Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70029844

Liquefaction, ground oscillation, and soil deformation at the Wildlife Array, California

Abstract

Excess pore-water pressure and liquefaction at the Wildlife Liquefaction Array in 1987 were caused by deformation associated with both high-frequency strong ground motion and 5.5-second-period Love waves. The Love waves produced large (∼1.5%) cyclic shear strains well after the stronger high-frequency ground motion abated. These cyclic strains generated approximately from 13 to 35% of the excess pore-water pressure in the liquefied layer and caused excess pore-water pressures ultimately to reach effective overburden stress. The deformation associated with the Love waves explains the “postearthquake” increase of pore-water pressure that was recorded at the array. This explanation suggests that conventional methods for predicting liquefaction based on peak ground acceleration are incomplete and may need to consider cyclic strains associated with long-period surface waves. A postearthquake survey of an inclinometer casing indicated permanent shear strain associated with lateral spreading primarily occurred in the upper part of the liquefied layer. Comparison of cone penetration test soundings conducted after the earthquake with pre-earthquake soundings suggests sleeve friction increased. Natural lateral variability of the liquefied layer obscured changes in tip resistance despite a ∼1% reduction in volume. The large oscillatory motion associated with surface waves explains ground oscillation that has been reported at some liquefaction sites during earthquakes.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.49584421830721° to 33.52719916229543° latitude; -116.05862843886946° to -114.52120213842458° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T.L. Holzer, T. L. Youd. 2007. Liquefaction, ground oscillation, and soil deformation at the Wildlife Array, California. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060156

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗