Report - Oregon State Library: State Employee Information Center ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Estimated Susceptibility of Sedimentary Deposits to Liquefaction during Strong Seismic Shaking....................................................................................................................................43 Table 3.2: Criteria Used in Compiling Liquefaction Susceptibility Map for the San Fernando Valley, California ..............................................................................................................................................44 Table 3.3: A Microzonation Procedure Based on Topography ............................................................................44 Table 3.4: Advantages and Disadvantages of the SPT and CPT for the Assessment of Liquefaction Resistance..............................................................................................................................................49 Table 3.5: Proposed Simplified Site Classification System ...................................................................................52 Table 3.6: Boundaries of Soil Behavior Type.........................................................................................................62 Table 3.7: Values of CSR Correction Factor, c) ....................................................................................................66 Table 3.8: Influence of OCR on the Cyclic Stress Ratio Required to Cause Liquefaction and Large Strains in Silt Specimens......................................................................................................................69 Table 4.1: Recommended Fines Correction for Estimation of Residual Undrained Strength...........................80 Table 4.2: Recommended Fines Correction for Estimation of Residual Undrained Strength...........................81 Table 4.3: Ranges of Input Values for Independent Variables for Which Predicted Results are Verified by Case History Observations ..............................................................................................88 Table 5.1: Liquefaction Remediation Measures ..................................................................................................102 Table 6.1: Comparison of FLAC and Finite Element Numerical Programs.....................................................110 Table 7.1: Material Properties Used in Parametric Study..................................................................................125 Table 7.2: Earthquake Motions Used in the Parametric Study..........................................................................128 Table 7.4: Summary of FLAC Displacements......................................................................................................132 Table 8.1: Critical Flood Elevations for the Columbia River Near the Portland International Airport........144 Table 8.2: Conversion Table for Various Data ....................................................................................................145 Table 8.3: Comparison of Recommended PGA Values for the Site ...................................................................151 Table 8.4: Attenuation Relationship Input Parameters with the Resulting PGA rock Values............................153 Table 8.5: Selected Acceleration Time Histories..................................................................................................154 Table 8.6: Summary of PGA values......................................................................................................................163 Table 8.7: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) from Lab Test Data for Normally Consolidated, Silty Soils ........165 Table 8.8: Magnitude Scaling Factors, MSF........................................................................................................166 Table 8.9: Fines Content Values Estimated for Residual Undrained Shear Strength Analyses......................172 Table 8.10: Peak Horizontal Acceleration Values for the Scenario Earthquakes.............................................175 Table 8.11: Critical Acceleration (a y ) Values for Residual Strength Conditions ..............................................175 Table 8.12: Deformation Results from Newmark Analyses Using Residual Strength Values .........................176 Table 8.13: Deformation Results from the Makdisi-Seed Method Using Residual Strength Values ..............176 Table 8.14: Deformation Results from the Bracketed Intensity Method Using Residual Strength Values ....177 Table 8.15: Deformation Results from the Parametric Study Outlined in Chapter 7......................................177 Table 8.16: Soil Properties Used in the Numerical Model. .................................................................................178 Table 8.17: Deformation Results from Numerical Model Analyses with River Elev. at 2.1 m (7 ft)...............180 Table 8.18: Deformation Results from Numerical Model Analyses with River Elev. at 8.8 m (29 ft).............180 Table 8.19: Deformation Results from Numerical Model Analyses with River Elevation at the Crest ..........181 Table 8.20: Riverward Deformation Results Comparison for the Earthquake Magnitude 8.5 Analyses.......182 Table 8.21: Comparison of Predicted Maximum Levee Displacements With and Without Soil Improvement at the 100 yr flood stage.............................................................................................186 viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: ODOT’s Liquefaction Mitigation Procedure..............................................................................................4 Figure 2.1: Salinas River Bridge Damage ..................................................................................................................11 Figure 2.2: Area of Damage of 1964 Alaska Earthquake ...........................................................................................13 Figure 2.3: Bridge 596, Resurrection River. Centerline Section Looking Upstream (Natural Scale) .......................13 Figure 2.4: Bridge 598, Resurrection River. Centerline Section Looking Upstream (Natural Scale) .......................14 Figure 2.5: Bridge 596................................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.6: Bridge 605, Snow River 3. Centerline Section Looking Downstream (Natural Scale)............................15 Figure 2.7: Bridge 605, Snow River 3. Post-earthquake View, Looking Downstream. .............................................15 Figure 2.8: Bridge 605A, Snow River 3. During Construction. Looking East from Midspan....................................16 Figure 2.9: Bridge 605A. Lateral Elevation of Pier 6 as Constructed at Time of Earthquake....................................16 Figure 2.10(a): Collapsed Bent and Deck of Copper River 5 Bridge 334, Mile 35.0, Copper River Highway..........17 Figure 2.10(b): Post-earthquake Settlement at Copper River Bridge 334 ..................................................................17 Figure 2.11: Correlation between Foundation Displacements Sustained and Foundation Support Conditions at Bridges on the Seward, Sterling and Copper River Highways ...........................................................18 Figure 2.12: Showa Bridge.........................................................................................................................................19 Figure 2.13: Permanent Ground Displacements in the Upstream Area of the Shinano River ....................................20 Figure 2.14: Damage to Yachiyo Bridge 5, 6 .............................................................................................................21 Figure 2.15: Damage to the Yachiyo Bridge ..............................................................................................................22 Figure 2.16: Damage to the NHK Building................................................................................................................22 Figure 2.17: Observed Pile Deformation and Soil Conditions at NFCH Building .....................................................23 Figure 2.18: Damage to the Moss Landing Research Facility due to Settlement and Lateral Spreading ...................24 Figure 2.19: Damage from the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake near Monterey Bay.................................................25 Figure 2.20: South Terminal Pier of Bridge over Salinas River 6.4 km South of Salinas..........................................25 Figure 2.21: Liquefaction-induced Lateral Spreading Beneath the Salinas River Highway Bridge...........................26 Figure 2.22: Ground Deformations Next to Railroad Bridge Pier..............................................................................27 Figure 2.23: Excessive Settlement of Approach Fill ..................................................................................................27 Figure 2.24: Sand Boils at the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge Approach Fill ....................................................28 Figure 2.25: Rio Vizcaya Bridge, Pile Failures (North Abutment) ............................................................................29 Figure 2.26: Damage due to Liquefaction at Rio Banano Bridge...............................................................................30 Figure 2.27: Damage to Pile Structure at Marine Facility ..........................................................................................31 Figure 2.28: Dai-ni Maya Ohashi Bridge ...................................................................................................................32 Figure 2.29: Maya Ohashi Bridge...............................................................................................................................32 Figure 2.30: Damage to Rokko Ohashi Bridge...........................................................................................................33 Figure 2.31: Displacements to Bridge Foundations at Rokko Ohashi Bridge ............................................................33 Figure 2.32: Kobe Ohashi Bridge Damage.................................................................................................................34 Figure 2.33: Foundation Damage at Kobe Ohashi Bridge..........................................................................................34 Figure 2.34: Nadahama Ohashi Bridge Lateral Spreading of 3 to 4 m.......................................................................35 Figure 2.35: Liquefaction Damage Adjacent to the Nadahama Ohashi Bridge..........................................................35 Figure 2.36: Damage to Structures near the Nadahama Ohashi Bridge......................................................................36 Figure 2.37: Damage to Pile Foundations near the Nadahama Ohashi Bridge...........................................................36 Figure 3.1: Range of r d Values for Different Soil Profiles..........................................................................................51 Figure 3.2: Peak Ground Surface Acceleration versus Peak Bedrock Acceleration for Defined Soil Classes ...........51 Figure 3.3: Empirical Relationship between the Cyclic Stress Ratio Initiating Liquefaction and (N 1 ) 60 Values for Silty Sands in M 7.5 Earthquakes .......................................................................................................54 Figure 3.4: Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators.................................................................56 Figure 3.5: Minimum Values for K σ Recommended for Clean Sands, Silty Sands and Gravels................................57 Figure 3.6: Correction Factors K for Static Shear Ratios .....................................................................................58 Figure 3.7: Flowchart Illustrating the Application of the Integrated CPT Method of Evaluating Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) in Sandy Soils................................................................................................................59 Figure 3.8: Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type Chart.............................................................................................61 Figure 3.9: CPT-Based Curves for Various Values of Soil Behavior Index, I c ..........................................................63 ix
Page 1: ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEF
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would l
Page 7 and 8: ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEF
Page 9: 8.0 HAZARD EVALUATION AND DEVELOPME
Page 13: Figure 8.8: Long Valley Dam and Lak
Page 16 and 17: Design of a given component shall l
Page 18 and 19: Liquefaction Mitigation Procedure G
Page 20 and 21: Pacific Northwest also are summariz
Page 23 and 24: 2.0 OVERVIEW OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCE
Page 25 and 26: oughly 50 centimeters, with numerou
Page 27 and 28: supported bridges along the Seward
Page 29 and 30: Another area of extensive bridge da
Page 31 and 32: Nineteen bridges were also damaged
Page 33 and 34: 1. No foundation failures were obse
Page 35 and 36: piles supporting the fourth pier, l
Page 37 and 38: Figure 2.17: Observed Pile Deformat
Page 39 and 40: Figure 2.19: Damage from the 1906 S
Page 41 and 42: Figure 2.22: Ground Deformations Ne
Page 43 and 44: induced ground displacement was the
Page 45 and 46: Well-documented case histories of t
Page 47 and 48: Similar damage to pile foundations
Page 49 and 50: Examples of acceptable bridge found
Page 51 and 52: Numerous investigations of liquefac
Page 53 and 54: 3.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION SUSC
Page 55 and 56: The evaluation of liquefaction haza
Page 57 and 58: Table 3.1: Estimated Susceptibility
Page 59 and 60: movements, or localized ground disp
Page 61 and 62:
Shear wave velocities can now be ob
Page 63 and 64:
3.4 LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE: EMPIRI
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 3.1: Range of r d Values for
Page 67 and 68:
The earthquake-induced shearing str
Page 69 and 70:
drill rod during hammer impact. In
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 3.5: Minimum Values for K σ
Page 73 and 74:
3.4.2.2.1 CPT Method Developed by R
Page 75 and 76:
1. Sensitive, fine grained 6. Sands
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 3.9: CPT-Based Curves for Va
Page 79 and 80:
CRR where: q c 2 3 0.00128 0.0
Page 81 and 82:
Tacoma, Washington (Dickenson and B
Page 83 and 84:
Table 3.8: Influence of OCR on the
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3.13: Influence of Fines Con
Page 87:
Gravel Sand Figure 3.16: Relationsh
Page 90 and 91:
FS L > 1.4: Excess pore pressure ge
Page 92 and 93:
The post-liquefaction strength of s
Page 94 and 95:
Figure 4.3: Undrained Critical Stre
Page 96 and 97:
4.3 INTRODUCTION TO MODES OF FAILUR
Page 98 and 99:
Figure 4.5: (a) Relationship betwee
Page 100 and 101:
not available for many case studies
Page 102 and 103:
provided to give the recommended ra
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 4.8: Overview of EPOLLS Mode
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 4.10: Model of Hypothetical
Page 108 and 109:
4.5.2 Advanced Numerical Modeling o
Page 110 and 111:
Figure 4.12: Post Volumetric Shear
Page 112 and 113:
The relationship shown in Figure 4.
Page 114 and 115:
A third type of failure is shown in
Page 116 and 117:
Table 5.1: Liquefaction Remediation
Page 118 and 119:
5.3 DESIGN OF SOIL MITIGATION The d
Page 120 and 121:
soil improvement guidelines state t
Page 122 and 123:
The models were instrumented with a
Page 124 and 125:
The model uses an explicit method,
Page 126 and 127:
A simplification was made in the mo
Page 128 and 129:
permanent earthquake displacements)
Page 130 and 131:
7.0 DEFORMATION ANALYSIS OF EMBANKM
Page 132 and 133:
engineers; (2) requisite input incl
Page 134 and 135:
π g 2 a t I a 2 dt (7-1) The A
Page 136 and 137:
10 1 Bracketed Intensity (m/s) 0.1
Page 138 and 139:
7.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY A well-validat
Page 140 and 141:
the rigid body methods. The point a
Page 142 and 143:
0.4 Acceleration (g) 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.
Page 144 and 145:
Embankment Height (m) Depth of Liqu
Page 146 and 147:
10 1 DISPLACEMENT (m) 0.1 Morgan Hi
Page 148 and 149:
2.0 Embankment Toe Embankment Mid-S
Page 150:
suitably reliable estimates of perm
Page 153 and 154:
interest. Specifically, the peak be
Page 155 and 156:
Flow Chart for Evaluation and Mitig
Page 157 and 158:
The deformation evaluations were pe
Page 159 and 160:
Portland (a) (b) Figure 8.2: Illust
Page 161 and 162:
Figure 8.4: Contours of PGA on Rock
Page 163 and 164:
Borehole 4E CPT Hole 4E 26.0' NGVD
Page 165 and 166:
8.4.2 Subduction Zone Bedrock Motio
Page 167 and 168:
154 Table 8.5: Selected Acceleratio
Page 169 and 170:
Spectral Acceleration (g) 1.50 1.40
Page 171 and 172:
with the calculated equivalent unif
Page 173 and 174:
n ( M 10 1) (8-1) where M is the
Page 175 and 176:
0.20 0.15 0.10 Acceleration (g) 0.0
Page 177 and 178:
15.0 12.5 10.0 Long Valley Dam Lake
Page 179 and 180:
CSR should be modified for the pres
Page 181 and 182:
8.7 EVALUATION OF INITIATION OF LIQ
Page 183 and 184:
crest stage Marine Drive 42.5 ft NG
Page 185 and 186:
Table 8.9: Fines Content Values Est
Page 187 and 188:
large sliding and long-term disrupt
Page 189 and 190:
Table 8.12: Deformation Results fro
Page 191 and 192:
The earthquake time histories used
Page 193 and 194:
North (river) South (land) North To
Page 195 and 196:
Table 8.20: Riverward Deformation R
Page 197 and 198:
applications (DDC, closely spaced v
Page 199 and 200:
Table 8.21: Comparison of Predicted
Page 202 and 203:
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Recent
Page 204:
dewatering may be warranted. Additi
Page 207 and 208:
Bardet, J.P. (1990). “LINOS - A N
Page 209 and 210:
California Division of Mines and Ge
Page 211 and 212:
Fujii, S., M. Cubrinovski, K. Tokim
Page 213 and 214:
Ishihara, K. and M. Cubrinovski. (1
Page 215 and 216:
Liu, A.H. and J.P. Stewart. (1999).
Page 217 and 218:
Oregon Department of Transportation
Page 219 and 220:
Schnabel, P., J. Lysmer, and H.B. S
Page 221 and 222:
Sun, I.H. and I.M. Idriss. (1992).
Page 223:
Youd, T.L. and C.F. Jones. (1993).
show all

Report - Oregon State Library: State Employee Information Center ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?