Transportation Routes in Soils Susceptible to Ground Failure: New Madrid Seismic Zone
Abstract
Geologic deposits susceptible to ground motion amplification under seismic loading in the New Madrid Seismic Zone are delineated using multiple data sources including in situ measurements, geologic maps, and remote-sensing imagery. Soils are classified on the basis of the recommendations from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which recommends a classification based on the average shear wave velocity of the geologic material in the upper 30 m. Measurements of shear wave velocity were obtained from Central United States Earthquake Consortium state geologists, the U.S. Geological Survey, and several researchers. However, since this is a predominantly rural area, limited field test data are available. Therefore, several other data sources are introduced including geologic maps and remote-sensing imagery to extrapolate dynamic properties in areas lacking extensive field measurements. Each data source was incorporated into a geographic information system for subsequent analysis. Bridges susceptible to failure from amplification of seismic waves and located on key transportation routes are identified for subsequent risk assessment or seismic retrofitting since the performance of these structures affects disaster planning and rescue efforts and may have severe consequences for the national economy.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Kramer S. L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996.
2. Shedlock K. M., and Johnston A. C. Introduction: Investigations of the New Madrid Seismic Zone. In Investigations of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (Shedlock K. M. and Johnston A. C., eds.), Professional Paper 1538-A, U.S. Geological Survey, 1994.
3. Wheeler R. L., Rhea S., and Tarr A. C. Elements of Infrastructure and Seismic Hazard in the Central United States. In Investigations in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (Shedlock K. M. and Johnston A. C., eds.), Professional Paper 1538-M, U.S. Geological Survey, 1994.
4. Seed R. B., Dickenson S. E., Rimer M. F., Bray J. D., Sitar N., Mitchell J. K., Idriss I. M., Kayen R. E., Kropp A., Harder L. F. Jr., and Power M. S. Preliminary Report on the Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. UCB/EERC-90/05. University of California, Berkeley, 1990.
5. Seed H. B., Romo M. P., Sun J. I., Jaime A., and Lysmer J. The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985: Relationships Between Soil Conditions and Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1988, pp. 687–729.
6. Building Seismic Safety Council. Part 1—Provisions. In NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 1997.
7. Borcherdt R. D. Estimates of Site-Dependent Response Spectra for Design (Methodology and Justification). Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1994, pp. 617–653.
8. Anderson J. G., Lee Y., Zeng Y., and Day S. Control of Strong Motion by the Upper 30 Meters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 6, 1996, pp. 1749–1759.
9. National Institute of Building Sciences. HAZUS User’s Manual. NIBS Document Number 5200. Washington, D.C., 1997.
10. Jamiolkowski M., Ghionna V., Lancellotta R., and Pasqualini E. New Correlations of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proc., International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988, pp. 263–296.
11. Baldi G., Bellotti R., Ghionna V., Jamiolkowski M., and LoPresti D. C. Modulus of Sands from CPT’s and DMT’s. Proc., 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 1989, pp. 165–192.
12. Mayne P. W., and Rix G. J. Correlations Between Shear Wave Velocity and Cone Tip Resistance in Natural Clays. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1995, pp. 107–110.
13. Park S., and Elrick S. Predictions of Shear-Wave Velocities in Southern California Using Surface Geology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 88, No. 3, 1998, pp. 677–685.
14. Harris J. B., Street R. L., Kiefer J. D., Allen D. L., and Wang Z. M. Modeling Site Response in the Paducah, Kentucky Area. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1994, pp. 519–538.
15. Liu H. P., Hu Y., Dorman J., Chang T. S., and Chiu J. M. Upper Mississippi Embayment Shallow Seismic Velocities Measured In Situ. Engineering Geology, Vol. 46, 1997, pp. 313–330.
16. Schneider J. A. Liquefaction Response of Mid-American Soils Evaluated by Seismic Cone Tests. Master’s thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1999.
17. Street R., Woolery E., Wang Z., and Harik I. E. Soil Classifications for Estimating Site-Dependent Response Spectra and Seismic Coefficients for Building Code Provisions in Western Kentucky. Engineering Geology, Vol. 46, 1997, pp. 331–347.
18. Casey T., McGillvray A., and Mayne P. W. Results of Seismic Piezo-cone Penetration Tests Performed in Memphis, Tennessee. GTRC Project E-20-E87. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1999.
19. U.S. Geological Survey. Memphis-Shelby County Seismic Hazard Mapping Project: Site Response Data. http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/usgs/hazmap/geotech. Accessed Jan. 18, 2000.
20. Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University. Soil Information for Environmental Modeling and Ecosystem Management. http://www.essc.psu.edu/soil_info. Accessed July 1, 1999.
21. Palacios-Orueta A., and Ustin S. L. Remote Sensing of Soil Properties in the Santa Monica Mountains I: Spectral Analysis. Remote Sensing Environment, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1998, pp. 170–183.
22. Marple R. T., and Schweig E. S. III. Remote Sensing of Alluvial Terrain in a Humid, Tectonically Active Setting: The New Madrid Seismic Zone. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 58, No. 2, 1992, pp. 209–219.
23. McBratney A. B., and Webster R. Choosing Functions for Semivariograms of Soil Properties and Fitting Them to Sampling Estimates. Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 37, 1986, pp. 617–639.
24. French S. P., and Bachman W. H. Transportation Facilities in Mid-America. Proc., 1999 5th U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability, Seattle, Wash., Aug. 12–14, 1999, pp. 582–591.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published: January 2000
Issue published: January 2000
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 10
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 1
- Model for the Physical Risk Assessment of Bridges with Unknown Foundat...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
