Abstract Developments in geotechnical engineering after 1970 prompted the reevaluation of the foundations of three large nuclear material processing buildings in 1994. Concerns were raised because the subsurface conditions beneath them contain a Miocene-age clayey sand stratum with very low standar...
Abstract Developments in geotechnical engineering after 1970 prompted the reevaluation of the foundations of three large nuclear material processing buildings in 1994. Concerns were raised because the subsurface conditions beneath them contain a Miocene-age clayey sand stratum with very low standard penetration resistance values. A preliminary liquefaction potential evaluation based on Seed et al. [The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation. Report no. UCB/EERC-84/15, October 1984] empirical procedures for Holocene-age data showed that based on the low blowcount the formation was liquefiable, and that foundation retrofitting was in order. Analysis of the soil performance during the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake indicated that the dynamic strength of sands increases with the age of the deposit [Lewis et al. Liquefaction resistance of old sand deposits. Paper presented at the Pan American Soil Mechanics Conference held in Brazil, 1999], a finding in agreement with conclusions reached earlier by Skempton [Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation, Geotechnique 36(3) (1986) 425–447], and, confirmed later, by Kramer and Arango [Aging effects on the liquefaction resistance of sand deposits: a review and update. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris 1998, Abstract vol. 184]. Because of the age of the sands at the subject sites, it was decided to test in the laboratory the potential strength gain of the site soils due to aging relative to the values derived from the empirical chart. The laboratory test results demonstrated a strength increase by a factor between 2 and 3. Based on these findings, it was concluded that there was no need to retrofit the building foundations, thus saving several million dollars. The paper describes the buildings, the geologic setting and the field and laboratory work performed in this investigation, a summary of field performance of sands during the Charleston and Northridge earthquakes, and presents a design-oriented chart to predict the dynamic strength increase with age of sand deposits older than Holocene period.
Abstract Developments in geotechnical engineering after 1970 prompted the reevaluation of the foundations of three large nuclear material processing buildings in 1994. Concerns were raised because the subsurface conditions beneath them contain a Miocene-age clayey sand stratum with very low standard penetration resistance values. A preliminary liquefaction potential evaluation based on Seed et al. [The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation. Report no. UCB/EERC-84/15, October 1984] empirical procedures for Holocene-age data showed that based on the low blowcount the formation was liquefiable, and that foundation retrofitting was in order. Analysis of the soil performance during the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake indicated that the dynamic strength of sands increases with the age of the deposit [Lewis et al. Liquefaction resistance of old sand deposits. Paper presented at the Pan American Soil Mechanics Conference held in Brazil, 1999], a finding in agreement with conclusions reached earlier by Skempton [Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation, Geotechnique 36(3) (1986) 425–447], and, confirmed later, by Kramer and Arango [Aging effects on the liquefaction resistance of sand deposits: a review and update. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris 1998, Abstract vol. 184]. Because of the age of the sands at the subject sites, it was decided to test in the laboratory the potential strength gain of the site soils due to aging relative to the values derived from the empirical chart. The laboratory test results demonstrated a strength increase by a factor between 2 and 3. Based on these findings, it was concluded that there was no need to retrofit the building foundations, thus saving several million dollars. The paper describes the buildings, the geologic setting and the field and laboratory work performed in this investigation, a summary of field performance of sands during the Charleston and Northridge earthquakes, and presents a design-oriented chart to predict the dynamic strength increase with age of sand deposits older than Holocene period.
Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM. The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluation. Report no. UCB/EERC-84/15, October 1984.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE Seed 105 2 1979 Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes
Geotechnique Skempton 36 3 425 1986 10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425 Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation
Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW. Manual on estimating soil properties for design. Electric Power and Research Institute, EL-6800, Research Project 1493-6, 1990.
Seed HB, Arango I, Chan CK. Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Report no. EERC 75-28, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, October 1973.
H.B. Seed Memorial Symposium Martin 2 313 1990 Geotechnical setting for liquefaction events in the Charleston, South Carolina, vicinity
Lewis MR, Arango I, Kimball JK, Ross TE. Liquefaction resistance of old sand deposits. Paper presented at the Pan American Soil Mechanics Conference held in Brazil, 1999.
Arango I, Migues RE. Investigation of the seismic liquefaction of old sand deposits. National Science Foundation Grant no. CMS-9416169, March 1996.
Kramer C, Arango I. Aging effects on the liquefaction resistance of sand deposits: a review and update. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris 1998, Abstract vol. 184.
Proceeding of the Eleventh International Conference of Soil Mechanics, San Francisco Ishihara 1 321 1985 Stability of natural slopes during earthquakes
Geotechnique Ishahara 43 3 351 1993 10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351 Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes
Bollinger GA. Reinterpretation of the intensity data for the Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake. Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake of 1986 - a Preliminary Report, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028, p. 1, 1977.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Campbell 76 1 1986 10.1785/BSSA0760010001 An empirical estimate of near-source ground motion for a major mb=6.8 earthquake in the eastern United States
Chapman MC, Sibol MS, Bollinger GA. Investigation of anomalous earthquake intensity levels along the coastal Plain-Piedmont Boundary in South Carolina and Georgia, Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory Report prepared for Westinghouse Savannah, 1989.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Guidelines to determining design basis ground motions, EPRI T-102293, November 1993, 4 Vols.
Earthquake Spectra Elton 6 1 81 1990 10.1193/1.1585559 Ground acceleration near St. Michael's Church during the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake
Krinitzsky EL, Chang FK. Parameters for specifying intensity-related earthquake motions. State of the art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States, US Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, September 1987.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Martin 120 8 1994 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1345) Seismic parameters from liquefaction evidence
Proceedings of the Third US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, South Carolina Rizzo 1 1986 Ground motion amplification studies for sites in the Charleston area
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.