This study evaluates a variety of intensity measures (IMs) for predicting the liquefaction-induced residual settlement and tilt of shallow-founded structures. We use data from both numerical and physical (centrifuge) models of soil-foundation-structure systems. The relative quality of these IMs is quantified in terms of efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability. We consider both scalar and vector-valued IMs and evaluate the relative performance of IMs recorded at different locations (outcropping rock, within rock, far-field, and foundation) from nonlinear and equivalent-linear simulations. Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) at outcropping rock is the optimum IM for predicting foundation settlement, while either outcropping rock CAV, peak ground velocity, or peak incremental ground velocity is optimum for predicting permanent foundation tilt. Vector IMs offer improvements to efficiency and sufficiency but may be impractical to predict.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A.SilvaW. J. and KamaiR.2013. Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Data Set, Tech. Rep. 2013/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
2.
AfshariK. and StewartJ. P.2016. Physically parameterized prediction equations for significant duration in active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra32, 2057–2081.
3.
AllmondJ. and KutterB.2012. Centrifuge Testing of Rocking Foundations on Saturated and Submerged Sand: Centrifuge Data Report for JDA01, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGMDR-12/01, University of California, Davis, CA.
4.
AllmondJ. and KutterB.2013. Centrifuge Testing of Rocking Foundations on Saturated and Submerged Sand: Centrifuge Data Report for JDA02, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGMDR-13/01, University of California, Davis, CA.
5.
AriasA.1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (HansenR. J. ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 438–483.
6.
AtkinsonG. M. and BooreD. M.2003. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93, 1703–1729.
7.
BadanagkiM.DashtiS. and KirkwoodP.2018. An experimental study of the influence of dense granular columns on the performance of level and gently sloping liquefiable sites, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering144.
8.
BakerJ. W. and BradleyB. A.2017. Intensity measure correlations observed in the NGA-West2 database, and dependence of correlations on rupture and site parameters, Earthquake Spectra33, 145–156.
9.
BianchiniM.DiotalleviP. P. and BakerJ. W.2009. Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka, Japan, 13–17.
10.
BommerJ. J.MagenesG.HancockJ. and PenazzoP.2004. The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering2, 1–26.
11.
BommerJ. J. and Martinez-PereiraA.1999. The effective duration of earthquake strong motion, Journal of Earthquake Engineering3, 127–172.
12.
BommerJ. J.StaffordP. J. and AlarcónJ. E.2009. Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 3217–3233.
13.
BooreD. M.StewartJ. P.SeyhanE. and AtkinsonG. M.2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra30, 1057–1085.
14.
BoulangerR. W. and IdrissI. M.2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Tech. Rep. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, CA.
15.
BradleyB. A.2013. A New Zealand-specific pseudospectral acceleration ground-motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, 1801–1822.
16.
BrayJ. D. and MacedoJ.2017. 6th Ishihara lecture: simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering102, 215–231.
17.
BrayJ. D. and TravasarouT.2007. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering133, 381–392.
18.
BullockZ.DashtiS.LielA.PorterK.KarimiZ. and BradleyB.2017. Ground-motion prediction equations for Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, and peak incremental ground velocity for rock sites in different tectonic environments, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107, 2293–2309.
19.
BullockZ.KarimiZ.DashtiS.LielA. and PorterK.2018. Key parameters for predicting residual tilt of shallow-founded structures due to liquefaction, in Proceedings of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V, Austin, TX.
20.
BullockZ.DashtiS.KarimiZ.LielA.PorterK. and FrankeK.2019a. Probabilistic models for residual and peak transient tilt of mat-founded structures on liquefiable soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering145.
21.
BullockZ.KarimiZ.DashtiS.PorterK.LielA. and FrankeK.2019b. A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Geotechnique69, 406–419.
22.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2011. Prediction equations for the standardized version of cumulative absolute velocity as adapted for use in the shutdown of US nuclear power plants, Nuclear Engineering and Design241, 2558–2569.
23.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2012. A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form, Earthquake Spectra28, 931–941.
24.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1087–1115.
25.
CetinK. O.BilgeH. T.WuJ.KammererA. M. and SeedR. B.2009. Probabilistic model for the assessment of cyclically induced reconsolidation (volumetric) settlements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135, 387–398.
26.
ChandramohanR.BakerJ. W. and DeierleinG. G.2016. Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records, Earthquake Spectra32, 927–950.
27.
ChiouB. S. J. and YoungsR. R.2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1117–1153.
28.
DanciuL. and TselentisG. A.2007. Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97, 162–183.
29.
DarendeliB. M.2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
30.
DarraghR. B.AbrahamsonN. A.SilvaW. J. and GregorN.2015. Development of hard rock ground-motion models for Region 2 of central and eastern North America, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 51–84.
31.
DashtiS.2009. Toward Developing an Engineering Procedure for Evaluating Building Performance on Softened Ground, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
32.
DashtiS.BrayJ. D.PestanaJ. M.RiemerM. R. and WilsonD.2010a. Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction induced building settlement mechanisms, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136, 918–929.
33.
DashtiS.BrayJ. D.PestanaJ. M.RiemerM. R. and WilsonD.2010b. Mechanisms of seismically-induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136, 151–164.
34.
DashtiS. and KarimiJ. Z.2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures, Earthquake Spectra33, 241–276.
35.
De BiasioM.GrangeS.DufourF.AllainF. and Petre-LazarI.2014. A simple and efficient intensity measure to account for nonlinear structural behavior, Earthquake Spectra30, 1403–1426.
36.
EadsL.MirandaE. and LignosD. G.2015. Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44, 2057–2073.
37.
Electric Power Research Institute, 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedances of the Operating Basis Earthquake, EPRI Report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
38.
Electric Power Research Institute, 2006. Program on Technology Innovation: Use of Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) in Determining Effects of Small Magnitude Earthquakes on Seismic Hazard Analyses, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
39.
ElgamalA.YangZ. and ParraE.2002. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22, 259–271.
40.
FiegelG. L. and KutterB. L.1994. Liquefaction mechanism for layered soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering120, 737–755.
41.
FieldE. H.BiasiG. P.BirdP.DawsonT. E.FelzerK. R.JacksonD. D.JohnsonK. M.JordanT. H.MaddenC.MichaelA. J. and MilnerK. R.2015. Long-term time-dependent probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105, 511–543.
42.
Foulser-PiggottR. and GodaK.2015. Ground-Motion prediction models for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity for Japanese earthquakes considering single-station sigma and within-event spatial correlation, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105, 1903–1918.
43.
HashashY. M. A.MusgroveM. I.HarmonJ. A.GroholskiD. R.PhillipsC. A. and ParkD.2016. DEEPSOIL 6.1 User Manual, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
44.
JamiolkowskiM.LeroueilS. and Lo PrestiD. C. F.1991. Theme lecture: design parameters from theory to practice, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Coastal Development, Coastal Development Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 1–41.
45.
JampoleE.DeierleinG.MirandaE.FellB.SwensenS. and AcevedoC.2016. Full-scale dynamic testing of a sliding seismically isolated unibody house, Earthquake Spectra32, 2245–2270.
46.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2015. Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142.
47.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2016. Seismic performance of shallow founded structures on liquefiable ground: validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142.
48.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate II: the performance of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground, Earthquake Spectra33, 277–298.
49.
KarimiZ.DashtiS.BullockZ.PorterK. and LielA.2018. Key predictors of structure settlement on liquefiable ground: A numerical parametric study, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering113, 286–308.
50.
KayenR. E. and MitchellJ. K.1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123, 1162–1174.
51.
KemptonJ. J. and StewartJ. P.2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra22, 985–1013.
52.
KramerS. L.1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
53.
KramerS. L. and MitchellR. A.2006. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation, Earthquake Spectra22, 413–438.
54.
LucoN. and CornellC. A.2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra23, 357–392.
55.
LysmerJ. and KuhlemeyerR. L.1969. Finite dynamic model for infinite media, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division95, 859–877.
56.
MasonH. B.TrombettaN. W.ChenZ.BrayJ. D.HutchinsonT. C. and KutterB. L.2013. Seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering48, 162–174.
57.
OlarteJ. C.DashtiS.LielA. B. and ParamasivamB.2018. Effects of drainage control on densification as a liquefaction mitigation technique, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering110, 212–231.
58.
OlarteJ.ParamasivamB.DashtiS.LielL. and ZanninJ.2017. Centrifuge modeling of mitigation-soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering97, 304–323.
59.
PadgettJ. E.NielsonB. G. and DesRochesR.2008. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics37, 711–725.
60.
ParamasivamB.DashtiS. and LielA. B.2018a. Influence of prefabricated vertical drains on the seismic performance of structures founded on liquefiable soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering144.
61.
ParamasivamB.DashtiS.LielA. B. and OlarteJ. C.2018b. Centrifuge modelling of mitigation-soil-structure-interaction on layered liquefiable soil deposits with a silt cap, in Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Volume 2CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1005–1010.
62.
ParamasivamB.DashtiS. and LielA.2019. Impact of spatial variations in permeability of liquefiable deposits on the seismic performance of structures and effectiveness of drains, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering145.
63.
RaghunandanM. and LielA. B.2013. Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse, Structural Safety41, 119–133.
64.
RamirezJ.BarreroA. R.ChenL.DashtiS.GhofraniA.TaiebatM. and ArduinoP.2018. Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering144.
65.
SeyhanE. and StewartJ. P.2014. Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations, Earthquake Spectra30, 1241–1256.
66.
ShomeN. and CornellC. A.1999. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Tech. Rep. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
67.
StaffordP. J.BerrillJ. B. and PettingaJ. R.2009. New predictive equations for Arias intensity from crustal earthquakes in New Zealand, Journal of Seismology13, 31–52.
68.
StewartJ. P.AfshariK. and HashashY. M.2014. Guidelines for Performing Hazard-Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction, Tech. Rep. PEER 2014/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
69.
TravasarouT.BrayJ. D. and AbrahamsonN. A.2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics32, 1133–1155.
70.
TrombettaN. W.MasonH. B.ChenZ.HutchinsonT. C.BrayJ. D. and KutterB. L.2013. Nonlinear dynamic foundation and frame structure response observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering50, 117–133.
71.
UnutmazB. and CetinK. O.2012. Post-cyclic settlement and tilting potential of mat foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering43, 271–286.
72.
WallingM.SilvaW. and AbrahamsonN.2008. Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models, Earthquake Spectra24, 243–255.
73.
YoudT. L. and IdrissI. M.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.
Supplementary Material
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.
