DOCSLIB.ORG

DOGAMI Open-File Report O-19-09, Coseismic Landslide Susceptibility, Liquefaction Susceptibility, and Soil Amplification Class M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOGAMI Open-File Report O-19-09, Coseismic Landslide Susceptibility, Liquefaction Susceptibility, and Soil Amplification Class M State of Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist OPEN-FILE REPORT O-19-09 COSEISMIC LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY, LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY, AND SOIL AMPLIFICATION CLASS MAPS, CLACKAMAS, COLUMBIA, MULTNOMAH, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON FOR USE IN HAZUS: FEMA'S METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES FROM DISASTERS By Christina A. Appleby, William J. Burns, Robert W. Hairston-Porter, and John M. Bauer 2019 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965, Portland, OR 97232 Coseismic Geohazard Maps, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon DISCLAIMER This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This publication cannot substitute for site-specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Site-specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the publication. Expires 12/31/2020 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-19-09 Published in conformance with ORS 516.030 For additional information: Administrative Offices 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965 Portland, OR 97232 Telephone (971) 673-1555 https://www.oregongeology.org/ https://oregon.gov/DOGAMI/ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-19-09 ii Coseismic Geohazard Maps, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Report Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Study area ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Coseismic Hazards ............................................................................................................................................ 4 2.3.1 Soil Amplification .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3.3 Landslides ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Coseismic Hazard Studies in the Portland Regional Area ................................................................................. 7 3.0 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Unified Geologic Map ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Landslide Susceptibility .................................................................................................................................. 16 3.4 Soil Amplification Class ................................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................................................................................. 21 4.0 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Soil Amplification Class ................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................................................................................. 27 4.3 Coseismic Landslide Susceptibility .................................................................................................................. 29 5.0 Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 32 5.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 32 5.2 Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.0 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 34 7.0 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A. Applications of Maps within Hazus .................................................................................................. 39 Appendix B. Geologic Unit Classification .............................................................................................................. 42 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-19-09 iii Coseismic Geohazard Maps, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the study area .............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Schematic diagram of soil amplification effects on bedrock versus soft soils ......................................... 5 Figure 3. Damage to a 21-story, steel-constructed apartment complex in Mexico City after the September 19, 1985, earthquake ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Examples of liquefaction damage from the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake ............................ 6 Figure 5. Road prism rotational type landslide (top) and lateral spread landslide along the shoreline of Capitol Lake Olympia, Washington (bottom) ........................................................................................... 7 Figure 6. Flowchart summarizing methodology used to create soil amplification class, liquefaction susceptibility, and landslide susceptibility maps .................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. Principal sources of geologic data for the study area ............................................................................ 12 Figure 8. Example of interpreted geologic unit contacts underlying mapped landslides ..................................... 13 Figure 9. Lidar acquisition dates for study area .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10. Sources of landslide data ....................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 11. Soil amplification class map ................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 12. Liquefaction susceptibility ...................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13. Coseismic landslide susceptibility given dry groundwater conditions ................................................... 30 Figure 14. Coseismic landslide susceptibility given wet groundwater conditions .................................................. 31 Figure 15. Summary of application of liquefaction susceptibility maps within Hazus ............................................ 40 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-19-09 iv Coseismic Geohazard Maps, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Notes on quality and applicability of principal sources for geologic data.............................................. 11 Table 2. Landslide units removed from geologic maps ....................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Landslide susceptibility for (a) dry and (b) wet conditions .................................................................... 16 Table 4. Generalized geologic unit type associated with landslide geologic groups ........................................... 19 Table 5. NEHRP site classes .................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 6. Generalized geologic unit type associated with NEHRP classes............................................................. 21 Table 7. Liquefaction susceptibility rating systems ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recommended Guidelines for Liquefaction Evaluations Using Ground Motions from Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses
    RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATIONS USING GROUND MOTIONS FROM PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES Report to the Oregon Department of Transportation June, 2005 Prepared by Stephen Dickenson Associate Professor Geotechnical Engineering Group Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 2 ABSTRACT The assessment of liquefaction hazards for bridge sites requires thorough geotechnical site characterization and credible estimates of the ground motions anticipated for the exposure interval of interest. The ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual specifies that the ground motions used for evaluation of liquefaction hazards must be obtained from probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA). This ground motion data is routinely obtained from the U.S. Geologocal Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping program, through its interactive web site and associated publications. The use of ground motion parameters derived from a PSHA for evaluations of liquefaction susceptibility and ground failure potential requires that the ground motion values that are indicated for the site are correlated to a specific earthquake magnitude. The individual seismic sources that contribute to the cumulative seismic hazard must therefore be accounted for individually. The process of hazard de-aggregation has been applied in PSHA to highlight the relative contributions of the various regional seismic sources to the ground motion parameter of interest. The use of de-aggregation procedures in PSHA is beneficial for liquefaction investigations because the contribution of each magnitude-distance pair on the overall seismic hazard can be readily determined. The difficulty in applying de-aggregated seismic hazard results for liquefaction studies is that the practitioner is confronted with numerous magnitude-distance pairs, each of which may yield different liquefaction hazard results.
    [Show full text]
  • Bray 2011 Pseudostatic Slope Stability Procedure Paper
    Paper No. Theme Lecture 1 PSEUDOSTATIC SLOPE STABILITY PROCEDURE Jonathan D. BRAY 1 and Thaleia TRAVASAROU2 ABSTRACT Pseudostatic slope stability procedures can be employed in a straightforward manner, and thus, their use in engineering practice is appealing. The magnitude of the seismic coefficient that is applied to the potential sliding mass to represent the destabilizing effect of the earthquake shaking is a critical component of the procedure. It is often selected based on precedence, regulatory design guidance, and engineering judgment. However, the selection of the design value of the seismic coefficient employed in pseudostatic slope stability analysis should be based on the seismic hazard and the amount of seismic displacement that constitutes satisfactory performance for the project. The seismic coefficient should have a rational basis that depends on the seismic hazard and the allowable amount of calculated seismically induced permanent displacement. The recommended pseudostatic slope stability procedure requires that the engineer develops the project-specific allowable level of seismic displacement. The site- dependent seismic demand is characterized by the 5% damped elastic design spectral acceleration at the degraded period of the potential sliding mass as well as other key parameters. The level of uncertainty in the estimates of the seismic demand and displacement can be handled through the use of different percentile estimates of these values. Thus, the engineer can properly incorporate the amount of seismic displacement judged to be allowable and the seismic hazard at the site in the selection of the seismic coefficient. Keywords: Dam; Earthquake; Permanent Displacements; Reliability; Seismic Slope Stability INTRODUCTION Pseudostatic slope stability procedures are often used in engineering practice to evaluate the seismic performance of earth structures and natural slopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Analysis of Soil Liquefaction in Earthquake Disasters
    E3S Web of Conferences 118, 03037 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911803037 ICAEER 2019 Risk analysis of soil liquefaction in earthquake disasters Yubin Zhang1,* 1National Earthquake Response Support Service, Beijing 100049, P. R. China Abstract. China is an earthquake-prone country. With the development of urbanization in China, the effect of population aggregation becomes more and more obvious, and the Casualty Risk of earthquake disasters also increases. Combining with the characteristics of earthquake liquefaction, this paper analyses the disaster situation of soil liquefaction caused by earthquake in Indonesia. The internal influencing factors of soil liquefaction and the external dynamic factors caused by earthquake are summarized, and then the evaluation factors of seismic liquefaction are summarized. The earthquake liquefaction risk is indexed to facilitate trend analysis. The index of earthquake liquefaction risk is more conducive to the disaster trend analysis of soil liquefaction risk areas, which is of great significance for earthquake disaster rescue. 1 Risk analysis of earthquake an earthquake of M7.5 occurred in the Palu region of liquefaction Indonesia. The liquefaction caused by the earthquake is evident in its severity and spatial range. According to the Earthquake disasters often cause serious damage to us report of Indonesia's National Disaster Response Agency because they are unpredictable. Search the US Geological (BNPB), more than 3,000 people were missing in Petobo Survey (USGS) website for the number of earthquakes and Balaroa, two of Palu's worst-hit areas. These with magnitude 6 and above in the last 50 years, about situations were compared with remote sensing images 7,000times.Earthquake liquefaction has existed since before and after the disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Guide 1.198 "Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites (DG-11
    U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 2003 REGULATORY GUIDE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH REGULATORY GUIDE 1.198 (Draft was issued as DG-1105) PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES A. INTRODUCTION This regulatory guide has been developed to provide guidance to license applicants on acceptable methods for evaluating the potential for earthquake-induced instability of soils resulting from liquefaction and strength degradation. It discusses conditions under which the potential for such response should be addressed in safety analysis reports. The guidance includes procedures and criteria currently applied to assess the liquefaction potential of soils ranging from gravel to clays. In 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” § 100.23, “Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria,” sets forth the principal geologic and seismic considerations that guide the NRC in its evaluation of the suitability of a proposed site. In addition, 10 CFR 100.23(d)(4) discusses several siting factors that must be evaluated and requires that the potential for soil liquefaction be evaluated in addition to several other geologic and seismic factors. Safety-related site characteristics, including those related to the response of soils to earthquakes, are identified in Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition).” Regulatory Guide 4.7, “General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations,” discusses major site characteristics
    [Show full text]
  • Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project: Seismic and Liquefaction Hazard Maps by Chris H
    St. Louis Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project: Seismic and Liquefaction Hazard Maps by Chris H. Cramer, Robert A. Bauer, Jae-won Chung, J. David Rogers, Larry Pierce, Vicki Voigt, Brad Mitchell, David Gaunt, Robert A. Wil- liams, David Hoffman, Gregory L. Hempen, Phyllis J. Steckel, Oliver S. Boyd, Connor M. Watkins, Kathleen Tucker, and Natasha S. McCallister ABSTRACT We present probabilistic and deterministic seismic and liquefac- (NMSZ) earthquake sequence. This sequence produced modi- tion hazard maps for the densely populated St. Louis metropolitan fied Mercalli intensity (MMI) for locations in the St. Louis area area that account for the expected effects of surficial geology on that ranged from VI to VIII (Nuttli, 1973; Bakun et al.,2002; earthquake ground shaking. Hazard calculations were based on a Hough and Page, 2011). The region has experienced strong map grid of 0.005°, or about every 500 m, and are thus higher in ground shaking (∼0:1g peak ground acceleration [PGA]) as a resolution than any earlier studies. To estimate ground motions at result of prehistoric and contemporary seismicity associated with the surface of the model (e.g., site amplification), we used a new the major neighboring seismic source areas, including the Wa- detailed near-surface shear-wave velocity model in a 1D equiva- bashValley seismic zone (WVSZ) and NMSZ (Fig. 1), as well as lent-linear response analysis. When compared with the 2014 U.S. a possible paleoseismic earthquake near Shoal Creek, Illinois, Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model, about 30 km east of St. Louis (McNulty and Obermeier, 1997). which uses a uniform firm-rock-site condition, the new probabi- Another contributing factor to seismic hazard in the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability
    Slope stability Causes of instability Mechanics of slopes Analysis of translational slip Analysis of rotational slip Site investigation Remedial measures Soil or rock masses with sloping surfaces, either natural or constructed, are subject to forces associated with gravity and seepage which cause instability. Resistance to failure is derived mainly from a combination of slope geometry and the shear strength of the soil or rock itself. The different types of instability can be characterised by spatial considerations, particle size and speed of movement. One of the simplest methods of classification is that proposed by Varnes in 1978: I. Falls II. Topples III. Slides rotational and translational IV. Lateral spreads V. Flows in Bedrock and in Soils VI. Complex Falls In which the mass in motion travels most of the distance through the air. Falls include: free fall, movement by leaps and bounds, and rolling of fragments of bedrock or soil. Topples Toppling occurs as movement due to forces that cause an over-turning moment about a pivot point below the centre of gravity of the unit. If unchecked it will result in a fall or slide. The potential for toppling can be identified using the graphical construction on a stereonet. The stereonet allows the spatial distribution of discontinuities to be presented alongside the slope surface. On a stereoplot toppling is indicated by a concentration of poles "in front" of the slope's great circle and within ± 30º of the direction of true dip. Lateral Spreads Lateral spreads are disturbed lateral extension movements in a fractured mass. Two subgroups are identified: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Sliding in the Farmington Siding Landslide Complex, Davis County, Utah
    Hylland, Lowe LIQUEFACTION CHARACTERISTICS,CHARACTERISTICS, TIMING,TIMING, ANDAND HAZARDHAZARD POTENTIALPOTENTIAL OFOF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCEDLIQUEFACTION-INDUCED LANDSLIDINGLANDSLIDING ININ THETHE FARMINGTONFARMINGTON SIDINGSIDING LANDSLIDELANDSLIDE COMPLEX,COMPLEX, DAVISDAVIS COUNTY,COUNTY, UTAHUTAH by Michael D. Hylland and Mike Lowe - INDUCED LANDSLIDING, FARMINGTON SIDING LANDSLIDE COMPLEX, DAVIS COUNTY, UTAH UGS Special Study 95 UTAH COUNTY, SIDING LANDSLIDE COMPLEX, DAVIS INDUCED LANDSLIDING, FARMINGTON Aerial view looking northwest along Interstate 15, showing hummocky landslide terrain on northern part of Farmington Siding landslide complex. Backhoe trench excavated on a hummock sideslope within the Farmington Siding landslide complex, with the Wasatch Range Trench exposure of liquefied sand and in the background. Block of organic soil incorporated into disrupted silt interbed. landslide deposits during landsliding. SPECIAL STUDY 95 1998 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of Utah Department of Natural Resources CHARACTERISTICS, TIMING, AND HAZARD POTENTIAL OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED LANDSLIDING IN THE FARMINGTON SIDING LANDSLIDE COMPLEX, DAVIS COUNTY, UTAH by Michael D. Hylland and Mike Lowe Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 1434-94-G-2498. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. SPECIAL STUDY 95 1998 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of Utah Department of Natural Resources CONTENTS Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Previous Work . 2 Geology and Geomorphology . 3 Trench Descriptions . 4 Trench FST1 . 5 Trench FST2 . 7 Trench FST3 . 7 Trench FST4 . 7 Trench FST5 . 11 Slope-Failure Modes and Extent of Internal Deformation .
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Formations of Western Oregon
    BULLETIN 70 GEOLOGIC fORMATION§ OF WESTERN OREGON WEST OF LONGITUDE 121° 30' STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1971 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1069 Stal·e Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201 BULLETIN 70 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS OF WESTERN OREGON (WEST OF LONGITUDE 12 1 °30') By John D. Beaulieu 1971 GOVERNING BOARD Fayette I. Bristol, Rogue River, Chairman R. W. deWeese, Portland Harold Banta, Baker STATE GEOLOGIST R. E. Corcoran CONTENTS Introduction . Acknowledgements 2 Geologic formations 3 Quadrang I es. 53 Corre I ation charts. 60 Bibliography. 63 ii GE OLOGIC FORMA T IONS OF WESTERN OR EGON (W E ST OF LONG ITUD E 12 1°30') By John D. Beaulieu* INTRODUCTION It is the purpose of th is publi cation to provide a concise , yet comprehensive discussion of the for­ mations of western Oregon. It is the further aim that the data for each of the formations be as current as possi ble. Consequently, the emphasis has been placed on th e recent literature . Although this paper should not be viewed as a discussion of the historical development of each of the fo rmations, the original reference for each of the units is given . Also, in cases where the historical development of the formation has a direct bearing on present-day problems it is included in the discussion . A wide variety of published literature and unpublished reports , theses, and dissertations was con­ sul ted and several professional opin ions regarding specific problems were so licited . In recent years re­ search has been concentrated in the Klamath Mountains and the southern Coast Range and for these regions literature was volumi nous.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoma Acre Tracts" (Plat No
    ID vr\__..(I ID I ·~ '<I" < 0 UJ N 1 N ~ 0 I z lj 1Wz ~o 0:(1) ! Q'.W11 fr~ I Cll"- I o..::> -"'<:"- I ,? I § :? Cl) :;: i ;; .... o~ ~ g_ &~ ~ ~ lriE iii i'-- · '"~-::!:>.t• ''·~ .... 1•- =1-7',,----;;; ('\j ~ Cl I ~ ~ ~b ! : =~ g:R ~ CT:I N I ::lN ~~§~ -~ .......... ~ oozz ~u:. ~ ! Oll'v' EXHIBIT E-1 LU 18-0028 -- C _ Nci I I Layers - x < l'V l'V . w w 1 I - I 'I t -] ~_Jf -gj l ~ 12850 ~ erty Map CHANGE MAP Eli 1 R·lO R·lO - - --. 0 ~ _JO I 0 I - - __, d ......s __ (!.._. ·er Layers ___ Filter + 0 SW Kna!!f s Rd Knaus LJ L.U,....._...,, v • ._ " " '"'~ '- '"''-' '""-' Rd O Neighborhood Overlays > 13001 -~1 r=,.- 0 "" Cl] f N 0 O Southwest Overlay <.O~ cj ~ i 11JU41 N I > l_ 3 ~- ~ )w i : I ~ ~ w District -< I ~ N I R· 3 - _J '\..) l'V ~ ~ Willamette River I f - R·3 Greenway Management > j j District 13120 SP h I I .J I r I I 13050 O Commercial Overlays > I R· O I O Land Use > / I I " I I m O Heritage Trees > 131s1 Ii 13156 L 13064 I R-15 ~ * Historic Landmarks > l'V l'V (]1 O Special Street Setbacks ~. .t:i.. ~ . 1317~ (Not drawn to scale. For I reference only.) GREE'N- 13070 ---- O Neighborhood ~ --.. ~ ~ > . r I RIDGE Lt 131j 13220 "i: !;! § I§I Associations ESTATE Q"' .3 Q,, l -~-· -=- I ~ i;zJ § • Zoning > I 111 . I ~ Comprehensive Plan a > I " \ r;;1 , ......... I I ~) _I•.> 1'Vl!\ ~Fire V / -....0.t ..._,____" - r · ---- --- ·- - S • · --~ EXHIBIT E-2 LU 18-0028 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP SURVEY NOTES: TAX LOT 3500, MAP 2 TE 0488 THE V£,oli'11CAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY 15 BASED UPON A POST-PROCESSED GPS STATTC 08$£RVAnON AT CONTROL POINT 14, lt1TH AN El..EVATTON OF 496.95: NGVD 29' DATUM.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boring Volcanic Field of the Portland-Vancouver Area, Oregon and Washington: Tectonically Anomalous Forearc Volcanism in an Urban Setting
    Downloaded from fieldguides.gsapubs.org on April 29, 2010 The Geological Society of America Field Guide 15 2009 The Boring Volcanic Field of the Portland-Vancouver area, Oregon and Washington: Tectonically anomalous forearc volcanism in an urban setting Russell C. Evarts U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA Richard M. Conrey GeoAnalytical Laboratory, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164, USA Robert J. Fleck Jonathan T. Hagstrum U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT More than 80 small volcanoes are scattered throughout the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area of northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington. These vol- canoes constitute the Boring Volcanic Field, which is centered in the Neogene Port- land Basin and merges to the east with coeval volcanic centers of the High Cascade volcanic arc. Although the character of volcanic activity is typical of many mono- genetic volcanic fi elds, its tectonic setting is not, being located in the forearc of the Cascadia subduction system well trenchward of the volcanic-arc axis. The history and petrology of this anomalous volcanic fi eld have been elucidated by a comprehensive program of geologic mapping, geochemistry, 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, and paleomag- netic studies. Volcanism began at 2.6 Ma with eruption of low-K tholeiite and related lavas in the southern part of the Portland Basin. At 1.6 Ma, following a hiatus of ~0.8 m.y., similar lavas erupted a few kilometers to the north, after which volcanism became widely dispersed, compositionally variable, and more or less continuous, with an average recurrence interval of 15,000 yr.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide and Liquefaction Maps for the Long Beach Peninsula
    LANDSLIDE AND LIQUEFACTION MAPS FOR THE LONG BEACH PENINSULA, PACIFIC COUNTY, WASHINGTON: Effects on Tsunami Inundation Zones of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake by Stephen L. Slaughter, Timothy J. Walsh, Anton Ypma, Kelsay M. D. Stanton, Recep Cakir, and Trevor A. Contreras WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Report of Investigations 37 October 2013 DISCLAIMER Neither the State of Washington, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the State of Washington or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the State of Washington or any agency thereof. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Peter Goldmark—Commissioner of Public Lands DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES David K. Norman—State Geologist John P. Bromley—Assistant State Geologist Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Mailing Address: Street Address: MS 47007 Natural Resources Bldg, Rm 148 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 1111 Washington St SE Olympia, WA 98501 Phone: 360-902-1450; Fax: 360-902-1785 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology Publications List: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geologypublications library/pages/pubs.aspx Online searchable catalog of the Washington Geology Library: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geologypublications library/pages/washbib.aspx Washington State Geologic Information Portal: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal Suggested Citation: Slaughter, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Residual Strength of Liquefied Soil with the Ring Shear Device
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2011 Measuring residual strength of liquefied soil with the ring shear device Jay Hargy University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Hargy, Jay, "Measuring residual strength of liquefied soil with the ring shear device" (2011). Master's Theses and Capstones. 828. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/828 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEASURING RESIDUAL STRENGTH OF LIQUEFIED SOIL WITH THE RING SHEAR DEVICE BY JAY HARGY BS Geology (Engineering Emphasis) Northern Arizona University, 1996 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering May, 2011 UMI Number: 1498960 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Dissertation Publishing UMI 1498960 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]