Evaluating simplified methods for liquefaction assessment for loss estimation

Kongar, Indranil; Rossetto, Tiziana; Giovinazzi, Sonia

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-781-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-781-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-781-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 5

Research article

|

01 Jun 2017

Research article |

| 01 Jun 2017

Evaluating simplified methods for liquefaction assessment for loss estimation

Indranil Kongar, Tiziana Rossetto, and Sonia Giovinazzi

Data sets

Vertical Ground Surface Movements CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

Horizontal Ground Surface Movements CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Observations CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

Conditional PGA for Liquefaction Assessment CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

Geotechnical Inves35 tigation Data CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

LiDAR and Digital Elevation Models CGD https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

Global VS30 map server, Earthquake Hazards Program USGS http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/

Earth Explorer USGS http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation J. Zhu, D. Daley, L. G. Baise, E. M. Thompson, D. J. Wald, and K. L. Knudsen: https://doi.org/10.1193/121912EQS353M

Short summary

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the predictive capability of simplified liquefaction models that can be applied across wide geographical areas for insurance and risk management purposes. Predictions from nine models are compared to observations from the Canterbury earthquake sequence and finds that models based on a previously proposed Liquefaction Potential Index perform the best, whilst the commonly used HAZUS methodology does not perform well.