SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Evaluation of soil liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformations based on ground motion parameters

Pınar Öztürk Kardoğan(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5212-4318
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that liquefaction triggering is largely associated with PGA, whereas deformations such as lateral spreading, settlement, and permanent ground displacements show a stronger correlation with peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground displacement (PGD).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This review investigates the relationship between soil liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformation mechanisms through a structured synthesis of the available literature, representative earthquake case histories, and field observations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By integrating findings from literature, field observations, and numerical studies, it is demonstrated that peak ground acceleration (PGA), which forms the basis of conventional approaches, is not sufficient when considered alone.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that liquefaction triggering is largely associated with PGA, whereas deformations such as lateral spreading, settlement, and permanent ground displacements show a stronger correlation with peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground displacement (PGD).
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Liquefaction · Ground Motion Parameters · PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration)

Abstract

This review investigates the relationship between soil liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformation mechanisms through a structured synthesis of the available literature, representative earthquake case histories, and field observations. By integrating findings from literature, field observations, and numerical studies, it is demonstrated that peak ground acceleration (PGA), which forms the basis of conventional approaches, is not sufficient when considered alone. The study emphasizes that the liquefaction process consists of two fundamental stages: liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction permanent deformations. The findings indicate that liquefaction triggering is largely associated with PGA, whereas deformations such as lateral spreading, settlement, and permanent ground displacements show a stronger correlation with peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground displacement (PGD). Recent earthquake data further reveal that different deformation patterns may occur in regions subjected to similar PGA levels, highlighting the significant influence of frequency content, duration, and energy components of ground motion on soil behavior. In conclusion, soil liquefaction is not merely a triggering phenomenon but a complex engineering problem involving multidimensional deformation processes. Therefore, it is essential to adopt multi-parameter and performance-based analysis approaches that incorporate PGA, PGV, and PGD together for reliable engineering assessments.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kardoğan, P. Ö. (2026). Evaluation of soil liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformations based on ground motion parameters. Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1946202

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Ntritsos N, Cubrinovski M (2024) Ground-motion effects on liquefaction response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108392
  2. Paul A, Ghosh S, Majumder P, Pramanik S, Smarandache F (2025) Identification of influential parameters in soil liquefaction under seismic risk using a hybrid neutrosophic decision framework. J Appl Res Ind Eng 12(1):144–175. https://doi.org/10.22105/jarie.2024.486149.1699
  3. Sianko I, Özdemir Z, Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K (2025) A probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis: Case studies from the Marmara region. Geotech Geol Eng 43:103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-03042-6
  4. Dashti S, Karimi Z (2023) Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1193/103015EQS162M
  5. Tsai C, Li P (2024) Quantifying near-fault motion effects on soil liquefaction through effective stress site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 183:108779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108779
  6. Asgarpoor M, Taiebat M (2025) Role of ground motion characteristics in liquefaction triggering and lateral displacements of sloping grounds. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 198:109555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109555
  7. Liu F (2008) Data discovery on liquefaction-induced lateral ground deformations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
  8. Bain C, Hutabarat D et al (2022) Performance-based earthquake engineering assessment tool for natural gas storage and pipeline systems: Enhanced liquefaction and ground deformation report, CEC Report PIR-18-003, California Energy Commission.
  9. Seed HB, Idriss, IM (1970) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249-1273.
  10. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung, RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111(12):1425-1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425)
  11. Kayen RE, Mitchell JK (1997). Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(12):1162-1174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:12(1162)
  12. Youd TL, Idriss IM (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 Geoenviron Eng 127(4):297-313. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:4(297)
  13. Orense RP (2005) Assessment of liquefaction potential based on peak ground motion parameters. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(3): 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.10.013
  14. Idriss I M, Boulanger R W (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
  15. Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, Taylor M, Giorgini S, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Zupan J (2011) Soil liquefaction effects in the central business district during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6): 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.893
  16. U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Engineering Laboratory Gaithersburg, Maryland (2011). Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses.
  17. Cubrinovski M, Henderson D, Bradley B (2012) Liquefaction impacts in residential areas in the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes. In Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake pp 811-824.
  18. Hayden C P (2014) Liquefaction-induced building performance and near-fault ground motions. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  19. Sassa S, Takagawa T (2019) Liquefied gravity flow-induced tsunami: first evidence and comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami disasters. Landslides 16(1):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-1114-x
  20. Okamura M, Ono K, Arsyad A, Minaka U S, Nurdin S (2020) Large-scale flowslide in Sibalaya caused by the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake. Soils Found 60(4):1050-1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.03.016
  21. Chen G, Yang J, Liu Y, Kitahara T, Beer, M (2023) An energy‐frequency parameter for earthquake ground motion intensity measure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 52(2):271-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3752
  22. Sordo B, Rathje E, Kumar K (2025) Runout of liquefaction-induced tailings dam failure: Influence of earthquake motions and residual strength. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 194:109371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109371
  23. Pretell R, Brandenberg SJ, Stewart J P (2026) Ground motion intensity measures at liquefaction field case history sites. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 152(8):04026054. https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-142
  24. Kayen E (2026) Geology Is the Key: Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential in Niigata City, Japan. GeoHazards 7(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards7010028
  25. Cubrinovski M, Bray D, et al (2017) Geotechnical Reconnaissance of the 2016 Mw7. 8 Kaikoura, New Zealand Earthquake. A report of the NSF-Sponsored GEER Association Team, GEER-053 Ver, 1.
  26. Rattenbury MS, Townsend DB, Johnston MR (2006) Geology of the Kaikoura area (Vol. 1, No. 250,000). Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences.
  27. Lin A, Wotherspoon L, Motha J (2022) Evaluation of a geospatial liquefaction model using Kaikoura earthquake data, Bulletin of NZSEE.
  28. Hidayat F et al (2020) Reconnaissance on liquefaction-induced flow failure caused by the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake. J Eng Technol Sci. https://doi.org/10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2020.52.1.4
  29. Tohari A, Wardhana D, et al (2021) Understanding of subsurface conditions controlling flow liquefaction occurrence during the 2018 Palu earthquake based on resistivity profiles. In E3S Web of Conferences Vol 331: p 03002, EDP Sciences.
  30. Parkinson C (1998) Emplacement of the East Sulawesi Ophiolite: evidence from subophiolite metamorphic rocks. J Asian Earth Sci 16 (1):13–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-9547(97)00039-1
  31. Daryono MR (2016) Paleoseismology Tropis of Indonesia (Study case: Sumatera Fault, Palukoro-Matano Fault, and Lembang Fault) Doctoral dissertation, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
  32. Hall R, Wilson J, Neogene sutures in eastern Indonesia. J Asian Earth Sci 18 (6) (2000):781–808.
  33. Heliani S, Pratama C, et al (2025) Integrated gravity, GNSS, and seismic analysis for fault mapping in sulawesi island: Insights into the Palu-Koro Fault. Geod Geodyn.
  34. Rajaram C, Vemuri J, Akansel H (2025) Near-field ground motion intensity parameters of the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Geohazard Mech 3:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ghm.2025.08.002
  35. Litchfield J, Campbell K, Nicol A (2003) Recognition of active reverse faults and folds in North Canterbury, New Zealand, using structural mapping and geomorphic analysis. N Z J Geol Geophys 46(4): 563-579. https://doi.org/Doi 10.1080/00288306.2003.9515030
  36. Mertol C, Tunç G, et al (2023) Investigation of RC buildings after 6 February 2023, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye earthquakes. Buildings 13(7):1789. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071789
  37. Öztürk Kardoğan S (2026) Assessment of earthquake-induced settlements and liquefaction triggered by the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Gölbaşı (Adıyaman) and İskenderun (Hatay). Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 17(1): 2650129. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2026.2650129
  38. Ziar A, Basari E (2025) Accurate prediction of peak ground acceleration using random forests: A data-driven approach. Arch Adv Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewAAES52026930
  39. Hu B, Ji W et al (2025) Assessment of seismic intensity measures on liquefaction response: A case study of Yinchuan sandy soil. Buildings 15(20): 3803. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203803
  40. Tang L, Tian S, Liu Y, Ling X (2025) Probabilistic demand models and fragility analysis of railway embankments subjected to multi-pulse ground motions. Transp Geotech 52:101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2025.101522
  41. Prakash S, Anbazhagan P (2026) Optimal ground motion intensity measures for the seismic vulnerability assessment of embankment dams, Georisk. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2026.2614741
  42. Cruz A, Ghasemi M et al (2025) Strong ground motions, liquefaction and damage observations from Myanmar earthquake. Seismol Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220250258
  43. Wu F, Xie J et al (2023) Pulse-like ground motion observed during the 6 February 2023 Pazarcık earthquake. Earthq Sci 36(4):328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqs.2023.05.005