Natural Hazards

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 1069–1094 | Cite as

A peak acceleration threshold for soil liquefaction: lessons learned from the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy)

  • Filippo Santucci de Magistris
  • Giovanni Lanzano
  • Giovanni Forte
  • Giovanni Fabbrocino
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

National and international seismic codes and recommendations provide criteria for liquefaction exclusion based on a peak ground acceleration (PGA) threshold value. In this paper, after a brief review of the procedures and the values suggested in those documents, a database of liquefaction case histories was created, exploiting the background data used in the most relevant verification charts, currently employed in research and professional practice. This dataset was used to identify, on the basis of simple statistical analyses, a PGA threshold on the free ground surface below which liquefaction is unlikely to occur, regardless of the geological site conditions. The calculated value, which is on the order of 0.07–0.1 g, based on the model employed to fit the data, was analyzed in light of information collected during the 2012 Emilia seismic sequence in Italy, which produced many liquefaction events triggered by low acceleration values. The case history of the Emilia earthquake advises setting a PGA threshold for code and recommendations at the lower probability level of occurrence, in the order of 1 %.

Keywords

Liquefaction Seismic design code Peak ground acceleration Acceleration threshold Emilia earthquake (Italy) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abu Zeid N, Bignardi S, Caputo R, Santarato G, Stefani M (2012) Electrical resistivity tomography of coseismic liquefaction and fracturing at San Carlo, Ferrara province. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:713–716Google Scholar
  2. Adalier K, Elgamal A (2005) Liquefaction of over-consolidated sand: a centrifuge investigation. J Earthq Eng 9(SI1):127–150Google Scholar
  3. Amorosi A, Pavesi M, Ricci Lucchi M, Sarti G, Piccin A (2008) Climatic signature of cyclic fluvial architecture from quaternary of the central Po Plain, Italy. Sediment Geol 209:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenvir Eng ASCE 126–11:1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II, Chung RM (1999) Draft guidelines for evaluating liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures. NISTIR 6277, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. Arulanandan K, Anandaraj A, Abdhari A (1983) Centrifuge modelling of soil liquefaction susceptibility. J Geotech Geoenvir Eng ASCE 109–3:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bindi D, Pacor F, Luzi L, Puglia R, Massa M, Ameri G, Paolucci R (2011) Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 9–6:1899–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulanger RW, Wilson DW, Idriss IM (2012) Examination and reevaluation of SPT-based liquefaction triggering case histories. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 138–8:898–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bozzoni F, Lai CG, Scandella L (2012) Preliminary results of ground-motion characteristics. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:609–614Google Scholar
  11. Campedel M, Cozzani V, Garcia-Agreda A, Salzano E (2008) Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Anal 28(5):1231–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caputo R, Iordanidou K, Minarelli L, Papathanassiou G, Poli ME, Rapti-Caputo D, Sboras S, Stefani M, Zanferrari A (2012) Geological evidence of pre-2012 seismic events, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:743–749Google Scholar
  13. Carr K, Berrill J (2004) Liquefaction case histories from the West Coast of the South Island, New Zealand. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1–6, Paper No. 1325Google Scholar
  14. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder L, Kayen R, Moss R (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130–12:1314–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. C.G.S. (2004) Recommended criteria for delineating seismic hazard zones in California. Special Publication 118, California Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  16. C.G.S. (2008) Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California. Special Publication 117A, California Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1):23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christian JT, Swiger WF (1975) Statistics of liquefaction and SPT results. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 101–11:1135–1150Google Scholar
  19. Cibin U, Segadelli S (2009) Note illustrative della Carta Geologica d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000, foglio 203 Poggio Renatico. ISPRA (in Italian)Google Scholar
  20. Cramer CH, Rix GJ, Tucker K (2008) Probabilistic liquefaction hazard maps for Memphis, Tennessee. Seismol Res Lett 79:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dobry R, Yokel FY, Ladd RS (1981) Liquefaction potential of overconsolidated sands in areas with moderate seismicity. Proc Conf Earthq Eng East US, Knoxville, pp 643–664Google Scholar
  22. Emergeo Working Group: Alessio, G, Alfonsi L, Brunori CA, Burrato P, Casula G, Cinti FR, Civico R, Colini L, Cucci L, De Martini PM, Falcucci E, Galadini F, Gaudiosi G, Gori S, Mariucci MT, Montone P, Moro M, Nappi R, Nardi A, Nave R, Pantosti D, Patera A, Pesci A, Pignone M, Pinzi S, Pucci S, Vannoli P, Venuti A, Villani F (2012) A photographic dataset of the coseismic geological effects induced on the environment by the 2012 Emilia (northern Italy) earthquake sequence. Miscellanea INGV, 16, ISSN 2039-6651Google Scholar
  23. Emergeo Working Group: Alessio G, Alfonsi L, Brunori CA, Burrato P, Casula G, Cinti FR, Civico R, Colini L, Cucci L, De Martini PM, Falcucci E, Galadini F, Gaudiosi G, Gori S, Mariucci MT, Montone P, Moro M, Nappi R, Nardi A, Nave R, Pantosti D, Patera A, Pesci A, Pezzo G, Pignone M, Pinzi S, Pucci S, Salvi S, Tolomei C, Vannoli P, Venuti A, Villani F (2013) Liquefaction phenomena associated with the Emilia earthquake sequence of May–June 2012 (Northern Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:935–947. doi: 10.5194/nhess-13-935-2013
  24. Engdahl ER, Villasenor A (2002) Global seismicity: 1900–1999. International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, Vol. 81A, International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Committee on Education, 665–690Google Scholar
  25. Eurocode 8 (2004) EN 1998-5, design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  26. Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E (2005) Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Haz Mat 23:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Fioravante V, Giretti D, Abate G, Aversa S, Boldini D, Capilleri P, Cavallaro A, Chamlagain D, Crespellani T, Dezi F, Facciorusso J, Ghinelli A, Grasso S, Lanzo G, Madiai C, Massimino MR, Maugeri M, Pagliaroli A, Rainieri C, Tropeano G, Santucci de Magistris F, Sica S, Silvestri F, Vannucchi G (2013) Earthquake geotechnical engineering aspects of the 2012 Emilia-Romagna earthquake (Italy). Proc. Seventh International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering and Symposium in Honor of Clyde BakerGoogle Scholar
  29. Forbes C, Evans M, Hastings N, Peacock B (2011) Statistical distributions, 4th edn. Wiley, New York, p 230Google Scholar
  30. Galli P, Castenetto S, Peronace E (2012) The MCS macroseismic survey of the Emilia 2012 earthquakes. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:663–672Google Scholar
  31. Gruppo di lavoro MS (2008) Indirizzi e criteri per la microzonazione sismica. Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province autonome—Dipartimento della protezione civile, Roma, 3 vol. e Dvd. (in Italian)Google Scholar
  32. Gruppo di Lavoro Agibilità Sismica dei Capannoni Industriali (2012) Linee di indirizzo per interventi locali e globali su edifici industriali monopiano non progettati con criteri antisismici. (in Italian)Google Scholar
  33. Gruppo di Lavoro dell’AGI per gli Edifici Industriali (2013) Linee di indirizzo per interventi su edifici industriali monopiano colpiti dal terremoto della pianura padana emiliana del maggio 2012 non progettati con criteri antisismici: aspetti geotecnici.(in Italian)Google Scholar
  34. Heaton TH, Tajima F, Mori AW (1986) Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms. Surv Geophys 8:25–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heidari T, Andrus RD (2012) Liquefaction potential assessment of pleistocene beach sands near Charleston, South Carolina. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(10):1196–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang Y, Yu M (2013) Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes of the twenty-first century. Nat Hazards 65:2375–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Idriss IM (1999) An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. Proc. TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Publication No. FHWARD-99-165, Fed. Highway Adm.Google Scholar
  38. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report UCD/CGM-10/02, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 350Google Scholar
  40. Ishihara K, Shimizu K, Yamada Y (1981) Pore water pressures measured in sand deposits during an earthquake. Soils Found 21–4:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 71:2011–2038Google Scholar
  42. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 653Google Scholar
  43. Krausmann E, Cozzani V, Salzano E, Renni E (2011) Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: an emerging risk issue. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 11:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuribayashi E, Tatsuoka F (1975) Brief review of liquefaction during earthquakes in Japan. Soils Found 15–4:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2013) Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 117:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2014) Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines. J Loss Preven Proc Ind 28:72–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lin K-W, Wald DJ, Worden B, Shakal AF (2005) Quantifying CISN Shakemap Uncertainty. SMIP05 Seminar Proceedings, 37–50. (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/smip/docs/seminar/smip05/Pages/paper3_lin.aspx)
  48. Martelli L (2012) Liquefaction effects observed in occasion of the 2012 May 20 earthquake in the Emila plane. Seventh European congress on Regional Geoscientific cartography and Information systems EUREGEO, Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin GR, Lew M (1999) Recommended procedures for implementation of DMG. Special Publication 117: guidelines for analyzing and mitigating liquefaction hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  50. Michelini A, Faenza L, Lauciani V, Malagnini L (2008) Shakemap implementation in Italy. Seismol Res Lett 79:688–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Molinari FC, Pizziolo M (2009) Note illustrative della Carta Geologica d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000, foglio 203 San Giovanni in Persiceto. Servizio Geologico d’Italia, ISPRAGoogle Scholar
  52. Monaco P, Santucci de Magistris F, Grasso S, Marchetti S, Maugeri M, Totani G (2011) Analysis of the liquefaction phenomena in the village of Vittorito (L’Aquila). Bull Earthq Eng 9:231–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moss RES, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Stewart JP, Der Kiureghian A, Cetin KO (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(8):1032–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. NIST/SEMATECH (2012) e-Handbook of statistical methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/
  55. N.R.C. (1985) Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council (U.S.)Google Scholar
  56. N.T.C. (2008) Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni (Italian Building Code). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008—Suppl. Ordinario n. 30, 2008 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  57. Panico A, Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2013) Seismic vulnerability of wastewater treatment plants. Chem Eng Trans 32:13–18. doi: 10.3303/CET1332003 Google Scholar
  58. Papathanassiou G, Caputo R, Rapti-Caputo D (2012) Liquefaction phenomena along the paleo-Reno River caused by May 20, 2012 Emilia (Northern Italy) earthquake. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:735–742Google Scholar
  59. Quigley MC, Bastin S, Bradley BA (2013) Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Geology 41:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Regione Emilia-Romagna (1998) ENI-AGIP, Riserve idriche sotterranee della Regione Emilia-Romagna. S.EL.CA., Firenze (in Italian)Google Scholar
  61. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35–3:442–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salzano E, Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G (2003) Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the frame work of quantitative risk analysis. J Loss Preven Proc 16:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santucci de Magistris F (2005) Liquefaction. Geotechnical aspects of the design in seismic areas—Italian Geotechnical Association (AGI), Patron (Eds.) pp. 99–108 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  64. Santucci de Magistris F (2006) Liquefaction: a contribution to the Eurocode from the Italian Guideline, Geotechnical Aspects of the Design in Seismic Areas. ISSMGE ETC-12 workshop, NTUA Athens, Greece, 2006. (http://users.civil.ntua.gr/gbouck/gr/etc12/papers/paper8.pdf)
  65. Santucci de Magistris F (2011) Beyond EC8: the New Italian Seismic Code. Geofizika 28:65–82 (http://geofizika-journal.gfz.hr/vol_28/No1/28_1_santucci.pdf)
  66. Santucci de Magistris F, Lanzano G, Forte G, Fabbrocino G (2013) A database for PGA threshold in liquefaction occurrence. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 54:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scognamiglio L, Margheriti L, Mele FM, Tinti E, Bono A, De Gori P, Lauciani V, Lucente FP, Mandiello AG, Marcocci C, Mazza S, Pintore S, Quintiliani M (2012) The 2012 Pianura Padana Emiliana seismic sequence: locations, moment tensors and magnitudes. Ann Geophys Italy 55–4:549–559Google Scholar
  68. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273Google Scholar
  69. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF Jr., Chung R (1984) The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Earthquake Eng. Research Center Rep. No. UCB/EERC-84/15, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  70. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF Jr, Chung R (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 111–12:1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer series in Geomech Geoeng, ISSN 1866-8755 ISBN 3540357831, 9783540357834, pp. 704Google Scholar
  72. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study of the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626Google Scholar
  73. Vannucchi G, Crespellani T, Facciorusso J, Ghinelli A, Madiai C, Puliti A, Renzi S (2012) Soil liquefaction phenomena observed in recent seismic events in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy. IngegneriaSismica 29-2-3Google Scholar
  74. Vucetic M (1994) Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 120–12:2208–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wald DJ, Worden CB, Quitoriano V, Pankow KL (2006) ShakeMap® Manual. Technical manual, users guide, and software guide. Advanced national seismic system. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/12A01/pdf/508TM12-A1.pdf
  76. Wald D, Lin K-W, Porter K, Turner L (2008) ShakeCast: automating and improving the use of shakemap for post-earthquake decision-making and response. Earthq Spectra 24–2:533–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Worden CB, Wald DJ, Allen TI, Lin K-W, Cua G (2010) Integration of macroseismic and strong-motion earthquake data in ShakeMap for real-time and historic earthquake analysis. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/)
  78. Yasuda S, MorimotoI, Kiku H, Tanaka T (2004) Reconnaissance report on the damage caused by three Japanese earthquakes in 2003. Proc. of the 11th ICSDEE and 3rd ICEGE, Doolin, D. et al. Ed., Berkeley, CA, USA, 1, 14–21Google Scholar
  79. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, ArangoI Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):817–833Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Santucci de Magistris
    • 1
  • Giovanni Lanzano
    • 1
  • Giovanni Forte
    • 1
  • Giovanni Fabbrocino
    • 1
  1. 1.Structural and Geotechnical Dynamics Lab. StreGa, DiBT DepartmentUniversity of MoliseTermoliItaly

Personalised recommendations