Audemard M., Franck A.Gómez Avalos, Juan CarlosTavera, HernandoOrihuela G., Nuris2018-07-252018-07-252005Audemard, F. A., Gómez, J. C., Tavera, H., & Orihuela, N. (2005). Soil liquefaction during the Arequipa Mw 8.4, June 23, 2001 earthquake, southern coastal Peru.==$Engineering Geology, 78$==(3-4), 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.12.007index-oti2018http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2106The Arequipa June 23, 2001, earthquake with a moment magnitude of Mw 8.4 struck southern Perú, northern Chile and western Bolivia. This shallow (29 km deep) interplate event, occurring in the coupled zone of the Nazca subduction next to the southeast of the subducting Nazca ridge, triggered very localized but widely outspread soil liquefaction. Although sand blows and lateral spreading of river banks and road bridge abutments were observed 390 km away from the epicenter in the southeast direction (nearing the town of Tacna, close to the Chile border), liquefaction features were only observed in major river valleys and delta and coastal plains in the meizoseismal area. This was strongly controlled by the aridity along the coastal strip of Southern Perú. From the sand blow distribution along the coastal area, a first relationship of isolated sand blow diameter versus epicentral distance for a single event is ever proposed. The most significant outcome from this liquefaction field reconnaissance is that energy propagation during the main June 23, 2001, event is further supported by the distribution and size of the isolated sand blows in the meizoseismal area. The sand blows are larger to the southeast of the epicenter than its northwestern equivalents. This can be stated in other words as well. The area affected by liquefaction to the northwest is less spread out than to the southeast. Implications of these results in future paleo-liquefaction investigations for earthquake magnitude and epicentral determinations are extremely important. In cases of highly asymmetrical distribution of liquefaction features such as this one, where rupture propagation tends to be mono-directional, it can be reliably determined an epicentral distance (between earthquake and liquefaction evidence) and an earthquake magnitude only if the largest sand blow is found. Therefore, magnitude estimation using this uneven liquefaction occurrence will surely lead to underrating if only the shortest side of the meizoseismal area is unluckily studied, which can eventually be the only part exhibiting liquefaction evidence, depending on the earthquake location and the distribution of liquefaction-prone environments.application/pdfenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessLiquefactionEarthquakesElastic wavesTectonic plateSeismologyEarth sciencesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.00http://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.04Engineering Geologyhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.12.007