Testing performance of pore pressure models implemented in one-dimensional site response analysis program against centrifuge test data measured in mildly sloping ground

被引:5
作者
Pervaiz, Usman [1 ]
Park, Duhee [1 ]
Hashash, Youssef [2 ]
Xing, Guangchao [2 ]
机构
[1] Hanyang Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Pore pressure model; Centrifuge test; Site response analysis; Strain based; Energy based; Stress based; WATER PRESSURE; LIQUEFACTION; STRAIN; SANDS; SOILS;
D O I
10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106867
中图分类号
P5 [地质学];
学科分类号
0709 ; 081803 ;
摘要
A reliable prediction of the excess pore pressure build-up is essential in performing an effective site response analysis. In this study, centrifuge test measurements on mildly sloping ground subjected to ramped sinewaves are utilized to test the performances of three pore pressure models implemented in a one-dimensional (1D) site response analysis program conditioned on accumulated strain, energy, and stress, respectively. Three shear wave velocity (Vs) and relative density (Dr) profiles are utilized to account for the uncertainties in the soil properties. The pore pressure outputs calculated with the strain-based model is shown to be highly sensitive to Vs. Agreeable predictions are obtained near the surface, whereas the pore pressures at depths of 3 and 4 m are underestimated. The energy-based model significantly underestimates the pore pressure for all cases. The stress-based model is revealed to be less sensitive to Vs, whereas it is considerably dependent on Dr. Exceptional fit is achieved with a cone penetration test based Dr profile, whereas pore pressure is overestimated using the empirical liquefaction triggering chart to determine the cyclic strength. Further comparisons of the acceleration time histories illustrate the use of both the strain and energy-based models provide slightly higher and better estimates of the surface ground motion compared with that calculated with the stress-based model. Considering the sensitivity of the outputs, it is recommended to account for the uncertainties of soil properties and also to use both strain and stress-based models in performing 1D effective stress site response analyses.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 76 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], [No title captured], DOI 10.17603/ds2qq4q
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2020, GRAIN SIZE ANAL MAXI, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-22818-7_2
[3]  
Arulanandan K, 1993, INT C VER NUM PROC A
[4]  
Bastidas A.M.P., 2016, Ottawa F-65 sand characterization
[5]   Application of UBCSAND to the LEAP centrifuge experiments [J].
Beaty, Michael H. .
SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2018, 104 :143-153
[6]   Hysteretic and dilatant behavior of cohesionless soils and their effects on nonlinear site response:: Field data observations and modeling [J].
Bonilla, LF ;
Archuleta, RJ ;
Lavallée, D .
BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2005, 95 (06) :2373-2395
[7]  
Booker J.R., 1976, Rep. No. EERC 76-24
[8]  
Boulanger R, 2015, REPORT NO UCDCGM 150
[9]  
Boulanger RW, UCDCGM1401
[10]  
Carey T, 2018, J PHYS MODEL GEOTECH, V1, P6, DOI [10.1201/9780429438660, DOI 10.1201/9780429438660]