Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Threshold seismic energy and liquefaction distance limit during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estimating the possible region of liquefaction occurrence during a strong earthquake is highly valuable for economy loss estimation, reconnaissance efforts and site investigations after the event. This study identified and compiled a large amount of liquefaction case histories from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China, to investigate the relationship between the attenuation of seismic wave energy and liquefaction distance limit during this earthquake. Firstly, we introduced the concept of energy absorption ratio, which is defined as the absorbed energy of soil divided by the imparted energy of seismic waves at a given site, and the relationship between the energy absorption ratio and the material damping ratio was established based on shear stress–strain loop of soil element and the seismic wave propagation process from the source to the site. Secondly, the threshold imparted seismic energy of liquefaction was obtained based on existing researches of absorbed energy required to trigger liquefaction of sandy soils and the ground motion attenuation characteristics of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, and the liquefaction distance limit of this earthquake was estimated according to the proposed magnitude–energy–distance relationship. Finally, the field liquefaction database of 209 sites of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was used to validate such an estimation, and the field observed threshold imparted seismic energy to cause liquefaction in recent major earthquakes worldwide was back-analyzed to check the predictability of the present method, and several possible mechanisms were discussed to explain the discrepancy between the field observations and the theoretical predictions. This study indicates that seismic energy attenuation and liquefaction distance limit are regional specific and earthquake dependent, and 382 J/m3 is the average level of threshold imparted seismic energy to cause liquefaction for loose saturated sandy soils, and the corresponding liquefaction distance limit is approximately 87.4 km in fault distance for a Mw = 7.9 event in the Chengdu Plain. The proposed regional energy attenuation model and threshold imparted seismic energy may be considered as an approximate tool in evaluating the liquefaction hazard during potential earthquakes in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

(modified from Seed et al. 1986)

Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

(modified from Olson et al. 2005a)

Fig. 11

(modified from USGS 2008)

Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambraseys NN (1988) Engineering seismology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 17:1–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydan Ö, Hamada M, Bardet JP, Ulusay R, Kanibir A (2004) Liquefaction induced lateral spreading in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey: case study around the Hotel Sapanca. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper no. 2921 (on CD)

  • Baziar MH, Jafarian Y (2007) Assessment of liquefaction triggering using strain energy concept and ANN model: capacity energy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(12):1056–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrill JB, Davis RO (1985) Dipation and seismic liquefaction of sands: revised model. Soils Found 25(2):106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya S, Hyodo M, Goda K, Tazoh T, Taylor CA (2011) Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(11):1618–1628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodsky EE, Roeloffs E, Woodcock D, Gall I, Manga M (2003) A mechanism for sustained groundwater pressure changes induced by distant earthquakes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 108(B8):2390. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcione M (2001) Energy balance and fundamental relations in dynamic anisotropic poro-viscoelasticity. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 457(2006):331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen LW, Yuan XM, Cao ZZ, Hou LQ, Sun R, Dong L, Wang WM, Meng HC (2009) Liquefaction macrophenomena in the great Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8(2):216–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen GX, Jin DD, Mao J, Gao HM, Wang ZH, Jin LP, Li YQ, Li XJ (2014) Seismic damage and behavior analysis of earth dams during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Eng Geol 180:99–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, Taylor M, Giorgini S, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Zupan J (2011) Soil liquefaction effects in the central business district during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):893–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis RO, Berrill JB (1982) Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction in sands. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:59–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Dief HM (2000) Evaluating the liquefaction potential of soils by the energy method in the centrifuge. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, pp 219

  • Dobry R, Abdoun T (2015) Cyclic shear strain needed for liquefaction triggering and assessment of overburden pressure factor Kσ. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 141(11):04015047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa JL, Saada AS, Liang L, Dahisaria NM (1994) Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles. J Geotech Eng ASCE 120(9):1554–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galli P (2000) New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction. Tectonophysics 324(3):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao YF, Zhang N, Li DY, Liu HL, Cai YQ, Wu YX (2012) Effects of topographic amplification induced by a U-shaped canyon on seismic waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(4):1748–1763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goto S, Suzuki Y, Nishio S, Oh-oka H (1992) Mechanical properties of undisturbed tone-river gravel obtained by in situ freezing method. Soils Found 32(3):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RA (2001) Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable soils, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, pp 397

  • Green RA, Mitchell JK (2004) Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable soils. Geotech Eng Transp Proj 2:1961–1970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RA, Wood C, Cox B, Cubrinovski M, Wotherspoon L, Bradley B, Algie T, Allen J, Bradshaw A, Rix G (2011) Use of DCP and SASW tests to evaluate liquefaction potential: predictions vs. observations during the recent New Zealand earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):927–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamada M, Wakamatsu K (1999) Liquefaction, ground deformation and their related damage to structures. In: Hamada M, Ohmachi T, Ohbo N (eds) The 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake-investigation into damage to civil engineering structure. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, pp 45–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamling IJ, D’Anastasio E, Wallace LM, Ellis S, Motagh M, Samsonov S, Palmer N, Hreinsdóttir S (2015) Crustal deformation and stress transfer during a propagating earthquake sequence: the 2013 Cook Strait sequence, central New Zealand. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 119(7):6080–6092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancox GT, Cox SC, Turnbull IM, Crozier MJ (2003) Reconnaissance studies of landslides and other ground damage caused by the MW7.2 Fiordland earthquake of 22 August 2003. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science, Science Report 2003/30, Lower Hutt

  • Hartzell S, Mendoza C, Ramirez-Guzman L, Zeng Y, Mooney W (2013) Rupture history of the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan, China, earthquake: evaluation of separate and joint inversions of geodetic, teleseismic, and strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(1):353–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke R, Henke WK (2002) In situ nonlinear inelastic shearing deformation characteristics of soil deposits inferred using the torsional cylindrical impulse shear test. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(5):1970–1983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y, Jiang XM (2010) Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Nat Hazards 54(3):839–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang RQ, Li WL (2009) Development and distribution of geohazards triggered by the 5.12 Wenchuan Earthquake in China. Sci China Ser E Technol Sci 52(4):810–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y, Yu M (2013) Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes of the 21st century. Nat Hazards 65(3):2375–2384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ide S, Takeo M, Yoshida Y (1996) Source process of the 1995 Kobe earthquake: determination of spatio-temporal slip distribution by Bayesian modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):547–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. EERI Publication, Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara K, Araki K, Toshiyuki K (2014) Liquefaction in Tokyo bay and Kanto regions in the 2011 great east Japan earthquake. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03182-8_4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Izawa J, Ueda K (2016) Evaluation for soil liquefaction due to long duration earthquakes with low acceleration. Jpn Geotech Soc Spec Publ 2(21):788–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafarian Y, Abdollahi AS, Vakili R, Baziar MH, Noorzad A (2011) On the efficiency and predictability of strain energy for the evaluation of liquefaction potential: a numerical study. Comput Geotech 38:800–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafarian Y, Vakili R, Abdollahi AS, Baziar MH (2014) Simplified soil liquefaction assessment based on cumulative kinetic energy density: attenuation law and probabilistic analysis. Int J Geomech 14(2):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings PC (2003) An introduction to the earthquake response of structures. International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, part B. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1097–1125

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jing LP, Luo Q, Cui J (2006) Experimental study on liquefaction and strain properties of saturated silt. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 26(5):252–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Li KD (2007) Assessment of liquefaction hazards in Charleston quadrangle, South Carolina. Eng Geol 92(1–2):59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser A, Holden C, Beavan J, Beetham D, Benites R, Celentano A, Collett D, Cousins J, Cubrinovski M, Dellow G, Denys P, Fielding E, Fry B, Gerstenberger M, Langridge R, Massey C, Motagh M, Pondard N, McVerry G, Ristau J, Stirling M, Thomas J, Uma SR, Zhao J (2012) The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: preliminary report. N Z J Geol Geophys 55(1):67–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanagalingam T (2006) Liquefaction resistance of granular mixes based on contact density and energy considerations. Ph.D. dissertation, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, p 386

  • Kanamori H (1978) Quantification of earthquakes. Nature 271(5644):411–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiyota T, Koseki J, Sato T, Tsutsumi Y (2009) Effects of sample disturbance on small strain characteristics and liquefaction properties of Holocene and Pleistocene sandy soils. Soils Found 49(4):509–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokusho T (2013) Liquefaction potential evaluations: energy-based method versus stress-based method. Can Geotech J 50(10):1088–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL, Sideras SS, Greenfield MW (2016) The timing of liquefaction and its utility in liquefaction hazard evaluation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz J, Baise LG (2007) Spatial variability of liquefaction potential in regional mapping using CPT and SPT data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(7):690–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li XJ, Zhou ZH, Huang M, Wen RZ, Yu HY, Lu DW, Zhou YN, Cui JW (2008) Preliminary analysis of strong-motion recordings from the magnitude 8.0 Wenchuan, China, earthquake of 12 May 2008. Seismol Res Lett 79(6):844–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li XJ, Liu L, Wang YS, Yu T (2010) Analysis of horizontal strong-motion attenuation in the great 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5B):2440–2449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang L, Figueroa JL, Saada AS (1995) Liquefaction under random loading: unit energy approach. J Geotech Eng ASCE 121(11):776–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin ML, Liao HJ, Ueng ZS (1999) The geotechnical hazard caused by Chi-Chi earthquake. In: Proceeding of International Workshop on the September 21, 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, pp 113–124

  • Liu Q, Li X (2009) Preliminary analysis of the hanging wall effect and velocity pulse of the 5.12 Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8(2):165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu-Zeng J, Wang P, Zhang ZZ, Li ZG, Cao ZZ, Zhang JY, Yuan XM, Wang W, Xing XC (2017) Liquefaction in western Sichuan Basin during the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Tectonophysics 694:214–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu DW, Li XJ, Cui JW (2010a) Ground motion attenuation of the Wenchuan aftershocks. J Basic Sci Eng 18(Supplement):138–151 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu M, Li XJ, An XW, Zhao JX (2010b) A preliminary study on the near-source strong-motion characteristics of the great 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5B):2491–2507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer BW, Green RA, Quigley MC, Bastin S (2015) Development of magnitude-bound relations for paleoliquefaction analyses: New Zealand case study. Eng Geol 197:253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson SM, Green RA, Obermeier SF (2005a) Revised magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash valley seismic zone of the central United States. Seismol Res Lett 76(6):756–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson SM, Green RA, Obermeier SE (2005b) Geotechnical analysis of paleoseismic shaking using liquefaction features: a major updating. Eng Geol 76:235–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oommen T, Baise LG, Vogel RM (2010) Validation and application of empirical liquefaction models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(12):1618–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orense RP, Kiyota T, Yamada S, Cubrinovski M, Hosono Y, Okamura M, Yasuda S (2011) Comparison of liquefaction features observed during the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):905–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos GA, Lefkopulos G (1993) Magnitude-distance relations for liquefaction in soil from earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83(3):925–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Papathanassiou G, Pavlides S, Christaras B, Pitilakis K (2005) Liquefaction case histories and empirical relations of earthquake magnitude versus distance from the broader Aegean region. J Geodyn 40:257–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley M, Van Dissen R, Litchfield N, Villamor P, Duffy B, Barrell D, Furlong K, Stahl T, Bilderback E, Noble D (2012) Surface rupture during the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: implications for fault rupture dynamics and seismic-hazard analysis. Geology 40(1):55–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl NB, Daily WD (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 124(5):396–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudnicki JW, Freund LB (1981) On energy radiation from seismic sources. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(3):583–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(11):1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J (2001) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic site response evaluation. NISEE, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith EGC, Oppenheimer CMM (1989) The Edgecumbe earthquake sequence: 1987 February 21 to March 18. New Zealand J Geol Geophys 32(1):31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street RL, Bauer RA, Woolery EW (2004) Magnitude scaling of prehistorical earthquakes in the Wabash valley seismic zone of the central United States. Seismol Res Lett 75(5):637–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac M (1995) Empirical criteria for liquefaction in sands via standard penetration tests and seismic wave energy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14(6):419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS (2008) M 7.9—eastern Sichuan, China. Earthquake Hazards Program. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usp000g650#executive. Accessed 26 Mar 2018

  • Vucetic M, Lanzo G, Doroudian M (1998) Damping at small strains in cyclic simple shear test. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 124(7):585–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CY (2007) Liquefaction beyond the near field. Seismol Res Lett 78(5):512–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CY, Manga M (2010) Hydrologic responses to earthquakes and a general metric. Geofluids 10(1–2):206–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang FL, Li Y, Li YZ (2003) Sedimentary characteristics of Cenozoic Dayi conglomerate in Chengdu Basin. J Chengdu Univ Technol 30(2):140–146 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang CY, Wang CH, Manga M (2004) Coseismic release of water from mountains: evidence from the 1999 (Mw = 7.5) Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Geology 32(9):769–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CY, Wong A, Dreger DS, Manga M (2006) Liquefaction limit during earthquakes and underground explosions: implications on ground-motion attenuation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang LM, Wu ZJ, Sun JJ (2009) Characteristics of disasters induced by the Wenchuan 8.0 earthquake and its lessons. In: Tankut AT (ed) Earthquakes and tsunamis: civil engineering disaster mitigation activities implementing millennium development goals. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2399-5_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wen ZP, XieJJ Gap MT, Hu YM, Chau KT (2010) Near-source strong ground motion characteristics of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5B):2425–2439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Roberson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):817–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan XM, Cao ZZ, Sun R, Chen LW, Meng SJ, Dong L, Wang WM, Meng FC, Chen HJ (2009) Preliminary research on liquefaction characteristics of Wenchuan 8.0 earthquake. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 28(6):1288–1296 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JF, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(4):453–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou YG, Chen YM (2007) Laboratory investigation on assessing liquefaction resistance of sandy soils by shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(8):959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou YG, Chen YM, Ling DS (2009) Shear wave velocity-based liquefaction evaluation in the great Wenchuan earthquake: a preliminary case study. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8(2):230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou YG, Chen YM, Shamoto Y (2010) Verification of the soil-type specific correlation between liquefaction resistance and shear-wave velocity of sand by dynamic centrifuge test. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(1):165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51578501, 51778573), the National Program for Special Support of Top-Notch Young Professionals (2013), the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LR15E080001) and the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Project) (No. 2014CB047005). The authors thank Dr. Chao Han, Dr. Xiaomin Xu, Dr. Hongguang Jiang, Mr. Kongzheng Wang and Mr. Xiaoqi Wan of Zhejiang University for their great efforts during the site investigations and data compiling.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MOE Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Rd., Zijingang Campus, Anzhong Bldg. B-404, Hangzhou, 310058, People’s Republic of China

    Yan-Guo Zhou, Kai Liu, Dao-Sheng Ling, Tao Shen & Yun-Min Chen

Authors
  1. Yan-Guo Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dao-Sheng Ling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yun-Min Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan-Guo Zhou.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 269 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, YG., Liu, K., Ling, DS. et al. Threshold seismic energy and liquefaction distance limit during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 5151–5170 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0396-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0396-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation