28
NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND REAL SCALE MODEL TESTS: LG0 - SG1 By Student: Marcelo Gonzalez Professor: Tarek Abdoun Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute August 20 th , 2007

NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to

Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading

COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND REAL SCALE MODEL TESTS:

LG0 - SG1By

Student: Marcelo GonzalezProfessor: Tarek Abdoun

Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteAugust 20th, 2007

Page 2: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Table of Contents

BUFFALO REAL SCALE

Water, 1 cpK= 1E-2 cm/secDR = 55%

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. SIMULATION OF LG0

1.1 Model configuration, soil properties, Instrumentation and centrifuge model preparation.

1.2 Input acceleration.1.3 Time History responses.1.4 Stress – Strain responses.

2. SIMULATION OF LG0

2.1 Model configuration, soil properties, Instrumentation and centrifuge model preparation.

2.2 Input acceleration.2.3 Time History responses and profiles of the data.2.4 Stress – Strain responses.

3. DISCUSSION

Page 3: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

SIMULATIONLG0

BUFFALO REAL SCALE

Water, 1 cpK= 1E-2 cm/secDR = 55%

SIMULATION OF LG0

Page 4: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Soil Properties and InstrumentationLG0

0102030405060708090

100

0.01 0.1 1

Particle size, mm

% S

oil

pa

ss

ing

RPI F55

BUFFALO F55

D50 = 0.258 mmD10 = 0.155 mmFC = 0.1%e min = 0.608e max = 0.800Gs = 2.665K = 1 x 10-2 cm/sec, 40%DR

(Gonzalez M., 2006)

Page 5: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Model ConfigurationLG0

Pore PressureLVDT Accelerometer X Accelerometer Y

0 cm

21.5 cm (5.38 m)

19 cm (4.75 m)

14 cm (3.50 m)

6.0 cm (1.50 m)

LeftRight

7.5 cm (1.88 m)

High Speed Camera

Page 6: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Model PreparationLG0

BUFFALO REAL SCALE

sand

Latex Membrane

acelerometer

Dry sand pluviation method

Ottawa sand

Outer chamber

(vacuum = 100 kPa)

Outer

(100 kPa)

Latex Membrane

acelerometer

Model Saturation System

Ottawa sand

Chamber Vacuum Inner (90 kPa)

Page 7: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Input AccelerationLG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

TIME CONSIDERED IN THE ANALISIS

Page 8: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Acceleration in the ringsLG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

ACR5

ACR4

ACR3

ACR2

ACR1

Page 9: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Acceleration in the soilLG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

ACCR5

ACCR4

ACCR3

ACCR2

ACCR1

Page 10: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Excess Pore Water PressureLG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

PWC5,PWU3

PWC4, PWD2

PWC3, PWU2

PWC2, PWD1

PWC1, PWU1

Page 11: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Excess Pore Water Pressure Dissipation

LG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

PWC5,PWU3

PWC4, PWD2

PWC3, PWU2

PWC2, PWD1

PWC1, PWU1

Page 12: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilLG0

INPUT ACCELERATION

LVR5

LVR4

LVR3

LVR2

LVR1

0 5 10 15 20 25-3-2-10123

LVR2, depth 4.75m poln3x, depth 4.57m pols3x, depth 4.57m

0 5 10 15 20 25-3-2-10123

LVR3, depth 3.50m poln8x, depth 3.35m pols8x, depth 3.35m

0 5 10 15 20 25-3

-2-1

0

12

3

Horizontal Displacement

Ho

rizo

nta

l Dis

pla

cem

en

t, m

m

LVR4, depth 1.88m poln13x, depth 1.83m pols13x, depth 1.83m

Page 13: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Stress – Strain LoopsLG0

0-12sec

GSI 1.0

Strain – Stress LoopsCalculated by considering Soil Accelerometers and Inertia of the ring correction

Page 14: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Shear Wave VelocityLG0

Centrifuge University of Buffalo

No ring inertia effect No degradation effect

No ring inertia effect No degradation effect

A. Elmekati, 2007 A. Elmekati, 2007

Page 15: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

SIMULATIONSG1

SIMULATION OF SG1

Page 16: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Strain – Stress LoopsLG0

The same configuration and preparation method than LG0 was used to create SG1.

The only difference was the inclination angle.

Model inclination angle = 2 degrees

Prototype inclination angle = 5 degrees

Page 17: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Input AccelerationSG1

Page 18: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Acceleration in the ringsSG1

2.25m, ACR4

5.38m, ACR1

4.75m, ACR2

3.50m, ACR3

1.50m, ACR5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Page 19: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Acceleration in the soilSG1

2.25m, ACCR4

5.38m, ACCR1

4.75m, ACCR2

3.50m, ACCR3

1.50m, ACCR5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Page 20: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Excess Pore Water PressureSG1

2.25m, PWC4

5.38m, PWC1

4.75m, PWC2

3.50m, PWC3

1.50m, PWC5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Page 21: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilSG1

2.25m, LVR4

5.38m, LVR1

4.75m, LVR2

3.50m, LVR3

1.50m, LVR5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Page 22: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilSG1

2.25m, LVR4

5.38m, LVR1

4.75m, LVR2

3.50m, LVR3

1.50m, LVR5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Event1 (E1): Between 5.30 and 5.6 secEvent2 (E2): Between 5.75 and 6.0 secEvent3 (E3): Between 6.20 and 7.3 secEvent4 (E4): Between 25.0 and 30.0 sec

E1E2

E3

Page 23: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilSG1

2.25m, LVR4

5.38m, LVR1

4.75m, LVR2

3.50m, LVR3

1.50m, LVR5

INPUT ACCELERATION

Event1 (E1): Between 5.30 and 5.6 secEvent2 (E2): Between 5.75 and 6.0 secEvent3 (E3): Between 6.20 and 7.3 secEvent4 (E4): Between 25.0 and 30.0 sec

E4

Page 24: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilSG1

Page 25: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Lateral Displacement in the soilSG1

4sec 5.5sec 6sec 27sec

Page 26: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Stress – Strain LoopsSG1

GSI 1.0

Strain – Stress LoopsCalculated by considering Soil Accelerometers and Inertia of the ring correction

SAANO RING CORRECTION

Page 27: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Results: Shear Wave VelocitySG1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 50 100 150 200

Vs (m/s)

De

pth

(m

)

centrifuge University of Buffalo

A.Elmekati, 2007

Page 28: NEES-Pile: Experimental and Computational Study of Pile Foundations Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRIFUGE AND

Discusion SG1

Thank you