Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing limitations in existing ‘simplified’ liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field

  • S.I. : Induced Seismicity and Its Effects on Built Environment
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Groningen gas field is one of the largest in the world and has produced over 2000 billion m3 of natural gas since the start of production in 1963. The first earthquakes linked to gas production in the Groningen field occurred in 1991, with the largest event to date being a local magnitude (ML) 3.6. As a result, the field operator is leading an effort to quantify the seismic hazard and risk resulting from the gas production operations, including the assessment of liquefaction hazard. However, due to the unique characteristics of both the seismic hazard and the geological subsurface, particularly the unconsolidated sediments, direct application of existing liquefaction evaluation procedures is deemed inappropriate in Groningen. Specifically, the depth-stress reduction factor (rd) and the magnitude scaling factor relationships inherent to existing variants of the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure are considered unsuitable for use. Accordingly, efforts have first focused on developing a framework for evaluating the liquefaction potential of the region for moment magnitudes (M) ranging from 3.5 to 7.0. The limitations of existing liquefaction procedures for use in Groningen and the path being followed to overcome these shortcomings are presented in detail herein.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bird JF, Bommer JJ (2004) Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Eng Geol 75(2):147–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, van Elk J (2017) Comment on ‘The maximum possible and the maximum expected earthquake magnitude for production-induced earthquakes at the gas field in Groningen, the Netherlands’ by Gert Zöller and Matthias Holschneider. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(3):1564–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Dost B, Edwards B, Stafford PJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D, Ntinalexis M (2016) Developing an application-specific ground-motion model for induced seismicity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(1):158–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Edwards B, Dost B, van Dedem E, Rodriguez-Marek A, Kruiver P, van Elk J, Doornhof D, Ntinalexis M (2017) Framework for a ground-motion model for induced seismic hazard and risk analysis in the Groningen gas field, the Netherlands. Earthq Spectra 33(2):481–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2009) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3202–3216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA

  • Bourne SJ, Oates SJ (2017) Extreme threshold failures within a heterogeneous elastic thin-sheet account for the spatial-temporal development of induced seismicity within the Groningen gas field. Solid Earth, J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014356

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Dost B, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2015) A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional gas production. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:1721–1738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley BA (2011) Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures and its use in ground motion selection. J Earthq Eng 15:809–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter WL, Green RA, Bradley BA, Wotherspoon LM, Cubrinovski M (2016) Spatial variation of magnitude scaling factors during the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO (2000) Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil liquefaction initiation hazard. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

  • Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1314–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli MB, Stokoe II KH (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Geotechnical Engineering Report GD01-1, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

  • Green RA, Bommer JJ (2018) What is the smallest earthquake magnitude that can trigger liquefaction? Earthquake Spectra (in review)

  • Green RA, Terri GA (2005) Number of equivalent cycles concept for liquefaction evaluations: revisited. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):477–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RA, Mitchell JK, Polito CP (2000) An energy-based excess pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils. In: Smith DW, Carter JP (eds) Proceedings of the John Booker memorial symposium—developments in theoretical geomechanics. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 383–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Green RA, Lee J, White TM, Baker JW (2008) The significance of near-fault effects on liquefaction. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper no. S26-019

  • Green RA, Cubrinovski M, Cox B, Wood C, Wotherspoon L, Bradley B, Maurer B (2014) Select liquefaction case histories from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30:131–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RA, Maurer BW, van Ballegooy S (2018) The influence of the non-liquefied crust on the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations: case history from the 2016 Valentine’s Day earthquake in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics V (GEESD V), Austin, TX, 10–13 June

  • Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2005) The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:637–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM (1999) An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. In: Proceedings, TRB workshop on new approaches to liquefaction, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99- 165, Federal Highway Administration

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261

  • Ishihara K (1985) Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, CA, vol 1, 321–376

  • Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on microzonation, Nov 26–Dec 1, San Francisco, CA, USA

  • Kayen R, Moss RES, Thompson EM, Seed RB, Cetin KO, Der Kiureghian A, Tanaka Y, Tokimatsu K (2013) Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(3):407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokusho T, Kaneko Y (2014) Dissipated and strain energies in undrained cyclic loading tests for liquefaction potential evaluations. In: Proceedings of tenth US National conference on earthquake engineering, July 21–25, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska. https://doi.org/10.4231/d3dr2p89d

  • Korff M, Wiersma A, Meijers P, Kloosterman F, de Lange G, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) Liquefaction mapping for induced seismicity based on geological and geotechnical features. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical engineering (PBDIII), Vancouver, Canada, 16–19 July, 2017

  • Kruiver PP, Wiersma A, Kloosterman FH, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Busscher F, Harting R, Gunnink JL, Green RA, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017a) Characterisation of the Groningen subsurface for seismic hazard and risk modelling. Neth J Geosci 96(5):s215–s233

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruiver PP, van Dedem E, Romijn R, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Gunnink JL, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer JJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017b) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Bull Earthq Eng 5:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0105-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasley S, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A (2014) Comparison of equivalent-linear site response analysis software. In: Proceedings of 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (10NCEE), Anchorage, AK, 21–25 July

  • Lasley S, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A (2016) A new stress reduction coefficient relationship for liquefaction triggering analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(11):06016013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasley S, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A (2017) Number of equivalent stress cycles for liquefaction evaluations in active tectonic and stable continental regimes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(4):04016116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Catalogue of liquefaction and non-liquefaction occurrences during earthquakes. Research Report Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

  • Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. EF Spon/Blackie Academic, Routledge Publishers, London, UK, 312

  • Maurer BW, Green RA, Taylor O-DS (2015a) Moving towards an improved index for assessing liquefaction hazard: lessons from historical data. Soils Found 55(4):778–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer BW, Green RA, Cubrinovski M, Bradley BA (2015b) Calibrating the liquefaction severity number (LSN) for competing liquefaction evaluation procedures: a case study in Christchurch, New Zealand. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering (6ICEGE), Christchurch, New Zealand, 2–4 November

  • Maurer BW, Green RA, Cubrinovski M, Bradley BA (2015c) Fines-content effects on liquefaction hazard evaluation for infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 76:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 132(8):1032–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Aktinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modelling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2016) State of the art and practice in the assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and consequences. Committee on earthquake induced soil liquefaction assessment, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  • NPR 9998 (2017) Assessment of structural safety of buildings in case of erection, reconstruction and disapproval: basis rules for seismic actions: induced earthquakes. NEN, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Polito CP, Green RA, Lee J (2008) Pore pressure generation models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(10):1490–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polito C, Green RA, Dillon E, Sohn C (2013) The effect of load shape on the relationship between dissipated energy and residual excess pore pressure generation in cyclic triaxial tests. Can Geotech J 50(9):1118–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemer MF, Gookin WB, Bray JD, Arango I (1994) Effects of loading frequency and control on the liquefaction behavior of clean sands. Geotechnical Engineering Report No. UCB/GT/94-07, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

  • Rodriguez-Marek A, Kruiver PP, Meijers P, Bommer JJ, Dost B, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) A regional site-response model for the Groningen gas field. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2067–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(SM9):1249–1273

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM, Makdisi F, Banerjee N (1975) Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent uniform stress series in liquefaction analysis. Report Number EERC 75-29, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

  • Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relationships to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford PJ, Zurek BD, Ntinalexis M, Bommer JJ (2018) Extensions to the Groningen ground-motion model for seismic risk calculations: component-to-component variability and spatial correlation. This volume

  • Ulmer KJ, Upadhyaya S, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A, Stafford PJ, Bommer JJ, van Elk J (2018) A critique of b-values used for computing magnitude scaling factors. In: Proceedings of geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics V (GEESD V), Austin, TX, 10–13 June

  • van Ballegooy S, Malan P, Lacrosse V, Jacka ME, Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, O’Rourke TD, Crawford SA, Cowan H (2014) Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch. Earthq Spectra 30(1):31–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Elk J, Doornhof D, Bommer JJ, Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2017) Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen. Neth J Geosci 96(5):s259–s269

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman RV (1971) Resistance of soil to liquefaction and settlement. Soils Found 11(4):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimi Y, Tokimatsu K, Kaneko O, Makihara Y (1984) Undrained cyclic shear strength of dense Niigata sand. Soils Found 24(4):131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL et al (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 127(4):297–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded by Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (NAM) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grants CMMI-1030564 and CMMI-1435494. This support is gratefully acknowledged. This study has also significantly benefited from enlightening discussions with colleagues at Shell, Deltares, Arup, Fugro, Beca, and on the NEN liquefaction task force. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments by the anonymous reviewers. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or NAM.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    R. A. Green & A. Rodriguez-Marek

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    J. J. Bommer & P. J. Stafford

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    B. W. Maurer

  4. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    B. Edwards

  5. Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands

    P. P. Kruiver & G. de Lange

  6. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V., Assen, The Netherlands

    J. van Elk

Authors
  1. R. A. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. J. Bommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Rodriguez-Marek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. W. Maurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. J. Stafford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. P. Kruiver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. de Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J. van Elk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. A. Green.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Green, R.A., Bommer, J.J., Rodriguez-Marek, A. et al. Addressing limitations in existing ‘simplified’ liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures: application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 4539–4557 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0489-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0489-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation