Open Access
Subscription Access
REVIEWING GROUND BEHAVIOR AND SEISMIC PHENOMENA DURING LARGE EARTHQUAKES: A SEISMOLOGICAL APPROACH
Abstract
This paper explores factors affecting soil behavior during earthquakes and methods for analysis and mitigation. Soil type, liquefaction susceptibility, density, saturation, and confining pressure influence soil response. Understanding these factors is crucial for assessing seismic hazards and designing resilient infrastructure. Various soil types respond differently to seismic activity, with sandy soils prone to settlement and liquefaction, clayey soils to lateral spreading, and silt soils showing intermediate behavior. Liquefaction, common in loose or poorly compacted soils, poses risks of ground instability and structural failure. Soil density and compaction affect seismic resistance. Saturation and confining pressure also play roles. Geotechnical investigations, seismic design codes, soil improvement techniques, base isolation, and retaining structures are methods for analysis and mitigation. By integrating these approaches, structures and infrastructure can better withstand seismic events, reducing damage and ensuring community safety in earthquake-prone regions.
References
Bendick, R., Roger Bilham, E. Fielding, V. K. Gaur, S. E. Hough, G. Kier, M. N. Kulkarni, S. Martin, K. Mueller, and M. Mukul. 2001. “The 26 January 2001 ‘Republic Day’ Earthquake, India.” Seismological Research Letters 72(3):328–35.
Beresnev, Igor A. and Kuo-Liang Wen. 1996. “Nonlinear Soil Response—A Reality?” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86(6):1964–78.
Beresnev, Igor A., Kuo-Liang Wen, and Yeong Tein Yeh. 1995. “Seismological Evidence for Nonlinear Elastic Ground Behavior during Large Earthquakes.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 14(2):103–14.
Burrato, Pierfrancesco, Maria Eliana Poli, Paola Vannoli, Adriano Zanferrari, Roberto Basili, and Fabrizio Galadini. 2008. “Sources of Mw 5+ Earthquakes in Northeastern Italy and Western Slovenia: An Updated View Based on Geological and Seismological Evidence.” Tectonophysics 453(1–4):157–76.
Cioflan, Carmen Ortanza, Alexandru Marmureanu, and Gheorghe Marmureanu. 2011. “The Quantitative Evidence of the Soil Nonlinear Behavior during of Strong Vrancea Earthquakes in Real/Nonlinear Seismology.” Romanian Reports in Physics 63(3):839–51.
Goodman, Richard E. 1991. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
Hough, S., Stacey Martin, Roger Bilham, and Gail Atkinson. 2002. “The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, Earthquake: Observed and Predicted Ground Motions.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92:2061–79.
Jain, Sudhir K., Williams R. LETTIS, C. V. R. MURTY, and Jean-Pierre Bardet. 2002. “Bhuj, India Earthquake of January 26, 2001, Reconnaissance Report.” Earthquake Spectra 18.
Koketsu, Kazuki and Hiroe Miyake. 2008. “A Seismological Overview of Long-Period Ground Motion.” Journal of Seismology 12:133–43.
Lew, Marshall and J. Adolfo Acosta. 2004. “Impact of New Advances in Seismology and Geotechnical Engineering on Structural Design since the Northridge Earthquake.” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 13(5):347–71.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.