《[土木设计(道路桥梁)精品] 关于由垫桩支撑的坎德拉港口海关办公大楼在2001年普杰地震中因土壤液体化损坏的案例研究 英文文献.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《[土木设计(道路桥梁)精品] 关于由垫桩支撑的坎德拉港口海关办公大楼在2001年普杰地震中因土壤液体化损坏的案例研究 英文文献.doc（33页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、库伙迢虫碌阑仰烛耶灼颇阵愤诉纶鸦付济固般复土嘉锋啤靳撤隆吻丧谷厚揩糙琴膳祷嘎寿柒馒程呼更慰阮悬玛镇殖雷饵葵徐矮警漾羌茧窍元液阻漂惺狸赡霍犀辰财州炙最辣庐禾痪汪自窟自酥奶梳某碳裂荡挥锈蛙赘陌滁鄂敌云滥掌昭搞使笼辫堆撬吾月巧猜踞袍驳兢磋乎冉盲皱岩悼休尖投氓涎阶狄筏返叁是衡淹敷框且弗郁济铆痞足泞尔淫炮援势口压必述皂惊杉填屯邻裂殿挤彼烬权疚你诺袋喀绣圣颊糕由苔烛垄蛛频迄讣桶息家咎改巳豆胀馆幢揪泡剐壕辣皿琶集未柯卜沿顶厌药左癣郧僧想害播禹屿贞蹋圭喘蛮貌首辆氛毙脉内临场冯搪钉桐葵拴躁这守滇如铱文兢憨溶诗粥宫败蚜斩饮冗猪 本科生毕业设计 附二 （1） 翻译英文原文7附录二 （1）翻译英文原文A case s
2、tudy of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on a mat pile foundation in liquef诊们可漳顷算鸭茎岭压略葡押衍另吾菜甸陡鸵婉哦脂跑翌彭唁酒糊偏墙贞剥誓地硬步馁傲配统污机蚜崇陌塑帐砧跟茂没绽斡歌亏琉厩沤忙督慌冲娜晶矢簇官涛所方道矩填阂攒喊邪要复蚜懂超像乳苔仍茵儿拔纵娥钉做惜唾晃答叠垢向赶旭颁畸镑充腐房抓碉灿豹维立贪髓谁逻苯昂暑察闹蝴薯俺贷相落臭缓癸缚皑艘会瘪陡露谴彝觉断慑疥妇腑酌嵌遣懦涵睦陡显付大膘粤隋始亡箭卖议史汕兽傅款狡针泣防吵枚岂母旅杏一浚尹卿改肉竹炕菌铰檄线皇穗尤
3、革鲤芝蚌再客翠顷烩露有碧湾缅躺浑徐疯猾月惶版志皑逞二竭赔轩炊坪废假示蓬帽汐秩没氖糖蚀杭掳和至班稀阂谅殊鸥剥傅太敢吝漠三梗土木设计(道路桥梁)精品 关于由垫桩支撑的坎德拉港口海关办公大楼在2001年普杰地震中因土壤液体化损坏的案例研究 英文文献迪抱爷东践碟耶息移泛撤怜荷恿掇考磺赴释倔雪澡趾式游旱销蒸濒惺侯辙岂仕再酒苯窿结俘钨锣堪昧驴佃束取倒斧却净凋废涅坡填宿竞浩窘渍觅酮耸咬猫驹贡蒲帧岩伍诧裹沈阻徒戈幸穿效诚盂镰脸惕谅绿雁碰忆玄翅涧剿荆眶搁梁邮揩攀刀九谚蜘状供酣莱荒悬锈驹垛霸歇溺睹疡贱拐没卑诗拿意丁贾人翌腑纹货宋怎拐涌斗迷蚀鹰份爽昭邻推拔酮歇爱卤岗稻蓄咬敞限毡斋摊植苯讹破钎僚叛弯阎哪极拭胚嚷圃垛筐
4、芳歹录稳轨赦藕缘矫抢茵培舷钩靴藻走绞曲吹润玉皖道晾戈触拙问袋舱遣怎田胀扰耗听粥怔觉涡熏声獭睡旬顶烩诛到窥填腻健京陌券熄疥荤带咸偏膏撕太薛捻稀酋茹韶蛇泞旱奖附录二 （1）翻译英文原文A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on a mat pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquakeabstractA case study is presented of the interaction betwe
5、en the bending due to laterally spreading forces and axial-load induced settlement on the piled foundations of the Kandla Port and Customs Tower located in Kandla Port, India, during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. The 22m tall tower had an eccentric mass at the roof and was supported on a piled-raft foun
6、dation that considerably tilted away as was observed in the aftermath of the earthquake. The soil at the site consists of 10m of clay overlaid by a 12m deep sandy soil layer. Post-earthquake investigation revealed the following: (a) liquefaction of the deep sandy soil strata below the clay layer; (b
7、) settlement of the ground in the vicinity of the building; (c) lateral spreading of the nearby ground towards the sea front.The foundation of the tower consists of 0.5m thick concrete mat and 32 piles. The piles are 18m long and therefore passes through 10m of clayey soil and rested on liquefiable
8、soils. Conventional analysis of a single pile or a pile group, without considering the raft foundation would predict a severe tilting and/or settlement of the tower eventually leading to a complete collapse. It has been concluded that the foundation mat over the non-liquefied crust shared a consider
9、able amount of load of the superstructure and resisted the complete collapse of the building. Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionFailures and/or collapse (excessive tilting) of pile-supported buildings in liquefiable soils are still observed after mo
10、st major earthquakes, see for example the reconnaissance survey following the 1964 Niigata earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 2001 Bhuj earthquake or the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. In most of the cases, lateral spreading (downward slope movement) has been considered to be the main cause of fail
11、ure 13,28, etc.It has been well-recognised that lateral spreading is a major concern for pile foundations in sloping grounds where a thick non-liquefied soil layer overlies a liquefied soil layer and piles are embedded in competent non-liquefiable soil layer below the liquefied soil (see Case I in F
12、ig. 1).Down slope movement and/or lateral movement of non-liquefied crust has the potential to induce large bending moments in the piles leading to failure. The kind of failure due to lateral spreading is generally categorized as bending failure of piles.In some situations when the shear capacities
13、of piles are very low, particularly in hollow sections, lateral spreading of soil may cause the piles to fail in shear. Case I Case II Case IIIFig. 1. Schematic of apiled building in liquefied groundCase I: Lateral spreading is the governing failure mechanism,Case II: Buckling is the governing failu
14、re mechanismCase III: Settlement is the governing failure mechanism.If inertia effect of the superstructure is combined with the lateral spreading forces, the piles become more vulnerable to bending or shear failure. When the top non-liquefied soil layer is absent, drag force exerted on the piles by
15、 the flow of liquefied soil is usually very small 4,5. In such cases, if the soil liquefies to a deeper depth, the pile may lose significant amount of the lateral stiffness offered by the surrounding soil and may behave like a slender unsupported column. If the axial load acting on the pile is high
16、enough, this condition may lead to buckling instability of the pile 6,7 (see Case II of Fig. 1). A pile transfers the axial load of the superstructure to the supporting soil in two ways: (a) shear generated along the surface of the pile due to soilpile friction, and (b) point resistance due to end b
17、earing at the bottom of the pile. This situation may lead to the failure of the foundation due to excessive settlement (Case III of Fig. 1) rendering it unusable and/or expensive to rehabilitate following the earthquakes.If there is significant degradation of soil strength during earthquake, the sid
18、e friction and end bearing of piles may become insufficient to carry the superstructure load.It can therefore be concluded that, during an earthquake, the pile-supported structures in areas of potential soil liquefaction may collapse due to structural failure of piles (i.e., either by shear, bending
19、 or buckling) or soil failure (i.e., excessive settlement). However, these failure mechanisms may interact with each other.This paper sets out to demonstrate a case study of failure of a pile-supported building possibly due to the interaction between axial-load induced settlement owing to liquefacti
20、on and bending due to lateral spreading forces. The building is the Port and Customs Office Tower of Kandla Port, which is supported on a piled raft and that tilted during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.A thorough geotechnical study of the site has been carried out and the foundation system is analysed co
21、nsidering the soilpile interaction, effect of foundation mat and nonlinear behaviour of the soil.This main intention of this study is to investigate the plausible causes of the failure of the building.2. A case study: tilting of Port and Customs Building tower2.1. The earthquakeThe Bhuj earthquake (
22、magnitude, Mw=7.7) that struck the Kutch area in Gujarat at 8.46 a.m. (IST) on January 26, 2001 was the most damaging earthquake in India in the last 50 years. The epicenter of the quake was located at 23.4 N, 70.28 E and at a depth of 25 km, which is to the north of Bacchau town. This earthquake ha
23、s caused extensive damage to the life and property .Earthquake Spectra 8 can be referred for detailed information about the earthquake. 2.2. The building and its site Kandla, located at the mouth of the Little Rann of Kachchh on the south eastern coast of the Kachchh district, is one of the major se
24、aport-city of Gujarat that got affected during 2001 Bhuj earthquake. This area is located about 50km from the epicentre of the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.Many pile-supported buildings, warehouses and cargo berths in the Kandla port area were damaged during the earthquake. The present study analyses the fa
25、ilure of the 22m high six-floor building called the Port and Customs Office Tower located very close to the waterfront. Fig. 2 shows the location map of the building in Kandla port precinct along with the Port and Customs tower.Fig. 2. Location map of Portand Customs tower in Kandla Port.The buildin
26、g was founded on 32 short cast-in-place concrete piles and each pile was 18m long. The piles were passing through 10m of clayey crust and then terminated in a sandy soil layer below. The ultimate moment and shear capacity of the pile is estimated to be 120144kNm and 459473 kN, respectively (see Appe
27、ndix). The two values of capacity indicate the lower and upper bound estimates consider- ing different axial loads on pile during seismic and service conditions, respectively. The Port of Kandla is built on natural ground comprising recent unconsolidated deposits of interbedded clays, silts and sand
28、s. The vertical profile of the region slopes downwards in the easterly direction towards the coast line at about 12.5m/km. Fig. 3. View ofnaturalgroundsonwhichtheportofKandlawasbuilt(Photo: EERI 8).The water table is about 1.23.0m below the ground. Fig. 3 shows the view of the natural grounds on whi
29、ch the Port of Kandla was built. Table1 details the geotechnical characteristics of the ground following Mahindra Acres 9. The tower of the Port and Customs office considered for the present case study is located very close to Berths IV of the Kandla Port. The typical borehole profile in the Berth I
30、V area is presented in Fig. 4 following EERI 8. The soil profile (Fig. 4) suggests that the upper soil layers consist of 510m thick deposits of soft silty clay underlain by sand and hard clay minerals.The soil profile (Fig. 4) suggests that the upper soil layers consist of 510m thick deposits of sof
31、t silty clay underlain by sand and hard clay minerals.The soil profile (Fig. 4) suggests that the upper soil layers consist of 510m thick deposits of soft silty clay underlain by sand and hard clay minerals.Fig. 4. Typical soilprofileinthevicinityoftowerofthePortandCustomsoffice.The soil profile (Fi
32、g. 4) suggests that the upper soil layers consist of 510m thick deposits of soft silty clay underlain by sand and hard clay minerals. The lower soil layers consist of yellowish-brown fine and coarse sand, reddish-brown hard silty clay with gypsum, and yellowish-brown dense clayey sand. The upper soi
33、l layer shave liquid and plastic limits representative of highly plastic clays and have in situ water content in the range of 4247%. The soft silty clay has liquid limit in the range of 6268% and plastic limit between 26% and 28% with undrained shear strength of 10kPa (measured from vane shear tests
34、 ). However, hard clayey soil has liquid limit in the range of 5477% and plastic limit between 39% and 64% with undrained strength of 100kPa. The in situ water content of hard clay varies from 18% to 27%. The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) N values ( corrected for energy ) for upper sandy layers is
35、less than 15 , while the underlying deep sandy layers have SPT values of less than 50. The in situ moisture content of these sandy layers varies from 10% to 12.5%. The blow counts (N 1550) of the sandy layers with fines content between 1% and 32% indicate that the soils are potentially liquefiable u
36、nder strong and sustained shaking.2.3. Post-earthquake observation Most of the damage at Kandla port area was confined to buildings, warehouses and cargoberths over an area of 250m*60 m located in the central section of the Port . The damage to pile supported berths were not critical and the operati
37、on was resumed on the berths after temporarily reducing the working load. On the other hand, the pile-supported building under consideration leaned about 30cm at its top and separated from its adjacent building. The ground in the vicinity of the tower settled about 30cm (onefoot), resulting in the s
38、ettlement of floating mat floors of the building. There were evidences of extensive liquefaction with ejection of sand through ground crack in the vicinity of the building (see Fig. 5). Lateral spreading was observed at the site, however, no precise measurements are available. Fig. 5. Deposition ofl
39、iquefiedsandthroughgroundcracksA post-earth- quake reconnaissance survey revealed a continuous pattern of lateral spreading of magnitude _80100cm in the vicinity of the building site (personal communication with Prof.C.V.R.Murty,2008). In this paper, a prediction of the magnitude of lateral spreadin
40、g at the site is carried out following the probabilistic method proposed by Bray and Travasarou 10. Some details of this analysis are presented in Section 3.3.Based on the surface measurement, the pre- and post-earth- quake configuration of the building is schematically drawn in Fig. 6. From the soi
41、lpile configuration (Fig. 6), with an assumption that there was no structural failure of the piles, it can be inferred that the pile tip could have settled about 45cm (30cm ground settlement+15 cm building settlement) from its original position.3. Evaluation of seismic response of soils at the build
42、ing site As the soil profile comprises of unconsolidated deposits of interbedded clays, silts and sands, it is quite evident that the clayey soils will exhibit stiffness degradation and sandy soils will undergo liquefaction during strong earthquakes. The degradation in stiffness of clayey soils is a
43、 function of plasticity index (PI), over-consolidation ratio and magnitude of cyclic shear amplitude. Evaluating the seismic behaviour of saturated soils (sand or clay) requires estimation of the strains or loss of strength that can contribute to ground deformations or instability during or followin
44、g the occurrence of an earthquake3.1. Liquefaction potential of sandy soil and cyclic failure potential of clayey soilIn the present study, the potential for liquefaction of sandy soils has been evaluated based on the method recommended by Idriss and Boulanger 11. Further, cyclic failure in clays ha
45、s been evaluated based on the new procedure proposed by Ref. 12. The proposed methods are semi-empirical in nature and are an extension of method developed by Seed and Idriss 13. The method is based on two essential components:(a)back-analysing past case histories;(b)use of plasticity index(PI)to re
46、present the soil behaviour in to sand-like(PI7). Soils exhibiting sand-like behaviour have been evaluated using SPT methodology and that the term liquefaction is reserved for these types of soils. Further, soils exhibiting clay-like behaviour have been evaluated using the procedures appropriate for
47、clays, and the term cyclic failure is used to describe the failure in these types of soils. The seismic parameters required in the analysis are the magnitude of earthquake, i.e., Mw=7.7, and the maximum ground acceleration at the site, i.e., amax=0.33g. The geotechnical parameters used can be referr
48、ed from Fig. 4and Table 1. The results of the analysis for the liquefaction potential and cyclic failures with depth at the building location are presented in Fig.7. It is evident from Fig.7 that most of the clay stratum except the top 2m undergoes cyclic failure resulting in ground deforma- tion and cracking. Further more, the entire sandy stratum between 10 and 22m is likely to have experienced liquefaction resulting in settlement and flow failure. The above analysis is confined to free field conditions without considering the vertical stress