Semi-empirical models based on in situ geotechnical tests have been the standard-of-practice for predicting soil liquefaction since 1971. More recently, prediction models based on free, readily available data were proposed. These “geospatial” models rely on satellite remote-sensing to infer subsurface traits without in situ tests. Using 15,223 liquefaction case-histories from 24 earthquakes, this study assesses the performance of 23 models based on geotechnical or geospatial data using standardized metrics. Uncertainty due to finite sampling of case-histories is accounted for and used to establish statistical significance. Geotechnical predictions are significantly more efficient on a global scale, yet successive models proposed over the last 20 years show little or no demonstrable improvement. In addition, geospatial models perform equally well for large subsets of the data—a provocative finding given the relative time- and cost-requirements underlying these predictions. Through this performance comparison, lessons for improving each class of model are elucidated in detail.
Abdel-HaqAHryciwRD (1998) Ground settlement in Simi Valley following the Northridge earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124(1): 80–89.
2.
AllstadtKEThompsonEMHearneM, et al. (2019) The new USGS near-real-time ground failure product and its performance for recent earthquakes. In: Seismological Society of America annual meeting, Seattle, WA, 23–26April.
3.
AndrusRD (1986) Subsurface investigations on a liquefaction induced lateral spread, Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho: Liquefaction recurrence and a case history in gravel. MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
4.
AndrusRDYoudTL (1987) Subsurface investigation of a liquefaction-induced lateral spread Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho. Miscellaneous paper GL-87–8. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
5.
AnselinL (1995) Local Indicators of Spatial Association - LISA. Geographical Analysis 27(2): 93–115.
6.
Architectural Institute of Japan (2001) Recommendations for Design of Building Foundations. Tokyo, Japan: Architectural Institute of Japan.
7.
ArulanandanKYogachandranCMeegodaNJ, et al. (1986) Comparison of the SPT, CPT, SV and Electrical Methods of Evaluating Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Susceptibility in Ying Kou City during the Haicheng Earthquake (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6, pp. 389–415). New York: ASCE.
8.
BatilasAPelekisPVlachakisV, et al. (2014) Soil Liquefaction/ Nonliquefaction in the Achaia-Ilia (Greece) 2008 Earthquake: Field evidence, site characterization and ground motion assessment. International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories2(4): 270–287.
9.
BennettMJTinsleyJCIII (1995) Geotechnical data from surface and subsurface samples outside of and within liquefaction-related ground failures caused by the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta earthquake, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-663. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
10.
BennettMJMcLaughlinPVSarmientoJS, et al. (1984) Geotechnical investigation of liquefaction sites, Imperial Valley, CA. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 84-252. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
11.
BennettMJPontiDJTinsleyJCIII, et al. (1998) Subsurface geotechnical investigations near sites of ground deformations caused by the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California, earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 98-373. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
12.
BevenKJKirkbyMJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin24: 43–69.
13.
BoulangerRWIdrissIM (2014) CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. Davis, CA: Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis.
14.
BoulangerRWIdrissIMMejiaLH (1995) Investigation and evaluation of liquefaction related ground displacements at Moss Landing during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Davis, CA: Report No. UCD/CGM-95/02, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis.
15.
BoulangerRWMejiaLHIdrissIM (1997) Liquefaction at Moss Landing during Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123(5): 453–467.
16.
BradleyBA (2013) Site-specific and spatially-distributed ground motion intensity estimation in the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering48: 35–47.
17.
BradleyBARazafindrakotoHMaurerBW, et al. (2018) Simulation-Based Ground Motion Prediction of Historical and Future New Zealand Earthquakes and Consequent Geohazard Impacts (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 291, pp. 29–420. New York: ASCE.
18.
BrayJDMacedoJ (2017) Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering102: 215–231.
19.
BrennanAJMadabhushiSP (2005) Liquefaction and drainage in stratified soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering131(7): 876–885.
20.
BuckJRDanielMMSingerAC (2002) Computer Explorations in Signals and Systems Using MATLAB®. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
BullockZKarimiZDashtiS, et al. (2019) A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Géotechnique69: 406–419.
22.
ByrnePMParkSSBeatyM, et al. (2004) Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal41(2): 193–211.
23.
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) (2012) Purpose and scope of the Canterbury geotechnical database (now the New Zealand Geotechnical Database). Available at: www.nzgd.org.nz (accessed 10 September 2017).
24.
Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) (2016) U.S. structural and ground response data. Available at: www.strongmotioncenter.org/ (accessed 5 May 2015).
25.
CetinKOBilgeHTWuJ, et al. (2009) Probabilistic model for the assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135(3): 387–398.
26.
CetinKOSeedRBMossRES, et al. (2000) Field performance case histories for SPT-based evaluation of soil liquefaction triggering hazard. Berkeley, CA: Geotechnical Engineering Research Report No. UCB/GT-2000/09, University of California, Berkeley.
27.
ChristensenSA (1995) Liquefaction of cohesionless soils in the March 2, 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, and other earthquakes. Master of Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
28.
CoxBRBoulangerRWTokimatsuK, et al. (2013) Liquefaction at strong motion stations in Urayasu City during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Earthquake Spectra29(S1): S55–S80.
29.
CubrinovskiMIshiharaK (1998) State concept and modified elastoplasticity for sand modeling. Soils and Foundations38(4): 213–225.
30.
CubrinovskiMRhodesANtritsosN, et al. (2019) System response of liquefiable deposits. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering124: 212–229.
31.
DeLongERDeLongDMClarke-PearsonDL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics44: 837–845.
32.
Diaz-RodriguezJA (1984) Liquefaction in the Mexicali Valley during the earthquake of June 9, 1980. In: Eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA, 21–28 July, pp. 223–230.
33.
Diaz-RodriguezJAArmijo-PalacioG (1991) Liquefaction potential of fine cohesionless soils using the CPT. Soils and Foundations31(3): 111–119.
34.
FacciorussoJMadiaiCVannucchiG (2015) CPT-based liquefaction case history from the 2012 Emilia earthquake in Italy. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141(12): 05015002.
35.
FarrarJA (1990) Study of in situ testing for evaluation of liquefaction resistance. Report R-90-06. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Geotechnical Services Branch, Denver Office.
36.
FawcettT (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters27(8): 861–874.
37.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2013) Earthquake Model HAZUS-MH 2.1 Technical Manual. Washington, DC: FEMA.
38.
FickSEHijmansRJ (2017) WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology37(12): 4302–4315.
39.
FiegelGLKutterBL (1994) Liquefaction mechanism for layered soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering120(4): 737–755.
40.
GeyinMMaurerBW (2019) An Analysis of Liquefaction-Induced Free-Field Ground Settlement Using 1,000+ Case-Histories: Observations vs. State-of-Practice Predictions (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 308, pp. 489–498). New York: ASCE.
41.
GreenRABommerJJRodriguez-MarekA, et al. (2019) Addressing limitations in existing “simplified” liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: Application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17(8): 4539–4557.
42.
GreenRACubrinovskiMCoxB, et al. (2014) Select liquefaction case histories from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Earthquake Spectra30(1): 131–153.
43.
HolzerTLYoudTL (2007) Liquefaction, ground oscillation, and soil deformation at the wildlife array, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97(3): 961–976.
44.
HolzerTLBennettMJPontiDJ, et al. (1999) Liquefaction and soil failure during 1994 Northridge earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125(6): 438–452.
45.
IdrissIMBoulangerRW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12 2008. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
46.
IshiharaK (1985) Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In: 11th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, CA, 12–16 August, pp. 321–376. International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).
47.
IshiharaKKogaY (1981) Case studies of liquefaction in the 1964 Niigata earthquake. Soils and Foundations21(3): 35–52.
48.
IwasakiTTatsuokaFTokidaK, et al. (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of microzonation, San Francisco, CA, 26 November–1 December.
49.
JuangCHYangSHYuanH, et al. (2005) Liquefaction in the Chi-Chi earthquake-effect of fines and capping non-liquefiable layers. Soils and Foundations45(6): 89–101.
50.
KayenREMitchellJKSeedRB, et al. (1998) Soil liquefaction in the east bay during the earthquake, The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction (ed. HolzerTL). USGS Professional Paper 1551-B, B61-B86s. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
51.
KayenREMossRESThompsonEM, et al. (2013) Shear wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering139(3): 407–419.
52.
KramerSL (2008) Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Washington State. Report No. WA-RD 668.1. Seattle, WA: Washington State Transportation Center.
53.
LeeDHKuCSJuangCH (2000) Preliminary investigation of soil liquefaction in the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. In: CHLohWILiao (eds) International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Vol. III—Geotechnical Aspect. Taipei: National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 140–151.
54.
LehnerBVerdinKJarvisA (2006) HydroSHEDS Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
55.
MaurerBWGreenRATaylorODS (2015a) Moving towards an improved index for assessing liquefaction hazard: Lessons from historical data. Soils and Foundations55(4): 778–787.
56.
MaurerBWGreenRACubrinovskiM, et al. (2014) Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering140(7): 04014032.
57.
MaurerBWGreenRACubrinovskiM, et al. (2015b) Fines-content effects on liquefaction hazard evaluation for infrastructure during the 2010–2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering76: 58–68.
58.
MaurerBWGreenRAvan BallegooyS, et al. (2019) Development of region-specific soil behavior type index correlations for evaluating liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering117: 96–105.
59.
MaurerBWvan BallegooySBradleyBA (2017) Fragility functions for performance-based damage assessment of soil liquefaction. In: 3rd international conference on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–19 July.
60.
MitchellJKLodgeALCoutinhoRQ, et al. (1994) In situ test results from four Loma Prieta earthquake liquefaction sites: SPT, CPT, DMT and shear wave velocity. Report No. UCB/EERC-94/04. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
61.
MossRESCollinsBDWhangDH (2005) Retesting of liquefaction/nonliquefaction case histories in the imperial valley. Earthquake Spectra21(1): 179–196.
62.
MossRESKayenRETongL-Y, et al. (2009) Re-investigation of liquefaction and nonliquefaction case histories from the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Report No. 209/102. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center.
63.
MossRESKayenRETongL-Y, et al. (2011) Retesting of liquefaction and nonliquefaction case histories from the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering137(4): 334–343.
64.
MossRESSeedRBKayenRE, et al. (2003) Field case histories for CPT-based in situ liquefaction potential evaluation. Geoengineering Research Report No. UCB/GE-2003/04. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
65.
MossRESSeedRBKayenRE, et al. (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering132(8): 1032–1051.
66.
NakataTShimazakiK (1997) Geo-slicer, a newly invented soil sampler, for high-resolution active fault studies. Journal of Geography106(1): 59–69 (in Japanese).
67.
National Research Council (NRC) (2016) State of the Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
68.
ÖzenerPÖzaydinKBerilgenM (2008) Numerical and physical modeling of liquefaction mechanisms in layered sands. In: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, Sacramento, California, United States, 18–22 May, pp. 1–12. American Society of Civil Engineers.
69.
OzutsumiOSawadaSIaiS, et al. (2002) Effective stress analyses of liquefaction-induced deformation in river dikes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22(9): 1075–1082.
70.
PapathanassiouGMantovaniATarabusiG, et al. (2015) Assessment of liquefaction potential for two liquefaction prone areas considering the May 20, 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquake. Engineering Geology189: 1–16.
71.
PassDG (1994) Soil characterization of the deep accelerometer site at Treasure Island, San Francisco, California. MS Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
72.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2000a) Documentation of soil conditions at liquefaction sites from 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake. https://tinyurl.com/sbh9cpg (accessed 7 March 2015).
73.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2000b) Documenting incidents of ground failure resulting from the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. https://tinyurl.com/ujtpwrk (accessed 7 March 2015).
74.
QuigleyMHughesMWBradleyBA, et al. (2016) The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence: Environmental effects, seismic triggering thresholds, geologic legacy. Tectonophysics672–673: 228–274.
75.
RaschkeSAHryciwRD (1997) Vision cone penetrometer for direct subsurface soil observation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123(11): 1074–1076.
76.
RobertsonPKWrideCE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal35(3): 442–459.
77.
SeedHBIdrissIM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division97(9): 1249–1273.
78.
SeedHBTokimatsuKHarderLF, et al. (1984) The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
79.
Servizio Geologico (2016) Database of the Emilia-Romagna region: Geological, seismic, and soil Survey. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/u3wk5xk (accessed 10 April 2015).
80.
ShengcongFTatsuokaF (1984) Soil liquefaction during Haicheng and Tangshan earthquake in China; a review. Soils and Foundations24(4): 11–29.
81.
ShibataTTeparaskaW (1988) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Soils Using Cone Penetration Testing. Soils and Foundations28(2): 49–60.
82.
StrahlerAN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topology. Geological Society of America Bulletin63: 1117–1142.
83.
SuzukiYTokimatsuKMossRES, et al. (2003) CPT-based liquefaction case histories from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake, Japan. Geotechnical Engineering Research Report No. UCB/GE-2003/03. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
84.
TakadaKAtwaterBF (2004) Evidence for liquefaction identified in peeled slices of Holocene deposits along the lower Columbia River, Washington. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94(2): 550–575.
85.
ToprakSHolzerTL (2003) Liquefaction potential index: Field assessment. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering129(4): 315–322.
86.
TurnerBBrandenbergSStewartJ (2016) Case Study of Parallel Bridges Affected by Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142(7): 05016001.
87.
Van BallegooySCoxSCThurlowC, et al. (2014a) Median water table elevation in Christchurch and surrounding area after the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake: Version 2. GNS Science Report 2014/18.
88.
Van BallegooySGreenRALeesJ, et al. (2015) Assessment of various CPT based liquefaction severity index frameworks relative to the Ishihara (1985) H1-H2 boundary curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering79: 347–364.
89.
Van BallegooySMalanPLacrosseV, et al. (2014b) Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra30(1): 31–55.
90.
WaldDJAllenTI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97: 1379–1395.
91.
WhitmanRV (1971) Resistance of soil to liquefaction and settlement. Soils and Foundations11(4): 59–68.
92.
WordenCBWaldDJ (2016) ShakeMap: Technical Manual, User’s Guide, and Software Guide. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: usgs.github.io/shakemap
93.
YoudTLCarterBL (2005) Influence of soil softening and liquefaction on spectral acceleration. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering131(7): 811–825.
94.
YoudTLHooseSN (1977) Liquefaction Susceptibility and Geologic Setting. Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering3: 2189–2194.
95.
YoudTLDeDenDWBrayJD, et al. (2009) Zero displacement lateral spreads, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135(1): 46–61.
96.
YoudTLIdrissIMAndrusRD, et al. (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering127: 817–833.
97.
ZhangGRobertsonPKBrachmanRWI (2002) Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal39(5): 1168–1180.
98.
ZhangGRobertsonPKBrachmanRWI (2004) Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the standard penetration test or cone penetration test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering130(8): 861–871.
99.
ZhuJBaiseLGThompsonEM (2017) An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(3): 1365–1385.
100.
ZhuJDaleyDBaiseLG, et al. (2015) A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra31(3): 1813–1837.
101.
ZimmaroPBrandenbergSJBozorgniaY, et al. (2019) Quality control for next-generation liquefaction case histories. In: 7th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering (VII ICEGE), Rome, Italy, 17–20 June, pp. 5905–5912.
102.
ZiotopoulouKBoulangerRW (2016) Plasticity modeling of liquefaction effects under sloping ground and irregular cyclic loading conditions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering84: 269–283.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
