0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessWe present an updated geospatial approach to estimation of earthquake‐induced liquefaction from globally available geospatial proxies. Our previous iteration of the geospatial liquefaction model was based on mapped liquefaction surface effects from four earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Kobe, Japan, paired with geospatial explanatory variables including slope‐derived V S 30 , compound topographic index, and magnitude‐adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) from ShakeMap. The updated geospatial liquefaction model presented herein improves the performance and the generality of the model. The updates include (1) expanding the liquefaction database to 27 earthquake events across six countries, (2) addressing the sampling of nonliquefaction for incomplete liquefaction inventories, (3) testing interaction effects between explanatory variables, and (4) overall improving the model’s performance. We inspected 14 geospatial proxies for soil density and soil saturation; the most promising of these are slope‐derived V S 30 , modeled water table depth, distance to coast, distance to river, distance to the closest water body, and precipitation. We found that peak ground velocity (PGV) performs better than PGA as the shaking intensity parameter. We present two models which offer improved performance over prior models. We evaluate model performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the Brier score. The best‐performing model in a coastal setting uses distance to the coast but is problematic for regions away from the coast. The second best model, using PGV, V S 30 , water table depth, distance to the closest water body, and precipitation, performs better in noncoastal regions and thus is the model we recommend for global implementation.
Jing Zhu, Laurie G. Baise, Eric M Thompson (2017). An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(3), pp. 1365-1385, DOI: 10.1785/0120160198.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2017
Authors
3
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
DOI
10.1785/0120160198
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access