Liquefaction-induced ground damages during the 2010 Chile earthquake

Verdugo, Ramón A. Morillo; González, Javiera

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.04.016

Cited by 77 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Soil liquefaction is getting considerable attention in almost all seismically active regions worldwide. To date, many researchers have used evidence-based, experimental, and analytical assessment of soil liquefaction in many parts of the world (e.g., Singh, Roy, and Jain 2005;Idriss and Boulanger 2006;Cox et al 2013;Gautam, de Magistris, and Fabbrocino 2017;Gautam 2017a;Bray et al 2014;Verdugo and Gonz alez 2015;Cetin et al 2004;Kramer and Mayfield 2007;among others).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley, Nepal

K.C

Bhochhibhoya

Adhikari

et al. 2020

Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquakes are frequent in the Himalayas and almost all moderate to strong earthquakes have caused enormous losses of lives and property in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Several historical earthquakes depicted that considerable loss was attributed to liquefaction induced failure in structures and infrastructures. Existing liquefaction studies have mostly used deterministic approach to obtain the factor of safety against liquefaction. Thus, to update the conventional deterministic liquefaction analysis results, this study performs probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley considering wide range of earthquake magnitudes and four return periods: 73, 475, 2475, and 5000 years. Liquefaction probabilities for 88 locations across Kathmandu Valley are estimated and compared with the historical occurrence to validate the results. The liquefaction hazard maps for all four return periods are prepared for all the earthquake magnitudes for 1.5 m, 3 m, 4.5 m, and 6 m depths. The sum of findings highlights that the central valley, and eastern and western fringes have higher liquefaction probabilities than the other parts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley, Nepal

K.C

Bhochhibhoya

Adhikari

et al. 2020

Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We do not see, however, increasing responses with increasing ground motion ( Figure 2). Moreover, surface manifestations of liquefaction are not documented in all the settings with increased discharge (Mohr et al, 2017), though widespread liquefaction following the Maule earthquake was reported for saturated floodplains up to an epicentral distance of approximately 1,000 km (Verdugo & González, 2015). Liquefaction was also observed during the Valparaiso earthquake (Algermissen, 1985) and following the Valdivia earthquakes, but the latter is less well documented.…”

Section: Compaction and Liquefactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stronger Peak Ground Motion, Beyond the Threshold to Initiate a Response, Does Not Lead to Larger Stream Discharge Responses to Earthquakes

Mohr

Manga

Wald

2018

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impressive number of stream gauges in Chile, combined with a suite of past and recent large earthquakes, makes Chile a unique natural laboratory to study several streams that recorded responses to multiple seismic events. We document changes in discharge in eight streams in Chile following two or more large earthquakes. In all cases, discharge increases. Changes in discharge occur for peak ground velocities greater than about 7–11 cm/s. Above that threshold, the magnitude of both the increase in discharge and the total excess water do not increase with increasing peak ground velocities. While these observations are consistent with previous work in California, they conflict with lab experiments that show that the magnitude of permeability changes increases with increasing amplitude of ground motion. Instead, our study suggests that streamflow responses are binary.

show abstract

“…As the depth increases, the cone tip resistance of the CPT holes #8 and #12 increase accordingly. To determine whether any soil layers are liquefiable soil, the critical cone tip resistance q ccr should be calculated with equations (4)- (6). Based on the calculation results, the critical cone tip resistance q ccr of the #8 hole can be divided into 8 parts, whereas that of the #12 hole can be divided into 7 parts.…”

Section: Classification Of Liquefaction Potential Before Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For human beings, earthquakes represent one of the most severe natural disasters [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Ground liquefaction, which is frequently caused by earthquakes, is one of the most common engineering disasters, and it weakens the foundation bearing capacity, thus leading to uneven foundation settlement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquefiable Ground Treatment Using Cruciform Section Probe Resonant Compaction Method: A Case Study in the Xitong Expressway, Eastern China

Xiao

Cai

et al. 2020

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The foundation treatment of liquefiable soil has always been an important part of construction. Sand liquefaction decreases the foundation capacity and can cause severe building, highway, or bridge engineering accidents. This study used self-developed cruciform section probe resonant compaction equipment (CSPRCE) to evaluate the applicability and reinforcement effect of the Xitong Expressway foundation. The cone penetration test (CPT) results showed that this soil was liquefiable ground requiring treatment before construction. Laboratory tests illustrated that the clay particle content was nearly 10% in the surface layer, indicating that the traditional resonant compaction probe (RCP) would not provide effective reinforcement; therefore, we adopted the new resonant compaction method (RCM) for the reinforcement process. The CPT and standard penetration test (SPT) results after foundation reinforcement indicated that the cruciform section probe resonant compaction method (CSPRCM) is suitable for treating the Xitong Expressway liquefiable foundation. Before reinforcement, 7-8 liquefiable soil layers were observed, whereas after reinforcement, no foundation testing points were liquefiable. Cone resistance and unit sleeve friction resistance were both improved by a factor of nearly 3 after the CSPRCM reinforcement. The CSPRCM has wider applicability than traditional vibrating compaction methods, especially for sites with a high content of silt and clay particles. The strengthening mechanism of the CSPRCM is a vibration hammer that generates vibrational energy to obliterate the original soil structure and render the sand completely liquefied; the soil particles then rearrange to form a new structure.

show abstract

Liquefaction-induced ground damages during the 2010 Chile earthquake

Cited by 77 publications

References 10 publications

Probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley, Nepal

Probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley, Nepal

Stronger Peak Ground Motion, Beyond the Threshold to Initiate a Response, Does Not Lead to Larger Stream Discharge Responses to Earthquakes

Liquefiable Ground Treatment Using Cruciform Section Probe Resonant Compaction Method: A Case Study in the Xitong Expressway, Eastern China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About