Past, Present, and Future Developments in Liquefaction Hazard Analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 51-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven L. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard

Probabilistic Liquefaction Hazard Analysis for Four Canadian Cities

2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 190-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Goda ◽  
G. M. Atkinson ◽  
J. A. Hunter ◽  
H. Crow ◽  
D. Motazedian
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard

Simplified Procedure for Developing Joint Distribution of amax and Mw for Probabilistic Liquefaction Hazard Analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 134 (8) ◽  
pp. 1050-1058 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Hsein Juang ◽  
David Kun Li ◽  
Sunny Ye Fang ◽  
Zhuzhao Liu ◽  
Eng Hui Khor
Keyword(s):  
Joint Distribution ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard ◽  
Simplified Procedure

Liquefaction hazard analysis for infrastructure development in gulf of Jakarta

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indra A. Dinata ◽  
Yudi Darlan ◽  
Imam A. Sadisun ◽  
Haris Pindratno ◽  
Agus Saryanto
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Infrastructure Development ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard

scholarly journals Introduction and Application of a Simple Probabilistic Liquefaction Hazard Analysis Program: HAZ45PL Module

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Jui-Ching Chou ◽  
Pao-Shan Hsieh ◽  
Po-Shen Lin ◽  
Yin-Tung Yen ◽  
Yu-Hsi Lin
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Approach ◽  
Soil Liquefaction ◽  
Shallow Foundation ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Liquefaction Potential ◽  
Probability Map ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard ◽  
Potential Map ◽  
The Government

The 2016 Meinong Earthquake hit southern Taiwan and many shallow foundation structures were damaged due to soil liquefaction. In response, the government initiated an investigation project to construct liquefaction potential maps for metropolitans in Taiwan. These maps were used for the preliminary safety assessment of infrastructures or buildings. However, the constructed liquefaction potential map used the pseudo-probabilistic approach, which has inconsistent return period. To solve the inconsistency, the probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis (PLHA) was introduced. However, due to its complicated calculation procedure, PLHA is not easy and convenient for engineers to use without a specialized program, such as in Taiwan. Therefore, PLHA is not a popular liquefaction evaluation procedure in practice. This study presents a simple PLHA program, HAZ45PL Module, customized for Taiwan. Sites in Tainan City and Yuanlin City are evaluated using the HAZ45PL Module to obtain the hazard curve and to construct the liquefaction probability map. The liquefaction probability map provides probabilities of different liquefaction potential levels for engineers or owners to assess the performance of an infrastructure or to design a mitigation plan.

Hazard characterization for alternative intensity measures using the total probability theorem

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110492
Author(s):  
Michael W Greenfield ◽  
Andrew J Makdisi
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Total Probability ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Intensity Measures ◽  
Hazard Curve ◽  
Cumulative Absolute Velocity ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard ◽  
Hazard Curves ◽  
Total Probability Theorem

Since their inception in the 1980s, simplified procedures for the analysis of liquefaction hazards have typically characterized seismic loading using a combination of peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude. However, more recent studies suggest that certain evolutionary intensity measures (IMs) such as Arias intensity or cumulative absolute velocity may be more efficient and sufficient predictors of liquefaction triggering and its consequences. Despite this advantage, widespread hazard characterizations for evolutionary IMs are not yet feasible due to a relatively incomplete representation of the ground motion models (GMMs) needed for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Without widely available hazard curves for evolutionary IMs, current design codes often rely on spectral targets for ground motion selection and scaling, which are shown in this study to indirectly result in low precision of evolutionary IMs often associated with liquefaction hazards. This study presents a method to calculate hazard curves for arbitrary intensity measures, such as evolutionary IMs for liquefaction hazard analyses, without requiring an existing GMM. The method involves the conversion of a known IM hazard curve into an alternative IM hazard curve using the total probability theorem. The effectiveness of the method is illustrated by comparing hazard curves calculated using the total probability theorem to the results of a PSHA to demonstrate that the proposed method does not result in additional uncertainty under idealized conditions and provides a range of possible hazard values under most practical conditions. The total probability theorem method can be utilized by practitioners and researchers to select ground motion time series that target alternative IMs for liquefaction hazard analyses or other geotechnical applications. This method also allows researchers to investigate the efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability of new, alternative IMs without necessarily requiring GMMs.

Inter-region variability of Robertson and Wride method for liquefaction hazard analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 191-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Zhang ◽  
C.H. Juang ◽  
J.R. Martin ◽  
H.W. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard

Liquefaction evaluation guidelines for practicing engineering and geological professionals and regulators

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall Lew
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Analytical Techniques ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lateral Spreading ◽  
The State ◽  
Hazard Mapping ◽  
Liquefaction Potential ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard ◽  
Flow Slides

Abstract Liquefaction is a seismic hazard that must be evaluated for a significant percentage of the developable areas of California. The combination of the presence of active seismic faults, young loose alluvium, and shallow ground water are the ingredients that could result in the occurrence of liquefaction in many areas of California. These ingredients are also found in other seismically active areas of the United States and the world. The state of California, through the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act of 1990, has mandated that liquefaction hazard be determined for new construction. On a parallel track, the Uniform Building Code, since 1994, has provisions requiring the determination of liquefaction potential and mitigation of related hazards, such as settlement, flow slides, lateral spreading, ground oscillation, sand boils, and loss of bearing capacity. Fortunately, the state of knowledge has now evolved to where there are field exploration methods and analytical techniques to estimate the liquefaction potential and the possible consequences arising from the occurrence of liquefaction. There are some areas that still need further research. Mitigation for liquefaction has become more commonplace and confidence in these techniques has been increased based on the relatively successful performance of improved sites in the past several major earthquakes. Unfortunately, not all practicing engineering and geological professionals and building officials are knowledgeable about the current state-of-practice in liquefaction hazard analysis and mitigation. Thus, it was considered necessary to develop a set of guidelines to aid professionals and building officials, based on California's experience with the current practice of liquefaction hazard analysis and mitigation. Although the guidelines reported in this paper were written specifically for practice in California, it is believed that guidelines can benefit practitioners to evaluate liquefaction hazard in all seismic regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document