Ground Motion Intensity Measures at Liquefaction Field Case History Sites

The state of practice for assessing soil liquefaction triggering relies on semiempirical models that use the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the ground surface and the earthquake moment magnitude (M) to represent the seismic demand leading to liquefaction or lack thereof. Analysts have used various methods to compute PGAs at liquefaction case history sites from previous earthquakes. PGA was often taken as equal to the value recorded at the nearest seismic station, sometimes adjusted based on the results of one-dimensional (1D) ground response analyses to account for differences in site effects. Ground motion models or judgment were often used when a site was not located near a seismic station. These approaches do not account for the differences in path effects between the liquefaction site and the nearest ground motion recording, may neglect differences in site conditions between a seismic station and a liquefaction site, and do not generally consider PGA spatial correlation. This paper’s objective is to compute PGAs at 569 case history sites in the Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) database using a consistent approach that builds on previous studies. Three alternative intensity measures (IMs) are also computed at the liquefaction sites, namely peak ground velocity (PGV), Arias intensity (IA), and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV). A comparison of legacy and newly estimated PGAs indicates a mean difference of −0.034 in natural logarithmic units (legacy values larger) and 95% of our values lie between 55 and 180% (i.e., a factor of 1.8) of legacy PGAs. This shows that the previous and new PGA values are comparable as a whole, but individual cases have appreciable differences, the causes of which are explained in this paper.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1061/jggefk.gteng-14212
Primary Topic
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ground Motion Intensity Measures at Liquefaction Field Case History Sites

Renmin Pretell, Scott J. Brandenberg, Jonathan P. Stewart
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
article

Ground Motion Intensity Measures at Liquefaction Field Case History Sites

Renmin Pretell, Scott J. Brandenberg, Jonathan P. Stewart
article en

Abstract

The state of practice for assessing soil liquefaction triggering relies on semiempirical models that use the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the ground surface and the earthquake moment magnitude (M) to represent the seismic demand leading to liquefaction or lack thereof. Analysts have used various methods to compute PGAs at liquefaction case history sites from previous earthquakes. PGA was often taken as equal to the value recorded at the nearest seismic station, sometimes adjusted based on the results of one-dimensional (1D) ground response analyses to account for differences in site effects. Ground motion models or judgment were often used when a site was not located near a seismic station. These approaches do not account for the differences in path effects between the liquefaction site and the nearest ground motion recording, may neglect differences in site conditions between a seismic station and a liquefaction site, and do not generally consider PGA spatial correlation. This paper’s objective is to compute PGAs at 569 case history sites in the Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) database using a consistent approach that builds on previous studies. Three alternative intensity measures (IMs) are also computed at the liquefaction sites, namely peak ground velocity (PGV), Arias intensity (IA), and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV). A comparison of legacy and newly estimated PGAs indicates a mean difference of −0.034 in natural logarithmic units (legacy values larger) and 95% of our values lie between 55 and 180% (i.e., a factor of 1.8) of legacy PGAs. This shows that the previous and new PGA values are comparable as a whole, but individual cases have appreciable differences, the causes of which are explained in this paper.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringVol. 152(8)
University of Nevada, Reno (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.