Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure from July 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

Abstract

The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence produced a 4 July M 6.5 foreshock and a 5 July M 7.1 mainshock, along with 23 events with magnitudes greater than 4.5 in the 24 hr period following the mainshock. The epicenters of the two principal events were located in the Indian Wells Valley, northwest of Searles Valley near the towns of Ridgecrest, Trona, and Argus. We describe observed liquefaction manifestations including sand boils, fissures, and lateral spreading features, as well as proximate non-ground failure zones that resulted from the sequence. Expanding upon results initially presented in a report of the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association, we synthesize results of field mapping, aerial imagery, and inferences of ground deformations from Synthetic Aperture Radar-based damage proxy maps (DPMs). We document incidents of liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading in the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake US military base and compare locations of these observations to pre- and postevent mapping of liquefaction hazards. We describe liquefaction and ground-failure features in Trona and Argus, which produced lateral deformations and impacts on several single-story masonry and wood frame buildings. Detailed maps showing zones with and without ground failure are provided for these towns, along with mapped ground deformations along transects. Finally, we describe incidents of massive liquefaction with related ground failures and proximate areas of similar geologic origin without ground failure in the Searles Lakebed. Observations in this region are consistent with surface change predicted by the DPM. In the same region, geospatial liquefaction hazard maps are effective at identifying broad percentages of land with liquefaction-related damage. We anticipate that data presented in this article will be useful for future liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequence studies being undertaken as part of the Next Generation Liquefaction project.

The 2020 Monte Cristo (Nevada) Earthquake Sequence: Stress Transfer in the Context of Conjugate Strike‐Slip Faults

“…The coseismic triggered liquefaction processes induced by the 2020 Monte Cristo earthquake includes: sand boils with eruptions of sediments, extensive fractures, and lateral spreading features. These features are similar to those observed in the Salt Wells Valley during the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence (Zimmaro et al., 2020) and in the Wildlife Reserve Array during the 1987 Superstition Hills sequence (Holzer et al., 1989). However, the large distance between the Wildlife Reserve Array and the epicenter of the Mw 6.6 Superstitions Hills earthquake and the maximum values of excess pore water pressure recorded out the maximum amplitude of ground shaking may require an additional pore pressure change due to the fluid diffusion just after the earthquake shaking (Holzer & Youd., 2007; Wang & Manga., 2010).…”

The US Geological Survey ground failure product: Near-real-time estimates of earthquake-triggered landslides and liquefaction

“… G, Y, O, R indicate Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red alert levels, respectively. ✓, ✗ , ? indicate the specific alert modeled by the GF product was appropriate, not appropriate, or unknown, based on the overall GF that occurred, as described in the last column. a Internal USGS reports. b Ito et al (2020); Kayen et al (2019); Yamagishi and Yamazaki (2018); Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI). c Bradley et al (2019); Sassa and Takagawa (2019); Xuanmei Fan, personal communication, 2018. d Grant et al (2020); Jibson et al (2020); Thompson et al (2020). e Jibson (2020); Zimmaro et al (2020). f Allstadt et al (2020); Knoper et al (2020). g UGS (Utah Geological Survey) Geologic Hazards Program (2020). h Zach Lifton, Utah Geological Survey, oral communication (4/2020) and written communication (1/2021); Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2020); Idaho Geological Survey (2020). i Hauksson et al (2020). j Citizen reports to USGS personnel in Alaska (2020), photos shared from residents on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/MelissaFreyWeather). k https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/12/18/arequipa-1-2/ l Miranda et al (2021). * Occurred prior to public deployment during internal testing period #Performance is a function of both the underlying GF models and the quality of the ShakeMap. …”

Effects of reconsolidation degree on reliquefaction resistance under mainshock–aftershock sequences: A DEM investigation

“…For example, less than 30 min elapsed between the mainshock and the aftershock in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake 6 ; the duration of the 2012 Emilia mainshock-aftershock seismic sequence was less than 10 min 4 ; and 23 aftershock events occurred following the mainshock in 24 h in the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake. 7 Excess pore pressure (EPWP) generated during the mainshock may not dissipate completely because of the short duration between mainshocks and aftershocks. Finite element analysis conducted by Ueda et al 8 and Morikawa et al 9 verified that the dissipation of EPWP was not completed at the occurrence of the aftershock during the 2011 Great East earthquake.…”

“…The time interval between a mainshock and an aftershock can be quite short. For example, less than 30 min elapsed between the mainshock and the aftershock in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake 6 ; the duration of the 2012 Emilia mainshock–aftershock seismic sequence was less than 10 min 4 ; and 23 aftershock events occurred following the mainshock in 24 h in the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake 7 . Excess pore pressure (EPWP) generated during the mainshock may not dissipate completely because of the short duration between mainshocks and aftershocks.…”