SR99 Bored Tunnel-Assessment of Settlement Impacts ... - SCATnow

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT055 605 Thomas Street 287+04 N M M No Level 2A106 203 6 th Avenue North 284+22 VSL VSL VSL No Level 2A105 221 6 th Avenue North 285+09 N VSL VSL No Level 1A104 233 6 th Avenue North 286+63 VSL VSL VSL No Level 2The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 40Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment
7.0 ReferencesAttewell, P.B.; Yeates, J.; and Selby, A.R.. 1986 Soil Movements Induced by Tunneling andTheir Effects on Pipelines and Structures. New York: Chapman and Hall.Attewell, P.B. and Woodman, J.P.,.1982. ”Predicting the dynamics of groundsettlement and its derivitives caused by tunnelling in soil”. Ground Engineering, Vol. 15,No. 8. pp. 13 - 22, 36.Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.J.. 1989. “Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No.1. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 1-21.Burland, J.B. and Wroth, C.P.. 1974. “Settlement of buildings and associateddamage”. Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures. London, England:Pentech Press. pp. 611-654.Clough, G.W, and O’Rourke, T.D. 1990. “Construction induced movements of insitu walls”. In Labe, P.C., and Hansen, L.A. (Eds.), Design and Performance of EarthRetaining Structures, Ithaca, N.Y., Proceedings: Special Publication No. 25. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 439-470.O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. 1983. “Settlements above tunnels in the UnitedKingdom, their magnitude and prediction”. Proceedings of Tunneling ’82, Brighton,1982, pp. 173-181. Report of discussion: Trans. Inst. Mining Metallurgy, Vol. 92,Section A, pp. A35-A48.Peck, R.B. 1969. “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground”. Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City,State of the Art Volume. pp. 225-290.Schmidt, B.. 1969. Settlement and ground movements associated with tunneling in soil. PhDThesis. University of Illinois, Urbana.Son, M. and Cording, E.J. 2005. “Estimation of Building Damage Due toExcavation-Induced Ground Movements”. Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering, February 2005. pp. 162-177.Shannon & Wilson. 2010. Ground Movements and Ground Improvement Techniques, StateRoute (SR) 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative, Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall ReplacementProgram (AWVSRP), Seattle, Washington. March 2010.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 41Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMM
Page 7 and 8: Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel -Assess
Page 9 and 10: The damage classification for the r
Page 11 and 12: 2.0 Program Description & Backgroun
Page 13 and 14: 2.2 Tunnel Project DescriptionThe T
Page 15 and 16: 2.2.3 North Access Project Descript
Page 17 and 18: 3.0 Building AssessmentThe tunnel a
Page 19 and 20: . History of settlement - based upo
Page 21 and 22: 4.0 Settlement and Ground Movement4
Page 23 and 24: Figure 3. Generalized Transverse Se
Page 25 and 26: 5.0 Building Response to Excavation
Page 27 and 28: Table 2. Building Damage Classifica
Page 29 and 30: tunnel axis), the settlement trough
Page 31 and 32: 6.0 Results of Structural Analyses6
Page 33 and 34: Therefore, high-rise buildings alon
Page 35 and 36: Table 4. Summary of Building Damage
Page 37 and 38: PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIM
Page 45: PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIM
Page 49 and 50: Appendix ATunnel Alignment Plan She
Page 51 and 52: A1Legend! ! SeawallPiersAreawaysTun
Page 53 and 54: T161NOTES :1) ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE
Page 55 and 56: A3LegendMONORAILEBIAreawaysTunnelTu
Page 57 and 58: Appendix BBuilding Damage Classific
Page 59 and 60: Figure B-1. Graphical Illustration
Page 61 and 62: Appendix CBuilding Assessment Forms
Page 63 and 64: List of Abbreviations Used in Build
Page 65 and 66: Distance to Tunnel:• Horizontal o
Page 67 and 68: example, T311 and T312 are the same
Page 69 and 70: Appendix DBoscardin and Cording Ana
Page 71 and 72: Table of Contents1.0 B&C ANALYSIS M
Page 73 and 74: 1.0 B&C Analysis MethodThe building
Page 75 and 76: Offset, Yδε hLβDeparture from tu
Page 77 and 78: Figure D-1. Building Location Coord
Page 79 and 80: 1.00.90.80.7G((X-XT)/KZ)0.60.50.40.
Page 81 and 82: 2.0 B&C Damage ClassificationsTable
Page 83 and 84: 3.0 E/G RatioE/G is based upon Tabl
Page 85 and 86: 4.0 Building HeightBuilding height
Page 87 and 88: 5.0 Foundation DepthThe analysis to
Page 89 and 90: Appendix EMonitoringThe Alaskan Way
Page 91 and 92: Table of Contents1.0 INTRODUCTION .
Page 93 and 94: 1.0 IntroductionThe potential groun
Page 95 and 96: 2.0 Basic MonitoringManual survey p
Page 97 and 98:
3.0 Tilt Meter Monitoring3.1 Goals3
Page 99 and 100:
4.0 GPS Monitoring4.1 Goals4.2 Impl
Page 101 and 102:
5.0 Automated Monitoring Total Stat
Page 103 and 104:
6.0 Distributed Data Acquisition6.1
Page 105 and 106:
The emerging capability of wireless
Page 107 and 108:
7.0 Levels of MonitoringEach buildi
show all

SR99 Bored Tunnel-Assessment of Settlement Impacts ... - SCATnow

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?