4.4 Discussion of Numerical Validation Results The results of the calculated permanent horizontal displacements at the top of the wall and the vertical displacements in the backfill adjacent to the sheet pile wall are tabulated in Table 5.8. Despite the numerical uncertainties and limitations noted in the previous sections, the calculated and measured results compare rather well. The calculated horizontal displacement for Akita Wharf 1 compares well with the measured value, and the calculated vertical displacement appears to be acceptable, even though there are no measured results. The horizontal and vertical displacements for Akita Wharf 2 fall within the range of measured values. The horizontal displacement for Ishinomaki compares well with the measured value, while the vertical displacement is over-predicted. The horizontal and vertical displacements for Kushiro Site C are both under-predicted, while the calculated displacements for Kushiro Site D are fairly well predicted. The horizontal displacements are on average under-predicted by approximately 23% (as compared to the average of the maximum and average measured displacements). The vertical displacements are on average under-predicted by approximately 29% (as compared to the average of the maximum and average measured displacements), except for Ishinomaki, which is largely over-predicted. Several possible reasons for the variations in the calculated and measured values include: 1) soil properties, the majority of which were determined from correlations with standard penetration test results, 2) constitutive model, which is Mohr-Coulomb based with the addition of a plastic flow rule, 3) input earthquake motion, which was determined using the simplified dynamic soil analysis program SHAKE91, and 4) pore pressure generation, which was a numerical variation on the simplified method develop by Seed and his co-workers. 92 There are uncertainties in the numerical model, but it is also noted that there are numerous uncertainties in the field case histories. There is also much variability in the lateral and vertical deformations observed in the field (maximum displacements were between 50 to over 100% greater than the average displacements), therefore the numerical model is judged to provide useful, representative results for the dynamic behavior of anchored sheet pile bulkheads. Due to the satisfactory modeling of the validation case histories, the numerical model was used to perform parametric studies on sheet pile bulkheads, as described in the following chapter. Table 5.8: Summary of Case Study Results Calculated Displacements (m) Measured ., Displacements (m) Horizontal Vertical* Horizontal Vertical Akita Wharf 1 0.03 0.06 0.05 not reported Akita Wharf 2 1.20 0.78 1.1 to 1.6 0.5 to 1.4 Ishinomaki Shiomi 0.60 0.30 0.60 to 1.16 0.1 Kushiro Site C 0.45 0.25 0.6 0.4 Kushiro Site D 0.07 0.09 no damage (-0.05) not reported the vertical displacements include post-liquefaction volumetric strain the range of measured displacements represent displacementaverage to displacement. 93 6 6.1 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SHEET PILE BULKHEADS INTRODUCTION After modeling the field case histories to calibrate the numerical model and evaluate uncertainties in the computed deformations, the project focused on an extensive parametric study using the calibrated model for anchored sheet pile bulkheads. The parametric study included several analyses on the effects of varying; 1) zone of soil improvement, 2) density of the backfill, 3) length of the tie rod, 4) stiffness of the sheet pile wall, 5) the depth of sheet pile embedment, and 6) characteristics of the earthquake motions. The study focused on walls designed using standard pseudo-static procedures for anchored sheet pile walls without pore pressure generation (Ebeling and Morrison, 1993). The walls were designed with heights ranging from 7.5 to 15 m, and horizontal seismic coefficients ranging from 0.1 to 0.16. In most cases, seismic coefficients in excess of 0.2 were not possible for the simplified walls with single anchor systems due to the impracticable section properties required of the sheet piles. The vertical seismic coefficient was assumed to be zero. The design followed the steps as outlined in Ebeling and Morrison (1993), and included a factor of safety of 1.2 applied to the passive resistance of the dredge soils in front of the sheet pile wall. Table 6.1 presents the results of the design for the bulkheads utilized in this study. The tie rod length was designed such that the active failure plane behind the wall does not intersect the passive failure plane in front of the anchor. The active and passive failure planes were assumed to originate at the base of the wall and anchor, respectively. The anchor was assumed to be a continuous sheet pile wall, with the same stiffness as the bulkhead wall, and the tie rod spacing was assumed to be two meters. The distance from the ground surface to the ground water table and the tie rod was assumed to be 27 percent of the wall height (I/), which is on average the elevation of the tie rod for many field bulkheads. 94 Table 6.1: Wall Height, H (m) 7.5 7.5 15.0 15.0 Bulkhead Properties for Parametric Study Anchor Embedment Coefficient, kh Depth of Embedment, D (m) 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.16 2.9 3.7 5.4 6.9 4.5 6.0 7.6 9.9 Horizontal Seismic (m) Tie Rod Length, A (m) Moment of Inertia, I (m) 4 16 3.45x10-5 7.43 x10-5 22 30 40 3.82x10 8.11x104 The foundation and backfill soils are both cohesionless materials, each layer modeled with uniform density (except for soil improvement zones within the backfill). The range of densities used can be correlated with stress corrected penetration resistances ((N1)60) of a) 25 blows/30 cm in the foundation soil, b) 10 to 25 blows/30 cm in unimproved backfill, and c) 30 blows/30 cm in improved backfill. The soil improvement was modeled as providing a uniform increase in soil density throughout the zone of treatment. This is a simplification of the actual pattern of densification and soil stiffness variations that would be expected from vibro-compaction, stone columns or other densification methods, however it adequately modeled the general soil density increase due to improvement. Five earthquake motions covering the magnitude range of engineering interest (M 6 to 8) were selected for the parametric study (Table 6.2). The selected acceleration time histories are slightly conservative in the sense that each one is characterized as having greater than average duration for that magnitude, thereby yielding slightly conservative displacement results. Each record was scaled to different maximum acceleration values ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 g. Plots of the unsealed records are provided in Appendix A. In order to account for the duration of the earthquake motions a normalized ground motion intensity parameter has been developed. This parameter is defined as the maximum horizontal acceleration within the backfill at the elevation of the dredge line (A max@dredge) divided by the appropriate magnitude scaling factor (MSF) given in Table 2.2. It is recommended that if a site specific seismic study is not performed to determine A max@dredge 5 that the peak ground surface acceleration be reduced using the reduction 95 factor (rd) developed for estimating the variation of cyclic shear stress (or acceleration) with depth (e.g., Seed and de Alba, 1983). The values of rd for 15 and 7.5 m walls are approximately 0.78 and 0.95, respectively. It should be noted that the reduction factor was developed using a linear one-dimensional dynamic soil response method and will only yield approximate acceleration values for the two-dimensional soil-structure interaction applications discussed herein. Table 6.2: Parametric Study Earthquake Motions Earthquake 1984 Morgan Hills EQ - Gilroy #4 1989 Loma Prieta EQ Capitola Fire Station 1989 Loma Prieta EQ Salinas 1992 Landers EQ - Joshua Tree Fire Station 1985 Michoacan Mexico EQ Moment Magnitude 6.0 6.9 6.9 7.4 8.1 Recorded (g) 0.22 0.40 0.11 0.27 0.39 Am Notable conditions in the parametric numerical models include: 1) no pore pressure generation in the foundation or improved backfill soils ((NI)60-30), 2) the soil improvement extends vertically to the base of the backfill (i.e. the dredge line elevation), and 3) the tie rod and water level are located at an elevation that is 27 percent of H from the top of the wall. Parametric studies were then formulated to examine the effects of varying several parameters when subjected to seismic motions. The parametric studies included the following (with results and discussions presented in the following sections and tabulated results in Appendix B): 96 1) depth of sheet pile embedment (Section 6.2), 2) tie rod length (Section 6.3), 3) sheet pile stiffness (Section 6.4), 4) density of the liquefiable backfill (Section 6.5), and 5) zone of soil improvement (Section 6.6). 6.2 DEPTH OF SHEET PILE EMBEDMENT A study was performed to determine the effect on the lateral displacements by varying the depth of embedment from the value determined using the 7.5 m bulkheads designed with a kh of 0.1. The depths of embedment were halved and doubled from the design value of 2.9 m, and the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall were monitored. The 1984 Morgan Hills Earthquake and the 1985 Mexico Earthquake were used. The entire backfill was modeled as improved, with (A/d60 values of 30 blows/30 cm. The monitored horizontal displacements for varying the depths of embedment are presented in Figure 6.1. The depth of embedment (D) is normalized by the depth of embedment calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe method (Dm_ 0) and the earthquake intensity at the dredge line has also been normalized by the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). Even though there are a limited number of data points, it is noted that for these specific cases, the depth of embedment has very little effect on the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall. 6.3 TIE ROD LENGTH A study was performed to determine the effect on the lateral displacements by varying the tie rod length from the value determined using the 7.5 m bulkheads designed with a kh of 0.1. The tie rod lengths were halved and doubled from the design value of 16 m, and the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall were monitored. The 1984 Morgan Hills Earthquake, 1992 Landers (Joshua Tree) Earthquake and the 1985 Mexico Earthquake were used. The entire backfill was modeled with (N 1)60 values of 30 blows/30 cm. 97 1.50 Earthquake (Amax@dredge/MSF) Morgan Hills (0.26) 1.25 Mexico (0.94) 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Normalized Depth of Embedment ( DID wo Figure 6.1: Top of Wall Displacements for the Depth of Embedment Study The monitored horizontal displacements for varying the tie rod length are presented in Figure 6.2. The tie rod length (A) is normalized by tie rod length calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe method (Am_0), as defined in Section 6.1. The earthquake intensity at the dredge line has been normalized by the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). Even though there are a limited number of data points, it is noted that for these specific cases, the tie rod length has a large effect on the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall. This is especially observed when the normalized tie rod length is less than 1.0. 6.4 SHEET PILE STIFFNESS A study was performed to determine the effect on the lateral displacements by varying the sheet pile stiffness (El) from the value determined using the 7.5 m bulkheads 98 1.50 Earthquake (Amax@dredge/MSF) Morgan Hills (0.29) 1.25 Joshua Tree (0.50) Mexico (0.94) 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Normalized Tie Rod Length ( A/A 2.0 2.5 ) Figure 6.2: Top of Wall Displacements for the Tie Rod Length Study designed with a kh of 0.1. The stiffness was halved and doubled from the design, and the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall were monitored. The 1984 Morgan Hills Earthquake and the 1985 Mexico Earthquake were used. The entire backfill was modeled as improved, with (Nj)60 values of 30 blows/30 cm for two sets of runs. For the other run (hollow diamonds in the figure) the backfill was modeled as partially improved to a normalized soil improvement value ( n = SI/(H+D) ) of 2.0, while the remaining backland had a (Nj)60 values of 10 blows/30 cm. The normalized soil improvement parameter is discussed in more detail in Section 6.6. The monitored horizontal displacements for varying the stiffness are presented in Figure 6.3. The stiffness (El) is normalized by the stiffness calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe method (E/m_o) and the earthquake intensity at the dredge line has also 99 been normalized by the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). Even though there are a limited number of data points, it is noted that for these specific cases, the sheet pile stiffness has a negligible effect on the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall. It should be noted that if the plastic moment of the sheet pile wall is exceeded, the deformations at the top of the wall will increase dramatically. 1.50 Earthquake, Wall Height, (Amax@dredge/MSF) Morgan Hills, H=7.5m (0.29) 1.25 o Morgan Hills, H=7.5m, n=2 (0.29) Mexico, H=7.5m (0.94) 1.00 0.75 0.50 6 8 0.5 1.0 8 0.25 0.00 0.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Normalized Stiffness ( El/EI m.o ) Figure 6.3: Top of Wall Displacements for the Sheet Pile Stiffness Study 6.5 PENETRATION RESISTANCE OF THE BACKFILL A study was performed to determine the effect on the lateral displacements by varying the normalized penetration resistance ((N/)60) of the backfill. The study utilized the 7.5 m bulkheads designed with a kh value of 0.1. The (N/)60 values were varied between 10 and 25 blows/30 cm, and the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall 100 were monitored. The 1984 Morgan Hills Earthquake, 1992 Landers (Joshua Tree) Earthquake and the 1985 Mexico Earthquake were used. The entire backfill was modeled as uniformly dense. The monitored horizontal displacements for varying the penetration resistance are presented in Figure 6.4. Even though there are a limited number of data points, it is noted that for these specific cases, the penetration resistance of the backfill has a large effect on the horizontal displacements at the top of the wall. An especially large increase is noted for the Morgan Hills record when the (Nj)60 values were less than 15 blows/30 cm. The analyses for the Joshua Tree and Mexico earthquakes with (Nj)60 values less than 15 and 20 blows/30 cm, respectively, experienced complete flow failures of the bulkheads and caused instability in the numerical models. 4.5 Earthquake (Amax@dredge/MSF) Morgan Hills (0.29) Joshua Tree (0.50) Mexico (0.94) 4.0 ........ E 35 g 3.0 E a) C 2.5 6 2.0 To o 1.5 N T-* 0 1. 0 0.5 0.0 5 10 15 20 Penetration Resistance (blows/30 cm) Figure 6.4: Top of Wall Displacements for the Penetration Resistance of the Backfill Study 25 30 101 6.6 SOIL IMPROVEMENT The largest parametric study was to determine the effect on the lateral displacements by varying the zone of soil improvement. The study utilized the 7.5 and 15 m bulkheads designed with kh values of 0.1 and 0.16. The standard penetration of the improved and backfill soils was 30 blows/30 cm, and 10 blows/30 cm, respectively. All five earthquake motions were used, with each one scaled to three different peak accelerations. A typical diagram of the soil improvement parameters is presented in Figure 6.5. The distance from the wall to the most landward portion of the improved soil region (SI) has been normalized by the total wall height (H+D). The resulting factor, n, is given as the normalized width of soil improvement (SI/(H+D)). The monitored horizontal displacements for varying n are presented in Figure 6.6. The data is plotted as ranges of normalized earthquake intensity because of the numerous data points with varying intensities. There is a definite trend noted in Figure 6.6 that as the amount of soil improvement decreases, the displacements increase. The scatter within each intensity range is due to the variations in the earthquake motions that were not accounted for in the normalized factor (i.e. frequency content). There is no distinction made in the plot between the different wall heights and different kh values due to the number of data Figure 6.5: Definition of Soil Improvement Variables 102 points. It should be noted that even without a distinction between different wall heights and designs, the scatter in the data for each range is quite small, given the wide range of earthquake motions used in the analyses. 1.6 Amax@dredge/MSF o 0.0 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 o 0.4 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 o0.8to1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0 0.2 9 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Normalized Soil Improvement, n ( S1/(H+D) ) Figure 6.6: Horizontal Displacments at the Top of the Wall for Variations in the Zone of Soil Improvement 6.7 COMPARISON OF THE PARAMETRIC STUDY WITH AN EXISTING DEFORMATIONBASED DESIGN METHOD The results of the parametric studies which included non-liquefiable soils (the entire backland was improved) can be compared to the design chart that has been proposed by Dennehy (1985) and Gazetas et al. (1990). The location of four points was determined using the method outlined in Gazetas et al. (1990). Figure 6.7 presents the comparison between the parametric study (for non-liquefiable soils) plotted as solid stars (with the 103 calculated displacements in parenthesis) and the design chart presented by Dennehy and Gazetas. One point (center-right) is the standard 7.5 m wall presented in Table 6.1. Two points (top-right and bottom-right) are from the parametric study varying the length of the tie rod anchor, and the last point (left-center) comes from the parametric study varying the depth of embedment. It is evident from Figure 6.7 that the computed deformations vary significantly at each data point, and that some of the plotted points have calculated displacements that both fit, and do not fit the proposed design chart (especially the point on the center-right). The variations in the displacement values for each of the plotted parametric study points can be attributed to variations in the earthquake motions. Larger earthquake motions produced larger displacements, whereas the method proposed by Dennehy and Gazetas does not directly include any earthquake motion parameters (intensity, frequency or duration). It is significant to note that many of the computed deformations that fall in Zone I (deformations approximately less than 10 cm) would be considered unacceptable by many port engineers for an operating or contingency level earthquake motion (Ferritto, 1997). A comparison can also be made between the parametric study on the depth of sheet pile embedment (Section 6.2) and the proposed chart by Dennehy and Gazetas. It was noted from the parametric study that the depth of embedment had very little effect on the performance of the bulkhead over the range of the modeled values, but the contour lines constructed by Dennehy and Gazetas show a clear variation in performance over the range of interest (EPI = 0.25 to 0.75). 6.8 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD The main objective of this research was the development of a new seismic design chart and recommendations for deformation-based design. In the development of a seismic design chart, the results of the parametric study have been synthesized into normalized parameters, where possible, to incorporate key variables into straightforward design parameters. For example, aspects of the wall geometry and sheet pile stiffness 104 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0.5 0 1 Embedment participation index (EPI) Figure 6.7: The Developed Seismic Design Chart (Gazetas et al., 1990), Including Data from the Parametric Study for Models with Improved Soils (solid stars) have been combined as into a flexibility factor, (EI /(H +D)5), where El is the stiffness of the wall, H is the height of the wall above the dredge line, and D is the depth of sheet pile embedment. The computed displacements at the top of the wall (La) have been combined with the flexibility factor and the buoyant unit weight of the soil adjacent to the wall (fl), to yield a deformation factor as follows; 105 AX EI (H +D)5 6.1 Yb The results of the parametric study are presented in Figure 6.8. The contour lines indicate various levels of earthquake intensity for backfill soils with blowcounts of 10 and 20 blows/30 cm. The effectiveness of soil improvement for minimizing bulkhead deformations is clearly demonstrated by the design chart. It is also noted that an incremental benefit of soil improvement beyond n values of approximately 2.0 decreases considerably. In comparison, the n values as determined from the PHRI (1997) recommendations for the parametric study sheet pile bulkhead geometries are approximately 1.9 to 2.5. There are fourteen case histories plotted on the chart, which are arranged according to the blowcounts of the backfill soils. The case history data is summarized in Table 6.3. It should be noted that seven case histories are closely predicted by the chart (within 10%), five case histories are significantly over-predicted 10%) and only two of the case histories are significantly under-predicted (5_ 10%). These results indicate that the design chart can be used as a conservative preliminary design chart or screening tool. The results of the study indicate that it would be very difficult to limit the deformations to 10 cm utilizing only densification methods of soil improvement for moderate to high earthquake motions (Amax ?_ 0.3g). In cases such as these, it may be necessary to consider other soil improvement techniques (e.g. grouting, soil mixing, etc.) or structural improvements to strengthen the wall and/or anchor systems. The chart has a relative error of approximately 30% for any of the calculated values, this is due to the variations in earthquake motion that are not accounted for (e.g. frequency) and other unknown wall behaviors. The value of 30% was determined from the results of the validation case histories and from the variation of values on the design chart that should be equal (e.g. normalized displacements for different wall heights). 106 0.014 I 1 1 0.012 1 Penetration Resistance of the Unimproved Backfill Soil: 0 510 (N1)60 (blows/30 cm) 0 0.010 0.008 1 Case History (N1)60 (blows/30 cm) _ - 10 20 15 20 -- ( 1 t 0.006 1 L % I 0.004 Ground Motion Intensity Factors ( Anwor.dg./MSF ) SIM 1 0.002 0.000 0 Ill 1 05 0I 3 01 4 6 5 Normalized Soil Improvement, n ( SW(H+D) ) 2 3 7 8 Figure 6.8: Design Chart for Lateral Displacements Table 6.3: Earthquake 1968 Tokachi-Oki 1993 Kushiro-Oki 1964 Niigita 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu 1968 Tokachi-Oki 1968 Tokachi-Oki 1968 Tokachi-Oki 1973 Nemuro-Hanto 1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki 1968 Tokachi-Oki 1983 Nihonkai -Chubu 1993 Kushiro-Oki 1993 Guam 1993 Kushiro-Oki Plotted Case History Validations (N d 60 6 6 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 30 19 Normalized Displacement AXE1/((H+D)511) 0.0120 0.0020 100 0.0031 110 to 160 16 to 57 12 to 19 30 30 87 to 116 0.0066 0.0090 0.0029 0.0077 A,,*,fredge/MSF Displacement (g) (cm) 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.26 0.09 0.16 0.18 12 to 23 0.21 -60 -5 50 to 70 61 no damage (-5) 0.0031 0.0129 0.0049 0.0006 0.0044 0.0019 0.0004 107 6.9 RECOMMENDATION DESIGN PROCEDURES The design chart is useful in estimating lateral deformations, but it is not recommended for use in specifying bulkhead properties (stiffness, depth of embedment, tie rod length, etc.). These should be specified by utilizing the current "standard of practice" design methods, as outlined in Chapter 4. The recommended procedures for utilizing the results of the parametric study to estimate the permanent displacement at the top of sheet pile walls include; 1) determine the wall specifications (H, D, EI, and anchor length), either through a new design or from an in-situ wall, 2) determine A,,,,@dredge with a site-specific seismic study or approximate with empirical soil amplification factors to yield the peak ground surface acceleration and the reduction factor (rd), 3) determine the magnitude scaling factor for the specified earthquake magnitude, and divide into Amax@dredge to yield the intensity factor, and 4) based on the standard penetration resistance of the backfill soils, the width of the ground treatment behind the sheet pile wall, and the ground motion intensity factor, enter Figure 6.8 and obtain the deformation factor. From this, the deformation at the top of the wall (dX) can be estimated. Using these recommended procedures it is possible for an engineer to determine the deformations of a new or in-situ wall. It is also possible to estimate the zone of soil improvement necessary to limit deformation to an acceptable limit. An example design problem is provided in the following section. 108 6.10 EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM This section provides the calculations involved in determining the extent of soil improvement necessary to limit wall deformations for a sheet pile bulkhead, using the developed design method from Section 6.8. The example bulkhead is shown in Figure 6.9, and was designed using the Mononobe-Okabe Method. The example problem was taken from Appendix C in The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures by Ebeling and Morrison (1993). The example wall was designed using the standard of practice Mononobe-Okabe design methods with a factor of safety of 1.5 applied to the passive earth pressure coefficient. This was a minimum design, no consideration was given for scour, dredging, corrosion or other design considerations. This example illustrates the use of Operating and Contingency Level earthquake motions that are likely for design in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay area. The Operating Level earthquake motion (OLE) is estimated as a magnitude 6.5 earthquake with peak ground accelerations of 0.25 g. The Contingency Level earthquake motion (CLE) is estimated as a magnitude 7.5 earthquake with peak ground accelerations of 0.45 g. The following design example uses both levels of earthquake motion to estimate the expected deformations for various extents of densification improved soil. improved soil = 19 kN/m3 (Ndso 15 blows/30 cm 9 kN/m3 backfill soil 7v1440'114k foundation soil sheet pile wall (PZ27) Figure 6.9: Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkhead Design Problem 109 The sheet pile wall values for a PZ27 section are: E = 2x1011 Pa I= 2.51x104 m4/m The wall height (H) is 9 m, and the wall depth (D) is 6 m. The soil buoyant unit weight (A) directly adjacent to the wall is 9000 N/m3. Substituting into the normalized lateral displacement factor (Equation 6.1) yields: AX EI AX (2 x 10" Pa). (2.51x10-4 m4/m) AX (H + D)5 7b (9 m + 6 m)5 (9000 N/m3) 136 The ground motion intensity factor is determined for the earthquake motions using Table 2.2 to determine the MSF and Figure 2.1 to determine rd, using the following equation: Amax@ dredge MSF Amax@ surface rd MSF The magnitude scaling factor values for both earthquake motions are tabulated in Table 6.4. Table 6.4: Magnitude Scaling Factors for Design Example A max@surface rd (at 9 m) A mar@d redge MSF A max*Iredge OLE 0.25 0.92 0.23 1.63 0.14 CLE 0.45 0.92 0.41 1.00 0.41 MSF 110 The normalized lateral displacement factor is then determined as a function of soil improvement (n) using Figure 6.8 for blowcounts of 15 and a maximum acceleration of 0.2 g, as provided in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: OLE CLE Lateral Displacements for Design Example Normalized Soil Improvement (n) Normalized Lateral Displacement (b) Lateral Displacement (8x 136) (m) Displacement (cm) 0 0.0050 0.68 68 1 0.0018 0.24 24 2 0.0007 0.10 10 3 0.0005 0.07 7 8 0.0004 0.05 5 0 0.0130 1.77 177 1 0.0041 0.56 56 2 0.0021 0.29 29 3 0.0018 0.24 24 8 0.0017 0.23 23 Lateral By plotting the values tabulated above, it is possible to develop a figure relating the extent of soil improvement to lateral displacements (Figure 6.10). It is interesting to note that for this example, it is impossible to limit the deformations to 5 cm for an OLE motion and 23 cm for a CLE motion, using only soil improvement techniques. Other forms of earthquake mitigation are necessary to limit earthquake-induced deformations to smaller values. The design tie rod length was 28 m, which is at the break in the curve in Figure 6.10. Improvement beyond this point has little effect on the earthquake-induced lateral displacements. It should also be noted that the example problem varied from the developed design method in that the tie rod and water elevations were not equal. 111 200 180 OLE motion CLE motion 160 E 140 E 120 (.3 as 100 c. 80 11' co 60 ea 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 Soil Improvement (m) Figure 6.10: Lateral Displacements for the Design Problem 100 120 112 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There have been numerous recent earthquakes, which have resulted in severe damage to many international ports. The damage has been due largely to the liquefaction of saturated, sandy soils. Waterfront structures, particularly anchored sheet pile bulkheads are very susceptible to liquefaction-induced damages. Due to the recent damage caused by liquefiable soils, many port authorities are instigating soil improvement programs to limit the generation of excess pore pressures during design level earthquakes. The case histories of liquefaction-damaged sheet pile bulkheads have highlighted the need for a simplified, performance-based design method. The "standard of practice" seismic design procedures for sheet pile wall involves using pseudo-static, limit-equilibrium methods, developed for rigid retaining walls. There are several recent modifications to the "standard of practice" design methods, but are very limited in their applicability to design. The method proposed by Dennehy (1985) and Gazetas et al. (1990) is performance-based, but is limited to non-liquefiable soils. The other recent additions to sheet pile design are limit-equilibrium based. A study that incorporates field performance and numerical modeling has been conducted using a validated numerical model, utilizing several empirical relationships developed for geotechnical earthquake parameters. The study involved determining the effects of varying several design parameters, including the depth of sheet pile embedment, tie rod length, sheet pile stiffness, penetration resistance of the backfill, extent of soil improvement, and ground motion characteristics. Charts were developed depicting the effect of varying these various parameters. A final design chart was developed utilizing the results from the study, and includes data from several case histories. There is some inherent scatter in the data due to the variability of the earthquake motions, but the design chart provides a reasonable method for estimating lateral deformations of sheet pile bulkheads with or without soil improvement. This design chart is applicable for the preliminary design of new bulkheads and as a screening tool for existing bulkheads. 113 This investigation has highlighted the following pertinent aspects of the seismic design and performance of anchored sheet pile walls; from a practical perspective, the "failure" of an anchored sheet pile bulkhead can be considered as corresponding to lateral deformations in the range of 10 cm to 20 cm, the factors of safety computed with "standard of practice" design methods are not adequately correlated with wall deformations to facilitate estimates of seismicallyinduced lateral displacements, in order to estimate the deformations of sheet pile walls, the intensity and duration of the earthquake, and potential pore pressure generation in the backfill and foundation soils must be evaluated, in light of the flexible nature of anchored sheet pile walls, lateral deformations should be anticipated even in competent, non-liquefiable soils subjected to moderate- to high-intensity ground motions. In relationship to the Navy guidelines proposed by Ferritto (1997) for sheet pile walls, it may be impossible to design a sheet pile bulkhead to stay within the recommended deformations utilizing only soil densification techniques, and a simplified method of estimating seismically induced lateral deformations for anchored sheet pile bulkheads in unimproved or improved soils has been proposed. Several recommendations for future work are also noted, including; studies to examine the effects of different tie rod elevations and other structural properties such as the anchor and tie rod stiffness, and different anchor configurations (such as single pile, deadman, or battered piles), studies that examine the effect of pore pressured dissipation, as well as generation, 114 studies that examine other bulkhead variables, such as liquefiable foundation soils, cohesive foundation soils, studies on the specific effects of various soil improvement strategies (e.g. vibrocompaction, soil mixing, deep dynamic compaction), and utilize scale-model testing (i.e. centrifuge) for validation with case history and numerical model studies. 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arango, I. 1996. "Magnitude Scaling Factors for Soil Liquefaction Evaluations." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 122, No 11. pp 929-936. Arbed. 1991. Practical Design of Sheet Pile Bulkheads. Trade-Arbed, Inc., Luxembourg. 96 p. Baez, J.I. and Martin, G.R. 1992. "Quantitative Evaluation of Stone Column Techniques for Earthquake Liquefaction Mitigation." Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp 1477-1483. Boulanger, R.W. and Seed, R.B. 1995. "Liquefaction of Sand Under Bidirectional Monotonic and Cyclic Loading." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 121, No 12. pp 870-878. CKPHB (City of Kobe Port and Harbor Bureau). 1997. Reconstruction and Restoration Works at Port of Kobe. Port and Harbor Bureau. Kobe, Japan. Dennehy, K.T. 1985. Seismic Vulnerability, Analysis and Design of Anchored Bulkheads. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 215 p. Dickenson, S.D., Ferritto, J., Kaldveer, P., and Soydemir, C. 1998. "Chapter 4, Seismic and Geologic Hazards." Seismic Guidelines for Ports. ASCE-TCLEE Monograph No. 12. S.D. Werner (ed.). 376 p. Dickenson, S.D. and Yang, D.S. "Seismically-Induced Deformations of Caisson Retaining Walls in Improved Soils." Proceedings from the 1998 ASCE Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference. ASCE. Seattle, WA. August 3-6. (in press). Ebeling, R.M. and Morrison, E.E. 1993. The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures. U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA. Technical Report ITL-92-11. NCEL TR-939. 329 p. Egan, J.A., Hayden, R.F., Scheibel, L.L., Otus, M., and Serventi, G.M. 1992. "Seismic Repair at Seventh Street Marine Terminal." Proceedings from GT Division/ASCE Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics. ASCE. New Orleans, LA. February 25-28. pp. 867-878. Ferritto, J. 1997. Seismic Design Criteria for Soil Liquefaction. Naval Facilities Engr. Service Center. Technical Report TR-2077-SHR. Port Hueneme, CA.58 p. 116 Gazetas, G., Dakoulas, P., and Dennehy, K. 1990. "Empirical Seismic Design Method for Waterfront Anchored Sheetpile Walls." Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication. No 25. pp 232-250. Hayden, R.F., and Boulanger, R.W. 1995. "Aspects of Compaction Grouting of Liquefiable Soil." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 121, No 12. pp 844-855. Iai, S., Tsuchida, H. and Finn, W.D Liam. 1985. "An Effective Stress Analysis of Liquefaction at Ishinomaki Port during the 1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki Earthquake." Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Vol 24, No 2. pp 3-83. Iai, S., and Kameoka, T. 1993 (March). "Finite Element Analysis of Earthquake Induced Damage to Anchored Sheet Pile Quay Walls." Soils and Foundations. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol 33, No 1. pp 71-91. Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T. , Sakurai , H., Oishi , H., Ogura , H., Ando , Y., Tanaka, Y., and Kato, M. 1994. "Effects of Remedial Measures against Liquefaction at 1993 Kushiro-Oki Earthquake." Proceedings of the Fifth US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Site Liquefaction. T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada (eds.). National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. NCEER-94-0026. Statue University of New York, Buffalo, NY. pp 135-152. Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K. 1995. "Response of a Dense Sand Deposit During 1993 Kushiro-Oki Earthquake." Soils and Foundations. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol 35, No 1. pp 115-131. Iai, S. and Ichii, K. 1997 (April). Personal Communication. Port and Harbor Research Institute, Japan. Idriss, I.M., and Sun, J.I. 1992. User's Manual for SHAKE91. Center for Geotechnical Modeling. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis. Imai, T., Fumoto, H. and Yokota, K. 1975. "Relations of Mechanical Properties of Soils to P and S wave Velocities in Japan." Proceedings of the Fourth Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium. pp 89-96. (in Japanese). Ishihara, K., and Yohimine, M. 1992. "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes." Soils and Foundations. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol 32, No 1. pp 173-188. 117 Itasca Consulting Group. 1995. User's Manual for FLAC, v. 3.3. Itasca. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Kitajima, S., and Uwabe, T. 1979. "Analysis on Seismic Damage in Anchored Sheetpiling Bulkheads." Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Vol 18, No 1. pp 67-130. (in Japanese). Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 653 p. Lee, M.K.W., and Finn, W.D.L. 1991. DESRA-2C: Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Applied Science. 34 p. Li, X.S., Wang, Z.L., and Shen, C.K. 1992. SUMDES: A Nonlinear Procedure for Response Analysis of Horizontally-Layered Sites Subjected to Multi-Directional Earthquake Shaking. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis. 81 p. Liao, S.S., and Whitman, R.V. 1986. "Overburden Correction Factors for Sand." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 112, No 3. March. pp 373-377. Marcuson, W.F., and Hynes, M.E. 1990. "Stability of Slopes and Embankments During Earthquakes." Proceedings of the ASCE/Penn. DOT Geotechnical Seminar. Hershey, Penn. April 10-11. Martin, G.R., Finn, W.D.L., and Seed, H.B. 1975. "Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 101, No GT5. May. pp 423-438. Mitchell, J.K., and Tseng, D. 1990. "Assessment of Liquefaction Potential by Cone Penetration Resistance." H Bolton Seed Memorial Proceedings. Editor J. Michael Duncan. BiTech Publishers, Ltd, Vancouver, BC. Vol 2. pp 335-350. Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H. 1929. "On the Determination of Earth Pressures During Earthquakes." Proceedings of the 9th World Engineering Conference. Neelakantan, G., Budhu, M., and Richards, R. Jr. 1992. "Balanced Seismic Design of Anchored Retaining Walls." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE. Vol 118, No 6. pp 873-888. Newmark, N. 1965. "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments." Geotechnique. Vol 15, No 2. pp 139-160. 118 Noda, S. Uwabe, T., and Chiba, T. 1975. "Relation between Seismic Coefficient and Ground Acceleration for Gravity Quaywall." Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Vol 14, No 4. pp 67-111. Nozu, A., Uwabe, T., Sato, Y. and Shinozawa, T. 1997. "Relation Between Seismic Coefficient and Peak Ground Acceleration Estimated from Attenuation Relation." Technical Note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Ministry of Transport, Japan. (in print). (in Japanese). Okabe, S. 1926. "General Theory of Earth Pressures." Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineering. Vol 12, No 1. PHRI (Port and Harbour Research Institute). 1993. Damage to Port Structures by the 1993 Kushiro-Oki Earthquake. Technical Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Ministry of Transport, Japan. December. No 766. 454 pp. (in Japanese). PHRI (Port and Harbour Research Institute). 1996. The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Research Council Report. Port and Harbour Research Institute. Ministry of Transport and the Third District Port Construction Bureau. Yokosuka, Japan. (in Japanese). PHRI (Port and Harbour Research Institute). 1997. Handbook on Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed Land. A.A. Balkema. Rotterdam, Netherlands. 312 p. Roth, W.H., Scott, R.F., and Cundall, P.A. 1986. "Nonlinear Dynamics Analysis of a Centrifuge Model Embankment." Proceedings of the 3rd U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Charleston, South Carolina. Roth, W.H., and Inel, S. 1993. "An Engineering Approach to the Analysis of VELACS Centrifuge Tests." Verifications of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems. Arulanandan and Scott (eds.). A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp 1209-1229. Rowe, P.W. 1952. "Anchored Sheet-Pile Walls." Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Paper No 5788. Vol 1, No 1. pp 27-70. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. 1972. SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response of Horizontally Layered Sites. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Report No. EERC/72-12. University of California, Berkeley. 88 p. Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R. 1970. "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads." ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. pp 103-147. Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P, and Lysmer, J. 1976 (April). "Pore-Pressure Changes During Soil Liquefaction." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 102, No GT4. pp 323-345. 119 Seed, H.B. 1979. "Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 105, No GT2. pp 201-255. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. 1982. Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph Series. Oakland, California.134 p. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung, R.M. 1985. "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol 111, No 12. Paper No 20215. pp 1425-1445. Seed, H.B., and De Alba, P. 1986. "Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Proceedings Insitu 1986. ASCE Special Publication. Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. 1990. "SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength." H. Bolton Seed Memorial Proceedings. Editor J. Michael Duncan. Vol 2. pp 351-376. Stark, T.D., and Mesri, G. 1992. "Undrained Shear Strength of Liquefied Sands for Stability Analysis." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE. Vol 118, No 11. pp 1727-1747. Stark, T.D., and Olson, S.M. 1995. "Liquefaction Resistance Using CPT and Field Case Histories." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol 121, No 12. pp 856869. Steedman, R.S., and Zeng, X. 1990. "The Seismic Response of Waterfront Retaining Walls." Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication. No 25. pp 872-886. Swan, S.W., and Harris, S.K. 1993. The Island of Guam Earthquake of August 8, 1993. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Technical Report NCEER-930017. September 30. State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Terzaghi, K. 1954 . "Ancored Bulkheads." Transaction of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 119. pp 1243-1324 Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Third edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 549 p. 120 Towhata, I., and Islam, Md. S. 1987 (December). "Prediction of Lateral Displacement of Anchored Bulkheads Induced by Seismic Liquefaction." Soils and Foundations. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol 27, No 4. pp 137-147. Towhata, I., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Sundarraj, K.P., and Vargas-Monge, W. 1996. "Dynamic Failures of Subsoils Observed in Waterfront Areas." Special Issue of Soils and Foundations. Japanese Geotechnical Society. pp 149-160. Ueda, S., Inatomi, T., Uwabe, T., Iai, S., Kazama, M., Matsunaga, Y., Hujimoto, T., Kikuchi, Y., Miyai, S., Sekiguchi, S., and Hujimoto, Y. 1993 (December). "Damage to Port Structures by the 1993 Kushiro-oki Earthquake." Technical Note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Ministry of Transport, Japan. No 766. (in Japanese). United States Steel. 1975. US Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1984. Geotechnical Investigations. EM 1110 -11804. Department of the Army. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Design of Sheet Pile Walls. EM 1110 -22504. Department of the Army. Vandani, S., Pyke, R., and Siriprusanen, U. 1994. "Liquefaction of Calcareous Sands and Lateral Spreading Experienced in Guam as a Result of the 1993 Guam Earthquake." Proceedings of the Fifth US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Site Liquefaction. T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada (eds.). National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. NCEER-94-0026. Statue University of New York, Buffalo, NY. pp 117-134. Werner, S.D., and Hung, S.J. 1982. Seismic Response of Port and Harbor Facilities. National Science Foundation. R-8122-5395. Agbabian Associates. El Segundo, California. 348 p. Werner, S.D. 1990. "Seismic Risks to Port and Harbor Facilities." Proceedings of the POLA Seismic Workshop on Seismic Engineering. R.D. Wittkop and G.R. Martin (eds.). Port of Los Angeles. San Pedro, CA. March 21-23. Werner, S.D. (ed.) 1998. Seismic Guidelines for Ports. ASCLE-TCLEE Monograph No 12. ASCLE-TCLEE Ports and Harbors Committee. 376 p. Westergaard, H. 1931. "Water Pressure on Dams During Earthquakes." Transactions of ASCE. Paper No 1835. pp 418-433. 121 Yasuda, S, Ishihara, K., Harada, K., and Shinkawa, N. 1996. "Effect of Soil Improvement on Ground Subsidence due to Liquefaction." Special Issue of Soils and Foundations on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake. Japanese Geotechnical Society. January. pp 99-107. Yoshida, I. et al. 1988. "Empirical Formulas of SPT Blow Counts for Gravely Soils." First International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 1. pp 381-387. 122 APPENDICES 123 APPENDIX A (EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS USED IN THE PARAMETRIC STUDY) 124 1984 Morgan Hill EQ- Gilroy #4 (Mw.0, Am ax.222g) 4 E 2 0 O 2 4 1989 Loma Prieta EQ - Captola Fire Station (Mw.9, Amax=-0.399) E 2 o 0 0 O 111111111111 iTIMIP,111111111,011111.1111 2 11E11 4 1989 Loma Prieta EQ - Salinas (Mw.9, Amax=-0.112) 0 -2 1992 Landers EQ - Joshua Tree Fire Station (Mw=7.4, Am ax).274) 1985 Michoacan Mexico EQ (Mw=8.1, Scaled to Amax.350g) I I rrirl T rip prrr RI g 0 'S 2 u a INN I 0 10 20 30 Time (seconds) 40 50 60 125 APPENDIX B (TABLE OF PARAMETRIC STUDY RESULTS) 126 g g 1Z E x .2 's 2 (7) _ 7-r, 2E 'c'o- ''36 11 12 01 .6; Ti SE o TI) cr .c .1 a 6 e Z En. (a I -a g a . ..:' . i E I. a. 2 Ed, 0 tu 3 E .. o '5 co E. 0 ct .2 c .- E ..1 'E aca = "a f, g 5a &' c 0 ...... E 0 I- 2 0. o - t .}! E' E. - .:- I" a 5 s' - 1 E.., 0E E 2 g e ,?, T, e .3) Ts. . e'° 'ci 3. :1:. o. - -6- g z it e O« m0 , .,3 is 5 " gTe -z rcr ot., 02 .,.., 2 5 r, a . r, . . 4. tu x 1- Z a) 2 .R. ..t.,.. :-. -.- °2 a I' "fp z u.0 p. cil lx LL c 12 0 'SI r." 2 ., E .2' ce 21 E ..?.. 0 i= 0 O. r, x X of El x -1 Variations is Depth of Embedment 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.52 0.26 72.8 5.8 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.29 0.37 1.4 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0005 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.52 0.26 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.32 0.40 1.4 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.52 0.26 72.8 1.5 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.31 0.38 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0036 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 1.5 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.64 0.82 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0074 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.61 0.80 -2.3 2.2 2.5 2.6 0.0033 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 5.8 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.59 0.78 -2.1 2.2 2.5 2.6 0.0009 Variations is Stiffness 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 15.9 1.73 30 10.4 6.0 0.34 0.42 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0009 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.31 0.28 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 15.9 6.90 30 10.4 6.0 0.30 0.37 -2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0033 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 1,73 30 10.4 8.1 0.63 0.85 -1.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.62 0.67 -2.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0034 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 6.90 30 10.4 8.1 0.62 0.75 -3.0 2.2 2.6 2.6 0.0067 15.0 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.44 0.22 142.0 5.4 30.0 19.12 30 10.4 6.0 0.43 0.54 8.4 13.0 7.9 8.7 0.0004 15.0 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.44 0.22 142.0 5.4 30.0 76.48 30 10.4 6.0 0.36 0.46 -9.4 13.0 8.2 8.7 0.0015 15.0 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.48 0.68 142.0 5.4 30.0 19.12 30 10.4 8.1 0.61 0.81 9.1 13.0 8.1 8.7 0.0006 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.30 0.59 0.29 20.2 2.9 15.9 1.73 10 10.4 6.0 0.35 0.40 1.0 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0010 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.30 0.59 0.29 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.34 0.37 1.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0018 7.5 0.10 Morgan 19 0.30 0.59 0.29 20.2 2.9 15.9 6.90 10 10,4 6.0 0.33 0.35 -1.7 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0036 Variations is Tie Rod Length 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.10 0.20 0.10 72.8 2.9 8.0 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.01 0.01 0.8 2.2 1.7 2.6 0.0001 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 8.0 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.48 0.44 -1.1 2.2 1.1 2.6 0.0026 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.22 0.28 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0012 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0_59 029 72.8 2.9 31.8 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.07 0.22 1.4 2.2 2.6 2.6 0.0004 7.5 0.10 Joshua all 027 0.52 0.50 72.8 2.9 8.0 3.45 30 10.4 7.4 0.69 0.60 1.4 2.2 2.7 2.6 0.0038 7.5 0.10 Joshua all 0.27 0.52 0.50 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 7.4 0.31 0.37 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 8.0 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 1.19 1.00 -1.5 2.2 2.5 2.6 0.0065 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.50 0.67 -2.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0028 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 31.8 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.13 0.51 -2.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0007 Variations in the Penet ation Resistance of the Backfill 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.0 0.30 0.59 0.29 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 7.2 6.0 3.50 1.79 3.2 2.2 1.6 2.6 0.0276 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.0 0.30 0.59 0.29 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 15 8.4 6.0 1.51 0.94 -1.5 2.2 1.8 2.6 0.0102 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.0 0.30 0.59 0.29 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 20 9.2 6.0 0.82 0.69 -2.1 2.2 1.8 2.6 0.0051 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.0 0.30 0.59 0.29 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 20 10.4 6.0 0.31 0.35 1.1 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.0 0.30 0.59 0.29 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 25 9.8 6.0 0.50 0.51 -1.9 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0029 7.5 0.10 Joshua 0.0 0.27 0.52 0.50 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 15 8.4 7.4 2.86 1.55 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.6 0.0194 7.5 0.10 Joshua 0.0 0.27 0.52 0.50 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 25 9.8 7.4 0.79 0.72 -2.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0045 7.5 0.10 Mexico 0.0 0.30 0.66 0.94 0.0 2.9 las 3.45 20 9.2 8.1 2.57 1.60 -1.5 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0159 7.5 0.10 Mexico 0.0 0.30 0.66 0.94 0.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 25 9.8 8.1 1.56 1.19 -2.2 2.2 1.8 2.6 0.0090 Variations in the Zone of Soil Improvement 15.0 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.10 0.15 0.07 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.0 0.05 0.06 4.7 13.0 5.4 8.7 0.0001 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.10 0.20 0.10 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.04 0.05 0.7 2.2 1.6 2.6 0.0002 15.0 0.10 Capitola 1.9 0.10 0.14 0.11 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.9 0.05 0.06 4.5 13.0 5.3 8.7 0.0001 15.0 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.05 0.08 0.11 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 0.02 0.02 3.9 13.0 4.8 8.7 0.0000 7.5 0.10 Salinas 0.8 0.11 0.16 0.12 8.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.36 0.28 -1.1 2.2 1.4 2.6 0.0020 7.5 0.10 Salinas 1.5 0.11 0.16 0.12 15.9 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.13 0.13 0.8 2.2 1.5 2.6 0.0007 7.5 0.10 Salinas 1.9 0.11 0.16 0.12 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.08 0.09 0.8 2.2 1.6 2.6 0.0004 7.5 0.16 Salinas 2.4 0.11 0.16 0.12 26.3 3.7 22.0 7.43 10 10.4 6.9 0.04 0.06 1.0 2.9 2.0 3.6 0.0004 7.5 0.10 Salinas 2.9 0.11 0.16 0.12 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.05 0.06 0.9 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0003 7.5 127 -s s 1 ci x u.. co -13 2 . :a' cra ra = cr ,z T., x ta 7,1 W "I .e a. 3 I' 4 3"a t E., m < a < N O E- !au 70 ,7%. .2. 8 2E ti 0 .,,, o Z g 1-4 ..i. E, C f. I' 1- 1 E -o e 17ii 'sa, th -a, to' E- T < 1:., 1 -is d W i ,' a 5 15' = 1- S m 0.10 Salinas all 0.11 0.16 0.12 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.9 0.05 0.06 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0002 15.0 0.10 Salinas 1.9 0.11 0.18 0.14 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.9 0.07 0.09 5.3 13.0 5.7 8.7 0.0002 15.0 0.16 Salinas 2.2 0.11 0.18 0.14 48.2 6.9 39.5 92.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.04 0.06 6.3 17.9 6.4 11.9 0.0001 15.0 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.22 0.33 0.16 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.0 0.25 0.28 6.8 13.0 6.4 8.7 0.0005 15.0 0.16 Morgan 2.2 0.22 0.33 0.16 48.2 6.9 39.5 92.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.17 0.22 8.1 17.9 7.5 11.9 0.0006 15.0 0.10 Capitols 1.9 0.20 0.28 0.21 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.9 0.23 0.23 6.2 13.0 6.3 8.7 0.0005 7.5 0.10 Morgan 0.8 0.22 0.43 0.22 8.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.74 0.58 -1.6 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.0041 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.5 0.22 0.43 0.22 15.9 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.30 0.31 -1.1 2.2 1.6 2.6 0.0016 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.22 0.43 0.22 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.20 0.23 1.0 2.2 1.7 2.6 0.0011 7.5 0.16 Morgan 2.4 0.22 0.43 0.22 26.3 3.7 22.0 7.43 10 10.4 6.0 0.15 0.19 -1.3 2.9 2.0 3.6 0.0012 7.5 0.10 Morgan 2.9 0.22 0.43 0.22 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.15 0.18 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0008 0.10 Morgan all 0.22 0.43 0.22 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.14 0.18 1.1 2.2 2.1 2.6 0.0008 15.0 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.30 0.44 0.22 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.0 0.42 0.48 7.5 13.0 6.6 8.7 0.0009 15.0 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.10 0.16 0.23 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 0.10 0.10 5.6 13.0 6.1 8.7 0.0002 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.30 0.59 0.29 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.34 0.37 1.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.0018 7.5 0.10 Morgan all 0.30 0.59 0.29 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.0 0.22 0.28 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0012 15.0 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.40 0.59 0.29 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.0 0.66 0.75 8.0 13.0 7.1 8.7 0.0014 7.5 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.10 0.22 0.31 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 0.12 0.13 0.9 2.2 1.7 2.6 0.0007 7.5 0.10 Mexico 2.9 0.10 0.22 0.31 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 0.07 0.09 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0004 15.0 0.10 Capitola 1.9 0.30 0.43 0.32 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.9 0.42 0.44 7.2 13.0 6.9 8.7 0.0009 15.0 0.10 Joshua 1.9 0.27 0.35 0.33 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 7.4 0.67 0.68 8.3 13.0 7.5 8.7 0.0014 15.0 0.16 Joshua 2.2 0.27 0.35 0.33 48.2 6.9 39.5 92.45 10 10.4 7.4 0.44 0.51 -11.0 17.9 7.8 11.9 0.0016 7.5 0.10 Morgan 1.9 0.40 0.78 0.39 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.0 0.51 0.56 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.6 0.0028 15.0 0.10 Capitols 1.9 0.40 0.57 0.43 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 6.9 0.62 0.66 7.7 13.0 7.1 8.7 0.0013 15.0 0.16 Capitola 2.2 0.40 0.57 0.43 48.2 6.9 39.5 92.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.48 0.56 -10.1 17.9 7.9 11.9 15.0 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.20 0.32 0.45 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 0.41 0.43 7.9 13.0 7.3 8.7 0.0009 7.5 0.10 Joshua 1.5 0.27 0.52 0.50 15.9 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 7.4 0.73 0.69 -1.7 2.2 1.5 2.6 0.0040 7.5 0.10 Joshua 1.9 0.27 0.52 0.50 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 7.4 0.52 0.52 -1.5 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0028 7.5 0.16 Joshua 2.4 0.27 0.52 0.50 26.3 3.7 22.0 7.43 10 10.4 7.4 0.38 0.43 -2.2 2.9 1.9 3.6 0.0031 7.5 0.10 Joshua 2.9 0.27 0.52 0.50 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 7.4 0.36 0.39 -1.3 2.2 2.2 2.6 0.0019 7.5 0.10 Joshua all 0.27 0.52 0.50 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 7.4 0.31 0.37 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0017 7.5 0.10 Capitols 0.8 0.40 0.76 0.58 8.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 1.39 1.10 -1.9 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.0076 7.5 0.10 Capitols 1.5 0.40 0.76 0.58 15.9 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.72 0.72 -1.6 2.2 1.5 2.6 0.0039 7.5 0.10 Capitola 1.9 0.40 0.76 0.58 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.57 0.60 -1.3 2.2 2.1 2.6 0.0031 7.5 0.16 Capitola 2.4 0.40 0.76 0.58 26.3 3.7 22.0 7.43 10 10.4 6.9 0.46 0.53 -2.2 2.9 1.7 3.6 0.0038 7.5 0.10 Capitola 2.9 0.40 0.76 0.58 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 6.9 0.47 0.52 -1.3 2.2 2.1 2.6 0.0026 7.5 0.10 Capitols all 0.40 0.76 0.58 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 6.9 0.45 0.52 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0024 7.5 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.20 0.44 0.62 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 0.49 0.51 -1.5 2.2 2.1 2.6 0.0027 15.0 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.30 0.48 0.68 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 0.79 0.87 -9.0 13.0 7.4 8.7 0.0017 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.35 0.56 0.79 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 0.96 1.08 -10.4 13.0 7.4 8.7 0.0020 15.0 0.16 Mexico 2.2 0.35 0.56 0.79 48.2 6.9 39.5 92.45 10 10.4 8.1 0.70 0.84 -15.5 17.9 8.2 11.9 15.0 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.40 0.64 0.91 38.7 5.4 30.0 38.24 10 10.4 8.1 1.14 1.30 -11.6 13.0 7.4 81 0.0024 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.30 0.66 0.94 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.50 0.67 -2.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.0028 7.5 0.10 Mexico 0.8 0.35 0.77 1.09 8.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 3.60 2.09 -1.4 2.2 1.5 2.6 0.0197 7.5 0.10 Mexico 1.5 0.35 0.77 1.09 15.9 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 1.49 1.37 -2.7 2.2 1.5 2.6 0.0081 7.5 0.10 Mexico 1.9 0.35 0.77 1.09 20.2 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 1.07 1.12 -2.5 2.2 2.1 2.6 0.0059 7.5 0.16 Mexico 2.4 0.35 0.77 1.09 26.3 3.7 22.0 7.43 10 10.4 8.1 0.87 0.96 -3.3 2.9 1.8 3.6 0.0071 7.5 0.10 Mexico 2.9 0.35 0.77 1.09 30.0 2.9 15.9 3.45 10 10.4 8.1 0.83 0.95 -2.7 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0045 7.5 0.10 Mexico all 0.35 0.77 1.09 72.8 2.9 15.9 3.45 30 10.4 8.1 0.61 0.80 -2.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0033 7.5 7.5 15.0 0.0017 0.0025