【正文】 ).中國(guó)建筑工業(yè)出版社,2003: 57~676 (GB500112010).中國(guó)建筑工業(yè)出版社,2001:517 (GB500102010).中國(guó)建筑工業(yè)出版社,2002:7~118 .工業(yè)大學(xué)出版社,2008:57~77 9 周竟歐,朱伯欽,2004: 153~18310 楊杰,2004: 3~18311 , stress increase in unbonded tendons in ,2010,11 (12):998~101412 K Emori，W C Schnobrich．Problem of multistory frame structure design of civil buildings．Civil Engineering Studies，2003，36(25)：455513 K. A. Stevens. Problem of multistory frame structure design of civilbuildings. 2004: 134~15714 L. A. Jaykus. Engineering structurer. 2002: 141～29615 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2007, , , P. Bhargava,and S. A. Sherkh 附錄A 英文文獻(xiàn)Regional Map of Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Using the Lateral Spreading Displacement Index DLLAccording to Castro (1969), Terzaghi was one of the ?rst researchers to explain the phenomenon of liquefaction in 1920s. Earthquake induced liquefaction causes damage in houses, buildings and infrastructure, among other structures, as has been observed historically, if the foundations are not designed to work under such conditions. The damage can be associated with the loss of shear resistance of saturated sand deposits due to an increase in pore pressure under the cyclic load imposed by an earthquake. The loss of resistance and rigidity in the soil causes a level of damage depending on the conditions at the site and the characteristics of the structures located there, such as: (1) slope instability,(2) increase in lateral pressure in retaining walls and sheet piles, (3) lateral spreading displacement of the ground, (4) ?otation of buried elements (. ducts, pipes and water deposits), (5) settlement caused by the recon soli dation of lique?ed soil, (6) overturning of buildings and (7) collapse of bridges (Idriss and Boulanger 2008). It is possible to implement mitigation measures to reduce damage by performing a formal hazard assessment. Whichever measure is selected, one of the main steps to follow is to identify the degree of liquefaction hazard in the zone.Most researches in earthquakeinduced liquefaction hazard aim to quantify and evaluate structures affected by earthquakeinduced liquefaction hazard (. Idriss and Boulanger 2008。 Huang and Yu 2013). Numerous studies have been conducted in liquefaction hazard assessment such as the one included in the HAZUS program (HAZUS 2003)。 this methodology estimates the lateral spreading displacement bining a Liquefaction Severity Index (Youd and Perkins 1987) and the peak ground acceleration obtained with acceleration attenuation relationships, applicable to the west of USA. Vipin et al. (2010) evaluated liquefaction hazard in Bangalore, India, for a return period of 475 years at depths of 3 and 6 m based on corrected standard penetration test (SPT) and peak ground acceleration values. Pathak and Dalvi (2013) proposed a dynamic responsebased elementary empirical liquefaction model by processing a total of 314 reported case records covering a wide range of parameters zoning with ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ liquefaction areas. Xue and Yang (2014) investigate the feasibility of using a fuzzy prehensive evaluation model for predicting soil liquefaction during earthquakes.To know whether a zone is susceptible to earthquakeinduced liquefaction or not, there are three main sources of information, which must be consulted (. James et al. 2014): (1) evidence of historical information, (2) geologic and hydrological environment and (3) geotechnical and/or geophysical studies based on tests performed at the site or zone of interest.The review of historical documents, even if such records are qualitative, is the ?rst source to identify zones susceptible to earthquakeinduced liquefaction. These documents describe some of the most mon manifestations of liquefaction after an earthquake (. Casagrande 1965。 Ohsaki 1966), such as: (a) formation of sand volcanoes aligned with cracks, although they occasionally occur in an isolated manner。 (b) ejection of lique?ed sand and water in cracks。 (c) lateral spreading displacement of the ground, and (d) ground settlement. Hence, a historical review of the manifestation of liquefaction in any zone, in this case in Mexico, was required since it allows us to identify sites where the hazard may be present. Some examples of this type of description in Mexico are those presented by Garc180。?a and Sua180。rez (1996), who reviewed the history of earthquakes in Mexico during the last 500 years, for which there are no instrumental records corresponding to the years of 1455–1912. Based on the descriptions presented by these authors, the possible occurrence of liquefaction at the site can be inferred, and, as examples, the following three cases are presented: (1) in 1593, an earthquake struck Mochicavi, Sinaloa, where it is said that‘‘…frightful and unusual earthquake, a hill of sharp rock called Mochicavi broke and opened up, throwing out water from its mouth…’’。 (2) the case of an earthquake on 31 May 1818 that struck the town of Cuyutlan, Colima, where ‘‘in the salt mines of Cuyutlan, the ground opened up in many parts, water emerged and then the ground closed again’’ and (3) in 1868 an earthquake struck Acapulco, Guerrero, where ‘‘the roofs and walls of houses were greatly deteriorated。 in some places the ground opened up and poured out water…’’. Each one of these historical descriptions suggests that in these towns, liquefaction may have taken place.After the year 1912, the instrumental period in Mexico began. In this period, analysis of all the sites in Mexico with liquefaction manifestations revealed that there are few studies that report observed quantitative parameters of liquefaction that may allow an indepth parametric analysis to estimate liquefaction potential in the country. One of the ?rst technical reports of liquefaction in Mexico, known by the authors of this article, was published by Marsal (1961) relating to the earthquake in Jaltipan, Veracruz, on 26 August 1959 (M = ).