National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 8 Use of Computational Mechanics to Predict Liquefaction and Its Consequences
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23474.
×
Page 198

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9 Performance-Based Evaluation and Design Key Findings and Conclusions  The uncertainties involved in the assessment of earthquake ground motions, system response, physical damage, and loss make probabilistic methods for liquefaction consequence assessment central to performance-based evaluation and design.  Evaluation of liquefaction hazards and risks based on just one level of shaking, as is common in current practice, provides an incomplete measure of actual hazards and risks.  Probabilistic liquefaction hazard analyses in a performance-based design framework can account for all levels of shaking, for uncertainties in the evaluation of the triggering of liquefaction, and for uncertainties in the prediction of the consequences of liquefaction.  Probabilistic liquefaction hazard analyses can directly predict the return periods of the consequence levels themselves rather than a consequence level associated with a prescribed level of ground shaking.  To foster the adoption of performance-based liquefaction hazard evaluation in practice, computer programs that perform the voluminous calculations involved in probabilistic performance-based frameworks are required. Performance-based design is a process in which the performance of a facility being designed is evaluated over the entire range of possible loadings rather than for one or more discrete ground motion return periods or events. The approach is intended to allow rational decisions regarding appropriate design levels, including decisions related to the added value of increasing the seismic resistance. Financial, construction, and operational issues are considered over the life cycle of the facility. Seismic performance-based evaluation and design usually involves the probabilistic descriptions of ground motions, system response, physical damage, and loss, including casualties, direct economic costs, and indirect economic costs from loss of functionality (see Figure 9.1). Performance-based evaluation and design have emerged within the earthquake engineering community in recent decades as a preferred means to quantify the expected performance of engineered facilities given the uncertain future demands placed on them by earthquakes (NEHRP, 2006; PEER, 2010). Performance-based seismic design methods require that design objectives and performance levels be quantified and that performance be predicted PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW 189

190 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES over the full range of possible seismic events. Life cycle impacts and benefits of improved performance can also be evaluated. This approach allows rational trade-offs to be made between the construction costs required to achieve improved performance and the reduced life cycle impacts associated with improved performance (e.g., reduced repair costs). FIGURE 9.1 Schematic illustration of the components incorporated in performance-based evaluation and design. SOURCE: Modified from Kramer, S.L., 2013. The application of performance-based engineering and design and probabilistic evaluation of risk and uncertainty has evolved significantly in recent years. These concepts are now central to the management of dams and associated facilities by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as numerous public and private agencies in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Hartford and Baecher (2004) present a comprehensive review of the background, theory, and application of performance-based engineering for the safety of dams. The International Navigation Association (2001) guidelines incorporate performance-based design concepts for port structures. The following pages describe the application of these concepts in the specific context of seismically induced liquefaction for generic facilities. As discussed in previous chapters, liquefaction hazards are generally assessed by evaluating (a) the susceptibility of a soil deposit to liquefaction; (b) the potential for triggering of liquefaction under the anticipated seismic loading; and (c) the consequences of liquefaction triggering. Performance-based evaluation and design provides a means to translate consequences, expressed in traditional engineering terms, into consequences expressed related to losses such as casualties, direct and indirect economic losses, and loss of utility or functionality. Furthermore, performance-based evaluation and design provides a means to consider the entire spectrum of possible seismic events rather than probabilistically or deterministically posed discrete design events. Consideration of uncertainty is central to performance-based evaluations. In current practice, liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequences usually are deterministically evaluated without explicit consideration of the uncertainty of the various components of the analysis or the quantification of the uncertainty of the performance metric. In performance-based earthquake engineering, explicit consideration of uncertainty is taken into account through probabilistic evaluations of liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequences combined with a probabilistic evaluation of the ground motion hazard to produce estimates of liquefaction risks that are rational and consistent. This type of approach was used to great effect in the design of liquefaction mitigation measures for the TONEN tank farm complex in Tokyo, Japan, in the 1980s (see Box 9.1). This chapter outlines the general approaches to performance-based evaluation and design and presents recent application of the approaches. Appendix D provides details regarding the implementation of performance-based design within the required probabilistic framework. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION AND DESIGN 191 BOX 9.1 Performance-Based Design of the TONEN Tank Farm, Tokyo Bay, Japan The TONEN tank farm complex is one of few published cases in which performance-based design was applied to a project for which liquefaction was a major consideration (Baecher and Christian, 2003). The refinery and tank farm sit on reclaimed land in a seismically active region in Tokyo Bay. The tanks are separated into patios, each surrounded by firewalls intended to contain oil spilled from a single tank. The principal risk of an off-site spill was foundation failure or deformation resulting as a consequence of liquefaction that could cause firewall failure, large differential settlements of the tank bottoms, and tank rupturing and leakage. Failure of a firewall around a ruptured tank or failure of multiple tanks within a patio that leads to overtopping of the firewalls could result in oil spilling off-site into Tokyo Bay. The site consists of approximately 8 meters of fill overlying recently deposited alluvial sands and clays. The SPT blow counts are less than 10 blows/30 cm within the top ~5 meters, which indicates that the site is highly liquefiable. The performance-based assessment of risk consisted of five steps: 1. Identification of factors influencing seismic performance of the storage tanks: frequency of earthquakes, variability of soil properties, behavior of the tanks during earthquakes, performance of the foundation soils during earthquakes, performance of the firewalls and revetments during earthquakes, and performance of other site facilities designed to prevent spills. 2. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at the site to establish levels of ground shaking and their respective exceedance probabilities. 3. Development of an event tree for a typical patio; the event tree was used to describe how various facilities in a tank patio could interact to lead to system failure. 4. Analysis of the realizations identified in the event tree to develop a statistical sample of the behavior of the site and facility. 5. Calculation of the probability of an off-site spill and the corresponding consequences of other risks; the comparison and the annual expected monetary loss were used to judge the acceptability of the liquefaction risk. An important goal of the performance-based evaluation was to assess the cost- effectiveness of a remediation strategy to lower the groundwater level beneath the facility. This remediation strategy would not only reduce the thickness of saturated, liquefiable soil but also decrease the porewater pressure and increase the effective vertical stress at depth and thereby decrease both the probability and the consequences of liquefaction. To understand the risk faced by the tank farm owners, the annual exceedance probability was computed for different values of monetary losses. The annualized cost of failure due to earthquakes was larger than was the annual cost of preventive measures, which led to the decision that the cost of continuous lowering of the groundwater level was justified economically. An impervious slurry wall was built around the site, pumps were installed, and a continuous program of pumping and monitoring of groundwater levels was instituted. Although the 2011 Tohoku earthquake caused extensive liquefaction of reclaimed land around Tokyo Bay (Yasuda et al., 2012), the TONEN tank farms experienced no damage. APPROACHES TO PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION The performance-based approach can be used in many ways, most simply by implementing them at the response level. Measures of system response (e.g., settlement, lateral spreading displacement values) may be specified at various hazard levels or return periods. From the response values, physical damage and loss are then inferred, often guided by judgement and experience. A large uncertainty may be associated with loss estimates derived in this way. An intermediate approach specifies performance related to damage limit states, which involves comparison of the predicted and allowable responses (i.e., limit state). This approach involves prediction of damage (e.g., minor cracking, number of pipe breaks per km) considering PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

192 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES uncertainties associated with the response and damage models. Loss is inferred from damage in this approach, but there is less uncertainty in inferring loss from specific damage levels than from specific response levels. The most complete approach defines performance in terms of losses, including both loss of life and monetary loss; it involves the explicit modeling of response, damage, and loss accounting for the uncertainties inherent in each. While requiring more effort, loss level implementation provides the most accurate and least uncertain estimate of loss (Kramer, 2014). Response-Level Implementation In practice, performance-based evaluations are usually implemented at the response level. For liquefaction problems, this typically involves evaluation of the potential for triggering followed by evaluation of the anticipated ground movements using a response model. To be employed in the performance-based framework, both analyses must be performed using probabilistic techniques. The probabilistic approaches described below illustrate the importance of considering all levels of shaking that can lead to triggering and consequences of liquefaction as well as considering the uncertainty in the predictions. These approaches allow development of a response hazard curve that indicates how often, on average, different levels of response can be expected. For example, a response hazard curve may provide the level of displacement that has a 2,475-year return period. Response hazard curves account for local seismicity (e.g., including all expected earthquake magnitudes at all potential source-to-site distances); uncertainty in ground motions given those magnitude and distance combinations; and uncertainties in prediction of liquefaction triggering and movement of soils as a consequence of liquefaction movements (e.g., settlement, lateral spreading). The level of response that has a 2,475-year return period will be different from the response computed deterministically based on a 2,475-year ground motion. Basing design criteria on a particular return period for liquefaction (Kramer and Mayfield, 2005; Kramer et al., 2006; Franke et al., 2014) or on particular return periods of settlement or lateral spreading displacement provides more uniform performance across different seismic environments than the current practice of basing evaluations on deterministic factors of safety (FS) computed for a single ground motion hazard level. Fully probabilistic procedures for evaluating liquefaction triggering have been developed (Marrone et al., 2003; Kramer and Mayfield, 2005, 2007; Juang et al. 2008; Baker and Faber, 2008; Mayfield et al. 2010; Franke et al., 2014). Kramer and Mayfield (2007) described a probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis procedure for evaluating liquefaction triggering that generates FS hazard curves (see Figure 9.2) that account for all peak ground acceleration (PGA) levels and all magnitudes that contribute to those PGA levels. These curves show the mean annual rate of non-exceedance for different values of FS against triggering,  FS L . The reciprocal of the value of  FS L for FSL = 1.0 is the return period of liquefaction (i.e., the average length of time between occurrences of liquefaction of that element of soil). The hazard curves in Figure 9.2 were calculated for a hypothetical site profile placed in five cities with different seismic hazards. The mean annual rates of non-exceedance are higher for the more seismically active areas (e.g., California versus Tennessee), but not by a constant factor because the curves reflect the differences in ground motion recurrence and the underlying magnitude contributions in PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION AND DESIGN 193 different areas. Kramer and Mayfield (2007) showed that application of conventional, deterministic liquefaction hazard evaluation procedures used in practice (i.e., achieving a minimum FS based on ground shaking from a single return period) produced very different liquefaction hazards at the different sites, with the return period of liquefaction varying by a factor of two or more. This result demonstrates that current deterministic procedures do not provide similar levels of safety against liquefaction at sites in different seismic environments, as quantified by the liquefaction hazard, and justifies movement toward the probabilistic approach. FIGURE 9.2 Hazard curves for non-exceedance of a factor of safety (FS) against liquefaction at 6-m depth in standard soil profile (inset) defined by Kramer and Mayfield (2007). The reciprocal of  FS L for FSL = 1.0 is the return period of liquefaction for each location. SOURCE: Kramer, S.L., and R.T. Mayfield. 2007. The return period of liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(7):802–813. With permission from ASCE. This material may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This material may be found at [http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-0241%282007%29133%3A7%28802%29]. The calculation of a liquefaction FS hazard curve requires a cyclic resistance ratio curve with an assigned probability of liquefaction. As noted in Chapter 4, the meaning of the probabilities associated with various liquefaction curves in the published literature may be ambiguous. In their original form, the curves may represent the probability of the observed data given that liquefaction occurs rather than the probability of liquefaction given the observed data. Therefore, users of probabilistic liquefaction curves should be sure that they understand the basis for the curves they employ and that they are appropriate for the situation at hand (see Chapter 4, Box 4.2). Kramer and Huang (2010) used a response-level performance-based design framework with a probabilistic settlement model (Huang, 2008) to compute hazard curves for post-liquefaction (free-field) settlement. Figure 9.3 shows settlement hazard curves for a hypothetical site in Seattle, Washington. Empirical lateral spreading models can be used to compute lateral spreading displacement hazard curves in a slightly different manner. Franke and Kramer (2014) developed a probabilistic version of the lateral spreading relationship developed by Youd and colleagues (2002) and used it to compute displacement hazard curves for a generic site assumed to be located in 10 U.S. cities with very different seismic environments (see Figure 9.4). PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

194 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Although each site was predicted to move approximately 30 cm under the loading associated with the 475-year ground motion using the deterministic displacement prediction procedure developed by Youd and colleagues (2002), the computed return periods from the fully probabilistic analyses of these sites showed that the actual return periods for 30 cm of displacement ranged from 77 to more than 2,300 years. A conventional deterministic analysis, which ignores uncertainty in the displacement prediction, implicitly assumes the return period of the response is the same as the return period of the design ground motion (475 years in this case). When accounting for uncertainty in the response through a fully probabilistic analysis, however, the return period for the response is not equal to the return period of the ground motion. Given that there is uncertainty in the response prediction, the probabilistic analysis provides the more accurate assessment of the response return period. FIGURE 9.3 Post-liquefaction settlement hazard FIGURE 9.4 Lateral spreading displacement hazard curves. curves. SOURCE: Kramer, S.L., and Y.-M. Huang. SOURCE: Franke, K.W., and S.L. Kramer. 2014. Procedure 2010. Performance-based assessment of for the empirical evaluation of lateral spread displacement liquefaction hazards. In Proceedings of the 9th U.S. hazard curves. Journal of Geotechnical and National and 10th Canadian Conference on Geoenvironmental Engineering 140(1):110–120. With Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada. 10 pp. permission from ASCE. This material may be downloaded for With permission from the Earthquake Engineering personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of Research Institute. the American Society of Civil Engineers. This material may be found at [http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29GT.194 3-5606.0000969]. Damage-Level Implementation A damage-level implementation of performance-based design considers the ground motion hazard curve, a response model, and a damage model. The damage model is commonly displayed through fragility curves, which predicts the probability of a damage state (e.g., minor cracking) being exceeded given a response level (e.g., displacement). Attempts to explicitly predict damage in the structural engineering discipline are more advanced than within geotechnical engineering. Structural engineers often refer to maximum allowable damage as a damage limit state. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION AND DESIGN 195 Bird and colleagues (2005) performed structural analyses to evaluate damage to reinforced concrete frame buildings from differential ground movements and developed fragility curves for damage limit states while considering uncertainties in input parameters. To isolate the effects of liquefaction, they used damage models to compare damage scenarios with and without ground- failure-induced damage at a liquefiable site, and they noted the need for improved characterization of the relationships between ground movement and structural damage. Ledezma and Bray (2010) analyzed the potential damage to a five-span bridge supported by piles that extended through liquefiable soils susceptible to lateral spreading. The response models accounted for uncertainty in liquefaction triggering, uncertainty in the residual strength of the liquefiable soil, and uncertainty in the lateral displacement prediction. They defined five discrete damage states (none, small, moderate, large, and collapse) based on predicted displacement. For a site located in Oakland, California, the computed probabilities of reaching the five damage states are shown for two specific ground motion levels in Figure 9.6. Because only two ground motion levels were considered, this approach is not considered fully probabilistic, but the analysis shows that for a given ground motion level a range of damage states is possible because of uncertainties in the response prediction and damage prediction. (a) (b) FIGURE 9.5 Fragility curves for damage to a specific class of reinforced concrete building for (a) horizontal differential displacement, and (b) vertical differential displacement. Limit states 1-3 mark respective boundaries between slight to moderate damage, moderate to extensive damage, and extensive to complete damage. SOURCE: after Bird, J.F., Crowley, H., Pinho, R., and Bommer, J.J. (2005). “Assessment of building response to liquefaction- induced differential ground deformation,” published in the Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 38, No.4, December 2005. Pp. 215-234. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

196 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FIGURE 9.6 Probabilities of reaching different damage states for bridge abutments at two hazard levels. Damage states are none (N), small (S), moderate (M), large (L), and collapse (C). SOURCE: Ledezma, C., and J.D. Bray. 2010. Probabilistic performance-based procedure to evaluate pile foundations at sites with liquefaction-induced lateral displacement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(3):464–476. With permission from ASCE. This material may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This material may be found at [http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29GT.1943-5606.0000226]. Loss-Level Implementation The most complete performance-based design procedure specifies performance in terms of expected losses. Although such evaluations represent the most advanced application of performance-based design, they are, for now, only practical for particularly large or particularly important projects due to the significant work required to perform the analyses. Nevertheless, they represent the future of earthquake engineering practice (Kramer, 2014). Iai and colleagues (2008) described the design of a caisson quay wall in approximately 15 meters of water resting on liquefiable foundation soils and with liquefiable backfill. They considered five options to improve the foundation soil and the backfill soil behind the quay wall and developed fragility curves for damage state based on a series of parametric finite element response analyses. Lifecycle costs for each of the five options were calculated based on a repair cost of 1 million yen/m (approximately $3,000/ft) of wall length (see Figure 9.7). Construction costs were similar for all the options, so the predicted direct losses differed only slightly. However, Option B in Figure 9.7 turned out to be the clear choice for minimizing costs because its indirect losses (i.e., those associated with loss of functionality) were lower. Kramer and colleagues (2009) analyzed the same bridge considered by Ledezma and Bray (2010). Using finite element analyses to predict response, the computed loss curves expressed as the ratio of repair cost to replacement cost, termed the repair cost ratio, or RCR (see Figure 9.8a). The losses were deaggregated to show the contributions of the various repair methods to the predicted loss at a particular return period (see Figure 9.8b). Such deaggregations can provide an engineer and owner with a useful indication of the origin of the losses. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION AND DESIGN 197 Life-Cycle Costs Options A: Foundation compaction only Indirect Losses B: Foundation cementation C: Foundation and backfill compaction (1.8 m spacing) D: Foundation & backfill compaction (1.6 m spacing) Direct Losses E: Foundation compaction & structural modification Construction Costs FIGURE 9.7 Illustration of life cycle costs for different soil improvement design options (after Iai, 2008). SOURCE: Kramer, 2011. (a) (b) FIGURE 9.8 (a) Loss curve and (b) cost breakdown of 475-yr loss for five-span highway bridge. SOURCE: Modified from Kramer, S.L., P. Arduino, and H.S. Shin. 2009. Development of performance criteria for foundations and earth structures in Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering: From Case History to Practice, edited by T. Kokusho, Y. Tsukamoto, and M. Yoshimine, London, UK: Taylor & Francis. With permission from Taylor & Francis Books UK. Bradley and colleagues (2010) described a loss-level evaluation of a pile-supported bridge underlain by liquefiable soil in New Zealand. Finite element analyses of the soil-foundation- bridge system were used to predict system response related to nine response parameters, including peak pile curvature, maximum abutment seating displacement, and approach embankment settlement. Discrete damage states (e.g., cracking, yielding, and failure of piles) were defined for each of the response parameters, and repair costs and repair durations were defined, with uncertainties, for each of the discrete damage states. Figure 9.9 shows loss curves for both the direct repair costs and the indirect costs associated with loss of functionality, and these curves show that the costs associated with loss of functionality are far greater than are the direct costs of the repairs themselves. Foundation compaction was accomplished by sand compaction piles at indicated spacings. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

198 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FIGURE 9.9 Loss curves from a performance-based evaluation of [a] pile-supported bridge. SOURCE: Bradley, B.A., M. Cubrinovski, R.P. Dhakal, G.A. MacRae. 2010. Probabilistic seismic performance and loss assessment of a bridge-foundation-soil system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30(5):395–411. With permission from Elsevier. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATIONS The calculations required for probabilistic performance evaluations may not be complicated, but they are almost always voluminous. A full loss-level implementation requires integration over all ground motion levels, response levels, and damage levels. For a given structure, detailed loss analyses will recognize the existence of multiple foundation-structure components within a structure; therefore, multiple response parameters and damage measures need to be computed. In these cases, the between-component correlations must be determined and taken into account while integrating over all components. Even the loss estimate may involve multiple parameters if multiple components of loss (e.g., repair costs and loss of functionality) are considered. Because fully probabilistic performance-based evaluations have been developed only recently, computer programs and tools for their convenient and efficient use are in relatively early stages of development. Programs that perform response-level implementations are currently available (see, e.g., Huang, 2008; Franke et al., 2014), and programs for full loss-level implementations are in development (see, e.g., Bradley, 2009; Silva et al., 2014). Additional development of these programs and tools is needed for performance-based evaluation and design to be adopted widely in engineering practice. Fully probabilistic procedures show that uncertainties, whether in prediction of liquefaction triggering or of consequences, significantly influence the calculated liquefaction hazards. Improved response models are required that better quantify uncertainty and allow better understanding of how much uncertainty can be reduced through such measures as increased subsurface exploration, increased field and laboratory testing, more sophisticated analyses, additional research, or other means. The ability to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of such measures is a major benefit of probabilistic performance-based liquefaction hazard evaluations. Performance has several components, including physical damage, casualties, direct and indirect costs, and loss of functionality, and it is viewed differently by different stakeholders. Advances in performance-based procedures for liquefaction problems will require improved understanding of the damage to different types of structures and facilities caused by different PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

Next: 10 Recommendations »
State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Earthquake-induced soil liquefaction (liquefaction) is a leading cause of earthquake damage worldwide. Liquefaction is often described in the literature as the phenomena of seismic generation of excess porewater pressures and consequent softening of granular soils. Many regions in the United States have been witness to liquefaction and its consequences, not just those in the west that people associate with earthquake hazards.

Past damage and destruction caused by liquefaction underline the importance of accurate assessments of where liquefaction is likely and of what the consequences of liquefaction may be. Such assessments are needed to protect life and safety and to mitigate economic, environmental, and societal impacts of liquefaction in a cost-effective manner. Assessment methods exist, but methods to assess the potential for liquefaction triggering are more mature than are those to predict liquefaction consequences, and the earthquake engineering community wrestles with the differences among the various assessment methods for both liquefaction triggering and consequences.

State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences evaluates these various methods, focusing on those developed within the past 20 years, and recommends strategies to minimize uncertainties in the short term and to develop improved methods to assess liquefaction and its consequences in the long term. This report represents a first attempt within the geotechnical earthquake engineering community to consider, in such a manner, the various methods to assess liquefaction consequences.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!