Liquefaction Hazard Mapping—Statistical and Spatial Characterization of Susceptible Units

In this paper, we present a three step method for characterizing geologic deposits for liquefaction potential using sample based liquefaction probability values. The steps include statistically characterizing the sample population, evaluating the spatial correlation of the population, and finally providing a local and/or global estimate of the distribution of high liquefaction probability values for the deposit. When spatial correlation is present, ordinary kriging can be used to evaluate spatial clustering of high liquefaction probability values within a geologic unit which in turn can be used in a regional liquefaction potential characterization. If spatial correlation is not present in the data, then a global estimate can be used to estimate the percentage of samples within the deposit which have a high liquefaction probability. By describing the liquefaction potential with a binomial distribution (high versus low), a global estimate can provide an estimate of the mean as well as uncertainty in the estimate. To demonstrate the method, we used a dense data set of subsurface borings to identify and characterize liquefiable deposits for hazard mapping in Cambridge, Mass.

[1]  G. Deodatis,et al.  3D effects in seismic liquefaction of stochastically variable soil deposits , 2005 .

[2]  P. Mayne,et al.  CPT site characterization for seismic hazards in the New Madrid seismic zone , 2002 .

[3]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 1971 .

[4]  T L Youd,et al.  MAPPING LIQUEFACTIONINDUCED GROUND FAILURE POTENTIAL , 1978 .

[5]  S. Toprak.  Liquefaction Potential Index: Field Assessment, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 2003 .

[6]  A. Broughton,et al.  Liquefaction susceptibility mapping in the city of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee , 2001 .

[7]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , 2001 .

[8]  Laurie G. Baise,et al.  Three-dimensional liquefaction potential analysis using geostatistical interpolation , 2005 .

[9]  John C. Tinsley,et al.  Liquefaction hazard and shaking amplification maps of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont, California: a digital database , 2002 .

[10]  H M Horn,et al.  SETTLEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON THE MIT CAMPUS , 1964 .

[11]  David O'Sullivan,et al.  Geographic Information Analysis , 2002 .

[12]  P. Robertson,et al.  Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test , 1998 .

[13]  Henry A. Russell,et al.  Geology of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America , 1991 .

[14]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-BASED PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 2004 .

[15]  Michael J. Bennett,et al.  Liquefaction and Soil Failure during 1994 Northridge Earthquake , 1999 .

[16]  Peter K. Robertson,et al.  Simplified geostatistical analysis of earthquake-induced ground response at the Wildlife Site, California, U.S.A , 2003 .

[17]  C. Hsein Juang,et al.  Calibration of SPT- and CPT-Based Liquefaction Evaluation Methods , 2000 .