You are on page 1of 5

Slide 1

If we can start
Good afternoon ladies and gentleman
Honorable Prof. Wan Hwe Wu and Po-Kai Wu
In this special occasion I would like to introduce my self. My name is Muhammad Hamzah Fansuri,
and my advisor is Prof. Muhsiung Chang. My Prof. can’t attend because he have event in USA.
I proudly propose our paper with title “The Behavior of Existing Pile Foundation Against Buckling
Instability Due To Liquefaction”. I take this title with case study in Coal-Fired Power Station Tanjung
Jati B, Jepara, Central Java, Indonesia.
Also my team will presentation in conference AFC#4 in Seoul, South Korea with this topic.
Let’s et down to the business.

Slide 2
Before going to my presentation I would like to explain my outline. There are 4 (four) sub topic in
my presentation;
a) Introduction
b) Aim & Objection
c) Research Methodology
d) Result and Conclusion

Slide 3
Indonesia lies on the earthquake-prone area because its location is situated at the junction of 4 (four)
major tectonic plates of the earth which are Eurasia, Indo-Australia, Pacific and Philippine.

Slide 4
Central Java Province as one of the areas adjacent to the plate collision zone is prone to tectonic
earthquakes. Some earthquake with a magnitude of 5 SR (Scala Richter) occurred in the past years in
various regions of Central Java, although there were casualties and significant damage.
Nowadays, Indonesia has been facing rapid development by the industrial sectors which resulted in
increasing demand for electricity year by year.
To fulfill electricity supply especially in Java and Bali Islands, The Indonesian Government has
constructed a Coal-Fired Power Station Tanjung Jati B Unit 5&6 with a capacity 2X1000 MW.
This project is expected to meet electricity supply in as much as 12% of the demand electricity in
Java and Bali Islands.
Slide 5
After strong earthquake look like number 1.
It’s possible liquefaction. The liquefaction phenomenon normally occurs on the saturated non-
cohesive soil (silt and sand). In this condition the effective soil stress reduces significantly due to
dynamic load, such as earthquake loading or pillars driving subjected on it for interval duration, look
like number 2.
We know the risk such as risk of failure on the building structure and also risk of a failure that could
occurs on the supporting structure of the building above it. The collapse of the supporting structures
of each pile is observed in potentially liquefied soil after the occurred of the earthquake.
For those understanding about earthquake, liquefaction and buckling.
We can assessment of liquefaction potential, for the next future I want to evaluate the safety of
existing pile foundation against the buckling mechanism. But this seminar I want to a few explain
about my future research.

Slide 6
Figure (a) the collapse of a pile foundation caused by the Kobe Earthquake and Figure (b) failure of
pile foundation at surface soil level in 1995 caused by Kobe earthquake.
In both cases the building had to be demolished following the earthquake. The overall failure pattern
for these buildings may appear to be the same in the sense that both of then severely tilted, but they
were founded on the different types of grounds.
Soil liquefies, losing its shear strength, causing it to flow taking with it any overlaying non-liquefied
crush. These soil layers drag the pile with them, causing a bending failure. In term of soil pile
interaction, this mechanism assumes that the soil push the pile.

Slide 7
Case study
The location of Tanjung jati B Coal-Fired Power Station Unit 5&6 is administratively located in
Tubanan Village, Kembang District, Jepara Regency, Central Java, approximately 32 km north
The result of the identification and classification showed that the dominant soil was that alluvial at
the river and the old river. The coastal sediment was brought to this area through small rivers flowing
around the project site. The top deposit is comprised of a very sublayer to soft clay.
USGS Map of earthquake showed that no earthquake M>6 occurred in Central Java area in last 100
Slide 8
My research methodology from NCEER 2001 based on Youd et al., We divide 3 (three) parts;
a) Equivalent average Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)
b) Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
c) Factor of safety against liquefaction (FS)

Slide 9
For assessment of liquefaction potential based on Iwasaki et al. 1982, There are 4 (four) parts;
a) PL = 0 = Liquefaction risk is very low
b) 0<PL≤5 = Liquefaction risk is low
c) 5<PL≤ 15 = Liquefaction risk is high
d) 15<PL = Liquefaction risk is very high

Slide 10
Back to liquefaction potential. We can get CSR from GWT (Ground Water Level), Effective
Overburden during earthquake, Peak ground Horizontal Acceleration, and Stress Reduction Factor.

Slide 11
We can get CRR from analysis Magnitude Earthquake, SPT N-Value and Energy Ratio, Fines
Content, and final we can calculate Cyclic Resistance Ratio for Earthquake Magnitude 7.5.

Slide 12
From the result of assessment potential of liquefaction from data Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA),
Magnitude (Mw), Ground Water Level during SPT and Analysis respectively, and also SPT-N data.
And then we know result Factor of safety and Liquefaction of Potential Index.
From the result we know that PL is 10,758 belonging category of liquefaction risk is high.

Slide 13
For the next future of my research I want to analysis liquefaction soil against buckling instability but
for this seminar I want to few explain with example from case study.
a) If g (X) < 0 ; indicates failure state
b) If g (X) = 0 ; indicates limit state
c) If g (X) > 0 ; indicates safe state
The stability of pile foundation under the action at axial load is a function of the depth of liquefaction
(DL) and the “critical depth”. Mathematically, the failure surface equation which defines the stability
is expressed as g (X) = HC – DL

Slide 14
We can see table of building data and pile design data. About studies on the potential of liquefaction
with previously stated calculation method have been implemented earlier. Result of analysis showed
that there were 9 (nine) locations with high liquefaction potentials.

Slide 15
For calculation dynamic axial load factor analysis before liquefaction, we must know;
a) Period of the building
b) Stiffness factor
c) Relative density and Moment Rocking value
d) The compression axial load value acting each pile
e) Horizontal earthquake factor
f) Earthquake coefficient

Slide 16
And the for after liquefaction, we can calculate;
a) The rigidity of the building
b) The increasing of axial load of each pile
c) The time period of the building during the full liquefaction

Slide 17
From those calculate, We know the result value before and after liquefaction as follows the tables.

Slide 18
The result of safety factor is 1.4 and stability of foundation g (X) is 4.87. This is safe state.
I know this research is not perfect yet. There are still somethings to review. But, for future I will
perfect it.

Slide 19
After we know liquefaction potential, For the next future I want to develop my research to analysis
From example data I have been tried to know lateral load, buckling moment, safety factor, and
foundation stability.

Slide 20
Well, That’s my presentation today. Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day. I give back to the
Prof. Wu.
Thank you.