skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation
The influence of the non-liquefied crust that overlies a liquefied deposit on the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations has been noted for several decades. In 1985, Ishihara proposed a generalize relationship relating the thicknesses of the non-liquefied crust and of the liquefied stratum to the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations. Although subsequent studies using data from multiple earthquakes give credence to Ishihara’s relationship, the implementation of the procedure is tenuous for all but the simplest of profiles. In an effort to overcome issues with implementing the Ishihara relationship, new procedures have been proposed for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations. The efficacies of two of these procedures are currently being assessed in a study using unique case history data from the 2016, Mw5.7 Valentine’s Day earthquake that impacted Christchurch, New Zealand. Preliminary results from this study show that both procedures yield predictions that are in accord with field observations. However, the final results from the ongoing study are expected to more fully assess the efficacies of these procedures.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1724575 1435494 1030564
PAR ID:
10094918
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proc. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V (GEESD V), Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation (S.J. Brandenberg and M.T. Manzari, eds.), ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) 290
Volume:
290
Page Range / eLocation ID:
21 to 32
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. (, Proc. 13th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechancs (13ANZCG))
    Evaluations of Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) in New Zealand have shown that the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is significantly over-predicted for a large subset of sites. While the potential cause for such over-predictions has been generally identified as the presence of thick, non-liquefiable crusts and/or interbedded non-liquefiable layers in a soil profile, the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations at sites that do not have such characteristics are also often significantly over-predicted, particularly for the Mw 6.2, February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The over-predictions at this latter group of sites may be related to the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) used in the liquefaction triggering evaluations. In past studies, the PGAs at the case history sites were estimated using a procedure that is conditioned on the recorded PGAs at nearby strong motion stations (SMSs). Some of the soil profiles on which these SMSs were installed experienced severe liquefaction, often with an absence of surface manifestation, and the recorded PGAs are inferred to be associated with high-frequency dilation spikes after liquefaction was triggered. Herein the influence of using revised PGAs at these SMSs that are in accord with pre-liquefaction motions on the predicted severity of surficial liquefaction at nearby sites is investigated. It is shown that revising the PGAs improved these predictions, particularly at case history sites where the severity of the surface manifestations was previously over-predicted and could not be explained by other mechanisms. 
    more » « less
  2. (, Proc. 13th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechancs (13ANZCG))
    Evaluations of Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) in New Zealand have shown that the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is significantly over-predicted for a large subset of sites. While the potential cause for such over-predictions has been generally identified as the presence of thick, non-liquefiable crusts and/or interbedded non-liquefiable layers in a soil profile, the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations at sites that do not have such characteristics are also often significantly over-predicted, particularly for the Mw 6.2, February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The over-predictions at this latter group of sites may be related to the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) used in the liquefaction triggering evaluations. In past studies, the PGAs at the case history sites were estimated using a procedure that is conditioned on the recorded PGAs at nearby strong motion stations (SMSs). Some of the soil profiles on which these SMSs were installed experienced severe liquefaction, often with an absence of surface manifestation, and the recorded PGAs are inferred to be associated with high-frequency dilation spikes after liquefaction was triggered. Herein the influence of using revised PGAs at these SMSs that are in accord with pre-liquefaction motions on the predicted severity of surficial liquefaction at nearby sites is investigated. It is shown that revising the PGAs improved these predictions, particularly at case history sites where the severity of the surface manifestations was previously over-predicted and could not be explained by other mechanisms. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Proc. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V (GEESD V), Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation (S.J. Brandenberg and M.T. Manzari, eds.), ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) 290)
    The liquefaction potential index (LPI) was found to significantly overpredict the severity of observed liquefaction for a large subset of case histories compiled from Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes. One potential cause for these overpredictions is the presence of nonliquefiable capping and interbedded strata with high fines-content and/or plasticity that suppress surficial liquefaction manifestations. Herein, receiver-operating-characteristic analyses of compiled Canterbury, New Zealand, liquefaction case histories are used to investigate LPI performance as a function of the soil-behavior-type index averaged over the upper of 20 m (Ic20) of a profile; Ic20 is used to infer the amount of high fines-content, high-plasticity strata in a profile. It is shown that generally: (1) the relationship between computed LPI and the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is Ic20-dependent; and (2) the ability of LPI to segregate cases on the basis of observed manifestation severity using LPI decreases with increasing Ic20. In conjunction with previous studies, these findings support the need for an improved index that more adequately accounts for the mechanics of liquefaction triggering and manifestation. 
    more » « less
  4. (, Proceedings - Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics)
    Hawke’s Bay is situated on the east coast of the North Island of New Zealand and has experienced several earthquakes in the past during which triggered liquefaction. The 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake is particularly interesting because it was one of the most damaging earthquakes and the deadliest earthquake in New Zealand’s history. This study provides insights into the actual versus predicted liquefaction hazard in Napier and Hastings. Towards this end, the simplified Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-based liquefaction triggering evaluation procedure proposed by Boulanger & Idriss (2014) (BI14) is used in conjunction with Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) framework to predict severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations across the region for the 1931 MS7.8 Hawke’s Bay event. A comparison of the results with post-event observations suggests that the liquefaction hazard is being over-predicted. One possible cause for this over-prediction includes the shortcomings liquefaction damage potential frameworks to predict the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations in silty soil deposits. This study demonstrates how historical earthquake accounts in a region can be used to assess the risk of the region from future earthquakes. 
    more » « less
  5. (, Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-IV 2022))
    L. Wang, J.-M. Zhang (Ed.)
    The severity of surface manifestation of liquefaction is commonly used as a proxy for liquefaction damage potential. As a result, manifestation severity index (MSI) models are more commonly being used in conjunction with simplified stress-based triggering models to predict liquefaction damage potential. This paper assesses the limitations of four MSI models. The different models have differing attributes that account for factors influencing the severity of surficial liquefactionmanifestations, with the newest of the proposed models accounting more factors than the others. The efficacies of these MSI models are evaluated using well-documented liquefaction case histories from Canterbury, New Zealand, with the deposits primarily comprising clean to non-plastic silty sands. It is found that the MSI models that explicitly account for the contractive/dilative tendencies of soil did not perform as well as the models that do not account for this tendency, opposite of what would be expected based on the mechanics of liquefaction manifestation. The likely reason for this is the double-counting of the dilative tendencies ofmedium-dense to dense soils by theseMSI models, since the liquefaction triggering model, to some extent, inherently accounts for such effects. This implies that development of mechanistically more rigorous MSI models that are used in conjunction with simplified triggering models will not necessarily result in improved liquefaction damage potential predictions and may result in less accurate predictions. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email