Đăng ký Đăng nhập
Trang chủ Giáo án - Bài giảng Giáo án điện tử Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics v slope stability and land...

Tài liệu Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics v slope stability and landslides, laboratory testing, and in situ testin

.PDF
538
80
80

Mô tả:

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V Slope Stability and Landslides, Laboratory Testing, and In Situ Testing GSP 293 Papers from Sessions of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V EDITED BY Austin, Texas June 10–13, 2018 Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E. Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 293 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS V SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDES, LABORATORY TESTING, AND IN SITU TESTING SELECTED PAPERS FROM SESSIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS V June 10–13, 2018 Austin, Texas SPONSORED BY Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E. Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382 www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by locating a title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481486 Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-8148-6 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Preface Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. This volume is one of four Geotechnical Special Publications (GSPs) containing papers from the Fifth Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference: (GEESDV) held in Austin, Texas during June 10–13, 2018. The GEESDV is the latest event in a series of highly successful conferences held in Sacramento CA (2008), Seattle WA (1998), Park City UT (1988), and Pasadena CA (1978). The conference is organized by the Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Technical Committee of the Geo-Institute (G-I) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and brings together practicing geo-professionals, researchers, and students from around the world to share the latest advances, engineering applications, and pedagogical approaches in this discipline. This Geotechnical Special Publication is the outcome of two years of concerted efforts by the conference lead organizers and the members of the “technical program” and “proceedings” committees. All submitted papers were reviewed and accepted by at least two independent peer-reviewers. The final accepted technical papers are organized in the following special publications:     Volume 1: Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation Volume 2: Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthquake Ground Motions, and RegionalScale Assessment Volume 3: Numerical Modeling and Soil Structure Interaction Volume 4: Slope Stability and Landslides, Laboratory Testing, and In Situ Testing The Editors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the members of the technical program and proceedings committees as well as the session chairs and reviewers. The Editors, Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE Acknowledgments The organizing committee would like to thank the authors, reviewers, session chairs, ASCE staff, and OmniPress staff, without whom this publication would not be possible. GEESDV Conference Program Committee Conference Chair Ellen M. Rathje, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, University of Texas at Austin © ASCE iii Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Conference Co-Chair Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Virginia Tech Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Technical Program Chair Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of California Los Angeles Proceedings Chair Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE, George Washington University Technical Program Committee Shideh Dashti, Ph.D, AM.ASCE, University of Colorado at Boulder Ramin Motamed, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Nevada, Reno Scott M. Olson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Illinois Brady R. Cox, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE, University of Texas Proceedings Committee Tong Qiu, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Pennsylvania State University Namasivayam (Sathi) Sathialingam, Ph.D, P.E., G.E., D.GE., F.ASCE, Fugro Consultants, Inc. Mahdi Taiebat, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of British Columbia Short Course / Student Programs Co-Chairs Dimitrios Zekkos, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Michigan Christopher E. Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., M.ASCE, Geosyntec Consultants Student and Younger Member Activities Chair Menzer Pehlivan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, CH2M Sponsorships and Exhibits Chair Thaleia Travasarou, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., M.ASCE, Consultant GEESDV Topics and Session Chairs Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation Katerina Ziotopoulou, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of California, Davis Shideh Dashti, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Colorado at Boulder Brett Maurer, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Washington Mourad Zeghal, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Laurie G. Baise, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Tufts University Kevin W. Franke, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Brigham Young University Arash Khosravifar, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Portland State University © ASCE iv Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Soil Structure Interaction Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D., A,M.ASCE, University of California, Irvine Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Oregon State University Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Ground Motion and Site Response Dong Youp Kwak, Ph.D., RMS James Kaklamanos, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Merrimack College Albert R. Kottke, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Pacific Gas and Electric Ramin Motamed, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Nevada, Reno Regional Scale Assessment of GeoHazards Qiushi Chen, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Clemson University Seismic Hazard Assessment Sebastiano Foti, Ph.D., Politecnico di Torino Recent Advances In Situ Site Characterization Thaleia Travasarou, Ph.D., G.E., M.ASCE, Fugro Consultants, Inc. Seismic Slope Stability and Landslides Jennifer Donahue, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, JL Donahue Engineering, Inc. Jack Montgomery, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Auburn University Recent Advances in Numerical Modeling Giuseppe Buscarnera, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE, Northwestern University Mahdi Taiebat, Ph.D., P.Eng, M.ASCE, University of British Columbia Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE, The George Washington University Usama S. El Shamy, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Southern Methodist University Recent Advances in Laboratory Testing Inthuorn Sasanakul, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of South Carolina Brad P. Wham, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Colorado Scott M. Olson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Illinois, Urbana Mark Stringer, Ph.D., M.ASCE, University of Canterbury © ASCE v Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Contents Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Slope Stability and Landslides Acceleration Response of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment under Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................................1 Yewei Zheng, John S. McCartney, Patrick J. Fox, and P. Benson Shing Bridge Foundation Pinning Resistance Implied by Equivalent Static Analysis Procedure for Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading ..........................................10 Christopher R. McGann Cloud-Based Tools for the Probabilistic Assessment of the Seismic Performance of Slopes .................................................................................................................19 Gökhan Saygili, Ellen M. Rathje, Yubing Wang, and Mahmoud El-Kishky Development of a Seismic Risk Screening Tool for Earthen Embankments .........................27 Jennifer L. Donahue, Zahra A. Amini, Christopher E. Hunt, Glenn J. Rix, and David R. Umberg Dynamic Numerical Evaluation of the Effect of the Retained Tailings on the Performance of a Tailings Impoundment ...........................................................................37 Guillaume Léveillé and Michael James Effect of Local Site Condition on the Seismic Stability of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.............................................................................................................................46 Anindya Pain, V. S. Ramakrishna Annapareddy, and Shantanu Sarkar Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of a Class I Landfill ..................................................56 Glenn J. Rix, Robert C. Bachus, Chris Conkle, and Mark Schultheis Numerical Simulations of the Fourth Avenue Landslide Considering Strain-Softening ...........................................................................................................................67 Michael Kiernan and Jack Montgomery Seismic Stability Analysis of Soil Slopes Using Soil Nails ........................................................79 Pankaj Rawat and Kaustav Chatterjee SEM-Based Seismic Slope Stability and Mitigation Model for the Jure Landslide after the 7.8Mw 2015 Barpak-Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake ..................................88 N. P. Bhandary, R. C. Tiwari, R. Yatabe, and S. Paudel The Takanodai Landslide, Kumamoto, Japan: Insights from Post-Earthquake Field Observations, Laboratory Tests, and Numerical Analyses ............................................98 Gabriele Chiaro, Mohammed Umar, Takashi Kiyota, and Christopher Massey © ASCE vi Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Laboratory Testing Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. A Critique of b-Values Used for Computing Magnitude Scaling Factors ............................112 Kristin J. Ulmer, Sneha Upadhyaya, Russell A. Green, Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Peter J. Stafford, Julian J. Bommer, and Jan van Elk Comparing Shear Response of Dense Sands from Centrifuge and Direct Simple Shear Tests with Published Correlations .................................................................................122 Lopamudra Bhaumik, Alfonso A. Cerna-Diaz, Ozgun A. Numanoglu, Scott M. Olson, Cassandra J. Rutherford, Youssef M. A. Hashash, and Thomas Weaver Comparison of Cyclic Triaxial Test Results on Sand-Rubber Tire Shred Mixtures with Dynamic Simple Shear Test Results................................................................132 B. R. Madhusudhan, A. Boominathan, and Subhadeep Banerjee Comparison of Measured Cyclic Resistance of Sand in Simple Shear Tests under Constant Volume versus Constant Total Vertical Stress Conditions ........................141 Chadi El Mohtar, Yuta Nakamura, and Wing Shun Kwan Comparisons in the Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Response of Two Sands from Christchurch, New Zealand ......................................................................................................150 Claudio Cappellaro, Misko Cubrinovski, Jonathan D. Bray, Gabriele Chiaro, Michael F. Riemer, and Mark E. Stringer Cyclic Behavior at Small Shear Deformations of Non-Liquefiable Sand Ground Obtained from Horizontal 1-D and 2-D E-Defense Tests ........................................160 Kentaro Tabata and Masayoshi Sato Cyclic Behavior of Low-Plasticity Fine-Grained Soils with Varying Pore-Fluid Salinity .....................................................................................................................171 Mohammad M. Eslami, Scott J. Brandenberg, and Jonathan P. Stewart Cyclic Strength of Ottawa F-65 Sand: Laboratory Testing and Constitutive Model Calibration ......................................................................................................................180 Katerina Ziotopoulou, Jack Montgomery, Ana Maria Parra Bastidas, and Brian Morales Dynamic Failure Potential of Partially Saturated Sand under Ultra-Low Confining Pressures ...................................................................................................................190 Oliver-Denzil S. Taylor, Katherine E. Winters, Woodman W. Berry, and Merissa L. Zuzulock Dynamic Response of Model Footing on Reinforced Sand ....................................................199 Raghvendra Sahu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman, and G. V. Ramana © ASCE vii Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Effect of High Initial Effective Confining Stress on the Mechanical Response of Natural Silt ............................................................................................................208 Priyesh Verma and Dharma Wijewickreme Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Effect of Pore Fluid on Cyclic Behaviour of Reconstituted Marine Clay .............................219 Swagatika Senapati, Subhadeep Banerjee, and T. Thyagaraj Effects of Ageing on the Shear Modulus Degradation Curve of Loose Fraser River Sand ......................................................................................................................228 Ilaibibakam W. Omunguye, John A. Howie, and Mark A. Styler Effects of Confining Pressure and Void Ratio on the Maximum Shear Modulus of Natural Pumiceous Soils .......................................................................................238 M. B. Asadi, M. S. Asadi, R. P. Orense, and M. J. Pender Effects of Multi-Directional and Repeated Loading on Cyclic Resistance of Fraser River Sand ..................................................................................................................247 Stephen Jones and Abouzar Sadrekarimi Experimental Study of Strain Dependent Shear Modulus of Ottawa Sand .............................................................................................................................................257 Kaveh H. Zehtab, Seda Gokyer, Artur Apostolov, W. Allen Marr, and Salim K. Werden Experimental Study of the Injectability and Effectiveness of Laponite Mixtures as Liquefaction Mitigation Technique.....................................................................267 Lucia Mele, Alessandro Flora, Stefania Lirer, Anna d’Onofrio, and Emilio Bilotta Hazard-Resilient Pipeline Joint Soil-Structure Interaction under Large Axial Displacement .........................................................................................................276 Brad P. Wham, Blake A. Berger, Chalermpat Pariya-Ekkasut, and Thomas D. O’Rourke Importance of Automatization on Dry Funnel Deposited Specimens for Liquefaction Testing ............................................................................................................286 M. Murat Monkul, Şenay Yenigün, and Ece Eseller-Bayat Initial Observations on Laboratory Shear Loading Response of Sand-Silt Mixtures .....................................................................................................................296 Achala Soysa and Dharma Wijewickreme Laboratory Study of Sands Reinforced with Polypropylene Fibers .....................................307 H. Li, K. Senetakis, and A. Khoshghalb Liquefaction Potential of Sand with Non-Plastic Fines with the Same Depositional Energy ...................................................................................................................319 Yolanda Alberto and Ikuo Towhata © ASCE viii Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Modification of Stokoe-Type Resonant Column and Torsional Shear Testing Device for Measurements at Higher Strains ..............................................................326 Inthuorn Sasanakul, Yoon Shin Bae, and James Bay Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless Soils..............................................................................................................................................336 Carmine P. Polito and Henry H. M. Moldenhauer Post-Cyclic Behavior of a Gulf of Mexico Clay .......................................................................345 Vashish Taukoor, Cassandra J. Rutherford, and Scott M. Olson Processing, Visualization, and Analysis of Direct Simple Shear Test Data Using Jupyter Notebooks in the DesignSafe Cyberinfrastructure ........................................357 Mohammad M. Eslami, Ai Zhong, and Scott J. Brandenberg Shear Strength Characteristics of Internal Bentonite Layer of Needle-Punched GCL Used in Small Earth Dams under Cyclic Loading ............................365 R. Shigemoto, Y. Sawada, R. Maki, and T. Kawabata The Relation between Static Young’s Modulus and Dynamic Bulk Modulus of Granular Materials and the Role of Stress History ...........................................373 Amin Gheibi and Ahmadreza Hedayat Twenty-Four Centrifuge Tests to Quantify Sensitivity of Lateral Spreading to Dr and PGA .........................................................................................................383 Bruce L. Kutter, Trevor J. Carey, Bao Li Zheng, Andreas Gavras, Nicholas Stone, Mourad Zeghal, Tarek Abdoun, Evangelia Korre, Majid Manzari, Gopal S. P. Madabhushi, Stuart Haigh, Srikanth S. C. Madabhushi, Mitsu Okamura, Asri Nurani Sjafuddin, Sandra Escoffier, Dong-Soo Kim, Seong-Nam Kim, Jeong-Gon Ha, Tetsuo Tobita, Hikaru Yatsugi, Kyohei Ueda, Ruben R. Vargas, Wen-Yi Hung, Ting-Wei Liao, Yan-Guo Zhou, and Kai Liu Undisturbed Sampling of Pumiceous Deposits in New Zealand ............................................394 M. E. Stringer, R. P. Orense, M. J. Pender, and I. Haycock In Situ Site Characterization Bayesian Estimation of Nonlinear Soil Model Parameters Using Centrifuge Experimental Data..................................................................................................404 Elnaz Esmaeilzadeh Seylabi, Hamed Ebrahimian, Wenyang Zhang, Domniki Asimaki, and Ertugrul Taciroglu Determination of Shear Strength Parameters Using Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) ..........................................................................................................................414 S. Yasin Mirjafari, Rolando P. Orense, and Naoaki Suemasa © ASCE ix Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Downhole Seismic Testing within Existing Steel Cased Sonic Boreholes .....................................................................................................................................423 Viji Fernando, Yannick Wittwer, Rob Luzitano, and Trevor Fitzell Evaluating Compaction Quality during Earth Dam Construction Using Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave .....................................................................432 Sheng-Huoo Ni, Wen-Jong Chang, Yu-Zhang Yang, and En-Shuo Fan Experiments Using a UAV-Deployed Impulsive Source for Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Testing ...................................................................443 William W. Greenwood, Hao Zhou, Dimitrios Zekkos, and Jerome P. Lynch In Situ Testing for Evaluation of Modulus Reduction and Damping of Municipal Solid Waste at a Hazardous Waste Landfill .....................................................452 Neven Matasovic, Dimitrios Zekkos, Andhika Sahadewa, and Clinton P. Carlson Machine Learning Applications for Site Characterization Based on CPT Data ...............................................................................................................................461 Dimitra Tsiaousi, Thaleia Travasarou, Vasilis Drosos, Jose Ugalde, and Jacob Chacko Measured and Predicted VS Values of a Granular Backfill Test Pad ...................................473 Kenneth H. Stokoe II, Sungmoon Hwang, Michael Boone, Michael R. Lewis, Yaning Wang, Matthew F. Cooke, and Andrew Keene Probabilistic Geotechnical Site Characterization from Geophysical Measurements Using Model-Data Fusion................................................................................489 Siddharth S. Parida, Kallol Sett, and Puneet Singla Robust Earthquake Site Characterization at Ontario Bridge Sites ......................................499 A. Bilson Darko, S. Molnar, and A. Sadrekarimi Selecting Moduli Reduction and Damping Curves Based on Cone Penetration Test Soil Behaviour Type .....................................................................................509 Mark A. Styler, John Rogie, and Ilmar Weemees Site Characterization of TexNet Seismic Stations Using Different Geophysical Approaches ...........................................................................................................518 Alexandros Savvaidis, Ellen Rathje, Brady Cox, Zalachoris George, Tiwari Ayushi, Michael Yust, and Bissett Young © ASCE x Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Acceleration Response of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment under Dynamic Loading Yewei Zheng, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; John S. McCartney, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2; Patrick J. Fox, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE3; and P. Benson Shing, Ph.D., M.ASCE4 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 1 Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Associate Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Shaw Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [email protected] 4 Professor and Chair, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents results from dynamic testing of a half-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) bridge abutment using a shaking table, with the goal of understanding the acceleration response of the backfill soil, bridge seat, and bridge beam under dynamic loading. The GRS bridge abutment model was constructed using modular facing blocks, well-graded angular sand backfill, and uniaxial geogrid reinforcement in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. A series of input motions was applied to the GRS bridge abutment system in the direction longitudinal to the bridge beam. The horizontal accelerations increase with elevation in the reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone. The average peak acceleration of the reinforced soil zone is slightly greater than the calculated value from the current design guidelines, indicating that the guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative. The acceleration response spectrum for the bridge beam indicates a slight attenuation compared with that of the bridge seat, likely due to the isolation effect of an elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge beam and bridge seat. INTRODUCTION Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) bridge abutments are widely used in transportation infrastructure. However, the performance of this technology in high seismicity areas like California is uncertain due to the complex interactions between the reinforced soil mass, the bridge seat, and the bridge beam that provides a confining effect but adds inertial effects. Due to a prior lack of experimental data on the seismic response of these structures, the existing design guidelines are still preliminary and are primarily based on observations for GRS walls. Experimental and numerical studies have been conducted on the response of GRS bridge abutments for static loading conditions (Abu-Hejleh et al. 2002; Wu et al. 2001, 2006; Helwany et al. 2003, 2007; Zheng and Fox 2016, 2017; Saghebfar et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2018). However, fewer studies have investigated the response of GRS bridge abutments for dynamic loading conditions. Helwany et al. (2012) performed shaking table tests on a 3.6 m-high GRS bridge abutment subjected to a series of horizontal sinusoidal motions with increasing amplitude in the longitudinal direction. No damage was observed for horizontal accelerations up to 0.67g at which time several bottom blocks near the corners had minor cracks, and the abutment remained functional with more damage to the bottom corner blocks when the horizontal acceleration was further increased to 1.0g. Zheng et al. (2017) reported results from shaking table tests on a 2.7 m- © ASCE 1 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 high half-scale GRS bridge abutment for shaking in the longitudinal direction, and observed relatively small residual deformations after earthquake motions with peak horizontal accelerations (PHA) of 0.31g and 0.40g. Although these experimental studies indicate that GRS bridge abutments may have satisfactory performance regarding deformations under dynamic loading, it is necessary to further evaluate the potential acceleration amplification in these systems. The acceleration response in the GRS bridge abutment is important because, during an earthquake, the retained fill exerts a dynamic thrust on the reinforced soil zone and the reinforced soil zone is subjected to an inertial force, which should be adequately accounted for in the external and internal stability evaluation. To address this need, this paper presents results and analysis on the acceleration response from shaking table tests on a GRS bridge abutment previous reported by Zheng et al. (2017). SHAKING TABLE TESTS The shaking table test was conducted using the indoor shaking table at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Powell Structural Laboratory. Considering the size and payload capacity of the shaking table, a length scaling factor of  = 2 was selected, defined as the ratio of prototype length to model length. In this study, the similitude relationships proposed by Iai (1989) were used for the half-scale shaking table tests. The model geometry, geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness, backfill soil modulus, bridge surcharge stress, and characteristics of the earthquake motions were scaled accordingly. Model Configuration The shaking table test configuration for the GRS bridge abutment system is shown in Zheng et al. (2017). The GRS bridge abutment was constructed on the shaking table and had modular block facing on three sides, including a front wall facing perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and two side wall facings perpendicular to the transverse direction. The back of the GRS bridge abutment was supported by a rigid reaction wall consisting of a steel frame with plywood face. The bridge beam was placed on a bridge seat that rested on the GRS bridge abutment at one end and on a concrete support wall that rested on a sliding platform at the other end. The bottom of the concrete support wall was rigidly connected to the shaking table using steel connection beams to transmit motions from the shaking table. The shaking table test represents the case where the ground beneath the bridge abutment is relatively rigid and transmits the rock motions directly to the GRS bridge abutment without amplification. A top view diagram and cross-sectional view diagrams in the longitudinal and transverse directions for the GRS bridge abutment model are shown in Figure 1. The GRS bridge abutment has a total height of 2.7 m, consisting of a 2.1 m-high lower GRS wall and a 0.6 m-high upper wall, resting on a 0.15 m-thick foundation soil layer. The lower GRS wall was constructed in fourteen 0.15 m-thick soil lifts. Each 0.15 m-thick lift includes one layer of longitudinal reinforcement and two layers of transverse reinforcements. The longitudinal reinforcement layers are frictionally connected to the front wall facing and extend 1.47 m into the backfill soil, and the transverse reinforcement layers are frictionally connected to each side wall facing and extend 0.8 m into the backfill soil (meet but not connected in the center). The transverse reinforcement layers and side wall facing blocks are offset by 25 mm vertically from the longitudinal reinforcement layers and front wall facing blocks to avoid direct contact between longitudinal and transverse geogrid layers and maintain interaction between the geogrid and backfill soil. © ASCE 2 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Figure 1. GRS bridge abutment model: (a) top view; (b) longitudinal cross-sectional view (showing locations of the accelerometers); (c) transverse cross-sectional view. The bridge seat rests on top of the backfill soil for the lower GRS wall and has a setback distance of 0.15 m from each of the three wall facings. Elastomeric bearing pads with a thickness of 25 mm were placed under both ends of the bridge beam. The bridge superstructures (i.e., bridge beam and additional dead weights) have a total weight of 98 kN, which produces an average vertical stress of 121 kPa on the bridge seat top surface. The average applied vertical stress on the backfill soil from the bridge seat bottom surface is 66 kPa, which corresponds to a prototype vertical stress of 132 kPa and is in the typical range for GRS bridge abutments in the field (Adams et al. 2011). © ASCE 3 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 4 0.4 Original Scaled 0.3 Acceleration (g) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 Peak = 0.31g -0.4 0 5 10 15 20 Time (s) 25 30 35 40 Figure 2. Acceleration time histories of the original record and scaled motion for the 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake (El Centro station). Material Properties The backfill soil is a well-graded sand and has a relatively flat compaction curve. The target soil compaction conditions for construction of the GRS bridge abutment model were gravimetric water content of 5% and relative density of Dr = 70%. The target relative density was selected to meet the similitude relationships and to obtain reproducible densities using a vibrating plate compactor. The details of the selection of target compaction conditions are discussed in Zheng (2017). The dry backfill sand at Dr = 70% has a peak friction angle of 51.3° and zero cohesion according to results from triaxial compression tests. The geosynthetic reinforcement is a uniaxial high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid (Tensar LH800). The geogrid has secant stiffness at 5% strain J5% = 380 kN/m and ultimate strength Tult = 38 kN/m in the machine direction, and J5% = 80 kN/m and Tult = 4 kN/m in the cross-machine direction. The tensile stiffness of this geogrid corresponds to a value of 1520 kN/m for the prototype geogrid (scaling factor = 4), which is typically used for field structures. The geogrid reinforcement layer was placed between the facing blocks. Fiberglass pins were inserted through the geogrid apertures to assist with block alignment and are not expected to enhance the block-geogrid connection, which was essentially frictional. Instrumentation and Input Motions The instrumentation locations are shown in Figures 1(b) and 1(c). Horizontal coordinate x is measured toward the south side from the back of the front wall in the longitudinal centerline section (Figure 1b), horizontal coordinate yw is measured toward the east from the west side wall facing in the transverse section (Figure 1c), and vertical coordinate z is measured upward from the top surface of the foundation soil. Accelerometers were placed within the reinforced soil zone (x = 0.48 m) and retained soil zone (x = 1.67 m) and attached on the wall facing and structures to measure horizontal accelerations for the longitudinal centerline section, as shown in Figure 1(b). Accelerations toward the north (see orientations in Figure 1) are defined as positive. A series of white noise and earthquake motions were applied to the GRS bridge abutment system in the longitudinal direction. The earthquake motions were scaled according to the similitude relationships of Iai (1989), in which the frequencies were scaled down by a factor of 2 while the acceleration amplitude remains the same. Although several earthquake motions were applied to © ASCE Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 5 Horizontal Acceleration (g) Reinforced soil zone 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 z = 0.975 m z = 0.075 m 0 4 8 12 16 Time (s) 20 24 Retained soil zone 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 0.6 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 z = 1.875 m 28 z = 1.875 m z = 0.975 m z = 0.075 m 0 4 8 12 16 Time (s) 20 24 28 Figure 3. Acceleration time histories in the reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone. 2.0 1.5 Elevation, z (m) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. this model, this paper focuses on the acceleration response of the GRS bridge abutment subjected to the 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake (El Centro station). The original record and scaled motion applied to the model are shown in Figure 2. The actual shaking table response for this test reproduced the major characteristics of the target scaled motion and had a PHA of 0.40g, which is larger than the target value of 0.31g. 1.0 0.5 Wall facing Reinforced soil zone Retained soil zone 0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Peak Acceleration Amplification Ratio 1.6 Figure 4. Peak acceleration amplification ratio profiles in the GRS bridge abutment. TEST RESULTS Horizontal acceleration time histories at selected elevations in the reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone for the longitudinal centerline section are shown in Figure 3. Data show that the horizontal accelerations in the backfill soil increase with elevation in both the reinforced and retained soil zones, and indicate acceleration amplification toward the top of the GRS bridge abutment. The magnitudes of acceleration at the same elevations in the reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone are similar. The peak accelerations at the top (z = 1.875 m) of the GRS bridge © ASCE 6 abutment are 0.58g and 0.57g for the reinforced and retained soil zones, respectively. The peak acceleration amplification profiles for the wall facing, reinforced soil zone, and retained soil zone, normalized by the actual peak acceleration of the shaking table (0.40g), are shown in Figure 4. Results indicate that the peak accelerations increase with elevation for all three sections. The amplification ratios for the wall facing are larger than for the reinforced and retained soil zones, which is likely due to the lower confinement for the facing blocks compared to the reinforced and retained soil zones. The height average peak accelerations are 0.47g and 0.46g for the reinforced and retained soil zones, respectively, corresponding to amplification ratios of 1.18 and 1.16. The slightly greater value for the reinforced soil zone could be due to the greater confinement by the bridge load. 2.5 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Shaking table z = 0.075 m - reinforced soil zone z = 0.975 m - reinforced soil zone z = 1.875 m - reinforced soil zone 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 0.1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) Figure 5. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping) in the reinforced soil zone. During an earthquake, the reinforced soil zone is subjected to an inertial force, which should be accounted for in the external and internal stability evaluation. In the seismic design guidelines (The Reinforced Earth Company 1995; AASHTO 2012), the average peak acceleration for the active portion of the reinforced soil zone is Am = (1.45 - A)*A, where A is the PHA (0.40g for this test). The measured average peak acceleration of 0.47g for the reinforced soil zone is slightly greater than the calculated value of 0.42g according to the design guidelines, which indicates that the design guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative. The acceleration response spectra (5% damping) at different elevations in the reinforced soil zone are shown in Figure 5. The acceleration response spectrum at the bottom (z = 0.075 m) of the GRS bridge abutment is essentially the same as that from the shaking table motion. However, the motion was significantly amplified at the mid-height (z = 0.975 m) and the top (z = 1.875 m) of the abutment, especially in the frequency range around 7 Hz. This further indicates the acceleration amplification in the reinforced soil zone. Time histories of horizontal acceleration for the bridge seat and bridge beam are shown in Figure 6. The bridge seat had a peak acceleration of 0.63g, while the bridge beam had a smaller peak acceleration of 0.53g, which correspond to peak acceleration amplification ratios of 1.58 and 1.33, respectively. The bridge seat is typically treated as a gravity retaining wall for external stability evaluation in the seismic design. Accelerations for the bridge seat and bridge beam are assumed to be the same as the PHA in the seismic design guidelines recommended by the Reinforced Earth Company (1995) due to limited information. However, results from this study indicate that the peak accelerations for the bridge seat and bridge beam are greater than the PHA © ASCE Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 7 due to significant acceleration amplification in the reinforced soil zone (Figures 4 and 5). 0.8 Horizontal Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 Peak = 0.53g -0.6 -0.8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Time (s) Figure 6. Acceleration time histories for the bridge seat and bridge beam. 2.5 Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Bridge seat Bridge beam Peak = 0.63g 0.6 Shaking table Bridge seat Bridge beam 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 0.1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) Figure 7. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping) for the bridge seat and bridge beam. The acceleration response spectra for the bridge seat and bridge beam are shown in Figure 7. The response spectrum for the bridge seat is similar to that observed for the top of the GRS bridge abutment (z = 1.875 m in Figure 5). However, the response spectrum for the bridge beam indicates a slight attenuation compared with the bridge seat but still shows strong amplification in the frequency range around 4 Hz. This may be attributed to the isolation effect of the elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge seat and bridge beam and indicate that the elastomeric bearing pad might attenuate the motion transmitted from the bridge seat. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents results of acceleration response from a shaking table test on a half-scale GRS bridge abutment with modular block facing. The GRS bridge abutment was constructed using well-graded backfill sand and uniaxial geogrid reinforcement in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. A series of scaled earthquake motions were applied to the GRS bridge abutment system in the longitudinal direction. Experimental results indicate that the horizontal © ASCE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 accelerations in the backfill soil increase with elevation in both the reinforced and retained soil zones. The measured average peak acceleration of 0.47g for the reinforced soil zone is slightly greater than the value of 0.42g calculated from current design guidelines, which indicates that these design guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative. The peak accelerations for the bridge seat and bridge beam are greater than the PHA due to significant acceleration amplification in the reinforced soil zone. The response spectrum for the bridge beam indicates a slight attenuation compared with that of the bridge seat, which is likely due to the isolation effect of the elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge seat and bridge beam. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this study was provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Project 65A0556 and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pooled Fund Project 1892AEA, and is gratefully acknowledged. The first author appreciates funding from the GSI Fellowship provided by the Geosynthetic Institute. The authors thank Dr. Charles Sikorsky and Ms. Kathryn Griswell of the Caltrans for their support and assistance with the project. The authors also thank the staff and undergraduate research assistants at the UCSD Powell Structural Laboratories for their help with the experimental work. The geogrid materials used in this study were provided by Tensar International Corporation. REFERENCES AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 6th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Abu-Hejleh, N., Zornberg, J.G., Wang, T., and Watcharamonthein, J. (2002). “Monitored displacements of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 9, No. 1, 71–95. Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J., Schlatter, W., and Hartmann, J. (2011). “Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system synthesis report.” FHWA-HRT-11-027, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C. Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Froessl, B. (2003). “GRS bridge abutments – An effective means to alleviate bridge approach settlement.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 21, No. 3, 177–196. Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Kitsabunnarat, A. (2007). “Simulating the behavior of GRS bridge abutments.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 10, 1229–1240. Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Meinholz, P. (2012). Seismic Design of GeosyntheticReinforced Soil Bridge Abutments with Modular Block Facing. NCHRP Web-Only Document 187, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., U.S. Iai, S. (1989). “Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid models in 1 g gravitational fields.” Soils and Foundations, 29(1), 105–118. Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., and Chen, Q. (2017). “Performance monitoring of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) in Louisiana.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 45, No. 2, 34–47. The Reinforced Earth Company. (1995). “Seismic design of reinforced earth retaining walls and bridge abutments.” Technical Bulletin MSE 9. Wu, J.T.H., Ketchart, K., and Adams, M. (2001). “GRS bridge piers and abutments.” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-038, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C. © ASCE 8 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293 Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Helwany, S.B., and Ketchart, K. (2006). “Design and construction guidelines for geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments with a flexible facing.” NCHRP Report 556, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Zheng, Y. (2017). Numerical simulations and shaking table tests of geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. Zheng, Y., and Fox, P.J. (2016). “Numerical investigation of geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments under static loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001452, 04016004. Zheng, Y., and Fox, P.J. (2017). “Numerical investigation of the geosynthetic reinforced soilintegrated bridge system under static loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001665, 04017008. Zheng, Y., Fox, P.J., and McCartney, J.S. “Numerical simulation of deformation and failure behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (in press). Zheng, Y., Sander, A.C., Rong, W., Fox, P.J., Shing, P.B., and McCartney, J.S. (2017). “Shaking table test of a half-scale geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutment.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20160268. © ASCE 9
- Xem thêm -

Tài liệu liên quan

thumb
Văn hóa anh mỹ...
200
20326
146