Our ability to identify the existence of soil liquefaction potential is now better than our ability to know how to mitigate it economically and effectively. Based on a recent survey conducted by the Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) on liquefaction mitigation, remedial design methods and their effectiveness verification are regarded as \u22somewhat to highly non-uniform\u22 by the majority of the geotechnical engineering community in the U.S.Many recent reconnaissance reports also indicate that previous remediation design of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation is not as reliable as expected. Hence, the lack of a uniform framework to evaluate and compare improvement effectiveness is an important factor leading to the insufficient or inefficient remedial design for liquefaction mitigation by ground improvement. An efficient, representative and comprehensive collection, evaluation and comparison of quantitative effectiveness data is a great challenge in liquefaction mitigation practice and the key issue is the establishment of a uniform evaluation framework. These expectations and objectives comply well with the requirements of an evolving evolutionary seismic design guideline termed Performance-Based Design (PBD). The process of establishing such an evaluation and comparison framework is also a process of re-evaluation of the improved performances and seismic design optimization, within the framework of PBD.To establish the uniform framework, a comprehensive numerical study is conducted to identify the failure mechanisms of a well-documented case history; an unimproved caisson quay wall in liquefiable soil reported in the Kobe earthquake in 1995. After the calibration of numerical model based on the case study, in the second step, various remedial methods including the stone column method, vibro-compaction method and deep soil mixing method are evaluated to improve the performance of this specific quay wall. For each analyzed countermeasure, a comprehensive parametric study is conducted to optimize the remedial design by determining the optimum design parameters. Eventually, all of the improved performance data or termed Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) in terms of quay wall seismic deformation and performance grades are plotted together to show the difference of improvement effectiveness achieved by various examined cases. These cases differ in the use of remedial methods and/or design parameters. The results are also used to rank the analyzed remedial methods and optimize their designs.In addition, as a stand-alone product of this study, a simplified chart method is proposed to estimate the improved deformation of caisson quay walls placed in liquefiable soil. Based on the method, the improved deformation of the walls after an earthquake can be reasonably estimated with the input of peak ground acceleration (PGA) of ground motion, improvement zone dimensions and improved soil properties.The results of this study show that failure of the examined caisson quay wall is induced by the deformation of the foundation and backfill soils. For all the analyzed remedial methods, improving the top 10 to 15 m of foundation soil under the wall and first 20 to 25 m of backfill soil behind the quay wall shows the best improvement efficiency. The improved performances of the quay wall are estimated to be acceptable, which only requires reasonable restoration effort to fully recover the damage under the earthquake motion with a probability of exceedance of 10 percent during its life-span. Different remedial designs using various methods are classified into three categories depending on their improved performance grades. Future research is recommended to include verification, implementation and updating of the proposed framework to advance the state-of-the-art of liquefaction mitigation using ground improvement.
展开▼
机译:我们发现土壤液化潜力的能力现在比我们知道如何经济有效地减轻土壤液化潜力的能力更好。根据美国Deep Foundation Institute(DFI)最近进行的一项关于减轻液化的调查,补救措施的设计方法及其有效性验证被美国大多数岩土工程界认为与高度不均匀有些不同。侦察报告还表明,以前为减轻液化而进行的地面改良的补救设计并不像预期的那样可靠。因此,缺乏统一的框架来评估和比较改善效果是导致地面改良减轻液化的补救设计不足或效率低下的重要因素。有效,代表性和全面的量化有效性数据的收集,评估和比较在液化减缓实践中是一个巨大的挑战,关键问题是建立统一的评估框架。这些期望和目标与被称为“基于性能的设计(PBD)”的不断发展的演化地震设计指南的要求非常吻合。建立这样一个评估和比较框架的过程也是在PBD框架内对改进的性能和抗震设计进行重新评估的过程。为了建立统一的框架,进行了全面的数值研究以识别失效机理。记录良好的病历; 1995年神户地震中液化土壤中沉井码头墙未得到改善。基于案例研究对数值模型进行校准后,第二步,采用了多种补救方法,包括石柱法,振动压实法和深层土搅拌对这种方法进行了评估,以改善该特定码头墙的性能。对于每个分析的对策,进行全面的参数研究,以通过确定最佳设计参数来优化补救设计。最终,将所有改进的性能数据或根据码头墙地震变形和性能等级的术语称为工程需求参数(EDP)一起绘制,以显示各种检查案例所实现的改进效果的差异。这些情况在补救方法和/或设计参数的使用上有所不同。研究结果还可以用于对所分析的补救方法进行排名并优化其设计。此外,作为本研究的独立产品,提出了一种简化的图表方法来估计放置在可液化土壤中的沉箱码头壁的改进变形。基于该方法,可以通过输入地面运动的峰值地面加速度(PGA),改善区域尺寸和改善土壤特性来合理估算地震后墙体的改善变形。检查过的沉箱码头墙是由地基和回填土的变形引起的。对于所有已分析的补救方法,对墙下的前10至15 m的基础土壤和码头墙后的前20至25 m的回填土进行改良,效果最佳。据估计,码头墙的改进性能是可以接受的,只需要合理的恢复工作就可以完全恢复地震运动下的破坏,并且在其使用寿命期间的概率超过10%。使用各种方法的不同补救措施设计根据其改进的性能等级可分为三类。建议未来的研究包括对拟议框架的验证,实施和更新,以利用地面改良技术推进液化缓解技术的发展水平。
展开▼