Here - Stuff
Here - Stuff Here - Stuff
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)▲▲Figure 4. Bridges damaged primarily as a result of liquefaction: A) Ferrymead, B) South Brighton, C) ANZAC Drive, D) Avondale Road,E) Gayhurst Road, F) Fitzgerald Avenue.TABLE 1Estimates of peak ground accelerations during Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes in the absence of liquefaction atbridges presented in Figure 2.Darfield EarthquakeChristchurch EarthquakeBridge NameConditional MedianPGA (g)Conditional StandardDeviation (ln PGA)Conditional MedianPGA (g)Conditional StandardDeviation(ln PGA)Moorhouse Ave Bridge 0.208 0.259 0.412 0.284Fitzgerald Ave Bridge 0.214 0.293 0.448 0.323Gayhurst Rd Bridge 0.206 0.293 0.495 0.319Avondale Rd Bridge 0.183 0.360 0.344 0.339ANZAC Dr Bridge 0.180 0.379 0.276 0.168South Brighton Bridge 0.188 0.392 0.618 0.404Ferrymead Bridge 0.247 0.371 0.673 0.400Port Hills Overbridge 0.284 0.350 0.677 0.379Horotane Overbridge 0.292 0.344 0.682 0.373Railway Bridge 3 0.364 0.266 0.814 0.288954 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
(A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead Bridge field investigation data: A) shearwave velocity (V s ) profile; B) liquefaction assessment using V sdata, comparing the cyclic resistance ratio CRR 7.5 for the site tothe Darfield (CSR 7.5 DAR) and Christchurch (CSR 7.5 CHC) cyclicstress ratios. C) Damage to western abutment and temporarystabilization works.axis. The lateral spreading caused permanent rotation andcracking of the abutments and a number of the piers. Extensiveflexural cracking was evident at the base of the piers at theirconnection to the pile cap. The rear section of the east abutmentback-rotated 2.5° and the section supporting the bridgedeck back-rotated 5°. Additionally, surveys showed the eastabutment moved vertically upward 10 cm, but there was negligiblemovement of the eastern pier.Approximately 8-cm-wide lateral cracks were observedin the vicinity of the drilled shaft supporting the new girder,with the cracks running in both the longitudinal and transversedirections. This caused the top of the new concrete bridgegirder to rotate about 2° toward the river and caused approximately30 cm of ground settlement, measured relative to thebottom surface of the new girder, which was originally cast ongrade.Severe liquefaction, as evidenced by significant volumes ofejecta, and lateral spreading occurred in the area leading up tothe west abutment. Surveys showed that the west abutment andpier had settled 20 cm and shifted horizontally 20 cm towardthe river. The soil in front of the abutment settled approximately80 cm, but no appreciable rotation of the abutment wasobserved. The foundations supporting the west bridge pier inFigure 5C had shifted to the east, causing the support columnsto be out of plumb. Remedial efforts have been completed totie back the foundations supporting the western pier that experiencedsignificant tilting to the west abutment using highstrengthsteel rods.Following the Christchurch event, Spectral Analysis ofSurface Waves (SASW) was performed at a location 60 m tothe west of the west abutment. The shear wave velocity (V s ) profilefor the west end of the bridge is shown in Figure 5A. The V sprofile shows a soft soil layer between 1.5 and 4 m depth, overlyinga much stiffer layer, and the water table at 1.75 m depth.Using the PGAs listed in Table 1, the cyclic stress ratios (CSRs)for both the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes were calculatedfollowing the methodology outlined in Youd et al.(2001). The magnitude scaling factors (MSF) recommended byAndrus and Stokoe (2000) were used to scale the CSRs to anM w 7.5 event (i.e., CSR 7.5 ). Using the shear wave velocity datashown in Figure 5A, the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR 7.5 ) for theprofile was calculated following the Andrus and Stokoe (2000)procedure, also outlined in Youd et al. (2001). The overburdencorrection factor, K σ , was further used to modify the CRR 7.5values (Hynes and Olsen 1999). This method allows for thedirect comparison of the CSR 7.5 induced by the two earthquakeswith the CRR 7.5 for the profile, as shown in Figure 5B.As may be observed from this figure, liquefaction is predictedto have occurred from ~1.5 to 4 m during both the Darfield andChristchurch earthquakes (i.e., CSR 7.5 > CRR 7.5 ), with thefactor of safety against liquefaction being significantly lowerduring the Christchurch event. While evidence of severe liquefactionwas observed following the Christchurch earthquake,no liquefaction was evident following the Darfield earthquake.South Brighton BridgeThe South Brighton Bridge (Figure 4B) was constructed in1980, runs in the east-west direction, and spans the Avon Riverjust north of where the river empties into the Avon-Heathcoteestuary (Figure 2). The bridge is a three-span skewed reinforcedconcrete structure with seat-type abutments on rubberbearings and single piers, all of which are supported by rakedoctagonal precast, prestressed concrete piles. The abutmentrubber bearings were removed due to the permanent movementsthat developed during the Darfield earthquake (Palermoet al. 2010) and were replaced with temporary hardwood packers.The bridge site was a wide wetland prior to the bridgeconstruction. To construct the bridge, two approach embankmentsapproximately 4 m in height were extended out into thewetlands, with the bridge structure spanning the river channel.These embankments were constructed of uncontrolled fillmaterial.Significant cracking of the approach embankments onboth sides of the bridge occurred during the Darfield earth-Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 955
- 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 and 188: ▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
- Page 189 and 190: TABLE 1Damage severity categories (
- 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: only minor damage, mostly to their
- 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
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)▲▲Figure 4. Bridges damaged primarily as a result of liquefaction: A) Ferrymead, B) South Brighton, C) ANZAC Drive, D) Avondale Road,E) Gayhurst Road, F) Fitzgerald Avenue.TABLE 1Estimates of peak ground accelerations during Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes in the absence of liquefaction atbridges presented in Figure 2.Darfield EarthquakeChristchurch EarthquakeBridge NameConditional MedianPGA (g)Conditional StandardDeviation (ln PGA)Conditional MedianPGA (g)Conditional StandardDeviation(ln PGA)Moorhouse Ave Bridge 0.208 0.259 0.412 0.284Fitzgerald Ave Bridge 0.214 0.293 0.448 0.323Gayhurst Rd Bridge 0.206 0.293 0.495 0.319Avondale Rd Bridge 0.183 0.360 0.344 0.339ANZAC Dr Bridge 0.180 0.379 0.276 0.168South Brighton Bridge 0.188 0.392 0.618 0.404Ferrymead Bridge 0.247 0.371 0.673 0.400Port Hills Overbridge 0.284 0.350 0.677 0.379Horotane Overbridge 0.292 0.344 0.682 0.373Railway Bridge 3 0.364 0.266 0.814 0.288954 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011