The Next-Generation Liquefaction database is a resource for the geotechnical hazard community. It is publicly available online under the following digital object identifier (DOI): 10.21222/C2J040. The database organizes objective liquefaction data into tables and fields (columns of information), with the relationships among the tables and fields described by a schema. The data are organized into tables pertaining to (1) sites, including geotechnical and geophysical site investigation data, surface geology information, and laboratory test data; (2) earthquake events, including source and ground motion information; and (3) observations of sites following events. The schema was vetted through community outreach efforts involving multiple workshops and meetings. Users can view the data, download existing data, and upload new data through a geographic information system (GIS)-based graphical user interface. Information uploaded to the database is reviewed by a database working group to verify consistency between uploaded data and source documents. The database is replicated in DesignSafe where users can interact with the data using Python scripts in Jupyter notebooks, view point cloud data using Potree, and interact with geospatial data using QGIS.
AndrusRDStokoeKHII (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering126(11): 1015–1025.
2.
BoulangerRWDeJongJT (2018) Inverse filtering procedure to correct cone penetration data for thin-layer and transition effects. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on cone penetration testing (CPT’18), Delft, 21–22 June.
3.
BoulangerRWIdrissIM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering138: 1185–1195.
BozorgniaYAbrahamsonNAAl AtikL, et al. (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra30: 973–987.
6.
BozorgniaYStewartJPAbrahamsonNA, et al. (2020). Chapter 1: Introduction, in Data Resources for NGA-Subduction Project, StewartJ.P. (editor), Report PEER 2020/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, UC Berkeley (headquarters).
7.
BrandenbergSJZimmaroP (2019a) Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) Partner Dataset—Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Viewer, DesignSafe-CI, Dataset. DOI: 10.17603/ds2-99kp-rw11.
BrandenbergSJGouletCAWangP, et al. (2019a) Ridgecrest, CA earthquake sequence, July 4 and 5, 2019. DesignSafe-CI. DOI: 10.17603/ds2-4thk-d514.
11.
BrandenbergSJKwakDYZimmaroP, et al. (2018) Next-Generation Liquefaction (NGL) case history database structure. In: Fifth decennial GEESD conference (Geotechnical Special Publication), Austin, TX, 10–13 June, vol. 290, pp. 426–433. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
12.
BrandenbergSJZimmaroPLeeA, et al. (2019b) Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) Partner Dataset, DesignSafe-CI, Dataset. DOI:10.17603/ds2-2xzy-1y96.
13.
ÇetinKOSeedRBDer KiureghianA, et al. (2004) SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering130(12): 1314–1340.
14.
ÇetinKOSeedRBKayenRE, et al. (2018) SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering115: 698–709.
15.
CubrinovskiMRhodesANtritsosNVan BallegooyS (2019) System response of liquefiable deposits. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering124: 212–229.
16.
FotiSHollenderFGarofaloF, et al. (2018) Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: A product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16: 2367–2420.
17.
FrankeKWRollinsKMLedezmaC, et al. (2017) Reconnaissance of two liquefaction sites using small unmanned aerial vehicles and structure from motion computer vision following the April 1, 2014 Chile earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering143(5): 04016125.
18.
GouletCABozorgniaYAbrahamsonNA, et al. (2018) Central and Eastern North America Ground—Motion Characterization—NGA-East Final Report (PEER Report 2018/08). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
19.
GreenfieldMW (2017) Effects of long-duration ground motions on liquefaction hazards. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
20.
ImakiireTKoaraiM (2012) Wide-area land subsidence caused by the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake. Soils and Foundations52: 842–855.
21.
KayenREMossRESThompsonEM, et al. (2013) Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering139: 407–419.
22.
KonagaiKKiyotaTSuyamaS, et al. (2013) Maps of soil subsidence for Tokyo bay shore areas liquefied in the March 11th, 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering53: 240–253.
KramerSLSiderasSSGreenfieldMW (2016) The timing of liquefaction and its utility in liquefaction hazard evaluation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering91: 133–146.
25.
KwakDYStewartJPBrandenbergSJ, et al. (2016) Characterization of seismic levee fragility using field performance data. Earthquake Spectra32: 193–215.
26.
LeeAFisherHZimmaroP, et al. (2019) Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) Partner Dataset—Boring Log Viewer, DesignSafe-CI, Dataset. DOI: 10.17603/ds2-sj7t-av93.
27.
LewisMRArangoIKimballJK, et al. (1999) Liquefaction resistance of old sand deposits. In: Proceedings of the 11th PanAmerican conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Foz do Iguassu, Brasil, 8–12 August, pp. 821–829. London: ISSMGE [International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering]
28.
MaurerBWGreenRATaylorO-DS (2014a) Moving towards an improved index for assessing liquefaction hazard: Lessons from historical data. Soils and Foundations55: 778–787.
29.
MaurerBWGreenRACubrinovskiM, et al. (2014b) Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering140: 04014032.
30.
MossRESSeedRBKayenRE, et al. (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering132: 1032–1051.
31.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
32.
ObermeierSFJacobsonRBSmootJP, et al. (1990) Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Features in the Coastal Setting of South Carolina and in the Fluvial Setting of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper 1504). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
OlsenMJCheungKFYamazakiY, et al. (2012) Damage assessment of the 2010 Chile earthquake and tsunami using terrestrial laser scanning. Earthquake Spectra28(Suppl. 1): S179–S197.
34.
PérezFGrangerBE (2007) IPython: A system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science and Engineering9(3): 21–29.
35.
RathjeEMDawsonCPadgettJE, et al. (2017a) DesignSafe: A new cyberinfrastructure for natural hazards engineering. Natural Hazards Review18(3): 06017001-1–06017001-7.
36.
RathjeEMSecaraSSMartinJG, et al. (2017b) Liquefaction-induced horizontal displacements from the Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand measured from remote sensing techniques. Earthquake Spectra33: 1475–1494.
37.
RobertsonPKWrideCE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal35(3): 442–459.
38.
SeedHBIdrissIMArangoI (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering109(3): 458–482.
39.
SmithGI (2009) Late Cenozoic Geology and Lacustrine History of Searles Valley, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties (Professional paper 1727). Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Geological Survey.
40.
StaffordPJ (2012) Evaluation of structural performance in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake: A case study of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. International Journal of Forensic Engineering1: 58–77.
41.
StewartJP (ed.), BrandenbergSJWangP, et al. (2019) Preliminary Report on Engineering and Geological Effects of the July 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence (Report GEER-064). Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association. DOI: 10.18118/G6H66K
42.
StewartJPKramerSLKwakDY, et al. (2016) PEER-NGL project: Open source global database and model development for the next-generation of liquefaction assessment procedures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering91: 317–328.
43.
van BallegooySMalanPLacrosseV, et al. (2014) Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra30: 31–55.
44.
WintersMADelisleM-PCLuceyJTD, et al. (2019) UCLA UAV Imaging in Ridgecrest, CA Earthquake Sequence, July4 and 5, 2019, DesignSafe-CI, Dataset. DOI: 10.17603/ds2-wfgc-a575.
45.
YoudTLHooseSN (1978) Historic Ground Failures in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes (Professional paper 993). U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1978/pp0993/ (accessed December 2019).
46.
YoudTLPerkinsDM (1978) Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure potential. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division104(4): 433–446.
47.
ZhuJBaiseLGThompsonEM (2017) An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 1365–1385.
48.
ZhuJDaleyDBaiseLG, et al. (2015) A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra31: 1813–1837.
49.
ZimmaroPBrandenbergSJ (2019) Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) Partner Dataset—Invasive Geophysical Test Viewer, DesignSafe-CI, Dataset. DOI: 10.17603/ds2-tq39-kp49.
50.
ZimmaroPBrandenbergSJBozorgniaY, et al. (2019b) Quality control for next-generation liquefaction case histories. In: VII international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering (ed SilvestriFMoraciN, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions), Rome, Italy, 17–20 June, pp. 5905–5912. Italy: Associazione Geotecnica Italiana.
