Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • YOUD Liquefaction Surface Effects

    Caricato da

    dr
    12 visualizzazioni14 pagine
    Youd Liquefaction

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Youd Liquefaction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    12 visualizzazioni14 pagine

    YOUD Liquefaction Surface Effects

    Caricato da

    dr
    Youd Liquefaction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 14
    LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED GROUND SURFACE DISRUPTION T. Leslie Youd Professor of Civil Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 and Christopher T. Garris Senior Staff Engineer Woodward-Clyde Consultants Salt Lake City, Utah 84047 ABSTRACT Although liquefaction is a major cause of earthquake damage, little harm occurs unless liquetaction generates some form of ground surface disruption or ground failure. Thus. ability to accurately predict potential for ground surface disruption is a major concern for hnologists charged with safe siting of constructed works. Ishihara presented preliminary al criteria for assessing. the potential for ground surface disruption at liquefaction sites Those criteria are based on relationships between the thickness of liquefiable sediment beneath a site and the corresponding thickness of overlying non-liquefiable soil. The purpose of this study is to further evaluate and verify these criteria by testing them against thicknesses calculated from a wide range of earthquake and site conditions. The newly developed data lead to the following conclusions: (1) For sites not susceptible to ground oscillation or lateral spread. the thickness bounds proposed by Ishihara appear to be valid. (2) For sites susceptible to ground oscillation or lateral spread, the bounds suggested by Ishihara are not sufficient for predicting ground surface disruption. 27 INTRODUCTION Although liquefaction is a major cause of earthquake damage, little harm occurs unless the liquefied condition leads to some form of ground surface disturbance or ground failure. ‘Thus ability to accurately predict potential for ground surface disruption is a major concern for geotechnologists charged with safe siting of constructed works Ishihara (1985) presented preliminary empirical criteria for assessing the potential for ground surface disruption at liquefaction sites . Those criteria are based on relationships between thicknesses of liquefiable layers beneath a site, and corresponding thicknesses of the overlying, non-lquefiable soil (Figures 1 and 2). Ishihara developed these relationships using analyses of field data from sites with or without surface liquefection effects. He evaluated field reconnaissance and borehole data from three large earthquakes--1964 Niigata. Japan (M=7.5), 1983 Nihonkai Chubu, Japan (M=7.7), and 1976 Tangshan, China (M=7.8). Using borehole logs from sites with or without surface effects of liquefaction, Ishihara calculated thicknesses of liquefiable layers and overlying non-liquefiable layers utilizing criteria published in the Japanese bridge code (Japan Highway Association, 1980). Ishihara plotted those data as shown in Figure I. and from those data sketched the bounds reproduced in Figure 2. These thickness relationships have been used by many engineers to assess the potential for liquefaction-induced damage to constructed works The purpose of this study is to further evaluate and verify Ishihara’s criteria by testing the proposed bounds against thicknesses of layers calculated from borehole data taken from field investigations following several additional earthquakes. These investigations cover a wider range of earthquake magnitudes and site conditions than the those considered by [shihara. LAYER THICKNESSES FROM SITES OF PAST LIQUEFACTION To test the bounds published by Ishihara (1985), we calculated layer thicknesses from data on 308 borehole logs taken from sites with or without surface effects of liquefaction shaken by 15 different earthquake ranging in magnitude from 5.3 to 8.0. The sites and the earthquakes that shook them are listed in Table 1. Data from these sites were compiled by Bartlett and Youd (1992) and by Loertscher (1994), Some of the data had been previously collected by Seed and others (1983), Liao (1986). and Ambraseys (1988). Because the "simplified procedure developed by Seed and his colleagues (Seed and others, 1985) is more widely used in the United States than other procedures to evaluate I1quefaction hazard, we utilized the simplified procedure to calculate layer thicknesses. For most sites, the simplified procedure and the procedure given in the Japanese bridge code yield comparable thicknesses, For the evaluation, we divided surface effects or lack of effects into four categories. (1) no observed surtace effects: (2) typical liquefaction effects, including sand boils and small ground fissures, but without noticeable lateral ground displacement; (3) typical liquefaction effects plus effects generated by ground oscillation, such as buckled pavements, curbs, broken pipelines. ete. 28 but without a consistent pattern of permanent lateral displacements; and (4) surface effects generated by laterals spreads, including a consistent pattern of permanent ground displacements accompanied by ground fissures and usually by sand boils. Layer thickness combinations from our analyses are plotted on Figures 3 to 10. Figure 3 shows thicknesses for earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 5.3 to 6.6 and estimated peak accelerations, aq... ranging from 0.13 g to 0.22 g, Although there were only two sites with typical liquefaction effects (sand boils and small fissures) in this data set, the plotted thicknesses agree well with Ishihara’s bound for 0.2 g peak acceleration, Most of the data on this plot are from the Marina District in San Francisco which was shaken by the 1957 Daly City (M = 5.3) without generating observed surface effects of liquefaction. This same area was severely disturbed by liquefaction effects during the much larger 1989 Loma Prieta event (M = 6.9). Figure 4 shows data from several earthquakes in the magnitude 5.9 to 7.0 range with estimated pax Fanging from 0.26 g to 0.35 g. The data from sites with surface disruption are correctly predicted by Ishihara’s bound with the exception of one badly misclassified datum noted as Vail site, and three points plotted noted as Marina District site where liquefaction-induced ground oscillation occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The borehole at the Vail site penetrated 4.9 m of non-liquefiable sediment before penetrating only 0.9 m of liquefiable silty sand. Although several sand boils erupted within about 30 m of the drill hole during the 1981 Westmorland, California earthquake, the drill site was near the eastern margin of the disturbed area, Perhaps the liquefiable sediment at the borehole locality was anonymously thin, or perhaps the conduits for the sand boils drifted laterally from nearby thicker liquefiable deposits. In any event, information from field measurements and observations may be expected to contain a small percentage of anomalous ot spurious data because of field inhomogeneities. The data from the Marina District indicate that Ishihara’s bounds may not be valid for ground oscillation sites. Figure 5 shows thickness data for earthquakes with magnitudes between 5.9 and 7.0, but with estimated a,,, between 0.37 and 0.55 Data on this plot come primarily from sites of lateral spreads generated by the 1971 San Fernando and 1979 Imperial Valley earthquakes (M = 6.4 and 6.6. respectively). Many of the data plotted on this figure are poorly predicted by Ishihara’s bounds. Most of the points plotting to the right of the bound on this figure are from the Jensen water filtration plant site in Sylmar, Califorma that was badly damaged by a lateral spread during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The Jensen facility was constructed on non-liquefiable compacted fill, as thick as 15 m, overlying a 1- to 5-m thick layer of liquefiable alluvial silt and sand. Lateral displacements at the filtration plant ranged from 0.1 m to more than a meter, accompanied by ground fissures and sporadic sand boil eruptions ("Rourke and others, 1992, Youd 1973). These data indicate that lateral spread can generate disruption to the ground surface for liquefiable layer thicknesses well below the bounds suggested by Ishihara Figure 6 shows thickness data for earthquakes with magnitudes between 5.9 and 7.0, but with estimated a,,,, between 0.56 g and 0.78 g. Only one datum on this plot, noted as J.P Castro site, lies well below Ishihara’s bound. That datum 1s from a site of ground oscillation where the thickness of the liquetiable layer was about 0.6 m and the thickness of the surface layer was 6.1 m, Surface effects of liquefaction at the site included sand boils, ground fissures and buckled ‘curbs in close proximity to open fissures (Youd and Keefer, in press). The latter features are 29 clear indications of ground oscillations, which characteristically buckle rigid linear bodies, such as curbs, due to compressional impacts, while pulling apart adjacent ground and overlying structures during extensional phases of oscillation. The location of this single point below Ishihara’s curve on Figure 6 along with the three points from the Marina District plotted on Figure 5 indicate that ground oscillation, as well as lateral spread, can generate disruptions to the ground surface in areas predicted to be free of surface disruption by Ishihara’s bounds. Figures 7 and 8, from the 1964 Niigata and 1988 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquakes, respectively. contain several points that lie beyond Ishihara’s bounds. All of these apparently misclassified data are from areas affected by lateral spreads. These data further support the postulate that lateral spreads can produce surface disruptions that are not correctly predicted by Ishihara’s bounds INTERPRETATIONS FROM RESULTS. Although we compiled a rather large data set, there are some biases in these data. For example, post-earthquake drilling investigations in Noshiro, Japan, were conducted primarily at sites where significant lateral displacement had occurred. Thus, for that locality, few sites were drilled where surface effects were not observed or where liquefaction effects were observed but lateral displacement did not occur. For the smaller magnitude earthquakes (M<6), nearly all of the borehole data are from sites where liquefaction was predicted, but surface effects were not evident. Many of these sites are in the Marina District of San Francisco where surface effects of liquefaction occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (M=6.9), but did not develop during the smaller 1957 Daly City earthquake (M=5.3). Although minor surface effects, primarily small fissures and sand boils, have been observed in the epicentral region of many small earthquakes (5

    Potrebbero piacerti anche