Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wang, C.-Y. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Liquefaction beyond the Near Field

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

	INTRODUCTION

 
Earthquakes cause a spectrum of hydrologic responses such as liquefaction (Casagrande 1936; Seed and Lee 1966; Seed and Idriss 1967; Castro 1975; Kuribayashi and Tatsuoka 1975; Finn 1981; Committee on Earthquake Engineering 1985; Ambraseys 1988; Dobry 1989; Papadopoulos and Lefkopulos 1993; Ishihara 1996; Galli 2000; Hsu and Vucetic 2004; Hazirbaba and Rathje 2004; Wang et al. 2006), water-level changes (Roeloffs 1998; Matsumoto et al. 2003; Brodsky et al. 2003), streamflow increases (Rojstaczer et al. 1995; Manga et al. 2003; Wang, Manga et al. 2004; Wang, Wang et al. 2004) and new hot springs (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 2004). These responses are variably interpreted as due to either the static or the dynamic effects associated with earthquakes (Manga and Wang forthcoming).

Liquefaction is a major seismic hazard to engineered structures, yet its mechanism has remained a mystery. Several hypotheses have been proposed (Seed and Lee 1966; Committee on Earthquake Engineering 1985; Dobry 1989; Hsu and Vucetic 2004). The first hypothesis is that liquefaction during earthquakes is the consequence of an overall pore-pressure development in saturated soils that undergo undrained consolidation during which the intergranular stress is progressively transferred to the interstitial pore water; if pore pressure increases to the extent that it can bear the weight of the overburden, soil loses strength and behaves like a fluid. A second hypothesis assumes a local redistribution of soil density, even though the overall volume may remain constant; i.e., during ground shaking, some parts of soils consolidate while other parts loosen up so much that they become contractive. Thus pore pressure eventually increases to the extent that soil loses . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Department of Earth and Planetary Science
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720 USA
chiyuen@berkeley.edu