Earthquake Damages

  • Junbo Jia


Earthquakes can lead to various types of damages, including foundation damage, structural damage, non-structural component damage, and contents and furniture damage.


Ground Motion Strong Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Cone Penetration Test Liquefaction Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bachmann H (2003) Seismic conceptual design of buildings—basic principles for engineers, architects, building owners, and authorities. Swiss Federal Office for Water and Geology and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, BWG, BernGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Visser RC (1997) Seismic considerations in design and assessment of platform topside facilities. SPE western regional meeting, Long Beach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen WF, Lui EM (2006) Earthquake engineering for structural design, 1st edn. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bai Y, Bai Q (2005) Subsea pipelines and risers, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Groot MB, Bolton MD, Foray P, Meijers P, Palmer AC, Sandven R, Sawicki A, Teh TC (2006) Physics of liquefaction phenomena around marine structures. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 132(4):227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sumer BM (2014) Liquefaction around marine structures. World Scientific Press, London, p 472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jefferies M, Been K (2015) Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishihara K, Yasuda S, Nagase H (1996) Soil characteristics and ground damage, special issue of soils and foundations on Kobe earthquake. Jpn Geotech Soc 109–118Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuwabara F, Yoshumi Y (1973) Effect of subsurface liquefaction on strength of surface soil. ASCE JGE 19(2)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356/Nov 2000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jia J (2016) Soil dynamics and foundation modeling: offshore and earthquake engineering. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM 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 ASCE 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harder Jr LF, Seed HB (1986) Determination of penetration resistance for coarse-grained soils using the becker hammer drill. Report No. UCB/EERC-86-06, NTIS PB87 124210, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, May 1986Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sy A, Campanella RG (1994) Becker and standard penetration tests (BPT-SPT) correlations with consideration of casing friction. Can Geotech J 31(3):343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghafghazi M, Thururaijah A, DeJong JT, Wilson DW, Armstrong R (2014) Instrumented Becker penetration test for improved characterization of gravelly deposits. In: Proceedings of GeoCongress 2014, American society of civil engineers geotechnical special publication No. 234, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 37–46Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    NCEER (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils, 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seed HB (1987) Design problems in soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 112(8):827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seed HB (1968) The fourth Terzaghi Lecture: Landslides during earthquake due to liquefaction. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 94(5):1053–1122Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 92(6):105–134Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitchell JK (1995) Harry Bolton Seed 1922–1989, A Biographical Memoir, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1995Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1967) Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 93(3):83–108Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seed HB, Arango I, Idriss IM (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 109(3):458–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turner AK, Shuster RL (1996) Landslides: investigation and mitigation, transport research board, rep no. 247Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Keefer DK (1984) Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geol Soc Am Bull 95:406–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Westen J, Terlien MTJ (2007) Seismic landslide hazard zonation.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Wilson RC, Keefer DK (1985) Predicting aerial limits of earthquake-induced landsliding. In: Ziony JI (ed) Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region: an earth-science perspective. USGS professional paper 1360, pp 316–345Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harp EL, Wilson RC (1995) Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides: evidence from the 1987 Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earthquake strong motion records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(6):1739–1757Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lloyd ARJM (1998) Seakeeping: ship behavior in rough weather. ARJM Lloyd, Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Ghobarah A (2004) On drift limits associated with different damage levels. Performance-based seismic design: concepts and implementation. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds) Proceedings: international workshop, Bled, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, paper no. 2831Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams MS, Sexsmith RG (1995) Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: a state-of-the-art review. Earthq Spectra 11(2):319–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sucuoğlu H, Yücemen S, Gezer A, Erberik A (1998) Statistical evaluation of the damage potential of earthquake ground motions. Struct Saf 20(4):357–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mihai M (2013) A theoretical review of the damage indices used to model the dynamic nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete structures. Bull Polytech Inst IASI Constr Archit Sect 63(2):109–120Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Banon H, Veneziano D (1982) Seismic damage in reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn J 10:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Park YJ, Ang AHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 111(4):722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fajfar P, Vidic T (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn J 23(5):523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aker SolutionsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations