Liquefaction-induced Damage in Recent

Earthquakes and New Countermeasures

against Liquefaction

Masakatsu Miyajima, Kanazawa University, Japan

Contents
1. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Hokkaido

Iburi-tobu Earthquake in Japan

2. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Slawesi Island

Earthquake in Indonesia

3. Countermeasure by Log Piling Method

4. Countermeasure by Gravel and Geosynthetics

5. Conclusions 2
Contents
1. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Hokkaido

Iburi-tobu Earthquake in Japan

2. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Slawesi Island

Earthquake in Indonesia

3. Countermeasure by Log Piling Method

4. Countermeasure by Gravel and Geosynthetics

5. Conclusions 3
Outline of Earthquake

Date : 2018.9.6 3:07AM(Local Time)

Epicenter : Hokkaido Iburi-Tobu Region
（N42.7°, E142.0°）
Depth of Focus : 37km
Magnitude MJMA : 6.7, MW:6.6 Sapporo

Maximum JMA SI : ７
（AtsumaTown,
KiK-net Oiwake）
Outline of damage

Number of casualties : 41
Number of injuries : 675
Totally collapsed houses : 32
Partially collapsed houses : 18
Lateral spreading of liquefied soil
(Satoduka, Sapporo City)
Lateral spreading of liquefied soil
(Satoduka, Sapporo City)
Contents
1. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Hokkaido

Iburi-tobu Earthquake in Japan

2. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Slawesi Island

Earthquake in Indonesia

3. Countermeasure by Log Piling Method

4. Countermeasure by Gravel and Geosynthetics

5. Conclusions 14
Outline of Sulawesi EQ

• Date：2018.9.28. 18：02：43（Local Time）

• Magnitude: Mw 7.5
• Fault: Left lateral slip

• Number of casualties：3,673
• Number of missing: 667
 Ｅｘｔｒａｃｔｅｄ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ Ａｓａｈｉ Ｓｈｉｎｂｕｎ Ｎｅｗｓｐａｐｅｒ
Direction of movement
Epicenter

Donggala

Boundary of movement
Palu
Makassar

Jakarta
Lombok Sulawesi
Bali
Fault moved north-south direction.
Left-lateral strike-slip. Tsunami height is not large
16
because a vertical slip is small.
Strong ground motion record in Palu city
（JICA, BMKG）
Strong ground motion record in Palu city
（JICA, BMKG）
Response spectra in Palu city

Response Acc. Spectrum（h=0.05） Response Pseudo Vel. Spectrum（h=0.05）

Large scale ground flow
Balaroa

Petobo

Jono Oge
Balaroa district in Palu city

a1
a3

a1 a4
a3
a2
a3
a2
Petobo district in Palu city

b2 b1

b3
b2 b1

b3

b1
Jono Oge village

c1

c1

c3
c2 c2
c3
Sibalaya village

Moved road and houses

350m

Temporary road after the event

Sibalaya village

After the earthquake

Before the earthquake

Concluding remarks

• Not only ground shaking but also geo-hazard

induced by earthquake should be paid
attention.

• We should clarify the mechanism of large

ground flow.

• Now we collect geological data at the sites.

Contents
1. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Hokkaido

Iburi-tobu Earthquake in Japan

2. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Slawesi Island

Earthquake in Indonesia

3. Countermeasure by Log Piling Method

4. Countermeasure by Gravel and Geosynthetics

5. Conclusions 28
 Liquefaction countermeasure technique using the logs

■ Use logs from forest thinning

There is a concern about the increasing of CO2 emissions due to
conventional countermeasure methods

▶ Keeps the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ground

▶ Reducing Greenhouse gas emission
▶ Activate forestry business

By piling the logs, carbon dioxide will remain underground and

effects such as measures against global warming can be obtained
29
Liquefaction countermeasure technique
■ Log piling

House
Ｖｖ

▶ Increase the density of the ground by piling logs around

the structure
30
 Liquefaction countermeasure technique

■ The Great East Japan Earthquake

Liquefaction damage occurred in a large area[3]

Lattice wall

Lattice wall improvement method

31
[3]Urayasu City HP：http://www.city.urayasu.lg.jp/todokede/anzen/shinsai/ekijoka/
 Liquefaction countermeasure technique
■ Lattice wall installation（Implemented in Urayasu city）

house
Ｖｖ

▶ Reducing the shear deformation of the ground by lattice wall

32
Outline of tests
■ Overview figure

Interval 30mm

28 Logs

Thickness 12mm

Length 300mm

Log piling Lattice wall installation

33
Test devices (2/4)
■ Testsituation〉
〈Current materials and Measuring instruments
Japan is seismic great nation, and we
get a lot of unpreventable disaster.

Log model
Length 300 mm
Diameter 12 mm

34
Test videos
■ Comparison of countermeasures effect

No countermeasure Countermeasure

35
 Experimental result and discussion (1/4)
■ Excess pore water pressure
Vibration
【Log piling】
Untreated ground (P3)
Treated ground (P1)
0.4

【Lattice wall】
Untreated ground (P3)
Treated ground (P1)

0.8

▶ The pore water pressure ratio in the log piling reduced more
than the use of the lattice wall
36
4) 2016 Kumamoto earthquake reconstruction assistance boring log emergency public site
Experimental result and discussion (2/4)
■Settlement of the structure
Vibration

78mm
Subsidence (mm)

61mm
57mm

No countermeasure
Log piling
Lattice wall

Time (s)

▶ The settlement is reduced in comparison with no countermeasure

▶ The difference in pore water pressure was significant,
but amount of final settlement was slight
→ Since the log moved to the side, the settlement can not be reduced
37
Outline of tests
■ Overview figure

Interval 30mm

64 Logs

Length 300mm

Vertical Inclined
38
Outline of tests
■ Overview figure

Vertical ＋Fixed top Inclined＋Fixed top

39
Experimental result and discussion (3/4)
■ Excess pore water pressure
Vibration

0.6

40
Experimental result and discussion (3/4)
■ Excess pore water pressure
Vibration

0.6

0.4

▶ the pore water pressure ratio is reduced by inclined piling logs

▶ The results of fixed top is small difference

19
Experimental result and discussion (4/4)
■Settlement of the structure
Vibration

49mm
42mm
24mm
18mm

▶ The inclined piling has a large reduction of the settlement

▶ The settlement is reduced more by applying fixed top

20
 Conclusion of first countermeasure

• The maximum value of the water pressure was

reduced in the improved ground by log piling.

• Related to amount of settlement, log piling showed

similar result to lattice wall

• Settlement reducing effect was greater for Inclined

piling than for vertical piling

• By fixing the top of the log, the movement of the

log was reduced and the countermeasure effect
became large
21
Contents
1. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Hokkaido

Iburi-tobu Earthquake in Japan

2. Liquefaction Damage in the 2018 Slawesi Island

Earthquake in Indonesia

3. Countermeasure by Log Piling Method

4. Countermeasure by Gravel and Geosynthetics

5. Conclusions 44
Proposed Mitigation
Gravel : high friction, permeability,
availability, and economical
Characteristic of Geosynthetics:
 High tensile strength
 High durability (weather, chemical, and heat resistant)
 Workable (easy to be executed)
 Environmentally friendly
 Economical;
 Paralink 300L, 1,250 JPY/m2
 Vibration (SCP method), 10,000 JPY/m2
 Static clamping sand piling method, 20,000-30,000
JPY/m2
45
Experimental set up

46
Experimental set up

4 Cases observed :
No measures (Case 1)
Gravel only (Case 2)
Gravel & Geosynthetic type I (Case 3)
Gravel & Geosynthetic type II (Case 4)
47
 Experimental results (pore water pressure)

1.2 P1 1.2
P2
1 Case 1 Case 1
1
0.8 Case 2 Case 2
PWPR

0.8

PWPR
0.6 Case 3 Case 3
0.6
0.4 Case 4 Case 4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 Case 1: No measures
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec) Case 2: Gravel only
Time (sec) Case 3: Gravel & Geosynthetic type I
Case 4: Gravel & Geosynthetic type II

Water pressures ratio measured in the loose zone (P1) is

around 1 for all cases, indicate the occurrence of
liquefaction
In the dense area, water pressure ratio obtained is around
0.4, signify no liquefaction occured
The presence of the reinforcement layer has an
insignificant effect on pore water pressures 48
Experimental results (settlements)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
POINT NO.
LOOSE DENSE
1 23.9 10.6
2 20.8 3.7
3 19.1 5.2
4 27.8 3.1
5 21.4 5.4
6 24.3 5.7
7 27.3 14.1
8 11.5 2.1
9 15.9 3.5
10 16.9 2.1
AVERAGE 20.9 5.6

DIFFERENTIAL
15.3
SETTLEMENT

Residual settlement of the ground surface was

measured at 20 points (each 10 points for each
soil condition)
Ground settlements measured are averaged and
the result can be seen in the following slide 49
Experimental results (settlements)

In the loose sand condition, the

settlement reduced around
19.1%, 36.3%, and 54.5% in Case
Ground Vertical Displacement
25
2, Case 3, and Case 4,
Averaged sett. (mm)

20.9
20 16.9 19.1 respectively.
15 % 13.3 36.3 54.5
% 9.5 %
10 5.6
5
3.7
32.1
3.9 3.8
Whereas in the dense condition,
%
0
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 the ground subsidence
Loose sand (Dr=50%) Dense Sand (Dr=90%) decreased around 32%.
Averaged ground settlements
The settlement differences
between loose and dense areas
for every case also observed.

50
Experimental results (settlements)

Differential Settlement
Differential sett. (mm)

20
15.3 13.2 The differential
9.4
10
38%
5.7 62% settlements was
0
reduced around 38%
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 in Case 3 and 62% in
Case 4.

51
Conclusion of second countermeasure
This study presented the use of gravel and geosynthetics to
mitigate liquefaction-induced ground deformation.
The effectiveness of gravel and geosynthetics quantitatively
observed by performed a series of shaking table test
According to the laboratory tests result, it is confirmed that
gravel and geosynthetics effectively reduced vertical ground
deformation.
Gravel and geosynthetics are highly recommended as an
effective and affordable technique to mitigate ground
deformation triggered by liquefaction, specifically for
detached residential house/building and roads, due to its
effetiveness, economics, and workability. 52
Thank you for your kind attention.