Ralph Rollins, performed geotechnical investigations for over 5000 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ralph Rollins, performed geotechnical investigations for over 5000 structures

I took Soil Mechanics class from my Father

Rachel Rollins is a Civil Engineering student

Rachel took Soil Mechanics class from her Father

Granddaughter, Ella, shows early interest in soil behavior…

Post-Earthquake Geotechnical Reconnaissance Studies Kyle Rollins Civil & Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University

EERI Learning From Earthquakes

GEER Team Members in Chile

Travel in Japan after Fukushima failure

Carried Geiger

counter

Radiation less than

would be received if we stayed in US

Earthquake Interrupts Earthquake Briefing

Process of Investigation

Coordinate/Collaborate with local

engineers/researchers

1st

st st wave: Initial overview of areas of interest

by advance team

2nd

nd nd wave: Follow-up with second wave to

provide more detailed examination of key sites

3rd

rd rd wave: Measurement of soil properties in

key areas [Vs, SPT (N1)

1 60 60 6 , CPT qc, c Ic, etc.]

Understand the Seismo-Tectonic Setting

Magnitude Fault type (Strike-slip, Normal, thrust,

Subduction)

Distribution of acceleration stations and

measured peak accelerations

Tectonic Setting

Nazca Plate

• moving under

South America Plate

13 Earthquakes

• >7.0 since 1973

M9.5 in 1960

• largest on record

M = 8.8 Chile Earthquake

Large Magnitude Subduction Zone Event Long Duration of Shaking (often > 60 s) Well-Designed Earth Systems Shaken Many Opportunities to Gain Knowledge

Hospital in Curico R. Boroschek, Universidad de Chile

Ground motions

K-NET: surface (693) Kik-NET: v array (496) BRI: buildings (50) 16 recordings PGA > 1.0 g Rrup = 49 to 500 km

Accelerations at K-Net Tsukidate (MYG004 station)

(from National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, NIED, 2011)

~ 50 seconds

M7.6 Samara Costa Rica Earthquake 2012

Nicoya Peninsula Zone of Amplification

• Fig. 1.1 – Location of epicenter and peak ground accelerations measured by the seismic network
• perated by the Engineering Seismology Laboratory (LIS) at the University of Costa Rica. The

recordings are color coded according to the acceleration level and Mercalli scale categories shown at the base of the map (LIS, 2012a).

Ni Nico coya ya a ya a Peni insul la Zo Zo Zo Zo

• Zo
• ne

ne ne ne ne ne e ne ne ne ne ne n

• f

f f Am Am Am Am Am m Am Am Am m Am Am m Am Am m Am Am m Am m Am m Am mpl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl p if if f if if f if i ic ic ic c ic ic ic ic i at at t at at at at at at at at at at at atio io io io io ion

Peninsula

Understand the Geologic Setting

Areas of deep soft soil Areas of saturated loose sand/fill material Areas of rock or stiff soils Basin structure

• Fig. 2.1 - Geology map of Costa Rica (modified from Dutch 2012) with locations of epicenters from

M7.5 1991 Limon Earthquake and M7.6 2012 Samara Earthquake

M7.5 1991 Limon Epicenter M7.5 2012 Samara Epicenter Limon

Intensity Map Geology Map Understand Surface Geology Relative to Shaking

What are we looking for?

What are we looking for?

Liquefaction Triggering

Gravels Silts/Sandy Silts/Clayey sands Magnitude effects on liquefaction

Liquefaction Effects

Settlement Uplift of utilities Lateral Spreading Residual Strength of liquefied soil Pile downdrag

What are we looking for?

Ground Response and Amplification

Topographic Amplification Influence of local soil conditions Basin effects Resonance with structural period

Comparison of good and bad performance

at adjacent sites

Influence of ground improvement on

performance

What are we looking for?

Landslides

Slope, acceleration level, duration, etc.

Influence of foundation type on

performance (shallow vs deep foundations)

Performance of utilities/pipelines Performance of levees and dams Behavior of earth retaining systems Performance relative to Tsunami

Mechanics of Liquefaction

Definition of Liquefaction

A decrease in strength and stiffness caused by a build-up of water pressure due to earthquake shaking.

= ( - u) tan

where = vertical stress from soil u = the water pressure tan = the friction coefficient

Where will we find liquefaction?

Port facilities Beaches Rivers/bridges Low lying areas with loose fill

Look for sand boils and ejecta indicating liquefaction

Photo credit: D.

• D. Zekkos
• s, 2014 Cephalonia

Gravel Ejecta after 2008 M7.6 Wenchuan, China Earthquake

Photo Credit: Cao et al, 2013

Chinese Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Gravel Liquefaction Curves

Liquefiable soil

Liquefaction in Adapazari, Turkey

Photo credit: USGS Sanchio et al (2004)

GEER 2011 (photo: Boulanger)

Effects on buildings (e.g., Kamisu City)

GEER R 2011 1 (photo: K.M. Rollins)

GEER 2011 (photo: Rollins)

Settlement analyses for the Urayasu area Katsumata &Tokimatsu (2012) 2) – AIJ procedures

• Katsumata &Tokimatsu (2012)

K 2) AIJ procedures A Missing information? Other procedures? Bias & dispersion?

Liquefaction around Pile Supported Ferris Wheel

GEER Photo: K.M. Rollins

Building Settlement & Rotation

Constructed on 26 m long concrete Piles (3° Rotation)

GEER 2011 (photo: K.M. Rollins)

Liquefaction settlement of building on shallow footings

• Fig. 2.5 – Foundations Punching through liquefied ground (a) exterior column, north side; (b) interior column, left behind a 60cm crater.

Shear wave velocity, Vs, from Surface Wave Measurements at Liquefaction Site-Costa Rica 2012

Vs profile: R. Luna

Drag Load & Settlement from Liquefaction

Bearing Stratum Liquefiable Soil Non-Liquefiable Soil

End nd- d-Bearing Side Shear Applied Load Reduced Side Shear Side Shear Reduced Side Shear

Liquefied Soil

Negative Negative Side Shear

Lateral spreading Pier settlement

Juan Pablo II Bridge, Concépcion

Bent damage due to lateral spreading on NE approach Liquefaction-induced pier settlements along bridge span

N

Photo taken from NE

Piers # 113-116 Piers # 113-116

J uan Pablo II Bridge

Liquefaction-induced pier settlements along bridge span

0.5m-0.7m

M odes of deformation

Liquefaction-induced pier settlement

Before earthquake After earthquake

Port of Coronel, South of Concepcion

Lateral Spreading at Puerto Coronel

“Bring a tape and a field book, not just a camera!”

• T. Leslie Youd

Emeritus Prof. BYU

Lateral Spreading at Puerto Coronel

Coronel, Chile Port Lateral Spread 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance from Wall Face (m) Cumulative Horizontal Displacement (m) Line 1 Line 2

Lateral Spreading Damage - Ports

Ground Movement

2010 M8.8 Maule Chile Earthquake

Sketch from field notes

Base Isolated Pier (< 0.5 m offset)

Base isolators Stabilizing Pile

Collapse Holes from Lateral Spreading

Collapse Holes from Lateral Spreading

Lateral Spreading at Puerto Coronel

Lateral Spreading at Puerto Coronel

Near Port Coronel, Chile Lateral Spread 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 20 40 60 80 100 Distance from Wall Face (m) Cumulative Horizontal Displacement (m)

Fisherman’s Pier at Coronel

Lateral spread measurement line Damaged piles due to lateral spreading

Lateral Spreading near Puerto Coronel

Ground Movement

D=2.8 m D=1.5 m D=0.45 m D= 0 m (N1)

1 60 60 6 < 10

10<(N1)

1 60 60 6 < 15

16<(N1)

1 60

20<(N1)

1 60

Contrasting Performance of Adjacent Piers

Contrasting Performance of Adjacent Structures

Contrasting Performance of Adjacent Structures

Geo-referenced Photographs

Port of Iquique, Chile April 2014

Cone Penetrometer Testing

(Donated by ConeTec)

Cone Penetration Test Soundings

Port of Iquique, Chile April 2014

UAVs for Reconnaissance

Identifying unique points from multiple directions

Structure from Motion Point Clouds

Kevin Franke, BYU

Structure from Motion Point Clouds

Measured vs. UAV Displacements

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 Cumulative Displacement (m) Distance from West Base (m) Section Through CPT 3, 4 and 5 UAV-CPT 3,4 and 5 North End of Pier UAV North End of Pier

Passive Force from Lateral Spreading

Passive force often drives displacement

Selection of smaller passive force (lower Kp)

may be unconservative

Liquefaction

Lateral Spread of Abutment in bridge

35 5 cm 35 5 m cm

• ffset in
• ffset in

rebar Shearing of Shearing of back wall back wall

• n beam

Lateral Spreading Around Abutment

Retaining wall Abutment wall

Lateral Spread Damage-Bridge

1991 Limon, Costa Rica Earthquake

Obtain plans for bridge foundations

24.96 6 m 75.02 m 75.24 m 176.14 m

Rio Estrella Bridge, Costa Rica, 1991

Liquefaction in the Atacama Desert?

Liquefaction in the Desert?

Liquefaction at Tana Bridge

Liquefaction in the Atacama Desert

Lateral Spreading at Puerto Valparaiso

Lateral displacement and settlement behind dock wall Apparent lateral spreading at Berth 5

Lateral Quaywall Movement at Puerto Valparaiso

Lateral Spread at Puerto Valparaiso

Valpariso, Chile Port Lateral Spread

10 20 30 40 50 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance from Wall Face (m) Cumulative Horizontal Displacement (cm)

Horizontal Movement

Lateral Spreading at Port of Valparaiso

Shear failure Lateral spread

Liquefaction Lateral spread Lateral spread Deck settlement Deck settlement

J uan Pablo II Bridge

evidence of liquefaction

Lateral spreading and bridge bent damage on NE approach

Deck settlement

La Mochita Bridge, Concépcion

Site Effects: Vespucio Norte & Ciudad Empresiarial

Gravel, Sandy Gravel, S gravel Silty Clay, Silty Sand Collapse Collapse p No collapse

H/ V peaks: 0.5-2sec (Bonnefoy et al, 2008) Damage to 5 to 20-story buildings Qfno

• no: Silt & Clay Layers

Localized Damage – Site Effects? A B

C Silty C

A

B

Liquefaction at Strong Motion Sites

GEER 2011 (photo: K.M. Rollins)

GEER 2011 (photos: Boulanger)

Strong ground motion stations with liquefaction nearby

Station CHB024 Station CHB009

• 0.2
• 0.1

0.1 0.2

Acceleration (g)

40 80 120 160 200

Time (s)

• 0.2
• 0.1

0.1 0.2

CHB009 - NS CHB009 - EW

• 0.2
• 0.1

0.1 0.2 40 80 120 160 200

Time (s)

• 0.2
• 0.1

0.1 0.2

CHB024 - NS CHB024 - EW GEER 2011 (photos: Boulanger)

Landslides in Steep Slopes/Stiff dry clay

West of Arauco

Landslides in Steep Slopes/Stiff dry clay

Bearing Failure and Lateral Spread at Tupul Bridge

Bearing failure along highway Lateral spreading impacts bridge abutment Tupul Bridge

Failure of Highway Embankment

Liquefiable Zone Embankment Fill Soft Clay Liquefiable Zone Embankment Fill Soft Clay

Skewed Bridge Abutment Overview

40% of 600,000 bridges in US are skewed Current AASHTO design code does not

• consider any effect of skew on passive force

Observations of poor performance of skewed

• bridges

Shamsabadi et al. 2006

Greater Damage to Skew Abutments

Permanent Abutment Offset at Skewed Bridge

4 inch 4 inch Longitudinal Longitudinal Displacement 3 inch 3 inch Transverse Transverse Displacement

Earthquake Damage to Skewed Bridges (Paine, Chile)

Top Bridge Bottom Bridge Top Bridge

Bridge decks have rotated and bridge was demolished

Bottom Bridge

Bridge deck was offset and was eventually demolished

Top Bridge

Bridge remained in service after the earthquake

Damage rate for skewed bridges was twice that of non-skewed bridges (Toro et al 2013)

Field Test Setup - Plan View

12.75 inch Dia. Steel Pipe Piles 11 ft wide x 5.5 ft high Pile Cap 24 ft 22 ft Transverse Wingwalls 2 x 4 ft Reinforced Concrete blocks 4 ft Dia. Drilled Shaft Sheet Pile Wall Section AZ-18 2 – 600 kip Actuators

Field Test Setup Elevation View

11 ft m wide x 5.5 ft high x 15 ft long Pile Cap 6 ft 6.4m 4 ft Dia. Drilled Shaft Sheet Pile Wall Section AZ-18 2 – 600 kip Actuators 12.75 inch Dia. Steel Pipe Piles

No Skew - 0° Test Setup

15° Skew Test Setup

30° Skew Test Setup

Passive Force Reduction Factor vs. Skew

Rskew = 8x10-052 - 0.018 + 1 R² = 0.98 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 15 30 45 60 75 90 Reduction Factor, Rskew Skew Angle, [degrees] Lab Tests Numerical Analysis Field Tests (This Study) Proposed Reduction Line

Settlement and Sliding of Approach Fills

Settlement and Sliding of Approach Fills

Damage to braced retaining system

GEER 2011 (photo: K.M. Rollins)

No Damage Associated with MSE Walls

Highly Corrosive Soil

Sand Compaction Piles (Fudo T etra)

Typical Installation Arrangement

Elevation View Plan View

Building Area Treatment Area Z/ 2 Non-liquefiable Soil Non-liquefiable Soil Liquefiable Soil

Treatment zone, Z

Z/ 2 Sand column Area Replacement ratio (Ar) of 10% for low fines to 20% for higher fines

Sand Pile

Gravel column

Contrast between T

• kyo Disney and

Urayasu City Liquefaction

Courtesy Japan Probe Courtesy Japan Probe Area around structures in T

• kyo Disney

treated with compaction Piles-little settlement Parking lot at T

• kyo Disney not treated

and experienced 50 cm of settlement

Parking Lot at T

• kyo Disney

Space Mount at T

• kyo Disney

GEER 2011 (photo: K.M. Rollins)

Seismic Performance of Dams & Levees

Coihueco Zoned Earth Dam Upstream Slope Failure Rapel Concrete Dam (most dams performed well) Levee Breach

Seismic Performance of Tailings Dams

Las Palmas Tailings Dam Failure

Approximate area of failure and flow direction

Naruse River left levee at km 11.3

GEER 2011 (photo: L. F. Harder)

River System Type and Number of Levee Damage Sites Reported Failure Settlement Slope Slumping Levee Cracking Revetment/ Wall Damage Gate Damage Other Total Mabuchi 1 1 1 5 1 5 13 Kitakami 13 62 47 278 121 67 58 646 Naruse 9 27 25 183 56 26 37 363 Natori 1 2 1 26 2 2 1 35 Abukuma 2 26 16 73 2 10 3 132 TOTAL 25 118 90 561 186 106 104 1190

Levee Damage in the Tohoku Region (MLIT 2011)

GEER Photo: K.M. Rollins

Tsunami Damage

Car on top of 4 story building

Pile Supported Building vs Tsunami

Rematch

Tips for Sucessful Geotechical Recon

Be safe out there Develop friendships during your career Collaborate with local engineers, geologists,

seismologists

Make use of Google Earth for scouting/reporting Document performance, don’t just photograph Use UAVs for topographic mapping Quantify site conditions if possible (Vs, CPT, SPT, DMT) Look for contrasting sites (good/bad performance) Obtain plans where if possible Morning plan of attack, Evening reports