National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: APPENDIX A-2 Constitutive Models
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27537.
×
Page 38

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 APPENDIX A-3 Case Histories General The following types of case histories are of special value for engineers: (i) strong ground shaking (i.e., PGA > 0.4 g); (ii) large-magnitude /long duration shaking (e.g., Tohoku, Japan seismic event-type shaking); (iii) soft soil sites; (iv) liquefiable sites; and (v) sites known to have liquefied in the past. For this study, sites that fall into categories “iv” and “v” are of interest. However, this reduced set of case histories is small. Therefore, at the planning stage of this study, the database of candidate case histories was expanded to include the results of physical modeling, including centrifuge tests and shake table tests. Case histories generated by blasting and/or by means of University of Texas at Austin (UT) VibroseisTM shakers1 were initially considered as well. However, these case histories do not represent free field 1D ground shaking and were therefore eliminated from further consideration. The VibroseisTM data, however, were considered indirectly, i.e., as a supplement to a dataset used for the development of modulus reduction curves for the Wildlife Liquefaction Array (WLA) site case history (see Section 5). Presented below are the required attributes for case histories and two levels of screening of gathered information. A brief summary of each case history considered, including references and hyperlinks, is provided as well. Required Attributes The following are the required attributes on case histories of 1D free field effective-stress response of soil deposits composed primarily of sand. Table A-1. Required Attributes for Case Histories Attributes Note / Explanation 1. Free Field (F-F) case history of site response. 2. Recorded in-hole (i.e., “within”) or outcropping input motions. 3. Recorded F-F ground surface motion; present results in form of 5% damped spectra. 1. This assumes level ground conditions with no structures and/or basements, and no other structural inclusions as piers and piles present in the profile. 2. This refers to recorded motion or centrifuge model (laminar box) excitation. 3. Calculated response should match this motion in time domain (F-F spectra). 1 Such a study was performed on the re-instrumented portion of the WLA Site.

18 4. Recorded pore water pressure time history(ies) (exceptions will be justified for some cases). 5. Site (i.e., soil profile) characterization data are available (see Table 1). 6. Advanced soil testing data required for the development of CM parameters are available (if empirical relations or default parameters are not sufficient). 7. Observational data are available (e.g., sand boils; large settlement; recorded settlement profile). 8. Preference to be given to liquefiable soils find in situ (silty sands). 4. Recorded between the input and ground surface motion. 5. Shear wave velocity, unit weight, and shear strength profiles, saturated hydraulic conductivity profile. 6. Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (CyDSS) and/or Cyclic Triaxial (CyTX) test results. However, for some case histories these may not be available, but nevertheless the cases remain quite useful. 7. This information may compensate for the lack of PWP records. 8. Most of physical modeling (centrifuge and shake table tests) were performed on clean sands. SRA = Site Response Analysis; F-F = free field (level surface; no structure or structural inclusions; no lateral spreading); CM = Constitutive Model; CyDSS = Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (test); CyTX = Cyclic Triaxial (test). Preliminary Screening (Reviewed Case Histories) Field Case Histories Table A-2 presents a summary of 32 recorded (i.e., field) case histories. These case histories were identified during the preliminary screening process. Efforts to gather more data about these case histories continued into the late stages of this study. Information collected is summarized in Table A-2 along with relevant hyperlinks that are highlighted in “blue.” Table A-2. Reviewed (Candidate) Field Case Histories - Recorded Response (Active Links are indicated in “Blue”) No CASE HISTORY SUMMARY OF KEY ITEMS 1 Wildlife Liquefaction Array – 1987 M 6.2 Elmore Ranch Earthquake Strong motion case history with PWP measurements. Site did not liquefy in this event. Over 30 technical references related to this case history are available. 2 Wildlife Liquefaction Array – 1987 M 6.6 Superstition Hills Earthquake This is still the best strong motion effective-stress case history. Widespread liquefaction was observed after the event (sand boils, lateral spreading, …). Over 120 technical references related to this case history are available. 3 Wildlife Liquefaction Array – Re- instrumented at a site nearby. 2012 M 4.9 Hovley Earthquake Instrumentation installed at the WLA site in 1986 was replaced with modern instrumentation in 2004 at a site nearby. Additional site characterization/ material testing was performed in 2004 (and in 2019; this study). Strong motion and PWP records are available. Steidl and Seale (2010). 4 Port Island – 1995 M 6.9 Kobe, Japan Eq. Array extended through soils known to have liquefied in the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake (Sitar, 1995; Bertero et al 1995; Zeghal et al., 1996a, b). The Port Island array did not include pore pressure transducers, but it did have strong motion instruments on the ground surface and at depths of 16, 32, and 83 meters. Thick deposits of ejecta erupted near the array during the earthquake. A number of investigators have used the Port Island array recordings to improve and validate various effective-stress site response models for pore pressure development and liquefaction (Cubrinovski et al., 1996; Elgamal et al., 1996). Yamaguchi et al. (2002) performed a centrifuge test replicating the Port Island Case History. 5 Lotung Downhole Array (M 4 through M 7; Multiple Events) This site is in Taiwan. Instrument array was installed on the site of a quarter- scale nuclear power plant block. Site was shaken by several earthquakes. Both strong ground motions and PWPs were recorded. EPRI obtained relevant information from this site in 1993 and studied it for its purposes. Link provided in the second column leads to 14 easily-accessible publications co-authored by Dr. Elgamal.

19 6 ANAS - 1989 M 6.9 Loma Prieta Eq. Alameda Naval Air Station (ANAS) - Hydraulic fill over YBM site that liquefied in the M 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake; Youd and Carter (2003) and Carter and Youd (2005) used Yerba Buena/ Treasure Island records to analyze this site. 7 Borrego Valley Downhole Array Near Palm Springs, California. Instrumented but not shaken. Ground surface and downhole SM instruments. No PWP transducers. Martin et al. (1997). 8 Buia, Italy – M 6.0 Friuli Plain Eqs. Alluvial Site/ 1D-Structure. No PWP records. No liquefaction; Sandron et al. (2010). 9 Delaney Park Downhole Array, Alaska A recently installed (2018), well-instrumented, 61-m deep downhole array. No PWP instruments installed, just SM instruments; Thornley et al. (2018); Instrumentation was not functional during the 2018 M 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake. 10 Garner Valley 1992 (multiple low-intensity events) Instrumented with surface accelerometers, in-hole PWP transducers, and in- hole accelerometers. Ching and Glaser (2001). Steidl and Seale (2010); 11 KASSEM System 1987 M 6.6 - PWP Recorded This is a well-instrumented site between Fukushima and Sendai, Japan. Records of velocity (vertical and lateral arrays) and excess PWP are available (PWP records are available at 5 m, 13 m, and 16.5 m b.g.s.). SPT blow counts and shear wave velocity logs are available. Yanagisawa and Ohmiya (1988). 12 Kings Harbor – 1994 M 6.7 Northridge Eq. Liquefied in 1994 in M 6.7 Northridge earthquake. Only free field strong motion records from a site nearby are available. Stamatopoulos and Aneroussis (2004). 13 La Cienega 2001 M 4.2 Deepest instrumented alluvium site in the world. Weak motions recorded in-hole; No PWP measurements. Kwok et al. (2007). 14 Lucerne Valley 1992 Vertical SM array. Only records of weak motion are available. Tsai et al. (2008). 15 McGee Creek 1984 M 5.8 Vertical SM array that recorded a M 5.8 event in 1984. This is the closest downhole array to the epicenter of the July 5, 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest (Searles Valley) earthquake (epicentral distance = 100 km). However, only weak motion was recorded in 2019. Seale and Archuleta (1988); 16 Niigata 1964 M 7.5 This is the best-known site of severe and widespread liquefaction. Only strong motion records recorded at a ground surface above liquefiable soil are available. Youd and Carter (2005). 17 Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant; M 6.6 2007 Nigata-ke Chuetsu-oki earthquake Well-instrumented liquefiabla site in Japan shaken by a M 6.6 Nigata-ke Chuetsu-oki earthquake. At the time of the earthquake groundwater was 45 m b.g.s. Site did not liquefy. Surface settled by 150 mm. Acceleration time histories were recorded at 2 m, 51 m, 99 m, and 250 m. Site characterization data include SPT blow counts and shear wave velocity profile to a depth of 120 m b.g.s. Triaxial compression and Resonant Column test results are available as well. Yee et al. (2013). 18 Oakland to Richmond 1989 - M 6.9 Loma Prieta Eq. Only free field strong motion records from a site nearby are available. No evidence of soil liquefaction was observed following the event. Kayen et al. (1992). 19 Owi Island 1985 1985 M 6.2 Chiba-Ibaragi Earthquake Well-instrumented hydraulic fill site in Tokyo Bay. Ground surface (0.072 g) and in-hole (0.043 g) strong motion records and a PWP record at depth are available. No liquefaction, bu ru = 3%. Ishihara et al. (1981; 1987; 1989); Matasovic (1993). 20 SF Marina District 1989 - M 6.9 Loma Prieta Eq. Only free field strong motion records from a site nearby are available. Observed impacts of soil liquefaction are well documented. Bardet and Martin (1992). 21 SF South Market 1989 - M 6.9 Loma Prieta Eq. Only free field strong motion records from a site nearby are available. Observed impacts of soil liquefaction are well documented. O’Rourke et al. (1992). 22 Tarzana M 6.7 Northridge Earthquake Only free field strong motion records (1+ g record) are available. No evidence of soil liquefaction was observed at the site. Bouchon and Barket (1996). 23 Turkey Flat 2004 – M 6.0 Parkfield Earthquake Well-characterized NEHRP Site Class C site. instrumented with both bedrock outcrop, in-hole, and ground surface SM instruments. Records from the 2004 M 6.0 Parkfield event are available. Site response is influenced by the basin and basin edge effects. Real et al. (2006); Kwok et al. (2007). 24 Treasure Island 1989 - M 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake Well-known case history. 1989 M 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Major real estate development in progress at this site – site characterization data available. Only in-hole and ground surface records are available. Numerous sand boils were observed.

20 25 Christchurch city, New Zealand, 2010 M 7.1 Canterbury Earthquake, 2011 M 6.2 Christchurch earthquake Well-known soil liquefaction case history. Several sites liquefied in both 2010 M 7.1 Canterbury earthquake and 2011 M 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Only surface strong motion records are available. Cubrinovski et al. (2019) studied 55 sites and performed an additional site exploration effort to better characterize subsurface conditions. 26 CentrePort, Wellington, New Zealand, M 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake Well-known soil liquefaction site. Only strong motion records from sites nearby are available. Cubrinovski et al. (2017) and Bray et al. (2019). 27 California, Crockett, Carquinez Bridge Geotech Arrays #1 and #2, 2014 M 6.0 South Napa Main Shock earthquake Li et al. (2018) gathered relevant information and processed and interpreted data from seven downhole arrays in California and Japan. None of the sites liquefied in the studied events. Stewart and Ishihara (2012) showed that soils in these sites are not susceptible to liquefaction, and they did not probably generate significant excessive PWP during the recorded events. Data gathered and processed by Li et al. (2018) is sufficient to perform 1D, multi-directional, total stress site response analysis. Li et al. (2018) used LS- DYNA and used two nonlinear CM-s for sand and linear elastic CM for soils other than sand). 28 California, Vallejo – Hwy 37/Napa River E Geo. Array, 2014 M 6.0 South Napa Main Shock earthquake 29 California, Eureka Geotechnical Array, 2010 M 6.5 Ferndale earthquake 30 California, El Centro Meloland Geotechnical Array, 2010 M 7.2 Calexico 31 Japan, Service Hall Array, 2007 M 6.6 Niigata mainshock 32 Japan, Unit 5 Free Field Array, 2007 M 5.7 Niigata aftershock No. 2 YBM = Young Bay Mud; SF = San Francisco; ru = PWP ratio (ru = 1.0 indicates full liquefaction); PWP = pore water pressure; SM = strong motion (Instrument); b.g.s. = below ground surface; CM = Constitutive Model; SPT = Standard Penetration Test. The need to consider an additional type of case histories become obvious soon after the initial screening of recorded case histories had begun. Therefore, the search was expanded to centrifuge testing case histories. Centrifuge Testing Case Histories Well-planned, instrumented, and executed centrifuge tests can, within constraints discussed later in this report, generate a wealth of information for study of seismic response of saturated silty sand under controlled conditions. Therefore, a total of 44 centrifuge tests was screened as a part of this project, including data from the Verification of Liquefaction Analysis by Centrifuge Studies project, and the Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Project (LEAP). Upon closer inspection, the RT found that most of these tests have been performed in rigid centrifuge boxes (as opposed to the flexible shear beam and/or laminar boxes which are more representative of

21 one-dimensional field conditions)2 and would thus not provide a reliable validation basis for study goals. Tests conducted for the LEAP project were performed on models with a slope on the order of 5 degrees. They were designed to simulate/evaluate lateral spreading and hence are not representative of free field conditions. Below, in Table A-3, is a reduced set of 29 centrifuge tests that meet the initial screening criterion, i.e., that they were performed in laminar boxes. These tests also meet the secondary criterion, i.e., that test instrumentation meets the requirements of this study (the requirements of this study call for instrumentation with accelerometers, pore water pressure (PWP) transducers, and for data acquisition boards capable of recording information in time steps that are small enough to generate time histories for site response analysis). Table A-3. Candidate Centrifuge Experiments (Free Field Conditions and Laminar Box Only) No Case History Relevant Information Thumbnail Reference 1 PNR5 CGM/UCD 1. PBA: from 0.20g to 0.4 g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES, but close to piles. 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Tarin et al. (1998) 2 SMS2 CGM/UCD 1. PBA: NA 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Boland et al. (2001) 3 RPI 1. PBA: NA 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: Laminar Box 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Dobry and Abdoun (2001) 2 The difference between flexible beam and laminar boxes is in the manner in which stacked aluminum containers are mutually connected (by rubber or roller bearings).

22 4 RPI 1. PBA: from 0.08 to 0.3 (prototype scale) 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Adalier et al. (2003) 5 RPI 1. PBA: from 0.20g to 0.41g (prototype scale) 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Sharp et al. (2003) 6 BG-04 CAM, UK 1. PBA: 0.15g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: YES Ghosh and Madabhus hi (2004) 7 CGM/UCD 1. PGA: from 0.03g to 1.73g (prototype scale) 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: YES Elgamal et al. (2005) 8 BM1, BM2, BM3 CAM, UK 1. PGA: from 0.06g to 0.32g (prototype scale) 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Mitrani and Madabhus hi (2006) 9 CZ1P, CZ1F, CZ3 CAM, UK

23 10 WA1P, WA1F, WA3 CAM, UK 11 CAM, UK 1. PBA: up to 0.4g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Bouckovala s et al (2015) 12 RLH01, SSK01 GGM/UCD 1. PGA: from 0.12g to 0.79g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Howell et al. (2012) 13 CU Boulder 1. PBA: 0.30g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: YES Kirkwood and Dashti (2018); Ramirez et al. (2018) 14 CU Boulder 1. PBA: From 0.02g to 0.79g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Olarte et al. (2017) CENSEIS FFP1 RPI 1. PBA: From 0.014g to 0.041g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Abdoun et al. (2013; Gonzalez (2008);

24 15 CENSEIS FFP2 RPI 1. PBA: From 0.014g to 0.041g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site 6. characterization info. available: YES 7. Advanced level material properties: NO 1. PBA: From 0.035g to 0.25g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: Laminar container 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 6. Advanced level material properties: NO Abdoun et al. (2013); Thevanaya gam et al. (2009) 16 CENSEIS FFV1 RPI 17 CENSEIS FFV3 RPI 18 SG-1 (Large Scale) UB 19 LG-0 (Large Scale) UB Thevanaya gam et al. (2009) EI Sekelly et al. (2016); Mercado et al (2016) 20 PRESHAKE (91 tests in total) 21 Small centrifuge (Schaevitz), 7 tests CGM/UCD 1. PBA: NA 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NA 6. Advanced level material properties: NA Dobry (2019) [Personal Communic ation with Dr. Neven Matasovic]

25 22 CGM/UCD 1. PBA: NA 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NA Advanced level material properties: NA Dobry (2019) [Personal Communic ation with Dr. Neven Matasovic] 23 CGM/UCD 24 CGM/UCD 25 Dr95FF RPI 1. PBA: From 0.091g and 0.127g to 0.350g and 0.308g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: 2D Laminar container 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: YES Cerna-Diaz et al. (2017) 26 UCD/CGM 7. PBA: 0.35g, 0.67g 8. Free Field: YES 9. Box: FSB 10. PWP records: YES 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Brandenbe rg et al. (2005) 27 UCD/CGM 1. PBA: From 0.13g to 0.55g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: FSB 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: NO 1. Advanced level material properties: NO Dashti et al. (2009)

26 28 UNH 1. PBA: 0.1 g 2. Motion: realistic earthquake motion 3. Free Field: YES 4. Box: Laminar container 5. PWP records: YES 6. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: YES Borghei et al. (2020) 29 RPI 1. PBA: 0.067 g 2. Free Field: YES 3. Box: 2D Laminar Container 4. PWP records: YES 5. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 6. Advanced level material properties: Yes Dobry et al. (2018) CGM/UCD = Center for Geotechnical Modeling/ University of California, Davis; UNH = University of New Hampshire; RPI = Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; CAM, UK = Cambridge University, United Kingdom. FSB = Flexible Shear Beam; PBA = Peak Base Acceleration of Input Motion; PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration; NA = Not Available. All tests listed in Table A-3 meet the primary (laminar box) and secondary (instrumentation) screening criteria. Moreover, several tests (e.g., tests 6 and 9-11) may be used to develop two free field case histories (see portions of tests shown in Table A-3 that are indicated with “deformed” green circles). However, further screening revealed that none of screened tests was performed on a material desired for this study, i.e., saturated silty sand. With one exception, all of the screened tests were performed on saturated, commercially available clean sands. The Adalier et al. (2003) test was performed on silt. Therefore, further literature review and screening was required. Shake Table Tests Table A-4 lists 13 shake table tests that met the initial screening criteria (requirements on adequate instrumentation and testing in laminar boxes). Like for the centrifuge testing, portions of the tests that meet the free field conditions are highlighted, this time with red rectangular markers. However, with exception of several very large shake tables in Japan (not considered herein), these tests cannot replicate in situ stress conditions for most problems of interest herein. Shake table test results are difficult to scale as well.

27 Table A-4. Candidate Shake Table Case Histories (Free Field Conditions and Laminar Box) No Test Test Information Thumbnail Reference 1 Caltrans Powell:1 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Steel Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density 7. Layered Soil: No Ebeido (2019) Ebeido et al. (2018a) Ebeido et al. (2018b) Ebeido et al. (2019) 2 Caltrans Powell:2 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Steel Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019) Ebeido et al. (2018a) Ebeido et al. (2018b) Ebeido et al. (2019) 3 Caltrans Powell:3 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Steel Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019) Ebeido et al. (2018a) Ebeido et al. (2018b) Ebeido et al. (2019) 4 Caltrans Powell:4 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: RC Pile 3. Structure: No 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019) Ebeido et al. (2018a) Ebeido et al. (2018b) Ebeido et al. (2019) 5 Caltrans Powell:5 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: RC Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, Vs 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019)

28 6 Bucket Foundation 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: No 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, Vs 7. Layered Soil: No Zayed et al. (2019) 7 Asymm 1 1. Level Ground: Yes 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: No 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, Vs 7. Layered Soil: Yes Zayed (2019) 8 UNRPEER 1 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Footing 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, Vs, DPT 7. Layered Soil: Yes Zayed et al. (2019) [Submitted] 9 UNRPEER 2 1. Level Ground: Yes 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Footing with Helical Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, Vs DPT, CPT-u 7. Layered Soil: Yes Orang et al. (2021) 10 EagleLift 1. Level Ground: Yes 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Footing with Polymer 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, DPT, CPT-u 7. Layered Soil: Yes Prabhakaran et al. (2020)

29 11 TCH1 1. Level Ground: Yes 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Steel Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Nevada #60 6. Characterization: Relative Density, CPT 7. Layered Soil: No Chang and Hutchinson [2013a] Chang and Hutchinson [2013b] Chang (2011) 12 Caltrans: ESEC1 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Steel Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, DPT, CPT-u, Vs 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019) 13 Caltrans: ESEC2 1. Level Ground: No 2. Saturated: Yes 3. Structure: Prestressed RC Pile 4. Free Field records: Yes 5. Sand: Ottawa F-65 6. Characterization: Relative Density, CPT-u, Vs 7. Layered Soil: Yes Ebeido (2019) Vs = shear wave velocity; CPT-u = Cone Penetration Test with PWP measurement; RC = Reinforced Concrete. Secondary Screening and Selected Case Histories and the Final Selection Table 1. Reduced Set of Case Histories, Including Field Case Histories and Centrifuge Tests Case History Thumbnail Relevant Information Wildlife Liquefaction Array Site – 1987 Elmore Ranch Earthquake 1. M 6.2 / Shallow crustal event (Strike-Slip Fault) 2. Intermediate-field (approx. site-to-source dist. = 23 km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES (0.08 g) 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.13 g) 6. PWP records: NO 7. Liquefaction: NO 8. Lateral Spreading: NO 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only: YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES(1) 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Wildlife Liquefaction Array Site – 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake 1. M 6.6 / Shallow crustal event (Strike-Slip Fault) 2. Intermediate-field (approx. site-to-source dist. = 31 km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES (0.17 g) 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.21 g) 6. PWP records: YES (@ 4 depths)(2) 7. Liquefaction: YES 8. Lateral Spreading: YES 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES(1)

30 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Wildlife Liquefaction Array Site – Re- instrumented at a site nearby, 20012 Hovley Earthquake 1. M 4.9 / Shallow crustal events 2. Near-field (approx. site-to-source distance = 8 km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.30 g max.) 6. PWP records: YES 7. Liquefaction: NO 8. Lateral Spreading: NO 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES(1) 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Dobry et al. (2018) Centrifuge Test 1. Magnitude is not applicable 2. Site-to-source distance not applicable 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES (@ 5 depths) 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES 6. PWP records: YES (@5 depths) 7. Liquefaction: YES 8. Lateral Spreading: NO 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only NO/YES 11. Advanced level material properties: NO Kirkwood and Dashti (2018); Ramirez et al. (2018) Centrifuge Test 1. M Info not available 2. Site-to-source distance not applicable) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO-not applicable 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES – 0.022-0.8g 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES -Varying 6. PWP records: YES (@ 4 depths) 7. Liquefaction: YES 8. Lateral Spreading: Unknown 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only YES/YES 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES(1) 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Port Island, Kobe, J apan, 1995 Kobe Earthquake 1. M 6.9 / Shallow Crustal Event (Thrust Fault) 2. Intermediate-field (approx. site-to-source dist. = 18 km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES (0.6 g) 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.30 g) 6. PWP records: NO 7. Liquefaction: YES 8. Lateral Spreading: Unknown 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 12. Advanced level material properties: NO Treasure Island/ Y erba Buena Island – 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 1. M 4.0-5.4 / Shallow crustal event (Strike-Slip Fault) 2. Intermediate-field (appr. site-to-source dist. = 70+ km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.02 g max.) 6. PWP records: NO 7. Liquefaction: Unknown 8. Lateral Spreading: Unknown 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 12. Advanced level material properties: NO

31 Owi Island, 1985 Chiba- Ibaragi Earthquake 1. M 6.2 (Subduction Event) 2. Intermediate-field (approx. site-to-source dist. = 50 km) 3. Outcrop record (outcrop Vs): NO 4. In-Hole record/PGA: YES (0.04 g) 5. Ground Surface record/PGA: YES (0.07 g) 6. PWP records: YES 7. Liquefaction: NO, ru = 3% 8. Lateral Spreading: NO 9. Intrusions (Pile Foundations): NO 10. Layering/sand only: YES/NO 11. Design-level site characterization info. available: YES 12. Advanced level material properties: NO (1) RT performed a significant site characterization and laboratory testing program at this site to supplement existing data. (2) There is a controversy associated with these PWP records. Several researchers question the validity of the PWP records. Discussion is ongoing. M = Moment Magnitude (Scale); R = Site-to-source distance; RT = Research Team; PWP = (Seismically induced) pore water pressure. Although carefully screened, case histories listed in Table A-5 “loosely” meet the attributes set forth in this study. Recorded case histories do not meet the requirements on the availability of PWP records (there are issues even with the well-known WLA site records) and site characterization information is not complete (e.g., results of advanced laboratory testing of silty sands required for development of advanced constitutive models are not available). The centrifuge models have been built using commercially available sands, i.e., clean sands of a kind that cannot be found in nature. They were eliminated from further consideration. Relevant information on selected case histories presented in Tables A-2 and A-5 is further processed in Table A-6. The title/information in the first four columns of Table A-6 is self- explanatory. The title of the fifth column (“Adequate Site Characterization”) refers to the information required to run SRA, but not with the advanced constitutive models such as PM4SAND, UBCSAND, and UCSDSAND3. This information is adequate, however, to run D-MOD2000 with the MKZ model. The title of the sixth column (“Material Properties”) refers to a set of advanced material properties required to develop parameters of advanced constitutive models such as PM4SAND, UBCSAND, and UCSDSAND3. The last column of Table 1-6 (“Observational Data”) refers to data such as post-event sand boils, observed lateral spreading, observed prolonged period in surface motion (typical of records above liquefied layers), and settlement profile (usually available from centrifuge tests). This information can be used to indirectly and/or qualitatively assess the success of site response analysis. For example, the settlement profile can be calculated in 2D analysis and assessed in 1D analysis, and one can observe whether the time history calculated above the liquefied layer exhibits prolonged periods. Table A-6. Quick Reference of Selected Case Histories Case History Base Record (PHGA) Ground Surface Record PWP Record(s) Adequate Site Characterizat. Material Properties Observational Data

32 WLA Site – Superstition Hills M 6.6 Earthquake In-Hole (0.17 g) YES (0.20 g) YES(1) (ru = 0.95) YES (2) NO(2) YES WLA Site – Elmore Ranch M 6.2 Earthquake In-Hole (0.078 g) YES (0.13 g) YES (1) YES(2) NO(2) YES WLA Site – Re- instrumented at a site nearby; Hovley Event M 4.9 In-Hole (0.22 g @ 100 m b.g.s.) YES (up to 0.31 g) YES (ru = 0.2–0.6) YES (2) NO(2) YES Owi Island - M 6.2 Chiba-Ibaragi, Japan Earthquake In-Hole (0.043 g) YES (0.072 g) YES (ru = 0.2) YES NO YES Port Island – M 6.9 Kobe, Japan Earthquake In-Hole (0.70 g @ 83 m) YES (0.32 g) NO YES NO YES Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island M 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake Bedrock Outcrop (0.067 g) YES (0.159 g) NO YES NO YES Notes: (1) The PWP record is limited; PWP was recorded only during the strong motion part of shaking; PWP dissipation likely progressed for several minutes or longer. (2) Additional data were obtained during the course of this study. ru = PWP ratio, i.e., PWP normalized with the initial effective vertical stress (ru ≥ 0.95 indicates onset of liquefaction); WLA = Wildlife Liquefaction Array; b.g.s. = below ground surface. References – Field Case Histories Bardet, J., and Martin, G. (1992). An assessment of the two-dimensional and wave propagation effects on the site response of the Marina District of San Francisco during the Loma Prieta earthquake Technical Report NCEER (Vol. 92, pp. 669-687): US National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Bertero, V. V., Borcherdt, R. D., Clark, P. W., Dreger, D. S., Filippou, F. C., Foutch, D. A., and Xiao, Y. (1995). Seismological and engineering aspects of the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake. Bouchon, M., and Barker, J. S. (1996). Seismic response of a hill: the example of Tarzana, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(1A), 66-72. Bray, J. D., Cubrinovski, M., Dhakal, R., and Torre, C. D. L. (2019, March). Seismic Performance of CentrePort Wellington. In Geo-Congress 2019: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (pp. 76-89). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Ching, J.-Y., & Glaser, S. D. (2001). 1D time domain solution for seismic ground motion prediction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(1), 36-47. Cubrinovski, M., Bray, J., de la Torre, C., Olsen, M., Bradley, B., Chiaro, G., Stock, E. and Wotherspoon, L. (2017). Liquefaction effects and associated damages observed at the Wellington Centreport from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake engineering, 50(2), 152-173. Cubrinovski, M., Ishihara, K., and Tanizawa, F. (1996). Numerical simulation of the Kobe Port Island liquefaction. Paper presented at the Proc. 11th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering.

33 Cubrinovski, M., Rhodes, A., Ntritsos, N. and Van Ballegooy, S. (2019). System response of liquefiable deposits, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 124, 212-229. Elgamal, A.-W., Zeghal, M., Parra, E., Gunturi, R., Tang, H., and Stepp, J. (1996). Identification and modeling of earthquake ground response—I. Site amplification. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15(8), 499-522. Ishihara, K., Anazawa, Y., and Kuwano, J. (1987). Pore water pressures and ground motions monitored during the 1985 Chiba-Ibaragi earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 27(3), 13-30. Ishihara, K., Muroi, T., and Towhata, I. (1989). In-Situ Pore Water Pressures And Ground Motions During The 1987 Chiba-Toh0-0ki Earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 29(4), 75-90. Ishihara, K., Shimizu, K., and Yamada, Y. (1981). Pore water pressures measured in sand deposits during an earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 21(4), 85-100. Kayen, R. E., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R., Lodge, A., Nishio, S. y., and Coutinho, R. (1992). Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data. Paper presented at the Proc., 4th Japan-US Workshop on Earthquake- Resistant Des. of Lifeline Fac. and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction. Kwok, O-L.A., Stewart, J.P., Hashash, Y.M.A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. (2007). Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Ground Response Analysis Procedures. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 133, No. 11, pp. 1385-1398. Li, G., Motamed, R., and Dickenson, S. (2018). Evaluation of one-dimensional multi-directional site response analyses using geotechnical downhole array data in California and Japan. Earthquake Spectra, 34(1), 349-376. Martin, A. J., Nigbor, R. L., Pendergraft, D. M., and Steller, R. A. (1997). Geophysical characterization of the upper Borrego Valley, California. In 10th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (pp. cp-204). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. Matasovic, N. (1993). Seismic Response of Composite Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits. (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. O'Rourke, T., Meyersohn, W., Stewart, H. E., Pease, J., and Miyajima, M. (1992). Site response and soil liquefaction in San Francisco during the Loma Prieta earthquake Technical Report NCEER (Vol. 1, pp. 53-70): US National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). Real, C., Shakal, A., and Tucker, B. (2006). Turkey Flat, USA site effects test area: anatomy of a blind ground-motion prediction test. Proceedings, 3rd Int. Sym. on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, 29. Seale, S. H., and Archuleta, R. J. (1988). Site effects at McGee Creek, California. Paper presented at the Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II—Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation.

34 Sitar N. Ed. (1995). Geotechnical reconnaissance of the Effect of the January 17, 1995, Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake Japan, Report No. UCB/EERC-95/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California Steidl, J. H. and& Seale, S. (2010). Observations and analysis of ground motion and pore pressure at the NEES instrumented geotechnical field sites. In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Steidl, J. H., and Seale, S. H. (2010). Observations and analysis of ground motion and pore pressure at the NEES instrumented geotechnical field sites. Paper presented at the 5th Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, California. Stewart, J. P., and Yee, E. (2012). Nonlinear site response and seismic compression at vertical array strongly shaken by 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki earthquake, University of California Los Angeles, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Thornley, J., Dutta, U., Fahringer, P., and Yang, Z. (2018). In Situ Shear-Wave Velocity Measurements at the Delaney Park Downhole Array, Anchorage, Alaska. Seismological Research Letters, 90(1), 395-400. Tsai, C.-C., and Hashash, Y. M. (2008). A novel framework integrating downhole array data and site response analysis to extract dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(3), 181-197. Yanagisawa, E. and Ohmiya, H. (1988). In-situ Measurement of Pore Water Pressure during Earthquakes. Paper presented at the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-kyoto, Japan Yee, E., Stewart, J. P., and Tokimatsu, K. (2013). Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(10), 1789-1801. Youd, T. L., and Carter, B. (2003). Influence of soil softening and liquefaction on response spectra for bridge design (No. UT-03.07, Final Report). Youd, T. L. and Carter, B. L. (2005). Influence of soil softening and liquefaction on spectral acceleration. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7), 811-825. Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A.-W., and Parra, E. (1996a). Analyses of site liquefaction using downhole array seismic records. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A.-W., and Parra, E. (1996b). Identification and modeling of earthquake ground response—II. Site liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15(8), 523-547. References – Centrifuge Experiments Abdoun, T., Gonzalez, M., Thevanayagam, S., Dobry, R., Elgamal, A., Zeghal, M., and El Shamy, U. (2013). Centrifuge and large-scale modeling of seismic pore pressures in sands: Cyclic

35 strain interpretation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(8), 1215-1234. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J., and Baez, J. (2003). Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23(7), 571-584. Boland, J. C., Schlechter, S. M., McCullough, N. J., Dickenson, S. E., Kutter, B. L., and Wilson, D. W. (2001). Pile-supported Wharf centrifuge model (SMS02). Data report for centrifuge modeling studies funded by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center and National Science Foundation, OSU Geotechnical Engineering Report No. GEG04-2000, approx. Borghei, A., Ghayoomi, M., and Turner, M. (2020). Effects of groundwater level on seismic response of soil–foundation systems. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 146(10), 04020110. Bouckovalas, G. D., Karamitros, D. K., Madabhushi, G. S., Cilingir, U., Papadimitriou, A. G., and Haigh, S. K. (2015). FLIQ: experimental verification of shallow foundation performance under earthquake-induced liquefaction Experimental Research in Earthquake Engineering (pp. 525-542): Springer. Brandenberg, S. J., Boulanger, R. W., Kutter, B. L., and Chang, D. (2005). Behavior of pile foundations in laterally spreading ground during centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(11), 1378-1391. Cerna-Diaz, A., Olson, S. M., Numanoglu, O. A., Hashash, Y. M., Bhaumik, L., Rutherford, C. J., and Weaver, T. (2017). Free-Field Cyclic Response of Dense Sands in Dynamic Centrifuge Tests with 1D and 2D Shaking Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 (pp. 121-130). Dashti, S., Bray, J. D., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M., and Wilson, D. (2009). Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(7), 918-929. Dobry, R. (2019). [Personal Communication between Dr. Dobry and with Dr. Neven Matasovic, March]. Dobry, R. and Abdoun, T. (2001). Recent studies on seismic centrifuge modeling of liquefaction and its effect on deep foundations. In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (Vol. 2). Dobry, R., El-Sekelly, W., and Abdoun, T. (2018). Calibration of non-linear effective stress code for seismic analysis of excess pore pressures and liquefaction in the free field. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 107, 374-389. Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Lai, T., Kutter, B. L., and Wilson, D. W. (2005). Dynamic response of saturated dense sand in laminated centrifuge container. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(5), 598-609.

36 El-Sekelly, W., Abdoun, T., and Dobry, R. (2016). PRESHAKE: a database for centrifuge modeling of the effect of seismic preshaking history on the liquefaction resistance of sands. Earthquake Spectra, 32(3), 1925-1940. Ghosh, B. and Madabhushi, S. (2004). Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction for Layered and Inhomogeneous Ground: A Comparative Study. Paper presented at the Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Howell, R., Rathje, E. M., Kamai, R., and Boulanger, R. (2012). Centrifuge modeling of prefabricated vertical drains for liquefaction remediation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(3), 262-271. Kirkwood, P. and Dashti, S. (2018). A centrifuge study of seismic structure-soil-structure interaction on liquefiable ground and implications for design in dense urban areas. Earthquake Spectra, 34(3), 1113-1134. Mercado, V., El-Sekelly, W., Zeghal, M., and Abdoun, T. (2015). Identification of soil dynamic properties through an optimization analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 65, 175-186. Mitrani, H., and Madabhushi, S. (2006). Frame Structures Founded on Liquefiable Soil: Fata Report on Centrifuge Tests BM1, BM2 and BM3: Univ., Department of Engineering. Olarte, J., Paramasivam, B., Dashti, S., Liel, A., and Zannin, J. (2017). Centrifuge modeling of mitigation-soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97, 304-323. Ramirez, J., Barrero, A. R., Chen, L., Dashti, S., Ghofrani, A., Taiebat, M., and Arduino, P. (2018). Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: Evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 144(10), 04018073. Sharp, M. K., Dobry, R., and Abdoun, T. (2003). Liquefaction centrifuge modeling of sands of different permeability. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(12), 1083-1091. Tarin, R. L., Robins, P. N., Mori, T., and Kutter, B. L. (1998). Seismic performance of LNG production facility structures – centrifuge data report for PRN5 (UCD/CGMDR-98/06). Retrieved from University of California, Davis, Center for Geotechnical Modeling. Thevanayagam, S., Kanagalingam, T., Reinhorn, A., Tharmendhira, R., Dobry, R., Pitman, M., and Ecemis, N. (2009). Laminar box system for 1-g physical modeling of liquefaction and lateral spreading. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 32(5), 438-449. Yamaguchi, A., Kazama, M., Toyota, H., Kitazume, M., and Sugano, T. (2002). Effects of the stiffness of soft clay layer on strong motion response. Soils and foundations, 42(1), 17-33. References – Shake Table Testing Chang, B. J. (2011). Nonlinear behavior and modeling of piles in partially liquefied and layered soil conditions (Doctoral dissertation, UC San Diego).

37 Chang, B. J., and Hutchinson, T. C. (2013a). Experimental investigation of plastic demands in piles embedded in multi-layered liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 49, 146-156. Chang, B. J., and Hutchinson, T. C. (2013b). Tracking the dynamic characteristics of a nonlinear soil-pile system in multi-layered liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 49, 89-95. Ebeido, A and A. Elgamal (2019). Assessment of seismic behavior of deep foundations from large-scale liquefaction shake table experiments, 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (7 ICEGE), Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions – Silvestri & Moraci (Eds), 2019, July, Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Rome, Italy, ISBN 978-0-367-14328-2 (Theme Lecture). Ebeido, A. (2019). Lateral-Spreading Effects on Pile Foundations: Large-scale Testing and Analysis, PhD Thesis, University of California San Diego, Department of Structural engineering, La Jolla, California. Ebeido, A., Elgamal, A., and Zayed, M. (2019). Large Scale Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading Shake Table Testing at the University of California San Diego. Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ebeido, A., Elgamal, A., and Zayed, M. (2018a). Pile response during liquefaction-induced lateral spreading: 1-g shake table tests with different ground inclination. Proc. 9th international conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. City, University of London. Ebeido, A., Zayed, M., Kim, K., Wilson, P., and Elgamal, A. (2018b). Large Scale Geotechnical Shake Table Testing at the University of California San Diego. Proc. of the 2nd GeoMEast International Congress and Exhibition on Sustainable Civil Infrastructures. Cairo, Egypt. He, L., A. Elgamal, T. Abdoun, A. Abe, R. Dobry, J. Meneses, M. Sato, and Tokimatsu, K. (2006). Lateral Load On Piles Due to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading During One-G Shake Table Experiments, Proc. 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference Commemorating the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, San Francisco, California. Liangcai, H., Elgamal, A., Abdoun, T., Abe, A., Dobry, R., Hamada, M., Meneses, J., Sato, M., Shantz, T., and Tokimatsu, K. (2009), Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Load on Pile in A Medium Dr Sand Layer, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13, 7, 916–938, 2009. Liangcai H, Elgamal, A., Hamada M. and Meneses, J. (2008). Shadowing and Group Effects for Piles During Earthquake-Induced Lateral Spreading, Proc.14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, Beijing, China. Meneses, J., Hamada, M. and Elgamal, A. (2002), Shake Table Testing of Liquefaction and Effect on Concrete Pile, Proc. 4th US-China-Japan Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Qingdao, China, October.

38 Meneses, J., Hamada, M. Kurita, M., and A. Elgamal, A. (2002). Soil-Pile Interaction Under Liquefied Sand Flow in 1-g Shake Table Tests, International Conference on Advances and New Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research, Harbin and Hong Kong, China, 8 p. Orang, J., Motamed, M., Prabhakaran, R., and Elgamal, A. (2021). Large-scale shake table tests on a shallow foundation in liquefiable soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 147(1), 04020152. Prabhakaran, A., Kim, K., Orang, M. J., Qiu, Z., Ebeido, A., Zayed, M Motamed R., Elgamal A., and Frazao, C. (2020). Polymer injection and liquefaction-induced foundation settlement: a shake table test investigation. In Geo-Congress 2020: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Special Topics (pp. 1-9). Zayed, M, Kim, K., and Elgamal, A. (2019). Seismic response of suction caisson in large-scale shake table test, Proc. 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (7 ICEGE), Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions – Silvestri & Moraci (Eds), Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Rome, Italy, ISBN 978-0-367-14328-2. Zayed, M. (2019). "Large-Scale Seismic Response of Ground and Ground-Structure Systems." PhD Dissertation, Structural Engineering Department, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.

Next: APPENDIX B-1 Site Exploration Report Wildlife Liquefaction Array Imperial County, California »
Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation Get This Book
×
 Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

There are many seismic site response analysis programs that operate in either the time domain or the frequency domain. These programs are available as public domain software, as commercial products, and/or through direct contact with the authors.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 383: Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Resources for Evaluation, from TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program, is supplemental to NCHRP Research Report 1092: Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation: Guidelines.

Supplemental to the document is an Implementation Plan.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!