Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 1059–1071 | Cite as

Numerical investigation into the effects of geometrical and loading parameters on lateral spreading behavior of liquefied layer

Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Numerical simulation of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in gently sloped sandy layers requires fully coupled dynamic hydro-mechanical analysis of saturated sandy soil subjected to seismic loading. In this study, a fully coupled finite element model utilizing a critical-state two-surface-plasticity constitutive model has been applied to numerically investigate the effects of surface/subsurface geometry on lateral spreading. Using a variable permeability function with respect to excess pore pressure ratio is another distinctive feature of the current study. The developed code has been verified against the results of the well-known VELACS project. Lateral spreading phenomenon has been the focus of an extensive parametric study using the developed code. Numerical modeling of three different geometrical forms of surface and subsurface of liquefiable layer indicates that the amount and direction of lateral spreading are noticeably affected by the geometrical conditions. Also, parametric studies by the developed numerical model show that the effects of layer height, maximum ground acceleration, and loading frequency on the level of lateral spreading are significantly different for the examined geometrical condition.

Keywords

Liquefaction Lateral spread Parametric study Variable permeability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrianpolous K, Papadimitriou A, Bouckovalas G (2007) Use of a new bounding surface model for the analysis of earthquake-induced liquefaction phenomena. In: 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessoloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arulanandan K, Sybico J (1992) Post-liquefaction settlement of sand. In: Proceeding of the wroth memorial symposium. Oxford University, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arulanandan K, Scott RF (1994) Verification of numerical procedure for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems. In: Proceeding of international conference, vols 1 and 2. Davis, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balakrishnan A (2000) Liquefaction remediation at a bridge site, PhD dissertation. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardet JP, Davis CA (1996) Performance of San Fernando Dams during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. J Geotech Eng ASCE 122(7):554–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baziar MH, Ghorbani A (2005) Evaluation of lateral spreading using artificial neural networks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biot MA (1941) General theory of three dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12(2):155–164CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan D, Morgenstern N (1988) SAGE: A finite element program for stress analysis in geotechnical engineering, program user manual. Geotechnical Group. The University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dafalias YF, Manzari MT (2004) Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. J Eng Mech 130(6):622–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dafalias YF (1993) “Overview of constitutive model used in VELACS”. In: Arulanandan K, Scott RF (eds) Verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems, vol 2. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E (2002) Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post liquefaction site response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(4):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finn WDL, Yogendrakumar M, Yoshida N, Yoshida H (1986) TARA-3: a program to computer to compute the response of 2-D embankment and soil-structure interaction system to seismic loadings. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia SR, Romo MP, Botero E (2008) A neurofuzzy system to analyze liquefaction-induced lateral spread. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(2008):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghassemi A, Pak A (2011) Pore scale study of permeability and tortuosity for flow through particulate media using lattice Boltzmann method. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 35(8):886–901CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haigh SK (2002) Effects of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading on pile foundations in sloping ground. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamada M (1999) Similitude law for liquefied-ground flow. In: Proceedings of the 7th US–Japan workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures against soil liquefaction, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamada M, Isoyama R, Wakamatsu K (1996) Liquefaction-induced ground displacement and its related damage to lifeline facilities. Soils Found, special issue on geotechnical aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp 81–97Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ishihara K, Yasuda S, Nagase H (1996) Soil characteristics and ground damage. Soils Found, special issue on geotechnical aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp 109–118Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jafarzadeh F, Yanagisawa E (1996) Settlement of sand models under unidirectional shaking. In: Ishihara K (ed) First international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, IS-Tokyo, pp 693–698Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khalili A (2002) Prediction of lateral displacement due to liquefaction by using neurofuzzy system. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kokusho T, Watanabe K, Sawano T (1998) Effect of water film on lateral flow failure of liquefied sand. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on earthquake engineering. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manzari MT, Dafalias YF (1997) A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands. Geotechnique 47(2):255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayoral JM, Flores FA, Romo MP (2009) A simplified numerical approach for lateral spreading evaluation. Geophys Int 48(4):391–405Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McWorter DB, Sunada DK (1977) Groundwater Hydrology and hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, Ft. CollinsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Research Council (1985) Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. Report No. CETS-EE-001, Committee on Earthquake Engineering. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on embankments and dams. Géotechnique 15(2):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pak A (1997) Numerical modeling of hydraulic fracturing. PhD Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prevost JH (1981) DYNAFLOW: a nonlinear transient finite element analysis program. Princeton University, Department of Civil Engineering, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rahmani A (2009) Dynamic analysis of pile foundations embedded in liquefiable soils. MSc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shahir H (2001) Dynamic analysis of saturated porous media for numerical simulation of liquefaction. MSc Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shahir H, Pak A, Taiebat M, Jeremic B (2012) Evaluation of variation of permeability in liquefiable soil under earthquake loading. Comput Geotech 40:74–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sharp MK (1999) Development of centrifuge based prediction charts for liquefaction and lateral spreading from cone penetration testing, Ph.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 10Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Su D, Li X, Xing F (2009) Estimation of the apparent permeability in the dynamic centrifuge tests. Geotech Test J 32(1) Paper ID GTJ100972Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taboada V (1995) Centrifuge modeling of earthquake-induced lateral spreading in sand using a laminar box. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NYGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taboada V, Dobry R (1998) Centrifuge modeling of earthquake-induced lateral spreading in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 124(12):1195–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taiebat M (2003) Application of a critical state two-surface plasticity model for numerical simulation of soil liquefaction with a fully coupled approach. MSc Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taiebat M, Shahir H, Pak A (2007) Study of pore pressure variation during liquefaction using two constitutive models for sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Towhata I, Toyota H, Vargas WM (1996) A transient study on lateral flow on liquefied ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on landslides, Trondheim, Norway. A. A. Balkema, The Netherlands, pp 1047–1054Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Towhata I, Orense RP, Toyota H (1999) Mathematical principles in prediction of lateral ground displacement induced by seismic liquefaction. Soils Found 39(2):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Valsamis A, Bouckovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG (2010) Parametric investigation of lateral spreading of gently sloping liquefied ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:490–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang Z (2000) Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation and liquefaction. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Graduate School of Arts and Science, Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yegian MK, Marciano EA, Gharaman VG (1991) Earthquake-induced permanent deformation: probabilistic approach. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Youd TL, Kiehl SJ (1996) Ground deformation characteristics caused by lateral spreading during the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake. In: Hamada M, Rourke TDO (eds) Proceedings of the 6th US Japan workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures for soil liquefaction, NCEER, pp 221–242Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zienkiewics OC, Chang CT, Hinton E (1978) Non-linear seismic response and liquefaction. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 2:381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zienkiewicz OC, Shiomi T (1984) Dynamic behavior of saturated porous media; the generalized Biot formulation and its numerical solution. Int J Numer Method Eng 8:71–96CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Civil Engineering DepartmentQazvin Islamic Azad UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations