- 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 and 10:
8.0 HAZARD EVALUATION AND DEVELOPME
- Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: ODOT’
- 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: 8.4.2 Subduction Zone Bedrock Motio
- 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).