DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS TO BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENTS IN OREGON Final Report SPR 361 by Dr. Stephen E. Dickenson Associate Professor and Nason J. McCullough Mark G. Barkau Bryan J. Wavra Graduate Research Assistants Dept. of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE Salem, OR 97301-5192 and Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 November 2002 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-OR-RD-03-04 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date November 2002 Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments 6. Performing Organization Code in Oregon 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Stephen E. Dickenson, Nason J. McCullough, Mark G. Barkau, and Bryan J. Wavra No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Oregon State University Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering 202 Apperson Hall Contract or Grant No. K5010A Corvallis, Oregon 97331 SPR 361 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group and Federal Highway Administration Final Report 1994- 2001 200 Hawthorne Ave SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Salem, Oregon 97301-5192 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The seismic performance of bridge structures and appurtenant components (i.e., approach spans, abutments and foundations) has been well documented following recent earthquakes worldwide. This experience demonstrates that bridges are highly vulnerable to earthquake-induced damages and loss of serviceability. These damages are commonly due to soil liquefaction and the associated impact of ground failures on abutments and pile foundations. Current design methods for evaluating permanent, seismically-induced deformations of earth structures are based on rigid body, limit equilibrium and “sliding-block” procedures that are poorly suited for modeling soil liquefaction and establishing the pattern of embankment-abutment-foundation deformations. Recent advances in the seismic design of bridges have addressed some of the limitations of the current design procedures; however practice-oriented methods for estimating permanent deformations at sites that contain liquefiable soils and/or where soil improvement strategies have been employed to mitigate liquefaction hazards are still at an early stage of development. In Oregon, the evaluation of soil liquefaction and abutment performance are complicated by the rather unique seismo-tectonic setting and the prevalence of silty soils along the primary transportation corridors in the Portland/Willamette Valley region and along the Columbia River. This study has focused on numerical dynamic, effective stress modeling to determine the seismic performance of sloping abutments and the effectiveness of soil improvement for reducing permanent ground deformations. Recommendations are provided for evaluating the dynamic behavior of regional silty soils, the application of soil improvement at bridge sites, and comparisons have been made between the deformations computed using the advanced numerical model and the rigid-block methods used in practice. The results have been presented in the form of design charts, where possible, that can be readily used by design engineers in preliminary design and incorporated into the ODOT Liquefaction Mitigation Policy. This study has demonstrated the utility, and limitations, of soil improvement solely by densification techniques. In some cases soil densification techniques for mitigating seismic hazards may not be adequate in limiting deformations to allowable limits, indicating that other methods of soil improvement (e.g., cementation, stone columns, drainage) or structural improvements may also be required. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement liquefaction, bridge abutment, ground failure, soil improvement, Copies available from NTIS. seismic design 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 20. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Technical Report Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to those individuals who provided valuable assistance throughout the duration of this investigation. Significant contributions were made during several key stages of the project. The silt liquefaction studies reported herein are based in large part on the collection of data contained in numerous personal and proprietary files. This portion of the report has been enhanced by the significant contributions of regional data provided by Mr. Jason Brown of GeoEngineers (formerly Graduate Research Assistant at OSU), Mr. Andrew Vessely of Cornforth Consultants, and Dr. Michael Riemer of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. We are grateful to Dr. Wolfgang Roth of URS Corporation (Dames & Moore) and Mr. Douglas Schwarm of GeoEngineers for their assistance with the numerical modeling and for providing valuable insights on the pore pressure generation routines. Reference material was provided from the personal files of several individuals. We are indebted to the following people: Yumei Wang of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Mr. Ian Austin of URS Corporation (Dames & Moore) for sharing photographs from Kobe, Japan, and Professor Masanori Hamada of Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan for providing a copy of his outstanding report on liquefaction and ground displacements resulting from the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Project guidance and peer review was provided by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which was convened by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Active committee members included: Messrs. Jan Six and Dave Vournas (Geo-Hydro Section), Mr. Bruce Johnson of the Federal Highway Administration, and Ms. Elizabeth Hunt of the Research Group at ODOT. These TAC members provided reference material, ODOT bridge foundation plans and geotechnical reports, and thoughtful advice throughout the project. The TAC was assisted in the review of the final project report by Ms. Sarah Skeen of the Federal Highway Administration. This assistance is greatly appreciated. Finally, we are especially grateful to Ms. Elizabeth Hunt for her valuable assistance with the administration of the research project and organization of the TAC. iii DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Oregon and the United States Government do not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iv ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS TO BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENTS IN OREGON TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................... 3 1.2.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................5 1.2.3 Report Organization ................................................................................................... 6 2.0 OVERVIEW OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED DAMAGE TO BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENTS AND FOUNDATIONS ............................................ 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED BRIDGE DAMAGE .................................................................. 10 2.3 OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC DAMAGE TO BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ....................................... 12 2.3.1 1964 Alaska Earthquake........................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 1964 Niigata Earthquake.......................................................................................... 19 2.3.3 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.................................................................................. 23 2.3.4 1991 Costa Rica Earthquake .................................................................................... 28 2.3.5 1995 Hyogo-Ken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake ........................................................... 30 2.4 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures
    SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures 1. SEEDING When • Bare soil is exposed to erosive forces from wind and or water. Why • A cost effective way to prevent erosion by protecting the soil from raindrop impact, flowing water and wind. • Vegetation binds soil particles together with a dense root system, increasing infiltration thereby reducing runoff volume and velocity. Where • On all disturbed areas except where non-vegetative stabilization measures are being used or where seeding would interfere with agricultural activity. Scheduling • During the recommended temporary and permanent seeding dates outlined below. • Dormant seeding is acceptable. How 1. Site Assessment. Determine site physical characteristics including available sunlight, slope, adjacent topography, local climate, proximity to sensitive areas or natural plant communities, and soil characteristics such as natural drainage class, texture, fertility and pH. 2. Seed Selection. Use seed with acceptable purity and germination tests that are viable for the planned seeding date. Seed that has become wet, moldy or otherwise damaged is unacceptable. Select seed depending on, location and intended purpose. A mixture of native species for permanent cover may provide some advantages because they have coevolved with native wildlife and other plants and typically play an important function in the ecosystem. They are also adapted to the local climate and soil if properly selected for site conditions; can dramatically reduce fertilizer, lime and maintenance requirements; and provide a deeper root structure. When re- vegetating natural areas, introduced species may spread into adjacent natural areas, native species should be used. Noxious or aquatic nuisance species shall not be used (see list below). If seeding is a temporary soil erosion control measure select annual, non-aggressive species such as annual rye, wheat, or oats.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods
    State of Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist DIGITAL DATA SERIES 2021 OREGON SEISMIC HAZARD DATABASE: PURPOSE AND METHODS By Ian P. Madin1, Jon J. Francyzk1, John M. Bauer2, and Carlie J.M. Azzopardi1 2021 1Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965, Portland, OR 97232 2Principal, Bauer GIS Solutions, Portland, OR 97229 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods 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. WHAT’S IN THIS PUBLICATION? The Oregon Seismic Hazard Database, release 1 (OSHD-1.0), is the first comprehensive collection of seismic hazard data for Oregon. This publication consists of a geodatabase containing coseismic geohazard maps and quantitative ground shaking and ground deformation maps; a report describing the methods used to prepare the geodatabase, and map plates showing 1) the highest level of shaking (peak ground velocity) expected to occur with a 2% chance in the next 50 years, equivalent to the most severe shaking likely to occur once in 2,475 years; 2) median shaking levels expected from a suite of 30 magnitude 9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake simulations; and 3) the probability of experiencing shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VII, which is the nominal threshold for structural damage to buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 1. Geology and Seismic Hazards
    8 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT As required by State law, the Public Safety Element addresses the protection of the community from unreasonable risks from natural and manmade haz- ards. This Element provides information about risks in the Eden Area and delineates policies designed to prepare and protect the community as much as possible from the effects of: ♦ Geologic hazards, including earthquakes, ground-shaking, liquefaction and landslides. ♦ Flooding, including dam failures and inundation, tsunamis and seiches. ♦ Wildland fires. ♦ Hazardous materials. This Element also contains information and policies regarding general emer- gency preparedness. Each section includes background information on the particular hazard followed by goals, policies and actions designed to minimize risk for Eden Area residents. The Public Safety Element establishes mechanisms to prepare for and reduce death, injuries and damage to property from public safety hazards like flood- ing, fires and seismic events. Hazards are an unavoidable aspect of life, and the Public Safety Element cannot eliminate risk completely. Instead, the Element contains policies to create an acceptable level of risk. 1. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Earthquakes and secondary seismic hazards such as ground-shaking, liquefac- tion and landslides are the primary geologic hazards in the Eden Area. This section provides background on the seismic hazards that affect the Eden Area and includes goals, policies and actions to minimize these risks. 8-1 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA EDEN AREA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT A. Background Information As is the case in most of California, the Eden Area is subject to risks from seismic activity. The Eden Area is located in the San Andreas Fault Zone, one of the most seismically-active regions in the United States, which has generated numerous moderate to strong earthquakes in northern California and in the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [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]
  • Title of Paper
    Raw earth construction: is there a role for unsaturated soil mechanics ? D. Gallipoli, A.W. Bruno & C. Perlot Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, Laboratoire SIAME, Anglet, France N. Salmon Nobatek, Anglet, France ABSTRACT: “Raw earth” (“terre crue” in French) is an ancient building material consisting of a mixture of moist clay and sand which is compacted to a more or less high density depending on the chosen building tech- nique. A raw earth structure could in fact be described as a “soil fill in the shape of a building”. Despite the very nature of this material, which makes it particularly suitable to a geotechnical analysis, raw earth construc- tion has so far been the almost exclusive domain of structural engineers and still remains a niche market in current building practice. A multitude of manufacturing techniques have already been developed over the cen- turies but, recently, this construction method has attracted fresh interest due to its eco-friendly characteristics and the potential savings of embodied, operational and end-of-life energy that it can offer during the life cycle of a structure. This paper starts by introducing the advantages of raw earth over other conventional building materials followed by a description of modern earthen construction techniques. The largest part of the manu- script is devoted to the presentation of recent studies about the hydro-mechanical properties of earthen materi- als and their dependency on suction, water content, particle size distribution and relative humidity. A raw earth structure therefore consists of com- pacted moist soil and may be described in geotech- 1 DEFINITION OF EARTHEN nical terms as a “soil fill in the shape of a building”.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. the Crust and Upper Mantle
    Theory of the Earth Don L. Anderson Chapter 3. The Crust and Upper Mantle Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, c1989 Copyright transferred to the author September 2, 1998. You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and noncommercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format. Recommended citation: Anderson, Don L. Theory of the Earth. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1989. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechBOOK:1989.001 A scanned image of the entire book may be found at the following persistent URL: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechBook:1989.001 Abstract: T he structure of the Earth's interior is fairly well known from seismology, and knowledge of the fine structure is improving continuously. Seismology not only provides the structure, it also provides information about the composition, crystal structure or mineralogy and physical state. In subsequent chapters I will discuss how to combine seismic with other kinds of data to constrain these properties. A recent seismological model of the Earth is shown in Figure 3-1. Earth is conventionally divided into crust, mantle and core, but each of these has subdivisions that are almost as fundamental (Table 3-1). The lower mantle is the largest subdivision, and therefore it dominates any attempt to perform major- element mass balance calculations. The crust is the smallest solid subdivision, but it has an importance far in excess of its relative size because we live on it and extract our resources from it, and, as we shall see, it contains a large fraction of the terrestrial inventory of many elements. In this and the next chapter I discuss each of the major subdivisions, starting with the crust and ending with the inner core.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy and China Sharing Best Practices on the Sustainable Development of Small Underground Settlements
    heritage Article Italy and China Sharing Best Practices on the Sustainable Development of Small Underground Settlements Laura Genovese 1,†, Roberta Varriale 2,†, Loredana Luvidi 3,*,† and Fabio Fratini 4,† 1 CNR—Institute for the Conservation and the Valorization of Cultural Heritage, 20125 Milan, Italy; [email protected] 2 CNR—Institute of Studies on Mediterranean Societies, 80134 Naples, Italy; [email protected] 3 CNR—Institute for the Conservation and the Valorization of Cultural Heritage, 00015 Monterotondo St., Italy 4 CNR—Institute for the Conservation and the Valorization of Cultural Heritage, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-06-90672887 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Received: 28 December 2018; Accepted: 5 March 2019; Published: 8 March 2019 Abstract: Both Southern Italy and Central China feature historic rural settlements characterized by underground constructions with residential and service functions. Many of these areas are currently tackling economic, social and environmental problems, resulting in unemployment, disengagement, depopulation, marginalization or loss of cultural and biological diversity. Both in Europe and in China, policies for rural development address three core areas of intervention: agricultural competitiveness, environmental protection and the promotion of rural amenities through strengthening and diversifying the economic base of rural communities. The challenge is to create innovative pathways for regeneration based on raising awareness to inspire local rural communities to develop alternative actions to reduce poverty while preserving the unique aspects of their local environment and culture. In this view, cultural heritage can be a catalyst for the sustainable growth of the rural community.
    [Show full text]
  • JONATHAN DONALD BRAY Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence Professor of Geotechnical Engineering University of California at Berkeley
    JONATHAN DONALD BRAY Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence Professor of Geotechnical Engineering University of California at Berkeley Office Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 453 Davis Hall, MC-1710 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1710 Office Phone: (510) 642-9843 Cell Phone: (925) 212-7842 E-Mail: [email protected] EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Berkeley, California Ph.D. in Geotechnical Engineering, 1990 STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Palo Alto, California M.S. in Structural Engineering, 1981 UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, West Point, New York B.S., 1980 AWARDS AND HONORS National Academy of Engineering, elected in 2015. Mueser Rutledge Lecture, American Society of Civil Engineers Metropolitan Section, New York, 2014 Ralph B. Peck Award, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013 Fulbright Award, U.S. Fulbright Scholarship to New Zealand, 2013 William B. Joyner Lecture Award, Seismological Society of America & Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2012 Erskine Fellow, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2012 Thomas A. Middlebrooks Award, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010 Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006 Shamsher Prakash Research Award, Shamsher Prakash Foundation, 1999 Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Forensic Engineering Outstanding Paper Award, 1995 North American Geosynthetics Society - State of the Practice Award of Excellence, 1995 North American Geosynthetics Society - Geotechnical Engineering Technology Award of Excellence, 1993 David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engineering, 1992-1997 Presidential Young Investigator Award, National Science Foundation, 1991-1996 American Society of Civil Engineers Trent R. Dames and William W.
    [Show full text]
  • Earth's Structure and Processes 8-3 the Student Will Demonstrate An
    Earth’s Structure and Processes 8-3 The student will demonstrate an understanding of materials that determine the structure of Earth and the processes that have altered this structure. (Earth Science) 8-3.1 Summarize the three layers of Earth – crust, mantle, and core – on the basis of relative position, density, and composition. Taxonomy level: 2.4-B Understand Conceptual Knowledge Previous/future knowledge: Students in 3rd grade (3-3.5, 3-3.6) focused on Earth’s surface features, water, and land. In 5th grade (5-3.2), students illustrated Earth’s ocean floor. The physical property of density was introduced in 7th grade (7-5.9). Students have not been introduced to areas of Earth below the surface. Further study into Earth’s internal structure based on internal heat and gravitational energy is part of the content of high school Earth Science (ES-3.2). It is essential for students to know that Earth has layers that have specific conditions and composition. Layer Relative Position Density Composition Crust Outermost layer; thinnest Least dense layer overall; Solid rock – mostly under the ocean, thickest Oceanic crust (basalt) is silicon and oxygen under continents; crust & more dense than Oceanic crust - basalt; top of mantle called the continental crust (granite) Continental crust - granite lithosphere Mantle Middle layer, thickest Density increases with Hot softened rock; layer; top portion called depth because of contains iron and the asthenosphere increasing pressure magnesium Core Inner layer; consists of Heaviest material; most Mostly iron and nickel; two parts – outer core and dense layer outer core – slow flowing inner core liquid, inner core - solid It is not essential for students to know specific depths or temperatures of the layers.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregory C. Beroza Department of Geophysics, 397 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305-2215 Phone: (650)723-4958 — Fax: (650)725-7344 — E-Mail: [email protected]
    Gregory C. Beroza Department of Geophysics, 397 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305-2215 Phone: (650)723-4958 Fax: (650)725-7344 E-Mail: [email protected] Positions • Wayne Loel Professor of Earth Sciences, Stanford University 2008-present • Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 2003-present • Associate Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 1994-2003 • Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 1990-1994 • Postdoctoral Associate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1989-1990 Education Ph.D. Geophysics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1989 B.S. Earth Sciences, University of California at Santa Cruz 1982 Honors and Awards • Lawson Lecturer, University of California Berkeley 2015 • Beno Gutenberg Medal, European Geosciences Union 2014 • Citation, Geophysical Research Letters, 40th Anniversary Collection 2014 • IRIS/SSA Distinguished Lecturer 2012 • RIT Distinguished Lecturer 2011 • Wayne Loel Professor of Earth Sciences 2009 • Brinson Lecturer, Carnegie Institute of Washington 2008 • Fellow, American Geophysical Union 2008 • NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award 1991 • NSF Graduate Fellowship 1983 • ARCS Foundation Scholarship 1983 • UCSC Chancellor’s Award for Undergraduates 1983 • Outstanding Undergraduate in Earth Science 1983 • Highest Honors in the Major 1982 • Undergraduate Thesis Honors 1982 Recent Professional Activities • Associate Editor, Science Advances 2016-present • AGU Seismology Section President 2015-present • IRIS Industry Working Group 2015-present Gregory C. Beroza Page 2 • Co-Director,
    [Show full text]
  • Freezing in Naples Underground
    THE ARTIFICIAL GROUND FREEZING TECHNIQUE APPLICATION FOR THE NAPLES UNDERGROUND Giuseppe Colombo a Construction Supervisor of Naples underground, MM c Technicalb Director MM S.p.A., via del Vecchio Polit Abstract e Technicald DirectorStudio Icotekne, di progettazione Vico II S. Nicola Lunardi, all piazza S. Marco 1, The extension of the Naples Technical underground Director between Rocksoil Pia S.p.A., piazza S. Marc Direzionale by using bored tunnelling methods through the Neapo Cassania to unusually high heads of water for projects of th , Pietro Lunardi natural water table. Given the extreme difficulty of injecting the mater problem of waterproofing it during construction was by employing artificial ground freezing (office (AGF) district) metho on Line 1 includes 5 stations. T The main characteristics of this ground treatment a d with the main problems and solutions adopted during , Vittorio Manassero aspects of this experience which constitutes one of Italy, of the application of AGF technology. b , Bruno Cavagna e c S.p.A., Naples, Giovanna e a Dogana 9,ecnico Naples 8, Milan ion azi Sta o led To is type due to the presence of the Milan zza Dante and the o 1, Milan ial surrounding thelitan excavation, yellow tuff, the were subject he stations, driven partly St taz Stazione M zio solved for four of the stations un n Università ic e ds. ip Sta io zione Du e omo re presented in the text along the major the project examples, and theat leastsignificant in S t G ta a z r io iibb n a e Centro lldd i - 1 - 1.
    [Show full text]