MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415726594 · doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109846

Optimal intensity measures for predicting coseismic liquefaction triggering and lateral displacements in sloping ground

2025· article· en· W4415726594 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoumeh Asgarpoor, Mahdi Taiebat

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLiquefactionOpenSeesSoil liquefactionIntensity (physics)Ground motionStrong ground motionPeak ground accelerationAcceleration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper identifies optimal ground motion intensity measures (IMs) for predicting coseismic liquefaction triggering and liquefaction-induced lateral displacements in sloping ground. Fully coupled nonlinear dynamic analyses of mildly sloping liquefiable soil columns are conducted in OpenSees using the SANISAND-MSf v2 soil constitutive model. For the identification of optimal IM, eighty-one soil profiles, with varying depth, thickness, and relative density of an embedded liquefiable layer, as well as different slope angles, are subjected to 950 crustal ground motions. Based on the criteria of efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability, modified acceleration spectrum intensity, followed by characteristic intensity and Arias intensity, are identified as optimal IMs for predicting the peak depth-averaged excess pore water pressure ratio, while cumulative absolute velocity is the optimal IM for the end-of-motion surface lateral displacement. In addition to conclusions drawn from scalar-valued outcrop-motion-based and total motion time histories, further evaluations assess other potential efficiency improvements. Vector-valued and within-motion-based IMs offer slight improvements in predictive efficiency, but the added complexity limits their practical advantage. A timing-based framework for isolating the post-triggering portion of evolutionary IMs improves liquefaction response prediction by 12%. However, its reliance on identifying the exact triggering time and applicability only to evolutionary IMs limits its practical use in hazard evaluations. The findings provide practical guidance for selecting efficient and implementable intensity measures to predict coseismic liquefaction triggering and its induced displacements in sloping ground. • Impact of soil profile variables and ground motion intensity is studied via NDAs. • MASI best predicts liquefaction triggering, followed by I c and I A . • CAV is the optimal IM for surface lateral displacements. • Vector-valued and within-motion-based IMs modestly improve prediction efficiency. • Post-triggering CAV improves prediction of lateral displacements by 12%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207