File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  • Find it @ UNIST can give you direct access to the published full text of this article. (UNISTARs only)
Related Researcher

김병민

Kim, Byungmin
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Research Group
Read More

Views & Downloads

Detailed Information

Cited time in webofscience Cited time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Assessment of liquefaction potential using simplified method and one-dimensional effective stress ground response analysis during 2017 Pohang earthquake in South Korea: A case study

Author(s)
Lee, Yong-GookPervaiz, UsmanPark, DuheeKim, ByungminHan, Jin-Tae
Issued Date
2025-09
DOI
10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109463
URI
https://scholarworks.unist.ac.kr/handle/201301/87123
Citation
SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, v.196, pp.109463
Abstract
We assessed the liquefaction potentials at six profiles where sand boils were observed during the 2017 Pohang earthquake in South Korea, which had a moment magnitude (M) of 5.5. Two of the sites are located within 2 km from the epicenter, whereas the third one is located 8 km away. To predict the onset of liquefaction, we used both the simplified cyclic stress-based method and one-dimensional (1D) effective stress (ES) ground response analysis (GRA). A major source of uncertainty in applying the simplified method to M < 7.5 earthquakes is determining the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). We tested four empirical MSF relationships. All MSF equations produced similar predictions for profiles where peak ground acceleration of input motion (a(max)) > 0.15g and cyclic stress ratio (CSR) > 0.2. However, at profiles with a(max) < 0.15g and CSR < 0.2, the intensity-dependent MSF provided most reliable predictions of the liquefaction potential, whereas the other three equations overestimated the cyclic resistance ratio. The ES GRAs were conducted using accumulated stress- and strain-based pore pressure models implemented in a 1D GRA program. One key advantage of the ES GRA over the cyclic stress-based method is that it does not require an empirical MSF. The stress-based model produced higher pore pressure estimates than the strain-based model, yielding correct predictions for five out of six profiles. The strain-based model, highly sensitive to the shear wave velocity (V-S) profile, tended to underestimate pore pressure for a(max) < 0.15g, suggesting caution when using this model for moderate-intensity motions. Among the two sets of input parameters applied to the strain-based model, the set conditioned on V-S yielded the lowest pore pressure predictions and is therefore not recommended.
Publisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
ISSN
0267-7261
Keyword (Author)
Pohang earthquakeSimplified methodEffective stress ground response analysisMagnitude scaling factorPore pressure modelLiquefaction potential
Keyword
MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONSSITE RESPONSESEISMICITYPRESSUREMODELDEFORMATIONSPARAMETERSMODERATEPGV

qrcode

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.