Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 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

Authors
Lee, Yong-GookPervaiz, UsmanPark, DuheeKim, ByungminHan, Jin-Tae
Issue Date
Sep-2025
Publisher
Pergamon Press Ltd.
Keywords
Liquefaction potential; Pohang earthquake; Simplified method; Effective stress ground response analysis; Magnitude scaling factor; Pore pressure model
Citation
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, v.196, pp 1 - 16
Pages
16
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
Volume
196
Start Page
1
End Page
16
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/207413
DOI
10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109463
ISSN
0267-7261
1879-341X
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.
Files in This Item
Go to Link
Appears in
Collections
서울 공과대학 > 서울 건설환경공학과 > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

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

Related Researcher

Researcher Park, Duhee photo

Park, Duhee
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE