Framework for Mapping Liquefaction Hazard–Targeted Design Ground Motions
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 150, Issue 12
Abstract
Liquefaction-induced ground failure poses substantial challenges to geotechnical earthquake engineering design. Current approaches for designing against liquefaction hazards, as specified in most seismic provisions, focus on estimating a liquefaction factor of safety () and typically characterize earthquake loading using design parameters based on probabilistic or deterministic ground motion levels. Because is estimated deterministically, this basis of design neglects considerable uncertainties for estimating liquefaction triggering and its consequences and results in a lack of liquefaction-specific design criteria, particularly as structural design has advanced toward risk-targeted performance objectives. This study presents a framework for developing liquefaction-targeted design criteria based on a minimum acceptable return period of liquefaction, informed by probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis (PLHA). PLHA quantifies annualized rates of liquefaction by considering contributions from (1) the full ground-motion probability space, and (2) uncertainties in liquefaction triggering using probabilistic models. PLHA is used in this study to characterize the current, effective return periods of () obtained from conventional liquefaction hazard analysis (CLHA) using uniform-hazard ground motions. is evaluated in a parametric study of nearly 100 sites throughout the conterminous United States. The results indicate large geographic variations in acceptable liquefaction hazard levels, with implied ranging between approximately 1,000 to 3,000 years. To address these inconsistencies without the computational demands of full PLHA, a framework is proposed for developing a liquefaction-targeted design peak ground acceleration, , for use in liquefaction models that result in consistent liquefaction design levels across all geographic locations. The mapped is shown to be somewhat sensitive to site-specific properties, and adjustment factors are developed and presented. The proposed mapping procedure produces estimates that are consistent with those obtained from full PLHA at a target , providing a promising roadmap to incorporating PLHA concepts into current liquefaction design methods.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
The PLHA analysis data for the study locations used to generate the figures and tables in this paper, including the ratios and effective return periods used to assess the proposed mapping procedure against current CLHA methods, can be found at https://doi.org/10.5066/P14RRET6 (Makdisi and Kramer 2024b).
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Award No. 70NANB17H267). The authors acknowledge and thank Patrick Bassal, Brett Maurer, Sanaz Rezaeian, Brian Shiro, Janet Carter, and the two anonymous journal reviewers for their thoughtful comments and feedback, which greatly improved this paper. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
References
ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2022. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-22. Reston, VA: ASCE.
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.
BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council). 2009. NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750) (2009 edition). Washington, DC: BSSC.
Cetin, K. O., R. B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, R. E. Kayen, and R. E. S. Moss. 2004. “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (12): 1314–1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314).
Cornell, C. A. 1968. “Engineering seismic risk analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58 (5): 1583–1606. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0580051583.
Cornell, C. A., and H. Krawinkler. 2000. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. Berkeley, CA: PEER News Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Esteva, L. 1969. “Seismic risk and seismic design decisions.” In Proc., MIT Symp. on Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Green, R. A., J. J. Bommer, A. Rodriguez-Marek, B. W. Maurer, P. J. Stafford, B. Edwards, P. P. Kruiver, G. de Lange, and J. van Elk. 2019. “Addressing limitations in existing ‘simplified’ liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: Application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (7): 4539–4557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0489-3.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes (MNO-12). Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Kramer, S. L., and R. T. Mayfield. 2007. “Return period of soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (7): 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(802).
Luco, N., B. R. Ellingwood, R. O. Hamburger, J. D. Hooper, J. K. Kimball, and C. A. Kircher. 2007. “Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States.” In Proc., Structural Engineers Association of California 76th Annual Convention, 13. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California.
Luco, N., S. Rezaeian, K. S. Rukstales, P. M. Powers, A. M. Shumway, E. M. Martinez, and G. M. Smoczyk. 2021. Gridded earthquake ground motions for the 2020 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions and 2022 ASCE/SEI 7 Standard. Washington, DC: USGS. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9I0R4O6.
Makdisi, A. J. 2021. “Liquefaction-targeted ground motion parameters.” Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington.
Makdisi, A. J., and S. L. Kramer. 2024a. “Improved computational methods for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 176 (Jan): 108272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108272.
Makdisi, A. J., and S. L. Kramer. 2024b. Supplementary data release for framework for mapping liquefaction hazard–targeted design ground motions. Washington, DC: USGS. https://doi.org/10.5066/P14RRET6.
McGuire, R. K. 1995. “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85 (5): 1275–1284. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0850051275.
Moschetti, M. P., et al. 2015. “Seismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model.” Supplement, Earthquake Spectra 31 (S1): S31–S57. https://doi.org/10.1193/110514EQS183M.
Moss, R. E., R. B. Seed, R. E. Kayen, J. P. Stewart, A. Der Kiureghian, and K. O. Cetin. 2006. “CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (8): 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032).
Petersen, M. D., et al. 2015. “The 2014 United States national seismic hazard model.” Supplement, Earthquake Spectra 31 (S1): S1–S30. https://doi.org/10.1193/120814EQS210M.
Petersen, M. D., et al. 2020. “The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications.” Earthquake Spectra 36 (1): 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878199.
Rezaeian, S., P. M. Powers, A. M. Shumway, M. D. Petersen, N. Luco, A. D. Frankel, M. P. Moschetti, E. M. Thompson, and D. E. McNamara. 2021. “The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the central and eastern US.” Supplement, Earthquake Spectra 37 (S1): 1354–1390. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293021993837.
Robertson, P. K. 2010. “Soil behaviour type from the CPT: An update.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach, CA: CPT’10 Organizing Committee.
Seabold, S., and J. Perktold. 2010. “Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python.” In Proc., 9th Python in Science Conf., 92–96. Austin, TX: SciPy.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1971. “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662.
Stewart, J. P., N. Luco, J. D. Hooper, and C. B. Crouse. 2020. “Risk-targeted alternatives to deterministic ground motion caps in U.S. seismic provisions.” Earthquake Spectra 36 (2): 904–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019892010.
Youd, T. L., et al. 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 (10): 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 11, 2024
Accepted: Jul 16, 2024
Published online: Sep 27, 2024
Published in print: Dec 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Feb 27, 2025
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Design (by type)
- Disaster risk management
- Disasters and hazards
- Earthquake engineering
- Engineering fundamentals
- Geohazards
- Geomatics
- Geomechanics
- Geotechnical engineering
- Geotechnical investigation
- Ground motion
- Mapping
- Mathematics
- Natural disasters
- Probability
- Seismic design
- Soil liquefaction
- Soil mechanics
- Soil properties
- Structural design
- Structural engineering
- Surveying methods
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.