research article examination of the behavior of gravity

Research ArticleExamination of the Behavior of Gravity QuayWall against Liquefaction under the Effect of WallWidth and Soil Improvement

Ali Akbar Firoozi1 Mohd Raihan Taha1

S M Mir Moammad Hosseini2 and Ali Asghar Firoozi1

1 Department of Civil amp Structural Engineering Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia (UKM) 43600 Bangi Selangor Malaysia2 Department of Civil amp Structural Engineering Amirkabir University of Technology Tehran Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Ali Akbar Firoozi afiroozigmailcom

Received 13 February 2014 Revised 18 May 2014 Accepted 2 June 2014 Published 8 July 2014

Academic Editor Deepankar Choudhury

Copyright copy 2014 Ali Akbar Firoozi et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

Deformation of quay walls is one of the main sources of damage to port facility while liquefaction of backfill and base soil of thewall are the main reasons for failures of quay walls During earthquakes the most susceptible materials for liquefaction in seashoreregions are loose saturated sand In this study effects of enhancing the wall width and the soil improvement on the behavior ofgravity quay walls are examined in order to obtain the optimum improved region The FLAC 2D software was used for analyzingand modeling progressed models of soil and loading under difference conditions Also the behavior of liquefiable soil is simulatedby the use of ldquoFinnrdquo constitutive model in the analysis models The ldquoFinnrdquo constitutive model is especially created to determineliquefaction phenomena and excess pore pressure generation

1 Introduction

Liquefaction-induced flow is phenomena associated with soilliquefaction sometimes resulting in large displacement oforder of several meters [1] It was first found to occur in theNoshiro city Japan during the 1983 Nihonkai-chubu earth-quake [2] The technique to measure residual displacementcomparison of aerial photos before and after the earthquakewas then applied to many past earthquakes as well as sub-sequent earthquakes and evidences of liquefaction-inducedflow were also collected As a result liquefaction-inducedflow is found not to be extraordinary phenomena but havecommonly occurred in many earthquakes

Consequently liquefaction-induced flow was found outas an ordinary event that frequently happened in manyearthquakes

The earthquake of Kobe Port in Japan (1995) causedvast destructions in the quay walls and subsequently in theport facilities and the area around the port Then extensiveresearch was started concentrating on the dynamic earth

pressure on the quay walls the way liquefaction affected thesoil around the walls and how the excess pore water pressureis developed in the soil around the walls [3 4]

Modeling the behavior of the structures during theliquefaction of soil is a complex process In the numericalmodeling of the liquefaction the simulation of excess porewater pressure and the dynamic nonlinear soil behavior arethe prerequisites for these model analyses For this purposethe relevant pieces of geotechnical software were evaluatedand finally the FLAC was selected so as to facilitate thenumerical modeling of the gravity quay wall during theprocess of the liquefaction The capability of this softwarefor simulation of excess pore water pressure and also havingthe Finn behavior model which is particularly helpful inmodeling the liquefaction behaviors were the reasons behindthis selection [5 6]

Among the relevant factors that directly affect the behav-ior of gravity quay walls three were chosen First the effectof the increase in the width of the quay wall on the reductionof the wall deformation and the stability control was studied

Hindawi Publishing Corporatione Scientific World JournalVolume 2014 Article ID 325759 11 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014325759

2 The Scientific World Journal

The relevant diagrams of the deformation of different partsare drawn In pursuance the soil around the quay wall wasimproved and the SPT thereof was increased so as to studythe effect of standard penetration number on the behaviorof the quay wall Since the standard penetration numberdirectly influences other soil features such as compressionfriction and soil density (relative density) other soil featuresin the analytical models were enhanced as the SPT valuewas increased Because there was not a comprehensiverelationship between change of the soil features and the SPTvalue the results of the sand samples which had been testedat the Laboratory of National University of Malaysia havebeen used Finally to study the optimum zone of the soilimprovement different areas in the back side the front sideand the base of the quay wall were amended and the modelsthereof were analyzedThe results obtained from the analyseswere evaluated and assessed with regard to the optimum andadequate zone for the soil improvement [3 4 7]

2 Modeling

Analytical models are developed to predict liquefactioncharacteristics by Martin et al [8] Liou et al [9] Finn et al[10] Katsikas andWylie [11] Desai [12] and Liyanapathiranaand Poulos [13] to name a few Some of the analyticalmodels adopted effective stress-based approach (eg [9ndash1113]) while few of them adopted energy-based approach (eg[12]) Experimental studies including cyclic triaxial testsshaking table tests and centrifuge tests have been conductedfor the last four decades (eg [14ndash16]) to validate the theoriesand better understand the mechanism Simplified methodsto evaluate liquefaction characteristics from SPT and CPTtest results are developed by Seed and Idriss [17] Tokimatsuand Seed [18] Robertson and Wride [19] Youd and Idriss[20] and Idriss and Boulanger [21] Although simplified totalstress-based methods are used in general practice for theease of computation to evaluate the liquefaction potential andassociate settlement these methods are unable to account forthe progressive stiffness degradation of soil due to repeatedshearing and pore-pressure rise during an earthquake eventAs a result nonlinear site response analysis and dynamictime history analyses are recommended for design of highrisk infrastructures such as dams bridges and nuclear powerplants [21] In this study three different analytical models byFinn et al [10] Liou et al [9] and Katsikas and Wylie [11]are studied to compare the response of saturated sand depositunder earthquake motions

Rollins and Seed [22] introduced three factors to evaluatethe effect of overburden pressure on liquefaction potentialThese factors are static shear stress effective confining pres-sure and over consolidated ratio (OCR)

Shear Stress Overburden pressure and slope situation mayinduce anisotropy consolidated condition and cause initialstatic shear stress in the soil mass According to related stud-ies static shear stress may affect soil liquefaction potentialdirectly Lee and Seed [14] indicated that the liquefactionresistance of soil increases by increase of static shear stressIncrease of initial static shear stress in the soil mass may

lead to increase of soil settlement and compression andsubsequently it leads to increase of Cyclic Resistant Ratio(CRR)

CRR =120591119888119910

120590

1015840 (1)

where 120591119888119910= cyclic shear strength and 1205901015840 = vertical effective

stress

Effective Confining Pressure Using the results of dynamic tri-axial testing Peacock and Seed [23] indicated that cyclic shearstress increases by increase of effective confining pressurebut Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is contrary Mulilis et al[24] denoted that Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) may slightlydecrease by increase of effective confining pressure Hynesand Olsen [25] concluded that several factors such as methodof deposition stress history aging effects and density mayaffect the influence of confining stress variations on the CRR

Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) According to related studiesover-consolidation state is an important effect for soil liq-uefaction potential If a soil mass has experienced stresseshigher than its current state it is an over-consolidated soil(OCR gt 1)

CRR =119875119888

1198750

(2)

where119875119888= overconsolidation stress and119875

0= current existing

stressSeed and Idriss [26] showed that the liquefaction resis-

tance increases by increase of the OCR values Using cyclictorsion shear test Ishihara and Takatsu [27] showed therelations between OCR 119870

0and cyclic shear strength As

shown in their results under constant 1198700 the cyclic stress

ratio increases by increase of the OCR value

21 Modeling Procedure and Finn Constitutive Model Inthis research the nonlinear dynamic analysis according tothe effective stress to assess the pore-pressure developmentthrough earthquake loadings has been applied The analyseshave been investigated in the plane strain condition employ-ing the FLAC finite difference package in both static anddynamic phases For the sake of simplicity the model hasbeen built one step in static condition

After determining the equilibrium condition in the staticstate the dynamic phase has been utilized in the model toalter the state boundary conditions to the dynamic one andconsider the earthquake loading to the system

Regarding FLAC guidance manual several constitu-tive models that facilitate soil behaviours under static anddynamic loadings have been introduced Calculation ofexcess pore water pressure in the soil mass because ofdynamic loading is the major factor in liquefaction phe-nomenon modelling process

FLAC has a constitutive model known as the Finn modelthat unifies equations represented by Martin et al [8] andByrne [7] into the standard Mohr-Coulomb plasticity modelThrough applying this model calculation of the pore water

The Scientific World Journal 3

30m

12m

18m

40m60m 80m40m

4m

Fr

Liquefiable

Ref point at the bottom of the wall

Ref point at the top of the wall

WallSea

b

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable

Figure 1 Overall geometry of the gravity quay wall (dimensions in meter NTS) Fr and b = Var

pressure generation by calculating irrecoverable volumetricstrains during dynamic analysis is possible The void ratioin this model is considered to be constant also it can bedetermined as a function of the volumetric strain and otherparameters can be explained by void ratio

Martin et al [8] explained initially the impact of cyclicloading on raising of porewater pressure as a result of irrecov-erable volume contraction in the soilmass In these situationssince the matrix of grains and voids is filled with waterpressure of the pore water rises Later Byrne [7] indicated asimpler equation which corresponds to irrecoverable volumealteration and engineering shear strain with two constantsIn this model a soil mass with liquefaction potential wasmodelled to employ (N1)

60parameter as a major factor of

the Finn model so all of the soil properties of the model arerequired to define the program by (N1)

60

The reflection of waves from boundaries of the modelin numerical modeling of dynamic loadings influences theresults In modeling of the quay wall 100 meters of soil wasconsidered on each side of the gravity quay wall so as todecrease the reflection of the waves from the lateral bound-aries From the mentioned measure 60 meters is liquefiablesand and the rest (40 meters) is dense soil Providing anoverall stability for themodel in the boundaries the 40-meterdense layer in the boundaries of the model is consideredConsideration of the 100meters of soil on the sides of the wallwill completely attenuate the waves that propagate towardthe boundaries Even if free-field boundaries are not usedthe reflection of the waves inside the model is negligibleDespite the considerable length of the model and adequateattenuation of the waves in order to make sure that the wavesare not reflected inside the model the free field is selected asthe lateral boundaries

Theheight of the numericalmodel of the gravity quaywallwas decided to be 30 meters This height was chosen bothto be conventional and to have the least possible influenceon the responses of the wall In case the height of the modeland accordingly the liquefiable sand layer under the wall aresignificantly increased the displacement and the response ofthe wall will also change

However the height of the gravity quay wall according tothe conventional sizes and measures in practice was decidedto be 12 meters It is obvious that any increase or decrease inthe height of the wall influences the displacement amount aswell as the liquefaction of the layers under the wallThereforethe height of the wall has been chosen in a way to becorrespondent with the standard and conventional quantitiesin action

By choosing the heights of 12 and 30 meters respectivelyfor the gravity quay wall and the model finally there was 18meters of soil layer under the wall that 4 meters out of whichwas modeled to be unliquefiable dense layer The reason formodeling the 4-meter bottom layer like the one mentionedfor the lateral dense layers is to provide the overall stabilityof themodel in the boundariesTherefore the liquefiable sandlayer has been modeled beneath the 14-meter wallThe widthof the wall in the models fluctuates between 5 and 9meters inorder to study its influences In the models designed for thestudy of the influences of soil improvement and its optimumrange the width is 8 meters

The height of water against the wall in all models isdecided to be 10 meters In Figure 1 the overall geome-try of the model is displayed Also the reference pointsfor the representation of the deformations of the wall aremarked

In general two types of materials have been utilized inmaking the model of the quay wall (1) concrete (2) sandConcrete materials have been used to make the body of thequay wall while the soil layers around the models are madeof sand materials Features of the concrete materials in allmodels are identical However features of the liquefiable sandmaterials in themodels in which the influence of the standardpenetration number is investigated are variable Features ofunliquefiable dense sandmaterials are identical in all models

The analysis of the quaywall was performed in two stagesAt the first stage the model was analyzed until it reachedthe static equilibrium at this stage no external loading wasconsidered in themodel and the wall reached the equilibriumwhich was analyzed only under the load of seawater andembankment At the second stage when the model reachedthe static equilibrium the seismic load was applied to thelower boundaries of the model The seismic load was ofsinusoidal wave type which was applied in the form of shearstress The applied shear stress for the seismic load wascalculated based on the selective acceleration If the peakground acceleration is 119886max themaximum shear stress (120591max)119903in the depth of ℎ from the surface is worked out from thefollowing equation

(120591max)119903 =120574ℎ

119892

119886max sdot 119903119889 (3)

The constant 119903119889is the stress-reduction factor and is

obtained through the relevant curves The maximum seismicacceleration is 02 g and the frequency of the dynamic load inall models is 3 hertz The seismic load applied in the base ofthe model is shown in Figure 2


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0800

0600

0400

0200

0000

minus0200

minus0400

minus0600

minus0800

(10+05)

Itasca Consulting Group IncMinneapolis Minnesota USA

Job title Input dynamic wave

History plot

(1031)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Ave SXYY-axis

X-axis

Figure 2 A typical seismic load applied on the base of the model (seismic acceleration is 02 g)

Table 1 Features of the materials used in the analytical models of the gravity quay wall

Materials Behaviormodel

Dry density(Dry unit weight)

(Kgm3)

Relative density(119863119903)

Voidratio Porosity Angle of

internal friction SPT Shear modulus(MPa)

Bulk module(MPa)

1 Finn 1600 47 1 0500 32 10 6 10

2

Finn 1530 55 0704 0413 365 13 6 10Finn 1559 67 0673 0402 385 20 8 1333Finn 1575 75 0650 0394 40 25 92 1533Finn 1586 82 0630 0387 415 30 10 1666Finn 1591 89 0610 079 429 35 112 1866Finn 1595 9486 0597 0374 434 40 12 20

3 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 mdash mdash mdash 42 mdash 12 204 Elastic 2400 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8300 11100

After establishment of the static equilibrium of the modeland application of the proper boundary conditions and thedefinition of the static load the model is analyzed at thedynamic phase The dynamic analysis of the model has beendone in undrained condition and the soil has been preventedfrom the drainage by the use of the capability of the softwareIn practice the drainage cannot take place due to the verysmall duration of the dynamic loading

As shown in Table 1 Finn model is a combined modelused for the loose sand materials which are liquefied in theprocess of seismic loading A brief explanation about thismodel is provided in the following

During the cyclic loading the volume of the soil decreasesand such a decrease leads to an increase in the pore waterpressureThe pore water pressure increases to the degree thatthe ratio of the porewater pressure to the total stress of the soil

becomes one In this condition in which the effective stresshas become zero the soil undergoes liquefaction and flowsA plenty of behavioral models have so far been developedto simulate and model this state of the soil Among thestress-strain behavioral models presented in this connectionare Byrne (Booker) et al (1976) and Martin et al [8]According to the research results it has been revealed thatthe change in the cyclic loading is dependent on the shearing-cyclic strain amplitude and not on the shearing-cyclic stressamplitude In the Finn combined model (4) which hasbeen derived according to a set of curves obtained fromexperiments has been suggested by Martin and Finn et al asfollows

Δ120576V119889 = 1198621 (120574 minus 1198622120576V119889) +1198623120576

2

V119889

120574 + 1198624120576V119889 (4)


Job title model

X X-directionY Y-directionB both directions

minus1222E + 01 lt x lt 2066E + 02

minus9338E + 01 lt y lt 1278E + 02

0 1

FLAC (version 400)

5E

Step 0

Itasca Consulting Group IncMinneapolis MN USA

times101

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0000

minus2000

minus1000

minus3000

minus4000

minus5000

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

times102

Figure 3 The selected finite difference mesh for numerical analysis by FLAC 2D

in which 120576V119889 is the volume reduction under cyclic loading isthe increment in volume reduction and 120574 is the cyclic strainamplitude1198621 1198622 1198623 and 119862

4in the above equation are constants

whose valueswere determined in twoor three cyclic testswithfixed strain amplitude and the behavior of the volume changewas completely determined under the cyclic loading Byrne[7] has also provided a simpler equation

Δ120576V119889

120574

= 1198621exp(minus119862

2(

120576V119889

120574

)) (5)

where 1198621and 119862

2are calculated as follows

1198621= 7600(119863

119903)

minus25

(6)

For calculation of 119863119903from the standard penetration

number the following empirical equations can be used

119863119903= 15(119873

1)

05

60 (7)

119863119903is a relative density therefore the parameter 119862

1is as

follows

1198621= 87(119873

1)

minus125

60 (8)

And for the parameter 1198622

1198622=

04

1198621

(9)

To model the pore water pressure increase underundrained cyclic loading in the FLAC software both (4) and(5) have been added to the Mohr-Coulomb plastic model inaccordance with the above explanations in order to make anew model named Finn

22 Boundary Condition Figure 1 presents the geometry andgeneral dimension of the developed model in FLAC to doparametric research The finite mesh chose to investigate thenumerical analyses as shown in Figure 3 The base bound-ary of the model embedded along horizontal and verticaldirections in both static and dynamic analyses Regardingstatistical analysis right and left boundaries of the mesh werehorizontally fixed In dynamic analyses enough distancebetween the structure and right and left boundaries should bedetermined to prohibit the reflection of waves contacting theboundaries Selection of sufficient dimensions for the modelplays a significant role in modeling process (Figure 3)

3 Results and Discussion

The deformation of the quay walls of the model duringthe process of liquefaction of the backfill and bottom soilis considerable Deformation of the walls of the modelis of horizontal vertical and rotational displacements InFigure 4 the ratio of pore water pressure in the front side ofthe wall under the seafloor is shown In Figure 5 the diagramshows the ratio of pore water pressure versus the time for theelement in the back side of the quay wall The study of theliquefaction of the soil around the quay wall of the analyticalmodels shows that no liquefaction takes place in the areasexactly located under the wall due to the weight of the walland in consequence the enormousness of the stress In theareas behind the wall that are at the levels of the bottom of thewall the ratio of pore water pressure or liquefaction potentialproportionally increases as it gets farther from the quay wallOf course this status is not seen in all models however the


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820

Job title pore pressure ratio

History plotep7(FISH)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000

Figure 4 Ratio of pore water pressure versus time for the element on the front of the wall under the sea floor (time seconds)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700



History plotep11 (FISH)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000

Figure 5 Ratio of pore water pressure versus time for the element on the back of the quay wall (time seconds)

review of the models implies that the farther getting awayfrom the quay wall the greater excess pore water pressureIn comparison the liquefaction in the areas behind the wallstarts later than that of the areas in front of the wall (underthe seafloor)

31 Effect of the Width of the Wall In order to study theeffect of the width of the wall on decreasing the dynamic

displacements of the wall its width was changed between 5and 9 meters At the first stage the static analysis was per-formed and after the establishment of the static equilibriumthe values for the displacements of the wall in the memory ofthe software were manually changed to zero and the dynamicloading was applied Based on the above explanation theeffect of the width of the wall on the dynamic displacementscan thoroughly be studied In Figure 6 the diagram of the


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)

Displacement at the bottom of the wallDisplacement at the top of the wall

Figure 6 Diagram of the changes in horizontal displacement of thewall versus the width of the wall

changes on horizontal displacement of the wall at the top andbottom points against the wall width is shown It is clearlyunderstood that the increase in the width of the wall cannotcontrol the horizontal displacement of the wall and the rateof displacement decrease of the wall reduces from the widthsabove 7 meters In general the dynamic displacement of thegravity wall is the result of two factors The first factor isthe increase in the lateral pressure from the embankmentwhich is the result of the seismic loading and the second oneis the decrease in the stability of the wall as a result of soilliquefaction around the wall The stability of the wall againstthe lateral pressures may be the reason for the significantdecrease in the horizontal displacement of the wall with theincrease of the width of the wall in the first parts of the abovediagram But the part of the displacement of the wall whichis the result of the liquefaction areas around the wall cannotbe noticeably controlled with the increase of the width of thewall or perhaps the cause of no decrease in the horizontaldisplacement of the wall above the heights of 7 meters isthe above-mentioned reason Also the diagram shows thatthe horizontal displacement of the lower part of the walldoes not change dramatically with the increase in the widthof the wall which ensures the authenticity of the aforesaidnotion A comparison of the horizontal displacement curvesreveals that in high latitudes (approximately 8 to 9meters) thedisplacement of the wall is an integrated transfer and the rateof the rotation of the wall decreases

According to Diagram 7 the vertical displacement ofthe wall with the increase in the width of the wall makesno significant change The diagram also shows the verticalsettlement of the embankment areas near the wall As it is

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)

Vertical displacement of the wallVertical displacement of the backfill soil

Figure 7 Vertical displacement of the wall and the embankment

shown in the diagram the settlement of the embankmentnear the wall also converges at a constant rate by increasingthe width of the wall which is in accordance with theconvergence of the horizontal displacement of the wall

32 Effect of the Standard Penetration Number Some modelsof the wall with the standard penetration numbers between13 and 40 were modeled to study the effect of the standardpenetration number on the stability of the gravity quaywall Figure 8 shows that with the increase of the standardpenetration number the quay wall displacement noticeablydecreases The diagram also shows that the effect of theincrease in SPT on the horizontal displacement is more thanthat of the vertical displacement

As can be seen in Figure 8 the effect of increasing thestandard penetration number of the soil is noticeable whenthe number exceeds 20 for example the transition from 20to 25 brings about a step or refraction The diagrams alsoshow that the effect of the standard penetration numbergreater than 35 is practically attenuated and the diagramof the displacement of the wall tends to be constant Thecomparison of the diagrams of the horizontal displacement ofthe upper and lower parts of the quay wall supports the ideathat the increase of the standard penetration number not onlydecreases the horizontal displacement but also minimizesdramatically the rotational displacement of thewall Based onFigure 7 on SPT number of 35 the horizontal displacementof the upper and lower parts of the quay wall becomes almostequal which indicates that no rotation has taken place and thewall has undergone a complete horizontal displacement

33 OptimumArea for Soil Improvement Since improvementof soil incurs huge costs and there are plenty of difficulties in


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)

Vertical displacement of the wallHorizontal displacement at the bottom of the wallHorizontal displacement at the top of the wall

Figure 8 Horizontal and vertical displacements of the quay wall versus the SPT number for the wall of 8 meters wide

30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable

NonliquefiableModified boundary

Figure 9 Areas selected to determine the optimum range for the soil amendment

implementation of such amendment particularly in littoralareas knowing the optimum and adequate range for thesoil improvement is immensely important Therefore theoptimum range for the soil improvement is studied in threeareas The areas in question are as follows

(i) the soil improvement area behind the quay wall(ii) the soil improvement area under the quay wall(iii) the soil improvement area in front of the quay wall

The soil improvement has the standard penetration num-ber of 35The soil behind under and in front of the quay wallhas been improved respectively at the paces of 10 20 and 30meters from the quay wall at the paces of 6 9 and 12 metersdeep and at the paces of 5 10 15 and 20meters from the quaywall Figure 9 illustrates the soil improvement areas

It should be mentioned that the depth of the improvedlayer of the soil in front of the quaywall has been decided to be9 meters while the width of the soil improved area under thequay wall has been decided to be 20 meters and the depth ofthe improved area like the height of the wall has been decidedto be 12 meters When the effect of the soil improvement infront of the wall was studied the improvement was not done

on the other fronts so that their effects could not interferewith the soil properties of the front under the study and thesoil properties in the other two areas were decided to be likethose of the liquefied soil

The results have been shown in Figures 10 to 12Zero in the horizontal axes of the above figures reveals the

results of no improvement in the soilThe results of the horizontal displacement of the upper

and lower points of the wall and its vertical settlement showthe optimum and adequate range of the soil improvement ineach area under the study

Studying the diagrams reveals the following results

(i) As can be seen in Figure 10 when the improvement ofthe soil behind the wall is the focus of the study for awall with the aforesaid dimensions soil improvementfor a length of 20 meters from the wall has themaximum adequacy in decreasing the displacementsof the wall and any further soil improvement beyondthe mentioned length will not have a significanteffect in this regard The diagrams also reveal thatthe horizontal displacement of the top of the wallhas been affected more by the improvement of the


3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

The area of improvement backfill soil (m)


Figure 10 Horizontal and vertical displacements of the quay wall indifferent soil improvement areas behind the wall

embankment behind the wall than the horizontal dis-placement of the lower part or the vertical settlement

(ii) Studying Figure 11 reveals thatwhen the improvementof the soil under the wall is the focus of the study soilimprovement in depths over 9 meters has no effecton the control of the wall displacements This figurealso shows that the effect of the soil improvement ofthe bottom has considerable effect on the horizontaldisplacement of the upper part of the wall Of coursebased on the diagram the vertical settlement of thewall for the state of the soil improvement up toa depth of 9 meters is half of that in the state ofunimprovement

(iii) If the three diagrams of Figure 12 are studied simulta-neously it is understood that improvement of the soilin front of the wall up to a length of 8meters decreasesthe wall displacements Any further soil amendmentbeyond the said length does not have a noticeableeffect on the deformations furthermore there areplenty of problems in such further improvement

4 Conclusions

The conclusions of the paper are summarized as follows

(1) Increase in the width of the wall up to certainmeasures will affect the decrease in the deformationsof thewall Increase in thewidth of thewallmore thanthe said measures will have no effect on decreasingthe displacements The studies on a wall of 12-meter


3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

The area of improved base soil (m)

Figure 11 Horizontal and vertical displacements of the quay wall indifferent soil improvement areas under the wall

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Horizontal displacement at the top of the wallHorizontal displacement at the bottom of the wallVertical displacement of the wall

The area of improved soil in front of the wall

Figure 12 Horizontal and vertical displacements of the quay wall indifferent soil improvement areas in front of the wall

height show that the horizontal and vertical displace-ments of the wall have not significantly decreasedwith increasing the width of the wall over 7 metersThe only continuous effect of the increase in thewidth of the wall is the decrease in the rotation ofthe wall that is the difference between the displace-ments of the upper and the lower points decreases


with increasing the width of the wall In heights ofapproximately more than 9 meters the horizontaldisplacement of the wall is in fact a full transfer withvery little rotation

(2) Increasing the standard penetration number of thesoil around the quay wall decreases the displacementsof the quay wall The effect of the increase of thestandard penetration number of the soil on the walldisplacement is noticeable when the number goesover 20 Also the effect of the standard penetrationnumber in the numbers above 35 is practically atten-uated and the diagram of the displacement of the walltends to be constant

(3) As for the optimum range of the soil improvement forthe gravity quay wall which was studied it should bementioned that the soil improvement behind the wallup to a length of 20 meters from the wall decreasesthe displacements of the wall to a great extentImprovement of the soil behind thewall formore thanthe said length has no effect on decreasing the walldisplacements Improvement of the soil under thewall for a depth of approximately 9 meters decreasesthe wall displacements Soil improvement in depthsover 9 meters has no noticeable effect on the controlof the wall displacements As for the improvement ofthe soil in front of the wall the optimum range forimprovement is approximately 8meters from thewallGenerally the effect of the soil improvement in thebottom and front parts of the wall on decreasing thevertical settlement of the wall is more than the effectthat happens in the soil improvement behind the wall

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

References

[1] ldquoJGS liquefaction-induced flow of ground and its effect tostructuresrdquo Lecture course Tsuchi-to-Kiso 47-5 to 46-4 1999

[2] MHamada S Yasuda R Isoyama andK Emoto ldquoObservationof permanent displacements induced by soil liquefactionrdquo Jour-nal of Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of JSCE 376III-6pp 211ndash220 1986

[3] S M Mirhosseini Soil Dynamics Publishing House of theInternational Research Center for Seismology amp EarthquakeEngineering Tehran Iran 1993

[4] R Richards and D G Elms ldquoSeismic behavior of gravityretaining wallsrdquo ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical EngineeringDivision vol 105 no 4 pp 449ndash464 1979

[5] S Madabhushi and X Zeng ldquoSeismic response or gravity quaywalls II numerical modelingrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 124 no 5 pp 418ndash427 1998

[6] P A Cundall W Roth and R Scott ldquoFast lagrangian analysisof continua manualrdquo online manual 2001

[7] P Byrne ldquoA cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressuremodel for sandrdquo in Proceedings of the 2nd International Confer-ence onRecentAdvances inGeotechnical Earthquake Engineeringand Soil Dynamics vol 1 pp 47ndash55 St Louis Mo USA 1991

[8] G R Martin W D L Finn and H B Seed ldquoFundamentalsof liquefaction under cyclic loadingrdquo Journal of GeotechnicDivision ASCE vol 101 no 5 pp 423ndash438 1975

[9] C P Liou F E Richart Jr and V L Streeter ldquoNumerical modelfor liquefactionrdquo Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-sion ASCE vol 103 no 6 pp 589ndash606 1977

[10] W D L Finn K W Lee and G R Martin ldquoAn effective stressmodel for liquefactionrdquo ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-neering Division vol 103 no 6 pp 513ndash533 1977

[11] C A Katsikas and E B Wylie ldquoSand liquefaction inelasticeffective stress modelrdquo Journal of the Geotechnical EngineeringDivision ASCE vol 108 no 1 pp 63ndash81 1982

[12] C SDesai ldquoEvaluation of liquefaction using disturbed state andenergy approachesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-mental Engineering vol 126 no 7 pp 618ndash631 2000

[13] D S Liyanapathirana and H G Poulos ldquoA numerical modelfor dynamic soil liquefaction analysisrdquo Soil Dynamics andEarthquake Engineering vol 22 no 9ndash12 pp 1007ndash1015 2002

[14] K L Lee and H B Seed ldquoCyclic stress conditions causingliquefaction of sandrdquo Journal of the Soil Mechanics andFoundations Engineering Division vol 93 no 1 pp 47ndash70 1967

[15] A Elgamal M Zeghal and E Parra ldquoLiquefaction of reclaimedisland in Kobe Japanrdquo Journal of Geotechnical Engineering vol122 no 1 Article ID 10630 pp 39ndash49 1996

[16] S A Ashford K M Rollins and D Lane ldquoBlast-induced lique-faction for full scale foundation testingrdquo Journal of Geotechnicaland Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE vol 130 no 8 pp798ndash806 2004

[17] H B Seed and I M Idriss SoilLiquefaction during Earth-quakes Engineering Monograph Earthquake Engineering andResearch Institute Oakland Calif USA 1982

[18] K Tokimatsu and H B Seed ldquoEvaluation of settlement insand due to earthquake shakingrdquo Journal of the GeotechnicalEngineering Division vol 113 no 8 pp 861ndash878 1987

[19] P K Robertson and C EWride ldquoEvaluating cyclic liquefactionpotential using the cone penetration testrdquo Canadian Geotechni-cal Journal vol 35 no 3 pp 442ndash459 1998

[20] T L Youd and I M Idriss ldquoLiquefaction resistance of soilssummary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERNSFworkshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soilsrdquoJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering vol127 no 4 pp 297ndash313 2001

[21] I M Idriss and R W Boulanger ldquoSemi-empirical proceduresfor evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakesrdquo inProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynam-ics amp Earthquake Engineering amp 3rd International Conference onEarthquakeGeotechnical Engineering pp 32ndash56 Berkeley CalifUSA 2004

[22] K M Rollins and H B Seed ldquoInfluence of buildings onpotential liquefaction damagerdquo Journal of Soil Mechanics andFoundations Engineering Division vol 116 no 2 pp 165ndash1851990

[23] W H Peacock and H B Seed ldquoSand liquefaction under cyclicloading simple shear conditionsrdquo Journal of the Soil Mechanicsand Foundations Division vol 94 pp 689ndash708 1968

[24] J P Mulilis C K Chan and H B Seed ldquoThe effects of methodof sample preparation on the cyclic stress strain behavior


of sandsrdquo Report 75-18 Environmental Engineering ResearchCouncil 1975

[25] M E Hynes and R Olsen ldquoInfluence of confining stress onliquefaction resistancerdquo in Proceedings of the International Sym-posium on the Physics and Mechanics of Liquefaction pp 145ndash152 Balkema 1998

[26] H B Seed and I M Idriss ldquoSimplified procedure for evaluatingsoil liquefaction potentialrdquo Journal of Geotechnic Division vol97 no 9 pp 1249ndash1273 1971

[27] K Ishihara and H Takatsu ldquoEffects of over-consolidation andK0conditions on the liquefaction characteristics of sandsrdquo Soils

and Foundations vol 19 no 4 pp 59ndash68 1979

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of



RotatingMachinery


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics


Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of


Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation



DistributedSensor Networks



The relevant diagrams of the deformation of different partsare drawn In pursuance the soil around the quay wall wasimproved and the SPT thereof was increased so as to studythe effect of standard penetration number on the behaviorof the quay wall Since the standard penetration numberdirectly influences other soil features such as compressionfriction and soil density (relative density) other soil featuresin the analytical models were enhanced as the SPT valuewas increased Because there was not a comprehensiverelationship between change of the soil features and the SPTvalue the results of the sand samples which had been testedat the Laboratory of National University of Malaysia havebeen used Finally to study the optimum zone of the soilimprovement different areas in the back side the front sideand the base of the quay wall were amended and the modelsthereof were analyzedThe results obtained from the analyseswere evaluated and assessed with regard to the optimum andadequate zone for the soil improvement [3 4 7]

2 Modeling

Analytical models are developed to predict liquefactioncharacteristics by Martin et al [8] Liou et al [9] Finn et al[10] Katsikas andWylie [11] Desai [12] and Liyanapathiranaand Poulos [13] to name a few Some of the analyticalmodels adopted effective stress-based approach (eg [9ndash1113]) while few of them adopted energy-based approach (eg[12]) Experimental studies including cyclic triaxial testsshaking table tests and centrifuge tests have been conductedfor the last four decades (eg [14ndash16]) to validate the theoriesand better understand the mechanism Simplified methodsto evaluate liquefaction characteristics from SPT and CPTtest results are developed by Seed and Idriss [17] Tokimatsuand Seed [18] Robertson and Wride [19] Youd and Idriss[20] and Idriss and Boulanger [21] Although simplified totalstress-based methods are used in general practice for theease of computation to evaluate the liquefaction potential andassociate settlement these methods are unable to account forthe progressive stiffness degradation of soil due to repeatedshearing and pore-pressure rise during an earthquake eventAs a result nonlinear site response analysis and dynamictime history analyses are recommended for design of highrisk infrastructures such as dams bridges and nuclear powerplants [21] In this study three different analytical models byFinn et al [10] Liou et al [9] and Katsikas and Wylie [11]are studied to compare the response of saturated sand depositunder earthquake motions

Rollins and Seed [22] introduced three factors to evaluatethe effect of overburden pressure on liquefaction potentialThese factors are static shear stress effective confining pres-sure and over consolidated ratio (OCR)

Shear Stress Overburden pressure and slope situation mayinduce anisotropy consolidated condition and cause initialstatic shear stress in the soil mass According to related stud-ies static shear stress may affect soil liquefaction potentialdirectly Lee and Seed [14] indicated that the liquefactionresistance of soil increases by increase of static shear stressIncrease of initial static shear stress in the soil mass may

lead to increase of soil settlement and compression andsubsequently it leads to increase of Cyclic Resistant Ratio(CRR)

CRR =120591119888119910

120590

1015840 (1)

where 120591119888119910= cyclic shear strength and 1205901015840 = vertical effective

stress

Effective Confining Pressure Using the results of dynamic tri-axial testing Peacock and Seed [23] indicated that cyclic shearstress increases by increase of effective confining pressurebut Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is contrary Mulilis et al[24] denoted that Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) may slightlydecrease by increase of effective confining pressure Hynesand Olsen [25] concluded that several factors such as methodof deposition stress history aging effects and density mayaffect the influence of confining stress variations on the CRR

Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) According to related studiesover-consolidation state is an important effect for soil liq-uefaction potential If a soil mass has experienced stresseshigher than its current state it is an over-consolidated soil(OCR gt 1)

CRR =119875119888

1198750

(2)

where119875119888= overconsolidation stress and119875

0= current existing

stressSeed and Idriss [26] showed that the liquefaction resis-

tance increases by increase of the OCR values Using cyclictorsion shear test Ishihara and Takatsu [27] showed therelations between OCR 119870

0and cyclic shear strength As

shown in their results under constant 1198700 the cyclic stress

ratio increases by increase of the OCR value

21 Modeling Procedure and Finn Constitutive Model Inthis research the nonlinear dynamic analysis according tothe effective stress to assess the pore-pressure developmentthrough earthquake loadings has been applied The analyseshave been investigated in the plane strain condition employ-ing the FLAC finite difference package in both static anddynamic phases For the sake of simplicity the model hasbeen built one step in static condition

After determining the equilibrium condition in the staticstate the dynamic phase has been utilized in the model toalter the state boundary conditions to the dynamic one andconsider the earthquake loading to the system

Regarding FLAC guidance manual several constitu-tive models that facilitate soil behaviours under static anddynamic loadings have been introduced Calculation ofexcess pore water pressure in the soil mass because ofdynamic loading is the major factor in liquefaction phe-nomenon modelling process

FLAC has a constitutive model known as the Finn modelthat unifies equations represented by Martin et al [8] andByrne [7] into the standard Mohr-Coulomb plasticity modelThrough applying this model calculation of the pore water


30m

12m

18m

40m60m 80m40m

4m

Fr

Liquefiable



WallSea

b

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable






60








(120591max)119903 =120574ℎ

119892

119886max sdot 119903119889 (3)




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0800

0600

0400

0200

0000

minus0200

minus0400

minus0600

minus0800

(10+05)



History plot

(1031)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Ave SXYY-axis

X-axis





(Kgm3)




Bulk module(MPa)

1 Finn 1600 47 1 0500 32 10 6 10

2







Δ120576V119889 = 1198621 (120574 minus 1198622120576V119889) +1198623120576

2

V119889

120574 + 1198624120576V119889 (4)


Job title model


minus1222E + 01 lt x lt 2066E + 02

minus9338E + 01 lt y lt 1278E + 02

0 1

FLAC (version 400)

5E

Step 0


times101

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0000

minus2000

minus1000

minus3000

minus4000

minus5000

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

times102





Δ120576V119889

120574

= 1198621exp(minus119862

2(

120576V119889

120574

)) (5)

where 1198621and 119862


1198621= 7600(119863

119903)

minus25

(6)



119863119903= 15(119873

1)

05

60 (7)


1is as

follows

1198621= 87(119873

1)

minus125

60 (8)


1198622=

04

1198621

(9)






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820



dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700




dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000






0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










30m

12m

18m

40m60m 80m40m

4m

Fr

Liquefiable



WallSea

b

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable






60








(120591max)119903 =120574ℎ

119892

119886max sdot 119903119889 (3)




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0800

0600

0400

0200

0000

minus0200

minus0400

minus0600

minus0800

(10+05)



History plot

(1031)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Ave SXYY-axis

X-axis





(Kgm3)




Bulk module(MPa)

1 Finn 1600 47 1 0500 32 10 6 10

2







Δ120576V119889 = 1198621 (120574 minus 1198622120576V119889) +1198623120576

2

V119889

120574 + 1198624120576V119889 (4)


Job title model


minus1222E + 01 lt x lt 2066E + 02

minus9338E + 01 lt y lt 1278E + 02

0 1

FLAC (version 400)

5E

Step 0


times101

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0000

minus2000

minus1000

minus3000

minus4000

minus5000

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

times102





Δ120576V119889

120574

= 1198621exp(minus119862

2(

120576V119889

120574

)) (5)

where 1198621and 119862


1198621= 7600(119863

119903)

minus25

(6)



119863119903= 15(119873

1)

05

60 (7)


1is as

follows

1198621= 87(119873

1)

minus125

60 (8)


1198622=

04

1198621

(9)






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820



dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700




dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000






0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0800

0600

0400

0200

0000

minus0200

minus0400

minus0600

minus0800

(10+05)



History plot

(1031)

dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Ave SXYY-axis

X-axis





(Kgm3)




Bulk module(MPa)

1 Finn 1600 47 1 0500 32 10 6 10

2







Δ120576V119889 = 1198621 (120574 minus 1198622120576V119889) +1198623120576

2

V119889

120574 + 1198624120576V119889 (4)


Job title model


minus1222E + 01 lt x lt 2066E + 02

minus9338E + 01 lt y lt 1278E + 02

0 1

FLAC (version 400)

5E

Step 0


times101

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0000

minus2000

minus1000

minus3000

minus4000

minus5000

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

times102





Δ120576V119889

120574

= 1198621exp(minus119862

2(

120576V119889

120574

)) (5)

where 1198621and 119862


1198621= 7600(119863

119903)

minus25

(6)



119863119903= 15(119873

1)

05

60 (7)


1is as

follows

1198621= 87(119873

1)

minus125

60 (8)


1198622=

04

1198621

(9)






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820



dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700




dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000






0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Job title model


minus1222E + 01 lt x lt 2066E + 02

minus9338E + 01 lt y lt 1278E + 02

0 1

FLAC (version 400)

5E

Step 0


times101

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0000

minus2000

minus1000

minus3000

minus4000

minus5000

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

times102





Δ120576V119889

120574

= 1198621exp(minus119862

2(

120576V119889

120574

)) (5)

where 1198621and 119862


1198621= 7600(119863

119903)

minus25

(6)



119863119903= 15(119873

1)

05

60 (7)


1is as

follows

1198621= 87(119873

1)

minus125

60 (8)


1198622=

04

1198621

(9)






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820



dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700




dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000






0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0980

0960

0940

0920

0900

0880

0860

0840

0820



dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis


1000


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0950

0900

0850

0800

0750

0700




dynamic time

FLAC (version 400)

Y-axis

X-axis

1000






0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

4

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hor

izon

tal d

ispla

cem

ent (

m)

Wall width (m)





0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vert

ical

disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Wall width (m)








0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

SPT (N)



30m18m

40m 60m 80m 40m

Liquefiable

WallSea 5 10 15 20m10 20 30m

6 9 12m

12m

Nonliquefiable

Nonliquefiable














3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










3

25

2

15

1

05

00 10 20 30 40

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)







4 Conclusions




3

25

2

15

1

05

0

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



0

05

1

15

2

25

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)











References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation















References

































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation

















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation









research article examination of the behavior of gravity

Documents