The predicted severity of liquefaction manifested at the ground surface is a popular and pragmatic proxy of damage potential for infrastructure. Toward this end, the liquefaction potential ...

Fragility Functions for Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure

The fundamental objective of earthquake engineering is to protect lives and livelihoods through the reduction of seismic risk. Directly or indirectly, this generally requires quantification of the risk, for which quantification of the seismic hazard is required as a basic input. Over the last several decades, the practice of seismic hazard analysis has evolved enormously, firstly with the introduction of a rational framework for handling the apparent randomness in earthquake processes, which also enabled risk assessments to consider both the severity and likelihood of earthquake effects. The next major evolutionary step was the identification of epistemic uncertainties related to incomplete knowledge, and the formulation of frameworks for both their quantification and their incorporation into hazard assessments. Despite these advances in the practice of seismic hazard analysis, it is not uncommon for the acceptance of seismic hazard estimates to be hindered by invalid comparisons, resistance to new information that challenges prevailing views, and attachment to previous estimates of the hazard. The challenge of achieving impartial acceptance of seismic hazard and risk estimates becomes even more acute in the case of earthquakes attributed to human activities. A more rational evaluation of seismic hazard and risk due to induced earthquakes may be facilitated by adopting, with appropriate adaptations, the advances in risk quantification and risk mitigation developed for natural seismicity. While such practices may provide an impartial starting point for decision making regarding risk mitigation measures, the most promising avenue to achieve broad societal acceptance of the risks associated with induced earthquakes is through effective regulation, which needs to be transparent, independent, and informed by risk considerations based on both sound seismological science and reliable earthquake engineering. 

/pdf/earthquake-hazard-and-risk-analysis-for-natural-and-induced-1kttcrzu.pdf

Earthquake hazard and risk analysis for natural and induced seismicity: towards objective assessments in the face of uncertainty

Assessment of the efficacies of correction procedures for multiple thin layer effects on Cone Penetration Tests

In deterministic evaluations, liquefaction triggering potential is assessed by comparing the computed factor-of-safety (FS) against liquefaction triggering to some minimal acceptable FS. Wh...

Selecting the Optimal Factor of Safety or Probability of Liquefaction Triggering for Engineering Projects Based on Misprediction Costs

Liquefaction Susceptibility and Hazard Mapping: Insights From Case Histories of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction

The operator of the Groningen gas field is leading an effort to quantify the seismic hazard and risk of the region due to induced earthquakes, including overseeing one of the most comprehen...

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%29GT.1943-5606.0002286

P. Omidi

Papers

Liquefaction Hazard in the Groningen Region of the Netherlands due to Induced Seismicity