National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 14
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 15
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 16
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 17
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 18
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 19
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 20
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 21
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 22
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 23
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 24
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 25
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 26
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 27
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 28

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.

1 Introduction An earthquake on the morning of February 9, 1971, produced a landslide in the upstream face of Lower San Fernando Dam (also known as the Lower Van Norman Dam), an earthen structure located at the terminus of the Los Angeles Aqueduct (see Figure 1.1). The dam crest dropped approximately 10 meters, leaving only about 1.5 meters of broken soil as freeboard to prevent overtopping and release of a reservoir holding approximately 15 million tons (approximately 13.6 million metric tons, or 4 billion gallons) of water (see Figure 1.1). Eighty thousand people were evacuated from the valley below. Many lives could have been lost had the water level in the reservoir been at maximum allowable pool level (Cortright, 1975) or the slide a bit larger (Page et al., undated). It would have been among the greatest earthquake-related disasters in U.S. history. This near-disaster resulted from earthquake-induced liquefaction. Seismic shaking of sufficient strength and duration can transform certain saturated but firm soils1 into a suspension of soil particles and water that behaves in a manner similar to a viscous fluid. Under these conditions, the once-firm soil is transformed to one with low strength and stiffness. This phenomenon is called liquefaction (see Box 1.1), and in this report, the term “liquefaction” encompasses not only the conditions at the onset of phenomena (i.e., liquefaction triggering) but also the associated soil behaviors while in that state (e.g., flow liquefaction). At the Lower San Fernando Dam, the earthquake caused the soil within the dam to liquefy, and the loss of soil strength set off the landslide. The dam crest began to lower shortly after earthquake shaking began (Seed et al., 1975a; Castro et al., 1985; Gu et al., 1993). This example underscores the importance of assessing liquefaction hazards, both by determining whether a soil is likely to liquefy and by estimating consequences that may include, for example, damage to an earthen dam. 1 Soils, in this report, refer to particulate mineral Earth materials less consolidated than rock, as per geotechnical engineering practice. Soils contain readily visible particles (e.g., gravel and sand), particles visible only with magnification (e.g., silt and clay), or mixtures thereof. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW 14

INTRODUCTION 15 Dam (a) (b) FIGURE 1.1 The Lower San Fernando Dam in Los Angeles (a) prior to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake when water levels were high, showing downstream residential development. Water levels shown here were about 10 meters lower than those at the time of the earthquake. SOURCE: USGS (b) the dam showing damage resulting from the earthquake. Water levels were lowered further following the earthquake-induced damage. Earthquake-induced liquefaction resulted in the dam crest dropping 10 meters, leaving only 1.5 meters of freeboard as protection against flooding the downstream region with its population of approximately 80,000 people. SOURCE: Nisee/Peer, University of California, Berkeley. Accurate liquefaction assessment is essential to protect life and safety, to reduce seismic risk in a cost-effective manner, and to guide post-earthquake recovery. It is important for new construction and for enhancing the seismic safety of existing structures. However, liquefaction assessment can be challenging. The factors that govern liquefaction are often difficult to measure or predict, and the results of liquefaction analyses in engineering practice are sometimes contradictory: while one approach might indicate low liquefaction potential, another might warrant ground improvement costing millions of dollars. This report has its origins in such dilemmas that combine risk and uncertainty. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

16 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES BOX 1.1 What Is Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction? Earthquake-induced liquefaction refers to the phenomena of seismic generation of excess porewater pressures and consequent softening of saturated granular soils. The material is typically sand, and less commonly silt or gravel. Liquefaction results from the tendency of the granular structure of a saturated soil to collapse and contract, or densify, when subjected to cyclic loading (i.e., the application of repeated shear stresses) caused by earthquake shaking. Prior to liquefaction, the contact forces between soil grains provide the stiffness and strength of a saturated soil (Figure 1. The tendency for contraction of the soil structure (or soil skeleton) leads to a transfer of the load that had been carried by the granular structure to the porewater filling the voids between individual soil grains, resulting in an increase in the porewater pressure. When the porewater pressure rises, the contact forces between the grains are reduced, the soil is more easily deformed, and, in the limiting case, the soil particles may lose contact completely with each other and go into suspension (Figure 2). The looser the soil, the greater the potential for contraction under cyclic loading, and the easier it is for the soil to liquefy. The loss of soil strength associated with liquefaction can lead to large ground deformations and the inability of the liquefied soil to support overlying materials, including man-made structures. Collateral consequences can include loss of life and destruction of homes and critical infrastructure. Recovery following earthquake-induced soil liquefaction can be expensive (tens of millions to billions of dollars) and may take many years. The figure offers a simplistic description of the liquefaction phenomenon and should not be interpreted to suggest that the density of the soil always increases after a soil liquefies. Upward flow due to porewater pressures generated by the earthquake can loosen soils such that even after resettlement, soil density is less than it was initially. In some cases, lateral flow after a soil liquefies may also result in a reduction in soil density due to a phenomenon called dilation (see Chapter 2), wherein a soil expands in volume when loaded in shear. (1) (2) (3) FIGURE Idealized schematic of liquefiable soils. (1) Before an earthquake, individual soil grains are held in place by frictional or adhesive contact forces, creating a solid soil structure with water filling the spaces between the grains. Note the grain-to-grain contact. (2) After initiation of liquefaction, particle rearrangement with no change in volume (e.g., a lateral shift of a half diameter of every other row of particles in the figure) causes the particles to lose contact and go into suspension, causing the porewater pressure to increase as gravity load is transferred from the soil skeleton to the porewater. (3) As water flows out of the soil, the soil particles settle into a denser configuration, the soil skeleton once again carries the load, and the porewater pressure decreases (back to the initial steady state value). PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 17 LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS Large regions of the conterminous United States are susceptible to earthquake shaking strong enough to cause liquefaction in water-saturated soils. The shaded areas in Figure 1.2 highlight parts of the lower 48 states where the horizontal component of the peak ground acceleration2 (PGA) specified by the International Building Code (ICC, 2011) for residential and commercial construction is equal to or greater than 0.1 g (where g is the acceleration due to Earth’s gravity). In those shaded areas, liquefaction may be of concern wherever potentially liquefiable soils are present. (Note, however, depending on site-specific conditions, liquefaction cannot be precluded in the areas that are not shaded.) Historical and geologic evidence attest to the occurrence of liquefaction in about one-third of the lower 48 states. Table 1.1 provides representative examples of where liquefaction has occurred prior to 1964. These examples were identified through historical accounts or paleo-liquefaction investigations. The table includes cases in Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington (see Table 1.1). The consequences of liquefaction include lateral and vertical ground displacements, landslides, slumping of embankments, foundation bearing failures, ejection of soil-water mixtures at the ground surface, buoyant uplift of buried structures, and increased lateral earth pressures on walls. These, in turn, can lead to settlement, distortion, and lateral displacement of the ground and the collapse of buildings; failure of earth-retaining structures; cracking, sliding, and overtopping of dams and highway embankments; rupture or severing of sewer, water, fuel, and other lifeline infrastructure; lateral displacement and shear failure of piles and pier walls supporting bridges and waterfront structures; and uplift of below-grade structures (see Figure 1.3 FIGURE 1.2 Map showing areas where there is potential for ground shaking intense enough to cause liquefaction in water-saturated granular materials. The shaded areas indicate where, on soft rock, there is a 1-in-50 chance in 50 years that peak ground acceleration will attain or exceed one-tenth the acceleration due to gravity (modified from Petersen et al., 2014). Alaska and Hawaii are not shown, but those states also have extensive areas of hazard. Note that liquefaction cannot be precluded in areas where not shaded, depending on site specific conditions. SOURCE: USGS 2 Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a most common measure of the intensity of ground shaking in a given area. The PGA is often used in engineering applications, e.g., liquefaction analyses, and in building codes. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

18 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES TABLE 1.1 Example Evidence for Pre-1964 Liquefaction in the Conterminous United States State(s) Evidence References Arkansas, Sand boils from the 1811-1812 New Reviewed by Tuttle and Hartleb a Kentucky, Madrid earthquake and from prehistoric (2012) Mississippi, predecessors Missouri, and Tennessee California Sand intrusions ascribed to prehistoric Lienkaemper and Williams earthquakes of the past 1,800 years along (2007) the Hayward fault Sand boils as much as 1,500 years old Sieh (1978) interpreted as evidence for earthquakes along the San Andreas fault north of Los Angeles Ground failures during the 1872 Owens Amos et al. (2013) Valley earthquake Ground failures during the 1906 San Youd and Hoose (1978) Francisco earthquake Ground failures during the 1933 Long Southern California Earthquake b Beach earthquake Center Illinois and Prehistoric sand dikes 1,500–7,500 years Obermeier et al. (1991) Indiana old in the Wabash Valley Massachusetts Historical accounts of ground failures Tuttle and Seeber (1991) and New during the 1727 Newbury earthquake and Hampshire sand dikes interpreted as evidence for preceding earthquakes in the past 4,000 years Oregon and Sand intrusions along the Columbia River, Obermeier and Dickenson Washington ascribed to the 1700 Cascadia (2000); Takada and Atwater earthquake (2004) South Carolina Ice-age lakebeds repeatedly deformed Janecke et al. (2013) 17,000–23,000 years ago Sand boils from the 1886 Charleston Dutton (1889); Talwani and earthquake and from preceding Schaeffer (2001) earthquakes of the past 6,000 years Washington Sand boils near Puget Sound, dated to Martin and Bourgeois (2012) about 1,100 years ago Ground failures from the Puget Sound Chleborad and Schuster (1998) earthquakes of 1949 and 1965 a This comprehensive report also reviews and catalogs evidence for liquefaction in the Wabash Valley and Newbury areas and additional parts of eastern North America: Charlevoix Seismic Zone of Quebec Province; Central Virginia Seismic Zone; Marianna, Arkansas; St. Louis, Missouri; and an area in southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana. b See http://www.scec.org/education/080307longbeach.html. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 19 for examples). In an underwater setting, liquefaction-induced landslides can cause fast-arriving tsunamis on nearby shores and can be transformed into turbidity currents downslope that break submarine cables (Seed et al., 1988; Finn, 2003; Tinti et al., 2006). Liquefaction gained notice as an earthquake hazard in 1964 by causing major damage in Alaska and Japan. Liquefaction from the March 27, 1964 Prince William Sound region Alaska earthquake, of moment magnitude 3 (M) 9.2, caused widespread disruption to rail and road networks (McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970) and may have contributed to a landslide that generated a tsunami at the port of Valdez (Seed, 1968). Liquefaction from the June 16, 1964 Niigata earthquake in northern Japan, M 7.5, led to the damage of the Showa Bridge and the tilting of apartment buildings on reclaimed land adjacent to the Shinano River (see Figure 1.3). Earlier earthquakes, such as the M 9.5 Valdivia earthquake of May 22, 1960 in Chile, and the San Francisco, California earthquake of April 18, 1906 (M ~7.8), likely also resulted in liquefaction, but the phenomena of liquefaction had not yet been recognized at those times. Liquefaction was only identified in hindsight and therefore not extensively studied. Damaging liquefaction has occurred during many subsequent earthquakes as well. In addition to the damage to the Lower San Fernando Dam described above, liquefaction induced by the M 6.6 San Fernando earthquake in 1971 caused lateral deformations of up to 1.5 meters on gently sloping ground over an area approximately 1,200 meters long and 270 meters wide (Youd, 1971; Holzer and Bennett, 2007) and damage to a water treatment plant then under construction for the California Water Project (Youd, 1973). The water treatment plant was to provide water for Ventura County, West Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Liquefaction caused by the January 17, 1995 M 6.9 earthquake in Kobe, Japan (known as the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake), destroyed almost all of the deepwater berths at what was, at the time, the 6th largest container port in the world. As a result, businesses and jobs went to ports in other countries, and, in spite of repairs, the port only recovered to be the 17th largest port in the world by 1997 (Chang, 2000) and the 28th largest by 2013.4 Liquefaction from the Christchurch, New Zealand, February 22, 2011 M 6.1 earthquake produced lateral spreading, settlement, and sand boils that devastated much of the city (see Box 1.2). 3 The moment magnitude scale is the magnitude scale most commonly used by seismologists and earthquake engineers in current practice. Moment magnitudes provided throughout this report are those reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews) and may differ from values reported in the literature. 4 See http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world-container-ports. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

20 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 1.3 Examples of liquefaction consequences. (a) Sand boils and ejected soil observed following the M 6.5 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake in 1979. Note the pocketknife used for scale. SOURCE: NOAA (b) The Showa Bridge collapse during the M 7.5 Niigata, Japan, earthquake in 1964. SOURCE: NOAA; NGDC database. (c) The tilting of apartment buildings built on reclaimed land during the 1964 earthquake. SOURCE: NOAA; NDGC database. (d) Buoyant uplift of an underground gasoline tank during the 2010 M 7.0 Darfield, New Zealand, earthquake. SOURCE: Courtesy of E. Kavazanjian. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 21 BOX 1.2 Recent Liquefaction in New Zealand In addition to the 15,000 single family homes that had to be abandoned due primarily to liquefaction associated with the February 22, 2011 M 6.1 earthquake (Rogers et al., 2014), many buildings in the Central Business District also had to be demolished due to liquefaction-related damage. Figure 1 shows the areas of liquefaction in the Christchurch area following that event. The event was part of a sequence of several earthquakes beneath the Canterbury Plains (or greater Christchurch area) with an M of 5.0 or a greater, including three events greater than M 6.0. Up to 10 of those events are known to have induced liquefaction (Quigley et al., 2013). Several liquefaction-related issues were brought to the foreground by these events. For example, the interrelationships between earthquake magnitude, distance, occurrence, and extent of liquefaction can be demonstrated by comparison of the liquefaction induced by an M 7.0 event centered approximately 40 km from Christchurch and the M 6.1 event that occurred directly beneath the city. The larger event released approximately 22 times more energy than did the smaller event, but liquefaction damage in Christchurch from the larger event was considerably less. Liquefaction induced by the smaller earthquake was more extensive and damaging to Christchurch. The earthquake sequence also demonstrated the potential for widespread damage to residential structures due to liquefaction (van Ballegooy et al., 2014a) (see Figure 2); the potential for recurrence of liquefaction at a site; the potential for liquefaction of silty soils; and the damage associated with widespread local occurrences of subsidence and ejection of liquefied soil. Lessons regarding the impact of liquefaction on infrastructure and lifelines (e.g., Cubrinovski et al., 2014; Kwasinski et al., 2014); on how liquefaction affects the performance of foundations and buried pipelines (e.g., O’Rourke et al., 2014; van Ballegooy et al., 2014b); and on the value of ground improvement in mitigating the consequences of liquefaction (e.g., Wotherspoon et al., 2014) may also be drawn from this example. FIGURE 1 Areas of liquefaction in Christchurch, shown in red, yellow, and pink, following the February 22, 2011, M 6.1 earthquake SOURCE: from NSF-sponsored GEER Report #GEER-027 dated 8 Nov. 2011 PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

22 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (a) (b) FIGURE 2 Examples of the widespread damage to residential neighborhoods as a result of the 2011 M 6.1 earthquake in Christchurch. (a) Streets throughout the affected area were damaged due to liquefaction (note displacement of pavement and sand ejected to the surface). 15,000 modern single family homes, such as shown in (b), were damaged beyond repair and abandoned. SOURCE: photos courtesy of Tara Hutchinson ____________ a Values were derived from the USGS earthquake archive search of the ANSS Comprehensive Catalog (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search). STATE OF PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT Across the United States, the state of practice for evaluating whether liquefaction can be expected and what its consequences may be varies greatly. Factors influencing the state of practice include the technical sophistication of the practitioners, their clients, and associated regulatory agencies; the size of a project and the severity of consequences given the occurrence of liquefaction; the type of project (e.g., dam, bridge, building, port and harbor facilities, or nuclear power plant); and associated technical literature, guidance documents, standards, and code provisions. Higher levels of sophistication in liquefaction assessment, including site characterization and analyses of consequences, might be expected in areas where liquefaction is commonly recognized as a hazard, and among clients and regulators that work to mitigate the effects of liquefaction more frequently. Higher levels of sophistication may also be typical of liquefaction assessments for projects with major consequences given failure. Design guidance documents and documents that describe best practices for liquefaction assessment have been prepared for some specific classes of projects (e.g., for embankment dams [USBR, 2011], large dams [ICOLD, 2002], bridges [Dickenson, 2005; Kavazanjian et al., 2011, AASHTO, 2014], liquefied natural gas facilities [Bachman et al., 2007], ports and harbor facilities [ASCE, 1998], and nuclear power plants [USNRC, 2003]) as well as for general projects (CGS, 2008; SCDOT, 2010). Nevertheless, the level of detail provided in such documents varies widely. In some cases, design guidance may simply state that a liquefaction assessment should be conducted (OSBGE, 2014), while in other cases detailed requirements for site investigation and a specific step-by-step analysis procedure for liquefaction assessment may be provided (Kavazanjian et al., 2011). Defining a standard of practice for liquefaction assessment is complicated by the rapid rate at which recommended approaches are developed and modified. For instance, a technical paper by Youd and colleagues (2001) describes techniques for assessment of the onset of liquefaction (also referred to as triggering) developed by consensus at community workshops sponsored by PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 23 the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research at the State University of New York at Buffalo. By 2004, as a result of continued investigations on the topic, alternative sets of changes to the consensus procedures were suggested by reputable groups, with much emphasis placed by the technical community on two alternate approaches (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004a; Cetin et al., 2004). Since then, liquefaction assessment in current engineering practice has been inconsistent. Awareness of (and concern about) those inconsistencies has been demonstrated in the results of a 2012 survey conducted by the Deep Foundations Institute of engineers and contractors from the public, private, and academic sectors (Siegel, 2013). PRIOR REVIEWS OF LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT Simplified approaches to estimate whether liquefaction is likely to be initiated (i.e., to determine if the stiffness and strength of the soil may drop significantly due to liquefaction) were proposed by Whitman (1971) and Seed and Idriss (1971). Most engineers have since relied on variants of the Seed and Idriss (1971) basic approach (see Box 1.3). In 1985, the National Research Council (NRC) held a workshop on liquefaction and issued a report that summarized advances in liquefaction triggering assessments since the Alaska and Niigata earthquakes (NRC, 1985). In 1996 and 1998, the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) held two workshops on earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. The report issued following those workshops (Youd et al., 2001) represents the most recent point at which a general consensus on liquefaction triggering procedures was achieved. It is important to note that those workshops and reports addressed liquefaction triggering only; they did not address issues associated with liquefaction consequences. Several groups have suggested alternatives to some of the NCEER workshop recommendations (e.g., Zhang et al., 2002; Cetin et al., 2004; Bray and Sancio, 2006; Moss et al., 2006, and Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). There can be substantial differences among these revisions—relative to each other and relative to those in the NSF/NCEER workshop publications (Youd and Idriss, 1997; Youd et al., 2001). The differences can be large, especially when evaluating liquefaction triggering at depths greater than approximately 15 to 18 meters below grade and in soils containing significant amounts of silt and clay particles (i.e., greater than 5% by weight). Views differ on which revisions are most appropriate for liquefaction triggering assessment. Further, as noted by Youd and colleagues (2001), there has never been consensus on such issues as how best to assess liquefaction triggering on non-level ground (i.e., for slopes greater than 6% or for embankments and dams) or on liquefaction consequence assessments. Several alternatives to the simplified stress-based approach to assess liquefaction triggering have been suggested. Strain-based approaches (Dobry et al., 1982; Dobry and Abdoun, 2011) and energy-based approaches (Davis and Berrill, 1982; Berrill and Davis, 1985; Kayen and Mitchell, 1997; Law et al., 1990; Green, 2001; Kokusho, 2013) have been proposed but are not used widely in practice. Furthermore, liquefaction assessment has expanded beyond that of triggering. It is no longer sufficient to assess whether liquefaction will occur at a site; it is necessary to evaluate its potential effects on the strength, stability, and deformation of the ground and the consequences on nearby structures and facilities. Various approaches to evaluate the consequences of liquefaction have been developed over the past two decades (Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992; Martin et al., 2002; Youd et al., 2002; Ishihara and Cubrinovski, 2004; PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

24 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Kavazanjian et al., 2011). While development of analysis methods for liquefaction consequences is a positive step, considerable uncertainty remains in the prediction of liquefaction triggering and its consequences. BOX 1.3 The “Simplified Method” for Assessing Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction A stress-based approach for evaluating whether liquefaction may be triggered at a site was originally proposed by Whitman (1971) and Seed and Idriss (1971). While elements of this method, often referred to as the “simplified method” (or the “Seed-Idriss simplified method”), have been subject to continuous modification since 1971, the basic framework of this method is unchanged and it remains the most commonly used approach to evaluate liquefaction triggering in practice today. In the simplified method, the factor of safety (FS) against liquefaction triggering is defined as 𝐶𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝑆 = 𝐶𝑆𝑅 where CSR, the cyclic stress ratio, is a measure of the earthquake loading (the cyclic shear stress) induced in the soil, and CRR, the cyclic resistance ratio, is a measure of the soil resistance (i.e., the cyclic stress ratio expected to cause liquefaction). The “simplification” is to use the following equation, derived from a simple application of Newton’s second law, to obtain a representative value of the CSR rather than to conduct a detailed site response analysis: 𝑃𝐺𝐴 𝜎𝑣 𝐶𝑆𝑅 = 0.65 × × ′ × 𝑟𝑑 𝑔 𝜎 𝑣𝑜 where PGA is the horizontal component of the peak ground acceleration at the site, g is the acceleration of gravity, rd is a factor that accounts for the nonrigid response of the soil column, σv is the initial total vertical stress in the ground, and σ’v is the initial vertical effective stress in the ground. To account for the effects of the duration of earthquake shaking, which are related to earthquake magnitude, the CSR is corrected by a magnitude scaling factor (MSF) such that 1 𝐶𝑆𝑅7.5 = 𝐶𝑆𝑅 𝑀𝑆𝐹 where CSR7.5 is an equivalent value of CSR for an M 7.5 earthquake. In the original simplified method, the CRR was evaluated from the standard penetration test (SPT) blow count of the soil, while subsequent variants of this method sometimes employ other indices of the in situ soil resistance, including cone penetration test (or CPT) resistance and shear wave velocity (or Vs). The correlation between the in situ soil resistance and CRR is typically presented using CRR7.5, the CRR for an M 7.5 earthquake, for cases where there is no initial static shear stress on the horizontal plane or 2 effective overburden pressure of 96 kPa (I.0 ton/ft ). Correction factors are therefore applied to adjust the CRR for overburden pressures different than 96 kPa (Kσ), and for an initial static shear stress on the horizontal plane (Kα). The equation for FS can then be written as (𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 × 𝐾 𝜎 × 𝐾 𝛼 × 𝑀𝑆𝐹) 𝐹𝑆 = ⁄ 𝑃𝐺𝐴 𝜎 𝑣 (0.65 × × 𝑟 𝑑) 𝑔 𝜎′ 𝑣𝑜 Much of the uncertainty associated with current practice for liquefaction analysis (and the significant differences among the common methods used in practice to assess triggering) revolve around the value of rd, the relationship between CRR7.5 and the soil resistance parameter (and in particular, SPT blow count), and the value of the correction factors Kσ and Kα. Estimates for peak ground acceleration also represent uncertainty. Chapter 4 of this report describes these issues in greater detail. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 25 THE COMMITTEE’S TASK In 2010, an ad hoc committee of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) called for a community-based evaluation of the state of the art in liquefaction assessment (Finn et al., 2010). The EERI committee recommended that the assessment be conducted under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to help build consensus within the community and to lead to more confidence in methods used to assess liquefaction potential and consequences. This report is the culmination of the efforts in response to that recommendation from the EERI. Under the sponsorship of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Highway Administration, American Society of Civil Engineers, Port of Long Beach (California), Port of Los Angeles (California), and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the National Academies convened a committee of 12 engineers and scientists to solicit input from the technical community and to critically examine the state of practice in liquefaction hazard and consequence assessment. The complete statement of task as agreed to by the National Academies and the study sponsors is provided in Box 1.4. The statement of task requires the committee to “assess and evaluate” various methods and assessment approaches. The committee considered the difference between “assess” and “evaluate” and determined the terms to be synonymous in this context. They are used interchangeably throughout this report. Although the task requires the study committee to evaluate objectively the various assessment methods (i.e., specific assessment procedures or techniques), the task does not ask the committee to adjudicate disputes regarding any specific methods or to recommend new best practices; it is not the intent of the committee to do so. The committee has sought to identify and constrain, where possible, uncertainties in various assessment methods and to identify what could be done in the near and long terms to advance research and practice. Because many assessment approaches applied today are often modifications of past approaches, and because much if not most of the data employed in more contemporary approaches were collected prior to 1996, the committee both describes early methods and databases to determine the uncertainties associated with them and also looks at contemporary assessment approaches to determine how those uncertainties may have been mitigated, exacerbated, or compounded. The report addresses evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction only of naturally occurring soils and man-made fills composed of such soils. The study scope does not extend to mine tailings, solid waste, or stabilized soils. Assessment of remedial measures for increasing liquefaction resistance and mitigation of post-liquefaction consequences is also outside the scope. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

26 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES BOX 1.4 Statement of Task An ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will solicit input from the technical community and critically examine the technical issues regarding liquefaction hazard evaluation and consequence assessment. The study will assess and evaluate  Sufficiency, quality, and uncertainties associated with laboratory and in situ field tests, case histories, and physical model tests to develop and assess methods for determining liquefaction triggering, and the resulting loss of soil strength and its consequences;  Methods to conduct and analyze laboratory and physical model testing and to collect and analyze field case history data to determine the triggering of liquefaction, and post-liquefaction soil behavior (e.g., strength loss, dilation, and hardening); and  Adequacy and accuracy of empirical and mechanistic methods to evaluate liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction deformations of earth structures and structures founded on or in the earth, such as large embankment dams, levees, dikes, pipelines, highway embankments, bridges, pile- supported decks, and other structural foundations. Effects at large depths and high static shear stresses on liquefaction triggering and post-earthquake shear strength will be among those addressed. The study will focus on developments since the 1996 National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) and the1998 National Science Foundation/NCEER workshops on liquefaction issues and consider data including those related to soil properties, site characterization, ground motions, and observations and measurements of soil response (e.g., post liquefaction deformations). Inherent characteristics associated with the data (e.g., uneven distribution, scarcity, uncertainty) will be investigated. The study will include a workshop on data gathering, vetting of field and laboratory data, and new developments in the assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. The final report will assess the state-of-the-art and practice for liquefaction analyses and will address future directions for research and practice related to (i) collecting, reporting, and assessing the sufficiency and quality of field case history observations as well as in situ field, laboratory, and model test data; (ii) addressing the spatial variability and uncertainty of these data; and (iii) developing more accurate tools for assessing liquefaction triggering and its consequences. Committee Member Selection Committee members were nominated by their peers and selected by the National Academies from the resulting long list of nominees based on the strength of their professional qualifications using long-standing procedures established by the National Academies to adhere to the highest standards of impartiality and independence. The committee includes researchers and practitioners with expertise in soil properties and behavior, in situ and laboratory testing, ground motion propagation and attenuation, quantitative hazard and risk assessment, seismic site response analysis, geological evidence of liquefaction, engineering geology, geotechnical earthquake engineering, soil-structure interaction, and computational mechanics. Brief biographies of the committee members are given in Appendix A. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION 27 Information Gathering Technical input from the engineering community was vital to the study process. Committee conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on synthesis and assessment by the committee of publicly available information and data. Additional information provided to the committee by researchers during the conduct of this study was given with the understanding that all information was subject to public disclosure. No primary research was conducted by the committee. This report reflects information available to the committee as of early 2015. Information made available later—for example, during the November 2015, 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering in New Zealand—would have been available too late for the study committee to deliberate its significance to this report and its recommendations. The committee organized and held a two-day public workshop with approximately 90 participants and held three additional public meetings and a webinar devoted to various topics. Meetings were announced widely in advance through several communication mechanisms; attendance at the workshop and public meetings was open to all interested parties; and remote participation was possible for all of these sessions. Agendas for these meetings are provided in Appendix B, as is a list of workshop participants. Solicitations for written input from any member of the community on any relevant topic were made during all open session meetings. The committee also requested written clarification on specific issues from individual members of the technical community. REPORT ORGANIZATION Engineering practice related to earthquake-induced soil liquefaction is informed largely by empirically based methodologies that are themselves informed by somewhat disparate perspectives and uneven availability of data. Understanding the uncertainties associated with various approaches and data is similarly uneven. Uncertainty, then, is an overriding theme in this report because it is through an understanding of uncertainty that sources of inaccuracy are identified. Consideration of uncertainties becomes even more important as earthquake engineering practice more generally moves toward performance-based analysis and design.5 This report is organized as follows:  Chapter 2 provides a description of the phenomena associated with earthquake- induced soil liquefaction and the factors influencing them;  Chapter 3 discusses the sufficiency of the case history data on liquefaction and associated phenomena, including field case histories, and provides a critical assessment of those data; 5 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. The approach usually involves probabilistic descriptions of earthquake ground motions and the facility’s response to them. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

28 STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE- INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES  Chapter 4 describes and assesses the simplified stress-based approach to predict the triggering (initiation) of liquefaction;  Chapter 5 assesses alternative approaches to liquefaction triggering assessment such as strain-based, energy-based, and computational mechanics-based approaches;  Chapter 6 describes the assessment of the post-liquefaction shear strength of soils;  Chapter 7 discusses empirical and semiempirical methods to evaluate liquefaction consequences;  Chapter 8 is a discussion of how computational mechanics can be used to predict liquefaction triggering and consequences;  Chapter 9 is a discussion of performance-based engineering methods for probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequences; and  Chapter 10 provides a synthesis of committee recommendations for advancing the state of practice and state of the art for assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. Summaries of the key findings and conclusions derived from each chapter can be found in a box at the beginning of the chapter, beginning with Chapter 2. A more detailed explanation of each of the bulleted items in the key findings boxes is found within the text of the chapter. These key findings and conclusions also inform the committee’s major recommendations, found in Chapter 10. PREPUBLICATION VERSION – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVIEW

Next: 2 A Primer on Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction »
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!