Site Effects: Soil Amplification, Basin Response, and Liquefaction Susceptibility

Why “site effects” matter for hazard awareness

Two neighborhoods the same distance from the same earthquake can experience very different shaking and damage because the ground beneath them modifies the incoming motion. These differences are called site effects. In practical terms, site effects can: (1) amplify shaking on soft soils compared with rock, (2) lengthen shaking and concentrate energy in sedimentary basins, and (3) trigger ground failure such as liquefaction where saturated loose sands lose strength. Understanding these mechanisms helps you interpret local damage patterns, choose safer building sites, and prioritize retrofits and emergency planning.

Soil amplification: why soft ground can shake harder

Concept: impedance contrast and resonance

When seismic waves pass from stiff material (bedrock) into softer material (soil), the wave speed drops. To carry the same energy through slower material, the wave’s amplitude often increases. This is commonly described as an impedance contrast effect: stiff, dense materials have higher seismic impedance; soft, less dense materials have lower impedance. A strong contrast at the soil–rock boundary can increase shaking at the surface.

Amplification is not uniform across frequencies. Soil layers can behave like a vibrating system with a preferred or resonant frequency. If the incoming shaking contains energy near that frequency, motion can build up, increasing peak accelerations and, importantly, peak velocities and displacements that affect buildings.

What controls amplification at a site

• Shear-wave velocity (Vs): Lower Vs generally means softer soil and greater potential amplification. A common practical index is Vs30 (average Vs in the top 30 m), but even without measurements you can infer relative softness from geomorphology (river deposits, reclaimed land, thick fill).
• Thickness of soft sediments: Thicker layers tend to shift resonance to lower frequencies (longer periods), which can be more damaging to mid- to high-rise buildings.
• Damping: Some soils dissipate energy more effectively, reducing amplification. Highly plastic clays may damp more than clean sands, though they can still amplify at certain frequencies.
• Nonlinear behavior: During strong shaking, soils can soften (Vs drops), changing resonance and sometimes reducing high-frequency amplification while increasing longer-period motion.
• Topography and near-surface geometry: Ridges, slopes, and abrupt changes in soil thickness can focus or scatter waves, creating localized “hot spots.”

Practical example: two lots, same earthquake

Lot A sits on shallow bedrock with a thin veneer of soil; Lot B sits on 20–30 m of young river sand and silt. In moderate shaking, Lot B may experience noticeably stronger motion and longer duration. In strong shaking, Lot B may also experience increased permanent ground deformation (settlement, lateral spreading) if groundwater is shallow and sands are loose.

Estimating a site’s resonant period (a quick field calculation)

Concept: the quarter-wavelength approximation

A simple way to estimate the fundamental site period is to treat the soil layer as a resonator over bedrock. A commonly used approximation is:

Continue in our app.

You can listen to the audiobook with the screen off, receive a free certificate for this course, and also have access to 5,000 other free online courses.

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

T0 ≈ 4H / Vs

where T0 is the fundamental period (seconds), H is the thickness of the soft layer (meters), and Vs is the average shear-wave velocity in that layer (m/s). This is not a substitute for site-specific studies, but it is useful for screening and intuition.

Step-by-step screening workflow

• Step 1: Estimate sediment thickness (H). Use local geologic maps, borehole logs, well records, or municipal geotechnical reports. If those are unavailable, infer from landform: broad floodplains and deltas often have tens of meters of sediment; rocky hillsides often have shallow soil.
• Step 2: Choose a plausible Vs range. Typical ranges (very approximate): soft clay/silt 100–200 m/s; loose sand 150–250 m/s; dense sand/stiff clay 250–400 m/s; weathered rock 400–800 m/s. If you have Vs30 from a map, use it as a starting point.
• Step 3: Compute T0. Example: H = 25 m, Vs = 200 m/s → T0 ≈ 4×25/200 = 0.5 s.
• Step 4: Compare with building periods. A rough rule: low-rise (1–3 stories) ~0.1–0.3 s; mid-rise (4–10) ~0.4–1.0 s; high-rise >1 s. If T0 overlaps a building’s period range, resonance risk is higher.
• Step 5: Flag uncertainty and triggers for professional study. If the site is critical (hospital, school, emergency operations) or if H and Vs are uncertain, prioritize a geotechnical investigation or microtremor/Vs testing.

Basin response: why valleys and sedimentary basins can trap and focus shaking

Concept: wave trapping, surface-wave generation, and duration

Sedimentary basins (from small valleys filled with alluvium to large metropolitan basins) can strongly modify shaking. Key mechanisms include:

• Wave trapping: When waves enter a low-velocity basin, they can reflect internally and reverberate, increasing duration.
• Conversion to surface waves: Basin edges and velocity gradients can generate surface waves that travel along the basin, sometimes producing large, long-period motion.
• Focusing and edge effects: Curved basin geometry and sharp edges can concentrate energy in certain zones, creating localized amplification not predicted by simple “soft soil” rules.

For community resilience, basin response matters because it can increase not only peak shaking but also shaking duration, which contributes to cumulative damage, fatigue in structural elements, and increased likelihood of nonstructural failures (ceilings, piping, equipment).

Recognizing basin conditions in the field

• Broad, flat lowlands bounded by hills or mountains often indicate a sediment-filled basin.
• Thick sequences of young sediments (alluvium, lake deposits, deltaic deposits) suggest low velocities and strong basin effects.
• Sharp transitions from rock to deep sediments near basin margins are candidates for edge-generated waves and localized amplification.

Practical example: “edge neighborhood” versus “central basin”

An “edge neighborhood” near the transition from bedrock to basin fill may experience strong pulses and directional effects due to wave conversion and focusing. A “central basin” neighborhood may experience longer, rolling motion dominated by longer periods. Both can be damaging, but the damage patterns can differ: edge zones may show concentrated structural damage in narrow bands, while central zones may show widespread nonstructural damage and issues in taller buildings sensitive to longer periods.

Microzonation mindset: mapping site effects at neighborhood scale

Concept: from regional hazard to local hazard

Regional seismic hazard maps describe expected shaking levels over broad areas. Microzonation refines this by incorporating local soils, basin geometry, and groundwater conditions to identify zones of higher amplification or ground failure susceptibility. Even without producing a formal microzonation study, communities can adopt a microzonation mindset: identify where conditions change abruptly and where soft, saturated sediments are likely.

Step-by-step: a practical “desktop-to-field” microzonation sketch

• Step 1: Gather base layers. Obtain (a) surficial geology map, (b) topographic map or DEM, (c) groundwater depth information if available, (d) locations of rivers, wetlands, reclaimed land, and historical fill.
• Step 2: Delineate preliminary ground types. Create simple categories such as: bedrock/shallow soil; stiff older sediments; young alluvium; artificial fill/reclaimed land; coastal/delta deposits; hillside colluvium.
• Step 3: Add basin indicators. Mark basin margins (where slopes rise) and thick-sediment areas (broad flats). If available, add depth-to-bedrock contours from geotechnical reports.
• Step 4: Add liquefaction screening indicators. Mark areas with shallow groundwater, young sands, river point bars, deltas, and reclaimed land.
• Step 5: Ground-truth in the field. Look for evidence of young deposits (fresh river terraces, active channels), fill (heterogeneous material, debris), and groundwater (springs, wet ground, shallow wells). Note abrupt changes over short distances.
• Step 6: Produce a “priority actions” overlay. Identify where to prioritize: detailed geotechnical studies, retrofit programs, lifeline upgrades (water, gas), and emergency staging sites on more stable ground.

Liquefaction susceptibility: when soil temporarily behaves like a fluid

Concept: pore pressure and loss of strength

Liquefaction occurs mainly in loose, saturated, granular soils (often sands and silty sands). During shaking, grains try to rearrange into a denser configuration. If drainage is too slow, water pressure in the pores rises, reducing effective stress (the grain-to-grain contact forces). When effective stress drops enough, the soil loses shear strength and can deform dramatically.

Liquefaction is not just “sand turns to water.” It is a loss of strength and stiffness that can cause: settlement, tilting, sand boils, ground cracking, and lateral spreading toward free faces such as riverbanks.

Where liquefaction is most likely

• Young, loose sands in river channels, point bars, deltas, beach deposits, and some dune sands.
• Artificial fill, especially hydraulic fill or poorly compacted reclaimed land.
• Shallow groundwater (often within a few meters of the surface), including areas near rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal plains.
• Low-lying basins where fine sediments may cap sandy layers, slowing drainage and increasing pore pressure buildup.

Common liquefaction manifestations (field recognition)

• Sand boils and ejecta: cones or sheets of sand/silt deposited at the surface, often with water stains.
• Ground fissures: cracks that may align roughly parallel to a riverbank or slope.
• Settlement and tilting: buildings, poles, or pavements that sink unevenly.
• Lateral spreading: blocks of ground moving horizontally toward a river, canal, or excavated area, damaging roads and pipelines.

Liquefaction screening: a practical step-by-step checklist

This screening is for awareness and prioritization, not a substitute for engineering evaluation.

Step 1: Identify susceptible landforms

• Is the site on a floodplain, delta, coastal plain, reclaimed land, or near an active/abandoned river channel?
• Are there nearby wetlands, marshes, or persistent ponding?
• Is the ground flat and low-lying relative to surrounding terrain?

Step 2: Check groundwater indicators

• Ask about typical water levels in wells (seasonal highs matter).
• Look for springs, seepage on slopes, or saturated ground after dry periods.
• Review any available hydrogeology maps or municipal well logs.

Step 3: Look for soil type clues

• Clean sands and silty sands are more susceptible than gravels (often denser) or clays (cohesive, though sensitive clays have other issues).
• Construction excavations, utility trenches, or river cutbanks can reveal layering: alternating sand and silt layers are common in floodplains.
• Uniform, loose sand with little cohesion that crumbles easily when dry can be a warning sign, especially if groundwater is shallow.

Step 4: Identify “free faces” and lateral spread potential

• Is the site near a riverbank, canal, seawall, harbor, or steep embankment?
• Are there retaining walls, quay walls, or levees that could move if foundation soils liquefy?

Step 5: Assign a simple susceptibility class

• Low (screening): bedrock or dense older deposits; deep groundwater; steep uplands away from water bodies.
• Moderate (screening): mixed sediments; groundwater not clearly shallow; some sandy layers possible.
• High (screening): young sandy deposits or fill with shallow groundwater; proximity to rivers/coast; known historical liquefaction in the area.

Step 6: Decide what to do next

• If high and the site hosts critical facilities or lifelines, prioritize geotechnical investigation (SPT/CPT, groundwater monitoring) and mitigation design.
• If moderate, prioritize data collection (well logs, borings during planned projects) and avoid placing critical infrastructure near free faces.
• If low, still consider other site effects (amplification on soft clays, basin response) and nonstructural mitigation.

How liquefaction and amplification interact with buildings and lifelines

Buildings: different failure pathways

• Amplification-driven damage: stronger shaking increases inertial forces, stressing frames, walls, and connections. Resonance can increase drift demands, especially for structures whose natural period aligns with site period.
• Liquefaction-driven damage: even if shaking is moderate, loss of bearing capacity can cause settlement and tilt; lateral spreading can tear foundations and slabs. This damage can occur in clusters aligned with susceptible deposits.

Lifelines: why buried systems are vulnerable

• Pipelines can break at joints due to differential settlement or lateral spreading. Rigid pipes are particularly vulnerable; flexible joints and ductile materials can improve performance.
• Roads and bridges can lose approach fills, experience abutment movement, or suffer from embankment spreading.
• Ports and waterfronts are high-risk zones because they combine saturated fills, free faces, and critical economic functions.

Simple mitigation choices informed by site effects

Land-use and siting (community scale)

• Prefer locating emergency operations, shelters, and key storage (fuel, water) on more competent ground when feasible.
• In high liquefaction zones, avoid concentrating critical lifelines along a single corridor near riverbanks; build redundancy.
• Use microzonation sketches to guide where detailed studies are required before major development.

Project-level measures (what to ask for)

• For amplification concerns: request site-specific response analysis for important structures; consider foundation systems and structural designs that account for longer-period demands in basins.
• For liquefaction: ask whether the design includes ground improvement (densification, grouting, drains), deep foundations to competent layers, or structural solutions tolerant of settlement.
• For waterfronts: evaluate lateral spreading explicitly; consider ground improvement and robust quay/retaining systems.

Hands-on exercise: a neighborhood “site effects walkdown”

Goal

Create a practical, shareable set of observations that helps your community identify where shaking may be amplified and where liquefaction may be more likely.

Step-by-step

• Step 1: Choose a transect. Pick a route that crosses different ground types: hillside/bedrock area → basin/floodplain → riverbank or reclaimed land if present.
• Step 2: Record ground and water indicators. Note slope, surface materials (sand, silt, gravel), evidence of fill, and any signs of shallow groundwater (wet ground, springs, lush vegetation bands).
• Step 3: Identify abrupt transitions. Mark where the terrain flattens, where soils change, or where cut slopes reveal layering. These transitions often correspond to changes in amplification and liquefaction susceptibility.
• Step 4: Inventory vulnerable elements. Note unreinforced masonry, soft-story buildings, tanks, and critical lifelines (water mains, bridges). Pay special attention near riverbanks and along old channels.
• Step 5: Draft a simple map. On a printed map or GIS layer, draw polygons for “likely higher amplification” (soft, thick sediments) and “liquefaction screening high” (young sands + shallow groundwater + free faces).
• Step 6: Convert observations into questions. Examples: “Do we have well logs to confirm groundwater depth here?” “Is this school on thick alluvium?” “Which water main crosses the lateral spread zone?”