Arango (1996) Scaling Factors: Table 3

TABLE 3.
Seed and
Idriss
(1982)
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
1.43
1.32
1.19
1.08
1.00
0.94
0.89
Magnitude,
Magnitude Scaling Factor Values Defined by Various Investigators (Youd and Noble 1997a)
Arango (1996)
Youd and Noble (1997b)
Idrissa
Ambraseys
(1988)
Distance
based
Energy
based
Andrus and
Stokoe
(1997)
PL < 20%
PL < 32%
PL < 50%
2.20
1.76
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.84
0.72
2.86
2.20
1.69
1.30
1.00
0.67
0.44
3.00
2.00
1.60
1.25
1.00
0.75
2.20
1.65
1.40
1.10
1.00
0.85
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.25
1.00
0.8?
0.65?
2.86
1.93
1.34
1.00
3.42
2.35
1.66
1.20
4.44
2.92
1.99
1.39
1.00
0.73?
0.56?
Note: ? = Very uncertain values.

a
1995 Seed Memorial Lecture, University of California at Berkeley (I. M. Idriss, personal communication to T. L. Youd, 1997).
For magnitudes >7.5, Ambraseys factors are significantly

lower and much more conservative than the original (Seed and
Idriss 1982) and Idrisss revised scaling factors. Because there
are few data to constrain Ambraseys scaling factors for magnitudes >7.5, they are not recommended for hazard evaluation
for large earthquakes.
Arango (1996) Scaling Factors
FIG. 12. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators

(Reproduced from Youd and Noble 1997a)
in Fig. 12. The revised MSFs are defined by the following

equation:
MSF = 102.24/M w2.56
Arango (1996) developed two sets of magnitude scaling factors. The first set (column 5, Table 3) is based on furthest
observed liquefaction effects from the seismic energy source,
the estimated average peak accelerations at those distant sites,
and the seismic energy required to cause liquefaction. The second set (column 6, Table 3) was developed from energy concepts and the relationship derived by Seed and Idriss (1982)
between numbers of significant stress cycles and earthquake
magnitude. The MSFs listed in column 5 are similar in value
(within about 10%) to the MSFs of Ambraseys (column 4),
and the MSFs listed in column 6 are similar in value (within
about 10%) to the revised MSFs proposed by Idriss (column
3).
(24)
The workshop participants recommend these revised scaling

factors as a lower bound for MSF values.
The revised scaling factors are significantly higher than the
original scaling factors for magnitudes <7.5 and somewhat
lower than the original factors for magnitudes >7.5. Relative
to the original scaling factors, the revised factors lead to a
reduced calculated liquefaction hazard for magnitudes <7.5,
but increase calculated hazard for magnitudes >7.5.
Ambraseys (1988) Scaling Factors
Field performance data collected since the 1970s for magnitudes <7.5 indicate that the original Seed and Idriss (1982)
scaling factors are overly conservative. For example, Ambraseys (1988) analyzed liquefaction data compiled through the
mid-1980s and plotted calculated cyclic stress ratios for sites
that did or did not liquefy versus (N1)60. From these plots,
Ambraseys developed empirical exponential equations that define CRR as a function of (N1)60 and moment magnitude Mw.
By holding the value of (N1)60 constant in the equations and
taking the ratio of CRR determined for various magnitudes of
earthquakes to the CRR for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes, Ambraseys derived the magnitude scaling factors listed in column
4 of Table 3 and plotted in Fig. 12. For magnitudes <7.5, the
MSFs suggested by Ambraseys are significantly larger than
both the original factors developed by Seed and Idriss (column
2, Table 3) and the revised factors suggested by Idriss (column
3). Because they are based on observational data, these factors
have validity for estimating liquefaction hazard; however, they
have not been widely used in engineering practice.
Andrus and Stokoe (1997) Scaling Factors

From their studies of liquefaction resistance as a function
of shear wave velocity Vs Andrus and Stokoe (1997) drew
bounding curves and developed (22) for calculating CRR from
Vs for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. These investigators drew
similar bounding curves for sites where surface effects of liquefaction were or were not observed for earthquakes with
magnitudes of 6, 6.5, and 7. The positions of the CRR curves
were visually adjusted on each graph until a best-fit bound
was obtained. Magnitude scaling factors were then estimated
by taking the ratio of CRR for a given magnitude to the CRR
for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. These MSFs are quantified by
the following equation:
MSF = (Mw /7.5)22.56
(25)
MSFs for magnitudes <6 and >7.5 were extrapolated from this
equation. The derived MSFs are listed in column 7 of Table
3, and plotted in Fig. 12. For magnitudes <7.5, the MSFs proposed by Andrus and Stokoe are rather close in value (within
about 5%) to the MSFs proposed by Ambraseys. For magnitudes >7.5, the Andrus and Stokoe MSFs are slightly smaller
than the revised MSFs proposed by Idriss.
Youd and Noble (1997a) Scaling Factors
Youd and Noble (1997a) used a probabilistic or logistic
analysis to analyze case history data from sites where effects
of liquefaction were or were not reported following past earthquakes. This analysis yielded the following equation, which
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2001 / 827

Arango (1996) Scaling Factors: Table 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arango (1996) Scaling Factors: Table 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arango (1996) Scaling Factors: Table 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE 3.

Youd and Noble (1997b)

Note: ? = Very uncertain values.

For magnitudes >7.5, Ambraseys factors are significantly

FIG. 12. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators

in Fig. 12. The revised MSFs are defined by the following

The workshop participants recommend these revised scaling

Andrus and Stokoe (1997) Scaling Factors

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2001 / 827

You might also like