Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Modelling liquefaction-induced building damage in earthquake

loss estimation
Juliet F. Bird a,*, Julian J. Bommer b, Helen Crowley c, Rui Pinho c
a
Arup Geotechnics, The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 8AE, UK
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK
c
European School of Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, c/o EUCENTRE, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
Accepted 4 October 2005

Abstract
The assessment of building damage caused by liquefaction-induced ground deformations requires the definition of building capacity and
vulnerability as a function of the demand, as well as damage scales to describe the state of the damaged building. This paper presents a framework
for resolving these issues within the context of earthquake loss estimations, where large variations in building stock and ground conditions must be
considered. The principal modes of building response to both uniform and differential ground movements are discussed and the uncertainties in
their evaluation are highlighted. A unified damage scale is proposed for use in both reconnaissance and assessment of all modes of building
damage, including ‘rigid body’ response of structures on stiff foundations to uniform or differential ground movements. The interaction of ground
shaking and liquefaction in the context of induced structural damage is also briefly considered. The paper raises important aspects of earthquake
loss estimations in regions of liquefaction potential, which remain relatively poorly defined at present.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquefaction; Ground deformation; Building damage; Earthquake loss estimations

1. Introduction buildings and facilities, due to future earthquakes. The main

The potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction to cause
significant damage to buildings in earthquakes is well known.
Destructive earthquakes in Kobe in 1995 and in Taiwan and
Turkey in 1999 are prime examples of this, with numerous
reports of buildings settling, tilting, sliding, or otherwise
suffering due to the failure of the underlying soils. The impact
of liquefaction has been greatest on lifelines such as roads,
mainly due to the failure of bridges, and buried pipelines, as
well as to port structures, the clearest case in point for the latter
being the damage caused by the Kobe earthquake. Although
there are cases where spectacular damage to buildings has been
caused by liquefaction, such as in Adapazari due to the 1999
Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, liquefaction-induced damage to
buildings in major earthquakes typically contributes to earth-
quake losses only over relatively small areas [1].
Earthquake loss estimation is a technique used to quantify
potential losses in a given region or to a particular portfolio of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C44-121-213-3000.
E-mail address: Juliet.bird@arup.com (J.F. Bird).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.10.002
components of an earthquake loss model are shown in Fig. 1.
The scale of an earthquake loss estimation may range from an
entire country to cities or even districts within cities. The larger
the study area, the more likely it is that ground shaking-induced
damage to buildings will dominate the overall losses, and that
any secondary hazards affecting a particular zone will be of less
significance. For example, in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in
Turkey, damaging hazards included surface fault rupture,
coastal subsidence, slope failures and liquefaction, but the
dominant cause of damage over the entire region was
undoubtedly ground shaking [1]. An estimation of building
damage for the entire Kocaeli region could, therefore,
reasonably concentrate on ground-shaking, but for more
detailed studies within the region there is an increased
likelihood that local features such as liquefiable soils will
influence the results, as was seen in the city of Adapazari. The
framework for estimating liquefaction damage presented in this
paper is primarily intended to be applied on a local scale.
Comprehensive earthquake loss estimations require inter-
action between Earth scientists, engineers, public and private
owners of facilities, lifeline operators, planners and financiers
and as such are truly multi-disciplinary. Two significant
features from an engineering perspective are the regional
16 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30

than calculating their magnitude. Even in the field of

HAZARDS
Ground shaking performance-based seismic design, there is little guidance on
Ground Failure what are acceptable damage levels due to foundation
Fault Rupture
movements.
INVENTORY
The prediction of liquefaction demand comprises three
Buildings and Lifelines
stages. The first is to determine whether the soils are
DIRECT susceptible to liquefaction using mainly qualitative criteria
PHYSICAL
DAMAGE such as those presented by Youd and Perkins [4]. Given a
positive response to this, the likelihood of liquefaction being
triggered by the scenario earthquake is required (Section 2.1).
INDUCED PHYSICAL DAMAGE
Fire following earthquake
Finally, the demand, in terms of the expected ground
Release of hazardous materials deformations, must be defined (Section 2.2).
Flood following earthquake A preference has been noted in previous papers [5,6] for the
Debris
use of scenario based loss estimations over those based upon a
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA). This pre-
ference, despite the additional computational expense it entails,
is reiterated herein, since to estimate both the liquefaction
LOSS potential and the resulting ground deformations, the earthquake
Social losses – casualties and shelter magnitude, its duration, and the source-to-site distance are
Direct economic impact
Indirect economic impact
fundamentally important variables, and therefore, a scenario-
based approach, which explicitly defines the magnitude and
Fig. 1. Components of an earthquake loss estimation (after FEMA [2]).
distances, is essential.

nature of loss estimations and the fact that the models deal with
2.1. Triggering of liquefaction
existing buildings and infrastructure, about which very little
may be known. Both these features present a considerable
Current standard practice for the assessment of liquefaction
contrast to site-specific design or even site-specific assessment.
potential is essentially deterministic, using one of a number of
Techniques used for site-specific design cannot be employed in
published relationships between the in situ density of the soil
this context, because the demands of time and data acquisition
and the cyclic shear stress induced by ground shaking (e.g. [7]).
would be excessive.
Application of deterministic methodologies goes no further
The objective of this paper is to obtain an assessment of the
than ascertaining that the factor of safety (FS) against
distribution amongst damage levels for a particular building
liquefaction is greater than or less than unity. For risk
stock as a consequence of an earthquake-induced liquefaction.
assessments, the probability associated with the result FS!1
These results can be simply translated into a direct economic
is also needed. Even where there is an apparently significant
loss once the total financial value of the building stock is
safety margin in the calculation, there may still be an
known. However, as discussed in detail in Section 3.2, the
associated, albeit low, probability of failure, which comes
definition of damage necessarily differs from that traditionally
from three principal areas of uncertainty: the ground motion
used in loss estimation models since a building can be rendered
level, the empirical procedures used to evaluate liquefaction
uninhabitable by the effects of liquefaction without suffering
resistance, and the natural variability and heterogeneity of the
any structural damage to the load-bearing system.
soil properties and stratigraphy. Probabilistic approaches
towards liquefaction assessment have been developed by,
2. Estimating liquefaction demand
amongst others, Cetin et al. [8] and Rodriguéz-Marek et al. [9],
although these are not so widely used as the deterministic
Methodologies for the assessment of liquefaction potential
methods.
and the resulting ground deformation have been the focus of
research for many years. Despite this, when it comes to
determining the impact these deformations will have on 2.2. Quantification of permanent ground deformations
existing structures, the published literature is generally
inadequate [3]. There are many reasons for this, not least that The evaluation of liquefaction-induced displacements
the preferred design approach is to mitigate the liquefaction beneath a building is far from straightforward. A number of
potential by ground improvement or site re-location. Generally, methodologies are available, all of which use different
a structural engineer will determine the deformation tolerances approaches and uncertain variables; none of these methods
for a structure, and the geotechnical engineer will ensure have overwhelming support in their favour compared to the
through design that these criteria are satisfied. Similarly, in the others. There are multiple complex mechanisms which can
estimation of expected ground deformations, most soil cause damaging ground deformations. Table 1 summarises
mechanics theory is orientated towards the avoidance of available methodologies for the assessment of expected
large-scale deformations associated with ground failure, rather liquefaction-induced ground deformations.
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
Table 1
Selected methodologies for determining liquefaction-induced permanent ground deformations
Reference Description
I. Lateral ground deformation
Zhang and Zhou Empirical prediction of liquefaction-induced lateral
[10] spread
Youd et al. [11] Equations obtained through multi-linear regression of
empirical data
Bardet et al. [12] Multi-linear regression of empirical data
Youd and Perkins Equations for Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI), defined
[13] as maximum lateral deformation in inches, with 0!
LSI!100
Rauch and Martin Empirical prediction of liquefaction lateral spread
[14]
II. Settlement
Tokimatsu and Charts relating in situ density measurements to earth-
Seed [15] quake induced shear strain. Laboratory and empirical
data
Ishihara and Charts relating FL to in situ density and volumetric strain
Yoshimine [16]
III. Combined lateral and vertical movement
Shamoto et al. [17] Charts for volumetric and shear strains
a
T15, thickness of layer with (N1)60!15; D50, median particle size diameter; CSR, cyclic shear stress ratio; Hface, Height of free face; FC, fines content; FL, factor
of safety against liquefaction; Lslide, maximum horizontal length of lateral spread; M, earthquake magnitude; N1, SPT N value corrected for overburden; Na, adjusted
SPT N value (Shamoto et al., 1998); (N1)60, SPT N value adjusted for energy and overburden; PGA, peak ground acceleration; R, source-to-site distance; Stop,
average slope across the surface of the lateral spread; T15, thickness of soil with SPT N!15; Vs, shear wave velocity of soil; ZFSmin, depth to minimum factor of
safety against liquefaction; Zliq, depth to top of liquefied layer
Most commonly used assessment methods rely heavily on
empirical data. One reason for this is the difficulty in obtaining
measured in situ soil properties for input to soil mechanics
theory, and the variability associated with such properties [18].
Another reason is that geotechnical analysis techniques do not
generally allow for large strain deformations of soils [19]. Even
where full constitutive soil models in a finite element
framework are used, many of these cannot go beyond the
initiation of liquefaction, at which point the procedure will
typically break down and fail to converge (e.g. [20]).
Furthermore, numerical models have been found to be
particularly sensitive to small variations in input parameters
[21], an undesirable feature in such an uncertain field as loss
estimation. Youd et al. [11] state that ‘no physical theory’
exists to confirm their empirically-based relationships.
For the purpose of loss estimations, empirical processes,
based upon easily obtainable parameters, or at least parameters
that can be estimated using a reasonable level of judgement, are
preferable to complex numerical approaches [3]. The
uncertainty associated with either approach should always be
considered. The empirical methods shown in Table 1 are
17
Variable input Comments
parametersa
M, R, T15, (N1)60, Shown to be accurate within a factor of 2
FC, D50,
M, R, T15, slope (S) Same dataset as Youd et al. [11] but in a probabilistic
and free face ratio framework
(W)
M, R Maximum value. Single topographic/geologic environ-
ment only
(i). M, R, PGA, Average displacements 3 equations, for different levels of
duration input data; site, regional and geotechnical
(ii). M, R, PGA,
duration, Lslide,
Stop, Hface (if free
face present)
(iii). M, R, PGA,
duration, Lslide,
Stop, Hface, ZFSmin,
Zliq
(N1)60, CSR, FC Shown to yield correct results within a factor of 2-3 [18]
FL, N1, FC
T/s 0 , Na, FC Uses soil mechanics theory as well as empirical data.
generally accepted to be accurate only to within a factor of 2 or
3 [18,11] and their predictive capacity tends to be worst for
small-to-moderate (0.3–0.75 m) deformations [21].
Selection of the calculation methodology is best made on a
case-by-case basis; with categorical recommendations there is
a danger that regional features, which may affect their validity
in some way, are overlooked. For example, in the HAZUS
methodology [22], the simplified approach for estimating
lateral spread combines the Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI)
relationships derived by Youd and Perkins [13] with the
attenuation relationships of Sadigh et al. [23] to derive a
relationship for LSI in terms of peak ground acceleration
(PGA) only. Notwithstanding the simplifications involved, or
the fact that significant scatter in both empirical relationships is
ignored, neither of these relationships are applicable outside of
the western USA, and the former is only valid for the specific
environment of ‘wide active flood plains or other areas of
gently-sloping late Holocene fluvial deposits’.
For the prediction of lateral movements, the EPOLLS
(Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction Lateral Spreading)
methodology [14], has some advantageous features, in that it
18 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
provides three different levels of empirical relationship,
depending on the amount of data available. An additional
advantage is that the formulae estimate the average rather than
the maximum displacement, which is more appropriate to the
requirements of a loss estimation study. The authors also
present a study of the statistical variation of horizontal
movements within a lateral spread [24].
For estimation of vertical movements, both the methods of
Tokimatsu and Seed [15] and Ishihara and Yoshimine [16]
have been found to be accurate to within a factor of 2 or 3. Both
methodologies deal with settlements caused by the change in
volumetric strain as pore water pressures dissipate after
liquefaction has taken place. This is only one potential cause
of vertical foundation movements, others include loss of
ground due to sand boiling, the vertical component of lateral
deformation of a volume of soil, or ‘punching’ failure of
foundations due to reduced bearing capacity [21]. All of these
hazards are potentially damaging to foundations; unfortunately
there are no reliable procedures for their estimation, which is
currently a major shortcoming in this field.
2.3. Uncertainties associated with liquefaction demand
The uncertainty associated with estimating the expected
permanent ground deformation arises from the following areas:
† The level of earthquake hazard in terms of the uncertainty
associated with the ground-motion estimation.
† The likelihood of liquefaction triggering, based upon
empirical data with associated scatter (e.g. Youd et al.
[7]).
† The choice of appropriate methodologies and input
parameters for the evaluation of liquefaction probability,
liquefaction-induced permanent ground deformation, and
building response. As well as the epistemic uncertainty in
selecting a methodology, there will be uncertainties due to
scatter, and, due to the limitations of the selected approach.
† The difficulty in accurately defining the thickness and
extent of different stratigraphic layers, due to natural
heterogeneity of soils (e.g. Power et al. [25]) and
insufficiency of available geotechnical data.
† Measurement or equipment biases of in situ data. Standard
penetration test (SPT) measurements have been cited as
having coefficients of variation from 25 to 50% [20,26].
† The necessary simplification of soil properties and
stratigraphy, since even in the unlikely event that
comprehensive geotechnical data were available, it would
not be feasible on a large scale to incorporate this without
some approximation. Ground conditions and building types
that are expected to respond in an approximately similar
manner to liquefaction must be grouped into a manageable
number of classifications. In reality each soil profile and
building will respond differently, and understanding and
thereby quantifying the effects of this grouping is one of the
most significant requirements of regional damage
estimations.
Furthermore, it should be noted that these uncertainties are
over and above the significant epistemic uncertainties
associated with the primary part of a loss estimation; building
damage due to ground shaking, all of which have been shown
to have a significant impact upon the estimated distributions of
damage [e.g. 27,28].
2.4. Differential movements
Of particular concern in terms of assessing building damage
are the expected differential settlements or differential lateral
movements. Ishihara and Yoshimine [16] state that ‘because of
nonhomogeneous conditions in the soil deposits, the settle-
ments seldom occur uniformly even in small localised areas
and differential settlements become the major cause of the
damage to lifelines or other facilities’. An example of large
differential settlements is those that occur beneath buildings
located on the boundary between liquefied and non-liquefied
soils. Bardet and Kapuskar [29] observed that the worst
damage in the Marina district after the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake was on such a boundary. Differential ground
settlements will occur due to heterogeneity in soil stiffness and
stratigraphy both laterally and with depth.
Estimating differential ground movements on a regional
scale has an even greater uncertainty than the estimation of
uniform or average movements. This is principally because of
the lack of sufficient geotechnical data; a borehole at each
corner of a building would allow a reasonable estimation of the
variability in the settlements, even though retaining the other
uncertainties listed in the previous sub-section. In the absence
of this degree of detailed geotechnical data, for convenience,
the variability may be modelled as random (i.e. aleatory),
assuming a statistical distribution such as normal or lognormal,
with a mean and variance. Thus the distribution of differential
settlements over the footprint of a building, in terms of a
percentage of the absolute settlements, can be obtained.
Differential lateral movements will also be caused by the
variability of in situ ground conditions, but these will also have
a less random component related to geometric variability in
terms of increasing distance from a free face or from the toe of
a slope. Rauch and Martin [24] found the variability of lateral
displacements across a slope to be reasonably represented by a
gamma distribution.
The flow chart in Fig. 2 illustrates the input data and
decisions required to identify modes of liquefaction-induced
ground deformation beneath buildings in the context of a loss
estimation. The relative likelihood of each mode must be
evaluated and the associated magnitude of ground deformation
quantified. The complexities and uncertainties in this process
are significant, and Fig. 2 summarises these without dictating
the choice of methodology and the level of input data, which
must be decided on an individual basis.
3. Building response to liquefaction
Structural damage to buildings during ground shaking is
mainly due to inter-storey drift, caused by inertial forces
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30 19

Historical and Is soil susceptible No

Stop
geological data to liquefaction?

Yes
Earthquake
characteristics and
geotechnical data Regional P(L) < X *
probability of Stop
liquefaction
Choice of calculation
methodology >X*
P(L) –

Level ground? Geotechnical and Sloping face or free

topographical data face?
Yes Yes

Mean and variance Mean and variance

of expected Choice of calculation of expected lateral
settlement methodology spreading
(regional) (regional)

Flexible
foundations
only

P(uniform Mean and variance Mean and variance

settlement) of expected of expected
differential differential lateral
settlement (local) movement (local)

Fig. 2. Information required for a complete assessment of building vulnerability to liquefaction-induced ground deformations. *X is a predefined value below which
the probability of liquefaction is considered negligible.

induced by the excitation of the base and by the passage of
waves ascending the building. The inter-storey drift induces
distress in the structural elements, leading to loss of
functionality and then to load bearing capacity. Structural
response to vibratory motion lends itself to analytical
modelling of the elastic and inelastic deformations, permitting
the development of mechanically-based methods for evaluat-
ing building vulnerability to strong ground-motion. One
example of this is the capacity spectrum method embodied in
the HAZUS methodology [22,30]. An alternative approach has
been developed by Crowley et al. [31]. The evaluation of
building vulnerability to liquefaction-induced ground defor-
mations is less straightforward, because of the variety of ways
in which buildings can respond, which creates the need to use
more than one approach. The different modes of response of
buildings to ground failure also creates the need for broader
definitions of damage, since these cannot be based only on
deformations in structural members.
The first step in developing any method for evaluating
building vulnerability is a classification system for buildings,
based on the concept of buildings in any category having
essentially the same mode of response and failure, and
comparable levels of susceptibility to the earthquake hazard
under consideration. Crowley et al. [31], in common with most
loss estimation methodologies, define building vulnerability in
terms of the structural system and the member properties
(dimensions and deformation characteristics). For assessing
building response to earthquake-induced ground failure, the
foundation system will also be of importance. For a portfolio of
buildings, knowledge of the foundations will be more uncertain
than that of the structural system, which in itself requires some
significant assumptions, short of carrying out a building-by-
building survey. Even from visual surveys, foundation types
cannot be easily ascertained, and a greater depth of
investigation is required. There are, however, some assump-
tions that can reasonably be made: for example that poorly
designed buildings are likely to have poorly designed
foundations, and well-designed modern buildings are more
likely to have considered liquefaction susceptibility in the
foundation design and to have stiff or deep foundations, or some
form of ground improvement. Such assumptions necessarily
add an additional level of uncertainty to an inventory, which
must be considered when interpreting the results.
Given that this methodology is likely to be applicable to
relatively small study areas, where it is known that there is a
prevalence of liquefiable soils, it is a reasonable premise that
enough information on the local building stock will be
available to make appropriate judgments regarding the
distribution of foundation types. For example, in Adapazari,
investigations after 1999 revealed that a very high percentage
of the beskat1 buildings were founded on reinforced concrete
1
Literally ‘five-storied’, but used to describe 4–6 storey, reinforced concrete
frame apartment blocks.
20 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
(a)
∆v
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of frame buildings with stiff shallow foundations subjected to liquefaction-induced ground deformations: (a) Uniform vertical
settlements, and (b) differential vertical settlements leading to rigid-body rotation of structure and foundation.
mat foundations of 1–1.5 m thickness [32]. For a study area the
size of Adapazari it is feasible to gather such information
through dialogue with local engineers and builders, whereas for
a larger region, such as the model compiled for the whole of
Turkey [5], such depth of investigation is clearly unrealistic.
3.1. Rigid-body and differential movements
There are a number of deformation modes that buildings
may experience when subject to liquefaction-induced ground
deformations [33]. These modes can be divided into two broad
categories: rigid-body movements, whereby the structure
moves without significant internal deformation, and differential
movements. The type of response will depend primarily on the
foundation type: for shallow foundations, the distinction will
be whether these are rigid (Fig. 3) or flexible (Fig. 4).
A review of field reports from recent earthquakes [1]
revealed a much larger number of occurrences of rigid body
damage rather than structural damage to buildings on flexible
(i.e. unrestrained) foundations. Hundreds of buildings were
reported to have settled or tilted in the earthquakes in Turkey
and Taiwan in 1999 and the Philippines in 1990, amongst many
others. A notable example of structural damage, caused by
differential foundation movement, is the failure of the low-rise
wooden structures of the Marine Laboratory at Moss Landing
following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 [34]. Other cases
have been reported in the 1999 Kocaeli and Chi–Chi
earthquakes (e.g. Fig. 5) but overall there are relatively few
such reports. Notwithstanding the scarcity of case histories, this
failure mode clearly represents a genuine hazard to buildings.
Marino [35] notes that the most common earthquake-induced
foundation damage is separation of foundation elements,
resulting from the irregularity of foundation settlement due to
lateral spreading, inducing tension, bending or tilting in
shallow foundations.
The smaller number of reports of structural damage due to
differential foundation movements may be because in many
cases even fairly flexible foundations have sufficient relative
stiffness, compared to soft underlying soils, to cause structures
to behave as rigid bodies. Alternatively, it is possible that,
(b)
∆v
because the damage more closely resembles damage caused by
ground shaking, comprising cracking and yielding of structural
members, it is not always immediately identified as being due
to ground failure. However, this explanation seems improbable
considering the building shown in Fig. 5 for example, where
the ground deformation is obvious.
Fig. 6 summarises the modes of response to ground
deformations for any given structural and foundation classifi-
cation. Where ground deformation causes ‘rigid body’ building
response, the important consideration for determining the
damage state is the acceptability of the system performance.
The damage state cannot be easily classified in terms of the
deformations of structural members, therefore there is no
apparent analytical solution in this case, and an empirical
solution is required. Where there is sufficient flexibility in the
foundations for the walls or columns to move independently
and thus differentially (as depicted in Fig. 4), the response is
referred to as ‘structural damage’, because the damage occurs
in the structural elements and is related to the deformation
induced in them. Analytical solutions are possible in this case;
a procedure for estimating expected damage levels in the
framework of an earthquake loss estimation is presented by
Bird et al. [33]. These solutions are compatible with the
displacement-based earthquake loss assessment methodology
presented by Crowley et al. [31].
3.2. Building damage states and losses
Where building response to ground failure comprises
structural damage, as described above, damage states can be
classified using the same schemes used for structural damage
caused by ground shaking, e.g. Table 2. Such schemes are an
important component of loss estimations, in allowing analysis
and presentation of results, comparison with field observations,
and providing users with an understanding of the physical
condition of different classes of buildings, and consequences in
terms of repair and occupancy.
The absence of rigid body rotation failures related to ground
deformations, such as tilting, settlement or sliding, from most
existing damage scales has been discussed previously [e.g. 1,
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30 21

(a)

Rotational failure
of columns

∆v

(b)

Hinges form in
beams

∆v

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of frame buildings with flexible shallow foundations to liquefaction-induced ground deformations: (a) Differential vertical settlements
due to soil variability, and (b) differential settlement at the centre of a multi-bay frame.

36]. Even where there is no, or minor, damage to the structural
elements of such buildings, they must be considered to be
damaged, where damage may be defined as ‘a change in the
condition of the structure that adversely affects its future
structural performance’ [37]. In extreme cases, such as the
buildings shown in Fig. 7, the damage state is complete, since
the buildings are only suitable for demolition. In this context,
damage can only be defined in terms of the consequences for
the building use and the safety of the contents and inhabitants.
However, the actual cost of the kind of failure illustrated in
Fig. 7 could potentially be even higher than that due to
complete structural collapse, since in addition to the
replacement cost of the building there will be the costs
associated with the demolition of the tilted or settled building,
and excavation of the existing foundations.
Figure 8 illustrates another possible failure whereby
settlement causes damage to the floor slab; this may not be
damage to the main load-carrying system, but it will represent a
weakening of the structure due to loss of diaphragm action. At
the same time, the disruption to the function of the building
could be very severe.
As mentioned previously, there is no analytical approach for
the estimation of damage levels of buildings that have rotated
as a rigid-body, since there is no structural demand (apart from
possible PKD effects at larger rotations). Therefore the
damage state of a rotated or settled building is best described
using empirical solutions, classifying the damage level in terms
of the functionality and reparability of the building. Damage
can be considered according to three criteria: aesthetic, where
the movements are perceptible to the owners or inhabitants but
do not impact the functionality; serviceability, or in the worst
case, stability.
Damage to a building that has settled uniformly may
include: damage to the ground floor slab (Fig. 8), sand ejecta
filling the ground floor, disruption to services, damage due to
dragging down of adjacent attached buildings and service-
ability issues related to change of levels of doors and entrances.
Additionally there may be aesthetic issues due to level
differences between a settled building and neighbouring
buildings, or sidewalks. The damage state will be related to
the extent of settlement and ease of repair. Unacceptable
settlement or tilt may require structural remedial works in the
form of jacking-up and underpinning, or by grout injection. In
the worst cases, repair costs may be excessive and the buildings
will be demolished.
For consistency with the structural damage levels described
in Table 2, both rotational and settlement limits must also be
related to the repair cost ratio, although determining the cost of
foundation repairs is significantly more complex than structural
repairs. Issues that complicate the estimation of likely repair
22 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30

damage. The apartment building shown in Fig. 7(b) tilted by

Fig. 5. Liquefaction induced damage of a technical school building after the
1999 Chi–Chi earthquake. (Courtesy: Marshall Lew, Los Angeles Tall
Buildings Structural Design Council).
costs of buildings that have undergone rigid body deformation
include the strength of the foundations to survive the planned
remedial action, which may not be easily determined, and
regional variabilities in construction practices and tolerance to
approximately 5 degrees and was subsequently demolished,
whereas Hwang et al. [38] report buildings that tilted by up to 9
degrees in the Chi-Chi earthquake and were repaired using oil
jacks to re-level them.
Proposed limits for grouping the rigid body response of
buildings to ground failure into similar ranges that coincide
with structural damage definitions are presented in Table 3.
This scale enables comparison of damage in different regions
and different earthquakes as well as providing improved
descriptors of predicted damage distributions. Sources of
information for determining acceptable levels include reports
from past earthquakes, technical papers related to earthquake
damage levels, and published tolerances for non-earthquake
related foundation deformations [39].
These limits have a high associated uncertainty due to the
lack of available data regarding repair methods and costs for
settled and rotated buildings. There are clearly many factors
influencing rigid body damage levels that are both difficult to
define and to quantify. Therefore the body of field data needs to
be significantly expanded, and supplemented with local
knowledge and judgement; without this it is not possible to
quantify the uncertainties associated with these limits.
The limits presented in Table 3 for stiff foundations
subjected to ground deformations are compared in Fig. 9
with vulnerability curves derived for reinforced concrete frame
buildings on flexible foundations [33]. The former are
deterministic, in that they ignore the variability in building
dimensions associated with the grouping of many buildings
into a single classification. The latter include variability in the
geometric and material properties, but not in the demand. An

BUILDING FOUNDATION MODE OF GROUND SOLUTION FOR

CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION DEFORMATION DAMAGE ESTIMATION
Uniform vertical

Differential vertical
‘Structural damage’.
Flexible foundations Analytical solutions
Differential lateral
possible
Combined lateral and vertical

Uniform vertical

Stiff shallow foundations Differential vertical ‘Rigid body’ response.

RC Frame Empirical solutions
Buildings OR
floating piles Differential lateral required.

Combined lateral and vertical

Uniform vertical Significant damage is

unlikely and can be
Differential vertical ignored on a regional
Piles to firm scale
stratum
Differential lateral
Outside the scope of this
Combined lateral and vertical paper

Fig. 6. Modes of liquefaction-induced damage within one building classification.

 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30 23

Table 2
Structural damage state descriptions for RC frame buildings (after Crowley et al. [31])

Structural damage band Description

None to slight Linear elastic response, flexural or shear type hairline cracks (!1.0 mm) in some members, no yielding in any critical
section
Moderate Member flexural strengths achieved, limited ductility developed, crack widths reach 1.0 mm, initiation of concrete
spalling
Extensive Significant repair required to building, wide flexural or shear cracks, buckling of longitudinal reinforcement may occur
Complete Repair of building not feasible either physically or economically, demolition after earthquake required, could be due to
shear failure of vertical elements or excessive displacement

intersection of the vertical line with vulnerability curve for that
limit state at a probability of failure, Pf, of 0.5 would suggest
nominal agreement between the two. For rigid body rotations
there is a slightly lower tolerance to small movements, being
controlled by aesthetic issues rather than the qualitative
parameter of yield stress, but higher tolerances to larger
movements, being less sensitive to increasing movements than
in the case of structural deformations.
4. Liquefaction in earthquake loss estimation models
The subject of this paper must be put into context by
reiterating that for buildings the liquefaction component of a
loss estimation model is, in the majority of cases, less
significant to the final results than the ground shaking
component (e.g. [1]). Nonetheless, the fact that liquefaction
is a secondary hazard in the context of earthquake-induced
losses by no means diminishes its importance. There is a need
for comprehensive methodologies capable of estimating
damage caused by all expected hazards to all elements of a
region’s infrastructure.
Any methodology to be added into a loss estimation should
provide a pragmatic solution to the issues of spatial uncertainty
and variability in ground conditions and exposed building
stock, while still producing a realistic and meaningful
estimation of the expected damage distribution as a result of
earthquake hazards. The particular requirements of a frame-
work for incorporating liquefaction into a loss model are:
1. Consistency with other components of the model, in terms
of complexity, accuracy and treatment of uncertainties.
2. Appropriate input data, commensurate with available
resources for a regional study, where detailed in situ
measurements are unlikely to be feasible in terms of cost or
time.
3. Compatibility of results with the estimation of damage
caused by ground shaking, i.e. using consistent damage
definitions as described in the previous section.
In terms of accuracy, the optimum approach would be to
predict the probability of liquefaction, the expected ground
deformation and the resulting damage to buildings using in situ
geotechnical data and detailed building inventory data
including foundation type. This would require specialist
input, and above all, analysis to determine the building
response, and is therefore likely to be prohibitive. The
pragmatic solution therefore seeks to deal with all the
uncertainties, rather than eliminate (or ignore) them.
4.1. HAZUS
In terms of recognising the need to have a ‘ground-failure
component’ and including all of the necessary steps to analyse
damage due to ground failure, the HAZUS [22] loss-estimation
methodology has made a significant contribution to the field. In
particular, the HAZUS methodology is advantageous to loss
modellers in being comprehensive, openly available, and fully
documented. Recognising the low level of geotechnical and
building inventory data that most loss estimations have to use,
HAZUS presents a simplified approach that seeks to resolve the
contradictory demands of minimising the amount of additional
data required and producing realistic estimates of the resulting
damage. It is the only published method for evaluating building
damage due to ground failure that does so in a detailed manner,
taking account of the expected mode of failure and foundation
type. Previous methodologies such as ATC-13 [40] simply
applied a factor to the calculated ground shaking-induced
damage to estimate the additional damage due to ground
failure.
Nonetheless, there are many additional uncertainties
generated through the simplifying assumptions made in
HAZUS, and these are poorly constrained and considered.
Bird et al. [36] showed that despite the use of published
references and logical analysis to determine the expected
ground deformations, the procedure is based in a large part on
subjective judgement, and therefore has no particular advan-
tage over other empirically-based procedures. The principal
shortcomings of the HAZUS ground-failure component relate
not to the assumptions and over-simplifications made in the
treatment of ground failure, discussed by Bird et al. [36], but
rather to what it fails to do, namely:
† It does not distinguish between different shallow foundation
systems, i.e. flexible or stiff, which will respond very
differently to ground failure
† The thickness of the liquefied layer is not evaluated; clearly
this will influence the extent of the damage. Without in situ
data, to do so is almost impossible, which highlights the
difficulty in attempting to incorporate liquefaction without
such data.
† It does not consider different building responses to uniform
or differential foundation deformations, and how these will
24 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
Fig. 7. Buildings damaged beyond repair due to rigid body rotation caused by
foundation failure in the city of Adapazari, Turkey, after the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake: (a) rotation only, (b) combined settlement and rotation. Photos
courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT).
vary with superstructure and foundation type is not
considered.
† Natural variability of soil properties, epistemic uncertain-
ties related to the choice of calculation methodology, and
Ruptured ground
floor slab
∆v ∆v
Fig. 8. Potential building response due to uniform vertical settlements in level,
homogeneous ground.
relationships between uncertain input and predicted results,
are all ignored.
To estimate building damage due to a geotechnical
phenomenon, as HAZUS attempts to do, with the only input
data being a susceptibility rating between none and very high,
according to the ratings presented by Youd and Perkins [4], is
intuitively flawed. Expected earthquake losses due to liquefac-
tion cannot be estimated in the absence of any geotechnical
information, at least not in a quantitative manner, and not from
the limited information currently available in this field. The
authors believe that to do so represents an unrealistic
simplification, because of the complex and unquantified
uncertainties associated with the subsequent results.
4.2. An improved framework for ground-failure
induced losses
Relative to the uncertainties associated with the ground-
shaking demand and building response, those associated with
the occurrence and consequences of liquefaction are, if not
larger, certainly more complex, and a number of additional
variables, with large associated uncertainties, are necessary to
define them.
Analytical solutions have been developed for building
vulnerability to ground deformations, for buildings on flexible
footings, presented by Bird et al. [33]. These have the
advantage of being based upon straightforward structural
mechanics rather than empirical data, and are fully compatible
with the estimation of ground shaking-induced structural
damage presented by Crowley et al. [31], thus satisfying the
three requirements listed at the beginning of Section 4.
Furthermore, the probabilistic framework allows rigorous
treatment of the associated uncertainties.
Fig. 10 illustrates the principal stages in the evaluation of
building damage in a region with liquefaction potential.
Complete definition of each stage in Fig. 10 becomes complex.
The illustration shown in the figure uses the analytical
procedures presented by Bird et al. [33]. The uncertainties
within this procedure are described in Section 2.3.
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30 25

Table 3
Suggested limit states for rigid body settlement and rotation due to earthquake-induced ground deformations beneath RC frame buildings [39]

Damage state Structural damage (see Table 2 for full descrip- Additional description (rigid body deformation) Settlement (D) Rotation (q)
tion) only only
Slight Hairline cracks only Repairs may be necessary for aesthetic reasons D%0.1 m q%0.68 1/100
Moderate Some cracks in load-bearing elements Repairable damage, serviceability and/or 0.1 m!D%0. 0.68!q%2.38 1/
functionality affected 3m 100–1/25
Extensive Wide cracks and buckling of longitudinal Uninhabitable, but repairable 0.3 m!D%1. 2.38!q%4.68 1/
reinforcement 0m 25–1/12.5
Complete Repair not feasible, shear failures or excessive Demolition cheaper than repair. Structural integ- R1.0 m qR4.68R1/12.5
displacement rity affected, possible instability

4.3. Combining liquefaction and ground-shaking hazards
The complex issue of combined ground shaking and
liquefaction has been touched upon in many previous
publications. Post-earthquake field reports of tilted or settled
buildings that do not exhibit any signs of structural damage or
distress due to ground shaking, are common, suggesting a ‘base
isolation’ effect, whereby the softening of the ground due to
liquefaction significantly increases the period of the ground
shaking, such that for most typical structural periods the
spectral accelerations are very low. Despite the theoretical and
observational support to this hypothesis, it has been clearly
demonstrated (e.g. [1,41]) that some strong shaking will occur
before the pore water pressures have built up sufficiently for
liquefaction to initiate. A number of case histories of reports of
buildings damaged by both shaking and liquefaction are
presented by Bird and Bommer [1]. Furthermore, as Bray and
Stewart [42] reasonably observe, where a building has
collapsed, which many would if subjected to strong ground
shaking followed by liquefaction, it is impossible to determine
the extent of liquefaction-induced deformations. This remains
a complex and somewhat controversial issue. Presently, it can
be concluded that the ‘base-isolation’ effect of liquefaction
cannot be reliably predicted and cannot therefore be
guaranteed, either for design or assessment. Two potential
scenarios are described below:
1. The two hazards do not interact, therefore, any group of
buildings has a probability P(X) of being affected by
liquefaction, and a probability of 1KP(X) of being
damaged by ground shaking. The final damage distribution
If the probability of liquefaction is negligible, then damage
will be due to ground shaking only, and if the occurrence of
liquefaction is certain (i.e. P(L)Z1) then damage will be due to
liquefaction only.
2. The two hazards do interact, i.e. the final damage state of
any building is a function of both the initial damage caused
by ground shaking and any subsequent damage caused by
liquefaction. In this case the final damage distribution is
calculated as follows:
PðDSÞ Z PðLÞPðDSjShaking plus LiquefactionÞ
C ð1KPðLÞÞPðDSjShaking onlyÞ (2)
In this scenario, the strong ground shaking, even though shorter
than the full duration, is of sufficient amplitude and duration to
cause some initial damage to the building. When the building is
still in some damage state less than collapse, the subsequent
deformation imposed on it due to liquefaction causes further
damage, either by increasing the deformation of the columns
(Fig. 4) or by causing the damaged building to settle and rotate
(Fig. 3). The final damage state is thus a function of the damage
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Pf | ∆ FV

0.5 vertical lines show suggested

can therefore be estimated as follows: rigid body limits for a 4m wide
0.4 building rotating due to
differential settlement beneath
0.3 its base
PðDSÞ Z PðLÞPðDSjLiquefactionÞ
0.2
C ð1KPðLÞÞPðDSjShakingÞ (1) 0.1 LS1 LS2 LS3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
where Differential Settlement of Foundations, ∆ (m)
FV
DS damage state (e.g. slight, moderate, extensive or
complete) Fig. 9. Comparison of rigid body rotational limits with vulnerability curves for
differential settlements by Bird et al. [33]; curves are derived for poor quality
P(L) Probability of liquefaction. This should be most onerous
RC frame buildings, with 4 m beam length, with flexible foundations. Vertical
combination of TL (thickness of liquefied layer) and P(L) lines are for 4 m wide buildings with stiff foundations. LS1, boundary between
with respect to the damage distribution, therefore, a slight and moderate damage; LS2, boundary between moderate and extensive
number of scenarios may need to be considered. damage; LS3, boundary between extensive and complete damage.
26 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30

Fig. 10. A framework for estimating damage in a zone of liquefaction susceptibility. The principal components are in the column on the left-hand side of the figure,
and a simplified illustration is shown on the right. This example considers P(L)Z0.5, differential vertical movements only and RC frame buildings with flexible
foundations. S, slight; M, moderate; E, extensive; C, complete damage (see Table 2). F(PGDjUV) signifies the CDF of PGD given that the ground deformation is
uniform vertical etc.

state reached at the onset of liquefaction, and hence, how much with field observations such that the complexities of the hazard
capacity remains to resist the liquefaction demand. interaction are implicitly included. A more rigorous approach
One suggested approach for including combined damage for determining the overall damage for the second scenario
would be to calibrate building vulnerabilities to liquefaction above (i.e. interaction), when there is sufficient data to do so, is
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30 27

briefly considered. However, it is recognised that there remain (a)

difficulties in determining when this will occur as opposed to LS1 LS2 LS3
F
the first scenario (i.e. no interaction), and that such assessments
may in many cases be beyond the scope of a loss estimation slight moderate extensive complete
model. Nonetheless, the procedure described below is a useful
illustration of the potential influence of liquefaction following
ground shaking.
A simplified behaviour model to determine the displace-
ment capacity at the end of ground shaking is illustrated in
Fig. 11. If the structure has not exceeded its yield capacity, i.e.
it has remained elastic, then the full displacement capacity is
available to resist liquefaction. If, however, either the yield
capacity or the second limit state, which defines the boundary
∆y ∆’ LS2 ∆ LS2 ∆ LS3 Displacement
between moderate and extensive damage, has been exceeded, Capacity
then it is nominally assumed that such buildings are, on Average available displacement
capacity of structure exceeding
average, half way between the two limits, and the remaining LS1 at end of ground shaking
capacity is calculated accordingly. The capacity is calculated
making the simplifying assumption that the unloading path has (b)
the same gradient as the initial loading path. If the structure LS1 LS2 LS3
F
has suffered complete damage due to ground shaking (i.e. it has
failed the third limit state), then it cannot be further damaged slight moderate extensive complete
by the occurrence of ground failure.
A further simplifying assumption has been made that all
damage due to ground shaking occurs in the first part of the
earthquake and the liquefaction-induced ground deformation
will occur towards the end of, or subsequent to the earthquake.
This ignores the potential for low-frequency ground shaking or
low-frequency ground oscillations after the onset of liquefac-
tion. A further assumption is made in Fig. 11 that the same
structural element is loaded by both ground-shaking and
ground deformation. This is likely to be the case for buildings ∆y ∆’ LS2 ∆ LS2 ∆ LS3 Displacement
Capacity
exhibiting column sway (soft-storey) behaviour under ground Average available displacement
shaking, followed by deformation beneath flexible foundations capacity of structure exceeding
LS1 at end of ground shaking
as shown in Fig. 4(a).
Based upon this model of ‘residual’ capacity at the end of Fig. 11. Schematic illustration of force–displacement paths for a structural
cyclic loading due to ground shaking, the schematic diagram element exceeding each limit state.: (a) to the end of the strong ground shaking
shown in Fig. 12 can be followed to obtain the final damage cycle (b) from the onset of liquefaction, showing the average available capacity
the element will have left to resist liquefaction-induced deformations.
state.

Building Classification Damage state at end of Potential damage states

strong shaking after liquefaction

Slight

Moderate
Slight
Extensive
Complete

Moderate
Moderate
RC Frame Extensive
Buildings. Pad
footings Complete

Extensive
Extensive
Complete

Complete Complete

Fig. 12. Cumulative structural damage due to ground shaking followed by liquefaction.
28 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
In order to implement the procedure shown in Fig. 12, an
important variable is the degree to which the occurrence of
liquefaction will modify the demand compared to the case
where no liquefaction occurs. It is hypothesised that in this case
the peak acceleration will still occur, but the number of cycles
of strong motion would be reduced.
4.4. Application of the new framework
A demonstration of the approach described in the preceding
sections and summarised in Fig. 10 is briefly presented using
measurements and observations from central Adapazari in the
1999 Kocaeli earthquake. The data from Adapazari allow an
estimation of both the strength of ground shaking and the
magnitude of the liquefaction-induced permanent ground
deformation. This means that some of the uncertainty
associated with the estimation of the demand is reduced. The
remaining uncertainty relates to the spatial variability across
the study region, and the natural heterogeneity of the ground
conditions. The example presented considers the semi-
hypothetical case of reinforced-concrete frame buildings on
flexible foundations subjected to the same level demand as the
buildings in central Adapazari, which were in reality mainly on
stiff raft foundations.
The ground shaking demand in downtown Adapazari must
be estimated using attenuation relationships, since there were
no strong-motion instruments in the immediate area. However
there were sufficient strong-motion records from the near-fault
region to guide the selection of an appropriate attenuation
relationship and hence a degree of reliability in the calculated
response spectra, as described by Bird et al. [36]. Thus the
variability of demand is modelled by allowing a range of site
classifications from D to E, and a range of source-site distances
of 6–8 km.
Almost no lateral spreading was observed in Adapazari,
therefore only settlement-induced damage is considered. The
ground deformation demand has been estimated from the range
of settlements reported for individual buildings by Yoshida
et al. [43], assuming that these are directly analogous to the
differential settlements in the ground beneath the buildings.
The median and standard deviation of the differential
settlements have been calculated from the data, where the
median differential settlement was 8 cm, with a lognormal
standard deviation of 0.6 (i.e. the data required at Step 4 in
Fig. 10). These values are significantly lower that the
maximum settlements reported in Adapazari, which exceeded
1.0 m in areas, because they are differential values across the
footprint of a single building. For a 4 m wide building on rigid
foundations, 8 cm corresponds to a rotation of 1/50 or
approximately 18 which appears a reasonable estimate of the
median value based upon the observations of Bray and Stewart
[42].
Additional information required to enable an estimation of
liquefaction-induced damage includes:
† The proportion of buildings not affected by liquefaction. In
central Adapazari, at least 60% of the buildings surveyed by
Bray and Stewart [42] did not suffer any ground failure.
This value ignores the buildings which collapsed and
therefore made it impossible to determine the occurrence of
ground failure and could therefore be an over-estimate of
the true value. This can be compared with a factor of 75%
assumed in HAZUS to represent the area of ground that
would not liquefy even given a high susceptibility to
liquefaction.
† The proportion of buildings affected by liquefaction where
the settlements were uniform rather than differential. The
presence of relatively stiff raft foundations in Adapazari
would certainly have influenced this by increasing the
likelihood of uniform settlements. A nominal factor of 10%
has been assigned for illustrative purposes.
The damage distribution has been predicted as follows:
(i) Ground shaking damage to RC frame buildings, using
the methodology presented by Crowley et al. [6].
(ii) Liquefaction damage to RC frame buildings with
flexible foundations due to differential settlements
using the analytical solutions presented by Bird et al.
[33].
(iii) Combined ground-shaking and liquefaction, assuming
‘base-isolation’, i.e. the two hazards are mutually
exclusive, and 60% of the buildings are damaged by
ground shaking only, the other 40% by liquefaction
only.
(iv) Combined ground shaking and liquefaction with no
‘base-isolation’ i.e. over the 40% of the area where
liquefaction occurs, buildings are damaged by ground
shaking then liquefaction, as suggested in Fig. 12.
Since the demand is predetermined for the sake of this
illustration, it is possible to inspect the hypothetical distri-
butions of damage due to both ground shaking and liquefaction
in the same locality.
Fig. 13 shows that liquefaction alone is less damaging to the
RC frame buildings than ground shaking alone. Combining the
two hazards in the manner suggested in Fig. 12 would increase
0.8
shaking differential settlement
Percentage of affected buildings
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Fig. 13. Comparison of damage distributions due to ground shaking only or
liquefaction-induced differential settlements only.
 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
0.8
shaking only
0.7
Proportion of buildings
shaking and liquefaction
0.6
0.5 shaking or liquefaction
(base isolation)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Slight Moderate Extensive
Fig. 14. Comparison of the two damage scenarios described in Section 4.3 to
the damage caused by ground shaking only.
the overall level of damage as shown in Fig. 14. Only damage
caused by differential settlement to RC frame buildings with
flexible foundations is considered in the liquefaction scenario,
ignoring many of the complexities associated with different
foundation types and damage mechanisms.
Fig. 14 shows the importance of the debate as to whether
‘base isolation’ will occur, since, the computed damage
distributions and their consequences are significantly different
for the two scenarios in Section 4.3. An incorrect assumption of
no interaction between the two hazards could produce
unconservative results.
5. Discussion
The role of engineering judgement in the estimation of
liquefaction-induced damage in earthquake loss models
warrants a brief discussion. There is a tendency in earthquake
loss estimations to seek to standardise procedures such that
they can be applied to different regions by different users in
order to obtain comparable results. This feature is particularly
desirable for insurance companies, and is the basis of the
ground failure component of the HAZUS methodology [22],
which contains many simplifications, including ‘hidden’
simplifications based upon the developers’ judgement. In the
field of geotechnical engineering, the role of judgement is
particularly significant, and, when extended to the field of
liquefaction engineering, it is essential to deal with uncertain-
ties ranging from the choice of the most appropriate
methodology to the selection of input parameters. No frame-
work could be developed that is universally applicable to all
regions and ground conditions, thus it is imperative that
decisions are made on the basis of individual studies.
Probabilistic methods as presented by Crowley et al. [31] and
Bird et al. [33], therefore, have a doubly important role to play,
since as well as representing spatial variability they are
required to describe the uncertainties related to these
judgements.
In the context of evaluating building damage caused by
liquefaction-induced ground deformations, separate solutions
are required for buildings on stiff shallow foundations, which
29
will respond as rigid bodies to deformations at foundation
level, and those on flexible (i.e. unrestrained) shallow
foundations, which will undergo structural deformations. As
there is no obvious analytical solution to the former case,
suggested limits have been proposed in Table 3, based largely
upon empirical criteria. There remains an urgent need for
improved field data for the calibration of such scales. There is a
significant gap in current field survey data relating to post-
earthquake repair methods for damaged buildings. In parallel
with this is a need for improved analytical solutions, such as
those presented by Bird et al. [33], since even an improved
Complete
empirical database will be small and sporadic in comparison to
those used to evaluate other insurance premiums. For piled
foundations many of the issues to consider are similar, i.e. the
consequences of pile deformation on the supported building.
Additional complexities must also be introduced such as the
founding level of the piles compared to the thickness of the
liquefied layer, and the lateral resistance capacity of the piles.
Methods for the identification of liquefaction susceptibility,
and the potential for the initiation of liquefaction under a given
level of shaking, continue to be developed and refined, but
without the capability to determine what this will mean for the
affected infrastructure, the usefulness of such methods is
inevitably limited. The variability and uncertainty relating to
the demand remains a major issue for the evaluation of
liquefaction-induced damage. Probabilistic procedures are
needed for the estimation of both average and differential
horizontal and vertical ground movements before a complete
methodology can be developed. This has been identified as one
of the present challenges of geotechnical earthquake engineer-
ing (e.g. [44,21]).
This paper has shown that to incorporate liquefaction-
induced damage into an earthquake loss model, following the
framework shown in Fig. 10, is a complicated procedure.
However, failure to consider each of these issues can produce
significant errors in the resulting damage estimations. Full
consideration as to the necessity of introducing liquefaction
into a loss model must be made [1]. Where it is deemed an
essential component of the model, then the additional data and
computational requirements described in this paper should be
incorporated.
Acknowledgements
The work of the first and third authors was respectively
funded through a Marie Curie fellowship and the SAFERR
Research Training Network from the European Commission.
Financial assistance from the EPSRC and Arup is also
gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to the
anonymous reviewer for constructive comments that improved
the manuscript.
References
[1] Bird JF, Bommer JJ. Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Eng Geol
2004;75(2):147–79.
30 J.F. Bird et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 15–30
[2] FEMA-249. Assessment for state-of-the-art earthquake loss estimation
methodologies. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC, 1994
[3] Juang CH, Yuan H, Li DK, Yang SH, Christopher RA. Estimating
severity of liquefaction-induced damage near foundations. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2005;25:403–11.
[4] Youd TL, Perkins DM. Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure
potential. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 1978;104(GT4):433–46.
[5] Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, et al.
Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe
insurance. J Seismol 2002;6(2):431–46.
[6] Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ. A probabilistic displacement-based
vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull
Earthq Eng 2004;2(2):173–219.
[7] 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 and NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(10):
817–33.
[8] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiuregian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF,
Kayen RE, et al. Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and
deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(12):1314–40.
[9] Rodriguéz-Marek A, Luccioni LX, Cetin KO. Probabilistic assessment of
liquefaction over large areas. Fourth international conference on recent
advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics
university of Missouri-Rolla 2002 [Paper No. 4.24].
[10] Zhang J, Zhao JX. Empirical models for estimating liquefaction-induced
lateral spread displacement. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2005;25:439–50.
[11] Youd TL, Hansen CM, Bartlett SF. Revised multilinear regression
equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement. ASCE J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2002;28(12):1007–17.
[12] Bardet JP, Tobita T, Mace N, Hu J. Regional modeling of liquefaction-
induced ground deformation. Earthq Spectra 2002;18(1):19–46.
[13] Youd TL, Perkins DM. Mapping of liquefaction severity index. ASCE
J Geotech Eng 1987;113(11):1374–92.
[14] Rauch AF, Martin JR. EPOLLS model for predicting average
displacements on lateral spreads. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2000;126(4):360–71.
[15] Tokimatsu K, Seed HB. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1987;113(8):
861–78.
[16] Ishihara K, Yoshimine M. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits
following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 1992;32(1):
173–88.
[17] Shamoto Y, Zhang J-M, Tokimatsu K. New charts for predicting large
residual post-liquefaction ground deformation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
1998;17:427–38.
[18] Glaser SD. Estimation of surface displacements due to earthquake
excitation of saturated sands. Earthq Spectra 1994;10(3):489–517.
[19] Vick SG. Degrees of belief: subjective probability and engineering
judgement. Reston, VA: ASCE Press, American Society of Civil
Engineers; 2002.
[20] Koutsourelakis S, Prévost JH, Deodatis G. Risk assessment of an
interacting structure-soil system due to liquefaction. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31:851–79.
[21] Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, et al.
Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent
framework. 26th annual ASCE Los Angeles geotechnical spring seminar,
Long Beach, California. Keynote presentation 2003.
[22] FEMA. HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC; 2003.
[23] Sadigh K, Egan JA, Youngs RR. Specification of ground motion for
seismic design of long period structures, 1986. Earthq Notes 1986;57(1):
13 [Relationships are tabulated in Joyner and Boore (1988)].
[24] Rauch AF, Martin JR. Predicting the maximum and distribution of
displacements on liquefaction-induced lateral spreads. Fourth inter-
national conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics in honor of Professor W.D.Liam Finn, San
Diego, California; 2001 [Paper No. 4.18].
[25] Power MS, Perman RC, Wesling JR, Youngs RR, Shimamoto MK.
Assessment of liquefaction potential in the San Jose, California, Urban
Area. Fourth international conference on seismic zonation, vol. 2; 1991. p.
677–84.
[26] Baecher GB, Christian JT. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical
engineering. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2003.
[27] Crowley H, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Bird JF. Epistemic uncertainty in loss
models. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn; 2005; 34 (14): 1653–1685.
[28] Al-Momani NM, Harrald JR. Sensitivity of earthquake loss estimation
model: how useful are the predictions. Int J Risk Assess Manage 2003;
4(1):1–19.
[29] Bardet JP, Kapuskar M. An analysis of the sand boils due to liquefaction
in the San Francisco Marina district during the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1993;119(3):543–62.
[30] Kircher CA, Reithermann RK, Whitman RV, Arnold CA. Estimation of
earthquake losses to buildings. Earthq Spectra 1997;13(4):643–61.
[31] Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ. A probabilistic displacement-based
vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull
Earthq Eng 2004;2(2):173–219.
[32] Sancio RB, Bray JD, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A. Performance of buildings
over liquefiable ground in Adapazari, Turkey. 13th world conference on
earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada 2004 [Paper No. 935].
[33] Bird JF, Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ. Assessment of building
response to liquefaction-induced differential ground deformation.
Engineering 2005; 38(4), in press.
[34] Mejia LH, Hughes DK, Sun JI. Liquefaction at moss landing during the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 10th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema; 1992. p. 1435–40.
[35] Marino GG. Earthquake damage inspection, evaluation and repair.
Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ; 1997.
[36] Bird JF, Bommer JJ, Bray JD, Sancio RB, Spence RJS. Comparing loss
estimation with observed damage in a zone of ground failure: a study of
the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 2004;2(3):
329–60.
[37] Kehoe BE. Conflicting issues in post-earthquake damage evaluations
Sixth US national conference on earthquake engineering, 1998. Oakland,
California: Earthquake Engineering Research Inst.; 1998.
[38] Hwang J-H, Yang C-W, Chen C-H. Investigations on soil liquefaction
during the Chi-Chi earthquake. Soils Found 2003;107–23.
[39] Bird JF. Earthquake loss estimations: modelling losses due to ground
failure. PhD Thesis. Imperial College London, University of London;
2005.
[40] ATC. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. ATC-13.
Advanced Technology Council. Redwood City, California; 1985.
[41] Lopez FJ. Does liquefaction protect overlying structures from ground
shaking? MSc dissertation Pavia. ROSE School, Italy; 2002.
[42] Bray JD, Stewart JP. Damage patterns and foundation performance in
Adapazari, in Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake of August 17, reconnaissance
report. Earthq Spectra 2000;(Suppl. A):163–89.
[43] Yoshida N, Tokimatsu K, Yasuda S, Kokusho T, Okimura T.
Geotechnical aspects of damage in Adapazari city during 1999 Kocaeli,
Turkey earthquake. Soils Found 2001;41(4):25–45.
[44] Kramer SJ, Stewart JP. Geotechnical aspects of seismic hazards. In:
Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV, editors. Earthquake engineering: from
engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. FL, USA:
CRC Press; 2004.