Yong-Gook Lee , Usman Pervaiz , Duhee Park , Byungmin Kim , Jin-Tae Han
{"title":"基于简化方法和一维有效应力地响应分析的2017年浦项地震液化潜力评价——以韩国浦项地震为例","authors":"Yong-Gook Lee , Usman Pervaiz , Duhee Park , Byungmin Kim , Jin-Tae Han","doi":"10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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 (<strong>M</strong>) 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 <strong>M</strong> < 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 (<em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub>) > 0.15g and cyclic stress ratio (CSR) > 0.2. However, at profiles with <em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub> < 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 (<em>V</em><sub><em>S</em></sub>) profile, tended to underestimate pore pressure for <em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub> < 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 <em>V</em><sub><em>S</em></sub> yielded the lowest pore pressure predictions and is therefore not recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49502,"journal":{"name":"Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering","volume":"196 ","pages":"Article 109463"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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\",\"authors\":\"Yong-Gook Lee , Usman Pervaiz , Duhee Park , Byungmin Kim , Jin-Tae Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>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 (<strong>M</strong>) 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 <strong>M</strong> < 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 (<em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub>) > 0.15g and cyclic stress ratio (CSR) > 0.2. However, at profiles with <em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub> < 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 (<em>V</em><sub><em>S</em></sub>) profile, tended to underestimate pore pressure for <em>a</em><sub><em>max</em></sub> < 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 <em>V</em><sub><em>S</em></sub> yielded the lowest pore pressure predictions and is therefore not recommended.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering\",\"volume\":\"196 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109463\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726125002568\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726125002568","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
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
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 (amax) > 0.15g and cyclic stress ratio (CSR) > 0.2. However, at profiles with amax < 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 (VS) profile, tended to underestimate pore pressure for amax < 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 VS yielded the lowest pore pressure predictions and is therefore not recommended.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to encourage and enhance the role of mechanics and other disciplines as they relate to earthquake engineering by providing opportunities for the publication of the work of applied mathematicians, engineers and other applied scientists involved in solving problems closely related to the field of earthquake engineering and geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Emphasis is placed on new concepts and techniques, but case histories will also be published if they enhance the presentation and understanding of new technical concepts.