levee overtopping and intelligent compaction lecture-24sep2009.pdf · 11. soil cation exchange cap...

Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University

LEVEE OVERTOPPINGAND

INTELLIGENT COMPACTION

The 2009 Charles W. Hair Memorial Lecture

byJean-Louis BRIAUD, PhD, PEProfessor andHolder of the Buchanan ChairTexas A&M University

LEVEE OVERTOPPING

J-L Briaud, Texas A&M University

1 MPa = 150 psi10 kN = 1 ton

25 mm = 1 inch

Input to an erosion problem

•Soil (Erodibility)

•Water (Velocity)

•Geometry (Dimensions)

Relationship between the erosion rate and the velocity of the water near the soil-water interface.

Relationship between the erosion rate and the shear stress at the soil-water interface.

( )Z f τ=

DEFINITION OF SOIL ERODIBILITY

Constitutive Law fo Soil Erosion

EFA - EROSION FUNCTION APPARATUS

Scour Rate vs Shear Stress

100.00

1000.00

10000.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Shear Stress (N/m2)

Sand D50=0.3 mm

Scour Rate vs Velocity

100.00

1000.00

10000.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Velocity (m/s)

Sand D50=0.3 mm

EROSION FUNCTION FOR A FINE SAND

Scour Rate vs Shear Stress

100.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Shear Stress (N/m2)

Porcelain Clay PI=16%Su=23.3 Kpa

Scour Rate vs Velocity

100.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Velocity (m/s)

Porcelain Clay PI=16%Su=23.3 Kpa

EROSION FUNCTION FOR A LOW PI CLAY

12NIAGARA FALLS11000 m of lateral erosion from Lake Ontario

towards Lake Erie in 12000 years or 0.1 mm/hr

From Google Earthhttp://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html

http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/niagara/niagara.htm

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

Niagara River1841

Niagara Falls

13GRAND CANYON

1600 m of vertical erosion by the Colorado Riverin 10 Million years or 0.00002 mm/hr

ERODIBILITY CATEGORIES (Velocity)

100000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Velocity (m/s)

Very HighErodibility

HighErodibility

MediumErodibility

IIILow

Erodibility IV

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

-Fine Sand-Non-plastic Silt

-Medium Sand-Low Plasticity Silt -Fine Gravel

-Coarse Sand -High Plasticity Silt-Low Plasticity Clay

-All fissured Clays

-Cobbles-Coarse Gravel

-High Plasticity Clay

-Riprap

- Increase in Compaction (well graded soils)- Increase in Density

- Increase in Water Salinity (clay)

Non-ErosiveVI-Intact Rock

-Jointed Rock (Spacing < 30 mm)

-Jointed Rock (30-150 mm Spacing)

-Jointed Rock (150-1500 mm Spacing)

-Jointed Rock (Spacing > 1500 mm)

CRITICAL VELOCITY vs GRAIN SIZE

1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Mean Grain Size, D50 (mm)

Critical Velocity,

CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL RIP-RAP & JOINTED ROCK

Vc = 0.35 (D50)0.45Vc = 0.1 (D50)-0.2

Vc = 0.03 (D50)-1

US Army Corps of Engineers EM 1601

INTACT ROCK

Joint Spacing for Jointed Rock

POCKET ERODOMETERPET test result = Depth of hole in mm after 20 squirts at 8 m/s

$0.49 atWalMart

POCKET ERODOMETERPET test result = Depth of hole in mm after

20 squirts at 8 m/s

POCKET ERODOMETERPET test result = Depth of hole in mm after

20 squirts at 8 m/s

Velocity Calibration

0 2xxvHg

mm mmmm

9. Soil clay minerals10. Soil dispersion ratio11. Soil cation exchange cap12. Soil sodium absorption rat13. Soil pH14. Soil temperature15. Water temperature16. Water salinity17. Water pH

Erodibility depends on soil properties

1. Soil water content2. Soil unit weight 3. Soil plasticity index4. Soil undrained shear str.5. Soil void ratio6. Soil swell7. Soil mean grain size8. Soil percent passding #200

NO SIMPLE CORRELATION !

CSS vs. Su

R2 = 0.1093

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00

Su(kPa)

EFA test onCreamy Peanut Butter

Su = 1.8 kPaVc = 1.4 m/s

100000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Velocity (m/s)

HighErodibility

MediumErodibility

LowErodibility

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

100000

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Shear Stress (Pa)

HighErodibility

IIMedium

Erodibility III

LowErodibility

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

•Water (Velocity)

Shear Stress Applied by Water

Flow Hydrograph

Obtaining a design flood valueFlood-frequency curve based on Original Hydrograph

(1931-1999)

y = -2491.6Ln(x) + 12629R2 = 0.9563

0.1110100

Percent probability of exceedance in X years

3 /sec)

100year flood: 12629m3/s500year flood: 16639m3/s

Probably of Exceedance - PoE

100 yr 53% PoE, v100 = 2.8* m/s 500 yr 13.9% PoE, v500 = 3.25* m/s 10000 yr 0.75% PoE, v10000 = 3.95* m/s

* Example for Woodrow Wilson Bridge for 75 year design life.

Structural Eng. operate at a Prob. of Exceedance of 0.1%?Geotechnical Eng. operate at a Prob. of Exceedance of 1%?Hydraulic Eng. operate at a Prob. of Exceedance of 10%?

•Water (Velocity)

PIER SIZE & SHAPE for PIER SCOUR

RADIUS OF CURVATURE FOR MEANDERS

OVERTOPPING OF LEVEES

RANS Equations Continuity equation

Momentum (RANS) Equations

Energy Equation

0)U(t m,

m =+∂∂ ρρ

( ) ( )m,

imimmnmimn

ilimm,

Ueg2RUUt

µξΩΩξΩΩρ

Ωρρ

+−=−+

∂∂

( ) ( )

( ) uuUUgguuUU DtDpKTgTuTU

,,,,,,,,

+++−=Φ

′++∂∂

38On 29 August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico

Hurricane = 250 miles in diameter

Travel speed = 25 mph

Time on a levee or a bridge = 10 hours

Number of wave cycles = 6000

Created by friction between the windand the water, a storm surge develops

41STORM SURGE

TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

Flood Return Periodused in design in the Netherlands (levees)

1/10,000 for most populated areas 1/4,000 for less populated areas

Flood Return Periodused in design in the USA (bridges)

1/500 with Factor of Safety of 1 1/100 with normal Factor of Safety

Overtopping of levees not considered in levee design in the USA

EFA - EROSION FUNCTION APPARATUS

53EFA TEST RESULTS - Erosion rate vs velocity

100000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Velocity (m/s)S1-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S1-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S2-B1-(0-2ft)-TWS2-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S3-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S3-B2-(0-2ft)-SWS3-B3-(0-1ft)-SW S4-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW S4-(0-0.5ft)-HC-SWS5-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S6-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW S7-B1-(0-2ft)-TWS7-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S8-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S8-B1-(2-4ft)-L1-SWS8-B1-(2-4ft)-L2-SW S11-(0-0.5ft)-LC-TW S11-(0-0.5ft)-HC-TWS12-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S12-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S15-Canal Side-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SWS15-CanalSide-(0-0.5ft)-HC-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0.5-1.0ft)-LT-SW

HighErodibility

II MediumErodibility

IIILow

Erodibility IV

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

NUMERICAL SIMULATION

t = 0.80 sec

t = 1.28 sec

t = 1.60 sec

t = 1.92 sec

t = 2.39 sec

56SHEAR STRESSES ON LEVEE SURFACE

57EFA TEST RESULTS - Erosion rate vs shear stress

100000

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000Shear Stress (Pa)

S1-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S1-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S2-B1-(0-2ft)-TWS2-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S3-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S3-B2-(0-2ft)-SWS3-B3-(0-1ft)-SW S4-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW S4-(0-0.5ft)-HC-SWS5-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S6-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW S7-B1-(0-2ft)-TWS7-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S8-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S8-B1-(2-4ft)-L1-SWS8-B1-(2-4ft)-L2-SW S11-(0-0.5ft)-LC-TW S11-(0-0.5ft)-HC-TWS12-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S12-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S15-Canal Side-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SWS15-CanalSide-(0-0.5ft)-HC-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0.5-1.0ft)-LT-SW

Erodibility II

MediumErodibility

IIILow

Erodibility IV

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

LEVEES – FAILED and NOT FAILED

100000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Velocity (m/s)S2-B1-(0-2ft)-TW S2-B1-(2-4ft)-SW S3-B1-(2-4ft)-SW

S3-B2-(0-2ft)-SW S3-B3-(0-1ft)-SW S4-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW

S5-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S6-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW S15-Canal Side-(0-0.5ft)-LC-SW

S15-CanalSide-(0-0.5ft)-HC-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0-0.5ft)-LT-SW S15-Levee Crown-(0.5-1.0ft)-LT-SW

HighErodibility

II MediumErodibility

IIILow

Erodibility IV

Very LowErodibility

Erosion Rate

(mm/hr)

Note:- Solid circles = levee breaches- Empty circles = no levee damage

LEVEE OVERTOPPING CHART

100000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Velocity (m/s)

ErosionRate

(mm/hr)

HighErodibility

IIMedium

Erodibility III

LowErodibility

Very LowErodibility

TRANSITIONZONE

PRONE TOFAILURE BY

OVERTOPPING

PRONE TO RESIST

OVERTOPPING

- Strong roots- Dense growth- High, flexible, overlapping bladed leaves- The idea is to form a mat of grass so that

the water never touches the soil

INTELLIGENT COMPACTION

MODULUS BASED CONTROL

CURRENT PRACTICEBased on Density

• LAB: Proctor test to get dry density vs. water content curve

• SPEC: x% of γd max within range of w opt

• FIELD: Compact and check that γd and w meet the specs

• LAB : Proctor Test

Water Content (%)

3 9 15 2114

γd max

S = 1S = 0.9

Water Content (%)

3 9 15 2114

γd max

S = 1S = 0.9

• SPECIFICATIONS. X % of γd max within range of w opt

• FIELD

Nuclear Density MeterFor γd and w

Dry Density: Advantages and Disadvantages

1. AdvantagesAccumulated knowledgeWell defined parameterIndication of solids per unit volume

2. DisadvantagesNot related to designNot very sensitiveNot easy to measure quickly in field

FUTURE PRACTICEBased on Modulus

• LAB: Modulus test to get modulus vs. water content curve

• SPEC: x% of E max

within range of w opt

• FIELD: Intelligent compaction and check that E max and w meet the specs

• LAB : Modulus Test

Water Content (%)6 10 14 18

• SPECIFICATIONS X % of E max within range of w opt

• FIELD

Modulus MeterFor E and w

Intelligent Compaction

Modulus: Advantages and Disadvantages

1. AdvantagesDirectly related to designVery sensitive to water contentEasy to measure quickly in field

2. DisadvantagesMany influencing factorsNo lab test to get E vs. wNo target valuesNew concept

WHICH MODULUS?

Which Modulus? PLATE MODULUS in FIELD

BPT: Briaud Plate Test

Example of same modulus testin lab and in field

BCD Test: Briaud Compaction Device

BCD on Proctor Mold BCD in the Field

Silty Sand (Mold #7)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Water Content (%)

Plate Reload Modulus (MPa)

Dry Unit Weight (kN/m^3)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Water Content (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Water Content (%)

Sand + Porcelain Clay (Mold #5)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Water Content (%)

Dry Unit Weight (kN/m^3))

Sand + Porcelain Clay (Mold #6)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Water Content (%)

Plate Reload Modulus (MPa)Dry Unit Weight (kN/m^3)

Sand + Porcelain Clay

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Water Content (%)

• Only one of those three is not enough

• Two of those three are sufficient

• All three would be nice

1. Density?2. Modulus?3. Water Content?

Conventional Compaction (static or vibratory smooth drum

or sheep-foot)

Intelligent Vibratory Compaction

• Instrumented vibrating rollers• Measure roller accel. as a function of time• Calculate a soil modulus• That modulus is independent of the roller• Intelligent roller modifies automaticallyinstantaneously settings (force, ampl., freq.)to meet the target modulus

Recompaction of soft formation area with VARIOCONTROL automatic mode, presetting ( target value ) EVIB = 80 MN/m²

From Acceleration to Stiffness2 cos( ) ( )B d B d d d u u f dk x d x m x m r t m m g+ + = Ω Ω + +

FB: soil-drum-interaction-force md: mass of the drum (kg)xd: vert. disp. of drum (m) : acceleration of drummf: mass of the frame (kg) mu: unbalanced mass (kg)ru: radial distance for mu Ω = g: acc. due to gravity (m/sec2) f: frequency of rotating shaft (Hz)

: velocity of drum kB: stiffness of soildB: damping coefficient (dB ~ 0.2)

From Stiffness to Modulus(experimental)

From AMMANN

Soil Modulusfor Intelligent Compaction

Soil: 5 MPa unacceptable200 MPa excellent

Soil layers Density Bearing capacity Eveness(Standard Proctor) (load bearing test, EV2) (4 m straight edge)

Laying and compaction specification for road construction in Germany

Subbase 100 - 103 % * 100 - 150 MN/m² * 20 mm

Capping layer 100 - 103 % * 100 - 120 MN/m² * 40 mm

Formation 97 - 100 % * 45 - 80 MN/m² * 60 mm

* depending on road classification and road design

Specifications based on Modulus

From BOMAG

Triangular Rollers

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600

σ(kpa)

Influence Depth

σ(Kpa)

THANK YOU

briaud@tamu.edu

levee overtopping and intelligent compaction lecture-24sep2009.pdf · 11. soil cation exchange cap...

Documents

wave runup and overtopping - fema.gov · 2020. 3. 3. ·...

wave overtopping on dikes - research.utwente.nl

soil moisture and soil temperature monitoring - usda · pdf...

soil temperature and energy balance

soil quality, moisture, and temperature evaluation under

soil temperature protocol

apt johnson 1991 overtopping flow

attempt to improve crops irrigation using soil, air canopy...

the effects of soil moisture, soil temperature and air

identifying current and emerging diseases threats and...

the effects of soil temperature from soil mulching and

chapter 3: soil chemistry · table 3.1-temperature...

seawall overtopping model

variation in soil temperature, moisture, and plant growth...

temperature sensitivity of soil carbon...

soil moisture and temperature assimilation into the … ·...

effects of frozen soil on soil temperature, spring...

wave overtopping - core

soil temperature overview - uzk2015: startseite · soil...

overtopping flow protection aug 09