Special section - The geosciences perspective on seismic response assessment and application to risk mitigation

Liquefaction assessment of gravelly soils: the role of in situ and

laboratory geotechnical tests through the case study of the Sulmona
basin (Central Italy)

Nadia Salvatore1, Alberto Pizzi1, Kyle M. Rollins2, Alessandro Pagliaroli1 & Sara Amoroso1,3
1
Department of Engineering and Geology, University. “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, via dei Vestini, 31, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University, 368 CB, Provo, UT 84602.
3
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy.

NS, 0000-0002-9240-9270; AP, 0000-0002-5196-4956; KMR, 0000-0002-8977-6619; AP, 0000-0002-7431-5094; SA, 0000-0001-5835-079X.

Ital. J. Geosci., Vol. 141, No. 2 (2022),
pp. 216-229, 10 figs., 3 tabs.,
https://doi.org/10.3301/IJG.2022.18.
Research article
Corresponding author e-mail:
nadia.salvatore@unich.it
Citation: Salvatore N., Pizzi A., Rollins
K.M., Pagliaroli A. & Amoroso S. (2022)
- Liquefaction assessment of gravelly
soils: the role of in situ and laboratory
geotechnical tests through the case study
of the Sulmona basin (Central Italy). Ital. J.
Geosci., 141(2), 216-229,
https://doi.org/10.3301/IJG.2022.18.
Associate Editor: Marco Petitta
Guest Editor: Giuseppe Di Giulio
ABSTRACT
Even though liquefaction in gravelly soil is well documented in many earthquakes since 1891, most of the
“simplified procedures” and national buildings codes still consider only sandy soil liquefaction in seismic hazard
assessment. In this study, 109 sites of gravel liquefaction related to 27 historical earthquakes from 1891 to
2020 are reported, with a wide range of moment magnitudes, Mw (5.3 to 9.2) and focal depths (5.4 to 33 km),
highlighting the potential for liquefaction of gravelly soils even during moderate earthquakes. Although gravels are
often thought to have hydraulic conductivities high enough to preclude liquefaction, gravels that have liquefied are
generally well-graded sandy gravels. The sand content is typically 30% or more so that the hydraulic conductivity
is governed by the sand size making them clearly liquefiable. Even for gravels with lower sand contents, a low
permeability surface layer has often been observed that could restrict drainage and produce excess pore pressure
during strong shaking.
The epicentral distance calculated for gravel liquefaction sites plotted vs the magnitude of the earthquake event
shows a pattern which closely follows similar curves provided in the literature for sandy soils. However, field
observations of liquefaction in gravelly soils are less frequent in the historical record.
In addition to examining gravel liquefaction sites in general, this paper provides a case history illustrating the
difficulties of liquefaction assessment in gravels at a site in Santa Rufina (Sulmona basin, Central Italy). This site,
characterised by high vertical and lateral stratigraphic variability, was selected for gravel liquefaction assessment
using a combination of in-situ tests, laboratory geotechnical analysis, and geological studies. We found that, even if
SPT- and DPT- based in-situ methods provide conflicting results, the availability of a borehole log, along with standard
laboratory test results, proved to be fundamental to achieving a reliable assessment of the liquefaction hazard.

Submitted: 31 December 2021

Accepted: 10 June 2022
KEY-WORDS: gravel liquefaction, dynamic cone penetration test, geotechnical laboratory tests,
Published online: 14 June 2022
Sulmona basin, Holocene alluvial deposits.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL is available at:

INTRODUCTION
https://doi.org/10.3301/IJG.2022.18
During major earthquakes, the impact of soil liquefaction on social and economic losses
is well documented in historical records (e.g., Baratta, 1910). The reduction of stiffness
and shear strength following liquefaction of loose water-saturated cohesionless soils during
earthquake shaking may induce damage to buildings, infrastructure, or pipelines, and ignite
fires due to gas line breaks.
Obermeier (1996) underlined the importance of combining geological and geotechnical
approaches to properly interpret liquefaction processes. This is still a key requirement for
geologists and engineers who try to develop effective techniques to predict the susceptibility
of soils to this phenomenon, even when focusing their attention mostly on sandy soils, e.g.,
Idriss & Boulanger (2008), Boulanger & Idriss (2014).
© Società Geologica Italiana, Roma 2022 Tsuchida & Hayashi (1971) first proposed a relationship between grain size and
susceptibility to liquefaction, plotting the grain-size distribution of soils at Japanese liquefaction

216
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS
sites and tracing the grain-size boundaries of the most liquefiable
and potentially liquefiable soils, in combination with the uniformity
coefficient, Cu. These grain-size boundaries for liquefiable soil are
still widely used and are included in national building codes, such as
those for Italy (NTC, 2018). However, these liquefaction susceptibility
boundaries do not include gravelly soils that have been observed to
liquefy in well document cases all over the world, especially over the
past 10 years (Salocchi et al., 2020; Rollins et al., 2021).
This paper summarises knowledge gained from studies on
gravel liquefaction case histories throughout the world in a concise
state-of-the-art section. It then highlights the importance of
liquefaction assessment in gravelly soils using a multidisciplinary
approach that integrates geological and geotechnical information.
Emphasis is given to laboratory and in situ geotechnical tests
that may improve fundamental understanding of the liquefaction
susceptibility of gravels, as illustrated by the case study at Santa
Rufina (Sulmona basin, Central Italy).
LIQUEFACTION OF GRAVELLY SOILS: THE STATE-OF-ART
While techniques for liquefaction assessment in sandy soils were
developed in the second half of the 20th century (e.g., Seed & Idriss,
Fig. 1 - World map of gravel liquefaction case histories. The beach balls represent the fault plane solution as moment tensor (blue), or focal mechanism
(orange) as reported by the USGS. The magnitude values indicated are from USGS, INGV and GeoNet databases.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
1971; Tsuchida & Hayashi, 1971; Amoroso et al., 2017, 2020), the
liquefaction phenomena in gravelly soils were not evaluated with a
probabilistic analysis until the 2008 Wenchuan (China) earthquake
(Cao et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, gravel liquefaction during earthquakes has been
observed all over the world, as illustrated in Fig. 1, since the 1891
Mino-Owari (Japan) earthquake (Tokimatsu & Yoshimi, 1983).
Therefore, gravel liquefaction is not so uncommon to observe, and it
is not limited to strong events.
Table S1 (in the supplementary material) reports the gravel
liquefaction dataset with the location of 109 sites where researchers
have identified gravel liquefaction phenomena related to 27 historical
earthquakes from 1891 to 2020. These liquefaction case histories
sites are located at epicentral distances ranging from ~1.5 to ~215 km
and involve earthquakes with a wide range of moment magnitudes (Mw
from 5.3 to 9.2), and focal depths (5.4 to 33 km). Compared to Rollins
et al. (2021), the earthquake case history list has been expanded with
two more events (the Mw 6.3, 2020 Petrinja (Croatia – Amoroso et al.,
2021; Baize et al., 2022) and the Mw 5.5, 2017 Pohang (South Korea –
Naik et al., 2019) earthquakes) and the liquefaction site database has
been expanded with 29 more sites. In addition, accurate geographical
coordinates have been added for each site by bibliographic research.
217
 N. SALVATORE ET AL.

Furthermore, magnitude values were standardized to Mw using

databases from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), also considering
the Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes (Rovida et al., 2022),
and the Geological hazard information for New Zealand (GeoNet). The
epicentres were identified by their coordinates, as reported by the
abovementioned databases. Where possible, we also characterised
the seismic source by the fault plane solution (Fig. 1), as reported by
USGS, INGV, and GeoNet, or by bibliographic research (Table S1).
To compare the liquefaction susceptibility of sands and gravels,
we have used the gravel case history database to develop magnitude
vs. epicentral distance to liquefaction sites for gravels for a range
of magnitudes around the world. For sandy soils, magnitude vs
epicentral distance liquefaction curves proposed by various authors
have been considered. The gravel liquefaction data points have been
plotted as black circles in the magnitude vs. epicentral distance plot
in Fig. 2 along with curves showing the boundary curves for sand Fig. 2 - Chart of magnitude vs. epicentral distance to gravel liquefaction sites
and available reference correlations (Ambraseys, 1988; Galli, 2000, Castilla
proposed by various researchers. A comparison of gravel data points & Audemard, 2007, Maurer et al., 2015) based on sand liquefaction sites.
and the boundary curves for sand, shows that: (a) gravel liquefaction
is not only associated with strong events, and (b) that the boundary
for the gravel liquefaction data is quite similar to the boundary curves approximately follows the boundary curve proposed by Maurer et
for sand provided in the literature from four researchers. al. (2015). This suggests the possibility of liquefaction, at a given
Regarding the first point, liquefaction in gravelly soils can be epicentral distance and for a given magnitude, is almost the same
induced by moderate events, as illustrated by a Mw 5.3 aftershock for both sandy and gravelly soils.
of the 1976-1977 Friuli (Italy) seismic sequence (Sirovich, 1996; Grain-size distribution curves of liquefied gravels for some of
Rollins et al., 2020) or by the Mw 5.5, 2017 Pohang earthquake (Naik the case histories are reported in Table S1. A comparison between
et al., 2019), although this contradicts with several previous studies the grain-size boundaries defined by gravel liquefaction data
(e.g., Obermeier, 1996; Rodriguez-Pascua et al., 2000) which (yellow bold lines in Fig. 3a) and for sand liquefaction by Tsuchida
suggested that gravel liquefaction can only be triggered by strong & Hayashi (1971) shows that there is a limited overlap for the
seismic events (magnitude M > 7). liquefaction susceptibility ranges. Liquefied soils are classified
Regarding the second point, we observe that the magnitude/ mainly as well-graded gravel (GW) with a gravel content (> 4.75 mm)
epicentral distance pattern for our gravelly soils dataset between 14 and 82% and fines content (FC) ≤ 22%, as reported in

Table 1 – Grain size information of liquefied gravels at the available world case histories.
> 4.75 mm FC D60 D30 D10 CU CC USCS
Earthquake Sample
(%) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (-) (-) classific.
Old Valdez 14 12.0 1.213 0.255 < 0.075 > 3.5 - SW-SM
Old Valdez 58 5.6 11.529 2.690 0.316 36.5 2.0 GW-GM
1964 Alaska (USA)
Valdez 46 6.8 7.133 2.152 0.228 31.2 2.8 SW-SM
Seward 74 1.7 20.221 3.149 0.427 47.4 1.1 GW
Avasinis 21 13.0 1.949 0.466 < 0.075 > 3.5 - SM-SC
1976 Friuli (Italy)
Avasinis 42 10.0 5.320 1.181 0.075 70.9 3.5 SW-SM
Pence Ranch 51 4.0 8.033 1.791 0.293 27.3 1.4 GW
1985 Borah Peak,
Larter Ranch 66 4.0 16.184 3.570 0.478 33.8 1.6 GW
Idaho (USA)
Whiskey Springs 52 20.0 8.330 0.708 < 0.075 > 3.5 - GM-GC

2008 Wenchuan China 23 12.0 1.182 0.221 < 0.075 > 3.5 - SW-SM
(China) China 69 10.0 42.943 4.509 0.075 572.6 6.3 GW-GM

2016 Muisne Manta 82 5.7 15.600 5.303 0.226 68.9 8.0 GW-GM
(Ecuador) Manta 35 21.7 3.364 0.191 < 0.075 > 3.5 - SM-SC

2016 Wellington Wellington 77 0.8 17.514 7.350 1.738 10.1 1.8 GW

(New Zealand) Wellington 34 22.0 3.414 0.154 < 0.075 > 3.5 - SM-SC
Notes: FC is the fines content; D60, D30, and D10 are the 60 , 30 , and 10 percentiles of the grain size curve; CU is the coefficient of uniformity; CC is the
th th th

coefficient of curvature; USCS is the Unified Soil Classification System according to ASTM D2487-11 (2011) (SW is clean well-graded sand; SM is silty
sand; SC is clayey sand; GW is well-graded gravel; GM is silty gravel; GC is clayey gravel)

218
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS

GRAVEL SAND FINES

a) b) 0.9
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt & Clay Rollins et al. (2021)
U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers
0.8 PL = 85%
4 10 40 200
100
PL = 70%
90 0.7 PL = 50%

Most liquefiable PL = 30%

80
0.6
PL = 15%
Percent Passing (%)

CSR7.5, CRR7.5
70
Cao et al. (2013)
0.5
60 PL = 85%
Potentially liquefiable
50 0.4 PL = 70%

Grain size PL = 50%

40
boundaries for 0.3 PL = 30%
30 gravel liquefaction PL = 15%
0.2
20

10 0.1

0 Mw = 7.5
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Grain Size (mm)
Corrected DPT blow counts N'120

Fig. 3 - a) Gradation curves of liquefied gravelly soils (dashed yellow lines, modified after Rollins et al., 2021). The chart proposes grain size boundaries
for gravel liquefaction in comparison with the grain size ranges proposed by Tsuchida & Hayashi (1971) for the most susceptible soils to liquefaction and
potentially susceptible soils to liquefaction using a coefficient of uniformity Cu > 3.5. b) DPT-based gravel liquefaction chart by Rollins et al. (2021) and
Cao et al. (2013) at different liquefaction probability (PL).

Table 1. Data highlights that the liquefied gravels are typically well-
graded sandy gravels with Cu > 3.5 in all the analysed case histories.
In addition, they typically contain more than 30% sand. Gravels
are often thought to have hydraulic conductivities high enough
(>0.004 m/s) that excess pore pressures would dissipate as fast as
they generate in an earthquake (Seed et al., 1976). However, for
gravels containing more than 30% sand size particles, the hydraulic
conductivity would likely be controlled by the D10 (diameter in the
grain size distribution corresponding to 10% finer) size of the sand,
making the sandy gravel susceptible to liquefaction (Roy & Rollins,
2022). Even for gravel sites with higher hydraulic conductivities, the
presence of a low-permeability surface layer could impede drainage
and make the gravel susceptible to liquefaction (Cao et al., 2013).
The geotechnical laboratory characterisation of gravelly soils
has always been a challenge because of the difficulties in taking
undisturbed or partly disturbed samples with a large enough
diameter to provide a representative sample. In this respect the
first attempts in liquefaction assessment of gravelly soils were
made by performing the classical in-situ tests, such as the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT).
Seed & Idriss (1971) defined the cyclic resistance ratio, (CRR7.5),
as the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction for a magnitude 7.5
earthquake and developed corelations to define CRR7.5 using in-
situ tests. They also defined the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), meaning
the seismic demand on a soil layer by an earthquake that can be
normalised to a magnitude of 7.5, namely CSR7.5, through the
magnitude scaling factor (MSF), used as a “proxy” for duration effects
on triggering liquefaction. To consider also high effective overburden
stress, Youd et al. (2001) proposed the overburden correction
factor (Kσ), to further correct the cyclic stress ratio to CSR7.5 atm at
one atmosphere. This led to the definition of the threshold value for
liquefaction, namely the safety factor against liquefaction (FSliq) as
the ratio between CRR7.5 and CSR7.5,1 atm.
Youd et al. (2001) proposed an SPT procedure for liquefaction
assessment in sandy soils, using the corrected SPT blow count,
(N1)60, that is a normalized value of the SPT blows count (NSPT). This
procedure was updated by Idriss & Boulanger (2008), and more
recently by Boulanger & Idriss (2014).
Although the use of the SPT-based approach correctly
estimates the liquefaction potential in loose gravel with low
penetration resistance, after the application of a correction factor
(e.g., Kokusho & Yoshida, 1997), the results may be inaccurate
when the penetration resistance increases. In this case it is not
always possible to discriminate if the increased blow count is due
to the presence of large coarse particles or to the increase in soil
density (Daniel et al., 2003; Cubrinovsky et al., 2018; Rollins et al.,
2021). This problem could be bypassed by correlating liquefaction
resistance with the shear wave velocity (VS) as proposed by Andrus
& Stokoe (2000) and Kayen et al. (2013) for sandy soils. However,
several studies have shown that (1) the VS boundaries for liquefaction
triggering may be higher for gravels with respect to sands (e.g., Cao
et al., 2013), and that (2) the VS measurements are related to small
strains while liquefaction occurs at medium-high strains that are
better represented by penetration tests (e.g., Mayne et al., 2009).
Nevertheless, Cao et al. (2011) and more recently Rollins et al.
(2022) have developed probabilistic liquefaction triggering curves
based on VS data from the gravel liquefaction case history database.
New penetrometers with larger diameters are required to
overcome problems associated with SPT tests in the presence of
large particles and to evaluate the in-situ liquefaction resistance
of gravelly soils. The Becker penetration test (BPT), developed in
Canada in the 1950s, is the first and most widely used equipment in
the North America (Youd et al., 2001) for liquefaction assessment of
gravelly soil. However, the test is expensive and not easily available,
and the BPT results need to be converted to an “equivalent” SPT
blow count to assess liquefaction (e.g., Rollins et al., 2021).

219
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 formulation. To reduce the various 𝑀𝑀# to the standard 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 value of 7.5, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& , Rollins et al.

(2021) proposed a new 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

N. SALVATORE ET AL.correction factor:

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 7.258𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(−0.264𝑀𝑀< ) (5)

For the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& a logistic regression analysis was performed, to define the probability of
At the same time, Chinese engineers developed the dynamic For the CRR7.5 a logistic regression analysis was performed, to
cone penetration test (DPT), that consists of a 74liquefaction occurring𝑃𝑃define
mm cone driven 9: the probability of liquefaction occurring PL:
continuously by a 120 kg hammer dropped from one metre, using 1
a drilling rig or a simple SPT tripod system (Chinese Design Code, 𝑃𝑃9 =
[ 7= )]
(6)
(6)
1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 0.0008𝑁𝑁)62 − 1.32𝑀𝑀< − 5.2 ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.&
2001). As with the SPT, the DPT requires the measurement of the
tio (ER) hammer efficiency by is determining isthe energy Fig.
transfer 3b provides
ratio (ER)a comparison Fig.of the
3b DPT-based
provides agravel liquefaction
comparison oftriggering curves proposed
the DPT-based gravel
rect theto raw correct
DPT blow the rawcounts; DPT ER blow counts;
defined ER as the defined
ratio ofas the the ratio
energy of the energy
to correct the raw DPT blow counts; ER is defined as the ratio of liquefaction triggering curves proposed by Cao et al. (2013) and
d (ER)
fromto thecorrect
hammer thetoraw theto DPT
rods blow counts; ER is defined asbythe Cao ratio
et al. of(2013)
the energy and Rollins et al. (2021). As may be observed in Fig. 3b, the probabilistic
mmer to thetherods energyrelative transferredtherelative
theoretical to the
from the
theoretical
free-fall
hammer energy. free-fall
to Moreover,
energy.
the rods relative to
Moreover,
Rollins et al. (2021). As may be observed in Fig. 3b, the probabilistic
ect the raw DPT blow counts; ER is defined as the ratio of the energy
om
counts the are the
hammer theoretical
to the torods free-fall
relative energy.
tooverburden Moreover,
the theoretical DPT
free-fall blow
triggering counts
energy. curves are theis triggering
from
Moreover, Rollins curves
et al. (2021), from Rollinsthe
intercept et al.
CSR (2021), intercept
7.5 axis at values inthe
theCSR
range axis
0.1
rmalised tonormalised
include transfer
a include
correction ratio a correction
(ER)
for theto correct for thethestress
overburden
raw DPTusingblow stress
the using
counts; ER defined as the ratio of the energy 7.5
normalised to include a
mmer to the rods relative to the theoretical free-fall energy. Moreover, correction for the overburden stress using at values in the range 0.1 - 0.2, providing compatibility with the
- 0.2, providing compatibility with the results obtaining with the SPT; moreover, the use of both
unts are normalised the equation: to include
transferred from a correction
the hammer fortothe theoverburden
rods relative stress
to the using the
results free-fall
theoretical obtainingenergy.
with the SPT; moreover, the use of both additional
Moreover,
rmalised to include a correction 7 for the7 overburden
2.& stress using the
additional liquefaction liquefaction
and and
no-liquefaction no-liquefaction
data points has data
reduced points has reduced
the spread between thethe
7 𝑁𝑁)62⁄𝜎𝜎=7 )𝑁𝑁 )62 (100⁄𝜎𝜎8 ) (1)
𝑁𝑁)62 = 𝑁𝑁DPT )62 (100
2.&
blow 8counts are normalised to include(1)a correction (1) for the overburden stress using the
spread between the triggering curves compared to those by Cao
2 is the
cted DPT corrected
resistance DPT in𝑁𝑁resistance
blows in blows 𝑁𝑁8per is30 cm, 𝑁𝑁)62 istriggering
the measured curvesDPT compared to those by Cao et al. (2013), thereby decreasing the uncertain in
et al. (2013), thereby decreasing the uncertain in determination of
where equation:
7
)62 = isper
𝑁𝑁the 30
)62 (100
cm,⁄𝜎𝜎
corrected 7 )2.&
)62 the
DPT measured
resistanceDPT in blows per (1)
in cm
blows 30
per
7
𝑁𝑁)62 cm,
30 )62 (100
= 𝑁𝑁multiplied
cm is the 7
⁄𝜎𝜎measured2.&
8 )ER, 100 isDPT resistance in determination
blows7 per (1) 30and cm𝜎𝜎8 liquefaction
of liquefaction
7 potential
potential of gravelly
of gravelly soils et
soils (Rollins (Rollins et al., 2021).
al., 2021).
30 multiplied
the corrected by
DPT ER, 100 is by
resistance the atmospheric
in blows
thepressure
per
atmospheric
30 cm, in 7𝑁𝑁
kPa pressure
and
is 𝜎𝜎8 inmeasured
the
kPa
DPT
7 2.&
multiplied by ER, 100 is the atmospheric pressure 𝑁𝑁)62 = in
)62 𝑁𝑁)62kPa and⁄𝜎𝜎8 )is
(100 (1)
tivestress
ted overburden
DPT in resistance stress in kPa.
en the kPa.effectiveinoverburden blows per stress 30 cm, 𝑁𝑁)62 is the measured DPT
in kPa. 7
blows per 30 cm multiplied 7 by ER, 100 is the atmospheric pressure in kPa and 𝜎𝜎8
in blows per 30THE CASE
𝑁𝑁)62STUDY OF THE SULMONADPT BASIN
have been carriedDPTwhereout tests at
𝑁𝑁)62
gravelhave is thebeen
liquefaction
corrected
carried
sites
DPT
out resistance
related atto gravel
the 𝑀𝑀 liquefaction
7.9 Wenchuan
7
cm, is the measured
0rried
cm outmultiplied
at gravelby ER, 100 issites
liquefaction the related
atmospheric to the 𝑀𝑀 pressure
# 7.9 Wenchuan
in kPa and 𝜎𝜎8
#
sitesstressrelated to the Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake to develop a Geologicalpressure
and seismological
e overburden
e to develop aDPT-based
probabilistic
in kPa.
resistance in blowsprocedure
DPT-based
per 30 cmtomultiplied assess(Cao
by ER, 100
liquefaction
is the atmospheric in kPa and 𝜎𝜎setting
7
8
enprobabilistic
stress in probabilistic
kPa. DPT-based
procedure procedure
to assess liquefaction to assess et al., (Cao
liquefaction (Caoetetal.,
ve been carried al., the2013).outis the at
The gravel authors
effective liquefaction
use the same
overburden sites stressrelated
CSR in7.5kPa. to the 𝑀𝑀#proposed
definition 7.9 Wenchuan The Sulmona basin (Fig. 4) is an intramountain tectonic
ethe authors use same CSR 7.5 definition proposed by Youd et al. (2001), although it
same
ried out at CSR
bygravel definition
Youd liquefaction
7.5 proposed
et al. (2001),sites by Youd
relatedit to
although et al. (2001),
is the although
# 7.9 Wenchuan
not𝑀𝑀established it
if the MSF depression caused by the Quaternary activity of a normal fault system
develop a probabilistic
if correction DPT DPT-based
tests have been procedure
carried to
out assess
at gravel liquefaction
liquefaction (Cao
et siteset al.,
al., affecting
related tothe thewestern
𝑀𝑀# 7.9slope of Mt. Morrone (Miccadei et al., 1998;
Wenchuan
blished the 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 correction is appropriate
is correction
appropriate isalso also
appropriate for
for gravelly gravelly
alsosoils forsoils
gravelly(Rollins
(Rollins soils
et al., et(Rollins
al., 2021).
probabilistic DPT-based procedure to assess liquefaction (Cao et al.,
uthors use DPTthe blow
same count
CSR data were analysed using the et logistic regression
T blow count data were 7.5 definition
analysed proposed by Youd al. (2001), by although
Liao et toitassess liquefaction (Cao et al.,
data were analysed earthquake
using the logistictousing
develop the
regression logistic
a probabilisticregression
procedure by procedure
DPT-based
Liao et procedure
procedure by Liao et al.
he same CSR7.5 definition proposed by Youd et al. (2001), although it the (1988) to define the CRR 7.5 through
shed
o𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
define if the probability
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀$.&2013).
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 function
correction
through Thethe isfor liquefaction
appropriate
probability
authors thealso
function (P ): forliquefaction
L for gravelly soils
(PL): (Rollins et al.,
$.& through the probability function foruseliquefaction same (PCSRL): 7.5 definition proposed by Youd et al. (2001), although it
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 correction is appropriate also for7 gravelly soils (Rollins et al.,
𝑃𝑃low countlndata [𝑃𝑃9 ⁄(1 were− 𝑃𝑃 )] = −8.40
+9analysed + 0.35𝑁𝑁
using the − 2.12
logistic ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& ) procedure by
regression (2)(2) et
appropriate Liao
7
9 ⁄(1 − 𝑃𝑃9 )] = −8.40 0.35𝑁𝑁 )62 − 2.12if ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 $.& ) correction is (2)
)62
is not established the 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 also for gravelly soils (Rollins et al.,
data were analysed using the logistic regression procedure by Liao et
g
efinethe P L valueSubstituting
the70%, (85%, 70%, 50%, 30%,
theprobability
PLequation 15%)
value function(85%,in equation
70%, (2)
50%, 30%, makes it
to (P15%)possible into
e (85%, $.& through
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶50%, 30%, DPT
2021). the
15%) in
blow count data (2) makes were foritanalysed
liquefaction
possible using L):
the logistic regression procedure by Liao et
$.& through
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶capacity equation thesoil (2) makes itfunction
probability possiblefor to liquefaction
evaluate the (P capacity
L):
of the soil to
he the soil ln of the
to[resist
resist to resistthrough
liquefaction liquefaction the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 7 $.& . the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& .
through
𝑃𝑃9 ⁄(1liquefaction 9 )] = −8.40
−al𝑃𝑃(1988) through + 0.35𝑁𝑁
the CRR − . 2.12 ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
to define the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶7.5$.& through the probability function
)62 $.& ) (2)for liquefaction (PL):
⁄ (1 ) ] 7 )
al.
9 −
(2021) 𝑃𝑃9 =
expanded −8.40
Rollins the +
et 0.35𝑁𝑁
al.
DPT (2021)
database
)62 − 2.12
expanded ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
considering the $.&DPT
137 database
sites (80 (2)
considering
liquefaction site
panded
he PL value the DPT (85%, database 70%,considering 50%, 30%,137 15%) sitesin(80 liquefaction
equation (2) site
makes it possible
7 to
ect the raw 137DPT sitesblow (80 counts;
liquefaction ER issite ln
and
defined [𝑃𝑃957 ⁄as − 𝑃𝑃9ratio
the )] = of
(1no-liquefaction −8.40thesites) + 0.35𝑁𝑁
energy referred )62 − 2.12 ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& ) (2)
liquefaction
eites)
(85%, sites)
70%,to50%,
referred 10 referred
seismic30%,events to 10
15%)with seismic events
in equation
a magnitude with a
(2) range magnitude
makes from range
it possible
5.8 to from
to 5.8 to
apacity of tothe 10 soil
seismic to resist events with a magnitude
liquefaction through range
the70%, from.5.8 to 9.2 from
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
mer tocountries,
the Substituting
rods countries,
relative tothose
the the PL value
theoretical (85%,
free-fall energy. 50%,
$.& 30%, 15%) in equation (2) makes it possible to
Moreover,
seven
he seven including including from those
Cao et from
al. Cao
(2013), etand al. (2013), and
recalculated the
es, soil to resist
including thoseliquefaction
from Caothrough et al. (2013), the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 and$.& . recalculated the
(2021) expanded recalculated the
evaluate the
DPT triggering
database
the capacity curves
considering of the 137liquefaction
sites (80 probability
liquefaction site
malised
curves to include
of the liquefaction a correction
probability for theofoverburden
function.
the soil to resist stressliquefaction
using the through the 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& .
iquefaction function.
anded the DPT database considering 137 sites (80 liquefaction site
probability function.
uefaction sites) As𝑁𝑁referred
in Cao to
et 10
et al. seismic
(2013), events
the N120DPT with
is the a magnitude
defined DPT as range from 5.8 to137 sites (80 liquefaction site
etheal.𝑁𝑁(2013), the Rollinsis defined al.as (2021)
the expanded
measured resistance inthe
databaseblows measured
considering
every 0.3
)62 is defined asseismic
the measured DPT resistance in blows every 0.3
)62
tes) referred to 10 events with
DPT resistance in blows every 0.3 m multiplied by ER, while the a magnitude range from 5.8 to
enbycountries, including
and those frombyCao et al. (2013), and recalculated the
)6257 no-liquefaction asites) areferred toof 10 seismic events
the with a magnitude range from 5.8 to
7
ede the ER, 7 while
𝑁𝑁
was
7 the
=was 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁calculatedwas
(100 by⁄ calculated
𝜎𝜎87by)2.&adding adding
threshold threshold
ofvalue value
1.7 of
to 1.7
(1) to
make make
𝑁𝑁)62 )62 calculated )62 adding a threshold value 1.7 to make
es, including those from Cao et al. (2013), and recalculated the
on of theequation
vesproposed liquefaction proposed
by Caoconsistent
et al.from probability
(2013)
by Caofunction.
consistent
et al. (2013) consistent with the CN value
withfrom
ted
y CaoDPT resistance
et al.from(2013) 9.2
Youd et al. in blows seven
with perthe
(2001), as follows:
countries,
30
C cm,
N value 𝑁𝑁the CN value
including
)62 Youd
from
is theet measured
al. those Youd
(2001), et al.Cao
fromDPT(2001), et al. (2013), and recalculated the
quefaction probability 7
function.
l. (2013), the 𝑁𝑁)62 𝑁𝑁)62is=defined 𝑁𝑁)62 𝐶𝐶: as the measured DPT resistance (3)in blows every 0.3
0 cm multiplied 7 by triggering
ER, 100 curves of the liquefaction
is the atmospheric pressure probability
in kPa and function.
𝜎𝜎87 (3)
𝑁𝑁
he 𝑁𝑁)62 is defined)62 )62 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁7)62 𝐶𝐶
=
as the)62 : 𝑁𝑁 𝐶𝐶
measured
: DPT resistance in blows every (3) (3) 0.3
7
by ER, while the 𝑁𝑁 )62inwas Caocalculated by adding
the 𝑁𝑁)62a is threshold
defined value as theofmeasured 1.7 to make
n stress7 in kPa. 7As et al. (2013), DPT resistance
Fig. 4 - Simplifiedin blows every
geological 0.3of the Sulmona Quaternary basin,
map
e the 𝑁𝑁)62𝐶𝐶was where:
𝑁𝑁 )62 =7 𝑁𝑁)62
calculated 𝐶𝐶: adding a threshold
by value of 1.7 to(3) make
= (100 ⁄ 𝜎𝜎 ) 2.&
≤ 1.7 (4) modified from Galli et al. (2015), draped on the 10 m resolution DTM by
: 82
proposed by Cao7 et m al. (2013) consistent withthe the𝑁𝑁C7 N value from Youd et byal. (2001), Regione Abruzzo (http://opendata.regione.abruzzo.it/opendata/Modello_
⁄multiplied by ER,related
while was (4)calculated adding a threshold value of 1.7 to make
2.&
ried𝐶𝐶:out = (100 =⁄𝜎𝜎(100
at𝐶𝐶:gravel 82 ) liquefaction
𝜎𝜎≤82
7 1.7
)2.& ≤ 1.7 sites to the )62𝑀𝑀# 7.9 Wenchuan
(4) (4)
eCao et al. (2013)
overburden stress consistent
in kPa. The with CSR thewas CN value
defined from Youd ettoal.the
according (2001), digitale_del_terreno_risoluzione_10x10_metri); (1) post-36 ka Upper
Pleistocene - Holocene alluvial deposit; (2) Middle - Upper Pleistocene
burden
e overburden
probabilistic stress in
where
𝐶𝐶 =DPT-based
(100 the
kPa.
stress ⁄in 𝜎𝜎equation
The
7 kPa. CSRThe
)is2.&procedure
the≤ 1.7proposed
wasCSR
effective defined
was
to by Caoliquefaction
according
defined
overburden
assess etaccording
al.to(2013)
stress the
in kPa. to
(Caoconsistent
the The
(4) CSR was
et al., with the(Upper CN value from Youd
Sulmona et al.
Terrace: (2001),
UST) alluvial and colluvial deposit; (3) Upper
: 82
y the “simplified procedure” (Seed & Idriss, 1971), including the
defined according to& the formulation proposed Pleistocene (pre-36 ka) fluvial-alluvial, slope fan and landslide deposit;
“simplified
yoverburden
the procedure”
“simplified as (Seed
follows:
procedure” (SeedIdriss, 1971),1971), including theby the “simplified
he same stress in kPa.proposed
The CSR&by Idriss,
was defined including
al.according tothe
the it (4) Lower-early Upper Pleistocene lacustrine deposit; (5) alluvial fan; (6)
value withCSR 7.5 definition
procedure”
magnitude (Seed & Idriss,
according to the Youd
1971),
Idriss &et Boulanger
including (2001), although
the dependency
(2008) of the landslide; (7) active normal fault; (8) inferred active normal fault splay; (9)
with
value magnitude according
withrdmagnitude
value procedure” to
with according the Idriss
magnitudetoaccording
the & Boulanger
Idrissto&1971),
the (2008)
Idriss
Boulanger & (2008)
Boulanger (2008) trace of geological cross section; LQ 2009 (blue line) is the area of sand
thevarious
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
he “simplified
correction
𝑀𝑀# to the standard (Seed
is appropriate 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶also & for
value Idriss,
of gravelly
7.5, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 soils including
(Rollins
, Rollins the
et al.et al.,
formulation. To reduce the various MW to $.& the standard CSR value of liquefaction near Vittorito village during the MW 6.1 L’Aquila earthquake
ousvarious
he 𝑀𝑀# to 𝑀𝑀
the standard 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 value
# to the standard 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ofvalue
7.5, of
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& ,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
7.5, Rollins et al. et al.
$.& , Rollins (2008)
(Monaco et al., 2011); PaleoLQ (yellow dot) indicates the site of the
lue with
ata were
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 magnitude
7.5, CSR
analysed
correction factor: according
7.5,using
Rollins et al.
the to theregression
(2021)
logistic Idriss
proposed & Boulanger
aprocedure
new MSF correction
by Liao etfactor: presumed gravel paleoliquefaction in Pratola Peligna (AQ); SR (red dot)
rrection
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 factor: factor:
correction indicates the DPT test site of Santa Rufina (AQ), grey areas are mainly
e various 𝑀𝑀# to= the
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 standard 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 value
7.258𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(−0.264𝑀𝑀 of 7.5, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& , (P
< ) for liquefaction
Rollins et al.
(5) (5) characterised by outcrops of the pre-Quaternary bedrock.
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& through the probability function L):
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 =𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
7.258𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(−0.264𝑀𝑀 <)
= 7.258𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(−0.264𝑀𝑀<)
(5) (5)
correction
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀regression
c ] factor: was performed,
analysis 7 to define the) probability of
9 ⁄ (1 )
− 𝑃𝑃9 = −8.40 + 0.35𝑁𝑁)62 − 2.12 ln(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$.& (2)
ession
:
c regression 220
analysis was performed,
analysis to define
was performed,
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 7.258𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(−0.264𝑀𝑀< )
the probability
to define of
the probability of
(5)
(85%, 70%, 50%, 30%, 15%) in equation (2) makes it possible to
:
was 1performed, to define the probability of
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
regression analysis user
by University of Canterbury
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS

Galli et al., 2015). This system consists of two main sub-parallel Test (CPT), to characterise the liquefaction site. The stratigraphic
faults striking northwest-southeast and dipping to the south-west. profile consists of a topsoil of about 1 m, followed by a sandy silt layer
The western fault generally marks the boundary between the Meso- 2 m thick underlain by a thick sandy layer with some interbedded
Cenozoic carbonate bedrock at its footwall and the Quaternary slope gravels. The ground water table was detected at about 1.0 m below
consisting of alluvial and lacustrine deposits on the hanging wall the ground surface, and the grain-size distribution curves typically
block (Gori et al., 2011; Galli et al., 2015). The occurrence of minor, plot within the ranges proposed by Tsuchida & Hayashi (1971) for
north-east dipping, antithetic faults is limited only to the northern soils most susceptible to liquefaction (Monaco et al., 2011).
sector of the basin, which for this reason can essentially be defined At the Pratola Peligna site (Fig. 4) an interesting probable
as a half-graben. example of gravel paleoliquefaction (Fig. 5) is shown on a recent
The historical seismogenic nature of the Mt. Morrone fault excavation wall for the construction of an industrial building. The slope
system was first suggested by Ceccaroni et al. (2009) who, based on face exposes what appears to be a fissure filled by coarse material,
archeoseismological studies, hypothesised that it was the probable that appears to be derived from a gravelly sand layer at its base. The
source of the historical 2nd century A.D strong seismic event. Galli fissure is about 2 m high and 30 cm in width and gravel clasts seem
et al. (2015) also provided evidence for this contention from a to be distributed along the fracture walls. According to Obermeier
paleoseismological study. Based on an empirical relationship, the (1996), this seems to be comparable with a paleoliquefaction feature
seismogenic potential attributed to this source has been estimated related to a seismic event. The origin of the features observable in
to be Mw 6.5-6.7 (Gori et al., 2011; Pizzi et al., 2002; Valentini et al., trenches and outcrops is not easy to determine, as they may originate
2019), with a recurrence time of 2.4 ± 0.2 ka (Galli et al., 2015). from various processes, e.g., tectonic fracturing or densification of
According to Miccadei et al. (1998) the Sulmona basin is mainly sediments with the ejection of water and the fluidisation of granular
filled by lacustrine deposits and subordinately alluvial and slope sediments. Further studies are required to exclude syn-depositional
deposits dating back to the Lower Pleistocene, although the entire processes.
sequence of the Quaternary filling has never been observed in either
an outcrop or in a borehole to define its thickness.
Recent studies dating the tephra layers within the Sulmona basin SITE INVESTIGATION AT THE SANTA RUFINA TEST SITE
infill, based on 40Ar/ 39Ar methods provided new constraints on the
Considering the liquefaction evidence from the Vittorito and
age of the boundary between the top of the fine-grained lacustrine
Pratola Peligna sites, the stratigraphic setting of the Pratola Peligna
and the bottom of the coarse grained fluvial-alluvial sediments of the
area (Giaccio et al., 2013; Galli et al., 2015), and the possibility of
Upper Sulmona Terrace (UST) at about 92-100 ka (Giaccio et al.,
2013, 2015). The same authors also provided an age of about 36
ka for the top of the UST deposit and the beginning of the intense
erosional phase during which the Aterno and Sagittario rivers deeply
carved the Upper Sulmona Terrace and deposited the post-36 ka
Upper Pleistocene – Holocene alluvial and colluvial deposits in Fig. 4
(e.g., Miccadei et al., 1998).
Borehole data in the Pratola Peligna and Sulmona areas (e.g.,
seismic microzonation studies, Pizzi et al., 2014), show the first 20
m of the post-36 ka Upper Pleistocene – Holocene alluvial plain
consisting of alternating sandy gravel and silt (or sandy silt) layers,
sometimes with the presence of soils rich in organic matter. However,
there is also significant lateral and vertical variations, as might be
expected considering the changes over time in sediment-transport
capacity and the path of the riverbed.

Liquefaction susceptibility based on pre-existing

information
During the 6th of April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (Mw 6.1) the
Sulmona basin was affected by liquefaction in an area near the
town of Vittorito (LQ2009, Fig. 4), at a distance of about 45 km from
the epicentre. In this event, some small sand volcanoes, sand boils
and soil cracks with sand ejecta were documented (Monaco et al.,
2011). This liquefaction site is near the Aterno riverbed and presents
a relatively flat morphology over the Holocene plain deposits. The
area was investigated by Monaco et al. (2011), who sampled the
subsoil by means of two boreholes about 5 m deep and performed
three Seismic Dilatometer Tests (SDMT) and one Cone Penetration
Fig. 5 - Photos from the supposed paleoliquefaction site at Pratola Peligna.
The anthropic excavation exposes an alternation of decimetric tabular
layers of fluvial – alluvial sands and gravels of the Upper Sulmona Terrace
(UST), the black rectangle delimits the part in which a vertical gravelly
dike, crossing the entire section, has been recognized. The clasts within
the dike are often verticalized and arranged approximately parallel to the
dike wall (see the inset). Note that the orientation of the dike surface is at
a low angle respect to the excavation wall.

221
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 N. SALVATORE ET AL.

a seismic event of Mw 6.5 in the Sulmona basin (Gori et al., 2011;
Pizzi et al., 2002; Valentini et al., 2019), the site in Santa Rufina (SR
in Fig. 4) was selected to assess the gravel liquefaction hazard. This
selection was also supported by the availability of a borehole (SB)
in the proximity of the study area.
To investigate the potential for gravel liquefaction, a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation was performed at the
Santa Rufina site, including two DPTs (DPT1, DPT2) and nine SPTs
along with a borehole (SR), extending to a depth of 20 m from the
ground surface. To better constrain the analysis, 13 disturbed soil
samples (CD1 - CD13) were also collected.
Borehole log and laboratory tests
The borehole stratigraphic log (Fig. 6a) confirmed the
variability in sediments within the first few meters of the Holocene
alluvial plain, showing, under the present topsoil, only a 0.5-m
thick layer composed of loose gravel, while the following 3.5 m are
mainly composed of silty layers. At 4 m depth, a 1-m thick layer
of sandy gravel is encountered, followed by a series of thin layers
composed of loose sandy silty fine gravels, sandy clayey silts, and
clayey sands down to a depth of 7 m. Then a 2 m thick layer of
loose sandy gravel and a 0.6 m layer of fine to coarse loose gravel
with sand are detected before reaching a thick layer of grey silt at
9.6 m. Considering the prevalent cohesive nature of the lacustrine
sediments below approximately 10 m in depth (Fig. 6a), DPTs and
SPTs were limited to the upper 10 m of alluvial sediments. The
ground water table (GWT) was intercepted at a depth of 1 m below
the ground surface.
A SW-NE geological section 100 m long and 20 m deep (Fig. 7)
was constructed combining subsurface data from boreholes SB and
SR with surface geological data from the Geological Map of Italy
1:50.000 (CARG, sheet 369 Sulmona, available on-line at https://
www.isprambiente.gov.it/Media/carg/369_SULMONA/Foglio.html)

0
a) b) GRAVEL SAND FINES
Clayey brown soil with gravel
1 GWT Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt & Clay
Loose gravel U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers
4 10 40 200
2 CD10 Sandy gray silt with clay 100
CD1 CD2
CD1 Grey silt with sand and gravel CD3 CD4
90 CD5 CD6
3 CD11 Grey sandy silt weakly clayey CD7 CD8
CD2 Grey sandy clayey silt with gravel 80 Most liquefiable
CD9 CD10
CD11 CD12
Percent Passing (%)

4 CD12 Light brown sandy clayey silt CD13

CD3 70
Sandy gravel with silt weakly clayey
5 CD4 60
Loose sandy silty fine gravel Potentially liquefiable
6 CD13 Silt with clay weakly sandy 50
CD5 Grey sandy clayey silt
40
7 CD6
Light brown clayey sand
30
Depth (m)

8 Loose sandy gravel weakly silty 20

CD7
Grain size boundaries
9 CD8 10
for gravel liquefaction
Fine to coarse loose gravel with sand
0
10 CD9 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
Grey silt and sandy silt
Grain Size (mm)
20

Fig. 6 - (a) Stratigraphic log of Santa Rufina (SR) test site: red dots depict samples depth; (b) gradation curves of samples from borehole SR overlaid with
the Tsuchida & Hayashi (1971) grain-size charts and with the range of gravel liquefaction susceptibility detected by Rollins et al. (2021).

Fig. 7 - Geological section across the Santa Rufina test site; SB is the stratigraphic log of the borehole from pre-existing unpublished studies; SR is the
stratigraphic log in Fig. 6a; brown = topsoil; yellow = alluvial deposits composed of sand, gravelly sand, sandy gravel (Upper Pleistocene - Holocene); dark
yellow = alluvial deposits composed of silt and sandy silt (Upper Pleistocene - Holocene); light grey = alluvial deposits composed of sandy silt sometimes
with gravel (Upper Pleistocene – Holocene) ; grey = lacustrine deposits composed of sandy silt, clayey silt, silt (Middle Pleistocene).

222
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS

and lithotechnical map available from level 1 Seismic Microzonation assumed as first order magnitude values. Layers with FC > 50%
studies of Pratola Peligna and Sulmona municipalities (Pizzi et al., were not considered in the liquefaction analyses, except for those
2014). The section at borehole SB shows a surficial 5.5-m thick “borderline” layers which present FC values near this limit and this
layer composed of gravelly sand and sandy gravel, followed by 1.5 will be discussed in the next section.
m of silty sand and then by about 2 m of gravel with clayey sand,
1 m of sand with gravel, 5.5 m of silty clayey sand and 4 m of silty In situ tests
sand and silt.
Both SB and SR intercept lacustrine deposits of Middle To complement the characterisation of the deposits at the
Pleistocene age at about 10 m, overlaid by Upper Pleistocene – Santa Rufina site, the interpreted USCS log is shown in Fig. 8,
Holocene alluvial deposits consisting mostly of sand, sandy gravel, together with the SPT and DPT blow count profiles in terms of
and gravel, with an interbedded thin silty layer. Borehole SR NSPT and N120. The USCS log is derived from laboratory information
intercepts a 2-m thick layer of sandy silt, not detected in SB, 74 m and visual-manual observations (ASTM D2487-11, 2011; ASTM
westward from SR, highlighting the high lateral variability in Upper D2488-09, 2009), while SPTs were performed using a cone tip in
Pleistocene – Holocene alluvial sediments. the first 9 m, due to the grain size variability from sand to gravel,
The gradation curves resulting from the geotechnical while a Raymond sampler was used only in the last SPT at 10 m
laboratory analyses of 13 samples (Fig. 6b), show a wide variability considering the absence of gravels.
in grain size; however, all samples are characterised by a CU > 3.5 The SPT and DPT profiles agree in identifying the presence in
(Table 2). Gradation curves for the sandy gravel soil samples plot the upper 7 m of CL, SC, GC, and GW-GM layers with low resistance
Fig.
Fig. 8
8–– Geotechnical
within the range of liquefaction susceptibility identifiedstratigraphic
Geotechnical by Rollinslog
stratigraphic log with
with USCS
USCS classification,
classification,
to penetration,
SPT
SPT and
overlaying andaDPT
DPT blow
blow counts
2 m-thick counts and related
andwith
layer related relative
relativeresistance,
a higher
et al. (2021) for gravelly soils. densities. The star indicates the use of corresponding,
visual-manual
densities. The star indicates the use of visual-manual procedure
procedureas can for the
for thebeUSCS
seen
USCS in the USCS log, to the well-graded
classification.
classification.
These grain-size distribution curves also highlight the high gravels – silty gravels (GW-GM).
fines content (FC) of most samples (only the gravelly layers between Moreover, Fig. 8 includes the relative density (DR) profiles
7 and 9.6 m in depth are excluded). Moreover,
Moreover, Fig.
Fig. 8
Furthermore, 8 includes
includes
laboratorythe
the relative
relative density
densityusing (( 𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷@@ )) the
profiles
profiles calculated
calculated using
using the
the equation
equation & Mayne
calculated equation proposed by Kulhawy
analyses show a low permeability value (i.e.,
proposed k = 2.40E – 10) for (1990) for SPT:
proposed by by Kulhawy
Kulhawy & & Mayne
Mayne (1990)
(1990) for
for SPT:
SPT:
the layers from 1.6 to 2 m, 2.6 to 4 m, and 5.7 to 6.5 m, which
classified as CL according to USCS and which present a plasticity 𝐷𝐷 = [(
𝐷𝐷@@ = 𝑁𝑁)) ))12
[(𝑁𝑁 12 ⁄ 60]]2.&
⁄60
2.&
(7)
(7) (7)
index (PI) between 17 and 29%. In addition, low permeabilities
and
and byby Rollins
Rollins et et al.
al. (2021)
(2021) for
for DPT:
DPT: and by Rollins et al. (2021) for DPT:
would be expected for the layers from 4 to 5 m and from 5 to 5.7,
which classified respectively as SC and GC, with a FC of 42.2 and 𝐷𝐷 = [[𝑁𝑁
𝐷𝐷@@ = 77 ⁄
𝑁𝑁)62
)62 ⁄70
2.&
70]]2.& (8)
(8) (8)
29.4% and a PI of 15 and 13% respectively. It can therefore be
Following the the geotechnical stratigraphic log
log inin Fig. 8
8 and the 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 values
the 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 in
in Table
Table 2, the
thein𝐷𝐷@ was
assumed that the fines content affects Following
the hydraulic geotechnical
behaviour. The stratigraphic Following Fig.the and
geotechnical values
stratigraphic 2,log was
𝐷𝐷Fig.
@ 8 and the FC
permeability tests in a triaxial cell at constant
calculated load were
only for performed
sandy or gravellyvalues in
layers. Table
However, 2, the D
the was
layer calculated
calculated only for sandy or gravelly layers. However, the layer between 2-2.6 m,, considering
R between only
2-2.6 for
m sandy or
consideringgravelly layers.
on disturbed samples and therefore the k values of Table 2 can be However, the layer between 2-2.6 m, considering its composition, its
its
its composition,
composition, its
its thickness,
thickness, and
and its
its position
position close
close to
to the
the surface,
surface, this
this layer
layer was
was added
added to
to the
the

list of those list of those considered as potentially liquefiable.

Table 2 - Geotechnical parameters from laboratory testsconsidered as potentially
for Santa Rufina samples.liquefiable.
Depth > 4.75 mm FC The <@2plots
The 𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷 μm in
plots LL 8
Fig.
in Fig. PL
generally
8 generallyPIprovide
provideD60 D30 results
consistent
consistent resultsDwhen
when CU
comparing
comparing CC
DPT1
DPT1 USCS
and
and DPT2;
DPT2; k
Sample @ 10
(m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (-) (-) classific. (m/s)
CD10 1.90 0.0 however,
91.6however, they show
26.7they show
37 aa clear
clear discrepancy
17 discrepancy
20 between SPT
between
0.018 SPT
- and
and DPT estimations
DPT estimations
< 0.0012 in the
> 3.5 in the gravelly
- gravelly layer
CLlayer -
CD1 2.35 27.1 52.5between
13.67 and 930 16 probably
m in depth, 14 0.207 0.014
due to the particle< size
0.0012 > 3.5 increases
that artificially - CL SPT 3.87E-09
the
between 7 and 9 m in depth, probably due to the particle size that artificially increases the SPT
CD11 2.90 2.5 85.4 23.8 38 18 20 0.022 0.003 < 0.0012 > 3.5 - CL 2.40E-10
blow counts.
CD2 3.10 22.8 61.7blow counts.
21.6 38 18 20 0.063 0.006 < 0.0012 > 3.5 - CL -
CD12 3.90 0.0 90.1 24.8 36 17 19 0.021 0.004 < 0.0012 > 3.5 - CL -
CD3 4.10 29.0 42.2 9.1 32 17 15 1.519 0.028 0.002 638 0.2 SC 1.88E-09
CD4 5.10 53.5 29.4 7.3 31 18 13 9.044 0.088 0.005 1962 0.2 GC 3.13E-08
CD13 5.90 0.0 94.9 40.7 49 20 29 0.008 - < 0.0012 > 3.5 - CL -
CD5 6.10 0.3 79.0 22.3 37 20 17 0.029 0.004 < 0.0012 > 3.5 - CL -
CD6 7.10 59.4 7.2 0.0 - - NP 10.99 2.39 0.20 55.7 2.6 GW-GM -
CD7 8.45 56.8 7.2 0.0 - - NP 8.92 2.33 0.20 44.20 3.0 GW-GM -
CD8 9.15 46.4 3.2 0.0 - - NP 6.26 1.71 0.33 19.0 1.4 SW -
CD9 10.00 5.8 78.8 7.8 50 32 18 0.035 0.010 0.0025 14.3 1.1 MH 3.69E-10
Notes: The sample length is approximately 0.2 m, and the indicated depth represents its average depth. FC is the fines content; LL is the liquid limit, LP
is the plastic limit; PI is the plasticity index (NP indicates non-plastic soils); D60, D30, and D10 are the 60th, 30th, and 10th percentiles of the grain size curve;
CU is the coefficient of uniformity; CC is the coefficient of curvature; USCS is the Unified Soil Classification System according to ASTM D2487-11 (2011)
(CL is clean clay; MH is elastic silt; SW is clean well-graded sand; SC is clayey sand; GW is well-graded gravel; GM is silty gravel; GC is clayey gravel); k is
the coefficient of permeability.

223
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 N. SALVATORE ET AL.
SPT BLOW COUNT
USCS
NSPT
log
0 50 100
0 0
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
CL*
1 1
GW-GM*
2 2
CL
3 3
4 4
SC
5 5
GC
CL 6 6
SC*
7 7
GW-GM 8 8
9 9
SW
MH
10 10
Fig. 8 - Geotechnical stratigraphic log with USCS classification, SPT and DPT blow counts and related relative densities. The star indicates the use of
visual-manual procedure for the USCS classification.
thickness, and its position close to the surface, was added to the list
of those considered as potentially liquefiable.
The DR plots in Fig. 8 generally provide consistent results
when comparing DPT1 and DPT2; however, they show a clear
discrepancy between SPT and DPT estimations in the gravelly layer
between 7 and 9 m in depth, probably due to the particle size that
artificially increases the SPT blow counts.
LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT AT THE SANTA RUFINA TEST SITE
To evaluate the CSR profile according to the “simplified
procedure”, the peak ground acceleration at the ground surface
(amax) has been determined starting from the value at outcropping
rock conditions (ag) equal to 0.255g as proposed by Valentini et al.
(2019) in the Sulmona area for a return period of 475 years based
on a fault based PSHA study. Amplification effects due to local soil
conditions have been then estimated approximately by considering
the stratigraphic amplification factor Ss (as a function of ag) for
the B subsoil class of the Italian building code (NTC, 2018). For
ag = 0.255g an Ss value of 1.16 can be estimated leading to a peak
ground acceleration at the ground surface amax = 0.296g.
To evaluate the CRR7.5 based on the SPT, the NSPT values have been
corrected following the procedure of Youd et al. (2001), considering
a measured hammer energy efficiency equal to 65%, a borehole
diameter of 101 mm, a rod length of 1.5 m and a standard sampler,
to obtain the normalised (N1)60, profile as shown in Fig. 9a. In this
respect, it can be noted that the (N1)60 profile presents the minimum
values at 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 m, while it is greater than 50 at 3, 7, 8 and
224
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
DPT BLOW COUNT RELATIVE DENSITY
N120 DR (%)
0 50 100 0 50 100
0
SPT-S1
DEPTH (m)
DPT1
DPT2
1 DPT1
DPT2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9 m in depth. To better constrain the results, simplified methods for
liquefaction assessment using SPT proposed by Youd et al. (2001),
Idriss & Boulanger (2008) and Boulanger & Idriss (2014) were used.
As can be seen in Fig. 9a, the CSR7.5,1 atm data points plotted at
approximately one metre depth intervals, using the three different
equations gives comparable results for the Youd et al. (2001)
and Idriss & Boulanger (2008) methods, while the Boulanger &
Idriss (2014) method appears substantially different. The CRR7.5
values calculated for the SPT values obtained in the layer with a
FC of approximately 50% presents an anomalously lower value
considering the equation proposed by Idriss & Boulanger (2008).
This is also reflected in terms of FSliq, as can be seen in Fig. 9a.
Lastly, the SPT assessment also includes the liquefaction
potential index (LPI), calculated as suggested by Iwasaki et al.
(1978). In this respect, to have an integral measurement in the upper
10 m of depth (assuming that the cohesive soils between 10 and 20
m is not liquefiable), NSPT values were assigned also to those layers
potentially liquefiable, but not tested with the SPT because of their
limited thickness and position relative to the one-metre test range.
Therefore, considering the stratigraphy and the characteristics
of the layers, to the loose gravel from 1.2 to 1.6 m a value of NSPT
equal to 4 was associated, according to the SPT tested layer at 2 m
in depth, and to the clayey sand from 6.5 to 7 m the NSPT value of 6
was assigned, consistent with the SPT tested layer at 6 m in depth.
These attributions were made using the layers identified by the DPT
and picking comparable NSPT values based on the correlation with
the layers from the DPT and SPT. This artifice makes it possible to
partially overcome the limitation of only having SPT values at one
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS

transfer ratio (ER) to correct the raw DPT blow counts; ER is defined as the ratio of the energy

Fig. 9 - (a) Liquefaction assessment results based on SPT methods

transferred by Youd
from the et al. to
hammer (2001), Idrissrelative
the rods and Boulanger
to the (2008), and Boulanger
theoretical and Idriss
free-fall energy. (2014)
Moreover,
at Santa Rufina test site; (b) – Liquefaction assessment results based on DPT methods by Cao et al. (2013) and Rollins et al. (2021) at Santa Rufina test
site. Data refers to DPT1.
DPT blow counts are normalised to include a correction for the overburden stress using the

equation:
metre intervals. This process identified four potentially liquefiable Fig. 9b shows that the profiles of the corrected DPT blow
7 7 2.&
layers (from 1.2 to 1.6 m, from 2 to 2.6 m, from 5 to 5.7 m and from counts 𝑁𝑁)62 result
= in the⁄𝜎𝜎same
𝑁𝑁)62 (100 8) values for Cao et al. (2013) and
(1)
6.5 to 7 m in depth) to provide reasonable LPI estimations, all in the Rollins et al. (2021), despite the minor differences in formulation
7
where 𝑁𝑁)62 is the corrected DPT resistance in blows per 30 cm, 𝑁𝑁)62 is the measured DPT
range of high liquefaction potential, with higher values computed (see Eqs. 1 and 3). The factors of safety computed by both methods
using the method proposed by Boulanger & resistance
Idriss (2014), LPI = 8.9,
in blows weremultiplied
per 30 cm also veryby
similar for is
ER, 100 this
thesite. Gravelly and
atmospheric sandy in
pressure layers with𝜎𝜎 7
kPa and 8
compared to that by Youd et al. (2001), LPI = 5.9. the lowest DPT resistance below the GWT are considered the most
For the liquefaction assessment using is the
DPTeffective overburden
data, both the stress in
critical kPa.
liquefaction zones. Using PL = 15% in the CRR formulas 7.5

methods proposed by Cao et al. (2013) and that by Rollins et al. (see Eqs. 2 and 6) the LPI profiles in Fig. 9b were obtained. The two
DPT tests have been carried out at gravel liquefaction sites related to the 𝑀𝑀# 7.9 Wenchuan
(2021) are presented, with reference to only DPT1, considering DPT methods appear to be providing similar LPI ≈ 13, in the range
the similarity of the two DPT profiles (see Fig. 8). In making
earthquake these a probabilistic
to develop of high liquefaction potential.
DPT-based procedure to assess liquefaction (Cao et al.,
assessments, the PL = 15% curves were used to obtain CRR7.5 using Cubrinovsky et al. (2018) observed the effects of the 2016
2013). The authors use theMsame
formulas given by Eqs. 2 and 6, respectively. 7.8 CSR7.5 definition
Kaikoura proposed
earthquake on 32 by Youd
sites et al.
where (2001), methods
simplified although it
w

is not established if the 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 correction is appropriate also for gravelly soils (Rollins et al.,

2021). DPT blow count data were analysed using the logistic regression procedure by Liao et
225
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
 N. SALVATORE ET AL.
predicted liquefaction; however, only 15 showed signs of surface
effects of liquefaction, while the other 17 did not. In that study, they
highlight that the penetration resistance profile did not properly
discriminate between the sites where liquefaction did or did not
manifest. The 17 sites that did not produce surface effects of
liquefaction exhibited a stratigraphy of interbedded liquefiable and
non-liquefiable layers, with the presence of separate liquefiable
layers located from 7 to 10 m, much below the “critical layer”.
Liquefaction of these deeper layers likely reduced the potential
of pore pressure generation in the critical zone (Cubrinovsky et
al., 2018) and reduced permeability in the interbedded zone may
have impeded ejecta flow to the surface. On the other hand, the
15 sites that manifested surface liquefaction were characterised
by more continuous, thicker, and uniform liquefiable layers.
The stratigraphic profile with interbedded liquefiable and non-
liquefiable layers may be clearly identified at the Santa Rufina site.
Further observations can be made using laboratory “screening”
liquefaction criteria proposed by Idriss & Boulanger (2008) and
Andrews & Martin (2000), who respectively plot the PI versus the
Liquid Limit (LL) and the LL versus the percentage of particles finer
than 2 μm to identify layers susceptible to liquefaction. Figs. 10a and
10b show the plot of the 13 samples from the Santa Rufina test site
according to the Idriss & Boulanger (2008) and Andrews & Martin
(2000) charts, respectively. For the PI vs LL chart, all samples fall
in the clay-like behaviour area, therefore indicating that they are
not susceptible to liquefaction. In the LL vs finer than 2 μm chart,
most of the samples also fall in the zone indicating no susceptibility
to liquefaction, except CD1 and CD9, for which further studies are
required, and for samples CD3 and CD4, that are very close to the
boundary indicating susceptibility to liquefaction.
Fig. 10 - Santa Rufina test site: liquefaction screening criteria according to the charts by (a) - Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and (b) - Andrews & Martin
(2000).
Table 3 - Santa Rufina test site: comparison of LPI results obtained using only in situ tests and FC measurements (case “A”), and using in situ tests, FC
and PI measurements, excluding interbedded layers (case “B”).
In situ test Method
Youd et al. (2001)
SPT Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
Boulanger and Idriss (2014)
Cao et al. (2013)
DPT
Rollins et al. (2021)
226
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
Based on these considerations, the liquefaction assessment
by in-situ tests was revised by identifying as non-liquefiable: (1)
thin liquefiable layers interbedded within non-liquefiable layers
and (2) potentially liquefiable layers classified with a “clay-like”
behaviour. As reported in Table 3, this means that the liquefaction
potential for this site passes from high (case “A”) to low (case “B”)
for all simplified methods, radically changing the prediction of
liquefaction occurrence. The only remaining liquefiable layer is at
depth between 7 and 9 m.
CONCLUSIONS
The case history database of gravel liquefaction from
around the world clearly indicates the gravelly soils can liquefy
and this possibility should be considered in seismic hazard
investigations. The data collected and reported this study also
highlight that liquefaction in gravelly soils can be triggered not
only by strong/major earthquakes, but also by moderate (Mw < 6)
seismic events. This point is illustrated by gravel liquefaction
after the Mw 5.3 aftershock of the 1976-1977 Friuli (Italy)
seismic sequence and by gravel liquefaction in the Mw 5.5 2017
Pohang (South Korea) earthquake.
Liquefied soils typically include well-graded sandy gravel
(GW), containing between 14 and 82% gravel with fines content
no greater than 22%. In addition, the sand content was typically
greater than about 30%. Although the typical gradation curves
for liquefiable gravels fall outside the typical range for liquefiable
sands sometime used in national codes, this discrepancy should
not be used to preclude liquefaction assessments in these soils.
LPI (case “A”) LPI (case “B”)
5.9 0.0
7.0 0.0
8.9 0.0
13.5 0.3
12.8 0.2
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS
Gravels are often thought to have permeabilities high enough
(> 0.004 m/s) that excess pore pressures would dissipate as fast
as they generate in an earthquake (Seed et al., 1976). However,
for gravels containing more than 30% sand size particles, the
permeability would likely be controlled by the D10 size of the sand,
making the sandy gravel susceptible to liquefaction. Even for gravel
sites with higher hydraulic conductivities, the presence of a low-
permeability surface layer could impede drainage and make the
gravel susceptible to liquefaction (Cao et al., 2013).
The magnitude versus epicentral distance for gravel
liquefaction sites is generally in good agreement with boundaries
based on the liquefaction of sandy soil. Although this database
is limited to 27 historical events and should be expanded, also
with paleoseismological data, it is reasonable to consider that the
maximum epicentral distance at which gravel liquefaction may
occur will be about the same as sand for a given magnitude, Mw.
The site of Santa Rufina, within the Sulmona basin which
experienced both sand liquefaction (during the Mw 6.1,
2019 L’Aquila earthquake) and gravel liquefaction (based on
paleoseismological evidence, although more detailed analyses are
required), provided a good case study, since it is characterised
by an alluvial Upper Pleistocene – Holocene profile that consists
both of sandy-silty and gravelly-sand alternating layers, with high
vertical and lateral variability. This variability in stratigraphy, typical
of many sedimentary basins, introduce relevant uncertainties in the
regional extensions of the liquefaction risk assessment at discrete
vertical profiles with simplified methods. This highlights the need for
more detailed geotechnical and geological studies in liquefaction
assessment at regional scale (e.g., microzonation studies).
Furthermore, the case study highlighted that the SPT-based
liquefaction triggering procedure applied to a site with vertically
alternating thin layers composed of fine and coarse particles
has three major shortcomings with the respect to the DPT-based
analyses: (1) as SPT sounding is not generally continuous, it may
not provide important information about thin layers; (2) due to the
penetrometer diameter, the SPT may overestimate the DR in layers
containing coarse particles; and (3) the DPT approach is directly
based on field performance of gravels whereas other methods
assess gravel liquefaction based on methods developed for sand.
Considering these shortcomings, the SPT-based procedure may
underestimate the liquefaction potential at such sites. In conclusion,
SPT and DPT based methods may provide conflicting results in
alternating soil stratigraphy, such as the Santa Rufina site. The
exclusion of liquefiable layers between interbedded cohesive layers
(e.g., layers characterised by a “clay-like” behaviour according to
well-known screening criteria) can refine the in-situ assessment,
shifting the LPI values to approximately zero. In this respect, the
availability of a borehole log and standard geotechnical laboratory
information provides fundamental and complementary data critical
to achieving a reliable assessment of the liquefaction hazard at
such complex sites.
Our results suggest how liquefaction hazard analyses in
active seismic regions should be carried out considering gravel
as potentially liquefiable. However, further studies are required
to better constrain these results and to investigate the role of the
geological context in liquefaction phenomena.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
This article contains electronic supplementary material (Table
S1) which is available to authorised users.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was carried out in the framework of the ReLUIS-DPC 2019–2021
research project under funding of the Italian Civil Protection Department
(Task 16.1 Site Response and Liquefaction). Additional funding by Regione
Abruzzo is also acknowledged. The Authors thank Nicola Sciarra and Gabriele
Toro for their support in the geotechnical analyses at the Laboratory of
University of Chieti-Pescara and Marco Francescone and Ylenia Zaccagnini
for their precious help during the situ surveys. Domenico Trotta is also
thanked for providing data of SB borehole.
Partial funding provided by grant CMMI-1663546 from the U.S. National
Science Foundation. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. However, the
opinions, conclusions and recommendations in this paper do not necessarily
represent those of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
Ambraseys N.N. (1988) – Engineering seismology. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 17(1), 1-105, https://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.4290170101.
Amoroso S., Milana G., Rollins K.M., Comina C., Minarelli L., Manuel
M.R., Monaco P., Franceschini M., Anzidei M., Lusvardi C., Cantore
L., Carpena A., Casadei S., Cinti F.R., Civico R., Cox B.R., De Martini
P.M., Di Giulio G., Di Naccio D., Di Stefano G., Facciorusso J., Famiani
D., Fiorelli F., Fontana D., Foti S., Madiai C., Marangoni V., Marchetti
D., Marchetti S.L., Martelli L., Mariotti M., Muscolino E., Pancaldi D.,
Pantosti D., Passeri F., Pesci A., Romeo G., Sapia V., Smedile A., Stefani
M., Tarabusi G., Teza G., Vassallo M. & Villani F. (2017) - The first Italian
blast-induced liquefaction test (Mirabello, Emilia-Romagna, Italy):
description of the experiment and preliminary results. Ann. Geophys.,
60(5), S0556, https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7415.
Amoroso S., Rollins K.M., Andersen P., Gottardi G., Tonni L., García
Martínez M.F., Wissmann K.J., Minarelli L., Comina C., Fontana D.,
De Martini P.M., Monaco P., Pesci A., Sapia V., Vassallo M., Anzidei
M., Carpena A., Cinti F., Civico R., Coco I., Conforti D., Doumaz
F., Giannattasio F., Di Giulio G., Foti S., Loddo F., Lugli S., Manuel
M.R., Marchetti D., Mariotti M., Materni V., Metcalfe B., Milana G.,
Pantosti D., Pesce A., Salocchi A.C., Smedile A., Stefani M., Tarabusi
G. & Teza G. (2020) - Blast-induced liquefaction in silty sands for
full-scale testing of ground improvement methods: insights from
a multidisciplinary study. Eng Geol, 265, 105437, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105437.
Amoroso S., Barbača J., Belić N., Kordić N., Brčić V., Budić M., Civico
R., De Martini P.M., Hećej N., Kurečić T., Minarelli L., Novosel T.,
Palenik D., Pantosti D., Pucci S., Filjak R., Ricci T., Špelić M. &
Vukovski M. (2021) - Liquefaction field reconnaissance following the
29th December 2020 Mw 6.4 Petrinja earthquake (Croatia). EGU
General Assembly 2021, online, 19-30 April 2021, EGU21-16584,
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-16584.
Andrews D.C.A. & Martin G.R. (2000) - Criteria for liquefaction of
silty soils. Proceedings, 12th World Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrus R.D. & Stokoe K.H. (2000) - Liquefaction resistance of
soils from shear-wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
126(11), 1015-1025, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2000)126:11(1015).
227
 N. SALVATORE ET AL.
A.S.T.M. D2488-09 (2009) - Standard practice for classification of
soils for engineering purposes (Visual-Manual Procedure). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 12 pp.
A.S.T.M. D2487-11 (2011) - Standard practice for description and
identification of soils (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 12 pp.
Baize S., Amoroso S., Belić N., Benedetti L., Boncio P., Budić M., Cinti
F.R., Henriquet M., Jamšek Rupnik P., Kordić B., Markušić S.,
Minarelli L., Pantosti D., Pucci S., Špelić M., Testa A., Valkaniotis
S., Vukovski M., Atanackov J., Barbača J., Bavec M., Brajkovič R.,
Brčić V., Caciagli M., Celarc B., Civico R., De Martini P.M., Filjak
R., Iezzi F., Moulin A., Kurečić T., Métois M., Nappi R., Novak A.,
Novak M., Pace B., Palenik D. & Ricci T. (2022) - Environmental
effects and seismogenic source characterization of the December
2020 earthquake sequence near Petrinja, Croatia. Geophys. J. Int.,
ggac123, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggac123.
Baratta M. (1910) - La catastrofe sismica Calabro-Messinese (28
dicembre 1908). Società Geografica Italiana, Roma. [In Italian].
Boulanger R.W., Idriss I.M. (2014) - CPT and SPT based liquefaction
triggering procedure. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for
Geotechnical Modelling, Department of Civil and Enviromentally
Engineering, Univ. California, California, 134 pp., https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1973-5606.0001388.
Cao Z., Youd T.L. & Yuan X. (2011) - Gravelly soils that liquefied during
2008 Wenchuan, China earthquake, Ms=8. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,
31, 1132-1143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.04.001.
Cao Z., Youd T.L. & Yuan X. (2013) - Chinese dynamic penetration test
for liquefaction evaluation in gravelly soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 139(8), 1320-1333, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000857.
Castilla R.A. & Audemard F.A. (2007) - Sand blows as a potential tool for
magnitude estimation of pre-instrumental earthquakes. J. Seismol.,
11, 473-487, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-007-9065-z.
Ceccaroni E., Ameri G., Capera A.A.G. & Galadini F. (2009) - The 2nd
century AD earthquake in central Italy: archeoseismological data
and seismotectonic implications. Nat. Hazards, 50, 335-359,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9343-x.
Chinese Design Code (2021) - Design code for buildings foundation of
Chengdu region. DB51/T5026-2001, Administration of Quality and
Technology, Chengdu, China. [In Chinese].
Cubrinovsky M., Bray J.D., de la Torre C., Olsen M., Bradley B., Chiaro G.,
Stocks E., Wotherspoon L. & Krall T. (2018) - Liquefaction-induced
damage and CPT characterization of the reclamations at CentrePort,
Wellington. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 108(3B), 1695-1708, https://
doi.org/10.1785/0120170246.
Daniel C.R., Howie J.A. & Sy A. (2003) - A method for correlating large
penetration test (LPT) to standard penetration test (SPT) blow
counts. Can. Geotech. J., 40, 66-77, https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-
094.
Galli P. (2000) - New empirical relationship between magnitude and
distance for liquefaction. Tectonophysics, 324, 169-187, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0040-1951(00)00118-9.
Galli P., Giaccio B., Peronace E. & Messina P. (2015) - Holocene
paleoearthquakes and Early-Late Pleistocene slip rate on the
Sulmona Fault (Central Apennines, Italy). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
105(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140029.
Giaccio B., Castorina F., Nomade S., Scardia G., Voltaggio M. & Sagnotti
L. (2013) - Revised chronology of the Sulmona lacustrine succession,
central Italy. J. Quat. Sci., 28(6), 545-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jqs.2647
228
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
Gori S., Giaccio B., Galadini F., Falcucci E., Messina P., Sposato A. &
Dramis F. (2011) - Active normal faulting along the Mt. Morrone
south-western slopes (central Apennines, Italy). International Journal
of Earth Sciences, 100(1), 157-171, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00531-009-0505-6.
Idriss I.M. & Boulanger R.W. (2008) - Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 237 p.p.
Iwasaki T., Tatsuoka F., Tokida K. & Yasuda S. (1978) - A practical method
for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at
various sites in Japan. 2nd International Conference on Microzonation
for Safer Construction Research and Application, 885-896, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(84)90027-5.
Kayen R., Moss R.E.S., Thompson E.M., Seed R.B., Cetin K.O., Kiureghian
A.D., Tanaka Y. & Tokimatsu K. (2013) - Shear-wave velocity-
based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil
liquefaction potential. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 139(3), 407-
419, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743.
Kokusho T. & Yoshida Y. (1997) - SPT N-value and S-wave velocity for
gravelly soils with different grain size distribution. Soils Found. 37(4),
105-113, https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.37.4_105.
Kulhawy F.H. & Mayne P.W. (1990) - Manual on estimating soil properties
for foundation design. EPRI Report EL-6800, 306 p.p.
Liao S.S.C., Venaziano D. & Whitman R.V. (1988) - Regression models
for evaluating liquefaction probability. J. Geotech. Eng., 114(4), 389-
411, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389).
Maurer B.W., Green R.A., Quigley M.C. & Bastin S. (2015) - Developed
of magnitude-bound relations for paleoliquefaction analyses:
New Zealand case study. Eng. Geology, 197, 253-266, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.023.
Mayne P.W., Coop M.R., Springman S.M., Huang A. & Zornberg J.G.
(2009) - Geomaterial behavior and testing. Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 2777-2873.
Miccadei E., Barberi R. & Cavinato G.P. (1998) - La geologia quaternaria
della conca di Sulmona (Abruzzo, Italia centrale). Geologica Romana,
34, 59-86. [In Italian].
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, 231-261. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9228-0.
Naik S.P., Kim Y.S., Kim T. & Su-Ho J. (2019) - Geological and structural
control on localized basin during the Pohang earthquake (5.4, 15th
November 2017), South Korea. Geosciences, 9(4), https://doi.
org/10.3390/geosciences9040173.
NTC (2018) - Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”.
D.M. 17 gennaio 2018, pubblicato sul Supplemento ordinario alla
Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 42 del 20 febbraio 2018, Serie generale. [In
Italian].
Obermeier S.F. (1996) - Use of liquefaction-induced features for
paleoseismic analysis – An overview of how seismic liquefaction
features can be distinguished from other features and how their
regional distribution and properties of source sediment can be used
to infer the location and strength of Holocene paleo-earthquakes.
Engineering Geology, 44, 1-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-
7952(96)00040-3.
Pizzi A., Miccadei E., Piacentini T., Pipponzi G., Galadini F. & Luzi L.
(2014) - Microzonazione simica di Livello 1 del Comune di Sulmona
(AQ), Relazione illustrativa con carte e sezioni allegate. Regione
Abruzzo – Dip. Protezione Civile, https://protezionecivile.regione.
abruzzo.it/index.php/microzonazione.
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF GRAVELLY SOILS
Pizzi A., Calamita F., Coltorti M. & Pieruccini P. (2002) - Quaternary
normal faults, intramontane basins and seismicity in the Umbria-
Marche-Abruzzi Apennine Ridge (Italy): contribution of neotectonic
analysis to seismic hazard assessment. Boll. Soc. Geol. It., Special
Issue 1, 923-929.
Rodriguez-Pascua M.A., Calvo J.P., De Vicente G. & Gómez-Gras D.
(2020) - Soft sediment deformation structures interpreted as
seismites in lacustrine sediments of the Prebetic Zone, SE Spain,
and their potential use as indicators of earthquake magnitudes
during the Late Miocene. Sediment. Geol., 135, 117-135, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738(00)00067-1.
Rollins K.M., Amoroso S., Milana G., Minarelli L., Vassallo M. & Di Giulio
G. (2020) - Gravel liquefaction assessment using the dynamic cone
penetration test based on field performance from the 1976 Friuli
Earthquake. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 146(6), https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002252.
Rollins K.M., Roy J., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos A., Zekkos D., Amoroso
S. & Cao Z. (2021) - A new dynamic cone penetration test-based
procedure for liquefaction triggering assessment of gravelly soils.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 147(12), 04021141, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002686.
Rollins K.M., Roy J., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos A., Zekkos D., Amoroso
S., Cao Z., Milana G., Vassallo M. & Di Giulio G. (2022) - A new VS-
based liquefaction triggering procedure for gravelly soils. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 148(6), 04022040, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002784.
Rovida A., Locati M., Camassi R., Lolli B., Gasperini P. & Antonucci A.
(2022) - Catalogo parametrico dei terremoti italiani (CPTI15),
versione 4.0. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV),
https://doi.org/10.13127/CPTI/CPTI15.4.
Roy J. & Rollins K.M (2022) - Effect of hydraulic conductivity and
impeded drainage on the liquefaction potential od gravelly soils.
Can. Geotech. J., https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2021-0579.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/italianjgeo/article-pdf/141/2/216/5644403/216.pdf
by University of Canterbury user
Salocchi A.C., Minarelli L., Lugli S., Amoroso S., Rollins K.M. & Fontana
D. (2020) - Liquefaction source layer for sand blows induced by the
2016 megathrust earthquake (MW 7.8) in Ecuador (Boca de Briceño).
J. South Am. Earth Sci., 103, 102737, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsames.2020.102737.
Seed H.B. & Idriss I.M. (1971) - Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(9), 1249-1273,
https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662.
Seed H.B., Martin P.P. & Lysmer J. (1976) - The generation and dissipation
of pore water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 102(4), 323-346.
Sirovich L. (1996a) - In-situ testing of repeatedly liquefied gravels and
liquefied overconsolidated sands. Soil Found., 36(4), 35-44.
Tokimatsu K. & Yoshimi Y. (1983) - Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction
based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found., 23(4), 56-74,
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.23.4_56.
Tsuchida H. & Hayashi S. (1971) - Estimation of liquefaction potential of
sandy soils. Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting, US–Japan Panel
on Wind and Seismic Effects, May 1971. UJNR, Tokyo, 91-109.
Valentini A., Pace B., Boncio P., Visini F., Pagliaroli A. & Pergalani F.
(2019) - Definition of seismic input from fault-based PSHA: remarks
after the 2016 central Italy earthquake sequence. Tectonics, 38,
595-620, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018TC005086.
Youd T.L., Idriss I.M., Andrus R.D., Arango I., Castro G., Christian J.T.,
Dobry R., Finn W.D.L., Harder L.F., Hynes M.E., Ishihara K., Koester
J.P., Liao S.S.C., Marcuson W.F., Martin G.R., Mitchell J.K., Moriwari
Yoshiharu, Power M.S., Robertson P.K., Seed R.B. & Stokoe K.H.
(2001) - Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation
of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. and Geoenviron.
Eng., 127(10), 817-833, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:10(817).
229