Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Feungaugsorn 280416
Feungaugsorn 280416
JESSADA FEUNGAUGSORN
DEAN
JESSADA FEUNGAUGSORN
/ /
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would never have been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance of
my committee members, help from friends, and support from my family.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my thesis advisor, Associate
Professor Suttisak Solalump for his invaluable help and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this research. I am most grateful for his teaching and advice,
not only the research methodologies but also many other methodologies in life.
I would not have achieved and this thesis would not have been completed without all
the support that I have always received from him.
In addition, I am grateful for the teachers of geotechnical engineering:
Associate Professor Tirawat Boonyatee, Dr. Suriyon Prempramote, Dr. Susit
Chaiprakaikeow, Dr. Jame A. Bay who is the earthquake specialist of Utah state
university, USA, Dr. Goran arangerovski and others person for suggestions and all
their help.
I would like to thank Mr. Chinoros Thongthamchart, Mr. Montri
Jinagoolwipat and Mr. Sirisart yangsanphu, all of Geotechnical Engineering Research
and Development Center (GERD)‘s staff, Seismological Bureau (Thai Meteorological
Department) and Maesai Municipality, Chiangrai province for their kind suggestion
and corporation. They all helped me for being my knowledge during my study and
research work.
I would like to thank Mr. Soon Phattanaprateep, who as a good friend, was
always help and give his best suggestions. Many thanks Mr. Atijit Sukpunya, Mr.
Narin Hunsachainan and other friends in faculty of Geotechnical Engineering,
Kasetsart University for helping me. My research would not have been possible
without their helps.
I would also like to thank my parents, sister, brother and my cousin. They
were always supporting me and encouraging me with their best wishes.
Jessada Feungaugsorn
April 2016
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 2
LITERATURE REVIEW 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS 87
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 121
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 146
Conclusion 146
Recommendations 146
LITERATURE CITED 147
APPENDICES 161
Appendix A Soil boring logs 162
Appendix B Summary analysis of 2011 Tarlay earthquake event 197
CURRICULUM VITAE 217
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure Page
Figure Page
Figure Page
Figure Page
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
Scope of Study
LITERATURE REVIEW
observed. It was found that with PL of 5%, there are some sites prone to partial
liquefaction with the excess pore water pressure ratio varies in the range of 0.1- 0.4.
This may cause discernible damage to the 2-3 stories housing which is general rest on
shallow foundation or short piles.
Ruangrassamee et al. (2012) presented damage due to 24 March 2011 M6.8
Tarlay Earthquake in Northern Thailand. It found that loose to dense sands with
corrected SPT-N value of about 5-20 are generally present in top layers in Chiang-mai
and Chiang-rai Provinces. This earthquake caused liquefaction in paddy fields in
Maesai district. Liqufaction-induced lateral spreading also caused damage to roads. It
was the first time that liquefaction was observed after earthquakes. Ground motion
records showed the maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.2g in Maesai District
located 28 km from the epicenter.
Soralump and Feungaugsorn (2013) presented probabilistic analysis of
liquefaction Potential: the First Eyewitness Case in Thailand in Maesai area,
Thailand. On the 24th March 2011, the 6.8 magnitude earthquake called Tarlay
Earthquake strikes Myanmar. The 0.2 g acceleration was measured at Maesai,
Chiengrai station which located 30 km from the earthquake epicenter The Maesai‘s
subsoil consists of shallow loose to medium dense layer of sand, therefore the
liquefaction has been widely observed. The gradation of the liquefied soil is matched
well within the gradation range of the liquefiable soil. Probabilistic assessment of
liquefaction potential were done and found that Maesai sand has high susceptibility to
liquefy with about 75% to 95% in term of liquefaction probability with the PGA 0.2
g. Luckily, most of the liquefied sites were located outside Maesai city therefore the
damage was then minimized. This liquefaction phenomenon is recorded to be the first
liquefaction ever witness in the modern time of Thailand.
Tanapalungkorn and Teachavorasinskun (2015) studied liquefaction
susceptibility due to earthquake in Northern parts of Thailand. It was found that
liquefaction could be occurred the depth of less than 12 m underneath ground surface.
Moreover, the liquefaction phenomena in Northern part of Thailand would be
occurred by the same PGA values that it was happened by both 2011 Tarlay
earthquake and 2014 Maelao earthquake events.
5
σ v .amax (1)
CSR 0.65 .γd
σ'v g
10
The stress reduction factor( rd) is a parameter describing the ratio of cyclic
stresses for a flexible soil column to the cyclic stresses for a rigid soil column. Idriss
(1999) performed several hundred parametric site response analyses which could be
expressed as a function of depth and earthquake magnitude (M). The following results
were derived in equation 2 to 4. These equations are mathematically applied to a
depth of z ≤ 34 m. However, the uncertainty of rd increases with increasing depth, so
these equations should actually be applied only for depths that are less than about 20
m. Figure 6 shows plots of rd calculated for M values of 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, and 8 moreover
this figure is the average of the range published by Seed and Idriss (1971).
d exp( ( z ) ( z ) M ) (2)
Z
( z ) 1.012 1.126sin( 5.133) (3)
11.73
Z
( z ) 0.106 0.118sin( 5.142) (4)
11.28
The in-situ tests that have been widely used for evaluating liquefaction
characteristics such as SPT method. The important variable is the amount of energy
delivered to the drill rod by each impact of the SPT hammer. The SPT values for the
liquefaction assessment are also corrected with the energy. Seed et al. (1984)
recommended adopting N60 as a standard. The value of N60 is computed as equation 5
and then additional correction factors may be needed at a more standardized value of
N60. The resulting relationship is given by equation 6. Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
concluded the correction factors for SPT values which are explained in Table 3.
ERm (5)
N 60 N m
60
Penetration resistances are corrected to the equivalent values that have been
obtained in the identical sand if the vertical effective stress had been 1 atm. The
overburden corrected penetration resistances, (N1)60 are computed by using an
overburden correction factor, CN as follows equation 7. The CN relationships can be
expressed in equation 8 moreover one of the most widely used of CN was proposed by
Liao and Whitman (1986) that is shown in equation 9.
N1(60) CN N60 (7)
A magnitude scaling factor (MSF) is used to adjust the CSR and/or CRR
to a common value of earthquake magnitude. This is required to be applied for the
earthquake that has magnitude other than 7.5 Mw. Idriss (1999) proposed relationships
between the MSF and Mw that is expressed in equation 10. The obtained MSF values
are presented in Figure 7, together with those proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982),
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983), Cetin et al. (2004), Ambraseys (1988) and Arango
(1996).
M
MSF 6.9 exp 0.058 1.8
(10)
4
13
Factor Description
Energy ratio Energy measurements are required to determine the delivered
energy ratios or to calibrate the specific equipment
being used. The correction factor is then computed as
CE = ERm/60
where ERm is the measured energy ratio as a percentage
of the theoretical maximum.
Empirical estimates of CE (for rod lengths of 10 m or
more) involve considerable uncertainty, as reflected by the
following ranges:
Doughnut hammer CE = 0.5–1.0
Safety hammer CE = 0.7–1.2
Automatic triphammer CE = 0.8–1.3
(Seed et al. 1984, Skempton 1986, NCEER 1997)
Borehole Borehole diameter of 65–115 mm CB = 1.0
diameter diameter Borehole diameter of 150 mm CB = 1.05
Borehole diameter of 200 mm CB = 1.15
(Skempton 1986)
Rod length Where the ERm is based on rod lengths of 10 m or more,
the ER delivered with shorter rod lengths may be smaller.
Recommended values from Youd et al. (2001) are as
follows:
Rod length < 3 m CR = 0.75
Rod length 3–4 m CR = 0.80
Rod length 4–6 m CR = 0.85
Rod length 6–10 m CR = 0.95
Rod length 10–30 m CR = 1.00
Sampler Standard split spoon without room for liners (the inside
diameter is a constant 13/8 in.), CS = 1.0.
Split-spoon sampler with room for liners but with the liners
absent (this increases the inside diameter to 11/2 in.
behind the driving shoe):
CS = 1.1 for (N1)60 ≤ 10
CS = 1 + (N1)60/100 for 10 ≤ (N1)60 ≤ 30
CS = 1.3 for (N1)60 ≥ 30
(from Seed et al. 1984, equation by Seed et al. 2001)
The overburden correction factor (Kσ) was introduced by Seed (1983) to adjust
the CSR and/or CRR to a common value of effective overburden stress because the
CRR of sand depends on the effective overburden stress. The recommended Kσ
relationships are computed as equation 11.
'vc
K 1 C ln 1.1 (11)
Pa
1
C 0.3 (12)
18.9 2.25 N1(60)
The CRR is affected by the presence of static shear stresses such as exist
within slopes or embankment dams, but the available case history data are not
sufficient to determine this effect. Idriss and Boulanger (2003) performed the simple
shear tests and a failure criterion of 3% shear strain and which account for the
principal effects of static shear stress ratio (α), relative density, and effective
confining stress. These expressions use the ξR index in their functional form as
equation 13 to 18. In addition,α and ξR should be constrained within the following
limits as α ≤ 0.35 and −0.6 ≤ ξR ≤ 0.1, respectively.
Examples of Kα values computed the under expressions using Ko =0.45 and Q
=10 are presented in Figure 10 for a range of penetration resistances and for σ‘vc
values of 1 and 4 atm. The parameter Kα is often omitted in analyses of lateral
spreading at level or mildly sloping sites—because Kα is approximately unity for
small values of the initial static shear stress ratio. The inclusion of Kα can be
important for analyses of liquefaction within steeper slopes and embankment dams.
K a b.exp R (13)
c
9.7 15.7
2
CRRM , '
FSliq vc
(23)
CSRM , '
vc
G(*)
Factor
0 1 2 3
M ≤ 5.9 6.0 - 6.9 7.0 – 7.9 ≥ 8.0
v‘ (kPa) ≥ 120.1 59.6 - 120.0 30.0 – 59.5 ≤ 29.9
Vs (m/s) ≥ 177 125 - 176 105 – 124 ≤ 104
amax/g ≤ 0.09 0.10 - 0.19 0.20 – 0.29 ≥ 0.30
FC (%) ≥ 61 35 - 60 6 - 34 ≤5
315
F .S . (25)
LP
in Table 4
v .G .dur
LPterm max max (26)
v '
(N1)60 predicted < (N1)60 observed ; liquefaction does not occur (28 b)
by cross-hole testing. Values of VS and CSR are shown in Figures 12 (a and d),
respectively. Although no sand boils or ground cracks occurred at the site during the
1989 earthquake (Bennett, 1994). It is probable that the 4-m-thick layer capping the
level-ground fire station site, predicted not to liquefy in Figures. 12 (d and e),
prevented the formation of sand boils at the ground surface (Ishihara, 1985).
Therefore, this case history confirms the VS prediction method.
0.25
P (29)
Vs1 Vs Cv Vs a'
v
Vs1
2
1 1
CRR a b *
MSF (30)
100 Vs1
*
Vs1 Vs1
where V*s1 = limiting upper value of VS1 for cyclic liquefaction occurrence
I hb,eq I h rb (32)
I hb ,l (33)
Flhb
I hb ,eq
Orense (2005) studied several strong motion records at various sites show that
liquefaction may occur when PGA ≥ 150 gal and PGV ≥ 20 kine, indicating that these
values can serve as thresholds in assessing the possible occurrence of liquefaction
(Figure 14).
Kostadinov and towhata (2002) studied the peak surface velocity and
horizontal shaking frequency of the surface strong motion records against soil
liquefaction. Results suggest that liquefaction is likely to take place when PGV
exceeds 0.1 m/s and that the upper bound of horizontal ground vibration frequency
after liquefaction occurrence is 1.3-2.3 Hz.
Figure 14 Relations between (a) PGA and PGV; (b) PGD and PGA/PGV using data
from various earthquakes in Japan
1
PL 5.45 (35)
F .S .
1
0.81
1
PL 3.64 5.37 F . S .
1 e (36)
Baecher and Christain (2003) mentioned a variety of method are available for
analyzing engineering risks, but event trees have become the common approach for
complex geotechnical systems. There are a number of reasons for this. Event trees
provide an intuitive structure within which to organize issues about a particular site or
structure. Because event trees typically progress from start to finish in chronological
order, they follow a chain of events as it might unfold. They are also versatile in
adapting to unique conditions at a particular site. Moreover, the place where event
trees have had the most extensive use in geotechnical practice.
Finn (2000) mentioned the framework for formal risk assessment defines how
to go from probabilistic specification of seismic hazard to the determination of the
probabilities associated with different levels of consequences. The form of the
framework depends on the potential failure modes of the dam. An example is
presented in Figure 15 from a paper by Lee et al. (1998), which describes how the
probability of different levels of post liquefaction damage and consequences were
assessed for Keenleyside Dam in British Columbia.
Kang et al. (2014) described the LPI assessment from the SPT borehole logs
at both undamaged and damaged sites during historic earthquakes in Japan. Iwasaki et
al. (1982) and Iwasaki (1986) concluded that severe liquefaction could be expected at
sites with LPI 15 and was unlikely to occur at sites with LPI 5 (Table 5). These
threshold values of 5 and 15 were the upper quartile of undamaged sites and the
median LPI values of damaged sites in Japan, respectively. Luna and Frost (1998)
examined data in the San Francisco Bay of California and modified the severity
categories, adding moderate potential in areas with LPIs ranging between 5 and 15.
Recently, these threshold values of 5 and 15 were modified according to different
frameworks. Toprak and Holzer (2003) related the types of ground damage caused by
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Mw = 6.9) using Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-
based LPI values. They observed that sand boils (a moderate hazard) and lateral
spreads (a severe hazard) occurred at sites with LPI 5 and LPI 12, respectively.
Lee et al. (2003) demonstrated that different CPT-based methods for computing FS
produce different LPI values, as well as different thresholds for classifying non-
liquefaction and liquefaction hazards. They concluded that for liquefied sites during
the 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan earthquake, the bounds of low and high liquefaction hazards
were LPI 8 and LPI 16 using the Olsen CPT method (1997), LPI 13 and LPI
21 using the Robertson and Wride method (1998), and LPI 5 and LPI 15 using the
Juang et al.'s (2003) method, respectively. Based on SPT data from liquefied
earthquake sites around the world, Papathanassiou (2008) used the modified Chinese
criteria (Seed et al., 2003) to screen out non-liquefiable soils and concluded that no
liquefaction hazard would be expected at sites with LPI 19, while moderate and
high surface deformations induced by liquefaction could be expected at sites with
LPIs between 19 and 29 and LPI 29, respectively. His threshold LPIs are much
greater than those outlined by Iwasaki et al. (1982). Such discrepancies result from
different geologic conditions at sites around the world and different methods of
evaluating liquefaction susceptibility and calculating soil resistance against
liquefaction; e.g., the vesicular volcanic sands of Japan are much rougher than the
spherical aeolian sands of San Francisco (Norris, 1977).
30
20
LPI F ( z ).w( z )dz (37)
0
n
LPI wi Fi H i (38)
i 1
wi = 0 for z > 20 m
n = number of layers
0 < LPI < 0 < LPI < 0 < LPI < 0 < LPI <
Low Low (Minor)
5 5 11 14
5 LPI < 5 LPI < 11 LPI < 14 LPI <
High Moderate
15 15 15 21
Dixit et al. (2012) evaluated seismic soil liquefaction for Mumbai city, India in
terms of the factors of safety against liquefaction (FS) along the depths of soil profiles
for different earthquakes with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 yr using standard
penetration test (SPT). This liquefaction potential is evaluated at 142 representative
sites in the city using the borehole records from standard penetration tests.
Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is evaluated at each borehole location from the
obtained factors of safety (FS) to predict the potential of liquefaction to cause damage
at the surface level at the site of interest. Spatial distribution of soil liquefaction
potential is presented in the form of contour maps of LPI values. As the majority of
the sites in the city are of reclaimed land, the vulnerability of liquefaction is observed
to be very high at many places.
1
PG
(1 e4.830.74 LPI ) (40)
b
LPI a.DTW 2 c (41)
PGA
Boring
Geologic units Materials a b c R2
log #
River bed
Gravel and sand −0.930 −5.462 29 0.85 10
deposits (Qar)
Gravel, sand, and
Alluvium (Qa) −0.762 −3.329 22 0.92 262
mud
Natural levee
Gravel and sand −0.970 −3.260 23 0.91 34
deposits (Qal)
Alluvial fan
Gravel and sand −0.612 −4.582 32 0.91 17
(Qaf)
Terrace deposits Gravel, sand, and
−0.837 −3.656 25 0.92 56
(Qtd) mud
Uonuma
Gravel and sand −0.509 −4.270 27 0.88 11
formation (Qu)
Figure 19 Assessment map of liquefaction hazard based on LPI thresholds and the
multiple regression analysis
1
Pr ob(liquefaction) (42)
1 e ( 3.0920.218. LPI )
Figure 20 Distribution of LPI values of the case histories with respect to the thickness
of the non-liquefiable cap layer (H) of the soil columns
Asuda (1998) found that the thickness of surface unliquefied aoil (above
ground water table), H1, has a remarkable effect to mitigate damage. According to
Figure 22, when H1 was greater than 2 m, there was no such evidences of liquefaction
as cracking and sand boiling at the ground surface. When H1 was less than 2 m, the
possibility of such evidences depended upon H1 and H2; H2 stands for the thickness
of liquefied layer that was judged by SPT-N < 15.
38
1
PG (43)
(1 e6.750.57 LPI )
Table 10 Distribution of the PG values of cases with liquefied cases and without
non-liquefied cases
Chung and Roger (2011) evaluated the potential for soil liquefaction by using
subsurface information from 562 boreholes for an assumed M7.5 earthquake
emanating from the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Geotechnical data (standard
penetration test N-values, overburden pressure, and depth-to-groundwater) and the
scenario peak ground accelerations (PGA = 0.10, 0.20, and 0:30 g) were applied to
evaluate the factor of safety (FS) against earthquake-induced liquefaction. The
liquefaction potential index (LPI) method was used in these evaluations. LPI values
were derived from the correlation between calculated LPI values and the depths-to
groundwater within late Quaternary stratigraphic units. The DTW exhibits a fairly
linear relationship with the LPI1/2 to the liquefaction threshold, where LPI = 0 and
flattens out, although it is difficult to surmise any precise linear correlation. If the
geotechnical properties of soil layers from the ground surface to a depth of ∼20 m are
assumed more or less similar (single geologic unit), a fundamental equation is derived
from the relationship between LPI and DTW for that geologic unit, shown on the
example graphs for 0.20 g PGA (Figure 24). This relationship can be described as
equation (44).
(44)
LPI 1/2 a.DTW b
DTW = depth-to-groundwater
Figure 24 Graphical plots comparing LPI versus DTW and the ―best fit‖ (with 95%
confidence) bands for the scenario M7.5 earthquake with 0.20 g PGA
2( B L)(T f ) (45)
F .S .
P
Where B = width of footing (m.)
T = vertical distance the bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer (m.)
P = footing load includes, dead, live and seismic load on footing (ton)
Wood et al (2004) mentioned Mae Sai and Fang basins are normal-fault half-
graben structures along the active Mae Chan left-lateral strike -slip fault. The large
Wiang Nong Lom swampy area appears to be a sag or downwarp along the fault
(Figure 25). The tectonic model for the origin of similar rift basins in northern
Thailand is debated. Some workers call such basins pull-apart basins associated with
strike -slip faulting while other associate their origin with extension and changing
stress systems related to the Tertiaryaged escape tectonics of Southeast Asia (Morley,
2002). The cross-section of the basin (Figure 26) shows the sediment in the southern
Mae Sai basin to be about 590 meters thick. High relief of the mountains, such as Doi
43
Tung, and peaks up to elevations of 1,500 meters that lay to the west indicate basin
relief of about 2 kilometers. The range has an impressive steep east-facing escarpment
that suggests considerable movement occurred in the Late Tertiary along the basin‘s
west boundary fault system. The deepest sediment in the basin is folded into a broad
anticlinal structure, which is onlapped by sediments. The cross-section (Figures 25
and 26) extends southeast across the Wiang Nong Lom swamp. Meta-volcanic rock
occurs in the outcrops and quarries in the hills between the Mae Chan basin and the
swamp. This upland area is apparently an uplifted, or upwarped, bedrock area at an
elevation of 460 meters relative to the swamp elevation of 370 meters. The cross-
section indicates that bedrock is about 170 meters deep beneath the swamp (Figure
26).
The geological map : Sheet F 4949I of Maesai area (study area) was provided
by DMR (1988) in which consist of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. There are
two geological classifications: 1) Alluvium sand, silt and clay of flood plain deposits
(Qt) where is nearly located in mountain of the western part. 2) Terrace gravel, silt,
sand and clay (Qa) which is located the eastern part.
44
Figure 25 Map showing Fang and Mae Sai basins, and Mae Chan fault, the Wiang
Nong Lom swamp, and location of the cross section of Figure 26
Figure 26 Cross section across the Mae Chan basin and Wiang Nong Lom swamp
DGR (2009) studied the horizontal groundwater flow of Kok river basin
(Chiangrai and Phayao basin) with measuring ground water data during January –
June 2009. Ground water direction from the rainfall flow the western and southern
part to the middle of Chaingrai and Phayao basis that the example of groundwater
direction in January to February in 2009 is shown in Figure 31. Moreover, the
groundwater flow system is classified within 5 basis i.e. Maesai, Chiangrai, Maesuay,
Wieng Pha Phao and Pran basis respectively, the detail of these basis in given in
Table 12. The principle flow direction of Maesai basis is western to eastern and
southern to northern part in which the western part consist of mountain area.
Boonlue S. (1998) studied the suitable area for the sanitary landfill facility of
Maesai area, Chiangrai province that the groundwater flow direction of 12 shallow
water wells was observed: Ban Dong Kham Maesai, Chaiangrai province (Table 13).
This area is located southern part of Maesai city where is approximately away 11 km.
The direction of groundwater flow is the south-west to lower elevations where is
shown in Figure 32. The result of groundwater direction is quite similar principle flow
direction of Maesai basis according to DGR (2009) in Table 12 where groundwater
flows west to east and south to north, respectively.
DGR (2009) collected the ground water level data of 43 observation wells
during 2004 to 2008 where were located in Chiangrai and Pha Yao province. The
water level fluctuations of two observation wells in study area (NT78 and NT79) were
given in Figure 33. The ground water level of in urban area (NT79, Figure 33 a) was
reached in deep level that the water fluctuation was largely changed with between -6
and -12 m from ground surface. One the other hand, the NT 78 (Figure 33 b) is
located in suburb area which liquefaction evidences occurred widely spreading, the
water fluctuation was quite consistency with amount of 0 and -3 m from ground level.
DGR (2011) studied the fluctuation of five observation wells in Maesai and
Pha Yao basis during 2004 to 2014. It found that the ground water table was depended
50
on seasoning and the ground water level will be low level in drought season because
of water using of the people. The average water level is approximately between 2 and
12 under the ground surface. However, the difference of ground water level of rainy
and drought season was amount of between 1 and 6 m from ground level, and usually
the ground water level of northern part of Thailand was also based on the yearly
rainfall intensity. Besides, the observation well in Ko Chang, Maesai area is quite
consistency in 2004 and 2014, which is fluctuated of between 1 and 4 m under ground
level. But in March 2011, the measured ground water level was 8 m underneath
ground level that the ground water system was disturbed by magnitude of 6.8 (2011
Tarlay earthquake in Myanmar). This observation well is located 35 km. from the
earthquake epicenter that the fluctuation of water level of this site is expressed in
Figure 34.
3 m. to 6 m. High
6 m. to 10 m. Moderate
10 m. to 15 m. Low
Table 13 Ground water level and ground water elevations of Ban Dong Kham area
Figure 31 Ground water flow direction of Kok river basis (during Jan to Feb 2009)
Figure 32 Elevation and ground water flow direction of Ban Dong Kham,
Maesai area
Royal Irrigation Department (RID) have measured the daily rainfall of Maesai
area, Chiangrai Province during 1952 – 2013. The average annual rainfalls of study
area were measured during 2004 -2008 which is given in Figure 35. This figure shows
that the average monthly rainfalls were mostly increased in rainy season (during May
to October). However, the average monthly rainfalls were quite consistency at
between November and April.
54
Figure 33 Observed ground water levels in study area during 2004 to 2008
Figure 34 Observed ground water levels at Kao Chang, Maesai, Chiangrai province
during 2004 to 2014
The Mae Chan fault is closest active fault of Chiengrai province. Fenton et. al.
(2003) presented the characteristic earthquake parameters that is striking left-lateral
strike-slip fault, the surface rupture length was estimated 140 km, implying a slip rate
among 0.3 to 3 mm/yr and maximum possible magnitude calculated empirical
58
relationship between surface rupture length and Mw (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994)
equal 7.5 magnitude. In addition, the other one characteristic active faults in Northern
and Western Thailand were expressed in Table 14.
DMR (2009, a) studied the recurrence interval of the Mae Chan and Pha Yao
active fault zones in Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai, Pha Yao and Lampang provinces in
order to evaluate the seismic hazard in the area that can be affected by these faults.
The Mae Chan fault zone is about 150 km long and can be subdivided in to 18
segments. They had been earthquakes with magnitudes between 5.1- 6.8 occurring
along the Mae Chan fault zone (Table 15). Moreover, DMR (2009, b) concluded that
the Mae Chan Fault has a recurrence interval of the earthquake magnitude 6.8 for
about 1,000 year by considering the fourth, fifth and sixth earthquake events.
Fenton et. al. (2003) presented Contemporary seismicity in the Northern Basin
and Range province is diffusely distributed, of low to moderate levels during 1362 to
1996, does not appear to be associated with currently mapped faults (Figure 37).
Ornthammarath et. al. (2010) presented Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for
Thailand. One basic assumption of the adopted seismic hazard assessment
methodology is called decustering, this process is convert several different magnitude
scales with moment magnitude (Mw). The final declustered catalogue includes 5,146
earthquake events with MW greater than or equal to 3.0 in the study region from 1912
to 2007. These earthquake data are plotted that show a number of frequent small and
medium sized earthquakes have been revealed, mostly in Northern Thailand and
expressed high seismicity earthquakes in subduction zone.
59
Table 15 The Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of the Mae Chan fault zone
Figure 37 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of the
Earthquake frequency
log( N ) a bM (46)
Pailoplee et. al (2010) presented the Seismic hazards in Thailand and adjacent
areas, There were analyzed mainly on the basis of geological fault data. They
identified 55 active fault zones using remote-sensing data on earthquake source
parameters derived from both active fault data and earthquake catalogues. There are a
large number of active fault zones in northern Thailand, including the Lampang-
Thoen, Mae Chan, Mae Tha, Phrae fault zones and others (Figure 41). Summary of
the earthquake potential parameters of the Northern active fault zones used for
seismic hazard analysis in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas are showed in Table
17.
Table 16 Summary of earthquake source parameters for the 21 seismic source zones
Table 17 Summary of the earthquake potential parameters of the active fault zones in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas
2 Chiang Rai S 28 - 7.9 5,000 4.0 1.50 0.34 Pailoplee et. al (2010)
12 Lampang-Thoen S, N 28 0.83 6.8 499 4.0 2.72 0.55 Charusiri et al. (2004)
18 Mae Chaem - 21 - 6.6 328 4.0 1.89 0.32 Pailoplee et. al (2010)
19 Mae Chan S 99 3.00 7.4 1,754 4.0 2.64 0.37 Fenton et al. (2003)
20 Mae Hong Sorn-Tak S 37 - 6.9 615 4.0 2.65 0.38 Charusiri et al. (2004)
21 Mae Ing S 38 - 6.9 615 4.0 2.56 0.38 Fenton et al. (2003)
22 Mae Tha S 47 0.80 7.0 759 4.0 2.36 0.38 Rhodes et al. (2004)
23 Mae Yom S 22 0.80 6.6 328 4.0 1.92 0.60 RID (2006)
25 Mengxing S 75 4.80 7.3 1,422 4.0 2.95 0.40 Lacassin et al. (1998)
Table 17 (continued) Summary of the earthquake potential parameters of the active fault zones in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas
26 Moei-Tongyi S 259 0.73 7.9 5,000 4.0 3.46 0.54 Pailoplee et. al (2010)
27 Nam Ma S 177 2.40 7.7 3,289 4.0 3.18 0.58 Morley (2007)
32 Pha Yao S, N 20 0.10 6.6 328 4.0 2.95 0.40 Fenton et al. (2003)
33 Phrae S 28 0.10 6.8 499 4.0 2.68 0.53 Fenton et al. (2003)
34 Pua N 29 0.60 6.8 499 4.0 2.44 0.55 Fenton et al. (2003)
44 Sri Sawat S 43 2.00 7.0 759 4.0 2.50 0.40 Songmuang et al.(2007)
50 Uttaladith S 27 0.10 6.7 405 4.0 1.63 0.46 Fenton et al. (2003)
51 Wan Na-awn - 69 - 7.2 1,153 4.0 2.28 0.35 Pailoplee et. al (2010)
53 Wang Nua - 31 - 6.8 499 4.0 2.27 0.40 Pailoplee et. al (2010)
Figure 40 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of the
Figure 41 Enlarged map showing active faults interpreted in northern Thailand and
surrounding areas
Figure 42 The return periods of earthquakes for those at a mb level of (a) 4, (b) 5, (c)
6, and (d) 7
Attenuation model
DMR (2011) compared between the recorded PGA values from accelerometer
stations in Thailand and attenuation models which earthquake occurred with
magnitude of 6.8 on 21 March 2011 in Myanmar. The attenuation model that were
considered: Idriss (1993), Sadigh et al. (1997), Abrahamson and Silva (1997) and
Boore et al. (1997). It was found that the Sadigh et al. (1997) equation is fit well
(Figure 43).
15 km depth, integrated with the MCE values from the surface rupture lengths by the
remote sensing data are used for constructing the preliminary deterministic seismic
hazard map of the study area. The calculations yield the predicted PGA values of
0.069-0.280 g. The most affected areas are Amphoe Fang, and Amphoe Mae Ai,
Chiang Mai province. Amphoes Mae Chan, Chiang Saen, Wiang Kaen, Khun Tan,
Thoeng, Muang, Mae Lao, Mae Saruay and Phan, Chiang Rai province. For the areas
located further away from the fault, the predicted PGAs are less than 0.008 g. In
maesai area, the peak ground acceleration is approximately about 0.16-0.18 g.
Figure 44 Schematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis
Figure 45 Preliminary deterministic seismic hazard map along Mae Chan fault zone,
Mae Ing fault zone, Pha Yao fault zone and Muang Pan fault zone using the
surface rupture length
Dobry and Abdoun (2014) proposed key aspect of the liquefaction procedure
is the calculation of CSR. As shown in Figure 46, the procedure offers two
alternatives to obtain CSR for a site : (i) from the value of amax estimated at the
ground surface ;or (ii) directly from τmax calculated with a site amplification program.
77
The assumption that τmax = (amax/g) σvrd. It is also assumed that the values of τmax and
amax are not affected by pore pressure build up during the earthquake shaking.
Figure 46 Calculation of the Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR,in the Seed and Idriss
Simplified Procedure
Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions
and hence the response spectra they produce. Seed et al. (1976) computed response
spectra from ground motions recorded at sites underlain by four categories of site
conditions: rock sites, stiff soil sites (less than 200 ft (61 m) deep), deep cohesionless
soil sites (greater than 250 ft (76 m) deep), and sites underlain by soft to medium-stiff
clay deposits. Normalizing the computed spectra (by dividing spectral accelerations
by the peak ground acceleration) illustrates the effects of local soil conditions on the
shapes of the spectra (Figure 49). The effects are apparent: at periods above about 0.5
sec, spectral amplifications are much higher for soil sites than for rock sites. At longer
periods, the spectral amplification increases with decreasing subsurface profile
stiffness. Figure 49 clearly shows that deep and soft soil deposits produce greater
proportions of long-period (low-frequency) motion. This effect can be very
significant, particularly when long-period structures such as bridges and tall buildings
are founded on such deposits.
Figure 48 Approximate relationship between peak accelerations on rock and soft soil
sites
Figure 49 Average normalized response spectra (5% damping) for different local site
conditions
Figure 50 Procedure for modifying ground motion parameters to account for the
effects of local site conditions
DMR (2014) performed both the seismic downhole test and soil borings in
several sites of Lamphon, Chaing Mai and Chiangrai provinces. Maesai area is one of
the several sites in which Vs profile and soil boring had been done (Figure 53). This
site is located suburb area near the liquefaction evidence at the ground surface by
2011 Tarlay earthquake event. The result shows that loose soil layer was found in
depth of 5 m underneath ground surface. The dense to very dense layer/decompose
rock was reached at depth of 25 m that shear wave velocity value consist of between
600-800 m/s. This soil boring is also classified as site class D.
82
Figure 53 Shear wave velocity profile and soil boring of suburb‘s Maesai area
The modulus reduction and damping curves can be selected based on relevant
geotechnical information. The material models representing the variation of modulus
reduction (G/Gmax) and damping ratio parameters with shear strain in 0.0001 – 10%
range are generated for each soil types. For gravels, sands, and nonplastic silts,
proposed relationship of Seed and Idriss (1970) can be used. Vucetic and Dobry
(1991) formulations are also used for cohesive soils accounting for the plastic index
(Figure 54).
0.8
0.6
G/Gmax
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
50
40
Damping %
30
Sand, Seed and Idriss
(1991) Mean limit
20
Clay, Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) PI=15
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Figure 54 modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and damping ratio for cohesionless and
cohesive soils
Source : Modified Seed and Idriss (1970) and Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
85
Idriss and Seed (1967) are first to propose the equivalent linear approach for
site response analysis that calculates an approximation nonlinear response through
soil deposits. Since the computed strain level depends on the values of the equivalent
linear properties, an iterative procedure is required to ensure that the properties used
in the analysis are compatible with the computed strain levels in all layers. Referring
to Figure 55, the iterative procedure operates as follows
1. Initial estimates of G and ξ are made for each layer. The initially
estimated values usually correspond to the same strain level; the low-strain values are
often used for the initial estimate.
where the superscript refers to the iteration number and Rγ is the ratio of
the effective shear strain to maximum shear strain. Rγ depends on earthquake
magnitude (Idriss and Sun, 1992) and can be estimated (equation 48) from
86
M 1
R (48)
10
4. From this effective shear strain, new equivalent linear values, G(i+1)
and ξ (i+l) are chosen for the next iteration.
Geological data Geology data Ground water level data Earthquake data
- 12 soil boring logs - Geology of Maesai basis - 1 Rainfall measurement - 1 recorded ground motion
- 7 Kunzelstab testing - Resistivity survey - 2 Daily GWL. measurement - a and b parameter
- 1 seismic downhole - 2 monthly GWL - Magnitude of earthquake
testing measurement and source to site distance
Step 1 Data Gathering
Comparison Liquefaction
of liquefaction susceptibility
evaluation methods Annual Probability Seismic hazard analysis
fluctuation of water level of Maesai area
Dynamic response
Liquefaction analysis
and Deconvolution
with Dynamic
analysis with M6.8
response analysis
Tarlay EQ 211
- Zhang (2010)
- Pathak & Dalvi (2013) Liquefaction Step 2 Data Analysis
- Andrus et al (2000) potential index (LPI)
- Kayen et al (1997)
Assessment of liquefaction
Liquefaction probabilistic analysis
potential from
considering the fluctuation of ground water level
Mae-Chan Fault
Step 3 Output
Verify with 2011 Tarlay
Earthquake event
of research
END
found at the depth less than 10 m. The details of engineering properties and soil
profiles are given in Appendix A. These borehole are used for liquefaction analysis
this study.
Figure 57 Geology and geotechnical data of Maesai, Chiangrai, Thailand (study area)
The fluctuation of daily ground water levels by water using of people are
measured in Maesai area, Chiangrai province during 6 – 8 November 2013. The two
daily ground water level measurements are represented each city and suburb area of
91
Mesai area (Figure 58). The result of ground water level in urban area is between
1.48 – 1.62 m. below ground surface due to only three day measurement (Figure 59).
One the other hand, the result of ground water level in suburb area (The liquefied
point) is between 0.68 - 0.78 m. below ground surface (Figure 60). The result shows
that fluctuation of both measurements are quite consistency in Maesai area.
DGR (2009) collected the ground water level data of 43 observation wells
during 2004 to 2008 where were located in Chiangrai and Pha Yao province.
The water level fluctuations of two observation wells in study area (NT78 and NT79)
were given in Figure 33. The ground water level of in urban area (NT79 or WM1 in
Figure 57) was reached in deep level that the water fluctuation was largely changed
with between -6 and -12 m below ground surface. One the other hand, the NT 78
(WM2 in Figure 57) is located in suburb area, the water fluctuation was quite
consistency with amount of 0 and -3 m below ground level. Moreover, the monthly
measurement of ground water level is also compared by the yearly rainfall
measurement. The NT 78 (WM2) is used to assess liquefaction potential against
fluctuation of ground water level. This data is also used for annualize liquefaction
probabilistic based on even tree method.
Royal Irrigation Department (RID) have measured the daily rainfall of Maesai
area, Chiangrai Province during 1952 – 2013. The average annual rainfalls of study
area were used during 2004 -2008 which is given in Figure 35. This figure shows that
the average monthly rainfalls were mostly increased in rainy season (during May to
October). However, the average monthly rainfalls were quite consistency at between
November and April. These rainfall data was compared with the observed ground
water level in 2004 -2008 (Figure 33) according to DGR (2009) that the relation
between fluctuation of ground water level and average annual rainfalls was performed
in study area.
92
Myanmar
Suburb area
Thailand
1.62
18.30-19.00
1.60
20.30-21.30 12.50-14.30
Water level (m.)
1.58
1.56 22.40-23.30
1.54
6.45-8.30 18.00
1.52
1.50
1.48
6/11/2013 12:00 7/11/2013 0:00 7/11/2013 12:00 8/11/2013 0:00 8/11/2013 12:00 9/11/2013 0:00
Date
0.80
6 Nov. 2013 7 Nov. 2013
0.78
0.76
Water level (m.)
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.66
0:00:00 4:48:00 9:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00 0:00:00 4:48:00 9:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00 0:00:00
Times
Earthquake information
On the 24th March 2011, the 6.8 magnitude earthquake called Tarlay
Earthquake strikes Myanmar. The location of this earthquake was 20.705N and
99.949E, and the focal depth of epicenter was approximately 10 km (6.2 miles) from
the ground surface. The instrumental earthquake intensity was shown the level of VI
to VII which is coincident the perceived shaking as strong to very strong level
(USGS, 2011). The epicenter of the earthquake locates just 30 km away from the
northern border of Thailand. The 0.2 g acceleration was recorded at Maesai,
Chiangrai by Thai Metrological Department (TMD) (Figure 61). The accelerometer
station is located 30 km from the earthquake epicentre.
Nevertheless, the shapes of response spectrum can be indicated the local site
affect conditions. Therefore, the recorded Maesai‘s response spectrum is to be
observed. The two horizontal components of their spectrum are also compared
according to Seed and Idriss (1982).
94
Acc. (g)
Acc. (g)
0 0
-0.05 -0.05 NS direction EW-diection
-0.1 -0.1
-0.15 -0.15
-0.2 -0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
The cyclic stress approach, originally proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971), is
used to evaluate the factor of safety against liquefaction. Liquefaction potential is
usually expressed as a comparison between and Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) and
CSR (Cyclic Stress Ratio). This study, the liquefaction potential assessment was
empirically adopted by Idriss and Boulanger (2008), which is used. The CSR induced
by earthquake is calculated by equation (1). However, the depth reduction factor (γd)
in equation 1 is expressed in these following equations according to Idriss (1999). The
parameter γd could be adequately expressed as a function of depth and earthquake
magnitude (M). These equations are mathematically applicable to a depth of z ≤ 34 m.
However, the uncertainty in d increases with increasing depth, so these equations
96
should actually be applied only for depths that are less than about 20 m. Liquefaction
evaluations at greater depths involve special conditions (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is empirically related with the corrected
standard penetration values normalized by clean sand effect ((N1)60cs) which is given
in equation 22. This equation have been proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008).
The magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) is required to be applied for the earthquake that
has magnitude other than 7.5 Mw by Idriss (1999). The Overburden correlation factor
(K) is recommended by (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008) in which given in equation 11,
respectively.
Relation between liquefaction potential index and depth to ground water level
Chung and Rogers (2011) proposed the correlation between calculated LPI
values and the depths to groundwater within late Quaternary stratigraphic units which
is given in equation 44. LPIs and measured DTW values of their study were then
plotted for each of the mapped stratigraphic units in the scenario M7.5 quake with
0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 g PGA values, respectively. The a and b parameters of the
regression analyses are - 0.37 and 4.32, respectively for the scenario M7.5 quake with
0.20 g, which is based on 195 boreholes of Qa alluvium deposit. Therefore, the author
established the regression analysis for Qa deposit of Mesai area, which is based on
Magnitude of 6.8 (2011 Tarlay earthquake event) and the PGA of 0.2 g. The 14
boreholes of Qa deposit, depth of ground water level and LPIs values were used to
establish the regression analysis.
99
The Maesai strong ground motion station is located on Qt deposit of this study
area. There is approximately away of 200 m. from the MS8 borehole (Figure 63).
Based on this geotechnical borehole data, the thin clay layer was found at the top
layer. The loose to medium silty clay and clay with low plasticity was found at the
depth between 3 and 10 m. The SPT values more than 50 blow/ft of decomposed rock
was found at the depth of 11 m. below the ground surface. The deconvolution analysis
is performed to estimate the strong ground motions of the decomposed-rock layer by
2011 Tarlay earthquake event ground motions. However, the absence of shear wave
velocity measurement of MS8 borehole is not observed therefore the predicted shear
wave velocity values have been estimated by regression analysis with the 140 data of
seven measured shear wave velocity locations (Downhole method, Figure 64) in
Chaingrai province (DMR, 2014). The author provide the estimated shear wave
velocity equations for sand/silt and clay samples which is shown in Figure 65 a and b,
equation 50 and 51, respectively. The soil profile, the measured SPT-N values and the
predicted shear wave velocity values by equation 50 and 51 of MS8 borehole is given
in Figure 66. This figure is used for the deconvolution analysis.
However, for deconvolution analysis model, the depth of rock layer of MS8
borehole is extended as between 11 to 20 m. (with the Vs= 760 m/s) to determine the
rock layer motions at the depth of 20 m. below ground surface. Finally, the result of
deconvolution analysis shows that the predicted PGAs of weathered rock layer at the
depth of 20 m have 0.09 and 0.11 g (Figure 67). These strong ground motions are
101
used for input motion at rock like layer (Vs = 760 m/s, at the depth of 30 m. below the
ground surface) of DH1 borehole in dynamic response analysis (Figure 68). One the
other hand, the recorded maximum surface spectrum acceleration have been amplified
as between 0.10 - 0.15 seconds (Figure 69) that may be caused the local site period of
MS8 soil borehole (estimated soil site period = 0.16 seconds). Finally, the result
shows that the modeled surface spectrums of DH1 borehole with the rigid half space
condition are given in Figure 70.
Table 19 The soil and earthquake properties for liquefaction evaluation methods
Figure 66 The estimating of shear wave velocity and measured SPT-N values
of MS8 borehole
NS-direction EW-direction
0.15 0.15
NS- rock layer EW- rock layer
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
Acc. (g)
Acc. (g)
0 0
-0.05 -0.05
-0.1 -0.1
-0.15 -0.15
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
Figure 67 Predicted ground motions at rock layer of MS8 borehole (the depth of
20 m. below ground surface) from 2011 Tarlay earthquake motions
106
Vs (m/s)
10
Depth (m) 15
20
25
30
NS-direction EW-direction
1 1
0.1 0.1
Sa (g)
Sa (g)
0.01 0.01
NS direction EW direction
10 10
1 1
Sa (g)
Sa (g)
0.1 0.1
Figure 70 Comparing of input spectrums at rock layer and modeled surface spectrums
(DH1 borehole) with rigid-half space condition
The recorded surface motions from 2011 Tarlay earthquake event at Maesai
stations (Figure 61) are directly used in dynamic response analysis. These ground
motions are input at the engineering bedrock depth of the DH1 soil profile (at the
depth of 30 m. below the ground surface) which is the Vs is 760 m/s and the elastic
half space condition. Finally, the result shows that the modeled surface spectrums of
DH1 borehole are given in Figure 71.
NS direction EW direction
10 10
1 1
Sa (g)
Sa (g)
0.1 0.1
Figure 71 Comparing of input spectrums at rock layer and modeled surface spectrums
(DH1 borehole) with elastic-half space condition
108
c) Comparing of surface spectrum results between rigid half space and elastic
half space condition
Even though the result of surface response spectrums at the DH1 borehole are
quite similar properties (Figure 72) but the result of PGAs profile (Figure 73) and the
Arias intensity at ground surface (Figure 74 a and b) are significant differences. PGAs
profile, PGA at ground surface and Arias intensity by analytical analysis will be used
for comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods. Finally, the PGAs profile and the
surface Arias intensities by deconvolution analysis (rigid half space) (Figure 75) are
used because these motions are rock layer which the dynamic response analysis model
must be in rock base condition, PGA values at various depths and surface arias
intensity of this figure is used for estimating the CSR values.
NS direction
10
1
Sa (g)
0.1
EW direction
10
1
Sa (g)
0.1
0.01
EW surface rigid half space (Trial#1)
EW surface elastic half space (Trial#2)
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.)
10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
0.3 1.6
1.4
0.2
1.2
Arias intensity (m/s)
0.1
1
Acc. (g)
0 0.8
0.6
-0.1 NS rigid half space NS rigid half space
(Trial#1) 0.4 (Trial#1)
-0.2 NS elastic half space NS elastic half space
0.2
(Trial#2) (Trial#2)
-0.3 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
0.3 1.6
0.2 1.4
1.2
0.8
-0.1
0.6 EW rigid half space
-0.2 EW rigid half space (Trial#1)
(Trial#1) 0.4
-0.3 EW elastic half space EW elastic half space
0.2 (Trial#2)
(Trial#2)
-0.4 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
Figure 74 Comparing of time histories and arias intensity at ground surface (DH1
borehole) between with deconvolved motions method (rigid-half space)
and recorded surface motions (the elastic-half space)
PGA (g)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0
2.5
10
2
Depth (m)
15
1.5
20 1
EW
0.5
EW NS
25 Summary
NS
0
Average 0 10 20 30 40 50
30 Time (sec.)
Figure 75 PGAs profile and the surface Arias intensities for comparison of
liquefaction evaluation methods
112
The NT 78 (WM2) ground water level station is located in suburb area, the
water fluctuation of each years was quite consistency with amount of 1 and - 4 m
(Figure 76) below ground level. The 34 measured ground water level data in 2004 -
2008 is performed to distribution analysis. The result shows that the mean ground
water level value is 2.243 m. below the ground surface (Figure 77). However, this
station is very closest distance to DH1 borehole. This ground water distribution is
performed to assess liquefaction potential against fluctuation of ground water level of
DH1 borehole with range of depth 0-1.5 m, 1.5-2.5 m, 2.5-3.5 m and > 3.5 m.,
respectively. The result of ground water level fluctuation against liquefaction
potential is expressed in F.S. versus depth and LPI values.
4
GWL_2006
6 GWL_2007
8 GWL_2008
average
10
12
The annualized predicted PGA at the ground surface is used for liquefaction
assessment. This value can be determined by dynamic response analysis. The seven
strong ground motions selection for dynamic response analysis is performed by
seismic hazard analysis. According to the Pitilakis and Anastasiadis (2007), the
liquefaction phenomena can be occurred with the magnitude earthquake greater than
5. The liquefaction evidences in Thailand by both magnitudes of 6.8 Tarlay 2011 and
6.3 Chiangrai 2014 earthquake events are fit well by his study (Figure 79). Therefore,
for this study, the range of Magnitude 5.0 to 7.5 will be used.
114
Due to the closest distance to the Maeai area, the Mae chan fault is selected in
order to calculate the earthquake hazard of the Maesai area. Mae Chan fault was
investigated by Fenton et al (2003), Main characteristics of considered faults are
given with Magnitude of 7.5 and closest distance of 25 km. to Maesai area (Figure
80). One of the main relationship for a given earthquake fault is the Gutenberg–
Richter relationship of occurrence which expresses the relationship between the
magnitude and total number of earthquakes in any given region. This relationship is
established based on the available data from earthquakes occurred in the past from a
given fault. In the case of Mae Chan fault, the value of parameter a = 3.68 and b =
0.90 was used. The Gutenberg–Richter law can be expressed and in terms of annual
rate of recurrence of magnitude, λm (Equation 52) or cumulative Gutenberg-Richter
Recurrence Relationship. The result shows that mean annual rate of exceedance of
Mae Chan fault is given in Figure 81.
log(m ) a bM (52)
In order to predict the ground motion the sadigh (1997) model was used
because the sadigh‗s attenuation model is fit well with the measured PGA values by
both the 2011 Tarlay and 2014 Chiangrai earthquake events (Figure 82). This model
can predicts the ground motion in terms of spectral acceleration which is given in
equation 53. However, this attenuation model is based on rock condition therefore the
PGA at ground surface need to be done by dynamic response analysis.
Myanmar
25 km.
Magnitude
of 7.5 Thailand
10 10
M 6.8_24/03/2011 M 6.3_05/05/2014
Sadigh(1997) -SD Sadigh(1997) -SD
1 1
Sadigh(1997)_Mean Sadigh(1997)_Mean
Sadigh(1997)+SD Sadigh(1997)+SD
0.1 0.1
PGA (g)
PGA (g)
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
0.0001 0.0001
0.00001 0.00001
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
Source to site distance (km.) Source to site distance (km.)
Figure 82 Comparing of Sadigh (1997) attenuation model and measured PGA values
Although the magnitudes and distances of all future earthquakes are fixed at
M5.0-7.5 and 25 km, respectively, we still expect variations in observed peak ground
accelerations at the site of each range of Magnitude. Using the Sadigh (1997) model
presented in equation 53, since we know the mean and standard deviation of ln PGA,
we can compute the probability of a given PGA value as equation 54. The detail of
calculation is given in Table 20.
Inx InPGA
P( PGA x M , 25) (54)
InPGA
Because the PGA values (Table 20) is rock site. Therefore, the dynamic
response analysis has been done in order to determine the PGAs at ground surface of
every PGA values (rock site). The target response spectrum is performed by Sadigh
(1997) attenuation model with the magnitude of 7.5 and source to site distance of 25
km. The seven earthquake time histories are selected representative of the seismic
ground motions which they are matched with the Sadigh (1997) equation (Figure 83).
These motions are used to perform dynamic response analysis which they are listed in
Table 21. The events cover magnitude range 6.61 to 7.51, distance from 0.90 to 70.52
km, and the strike-slip motions. All the events were recorded on site class B (Vs30 ≥
760 m/s). The time histories are selected by Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER) database. Besides, the strong ground motions will be input bottom
depth of DH1 boring log that shear wave velocity is more than 760 m/s with elastic
half space base condition for DEEPSOIL model. These ground motions were scaled
to 0.10 g, 0.20 g, 0.30g, 0.40 g and 0.50 g, respectively. The result of PGA at the
ground surface is expressed in Figure 84. The result shows that the
RSN_1613_2
RSN_1108_2
0.1
RSN_3954_2
RSN_3920_2
0.01
RSN_879_1
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.)
Figure 84 Relationship between PGA at rock site and PGA at ground surface (DH1)
120
4
Frequency
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Ground water level (m.)
Figure 88 Gradation curve of sands from Maesai liquefied sites comparing with the
gradation range of liquefiable soil
The KZ1, KZ5 and KZ6 site are located urban area and the ground water
levels of these boreholes are very shallow depth (0.40 – 2.30 m below ground
surface). The F.S. values of the KZ1 and KZ6 sites are > 1 with the range of
converted SPT-N values (equation 49) of 12-20. However, the F.S. value of KZ5 site
(the depth of 1 – 2 m. below ground surface) is less than 1 and the converted SPT-N
value is found equal to 9. Finally, the result of F.S. show that all depths of these
boreholes may be not liquefied (except to only depth of 1-2 m at KZ5 site) therefore
the surface liquefaction manifestation or ground failure of these sites were not found
by this earthquake event.
For the suburb area, the surface liquefaction manifestations were found nearly
the river and the ground water levels were found very shallow depths (< 3 m. below
ground surface). The result of F.S. values < 1 at KZ2 borehole (liquefied site) were
located in range of 1 – 5 m below ground surface and the cap of none liquefied layer
was only 1 m therefore the liquefied surface manifestation was easily found at the site
after this earthquake event (Figure 90). It is also confirmed to be liquefied sand layers
at this site with the grain size distribution that the sieve analysis‘s result of both
surface liquefied sand and underlain sand layers are similar curves, and these curves
matched well within the gradation range of the liquefiable soil (Figure 91). Although,
the F.S. values of KZ3 site is greater than 1 but the liquefied surface manifestation
and ground failure was still occurred. Therefore, the deeper soil investigation needs to
be done for more soil properties information because Kunzelstab test was finished at
the bottom depth of 7 m. below ground surface at this site.
For nearly the mountain area (KZ 4 and KZ 7 site), the ground water level are
located very deep elevation therefore the water levels are not found by site
investigation. The surface liquefaction manifestations or ground failure of these sites
were also not found. One the other hand, the result of F.S. values at DH1 borehole
site are between 3 – 16 m. below ground surface with corrected clean sand SPT-N
values less than 12 blows/ft. Although, the F.S. values at DH1 borehole is < 1 that
may occur the liquefied in sand layers but the surface liquefaction manifestations or
ground failure of this borehole did not occurred after this earthquake event. The 3 m.
thickness cap of none-liquefaction may prevent the liquefied soil extrude to the
ground surface.
Finally, by this earthquake event, the result show that the liquefied soil may
occur as : depth of between 1 and 16 m., the corrected clean sand SPT-N values are
less than 16 blows/ft, the converted SPT-N values (by Kunzelstab test) < 13 and the
ground water levels is less than 3 m. below ground surface.
125
MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6 MS7 MS8 MS9 MS10 MS11
Depth
(N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S (N1)60-cs F.S
0-1 m. -
1-2 m. 20 11 24 - 29 12 17 None GWL. 17 1.07
2-3 m. - 29 - 44 17 0.97
3-4 m. 50 2.00 28 17 1.47 17 1.43 17 1.53 35 18 0.99 20 1.13 16 0.98
4-5 m. 50 2.00 19 66 2.00 14 1.20 23 1.75 24 1.98 40 14 0.82 25 1.62
5-6 m. -
6-7 m. 50 2.00 27 2.00 64 2.00 35 2.00 16 1.07 25 14 0.79 22 1.31 11 0.75 40 2.00
7-8 m. End of boring 47 2.00 62 2.00 26 2.00 60 2.00 38 2.00 22 20 1.14 38 2.00 35 2.00 52 2.00
8-9 m. 56 2.00
9-10 m. 65 2.00 64 2.00 38 2.00 66 22 64 2.00 63 2.00 67 2.00
10-11 m. 55 2.00 End of boring 47 2.00 58 2.00 49 2.00 67 68 2.00 End of boring 55 2.00 52 2.00
11-12 m. End of boring End of boring 89 2.00
12-13 m. 58 2.00 61 2.00 59 2.00 61 2.00 64 2.00 End of boring
13-14 m. 55 2.00 57 2.00 57 2.00 57 2.00 63 2.00
14-15 m.
15-16 m. 57 2.00 59 2.00 60 2.00 59 2.00 56 2.00
16-17 m. End of boring End of boring End of boring End of boring 63 2.00
17-18 m. End of boring
18-19 m.
19-20 m.
20-21 m.
21-22 m.
22-23 m.
23-24 m.
24-25 m.
25-26 m.
26-27 m.
27-28 m.
28-29 m.
29-30 m.
Figure 89 The factor of safety values of all boreholes in Maesai area by 2011 Tarlay
earthquake event
126
KPT, SPT
Surface liquefied point Soil
@ March 2011 Type 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0m 0
0.6 m Crust
1.0 m SW-SM 1
SP WL. = -0.80 m
1.8 m 2
SP
3
4.0 m 4
(liquefiable site) 5
8 KPT
FC%
9
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fine content (%)
Site investigation @ November 2013
Figure 90 The site investigation of KZ2 borehole after 2011 Tarlay earthquake
100
90
sand Depth
80
0.6-1.0 m.
Percentage Passing (%)
70
Sand Depth
60 1.0-1.8 m.
50
Sand Depth
40 1.8-4.0 m.
30
Liquefied
20 site at
surface
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 91 The result of sieve analysis at the KZ2 site (liquefied site)
127
The author established the regression analysis for Qa deposit of Mesai area,
which is based on Magnitude of 6.8 (2011 Tarlay earthquake event) and the PGA of
0.2 g. The 14 boreholes of Qa deposit, depth of ground water level and LPIs values
from Table 22 were used to establish the regression analysis. Finally, the equation 55
is proposed, the comparison of between proposed equation and Chung and Rogers
(2011) was compared, which is expressed in Figure 93.
Figure 93 The relationship between the LPI and Depth to ground water level based on
this study and Chung and Rogers (2011)
Based on case study of the liquefied residential house (Figure 90), the
assessment of liquefaction potential with KPT data testing was evaluated, the zone of
liquefaction extends from a depth of 0.8 to 4 m. below the ground surface. Therefore
the existing of 0.8 m-thick unliquefied layer is placed at the ground surface, assume
that the undrained shear strength (f ) of the soil is equal to 6 t/m2. However, the width
and length of spread footing is 1 m, respectively, the total load is 5 ton. These
parameters above that uses for punching shear analysis is given in Figure 94. Finally,
the factor of safety is 1.45, although this factor of safety would probably low but the
foundation is still safe based on in actual field investigation after this earthquake
event.
131
No. Sites Depth of RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN Average
rock (m.) 879 1108 1161 1165 1613 3920 3954 values (g)
1 MS1 6.5 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.25
2 MS2 16 0.39 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.33 0.37 0.32 0.33
3 MS3 10 0.38 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.26 0.29
4 MS4 16 0.28 0.29 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.31 0.30
5 MS5 16 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.37 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.36
6 MS6 16 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.32
7 MS7 11 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.35 0.41 0.27 0.33 0.32
8 MS8 11 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.37 0.42 0.31 0.43 0.33
9 MS9 10 0.33 0.34 0.27 0.44 0.55 0.38 0.40 0.39
10 MS10 17 0.35 0.26 0.25 0.45 0.47 0.41 0.48 0.38
11 MS11 12 0.31 0.30 0.26 0.32 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.31
12 DH1 30 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.33 0.25 0.27 0.27
Table 24 LPI level for establishing of liquefaction hazard map for Maesai area
NO. Sites GWL. (m) PGA at ground surface (g) LPI value Level
1 MS1 1.0 0.25 0 None
2 MS2 1.0 0.33 7.63 Moderate
3 MS3 1.0 0.29 3.54 Low
4 MS4 1.0 0.30 4.99 Low
5 MS5 1.0 0.36 13.64 Moderate
6 MS6 1.0 0.32 4.70 Low
7 MS7 None 0.32 0 None
8 MS8 1.0 0.33 9.80 Moderate
9 MS9 1.0 0.39 7.17 Moderate
10 MS10 1.0 0.38 6.55 Moderate
11 MS11 1.0 0.31 10.79 Moderate
12 DH1 1.0 0.27 48.10 High
133
ground surface with the corrected clean sand value is less than 17 blows/ft and the
measured shear wave velocity is equal to 153 - 421 m/s. The F.S. values of Zhang
(2010) method are quite over estimation that F.S. values give more than one at all
depths (except to the depth of 8 and 11 m), respectively. However, the F.S. values by
the Arias intensity method (Kayen et al, 2007) are less than one at every depths
because the summary predicted horizontal arias intensity values at ground surface is
very high (2.45 m/s). One the other hand, the F.S. values by SPT-N approach (Idriss
and Boulanger, 2008), shear wave velocity approach (Andrus et al., 2000) and the
EELM model (Pathak and Dalvi, 2013) are not much differences, these F.S values are
less than one at the depth of between 3 – 16 m.
It conclude that the approach by SPT-N approach (Idriss and Boulanger,
2008), shear wave velocity approach (Andrus et al., 2000) and the EELM model
(Pathak and Dalvi, 2013) are still good methods. For the Arias intensity method
(Kayen et al, 2007) need to use the real recorded strong ground motions at the ground
surface (It is not suitable to use dynamic response analysis). And the Zhang (2010)
method is quite over estimation than the other methods that the evaluation of
liquefaction potential should be caution.
5
Poovarodom and
4.5 Jirasakjamroonsri (2014)
NS direction
4
EW-direction
3.5
3
Amp. ratio
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.)
The fluctuation of daily ground water levels by water using of people were
measured in Maesai area, Chiangrai province during 6 – 8 November 2013. The two
daily ground water level measurements are represented urban and suburb area of
Mesai area (Figure 59 and 60). The result shows that fluctuation of ground water
level in urban and suburb area by water using of people is less than 12 cm. Therefore,
the daily ground water level fluctuation is not effected for liquefaction assessment.
Therefore, the monthly measurement of ground water level is considered.
The monthly water level fluctuations of two observation wells in study area
(NT78 and NT79) were given in Figure 33. Moreover, the monthly measurement of
ground water level is also compared by the yearly rainfall intensity measurement. The
result show that the monthly ground water level of urban area have influenced by
rainfall measurement (Figure 101 a) that the ground water level is increased with
increasing of rainfall intensity. However, for the suburb area, the fluctuation of
ground water level is quite consistency that it is not affected by rainfall intensity
(Figure 101 b).
138
Besides, the LPI values of DH1 borehole at the ground water level of 1 m, 2
m, 3 m and 4 m. below ground surface are about 30.22, 23.51, 16.85 and 11.15,
respectively. They could be classified as ―Very high‖ with the ground water level
depth of 1 m, 2 m and 3 m below ground surface, and ―high‖ with the ground water
level depth of 4 m (refer to Iwasaki 1986, Luna and Frost 1998, Keng et al 2014).
Moreover, the correlation between the LPI values and none-thickness liquefiable soil
of DH1 borehole are given in Figure 103. The result show that if the ground water
levels are 1 m to 2 m below ground surface that liquefied soil could be extrude to the
ground surface by 2011 Tarlay earthquake event and sand boils or ground cracks may
be occurred. However, the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event occurred in summer season
therefore the ground water level of DH1 is located deeper than 3 m below ground
surface. So, the LPI values and the none-thickness liquefiable soil of DH1 is 11.15
and 4 m, respectively which is classified ―None occurrence of liquefaction‖ at the
liquefaction manifestation according to Papathanassiou (2008), Figure 104.
Although no sand boils or ground cracks occurred at this borehole during the
2011 Tarlay earthquake. It is probable that the 3-4 m-thick layer is capped the level-
ground, predicted not to liquefy, prevented the formation of sand boils at the ground
surface. Therefore, this case study compares the assessment of liquefaction potential
considering the fluctuation of ground water level.
139
Urban area
Avg.Rainfall_2004
May
Mar
Nov
Aug
Dec
Feb
Sep
Apr
Oct
Jun
Jan
Jul
Avg.Rainfall_2005
0 24.0
Avg.Rainfall_2006
4 16.0 Avg.Rainfall_2008
GWL_2004
6 12.0
GWL_2005
8 8.0 GWL_2006
10 4.0 GWL_2007
GWL_2008
12 0.0
Suburb area
Avg.Rainfall_2004
May
Mar
Nov
Aug
Dec
Feb
Sep
Apr
Oct
Jun
Jan
Jul
Avg.Rainfall_2005
0 24.0
Avg.Rainfall_2006
Average Rainfall (mm/day)
2 20.0 Avg.Rainfall_2007
Water level (m.)
4 16.0 Avg.Rainfall_2008
GWL. is quite
GWL_2004
6 consistency 12.0
GWL_2005
8
with rainfall 8.0 GWL_2006
intensity
10 4.0 GWL_2007
GWL_2008
12 0.0
Figure 101 Comparison of between ground water level fluctuations and rainfall
intensity
140
Figure 102 Details of F.S. and LPI values considering the fluctuation of ground water level
141
Figure 103 Comparison of ground water level fluctuations against F.S. values
The Sadigh (1997) attenuation model with the magnitude of 5.0 - 7.5 and
source to site distance of 25 km. gives the annual PGA values at the rock layer. Seven
motions are used to perform dynamic response analysis (Figure 83) which are
determined the PGA at the ground surface of DH1 borehole (Figure 84), these values
are used for evaluation of F.S. and LPI values in even tree scenarios. The probability
of ground water level fluctuation is used by in the range of 0-1.5m, 1.5-2.5 m, 2.5-3.5
m and 3.5-4.5 m, (Figure 85). The probability of liquefaction manifestation is
evaluated by Maurer et al (2014) equation by using LPI values. Finally, the result of
annualized of liquefaction probabilistic analysis is given as annual probability of
liquefaction manifestation of DH1 borehole with the Magnitude of 5.0-6.0, 6.0-7.0
and 7.0-7.5, respectively (Figure 104 to Figure 106). The result of annual probability
liquefaction manifestation of DH1 borehole considering the fluctuation of ground
water level is given in Table 25.
M = 5.0-6.0 (5.5) 0-0.15 g. (0.10 g) 0.16 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. > 1, LPI = 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.05370318 0.936 0.099 0 0.00 0.00 0 1
0.15-0.25 g. (0.20 g)0.24 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.055 0.099 1 9.81 0.80 0.000233349 5
0.25-0.35 g. (0.30 g)0.31 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.007 0.099 1 22.86 0.95 3.53732E-05 9
0.35-0.45 g. (0.40 g)0.37 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.002 0.099 1 32.77 1.00 1.06332E-05 13
Figure 105 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL.fluctuation (M 5.0-6.0)
144
M = 6.0-7.0 (6.5) 0-0.15 g. (0.10 g) 0.16 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.00676083 0.625 0.099 1 5.92 0.65 0.000272302 1
0.15-0.25 g. (0.20 g)0.24 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.292 0.099 1 25.89 0.94 0.0001837 5
0.25-0.35 g. (0.30 g)0.31 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.064 0.099 1 39.87 1.00 4.28366E-05 9
0.35-0.45 g. (0.40 g)0.37 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.014 0.099 1 47.88 1.00 9.37051E-06 13
Figure 106 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M 6.0-7.0)
145
M = 7.0-8.0 (7.5) 0-0.15 g. (0.10 g) 0.16 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.000851138 0.096 0.099 1 20.60 0.95 7.69238E-06 1
0.15-0.25 g. (0.20 g)0.24 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.482 0.099 1 42.87 1.00 4.06146E-05 5
0.25-0.35 g. (0.30 g)0.31 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.304 0.099 1 53.51 1.00 2.56159E-05 9
0.35-0.45 g. (0.40 g)0.37 g - 0-1.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation
0.09 0.099 1 59.43 1.00 7.58364E-06 13
Figure 106 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M7.0-7.5,
MCE)
146
Conclusion
1. Based on 2011 Tarlay earthquake event with magnitude of 6.8 and PGA =
0.20 g, the liquefied soil might be occurred as follow : Depth of between 1 and 16 m.,
the corrected clean sand SPT-N values are less than 16 blows/ft, the converted SPT-N
values (by Kunzelstab test) < 13 and the ground water levels is less than 3 m. below
ground surface. Moreover, the liquefaction hazard map of Maesai area is proposed by
Maximum credible earthquake (MCE) of Mae-Chan fault.
4. To assess the liquefaction potential, the ground water level fluctuation has
affected. It is advice to evaluate the uncertainty of ground water level in understand to
whole picture of liquefaction potential.
Recommendations
LITERATURE CITED
Abrahamson, N.A. and W.J. Silva. 1997. Empirical response spectral attenuation
relations for shallow crustal Earthquakes Seism. Res. Lett., 68, 1, pp 94-
127.
Abrahamson, N.A. and W. J. Silva. 2008. Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva
NGA ground-motion relations Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 67-97.
Andrews, D.C.A. and G.R. Martin. 2000. Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Atkinson, G.M. and D.M. Boore. 1995. Ground-motion relations for eastern North
America Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 1, pp 17-30.
148
Boonlue, S. 1998. Solid waste disposal site selection : A case study of sanitary
districts of Maesai, Maechan and Chiang Saen Thesis of Master degree,
Department Geography, Chulalongkorn University. P. 257.
BSSC. 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provision for seismic regulations for new
building, Part 1-Provision Washington D.C. p 337.
Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgnia. 2008. NGA ground motion Model for the
geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5%
damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01s to
10.0s Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 139-171.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2006. Active fault map in Thailand. In map,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Esteva, L. and R. Villaverde. 1973. Seismic risk, design spectra and structural
reliability Proc. 5th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Rome, 2, pp 2586-2596.
Idriss, I.M. 1993. Procedures for selecting earthquake ground motions at rock
sites Report to National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, Report No.
NIST GCR 93-625.
Idriss, I.M., 2008. An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral
values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes Earthquake Spectra, vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 217-242.
152
Idriss, I.M. 1990. Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes in J.M. Duncan,
ed., Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, BiTech Publishers,
Vancouver, British Columbia, VoL 2, pp.273-289.
Ishihara, K. 1985. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. Proc., 11th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 321–376.
Iwasaki, T. 1986. Soil liquefaction studies in Japan, State-of- Art Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng., 5(1), 2–68, doi:10.1016/0267-7261(86)90024-2.
Iwaski, T., T. Arakawa and K. Tokida. 1982. Simplified procedures for assessing
soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Proceeding of the Conference on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Southampton. UK., pp.925-939.
153
Iwasaki, T. 1986. Soil liquefaction studies in Japan: state of the art. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 5 (1), 2–68.
Juang, C.H., H. Yuan, D. H. Lee, P. S. Lin. 2003. Simplified cone penetration test-
based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. 129 (1), 66–80.
Kang, G. C., J. W. Chung and J. David Rogers. 2014. Re-calibrating the thresholds
for the classification of liquefaction potential index based on the 2004
Niigata-ken Chuetsu earthquake. Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 30–40.
Lee, D. H., C. S. Ku, H. Yuan. 2003. A study of the liquefaction risk potential at
Yuanlin, Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 71, 97–117.
Lee M. K., K. Y. Lum and Hartford DND. Calculation of the seismic risk of an
earth dam susceptible to liquefaction. Submitted for publication.
154
Luna, R. and J.D. Frost. 1998. Spatial liquefaction analysis system. J. Comput. Civ.
Eng. 12 (1), 48–56.
Morley, C.K. 2002. A tectonic model for the Tertiary evolution of strike-slip
faults and rift basins in Southeast Asia Tectonophysics, v.347, p. 189-215.
Norris, G.M. 1977. The Drained Shear Strength of Uniform Quartz Sand as
Related to Particle Size and Natural Variation in Particle Shape and
Surface Roughness. (Ph.D Dissertation) University of California, Berkeley
(326 pp.).
Nutalaya, P. and Shrestha. 1990. Earthquake ground motions and seismic risk in
Thailand Proc. 1990 Annual Conf., Engineering Institute of Thailand,
Bangkok, pp 55-77.
Olsen, R.S. 1997. Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetration test.
Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop of Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils, pp. 225–276.
Ornthammarath, T. 2013. A note on the strong ground motion recorded during the Mw
6.8 earthquake in Myanmar on 24 March 2011 Bull Earthquake Eng (2013)
11:241–254.
155
Papathanassiou, G., S. Pavlides and A. Ganas. 2005. The 2003 Lef kada
earthquake: Field observations and preliminary microzonation map
based on liquefaction potential index for the town of Lef kada Engineering
Geology 82 (2005) 12– 31.
Royal Irrigation Department (RID), Hydrology and water management center for
upper Northern region (Chiangmai), Office of water management and
hydrology.
Schnabel, P. B., J. Lysmer and H. B. Seed. 1972. SHAKE: a computer program for
earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites Report EERC
72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
157
Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic
response analysis. Rep. No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, Calif.
Seed, H.B. and I. M. Idriss. 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE
97(SM9), 1249–273.
Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss. 1982. Ground motion and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, Ca.
Seed, H. B., K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Jr. Harder and R. Chung. 1984. The Influence of
SPT Procedures on Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations Report No.
UCB/EERC-84/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley.
158
Seed, H.B., and W. H. Peacock. 1971. Test procedures for measuring soil
liquefaction characteristics J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE
97(SM8), Proceedings Paper 8330, August, pp. 1099–119.
Sykora, D. W. 1987. Creation of a data base of seismic shear wave velocities for
correlation analysis. Geotech. Lab. Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-26, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Toro, G.R. 2002. Modification of the Toro et al. (1997) Attenuation equations for
large magnitudes and short distances Risk Engineering, Inc, 4-1 to 4-10.
Toro, G.R. and R.K. McGuire. 1987. An investigation into earthquake ground
motion characteristics in eastern North America Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.,
77, 2, pp 468-489.
Wair, B. R., J. T. DeJong and T. Shantz. 2012. Guidelines for estimation of shear
wave velocity profiles PEER Report 2012/08 Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center Headquarters at the University of California, December 2012.
Wells, D.L. and K.J. Coppersmith. 1994. New empirical relationships among
magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface
displacement Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84, 974-1002.
Youd, T.L. 1998. Screening guide for rapid assessment of liquefaction hazard at
highway bridge sites Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research Technical Report MCEER-98-0005, p. 58.
Zhang. L. 2010. A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear
wave velocity. Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2010, 4(2): 178–195 DOI
10.1007/s11709-010-0023-4.
APPENDICES
162
Appendix A
Figure A11 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-6 borehole
174
Figure A13 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-7 borehole
176
Figure A14 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-8 borehole
177
Figure A16 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-9 borehole
179
Figure A18 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-10 borehole
181
Figure A20 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-11 borehole
183
Figure A22 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of DH-1 borehole
185
Figure A22 (continued) Engineering soil properties and soil profile of DH-1
borehole
186
KPT, SPT
GWL. 1.50 m. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust
0.60 m.
Sand 1
1.40 m.
2
Sand 3
4.00 m. 4
Depth (m)
5
8
KPT
9 FC%
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A26 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ1 borehole
191
KPT, SPT
GWL. 0.80 m. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust
0.60 m.
Sand
1.00 m. 1
Sand
1.80 m.
2
Sand
3
4.00 m. 4
Depth (m)
5
8
KPT
9 FC%
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A27 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ2 borehole
192
KPT, SPT
GWL. 1.30 m. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust
1
1.40 m.
2
Clay
2.80 m. 3
Sand
4.00 m. 4
Depth (m) 5
8 KPT
FC%
9
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A28 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ3 borehole
193
KPT, SPT
GWL. None 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust
1
1.40 m.
4
Depth (m)
5
8
KPT
9 FC%
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A29 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ4 borehole
194
KPT, SPT
GWL. 0.40 m. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Sand
1.20 m. 1
2
Sand
3.00 m. 3
Depth (m) 5
8 KPT
FC%
9
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A30 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ5 borehole
195
KPT, SPT
GWL. 2.30 m. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust
0.80 m.
Clay 1
1.40 m.
Clay 2
2.20 m.
Sand
3.00 m. 3
Depth (m) 5
8 KPT
FC%
9
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A31 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ6 borehole
196
KPT, SPT
GWL. None 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00 m. 0
Crust 1
2.00 m. 2
Depth (m) 5
8 KPT
FC%
9
SPT
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A32 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ7 borehole
197
Appendix B
Summary analysis of 2011 Tarlay earthquake event
198
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS1
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 8/7/2008
Water table depth (m) = 3 Location 591189 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 22260822 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 20 SM Unsaturated 13.7 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 20.0 31 31 1.68 33.6 2.8 36.35 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 1.493 n.a. n.a. 1 9.03 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 50 SM 14.4 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 53.1 57 52 1.19 63.2 3.1 66.27 0.96 0.136 1.20 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 8.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 59.4 85 66 1.12 66.4 0.0 66.43 0.94 0.158 1.20 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 7.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 50 SM 15.5 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 59.4 114 80 1.06 63.2 3.4 66.62 0.92 0.170 1.20 1.07 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
2 2
LPI = 0
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B1 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-1 borehole)
199
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS2
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 9/7/2008
Water table depth (m) = 6 Location 593065 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260778 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 6 SP-SM Unsaturated 9.5 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 6.0 31 31 1.70 10.2 0.9 11.13 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.126 n.a. n.a. 9.03 0.13 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 19 SP-SM Unsaturated 11.2 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 20.2 55 55 1.30 26.3 1.7 28.02 0.96 0.125 1.20 1.10 0.385 n.a. n.a. 8.28 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 14 SP-SM Unsaturated 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 16.6 79 79 1.12 18.6 0.0 18.64 0.94 0.122 1.20 1.03 0.190 n.a. n.a. 7.53 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 23 SP-SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 27.3 105 100 1.00 27.4 0.0 27.40 0.92 0.124 1.20 1.00 0.361 0.434 2.00 6.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 7.95 40 SP-SM 10.6 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 47.5 133 114 0.97 46.0 1.4 47.44 0.89 0.135 1.20 0.96 2.000 2.000 2.00 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.45 45 SM 14.9 75 1.25 1 1 1 56.3 162 128 0.94 52.9 3.2 56.11 0.86 0.141 1.20 0.93 2.000 2.000 2.00 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 10.95 48 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 60.0 190 141 0.92 54.9 0.0 54.91 0.83 0.145 1.20 0.90 2.000 2.000 2.00 4.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 12.45 50 SM 13.3 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 219 155 0.89 55.8 2.6 58.44 0.80 0.147 1.20 0.87 2.000 2.000 2.00 3.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 13.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 247 169 0.87 54.6 0.0 54.58 0.77 0.147 1.20 0.85 2.000 2.000 2.00 3.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 15.45 50 SM 17.8 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 276 183 0.86 53.5 4.0 57.51 0.74 0.146 1.20 0.82 2.000 1.984 2.00 2.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2
LPI = 0
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B2 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-2 borehole)
200
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS3
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 5/7/2008
Water table depth (m) = 2.2 Location 592634 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2261107 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 11 SC Unsaturated 39 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 11.0 31 31 1.70 18.7 5.6 24.27 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.274 n.a. n.a. 1 9.03 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 10 SP-SM 10.2 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 10.6 59 47 1.51 16.0 1.2 17.28 0.96 0.158 1.20 1.09 0.177 0.232 1.47 1.5 8.28 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 46 SM 15.5 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 54.6 87 60 1.14 62.5 3.4 65.94 0.94 0.177 1.20 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 7.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 50 SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 59.4 116 74 1.08 64.4 0.0 64.38 0.92 0.186 1.20 1.09 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 7.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 59.4 144 88 1.04 61.6 0.0 61.56 0.89 0.190 1.20 1.04 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.45 50 SM 13.6 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 173 102 1.00 62.4 2.8 65.12 0.86 0.190 1.20 1.00 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
2 2 2
LPI = 0
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B3 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-3 borehole)
201
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS4
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 9/7/2551
Water table depth (m) = 2.8 Location 593967 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2261193 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 15 SM Unsaturated 14.5 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 15.0 31 31 1.70 25.5 3.1 28.59 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.409 n.a. n.a. 1 9.03 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 19 SM 12.4 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 20.2 57 51 1.35 27.3 2.3 29.55 0.96 0.141 1.20 1.10 0.458 0.606 2.00 1.5 8.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 9 SP-SM 10.3 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 10.7 86 65 1.27 13.6 1.3 14.85 0.94 0.162 1.20 1.05 0.155 0.195 1.20 1.5 7.53 0.40 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 27 SP-SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 32.1 114 78 1.09 35.0 0.0 35.04 0.92 0.174 1.20 1.07 1.117 1.432 2.00 1.5 6.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 7.95 20 SP-SM 9.8 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 23.8 143 92 1.04 24.7 1.1 25.72 0.89 0.179 1.20 1.02 0.308 0.376 2.00 1.5 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.45 50 SM 12.9 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 171 106 0.99 61.7 2.5 64.19 0.86 0.181 1.20 0.99 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 10.95 39 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 48.8 200 120 0.96 46.6 0.0 46.62 0.83 0.180 1.20 0.95 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 12.45 50 SM 13.5 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 228 133 0.93 58.1 2.7 60.79 0.80 0.178 1.20 0.92 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 13.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 257 147 0.91 56.6 0.0 56.60 0.77 0.175 1.20 0.89 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 15.45 50 SM 17.3 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 285 161 0.88 55.3 3.9 59.21 0.74 0.171 1.20 0.86 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 2.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2 2 LPI = 0
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B4 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-4 borehole)
202
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS5
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 6/7/2551
Water table depth (m) = 2 Location 593111 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260479 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 4 SC 34.8 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 4.0 31 31 1.70 6.8 5.5 12.30 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.135 0.1782 1.3911 1 9.03 0.30 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 10 SP-SM 10.1 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 10.6 60 45 1.53 16.3 1.2 17.49 0.96 0.165 1.20 1.10 0.179 0.236 1.43 1.5 8.28 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 15 SP-SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 17.8 88 59 1.28 22.8 0.0 22.79 0.94 0.182 1.20 1.08 0.246 0.319 1.75 1.5 7.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 10 SP-SM 11.2 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 11.9 117 73 1.18 14.1 1.7 15.77 0.92 0.190 1.20 1.04 0.163 0.203 1.07 1.5 6.78 0.68 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 7.95 46 SM 15.1 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 54.6 145 87 1.04 56.9 3.3 60.16 0.89 0.193 1.20 1.05 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.45 30 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 37.5 174 100 1.00 37.6 0.0 37.56 0.86 0.193 1.20 1.00 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 10.95 45 SM 16.3 75 1.25 1 1 1 56.3 202 114 0.97 54.5 3.7 58.12 0.83 0.191 1.20 0.96 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 12.45 50 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 231 128 0.94 58.7 0.0 58.72 0.80 0.188 1.20 0.93 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 13.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 259 142 0.91 57.2 0.0 57.16 0.77 0.183 1.20 0.90 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 15.45 50 SM 16.9 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 288 156 0.89 55.8 3.8 59.61 0.74 0.179 1.20 0.87 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 2.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2
LPI = 0
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B5 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-5 borehole)
203
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS6
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 1/7/2551
Water table depth (m) = 2.5 Location 592407 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2259869 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K forCRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.95 7 SC Unsaturated 34.8 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 7.0 31 31 1.70 11.9 5.5 17.40 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.178 n.a. n.a. 1 9.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.45 11 SC 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 11.7 58 49 1.46 17.1 0.0 17.09 0.96 0.149 1.20 1.09 0.175 0.228 1.53 1.5 8.28 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 4.95 16 SC 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 19.0 87 63 1.24 23.6 0.0 23.57 0.94 0.169 1.20 1.07 0.260 0.335 1.98 1.5 7.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.45 SC Unreliable 45.6 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 0.0 115 76 1.25 5.6 5.61 0.92 0.180 1.20 1.02 0.090 ? ? 1.5 6.78 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 7.95 26 SC 30.4 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 30.9 144 90 1.04 32.2 5.4 37.54 0.89 0.184 1.20 1.03 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.45 50 SM 15.6 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 172 104 0.99 62.0 3.5 65.50 0.86 0.185 1.20 0.99 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 10.95 41 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 51.3 201 118 0.96 49.2 0.0 49.23 0.83 0.184 1.20 0.95 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 12.45 50 SM 13.4 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 229 131 0.93 58.3 2.7 60.99 0.80 0.182 1.20 0.92 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 13.95 50 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 258 145 0.91 56.8 0.0 56.80 0.77 0.178 1.20 0.89 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 15.45 50 SM 16.3 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 286 159 0.89 55.5 3.7 59.13 0.74 0.174 1.20 0.87 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 2.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B6 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-6 borehole)
204
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS7
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 7/12/2551
Water table depth (m) = 100 Location 591661 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2259236 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 2.5 30 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 31.9 40 40 1.38 44.1 0.0 44.10 0.98 0.127 1.20 1.10 2.000 2 2 1 8.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.5 26 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 27.6 56 56 1.25 34.6 0.0 34.57 0.96 0.125 1.20 1.10 1.016 1.344 2.00 1.5 8.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 5 31 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 36.8 80 80 1.08 39.6 0.0 39.65 0.94 0.122 1.20 1.07 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 7.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.5 21 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 24.9 104 104 0.99 24.6 0.0 24.65 0.92 0.119 1.20 1.00 0.282 0.337 2.00 1.5 6.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 8 20 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 23.8 128 128 0.91 21.6 0.0 21.55 0.89 0.115 1.20 0.97 0.226 0.263 2.00 1.5 6 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.5 21 75 1.25 1 1 1 26.3 152 152 0.85 22.4 0.0 22.38 0.86 0.112 1.20 0.94 0.239 0.270 2.00 1.5 5.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 10.5 61 75 1.25 1 1 1 76.3 168 168 0.87 66.7 0.0 66.70 0.84 0.109 1.20 0.85 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2
LPI = 0
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B7 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-7 borehole)
205
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS8
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 17/10/1995
Water table depth (m) = 0.2 Location 592397 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2259360 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.45 10 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.75 1 9.4 27 15 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.237 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.6 9.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Juang et al. (2005)
2 1.95 12 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 12.0 36 19 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.242 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.6 9.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Juang & Li (2007)
3 2.45 7 SC 44 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 7.0 46 24 1.70 11.9 5.6 17.50 0.98 0.245 1.20 1.10 0.179 0.236 0.97 1.15 8.78 0.43 0.28 0.18 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 3.45 7 SC 33 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 7.4 65 33 1.70 12.6 5.5 18.10 0.96 0.246 1.20 1.10 0.185 0.244 0.99 1.15 8.28 0.65 0.25 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.07 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 4.95 9 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 10.7 93 47 1.51 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.94 0.244 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.5 7.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 6.45 6 SC-SM 21 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 7.1 122 61 1.34 9.6 4.6 14.21 0.92 0.239 1.20 1.05 0.150 0.190 0.79 1.5 6.78 1.00 0.53 0.35 2.11 1.83 0.01 0.47 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 7.95 15 SC-SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 17.8 150 74 1.15 20.5 0.0 20.50 0.89 0.234 1.20 1.04 0.212 0.266 1.14 1.5 6.03 0.33 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 9.45 25 CL clay 75 1.25 1 1 1 31.3 179 88 1.05 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.86 0.227 1.20 1.04 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.4 5.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 10.65 50decomposed rock 28 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 202 99 1.00 62.8 5.3 68.06 0.84 0.221 1.20 1.01 2.000 2.000 2.00 0.5 4.68 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B8 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-8 borehole)
206
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS9
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 23/9/1994
Water table depth (m) = 0.3 Location 592131 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260111 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.45 4 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.75 1 3.8 27 15 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.224 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 9.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Juang et al. (2005)
2 1.95 2 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 2.0 36 20 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.232 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 9.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Juang & Li (2007)
3 2.45 2 CL clay 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 2.0 46 25 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.237 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 8.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 3.45 8 SC 33 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 8.5 65 34 1.70 14.5 5.5 19.91 0.96 0.240 1.20 1.10 0.205 0.271 1.13 1.5 8.28 0.32 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 4.95 8 SC 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 9.5 93 48 1.51 14.4 0.0 14.35 0.94 0.240 1.20 1.08 0.151 0.196 0.82 1.5 7.53 0.91 0.49 0.32 2.06 1.56 0.00 0.23 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 6.45 11 SC 49 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 13.1 122 61 1.29 16.8 5.6 22.43 0.92 0.236 1.20 1.07 0.240 0.310 1.31 1.75 6.78 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 7.95 29 SC 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 34.4 150 75 1.10 38.0 0.0 38.01 0.89 0.231 1.20 1.09 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.75 6.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 9.45 21 SC 47 75 1.25 1 1 1 26.3 179 89 1.05 27.6 5.6 33.20 0.86 0.225 1.20 1.03 0.786 0.974 2.00 0.5 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 9.87 50decomposed shale 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 187 93 1.02 63.9 0.0 63.92 0.85 0.223 1.20 1.03 2.000 2.000 2.00 0.5 5.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B9 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-9 borehole)
207
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS10
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 30/5/2013
Water table depth (m) = 1.5 Location 594444 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2261025 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.5 4 CH Clay 92 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 4.0 24 24 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.925 9.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Juang et al. (2005)
2 2 2 CH Clay 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 2.0 34 29 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.150 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.925 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Juang & Li (2007)
3 2.5 4 CH Clay 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 4.3 43 33 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.165 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.925 8.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 3.5 4 CH Clay 94 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 4.3 62 42 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.96 0.183 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.925 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 5 4 CL/SM-SP clay 62 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 4.8 91 56 1.44 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.94 0.197 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.4 7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 6.5 7 SM-SP 8 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 8.3 119 70 1.23 10.2 0.4 10.59 0.92 0.202 1.20 1.03 0.122 0.152 0.75 1.4 6.75 0.99 0.60 0.40 2.35 2.37 0.50 0.46 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 8 28 SM 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 33.3 148 84 1.07 35.4 0.0 35.45 0.89 0.203 1.20 1.05 1.218 1.539 2.00 1.5 6 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 9.5 48 SM 14 75 1.25 1 1 1 60.0 176 98 1.01 60.6 2.9 63.46 0.86 0.202 1.20 1.01 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 11 45 SM 75 1.25 1 1 1 56.3 205 111 0.97 54.8 0.0 54.83 0.83 0.198 1.20 0.97 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 12.5 52 SM 14 75 1.25 1 1 1 65.0 233 125 0.95 61.4 2.9 64.35 0.80 0.194 1.20 0.94 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 3.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 14 51 GM 19 75 1.25 1 1 1 63.8 262 139 0.92 58.6 4.3 62.92 0.77 0.189 1.20 0.91 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.167 3 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 15.5 50 GM 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 290 153 0.90 56.1 0.0 56.06 0.74 0.183 1.20 0.88 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.167 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 17 58 GM 75 1.25 1 1 1 72.5 319 166 0.88 63.6 0.0 63.57 0.71 0.178 1.20 0.85 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.167 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2
LPI = 2.53
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B10 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-10 borehole)
208
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log MS11
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 1/8/2003
Water table depth (m) = 0.5 Location 593357 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260930 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of surface
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 2 10 OL-ML 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 10.0 37 22 1.70 17.0 0.0 17.00 0.98 0.214 1.20 1.10 0.174 0.23 1.0725 1.5 9 0.10 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 3.5 7 SM 16.99 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 7.4 65 36 1.70 12.6 3.8 16.49 0.96 0.229 1.20 1.10 0.169 0.224 0.98 1.5 8.25 0.76 0.26 0.17 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007)
3 5 15 SP-SM 5.61 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 17.8 94 49 1.39 24.8 0.0 24.77 0.94 0.232 1.20 1.10 0.285 0.377 1.63 1.5 7.5 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 6.5 29 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 34.4 122 63 1.17 40.3 0.0 40.27 0.92 0.230 1.20 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 8 39 SP-SM 11.28 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 46.3 151 77 1.07 49.8 1.7 51.49 0.89 0.226 1.20 1.08 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 6 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 9.5 50 SM 12.97 75 1.25 1 1 1 62.5 179 91 1.03 64.3 2.5 66.79 0.86 0.220 1.20 1.03 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 5.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 11 41 SP-SM 11.01 75 1.25 1 1 1 51.3 208 104 0.99 50.8 1.6 52.41 0.83 0.214 1.20 0.99 2.000 2.000 2.00 1.5 4.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 12.5 70 SM 22.3 75 1.25 1 1 1 87.5 236 118 0.96 83.9 4.8 88.74 0.80 0.208 1.20 0.95 2.000 2.000 2.00 0.5 3.75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 SPT-N FC% 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B11 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-11 borehole)
209
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log DH1
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 20/6/2014
Water table depth (m) = 3 Location 596421 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260316 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO) : NO
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension).
SPT Depth Measured Soil Flag "Clay" Fines Energy v c v c' N for Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample type "Unsaturated" content ratio, CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 fines (N1)60-cs reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) N (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) ER (%) (kPa) (kPa) content Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 1.5 5 SM Unsaturated 23 45 0.75 1 0.8 1 3.0 24 24 1.70 5.1 4.9 9.98 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.118 n.a. n.a. 1 9.25 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 Juang et al. (2005)
2 2.5 5 SM Unsaturated 5 45 0.75 1 0.85 1 3.2 40 40 1.70 5.4 0.0 5.42 0.98 0.127 1.20 1.07 0.089 n.a. n.a. 1 8.75 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 Juang & Li (2007)
3 3.5 6 SM 5 45 0.75 1 0.85 1 3.8 58 53 1.51 5.8 0.0 5.79 0.96 0.137 1.20 1.05 0.091 0.115 0.84 1 8.25 0.96 0.46 0.30 1.34 0.87 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008)
4 4.5 3 SM 28 45 0.75 1 0.95 1 2.1 77 62 1.39 3.0 5.3 8.24 0.95 0.153 1.20 1.04 0.106 0.133 0.87 1 7.75 1.00 0.40 0.26 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.24 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 5.5 11 SM 5 45 0.75 1 0.95 1 7.8 96 71 1.22 9.6 0.0 9.58 0.93 0.163 1.20 1.03 0.115 0.143 0.88 1 7.25 0.94 0.39 0.26 0.90 0.32 0.00 0.58 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 6.5 13 SP-SM 10 45 0.75 1 0.95 1 9.3 115 80 1.14 10.5 1.1 11.67 0.92 0.170 1.20 1.02 0.130 0.160 0.94 1.5 6.75 0.93 0.31 0.20 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.78 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 8 8 SP-SM 5 45 0.75 1 0.95 1 5.7 143 94 1.04 6.0 0.0 5.96 0.89 0.176 1.20 1.01 0.092 0.111 0.63 1.5 6 1.00 0.79 0.56 3.31 4.00 1.90
8 9.5 15 SP-SM 10 45 0.75 1 1 1 11.3 172 108 0.97 10.9 1.1 12.02 0.86 0.178 1.20 0.99 0.133 0.158 0.89 1 5.25 0.97 0.37 0.24 0.57 0.12 0.00
9 11 23 SP-SM 11 45 0.75 1 1 1 17.3 200 122 0.92 15.8 1.6 17.44 0.83 0.178 1.20 0.98 0.178 0.209 1.18 1.5 4.5 0.56 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 12.5 14 SM 43 45 0.75 1 1 1 10.5 229 135 0.86 9.0 5.6 14.58 0.80 0.176 1.20 0.97 0.153 0.178 1.01 1.5 3.75 0.97 0.23 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 14 11 SM 28 45 0.75 1 1 1 8.3 257 149 0.80 6.6 5.3 11.90 0.77 0.173 1.20 0.96 0.132 0.152 0.88 2 3 1.00 0.39 0.25 0.71 0.22 0.00
12 15.5 19 SM 5 45 0.75 1 1 1 14.3 286 163 0.79 11.3 0.0 11.26 0.74 0.169 1.20 0.95 0.127 0.146 0.86 1.5 2.25 0.99 0.42 0.27 0.47 0.23 0.00
13 17 30 SM-GM 19 45 0.75 1 1 1 22.5 314 177 0.79 17.8 4.3 22.09 0.71 0.165 1.20 0.92 0.234 0.259 1.57 1 1.5 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 18.5 32 GP 2 45 0.75 1 1 1 24.0 343 190 0.77 18.5 0.0 18.53 0.69 0.161 1.20 0.92 0.189 0.209 1.30 1.5 0.75 0.36 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 20 27 SC 5 45 0.75 1 1 1 20.3 371 204 0.73 14.9 0.0 14.87 0.66 0.157 1.20 0.92 0.155 0.172 1.10 1.5 0 0.80 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 21.5 29 SM 16 45 0.75 1 1 1 21.8 400 218 0.72 15.7 3.6 19.25 0.64 0.153 1.20 0.90 0.197 0.213 1.40 1.5 0.52 0.05 0.02
17 23 46 SM 18 45 0.75 1 1 1 34.5 428 232 0.76 26.2 4.1 30.25 0.62 0.149 1.20 0.83 0.501 0.500 2.00 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.00
18 24.5 82 SC 5 45 0.75 1 1 1 61.5 457 246 0.79 48.7 0.0 48.68 0.60 0.145 1.20 0.74 2.000 1.774 2.00 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.00
19 26 50 SC 22 45 0.75 1 1 1 37.5 485 259 0.74 27.9 4.8 32.66 0.58 0.142 1.20 0.78 0.717 0.674 2.00 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.00
20 27.5 31 SC 25 45 0.75 1 1 1 23.3 514 273 0.66 15.4 5.1 20.48 0.57 0.139 1.20 0.86 0.212 0.220 1.59 1.5 0.35 0.02 0.01
21 29 53 SC 19 45 0.75 1 1 1 39.8 542 287 0.73 29.1 4.3 33.36 0.56 0.136 1.20 0.75 0.809 0.729 2.00 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.00
22 30.5 16 CL clay 94 45 0.75 1 1 1 12.0 571 301 0.57 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.55 0.134 1.20 0.68 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.5
23 32 21 CL clay 45 0.75 1 1 1 15.8 599 315 0.58 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.54 0.133 1.20 0.66 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1
8.90 6.16 1.90
2 2
LPI = 8.90
2
4 4 4
6 6 6
8 SPT-N FC% 8 8
10 10 10
12 12 12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 22 22
24 24 24
26 26 26
28 28 28
30 30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B12 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (DH-1 borehole)
210
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ1
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 6/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 1.5 Location 593363 N
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2259010 E
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 0.2 4 clay 3 3 2.67 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
KPT, SPT Factor of safety LPI
2 0.4 3 clay 6 6 2.13 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
3 0.6 9 clay 10 10 5.37 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008) 0 0 0
4 0.8 12 Unsaturated 13 13 6.98 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.098 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.6 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 1 15 Unsaturated 6.6976 16 16 8.60 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.109 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.5 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 0.50
6 1.2 23 Unsaturated 19 19 12.91 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.139 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 Maurer et al. (2014) 1 1 1
7 1.4 27 Unsaturated 22 22 15.07 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.157 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 1.6 40 26 25 22.07 0.99 0.134 1.20 1.10 0.234 0.310 2.00 0.2 9.2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 1.8 36 30 27 19.92 0.99 0.142 1.20 1.10 0.205 0.271 1.90 0.2 9.1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 2 2
10 2 31 34 29 17.22 0.98 0.150 1.20 1.10 0.176 0.233 1.55 0.2 9 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 2.2 28 37 30 15.61 0.98 0.156 1.20 1.10 0.161 0.213 1.36 0.2 8.9 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 2.4 27 41 32 15.07 0.98 0.162 1.20 1.10 0.157 0.207 1.28 0.2 8.8 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 3 3
13 2.6 24 5.6218 45 34 13.45 0.98 0.167 1.20 1.10 0.144 0.190 1.14 0.2 8.7 0.22 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 2.8 23 49 36 12.91 0.97 0.172 1.20 1.10 0.139 0.184 1.07 0.2 8.6 0.44 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 3 20 53 38 11.29 0.97 0.175 1.20 1.10 0.127 0.168 0.96 0.2 8.5 0.73 0.29 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.00 4 4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
16 3.2 20 56 40 11.29 0.97 0.179 1.20 1.09 0.127 0.167 0.93 0.2 8.4 0.78 0.32 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00
17 3.4 17 60 41 9.68 0.97 0.182 1.20 1.08 0.116 0.151 0.83 0.2 8.3 0.94 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.20 0.00
18 3.6 23 64 43 12.91 0.96 0.185 1.20 1.09 0.139 0.182 0.99 0.2 8.2 0.68 0.25 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 5 5 5
19 3.8 37 68 45 20.46 0.96 0.187 1.20 1.10 0.212 0.280 1.50 0.2 8.1 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 4 46 72 47 25.31 0.96 0.189 1.20 1.10 0.297 0.394 2.00 0.2 8 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 4.2 32 75 49 17.76 6 6 6
22 4.4 30 79 51 16.68
23 4.6 36 83 52 19.92
24 4.8 37 87 54 20.46 7 7 7
25 5 44 91 56 24.23
8 8 8
KPT
9 FC% 9 9
SPT
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B13 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-1 borehole)
211
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ2
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 6/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 0.8 Location 594710
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2261194
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
KPT, SPT Factor of safety LPI
1 0.2 3 clay 3 3 2.13 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 Juang et al. (2005)
2 0.4 2 clay 6 6 1.59 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 Juang & Li (2007) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
3 0.6 12 clay 10 10 6.98 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al (2008) 0 0 0
4 0.8 10 10.6 13 13 5.90 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.091 0.121 0.93 0.2 9.6 0.26 0.32 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.31 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 1 9 17 15 5.37 1.00 0.147 1.20 1.10 0.088 0.117 0.79 0.2 9.5 0.74 0.53 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.00 0.64 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 10.41
6 1.2 6 20 16 3.75 0.99 0.160 1.20 1.10 0.079 0.105 0.65 0.2 9.4 0.97 0.76 0.53 0.65 0.78 0.34 0.83 Maurer et al. (2014) 1 1 1
7 1.4 6 2.2625 24 18 3.75 0.99 0.170 1.20 1.10 0.079 0.105 0.61 0.2 9.3 0.99 0.82 0.58 0.72 0.87 0.44
8 1.6 8 28 20 4.83 0.99 0.179 1.20 1.10 0.085 0.113 0.63 0.2 9.2 0.99 0.80 0.56 0.68 0.82 0.39
9 1.8 8 32 22 4.83 0.99 0.186 1.20 1.10 0.085 0.113 0.61 0.2 9.1 0.99 0.83 0.59 0.72 0.87 0.44 2 2 2
10 2 12 36 24 6.98 0.98 0.191 1.20 1.10 0.098 0.130 0.68 0.2 9 0.98 0.72 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.27
11 2.2 10 39 26 5.90 0.98 0.196 1.20 1.10 0.091 0.121 0.62 0.2 8.9 1.00 0.81 0.58 0.68 0.83 0.41
12 2.4 12 43 28 6.98 0.98 0.200 1.20 1.10 0.098 0.130 0.65 0.2 8.8 0.99 0.77 0.54 0.62 0.74 0.33 3 3 3
13 2.6 15 47 29 8.60 0.98 0.203 1.20 1.10 0.109 0.144 0.71 0.2 8.7 0.98 0.68 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.20
14 2.8 20 51 31 11.29 0.97 0.206 1.20 1.10 0.127 0.168 0.82 0.2 8.6 0.88 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.00
15 3 20 0.67 55 33 11.29 0.97 0.209 1.20 1.10 0.127 0.168 0.81 0.2 8.5 0.90 0.51 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.00 4 4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
16 3.2 22 58 35 12.37 0.97 0.211 1.20 1.10 0.135 0.179 0.85 0.2 8.4 0.85 0.44 0.29 0.26 0.15 0.00
17 3.4 26 62 37 14.53 0.97 0.213 1.20 1.10 0.152 0.201 0.95 0.2 8.3 0.63 0.30 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.00
18 3.6 30 66 39 16.68 0.96 0.214 1.20 1.10 0.171 0.226 1.05 0.2 8.2 0.36 0.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 5 5
19 3.8 20 70 40 11.29 0.96 0.216 1.20 1.09 0.127 0.167 0.77 0.2 8.1 0.96 0.56 0.38 0.37 0.35 0.04
20 4 18 74 42 10.22 0.96 0.217 1.20 1.08 0.120 0.155 0.72 0.2 8 0.99 0.66 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.16
21 4.2 22 77 44 12.37 0.95 0.218 1.20 1.08 0.135 0.176 0.81 0.2 7.9 0.93 0.50 0.33 0.30 0.24 0.00 6 6 6
22 4.4 16 81 46 9.14 0.95 0.219 1.20 1.07 0.112 0.144 0.66 0.2 7.8 1.00 0.75 0.52 0.53 0.63 0.27
23 4.6 24 85 48 13.45 0.95 0.219 1.20 1.08 0.144 0.186 0.85 0.2 7.7 0.89 0.44 0.29 0.23 0.13 0.00
24 4.8 26 89 50 14.53 0.94 0.220 1.20 1.08 0.152 0.197 0.90 0.2 7.6 0.82 0.36 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.00 7 7 7
25 5 30 93 51 16.68 0.94 0.220 1.20 1.08 0.171 0.222 1.01 0.2 7.5 0.57 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
26 5.2 11 96 53 6.44 0.94 0.221 1.20 1.05 0.095 0.120 0.54 0.2 7.4 1.00 0.90 0.67 0.68 0.81 0.48
27 5.4 11 100 55 6.44 0.93 0.221 1.20 1.05 0.095 0.119 0.54 0.2 7.3 1.00 0.90 0.68 0.67 0.80 0.48 8 8 8
28 5.6 21 104 57 11.83 0.93 0.221 1.20 1.06 0.131 0.167 0.75 0.2 7.2 0.98 0.60 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.07
29 5.8 40 108 59 22.07 0.93 0.221 1.20 1.08 0.234 0.304 1.37 0.2 7.1 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
KPT
30 6 60 112 61 32.85 0.92 0.221 1.20 1.10 0.740 0.979 2.00 0.2 7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 FC% 9 9
31 6.2 49 115 62 26.93 0.92 0.221 1.20 1.08 0.344 0.449 2.00 0.2 6.9 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SPT
32 6.4 57 119 64 31.24 0.92 0.221 1.20 1.10 0.574 0.758 2.00 0.2 6.8 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B14 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-2 borehole)
212
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ3
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 6/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 1.3 Location 595845
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260952
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 0.2 8 clay 3 3 4.83 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 0.4 7 clay 6 6 4.29 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007) KPT, SPT
3 0.6 5 clay 10 10 3.21 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008) Factor of safety LPI
4 0.8 10 clay 13 13 5.90 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.6 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
5 1 15 clay 16 16 8.60 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.5 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014) 0 0 0
6 1.2 17 clay 19 19 9.68 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.4 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014)
7 1.4 19 clay 23 22 10.76 0.99 0.135 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.3 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
LPI = 0
8 1.6 19 clay 27 24 10.76 0.99 0.145 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.2 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1 1
9 1.8 26 clay 30 25 14.53 0.99 0.153 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.1 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 2 25 clay 34 27 13.99 0.98 0.160 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 9 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 2
11 2.2 37 clay 38 29 20.46 0.98 0.166 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2
12 2.4 35 clay 42 31 19.38 0.98 0.172 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 2.6 36 clay 46 33 19.92 0.98 0.176 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 3 3
14 2.8 35 clay 49 35 19.38 0.97 0.181 1.20 1.10 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 3 38 53 36 21.00 0.97 0.184 1.20 1.10 0.219 0.289 1.57 0.2 8.5 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 3.2 46 57 38 25.31 0.97 0.187 1.20 1.10 0.297 0.394 2.00 0.2 8.4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 4 4
Depth (m)
17 3.4 47 61 40 25.85 0.97 0.190 1.20 1.10 0.312 0.412 2.00 0.2 8.3 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
18 3.6 40 65 42 22.07 0.96 0.192 1.20 1.10 0.234 0.310 1.61 0.2 8.2 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 3.8 41 68 44 22.61 0.96 0.195 1.20 1.10 0.243 0.321 1.65 0.2 8.1 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 5 5
20 4 37 72 46 20.46 0.96 0.197 1.20 1.10 0.212 0.280 1.42 0.2 8 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 4.2 35 76 47 19.38 0.95 0.198 1.20 1.10 0.199 0.262 1.32 0.2 7.9 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 4.4 42 80 49 23.15 0.95 0.200 1.20 1.10 0.252 0.333 1.67 0.2 7.8 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 6 6
23 4.6 42 84 51 23.15 0.95 0.201 1.20 1.10 0.252 0.333 1.66 0.2 7.7 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 4.8 42 87 53 23.15 0.94 0.202 1.20 1.10 0.252 0.333 1.64 0.2 7.6 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 7 7
25 5 39 91 55 21.54 0.94 0.203 1.20 1.09 0.226 0.295 1.45 0.2 7.5 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
26 5.2 44 95 57 24.23 0.94 0.204 1.20 1.09 0.273 0.358 1.75 0.2 7.4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
27 5.4 47 99 58 25.85 0.93 0.205 1.20 1.09 0.312 0.409 2.00 0.2 7.3 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 KPT 8 8
28 5.6 43 103 60 23.69 0.93 0.206 1.20 1.08 0.262 0.340 1.65 0.2 7.2 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
29 5.8 47 106 62 25.85 0.93 0.206 1.20 1.08 0.312 0.405 1.97 0.2 7.1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FC%
30 6 51 110 64 28.00 0.92 0.207 1.20 1.08 0.384 0.500 2.00 0.2 7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 9
31 6.2 55 114 66 30.16 0.92 0.207 1.20 1.09 0.495 0.647 2.00 0.2 6.9 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SPT 9
32 6.4 58 118 68 31.78 0.92 0.207 1.20 1.09 0.622 0.815 2.00 0.2 6.8 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
33 6.6 65 122 70 35.55 0.91 0.208 1.20 1.10 1.246 1.648 2.00 0.2 6.7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B15 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-3 borehole)
213
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ4
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 7/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 100 (none) Location 591949
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2258700
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
KPT, SPT Factor of safety LPI
1 0.2 11 Unsaturated 3 3 6.44 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 0.095 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.01 Juang et al. (2005)
2 0.4 6 Unsaturated 6 6 3.75 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.079 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.32 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! Juang & Li (2007) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
3 0.6 6 Unsaturated 10 10 3.75 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.079 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.53 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! Juang et al (2008) 0 0 0
4 0.8 5 Unsaturated 13 13 3.21 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.076 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.6 0.74 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008)
5 1 7 Unsaturated 16 16 4.29 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.082 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.5 0.71 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 0
6 1.2 8 Unsaturated 19 19 4.83 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.085 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.4 0.72 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014) 1 1 1
7 1.4 9 Unsaturated 22 22 5.37 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.088 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.3 0.72 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
8 1.6 10 Unsaturated 26 26 5.90 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.091 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.2 0.71 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
9 1.8 10 Unsaturated 29 29 5.90 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.091 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.1 0.76 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 2 2 2
10 2 13 Unsaturated 32 32 7.52 0.98 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.101 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9 0.59 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
11 2.2 14 Unsaturated 35 35 8.06 0.98 0.128 1.20 1.09 0.105 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.9 0.56 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
12 2.4 17 Unsaturated 38 38 9.68 0.98 0.127 1.20 1.09 0.116 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.8 0.37 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 3 3 3
13 2.6 19 Unsaturated 42 42 10.76 0.98 0.127 1.20 1.08 0.123 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.7 0.26 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
14 2.8 19 Unsaturated 45 45 10.76 0.97 0.127 1.20 1.08 0.123 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.6 0.29 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
15 3 24 Unsaturated 48 48 13.45 0.97 0.126 1.20 1.08 0.144 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.5 0.07 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 4 4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
16 3.2 17 Unsaturated 51 51 9.68 0.97 0.126 1.20 1.06 0.116 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.4 0.50 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
17 3.4 23 Unsaturated 54 54 12.91 0.97 0.126 1.20 1.06 0.139 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.3 0.13 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
18 3.6 24 Unsaturated 58 58 13.45 0.96 0.125 1.20 1.06 0.144 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.2 0.10 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 5 5 5
19 3.8 19 Unsaturated 61 61 10.76 0.96 0.125 1.20 1.05 0.123 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.1 0.42 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
20 4 26 Unsaturated 64 64 14.53 0.96 0.124 1.20 1.05 0.152 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8 0.06 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
21 4.2 24 Unsaturated 67 67 13.45 0.95 0.124 1.20 1.04 0.144 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.9 0.14 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 6 6 6
22 4.4 16 Unsaturated 70 70 9.14 0.95 0.124 1.20 1.03 0.112 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.8 0.71 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
23 4.6 17 Unsaturated 74 74 9.68 0.95 0.123 1.20 1.03 0.116 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.7 0.65 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
24 4.8 22 Unsaturated 77 77 12.37 0.94 0.123 1.20 1.03 0.135 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.6 0.28 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 7 7 7
25 5 22 Unsaturated 80 80 12.37 0.94 0.122 1.20 1.02 0.135 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.5 0.30 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
26 5.2 16 Unsaturated 83 83 9.14 0.94 0.122 1.20 1.02 0.112 n.a. n.a. 0.2 7.4 0.76 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
8 8 8
KPT
9 FC% 9 9
SPT
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B16 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-4 borehole)
214
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ5
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 7/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 0.4 Location 592378
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260796
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 0.2 unsaturated 3 3 0.51 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 0.063 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 Juang et al. (2005) KPT, SPT Factor of safety
2 0.4 unsaturated 6 6 0.51 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.063 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 Juang & Li (2007) LPI
3 0.6 1 14.749 10 8 1.05 1.00 0.161 1.20 1.10 0.066 0.087 0.54 0.2 9.7 0.95 0.90 0.68 0.90 1.07 0.64 0.01 Juang et al (2008) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
4 0.8 3 14 10 2.13 1.00 0.180 1.20 1.10 0.071 0.094 0.52 0.2 9.6 0.99 0.92 0.70 0.92 1.09 0.68 0.17 Papathanassiou (2008) 0 0 0
5 1 11 18 12 6.44 1.00 0.194 1.20 1.10 0.095 0.125 0.65 0.2 9.5 0.91 0.77 0.54 0.67 0.80 0.36 0.50 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 1.2 10 22 14 5.90 0.99 0.203 1.20 1.10 0.091 0.121 0.60 0.2 9.4 0.97 0.84 0.61 0.76 0.93 0.49 0.70 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 6.82
7 1.4 12 25 16 6.98 0.99 0.210 1.20 1.10 0.098 0.130 0.62 0.2 9.3 0.97 0.81 0.58 0.71 0.86 0.43 1 1 1
8 1.6 15 29 17 8.60 0.99 0.216 1.20 1.10 0.109 0.144 0.67 0.2 9.2 0.94 0.74 0.52 0.61 0.73 0.31
9 1.8 20 33 19 11.29 0.99 0.220 1.20 1.10 0.127 0.168 0.77 0.2 9.1 0.79 0.58 0.38 0.43 0.41 0.06
10 2 26 37 21 14.53 0.98 0.223 1.20 1.10 0.152 0.201 0.90 0.2 9 0.43 0.36 0.23 0.18 0.01 0.00 2 2 2
11 2.2 19 20.59 41 23 10.76 0.98 0.226 1.20 1.10 0.123 0.163 0.72 0.2 8.9 0.75 0.65 0.44 0.49 0.54 0.16
12 2.4 23 44 25 12.91 0.98 0.228 1.20 1.10 0.139 0.184 0.81 0.2 8.8 0.77 0.50 0.33 0.34 0.27 0.00
13 2.6 18 48 27 10.22 0.98 0.230 1.20 1.10 0.120 0.158 0.69 0.2 8.7 0.97 0.71 0.49 0.54 0.62 0.24
3 3 3
14 2.8 25 52 28 13.99 0.97 0.231 1.20 1.10 0.148 0.196 0.84 0.2 8.6 0.73 0.44 0.29 0.27 0.16 0.00
15 3 52 56 30 28.54 0.97 0.233 1.20 1.10 0.407 0.538 2.00 0.2 8.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 4 4
16 3.2 75 60 32 40.94 0.97 0.234 1.20 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 0.2 8.4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 KPT 8 8
FC%
9 9
SPT 9
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B17 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-5 borehole)
215
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ6
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 7/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 2.3 Location 592982
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2258560
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki surface Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 0.2 5 unsaturated 3 3 3.21 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 0.076 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang et al. (2005) KPT, SPT Factor of safety
2 0.4 8 unsaturated 6 6 4.83 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.085 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Juang & Li (2007) LPI
3 0.6 5 unsaturated 10 10 3.21 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.076 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juang et al (2008) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
4 0.8 4 unsaturated 13 13 2.67 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.073 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.6 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Papathanassiou (2008) 0 0 0
5 1 8 unsaturated 16 16 4.83 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.085 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.5 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 1.2 7 unsaturated 19 19 4.29 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.082 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.4 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 0.73
7 1.4 10 unsaturated 22 22 5.90 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.091 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.3 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 1
8 1.6 7 unsaturated 26 26 4.29 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.082 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.2 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 1.8 3 unsaturated 29 29 2.13 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.08 0.071 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.1 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 2 12 unsaturated 32 32 6.98 0.98 0.128 1.20 1.09 0.098 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 2 2
11 2.2 5 unsaturated 35 35 3.21 0.98 0.128 1.20 1.07 0.076 n.a. n.a. 0.2 8.9 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 2.4 6 39 38 3.75 0.98 0.131 1.20 1.07 0.079 0.102 0.78 0.2 8.8 0.98 0.55 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.03
13 2.6 8 5.4253 43 40 4.83 0.98 0.136 1.20 1.07 0.085 0.110 0.80 0.2 8.7 0.96 0.51 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.00
3 3 3
14 2.8 30 46 41 16.68 0.97 0.142 1.20 1.10 0.171 0.226 1.60 0.2 8.6 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 3 57 50 43 31.24 0.97 0.146 1.20 1.10 0.574 0.760 2.00 0.2 8.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 4 4
16 3.2 82
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
17 3.4 81
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 KPT 8 8
FC%
9 9
SPT 9
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B18 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-6 borehole)
216
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log KZ7
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.8 Date of drilling 8/11/2013
Water table depth (m) = 100 none Location 591833
Average above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2260392
Average below water table (kN/m3)= 19
SPT Depth Soil Flag "Clay" Fines v c v c' Stress MSF K for CRR for Factor Hi Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction potential index (LPI) Prob. Of surface mainfestation
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of surface
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki Reference
number (m) (USCS) "Unreliable" (%) (kPa) (kPa) Coeff, rd Sand sand atm safety (m) 2004 (2006) al. 2008 Li (2007) al (2008) mainfestation
1 0.2 6 unsaturated 3 3 3.75 1.01 0.131 1.20 1.10 0.079 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.9 0.08 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.01 Juang et al. (2005) KPT, SPT Factor of safety
2 0.4 7 unsaturated 6 6 4.29 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.082 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.8 0.25 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! Juang & Li (2007) LPI
3 0.6 9 unsaturated 10 10 5.37 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.088 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.7 0.30 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! Juang et al (2008) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 0 5 10 15 20
4 0.8 10 unsaturated 13 13 5.90 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.091 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.6 0.36 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.04 Papathanassiou (2008) 0 0 0
5 1 13 unsaturated 16 16 7.52 1.00 0.130 1.20 1.10 0.101 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.5 0.26 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.09 Maurer et al. (2014)
6 1.2 17 unsaturated 19 19 9.68 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.116 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.4 0.11 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.30 Maurer et al. (2014) LPI = 0
7 1.4 14 unsaturated 22 22 8.06 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.105 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.3 0.34 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 1 1 1
8 1.6 15 unsaturated 26 26 8.60 0.99 0.129 1.20 1.10 0.109 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.2 0.33 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
9 1.8 14 unsaturated 29 29 8.06 0.99 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.105 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9.1 0.46 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
10 2 15 unsaturated 32 32 8.60 0.98 0.128 1.20 1.10 0.109 n.a. n.a. 0.2 9 0.44 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! 2 2 2
11 2.2 16 35 35 9.14
12 2.4 14 38 38 8.06
13 2.6 14 42 42 8.06
3 3 3
14 2.8 15 45 45 8.60
15 3 14 48 48 8.06
4 4 4
16 3.2 75 40.94
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
17 3.4 40 22.07
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 KPT 8
8
FC%
9 9
SPT 9
10 10
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B19 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-7 borehole)
217
CURRICULUM VITAE