Andrew J Makdisi, PhD, PE
Andrew is a Research Civil Engineer at the Geologic Hazards Science Center in Golden, Colorado, specializing in hazard and risk characterization as it relates to earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and ground failure.
Andrew joined the USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center in 2021; his work at the survey focuses on primarily on probabilistic modeling of liquefaction-related hazards, the use of non-traditional ground motion intensity measures in seismic hazard and risk analyses, and the incorporation of liquefaction-related risk into building codes and design standards.
Andrew received his B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Davis in 2012, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Washington in 2016 and 2021, respectively. During his Masters studies, he spent nine months in 2015 as a Valle scholarship recipient and visiting researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, and was an EERI/FEMA NEHRP Graduate Fellow in Earthquake Hazards Reduction during the 2019-2020 academic year.
His professional experience includes two years as a senior staff geotechnical engineer in Seattle, Washington, and one year as a staff engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area. He served as co-president of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) student chapter at UW, and sits on the EERI Board of Directors for the Washington professional chapter. He participated in the EERI Learning From Earthquakes Travel Study Program in New Zealand in 2019.
Education
2021 Ph.D., University of Washington, Civil & Environmental Engineering
2016 M.S., University of Washington, Civil & Environmental Engineering
2012 B.S., University of California at Davis, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Science and Products
Framework for mapping liquefaction hazard–Targeted design ground motions
Liquefaction-induced ground failure poses substantial challenges to geotechnical earthquake engineering design. Current approaches for designing against liquefaction hazards, as specified in most seismic provisions, focus on estimating a liquefaction factor of safety (𝐹𝑆𝐿) and typically characterize earthquake loading using design parameters based on probabilistic or deterministic ground motion l
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Liquefaction timing and post-triggering seismic energy: A comparison of crustal and subduction zone earthquakes
The objective of the study is to assess when liquefaction is triggered in a suite of ground motions following simplified approaches and measure the remaining post-triggering energy content of those ground motions. For liquefaction-induced deformations, current simplified analysis procedures do not directly incorporate temporal effects and rely on peak transient intensity measurements. Liquefaction
Authors
Trevor J. Carey, Atira Naik, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry (Ben) Mason
The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications
The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increase
Authors
Mark D. Petersen, Allison Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Ned Field, Morgan P. Moschetti, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Kevin R. Milner, Sanaz Rezaeian, Arthur Frankel, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Jason M. Altekruse, Sean Kamran Ahdi, Kyle Withers, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Robert E. Chase, Leah M. Salditch, Nico Luco, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Julie A Herrick, Demi Leafar Girot, Brad T. Aagaard, Adrian Bender, Michael L. Blanpied, Richard W. Briggs, Oliver S. Boyd, Brandon Clayton, Christopher DuRoss, Eileen L. Evans, Peter J. Haeussler, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Kirstie Lafon Haynie, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Kaj M. Johnson, Zachary Alan Kortum, N. Simon Kwong, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry (Ben) Mason, Daniel McNamara, Devin McPhillips, P. Okubo, Morgan T. Page, Frederick Pollitz, Justin Rubinstein, Bruce E. Shaw, Zheng-Kang Shen, Brian Shiro, James Andrew Smith, William J. Stephenson, Eric M. Thompson, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Erin Wirth, Robert C. Witter
Improved computational methods for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis
Current procedures for analysis of and design against liquefaction hazards focus primarily on the use of probabilistic ground motions at a single ground-shaking hazard level, with the cyclic loading represented by a peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to a target return period and a single representative moment magnitude Mw. These parameters are typically used in conjunction with determin
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Towards improved code-based performance objectives for liquefaction hazard analysis
Ground failure due to liquefaction in loose sand deposits poses substantial risks to the built environment, and has caused significant damage in past earthquakes to a wide range of infrastructure. Advances in liquefaction hazard analysis in practice have largely stagnated in recent years; the state of practice remains rooted in simplified procedures that ignore considerable uncertainties in liquef
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Incorporating uncertainty in susceptibility criteria into probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis
Most conventional approaches for assessing liquefaction triggering hazards generally rely on simplified procedures that involve identifying liquefaction susceptible layers and calculating a factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) in each layer. Such procedures utilize deterministic semi-empirical models for standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetrometer test (CPT), or shear wave velocity (
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi
Evolution of design ground motions in California: NEHRP 2009 to 2020
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is used in construction codes, such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions, to develop ground motions for structural and geotechnical design. When the NSHM is updated (e.g. changes to its earthquake rupture forecast or ground motion models), or the manner in which it is implemented in constructio
Authors
Stephen Eugene Waldvogel, Andrew James Makdisi, Katrina Sanguyo Peralta, Henry (Ben) Mason, Nico Luco, Sanaz Rezaeian
Hazard characterization for alternative intensity measures using the total probability theorem
Since their inception in the 1980s, simplified procedures for the analysis of liquefaction hazards have typically characterized seismic loading using a combination of peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude. However, more recent studies suggest that certain evolutionary intensity measures (IMs) such as Arias intensity or cumulative absolute velocity may be more efficient and sufficient p
Authors
Michael W. Greenfield, Andrew James Makdisi
Non-USGS Publications**
Marafi, N. A., Makdisi, A. J., Berman, J. W., & Eberhard, M. O. (2020). Design strategies to achieve target collapse risks for reinforced concrete wall buildings in sedimentary basins. Earthquake Spectra, 36(3), 1038–1073. DOI: 10.1177/8755293019899965
Marafi, N. A., Makdisi, A. J., Eberhard, M. O., & Berman, J. W. (2020). Impacts of an M9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and Seattle basin on performance of RC core wall buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(2), 04019201. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002490
Makdisi, A. J., & Kramer, S. L. (2019). Applicability of sliding block analyses for lateral spreading problems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 124, 374-388. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.040
Makdisi, A. J., & Kramer, S. L. (2019). Influence of strain distribution and dynamic response in the prediction of displacements in shallow sloping ground. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (7ICEGE). Rome, Italy, 2019.
Makdisi, A.J., & Lindquist, D.L. (2017). Advances in geotechnical performance-based seismic design for tall buildings. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-III). Vancouver, Canada, 2017.
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.
Science and Products
Framework for mapping liquefaction hazard–Targeted design ground motions
Liquefaction-induced ground failure poses substantial challenges to geotechnical earthquake engineering design. Current approaches for designing against liquefaction hazards, as specified in most seismic provisions, focus on estimating a liquefaction factor of safety (𝐹𝑆𝐿) and typically characterize earthquake loading using design parameters based on probabilistic or deterministic ground motion l
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Liquefaction timing and post-triggering seismic energy: A comparison of crustal and subduction zone earthquakes
The objective of the study is to assess when liquefaction is triggered in a suite of ground motions following simplified approaches and measure the remaining post-triggering energy content of those ground motions. For liquefaction-induced deformations, current simplified analysis procedures do not directly incorporate temporal effects and rely on peak transient intensity measurements. Liquefaction
Authors
Trevor J. Carey, Atira Naik, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry (Ben) Mason
The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications
The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increase
Authors
Mark D. Petersen, Allison Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Ned Field, Morgan P. Moschetti, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Kevin R. Milner, Sanaz Rezaeian, Arthur Frankel, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Jason M. Altekruse, Sean Kamran Ahdi, Kyle Withers, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Robert E. Chase, Leah M. Salditch, Nico Luco, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Julie A Herrick, Demi Leafar Girot, Brad T. Aagaard, Adrian Bender, Michael L. Blanpied, Richard W. Briggs, Oliver S. Boyd, Brandon Clayton, Christopher DuRoss, Eileen L. Evans, Peter J. Haeussler, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Kirstie Lafon Haynie, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Kaj M. Johnson, Zachary Alan Kortum, N. Simon Kwong, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry (Ben) Mason, Daniel McNamara, Devin McPhillips, P. Okubo, Morgan T. Page, Frederick Pollitz, Justin Rubinstein, Bruce E. Shaw, Zheng-Kang Shen, Brian Shiro, James Andrew Smith, William J. Stephenson, Eric M. Thompson, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Erin Wirth, Robert C. Witter
Improved computational methods for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis
Current procedures for analysis of and design against liquefaction hazards focus primarily on the use of probabilistic ground motions at a single ground-shaking hazard level, with the cyclic loading represented by a peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to a target return period and a single representative moment magnitude Mw. These parameters are typically used in conjunction with determin
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Towards improved code-based performance objectives for liquefaction hazard analysis
Ground failure due to liquefaction in loose sand deposits poses substantial risks to the built environment, and has caused significant damage in past earthquakes to a wide range of infrastructure. Advances in liquefaction hazard analysis in practice have largely stagnated in recent years; the state of practice remains rooted in simplified procedures that ignore considerable uncertainties in liquef
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi, Steven L. Kramer
Incorporating uncertainty in susceptibility criteria into probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis
Most conventional approaches for assessing liquefaction triggering hazards generally rely on simplified procedures that involve identifying liquefaction susceptible layers and calculating a factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) in each layer. Such procedures utilize deterministic semi-empirical models for standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetrometer test (CPT), or shear wave velocity (
Authors
Andrew James Makdisi
Evolution of design ground motions in California: NEHRP 2009 to 2020
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is used in construction codes, such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions, to develop ground motions for structural and geotechnical design. When the NSHM is updated (e.g. changes to its earthquake rupture forecast or ground motion models), or the manner in which it is implemented in constructio
Authors
Stephen Eugene Waldvogel, Andrew James Makdisi, Katrina Sanguyo Peralta, Henry (Ben) Mason, Nico Luco, Sanaz Rezaeian
Hazard characterization for alternative intensity measures using the total probability theorem
Since their inception in the 1980s, simplified procedures for the analysis of liquefaction hazards have typically characterized seismic loading using a combination of peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude. However, more recent studies suggest that certain evolutionary intensity measures (IMs) such as Arias intensity or cumulative absolute velocity may be more efficient and sufficient p
Authors
Michael W. Greenfield, Andrew James Makdisi
Non-USGS Publications**
Marafi, N. A., Makdisi, A. J., Berman, J. W., & Eberhard, M. O. (2020). Design strategies to achieve target collapse risks for reinforced concrete wall buildings in sedimentary basins. Earthquake Spectra, 36(3), 1038–1073. DOI: 10.1177/8755293019899965
Marafi, N. A., Makdisi, A. J., Eberhard, M. O., & Berman, J. W. (2020). Impacts of an M9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and Seattle basin on performance of RC core wall buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(2), 04019201. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002490
Makdisi, A. J., & Kramer, S. L. (2019). Applicability of sliding block analyses for lateral spreading problems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 124, 374-388. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.040
Makdisi, A. J., & Kramer, S. L. (2019). Influence of strain distribution and dynamic response in the prediction of displacements in shallow sloping ground. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (7ICEGE). Rome, Italy, 2019.
Makdisi, A.J., & Lindquist, D.L. (2017). Advances in geotechnical performance-based seismic design for tall buildings. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-III). Vancouver, Canada, 2017.
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.