Here - Stuff

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. Observed damage to levees following the A) 4 September 2010 M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake and B) 22 February 2011 M w 6.2Christchurch earthquake. Adapted from Riley Consultants 2010, 2011.942 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
TABLE 1Damage severity categories (Riley Consultants 2010, 2011)CategoryNo DamageMinor DamageModerate DamageMajor DamageSevere DamageDescriptionNo observed damageCracks up to 5 mm wide and/or 300 mm deep. Negligible settlement of crest.Cracks up to 1 m deep. Some settlement of crest.Cracks greater than 1 m deep. Evidence of deep seated movement and/or settlement.Severe damage or collapse. Gross lateral spread and/or settlement, cracks showing deformation of500 mm or more.dinal cracks to connect undetected transverse cracks or flawsthat only penetrate partway through opposite sides of the levee.Such a tortuous seepage path could potentially enlarge rapidlydue to internal erosion and piping at high river levels.Transverse cracks in the levees were less commonlyobserved than longitudinal cracks and were often associatedwith sharp bends along the length of the levees and/or slumpingof the embankment (Figure 5B). Because these cracks provide adirect seepage path from one side of the levee to the other, theycan severely impact the functionality of the levees. Even transversecracks of minor width could potentially enlarge rapidlydue to internal erosion and piping at high river levels and leadto the failure of that section of the levee.Settlement of levee sections resulted from both post-liquefactionconsolidation in the foundation soils and bearingcapacity failures due to the reduced strength of the liquefiedfoundation soil. In addition to the degradation in levee functionalitydue to cracking associated with the settlement (similarto that discussed above), settlement also reduces the amountof freeboard at high river levels. The significance of this loss isdependent on the magnitude of the settlement, but in generalit is not thought to be a significant issue with the levee system.Another liquefaction-related mode of degradation to thelevees’ capacity is where liquefaction and/or lateral spreadingformed on both sides of the levee. In these cases a potentialflow path is formed down through the vertical feeder dike onthe river side of the levee, laterally through the source stratumunder the levee, and up through the vertical feeder dike on theother side of the levee. Extensive liquefaction was observed onboth sides of the levee along an approximately 0.5-km stretchof the Waimakariri River on Coutts Island Road (Figure 6).From interviews with local land owners and review of maps ofthe area from 1865, this area was part of an old river channel(Wotherspoon et al. 2011). Additionally, borings performedby the authors using a hand auger showed a deep sand depositalong this 0.5-km stretch of levee and buried sticks and logs onboth ends, consistent with an old river channel and river channelbanks.SEVERITY OF DAMAGE AND FOUNDATION SOILSTo examine the relationship between the severity of theinduced damage to the levees and the liquefaction response ofthe foundation soil, a stretch of levees along the Kaiapoi Riverwas examined in more depth. As shown in Figure 4, theselevees sustained damage ranging from No Damage to SevereDamage (Table 1). Following the Darfield earthquake, theNew Zealand Earthquake Commission (EQC) contracted alocal firm to perform a series of cone penetration tests (CPTs),among other in-situ tests, throughout north and south Kaiapoi(Tonkin and Taylor 2010). The locations of the CPT soundingsperformed on, or adjacent to, the levees along the KaiapoiRiver are shown in Figure 7.Representative CPT soundings from the north and southbanks of the Kaiapoi River are presented in Figures 8A and 9A.From interpreting 27 such CPT logs, as well as available boreholedata (Tonkin and Taylor 2011), the soil profile along thenorth bank of the Kaiapoi River east of the Williams StreetBridge is characterized by approximately 4 m of very loose toloose sand overlying approximately 4 m of loose to mediumdense gravelly sand. Below approximately 8 m, the sand andgravel layers tend to be significantly denser than the overlyinglayers. The depth to the ground water table varies, but isapproximately 1.5 m deep. Samples of the liquefiable soilstaken adjacent to the levees on the north bank had fines contentsaround 15%, with the fines being non-plastic. On thesouth bank of the Kaiapoi River east of the Williams StreetBridge, the soil profile is characterized by approximately 6 m ofvery loose to loose silty sand/sand overlying an approximately2-m-thick layer of loose to medium dense sand/gravelly sand.Below approximately 8 m the sand and gravel layers tend to besignificantly denser than the overlying layers. The ground watertable is approximately 2 m deep.Using the 27 Kaiapoi levee CPT soundings and twoadditional soundings performed adjacent to the levees alongthe southern bank of the Waimakariri River in Kainga andBrooklands, the authors analyzed liquefaction of the foundationsoils following the procedures outlined in Youd et al.(2001). The strong motion seismograph station KPOC, locatedin north Kaiapoi (Figure 7), recorded motions from both earthquakes.The geometric mean of the horizontal peak groundaccelerations (PGAs) of the motions recorded during theDarfield and Christchurch earthquakes were 0.32 g and 0.20 g,respectively. The distance from the strong motion station to theCPT sounding locations ranges from approximately 0.7 to 3.7km, with the majority of the soundings being located less than1 km from the station. Because of this close proximity, 0.32 gand 0.20 g PGAs were used to compute the cyclic stress ratios(CSRs) imposed on the soil at all the sounding locations duringthe Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes, respectively.Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 943
Page 1:
Volume 82, Number 6 November/Decemb
Page 7:
News and Notes (continued)Nominatio
Page 11:
Preface to the Focused Issue on the
Page 14 and 15:
TABLE 1Peak ground acceleration (PG
Page 16 and 17:
▲▲Figure 2. A) Sketch of the
Page 18 and 19:
▲▲Figure 4. A) Adopted moment r
Page 20 and 21:
▲▲Figure 7. As in Figure 6 but
Page 22 and 23:
▲ ▲ Figure 8. Misfit parameters
Page 24 and 25:
▲ ▲ Figure 10. Spatial variabil
Page 26 and 27:
▲ ▲ Figure 12. Standard spectra
Page 28 and 29:
Quigley, M., R. Van Dissen, P. Vill
Page 30 and 31:
slip on a 59-degree striking fault
Page 32 and 33:
▲▲Figure 4. Convergence of inve
Page 34 and 35:
observations and other source studi
Page 36 and 37:
-42. 5-43. 0-43. 5-44. 0-44. 5-43.2
Page 38 and 39:
“Product CSK © ASI, (ItalianSpac
Page 40 and 41:
TABLE 2Solutions for fault location
Page 42 and 43:
-43.45(A)degrees N-43.50-43.552.52.
Page 44 and 45:
is still a good fit to the horizont
Page 46 and 47:
Coulomb Stress Change Sensitivity d
Page 48 and 49:
mation takes on a larger strike-sli
Page 50 and 51:
P 9.4267BLDU45P 20.1213CASY39P 2.62
Page 52 and 53:
ERMJNUMAJOINUJHJ2CBIJMIDWJOWYHNBTPU
Page 54 and 55:
(A)6.146.13(B)6.246.36Misfit6.156.1
Page 56 and 57:
(A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 10. The co
Page 58 and 59:
(A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 12. The co
Page 60 and 61:
Luo, Y., Y. Tan, S. Wei, D. Helmber
Page 62 and 63:
−44˚00' −43˚00'4-Sep-2010Mw 7
Page 64 and 65:
TABLE 1Pairs of SAR imagery used in
Page 67 and 68:
Depth (km)Coulomb Stress Change(bar
Page 69 and 70:
Crippen, R. E. (1992). Measurement
Page 71 and 72:
AlpineFaultHope Fault38 mm/yr0+ +-1
Page 73 and 74:
σ 1dσ 3Nuσ 3CM w 7.1dw 6.2u70°M
Page 75 and 76:
Right-lateral Faults(A) Range Front
Page 77 and 78:
DISCUSSIONThe 2010-2011 Canterbury
Page 79 and 80:
Large Apparent Stresses from the Ca
Page 81 and 82:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Observed vs. pred
Page 83 and 84:
10Obs SA(1s)AS1AS+SDAB 2006AB+SDSA(
Page 85 and 86:
Fine-scale Relocation of Aftershock
Page 87 and 88:
−43.25°OXZ0 10 20km−43.5°−4
Page 89 and 90:
A’0 km 4 8−43.5°B’B−43.6°
Page 91 and 92:
REFERENCESAvery, H. R., J. B. Berri
Page 93 and 94:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. A) shows three-co
Page 95 and 96:
▲ ▲ Figure 4. Vertical accelera
Page 97 and 98:
0.8PRPC Z0.40Normalized (Max PGA +
Page 99 and 100:
Near-source Strong Ground MotionsOb
Page 101 and 102:
(A)Magnitude, M w876542009 NZdataba
Page 103 and 104:
Scale0.5 g5 seconds▲▲Figure 4.
Page 105 and 106:
(A)(B)Spectral Acc, Sa (g)North/Wes
Page 107 and 108:
Vertical-to-horizontal PGA ratio543
Page 109 and 110:
(A)(B)Station:CCCCSolid:AvgHorizDas
Page 111 and 112:
REFERENCESAagaard, B. T., J. F. Hal
Page 113 and 114:
▲ ▲ Figure 1. Shear-wave veloci
Page 115 and 116:
Spectral Acceleration (0.3 s), (g)I
Page 117 and 118:
Spectral Acceleration (3 s), (g)In[
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 1Mean (μ LLH ) and standard
Page 121 and 122:
Strong Ground Motions and Damage Co
Page 123 and 124:
ings and the Modified Takeda-Slip M
Page 125 and 126:
high, but there were no buildings d
Page 127 and 128:
REFERENCES▲▲Figure 8. Heavily d
Page 129 and 130:
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)▲▲Figure 1. A) M
Page 131 and 132:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 3. A) Typ
Page 133 and 134:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 4. A) Typ
Page 135 and 136:
Case StudyKey ParametersTABLE 1Key
Page 137 and 138: ▲ ▲ Figure 9. Representative bu
Page 139 and 140: Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Ce
Page 141 and 142: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Representative su
Page 143 and 144: Location of structures illustrated
Page 145 and 146: Shading indicates areaover which pr
Page 147 and 148: 1.8 deg15 cmGround cracking due to
Page 149 and 150: 30 cm17 cm30 cmFoundation beam▲
Page 151 and 152: Comparison of Liquefaction Features
Page 153 and 154: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 2. A) Simplified
Page 155 and 156: (A)Acceleration (Gal)6004002000-200
Page 157 and 158: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Distribution
Page 159 and 160: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 10. Damage to a
Page 161 and 162: (A)(B)▲ ▲ Figure 14. A) Subside
Page 163 and 164: ▲▲Figure 17. A trench in a resi
Page 165 and 166: Ambient Noise Measurements followin
Page 167 and 168: ▲▲Figure 1. Location of the noi
Page 169 and 170: ▲▲Figure 5. Site N20 showing HV
Page 171 and 172: ▲▲Figure 8. Comparison between
Page 173 and 174: Use of DCP and SASW Tests to Evalua
Page 175 and 176: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Aerial image of C
Page 177 and 178: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. DCP test bein
Page 179 and 180: ▲▲Figure 7. SASW setup at a sit
Page 181 and 182: where X ~ N(μ X , σ X 2 ) is shor
Page 183 and 184: Using the same critical layers as s
Page 185 and 186: Performance of Levees (Stopbanks) d
Page 187: ▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
Page 191 and 192: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 6. A) Large sand
Page 193 and 194: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. A) Representa
Page 195 and 196: each of the Waimakariri River and a
Page 197 and 198: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Horizontal peak g
Page 199 and 200: only minor damage, mostly to their
Page 201 and 202: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead
Page 203 and 204: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Damage to sou
Page 205 and 206: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 11. Settlement o
Page 207 and 208: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 14. Railway B
Page 209 and 210: Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Associ
Page 211 and 212: New PublicationsCanGeoRefThe Americ
Page 213 and 214: Wednesday, 18 AprilTechnical Sessio
Page 215 and 216: Verification of a Spectral-Element
Page 217 and 218: EASTERN SECTIONRESEARCH LETTERSReas
Page 219 and 220: (A)70°N100°W 60°W70°N(B)100°E1
Page 221 and 222: Mongolia SCRThe presence or absence
Page 223 and 224: the small horizontal relative motio
Page 225 and 226: 80°100°120°140°EXPLANATIONBorde
Page 227 and 228: Chang, K. H. (1997). Korean peninsu
Page 229 and 230: Wheeler, R. L. (2008). Paleoseismic
Page 231 and 232: A significant outcome of this study
Page 233 and 234: TABLE 1 (continued)Earthquakes for
Page 235 and 236: ▲▲Figure 2. Earthquakes used in
Page 237 and 238: Meeting CalendarM E E T I N GC A L
Page 239 and 240:
201 Plaza Professional Bldg. • El
Page 241 and 242:
Seismological Research Letters (SRL
Page 243 and 244:
Christa von Hillebrandt-Andrade, Pr
show all

Here - Stuff

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?