Assessment Supporting the Use of Outcropping Rock Evolutionary Intensity Measures for Prediction of Liquefaction Consequences

Abstract

This study evaluates a variety of intensity measures (IMs) for predicting the liquefaction-induced residual settlement and tilt of shallow-founded structures. We use data from both numerical and physical (centrifuge) models of soil-foundation-structure systems. The relative quality of these IMs is quantified in terms of efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability. We consider both scalar and vector-valued IMs and evaluate the relative performance of IMs recorded at different locations (outcropping rock, within rock, far-field, and foundation) from nonlinear and equivalent-linear simulations. Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) at outcropping rock is the optimum IM for predicting foundation settlement, while either outcropping rock CAV, peak ground velocity, or peak incremental ground velocity is optimum for predicting permanent foundation tilt. Vector IMs offer improvements to efficiency and sufficiency but may be impractical to predict.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

N. A.

Silva

W. J.

and Kamai

2013. Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Data Set, Tech. Rep. 2013/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

Afshari

and Stewart

J. P.

2016. Physically parameterized prediction equations for significant duration in active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra 32, 2057–2081.

Allmond

and Kutter

2012. Centrifuge Testing of Rocking Foundations on Saturated and Submerged Sand: Centrifuge Data Report for JDA01, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGMDR-12/01, University of California, Davis, CA.

Allmond

and Kutter

2013. Centrifuge Testing of Rocking Foundations on Saturated and Submerged Sand: Centrifuge Data Report for JDA02, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGMDR-13/01, University of California, Davis, CA.

Arias

1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants ( Hansen

R. J.

ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 438–483.

Atkinson

G. M.

and Boore

D. M.

2003. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 1703–1729.

Badanagki

Dashti

and Kirkwood

2018. An experimental study of the influence of dense granular columns on the performance of level and gently sloping liquefiable sites, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 144.

Baker

J. W.

and Bradley

B. A.

2017. Intensity measure correlations observed in the NGA-West2 database, and dependence of correlations on rupture and site parameters, Earthquake Spectra 33, 145–156.

Bianchini

Diotallevi

P. P.

and Baker

J. W.

2009. Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka, Japan, 13–17.

10.

Bommer

J. J.

Magenes

Hancock

and Penazzo

2004. The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2, 1–26.

11.

Bommer

J. J.

and Martinez-Pereira

1999. The effective duration of earthquake strong motion, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 3, 127–172.

12.

Bommer

J. J.

Stafford

P. J.

and Alarcón

J. E.

2009. Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99, 3217–3233.

13.

Boore

D. M.

Stewart

J. P.

Seyhan

and Atkinson

G. M.

2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1057–1085.

14.

Boulanger

R. W.

and Idriss

I. M.

2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, CA.

15.

Bradley

B. A.

2013. A New Zealand-specific pseudospectral acceleration ground-motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103, 1801–1822.

16.

Bray

J. D.

and Macedo

2017. 6th Ishihara lecture: simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 102, 215–231.

17.

Bray

J. D.

and Travasarou

2007. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133, 381–392.

18.

Bullock

Dashti

Liel

Porter

Karimi

and Bradley

2017. Ground-motion prediction equations for Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, and peak incremental ground velocity for rock sites in different tectonic environments, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 107, 2293–2309.

19.

Bullock

Karimi

Dashti

Liel

and Porter

2018. Key parameters for predicting residual tilt of shallow-founded structures due to liquefaction, in Proceedings of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V, Austin, TX.

20.

Bullock

Dashti

Karimi

Liel

Porter

and Franke

2019a. Probabilistic models for residual and peak transient tilt of mat-founded structures on liquefiable soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 145.

21.

Bullock

Karimi

Dashti

Porter

Liel

and Franke

2019b. A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Geotechnique 69, 406–419.

22.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2011. Prediction equations for the standardized version of cumulative absolute velocity as adapted for use in the shutdown of US nuclear power plants, Nuclear Engineering and Design 241, 2558–2569.

23.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2012. A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form, Earthquake Spectra 28, 931–941.

24.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1087–1115.

25.

Cetin

K. O.

Bilge

H. T.

Kammerer

A. M.

and Seed

R. B.

2009. Probabilistic model for the assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation (volumetric) settlements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, 387–398.

26.

Chandramohan

Baker

J. W.

and Deierlein

G. G.

2016. Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records, Earthquake Spectra 32, 927–950.

27.

Chiou

B. S. J.

and Youngs

R. R.

2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1117–1153.

28.

Danciu

and Tselentis

G. A.

2007. Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, 162–183.

29.

Darendeli

B. M.

2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

30.

Darragh

R. B.

Abrahamson

N. A.

Silva

W. J.

and Gregor

2015. Development of hard rock ground-motion models for Region 2 of central and eastern North America, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 51–84.

31.

Dashti

2009. Toward Developing an Engineering Procedure for Evaluating Building Performance on Softened Ground, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

32.

Dashti

Bray

J. D.

Pestana

J. M.

Riemer

M. R.

and Wilson

2010a. Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction induced building settlement mechanisms, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136, 918–929.

33.

Dashti

Bray

J. D.

Pestana

J. M.

Riemer

M. R.

and Wilson

2010b. Mechanisms of seismically-induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136, 151–164.

34.

Dashti

and Karimi

J. Z.

2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures, Earthquake Spectra 33, 241–276.

35.

De Biasio

Grange

Dufour

Allain

and Petre-Lazar

2014. A simple and efficient intensity measure to account for nonlinear structural behavior, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1403–1426.

36.

Eads

Miranda

and Lignos

D. G.

2015. Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44, 2057–2073.

37.

Electric Power Research Institute, 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedances of the Operating Basis Earthquake, EPRI Report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

38.

Electric Power Research Institute, 2006. Program on Technology Innovation: Use of Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) in Determining Effects of Small Magnitude Earthquakes on Seismic Hazard Analyses, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

39.

Elgamal

Yang

and Parra

2002. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22, 259–271.

40.

Fiegel

G. L.

and Kutter

B. L.

1994. Liquefaction mechanism for layered soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120, 737–755.

41.

Field

E. H.

Biasi

G. P.

Bird

Dawson

T. E.

Felzer

K. R.

Jackson

D. D.

Johnson

K. M.

Jordan

T. H.

Madden

Michael

A. J.

and Milner

K. R.

2015. Long-term time-dependent probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105, 511–543.

42.

Foulser-Piggott

and Goda

2015. Ground-Motion prediction models for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity for Japanese earthquakes considering single-station sigma and within-event spatial correlation, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105, 1903–1918.

43.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Musgrove

M. I.

Harmon

J. A.

Groholski

D. R.

Phillips

C. A.

and Park

2016. DEEPSOIL 6.1 User Manual, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

44.

Jamiolkowski

Leroueil

and Lo Presti

D. C. F.

1991. Theme lecture: design parameters from theory to practice, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Coastal Development, Coastal Development Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 1–41.

45.

Jampole

Deierlein

Miranda

Fell

Swensen

and Acevedo

2016. Full-scale dynamic testing of a sliding seismically isolated unibody house, Earthquake Spectra 32, 2245–2270.

46.

Karimi

and Dashti

2015. Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142.

47.

Karimi

and Dashti

2016. Seismic performance of shallow founded structures on liquefiable ground: validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142.

48.

Karimi

and Dashti

2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate II: the performance of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground, Earthquake Spectra 33, 277–298.

49.

Karimi

Dashti

Bullock

Porter

and Liel

2018. Key predictors of structure settlement on liquefiable ground: A numerical parametric study, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 113, 286–308.

50.

Kayen

R. E.

and Mitchell

J. K.

1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123, 1162–1174.

51.

Kempton

J. J.

and Stewart

J. P.

2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra 22, 985–1013.

52.

Kramer

S. L.

1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.

53.

Kramer

S. L.

and Mitchell

R. A.

2006. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation, Earthquake Spectra 22, 413–438.

54.

Luco

and Cornell

C. A.

2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra 23, 357–392.

55.

Lysmer

and Kuhlemeyer

R. L.

1969. Finite dynamic model for infinite media, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 95, 859–877.

56.

Mason

H. B.

Trombetta

N. W.

Chen

Bray

J. D.

Hutchinson

T. C.

and Kutter

B. L.

2013. Seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 48, 162–174.

57.

Olarte

J. C.

Dashti

Liel

A. B.

and Paramasivam

2018. Effects of drainage control on densification as a liquefaction mitigation technique, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 110, 212–231.

58.

Olarte

Paramasivam

Dashti

Liel

and Zannin

2017. Centrifuge modeling of mitigation-soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97, 304–323.

59.

Padgett

J. E.

Nielson

B. G.

and DesRoches

2008. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 37, 711–725.

60.

Paramasivam

Dashti

and Liel

A. B.

2018a. Influence of prefabricated vertical drains on the seismic performance of structures founded on liquefiable soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 144.

61.

Paramasivam

Dashti

Liel

A. B.

and Olarte

J. C.

2018b. Centrifuge modelling of mitigation-soil-structure-interaction on layered liquefiable soil deposits with a silt cap, in Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Volume 2 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1005–1010.

62.

Paramasivam

Dashti

and Liel

2019. Impact of spatial variations in permeability of liquefiable deposits on the seismic performance of structures and effectiveness of drains, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 145.

63.

Raghunandan

and Liel

A. B.

2013. Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse, Structural Safety 41, 119–133.

64.

Ramirez

Barrero

A. R.

Chen

Dashti

Ghofrani

Taiebat

and Arduino

2018. Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 144.

65.

Seyhan

and Stewart

J. P.

2014. Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1241–1256.

66.

Shome

and Cornell

C. A.

1999. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Tech. Rep. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

67.

Stafford

P. J.

Berrill

J. B.

and Pettinga

J. R.

2009. New predictive equations for Arias intensity from crustal earthquakes in New Zealand, Journal of Seismology 13, 31–52.

68.

Stewart

J. P.

Afshari

and Hashash

Y. M.

2014. Guidelines for Performing Hazard-Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction, Tech. Rep. PEER 2014/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

69.

Travasarou

Bray

J. D.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 32, 1133–1155.

70.

Trombetta

N. W.

Mason

H. B.

Chen

Hutchinson

T. C.

Bray

J. D.

and Kutter

B. L.

2013. Nonlinear dynamic foundation and frame structure response observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 50, 117–133.

71.

Unutmaz

and Cetin

K. O.

2012. Post-cyclic settlement and tilting potential of mat foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43, 271–286.

72.

Walling

Silva

and Abrahamson

2008. Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models, Earthquake Spectra 24, 243–255.

73.

Youd

T. L.

and Idriss

I. M.

2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127, 817–833.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.92 MB

0.10 MB

0.06 MB

0.11 MB

0.91 MB

0.10 MB