Ground Motion Intensity Measures to Evaluate I: The Liquefaction Hazard in the Vicinity of Shallow-Founded Structures

Abstract

When evaluating the liquefaction hazard within a performance-based framework, whether using simplified procedures or advanced numerical tools, the hazard and its effects on structures need to be evaluated under a range of ground motions. Choice of an optimum intensity measure (IM) in the selection and scaling of ground motions will reduce variability in the predicted response, dependence on source characteristics, and uncertainty in the prediction of the IM. This paper presents the results of a numerical parametric study, validated against centrifuge results, to evaluate the influence of different IMs on the liquefaction hazard in the far-field and near shallow-founded structures. Pore pressure redistribution and soil-structure interaction were considered in estimating the liquefaction hazard in terms of peak excess pore pressure ratio (r_u,peak). The IMs at the base rock, far-field soil surface, and foundation with the best combination of efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability were evaluated and identified as: (1) pseudo-spectral acceleration at the site's initial fundamental period (PSA_Base[T_So]) for predicting r_u,peak in the far-field; (2) peak ground acceleration, (PGA_Base); and Arias intensity (AI_Base) for predicting r_u,peak under the foundation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

N. A.

and Silva

W. J.

1996. Empirical Ground Motion Models, Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Abrahamson

N. A.

Silva

W. J.

and Kamai

2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1025–1055.

Abrahamson

Gregor

and Addo

2016. BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 32, 23–44.

Al-Noman

and Cramer

C. H.

2015. Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Chapter 8, PEER Report Number 2015/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 193–212.

Ancheta

T. D.

Darragh

R. B.

Stewart

J. P.

Seyhan

Silva

W. J.

Chiou

B. S. J.

Wooddell

K. E.

Graves

R. W.

Kottke

A. R.

Boore

D. M.

Kishida

and Donahue

J. L.

2013. PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER 2013/03–PEER, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Arias

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

R. J.

Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Arulanandan

and Scott

R. F.

1993. Verification of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems, Vol. 1, Experimental Results and Numerical Predictions, University of California, Davis, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Atkinson

G. M.

2015. Ground-motion prediction equation for small-to-moderate events at short hypocentral distances, with application to induced-seismicity hazards, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105, 981–992.

Benjamin

J. R.

and Associates, 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, EPRI Report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

10.

Bolt

1973. Duration of strong motion, in Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, vol. 6D, Paper no. 292.

11.

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.

12.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2010a. Analysis of Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) and JMA Instrumental Seismic Intensity (ijma) Using the PEER-NGA Strong Motion Database, Technical Report 2010/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

13.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2010b. A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) based on the PEER-NGA strong motion database, Earthquake Spectra 26, 635–650.

14.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2012a. Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and seismic intensity based on the PEER-NGA database, Earthquake Spectra 28, 457–485.

15.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2012b. 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, 931–94.

16.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2013. NGA-West2 Campbell-Bozorgnia Ground Motion Model for the Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped Elastic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0:01 to 10 sec, Technical Report 2013/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

17.

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.

18.

Danciu

and Tselentis

G.-A.

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

19.

Dashti

2009. Towards Developing an Engineering Procedure for Evaluating Building Performance on Softened Ground, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.

20.

Dashti

Bray

J. D.

Pestana

J. M.

Riemer

M. R.

and Wilson

2010a. Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136, 918–929.

21.

Dashti

Bray

Pestana

Riemer

and Wilson

2010. Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136, 151–164.

22.

Dobry

Ladd

R. S.

Yokel

F. Y.

Chung

R. M.

and Powell

1982. Prediction of Pore Water Pressure Buildup and Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes by the Cyclic Strain Method, NBS Building Science Series 138, Nat. Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 150 pp.

23.

Douglas

2016. Ground Motion Prediction Equations 1964–2016, http://www.gmpe.org.uk.

24.

Edwards

and Douglas

2013. Selecting ground-motion models developed for induced seismicity in geothermal areas, Geophysical Journal International 195, 1314–1322, doi:10.1093/gji/ggt310.

25.

Elgamal

Yang

and Parra

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

26.

Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI-NP-5930), 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Technical Report, Palo Alto, CA.

27.

Ghofrani

and Atkinson

G. M.

2014. Ground-motion prediction equations for interface earthquake of M7 to M9 based on empirical data from Japan, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12, 549–571.

28.

Graizer

2015. Ground-motion prediction equations for the central and eastern United States, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Chapter 9, PEER Report Number 2015/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 213–249.

29.

Graizer

and Kalkan

2015. Update of the Graizer-Kalkan Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Shallow Crustal Continental Earthquakes, Open-File Report 2015-1009, U.S. Geological Survey, https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3133/ofr20151009.

30.

Graizer

and Kalkan

2016. Summary of the GK15 ground-motion prediction equation for horizontal PGA and 5% damped PSA from shallow crustal continental earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 106, 687–707.

31.

Hacker

Eigenmann

and Rathje

2013. Advancing earthquake engineering research through cyber infrastructure, J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000712, 1099–1111.

32.

Haendel

Specht

Kuehn

N. M.

and Scherbaum

2015. Mixtures of ground-motion prediction equations as backbone models for a logic tree: An application to the subduction zone in northern Chile, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13, 483–501. doi:10.1007/s10518-014-9636-7.

33.

Hariri-Ardebili

M. A.

and Saouma

V. E.

2016. Probabilistic seismic demand model and optimal intensity measure for concrete dams, Structural Safety 59, 67–85.

34.

Housner

G. W.

1952. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes, in Symposium on Earthquakes and Blast Effects on Structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

35.

Idriss

I. M.

and Boulanger

R. W.

2008. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

36.

Idriss

I. M.

2013. NGA-West2 Model for Estimating Average Horizontal Values of Pseudo-Absolute Spectral Accelerations Generated by Crustal Earthquakes, Technical Report 2013/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

37.

Idriss

I. M.

2014. An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1155–1177.

38.

Ishihara

1985. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, in Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found. Engrg., 1 (AA) Balkema, Rotterdam, 321–376.

39.

Ishihara

and Yoshimine

1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations 32, 173–188.

40.

Karimi

and Dashti

2015b. Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001346, 04015061.

41.

Karimi

and Dashti

2016. Seismic performance of shallow founded structures on liquefiable ground: validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., (under review).

42.

Karimi

and Dashti

2015a. Numerical simulation of earthquake induced soil liquefaction: validation against centrifuge experimental results, IFCEE 2015, Geo-institute, ASCE, 11–20. doi:10.1061/9780784479087.002.

43.

Kaveh

Bakhshpoori

and Hamze-Ziabari

S. M.

2016. Derivation of new equations for prediction of principal ground-motion parameters using M5′ algorithm, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, doi:10.1080/13632469.2015.1104758.

44.

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.

45.

Kim

and Stewart

J. P.

2003. Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129, 323–335.

46.

Kramer

S. L.

and Mitchell

R. A.

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

47.

Kutter

Chou

and Travasarou

2008. Centrifuge testing of the seismic performance of a submerged cut-and-cover tunnel in liquefiable soil, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics 4, 1–29. doi:10.1061/40975(318)204.

48.

Lanzano

D'Amico

Felicetta

Puglia

Luzi

Pacor

and Bindi

2016. Ground-motion prediction equations for region-specific probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 106, 73–92. doi:10.1785/0120150096.

49.

Luco

and Cornell

C. A.

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

50.

McCaan

M. W.

and Shah

H. C.

1979. Determining strong-motion duration of earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 69, 1253–1265.

51.

McKenna

and Fenves

G. L.

2008. Using the OpenSees Interpreter on Parallel Computers, Network for Earthquake Engrg. Simulations, Berkeley, CA.

52.

McKenna

Fenves

G. L.

Scott

M. H.

and Jeremic

2000. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

53.

NCEER, 1997. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils ( Youd

T. L.

and Idriss

I. M.

Editors), Technical Report No. NCEER-97-0022, NCEER.

54.

Park

Alfredo

H.-S. A. AH-S.

and Wen

Y. K.

1985. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering 111, 740–757.

55.

Rathje

E. M.

Abrahamson

N. A.

and Bray

J. D.

1998. Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124, 150–159.

56.

Rodriguez-Marek

Bray

J. D.

and Abrahamson

2001. An empirical geotechnical seismic site response procedure, Earthquake Spectra 17, 65–87.

57.

Sarma

S. K.

and Casey

B. J.

1990. Duration of strong motion in earthquakes, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, 10A, 174–183.

58.

Sarma

S. K.

and Yang

K. S.

1987. An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 15, 119–132.

59.

Seed

H. B.

and Idriss

I. M.

1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 97, 1249–1273.

60.

Seed

H. B.

Idriss

I. M.

Makdisi

and Banerjee

1975. Representation of Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses, Report No. EERC 75–29, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

61.

Seed

R. B.

Chang

S. W.

Dickenson

S. E.

and Bray

J. D.

1997. Site-dependent seismic response including recent strong motion data, Proc., Special Session on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, XIV International Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundtion Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, A. A. Balkema Publ., 125–134.

62.

Seed

R.B.

Cetin

K. O.

Moss

R. E. S.

Kammerer

A. M.

Pestana

J. M.

Riemer

M. F.

Sancio

R. B.

Bray

J. D.

Kayen

R. E.

and Faris

2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, ASCE.

63.

Shahir

Pak

Taiebat

and Jeremic

2012. Evaluation of variation of permeability in liquefiable soil under earthquake loading, Comput. Geotech. 40, 74–88.

64.

Shoushtari

A. V.

Adnan

A. B.

and Zare

2016. On the selection of ground–motion attenuation relations for seismic hazard assessment of the Peninsular Malaysia region due to distant Sumatran subduction intraslab earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 82, 123–137. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.11.012.

65.

Somerville

P. G.

Smith

N. F.

Graves

R. W.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

1997a. Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude, and duration effect of rupture directivity, Seismol. Res. Lett. 68, 199–222.

66.

Tokimatsu

and Seed

H. B.

1987. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking, J. Geot. Engrg. 113, 861–878.

67.

Travasarou

Bray

J. D.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 32, 1133–1155.

68.

Trifunac

M. D.

1972. Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 62, 63–83.

69.

Trifunac

M. D.

and Brady

A.G.

1975. A study on the duration of earthquake strong motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65, 581–626.

70.

Tselentis

G.-A.

and Danciu

2008. Empirical relationships between Modified Mercalli Intensity, and engineering ground-motion parameters in Greece, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 98, 1863–1875. doi:10.1785/0120070172.

71.

Von Thun

J. L.

Rochim

L. H.

Scott

G. A.

and Wilson

J. A.

1988. Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special Publication 20, 463–481.

72.

Yang

Elgamal

and Parra

2003. Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129, 1119–1127.

73.

Yang

and Elgamal

2008. OpenSees Soil Models and Solid-Fluid Fully Coupled Elements: User's Manual, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego.

74.

Youd

T. L.

and Garris

C. T.

1995. Liquefaction-induced ground-surface disruption, J. Geotech. Eng. 121, 805–809.

75.

Youd

Idriss

Andrus

Arango

Castro

Christian

Dobry

Finn

Harder

Jr. , Hynes

Ishihara

Koester

Liao

Marcuson

III ., Martin

Mitchell

Moriwaki

Power

Robertson

Seed

and Stokoe

II ., 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127, 817–833.