Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70188400

An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application

Abstract

We present an updated geospatial approach to estimation of earthquake-induced liquefaction from globally available geospatial proxies. Our previous iteration of the geospatial liquefaction model was based on mapped liquefaction surface effects from four earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Kobe, Japan, paired with geospatial explanatory variables including slope-derived VS30, compound topographic index, and magnitude-adjusted peak ground acceleration from ShakeMap. The updated geospatial liquefaction model presented herein improves the performance and the generality of the model. The updates include (1) expanding the liquefaction database to 27 earthquake events across 6 countries, (2) addressing the sampling of nonliquefaction for incomplete liquefaction inventories, (3) testing interaction effects between explanatory variables, and (4) overall improving model performance. While we test 14 geospatial proxies for soil density and soil saturation, the most promising geospatial parameters are slope-derived VS30, modeled water table depth, distance to coast, distance to river, distance to closest water body, and precipitation. We found that peak ground velocity (PGV) performs better than peak ground acceleration (PGA) as the shaking intensity parameter. We present two models which offer improved performance over prior models. We evaluate model performance using the area under the curve under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and the Brier score. The best-performing model in a coastal setting uses distance to coast but is problematic for regions away from the coast. The second best model, using PGV, VS30, water table depth, distance to closest water body, and precipitation, performs better in noncoastal regions and thus is the model we recommend for global implementation.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: -43.659924074789096° to 34.75853788866992° latitude; 135.10025024414062° to 172.8053283691406° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jing Zhu, Laurie G. Baise, Eric M. Thompson. 2017-05-02. An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160198

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↗