Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0433-9

REVIEW ARTICLE

Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major

earthquakes of the twenty-first century

Yu Huang • Miao Yu

Received: 31 August 2012 / Accepted: 24 September 2012 / Published online: 6 October 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract Liquefaction, which can be defined as a loss of strength and stiffness in soils, is
one of the major causes of damage to buildings and infrastructure during an earthquake. To
overcome a lack of comprehensive analyses of seismically induced liquefaction, this study
reviews the characteristics of liquefaction and its related damage to soils and foundations
during earthquakes in the first part of the twenty-first century. Based on seismic data
analysis, macroscopic phenomena of liquefaction (e.g., sand boiling, ground cracking, and
lateral spread) are summarized, and several new phenomena related to earthquakes from
the twenty-first century are highlighted, including liquefaction in areas with moderate
seismic intensity, liquefaction of gravelly soils, liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils,
re-liquefaction in aftershocks, liquid-like behavior of unsaturated sandy soils. Additionally,
phenomena related to damage in soils and foundations induced by liquefaction are
investigated and discussed.

Keywords Liquefaction characteristics
Gravelly soil
Deep soil liquefaction

Re-liquefaction
Lateral spread
Liquefaction-induced damage

1 Introduction

Liquefaction is one of the major causes of instability in buildings and structures during
earthquakes and is also one of the most important aspects of seismic research and design
applied to foundations. Widespread liquefaction-induced ground deformation and related
damage to soils and foundations occur to spectacular and devastating effect in almost every
strong earthquake. Well-known examples include the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Ishihara
and Koga 1981), the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Fu and Tatsuoka 1984), and the 1999

Y. Huang (&)
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education,
Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
e-mail: yhuang@tongji.edu.cn

Y. Huang
M. Yu
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

123
2376 Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

Chi–Chi Earthquake (Yuan et al. 2003). These have all incurred extensive attention from
engineers and researchers.
During the twenty-first century, liquefaction and its resulting damage to surface
structures and underground utilities were observed to occur frequently and in many places
around the world in association with catastrophic earthquakes (Table 1). Some notable
papers have discussed the phenomena of liquefaction and its related damage (e.g., Huang
and Jiang 2010; Bhattacharya et al. 2011).
Liquefaction features may vary in geometry, type, and dimension at different locations
because of multiple factors, including anomalous propagation and amplification of the
seismic waves, and geological conditions (e.g., grain distribution and density of soil,
groundwater level) (Galli 2000). A summary of the relationships and contrasts of lique-
faction characteristics and related damage in previous earthquakes may help (1) to
understand the mechanisms of liquefaction and (2) to develop hazard assessments for
seismically induced liquefaction. However, previous soil liquefaction studies from twenty-
first-century earthquakes (Table 1) have mainly been limited to the analysis of liquefaction
features from a single earthquake or a few events; they generally lack comprehensive
analyses of macroscopic features caused by the most recent soil liquefaction in conjunction
with related soil and foundation damage.
In view of this, this study summarizes the macroscopic phenomena related to lique-
faction for 12 earthquakes (Table 1). This includes special emphasis on several new liq-
uefaction phenomena that emerged during the twenty-first century, such as liquefaction in
areas with moderate seismic intensity, liquefaction of gravelly soils, liquefaction of deep-
level sandy soils, re-liquefaction in aftershocks, and liquid-like behavior of unsaturated
sandy soils. Then, the characteristics of liquefaction-induced damage to soils and

Table 1 General information on some major earthquakes in the twenty-first century

Earthquakes Date (local time) Location Magnitude References

Bhuj January 26, 2001 India Mw = 7.6 Singh et al. (2005)

Arequipa June 23, 2001 Peru Mw = 8.4 Audemard et al. (2005)
Bachu February 24, 2003 China Ms = 6.8 Dong et al. (2010)
Kashmir October 8, 2005 Pakistan Mw = 7.6 Sahoo et al. (2007), Aydan et al.
(2009)
Wenchuan May 12, 2008 China Ms = 8.0 Chen et al. (2009), Cao et al. (2011),
Huang and Jiang (2010), Hou et al.
(2011), Yuan et al. (2009)
Greece June 8, 2008 Greece Mw = 6.4 Margaris et al. (2010)
L’Aquila April 6, 2009 Italy Mw = 6.3 Kawashima et al. (2010), Monaco
et al. (2011)
Olancha October 3, 2009 USA Mw = 5.2 Holzer et al. (2010)
Chile February 27, 2010 Chile Mw = 8.8 Verdugo (2012), Villalobos et al.
(2011)
Darfield September 4, 2010 New Zealand Mw = 7.1 Wotherspoon et al. (2012)
Yingjiang March 10, 2011 China Ms = 5.8 Yao et al. (2011)
Tohoku March 11, 2011 Japan Mw = 9.0 Bhattacharya et al. (2011)
Ms refers to surface wave magnitude, based on measurements of Rayleigh surface waves that travel pri-
marily along the uppermost layers of the earth; Mw refers to moment magnitude scale, based on the seismic
moment of the earthquake

123
Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384 2377

foundations are analyzed. Our review on soil liquefaction characteristics and associated
damage will inform future research of liquefaction mitigation and seismic design of soils
and foundations.

2 Macroscopic liquefaction phenomena during twenty-first-century earthquakes

During earthquake shaking, the pore water pressure of saturated sand increases rapidly and
effective stress can decrease to zero, leading to the transformation of soil from a solid state
to a viscous fluid mass. Under such conditions, sand liquefaction can occur, accompanied
by related phenomena such as sand boiling, ground cracking, and lateral spread.
Liquefaction generally happens under favorable geological and water-table conditions
during earthquakes (Sahoo et al. 2007). Owen and Moretti (2011) suggest that liquefaction
develops most readily in loosely packed coarse silt to fine sand that is saturated with
groundwater and at shallow depths. However, several new liquefaction phenomena have
been observed in association with twenty-first-century earthquakes, for example lique-
faction in areas of moderate seismic intensity, liquefaction of gravelly soils, liquefaction of
deep-level sandy soils, re-liquefaction in aftershocks, and liquid-like behavior of unsatu-
rated sandy soils.

2.1 Conventional liquefaction phenomena

2.1.1 Sand boiling

Sand boiling, as a conclusive proof of liquefaction, is the mixture of sand and water that
comes out onto the ground surface from shallow depths to form features with different
shapes and sizes on the ground surface during earthquakes. Sand boiling formation can be
classified into two categories, detailed below, based on the way the liquefied soils eject
through the weak upper soil layer.
The first formation category is flat-cone sand volcanoes. The formation of sand vol-
canoes can be divided into solitary and clustered cones, for example, as observed in the
2005 Kashmir Earthquake (Sahoo et al. 2007). In the 2003 Bachu Earthquake, the diameter
of sand blows was normally 1–2 m with the largest up to 3 m (Dong et al. 2010). In the
2011 Yingjiang Earthquake, sand volcanoes were also clustered in some areas, with heights
no more than 30 cm and diameters 10–50 cm (Yao et al. 2011).
The second formation category involves liquefied sands that erupt on the surface
through existing cracks. Water and sediment mixtures erupt suddenly and violently on the
surface through pre-existing cracks opened in the capping material as a result of seismic
shaking, for example, as observed in the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake (Sahoo et al. 2007).
Liquefied sands injected from ground cracks were also found in the 2011 Tohoku
(Bhattacharya et al. 2011) and the 2011 Yingjiang (Yao et al. 2011) Earthquakes.

2.1.2 Ground cracks

Ground cracks occur in almost every earthquake as a consequence of highly uneven

distributions of material in the soil layer. Following the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake,
70–80 % of the liquefaction sites were accompanied by ground cracks, with elongation
varying from tens to thousands of meters in length (Chen et al. 2009). In the 2009 Olancha
Earthquake, the length and width of ground cracks were 2–20 m and 1–4 cm, respectively

123
2378 Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

(Holzer et al. 2010). The width of ground cracks was 2–8 cm, some being open and others
filled with sand, following the 2008 Greece Earthquake (Margaris et al. 2010). In the 2005
Kashmir Earthquake, the length, width, and depth of ground cracks were 30–50 m,
3–4.5 cm, and 60–130 cm, respectively (Sahoo et al. 2007).

2.1.3 Lateral spread

Lateral spread is permanent liquefaction-induced horizontal displacement of the ground.

The extent of lateral spread normally has a fixed direction, most commonly parallel to the
course of rivers, causing tensile ground cracks parallel to embankments.
Following the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake, a 100-m-long and 50-m-wide field spread
laterally toward a bend in the Jhelum River with a total displacement of 120–160 cm, and
the tensile cracks were parallel to the course of the river (Aydan et al. 2009). In the 2009
L’Aquila Earthquake, liquefaction-induced cracks, with a width between 250 and 350 mm,
opened toward the river embankment (Kawashima et al. 2010). Lateral spread displace-
ments generally increased toward the sea following the 2008 Greece Earthquake, with a
maximum spread of 60 cm (Margaris et al. 2010).

2.2 New liquefaction phenomena during twenty-first-century earthquakes

2.2.1 Liquefaction in areas of moderate seismic intensity

Generally, it is assumed that the higher the earthquake magnitude and the smaller the
epicentral distance, the more potential there will be for liquefaction and the greater the area
of liquefaction will be (Owen and Moretti 2011). In this paper, liquefaction phenomena
were observed in all earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from Mw 5.2 for the 2009
Olancha Earthquake to Mw 9.0 for the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. Table 2 shows the max-
imum epicentral distance at which liquefaction was observed for some major earthquakes in
the twenty-first century; earthquakes with higher magnitudes are generally observed to
trigger liquefaction at greater distances from the epicenter. For example, the Tokyo Bay
area, 350–400 km from the epicenter of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, experienced dam-
aging liquefaction because (1) the deposits were mostly fill materials and/or young alluvium
and (2) the duration of the earthquake shaking was up to 300 s (Bhattacharya et al. 2011).
Note that liquefaction can also occur in areas with moderate seismic intensity. In China,
prior to the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (Min-
istry of Construction of China 2001) regarded areas with a seismic intensity of VI or less as
free of liquefaction. [An intensity of VI on the Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale (CSIS) is
roughly equivalent to an intensity of VI on the Modified Mercalli (MMI) or European Macro
(EMI) intensity scales.] Following the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, Chen et al. (2009)
found liquefaction and serious related damage at more than 10 sites where the seismic
intensity was VI. This was the first time that such a phenomenon had been observed in
mainland China, which shows that areas with moderate seismic intensity can also liquefy as
a result of relatively high-amplitude ground motion and a sufficient duration of shaking.

2.2.2 Liquefaction of gravelly soils

As known from previous earthquakes, liquefaction occurs most readily in coarse silts and
fine sands below the water table. However, gravelly soils, once thought to be unliquefiable

123
Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384 2379

Table 2 Range of liquefaction in some major earthquakes in the twenty-first century

Date (local time) Earthquake Magnitude Maximum distance References
from the
epicenter/km

October 3, 2009 Olancha Mw = 5.2 2.7–3.9 Holzer et al. (2010)

February 24, 2003 Bachu Ms = 6.8 40–50 Dong et al. (2010)
May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Ms = 8.0 280 Cao et al. (2011)
February 27, 2010 Chile Mw = 8.8 350 Villalobos et al. (2011)
March 11, 2011 Tohoku Mw = 9.0 350–400 Bhattacharya et al. (2011)

because of their high hydraulic conductivity, can also liquefy during earthquakes. Again,
until the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (Ministry
of Construction of China 2001) in China regarded gravels and gravelly soils as unlique-
fiable. However, gravelly soils were found liquefied in the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake,
with mean grain sizes ranging from 1 to [30 mm (Cao et al. 2011).
Gravelly sand is cohesiveless, and individual gravel grains and cobbles are usually
suspended by fine-grained sand and silty soil (Huang and Jiang 2010). The liquefied
gravelly Holocene soils found in the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake were shallow and loose,
with low shear-wave velocities, which increases the possibility of liquefaction (Hou et al.
2011). Both the liquefaction mechanism for gravels and gravelly soil and the method of
evaluating liquefaction resistance deserve further study.

2.2.3 Liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils

Liquefaction occurs when a saturated sandy layer is overlain by a certain thickness of

confining medium, like clay or silt (Sahoo et al. 2007), which prevents rapid drainage and
allows liquefaction to occur. The 1975 Haicheng (China) seismic data indicate that degrees
of liquefaction can be classified as serious, moderate, or rare based on the overlying earth
pressure (\50, 50–100, and [100 kPa, respectively) (Yao et al. 2011). Table 3 shows the
depths of liquefaction for some major earthquakes in the early twenty-first century where
soil liquefaction is likely to have been triggered at shallow depths (up to 6 m).
However, liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils now also has been discovered in recent
twenty-first-century earthquakes. For example, the depth of liquefaction was found to be up
to 20 m (Yuan et al. 2009) and 12–16 m (Bhattacharya et al. 2011) in the large-magnitude
2008 Wenchuan (Ms = 8.0) and 2011 Tohoku (Mw = 9.0) Earthquakes, respectively. So
far, liquefaction deeper than 30 m has not been found in association with earthquakes
(Youd et al. 2001). However, centrifuge tests have proved that medium-density sand layers
at depths of more than 30 m can liquefy fully under high confining stress. The test results
suggest that deposit at greater depths would require more cycles of excitation to liquefy
(Gonzailez et al. 2005). Hence, high-amplitude ground motion of long duration may
contribute to the liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils.

2.2.4 Re-liquefaction in aftershocks

Observations of paleoseismic liquefaction illustrate that sand can liquefy again in after-
shocks after initially liquefying during seismic shaking (Ha et al. 2011). The most sig-
nificant feature of re-liquefaction is stacked sand volcanoes, with small holes developing in

123
2380 Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

Table 3 Depths of liquefaction for some major earthquakes in the twenty-first century
Date (local time) Earthquakes Depth of liquefaction/m References

February 24, 2003 Bachu 4.2 (average depth) Dong et al. (2010)
May 12, 2008 Wenchuan 0.5–5.0 and up to 20.0 Huang and Jiang (2010),
Yuan et al. (2009)
April 6, 2009 L’Aquila 1.0–2.5 Monaco et al. (2011)
October 3, 2009 Olancha 0–2.0 Holzer et al. (2010)
February 27, 2010 Chile 2.0–3.0 Villalobos et al. (2011)
March 11, 2012 Tohoku 0–6.0 and 12.0–16.0 Bhattacharya et al. (2011)

larger holes (Dong et al. 2010). In the 2003 Bachu Earthquake, the diameters of large and
small holes ranged from 50 to 100 cm and 5 to 10 cm, respectively (Dong et al. 2010).
Following the 2010 Darfield Earthquake, liquefaction reoccurred in the Mw 6.3 aftershock
on February 22, 2011, over a smaller part of the previously impacted region (Wotherspoon
et al. 2012). In the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, an intensity VII area liquefied following
the main shock on 12 May then re-liquefied during an aftershock of magnitude Ms 6.4
(Chen et al. 2009). The phenomenon of re-liquefaction in aftershocks was also found
following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake (Onoue et al. 2012).
The mechanism of re-liquefaction in aftershocks is the subject of much current research.
The inherent structures of soil are destroyed after initial liquefaction and change to a highly
anisotropic very unstable structure (Ha et al. 2011). If excess pore water pressure cannot
dissipate to some extent before the aftershocks occur, the resistance to liquefaction of
liquefied soil will reduce significantly. In such cases, the soil can re-liquefy more readily
(Oda et al. 2001).

2.2.5 Liquid-like behavior of unsaturated sandy soils

At present, liquefaction research is mainly focused on saturated soil. However, con-

straining the liquefaction potential of unsaturated soil would be extremely valuable
given the extent of unsaturated soils in practical geotechnical engineering applications.
In recent years, mudflow-type slope failures caused by earthquakes have attracted
attention worldwide. Kazama and Unno (2007) suggested that these failures are related
to the liquefaction of unsaturated soil and concluded that unsaturated soil will liquefy
fully when both the pore air and water pressure are equal to the initial mean total
confining pressure.
Some investigations have recently proved the possibility of liquefaction in unsaturated
sand subjected to cyclic earthquake loads through laboratory experiments and numerical
simulations. Laboratory test results show that unsaturated sand behaves similar to liquids
when the effective stress is decreased to zero under cyclic shear stress. These tests con-
cluded that liquefaction of unsaturated soil is mainly affected by the volume compress-
ibility of the soil and the degree of saturation (Unno et al. 2008). Bian and Shahrour (2009)
also used numerical simulations to prove that unsaturated sandy soils could liquefy. They
showed that the saturation degree largely affects the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils.
Hence, similar to saturated sands, unsaturated sandy soils with high compressibility would
behave like liquid given enough cycles of shear loading.

123
Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384 2381

3 Liquefaction-induced damage of soils and foundations

Liquefaction is one of the main reasons for seismic damage in soils and foundations. The
effective stress of soil decreases under cyclic seismic loads, which causes a drop in the
bearing capacity. As a result, the deformation of soils and foundations gradually increases.
We have classified damage to foundations into three types according to the deformation
experienced by the foundations: (1) damage induced by ground subsidence, (2) damage
induced by lateral spread, and (3) damage induced by buoyancy.

3.1 Damage induced by ground subsidence

Liquefaction causes permanent or residual deformation of the ground (Huang and Jiang
2010) and often leads to non-uniform settlement and cracking of buildings and structures.
Non-uniform settlement of bridge piers due to liquefaction subsidence is a threat to the
integrity and stability of the bridge during earthquakes. In the 2010 Chile Earthquake, 12
bridges and four overpasses were damaged because of the liquefaction of the ground under
foundations or access ramps (Verdugo 2012). In another example, the first pile of the
Yauca Bridge sank a few tens of centimeters because of liquefaction in the 2001 Arequipa
Earthquake (Audemard et al. 2005).
Following the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, a large number of houses in rural areas
suffered varying degrees of tilt due to liquefaction of their foundations, and highways built
on soft roadbeds experienced non-uniform ground subsidence (Huang and Jiang 2010). In
the 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake, a road embankment subsided locally by 350 mm, causing
the partial restriction of traffic (Kawashima et al. 2010). Ground settling was usually
variable because of the different types of foundations employed (Bhattacharya et al. 2011);
this accounts for the non-uniform subsidence observed at locations where bridges and
roads connect or between concrete paths and adjacent buildings (Huang and Jiang 2010).
Light structures, such as traffic signal posts, lampposts, and electrical poles, have been
observed to sink because of earthquake-induced liquefaction. In the 2003 Bachu Earth-
quake, electrical poles settled by tens of centimeters to more than 1 m, accompanied by
sand boiling (Dong et al. 2010). Following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, many light-
weight structures supported on small footings connected through grade beams were
observed to subside unevenly (Bhattacharya et al. 2011).

3.2 Damage induced by lateral spread

Liquefaction-induced lateral spread is one of the major causes of damage during earth-
quakes. It mostly occurs on flood plains of rivers or seas with gentle slopes and can cause
significant damage to nearby structures and lifelines.
Pile foundations of bridges built across streams and rivers are readily damaged by
applying longitudinal compressive forces like those generated by lateral spread. For
example, in the 2010 Darfield Earthquake, the superstructure of bridges suffered buckling
failure due to the movement of abutments toward a river channel from both sides of an
embankment (Wotherspoon et al. 2012).
Dam foundations commonly liquefy during earthquakes because of long-term water
storage. In such cases, liquefaction-induced lateral spread applies lateral tensile stress to
the dam, and as a result, cracks develop in the central part of the top of the dams. For
example, the Chang Dam underwent severe slumping due to the relatively widespread
liquefaction of alluvium soils within the upper 2.0–2.5 m of the foundations, leading to a

123
2382 Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

slide on the upstream side of the dam following the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake (Singh et al.
2005). During the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, the upstream side of the main dam of the
Bolin Reservoir was lowered by 12–20 cm relative to the downstream side; this was
accompanied by axial cracks with lengths of about 140 m and widths of 13–15 cm (Huang
and Jiang 2010).

3.3 Damage induced by buoyancy

In previous earthquakes, buried utilities, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, have been
damaged by uplift due to the combined effects of increased buoyant force and decreased
shear strength of liquefied backfill.
For example, following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, many manholes popped out of
the ground because of the upward force generated by liquefaction, causing the inter-
ruption of water supply and urban drainage (Bhattacharya et al. 2011). In the 2010
Chile Earthquake, two buried tanks rose by about 1 m and were tilted by 15°, and again
many manholes were uplifted (by no more than 30 cm in this case) because of buoy-
ancy (Villalobos et al. 2011). Note that damage caused by buoyancy can be avoided by
ground improvement methods and, if necessary, buried utilities should be anchored
(Villalobos et al. 2011).

4 Conclusions

Analysis of the liquefaction characteristics and the related damage to soils and foundations
during 12 earthquakes in the first part of the twenty-first century has led to the following
conclusions.
1. Liquefaction occurs during earthquakes, usually accompanied by sand boiling, ground
cracking, and lateral spread. Sand boiling formations can be classified into (1) sand
volcanoes and (2) the ejecting of material through existing cracks. Ground cracks
occur in almost every earthquake as a consequence of the uneven distribution of
materials in the uppermost soil layers. The extent of lateral spread normally has a fixed
direction, mostly parallel to the course of rivers.
2. Several new liquefaction phenomena observed during earthquakes in the early
twenty-first century include liquefaction in areas of moderate seismic intensity,
liquefaction of gravelly soils, liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils, re-liquefaction
in aftershocks, and liquid-like behavior of unsaturated sandy soils. In addition to
saturated sands and silts, gravelly soils and unsaturated sandy soils could also
liquefy during earthquakes. The maximum observed depth of soil liquefaction is up
to 20 m in the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake (Yuan et al. 2009), and a centrifuge test
has proved that medium-density sand layers at a depth of more than 30 m could
liquefy (Gonzailez et al. 2005). Liquefaction examples illustrate that liquefied soils
do re-liquefy in aftershocks.
3. Liquefaction-induced damage in soils and foundations is classified by the deformation
observed in foundations as (1) damage induced by ground subsidence, (2) damage
induced by lateral spread, and (3) damage induced by buoyancy. Non-uniform
subsidence occurs as a result of uneven geological conditions and different types of
foundations, leading to the tilting and failure of buildings and structures. Damage
induced by lateral spread mostly occurs on flood plain adjacent to rivers or seas with

123
Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384 2383

gentle slopes, causing significant damage to nearby structures and lifelines. The uplift
of buried utilities is commonly observed in earthquakes because of the combined
effects of increased buoyancy and decreased shear strength in the liquefied backfill.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Key Technologies R&D Program of China
(Grant No. 2012BAJ11B04).

References

Audemard FA, Gomez JC, Tavera HJ, Orihuela N (2005) Soil liquefaction during the Arequipa Mw 8.4,
June 23, 2001 earthquake, southern coastal Peru. Eng Geol 78(3–4):237–255
Aydan Ö, Ohta Y, Hamada M (2009) Geotechnical evaluation of slope and ground failures during the 8
October 2005 Muzaffarabad earthquake, Pakistan. J Seismol 13(3):399–413
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
Bian HB, Shahrour I (2009) Numerical model for unsaturated sandy soils under cyclic loading: application
to liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):237–244
Cao ZZ, Youd TL, Yuan XM (2011) Gravelly soils that liquefied during 2008 Wenchuan, China earthquake,
Ms = 8.0. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(8):1132–1143
Chen LW, Yuan XM, Cao ZZ et al (2009) Liquefaction macrophenomena in the great Wenchuan earth-
quake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8(2):219–229
Dong L, Hu WH, Cao ZZ, Yuan XM (2010) Comparative analysis of soil liquefaction macro-phenomena in
Bachu earthquake. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 30(6):179–187 (in Chinese)
Fu SC, Tatsuoka F (1984) Soil liquefaction during Haicheng and Tangshan earthquake in China: a review.
Soils Found 24(4):11–29
Galli P (2000) New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction. Tectono-
physics 324(3):169–187
Gonzailez L, Abdoun T, Zeghal M, Kallou V, Sharp MK (2005) Physical modeling and visualization of soil
liquefaction under high confining stress. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 4(1):47–57
Ha IS, Olson SM, Seo MW, Kim MM (2011) Evaluation of reliquefaction resistance using shaking table
tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(4):682–691
Holzer TL, Jayko AS, Hauksson E et al (2010) Liquefaction caused by the 2009 Olancha, California (USA),
M5.2 earthquake. Eng Geol 116(1–2):184–188
Hou LQ, Li AF, Qiu ZM (2011) Characteristics of gravelly soil liquefaction in Wenchuan earthquake. Appl
Mech Mater 90–93:1498–1502
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
Ishihara K, Koga Y (1981) Case studies of liquefaction in the 1964 Niigata earthquake. Soils Found
21(3):33–52
Kawashima K, Aydan Ö, Aoki T et al (2010) Damage of 2009 L’Aquila, central Italy earthquake. J Earthq
Eng 14(6):816–841
Kazama M, Unno T (2007) Earthquake-induced mudflow mechanism from a viewpoint of unsaturated soil
dynamics. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on mechanics of unsaturated soils, Weimar,
Germany, pp 437–444
Margaris B, Athanasopoulos G, Mylonakis G et al (2010) The 8 June 2008 Mw 6.4 Achaia-Elia, Greece
earthquake: source characteristics, ground motions, and ground failure. Earthq Spectra 26(2):399–424
Ministry of Construction of China (2001) Code for seismic design of buildings (GB50011-2001). China
Architecture and Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese)
Monaco P, Santucci de Magistris F, Grasso S, Marchetti S, Maugeri M, Totani G (2011) Analysis of the
liquefaction phenomena in the village of Vittorito (L’Aquila). Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):231–261
Oda M, Kawamoto K, Suzuki K, Fujimori H, Sato M (2001) Microstructural interpretation on reliquefaction
of saturated granular soils under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(5):416–423
Onoue A, Cai F, Nakajima M, Nishikawa M, Torigoe T, Yoneda K (2012) Behavior of liquefied soil at brink
of backfilled basin. Jpn Geotech J 7(1):175–184 (in Japanese)
Owen G, Moretti M (2011) Identifying triggers for liquefaction-induced soft-sediment deformation in sands.
Sediment Geol 235(3–4):141–147

123
2384 Nat Hazards (2013) 65:2375–2384

Sahoo RN, Reddy DV, Sukhija BS (2007) Evidence of liquefaction near Baramulla (Jammu and Kashmir,
India) due to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Curr Sci 92(3):293–295
Singh R, Roy D, Jain SK (2005) Analysis of earth dams affected by the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Eng Geol
80(3–4):282–291
Unno T, Kamaza M, Uzuoka R, Sento N (2008) Liquefaction of unsaturated sand considering the pore air
pressure and volume compressibility of the soil particle skeleton. Soils Found 48(1):87–99
Verdugo R (2012) Comparing liquefaction phenomena observed during the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake
and 2011 Great East Japan. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons
learned from the 2011 great east Japan earthquake, Tokyo, Japan, pp 707–718
Villalobos F, Ovando E, Mendoza M, Oróstegui P (2011) Damages observed in the 2010 Concepción
earthquake related to soil phenomena. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on earth-
quake geotechnical engineering. Santiago, Chile
Wotherspoon LM, Pender MJ, Orense RP (2012) Relationship between observed liquefaction at Kaiapoi
following the 2010 Darfield earthquake and former channels of the Waimakariri River. Eng Geol
125(27):45–55
Yao X, Zhang JG, Zhang YS, Yang B, Yu K (2011) Study of sand liquefaction hazard features induced by
Yingjiang Ms 5.8 earthquake on March 10, 2011. J Eng Geol 19(2):152–161 (in Chinese)
Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):817–833
Yuan HM, Yang SH, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2003) Liquefaction-induced ground failure: a study of the Chi-
Chi earthquake cases. Eng Geol 71(1–2):141–155
Yuan XM, Cao ZZ, Sun R et al (2009) Preliminary research on liquefaction characteristics of Wenchuan 8.0
earthquake. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 28(6):1288–1296 (in Chinese)

123