Location

San Diego, California

Session Start Date

5-24-2010

Session End Date

5-29-2010

Abstract

Liquefaction hazard mapping provides a useful tool for risk mitigation planning in seismic areas. Mapping for large areas is usually pursued by applying simplified criteria which rely on geological/lithological data and/or index properties of investigated soils, and in which local seismicity is not adequately considered (grade-1 methods). When a large number of in situ-tests and a reliable seismic hazard analysis are available, liquefaction hazard can be investigated by applying in-situ test-based methods accounting for seismic loading and the susceptibility of in-situ soil volumes (grade-2 methods). Advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering currently allow both deterministic and probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential by such methods. Liquefaction hazard can be parameterized concisely by a liquefaction potential index which expresses the liquefaction potential of investigated soil profiles. This paper provides a comparative case-study of liquefaction hazard mapping for a large coastal area in Central Italy, for which data from 1325 CPT soundings, covering an area of about 1300 km2, are available. Two types of areal maps are produced. In the first type, zonation occurs solely through spatial interpolation of liquefaction potential index values. In the second case, zonation is performed on the basis of lithological, geological and seismic information. Hazard parameters are associated to each lithological-geological unit on the basis of statistical analyses yielding empirical cumulative distribution functions of the liquefaction potential index. Here, the two approaches to hazard mapping are implemented in the study area; their results are assessed and compared.

Department(s)

Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering

Appears In

International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Meeting Name

Fifth Conference

Publisher

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Publication Date

5-24-2010

Document Version

Final Version

Rights

© 2010 Missouri University of Science and Technology, All rights reserved.

Document Type

Article - Conference proceedings

File Type

text

Language

English

Share

COinS
 
May 24th, 12:00 AM May 29th, 12:00 AM

CPT-Based Comparative Mapping of Liquefaction Hazard for Large Areas

San Diego, California

Liquefaction hazard mapping provides a useful tool for risk mitigation planning in seismic areas. Mapping for large areas is usually pursued by applying simplified criteria which rely on geological/lithological data and/or index properties of investigated soils, and in which local seismicity is not adequately considered (grade-1 methods). When a large number of in situ-tests and a reliable seismic hazard analysis are available, liquefaction hazard can be investigated by applying in-situ test-based methods accounting for seismic loading and the susceptibility of in-situ soil volumes (grade-2 methods). Advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering currently allow both deterministic and probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential by such methods. Liquefaction hazard can be parameterized concisely by a liquefaction potential index which expresses the liquefaction potential of investigated soil profiles. This paper provides a comparative case-study of liquefaction hazard mapping for a large coastal area in Central Italy, for which data from 1325 CPT soundings, covering an area of about 1300 km2, are available. Two types of areal maps are produced. In the first type, zonation occurs solely through spatial interpolation of liquefaction potential index values. In the second case, zonation is performed on the basis of lithological, geological and seismic information. Hazard parameters are associated to each lithological-geological unit on the basis of statistical analyses yielding empirical cumulative distribution functions of the liquefaction potential index. Here, the two approaches to hazard mapping are implemented in the study area; their results are assessed and compared.