Liquefaction-induced damage evaluation of earth embankment and corresponding countermeasure

doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0848-7

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (9) : 1183-1195 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0848-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Liquefaction-induced damage evaluation of earth embankment and corresponding countermeasure

Linlin GU¹, Wei ZHENG¹, Wenxuan ZHU², Zhen WANG³(

), Xianzhang LING⁴, Feng ZHANG⁵

¹. Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
². Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
³. School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
⁴. Department of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
⁵. Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 4668555, Japan

Download: PDF(7462 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Liquefaction of sandy soils is a big threat to the stability and the safety of an earth embankment laid on saturated soils. A large number of liquefaction-induced damages on embankment due to different types of earthquakes have been reported worldwide. In this research, the dynamic behaviors of earth embankment and the reinforcement effects of grouting as remediation method, subjected to moderate earthquake EQ₁ and strong earthquake EQ₂, were numerically investigated. The seismic behaviors of ground composed of cohesionless sandy soil and cohesive clayey soil were uniformly described by the cyclic mobility (CM) model, which is capable of describing accurately the mechanical property of the soil due to monotonic and cyclic loadings by accounting for stress-induced anisotropy, over-consolidation, and soil structure. It is known from the numerical investigation that the embankment would experience destructive deformation, and that the collapse mode was closely related to the properties of input seismic motion because high intensities and long durations of an earthquake motion could lead to significant plastic deformation and prolonged soil liquefaction. Under the strong seismic loading of EQ₂, a circular collapse surface, combined with huge settlement and lateral spread, occurred inside the liquefication zone and extended towards the embankment crest. In contrast, in moderate earthquake EQ₁, upheaval was observed at each toe of the embankment, and instability occurred only in the liquefied ground. An anti-liquefaction remediation via grouting was determined to significantly reduce liquefaction-induced deformation (settlement, lateral spreading, and local uplift) and restrain the deep-seated circular sliding failure, even though the top sandy soil liquefied in both earthquakes. When the structure was subjected to EQ₂ motion, local failure occurred on the embankment slope reinforced with grouting, and thus, an additional appropriate countermeasure should be implemented to further strengthen the slope. For both input motions, the surface deformation of the considered embankment decreased gradually as the thickness of reinforcement was increased, although the reinforcement effect was no longer significant once the thickness exceeded 6 m.

Keywords dynamic response earth embankment damage pattern liquefaction ground improvement

Corresponding Author(s): Zhen WANG

Online First Date: 04 November 2022 Issue Date: 22 December 2022

Cite this article:

Linlin GU,Wei ZHENG,Wenxuan ZHU, et al. Liquefaction-induced damage evaluation of earth embankment and corresponding countermeasure[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 1183-1195.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-022-0848-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2022/V16/I9/1183

Fig.1 Soil profile of earth embankment, supporting layers and reinforcement in remediation method (unit: m).

Fig.2 FEM mesh of earth embankment.

Fig.3 Two different input earthquake motions.

Fig.4 Response spectra of input earthquake motions.

parameters	backfill	clay	sand
compression index λ	0.12	0.06	0.05
swelling index κ	0.066	0.005	0.012
stress ratio of critical state M	1.3	1.25	1.42
void ratio N (P' = 98 kPa on N.C.L.)	0.90	1.05	0.85
Poisson’s ratio ν	0.31	0.32	0.30
degradation parameter of over-consolidation state m	1.0	1.0	0.01
degradation parameter of structure a	0.10	0.01	1.5
evolution parameter of anisotropy b_r	0.00	0.00	1.5
permeability k (m/s)	8 × 10^?6	1.2 × 10^?9	4 × 10^?4
initial void ratio e₀	0.92	1.0	0.01
mean effective stress p' (kPa)	50.5	242.0	120.0
initial value for structure $R 0 ?$	0.50	0.54	0.50
initial value for over-consolidation OCR	2.0	2.0	3.0
initial value for anisotropy ζ₀	0.0	0.0	0.0

Tab.1 Material parameters of backfill for earth embankment and soils of supporting ground

Fig.5 Dynamic strength curve of sandy and clayed soil obtained from undrained cyclic triaxial tests and their corresponding element simulation. (a) Sand; (b) clay.

Fig.6 Mean effective stress paths of representative elements subjected to two different seismic motions. (a) E₁; (b) E₂.

Fig.7 Distributions of EPWP at the end of input seismic motions. (unit: kPa) (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

Fig.8 Distributions of ESDR at the end of input seismic motions. (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

Fig.9 Time histories of horizontal acceleration at different depths: (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

Fig.10 Distributions of displacement vector at the end of input seismic motions. (unit: m) (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

Fig.11 Time histories of ESDR at specified elements with natural ground and reinforced ground: (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

Fig.12 Distributions of EPWP for reinforced ground at the end of input seismic motions (unit: kPa).

Fig.13 Distributions of ESDR for reinforced ground at the end of input seismic motions.

Fig.14 Distributions of displacement vector for reinforced ground at the end of input seismic motions (unit: m).

Fig.15 Surface deformation of embankment with different reinforced thickness: (a) EQ₁; (b) EQ₂.

1	K Adalier, M K Sharp. Embankment dam on liquefiable foundation-dynamic behaviour and densification remediation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(11): 1214–1224 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1214
2	S Unjoh, M Kaneko, S Kataoka, K Nagaya, K Matsuoka. Effect of earthquake ground motions on soil liquefaction. Soil and Foundation, 2012, 52(5): 830–841 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.006
3	R Singh, D Roy, S K Jain. Analysis of earth dams affected by the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. Engineering Geology, 2005, 80(3−4): 282–291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.06.002
4	F Oka, P Tsai, S Kimoto, R Kato. Damage patterns of river embankments due to the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake and a numerical modeling of the deformation of river embankments with a clayey subsoil layer. Soil and Foundation, 2012, 52(5): 890–909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.010
5	M Okamura, S Tamamura, R Yamamoto. Seismic stability of embankments subjected to pre-deformation due to foundation consolidation. Soil and Foundation, 2013, 53(11): 11–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.07.015
6	L Rapti, F Lopez-Caballero, A Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, A Foucault, F Voldoire. Liquefaction analysis and damage evaluation of embankment-type structures. Acta Geotechnica, 2018, 13(5): 1041–1059 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0631-z
7	Y ParkS KimS KimM Kim. Liquefaction of embankments on sandy soils and the optimum countermeasure against the liquefaction. In: Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland: New Zealand, 2000
8	Y Koga. Applicability of the dynamic centrifuge model test method in developing countermeasures against soil liquefaction. In: Proceedings of International Conference of Centrifuge 91. Colorado: Boulder, 1991, 431–438
9	Y Koga, O Matsuo. Shaking table tests of embankments resting on liquefiable sandy ground. Soil and Foundation, 1990, 30(4): 162–174 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.30.4_162
10	E J Fern, D A de Lange, C Zwanenburg, J A M Teunissen, A Rohe, K Soga. Experimental and numerical investigations of dyke failure involving soft materials. Engineering Geology, 2017, 219: 130–139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.07.006
11	S Dashti, J D Bray, J M Pestana, M Riemer, D Wilson. Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2010, 136(1): 151–164 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000179
12	O Matsuo. Damage to river dikes. Soils and Foundations, 1996, 36(1): 235–240 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_235
13	A Elgamal, E Parra, Z Yang, K Adalier. Numerical analysis of embankment foundation liquefaction countermeasures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 6(4): 447–471 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460209350425
14	O Aydingun, K Adalier. Numerical analysis of seismically induced liquefaction in earth embankment foundations. Part I. Benchmark model. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2003, 40(4): 753–765 https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-025
15	Z Wang, Y Yang, H Yu, K Muraleetharan. Numerical simulation of earthquake-induced liquefactions considering the principal stress rotation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 432–441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.004
16	P Ayoubi, A Pak. Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations on two-layered subsoil strata. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 94: 35–46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.004
17	W F III Marcuson, P F Hadala, R H Ledbetter. Seismic rehabilitation of earth dams. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1996, 122(1): 7–20 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:1(7
18	J C LuA ElgamalL J YanK H LawJ P Conte. Large scale numerical modeling in geotechnical earthquake engineering. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2011, 11(6): 490−503
19	B A Bradley, K Araki, T Ishii, K Saitoh. Effect of lattice-shaped ground improvement geometry on seismic response of liquefiable soil deposits via 3-D seismic effective stress analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 48: 35–47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.027
20	L Y Xu, F Cai, G X Wang, K Ugai, A Wakai, Q Q Yang, A Onoue. Numerical assessment of liquefaction mitigation effects on residential houses: Case histories of the 2007 Niigata Chuetsu-offshore earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 53: 196–209 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.07.008
21	F Zhang, B Ye, G L Ye. Unified description of sand behavior. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2011, 5(2): 121–150 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-011-0104-z
22	G L Ye. DBLEAVES: User’s Manual, Version 1.6. 2011 (in Japanese and Chinese)
23	A Asaoka, M Nakano, T Noda. Superloading yield surface concept for highly structured soil behavior. Soil and Foundation, 2000, 40(2): 99–110 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.40.2_99
24	K AkaiT Tamura. Elastoplastic numerical analysis of soil-water coupled problem. Proceedings of JSCE, 1978, 269: 95−104 (in Japanese)
25	O C Zienkiewicz, A H C Chan, M Pastor, D K Paul, T Shiomi. Static and dynamic behavior of soils: A rational approach to quantitative solutions. I. Fully saturated problem. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A—Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1990, 285–309
26	B A Bradley, K Araki, T Ishii, K Saitoh. Effect of lattice-shaped ground improvement geometry on seismic response of liquefiable soil deposits via 3-D seismic effective stress analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 48: 35–47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.027
27	F Lopez-Caballero, A Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, C A Stamatopoulos. Numerical evaluation of earthquake settlements of road embankments and mitigation by preloading. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2016, 16(5): C4015006 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000593
28	C W Lu, F Oka, F Zhang. Analysis of soil-pile-structure interaction in a two-layer ground during earthquakes considering liquefaction. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2008, 32(8): 863–895 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.646
29	H Ishikawa, K Saito, K Nakagawa, R Uzuoka. Liquefaction analysis of a damaged river levee during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. In: 14th International Conference of the International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Kyoto: IACMAG, 2015, 673–677
30	Y Sasaki, K Tamura. Failure mode of embankment due to recent earthquakes in Japan. In: 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Thessaloniki: RLGEG, 2007, 1479
31	P Coelho, S K Haigh, S P G Madabhushi. Centrifuge modelling of earthquake effects in uniform deposits of saturated sand. In: 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. New York: NY, 2004, 13–17
32	L L Gu, Z Wang, Q Huang, G L Ye, F Zhang. Numerical investigation into ground treatment to mitigate the permanent train-induced deformation of pile-raft-soft soil system. Transportation Geotechnics, 2020, 24: 100368
33	W D L Finn. State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering practice. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 20(1−4): 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00033-6

[1]	Hanjiang LAI, Shifan WU, Mingjuan CUI, Jian CHU. Recent development in biogeotechnology and its engineering applications[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 1073-1096.
[2]	Mahmood AHMAD, Xiao-Wei TANG, Jiang-Nan QIU, Feezan AHMAD, Wen-Jing GU. Application of machine learning algorithms for the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 490-505.
[3]	Mahmood AHMAD, Xiao-Wei TANG, Jiang-Nan QIU, Feezan AHMAD. Evaluation of liquefaction-induced lateral displacement using Bayesian belief networks[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 80-98.
[4]	Mahmood AHMAD, Xiao-Wei TANG, Jiang-Nan QIU, Feezan AHMAD, Wen-Jing GU. A step forward towards a comprehensive framework for assessing liquefaction land damage vulnerability: Exploration from historical data[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 1476-1491.
[5]	Yifan ZHANG, Rui WANG, Jian-Min ZHANG, Jianhong ZHANG. A constrained neural network model for soil liquefaction assessment with global applicability[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1066-1082.
[6]	Jianling HOU, Weibing XU, Yanjiang CHEN, Kaida ZHANG, Hang SUN, Yan LI. Typical diseases of a long-span concrete-filled steel tubular arch bridge and their effects on vehicle-induced dynamic response[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 867-887.
[7]	Zhijie HUANG, Xiaodan REN, Zuyu CHEN, Daosheng LING. Centrifuge experiment and numerical analysis of an air-backed plate subjected to underwater shock loading[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1350-1362.
[8]	Tian ZHANG, He XIA, Weiwei GUO. Analysis on running safety of train on the bridge considering sudden change of wind load caused by wind barriers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 558-567.
[9]	Pengfei LIU, Dawei WANG, Frédéric OTTO, Markus OESER. Application of semi-analytical finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt pavements under moving loads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 215-221.
[10]	Mengfei QU,Qiang XIE,Xinwen CAO,Wen ZHAO,Jianjun HE,Jiang JIN. Model test of stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in sandy soils[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 481-487.
[11]	Ikram GUETTAYA,Mohamed Ridha EL OUNI. In situ-based assessment of soil liquefaction potential–Case study of an earth dam in Tunisia[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(4): 456-461.
[12]	Sadegh REZAEI, Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI. Liquefaction assessment using microtremor measurement, conventional method and artificial neural network (Case study: Babol, Iran)[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(3): 292-307.
[13]	Mehmet Bar?? Can üLKER. Modeling of dynamic response of poroelastic soil layers under wave loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 1-18.
[14]	Linjia BAI, Yunfeng ZHANG. Collapse fragility assessment of steel roof framings with force limiting devices under transient wind loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(3): 199-209.
[15]	Mingjing JIANG, Haijun HU, Jianbing PENG, Serge LEROUEIL. Experimental study of two saturated natural soils and their saturated remoulded soils under three consolidated undrained stress paths[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(2): 225-238.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed