Liquefaction Potential Map for Charleston, South Carolina
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 116, Issue 2
Abstract
The liquefaction potential of saturated cohesionless deposits in Charleston, South Carolina, was evaluated probabilistically. The map is a combination of liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction opportunity. Critical acceleration, the measure of liquefaction susceptibility, was obtained using the simplified empirical method developed by Seed and his coworkers. This method is based on the empirical relationship between standard penetration resistance and cyclic stress ratio. The liquefaction opportunity is determined by modeling zones of different seismic threat. The probability of liquefaction is computed by comparing the acceleration at the site to that required to cause liquefaction. Results are expressed as maps of zones of different risk levels and through a normalized liquefaction resistance index of the probability of liquefaction. Over 200 boring logs from peninsular Charleston were examined, showing the soil variability in the study area. This variability is due to the large amount of filling that took place over 300 years to reclaim land from the sea, swamps, and creeks that covered much of the original peninsula. The results indicate peninsular Charleston has a moderate liquefaction potential.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Algermissen, S. T., and Perkins, D. M. (1976). “A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States.” USGS Open File Report 76‐4161, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
2.
Anderson, L. R., et al. (1982). “Liquefaction potential map for Davis County, Utah,” report to United States Geological Survey (USGS) on research sponsored by USGS, Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah.
3.
Atkinson, G. M., Finn, W. D. L., and Charlwood, R. G. (1984). “Simple computation of liquefaction probability for seismic hazard applications.” Earthquake Spectra, 1(1), 107–123.
4.
Behrendt, J. C., et al. (1983). “Marine multichannel seismic reflection evidence for Cenozoic faulting and deep crustal structure near Charleston.” Professional Paper 1313 J., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C.
5.
Bollinger, G. A. (1973). “Seismicity of the southeastern United States.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 63(5), 1785–1808.
6.
Bollinger, G. A. (1977). “Reinterpretation of the intensity data for the 1886 Charleston, S.C., earthquake,” Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886—A preliminary report, USGS Professional Paper 1028, D. Rankin, ed., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 37.
7.
Campbell, K. W. (1985). “Strong motion attenuation relations: A ten year perspective.” Earthquake Spectra, 1(4), 759–804.
8.
Chiang, W. L., et al. (1984). “Computer programs seismic hazard analysis.” Report No. 62, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
9.
Cornell, C. A. (1968). “Engineering seismic risk analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58(5), 1583–1606.
10.
Cox, J., and Talwani, P. (1984). “Discovery of a paleoliquefaction site near Charleston, South Carolina.” Geol. Soc. Am. Abstracts with Programs 1984, 16(3), 130.
11.
DeMello, V. F. B. (1971). “The standard penetration test.” Proc. Fourth Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1, 1–86.
12.
Dutton, C. D. (1889). “The Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886.” U.S.G.S. Ninth Annual Report of the Director, 1887–1888, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 203–528.
13.
Electric Power Research Institute. (1986). “Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern United States.” Report No. NP472, 1–10, Electric Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif.
14.
Gohn, G. S., ed. (1983). “Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886—Tectonics and seismicity.” USGS Professional Paper 1313, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
15.
Gohn, G. S., et al. (1984). “Field studies of earthquake‐induced, liquefaction‐flow‐age features in the Charleston, South Carolina, area: Preliminary report.” USGS Open File Report 84‐670, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
16.
Graddock, G. R., and Ellerbe, C. M. (1966). “Land resource map of South Carolina.” Soil Map Leaflet no. 47, USDA Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, D.C.
17.
Gutenberg, B., and Richter, C. F. (1956). “Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration.” Seismol. Soc. Am. Bull., 46(2), 105–146.
18.
Hadj‐Hamou, T., and Elton, D. J. (1988). “A liquefaction potential map for Charleston, S.C.” Report GT‐88‐1, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, La.
19.
Haley, S. C., et al. (1985). “Liquefaction potential in San Diego.” Proc. 54th Annual Convention of the Structural Engineers Assoc., of California, 24–40.
20.
Halsey, A. O. (1949). “Historic Charleston on a map.” Charleston Historical Society, Charleston, S.C.
21.
Hamilton, R. M., Behrendt, J. C., and Ackermann, H. D. (1983). “Land multichannel seismic reflection evidence for tectonic features near Charleston, S.C.,” USGS Professional Paper 1313 Z, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C.
22.
Harr, M. E. (1977). Mechanics of particulate media—A probabilistic approach. McGraw‐Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
23.
Iai, S., Tsuchida, H., and Koizuma, K. (1985). “A new criterion for assessing liquefaction potential of Japanese port area by using SPT TV‐value.” Proc., U.S. Japan Workshop on In‐Situ Testing Methods for Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, Calif., 89–108.
24.
Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., and Tatsuoka, F. (1981). “Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the simplified procedure.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Mo.
25.
Jamiolkowski, M., et al. (1985). “New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Proc. XI Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, San Francisco, Calif., 57–154.
26.
Juang, C. H., and Elton, D. J. (1986a). “On use of fuzzy sets to characterize earthquake effects based on building damage records.” Proc., Third U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, S.C., 1, 161–172.
27.
Juang, C. H., and Elton, D. J. (1986b). “Some fuzzy logics for earthquake intensity based on building damage records.” J. Civ. Engrg. Systems, 3(4), 187–191.
28.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Roth, R. A., and Echezuria, H. (1985). “Liquefaction potential mapping for San Francisco.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(1), 54–76.
29.
Keefer, D. K. (1984). “Landslides caused by earthquakes.” Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 95(4), 406–421.
30.
Kovacs, W. D., Evans, J. C., and Griffith, A. H. (1977). “Towards a more standardized SPT.” Proc., Ninth Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 269–276.
31.
Kovacs, W. D., and Salomone, L. A. (1982). “SPT hammer energy measurement.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 108(4), 599–620.
32.
Marcuson, W. F., and Bieganousky, W. S. (1977). “Laboratory standard penetration tests on fine sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 103(6), 565–588.
33.
Nuttli, O. W. (1974). “Magnitude recurrence relation for Central Mississippi Valley earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 64(4), 1189–1207.
34.
Nuttli, O. W. (1983). “Average seismic source—Parameter relations for mid‐plate earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 73(2), 519–535.
35.
Nuttli, O. W., Bollinger, G. A., and Griffiths, D. W. (1979). “On the relation between modified Mercalli intensity and body‐wave amplitude.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 69(3), 893–909.
36.
Nuttli, O. W., Rodrigues, R., and Herrmann, R. B. (1984). “Strong ground motion studies for South Carolina earthquakes.” NUREG/CR‐3755, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
37.
Nuttli, O. W., and Zollweg, J. E. (1974). “The relation between felt area and magnitude for central United States earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 64(1), 73–85.
38.
Obermeier, S. F. (1984). “Liquefaction potential in the Central Mississippi Valley.” Proc., Symp. on the New Madrid Seismic Zone. USGS Open‐File Report 84‐770, P. Gori and W. W. Hays, eds., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C., 391–446.
39.
Obermeier, S. F., et al. (1985). “Geologic evidence for recurrent moderate to large earthquakes near Charleston, South Carolina.” Science, 277(4685), 408–411.
40.
Obermeier, S. F., et al. (1986). “Holocene and late Pleistocene(?) earthquake‐induced sand blows in coastal South Carolina.” Proc., Third U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, S.C., 1, 197–208.
41.
Power, M. S., et al. (1982). “Evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility in the San Diego, California, urban area.” Proc., Third Int. Earthquake Microzonation Conf., II, 957–967.
42.
Power, M. S., et al. (1986). “Evaluation of the liquefaction susceptibility in the San Diego, California, urban area.” Final technical report by Woodward‐Clyde Consultants to the U.S. Geological Survey, Contract No. 14‐08‐0001‐19110, Woodward‐Clyde Consultants, San Diego, Calif.
43.
Rankin, D. W., ed. (1977). “Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886—A preliminary report.” USGS Professional Paper 1028, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
44.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1981). “In situ tests to assess liquefaction resistance.” Soil Mechanics Series No. 45, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
45.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). “Measurement of in situ shear strength.” In situ measurement of soil properties, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 57–138.
46.
Seed, H. B. (1979). “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 105(2), 201–255.
47.
Seed, H. B., and DeAlba, P. (1986). “Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands.” Use of in‐situ tests in geotechnical engineering, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication #6, S. P. Clemence, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 281–301.
48.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 97(9), 1249–1273.
49.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1981). Ground motions and soil liquefaction, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Inst. (EERI), Berkeley, Calif.
50.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. (1983). “Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 109(3), 458–484.
51.
Seed, H. B., et al. (1984). “The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.” Report No. UCB/EERC‐84/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
52.
Seed, H. B., et al. (1985). “Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(12), 1425–1448.
53.
Szabo, B. J. (1985). “Uranium‐series dating of fossil corals from marine sediments of southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal plain.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 96(3), 398–406.
54.
Talwani, P. (1982). “Internally consistent pattern of seismicity near Charleston, S.C.,” Geology, 10(12), 654–658.
55.
Talwani, P., and Cox, J. (1985). “Paleoseismic evidence for recurrence of earthquakes near Charleston, South Carolina.” Science, 229(4711), 375–381.
56.
Thenhaus, P. C., et al. (1987). “Earthquake hazards in the eastern U.S.: Consequences of alternative seismic source zones.” Earthquake Spectra, 3(2), 227–261.
57.
Tinsley, J. C., et al. (1985). “Evaluating liquefaction potential.” Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region—An earth‐science perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, J. I. Ziony, ed., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C., 263–315.
58.
Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. (1983). “Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N‐value and fines content.” Soils Found., 23(4), 56–74.
59.
Toro, G. R., and McGuire, R. K. (1987). “An investigation into earthquake ground motion characteristics in eastern North America.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 77(2), 468–489.
60.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1971). “Soil survey, Charleston County, South Carolina.” Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, D.C.
61.
Weems, R. E., and Lemon, E. M., Jr. (1988). “Geologic map of Ladson Quadrangle, Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester Counties, S.C.” USGS Geological Quadrangle Map GQ‐1630, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C.
62.
Youd, T. L., et al. (1975). “Liquefaction potential.” Studies for seismic zonation of the San Francisco Bay region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941‐A, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), A68‐A74, Washington, D.C.
63.
Youd, T. L., and Perkins, D. M. (1978). “Mapping liquefaction induced ground failure potential.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 104(4), 433–446.
64.
Youd, T. L., and Perkins, J. B. (1987a). “Map showing liquefaction susceptibility of San Mateo County, California.” U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I‐1257‐G, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C.
65.
Youd, T. L., and Perkins, D. M. (1987b). “Mapping liquefaction severity index.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(11), 1374–1392.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 116 • Issue 2 • February 1990
Pages: 244 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 ASCE.
History
Published online: Feb 1, 1990
Published in print: Feb 1990
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.