Note for Ground Improvement Techniques - GIT By JNTU Heroes

Topics ( 2 )

Text from page-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................=............... 1.2 PWOSE .................................................................................................................. 1.3 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................................... 1.4 OVERVIEW OF ~PORT .......................................................................................- 1 1 2 2 2 CHAPTER 2 LOW VIBRATION GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR LIQ~FACTION ~~DIATION ................................................................................. 3 2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 2.2 COMPACTION GROUTING ................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 Liquefaction Remediation ............................................................................... 6 2.i.2.l Pinopolis West Dam, South Carolina ................................................ 6 2.2.2.2 Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia ...................................... 8 2.2.2.3 Steel Creek Dam, South Ctiolina ...................................................... 8 2.2.2.4 Fontvieille Zone D, Monaco .............................................................. 9 2.2.2.5 Kaiser Hospital Addition, San Frmcisco ........................................... 9 2.3 PERMEATION GROUTING .................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 General ............................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Liquefaction Remediation ............................................................................... 28 2.3.2.1 Riverside Avenue Bridge, Santa Cruz ............................................... 28 2.3.2.2 Roosevelt Junior High School, San Francisco ................................... 28 2.3.2.3 Supermarket at 4041 Geary Street, San Francisco ............................ 29 2.4 JET GROUTING ......................................................................................................- 32 2.4.1 General ............................................................................................................ 32 2.4.2 Liquefaction Remediation ............................................................................... 34 2.4,2.1 Transit Station, Ttiwa .....................................................................- 34 2.5 IN SITU SOIL MIXING ............................................................................................ 40 2.5.1 General ............................................................................................................ 40 2.5.2 Liquefaction Remediation ............................................................................... 42 2.5.2.1 Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming ........................................................... 42 2.5,2.2 Pulp and Paper Mill Spill Tanks, British Columbia .......................... 43 2.5.2.3 Office Building (“Building N“), Japan .............................................. 44 2.6 DRAIN PILE ............................................................................................................. 50 2.6.1 General ............................................................................................................ 50 2.6.2 Liquefaction Remediation ..................................................................-------------52 2.6.2.1 Quay Walls at Kushiro Port, Jap~ .................................................... 53 2.7 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 53 vii

Text from page-2

CHAPTER 3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT NEAR EXISTING LIFELINES ..................................... 3.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3.2 PIPELINES AND CONDUITS ................................................................................. 3.2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 3.2.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Pipelines and-Conduits ............. 3.2.2.1 Containment Wall at Utility Crossings, Michigan ............................ 3.2.2.2 Settled Pipes at Waste Water Treatment Plant .................................. 3.2.3 Liquefaction Remediation ............................................................................... 3.3 TWSPORTATION LINES ................................................................................... 3.3.1 General ............................................................................................................ 3.3.2 Case Studies of Ground Improvement Near Transportation Lines ................. 3.3.2.1 Highway Viaduct, San Diego ............................................................ 3.3.2.2 Settled Railroad Embankment, Georgia ............................................ 3.3.2.3 Tunnel Construction Beneath Rail Line, Switzerland ....................... 3.3.2.4 Tunnel Construction Beneath Airport Runway, Japan ...................... 3.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 59 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 73 4.1 SUMMMY ............................................................................................................... 73 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY ................................................... 73 APPENDIX A REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... .. . VIII 75

Text from page-3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Lifeline systems have been broadly defined (Applied Technology Council, 1991)as “those systems necessary for human life and urban function, without whi~h large urban regions cannot function. ” They include electric power, gas and liquid fuels, water and sewage, telecommunication and transportation systems. One of the major factors of lifeline damage in earthquakes is horizontal ground displacement caused by liquefaction of loose granular soils, as illustrated in the case studies for many past earthquakes in the United States and Japan (0’Rourke and Hamada, 1992; Hamada and O’Rourke, 1992). Other important factors of lifeline damage caused by liquefaction of granular soils include local subsidence associated with densification of the soil and ejection of the water and soil, and flotation of buried structures that have a unit weight less than the unit weight of the surrounding liquefied soil. For example, horizontal ground displacement damaged many pipelines, bridges, roads, and buildings during the 1906 San Francisco, California, earthquake. Broken water lines made fighting fires after the earthquake impossible, and much of San Francisco burned. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, liquefaction, horizontal ground movement, major pipeline damage, and fires occurred at virtually the same locations in San Francisco. Of the 160 breaks in the Municipal Water Supply System of San Francisco in 1989, 123 were in the Marina where significant liquefaction and ground deformation had occurred (0’Rourke and Pease, 1992). Most recently, soil liquefaction during the January 17, 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe), Japan, earthquake completely destroyed Kobe port, which is primarily made of three man-made islands. Soil liquefaction caused numerous breaks in Kobe City and its surrounding area’s water and gas supply systems, resulting in a number of fires and the total loss of water supply for fighting fires and for domestic use. Many transportation systems were also disrupted as the result of liquefaction (Chung et al., 1995). Many lifeline structures lie in regions of high liquefaction and ground displacement potential. While it may be feasible to relocate some support facilities on sites which are not susceptible, similar precautions are not always possible for the long linear element of lifeline systems such as pipelines, electrical transmission lines, communication lines, highways, and rail lines. For some pipe systems, such as gas lines, it may be economical to replace old pipes with modern welded steel pipes that have less chance to break or leak, even after moderate deformation (0’Rourke and Palmer, 1994). For other pipe systems, such as water and sewage lines, the segmented pipe used can accommodate very little deformation. Ground improvement may be the most economical solution for these types of systems, and for all types of systems in areas where large ground displacement is anticipated. 1

Text from page-4

1,2 PURPOSE Although several ground improvement techniques have been developed to varying degrees and used forliquefaction remediation on a number of projects involving existing structures, the approaches that have been developed are scattered in the literature. The purpose of this report is to present the state-of-practice of ground improvement for liquefaction remediation near existing structures. In particular, the long linear element of-lifeline systems supported by ground having high potential for liquefaction and horizontal ground displacement. It is hoped that this document will 1) aid the owners and designers in the planning of ground improvement for liquefaction remediation near existing lifelines, and 2) identify those areas where more study is needed. 1.3 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS Many of the case studies available in the literature do not cover all aspects of the project, rather they emphasize one or two aspects. For example, a case study may focus on ground improvement methodology, giving little information on seismic evaluation. In some cases, even key information on ground improvement methodology is lacking. Because of the variable nature of soils and techniques, ground improvement is more art than engineering, based on experience, semi-empirical relationships, and site trials. For detailed design, construction and evaluation procedures, it is highly recommended that the reader consult relevant papers and reports, and experts in the fields of ground improvement, seismic evaluation, and lifeline earthquake engineering. 1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT Following this introduction, in Chapter 2, five low vibration ground techniques are identified, and available case studies of liquefaction remediation The application of these five techniques for remedial work near various lifelines Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides a summary of this report as well as brief additional needed research. 2 improvement are reviewed. is discussed in remarks about