Feungaugsorn 280416

THESIS
ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI AREA,

CHIANGRAI PROVINCE, THAILAND
JESSADA FEUNGAUGSORN
GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY

2016
Master of Engineering (Civil Engineering)
DEGREE
Civil Engineering Civil Engineering

FIELD DEPARTMENT
TITLE: Assessment of Liquefaction Potential in Maesai Area, Chiangrai Province,

Thailand
NAME: Mr. Jessada Feungaugsorn
THIS THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY
--------------------------------------------------------------------- THESIS ADVISOR
( Associate Professor Suttisak Soralump, Ph.D. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------- THESIS CO-ADVISOR
( Associate Professor Tirawat Boonyatee, Ph.D. )

( Mr. Suriyon Prempramote, Ph.D. )

( Mr. Susit Chaiprakaikeow, Ph.D. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT HEAD
( Associate Professor Wanchai Yodsudjai, D.Eng. )
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ON
DEAN
( Associate Professor Gunjana Theeragool, D.Agr. )

THESIS
ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI AREA,

CHIANGRAI PROVINCE, THAILAND
JESSADA FEUNGAUGSORN
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil Engineering)
Graduate School, Kasetsart University
2016
iv
Jessada Feungaugsorn 2016: Assessment of Liquefaction Potential in

Maesai area, Chiangrai Province, Thailand. Master of Engineering
(Civil Engineering), Major Field: Civil Engineering, Department of Civil
Engineering. Thesis Advisor: Associate Professor Suttisak Soralump,
Ph.D. 217 pages.
To assess of liquefaction potential in Maesai area, Chiangrai, Thailand have been

done based on 2011 Tarlay earthquake event the result show that the liquefied soil might be
occurred as: a depth of between 1 and 16 m., the N1(60)cs values < 16 blows/ft, the ground
water levels < 3 m. below ground surface. In Maesai area probable that the more than 3-4 m-
thick layer is capped the level-ground, predicted not to liquefy, prevented the formation of
sand boils at the ground surface. The shallow foundation of residential houses in Maesai
area is still safe against the punching shear failure from this earthquake event. However, to
evaluate the influence of water level fluctuation against liquefaction potential is performed.
The result of suburb borehole analysis shows that the liquefaction assessment of suburb area
is not effected by the fluctuation of ground water levels because the monthly ground water
levels are still high level. However, the ground water level fluctuation of urban area has
influenced by rainfall intensity. One the other hand, comparing of the liquefaction potential
methods is conducted. It was found that the liquefaction potential methods 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, the Arias intensity
method (Kayen et al, 2007) need to use the real recorded strong ground motions at the
ground surface and the Zhang (2010) method is quite over estimation that the evaluation of
liquefaction potential should be caution. However, the maximum annual probability of
liquefaction manifestation of Maesai area from Mae-Chan fault by Maurer et al (2014) is
equal to 240 years/time with the event tree analysis. Moreover, the design of the high-
buildings and on ground structures of subsoil in Maesai need to be seriously conducted to
prevent catastrophic loss because the Maesai area may be affected due to the resonance
effect of local site period.
/ /
Student’s signature Thesis Advisor’s signature

v
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
1 Chinese Criteria proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982)

7
2 Modified Chinese Criteria by Andrews and Martin (2000)
7
3 Correction factors for SPT N values
13
4 Factor grading standard
18
5 Comparison of liquefaction potential index (LPI) classification
31
6 Liquefaction potential index and ground failure
31
7 Damage severity index relationship between LPI and PG values
34
8 Liquefaction-induced damage severity classes at foundations
34
9 Multiple regression analysis for the LPI values
35
10 Distribution of the PG values of cases with (liquefied cases) and
without surface manifestation (non-liquefied cases) 40
11 Liquefaction Susceptibility with GWL depth
50
12 Classification of Kok river basis
51
13 Ground water level and ground water elevations of Ban Dong
Kham area 51
14 Seismic source parameters of active faults in Northern and
Western Thailand 59
15 The Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of the Mae Chan
fault zone 60
16 Summary of earthquake source parameters for the 21 seismic
source zones 65
17 Summary of the earthquake potential parameters of the active
fault zones in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas 66
18 Parameters for PEER-NGA Ground Motion Prediction Models
73
19 The soil and earthquake properties for liquefaction methods
102
20
Calculation of PGA probability (rock site) 117
21 The characteristic of earthquake motion using for dynamic
response analysis 119
22 Assessment of LPI values and probability of surface
liquefaction manifestation in Maesai 128
23 LPI level for establishing of Maesai‘s liquefaction hazard map
132
24 PGAs value of ground surface by dynamic response analysis
132
25 Annual probability of liquefaction manifestation of DH1
borehole 142
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Liquefaction‘s factor of safety and SPT-values in Bangkok soil

profile 5
2 Relationships between maximum ground acceleration and
maximum pore water pressure ratio for Chiangmai and Chiang-
Rai, respectively 6
3 Potentially liquefiable soils
8
4 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments
8
5 Grain size distribution range of liquefaction soil
9
6 Variations of stress reduction coefficient with depth and
earthquake magnitude 11
7 Magnitude scaling factor, MSF values of various researchers
14
8 Overburden correction factor (Kσ) relationship
15
9 Kσ values by various investigators
15
10 Variation of Kα values with SPT penetration resistances at
effective overburden stresses of 1 and 4 atm 17
11 Curves Recommended for Calculation of CRR from VS1
Measurements in Sands and Gravels 22
12 Application of Recommended Procedure to Treasure Island Fire
Station Site and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 22
13 Ihb versus (N1)60 for liquefaction and none-liquefaction Sites
(a) Plot without Fines Content Correction
(b) Plot with Fines Content Correction 24
14 Relations between (a) PGA and PGV; (b) PGD and PGA/PGV
using data from various earthquakes in Japan 25
15 Event tree used for the probability of liquefaction-failure
28
16 Annual probability of liquefaction calculation
28
17 Liquefaction susceptibility map based on liquefaction potential
index 33
18 Probability of liquefaction manifestation
33
19 Assessment map of liquefaction hazard based on LPI thresholds
and the multiple regression analysis 36
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 37
ix
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
21 Boundary curves for site identification of liquefaction-induced

damage 38
22 Relationship between thicknesses of unliquefied layer and
liquefied layer at damaged and undamaged sites 38
23 Distribution of the calculated PG values for all cases analyzed
39
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 41
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 44
26 Cross section across the Mae Chan basin and Wiang Nong Lom
swamp 44
27 Geological cross sections of Chiangrai and Pha yhao province
45
28 Geological cross sections of Maesai basis
46
29 Cross sections of resistivity survey of Northern part of Thailand
47
30 Cross sections of resistivity survey of Maesai basis ( A-A, B-B
and C-C section) 48
31 Ground water flow direction of Kok river basis (during Jan to Feb
2009) 52
32 Elevation and ground water flow direction of Ban Dong Kham,
Maesai area 53
33 Observed ground water levels in study area during 2004 to 2008 54
34 Observed ground water levels at Kao Chang, Maesai, Chiangrai
province during 2004 to 2014 55
35 Average annual rainfall of Maesai, Chiangrai during 2004 to
2008 56
36 Active Faults map of Thailand 57
37 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of
the Northern Basin and Range seismotectonic province 61
38 Comparison of recorded spectral acceleration spectra (at 5 %
damping) with Thailand seismic design spectra of soil type D 63
39 Modeled static horizontal displacement on surface in yellow
arrows is overlaid on Google Earth around western section of
Nam Ma fault responsible for Mw 6.8, 24 March 2011
earthquake. The red line represents Nam Ma fault based on
Lacassin et al. (1998), and the green box shows the modeled
rupture zone of Tarlay earthquake 63
x
Figure Page
40 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of

the Northern Basin and Range seismotectonic province 68
41 Enlarged map showing active faults interpreted in northern
Thailand and surrounding areas 69
42 The return periods of earthquakes for those at a mb level of (a) 4,
(b) 5, (c) 6, and (d) 7 70
43 Compare of between recorded PGA values and attenuation
models 72
44 Schematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis 75
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 76
46 Calculation of the Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR,in the Seed and Idriss
Simplified Procedure 77
47 Approximate relationships between peak accelerations on rock
and other local site conditions 79
48 Approximate relationship between peak accelerations on rock and
soft soil sites. 79
49 Average normalized response spectra (5% damping) for different
local site conditions 80
50 Procedure for modifying ground motion parameters to account
for the effects of local site conditions 80
51 Shear wave velocity characteristics of geologic units in California 82
52 Shear wave velocity profile of Maesai area 82
Shear wave velocity profile and soil boring of suburb‘s Maesai
53
area 83
modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and damping ratio for cohesionless
54
and cohesive soils 84
Iteration toward strain-compatible shear modulus and damping
55
ratio in equivalent linear analysis 85
56 Flow chart analysis of thesis 88
Geology and geotechnical data of Maesai, Chiangrai, Thailand
57
(study area) 90
Locations of daily ground water level measurement in Maesai
58
area 92
59 Result of daily ground water level measurement in urban area 92
60 Result of daily ground water level measurement in suburb area 93
61 Recorded ground motions from 2011 Tarlay earthquake 94
62 Prediction of surface ground motions at DH1 borehole 103
63 Deconvolution analysis with MS 8 borehole‘s soil properties 103
xi
Figure Page
64 Seismic downhole test locations in Chiangrai province 104

65 Estimating of shear wave velocity values by regression analysis 104
66 The estimating of shear wave velocity and measured SPT-N
values of MS8 borehole 105
67 Predicted ground motions at rock layer of MS8 borehole (the
depth of 20 m. below ground surface) from 2011 Tarlay
earthquake motions 105
68 Soil properties and modeled Vs profile of DH1 borehole 106
69 Comparing of predicted spectrum at rock layer and recorded
surface spectrum from 2011 Tarlay earthquake motions (MS8
borehole) 106
70 Comparing of input spectrums at rock layer and modeled surface
spectrums (DH1 borehole) with rigid-half space condition 107
71 Comparing of input spectrums at rock layer and modeled surface
spectrums (DH1 borehole) with elastic-half space condition 107
72 Comparing of surface spectrums of DH1 borehole with
deconvolved motions method (rigid-half space) and recorded
surface motions (the elastic-half space) 109
73 Comparing of PGA profile of DH1 borehole with deconvolved
motions method (rigid-half space) and recorded surface motions
(the elastic-half space) 110
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) 110
75 PGAs profile and the surface Arias intensities for comparison of
liquefaction evaluation methods 111
76 Fluctuation of ground water level : NT 78 (WM2) station 112
77 Distribution analysis of ground water level of NT 78 (WM2)
station 113
78 Even tree analysis for evaluation of Probability of ground failure 115
79 Correlation of liquefaction phenomena between Magnitude and
distance 115
80 Position of Maesai city and Mae Chan Fault 116
81 Annual rate of exceedance and magnitude of Mae Chan fault 116
82 Comparing of Sadigh (1997) attenuation model and measured
PGA values 117
83 Expected response spectrum and strong ground motions time-
histories 118
84 Relationship between PGA at rock site and PGA at ground
surface (DH1) 119
xii
Figure Page
85 Standard normal cumulative distribution function analysis of

ground water levels (NT 48, WM2) 120
86 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments 122
87 Comparison of liquefaction susceptibility between Bray and
Sancio (2006) and Chinese criteria 122
88 Gradation curve of sands from Maesai liquefied sites comparing
with the gradation range of liquefiable soil 123
89 The factor of safety values of all boreholes in Maesai area by
2011 Tarlay earthquake event 125
90 The site investigation of KZ2 borehole after 2011 Tarlay
earthquake 126
91 The result of sieve analysis at the KZ2 site (liquefied site) 126
92 Assessment of LPI values and probability of liquefaction
manifestation in Maeai based on 2011 Tarlay earthquake 129
93 The relationship between the LPI and Depth to ground water
level based on this study and Chung and Rogers (2011) 130
94 The punching shear assessment of shallow foundation in Maesai
area from the 2011 Tarlay earthquake 131
95 Depth of rock for dynamic response analysis in Maesai area 131
96 Liquefaction hazard map of Maesai area by Maechan fault
(MCE) 133
97 Comparison of liquefaction potential assessment methods of DH1
borehole 135
98 Comparing of F.S. values with the liquefaction potential methods 136
99 Shear wave velocity profiles of Maesai area, Chiangrai Province 136
100 Comparison of ground surface response spectrums of Maesai
area 137
101 Comparison of between ground water level fluctuations and
rainfall intensity 139
102 Details of F.S. and LPI values considering the fluctuation of
ground water level 140
103 Comparison of ground water level fluctuations against F.S. values 141
104 Correlation of between LPI and none-thickness liquefaction soil
considering the ground water levels 141
105 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1
borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M 5.0-6.0) 143
borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M 6.0-7.0) 144
borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M7.0-7.5, MCE) 145
xiii
Appendix Figure Page
A1 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-1 borehole 163

A2 Summary of engineering soil properties of MS-1 borehole 164
A22 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of DH-1 borehole 184
A23 Summary of engineering soil properties of DH-1 borehole 186
A24 Result of seismic downhole test of DH-1 borehole 188
A25 Shear wave velocity profile of DH-1 borehole 189
A26 Soil profile and Kunzelstab penetration test values of KZ1
borehole 190
borehole 191
borehole 192
borehole 193
borehole 194
borehole 195
borehole 196
xiv
Appendix Figure Page
Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011

B1
Tarlay earthquake event (MS-1 borehole) 198
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
Tarlay earthquake event (DH-1 borehole) 209
B13
Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-1 borehole) 210
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
1
ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI

AREA, CHIANGRAI PROVINCE, THAILAND
INTRODUCTION
Soil liquefaction is a major cause of damage during earthquakes.

Liquefactions and associated ground failures have been widely observed in
devastating earthquakes. Liquefaction is a loss of shear resistance in granular soils
caused by a marked increase in pore water pressure induced by cyclic loading during
earthquakes. Liquefaction generally occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soils.
In the past, the Northern of Thailand had felt many earthquakes but those
were not caused great damage since either those had low magnitudes or the epicenter
distance is far and located mostly in neighbor countries. However, recently on the
24th March 2011, the 6.8 magnitude earthquake called Tarlay Earthquake strikes
Myanmar. The focal depth of epicenter was approximately 10 km (6.2 miles) under
the ground surface. The 0.2 g acceleration was recorded at Maesai, Chiangrai by Thai
Metrological Department (TMD). The accelerometer station is located 30 km from the
earthquake epicenter. Since Maesai‘s subsoil consists of loose to medium dense layer
of sand, therefore the liquefaction has been observed. This earthquake caused
liquefaction in paddy fields in Maesai District. The liquefaction phenomena induced
slope failure in which was also observed at road embankment in affected area.
Luckily, most of the liquefied sites are 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.
After the liquefaction occurred, concerns are addressed to the safety of the
existing structures since the design standard and codes for the buildings and
infrastructures in Maesai does not consider liquefaction. Therefore, to assessment the
liquefaction potential of Maesai‘s soil layer need to be done.
2
OBJECTIVES
This thesis is aims in order to liquefaction analysis in Maesai area, Chiangrai

province. The research program consists of four main parts :
1. To establish of liquefaction hazard map in Maesai area, Chiangrai, Thailand.

2. Comparing the methods of liquefaction potential analysis.
3. To evaluate the influence of water level fluctuation against liquefaction potential.
4. Propose method/calculation for annualized of liquefaction probabilistic in Maesai
area considering of ground water level fluctuation.
Scope of Study
1. The assessment of liquefaction potential is performed only Maesai area, Chiangrai

province, Thailand.
2. The annualized of liquefaction probabilistic analysis is based on event tree method.
3. Dynamic site response analysis is based on 1-Dimensional and equivalent linear
soil model and pore pressure during the earthquake shaking is not considered.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Liquefaction analysis in Thailand
Ukritchon B. and Sangkhawilai T. (2004) presented an analysis of liquefaction

potential for Bangkok first sand layer. The evaluation is based on the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) method. The major parameters consist of SPT value, peak
ground acceleration (PGA), and deep well pumping effect. For the piezometric level
at -2.0 m., the case where SPT = 25 Blows/ft. and PGA = 0.015g - 0.050g results in
factor of safety (F.S.) against liquefaction as F.S. = 3.3-11.9. For the first sand layer at
depth -32.0 m., the effect of deep well pumping increases F.S. significantly as F.S. =
3.7-12.2 due to an increase in effective stress that can be showed in Figure 1.
Pongvithayapanu P. (2009) presented liquefaction potential assessment at
Laem Chabang port, Thailand where some areas were built from backfill materials
which are highly suspected to soil liquefaction phenomena from moderate to strong
earthquakes. The soil characteristics of the studied area found that some layers of
backfill soils have very low SPT N-value, i.e. below 10, which can be easily liquefied
under strong earthquake. The outcome of the assessment divulges that Leam Chabang
port is suspected to liquefaction in the backfill soil layers at the depth −6.00 to −10.00
m below ground surface if subjected to strong shaking from potential active faults
near the port.
Teachavorasinskun S. et al. (2009) presented liquefaction susceptibility in the
Northern provinces of Thailand. Analysis for estimation of excess pore water pressure
was performed. The total of twenty-nine sandy sites within Chiang- Mai City and
seventeen sandy sites within Chiang-Rai city were analysed. Figure 2 show the typical
analytical results by plotting the maximum excess pore water pressure ratio against
the maximum ground acceleration. In case where PL = 30%, large values of excess
pore water pressure ratio was obtained from most sites. This is not applicable to the
area, since amax is much greater than 0.2g (which is the most likely maximum ground
acceleration indicated from the recorded earthquakes). When PL was reduced to
5%,for amax <0.2g, the excess pore water pressure ratio in the range of 0.1-0.4 can be
4
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
Sakulnee and Pananont (2016) performed resistivity imaging to detect the

liquefaction induced by the magnitude of earthquake 6.8 in Myanmar on March 24th
2011 in Chiang Rai Province, Northern Thailand. Eighteen lines of resistivity imaging
surveys (Dipole-Dipole and Wenner-Schlumberger arrays) were conducted in 5 study
areas in Amphoe Mae Sai and Chiang Saen, Chiang Rai province in order to evaluate
the ability of the geophysical method to detect the liquefaction and to study the
characteristic of the liquefaction such as the depth that the liquefaction originally
occurred. The results of resistivity imaging surveys indicate that the liquefaction
zones are represented by the high resistivity regions (~100 – 200 Ωm) embedded in
the low resistivity zone (less than 100 Ωm). These high resistivity anomaly could be
the liquefied clean sands that are ejected along the subsurface ruptures upwards to the
ground due to the strong shaking. The low resistivity zone may be clay layers as the
saturated clay has rather low resistivity values.
Figure 1 Liquefaction‘s factor of safety and SPT-values in Bangkok soil profile
Source: Ukritchon and Sangkhawilai (2004)

6
Figure 2 Relationships between maximum ground acceleration and maximum pore

water pressure ratio for Chiangmai and Chiang-Rai, respectively
Source: Teachavorasinskun et. al. (2009)
Liquefaction potential assessment by characteristic of soil
Furthermore, the assessment of liquefaction soil can be used with the

characteristic of soil namely: percentage of fine content, attenberg limits, water
content and grain size distribution of soil. Seed and Idriss (1982) proposed the
evaluation of potentially liquefiable soils- Chinese criteria (Table 1) that had been
widely used for many years. However, Andrews and Martin (2000) modified the
Chinese criteria for USCS-based silt and clay definitions which is shown in Table 2.
Bray et al. (2001) has concluded that the Chinese criteria may be misleading in
the concept of percent ―clay-size‖. According to their findings, percent of clay
minerals and their activities are more important than the percent of ―clay-size‖. They
give the example of fine quartz particles which may be smaller than 2 – 5 mm.
Recommendations of Bray et al. (2001) are presented in Figure 3.
Bray and Sancio (2006) presented the new criteria that even fine-grained soils
can demonstrate susceptibility to liquefaction or cyclic mobility when the following
condition is Soils with plasticity index (PI) < 18 and wc/LL > 0.8.
Seed et al. (2003) recommended a new criterion from case histories and cyclic
testing of undisturbed fine grained soils compiled after 1999 Kocaeli-Turkey and Chi
7
Chi-Taiwan earthquakes as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, these criteria classified

saturated soils with a plastic index (PI) less than 12 and liquid limit (LL) less than 37
as potentially liquefiable soil, and the soil natural moisture content is greater than
80% of the liquid limit (0.8*LL).
Iwasaki (1986) proposed the grain-size distribution curves to the upper and
lower bound curves for liquefaction susceptibility (Figure 5). In this figure, the upper
and lower bounds of the grain size distribution curves are used for liquefaction
potential analysis.
Table 1 Chinese Criteria proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982)
Potentially liquefiable soils

fines content (< 0.005 mm) ≤ 15%
liquid limit (LL) ≤ 35%
water content (wc) ≥ (0.9xLL)%
Source : Seed and Idriss (1982)
Table 2 Modified Chinese Criteria by Andrews and Martin (2000)
liquid limit < 32% liquid limit ≥ 32%

clay content (< 0.002 mm) potentially liquefiable Further studies required
< 10% considering sized grains
plastic-non clay sized
grains
clay content (< 0.002 mm) Further studies required Non-Liquefiable
≥ 10% considering sized grains
non-plastic clay sized
grains
Source : Andrews and Martin (2000)

8
Figure 3 Potentially liquefiable soils
Source : Bray et al. (2001)
Figure 4 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments
Source : Seed et al. (2003)

9
Figure 5 Grain size distribution range of liquefaction soil
Source : Iwasaki (1986)
Liquefaction potential assessment by cyclic stress approach
1. Estimating earthquake induce stress
The evaluating liquefaction potential of cohesionless soils during

earthquakes, The Seed–Idriss (1971) continues to be widely used. The simplified
procedure is used to estimate the cyclic shear stress ratios (CSR) induced by
earthquake ground motions, at a depth z below the ground surface, using the
following expression in equation 1
σ v .amax (1)
CSR  0.65 .γd
σ'v g
10
Where CSR = Cyclic shear ratio induced by earthquake
v = Total overburden pressure in subsoil layers (t/m2)
‘v = Effective overburden pressure in subsoil layers (t/m2)
g = gravity‘s acceleration (m/s2)
amax = peak horizontal ground acceleration (m/s2)
d = stress reduction factor
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
Where Z = depth (m)

M = Moment magnitude
* the argument inside the sine terms are in radians.
11
Figure 6 Variations of stress reduction coefficient with depth and earthquake

magnitude
Source : Idriss (1999)
2. SPT testing for liquefaction Characteristics
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
N 60  N mCE CBCRCS (6)

12
Where CE = the energy ratio correction factor (CE = ERm/60)

CB = a correction factor for borehole diameter
CR = a correction factor for rod length
CS = a correction factor for a sampler that had room for liners
but was used without the liners
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)
0.784  0.0768 ( N1 )60

 P 
CN   'a   1.7 (8)
  vc 
0.5
 P 
CN   'a   1.7 (9)
  vc 
3. Magnitude scaling factor
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
Table 3 Correction factors for SPT N values
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
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)
Source : Idriss and Boulanger (2008)

14
Figure 7 Magnitude scaling factor, MSF values of various researchers
4. Overburden correction factor (Kσ)
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)
where the coefficient Cσ can be expressed (equation 12) in terms of

penetration resistances according to Boulanger and Idriss (2004). The values of Kσ
can be shown in Figure 8. In addition Seed and Harder (1990) developed the clean-
sand curve to define Kσ for engineering practice which is given in Figure 9.
15
Figure 8 Overburden correction factor (Kσ) relationship
Source : Boulanger and Idriss (2004).
Figure 9 Kσ values by various investigators
Source : Seed and Harder (1990)

16
5. Static Shear Stress Correction Factor (Kα)
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 
a  1267  636 2  634exp( )  632.exp( ) (14)
b  exp(1.11  12.3 2  1.31.ln(  0.0001) (15)
c  0.138  0.126  2.52 3 (16)

s
 (17)
 'vc
1 ( N1 )60
R   (18)
 100(1  2 K 0 ) 'vc  46
Q  ln  
 3Pa 
17
Figure 10 Variation of Kα values with SPT penetration resistances at effective

overburden stresses of 1 and 4 atm
Source : Idriss and Boulanger (2003)
6. Factor of safety of liquefaction assessment
In order to calculate the factor of safety against liquefction of each clean

sand and silty sand layers, cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) relationship of each soil layer
will need to be calculated as shown in equation 19, Idriss and Boulanger (2004). The
equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance computed as equation 20 to 21. The
CRR can be extended to other values of earthquake magnitude and effective
overburden stress by equation 22. Finally, the factor of safety against liquefaction
expressed in equation 23.
 ( N1 )60 cs  ( N1 )60 cs 2  ( N1 )60 cs 3  ( N1 )60 cs 4 

CRRM 7.5, '  exp            2.8  (19)
vc 1  14.1  126   23.6   25.4 
 
( N1 )60cs  ( N1 )60  ( N1 )60 (20)
 9.7  15.7  
2
( N1 )60  exp 1.63     (21)

 FC  0.01  FC  0.01  

18
CRRM , '  CRRM 7.5, ' .MSF .K (22)

vc vc 1
CRRM , '
FSliq  vc
(23)
CSRM , '
vc
Liquefaction potential assessment by simplified procedure of Zhang (2010)
Zhang (2010) proposed the simple method for liquefaction potential

evaluation by quantifying the influence of the five selected factors namely; the
earthquake magnitude, the effective overburden stress, shear wave velocity, peak
ground acceleration at the ground surface and the percentage of fine content. These
factors are graded according to the standard shown in Table 4, Zhang (2010). The
influence of the five selected factors is quantified using the optimum seeking method
as Zhang (1998). The final optimized results can be simply presented as equation
(24). Using the optimized results, the factor of safety (F.S.) can be simply defined by
equation (25). Liquefaction is predicted to occur when F.S. ≤ 1, and liquefaction is not
predicted to occur when F.S. > 1.
Table 4 Factor grading standard
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
Source : Zhang (2010)

19
LP  35G ( M )  32G( v ')  71G(Vs )  34G (amax )  39G( FC ) (24)
315
F .S .  (25)
LP
Where LP = a liquefaction potential
G(M), G(v‘),G(Vs), G(amax) and G(FC) = the factor grading standard
in Table 4
F.S. = the factor of safety
Liquefaction potential assessment by Elementary empirical liquefaction model

(EELM)
Pathak and Dalvi (2013) proposed the Elementary empirical liquefaction

model (EELM) to assess seismic soil liquefaction. The effect of dynamic soil
properties and ground motion parameters in liquefaction potential had been used. The
proposed empirical model is a function of ―LPterm‖, which is expressed in equation
(26). Finally, the mathematical expression which defines the boundary curve
separating liquefied and non-liquefied zones is given in equation (27). Moreover,
following criteria for classification of case records are expressed in equation (28 a and
3 b), respectively.
 v .G .dur 
LPterm   max max  (26)
 v ' 
Where vmax = peak ground velocity (m/s)
Gmax = Maximum shear modulus (kPa)
dur = duration of strong ground motion (sec)
‘v = Effective overburden pressure in subsoil layers (kPa)

20
( N1 )60 predicted  1.24( LPterm)0.31 (27)
(N1)60 predicted > (N1)60 observed ; liquefaction occur (28 a)
(N1)60 predicted < (N1)60 observed ; liquefaction does not occur (28 b)
Where (N1)60 predicted = the predicted (N1)60 of EELM model
(N1)60 observed = the observed (N1)60 in-situ testing
Liquefaction potential assessment by shear wave velocity
Andrus et al. (2000) presented the simplified procedure using shear-wave

velocity measurements for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of soils. The
evaluation procedure requires the calculation of three parameters: (1) The level of
cyclic loading on the soil caused by the earthquake, expressed as a cyclic stress ratio;
(2) stiffness of the soil, expressed as an overburden stress-corrected shear-wave
velocity; and (3) resistance of the soil to liquefaction, expressed as a cyclic resistance
ratio. Following the traditional procedures for correcting SPT blow count to account
for overburden stress, one can correct VS to a reference overburden stress by (Sykora
1987; Robertson et al. 1992) as equation 29. The value of CSR separating liquefaction
and none-liquefaction occurrences for a given VS1, or corrected penetration resistance,
is called the cyclic resistance ratio CRR. Andrus and Stokoe (1997) proposed the
CRR relationship which is given in equation 30. Finally, A common way to quantify
the potential for liquefaction is in terms of a factor of safety. The factor of safety FS
against liquefaction can be defined equation 31. The recommended CRR-VS1 curves
presented in Figure 11 are defined by equation (2), with a = 0.022, b = 2.8, V*s1 =
200–215 m/s (depending on fines content). The recommended curves shown in Figure
11 are dashed above CRR of 0.35 to indicate that field performance data are limited.
They do not extend much below 100 m/s, because there are no field data to support
extending them to the origin. It is important to note that these boundary curves are for
extreme behavior, where boils and ground cracks occur. To illustrate the evaluation
procedure, the liquefaction potential at the Treasure Island fire station site during the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake is presented. In this case, values of VS were measured
21
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 
Where VS1 = overburden stress-corrected shear-wave velocity
CV = factor to correct measured shear-wave velocity for overburden Pressure
Pa = reference stress of 100 kPa or about atmospheric pressure
‘v = initial effective overburden stress (kPa)

  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
a and b = curve fitting parameters
MSF = magnitude scaling factor
VS1 = overburden stress-corrected shear-wave velocity
F.S.  CRR / CSR (31)
Where F.S. = factor of safety
CRR = cyclic resistance ratio in equation 2
CSR = Cyclic stress ratio

22
Figure 11 Curves Recommended for Calculation of CRR from VS1 Measurements in

Sands and Gravels
Source : Andrus et al. (2000)
Figure 12 Application of Recommended Procedure to Treasure Island Fire Station

Site and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
Source : Andrus et al. (2000)

23
Liquefaction potential assessment by Arias intensity
Kayen et al (1997) proposed arias intensity approach to assess the liquefaction

potential of soil deposits during earthquakes, using an energy-based measure of the
severity of earthquake-shaking recorded on seismograms of the two horizontal
components of ground motion. This study describes an approach for relating the Arias
intensity at depth in the soil column to field-based measures of liquefaction resistance
and applies this approach to a number of sites in the United States and Japan. The
Arias intensity at depth in the soil column, Ihb , can be calculated as equation 32.
Based on these case studies of known field-behavior during earthquakes, a relation
was developed between the measured liquefaction resistance of the soil and the Arias
intensity characteristics of nearby strong motion recordings. The resultant association
finds excellent segregation of liquefaction and none-liquefaction points on a plot of
the estimated Arias intensity at depth Ihb versus values of (N1)60 (Figure 13 a). The
correction factors for silty sands were used to convert the SPT data set to equivalent
"clean sand" SPT values. The clean-sand boundary curve, presented in Figure 13 b, is
a singular earthquake-magnitude-independent boundary curve that delineates the
threshold condition of initial liquefaction in the space defined by Ihb and (N1)60. The
Arias intensity-based factor of safety, F1hb against initial- liquefaction occurrence
(equation 33) is defined as the Arias intensity required to cause liquefaction (Ihb,l ,
Figure 13) normalized by the Arias intensity induced by the earthquake (Ihb,eq
equation 32). This definition of factor of safety is similar to that by Seed and his
colleagues based on cyclic stress, but represents relative safety against liquefaction in
terms of Arias intensity.
I hb,eq  I h rb (32)
Where Ihb,eq = Arias intensity at depth in the soil column
Ih = Two-component horizontal Arias intensity at surface
rb = Depth reduction factor

24
I hb ,l (33)
Flhb 
I hb ,eq
Where Flhb = Arias intensity-based factor of safety
Ihb,l = Arias intensity required to cause liquefaction (Figure 13)
Ihb,eq = Arias intensity at depth in the soil column (equation 32)
Figure 13 Ihb versus (N1)60 for liquefaction and none-liquefaction Sites
(a) Plot without Fines Content Correction
(b) Plot with Fines Content Correction
Source : Kayen et al (1997)

25
Liquefaction corresponding strong ground motion parameters
Miyajima et al (2004) studied the detection of ground failures such as

liquefaction, large ground displacement induced by fault movement. They have
proposed two indices for detection of liquefaction concerning with the ratio of vertical
ground acceleration to the horizontal and the time history of predominant period of
horizontal ground acceleration. The results showed that the possibility of liquefaction
was great when the maximum ratio of vertical ground acceleration to the peak
horizontal acceleration is greater than 5.0 and which the ratio is less than 3.0, are non-
liquefied. However, it found that the average predominant periods at liquefied sites
were more than 1.0 second.
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
Source : Orense (2004)

26
Liquefaction probability assessment
Cetin et al (2004) presents new correlations for assessment of the likelihood of

initiation (or ―triggering‖) of soil liquefaction. Key elements in the development of
these new correlations are (1) accumulation of a significantly expanded database of
field performance case histories; (2) use of improved knowledge and understanding of
factors affecting interpretation of standard penetration test data; (3) incorporation of
improved understanding of factors affecting site-specific earthquake ground motions
(including directivity effects, site-specific response, etc.); (4) use of improved
methods for assessment of in situ cyclic shear stress ratio; (5) screening of field data
case histories on a quality/uncertainty basis; and (6) use of high-order probabilistic
tools (Bayesian updating). The resulting relationships not only provide greatly
reduced uncertainty, they also help to resolve a number of corollary issues that have
long been difficult and controversial including: (1) magnitude-correlated duration
weighting factors, (2) adjustments for fines content, and (3) corrections for
overburden stress. The probability of liquefaction is given in equation (34)
  N 1( 60) .(1  0.004.FC )  13.32.ln(CSReq )  29.53.ln( M w )   

  
   'v 
  3.70.ln( P )  0.05.FC  16.85 
PL ( N1(60) , CSReq , M w ,  'v , FC )      a  (34)
 2.70 
 
 
 
 
Where PL = probability of liquefaction in decimals

CSReq = Cyclic stress ratio
Mw = Moment magnitude
FC = percent fines content expressed as an integer (e.g., 12% fines is
expressed as FC=12) with the limit of 5 ≤ FC ≤ 35
Pa = atmospheric pressure ( =1 atm, =100 kPa,< 2,000 psf )
in the same units as the in situ vertical effective stress (σ‘v )
Ф = standard cumulative normal distribution
Li et al (2006) proposed the probability of liquefaction a soil at a given depth.

using Bayes‘ theorem. This equation is given as equation 35. However, by applying
Bayes' theorem of condition probability, Juang et al (2008) also proposed the
probability of liquefaction a soil that following mapping function is obtained as
equation 36.
27
1
PL  5.45 (35)
 F .S . 
1  
 0.81 
Where PL = probability of liquefaction at given depth in demicals

F.S. = factor of safety
1
PL  3.64  5.37 F . S .
1 e (36)
Where PL = probability of liquefaction at given depth in demicals

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.
Anderson L.R. (2014) described the annual probability of liquefaction

calculation which was a part of event tree analysis, this is a lecture of accommodating
liquefaction induced failure model in the risk assessment of dam (Figure 16). The
annual probability of liquefaction calculation was considered the annual probability of
PGAs, SPT-N value and Magnitude of earthquake.
28
Figure 15 Event tree used for the probability of liquefaction-failure
Source : Lee et al. (1998)
Figure 16 Annual probability of liquefaction calculation
Source : Anderson (2014)

29
Liquefaction potential Index (LPI)
Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is a single-value parameter to evaluate

regional liquefaction potential. LPI at a site is computed by integrating the factors of
safety (FS) along the soil column up to 20 m depth. The liquefaction potential index
(LPI) proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1982) is expressed as follows equation 37 and 38
These equations give the values of LPI ranging from 0 to 100.
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
Moreover, the liquefaction potential index proposed by Sonmez (2003) is used

to evaluate the severity of the liquefaction induced ground failure. Table 6 are
presented the thresholds of LPI and the expected corresponding ground failure.
20
LPI   F ( z ).w( z )dz (37)
0
Where z = depth of the midpoint of the soil layer (0 to 20 m)
dz = differential increment of depth
w(z) = the weighting factor
F(z) = the severity factor
n
LPI   wi Fi H i (38)
i 1
Where Fi = 1−FSi for FSi < 1.0
Fi = 0 for FSi ≥ 1.0
wi = 10−0.5zi for z < 20 m
wi = 0 for z > 20 m
Hi = thickness of the soil layers (m)
n = number of layers
zi = the depth of i-th layer (m)

31
Table 5 Comparison of liquefaction potential index (LPI) classification
Keng et al. (2014) study

Liquefaction Luna and
liquefaction Iwasaki Bray–
potentials Frost Chinese
potentials (1986) Sancio
(severity) (1998) criteria
criteria
Very Low LPI = 0 Little to none LPI = 0 LPI = 0 LPI = 0
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
15LPI< 15LPI< 15LPI< 21LPI<

Very High High (Major)
100 100 100 100
Source : Keng et al. (2014)
Table 6 Liquefaction potential index and ground failure
liquefaction potential index Ground Failure

LPI < 11.5 No ground failure appears
11.5<LPI<32 Small to moderate liquefaction induced displacements
appear: sand boils and ground settlements
32<LPI Large liquefaction induced displacements:
lateral spreading
Source : Sonmez (2003)

32
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.
Papathanassiou et al. (2005) made to prepare a preliminary map of

liquefaction susceptibility for Lefkada town. The iso-liquefaction index contours were
constructed by using the inverse distance to a power method. As it can be observed in
Figure. 17, this preliminary map confirms the distribution of damages induced by soil
liquefaction in the seafront of the town. The calculations of liquefaction potential
index in this study were performed with the aid of a computer program, SLIQUE,
developed by Sonmez (2003).
Maurer et al. (2014) evaluated the performance of LPI in predicting the

occurrence and severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations with field
observations following the Darfield and Christchurch, New Zealand earthquakes. It
was found that LPI is generally effective in predicting moderate-to-severe liquefaction
manifestations, but its utility diminishes for predicting less severe manifestations.
They proposed the upper and lower bounds probability of liquefiable manifestation
which is given in equation 39 and figure 18, respectively. However, the damage
potential of lateral spreading may not be well estimated by LPI, and it is therefore
treated separately in the subsequent analysis.
P  (3*105 ) LPI 3  (0.0025) LPI 2  (0.0756) LPI  0.0879,

(39)
P  (3*105 ) LPI 3  (0.0027) LPI 2  (0.0746) LPI  0.2977
Where P = Probability of liquefaction manifestation
LPI = liquefaction potential index (LPI)

33
Figure 17 Liquefaction susceptibility map based on liquefaction potential index
Source : Papathanassiou et al. (2005)
Figure 18 Probability of liquefaction manifestation
Source : Maurer et al. (2014)

34
Juang et al. (2005) proposed the probability for liquefaction-induced ground

failure near foundation as equation (40). Moreover, they proposed the relationship
between the probability of ground failure, LPI and the damage class which is shown
in table 7, these damage classes (Damage severity index, DSI) are based on Bray et al.
(2000), table 8.
1
PG 
(1  e4.830.74 LPI ) (40)
Where PG = probability for liquefaction-induced ground failure
LPI = liquefaction potential index (LPI)
Table 7 Damage severity index relationship between LPI and PG values
Class of severity LPI criteria PG criteria

DSI 1 LPI  5 PG  0.35
DSI 2 5 LPI 12 0.35  PG  0.90
DSI 3 LPI  12 PG  0.90
Source : Juang et al. (2004)
Table 8 Liquefaction-induced damage severity classes at foundations
Class of severity Description Interpretation

No settlement, no tilt,
DSI 1 No observed ground damage and no lateral movement
or sand boils
Settlement  25 cm,
Minor to moderate ground
DSI 2 tilt of buildings  3,
damage
or lateral movement  10 cm
Settlement  25 cm,
tilt of buildings  3,
DSI 3 Major ground damage
or lateral movement  10 cm,
or collapse of buildings
Source : Bray et al. (2000)

35
Kang et al (2014) developed a multiple regression model for estimating the

LPI as a function of DTW and PGA. The model for regression is expressed in
equation 41. Using the regression analysis for the Holocene alluvial deposits in this
area, the LPI values ranged between 18 and 7 when DTW was between 0.5 and 4 m
deep, with PGA = 1.0 g. The regression statistics are site-specific and not general in
nature. The regression statistics for the LPIs are presented in Table 9. They performed
assessment map of liquefaction hazard based on LPI thresholds and the multiple
regression analysis proposed in their study (Figure 19).
b
LPI  a.DTW 2  c (41)
PGA
Where LPI = liquefaction potential index
DTW = depth of groundwater (m.)
PGA = peak ground acceleration ( g)
a and b = regression coefficients, and c = intercept
Table 9 Multiple regression analysis for the LPI values
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)
Source : Kang et al (2014)

36
Figure 19 Assessment map of liquefaction hazard based on LPI thresholds and the
multiple regression analysis
Source : Kang et al (2014)
Papathanassiou (2008) performed logistic regression is used in order to define

a function for predicting the probabilistic liquefaction soil. The number of the selected
borings with SPT that were analyzed is 79; liquefaction-induced failures were
observed in 63 cases while 16 profiles are characterized as non-occurrence. Therefore,
the predicted probability of liquefaction surface manifestation is expressed equation
42. In their study, the influence of the thickness H of the non-liquefiable layer to
liquefaction-induced surface evidence is examined with respect to the value of LPI.
The majority of the liquefied data is distributed which is defined by a minimum value
of LPI equal to 10 and a maximum thickness of 4 m of the cap layer (Figure 20).
1
Pr ob(liquefaction)  (42)
1  e  ( 3.0920.218. LPI )

37
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
Source : Papathanassiou (2008)
However, Ishihara (1985) had set up a criterion to determine a threshold

value for the thickness of a non-liquefiable surface layer to avoid ground damage due
to liquefaction, as shown in Figure 21. Although this figure is believed to be
speculative and should not be used for design purposes, it provides initial guidance in
this matter for sites having a buried liquefiable sand layer with a standard penetration
resistance of less than 10 blows per foot (0.3 m). It should also be noted that even
though the thickness of a non-liquefiable surface layer exceeds the threshold thickness
shown in Figure 21, the ground surface may still experience some settlement which
may be undesirable for certain settlement-sensitive structures.
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
Figure 21 Boundary curves for site identification of liquefaction-induced damage
Source : Ishihara et al. (1985)
Figure 22 Relationship between thicknesses of unliquefied layer and liquefied layer

at damaged and undamaged sites
Source : Asuda (1998)

39
Juang et al. (2008) developed mapping function for liquefaction probabilities

of surface manifestations (PG) which is given in equation (43). The computed PG
values are shown in Figure. 23 along with the five risk levels (categories) proposed by
Li et al. (2006). The results indicate that the calculated PG values can distinguish the
cases with surface manifestations of liquefaction from those without surface
manifestations. A summary of these results is listed in Table 10.
1
PG  (43)
(1  e6.750.57 LPI )
Figure 23 Distribution of the calculated PG values for all cases analyzed

40
Table 10 Distribution of the PG values of cases with liquefied cases and without
non-liquefied cases
Caterogy (or level) of risk Distribution of cases Distribution of

of surface manifestation PG without surface cases with surface
of liquefaction manifestation (%) manifestation (%)
Extremely low 0.0-0.1 61 0
Low 0.1-0.3 22 2
Medium 0.3-0.7 17 16
High 0.7-0.9 0 19
Extremely high 0.9-1.0 0 63
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
where LPI = liquefaction potential index
DTW = depth-to-groundwater
a and b = regression coefficient and intercept, respectively

41
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
Source : Chung and Roger (2011)

42
Bearing capacity analysis for liquefied soil
The bearing capacity of foundations underlain by liquefied soil, the

liquefaction analysis can be used to determine those soil layers that will liquefy
during the design earthquake. For the punching shear analysis, it is assumed that the
load will cause the foundation to punch straight downward through the upper
unliquefiable soil layer and into the liquefied soil layer. This assumption means that
there will be vertical shear surfaces in the soil that start at the sides of the footing and
extend straight downward to the liquefied soil layer. It is also assumed that the
liquefied soil has no shear strength (Day, 2002). The factor of safety (FS) can be
calculated as equation 45.
2( B  L)(T f ) (45)
F .S . 
P
Where B = width of footing (m.)
L = length of footing (m.)
T = vertical distance the bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer (m.)
Ʈf = shear strength of unliquefied soil layer (t/m2)
P = footing load includes, dead, live and seismic load on footing (ton)
Geology of Maesai area, Chiangrai province
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).
DGR (2009) performed geological field investigation of Chiangrai and Phayao

provinces that included amount of 171 sites in both provinces. The gathering
geological data such as fractures, faults, anticlines, synclines and bedding plane was
conducted. Therefore, the whole geological cross sections are given within 19 lines
(Figure 27), the examples of Maesai basis are expressed in a-a‘and b-b‘ cross section,
respectively. It is shown in Figure 28 a – b in which Maesai basis is a Quaternary
deposit and the western part consist of mountain area.
DGR (2009) invested the geophysical cross section of Maesai basis by

measuring apparent resistivity where were done with 3 cross sections in Chaingrai
province. However, the cross section of A-A, B-B and C-C located near the study area
which is given in Figure 29. The detail of these cross section are: The A-A‘ section
(NE-SW direction) consist of gravel, sand and clay that greater than 200 meter depth.
The interval point of resistivity survey is approximately 3 km that includes total
distance length of 38 km (Figure 30 a). The B-B‘ section (NW-NE direction) is 19
km. length, the gravel, sand and clay where was mostly found less than of 100 meter
depth (Figure 30 b). The C-C‘ section (NW-SE direction) is 15 km. length where was
found the Nam ma fault line (between the C2 and C3 points). The sedimentary deposit
was found with more than 200 m of depth (Figure 30-C). Finally, the result of
geophysical cross sections shows that the whole of sedimentary deposit such as sand
and gravel was approximately defined with 200 m of depth in Maesai basis according
to the resistivity method.
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
Source : Wood et al. (2004)
Figure 26 Cross section across the Mae Chan basin and Wiang Nong Lom swamp
Source : Wood et al. (2004)

45
Figure 27 Geological cross sections of Chiangrai and Pha yhao province
Source : DGR (2009)

46
a) Geology of A-A‘ cross section
b) Geology of B-B‘ cross section
Figure 28 Geological cross sections of Maesai basis
Source : DGR (2009)

47
Figure 29 Cross sections of resistivity survey of Northern part of Thailand
Source : DGR (2009)

48
a) Geophysical profile of A-A‘ cross section
b) Geophysical profile of B-B‘ cross section
c) Geophysical profile of C-C‘ cross section
Figure 30 Cross sections of resistivity survey of Maesai basis
( A-A, B-B and C-C section)
Source : DGR (2009)

49
Ground water level of Maesai area, Chiangrai province
Only saturated sediments need to be considered as susceptible to liquefaction.

Sediments beneath a free groundwater table are generally saturated. Because
liquefaction resistance increases with overburden pressure and age of sediment, both
of which generally increase with depth, liquefaction resistance usually increases with
depth. Geotechnical investigations at sites of past liquefaction indicate that about 90%
of episodes of liquefaction in natural sediments have developed in areas where the
water table is shallower than 10 m (These relationships are not valid for man-made
fills, such as embankment dams, dikes, or causeways.) Based on these observations,
the water table depth relationships listed in Table 11 are suggested by Youd (1998).
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.
Table 11 Liquefaction Susceptibility with GWL depth
Groundwater table depth Relative liquefaction susceptibility
< 3 m. Very high
3 m. to 6 m. High
6 m. to 10 m. Moderate
10 m. to 15 m. Low
>15m. Very Low
Source : Youd (1998)

51
Table 12 Classification of Kok river basis
Hydro geological basis Major Hydro- Basis RA : DA Principle Flow

stratigraphic depth (m) Directions
Units
Maesai basis Qfd, Qyt, Qot >200 4:1 W→E and S→N
Chiangrai basis Qyt 50-60 4:1 SW →NE
Maesuay basis Qyt, Qot >120 7:1 W→NE and S→N
Wieng Pha Phao basis Qyt, Qot 120-140 7:1 S→N and W→E
Pran-Phayao basis Qyt, Qot 150-200 2:1 S→N and W→N
Source : DGR (2009)
Table 13 Ground water level and ground water elevations of Ban Dong Kham area
No. UTM coordinate Elevation Ground water Ground water

East North (MSL) level (m) depth (m)
W1 590480 2249778 441 6.05 434.95
W2 590485 2250098 452 4.03 447.97
W3 591667 2249881 411 5.48 405.52
W4 591810 2249293 397 3.20 393.80
W5 591765 2249018 397 5.40 391.60
W6 591712 2249010 397 5.90 391.10
W7 591656 2248874 396 5.70 390.30
W8 591659 2248512 392 1.80 390.20
W9 591478 2248594 395 4.10 390.90
W10 591429 2248512 396 5.60 390.40
W11 591425 2248731 397 6.85 390.15
W12 590836 2249549 426 7.60 418.40
Source : Boonlue S. (1998)

52
Figure 31 Ground water flow direction of Kok river basis (during Jan to Feb 2009)
Source : DGR (2009)

53
Figure 32 Elevation and ground water flow direction of Ban Dong Kham,
Maesai area
Source : Boonlue S. (1998)
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
a) The observed ground water level of NT78 station
b) The observed ground water level of NT79 station
Figure 33 Observed ground water levels in study area during 2004 to 2008
Source : DGR (2009)

55
Figure 34 Observed ground water levels at Kao Chang, Maesai, Chiangrai province
during 2004 to 2014
Source : DGR (2014)

56
Figure 35 Average annual rainfall of Maesai, Chiangrai during 2004 to 2008
Source : adapted from Royal Irrigation Department (RID)
Sources of earthquake in Thailand and adjacent areas
1. Active faults in Thailand
The earthquakes in Thailand are occurred due to active faults activity in

country. Department of Mineral Resource of Thailand (DMR, 2006) was investigated
active faults in Thailand. From their investigation, there are 15 active faults
surrounding of country as shown in Figure 36. The northern and western Thailand is
also active regions where several active faults have been detected.
57
Figure 36 Active Faults map of Thailand
Source : DMR (2006)
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.
2. Earthquake events in Thailand
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 14 Seismic source parameters of active faults in Northern and Western

Thailand
Fault Length (km.) Age of most Slip rate Maximum

(mm/yr) credible
recent movement
earthquake
Long 56 Late Pleistocene 0.1 7
Nam Pat 35 Late Pleistocene 0.1 7
Phayao 28 Late Pleistocene 0.1 7
Phrae 51 Late Pleistocene 0.1 7
Pua 68 Holocene 0.6 7.25
Thoen 120 Holocene 0.6 7.5
Three 350 Holocene 0.5-2.0 7.5

Pagodas
(Total Fault length)
Source : Fenton et. al. (2003)

60
Table 15 The Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of the Mae Chan fault zone
No. Fault segment Surface rupture length (km) MCE (Mw)
1 Chiang Saen 27.70 6.8
2 Chiang Khong 21.67 6.6
3 Mae Chan 10.70 6.3
4 Mae Ai 33.11 6.8
5 Pong Namron 9.71 6.2
6 Kiew Satai 12.67 6.4
7 Dongsuwan 32.07 6.8
8 Doi Pa-ngun 4.91 5.9
9 Tha Ton 20.76 6.6
10 Ban Saew 15.12 6.4
11 Pa Kluay 6.91 6.1
12 Pang Sa 9.98 6.2
13 Pa Tung 4.23 5.8
14 Fang 8.26 6.1
15 Huay Mahinphon 8.63 6.2
16 Huay Yano 5.77 6.0
17 Cha Yee 0.95 5.1
18 Pong Pa Khaem 0.60 4.8
Source : DMR (2009)

61
Figure 37 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of the
Northern Basin and Range seismotectonic province
Source: modified from Bott et al. (1997), Fenton et al. (2003)

62
The 2011 Tarlay earthquake event
Phodee P. and Aobpaet A. (2012) studied monitoring the characteristics of post-

seismic deformation of Tarlay earthquake with also attention on stress change on Mae
Chan fault. The study area is covered with dense vegetation and accessing to the study
area is very difficult, so InSAR time-series technique is an attractive technique to
measure surface deformation. Radarsat-2 data acquired from June 2011 to May 2012
have been processed by PSInSAR and Small Baseline techniques. The initial results
with mean LOS deformations reveal the potential of Radarsat-2 data to estimate the
surface deformation which occurred around Mae Chan fault.
Ruangrassamee et al. (2012) investigated the impacts of 2011 Tarlay earthquake

event. Several buildings and roads in northern provinces of Thailand suffered damage
and there was one casualty in Thailand. Most of buildings in Maesai District are not
designed for seismic resistance. The survey was of an interest to understand how
moderate earthquakes affect buildings and geotechnical structures not designed for
seismic resistance. Most of buildings in the area are of reinforced concrete. The damage
to columns was found to be attributed to 1) limited flexural capacity of columns with
small sections, 2) shear failure of short columns, 3) shear failure of columns due to
forces transferred from masonry walls, and 4) low construction quality. Beside damage
to structures, it was the first time in Thailand that liquefaction was observed in a
seismic event.
Ornthammarath T. (2013) investigated a Mw 6.8 earthquake that occurred in

Myanmar on 24 March 2011. Based on instrumental earthquake catalogue, Nam Ma
fault did not produce any earthquake greater than magnitude 6 for at least 100 years. So
the 24 March 2011 earthquake is essentially filling the gap of relatively short
instrumental earthquake catalogue in this region. The strong ground motion at Mae Sai
station was observed. At this station, the observed PGA in NS, EW, and UD reach 0.19,
0.20, and 0.11 g, respectively. Although the horizontal PGA is relatively high, which
might be due to local soil amplification, but the observed damage inside Mae Sai area is
rather low comparing to that inside Myanmar. The observed spectral ordinates are less
than that of design earthquake level, but it does exceed at 0.1 second. Both fault-normal
and fault parallel components are comparable without any amplification at long period
suggesting that there is no fault rupture directivity effect at Mae Sai station in
agreement with observed damage (Figure 38). However the modeled displacement has
been overlaid on Google Earth map showing, the large displacement could be expected
around near fault region (Figure 39). The modeled near field displacement are varied
from 0.3 to 0.5 m in agreement with observation from field investigation. Furthermore,
at Mae Sai station, the modeled static displacements are around 6, 3, and 1 cm for NS,
EW, and UD direction, respectively. The comparison between modelled static
displacement and those recovered from strong motion record are well consistent.
63
Figure 38 Comparison of recorded spectral acceleration spectra (at 5 % damping) with
Thailand seismic design spectra of soil type D
Source: Ornthammarath T. (2013)
Figure 39 Modeled static horizontal displacement on surface in yellow arrows is

overlaid on Google Earth around western section of Nam Ma fault
responsible for Mw 6.8, 24 March 2011 earthquake. The red line represents
Nam Ma fault based on Lacassin et al. (1998), and the green box shows the
modeled rupture zone of Tarlay earthquake
Source: Ornthammarath T. (2013)

64
Earthquake frequency
The probabilities of earthquake occurrence events for each magnitude can

calculate with Gutenberg and Richter laws (Gutenberg and Richter, 1944) which is
given in equation 46. It is depend on seismicity parameter of source earthquake area,
and this relationship is a key element in estimating the probability that an earthquake
with magnitude M or larger will occur within a specific time interval.
log( N )  a  bM (46)
Where N = the number of event having a magnitude ≥ M (times per year)
a and b = constant values base on each seismicity sources
M = the Magnitudes of earthquake
Pailoplee et. al (2010) presented Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in

Thailand and adjacent areas by using regional seismic source zones. They reported
seismicity parameters from 21 seismic source zone and covering Thailand area
(Charusiri et al., 2005, Figure 40). For this study, Chiangrai province is covered zone
E, and there is coefficients a and b values at 2.79 and 0.37, respectively. The other
area can be expressed in Table 16.
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.
Pailoplee et. al (2013) presented earthquake activities in the Thailand-Laos-

Myanmar Border Region by statistical approach. The spatial distributions of the a and
b-values from the frequency-magnitude distribution relationship were investigated
from the complete earthquake catalogue. Analyses of the possible maximum
magnitude earthquakes derived from the a and b values indicate that the Maesai areas,
65
Chiangrai province is capable of generating an earthquake annually with a magnitude

mb of 4.0 and that an earthquake of mb 7.0 is possible within 500 years (Figure 42).
Ornthammarath T. et al. (2010) presented probabilistic seismic hazard

assessment for Thailand. They presented the study region into five zones: the three
subduction zones (SD-A, SD-B, SD-C) and the two background seismicity zones, i.e.,
Thailand and its surrounding zone (BG-I), and the remaining zone (BG-II). The result
show that Maesai area is located in BG-I zone, the b parameter value is equal to 0.9.
Table 16 Summary of earthquake source parameters for the 21 seismic source zones
Zone Zone Name Tectonic EQ Mmax Mmin a b

Code setting event value value
A Andaman subduction S 101 9.0 4.0 4.55 0.58
B West-Central S 61 6.9 4.0 2.73 0.36
Myanmar
C East-Central Myanmar C 87 6.5 4.0 2.72 0.35
D Mae Hong Son- C 293 6.2 4.0 3.15 0.40
Matabar
F Chiang Mai –Luang C 643 6.6 4.0 2.90 0.32
PraBang
G Central Thailand C 7 5.0 4.0 - -
H Petchabun–Wang C 26 5.5 4.0 2.75 0.57
Wiang
I Khorat Plateau C 16 5.8 4.0 3.37 0.64
J Song Ca C 21 5.3 4.0 2.58 0.48
K Northern Vietnam C 17 5.8 4.0 3.05 0.58
L Eastern Thailand C 3 4.6 4.0 - -
Cambodia
M Andaman Arc S 131 8.6 4.0 5.07 0.62
N Andaman Basin C 190 6.6 4.0 6.73 0.92
O Western Thailand C 83 6.5 4.0 2.52 0.40
P Mergui C 36 5.7 4.0 3.62 0.60
Q Gulf of Thailand C 4 5.4 4.0 - -
R Malaysia–Malacca C 33 5.6 4.0 3.44 0.60
S Aceh–Mentawai C 210 8.4 4.0 5.04 0.60
T Tenasserim C 14 6.2 4.0 1.68 0.25
U Sumatra Island C 250 7.4 4.0 5.83 0.78
Source: Pailoplee et. al (2010)

66
Table 17 Summary of the earthquake potential parameters of the active fault zones in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas
Active fault data Seismicity investigation

Fault
Fault Zone Fault SRL S Mmax Af Mmin a b Source
No.
typea (km) (mm/yr) (km2) value value
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)

67
Table 17 (continued) Summary of the earthquake potential parameters of the active fault zones in Northern Thailand and adjacent areas
Active fault data Seismicity investigation

Fault
Fault Zone Fault SRL S Af a b Source
No. Mmax Mmin
typea (km) (mm/yr) (km2) value value
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)

68
Figure 40 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of the
Northern Basin and Range seismotectonic province
Source: Charusiri et. al. (2005)

69
Figure 41 Enlarged map showing active faults interpreted in northern Thailand and
surrounding areas
Source: Pailoplee et. al. (2010)

70
Figure 42 The return periods of earthquakes for those at a mb level of (a) 4, (b) 5, (c)
6, and (d) 7
Source: Pailoplee et. al. (2013)

71
Attenuation model
In order to establish seismic design code building, seismic hazard analysis

need to require of ground motion intensity such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) or
response spectrum. This determination process to use attenuation model relationship
which peak ground acceleration (PGA) can evaluate as earthquake magnitude,
distance and other seismic parameters.
Warnitchai et al. (2000) presented seismic hazard assessment of Bangkok.

And used some existing attenuation models developed for other regions with similar
seismotectonic characteristics can adequately represent ground motion attenuation in
this region. The first group of attenuation models to be considered are four empirical
models developed for Western North America (WNA) by Boore et al. (1997),
Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), Sadigh et al. (1993).
The second group are two new empirical models for Europe (EU) developed from
regression analyses of European and Italy strong-motion data by Ambraseys and
Bommer (1992) and Sabetta and Pugliese (1987) These two groups represent the
attenuation characteristics of shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions.
The third group are three new models for Central and Eastern North America (CENA)
developed by Toro and McGuire (1987), Atkinson and Boore (1995), and Hwang and
Huo (1997). These models are for shallow crustal earthquakes in a stable continental
region. The fourth group is Estava Model, Nutalaya and Shrestha (1990) compared
the recorded peak ground acceleration (PGA) values in western Thailand with those
predicted by several existing attenuation models, and they found that the Esteva and
Villaverde (1973) gives the best fit. So they suggested that the model could be used
for seismic hazard assessments in this region
Chintanapakdee et al. (2008) estimated suitable attenuation models for

Thailand by comparing PGA estimates by each model from ground motions recorded
in Thailand. Twenty attenuation equations previously developed for shallow crustal
earthquakes in both active tectonic and stable continental regions, and for subduction
earthquakes were evaluated using a total of 163 ground motions recorded by Thai
Meteorological Department (TMD) from 45 earthquake events between July 2006 and
July 2007. PGA estimated by attenuation models for earthquake magnitude ranging
from 4 to 7 were plotted and compared to the field records. The square root of mean
of square (RMS) of the differences between estimated PGA and actual records was
also computed for each attenuation model. It was found that the attenuation models
proposed by Idriss (1993), Sadigh et al. (1997), and Toro (2002) have the lowest RMS
for shallow crustal earthquakes. And the model by Crouse (1991) has the lowest RMS
for subduction earthquakes. Therefore, these models are the most suitable attenuation
models for Thailand.
72
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).
However, PEER-NGA ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs)

published in the February, 2008 issue of Earthquake Spectra. Five NGA empirical
models are employed: Abrahamson-Silva (A&S, 2008), Boore-Atkinson (B&A,
2008), Campbell- Bozorgnia (C&B, 2008), Chiou-Youngs (C&Y, 2008a), and Idriss
(2008). The attenuation model is defined for a specific scenario earthquake defined in
terms of magnitude, distance, style of faulting, and site conditions. The attenuation
model parameters required by each ground motion model are listed in Table 18.
Figure 43 Compare of between recorded PGA values and attenuation models
Source: DMR (2011)

73
Table 18 Parameters for PEER-NGA Ground Motion Prediction Models
A&S B&A C&B C&Y Idriss Explanations

Magnitude / / / / / Moment magnitude of the
earthquake
Fault type / / / / / Types of fault mechanism.
Options are:
(1) Strike Slip
(2) Normal or Normal
Oblique
(3) Reverse or Reverse
Oblique
Dip (degree) / / / Dip angle of rupture plane
Width (km) / / / Down-dip width of rupture
plane
ZTOR (km) / / / Depth to top of rupture
plane
RJB (km) / / / / Joyner-Boore distance to
rupture plane
RRup (km) / / / / Closest distance to rupture
plane
Rx (km) / / Site coordinate w.r.t. top
of rupture
Vs30 (m/s) / / / / / Average shear wave
velocity of top 30 m
Z1.0 (km) / / Depth to VS=1.0 km/s
horizon
Z2.5 (km) / Depth to VS=2.5 km/s
horizon
Source : PEER (2011)
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
Baker (2008) described a probability-based framework capable of addressing

the concerns identified above. Rather than ignoring the uncertainties present in the
problem, this approach incorporates them into calculations of potential ground motion
intensity. While incorporation of uncertainties adds some complexity to the
procedure, the resulting calculations are much more defensible for use in engineering
decision-making for reducing risks.
74
With PSHA, we are no longer searching for an elusive worst-case ground

motion intensity. Rather, we will consider all possible earthquake events and resulting
ground motions, along with their associated probabilities of occurrence, in order to
find the level of ground motion intensity exceeded with some tolerably low rate. At its
most basic level, PSHA is composed of five steps (Figure 44).
1. Identify all earthquake sources capable of producing damaging ground motions.
2. Characterize the distribution of earthquake magnitudes (the rates at which

earthquakes of various magnitudes are expected to occur).
3. Characterize the distribution of source-to-site distances associated with potential

earthquakes.
4. Predict the resulting distribution of ground motion intensity as a function of

earthquake magnitude, distance, etc.
5. Combine uncertainties in earthquake size, location and ground motion intensity,

using a calculation known as the total probability theorem.
The end result of these calculations will be a full distribution of levels of

ground shaking intensity, and their associated rates of exceedance. The illusion of a
worst-case ground motion will be removed, and replaced by identification of
occurrence frequencies for the full range of ground motion intensities of potential
interest. These results can then be used to identify a ground motion intensity having
an acceptably small probability of being exceeded.
Seismic hazard map in Thailand
Ornthammarath et. al. (2010) proposed the probabilistic seismic hazard

analysis (PSHA) is carried out using the USGS software for making and updating the
US National Seismic Hazard map. Contour maps have been developed for mean PGA.
critical damping ratio for 10 and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years,
corresponding to 475 and 2,475-year return periods, respectively. For chiangrai
province, the PGA values can be found about 0.18 and 0.35 g in 10 and 2%
probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, respectively.
DMR (2009) proposed seismic hazard map in Northern part of Thailand

(Figure 45). The results from the ground motion calculation using the attenuation
model of Sadigh et al. (1997) for the assumed shallow crustal earthquake occurring at
75
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
Source: Baker (2008)

76
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
Source: DMR (2009)
Dynamic response analysis
The local soil conditions have an influence on the ground motion

characteristics when the earthquake generated seismic waves propagate through
different soil layers towards the ground surface. These layers may have a major effect
on the amplitude and response spectral characteristics of earthquake ground motions
depending on the type and depth of soil and on the level of ground motion.
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
Source: Dobry and Abdoun (2014)
Effects of local site conditions on ground motion
Local site conditions can influence all of the important characteristics

amplitude, frequency content, and duration-of strong ground motion. The extent of
their influence depends on the geometry and material properties of the subsurface
materials, on site topography, and on the characteristics of the input motion. (Kramer,
1996).
78
Comparisons of peak acceleration attenuation relationsips for sites underlain

by different types of soil profiles show trends in amplification behavior (Seed et al.,
1976). Although attenuation data are scattered, overall trends suggest that peak
accelerations at the surfaces of soil deposits are slightly greater than on rock when
peak accelerations are small and somewhat smaller at higher acceleration levels
(Figure 47). Based on data from Mexico City and the San Francisco Bay area, and on
additional ground response analyses, Idriss (1990) related peak accelerations on soft
soil sites to those on rock sites (Figure 48).
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.
However, Site-specific ground motions reflect the detailed effects of the

subsurface conditions at the sites of interest. To determine the response at the site of
interest, recorded ground surface motion at point C are used (Figure 50). The selected
motion should be deconvoluted through its soil profile in order to determine the
motion of bedrock motion (at point B) that would produce the motion at point A. The
corresponding motion produces the bedrock motion is then applied at the base (point
D) of the soil profile at the site of interest. A ground response analysis is then
performed to predict the motion at the surface of the soil profile of interest (point E).
79
Figure 47 Approximate relationships between peak accelerations on rock and other

local site conditions
Source : Seed et al (1976)
Figure 48 Approximate relationship between peak accelerations on rock and soft soil
sites

80
Figure 49 Average normalized response spectra (5% damping) for different local site
conditions
Source : Seed et al (1976)
Figure 50 Procedure for modifying ground motion parameters to account for the
effects of local site conditions
Source : Modified Kramer (1996)

81
Shear wave velocity of Maesai area, Chiangrai province
Characterization of the stress-strain behavior of soils is an integral component

of many seismic analyses, including site classification, hazard analysis, site response
analysis, and soil–structure interaction. Shear wave velocity (VS) is a valuable
indicator of the dynamic properties of soil because of its relationship with Gmax.
Wair B. R. et al. (2012) presented in guidelines for estimation of shear wave

velocity profiles. They mentioned several researchers have compiled datasets of VS
measurements and developed statistical distributions of VS30 (mean and standard
deviation) for geologic units in California. The most recent and comprehensive study
was performed by Wills and Clahan (2006) in conjunction with the NGA project. This
study divided sites into 19 geologically defined categories and describes the statistical
distribution of VS30 for each category in terms of mean and standard deviation for
both normal and log normal distributions. Figure 51 presents a geologic description
and summary of statistical data for each category.
However, site-specific correlations between VS and SPT data can be

developed in two ways: modifying existing correlations equations and development of
new correlations based on site-specific data. If limited VS and SPT data are available
at a site, the recommended equations may be modified by adjusting the coefficients
and exponents to match site-specific data. If sufficient site-specific VS and SPT data is
available it is possible to develop new site-specific correlation equations.
For Maesai area, Chiangrai province, Poovarodom and Jirasakjamroonsri

(2014) observed the several shear wave velocity profiles of soil in Chiangrai province
by microtremor method that one of shear wave velocity profile in Maesai area had
been done. The result show that the shear wave velocity profile of Maesai area was
approximately 250 - 500 m/s in range of 25 m depth underneath ground surface.
Moreover, the rock-like layer (Vs = 760 m/s) had been also found deeper than 25 m of
depth which is given in Figure 52 (MSAI line). The Vs30 value of Maesai area was
296 m/s that would be classified as site class D according to NEHRP classification.
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 51 Shear wave velocity characteristics of geologic units in California
Source : Wills and Clahan (2006)
Figure 52 Shear wave velocity profile of Maesai area
Source : Poovarodom and Jirasakjamroonsri (2014)

83
Figure 53 Shear wave velocity profile and soil boring of suburb‘s Maesai area
Source : DMR (2014)
Dynamic soil properties
The measurement of dynamic soil properties is a critical task in the solution of

geotechnical earthquake engineering problems. The modulus reduction curve
(G/Gmax) represents soil stiffness is taken as the secant shear modulus and maximum
shear modulus (Gmax) which depend on the cyclic strain amplitude. Slope at the origin
(zero cyclic strain amplitude) represents the largest value of the shear modulus. The
maximum shear modulus is generally calculated from the measured shear wave
velocities in the soil profile. The material damping ratio (D) represents the energy
dissipated by the soil. Mechanisms that contribute to material damping are friction
between soil particles, strain rate effect, and nonlinear soil behavior.
84
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
Sand, Seed and Idriss

(1991) Mean limit
0.4
Clay, Vucetic and
Dobry (1991)PI=15
0.2
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
Equivalent linear analysis
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
Figure 55 Iteration toward strain-compatible shear modulus and damping ratio in

equivalent linear analysis
Source : Kramer (1996)
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.
2. The estimated G and ξ values are used to compute the ground

response, including time histories of shear strain for each layer.
3. The effective shear strain in each layer is determined from the

maximum shear strain in the computed shear strain time history (equation 47). For
layer j
 efjj (i )  R  max j (i ) (47)
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.
5. Steps 2 to 4 are repeated until differences between the computed shear

modulus and damping ratio values in two successive iterations fall below some
predetermined value in all layers. Although convergence is not absolutely guaranteed,
differences of less than 5 to 10% are usually achieved in three to five iterations
(Schnabel et al., 1972).
Even though the process of iteration toward strain-compatible soil

properties allows nonlinear soil behavior to be approximated, it is important to
remember that the complex response method is still a linear method of analysis. The
strain-compatible soil properties are constant throughout the duration of the
earthquake, regardless of whether the strains at a particular time are small or large.
The method is incapable of representing the changes in soil stiffness that actually
occur during the earthquake. The equivalent linear approach to one-dimensional
ground response analysis of layered sites has been coded into a widely used computer
program called SHAKE.
87
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In the other to study about assessment of liquefaction potential in Maesai area,

Chiangrai province, Thailand, the flow chart analysis is given in Figure 56. The
objectives of this research are as follows: 1) To establish of liquefaction potential map
in Maesai area, Chiangrai, Thailand. 2) Comparing the methods of liquefaction
potential analysis. 3) To evaluate the influence of water level fluctuation against
liquefaction potential. 4) Propose method/calculation for annualized of liquefaction
probabilistic in Maesai area considering of ground water level fluctuation.
Step 1 Data gathering is the information that uses for liquefaction analysis
such as geological data, geology data, ground water level data and earthquake
information. Step 2 Data analysis is as follows with 1) Assessment of liquefaction
phenomena in Maesai area which is based on 2011 Tarlay earthquake event.
Liquefaction susceptibility assessment by engineering soil properties, liquefaction
analysis with original empirical approach (Seed method) and the liquefaction potential
index (LPI) analysis are performed. Moreover, the liquefaction potential analysis of
Maesai area is conducted by Mae-Chan fault by dynamic response analysis 2)
Comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods is done by Zhang (2010), Kayen et al.
(1997), Andrus et al. (2000) and Pathak and Dalvi (2013) methods. 3) The influence
of the daily and monthly ground water level fluctuation against liquefaction potential
is performed .4) therefore, the fluctuation of ground water level is also used for
annualized liquefaction probabilistic analysis (Even tree method). Step 3 Outputs of
research is the result of thesis analysis that is components with: 1) To establish the
liquefaction hazard map of Maesai area 2) The results of comparison in liquefaction
evaluation methods is also reviewed and compared. 3) The influence of ground water
level fluctuation against liquefaction potential is performed. 4) The Annualized
liquefaction probabilistic model / return periods of liquefaction manifestation or
ground failure with considering the ground water level fluctuation is done. The
details of the material and method are as below.
88
Assessment of liquefaction potential

in Maesai, Chiangrai Province
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
Results of comparison Annualized Probability liquefaction manifestation

Liquefaction hazard map of
of liquefaction of Maesai area.
Maesai area, Chiangrai
evaluation methods
END
Figure 56 Flow chart analysis of thesis

89
Geological and geotechnical descriptions of Maesai area
The Maesai area, Chiangrai Provinces, Thailand, where is located in the

Northern part of Thailand and there is very closest to the border of Myanmar country.
The geological structure of Mae Sai basin is normal-fault half-graben along the active
Mae Chan left-lateral strike -slip fault. (Wood et al., 2004). The old historical city
(Wiang Nong Lom) had been collapsed by the past catastrophic earthquake event.
However, Department of Groundwater Resources (DGR, 2009) performed the
geological field investigation of Chiangrai and Phayao provinces that are included
amount of 171 sites in both provinces with the gathering geological data such as
fractures, faults, anticlines, synclines and bedding plane. Therefore, they concluded
that the whole geological of Maesai basis is a quaternary deposit. They also
performed the geophysical cross section of Maesai basis by measuring apparent
resistivity survey, the result of geophysical cross sections shows that the whole of
typical sediment deposit such as sand and gravel was approximately defined with 200
m of depth in Maesai basis.
As shown in Figure 57, Maesai area is located between border of Thailand

and Myanmar country in which the Sai river is demarcated of both countries. The
study area is approximately 10 km2. The elevations of the area generally vary from
388 m to 420 m m.s.l. DMR (1988) had published the geological map of Thailand:
Sheet F 4949I of Maesai area (study area) in which consists of sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks material. There are two geological classifications: firstly, the
Alluvium sand, silt and clay of flood plain deposits (Qt), where is nearly located in
mountain of the western part of the study area. Secondly, Terrace gravel, silt, sand
and clay (Qa), where is located the eastern part of the area. Based on 11 standard
penetration test (SPT) boreholes data from field investigation before this earthquake,
the 3 boreholes of Qt deposit were drilled (i.e. MS7, MS8 and MS9, Figure 57). The
subsurface layers of Qt deposit consist of clay and silty clay material and the
decomposed rock was found at the depth of 10 m. One the other hand, the 8 SPT
boreholes of Qa deposit were also performed and there are mostly located near the Sai
river of the border of Thailand. Their subsoil materials mostly consist of sand layers
(USCS soil classification i.e. SC, SP-SM, SM) with SPT-N value less than 20 blow/ft
at the depth of less than 7 m below ground surface and the ground water are mostly
found in the shallow depth which are in ranges of depth between 0.8 m. to 3 m. In
addition, after earthquake occurred, the authors performed the shallow subsoil
investigations by 7 Kunzelstab penetration testing (KPT) sites including the liquefied
surface evidences site. Nevertheless, one of the boreholes (DH1, Figure 57) of Qa
deposit was done by both of SPT-N and seimic downhole testing after the earthquake
(DMR, 2014). This borehole found that the loose to medium dense sand layer was
90
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)
Ground water level data of Maesai area
The measurement of the groundwater level in the study area is required to

assess the liquefaction potential analysis in Maesai. The daily and monthly
measurement of ground water level is performed. However, the monthly ground water
level measurements are also compared by seasoning of rainfall measurement.
The daily measurement of ground water level
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.
The monthly measurement of ground water level
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.
The rainfall measurement
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
Urban area The daily water fluctuation

Measurement points
Figure 58 Locations of daily ground water level measurement in Maesai area
1.64 7 Nov 2013 8 Nov 2013

6 Nov 2013
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
Figure 59 Result of daily ground water level measurement in urban area

93
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
Figure 60 Result of daily ground water level measurement in suburb area
Earthquake information
The recorded strong ground motion of 2011 Tarlay earthquake event
On the 24th March 2011, the 6.8 magnitude earthquake called Tarlay
Earthquake strikes Myanmar. The location of this earthquake was 20.705N and
99.949E, 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
Furthermore, the ground motion parameters will be used to evaluate back

analysis of liquefaction potential assessment in this study namely the cyclic stress
approach, originally proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971). However, the recorded
strong ground motion of 2011 Tarlay earthquake event is used to perform the dynamic
response analysis for comparing the liquefaction potential methods as well (empirical
and analytical approach).
NS- direction EW- direction

0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
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.)
Figure 61 Recorded ground motions from 2011 Tarlay earthquake
The seismic parameters
Although the liquefaction phenomena is occurred in Maesai area due to the

2011 Tarlay earthquake event where the earthquake source is located in Myanmar.
This study is also considered another earthquake source. The Mae Chan fault is
selected in order to calculate the earthquake hazard of the Maesai area because there
is the closest source to site distance to Maesai city. The Seismic hazard analysis is
done by the seismic parameters of Mae Chan fault (such as Maximum magnitude, a
and b parameters of G-R relationship) which the details is given in part of seismic
hazard analysis.
95
Assessment of liquefaction phenomena in Maesai area based on 2011 Tarlay

earthquake event
Evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility
The susceptibility of liquefaction soil can be evaluated with the geotechnical

soil properties namely i.e. percentage of fine content, attenberg limits, water content
and grain size distribution of soil. Seed and Idriss (1982) proposed the evaluation of
potentially liquefiable soils (Chinese criteria) that had been widely used for many
years. According to these criteria, the cohesive soils that are considered to be
potentially liquefiable type if there is less than 15% of fine contents, there is a Liquid
Limit of ≤ 35%, and there is a water content greater than or equal to 90% of the
Liquid Limit. In addition, Seed et al. (2003) recommended a new criterion from case
histories and cyclic testing of undisturbed fine grained soils. These criteria classified
by 3 liquefaction zones: falling within Zone A are considered potentially susceptible
to cyclically-induced soil liquefaction, Soils within Zone B fall into a transition range;
they may in some cases be susceptible to liquefaction (especially if the situ water
content is greater than about 85% of their Liquid Limit), and soils in Zone C are
generally not susceptible to cyclically-induced soil liquefaction. In contrast, Bray and
Sancio (2006) presented the new criteria that even fine-grained soils can demonstrate
susceptibility to liquefaction or cyclic mobility when the following condition is soils
with plasticity index (PI)  18 and wc/LL > 0.8. Finally, based on soil properties of
Maesai area, the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility were done depend on
geological types.
Evaluation of liquefaction potential in Maesai area (SPT-N approach)
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.
Finally, the factor of safety against liquefaction (F.S.) can be calculated as

shown in equation 23 in which the liquefaction is considered to be occurred if F.S. is
lower than unity. This approach is used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of
Maesai‘s subsoil and to back analysis for the subsoil layer that is likely to be
liquefied. This information is rather important for the future of the design building
codes of Maesai. The safety factors against liquefaction of each soil layer were
calculated using the soil data from the boreholes in Maesai (Appendix A). The peak
horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) is considered to be equal to 0.2g as recorded by
accelerometer station of TMD at maesai (Figure 61). However, since the analysis will
be done in various locations depths, the average actual acceleration for each
considered locations and depth is none to be known. Therefore, considering the
amplification effect is neglected, the 0.2g PGA values were used. The MSF is equal to
1.20 for earthquake magnitude of 6.8. The ground water table obtained from the
boreholes is reported in shallow depth. The first SPT-N value data starts below the top
crust layer, therefore the evaluation was done below this level and also below the
present of ground water table. The clay layer was not evaluated since it‘s considered
to be non-liquefiable material. On the other hand, the author performed the shallow
subsoil investigation by Kunzelstab penetration testing (KPT) where were confirmed
between liquefied and none-liquefied area of Maesai however the limit investigation
of KPT that can be only used the shallow investigation (5-6 m. of thickness). And the
correlation between KPT and liquefaction potential assessment have not been done
before. Therefore, the virtual SPT values may be used by KPT values to evaluate the
back analysis of liquefaction potential of Maesai (equation 49, EGAT, 1980). The
effect of overburden stress and energy equipment of KPT was also not neglected.
SPT  0.589( KPT  0.954) (49)
Where SPT = victual standard penetration testing values (blow/ft)
KPT = kunzelstab penetration testing values (blows/ 20 cm.)

97
Determination of liquefaction potential index (LPI)
Liquefaction potential index (LPI) has been used to characterize liquefaction

hazards worldwide. The advantage of LPI over the cyclic stress approach is prediction
of liquefaction potential in a soil element, it predicts the liquefaction potential of the
entire soil column at a specific location. The factors of safety of each layers sounding
can be summarized into a single value. LPI at a site is computed by integrating the
factors of safety (FS) along the soil column up to 20 m of depth. The liquefaction
potential index (LPI) was proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1978) which is expressed as
follows equation 37 to 38. These equations give the values of LPI ranging from 0 to
100.
The evaluation by Iwasaki et al. (1986) concluded that severe liquefaction

could be expected at sites with LPI  15 and was unlikely to occur at sites with LPI 
5. This criterion can be used for liquefaction manifestation. Many researchers have
used the LPI to evaluate liquefaction hazard with the observed liquefaction severity or
liquefaction induced ground surface manifestation. Luna and Frost (1998) examined
data in the San Francisco Bay of California and modified the severity categories
moderate potential in areas with LPIs ranging between 5 and 15. Toprak and Holzer
(2003) related the types of ground damage caused by the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake 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. Kang et al. (2014) conducted re-calibrating
the thresholds for the classification of liquefaction potential index based on the 2004
Niigata-ken Chuetsu earthquake. In their study, soil profiles using standard
penetration tests were evaluated using two methods: the Chinese criteria and the
Bray–Sancio criteria. The results suggest that the liquefied sites have LPI values >
15, and the non-liquefied sites have LPI values < 11 when applying the Chinese
criteria. For the Bray–Sancio criteria, the liquefied sites and the non-liquefied sites
have LPI values >21 and < 14, respectively. The relation of between liquefaction
potential levels and LPI are given in Table 5 (Iwasaki 1986, Luna and Frost 1998,
Keng et al 2014). Similarly, Lee et al. (2004) suggested that the liquefaction risk is
high for sites with LPI >21 and low for sites with < 13.
98
Probability of surface liquefaction manifestation
The researchers have been done to evaluate the probability of surface

liquefaction manifestation based on LPI values. Juang et al. (2005) established the
relationship between probability of ground failure (PG) and the damage class at or
near foundation buildings based on 30 cases from 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake
and 1999 Chi Chi, Taiwan earthquake. They found that the boundary of LPI, such as
LPI = 12 or 5 is used herein to delineate the damage severity class and PG ≥ 0.90
appears to be an appropriate and conservative choice of Major ground damage, and PG
≤ 0.35 for No observed ground damage, respectively. Papathanassiou (2008) proposed
the function in order to estimate the predicted probability of liquefaction surface
manifestation. Juang and Li (2007) developed the LPI using the concept of
probability. They found that the most ground failure cases (those observed with
liquefaction effect on the ground surface) have PG  0.7 and most no failure cases
have PG < 0.3, respectively. Juang et al. (2008) also conducted calibration of LPI with
the newly piezocone penetration testing (CPTU) model. Maurer et al. (2014)
evaluated performance of LPI in predicting the occurrence and severity of surficial
liquefaction manifestations based on the cone penetration test soundings from nearly
1,200 sites with field observations following the Darfield and Christchurch, New
Zealand, earthquakes. Additionally, it was found that LPI should be used with caution
in locations susceptible to lateral spreading. Based on their study, the upper suggested
ranges of liquefaction manifestation probabilities (PG) are provided by equation 39.
Using this formula, the probability of the liquefaction manifestation at sites with LPI
values of 0, 5, 10, 15 ranges are 0.30, 0.60, 0.80 and 0.91, 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 effect of geotechnical structure due to liquefaction (2011 Tarlay earthquake

event)
Most of residential houses (1-2 stories) in Maesai area were constructed by

shallow foundation. Some foundation settlement was found due to liquefaction soil
underneath the shallow foundation, especially there were found in suburb area in
which is located on Qa sedimentary deposit. However, none of the cases were serious
damage therefore the bearing capacity analysis for liquefiable soil of Maesai need to
be performed during the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event. Consequently, the earthquake-
induced punching shear analysis of shallow foundation is to evaluate, it is assumed
that the load will cause the foundation to punch through the upper unliquefiable soil
layer and into liquefied soil layer. It is also assumed that the liquefied soil has no
shear strength, as shown in equation 45, (Day, 2002).
Comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods
The purpose of this chapter is to compare the liquefaction evaluation methods

by dynamic response analysis with empirical equations. The soil properties and the
earthquake parameters use in the liquefaction potential assessment is given in Table
19. The empirical methods that are as follow: Seed and Idriss (1971) based on
Standard Penetration test (SPT), Andrus et al. (2000) using shear-wave velocity
measurements, Zhang (2010) proposed the simple method by quantifying the
influence of the five selected factors grading and Pathak and Dalvi (2013) proposed
the Elementary empirical liquefaction model (EELM) to assess seismic soil
liquefaction, Kayen et al. (1997) uses the arias intensity of the strong ground motion.
The prediction of surface ground motions at DH1 borehole need to be

determined by 2011 Tarlay earthquake event for comparison of liquefaction
evaluation methods. The characteristic of surface ground motions at this site will be
used for liquefaction analysis such as PGA, PGD and arias intensity properties. The
details of Comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods are as below :
Dynamic site response analyses were performed using DEEPSOIL software

(Hashash et al, 2016). DEEPSOIL software is used to calculate one-dimensional
equivalent-linear response of soil layers against earthquake motion. Each layer
consists of the homogeneous thickness, unit weight, shear wave velocity, modulus
reduction curve and damping curve. Since specific laboratory tests on soil samples
were not available, modulus reduction and damping curves were selected based on
100
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 layer. For gravels, sands and nonplastic
silts, proposed relationship of Seed and Idriss (1970) with the mean limit is used.
Vecetic and Dobry (1991) formulations are used for cohesive soils accounting for the
plastic index.
In order to predict the surface ground motions at DH1 borehole, Dr. Jame
A. Bay who is the earthquake specialist of Utah state university, USA. He
recommends two alternatives to predict the surface ground motions at DH1 borehole
(Figure 62) : 1) Deconvolution analysis with rigid-half space condition and 2) Using
recorded surface motions with elastic-half space condition.
a) Trial#1 : Deconvolution analysis with rigid-half space condition
The local soil conditions have an influence on the ground motion

characteristics when the earthquake generated seismic waves propagate through
different soil layers towards the ground surface. These layers may have a major effect
on the amplitude and response spectral characteristics of earthquake ground motions
depending on the type and depth of soil and on the level of ground motion.
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.
For sand and silt: Vs = 101.86 (N0.446) (50)
For clay: Vs = 97.95 (N0.411) (51)
Where Vs = estimated shear wave velocity (m/s)

N = SPT-N values (blow/ft)
102
Table 19 The soil and earthquake properties for liquefaction evaluation methods
Parameters for liquefaction evaluation

Liquefaction Arias
Gmax / Vs v‘ v PGA PGV Duration
evaluation methods SPT FC% rd K Mw intensity
(kPa, m/s) (kPa) (kPa) (g) (m/s) (sec)
(m/s)
Seed and Idriss
(1971) - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - - -
Andrus et al. (2000) √ - √ √ √ √ - √ √ - - -

Zhang (2010) √ - √ - √ - - √ √ - - -
Pathak and Dalvi
√ - √ - - - - √ - √ - √
(2013)
Kayen et al. (1997) - √ - - √ √ - - - - √ -
103
Figure 62 Prediction of surface ground motions at DH1 borehole
Figure 63 Deconvolution analysis with MS 8 borehole‘s soil properties

104
Figure 64 Seismic downhole test locations in Chiangrai province
a) Sand and silt samples b) Clay samples
Figure 65 Estimating of shear wave velocity values by regression analysis

105
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
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)
0 200 400 600 800 1000

0
Field measurement
Model in DEEPSOIL
5
10
Depth (m) 15
20
25
30
Figure 68 Soil properties and modeled Vs profile of DH1 borehole
NS-direction EW-direction
1 1
0.1 0.1
Sa (g)
Sa (g)
0.01 0.01
Recorded NS surface recorded EW surface

Predicted NS rock layer Predicted EW rock layer
0.001 0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
period (sec) period (sec)
Figure 69 Comparing of predicted spectrum at rock layer and recorded surface

spectrum from 2011 Tarlay earthquake motions (MS8 borehole)
107
NS direction EW direction
10 10
1 1
Sa (g)
Sa (g)
0.1 0.1
0.01 Predicted NS rock layer 0.01

Predicted EW rock layer
NS surface of #E borehole EW surface of #E borehole
0.001 0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.) Period (sec.)
Figure 70 Comparing of input spectrums at rock layer and modeled surface spectrums
(DH1 borehole) with rigid-half space condition
b) Trial#2 Using recorded surface motions with elastic-half space
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
0.01 Recorded NS surface 0.01 Recorded EW surface

NS surface of #E borehole EW surface of #E borehole
0.001 0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.) Period (sec.)
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
The comparing of surface response spectrum results of DH1 borehole (with

Trial #1: deconvolution analysis by rigid half space and Trial #2 using the recorded
motions with elastic half space) are shown in Figure 72. The result shows that it is
quite same response spectrums by both the deconvolved motions method with rigid-
half space and the recorded surface motions with the elastic-half space.
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.
For comparison of empirical methods, the average value of amax by dynamic

response analysis (0.235 g, figure 75) at the ground surface is used: Seed and Idriss
(1971) based on Standard Penetration test (SPT), Andrus et al. (2000) using shear-
wave velocity measurements, Zhang (2010) method. Moreover, the average value of
Peak ground velocity (Vmax) at ground surface is 0.216 m/s (: 0.201 and 0.231 m/s of
NS and EW direction, respectively) that uses for Pathak and Dalvi (2013) method.
109
NS direction
10
1
Sa (g)
0.1
0.01 NS surface rigid half space (Trial#1)
NS surface elastic half space (Trial#2)

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec.)
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.)
Figure 72 Comparing of surface spectrums of DH1 borehole with deconvolved

motions method (rigid-half space) and recorded surface motions
(the elastic-half space)
110
PGA (g) PGA (g)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0 0
EW rigid half space NS rigid half space
(Trial#1) (Trial#1)
EW elastic half space NS elastic half space
5 (Trial#2) 5 (Trial#2)
10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
Figure 73 Comparing of PGA profile of DH1 borehole with deconvolved motions

method (rigid-half space) and recorded surface motions (the elastic-half
space)
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
(a) Surface times histories and arias intensity of NS direction

111
0.3 1.6
0.2 1.4
1.2

0.1
1
0
Acc. (g)
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
(b) Surface times histories and arias intensity of EW direction
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
Influence of ground water level fluctuation against liquefaction potential
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.
Suburb area, WM2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
GWL_2004
2
GWL_2005
Water level (m.)
4
GWL_2006
6 GWL_2007
8 GWL_2008
average
10
12
Figure 76 Fluctuation of ground water level : NT 78 (WM2) station

113
Figure 77 Distribution analysis of ground water level of NT 78 (WM2) station
Propose method/calculation for annualized of liquefaction probabilistic in

Maesai area considering of ground water level fluctuation
The annualized of liquefaction probabilistic in Maesai area considering of

ground water level fluctuation with the DH1 borehole is performed with event tree
analysis. The step of annual liquefaction probabilistic analysis is given in Figure 78.
The details of analysis are descripted as below.
Calculation of PGA at ground surface
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)
Where M = the earthquake magnitude,

λm = the mean annual rate of exceedance and the parameters
a and b = constants.
The mean annual rate of exceedance λm = 1/T , where T is the return period.
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.
ln Sa  C1  C2 M w  C3 (8.5  M w )2.5  C4 ln(rrup  e( c5 c6 M w ) )  C7 ln(rrup  2) (53)
Where Sa = Spectral acceleration in g

Mw = Moment Magnitude
rrup = Closest distance to the rupture plane in km
C1 – C7 = coefficient of Sadigh attenuation model
115
Figure 78 Even tree analysis for evaluation of Probability of ground failure
Figure 79 Correlation of liquefaction phenomena between Magnitude and distance

116
Myanmar
25 km.
Magnitude
of 7.5 Thailand
Figure 80 Position of Maesai city and Mae Chan Fault
Figure 81 Annual rate of exceedance and magnitude of Mae Chan fault

117
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 
Table 20 Calculation of PGA probability (rock site)
0-0.15g 0.15-0.25g 0.25-0.35g 0.35-0.45g >0.45g

Magnitude
(0.10g) (0.20g) (0.30g) (0.40g)
5.0-6.0 (5.5) 0.936 0.055 0.007 0.002 0.000
6.0-7.0 (6.5) 0.625 0.292 0.064 0.014 0.005
7.0-7.5 (MCE 7.5) 0.096 0.482 0.304 0.090 0.027
118
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
Sadigh 1997 (M = 7.5, R = 25 km.)

10
Target
Spectrum
RSN_1165_2
1 RSN_1161_1
Sa (g)
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 83 Expected response spectrum and strong ground motions time-histories

119
Table 21 The characteristic of earthquake motion using for dynamic response

analysis
Earthquake Station Rjb Rrup Vs30

No. Name Year Mag. Mechanism
Name name (km) (km) (m/s)
Kocaeli
1 1165_2 1999 Izmit 7.51 strike slip 3.62 7.21 811
Turkey
Kocaeli
2 1161_1 1999 Gebze 7.51 strike slip 7.57 10.92 792
Turkey
Duzce Lamont
3 1613_2 1999 7.14 strike slip 25.78 25.88 782
Turkey 1060
Kobe Kobe
4 1108_2 1995 6.90 strike slip 0.9 0.92 1043
Japan University
Tottori
5 3954_2 2000 SMNH10 6.61 strike slip 15.58 15.59 967
Japan
Tottori
6 3920_2 2000 OKYH02 6.61 strike slip 70.52 70.52 1047
Japan
7 879_1 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.28 strike slip 2.19 2.19 1369
Figure 84 Relationship between PGA at rock site and PGA at ground surface (DH1)
120
Ground water level distribution
The NT78 (WM2) ground water distribution is performed by statistical

analysis with range of depth 0-1.5 m, 1.5-2.5 m, 2.5-3.5 m and > 3.5 m., the result of
standard normal cumulative distribution function of these water level ranges are
0.099, 0.573, 0.313 and 0.015, respectively (Figure 85). The standard normal
cumulative distribution values are used for each event tree scenario of ground water
level distribution.
Ground surface manifestation with LPI model
The liquefaction probabilistic ground surface manifestation considering the

fluctuation of ground water level is performed by LPI assessment with the Maurer et
al. (2014) equation. The component of event tree analysis is the probabilistic
liquefaction manifestation considering the ground water level fluctuation with
Magnitude of earthquake M5.5, 6.5 and 7.5 and source to site distance of 25 km., the
result of even tree analysis is the annualized probabilistic liquefaction manifestation
of DH1 borehole by considering of ground water level fluctuation, Maesai area.
Ground water level fluctuation in Maesai surburb area (2004-2008)

0.099 0.573 0.313 0.015 Mean 2.243
6
StDev 0.5761
N 23
4
Frequency
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Ground water level (m.)
Figure 85 Standard normal cumulative distribution function analysis of ground water

levels (NT 48, WM2)
121
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results and discussion of liquefaction phenomena based on 2011 Tarlay

earthquake event in Maesai area
Evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility
Based on soil properties of Maesai area, the evaluation of liquefaction

susceptibility were done depend on geological types ( Figure 86), the result show that
both Qt and Qa geological deposit are mostly susceptible to liquefaction by Seed et al.
(2003) criteria. Moreover, the in-situ water contents of Maesai‘s soil were also used to
compare for the liquefaction assessment according to Chinese criteria and Bray and
Sancio (2006) criteria. It was found that the fine soils of Qa deposit is higher available
liquefaction potential than the Qt deposit (Figure 87 a). On the one hand, these
geotechnical properties of Maesai were also compared by Chinese criteria which they
were mostly classified as none-liquefaction potential soil (Figure 87 b). However,
after liquefaction occurred the authors collected 12 sand samples both extruded and
below ground surface from where liquefaction has been found. Sieve analysis has
been performed and found that all the sand samples have a uniform gradation. It is
also founded that the gradation of the liquefied soil is matched well within the
gradation range of the liquefiable soil reported by Iwasaki (1986) (Figure 88). The
liquefaction surface evidences are only found Qa geological deposit where are located
in suburb area and shallow ground water level. Based on the subsoil characteristics as
discussed, it can be also concluded that the sand layers in Maesai is susceptible for
liquefaction.
122
Figure 86 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments
a) Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria b) Chinese criteria
Figure 87 Comparison of liquefaction susceptibility between Bray and Sancio (2006)

and Chinese criteria
123
Figure 88 Gradation curve of sands from Maesai liquefied sites comparing with the
gradation range of liquefiable soil
Back analysis the liquefaction potential in Maesai area
The liquefaction is considered to be occurred if F.S. is lower than unity. The

peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) is considered to be equal to 0.2g as
recorded by accelerometer station of TMD at maesai. However, since the analysis will
be done in various locations depths, the average actual acceleration for each
considered locations and depth is none to be known. Therefore, considering the
amplification effect is neglected, the 0.2g PGA values were used. The MSF is equal to
1.20 for earthquake magnitude of 6.8. The clay layer was not evaluated since it‘s
considered to be non-liquefiable material. The factor of safety against liquefaction
(F.S.) of all boreholes in Maesai area can be given as in Figure 89, the details of
liquefaction calculation by 2011 Tarlay earthquake event is given in Appendix B.
The result shows that the F.S. values at various depths of MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4,
MS5, MS6 and MS7 boreholes are greater than 1, where were not found the surface
liquefaction evidences although the ground water levels of these borehole are quite
shallow depths ( 2 to 6 m. below ground surface). For the MS8, MS9, MS 10 and MS
11 boreholes, the depth of liquefaction potential occurrence (F.S. < 1) may be 2 to 7
m. below ground surface with less than 16 blows per feet however the ground failure
and surface liquefaction manifestation of these boreholes were not found from this
earthquake event.
124
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.
DH1 KZ1 KZ2 KZ3 KZ4 KZ5 KZ6 KZ7

Depth
(N1)60-cs F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S SPT-N F.S
0-1 m. None GWL. None GWL.
1-2 m. 20 1.82 5 0.64 6 9 0.71 9
2-3 m. 14 1.16 9 0.72 11 15 1.01 12 1.29 8
3-4 m. 6 0.84 16 1.2513 0.87 32 1.74 12 End of boring End of boring End of boring
4-5 m. 8 0.87 13 0.84 22 1.55 11
5-6 m. 10 0.88 End of boring 16 1.04 25 1.87 End of boring
6-7 m. 12 0.94 End of boring 32 2
7-8 m. 6 0.63 End of boring
8-9 m.
9-10 m. 12 0.89
10-11 m. 17 1.18
11-12 m.
12-13 m. 15 1.01
13-14 m. 12 0.88
14-15 m.
15-16 m. 11 0.87
16-17 m.
17-18 m. 22 1.57
18-19 m. 19 1.30
19-20 m. 15 1.10
20-21 m.
21-22 m. 19 1.40
22-23 m. 30 2.00
23-24 m.
24-25 m. 49 2.00
25-26 m. 33 2.00
26-27 m.
27-28 m. 20 1.59
28-29 m. 33 2.00
29-30 m. End of boring @32 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
Grain size (mm)
Figure 91 The result of sieve analysis at the KZ2 site (liquefied site)
127
Determination of liquefaction potential index (LPI) and probability of surface

liquefaction manifestation
Determination of liquefaction potential index (LPI) values and the assessment

of surface liquefaction manifestation probabilities in Maesai area by 2011 Tarlay
earthquake event were evaluated by author with the 12 SPT and 7 KPT sounding
locations, which is given details in Table 22 and Figure 92. The factor of safety of
each layers are used to evaluate the LPI value of the each borehole. The results found
that LPI value of all boreholes in Qt deposit is less than 2.06, where were also not
found the surface liquefaction evidences after the earthquake event. They could be
classified as ―Very low - low‖ and ―Little to none – Low (Minor)‖ of liquefaction
potential levels (refer to Iwasaki 1986, Luna and Frost 1998, Keng et al 2014).
Nevertheless, the LPI values of all boreholes in Qa deposit are between 0 – 10.41,
especially LPI value of KZ2 borehole have a highest value based on only thickness of
sounding as 6.4 m which was also found the liquefied soil at the ground surface. In
contrast, LPI assessment of KZ3 (liquefied site) that is a zero, the absence of ground
surface liquefied soil evidence may be caused by only shallow investigation and/or
local site amplification affect. It should be more invested in deeper depth. Finally, the
LPI assessment of Qa deposit could be also classified liquefaction potential as
between ―Low to High level‖ (Iwasaki, 1986) and Liquefaction potentials severity as
―low level to moderate level‖ (Luna and Frost 1998, Keng et al 2014).
In addition, assessment of surface liquefaction manifestation probability in
Maesai was done by equation 39. The result show that the probability of liquefaction
manifestation (at LPI = 0) are less than 0.30 (i.e. MS1 to MS7, KZ4 and KZ7) which
is similar classification as ―No observed ground damage‖ (PG ≤ 0.35) and ―no failure
cases‖ (PG < 0.30) refer to Juang et al. (2005) and Juang and Li (2007), respectively.
In contrast, the upper of PG at liquefied site (KZ2) has 82 % (only sounding depth of
6.40 m.), which is a highest value of PG of in Maesai area. One the other hand, no
sand boils or ground cracks occurred at the DH1 borehole during the 2011 Tarlay
earthquake that the PG is 78 %. It is probable that the 3-m-thick layer is capped the
level-ground, prevented the formation of sand boils at the ground surface (Ishihara,
1985).
Finally, it could be concluded that LPI do not clearly segregate liquefied and
none-liquefied site, LPI is better used to assess the probability of damaging
liquefaction than using LPI values to predict the occurrence of liquefaction. LPI
should be useful for liquefaction hazard mapping.
128
Table 22 Assessment of LPI values and probability of surface liquefaction

manifestation in Maesai
No Bore Deposit WL. Depth of Obser LPI LPI level PG of

hole type (m.) sounding ved values Maurer
(m.) Lique et al.
fied (2014)
1 MS1 Qa 3.00 6.50 - 0 None 0.30
2 MS2 Qa 6.00 15.50 - 0 None 0.30
3 MS3 Qa 2.20 9.50 - 0 None 0.30
4 MS4 Qa 2.80 15.50 - 0 None 0.30
5 MS5 Qa 2.00 15.50 - 0 None 0.30
6 MS6 Qa 2.50 15.50 No 0 None 0.30
7 MS7 Qt none 10.50 No 0 None 0.30
8 MS8 Qt 0.20 10.50 No 2.54 low 0.47
9 MS9 Qt 0.30 10.00 No 2.06 low 0.44
10 MS10 Qa 1.50 17.00 - 2.35 low 0.46
11 MS11 Qa 0.50 12.50 - 0.28 low 0.32
12 DH1 Qa 3.00 32.00 No 8.91 Moderate 0.78
13 KZ1 Qa 1.50 5.00 - 0.5 low 0.33
14 KZ2 Qa 0.80 6.40 Yes 10.41 Moderate 0.83
15 KZ3 Qa 1.30 6.60 Yes 0 None 0.30
16 KZ4 Qt none 5.20 No 0 None 0.30
17 KZ5 Qa 0.40 3.20 - 6.81 Moderate 0.70
18 KZ6 Qa 2.30 3.40 - 0.73 low 0.35
19 KZ7 Qt none 3.40 No 0 None 0.30
129
Figure 92 Assessment of LPI values and probability of liquefaction manifestation
in Maeai based on 2011 Tarlay earthquake
Relationship between liquefaction potential index (LPI) and depth to ground

water level
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.
LPI 1/2  0.32.DTW  1.57 (55)
Where ; LPI = liquefaction potential index (LPI)
DTW = depth to ground water level (m.)
a = regression coefficient and b is intercept

130
Figure 93 The relationship between the LPI and Depth to ground water level based on
this study and Chung and Rogers (2011)
The effect of geotechnical structure due to liquefaction (2011 Tarlay earthquake

event)
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
Figure 94 The punching shear assessment of shallow foundation in Maesai area
from the 2011 Tarlay earthquake
To establish the liquefaction hazard map of Maesai area
Based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event, Maesai area is confirmed to

susceptible liquefaction phenomena. However, the liquefaction hazard map of Maesai
area is established by Magnitude of 7.5 (Maechan Fault) and ground water levels are
located at the bottom of top crust layer. The evaluation of PGA surface is performed
by dynamic response analysis. The effect of rock depth is conducted by the all
boreholes (Figure 95). The details of PGA value at the ground surface of all boreholes
are given in Table 23. The result analysis is performed to establish the liquefaction
hazard map of Maesai area that is given in Table 24 and Figure 96, respectively.
Figure 95 Depth of rock for dynamic response analysis in Maesai area

132
Table 23 PGAs value of ground surface by dynamic response analysis
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
Figure 96 Liquefaction hazard map of Maesai area by Maechan fault (MCE)
Comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods
To compare the evaluation of liquefaction potential procedure by SPT-N

approach (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008), shear wave velocity approach (Andrus et al.,
2000), simplified procedure (Zhang, 2010), EELM model (Pathak and Dalvi, 2013)
and using Arias intensity at the ground surface (Kayen et al (1997) method, the
liquefaction potential at the DH1 site during the 2011 Tarlay earthquake is presented.
The evaluation of liquefaction potential procedure by SPT-N approach (Idriss

and Boulanger, 2008), shear wave velocity approach (Andrus et al., 2000), simplified
procedure (Zhang, 2010) is used the single PGA value of 0.235 g at the surface to
determine the CSR values. The EELM model (Pathak and Dalvi, 2013) is used the
PGD of 0.216 m/s to evaluate liquefaction potential, and the summary two horizontal
directions of Arias intensity values = 2.49 m/s at the ground surface are used for
Kayen et al (1997) method. The results of liquefaction potential assessment methods
comparison of DH1 borehole is given in Figure 97 and Figure 98. The results show
that the liquefiable soil may be occurred at the depth of between 3 – 16 m. below
134
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.
Result of local site effect analysis
Moreover, Poovarodom and Jirasakjamroonsri (2014) investigated the seismic

site effects by microtremor surveys for site characteristics and ground response
analysis of the Maesai area. Predominant periods and shear wave velocity of a site
was obtained by H/V spectral ratio and Spatial Autocorrelation technique that the
predominant periods of Maesai‘s soil profile is 0.43 seconds. However, the comparing
of shear wave velocity profile between DMR (2014) this study and Poovarodom and
Jirasakjamroonsri (2014) in Maesai area are given the Figure 99. It was found that the
engineering bedrock (Vs = 760 m/s) was reached at the depth of 25 m. below the
ground surface. The site classification of Maesai area is class D based on average
shear wave velocity to 30 meter depth (Vs30) according to NEHRP (BSSC, 1997).
The results of dynamic response analysis by between this study and

Poovarodom and Jirasakjamroonsri (2014) show that the maximum amplification
spectrum ratios are fit well with the period ranges of 0.4 – 0.6 seconds (Figure 100).
These peak periods maybe have effected by the natural site period of soil profile (0.43
seconds.). It means that the existing of high-rise building (4-6 stories) in Maesai area
may be effected from the earthquake event due to the resonance affect. Luckily, these
high-rise buildings are mostly not found in this area however the construction or
designing need to be concerned for urban planning in the future of high rise building.
135
Figure 97 Comparison of liquefaction potential assessment methods of DH1 borehole

136
Figure 98 Comparing of F.S. values with the liquefaction potential methods
Figure 99 Shear wave velocity profiles of Maesai area, Chiangrai Province

137
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.)
Figure 100 Comparison of ground surface response spectrums of Maesai area
Influence of ground water level fluctuation
Result of comparison between ground water level fluctuations and rainfall

intensity
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
Result of influence of ground water levels against liquefaction potential
However, the ground water level station is located in suburb area NT 78

(WM2), was quite consistency with amount of 1 and - 4 m (Figure 76) below ground
level. The influence of ground water level fluctuation against liquefaction assessment
is performed by the water level of 1 m, 2 m, 3 m and 4 m. below ground surface,
respectively. The F.S. values versus depth and LPI values result of ground water
level fluctuation against liquefaction potential is expressed in Figure 102. The result
show that the soil layers at the depth of 4 m to 16 m. below ground surface should be
liquefied with the predicted PGA = 0.235 g at the ground surface from M6.8 2011
Tarlay earthquake event because the F.S values are less than one (Figure 103).
However, the result show that if the ground water levels from the 1 m. below ground
surface decrease to 2 m, 3 m and 4 m. below ground surface, the percentage of F.S.
values are increased about 0-14.96%, 0-30.95% and 0-48.10%, respectively.
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
Average Rainfall (mm/day)

2 20.0 Avg.Rainfall_2007
Water level (m.)
GWL_2004
6 12.0
GWL_2005
8 8.0 GWL_2006
10 4.0 GWL_2007
GWL_2008
12 0.0
a) Urban area of Maesai, Chiangrai province
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)
Water level (m.)
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
b) Suburb area of Maesai, Chiangrai province
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
Figure 104 Correlation of between LPI and none-thickness liquefaction soil

considering the ground water levels
142
Result of calculation for annualized of liquefaction probabilistic in Maesai area

considering of ground water level fluctuation
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.
Table 25 Annual probability of liquefaction manifestation of DH1 borehole
annual probability of liquefaction manifestation

Magnitude
(times/year) Return period (years)
5.0-6.0 (5.5) 0.002075593 482
6.0-7.0 (6.5) 0.004173577 240
7.0-7.5 (7.5, MCE) 0.000806175 1,240
143
Liquefaction triggeringLPI value Prob. Liquefaction manifestation

Earthquake Acitivity PGA (rock site) PGA (surface) Water level (m.) Annual prob. Of liquefaction manifestation No.
by Maurer et al. (2014)
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
- 1.5-2.5 m. F.S. > 1, LPI = 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation

0.573 0 0.00 0.00 0 2
- 2.5-3.5 m. F.S. > 1, LPI = 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation

0.313 0 0.00 0.00 0 3
-3.5-4.5 m. F.S. > 1, LPI = 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation

0.015 0 0.00 0.00 0 4
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
- 1.5-2.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation

0.573 1 4.62 0.59 0.000994623 6

0.313 1 1.85 0.43 0.000394447 7
-3.5-4.5 m. F.S. < 1, LPI > 0 Prob.of liquefaction manifestation

0.015 1 1.33 0.39 1.7377E-05 8
0.007 0.099 1 22.86 0.95 3.53732E-05 9

0.573 1 16.40 0.93 0.000199739 10

0.313 1 10.26 0.81 9.54576E-05 11

0.015 1 5.35 0.62 3.51933E-06 12
0.002 0.099 1 32.77 1.00 1.06332E-05 13

0.573 1 25.59 0.94 5.79344E-05 14

0.313 1 18.54 0.94 3.17319E-05 15

0.015 1 12.86 0.87 1.40864E-06 16
Annual prob.of ground failure due to liquefaction S 0.002075593 times/year

Return periods 482 years
Figure 105 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL.fluctuation (M 5.0-6.0)
144
Liquefaction triggering LPI value Prob. Liquefaction manifestation

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

0.573 1 1.84 0.43 0.001031464 2

0.313 1 1.18 0.38 0.000505252 3

0.015 1 0.62 0.34 2.17353E-05 4
0.292 0.099 1 25.89 0.94 0.0001837 5

0.573 1 19.57 0.95 0.00107284 6

0.313 1 13.28 0.88 0.000545297 7

0.015 1 8.13 0.74 2.19682E-05 8
0.064 0.099 1 39.87 1.00 4.28366E-05 9

0.573 1 32.63 1.00 0.000247933 10

0.313 1 25.52 0.94 0.000127534 11

0.015 1 19.41 0.95 6.1519E-06 12
0.014 0.099 1 47.88 1.00 9.37051E-06 13

0.573 1 40.28 1.00 5.42354E-05 14

0.313 1 32.88 1.00 2.9626E-05 15

0.015 1 26.38 0.94 1.33096E-06 16

Figure 106 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M 6.0-7.0)
145
Liquefaction triggeringLPI value Prob. Liquefaction manifestation

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

0.573 1 14.76 0.91 4.24674E-05 2

0.313 1 8.96 0.77 1.97167E-05 3

0.015 1 4.74 0.59 7.27829E-07 4
0.482 0.099 1 42.87 1.00 4.06146E-05 5

0.573 1 35.71 1.00 0.000235072 6

0.313 1 28.65 0.92 0.000118683 7

0.015 1 22.55 0.95 5.85204E-06 8
0.304 0.099 1 53.51 1.00 2.56159E-05 9

0.573 1 45.88 1.00 0.000148261 10

0.313 1 38.44 1.00 8.09875E-05 11

0.015 1 31.85 1.00 3.88119E-06 12
0.09 0.099 1 59.43 1.00 7.58364E-06 13

0.573 1 51.53 1.00 4.38932E-05 14

0.313 1 43.88 1.00 2.39766E-05 15

0.015 1 37.02 1.00 1.14904E-06 16

Figure 106 Annualized of liquefaction probabilistic calculation of DH1 borehole considering of GWL. fluctuation (M7.0-7.5,
MCE)
146
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
2. The liquefaction potential assessment by Seed method (Original method) is

still good performance for the soil profile of Maesai area.
3. To assess the liquefaction potential of suburb area is not effected by

fluctuation of ground water level because the monthly ground water levels are still high
level. However, the 3-4 m-thick layer is capped the level-ground, prevented the sand
boils at the ground surface of Maesai area.
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
1. The liquefaction potential assessment should be considered pore water

pressure during the earthquake shaking, this procedure could be done by laboratory
test or numerical models with considering the pore pressure parameters.
2. Therefore, The development of foundation design code and remedial

process for the buildings and on ground structures to withstand liquefaction of subsoil
in Maesai need to be seriously conducted to prevent catastrophic loss in the next
strong earthquake. The Maesai city is located between Mae Jun and Namma fault
which they are considered to be active and have high potential if producting large
earthquake.
147
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.
Ambraseys, N. N. 1988. Engineering seismology, Earthquake Eng. and Structural

Dynamics 17(1), 1–105.
Ambraseys, N.N. and J.J. Bommer. 1992. On the attenuation of ground

acceleration in Europe Proc. 10th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Rotterdam,
2, pp 675-678.
Anderson, L. R. 2014. Examples of accommodating liquefaction induced failure

modes in the risk assessment of dams EERI liquefaction short course Salt
lake city, Utah, USA.
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.
Andrus, R. D. and K. H. II. Stokoe. 2000. Liquefaction resistance of soils from

shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 11, November, 2000.
Andrus, R. D. and K. H. II. Stokoe. 1997. Liquefaction resistance based on shear

wave velocity. Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils, Tech.
Arango, I. 1996. Magnitude scaling factors for soil liquefaction evaluations. J.

Geotechnical Eng., ASCE 122(11), 929–36, 1996.
Asuda, A. 1998. Simplified prediction of liquefaction-induced damage to

individual houses and its mitigation 15-year anniversary of 1983 Nihonkai-
chubu earthquake, Chap.9 (in Japanese).
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
Baecher G. B. and J. T. Christain. 2003. Reliability and statistics in Geotechnical

Engineering John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England.
Baker, J. W. 2008. An introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

(PSHA) Version 1.3 October 1st, 2008.
Bennett, M. 1994. Subsurface investigation for liquefaction analysis and

piezometer calibration at Treasure Island Naval Station, California. Open
File Rep. 94-709, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, Calif.
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.
Boore, D.M., W. B Joyner and T. E. Fumal. 1997. Equations for estimating

horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North
American earthquakes a summary of recent work Seism. Res. Lett., 68, 1,
pp 128-151.
Boore, D.M., and G. M. Atkinson.2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for

the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA at
spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s: Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1,
pp. 99-138.
Bott, J., I. Wong, S. Prachuab, B. Wechbunthung, C. Hinthong, and S. Sarapirome.

1997. Contemporary seismicity in Northern Thailand and its tectonic
implications in Proceedings of the International Conference on Stratigraphy
and Tectonic Evolution of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, edited by
Dheeradilok, P, C. Hinthong, P. Chaodumrong, P. Putthapiban, W.
Tansathien, C. Utha-aroon, N.Sattyarak, T. Nuchanong and S. Techawan.
(Department of Mineral Resources), 453-464.
Boulanger, R.W. and I. M. Idriss. 2004. State normalization of penetration

resistances and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance.
in Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, pp.
484–91.
Bray, J. D., J. P. Stewart (Coordinators and Principal Contributors) M. B. Baturay, T.

Durgunoglu, A. Onalp, R. B. Sancio, D. Ural. (Principal Contributors). 2000.
Damage patterns and foundation performance in Adapazari. Chapter 8 of
the Kocaeli Turkey Earthquake of August 17 1999 Reconnaissance report.
Earthquake Spectra J, EERI 2000;16(Suppl. A): 163–89.
149
Bray, J. D. et. al. 2001. Ground Failure In Adapazari, Turkey Proceedings of

Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference of the XVth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey, August 24-25.
Bray, J.D., R. B. Sancio. 2006. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of

fine-grained soils J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 132 (99), 1165–1177.
BSSC. 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provision for seismic regulations for new
building, Part 1-Provision Washington D.C. p 337.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). 2003. NEHRP Recommended Provisions

for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures and
Accompanying Commentary and Maps, FEMA 450 Chapter 3, pp. 17–49.
Campbell, K. W. and Y. Bozorgnia. 1994. Near-source attenuation of peak

horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelerograms recorded from
1957 to 1993 Proc. 5th U.S. Natl. Conf. On Earthq. Eng., California, 3, pp
283-292.
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.
Cetin, K. O., R. B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, R. E.

Kayen, and R. E. S. Moss. 2004. Standard penetration test-based
probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction
potential. J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 130(12), 1314–
340.
Chang, W. S., J. D. Bray, W. B. Gookin, and M. F. Riemer. 1997. Seismic response

of deep stiff soil deposits in the Los Angeles, California Area During The
1994 Northridge Earthquake Geotechnical Research Report No.
UCB/GT/97-01, University of California, Berkeley.
Charusiri, P., M. Choowong, T. Charoentitirat, K. Jankaew, V. Chutakositkanon, and

P. Kanjanapayont 2005. Geological and physical effect evaluation in the
tsunami damage area for restoration and warning system Technical report,
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University.
150
Chintanapakdee, C., M.E. Naguit and M. Charoenyuth. 2008. Suitable attenuation

model for Thailand. The 14 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
Chung, J. W. and J. D. Rogers. 2011. Simplified method for spatial evaluation of

liquefaction potential in the St. Louis Area Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 5, May 1, 2011. ASCE.
Crouse, C.B. 1991. Ground motion attenuation equation for earthquakes on

Cascadia subduction zones Earthquake Spectra 7(2), 201-236.
Day, R. W. 2002. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering handbook The McGraw-

Hill Companies.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 1988. Geological map of Thailand F4949,

Amphoe Maesai Bangkok, Thailand.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2006. Active fault map in Thailand. In map,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of groundwater resources (DGR). 2009. โครงการประเมินศักยภาพนา้ บาดาลขั้น

รายละเอียดพืน้ ทีล่ ่ มุ นา้ กก (แอ่งเชียงราย-พะเยา) Report in Thai, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2009 a. The study of earthquake recurrent

interval along the Mae Chan and Pha Yao active faults in Chiang Rai,
Chiang Mai, and Pha Yao provinces Report in Thai, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2009 b. การประเมินภัยพิบัติแผ่ นดินไหวภาคเหนือ สธส

2/2554. Report in Thai, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of groundwater resources (DGR). 2011. รายงานสถานการณ์ นา้ บาดาลประเทศไทย

พ.ศ. 2557 Report in Thai, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2014. โครงการสารวจธรณีฟิสิ กส์ โดยการวัดความเร็ว

คลื่นเฉื อนในหลุมเจาะปี 2557 จังหวัดลาพูน จังหวัดเชียงใหม่ และจังหวัดเชียงราย.
Dixit, J., D. M. Dewaikar and R. S. Jangid. 2012. Assessment of liquefaction

potential index for Mumbai city Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 2759–
2768, 2012.
151
Dobry, R., R. D. Borcherdt, C. B. Crouse, I. M. Idriss, W. B. Joyner, G. R. Martin, M.

S. Power, E. E. Rinne and R. B. Seed. 2000. New site coefficients and site
classification system used in recent building code provisions Earthquake
Spectra 16 (1), 41–68.
Dobry, R. and T. Abdoun. 2014. An investigation into why liquefaction charts

work : A necessary step toward integrating the states of art and practice
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 0267-7261/& 2014 Published by
Elsevier Ltd.
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). 1980. Evaluation of Guy

Anchorage Strength in Clay for Transmission Tower
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.
Fenton, C. H., P. Charusiri and S. H. Wood. 2003. Recent paleoseismic

investigations in Northern and Western Thailand Annals of Geophysics,
Vol. 46, No. 5, October 2003.
Finn W. D. L. 2000. State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering

practice Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 1-15.
Gauchan, J. 1984. Liquefaction tests on sand using a cyclic triaxial apparatus

Master‘s Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Gutenberg, B. and C.F. Richter. 1944. Frequency of earthquakes in California

Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 34, 185-188.
Hashash, Y.M.A., M. I. Musgrove, J.A. Harmon, D. R. Groholski, C. A. Phillips and

D. Park. 2016. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
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. 1999. An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for

evaluating liquefaction potential in Proceedings, TRB Workshop on New
Approaches to Liquefaction, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal
Highway Administration, January.
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.
Idriss, I. M. and H. B. Seed. 1967. Response of Horizontal Soil Layers During

Earthquakes Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Materials Research Laboratory,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Idriss, 1. M. and J. I. Sun. 1992. SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting

equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil
deposits User's Guide, University of California, Davis, 13 pp.
Idriss, I. M. and R. W. Boulanger. 2003. Estimating Kα for use in evaluating cyclic

resistance of sloping ground, in Proceedings. 8th US-Japan Workshop on
Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures
against Liquefaction, Hamada, O‘Rourke, and Bardet, eds., Report MCEER-
03-0003, MCEER, SUNY Buffalo, NY, pp. 449–68.
Idriss, I. M. and R.W. Boulanger. 2004. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating

liquefaction potential during earthquakes. in Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and
3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, D.
Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 1, pp. 32–56.
Idriss, I. M. and R.W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.

United States of America. EERI Publication No. MNO-12.
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., K. Tokida, F. Tatsuoka, S. Watanabe, S. Yasuda, H. Sato. 1982.

Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods.
Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle,
USA, pp. 1319–1330.
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.
Juang, C. H., H. Yuan, D. K. Li, S. H. Yang and R. A. Christopher. 2005.

Estimating severity of liquefaction-induced damage near foundation Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 403–411.
Juang, C. H, C. N. Liu, C. H. Chen, J. H. Hwang and C. C. Lu. 2008. Calibration of

liquefaction potential index: A re-visit focusing on a new CPTU model
Engineering Geology 102 (2008) 19–30.
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.
Kayen, R. E. and J. K. Mitchell. 1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during

earthquakes by arias intensity. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 123. No. 12. December 1997. ASCE.
Kostadinov, M. V. and I. Towhata. 2002. Assessment of liquefaction inducing peak

ground velocity and frequency of horizontal ground shaking at onset of
phenomena Soil Dynamic and Earthquake engineering 22 (2002) 309-322.
Kramer, S. L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall

International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics.
Li, D.K., C. H Juang and R. D. Andrus. 2006. Liquefaction potential index: a

critical assessment Journal of GeoEngineering, Taiwanese Geotechnical
Society 1 (1), 11–24.
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.
Maurer, B. W., A. G. M. Russell, M. Cubrinovski and B. A. Bradley. 2014.

Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction
hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.
Miyajima, M., S. Inagaki, H.Nishikawa and M. Kitaura. 2004. Detection of ground

failure by using strong ground motion records 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No.
3411.
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.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). 1997. Proceedings

of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils, T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss, editors, Technical Report NCEER-97-022,
41–88.
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.
Orense, R. P. 2005. Assessment of liquefaction potential based on peak ground

motion parameters Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005)
225–240.
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
Ornthammarath, T., P. Warnitchai, K. Worakanchana, S. Zaman, R. Sigbjörnsson and

C. G.Lai. 2010. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Thailand Bull
Earthquake Eng DOI 10.1007/s10518-010-9197-3.
Pailoplee, S., P. Channarong and V. Chutakositkanon. 2013. Earthquake activities

in the Thailand-Laos-Myanmar Border Region: A Statistical Approach
Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., Vol. 24, No. 4, Part II, 721-730, August 2013.
Pailoplee, S., Y. Sugiyama and P. Charusiri. 2010. Deterministic and probabilistic

seismic hazard analyses in Thailand and adjacent areas using active fault
data Earth Planets Space, 61, 1313–1325.
Pailoplee, S., Y. Sugiyama and P. Charusiri. 2010. Probabilistic seismic hazard

analysis in Thailand and adjacent areas by using regional seismic source
zones Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 5, 757-766, October 2010.
Papathanassiou, G. 2008. LPI-based approach for calibrating the severity of

liquefaction-induced failures and for assessing the probability of
liquefaction surface evidence Engineering Geology 96 (2008) 94–104.
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.
Pathak, S. R. and A. N. Dalvi. 2013. Elementary empirical model to assess seismic

soil liquefaction. Nat Hazards (2013) 69:425–440 DOI 10.1007/s11069-013-
0723-x.
Pitilakis, K. and A. Anastasiadis. 2007. Local Site Effects Seismic Response

Implications to Seismic Codes Laboratory of Soils Mechanics, Foundation
and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Civil engineering department,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Pongvithayapanu, P. 2009. Liquefaction potential assessment at Laem Chabang

port, Thailand Prediction and Simulation Methods for Geohazard Mitigation
Oka, Murakami & Kimoto (eds) : 577-582.
Poovarodom, N. and A. Jirasakjamroonsri. 2014. Effects of Local Site

Characteristics on Ground Shakings in the Affected Areas after 5 May
2014 Earthquake การประชุมสัมมนาเรื่ อง บทเรี ยนแผ่นดินไหวแม่ลาว เชียงราย ภัยพิบตั ิ
ใกล้ตวั 20 พฤศจิกายน 2557, pp. 77-88.
156
Robertson, P.K., C. E. Wride. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using

the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 35 (3), 442–459.
Robertson, P. K., D. J. Woeller, and W. D. L. Finn. 1992. Seismic cone penetration

test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading. Can.
Geotech. J., Ottawa, 29, 686–695. Rep. NCEER-97-0022, T. L. Youd and I.
M. Idriss, eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
89–128.
Royal Irrigation Department (RID), Hydrology and water management center for
upper Northern region (Chiangmai), Office of water management and
hydrology.
Ruangrassamee, A., T. Ornthammarath and P. Lukkunaprasit. 2012. Damage due to

24 March 2011 M6.8 Tarlay Earthquake in Northern Thailand 15WCEE,
Lisboa.
Sabetta, F. and A. Pugliese. 1987. Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and

velocity from Italian strongmotion records Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 77, 5, pp
1491-1513.
Sadigh, K. 1997. Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based

on California strong motion data Seismological Research Letters 68:1, 180-
189.
Sadigh, K., C. Y. Chang, N. A. Abrahamson, S. J. Chiou and M. S. Power. 1993.

Specification of long-period ground motions: updated attenuation
relationships for rock site conditions and adjustment factors for near-
fault Effects Proc. ATC-17-1, Applied Technology Council, California, 1993,
pp 59-70.
Sakulnee R. and P. Pananont. 2016. Resistivity Imaging to Detect the Liquefaction

Induced by the M 6.8 Earthquake in Myanmar on March 24th, 2011 in
Chiang Rai Province, Northern Thailand 7th International conference on
applied geophysics, Bangkok, Thailand. P.23.
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. 1983. Earthquake resistant design of earth dams. in Proceedings,

Symposium on Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns, Pennsylvania,
ASCE, NY, pp. 41–64.
Seed, H. B. et. al. 2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A

unified and consistent framework Kenote presentation, 26th Annual ASCE
Los Angeles Goetechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, CA.
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., R. Murarka, I. Lysmer. and I. M. Idriss. 1976. Relationships of

maximum acceleration, maximum velocity, distance from source and local
site conditions for moderately strong earthquakes Bulletin of the
Seismological Society ofAmerica, Vol. 66, No.4, pp. 1323-1342.
Seed, R. B., K. O. Cetin, R. E. S. Moss, A., Kammerer, J. Wu, J. Pestana, M. Riemer.

2001. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic site
response evaluation, in Proceedings, 4th International Conference and
Symposium on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, Paper SPL-2.
Seed, R.B., K. O. Cetin, R.E.S. Moss, A. M. Kammerer, J. Wu, J.M. Pestana, M. F.

Riemer, R. B. Sancio, J. D. Bray, R. E. Kayen, A. Faris. 2003. Recent
advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent
framework. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE L.A. Geotechnical Spring
Seminar, Long Beach, 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, R. B, and L. F. Harder. 1990. SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure

generation and undrained residual strength. in Proceedings, Seed
Memorial Symposium, J. M. Duncan, ed., BiTech Publishers, Vancouver,
British Columbia, pp. 351–76.
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.
Seed, R., R. E. S. Moss, A. M. Krammer, J. Wu, J. M. Pestana, M. F. Reimer and K.

O. Cetin. 2001. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering and
Seismic Site Response Evaluation" (March 26, 2001) International
Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics. Paper 2.
Seed, R. B., S. W. Chang, S. E. Dickenson and J. D. Bray. 1997. Site-Dependent

Seismic Response Including Recent Strong Motion Data Proc., Special
Session on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, XIV International Conf. On
Soil Mechanics and Foundtion Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, A. A,
Balkema Publ., Sept. 6-12, pp. 125-134.
Skempton, A. W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in

sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and
overconsolidation, Geotechnique, 36(3), 425–47.
Sonmez, H. 2003. Modification of the liquefaction potential index and

liquefaction susceptibility mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol,
Turkey). Environ. Geol. 44 (7), 862–871.
Soralump, S. and J. Feungaugsorn. 2013. Probabilistic Analysis of Liquefaction

Potential: the First Eyewitness Case in Thailand. 18NCCE, Chiangmai,
Thailand.
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.
Tanapalungkorn, V. and S. Teachavorasinskun. 2015. Liquefaction susceptibility

due to earthquake in Northern parts of Thailand 20NCCE, Chonburi,
Thailand.
159
Teachavorasinskun, S., P. Pattararattanakul and P. Pongvithayapranu. 2009.

Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Northern Provinces of Thailand
American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2 (1):194-201.
Tokimatsu, K. and Y. Yoshimi. 1983. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction

based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils and Foundations, Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 23(4), 56–74.
Toprak, S. and T. L. Holzer, 2003. Liquefaction potential index: field assessment.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 129 (4), 315–322.
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.
Ukritchon, B. and T. Sangkhawilai. An analysis of liquefaction potential for

Bangkok first sand layer.
Vucetic, M. and R. Dobry, R. 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.

J.Geotech. Eng., 117(1), 89–107.
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.
Warnitchai, P., C. Sangarayakul and S. A. Ashford. 2000. Seismic hazard in

Bangkok due to long-distance earthquake 12WCEE.
Wills, C. J. and K. B. Clahan. 2006. Developing a map of geologically defined site-

condition categories for California Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am., 96(4A):1483–
1501.
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.
Wood, S. H., F. S. Singharajwarapan, T. Bundarnsin and E. Rothwell. 2004. Mae Sai

basin and Wiang Nong Lom: Radiocarbon Dating and Relation to the
Active Strike-Slip Mae Chan Fault, Northern Thailand. International
Conference on Applied Geophysics. November 2004, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
160
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.
Youd, T. L., I. M. Idriss, R. D. Andrus, I. Arango, G. Castro, J. T. Christian, R.

Dobry, W. D. L. Finn, L. F. Harder, M. E. Hynes, K. Ishihara, J. P. Koester, S.
S. C. Liao, W. F. Marcuson, G. R. Martin, J. K. Mitchell, Y. Moriwaki, M. S.
Power, P. K. Robertson, R. B. Seed, and K. H. Stokoe. 2001. Liquefaction
resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils,
J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 127(10), 817–33.
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.
Zhang L. 1998. Predicting seismic liquefaction potential of sands by optimum

seeking method. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 1998, 19: 219–226.
Zhang L. 1998. Assessment of liquefaction potential using optimum seeking

method. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998,
124(8): 739–748.
161
APPENDICES
162
Appendix A
Soil boring logs

163
Figure A1 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-1 borehole

164
Figure A2 Summary of engineering soil properties of MS-1 borehole

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173
174

175
176
177

178
179

180
181

182
183

184
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
Figure A23 Summary of engineering soil properties of DH-1 borehole

187
Figure A23 (Continued) Summary of engineering soil properties of DH-1 borehole

188
Figure A24 Result of seismic downhole test of DH-1 borehole

189
Figure A25 Shear wave velocity profile of DH-1 borehole

190
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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
Fine content (%)
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)
0.00 0.00 0.00
SPT-N Factor of safety LPI

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
Figure B1 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (MS-1 borehole)
199
Input parameters :
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
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
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
200
Input parameters :
Water table depth (m) = 2.2 Location 592634 N
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)
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
201
Input parameters :
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
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
202
Input parameters :
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
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
203
Input parameters :
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
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
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
204
Input parameters :
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
0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
205
Input parameters :
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
2.54 1.83 0.01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
LPI = 2.54
2 2 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
Fine content (%)
206
Input parameters :
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
2.06 1.56 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
LPI = 2.06
2 2 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
Fine content (%)
207
Input parameters :
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
2.35 2.37 0.50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
208
Input parameters :
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of surface
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki Reference
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
0.28 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0
LPI = 0.28
2 2 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
Fine content (%)
209
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.2 Name of boring log DH1
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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 5 10 15
0 0 0
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
Fine content (%)
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
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
sample KPT type "Unsaturated" content SPT-N reduct. CSR for CRR of wi
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
Fine content (%)

0.50 0.20 0.00
Figure B13 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011 Tarlay earthquake event (KZ-1 borehole)
211
Input parameters :
Water table depth (m) = 0.8 Location 594710
Average  above water table (kN/m3)= 16 2261194
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
Fine content (%)

10.41 10.98 4.32
212
Input parameters :
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
Fine content (%)

0.00 0.00 0.00
213
Input parameters :
Water table depth (m) = 100 (none) Location 591949
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!
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!
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)
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!
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!
8 8 8
KPT
9 FC% 9 9
SPT
10 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fine content (%)

0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
214
Input parameters :
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
Fine content (%)

6.82 7.50 3.36
215
Input parameters :
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
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
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
Fine content (%)

0.73 0.64 0.03
216
Input parameters :
Water table depth (m) = 100 none Location 591833
M=7.5 & Cetin Li et al Juang et Juang & Juang et Prob. Of surface
v c' = 1 et al. Iwasaki Reference
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
Fine content (%)

0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE!
217
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME : Mr. Jessada Feungaugsorn
BIRTH DATE : November 20, 1986
BIRTH PLACE : Hadchaosamran, Muang Phetburi, Phetburi, Thailand
EDUCATION : YEAR INSTITUTE DEGREE/DIPLOMA
2009 Kasetsart University B.Eng. (Civil Engineering)
POSITION/TITLE : Civil Engineer

WORK PLACE :-
SCHOLARSHIP/AWARDS : Geotechnical Engineering Research and
Development Center (GERD) 2014-2016

Feungaugsorn 280416

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feungaugsorn 280416

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS

ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI AREA,

GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY

Civil Engineering Civil Engineering

TITLE: Assessment of Liquefaction Potential in Maesai Area, Chiangrai Province,

NAME: Mr. Jessada Feungaugsorn

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY

--------------------------------------------------------------------- THESIS ADVISOR

( Associate Professor Suttisak Soralump, Ph.D. )

( Associate Professor Tirawat Boonyatee, Ph.D. )

( Mr. Suriyon Prempramote, Ph.D. )

( Mr. Susit Chaiprakaikeow, Ph.D. )

( Associate Professor Wanchai Yodsudjai, D.Eng. )

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ON

( Associate Professor Gunjana Theeragool, D.Agr. )

ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI AREA,

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

Jessada Feungaugsorn 2016: Assessment of Liquefaction Potential in

To assess of liquefaction potential in Maesai area, Chiangrai, Thailand have been

Student’s signature Thesis Advisor’s signature

1 Chinese Criteria proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982)

1 Liquefaction‘s factor of safety and SPT-values in Bangkok soil

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

21 Boundary curves for site identification of liquefaction-induced

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

40 Late Cenozoic faults and historical seismicity (1362 to 1996) of

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

64 Seismic downhole test locations in Chiangrai province 104

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

85 Standard normal cumulative distribution function analysis of

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Appendix Figure Page

A1 Engineering soil properties and soil profile of MS-1 borehole 163

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Appendix Figure Page

Summary of liquefaction potential analysis based on the 2011

ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN MAESAI

Soil liquefaction is a major cause of damage during earthquakes.

This thesis is aims in order to liquefaction analysis in Maesai area, Chiangrai

1. To establish of liquefaction hazard map in Maesai area, Chiangrai, Thailand.

1. The assessment of liquefaction potential is performed only Maesai area, Chiangrai

Liquefaction analysis in Thailand

Ukritchon B. and Sangkhawilai T. (2004) presented an analysis of liquefaction

Sakulnee and Pananont (2016) performed resistivity imaging to detect the

Figure 1 Liquefaction‘s factor of safety and SPT-values in Bangkok soil profile

Source: Ukritchon and Sangkhawilai (2004)

Figure 2 Relationships between maximum ground acceleration and maximum pore

Source: Teachavorasinskun et. al. (2009)

Liquefaction potential assessment by characteristic of soil

Furthermore, the assessment of liquefaction soil can be used with the

Chi-Taiwan earthquakes as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, these criteria classified

Table 1 Chinese Criteria proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982)

Potentially liquefiable soils

Source : Seed and Idriss (1982)

Table 2 Modified Chinese Criteria by Andrews and Martin (2000)

liquid limit < 32% liquid limit ≥ 32%

Source : Andrews and Martin (2000)

Figure 3 Potentially liquefiable soils

Source : Bray et al. (2001)

Figure 4 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments

Source : Seed et al. (2003)

Figure 5 Grain size distribution range of liquefaction soil

Source : Iwasaki (1986)