Fines-content effects on liquefaction hazard evaluation for infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand

Maurer, Brett W.; Green, R.A.; Cubrinovski, Misko; Bradley, Brendon

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.028

Cited by 51 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As previously mentioned, two databases were arranged for two groups of derived equations-both consisted of six parameters, namely σ c , D r %, FC%, C u , D 50 (in mm), and C c -and the target was log W. Also, the criterion for the triggering of liquefaction is r u = 1 for the initiate of liquefaction or strain equal to 5% (ε DA = 5%). The database that was used to develop the first group of equations includes 217 cyclic, triaxial laboratory test results [56]; 61 cyclic, torsional laboratory test results [22,57]; six cyclic simple tests [58], and 22 centrifuge test results [36]. In addition, new data were added from 22 samples from the VErification of Liquefaction Analysis by Centrifuge Studies (VELACS) program [25,35,58], along with 48 cyclic, triaxial laboratory test results [59], and 27 cyclic, torsional laboratory test results [35].…”

Section: Databases and Artificial Neural Network Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also indicated that the liquefaction resistance becomes less dependent on relative density when FC is less than 28%. Maurer et al [36] investigated 7000 dataset case histories from the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes and indicated that the evaluation of liquefaction is less accurate when soils have a high FC value. Although these studies have indicated an altered influence of a high FC value on liquefaction assessment, it has not yet been taken into account to propose a model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Energy Evaluation of Triggering Soil Liquefaction Based on the Response Surface Method

Tang

Yang

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquefaction is one of the most destructive phenomena caused by earthquakes, and it has been studied regarding the issues of risk assessment and hazard analysis. The strain energy approach is a common method to evaluate liquefaction triggering. In this study, the response surface method (RSM) is applied as a novel way to develop six new strain energy models in order to estimate the capacity energy required for triggering liquefaction (W), based on laboratory test results collected from the literature. Three well-known design of experiments (DOEs) are used to build these models and evaluate their influence on the developed equations. Furthermore, two groups of artificial neural network (ANN) and RSM models are derived to investigate the complicated influence of fine content (FC). The first group of models is based on a database without limitation on the range of input parameters, and the second group is based on a database with FC lower than the critical value of 28%. The capability and accuracy of the six presented models are compared with four existing models in the literature by using additional new laboratory test results (i.e., 20 samples). The results indicate the superior performance of the presented RSM models and particularly the second group of the models based on a limited value of FC.

show abstract

Section: Databases and Artificial Neural Network Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Evaluation of Triggering Soil Liquefaction Based on the Response Surface Method

Tang

Yang

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optimal LPIish thresholds corresponding to different severities of surficial liquefaction manifestations are dependent on the liquefaction triggering procedure used to compute FSliq and the characteristics of the profile. However, without liquefaction case history data to develop Groningen-specific thresholds, the thresholds proposed by Iwasaki et al (1978) will be conservatively (Maurer et al 2015c) used in the pilot study with the LPIish framework (i.e., LPIish < 5: no to minor surficial liquefaction manifestations are predicted; LPIish > 15: severe surficial liquefaction manifestations are predicted).…”

Section: Planned Output From the Liquefaction Hazard Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing limitations in existing ‘simplified’ liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field

Green

Bommer

Rodríguez-Marek

et al. 2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Groningen gas field is one of the largest in the world and has produced over 2000 billion m 3 of natural gas since the start of production in 1963. The first earthquakes linked to gas production in the Groningen field occurred in 1991, with the largest event to date being a local magnitude (ML) 3.6. As a result, the field operator is leading an effort to quantify the seismic hazard and risk resulting from the gas production operations, including the assessment of liquefaction hazard. However, due to the unique characteristics of both the seismic hazard and the geological subsurface, particularly the unconsolidated sediments, direct application of existing liquefaction evaluation procedures is deemed inappropriate in Groningen. Specifically, the depthstress reduction factor (rd) and the Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) relationships inherent to existing variants of the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure are considered unsuitable for use. Accordingly, efforts have first focused on developing a framework for evaluating the liquefaction potential of the region for moment magnitudes (M) ranging from 3.5 to 7.0. The limitations of existing liquefaction procedures for use in Groningen and the path being followed to overcome these shortcomings are presented in detail herein.

show abstract

“…(2) the depth of "pre-drill" exceeded the depth of the ground water table; and (3) inferred to have prematurely terminated on shallow gravels using a geospatial autocorrelation analysis (Anselin, 1995), which identifies spatial outliers. Extended coverage of CPT data and the exclusion criteria summarized above is provided in Maurer et al (2014Maurer et al ( , 2015b).…”

Section: Canterbury Earthquakes Sequence (Ces) Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragility functions for performance-based ground failure due to soil liquefaction

Maurer¹,

Ballegooy²,

Bradley³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The severity of liquefaction manifested at the ground surface is a pragmatic proxy of damage potential for various infrastructure assets, making it particularly useful for hazard mapping, land-use planning, and preliminary site-assessment. Towards this end, the recent Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes, in conjunction with others, have resulted in liquefaction case-history data of unprecedented quantity and quality, presenting a unique opportunity to rigorously develop fragility-functions for liquefaction-induced ground failure. Accordingly, this study analyzes nearly 10,000 liquefaction case studies from 23 global earthquakes to develop fragility functions for use in performance-based frameworks. The proposed functions express the probability of exceeding specific severities of liquefaction surface manifestation as a function of three different liquefaction damage measures (LDMs), wherein four alternative liquefaction-triggering models are used. These functions have the same functional form, such that end-users can easily select the model coefficients for the particular damage state, triggering model, and LDM of their choosing.It should be noted that these functions are not to be used to predict lateral spreading, which requires LDMs other than those assessed herein. Lastly, the proposed functions are preliminary and subject to further development. In this regard, several thrusts of ongoing investigation are discussed.

show abstract

Fines-content effects on liquefaction hazard evaluation for infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand

Cited by 51 publications

References 48 publications

Energy Evaluation of Triggering Soil Liquefaction Based on the Response Surface Method

Energy Evaluation of Triggering Soil Liquefaction Based on the Response Surface Method

Addressing limitations in existing ‘simplified’ liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field

Fragility functions for performance-based ground failure due to soil liquefaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About