Seismic Response Characteristics of Liquefiable Sites with and without Sediment Ejecta Manifestation
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 147, Issue 6
Abstract
Dynamic nonlinear effective stress analysis of 45 well-documented liquefaction field case histories provides insights on the seismic response of sites where simplified liquefaction triggering procedures indicated liquefaction effects would be severe but either surface manifestations were not observed or inconsistent amounts of sediment ejecta were observed. The occurrence of sediment ejecta and its severity depend significantly on hydraulic processes after strong ground shaking ceases, which the simplified procedures do not consider. Postshaking advection processes govern the amount of upward seepage–induced artesian flow that determines ejecta severity. The ejecta potential index (EPI) captures these key aspects of the hydraulic processes of liquefaction manifestation. EPI can be sensitive to variables such as hydraulic conductivity, groundwater level, and input ground motions. However, it proves to be a useful index that correlates well to the severity of ejecta manifestation observed in the field case histories. Sites with severe ejecta have high EPI values, and sites without ejecta have low EPI values.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All subsurface data and aerial photographs are publicly available through the New Zealand Geotechnical Database (NZGD). Numerical models, codes, and results that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the Republic of Indonesia through the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) for the first author. This study was also funded by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center through the Transportation Systems Research Program and by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant CMMI-1561932. All opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LPDP, PEER, or NSF. Data compiled by New Zealand and US researchers following the Canterbury earthquakes are available in NZGD and Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association reports. The GEER reports contain much information and some data. They are widely known in the earthquake engineering community. Data were collected as part of a large collaborative effort including New Zealand and US researchers from the University of Canterbury, University of California, Berkeley, University of Auckland, Tonkin+Taylor, University of Texas, Austin, and University of California, Davis. Data and insights shared by Sjoerd van Ballegooy of Tonkin and Taylor were also helpful. Comments made by the reviewers of the manuscript improved the paper significantly.
References
Ambraseys, N., and S. Sarma. 1969. “Liquefaction of soils induced by earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 59 (2): 651–664.
Bardet, J. P., and M. Kapuskar. 1993. “Liquefaction sand boils in San Francisco during 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.” J. Geotech. Eng. 119 (3): 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:3(543).
Beyzaei, C. Z., J. D. Bray, M. Cubrinovski, S. Bastin, M. Stringer, M. Jacka, S. van Ballegooy, M. Riemer, and R. Wentz. 2020. “Characterization of silty soil thin layering and groundwater conditions for liquefaction assessment.” Can. Geotech. J. 57 (2): 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0287.
Beyzaei, C. Z., J. D. Bray, M. Cubrinovski, M. Riemer, and M. Stringer. 2018a. “Laboratory-based characterization of shallow silty soils in southwest Christchurch.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 110 (Jul): 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.046.
Beyzaei, C. Z., J. D. Bray, S. van Ballegooy, M. Cubrinovski, and S. Bastin. 2018b. “Depositional environment effects on observed liquefaction performance in silt swamps during the Canterbury earthquake sequence.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 107 (Apr): 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.035.
Boulanger, R., and K. Ziotopoulou. 2017. PM4Sand (version 3.1): A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Davis, CA: Univ. of California, Davis.
Boulanger, R., and K. Ziotopoulou. 2018. PM4Silt (version 1): A silt plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Davis, CA: Univ. of California, Davis.
Boulanger, R. W., and J. DeJong. 2018. “Inverse filtering procedure to correct cone penetration data for thin-layer and transition effects.” In Proc., Cone Penetration Testing 2018, edited by M. Hicks, F. Pisano, and J. Peuchen, 25–44. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Delft Univ. of Technology.
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2016. “CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (2): 04015065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001388.
Bradley, B. A. 2012. “Strong ground motion characteristics observed in the 4 September 2010 Darfield, New Zealand earthquake.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 42 (Nov): 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.06.004.
Bradley, B. A. 2013. “A New Zealand-specific pseudospectra acceleration ground-motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103 (3): 1801–1822. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120021.
Bradley, B. A. 2016. “Strong ground motion characteristics observed in the 13 June 2011 Mw6.0 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 91 (Dec): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.006.
Bradley, B. A., and M. Cubrinovski. 2011. “Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.” Seismol. Res. Lett. 82 (6): 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.853.
Bray, J. D., and R. B. Sancio. 2006. “Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (9): 1165–1177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:9(1165).
CGD (Canterbury Geotechnical Database). 2012. “Aerial photography, map layer CGD0100-1 June 2012.” Accessed March 3, 2020. https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/.
Cubrinovski, M., K. Ishihara, and F. Tanizawa. 1996. “Numerical simulation of the Kobe Port Island liquefaction.” In Proc., 11th World Conf. on EQ Engineering. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Cubrinovski, M., A. Rhodes, N. Ntritsos, and S. Van Ballegooy. 2019. “System response of liquefiable deposits.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 124: 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.013.
Elgamal, A.-W., M. Zeghal, and E. Parra. 1996. “Liquefaction of reclaimed island in Kobe, Japan.” J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (1): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:1(39).
Housner, G. W. 1958. “The mechanism of sandblows.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 48 (2): 155–161.
Hutabarat, D., and J. D. Bray. Forthcoming. Effective stress analysis of liquefaction sites and evaluation of sediment ejecta potential. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Hutabarat, D., and J. D. Bray. 2019. “Effective stress analysis of liquefiable site in Christchurch to discern the characteristics of sediment ejecta.” In Proc., Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions, edited by F. Silvestri and N. Moraci, 2923–2931. Rome, Italy: Italian Geotechnical Association.
Hutabarat, D., and J. D. Bray. 2021. “Effective stress analysis of liquefiable sites to estimate the severity of sediment ejecta.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002503.
Ishihara, K. 1985. “Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 321–376. London: International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Iwasaki, T., F. Tatsuoka, K. Tokida, and S. Yasuda. 1978. “A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Earthquake Microzonation Conf., 885–896. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Kawakami, F., and K. Asada. 1966. “Damage to the ground and earth structures by the Niigata Earthquake of June 16, 1964.” Soils Found. 6 (1): 14–30. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1960.6.14.
Kramer, S. L., and M. W. Greenfield. 2019. “The use of numerical analysis in the interpretation of liquefaction case histories.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions, edited by F. Silvestri and N. Moraci, 173–188. Rome, Italy: Italian Geotechnical Association.
Markham, C. S., J. D. Bray, J. Macedo, and R. Luque. 2016. “Evaluating nonlinear effective stress site response analyses using records from the Canterbury earthquake sequence.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 82 (Mar): 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.007.
Maurer, B., R. Green, S. van Ballegooy, and L. Wotherspoon. 2019. “Development of region-specific soil behavior type index correlations for evaluating liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 117 (Feb): 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.059.
Maurer, B. W., R. A. Green, M. Cubrinovski, and B. A. Bradley. 2014. “Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (7): 04014032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001117.
NZGD (New Zealand Geotechnical Database). 2020. “New Zealand geotechnical database.” Accessed June 30, 2020. https://www.nzgd.org.nz/.
Robertson, P. 2009. “Interpretation of cone penetration tests—A unified approach.” Can. Geotech. J. 46 (11): 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065.
Robertson, P. 2016. “CPT-based SBT classification system—An update.” Can. Geotech. J. 53 (12): 1910–1927. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0044.
Robertson, P. K., and K. L. Cabal. 2015. Guide to CPT for geotechnical engineering. 6th ed. Signal Hill, CA: Gregg Drilling Testing.
Seed, H. B. 1979. “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 105 (2): 201–255.
Tonkin and Taylor. 2013. Liquefaction vulnerability study. Auckland, New Zealand: Tonkin and Taylor.
van Ballegooy, S., R. A. Green, J. Lees, F. Wentz, and B. W. Maurer. 2015a. “Assessment of various CPT based liquefaction severity index frameworks relative to the Ishihara (1985) H1–H2 boundary curves.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 79 (Dec): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.08.015.
van Ballegooy, S., P. Malan, V. Lacrosse, M. Jacka, M. Cubrinovski, J. Bray, T. O’Rourke, S. Crawford, and H. Cowan. 2014. “Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch.” Earthquake Spectra J. 30 (1): 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1193/031813EQS070M.
van Ballegooy, S., F. Wentz, and R. W. Boulanger. 2015b. “Evaluation of CPT-based liquefaction procedures at regional scale.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 79 (Dec): 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.09.016.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 147 • Issue 6 • June 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 1, 2020
Accepted: Jan 7, 2021
Published online: Apr 15, 2021
Published in print: Jun 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Sep 15, 2021
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.