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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 8.14: Deformation Results from the Bracketed Intensity Method Using Residual Strength Values MARINE DRIVE LEVEE RIVERWARD FAILURE (cm) WATER LEVEL Mag. 6.2 Mag. 7.0 Mag. 8.5 Mag. 9.0 Time History at Elevation 1.5 m (5 ft) (NGVD) El. 2.1 m (7 ft) 0 0 6 FS 100 Year Flood N/A N/A 2 0 Top of Levee N/A N/A N/A N/A Time History at Elevation 6.4 m (21 ft) (NGVD) El. 2.1 m 0 0 4 FS 100 Year Flood N/A N/A
The earthquake time histories used in the analyses were recorded during the M w 6.2 Mammoth Lakes earthquake (Long Valley Dam station) and M w 8.5 Michoacán earthquake (Aeropuerto station). The motions were scaled to 0.29g and 0.12g, respectively. The SHAKE91 program was used to generate time histories at elevation -18 m (the input location for the motions in FLAC). The damping of the earthquake motions for numerical stability utilized Rayleigh damping. The acceptable Rayleigh damping used in the models was determined from the validation studies to be 5% at 5 Hz. Any baseline drift in the earthquake motions has been removed from all of the presented FLAC displacements. The ground motions computed with FLAC for the embankment and foundation soils (elevations 1.5m and 6.4m as previously referenced) differ from those computed using the SHAKE91 program for two primary reasons. First, the FLAC model employs a linear analysis for dynamic ground response while the SHAKE91 model is based on the equivalent linear approach. In addition, the FLAC program models the embankment in two dimensions as opposed to the 1D model used in SHAKE91. The end result of these important differences is that the ground motions computed with FLAC are greater than those computed with SHAKE91. FLAC motions at selected elevations in the model were as large as 50% to 90% greater than the values produced with SHAKE91. Effects such as 2D embankment response highlight the need to adjust results from 1D models with the results of case history data, 2D and 3D response analyses of similar earth structures, and sound engineering judgment. The water within the soil was modeled directly and was allowed to flow during the static solutions. During the dynamic solutions excess pore pressures were allowed to generate, but the dissipation of these pore pressures during earthquake shaking was not modeled. Water outside the slope was modeled as boundary pore pressure; therefore hydrodynamic effects were not modeled. The boundary conditions for the static solutions consisted of the bottom boundary being fixed in both the horizontal and vertical directions, while the sides of the model were treated as rollers (by fixing only the horizontal direction). During the dynamic analysis the bottom boundary was freed in the horizontal direction to allow application of the horizontal acceleration, and the sidewalls were treated as an infinite medium (free field), having the same properties as the adjacent model perimeter zones. Figure 8.22 shows the soil layering and the model grid used in the numerical model analyses. The soil properties used in the numerical model for the layers shown in the figure are given in Table 8.16. Table 8.16: Soil Properties Used in the Numerical Model (see Figure 8.22 for layer number references). Angle of Internal LAYER Dry Mass Density Cohesion (N Soil Type NUMBER (kg/m 3 Friction Porosity 1 ) 60 ) (kPa) blows/30 cm (deg) 1 SP 1381 37 0.4 0 11 2 SM 1252 33 0.5 0 11 3 CL/SM 1211 30 0.55 0 5 4 SM-ML 1288 33 0.4 0 6 5 SM 1366 33 0.5 0 6 6 SP 1381 37 0.5 0 10 7 ML 1098 0 0.6 62 3 8 SP 1489 37 0.4 0 31 178
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 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: Table 8.12: Deformation Results fro
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?