Liquefaction Timing and Post-Triggering Seismic Energy: A Comparison of Crustal and Subduction Zone Earthquakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 hazard from short-duration, small to moderate-magnitude (M) earthquakes (M4.5–7.5) is adequately expressed using transient intensity measurements. However, subduction-zone interface earthquakes can have magnitudes greater than 9.0, with ground-motion durations exceeding 300 s. Using 525 ground motions from the NGA-Subduction (NGA-Sub) database for subduction-zone earthquakes with M8.25–9.25, the timing of liquefaction was calculated using cyclic counting procedures by assuming a reference stress condition and incorporating cyclic strengths from laboratory element testing. A complementary analysis was completed using 514 crustal ground motion records from the NGA-West2 database for M6.75–7.75. Several trends were identified during this study. First, liquefaction will likely trigger during the first half of the ground motion duration, independent of the earthquake source type. However, subduction-zone motions have larger post-triggering energy content compared to crustal earthquakes. The findings from this work indicate that accurately predicting liquefaction-induced deformations from subduction-zone earthquakes may be substantially improved by using robust time-based liquefaction analysis procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".