Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Assessment of liquefaction potential based on peak

ground motion parameters
Rolando P. Orense*
Chuo Kaihatsu Corporation, 3-13-5 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8612, Japan
Accepted 18 October 2004

Abstract
Conventionally, evaluation of liquefaction potential of loose saturated cohesionless deposits as specified in Japanese design codes employs
peak ground acceleration (PGA). However, recent large-scale earthquakes in Japan revealed that liquefaction at some sites did not occur even
though large PGAs were recorded at or near these sites. As an alternative approach, an evaluation procedure based on peak ground motion
parameters, i.e. incorporating both PGA and the peak ground velocity (PGV), is proposed. By performing parametric studies using one-
dimensional seismic response analysis and formulating regression models, seismic-induced shear stresses within the deposit are expressed in
terms of peak ground motion parameters at the surface, and these are used to calculate the factor of safety against liquefaction. Application to
case histories in Japan indicates that the proposed two-parameter equation can adequately account for the occurrence and non-occurrence of
liquefaction at various sites as compared to the conventional PGA-based approach. Moreover, analyses of several strong motion records at
various sites show that liquefaction may occur when PGAR150 gal and PGVR20 kine, indicating that these values can serve as thresholds
in assessing the possible occurrence of liquefaction.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquefaction; Earthquake; Acceleration; Velocity; Seismic response

1. Introduction approach, the cyclic strength ratio of soil, R, and the

During the last 40 years, liquefaction of loose saturated
sandy deposits associated with earthquake shaking has been
a major cause of damage to soil structures, building
foundations and lifeline facilities. Various researchers
have investigated soil liquefaction both in the laboratory
and in the field. The basic mechanism of liquefaction is the
progressive build-up of excess pore-water pressure due to
cyclic shear stresses. When the pore pressure builds up to a
point equal to the initial confining stress, soil loses its
strength and large deformation occurs. Zonation for
liquefaction, therefore, has been an important goal in recent
liquefaction-related studies.
As far as Japanese design practice is concerned, one of
the most commonly employed approaches in assessing
liquefaction potential is the Factor of Safety concept. In this
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C81 3 3208 3541; fax: C81 3 3232 3625.
E-mail address: orense@ckcnet.co.jp.
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.10.013
maximum or equivalent cyclic shear stress ratio likely to be
induced in the soil deposit during an earthquake, L, are
estimated and the liquefaction potential of the deposit is
expressed in terms of Factor of Safety against Liquefaction,
FL, which is given by
R
FL Z (1)
L
If FL!1.0, the shear stress induced by the earthquake
exceeds the liquefaction resistance of the soil and therefore,
liquefaction will occur. Otherwise, when FLR1.0, liquefac-
tion will not occur.
Fig. 1 shows a summary of the liquefaction potential
evaluation specified for highway bridges in Japan [1]. Note
that although cyclic strength ratio, R, is generally obtained
from cyclic undrained triaxial tests on undisturbed soil
samples, it can be estimated through correlations with SPT
N-value and other parameters, as shown in the figure. Other
226 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

Fig. 1. Guidelines for evaluating liquefaction potential for highway bridges (after Ref. [1]).

design codes in Japan [2–4] make use of similar empirical
formulas to estimate the cyclic strength of the target soil.
As for estimates of shear stress induced during seismic
loading, most design codes in Japan use an equation similar
to that initially proposed by Seed and Idriss [5]. In this
equation, the cyclic shear stress ratio developed at a
particular depth beneath a level ground surface is expressed
in terms of the design seismic coefficient as shown on the
right side of Fig. 1. The seismic coefficient is a function of
the design peak ground acceleration (PGA).
In some practical applications though, the extent of
liquefaction is assessed by using the observed peak ground
acceleration instead of the design acceleration. However,
the design acceleration, being typically about 15–20% of
the gravitational acceleration, is different from the observed
one. Moreover, since the onset of liquefaction depends on
the number of loading cycles, the design codes assume that
this level of acceleration is repeated in 15–20 cycles. In
contrast, the observed acceleration simply reveals the
maximum value and does not show anything about the
number of cycles.
With the advent of highly sensitive seismometers for use
in seismic monitoring networks in Japan, strong motion
records showing short duration impulse of high frequency
(called acceleration spikes) are not uncommon. When used
with conventional liquefaction evaluation procedure, these
large acceleration peaks would provide unusually high
intensities, and therefore, would overestimate the shear
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240
stresses induced in soil deposits. For example, PGAs as high
as 1000 gal (1 galZ1 cm/s2) have been observed during
recent earthquakes in Japan. When these high values of
observed peak ground acceleration are substituted into the
empirical design formula, the detection of liquefaction is
often incorrectly judged.
The empirical methods of estimating seismic-induced
shear stresses based on PGAs, which have been incorpor-
ated in various Japanese codes, have been extensively
validated using data mostly from the 1964 Niigata Earth-
quake and the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu Earthquake, both of
which were far-field earthquakes. However, since the
methods do not consider the frequency characteristics of
strong motion records, they do not work well on recent
large-scale earthquakes with near-field sources, which are
characterized by high-frequency components.
Because of these shortcomings, alternative methods of
estimating liquefaction potential based on other ground
motion indices have been introduced. For example,
Towhata et al. [6] employed the spectrum intensity (SI),
defined as the average value of the velocity response
spectrum with 20% damping over a range of natural period
from 0.1 to 2.5 s, as index for liquefaction detection. Kayen
and Mitchell [7] used the Arias Intensity, an energy-based
measure of earthquake shaking intensity, to assess liquefac-
tion potential.
Another commonly used ground motion index to indicate
the severity of earthquake shaking is the peak ground
velocity (PGV). Studies made by Midorikawa and Waka-
matsu [8] in sites of past liquefaction occurrence showed
that a PGV greater than 15 kine (1 kineZ1 cm/s) suggests
liquefaction in the subsoil, while there is no clear correlation
between liquefaction and maximum acceleration. More-
over, the close correspondence of the Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA) intensities and peak ground velocities [9]
shows that peak ground velocities are consistent with the
algorithm used by JMA in defining seismic intensities.
Another consideration in the choice of peak ground velocity
is that the kinetic energy available for inducing damage is
well-characterized by PGV. It has been mentioned that the
breakdown of soil structure that results in liquefaction is
fundamentally more dependent on input energy than on a
single level of acceleration [10].
As an alternative to the conventional approach of
estimating seismic-induced shear stresses based on a single
ground motion parameter, a method which combines both
PGA and PGV is proposed in this paper. With this two-
parameter approach, the proposed method can consider both
near-source ground motions (often dominated by short-
duration pulses and where PGV appears to be a robust
measure of intensity for strong shaking) and far-source
ground motions (where PGA is a good indicator, as proven
by the conventional procedure). These PGA and PGV-based
shear stresses are then used to estimate the liquefaction
potential of soil deposits. Application to various sites in
Japan indicates that the proposed method evaluates
227
the occurrence or non-occurrence of liquefaction fairly
well, as compared to the more popular PGA-based approach
specified in many Japanese codes.
Note that the discussion presented herein concentrates on
the estimation of seismic-induced shear stresses. Although
estimation of cyclic shear strength is important for liquefac-
tion potential evaluation, further research on this is
warranted and therefore is outside the scope of the present
research. Thus, the applicability of the proposed method may
be confined to the Japanese practice only, which strongly
relies on empirical equations to estimate cyclic strengths.
2. Conventional method of estimating maximum shear
stress during earthquakes
In the original Seed-Idriss [5] simplified procedure, a soil
column is considered as a rigid body. As the seismic loading
is excited at the base of the soil column, the shear wave
propagates to the ground surface. The shear stress generated
in the soil column can be calculated by the following
equation
amax
ðtmax Þr Z sv (2)
g
where (tmax)r is the maximum shear stress for rigid body, sv
is the total overburden pressure, amax is the peak horizontal
acceleration on the ground surface, and g is the acceleration
due to gravity.
In reality, however, soil behaves as a deformable body
instead of as a rigid one. Hence, the rigid body shear stress is
reduced with a correction factor to give the deformable body
shear stress (tmax)d. The correction factor is called the stress
reduction factor, rd, and measures the attenuation of peak
shear stress with depth due to the non-elastic behavior of
soil, i.e.
ðtmax Þd
rd Z (3)
ðtmax Þr
It was found that the parameter rd reduces from a value of
unity at the surface to typically between 0.3 and 0.7 at a soil
depth of about 30 m (w100 ft), as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, in
the simplified procedure, the maximum shear stress is
computed as
a
tmax Z rd sv max (4)
g
Several empirical expressions for the reduction factor, rd,
have been proposed by various researchers [11]. The
equation widely used in Japan is based on studies made
by Iwasaki et al. [12]. By performing parametric site
response analyses on alluvial deposits, they showed that the
stress reduction factor can be expressed in terms of depth, z,
as:
rd Z 1:0 K 0:015z (5)
228 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

elevations for Model 2 and 4 profiles, respectively. It can be

seen from the figures that as T0 increases, tmax also
increases. Such pattern appears to be more obvious at deeper
layers than at shallower ones. The values calculated using
the conventional procedure given by Eqs. (4) and (5) are
also shown by horizontal dashed lines in the figures. When
T0R2 s, the calculated maximum shear stress, tmax,
approaches the dashed line for each case. Apparently, the
maximum shear stress calculated by the conventional
method can be considered as the upper bound. Thus, for
input motions with predominant periods less than 2.0 s, the
conventional method overestimates the maximum shear
stress and, consequently, the shear stress ratio L. For near-
field earthquakes characterized by short period motions,
there is a possibility that liquefaction potential would
decrease even when the peak ground acceleration increases.

3. Induced shear stress based on wave propagation

theory
Fig. 2. Range of values of rd for different soil profiles (after Ref. [5]).
The shear stresses induced at any point in a level ground
during an earthquake are primarily due to the vertical
This expression has been adopted in several design codes
propagation of shear waves in the deposit. Based on the
in Japan [1,3,4]. Note that all the equations proposed for rd
theory of one-dimensional shear wave propagation through
give only the mean value from a range of possible values uniform elastic medium, the shear stress t induced at any
and that the range of rd values increases with depth, as point is given by
shown in Fig. 2.
As mentioned earlier, the conventional method given by vt v2 u v2 u
ZG 2 Zr 2 (6)
Eqs. (4) and (5) neglects the spectral characteristics of the vz vz vz
input motion. In order to show the effect of frequency
where G is the shear modulus, r is the mass density and u is
contents on the stress reduction factor, one-dimensional
the lateral displacement. With the boundary condition of
seismic response analyses were performed on Model 2 and 4
tZ0 at the ground surface, and considering harmonic
soil profiles (shown in Fig. 6) when subjected to six input
motion with natural circular frequency u, the distributions
motions of varying predominant periods, T0. The accelera-
_ and acceleration, u€ , can be
of displacement, u, velocity, u,
tion amplitude, 2E (i.e. at bedrock outcrop) was set at
written as
300 gal for both model grounds. The vertical distributions of
uz iut
rd for Model 2 and 4 soil profiles are illustrated in Fig. 3(a) uðz; tÞ Z A cos $e ; umax Z A;
and (b), respectively. Although there is scatter in the VS
distribution, it can be seen that at deeper locations, the value uz iut
_ tÞ Z iuA cos
uðz; $e ; vmax Z Au; (7)
of rd decreases as the predominant period of the input Vs
motion decreases.
uz iut
To illustrate further the effects of frequency contents of u€ ðz; tÞ Z Ku2 A cos $e ; amax Z Au2
input motion on the magnitude of induced shear stresses, Vs
seismic response analyses were performed on the same soil In thepabove
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi equations, the shear wave velocity is given by
profiles using 29 seismic motions recorded during past VS Z G=r, while umax, vmax, and amax refer to the
earthquakes, with predominant periods ranging from T0Z maximum displacement, velocity and acceleration,
0.22 to 5.85 s. Note that incident waves with T0O3 s at respectively.
bedrock are uncommon during actual earthquakes; how- Using Eq. (7), the shear stress t at any point z within the
ever, some low-frequency motions are incorporated in the homogenous soil deposit can be calculated as
analysis for comparison purposes. The input motions were ðz
V uz
applied as outcrop motion at the bedrock, with the tðz; tÞ Z rðzÞ€u ðz; tÞ dz Z Kamax r S $eiut sin (8)
0 u VS
amplitudes adjusted such that maximum surface accelera-
tion for each profile was constant at PGAZ200 gal. Figs. 4 Thus, considering jKeiutjZ1, the maximum shear stress,
and 5 show the maximum shear stresses at three different tmax, can be expressed as a function of the peak ground
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 229

(a) Reduction Factor, rd (b) Reduction Factor, rd

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
0 0
To=0.33 To=0.33
2 To=0.47 2 To=0.47
To=0.80 To=0.80
4 To=1.52 4 To=1.52
To=1.95 To=1.95
6 6
To=3.48 To=3.48
8 8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 10
Iwasaki et
al. (1978)
12 12

14 14

16 16
Iwasaki et
al. (1978)
18 18

20 20
Model 2 (2E=300 gal) Model 4 (2E=300 gal)

Fig. 3. Computed reduction factor corresponding to different T0 (in sec) for: (a) Model 2; (b) Model 4 profiles.

acceleration, PGA, mass density, r, shear wave velocity, VS,
natural circular frequency, u and depth, z, i.e.
tmax Z f ðPGA; r; VS ; u; zÞ
Next, the following equations are introduced: uZamax/
vmax for harmonic loading, as given in Eq. (7); overburden
pressure, svZrz; and fundamental period of the ground,
TgZ4H/VS, where H is the thickness of the deposit.
Moreover, some researchers [13] also contend that the
maximum shear stress is affected by the magnitude of
earthquake, M. Other factors, such as shear wave velocity
profile of the site and dynamic soil properties, may have
profound effect on this value. Nevertheless, for practical
purposes, Eq. (9) can be re-written as
tmax Z f ðPGA; sv ; Tg ; PGA=PGV; M; zÞ
Eq. (10) can serve as basis in defining the appropriate
equation for the maximum shear stress induced by earth-
quake shaking within a deposit.
4. Estimation of maximum shear stress
The procedure proposed herein makes use of Eq. (10),
which considers only essential parameters readily obtain-
able at the site before and during earthquake shaking. For
this purpose, several series of one-dimensional seismic
response analyses were performed using the computer
program SHAKE [14]. In the analyses, the ground models
shown in Fig. 6 are employed. These five profiles, which
represent actual sites in the Kanto region (Japan), have
natural periods ranging from TgZ0.32 to 1.80 s. The shear
wave velocities indicated in the figure were obtained by PS
logging. Engineering bedrock is taken as the layer with
shear wave velocity VSO400 m/s, as usually employed in
Japanese practice. The dynamic characteristics of each layer
(9) in the soil profile (i.e. strain-dependency of modulus and
damping) were obtained from laboratory tests or, when not
available, were estimated from relations recommended by
various researchers [15,16].
Five strong motion records, with predominant periods
ranging from T0Z0.35 to 1.95 s were used as input motion
at the bedrock. These include (1) Todai Seiken CO40NS
motion observed during the 1987 Chibaken-toho oki
Earthquake (T0Z0.35 s); (2) JMA Kobe NS motion
recorded during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake
(T0Z0.73 s); (3) MYGH01 EW motion monitored by Kik-
Net during the 2001 Iwateken-Nambu Earthquake (T0Z
(10) 1.11 s); (4) KNK GL-100 m NS motion obtained during the
1995 Hyogoken Nambu Earthquake (T0Z1.52 s); and (5)
modified Itajima Bridge motion registered during the 1968
Hyuganada Earthquake (T0Z1.95 s). The time histories of
these acceleration records are shown in Fig. 7 while the
corresponding Fourier spectra are illustrated in Fig. 8. Both
low-pass and high-pass filters were used in the analysis, and
only the components of motion between 0.1 and 20 Hz were
considered.
In performing seismic response analyses, five intensities
of bedrock outcrop input motion were used, i.e. 2EZ100,
150, 200, 250 and 300 gal. Moreover, five levels of
magnitudes were considered, i.e. MZ5.0, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5,
and 8.0. These earthquake magnitudes were incorporated in
the seismic response analysis through the ratio of the
equivalent uniform shear strain and the maximum shear
strain. In SHAKE implementation, the shear strain ratio is
estimated as (MK1)/10, as suggested in the AIJ Code [2].
Thus, considering five model grounds, five acceleration
records, five intensities of input motion, and five levels of
230 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

35 35
GL-6.5m GL-6.5m
30 30
τmax (kPa)

τmax (kPa)
25 25

20 20
Based on Eqs. (4) and (5) Based on Eqs. (4) and (5)

15 Model 2 15 Model 2
(PGA=200gal) (PGA=200gal)

10 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

50 50
GL-10.5m GL-10.5m
40 40

τmax (kPa)
τmax (kPa)

30 30 Based on Eqs. (4) and (5)

Based on Eqs. (4) and (5)

20 20
Model 2 Model 2
(PGA=200gal) (PGA=200gal)
10 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

70 70
GL-14.5m Model 2 GL-14.5m Model2
60 (PGA=200gal) 60 (PGA=200gal)
τmax (kPa)

τmax (kPa)

50 50

40 40
Based on Eqs. (4) and (5)
Based on Eqs. (4) and (5)
30 30

20 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

Fig. 4. Relations between tmax and T0 at different depths for PGAZ200 gal Fig. 5. Relations between tmax and T0 at different depths for PGAZ200 gal
(Model 2). (Model 4).

earthquake magnitude, a total of 625 cases were analyzed. given by the following equation
For each case, the maximum shear stresses developed at
PGA
selected points within the profiles were considered. Shear tmax Z rd* sv (11)
g
stresses that develop only on the upper 20 m of each profile
were analyzed because most Japanese design codes limit the where g is the acceleration due to gravity (Z980 gal) and
evaluation of liquefaction potential to within 20 m from the the modified stress reduction coefficient, rd* is given by:
ground surface. In addition, peak ground acceleration and  
PGA
peak ground velocity for each case were calculated. The *
lnðrd Þ Z 0:01034 C 0:00321 z (12)
velocity was computed by integrating the acceleration-time PGV
history with components of periods longer than 10 s with a correlation coefficient rZ0.90. In the above
removed in order to avoid baseline error. equations, PGA is in gal (cm/s2), PGV is in kine (cm/s), z
After performing parametric studies, multiple regression in m, while sv and tmax are in kPa. Note that Eq. (11) is
analyses were conducted to determine the best expression similar in form to that of Eq. (4). Consequently, rd* is also
for the maximum shear stress, tmax, at any point within the dimensionless, similar to the reduction factor in the
profile. In addition to those specified in Eq. (10), the conventional method (Eq. (5)).
predominant period of input motion, T0, was included as an Regression analyses showed that earthquake magnitude
independent parameter in the regression model. Based on does not have much effect on the maximum shear stress.
regression analysis, the best correlation achieved is that This is because seismic-induced shear stress obtained by
R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 231

Fig. 6. Ground models used in the analysis.

Fig. 7. Strong motion records used in the analysis.

232 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

Fig. 8. Fourier spectra of strong motion records (Parzen WindowZ0.8 Hz).

SHAKE is not highly sensitive to the effective strain used in
the analysis. This is the reason why a strain ratio between
0.55 and 0.65 is usually adequate in most analyses, with the
higher value appropriate for giving more uniform strain
histories.
It is worthy to mention that Eq. (12) was obtained for a
wide range of predominant periods of strong motion, T0, and
ground profiles, Tg. However, no pattern was observed
which would indicate that either or both T0 and Tg should
appear in the regression model.
For comparison purposes, shear stresses estimated using
peak ground motions (Eqs. (11) and (12)) and those based
on conventional method (Eqs. (4) and (5)) are plotted with
respect to the shear stresses computed by the program
SHAKE. The plots are shown in Fig. 9. Note that for tmax
estimated using the proposed method (Fig. 9a), almost all

(a) 200 (b) 200

Proposed Method Conventional Method

160 160
τmax (SHAKE)

τmax (SHAKE)

120 120

80 80

40 40
N=12125 N=12125
R2 =0.932 R2 = 0.706
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
τmax (Estimated) τmax (Estimated)

Fig. 9. Comparison between computed (SHAKE) and estimated shear stresses based on: (a) proposed method; (b) conventional method.
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 233

the data points lie within G30% of the computed values, Shear Stress (kPa)
whereas based on conventional approach (Fig. 9b), the 0 20 40 60 80 100
estimated values obtained are much larger than the 0
computed ones, with more data scattering and thus leading PGV:
to lesser value of regression coefficient. Such overestima-
tion in shear stress when using the conventional method is 15 kine
4
consistent with that observed in Figs. 4 and 5.
20 kine
To illustrate the concept of the modified stress reduction
factor, vertical distributions of rd* with respect to various 30 kine
ratios of PGA/PGV are shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that 8
rd* takes a value of 1.0 at the ground surface and decreases

Depth (m)
60 kine
with depth, with the attenuation rate decreasing as the PGA/
PGV value decreases. Apparently, the reduction factor Conventional
given by the conventional method (Eq. (5)) is the upper 12
bound.
The effect of PGV on the distribution of tmax is next
considered. For this purpose, a uniform level ground with
mass density rZ2.0 g/cm3 is employed, with the PGA 16
assumed to be constant at 300 gal. The distribution of tmax
with depth is shown in Fig. 11 for various values of PGV,
ranging from 15 to 60 kine. Compared to the conventional 20
method, it can be seen that although PGA is constant, the
stress distribution changes with PGV, with lower shear Fig. 11. Example calculation showing the effect of PGV on the vertical
stresses associated with smaller values of PGV. Again, distribution of maximum shear stress.

PGA-based conventional method appears to be the upper

earthquakes, and PGV, which is a good indicator for
bound. This indicates the advantage of using two ground
near-source strong motions. A comparison of the effect of
motion parameters to estimate the shear stress distribution, frequency contents on the estimated tmax using both
as compared to single-parameter method. conventional and proposed methods is shown in Fig. 12.
As mentioned earlier, the proposed method effectively The data employed are similar to those used in Figs. 4 and 5.
combines PGA which is an effective measure for far-field However, the ordinate is expressed in terms of ratio between
the shear stress calculated by SHAKE and the estimated
r d* shear stress using either the conventional or the proposed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 method. It can be observed that the proposed method gives
0
stress ratios closer to 1.0 at various elevations than the
PGA/PGV: conventional method, especially in the range of period T0%
2.0 s, which is the case for most earthquakes. This indicates
=20 that the proposed method appears to give better estimates of
4
seismic-induced shear stresses than the conventional
=15 method.

=10
8
Depth (m)

=5 5. Liquefaction potential assessment

Conventional The obtained relation between maximum shear stress at

12
any given point and peak ground motion parameters can
then be used to evaluate the cyclic shear stress ratio, L, at a
specified depth, i.e.
16 tmax * PGA sv
LZ 0 Z rd (13)
sv g sv0
When the cyclic strength, R, of the deposit is known (from
undrained triaxial tests or from Fig. 1), Eq. (13) can then be
20
substituted into Eq. (1) in order to calculate the Factor of
Fig. 10. Vertical distribution of stress reduction factor rd* . Safety against Liquefaction, FL.
234 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

(a) 2.0 (b) 2.0

GL-6.5m Model 2 GL-6.5m Model 4

τmax(Estimated)

τmax(Estimated)
(PGA=200gal) (PGA=200gal)
τmax(SHAKE)

τmax(SHAKE)
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 Conventional 0.5 Conventional

Proposed Proposed
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2.0 2.0
GL-10.5m Model 2 GL-10.5m Model 4
τmax(Estimated)

τmax(Estimated)
(PGA=200gal) (PGA=200gal)
τmax(SHAKE)

τmax(SHAKE)
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 Conventional 0.5 Conventional

Proposed Proposed
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2.0 2.0
GL-14.5m Model 2 GL-14.5m Model 4
τmax(Estimated)

τmax(Estimated)
(PGA=200gal) (PGA=200gal)
τmax(SHAKE)

τmax(SHAKE)
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 Conventional 0.5 Conventional

Proposed Proposed
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

Fig. 12. Relations between ratio of computed (SHAKE) and estimated stresses and T0 at different depths for PGAZ200 gal: (a) Model 2; (b) Model 4.

5.1. Application to case histories
To confirm its validity, an evaluation of the liquefaction
potential is performed on 44 sites during 12 earthquakes
which shook Japan on or before 2000 and where the
occurrence or non-occurrence of soil liquefaction had been
confirmed. The details of each boring data, as well as the
observed peak ground accelerations and peak ground
velocities monitored at seismic monitoring stations nearest
the site, are given in Table 1. Moreover, the depth of ground
water table and estimated liquefaction depths based on
published records are given in Table 1.
Both conventional and proposed methods were employed
in calculating FL at each site. For both methods, the cyclic
strength ratio, R, of the deposit was estimated using the
procedure incorporated in the earthquake-resistant design
specifications for highway bridges [1] and summarized in
Fig. 1. Note that in this procedure, the important parameters
in calculating R are the SPT N-value, mean grain size (D50),
fines content (Fc) and effective overburden pressure, sv0 .
Thus, in calculating FL for each method, the cyclic shear
strength ratios, R, are similar, while the earthquake-induced
shear stress ratios, L, are different.
The calculated values of FL based on conventional
method and proposed method are shown in Fig. 13. It can be
seen that the boundary separating liquefaction (represented
by block dots) and non-liquefaction (white dots) for both
methods are near FLZ1.0, indicating the applicability of the
proposed method. It is also worth mentioning that the
number of non-liquefied points with FL!1.0 appear to be
less for the proposed method as compared to that using the
conventional procedure.
5.2. Application to recent earthquakes in Japan
On May 26, 2003, an earthquake of magnitude MZ7.0
occurred off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture, with focal
depth of about 71 km. This earthquake was officially
called the 2003 Miyagiken-oki Earthquake. Two months
later, on July 26, a series of powerful earthquakes
occurred inland in the northern portion of Miyagi
Prefecture, with the main shaking registering a magnitude
MZ6.2. The main shaking of this earthquake, officially
called the 2003 Miyagiken-Hokubo Earthquake, was
preceded by foreshocks, the largest of which occurred
about 7 h earlier with a magnitude MZ5.5. It was also
followed by several aftershocks, with the largest having a
magnitude MZ5.3 about 10 h after the main shock. The
foreshock–main shock–aftershock events all had shallow
foci, about 12 km from the surface. The epicenters of the
main shocks of these two seismic events are shown in
Fig. 14.
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 235

Table 1
Data used in case history analyses for liquefaction evaluation

Earthquake Site name Peak value G.W.L. Estimated liq.

(GL-m) depth (GL-m)
Acceleration Velocity (kine)
(gal)
1964 Niigata Earthquake Kawagishicho 159 58.5 2.0 2.0w10.0
Shinano River site 159 58.5 0.6 0.6w13.0
Agano River site 159 58.5 0.9 0.9w7.8
Sewage tank site 159 58.5 0.4 0.4w6.4
Road site 159 58.5 2.5 2.5w17.0
South bank of Showa bridge 159 58.5 0.5 0.5w3.5
1968 Tokachi-oki Aomori Port 208 40.1 1.1 1.1w13.5
Earthquake Hachinohe (paper plant P2) 233 34.8 1.2 None
Hachinohe (paper plant P5) 233 34.8 1.2 None
Hachinohe (paper plant P1) 233 34.8 1.2 1.2w4.0
Hachinohe (paper plant P4) 233 34.8 1.2 1.2w6.0
Hachinohe (paper plant P6) 233 34.8 1.0 1.2w6.9
1978 Miyagiken-oki Ishinomaki oil tank BN2 270 20.9 0.6 0.6w16.8
Earthquake Ishinomaki oil tank BC4 (Improved) 270 20.9 1.4 None
1980 Chiba-Ibaraki Owi Island 95 7.4 1.0 None
Earthquake
1982 Urakawa-oki Muroran Port (Irie area) 164 17.4 1.2 1.2w13.8
Earthquake Tokachi Port (No. 2 Wharf) 253 13.4 1.3 None
1983 Nihonkai-Chubu Akita Port (Seismometer location) 205 30.1 0.8 0.8w4.0
Earthquake Akita Port (Gaiko Port) 205 30.1 1.5 1.5w16.0
Akita Port (Oohama No. 1 Wharf) 205 30.1 0.5 None
Akita Port (Oohama No. 3 Wharf) 205 30.1 1.4 1.4w12
Akita Port (Nakashima No. 3 Wharf) 205 30.1 1.7 1.7w10.5
Akita Port (West wharf) 205 30.1 1.6 None
Aomori Port (Yukawa area) 168 25.6 1.5 None
1987 Chibaken Toho-oki Sunamachi 122 10.5 6.2 None
Earthquake
1993 Kushiro-oki Kushiro Port (East Port) 468 64.1 2.3 2.3w7.5
Earthquake Kushiro Port (West Port No. 1 Wharf) 468 64.1 1.7 1.7w13.5
Kushiro Port (East Port Fishery 468 64.1 1.3 1.3w15.0
Wharf)
Kushiro Port (West Port No.2 Wharf) 468 64.1 1.6 None
Tokachi Port 260 17.7 1.6 None
1993 Hokkaido Nansei-oki Muroran Port 218 12.9 1.8 None
Earthquake Hakodate Port (Yukawa Wharf No.4) 149 27.5 2.3 2.3w16.2
Hakodate Port (Yukawa Wharf No.5) 149 27.5 2.0 6.2w13.2
1994 Hokkaido Toho-oki Nemuro Port (East section) 367 27.6 1.3 2.1w8.8
Earthquake Nemuro Port (Kaigancho) 367 27.6 3.1 5.4w11.5
Nemuro Port (East Port) 269 21.0 2.5 6.4w12.0
Kushiro Port (West Port) 269 21.0 3.1 None
Kushiro Harbor (West Port) 269 21.0 2.9 None
1995 Hyogoken Nambu Port Island 341 91.1 3.0 3.0w18.4
Earthquake Kainan Port 128 9.7 2.2 None
Takasago 198 42.0 2.5 None
Kobe Port 525 109.0 1.4 1.4w16.5
2000 Tottori Seibu Sakai Minato Fishing Port 302 58.0 1.0 1.0w5.0
Earthquake Takeuchi apartment complex 302 58.0 1.0 1.0w13.5

During the 5/26 Miyagiken-oki earthquake, JMA seismic
intensity of Lower 6 was recorded over wide zones in Iwate
and Miyagi Prefectures. Similarly, several areas in
Miyagi Prefecture underwent severe shaking during 7/26
Miyagiken-Hokubu Earthquake, with maximum intensity of
Upper 6 recorded in regions adjacent to the epicenter.
Although these two earthquakes are characterized by
different earthquake mechanisms, unusually large surface
accelerations were recorded at seismic stations near the
epicenter of both earthquakes. During the 5/26 earthquake,
horizontal accelerations greater than 1000 gal were
recorded at JMA Oofunato station (1105 gal), K-Net Oshika
236 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

Liquefaction Proposed Method

(a) Conventional Method No Liquefaction
(b) Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
FL FL
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0
0

4
4

8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
12
12

16
16

20 20

Fig. 13. Calculation of FL based on (a) conventional method; (b) proposed method.

station (1112 gal) and K-Net Kamaishi station (1038 gal). were not observed at the six sites, it was assumed that
On the other hand, horizontal accelerations exceeding liquefaction did not occur here.
800 gal were registered at JMA Kashimadaimachi station Fig. 15 shows the results of liquefaction potential
(1605 gal) and JMA Yamoto station (850 gal) during the analysis using the conventional method based on PGA
7/26 tremor [17,18]. only and using the proposed approach based on two peak
Following the two earthquakes, reconnaissance investi- ground motion indices. It can be seen that while the
gations were performed on six sites where oil tanks and oil conventional method shows numerous points corresponding
refineries are located. These include one site each in to FL values !1.0 even when liquefaction was not observed
Kamaishi and Oofunato, both in Iwate Prefecture, and one at these sites, the proposed method has less number of
site in Sendai, one site in Ishinomaki and two sites in
Kesennuma, all in Miyagi Prefecture. The locations of these
oil tanks and oil refineries are also shown in Fig. 14.
Considering the large levels of acceleration recorded
during these two events, it was initially thought that the oil
tanks would undergo extensive damage as a result of soil
liquefaction of the foundation ground. However, subsequent
ocular inspections at these sites revealed the absence of sand
boils, ground cracks and other evidences that soil liquefac-
tion indeed took place. Needless to say, the oil tanks and
refineries at the six sites underwent minor, if not zero,
damage after these two earthquakes, notwithstanding the
large levels of accelerations recorded [19].
In order to explain the absence of liquefaction at these
sites and to verify the applicability of the proposed
method in assessing liquefaction potential based on two
peak ground motion indices, analyses were made on
representative soil profiles at these 6 sites. The sites
contain loose sandy deposits with SPT N-values generally
less than 20. The strong motion records employed were
those obtained by K-Net stations [18] nearest the
appropriate site. The locations of the K-Net stations are
shown in Fig. 14, while the details of the boring logs, Fig. 14. Map showing the epicenters of 2003 Miyagiken (Japan)
peak ground accelerations, and peak ground velocities are earthquakes, including the locations of oil tanks and refineries and seismic
listed in Table 2. Note that since signs of liquefaction monitoring stations.
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 237

Table 2
Data used for liquefaction evaluation during the 2003 Miyagiken earthquakes

Earthquake Site name Peak value G.W.L. Estimated liq. depth

(GL-m) (GL-m)
Acceleration (gal) Velocity (kine)
5/26/2003 Miyagiken- Kamaishi (IOT-2) 1038 36.7 2.5 None
oki Earthquake Ishinomaki (ISI-1) 276 24.4 1.3 None
Kesennuma (JFK-2) 391 18.5 1.0 None
Kesennuma (NSK-3) 391 18.5 1.2 None
Oofunato (JFO-2) 367 21.1 4.7 None
Sendai (NSS-2) 179 12.5 2.0 None
7/26/2003 Miyagiken- Kamaishi (IOT-2) 74 3.9 2.5 None
Hokubu Earthquake Ishinomaki (ISI-1) 250 22.4 1.3 None
Kesennuma (JFK-2) 89 3.6 1.0 None
Kesennuma (NSK-3) 89 3.6 1.2 None
Oofunato (JFO-2) 36 1.6 4.7 None
Sendai (NSS-2) 185 12.1 2.0 None

‘incorrectly judged’ points. Moreover, the lower limit of FL
is nearer to 1.0 for the proposed method, indicating that
the method agrees fairly well with the observation of non-
occurrence of soil liquefaction. These computations high-
light the shortcoming of the conventional method as far as
detecting liquefaction occurrence under high levels of PGAs
is concerned.
6. Threshold values for liquefaction
The above calculations show that the combination of
PGA and PGV is a good indicator of occurrence or non-
occurrence of liquefaction during earthquakes. In order to
determine the threshold values that could trigger the onset of
liquefaction, actual earthquake motions recorded at various
sites in Japan were analyzed, as shown in Table 3. The
occurrence or non-occurrence of liquefaction at the sites of
the seismic monitoring stations, where these records were
obtained was confirmed based on evidence of liquefaction,
such as sand boils or surface cracks, as reported in the
literature. For comparison purposes, strong motions
recorded at the five K-Net stations during the 5/26 and 7/
26 Miyagiken earthquakes, all of which did not undergo
liquefaction, are also included.
In the table, the peak ground displacement (PGD) is
incorporated. The displacement–time history is computed
by double integration of the acceleration records, and the
PGD is taken as half the difference between the maximum
positive and negative displacements. The PGD is a more
direct manifestation of severity of shaking at a site since it
represents the induced shear strains within the layers, and
therefore a good indicator of damage potential.
Based on this table, a plot showing the relation between
PGA and PGV is shown in Fig. 16(a). It can be seen that a
boundary separating the occurrence and non-occurrence of

Liquefaction Liquefaction
(a) Conventional Method No Liquefaction (b) Proposed Method
No Liquefaction
FL FL
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0
0

4 4
Depth (m)

8 8
Depth (m)

12 12

16 16

20 20

Fig. 15. Calculation of FL at oil tank sites during the 2003 Miyagiken earthquakes based on (a) conventional method; (b) proposed method.
238 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240

Table 3
Earthquake records employed for determining threshold values for liquefaction occurrence

Earthquake Site name Direction PGA (gal) PGV (kine) PGD (cm) Remarks
1964 Niigata Eq. Kawagishi NS 155 53.5 33.0 Liquefied sites
EW 159 58.5 25.5
1987 Superstition Hills Eq. Wildlife NS 201 30.5 11.4
EW 179 22.8 9.1
1983 Nihonkai-Chub Eq. Akita Port NS 190 31.3 13.5
EW 205 30.1 12.5
1968 Tokachi-oki Eq. Aomori Port NS 208 40.1 18.1
EW 180 31.8 14.7
1995 Hyogoken Nambu Eq. Port Island NS 341 91.1 34.4
EW 284 51.0 23.3
1995 Hyogoken Nambu Eq. Kobe Port NS 230 36.4 11.2
EW 525 109.0 38.9
2000 Tottori Eq. Sakai Minato NS 299 35.1 10.1
EW 748 81.3 25.4
2003 Tokachi-oki Eq. Kushiro NS 311 43.4 12.0
EW 407 39.7 11.9
2003 Tokachi-oki Eq. Chokubetsu NS 739 67.5 28.4
EW 785 107.6 53.7
1968 Tokachi-oki Eq. Hachinohe NS 233 34.8 8.9
EW 181 38.1 9.7
1978 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Kaihoku LG 190 9.9 2.6 Non- liquefied
TR 270 20.9 6.2 sites
1980 Chiba-Ibaraki Eq. Owi Island NS 95 7.4 1.2
EW 64 7.0 1.8
1987 Nihonkai-Chubu Eq. Sunamachi NS 84 12.4 2.5
EW 122 10.5 2.1
1995 Hyogoken Nambu Eq. Kobe Univ NS 270 55.2 13.5
EW 305 39.4 6.5
2003 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Ishinomaki EW 237 14.5 2.5 Observed at K-
NS 276 24.4 5.4 Net stations
2003 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Kamaishi EW 1038 36.7 11.2
NS 594 18.2 2.2
2003 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Kesennuma EW 359 16.5 3.7
NS 391 18.5 1.5
2003 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Oofunato EW 367 21.1 4.3
NS 273 10.3 1.9
2003 Miyagiken-oki Eq. Sendai EW 179 12.5 2.3
NS 145 11.1 1.8
2003 Miyagiken-Hokubu Eq. Ishinomaki EW 196 26.8 5.5 Observed at K-
NS 250 22.4 6.8 Net stations
2003 Miyagiken-Hokubu Eq. Kamaishi EW 74 3.9 0.6
NS 66 2.8 0.4
2003 Miyagiken-Hokubu Eq. Kesennuma EW 76 3.2 0.7
NS 89 3.6 0.6
2003 Miyagiken-Hokubu Eq. Oofunato EW 36 1.6 0.4
NS 20 1.2 0.6
2003 Miyagiken-Hokubu Eq. Sendai EW 185 12.2 2.7
NS 176 13.4 2.6

liquefaction is very clear. Although more strong motions
records are necessary to support the observation, it appears
that based on the collected information alone, the threshold
value for liquefaction can be taken as PGA R150 gal and
PGV R20 kine. The plot in Fig. 16(b) showing the relation
between PGA/PGV ratio and PGD indicates that relatively
large ground displacements (PGD R10 cm) can be
observed at liquefied sites. Note that the Kobe University
site, which showed high values of PGV and PGD, is a rock
site, and therefore liquefaction potential is practically zero.
Another interesting observation is that all the black dots in
the figure plot in the region where the PGA/PGV%10,
indicative of another possible threshold for liquefaction
occurrence.
Consider the data points corresponding to the 5/26 and
7/26 earthquakes. Although some stations show high values of
PGA, liquefaction did not occur at these sites, possibly
because the corresponding PGVs are less than 20 kine. These
low values of PGVs induced very small amount of shear
deformation, indicating very small shear strains within
 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240 239

(a) 10000 (b) 60

Liquefied site
50 Non-liquefied site
1000 5/26 Earthquake
40 7/26 Earthquake

PGA (gal)

PGD (cm)
100 30

Liquefied site 20
10 Non-liquefied site
5/26 Earthquake 10
7/26 Earthquake
1 0
1 10 100 1000 0 20 40 60
PGV (kine) PGA/PGV (1/sec)

Fig. 16. Relations between (a) PGA and PGV; (b) PGD and PGA/PGV using data from various earthquakes in Japan.

the deposit. Therefore, these results clearly show that PGA 7. Concluding remarks
alone is not a good indicator of liquefaction potential of soil
deposits. An assessment of the liquefaction potential at soil sites
The aforementioned pattern cannot be explained by the based on peak ground motion parameters observed at the
conventional method based on PGA only. On the other surface during earthquakes is proposed. By performing
hand, the proposed method, which incorporates the effect parametric studies using one-dimensional seismic response
not only of PGA but also of PGV can provide reasonable
(a)
explanation for the above observation. To illustrate,
10000 0
simplified calculations were performed to estimate the 10
V=
vertical distribution of maximum shear stresses in a uniform /PG 0
GA =1
level ground with mass density rZ2.0 g/cm3. Five cases 1000 P
=1
were considered, with values of PGA and PGV indicated in 3 2
PGA (gal)

the plot of Fig. 17(a). Case 1, with PGAZ150 gal and 1

100
PGVZ20 kine, is considered as the reference case repre- 4 5
senting threshold condition for liquefaction. The other cases
denote various combinations of PGA and PGV. The 10
calculated distributions of maximum shear stresses are
given in Fig. 17(b). For Case 2, with PGA O150 gal and
PGV O20 kine, the maximum shear stresses are greater 1
1 10 100 1000
than those induced for Case 1 and, assuming the deposit will
PGV (kine)
liquefy for Case 1 condition, it follows that liquefaction will
also occur for Case 2 condition. On the other hand, Cases 4 (b) Shear Stress (kPa)
and 5 have PGAs !150 gal, and the induced stresses are 0 20 40 60 80 100
much less than those required for liquefaction to occur, as 0
given by Case 1. Liquefaction therefore is not expected for
these two cases. An interesting case is that of Case 3, where Case 2: PGA=300, PGV=50
PGA O150 gal but PGV !20 kine. For this case, except at 4
very shallow depths (!4 m), the maximum shear stress Case 3: PGA=300, PGV=5
distribution is less than those for Case 1. Hence, even when
8 Case 1: PGA=150, PGV=30
the maximum surface acceleration is greater than the
Depth (m)

threshold condition (i.e. PGA O150 gal), but if the PGV Case 4: PGA=50, PGV=5
is low, attenuation of shear stress with depth may take place,
preventing the occurrence of liquefaction. 12
Case 5: PGA=50, PGV=50
Although the cases presented above considered very
simplified soil profile, they nevertheless show that the
proposed method, which incorporates both PGA and PGV, 16
can adequately explain the occurrence and/or non-
occurrence of liquefaction during actual earthquakes.
Hence, the method is a viable alternative for estimating 20
liquefaction potential of sandy deposits, vis-à-vis the
Fig. 17. Example calculations using the proposed method: (a) values of
PGA-based approach incorporated in current Japanese PGA and PGV for each case; (b) vertical distribution of maximum shear
design codes. stress for each case.
240 R.P. Orense / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 225–240
analyses, an expression for the maximum earthquake-
induced shear stress incorporating both peak ground
acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) was
formulated. In addition to those required in the conventional
method, the proposed expression requires only one
additional parameter that can be obtained easily at the site
during an earthquake.
The paper also investigated the shortcomings inherent to
the conventional method typically employed in Japanese
practice. Since the conventional method is based on a single
parameter (PGA), it neglects the effects of frequency
contents of input motion and is vulnerable to high frequency
acceleration spikes.
Application of the proposed procedure to assess
liquefaction potential of actual sites showed good agree-
ment with field observations. Moreover, analysis of strong
motions observed at various locations shows that the lower
limit for liquefaction can be taken as PGAZ150 gal and
PGVZ20 kine. The non-occurrence of liquefaction during
the 2003 Miyagiken earthquakes, where high values of
PGAs were recorded can be explained by the correspond-
ing low PGV values. Thus, PGA alone is not a good
indicator of liquefaction potential. Such observations of
non-occurrence of liquefaction at sites with high PGAs and
low PGVs can be reasonably explained by the proposed
method.
Acknowledgements
The acceleration time histories employed in the
analyses were obtained from the strong motion records
of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention (NIED), Committee on Earthquake Obser-
vation and Research in Kansai Area (CEORKA), Port
and Airport Research Institute (PARI) and Institute of
Industrial Science, University of Tokyo. The borehole
data at the oil tank sites were provided by the Petroleum
Industry Technology and Research Institute, Inc. The
author would like to extend his sincere gratitude to these
agencies.
References
[1] Japan Road Association. Specifications for highway bridges, Part V:
Earthquake resistant design (in Japanese); 2002.
[2] Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendations for design of
building foundations (in Japanese); 2001.
[3] High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan. Standards for earthquake-
resistant design of high pressure gas facilities (in Japanese); 2000.
[4] Railway Technical Research Institute. Design standards for railway
structures and commentaries (in Japanese); 1999.
[5] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefac-
tion potential. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 1971;97(9):1249–73.
[6] Towhata I, Park JK, Orense RP, Kanoh H. Use of spectrum intensity
for immediate detection of subsoil liquefaction. Soils Found 1996;
36(2):29–44.
[7] Kayen RE, Mitchell JK. Assessment of liquefaction potential during
earthquakes by Arias intensity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
1997;123(12):1162–74.
[8] Midorikawa S, Wakamatsu K. Intensity of earthquake ground motion
at liquefied sites. Soils Found 1988;28(2):73–84.
[9] Kanezashi S, Kaneko F. Relations between JMA’s measuring seismic
intensity and physical parameters of earthquake ground motion. OYO
Technical Report, 85–96 (in Japanese with English abstract); 1997.
[10] Liang L, Figueroa JL, Saada AS. Liquefaction under random loading:
unit energy approach. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1995;121(11):776–81.
[11] Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT,
et al. 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
2001;127(10):817–33.
[12] Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S. A practical method for
assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various
sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the second international conference
on microzonation for safer construction—research and application,
vol. II, San Francisco, CA; 1978, p. 885–96.
[13] Idriss IM. An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for
evaluating liquefaction potential. In: Proceedings of the TRB work-
shop on new approaches to liquefaction, Publication no. FHWA-RD-
99-165. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 1999.
[14] Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB. SHAKE—A computer program for
earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no.
EERC 72-12. Berkeley: University of California; 1972, 88p.
[15] Japan Port and Harbor Association. Technical standards for port and
harbor facilities and commentaries (in Japanese); 1999.
[16] Kokusho T. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide
strain range. Soils Found 1980;20(2):45–60.
[17] Japan Meteorological Agency. http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/
[18] Kyoshin-Net. http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/
[19] Chuo Kaihatsu Corporation. Earthquake damage and investigation
during the Miyagiken-oki earthquake and Miyagiken-Hokubu earth-
quake (in Japanese); 2004.