Guidelines for selecting ground motions for liquefaction evaluation analysis of earthen levees are proposed. These guidelines were developed based on results from dynamic analyses of characteristic earthen levee cross sections using a wide range of ground motions (~1,500). The effect of a number of ground motion parameters on the dynamic response of the levees in terms of liquefaction susceptibility was studied, and the parameters that correlated best to the response were identified. For the liquefaction triggering evaluation, the mean period of the ground motion (Tm) is best correlated to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). Regression relationships between CSR and Tm are proposed for a series of levee types and shaking intensities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Athanasopoulos-ZekkosA. -M., 2008. Select Topics on the Static and Dynamic Response and Performance of Earthen Levees, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
2.
Athanasopoulos-ZekkosA. -M., 2010. Variability in earthen levee seismic response due to time-history selection, Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 24–29 May 2010, San Diego, CA.
3.
BrayJ. D., 2007. Simplified seismic slope displacement procedures, 4th Annual International Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 25–28 June 2007, Thessaloniki, Greece.
4.
BrayJ. D., and TravasarouT., 2007. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering133, 381–392.
5.
CetinO. K., SeedR. B., Der KiureghianA., TokimatsuK., HarderL. F., KayenR. E., and MossR. E. S., 2004. Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering130, 1314–1340.
6.
HaseltonC. B., 2009. Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting median interstory drift response of buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engeneering Research Center (PEER) Ground Motion Selection and Modification Working Group, Berkeley, CA.
7.
HudsonM., IdrissI. M., and BeikaeM., 1994. QUAD4M - A Computer Program To Evaluate the Seismic Response of Soil Structures Using the Finite Element Procedures and Incorporating a Compliant Base, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.
8.
IdrissI. M., and BoulangerR. W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, No. MNO-12, EERI Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
9.
KrinitszkyE. L., and ChangF. K., 1979. State of the Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States: Specifying peak motions for design earthquakes, Report 7, Misc. Paper S-73-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES, Vicksburg, MS.
10.
Pacific Earthquake Engeneering Research Center (PEER), 2007. NGA Strong Motion Database, http://peer.berkeley.edu.nga.
11.
RathjeE. M., AbrahamsonN. A., and BrayJ. D., 1998. Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124, 150–159.
12.
SeedH. B., and IdrissI. M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division97, 1249–1273.
VanmarckeE. H., 1979. State of the art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States: Representation of earthquake ground motion: scaled accelerograms and equivalent response spectra, Report 14, Misc. Paper S-73-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES, Vicksburg, MS.
15.
Watson-LampreyJ., and AbrahamsonN., 2006. Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26, 477–482.
