Dejphumee S. (2017) .Liquefaction Assessment A Case of Mae Lao District, Chiangrai Thailand

Liquefaction Assessment: A Case of Mae Lao District, Chiangrai Thailand
by
Siwadol Dejphumee
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Engineering in
Geotechnical and Earth Resources Engineering
Examination Committee: Dr. Kuo-Chieh Chao (Chairperson)

Dr. Suttisak Soralump (Co-chairperson)
Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej
Dr. Pham Huy Giao
Nationality: Thai
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering
Kasetsart University, Thailand
Scholarship Donor: Royal Thai Government Fellowship
Asian Institute of Technology

School of Engineering and Technology
Thailand
May 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I am sincerely thankful to the Geotechnical Engineering Research and

Development Center (GERD) from Kasetsart University, for their support, and suggestion
during research. Moreover, I am sincerely thankful to Thailand Research Fund (TRF) to
provide me with the bursary for doing research.
I would like to ultimate gratefulness to Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej, for his support, supervision,
and nurture. I feel like he is one of my senior relatives. His kind support made me through
the difficult time while I was studying at Asian Institute of Technology. I will never forget
the kindness from him.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Suttisak
Soralump, for his guidance, patience, and encouragement. His kind support made me
accomplished my research thesis. Moreover, he always teaches a lot of things to make me
become a good engineer and good person. I think he is the one of benefactor in my life.
I would like to acknowledge my second advisor, Dr. Kuo-Chieh Chao, for his helpful
suggestion, and guidance. His kind support made me completed my research thesis. I think
he is the one of the friendliest person in the world.
I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Pham Huy Giao, for comments, and
suggestions in conducting this thesis as well as lecture study.
I am grateful to Dr. Susit Chaiprakaikeow and Mr. Montri Jinagoolwipat, for their many
suggestions, and support. I am very thankful for them friendship and help me a lot of things.
My thanks are also due to GTE secretary, Mrs.Supamas Rojjanapitakphan, for her kind
support during study at Asian Institute of Technology.
Finally, I am gratefully to my parents who always stay beside me and support me. They are
the most important persons in my life.
ii
ABSTRACT
Liquefaction is one cause of damages to structures in the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake in
Thailand, the liquefaction occurred scatteredly in the Quaternary sediment area in Mae Lao
district where there were some damages to shallow foundation. The purpose of this study is
to do liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district area. Basic soil properties of subsoils are
obtained from 15 boreholes. The liquefaction susceptibility analysis shows that the soils are
susceptible to liquefaction. Furthermore, a prediction of severity of liquefaction was assessed
based on the characteristic of Phayao fault. The level of severity of liquefaction is judged
using the liquefaction potential index (LPI). The result shows that the level of severity and
area affected by liquefaction increases with an increase in size of earthquake. In addition, a
liquefaction probabilistic assessment is made considering fluctuation of ground water level
and potential earthquakes from all active faults in proximity of Mae Lao district. The
assessment indicates that shallow footings with size larger more than 1 m will be safe from
liquefaction. Finally, maps of annual probability of liquefaction and failure of shallow
footing of Mae Lao district were produced.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
Title Page i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
Appendix A - Boring log 139
Appendix B – The example of liquefaction assessment analysis 155
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statement of the Problems 3
1.3 Objectives of the Research 3
1.4 Scope of Work 3
2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Liquefaction potential assessment 4
2.2 Risk assessment 12
2.3 Seismic hazard analysis 13
2.4 Sources of earthquake in Thailand 14
2.5 Ground response analysis 15
2.6 Dynamic soil properties 16
3 Methodology 17
3.1 Concepts 17
3.2 Data collection 17
3.3 Liquefaction verification 18
3.4 Prediction of the violence from liquefaction 20
3.5 Liquefaction probabilistic assessment 21
3.6 Software 22
4 Result and Discussion 24

4.1 Liquefaction verification 24
4.2 Prediction of the violence from liquefaction 26
4.3 Liquefaction probabilistic assessment 27
5 Conclusion and Recommendation 30

5.1 Conclusion 30
5.2 Recommendation 31
References 32
Tables 35
Figures 58
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Modified Chinese Criteria proposed (Seed and Idriss, 1982) 36

2.2 Modified Chinese Criteria (Andrews and Martin, 2000) 36
2.3 Correction factors for SPT N values (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). 37
2.4 Comparison of liquefaction potential index (LPI) classification 38
(Keng et al, 2014).
2.5 Liquefaction potential index and ground failure (Sonmez, 2003) 38
2.6 Probability of liquefaction-induced ground failure (Juang et al., 2006) 38
2.7 Summary of the Crustal fault source model parameters for 39
seismic hazard analysis in Thailand. (Ornthammarath et. al, 2010)
3.1 Coefficients for Standard Error Terms Using Equations Derived 42
Sadigh et al (1997).
3.2 Coefficients for the Median Spectral Ordinates Using Equations 42
Derived by Sadigh et al (1997)
4.1 The summary of liquefaction susceptibility of BH-1 43
4.16 The summary of location of borehole, the shortest distance and PGA at 50
bedrock
4.17 The summary of peck ground acceleration at bedrock and surface 50
based on earthquake magnitude 6.3
4.18 The summary of level of severity from liquefaction 51
based on 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake
4.19 The summary of peck ground acceleration, the thickness of liquefiable 51
soil and the thickness (H2) and the thickness of surface layer (H1) for
the verification of liquefaction induced ground failure
based on earthquake magnitude MCE
based on earthquake magnitude 5.46 (return period 475 years)
4.22 The summary of level of severity from liquefaction based 53
earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE)
4.23 The summary of level of severity from liquefaction based earthquake 53
magnitude 5.46 (return period 475 years)
v
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)
TABLE TITLE PAGE
4.24 The summary of probability of earthquake occurrence 54

4.25 The summary of probability of ground water level 54
4.26 The summary of coefficient of variation of each parameter 55
4.27 The summary of the probability of shallow foundation failure 56
for footing size 1x1 m
4.30 The summary of chance of each accident in the world
(Federal Aviation Administration, FAA), (United States Department 57
of Transportation) and (International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO)
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Plasticity chart showing ML-CL and CL soils that were reported 59
to have "liquefied" in China (Wang, 1979).
2.2 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments 59
(Seed et al., 2003).
2.3 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments 60
(Bray et al., 2004).
2.4 Grain size distribution curve with range of liquefaction zone 60
(Iwasaki, 1986).
2.5 Variations of stress reduction coefficient with depth and earthquake 61
magnitude (Idriss, 1999).
2.6 Liquefaction boundary curves recommended by Seed et al. (1984). 61
2.7 Recommended MSF relation (Idriss, 1999) for sand to the MSF 62
relations by other investigators.
2.8 Magnitude scaling factor (MSF) relation for converting CSR or CRR 62
to a common magnitude of earthquake (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004).
2.9 Overburden correction factor ( K  ) relationship 63
(Boulanger and Idriss, 2004).
2.10 Variation of Kα values with SPT penetration resistances at effective 63
overburden stresses of 1 and 4 atm (Idriss and Boulanger, 2003).
2.11 Probability of liquefaction manifestation (Maurer et al, 2014). 64
2.12 Correlation of liquefaction evidence between earthquake magnitude and 64
distance from earthquake epicenter (Soralump and Feungaugsorn, 2016).
2.13 Chart for site identification of liquefaction-induced damage 65
(Ishihara et al, 1985).
2.14 Relationship between thicknesses of unliquefied layer and liquefied 65
layer at damaged and undamaged sites (Asuda, 1998).
2.15 Liquefaction susceptibility map based on liquefaction potential index 66
(Papathanassiou et al., 2005).
2.16 Illustration of a simple, generic event tree 66
(US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975).
2.17 Event tree used for the probability of liquefaction-failure 67
(Lee et al, 1998).
2.18 Simplified First Orders Second Moment method analysis 67
(Soralump, 2002)
2.19 Four-steps process of a deterministic seismic hazard assessment 68
(Kramer, 1996).
2.20 Schematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic 69
seismic hazard analysis (Baker, 2013).
2.21 Active Faults map of Thailand (DMR, 2006). 70
2.22 An epicenter of Chiang Rai earthquake on the Mae Lao district 71
that located at the 19.748 latitude and 99.692 longitude
(Meteorological department of Thailand).
2.23 Location of Phayao fault and adjacent active fault that cut 71
through Chiang Rai province (DMR).
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.24 Comparison of attenuation curves for active tectonic regions and 72

recorded PGA on rock sites in Thailand from shallow crustal earthquakes
(Chintanapakdee et. al., 2008).
2.25 The method for model of propagation of seismic wave from 72
earthquake epicenters: seismic hazard analysis and dynamic ground
response analysis (Kramer, 1996).
2.26 Calculation of the Cyclic Stress Ratio (Dobry and Abdoun, 2014). 73
2.27 Hysteresis loop show the relation of shear stress and shear strain in the 73
equivalent linear model (Kramer, 1996).
2.28 Shear modulus and damping ratio (Kramer, 1996). 74
3.1 The flow chart of liquefaction assessment of Mae Lao district. 75
3.2 Location of boreholes in Mae Lao district. 76
3.3 Typical configuration for SASW testing (Li, 2008). 77
3.4 The process of SASW testing and receiver (Geophone). 77
3.5 The example of shear wave velocity profile (Bay, 2002). 77
3.6 The example of observation well. 78
3.7 The process of deterministic seismic hazard (DSHA). 79
3.8 The process of definition of hazard using controlling earthquake. 79
3.9 The analysis flow chart in Deep soil program. 80
3.10 An example of the results from Deep soil program consist of variation 80
of peak ground acceleration, maximum shear strain and cyclic stress ratio.
3.11 The criteria for site class of rock that defined by shear wave velocity 81
(Thitimakorn, 2012).
3.12 The structure of event tree for liquefaction probabilistic assessment. 81
3.13 The process of probabilistic seismic hazard (PSHA). 82
3.14 The example of hazard curve (Baker, 2013). 82
3.15 The modulus reduction (G/ Gmax ) and damping ratio for sandy soils and 83
fine grain soils (Seed and Idriss, 1970), and (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
3.16 The result from CRISIS 2015 in term of the seismic hazard curve and 86
the uniform hazard spectra for a site (Meléndez, 2007).
4.1 Liquefaction evidence from 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake in 85
Mae Lao district.
4.2 The location of borehole in Mae Lao district: BH-4 – BH-11 found 85
the liquefaction evidence.
4.3 The location of liquefaction evidences. 86
4.4 The grain size distribution curve of BH-1. 86
viii
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.19 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-1 (Bray et al., 2004). 94
4.23 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-4 (Seed and Idriss, 1982). 96
4.24 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-4 96
(Andrews and Martin, 2000).
ix
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.56 The summary of target response acceleration of each borehole. 112
4.57 The variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration 113
with thickness of soil deposit based on earthquake magnitude 6.3.
4.58 The summary of peck ground acceleration, the thickness of 113
liquefiable soil and the thickness (H2) and the thickness of
surface layer (H1).
4.59 The target response acceleration of each borehole for earthquake 114
magnitude 5.46 (return 475 years).
4.60 The target response acceleration of each borehole for earthquake 114
magnitude 6.8(MCE).
4.61 The variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration with 115
thickness of soil deposit based on earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
4.62 The variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration with 115
thickness of soil deposit based on earthquake magnitude 5.46
(return period 475 years).
4.63 The seismic hazard map of Chiang Rai that performed by 116
CRISIS 2015 program.
4.64 Hazard curve of BH-3. 116
4.72 The map of Mae Lao district divided by group of ground water level. 120
4.73 Probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with peck ground 121
acceleration in case ground water level 1 m below ground surface and
earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
4.74 Probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with peck 121
ground acceleration in case ground water level 2 m below ground
surface and earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
surface and earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
ground acceleration in case ground water level 1 m below ground surface
and earthquake magnitude 6.4.
x
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

ground acceleration in case ground water level 2 m below
ground surface and earthquake magnitude 6.4.
surface and earthquake magnitude 6.4.
4.80 Probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with 124
peck ground acceleration in case ground water level 2 m below
ground surface and earthquake magnitude 5.5.
4.85 The summary of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation. 127
4.86 The summary annual probability of shallow foundation failure. 127
4.87 A acceptable risk and consequences of failure (Whitman,1984). 128
4.88 The summary of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation 128
based on return period of earthquake 475 years.
4.89 The summary annual probability of shallow foundation failure based 129
on return period of earthquake 475 years.
4.90 The potential map of liquefaction manifestation considering 130
characteristic of Phayao fault.
4.91 The potential map of liquefaction manifestation considering 131
return period 475 years.
4.92 The potential map of shallow foundation failure considering 132
characteristic of Phayao fault (Footing size 1m x 1m).
return period 475 years (Footing size 1m x 1m).
xi
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Liquefaction is the one of the cause of the structures failure during earthquake such as
sinking or tilting of building. Loos and saturated sand are suitable for liquefaction. The term
of liquefaction refers to the changing of soil from a solid state to liquefied state due to the
build-up of excess pore water pressure in soil that is induced by cyclic load from earthquake.
Then the strength of soil will reduce. Therefore, the result is a reduction of effective
confining stress in the soils that conduces to deformations of the ground surface.
The 7.3 Niigata earthquake in Japan (1964) generated many damages to highway, public
utilities, ports and building. The major damages refer to liquefaction. For example, there
were many apartment buildings have tilted because of the occurrence of liquefaction and a
liberation of the excess pore water pressure to the foundation soil. Moreover, there were
bridges that were damaged during the earthquake. The cause of the damage was liquefaction
of the foundation soil. Recent study show that soil liquefaction caused immoderate large
permanent ground deformation. In addition, the permanent ground deformation act as a new
lateral force on the pile foundation causing yielding of the foundation piles.
Figure 1.1 tilting of buildings in Niigata, Japan, 1964

(National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, EERC, University of
California, Berkeley).
1
Figure 1.2 failure of the Showa Bridge in Niigata, Japan, 1964
(Steven L. Kramer, 2008).
On 5th May 2014, there is the 6.3 magnitude earthquake occurred in Chiang Rai province,
northern Thailand. This earthquake is the highest magnitude earthquake that could record in
the history of Thailand. The epicenter of earthquake located in the Phayao fault zone on the
part of Mao Lao district, Chiang Rai province. After earthquake, there were more than
10,000 houses that were damaged and 2 people died. Furthermore, there were some zones
that were affected from liquefaction, and this zone was found inside the radius of 20 km
from epicenter of earthquake. From soil exploration, there were loose saturated sand layer
in the shallow depth from ground surface. Moreover, the gradation of the soil particle was
uniform grade which appropriated for liquefaction. Hence, there were some settlement of
shallow foundations and damages of structure induce by liquefied soil. Nevertheless, the
level of damage was not serious damage.
Figure 1.3 show the liquefied soil evidence

(Soralump et al, 2014).
2
1.2 Statement of the Problems
From 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake, there were evidences of liquefaction in Mae Lao district
such as ground rupture, sand boiling and the collapse of the first floor in the house. The
evidences of liquefaction made Thai people become aware of danger from liquefaction. For
mitigation of damage from liquefaction, the liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district
should be done. Moreover, the result from an analysis of liquefaction verification based on
2014 Chiang Rai earthquake can be verified with the real liquefaction evidences.
Consequently, Mae Lao district becomes a good case study for liquefaction assessment.
1.3 Objectives of the Research
The objectives of this study are

1. To predict the level of severity from liquefaction based on earthquake magnitude:
maximum credible earthquake and building standard code (return period 475 years)
by flowering liquefaction verification based on the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake
evidences
2. To do liquefaction probabilistic assessment of Mae Lao district
3. To establish liquefaction potential map of Mae Lao district considering all active
fault that affected seismic activity in Mae Lao district
1.4 Scope of Work
The scope of work involves:

1. Determine basic properties of soils in Mae Lao district
2. Seismic hazard analysis considering all active fault that affected seismic activity in
Mae Lao district
3. Ground response analysis performed by equivalent linear soil model
4. Liquefaction potential assessment in Mae Lao district
Study area: Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai Thailand.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Liquefaction Potential Assessment
Liquefaction susceptibility assessment
There were many studies of liquefaction susceptibility assessment. The assessment of

liquefaction susceptibility used the characteristic of soil such as grain size distribution of
soil, percentage of fine content, attenberg limits and water content.
Wang (1979) proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria known as Chinese criteria based
on liquefaction evidences after 1975 Haicheng and 1976 Tangshan earthquakes occurred in
China. Figure. 1.1 shows Wang's plot identifying those CL, CL-ML, and ML soils that
were reported to have liquefied. According to Chinese criteria, if clayey soils comprise 15-
20 % of particles by weight smaller than 0.005 mm and they have wc/LL ratio greater than
0.90 are susceptible to liquefaction. However, Wang's paper was not provided details how
the field data were collected or interpreted.
Seed and Idriss (1982) proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria known as Modified
Chinese criteria. According to Modified Chinese criteria, clayey soils that lying above A-
line in plasticity chart are vulnerable to liquefaction if they satisfy all following these three
conditions in Table 2.1.
Andrews and Martin (2000) developed the Chinese criteria by reviewed empirical
observations from case histories. Finally, they recommended the following criterria for
evaluating liquefaction susceptibility based on LL and minus 2 m fraction that shown in
Table 2.2.
Seed et al. (2003) proposed a new criterion from case histories and experimentation of
undisturbed fine grained soils collected after 1999 Kocaeli-Turkey and Chi Chi-Taiwan
earthquakes by three zones on the plasticity chart as shown in Figure 2.2. In the plasticity
chart, these criteria classified saturated soils with a plastic index (PI) and liquid limit (LL);
zone A soils are considered potentially susceptible to liquefy if water content is greater than
80% of LL; zone B soils are considered potentially susceptible to liquefy with detailed
laboratory testing recommended if water content is greater than 85% of LL.
Bray et al. (2004) proposed criteria that soils with PI≤12 and water contents greater than
85% of the LL were susceptible to liquefaction, while soils with 12<PI<20 and water
contents greater than 80% of the LL were systematically more resistant to liquefaction but
still susceptible to cyclic mobility. The criteria that proposed by Bray et al. (2004) was based
on the results of cyclic triaxial tests on field samples from liquefaction evidences during the
1999 Kocaeli earthquake. The criteria that proposed by Bray show in Figure 2.3
Iwasaki (1986) proposed the grain-size distribution curves and defined the upper and lower
boundary for liquefaction susceptibility (Figure 2.4). The upper and lower bounds of the
grain size distribution curves are used for liquefaction susceptibility analysis.
4
Liquefaction potential assessment by cyclic stress approach
1.Estimating cyclic load from earthquake
The cyclic stress time series that induced by earthquake involves various cycles at different
strengths depending on the number of cycles and the stress magnitudes for each cycle.
Various studies have shown that an irregular time series can be approximated by a uniform
cyclic stress time. Therefore, Seed and Idriss (1971) chose to represent cyclic stresses by
using a representative value equal to 65% of the peak cyclic stress. The cyclic stress can be
computed as Equation 2.1.
 v a max
CSR  0.65   d (2.1)
 v' g
Where CSR = Cyclic shear ratio induced by earthquake.

v =
2
Total overburden pressure in subsoil layers (t/ m )
 v'
2
= Effective overburden pressure in subsoil layers (t/ m )
2
g = gravity’s acceleration (m/ s )
2
a max = peak horizontal ground acceleration (m/ s )
d = stress reduction coefficient
The stress reduction coefficient (  d ) is a function of site stratigraphy, soil properties and
the characteristics of motion excitation. The stress reduction coefficient describing the ratio
of cyclic stresses for a flexible soil column to the cyclic stresses for a rigid soil column.
Idriss (1999) expressed the shear stress reduction factor as a function of depth and earthquake
magnitude (M). The following results were derived in Equation 2.2 to 2.4. These equations
are mathematically applied to a depth of z ≤ 34 m. However, the uncertainty of  d increases
with increasing depth, so these equations should be applied only for depths that are less than
about 20 m. Figure 2.5 shows plots of  d calculated for M values of 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, and 8.
 d  exp z    ( z )M  (2.2)
 z 
 ( z )  1.012  1.126sin  5.133 (2.3)
 11.73 
 z 
 ( z )  0.106  0.118sin  5.142 (2.4)
 11.28 
Where Z = depth (m)

M = Moment magnitude
* the argument inside the sine terms are in radians.
5
2.Estimating cyclic resistance of soil
The correlation between parameters from in-situ tests such as SPT, CPT and shear wave
velocity ( Vs ) and a soil’s strength was widely used for evaluating liquefaction
characteristics. The SPT was used first in developing liquefaction correlations and convert
to the most common in practice up through the 1990s. The SPT measures the number of
blows (N) by a 140-pound hammer dropping spontaneously over a tallness of 30 in. The SPT
values for the liquefaction assessment need to be corrected with the energy factor. Seed et
al. (1984) recommended adopting N 60 as a standard. The value of N 60 is computed as
Equation 2.5 and then additional correction factors may be needed at a more standardized
value of N 60 . The resulting relationship is given by Equation 2.6. Idriss and Boulanger
(2008) concluded the correction factors for SPT values which are explained in Table 2.3
ERm
N 60  N m (2.5)
60
N 60  N mC E C B C R CS (2.6)
Where CE = the energy ratio correction factor ( C E = ER m /60)

CB = a correction factor for borehole diameter
CR = a correction factor for rod length
CS = correction factor for a sampler that had room for liners but was used
without the lines.
SPT penetration resistances in sand increase with growing in confining stress, that means
N 60 values from different depths, locations, or sites cannot be directly compared with each
other unless they were measured at the same vertical effective stresses. Therefore, penetration
resistances need to adjust to the equivalent values. The overburden corrected penetration
resistances, (N1 ) 60 are computed by using an overburden correction factor, C N as follows
Equation 2.7. Liao and Whitman (1986) expressed the C N relationships as Equation 2.8
N1(60)  CN N60 (2.7)
0.5
 P 
C N   a'   1.7 (2-8)
  vc 
The cyclic strength of each clean sand and silty sand layer or cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
relationship can be calculated by Equation 2.9 that was proposed by Idriss and Boulanger
(2004) as shown in Equation 2.9, The equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance
computed as Equation 2.10 to 2.11. The CRR can be extended to other values of earthquake
magnitude and effective overburden stress by Equation 2.12.
6
 (N ) 2 3
 (N )   (N )   (N ) 
4

CRRM 7.5, vc 1  exp 1 60cs   1 60cs    1 60cs    1 60cs   2.8 
'
(2.9)
 14.1  126   23.6   25.4  
 
N1 60cs  N1 60  (N1 ) 60 (2.10)
  15.7  
2
N1 60  9.7

 exp 1.63    (2.11)
 FC  0.01  FC  0.01  

CRR M , '  CRR M 7.5, '  MSF  K   K  (2.12)

vc vc 1
Moreover, the cyclic strength of fine-grained soil can be estimated based on the measured
S u of the soils. Boulanger and Idriss (2004) expressed the CRR M 7.5 for natural deposits of
file-grained soil can be estimated as Equation 2.13.
Su
CRR M , vc  0.8 
 MSF  K  (2.13)
 vc
Where CRR = cyclic resistance ratio of soils
MSF = magnitude scaling factor
K = Overburden correction factor for sand
K = Static Shear Stress Correction Factor
Magnitude scaling factor
A magnitude scaling factor (MSF) is used to correct the CSR or CRR to a common
magnitude of earthquake. This is required to be applied for the earthquake that has magnitude
other than 7.5 M w . Idriss (1999) expressed relationships between the MSF for clean sand
and silty sand analysis and M w that is expressed in Equation 2.14. Moreover, Boulanger
and Idriss (2004) expressed relationships between the MSF for file-grained soil analysis and
M w as Equation 2.15. The magnitude scaling factor (MSF) relation for converting CSR or
CRR to a common magnitude of earthquake show in Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8.
M 
MSFsand  6.9 exp   0.058  1.8 (2.14)
 4 
M 
MSFsilt&clay  1.12 exp   0.828  1.13 (2.15)
 4 
7
Overburden correction factor ( K  )
The overburden correction factor ( K  ) was expressed by Seed (1983) to correct the CSR
or CRR of sandy soils to a common value of effective overburden stress because the CRR
of sand depends on the effective overburden stress. The recommended K  relationships are
calculated by equation 2.16.
 ' 
K   1  C ln vc   1.1 (2.16)
 Pa 
1
C   0.3 (2.17)
18.9  2.25 N1( 60)
where the coefficient C can be expressed (equation 2.17) in terms of penetration

resistances according to Boulanger and Idriss (2004). The values of K  can be shown in
Figure 2.9.
Static Shear Stress Correction Factor ( K  )
The CRR is artificial by the presence of static shear stresses such as exist slopes or
embankment dams. 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.
Examples of K  values computed by define K 0 =0.45 and the normalized cone tip
resistance, Q =10 are presented in Figure 2.10 for a range of penetration resistances for  vc'
values of 1 and 4 atm. The inclusion of K  can be important for analyses of liquefaction
within steeper slopes and embankment dams.
3.Factor of safety of liquefaction assessment
The factor of safety against liquefaction can be determined from comparison between cyclic
stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) as Equation 2.18.
CRR M , '
FS liq  vc
(2.18)
CSRM , '
vc
8
Liquefaction potential Index (LPI)
Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is a value to assess regional liquefaction potential. LPI at
a location is calculated by integrating the factors of safety (FS) along the soil column up to
20 m depth. Iwasaki et al. (1982) proposed the liquefaction potential index (LPI) as follows
Equation 2.19 and 2.20. These equations give the values of LPI ranging from 0 to 100.
Iwasaki (1986) summarized that severe liquefaction could be expected at sites with LPI >
15 and was hardly to occur at sites with LPI < 5 (Table 2.4). These threshold values of 5
and 15 were the boundary of undamaged sites and the median LPI values of damaged sites
in Japan, respectively.
Luna and Frost (1998) observed data in the San Francisco Bay of California and modified
the severity categories, adding moderate potential in areas with LPI range between 5 and 15.
Lately, these threshold values of 5 and 15 were modified according to different frameworks.
Kang et al. (2014) defined the LPI assessment from the SPT borehole logs at together
undamaged and damaged sites during historic earthquakes in Japan.
In addition, the liquefaction potential index proposed by Sonmez (2003) is used to evaluate
the severity of the liquefaction induced ground failure. Table 2.5 are presented the thresholds
of LPI and the expected damage corresponding ground failure.
20
LPI   F ( z )  w( z )dz
0
(2.19)
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 (2.20)
i 1
Where Fi = 1- FS i for FS i < 1.0

Fi = 0 for FS i  1.0
wi = 10-0.5 z i for z < 20 m
wi = 0 for z> 20 m
H i = thickness of the soil layers (m)
n = number of layers
z i = the depth of soil layer (m)
9
Liquefaction probability assessment
Cetin et al (2004) proposed new correlations for assessment of the probability triggering of
liquefaction. The significant fundamentals in the development of these new correlations are
(1) collection of an expanded database of field performance in the past; (2) use of improved
acquaintance and meaning of factors affecting clarification of standard penetration test data;
(3) integration of understanding of factors affecting site-specific earthquake ground motions
(including directivity effects, site-specific response, etc.); (4) use of improved systems for
assessment of in situ cyclic shear stress ratio; (5) selecting out of field data case histories on
a quality/uncertainty basis; and (6) use of high-order probabilistic tools (Bayesian updating).
The overall correlation can be expressed in parts: (1) magnitude-correlated duration
weighting factors, (2) adjustments for fines content, and (3) corrections for overburden
stress. The probability of liquefaction can be expressed concisely as composite relationship
as Equation 2.20.
  v, 
 N1( 60)  (1  0.004  FC )  13.32  ln(CSReq )  29.53  ln( M w )  3.70 ln( )  0.05  FC  16.85 
(2.20)
 Pa 
PL ( N1( 60) , CSReq , M w ,  v , FC )   
,
 2.70 
 
 
Where
PL = probability of liquefaction in decimals
CSR eq = 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, < 2000 psf)
in the same units as the in situ vertical effective stress (  v )
,
 = standard cumulative normal distribution
Maurer et al. (2014) assessed the performance of LPI based on the occurrence and severity
of surficial liquefaction manifestations in 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 boundary curves for probability for
liquefaction manifestation which is given in Equation 2.21 and Equation 2.22, respectively.
The upper and lower boundary curves for probability for liquefaction manifestation that
proposed by Maurer show in Figure 2.11. However, the damage potential of lateral spreading
may not be well estimated by LPI, and it is therefore treated separately in the subsequent
analysis.
The upper and lower bounds probability of liquefaction manifestation,
P  (3 *105 ) LPI 3  (0.0025) LPI 2  (0.0756) LPI  0.0879, (2.21)
P  (3 *105 ) LPI 3  (0.0027) LPI 2  (0.0746) LPI  0.2977 (2.22)
10
Where P = probability of liquefaction manifestation
LPI = liquefaction potential index (LPI)
Juang et al. (2006) proposed the probability for liquefaction induced ground failure near
foundation as Equation 2.23. Moreover, they proposed the relationship between the
probability of ground failure, probability for liquefaction induced ground failure and the
damage class which is shown in Table 2.6.
1
PG  4.83 0.74 LPI (2.23)
(1  e )
Where PG = probability for liquefaction induced ground failure

LPI = liquefaction potential index (LPI)
Liquefaction induce ground failure
Soralump and Feungaugsorn (2016) proposed the ground failure affected from liquefaction
evidences in Thailand by both magnitudes of 6.8 Tarlay 2011 and 6.3 Chiangrai 2014
earthquake are concordant with correlation of liquefaction evidence between magnitude and
distance that was proposed by Pitilakis and Anastasiadis (2007). The correlation concludes
that ground failure from liquefaction can be occurred with the earthquake magnitude greater
than 5. The correlation of liquefaction evidence between magnitude and distance show in
Figure 2.12
Ishihara (1985) had proposed a chart for determine the chances of ground damage due to
liquefaction by using thickness of liquefiable soil, thickness of non-liquefiable soil and peak
ground acceleration. The chart is shown in Figure 2.13. It should also be noted that even
though the thickness of a non-liquefiable surface layer exceeds the threshold thickness
shown in Figure 2.13, the ground surface may still experience some settlement for certain
settlement-sensitive structures.
Asuda (1998) found that the thickness of unliquefied soil (above ground water table), H1,
has a noticeable effect to moderate damage from liquefaction. According to Figure 2.14,
when H1 was larger than 2 m, there was no 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 on the ratio of H1 and H2; H2 stands for the thickness of liquefied layer that was
judged by SPT-N < 15.
The liquefaction map
Youd (1978) expressed ground failures that generated by liquefaction do not occur at random
but it limits by certain geologic settings and levels of seismic shaking. Youd explained
technique for compiling maps showing the potential for liquefaction induced ground failure
using probability concepts. The technique requires the combination of two map; liquefaction
ground failure opportunity map and liquefaction ground failure susceptibility map. The
liquefaction ground failure opportunity map show an opportunity for ground failure in a
function of seismicity and the rate of occurrences of earthquake. While the liquefaction
11
ground failure susceptibility map show ground failure susceptibility in each area in a term
of geologic material and likelihood that these materials were prone to liquefaction.
Papathanassiou et al. (2005) established a preliminary liquefaction susceptibility map for

Lefkada town using the data from Liquefaction Potential Index analyses. The microzonation
map was constructed by contour of Liquefaction Potential Index. Moreover, the liquefaction
susceptibility map was validated by the occurrence of liquefaction phenomena inside the
town. Liquefaction susceptibility map based on liquefaction potential index that established
by Papathanassiou is shown in Figure 2.15.
2.2 Risk Assessment
Event tree analysis
Baecher and Christian (2003) said that event trees become the common method for analysis
in complex geotechnical systems. Moreover, event trees provide an intuitive structure to
organize problems in a 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 conditions at a various site. All of this is comforting to practical
engineers facing practical problems: Problems are disintegrated into tractably small pieces
and then brought back together to shed light on the prospect of system failures. The
illustration of a simple of event tree is shown in Figure 2.16.
Moreover, an example of event tree is presented in Figure 2.17 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.
The first order second moment technique (FOSM)
The first order second moment technique (FOSM) directly propagates the uncertainty
originating from parameter uncertainty. It can be applied in all cases where the parameter
variances are moderate.
Soralump (2002) modified the first-order second moment technique (FOSM) for
probabilistic analysis. The analysis combine uncertainty of parameters such as geometry of
the dam, pore pressure, soil density and shear strength of soil in the process. Therefore, the
first-order second-moment technique help the process of the analysis to manage the various
uncertainty of parameters. The simplified first order second moment technique that was
modified by Soralump is shown in Figure 2.18.
2.3 Seismic Hazard Analysis
Seismic hazard analysis is the estimation of ground shaking that the result from release of
energy in the earth’s crust at a site. Seismic hazard may be divided into two groups as
deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) and probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis(PSHA). For deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA), an earthquake scenario
is assumed. The scenario consists of the assumed occurrence of an earthquake of a specific
size occur at a specific location.
12
In case of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), the uncertainties in earthquake such
as size, location and time of occurrence are clearly considered. Then probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis will compute the rate of each scenario and combine the rate of each scenario
with ground motion above a threshold to determine probability of exceedance.
Deif (2012) explained the difference between deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)
and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
advocates that the likelihood of occurrence is considered in view of the fact that the life of a
structure is very short compared to the recurrence intervals of large events. On the other
hand, the deterministic seismic hazard analysis proposes a design for the “maximum
earthquake”, that is the one that will produce the most severe ground motion at the site.
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)
In process of deterministic seismic hazard analysis, the calculation assumes that any
earthquake having a specific size occurs at a location. Reiter (1990) proposed a characteristic
illustration of DSHA as following four steps as
1. Earthquake sources identification and characterization: all the earthquake sources which
can produce certain ground motion somewhere are identified and they are characterized by
their geometry and potential.
2. Source-site distance selection: Shortest distance determined from each source depend on
a certain site is selected
3. Controlling earthquake selection: It is primarily the selection of earthquake corresponding

to the expected strongest shaking. Various ground motion parameters commonly express this
shaking at a site. The selection is made by comparing the levels of shaking produced by
earthquakes (identified in step 1) assumed then to occur at the distances identified in step 2.
The controlling earthquake is portrayed by its magnitude and its displacement from site.
4. Hazard at a site is properly defined, typically by ground motions expected at that site
locality by controlling earthquake. Its characteristics are usually described by one or more
ground motion parameters obtained from predictive empirical relationships for ground
motion parameters. Seismic hazard is usually characterized by Peak acceleration, peak
velocity, and response spectrum ordinates etc.
The four-steps process of a deterministic seismic hazard assessment is shown in Figure 2.19.
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis will consider all possible earthquakes and ground
motion levels and compute rates of each scenario. Baker (2013) described a framework for
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Instead of ignoring the uncertainties, this method
combines them into calculations of potential ground motion intensity. While combination of
uncertainties improves some complexity to the procedure, the resulting calculations are
much more defensible for use in engineering risks assessment.
13
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis can be composed by five steps
1. Classify 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 result from calculation will be a full distribution of levels of ground shaking intensity
and annual rate of exceedance. The uncertainties 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 be used to identify a ground motion
intensity with an acceptably small probability of being exceeded.
The schematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic seismic hazard is shown in
Figure 2.20.
2.4 Sources of Earthquake in Thailand
Active faults in Thailand
The earthquakes in Thailand are controlled by an active fault in Thailand. Department of

Mineral Resource of Thailand (DMR, 2006) propose that Thailand has 15 active faults
surrounding of country as shown in Figure 2.21. The northern and western Thailand is the
active areas where several active faults have been detected.
Ornthammarath et. al (2010) presented the probabilistic seismic hazard maps for Thailand,
applying crustal fault and subduction zone models. Summary of the Crustal fault source
model parameters for seismic hazard analysis in Thailand is shown in Table 2.7.
14
2014 Chiang Rai earthquake
On 5th May 2014, there is earthquake occurred in Chiang Rai province, northern part of Thailand.
The magnitude is 6.3 at the depth 2 meters from ground surface. The epicenter of earthquake
located at Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai province (latitude = 19.748, longitude = 99.692). The
epicenter of 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake on the Mae Lao district show in Figure 2.22. In addition,
the location of Phayao fault and adjacent active fault that cut through Chiang Rai province show
in Figure 2.23.
Suitable attenuation models for Thailand
Chintanapakdee et. al. (2008) estimated appropriate attenuation models for Thailand by comparing
PGA from estimation by each model. The estimation based on 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 as show in Figure 2.24. 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.
Consequently, these models are the most appropriate attenuation models for Thailand.
2.5 Ground Response Analysis
The local deposit of soil conditions have an effect to the ground motion characteristics when the
seismic waves propagate through different soil layers to the ground surface. The layers of soil may
have a major effect on the amplitude and response spectral characteristics of earthquake. The
model of propagation of seismic wave through deposit of soil layers will be done in dynamic
response analysis. The method for model of propagation of seismic wave from earthquake
epicenter includes: seismic hazard analysis and ground response analysis is shown in Figure 2.25.
Dobry and Abdoun (2014) proposed key characteristic of the liquefaction procedure. The
calculation of Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) can be determined by two alternative processes: (i) from
the value of amax estimated at the ground surface ;or (ii) directly from  max calculated with a site
amplification program. The assumption that  max = ( amax /g)  v  rd . The assumed is the values of
 max and amax are not affected by pore pressure build up during the earthquake shaking. A
illustration of calculation of the Cyclic Stress Ratio is shown in Figure 2.26.
15
2.6 Dynamic Soil Properties
Equivalent linear model
The nature and distribution of earthquake is powerfully affecteded by the response of soil to cyclic
loading. The approach of equivalent linear is for site response analysis that calculates an
approximation nonlinear response through soil deposits. Nevertheless, the equivalent linear model
is only an estimate of the actual nonlinear behavior of the soil. It cannot be used directly for
problems involving permanent deformation. The equivalent linear models imply that the strain
always return to zero point after cyclic loading, and a material has no limiting strength and failure
cannot occur. The hysteresis loop show the relation of shear stress and shear strain in the equivalent
linear model is shown in Figure 2.27.
Shear modulus and damping ratio
The measurement of dynamic soil properties is a serious ploblems in the geotechnical earthquake
engineering. Earthquakr waves are mainly shear waves. Moreover, the shear modulus of the
foundation soil effect the amplification of earthquake waves. Therefore, the shear modulus of soil
is the important parameters for solution in geotechnical earthquake engineering ploblems. The
modulus reduction curve (G/ Gmax ) illustrates 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. On the other hand,
the damping ratio (D) represents the dissipation of energy in the soil such as heat, friction plastic
yieding. Theoretically, there should be no energy dissipation at very low strain amplitude but in
reality there is always some energy dissipation Mechanisms that contribute to damping are friction
between soil particles, strain rate effect, and nonlinear soil behavior. The relationship of shear
modulus and damping ratio is shown in Figure 2.28.
16
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Concept
Form 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake, there are many liquefaction evidences in Mae Lao district,
Chiang Rai province. The damage from liquefaction affected to building structure in Mae Lao
district such as settlement of shallow foundation and rupture of the ground floor. Moreover, the
effect from liquefaction may affect the utility structure such as road, bridge and railway, etc. For
mitigation of damage from liquefaction, the assessment of liquefaction in Mae Lao district should
be done. The concept of this study is liquefaction assessment of Mae Lao district that includes 4
processes:
1. Data collection
2. Verification of the model of liquefaction assessment of Mae Lao district with the
liquefaction evidence from the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake.
3. Prediction of severity from liquefaction based on earthquake magnitude: Maximum
Credible Earthquake (MCE) and building standard code (return period 475 years). The
analysis is based on the characteristic of Phayao fault.
4. Liquefaction probabilistic assessment of Mae Lao district.
The result from liquefaction probabilistic assessment process is the annualized probability of
liquefaction. The annualized probability of liquefaction from each borehole can be used to create
liquefaction potential map of Mae Lao district. The flow chart of liquefaction assessment of Mae
Lao district is shown in Figure 3.1.
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Determination of basic soil properties
The basic soil properties of Mae Lao district can be obtained by soil exploration, laboratory testing,
and analysis and interpretation of the result from laboratory testing. The locations of the boreholes
in Mae Lao district are shown in Figure 3.2. Then the process of soil exploration and laboratory
testing had been done by Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD)
from Kasetsart University. Therefore, the boring log information of Mae Lao soil can be obtained
from Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD). However, the basic
soil properties of sand in Mae Lao district cannot be obtained from the boring log information
because the method of boring that was used is wash boring method. Wash boring method cannot
get the undisturbed sample of sand so, there is no undisturbed sample of sand for laboratory testing.
However, the basic soil properties of sand can be obtained from correlation of SPT-values.
The basic soil properties of sand can be determined from empirical relationship that was
presented by Terzaghi and Peck (1948). Terzaghi and Peck studied the relationship of the SPT-N
value with the relative density, the angle of friction, and the unit weight of sand (submerged and
moist). The relationship of SPT-N value and soil basic properties can define as
17
N2
b   9.58 (kN/𝑚3 ) (3.1)
848
N2 N
 moist    19.15 (kN/𝑚3 ) (3.2)
390 11.5
  0.28N  27 (3.3)
N  15
'
N  15  For N   15 (3-4)
2
Where
Zw = depth of water table from the natural ground level.
N = corrected N-value.
N' = uncorrected N-value.
 = moist unit weight or submerged unit weight, depending on the level of
water table at the time of the SPT-test.
3.2.2 Shear wave velocity
The process of spectral analysis of surface wave (SASW) had been done by Geotechnical
Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD). Therefore, shear wave velocity ( Vs ) data
of Mae Lao district can be obtained from Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development
Center (GERD). Shear wave velocity ( Vs ) is one of the most important parameters for dynamic
ground response analysis process. The configuration of SASW testing is shown in Figure 3.3 and
Figure 3.4. Moreover, the example of shear wave velocity profile that can be used to obtain SASW
is shown in Figure 3.5.
3.2.3 Ground water table data
Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD) installed the observation
well on 15 points on Mae Lao district including: 1 point of real time automatic observation well
and 14 points of manual observation well. Therefore, ground water table data can be obtained
directly from Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD). The example
of observation well is shown in Figure 3.6.
3.3 Liquefaction Verification
In the liquefaction verification analysis, the analysis is based on 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake. The
purpose of the liquefaction verification is to verify the result from liquefaction assessment based
on 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake with the real liquefaction evidence. If the result from liquefaction
assessment based on 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake matches with the real liquefaction evidence, the
model of liquefaction assessment is reliable for liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district. The
step of liquefaction verification can explain as follows:
18
Liquefaction susceptibility
The first step of the liquefaction verification is liquefaction susceptibility for check the sensitivity
of soil to liquefaction. The liquefaction susceptibility analysis is divided into 2 groups including:
liquefaction susceptibility of fine grain soil and liquefaction susceptibility of sandy soil.
Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of fine grain soil can be done by using criteria that were
proposed by Bray et al. (2004), Andrews and Martin (2000), and Seed and Idriss (1982). The
criteria of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grain soil are shown in Table 2.1, Table 2.2, and Figure
2.3 in the literature review. In addition, liquefaction susceptibility analysis of sandy soil can be
done by using grain-size distribution curves which proposed by Iwasaki (1986) (Figure 2.4). After
that, the soil model column is established to define the layer of liquefy soil.
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)
The second step is deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) for determining the ground
motion parameter. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) usually consider the effect at a
site from a single scenario such as earthquake magnitude and the distance from the earthquake
rupture zone to the site. In this case, the deterministic seismic hazard analysis use earthquake
magnitude 6.3 and the closest distance from epicenter to borehole to determine the target response
acceleration using attenuation model that was proposed by Sadigh et al (1997). Sadigh et al (1997)
proposed attenuation model for shallow crustal earthquakes is shown in Equation 3.4.
ln S a  c1  c 2 M w  c3 8.5  M w 
2.5
 
 c 4 ln rrup  e ( c5  c6 M w )  c7 lnrrup  2 (3.4)
Where
Sa = the median spectral acceleration in g
M = moment magnitude
rrup = the closest distance to the rapture plane in km.
c1 … c7 = coefficients
The values of the standard error terms are listed in the Table 3.1.
The values of the coefficients c1 … c 7 are provided in Table 3.2.
The process of deterministic seismic hazard (DSHA) show in Figure 3.7.
After determination of ground motion parameter process, the next process is downloading of
ground motion parameter form PEER ground motion database (Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center) and selected ground motion for ground response analysis. The process of
definition of hazard using controlling earthquake show in Figure 3.8.
Ground response analysis
After that, the next step is ground response analysis. The purpose of ground response analysis is
explication of an influence on the ground motion characteristics when the earthquake generated
seismic waves which propagate through different type of soil layers towards the ground surface.
The process of ground response analysis can be done by using Deepsoil. The first step in the ground
19
response analysis requires the selection of analysis type. In the analysis process, the equivalent
linear frequency domain analysis will be used because of the limitation of input data. Then a soil
profile definition can be done by defining layer thickness, unit weight, water table and shear wave
velocity. The next step is bedrock definition, the process of bedrock definition was done by
Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD) by using relation between
maximum shear modulus of soil Gmax , K 2,max and effective overburden stress  m to predict the
depth of bedrock. In general, the shear wave velocity of the bedrock should be greater than 760
m / s (site class B). Then the ground motion which obtain from seismic hazard analysis input to
Deepsoil program. Next, user can start the analysis process and obtain the result from a program.
The step of process in Deepsoil program can be illustrated in Figure 3.9. The results from Deep
soil program consist of variation of peak ground acceleration, maximum shear strain and cyclic
stress ratio show in Figure 3.10. Moreover, the criteria for site class of rock that defined by shear
wave velocity show in Figure 3.11.
liquefaction triggering
The next step is liquefaction triggering. Liquefaction triggering is generally evaluated by

comparing earthquake loading and liquefaction resistance. It has become common to base the
comparison on cyclic shear stress amplitude which expressed in the form of a cyclic stress ratio,
CSR, for loading and a cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, for resistance. The potential for liquefaction
is then described in terms of a factor of safety against liquefaction, FS = CRR/CSR. If the factor
of safety is less than one, liquefaction is expected to be triggered.
Liquefaction potential Index (LPI)
After that, the factors of safety (FS) along the soil column up to 20 m depth was integrated to
liquefaction potential index (LPI). Liquefaction potential index is the criteria for predicting the
potential of liquefaction and provides a measure of the severity of liquefaction. The liquefaction
potential index (LPI)) is expressed in equation 2.20. Moreover, the severity of liquefaction can be
classified in Table 2.4.
Finally, the level of severity from liquefaction potential index is verified with the liquefaction
evidences from 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake. If the level of severity from LPI value matches with
the liquefaction evidences, that mean the liquefaction assessment model is suitable for liquefaction
assessment in Mae Lao district.
3.4 Prediction of the Severity from Liquefaction
The purpose of liquefaction prediction process is for determination of severity from liquefaction.
The process in the liquefaction prediction analysis is like the liquefaction verification process but
in the deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA), the analysis use earthquake magnitude 6.8
(MCE) and 5.46(return period 475 years), and the closest distance from fault to borehole. After
that, ground response analysis can be done in Deepsoil by using ground motion from deterministic
seismic hazard analysis. The results from ground response analysis are cyclic stress ratio and peck
ground acceleration at any depth. Then cyclic stress ratio and peck ground acceleration is used in
liquefaction triggering analysis. Finally, the severity from liquefaction based on earthquake
20
magnitude 6.8 and building standard code (return period 475 years) can explain by liquefaction
potential index (LPI).
3.5 Liquefaction Probabilistic Assessment
The purpose of liquefaction probabilistic assessment is to define the annual probability of

liquefaction manifestation and failure of shallow foundation induced by liquefaction. The
liquefaction probabilistic assessment is managed by event tree analysis. The event tree calculates
the annual probability of liquefaction manifestation and probability of shallow foundation failure
start from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the event tree. The event tree begins with
initiating event and attempts to generate all possible subsequent event. The example of the event
tree structure show in Figure 3.12. In the liquefaction probabilistic assessment, a conditional
probability is associated with each event. An annual probability of each chain of events is
calculated by multiplying the conditional probabilities along the chain. A conditional probability
of each event can be calculated as follow
Probability of earthquake occurrence
The probability of earthquake occurrence can be calculated by Equation 3.5 that was proposed by
Gutenberg and Richter (1954)
log n( M )  a  bM (3.5)
Where n(M) = the number of earthquakes with magnitude  M (time/year)

a&b = positive parameters indicating the level and the character of seismicity in
the region of concern
M = earthquake magnitude
Annual probability of exceedance intensity
The annual probability of exceedance intensity is probability of peck ground acceleration that
considered area can encounter in 1 year. The annual probability of exceedance intensity can be
defined by probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis use
probabilistic concept to eliminate the uncertainties in the size, location, and rate of recurrence of
earthquake size. The process of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is illustrated in Figure 3.13.
The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis can be done by CRISIS 2015 program. After input data
of all earthquake sources, CRISIS 2015 program will calculate the distribution of earthquake
magnitudes and source-to-site distances. Moreover, CRISIS 2015 program will combine
uncertainties in earthquake size, location and ground motion intensity. Finally, the PGA hazard
curve can be obtained from CRISIS 2015 program. The example of PGA hazard curve shown in
Figure 3.14.
Probability of ground water level
The probability of ground water level can be calculated directly from ground water level data.
21
Probability of liquefaction manifestation
The probability of liquefaction manifestation can be defined from the boundary curve that was
proposed by Maurer et al. (2014). The boundary curve is the relation between liquefaction potential
index (LPI) and probability of liquefaction manifestation.
Probability of shallow foundation failure
The failure from shallow foundation is separated into two type of failure type: punching shear
failure and bearing failure. Normally, the factor of safety against punching failure of shallow
foundation can be determined from Equation 3.6. For bearing failure of shallow foundation, the
factor of safety can be determined from comparison between bearing capacity of soil and load that
foundation hold on. The bearing capacity of soil can be calculated from Terzagi’s equation as
Equation 3.7. The variation of parameter in the equation can be arranged and take in to the
probability of shallow foundation failure in case of punching failure and bearing failure
respectively using the simplified first-order second moment technique (SFOSM) technique that
propose by Soralump (2002).
2( B  L)  T  f
FS  (3.6)
P
where B & L = size of foundation

T = Thickness of cap layer
f = shear strength of soil
P = load to foundation
1
qu  cN c  qN q  NN  (3.7)
2
Where q u = bearing capacity of soil

Nc = tan  ' ( K c  1)
Nq = K q tan  ,
1
N = tan  ' ( K  tan  '  1)
2
Finally, A probability of each chain of events is multiplied the conditional probabilities along the
chain. The annual probability of liquefaction manifestation can be defined by multiplying
probability of earthquake occurrence, annual probability of exceedance intensity, probability of
ground water level and probability of liquefaction manifestation. In addition, the annual
probability of shallow foundation failure induced by liquefaction can be defined by multiplying
the total probability of liquefaction manifestation and probability of shallow foundation failure.
22
3.6 Software
DEEPSOIL
DEEPSOIL was developed by Prof. Youssef M.A. Hashash in partnership with graduate and
undergraduate students including Duhee Park, Chi-Chin Tsai, Camilo Phillips, David R.
Groholski, Daniel Turner, Michael Musgrove, Byungmin Kim and Joseph Harmon at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
DEEPSOIL is a one-dimensional site response analysis program that can perform: 1-D nonlinear
time domain analysis with and without pore water pressure generation and 1-D equivalent linear
frequency domain analysis. In this study, the 1-D equivalent linear frequency domain analysis will
be used in the process of ground response analysis because of the limitation of data. The
degradation model of soil is prepared in the program. For sandy soil, the degradation relationship
of Seed and Idriss (1970) can be used. Moreover, the degradation relationship that was peoposed
by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) can be used for fine grain soils. The degradation relationship
(modulus reduction (G/ Gmax ) and damping ratio for sandy soils and fine grain soils) are shown in
the Figure 3.15.
CRISIS 2015
The first version of CRISIS was fully developed by the professor Mario Ordaz. The assessment of
seismic hazard is an important activity to have fundamental information to do a proper
management of seismic risk. The program CRISIS 2015 uses a probabilistic methodology to
evaluate seismic hazard in regions. The essential input data for CRISIS 2015 are: the geometry of
the all seismic sources data, the seismicity parameters of the sources and the ground motion
prediction model. Each seismic source can be represented by means of different geometrical
models, such as areas, lines or points. The main purpose of CRISIS 2015 is to compute seismic
hazard and present the seismic hazard map. The calculation in program combine the uncertainty
from distribution of earthquake magnitude and distribution of the location of earthquake epicenter.
Finally, the result from calculation are the seismic hazard curve and the uniform hazard spectra for
a site (Figure 3.16).
23
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
From the latest earthquake in Thailand occurred on 5 May 2014 with magnitude 6.3, Department
of Mineral Resource reported that there were liquefaction evidences occurred in the Mae Suai
district, Phan district and Mae Lao district. The liquefaction evidences are shown in Figure 4.1.
Moreover, the locations of liquefaction evidence located on the quaternary sediments area include:
flood plain deposits (Qff) and fluvial deposits (Qa). From the locations of liquefaction evidences,
the assumption of this study is the quaternary sediments area is the susceptible area for
liquefaction. Therefore, the location of borehole in this study is scattered on the quaternary
sediments area in Mae Lao district. Furthermore, some of the locations of boreholes are located on
the areas that liquefaction evidences were found. The locations of borehole are shown in Figure
4.2. Besides, the locations that the liquefaction evidences were found are shown in Figure 4.3.
4.2 Liquefaction Verification
Liquefaction susceptibility
The liquefaction verification process start from liquefaction susceptibility of Mae Lao soils. The
results from the liquefaction susceptibility analysis show that soils in Mae Lao district is
susceptible to liquefaction. The result from liquefaction susceptibility analysis of sandy soils by
using grain-size distribution curves which proposed by Iwasaki (1986) are shown in Figure 4.4 to
Figure 4.18. The result show the almost gradation of sandy soils has uniform grade and gab grade
and the gradation of the sandy soils is matched well within the gradation range of the liquefiable
soil reported by Iwasaki (1986). Definitely, Mae Lao district has layer of sandy soils that
susceptible to liquefaction.
Moreover, the results from liquefaction susceptibility analysis of fine grain soils by using criteria
that were proposed by Bray et al. (2004), Andrews and Martin (2000), and Seed and Idriss (1982)
are shown in Figure 4.19 to 4. 52. From the results from liquefaction susceptibility analysis of fine
grain soils, the results from criteria that proposed by Andrews and Martin (2000) and Seed and
Idriss (1982) show that the almost fine grain soil in Mae Lao district is not susceptible to
liquefaction. On the other hand, the result from criterial that proposed by Bray et al. (2004) present
the fine grain soil in some area of Mae Lao district is susceptible to liquefaction. The results from
liquefaction susceptibility analysis of fine grain soils in this study is similar to the result from the
study of Bray et al. (2004). Bray et al. plotted the characteristics of fine-grained soils that were
identified as having liquefaction at 12 building sites during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. The result
show that the result from criterial that proposed by Andrews and Martin (2000) and Seed and Idriss
(1982) did not matched with liquefaction evidences during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. However,
the results from criterial that was proposed by Bray et al. (2004) matched with liquefaction
evidences during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. From this reason, the liquefaction susceptibility of
fine grain soils that appropriate for Mae Lao soil is the criterial that proposed by Bray et al. (2004).
Therefore, Mae Lao district has layer of fine grain soils that susceptible to liquefaction.
24
The summary of liquefaction susceptibility summarizes in Table 4.1 to Table 4.15.
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis(DSHA)
The process of deterministic seismic hazard analysis is based on 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake
considering earthquake magnitude 6.3 and the closest distance from earthquake epicenter to
location of borehole. The target response acceleration of each borehole can be established by using
attenuation model that proposed by Sadigh et al. (1997). The summary of location of borehole, the
shortest distance from epicenter of earthquake and peck ground acceleration (PGA) at bedrock
shown in Table 4.16. Moreover, the summary of target response acceleration of each borehole is
shown in Figure 4.56. Then the data of ground motion parameter for ground response analysis can
be downloaded from PEER Ground Motion Database (http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/).
The process of ground response analysis can be done in Deepsoil program. The required
parameters are unit weight of soils, shear wave velocity and ground motion parameter. In this
study, the calculation of ground response analysis use equivalent linear model. The result from
ground response analysis are the peak ground acceleration, cyclic stress ration varies from bedrock
to ground surface. The summary of peck ground acceleration at bedrock and surface is shown in
Table 4.17. The variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration with thickness of soil
deposit is shown in the Figure 4.57.
Liquefaction triggering and liquefaction potential index (LPI) assessment
The liquefaction triggering process use comparison cyclic stress ratio and cyclic strength of soils
to define factor of safety against liquefaction. After that the factor of safety along the soil column
is integrated to liquefaction potential index (LPI). The liquefaction potential index can define the
level of severity from liquefaction. The summary of level of severity from liquefaction based on
the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake is shown in Table 4.18. The level of severity from liquefaction
based on criteria that was proposed by Iwasaki (1986). From liquefaction, potential index of every
borehole, the liquefaction potential index of BH-8 does not match with liquefaction evidence (LPI
should be more than 5 for the level of severity “High”) because sand that dispersed around ground
rupture on BH-8 was not sand from liquefaction. BH-8 is located on the earth dam fill area so, the
liquefaction evidence of BH-8 is not nature sand but it’s from dam construction material.
Therefore, BH-8 is cut off from the study.
From Table 4.18, the liquefaction potential index assessment that use cyclic stress ratio from
ground response analysis give the level of severity match with liquefaction evidence. On the other
hand, the liquefaction potential index assessment that use cyclic stress ratio from Seed equation
give the level of severity of some borehole does not match with liquefaction evidence. Therefore,
the liquefaction potential index assessment that use cyclic stress ratio from ground response
analysis is more appropriate than the liquefaction potential index assessment that use cyclic stress
ratio from Seed equation for liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district.
25
After that, the verification of liquefaction induced ground failure can determine by using criteria
that was proposed by Ishihara (1985). BH-4 to BH-11 are the borehole that found the liquefaction
evidences. The summary of peck ground acceleration, the thickness of liquefiable soil (H2) and
the thickness of surface layer (H1) show in Table 4.19. Moreover, the summary of peck ground
acceleration, the thickness of liquefiable soil (H2) and the thickness and the thickness of surface
layer (H1) was plotted in chart that proposed by Ishihara (1985) show in Figure 4.58. The result
from the verification of liquefaction induced ground failure match with liquefaction evidence. For
example, BH-4 has the thickness of liquefiable soil layer (H2) 3 m and peck ground acceleration
at surface 0.29 g so BH-4 should has the thickness of surface layer (H1) around 4 m to prevent
liquefaction manifestation. Therefore, liquefaction manifestation occurred because BH-4 has the
thickness of surface layer (H1) only 1 m. Moreover, peck ground acceleration from mainshock
(Earthquake magnitude 6.3) at BH-11 is not enough to generate ground failure from liquefaction.
However, peck ground acceleration from aftershock (Earthquake magnitude 5.6 but the distance
from epicenter of aftershock is closer than the distance from epicenter of mainshock) is strong
enough to generate ground failure from liquefaction. Therefore, it can conclude that liquefaction
evidence can be generated by aftershock from 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake.
The result from the liquefaction verification match with liquefaction evidences from the 2014
Chiang Rai earthquake. Therefore, the liquefaction assessment model in this study is appropriate
for liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district.
4.3 Prediction of the Severity from Liquefaction
The prediction of the severity from liquefaction is analyzed based on earthquake magnitude MCE
(6.8) and magnitude that has return period 475 years (Building standard code). From Gutenberg
and Richter relation, the magnitude of Phayao fault that has return period 475 years is 5.46. After
that the process of deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) is like the deterministic seismic
hazard analysis process in the liquefaction verification process but in the prediction of a violence
from liquefaction process the distance for deterministic seismic hazard analysis is the closest
distance from Phayao fault to borehole. The summary of target response acceleration of each
borehole for earthquake magnitude MCE and 5.46 is shown in Figure 4.59 and 4.60. Then the data
of ground motion parameter which match with target response acceleration can be downloaded
from PEER Ground Motion Database (http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/). After that, the process of
ground response analysis can be done in Deepsoil program. The result from ground response
analysis show in term of the variation of peck ground acceleration and cyclic stress ratio from
bedrock to surface. The summary of peck ground acceleration at bedrock and surface is shown in
Table 4.20. and Table 4.21. Moreover, the trend of amplification ratio of peck ground acceleration
and the thickness of soil deposit is look similarly with the trend from relation of amplification ratio
and the thickness of soil deposit based on earth quake magnitude 6.3 (Figure 4.57). The variation
of amplification of peck ground acceleration based on earthquake magnitude MCE and 5.46 with
thickness of soil deposit are shown in the Figure 4.61 and Figure 4.62. From the result from the
variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration with thickness of soil deposit based on
earthquake magnitude 5.46, 6.3 and 6.8, it can be concluded that the thickness of soil deposit affect
the amplification behavior of earthquake wave. In short, the trend of amplification ration decrease
when the thickness of soil deposit increase.
26
After that, the liquefaction triggering and liquefaction potential index assessment can be calculated
by using liquefaction assessment model from liquefaction verification. The result of liquefaction
potential index assessment is shown in Table 4.22 and Table 4.23. The severity from liquefaction
can be defined by criteria that was proposed by Iwasaki (1986).
From the result of liquefaction assessment based on earthquake magnitude 5.46 and 6.3, the almost
area that affected from liquefaction locate on fluvial deposits (Qa) and terrace deposit (Qt).
Moreover, the result of liquefaction assessment based on earthquake magnitude 6.8, there are area
that affected from liquefaction on flood plain deposits (Qff). It can be concluded that liquefaction
can occur the quaternary sediments area include: flood plain deposits (Qff) and fluvial deposits
(Qa) if the cyclic load from earthquake is strong enough.
4.4 Liquefaction Probabilistic Assessment
The liquefaction probabilistic assessment is managed by event tree analysis. The event tree
structure consist of condition probability includes: probability of earthquake occurrence, annual
probability of exceedance intensity, probability of ground water level, probability of liquefaction
manifestation and probability of shallow foundation failure. Finally, the event tree analysis
multiplies the condition probability of each chain into the annual probability. In this study, the
liquefaction probabilistic assessment is based on characteristic of Phayao fault. Therefore, the
liquefaction probabilistic assessment considers earthquake magnitude start from 5 to 6.8 (MCE).
Probability of earthquake occurrence
The probability of earthquake occurrence can be defined by equation that proposed by Gutenberg
and Richter (1954). The summary of probability of earthquake occurrence show in Table 4.24.
Annual probability of exceedance intensity can be defined from probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considers all active faults that can affect
seismic activity in Mae Lao district includes: Phayao fault, Mae Ing fault and Mae Chan fault. The
seismic hazard map of Chiang Rai that is performed by CRISIS 2015 program show in Figure
4.63. Moreover, hazard curve of each borehole show in Figure 4.64 to Figure 4.71.
Probability of ground water level can be calculated directly from ground water level data. The
summary of probability of ground water level is shown in Table 4.25. Moreover, the ground water
level data can be separated into two group consist of high water level group and low water level
group. Therefore, area of Mae Lao district can be separated into two group based on ground water
level as Figure 4.72. The trend of ground water level in the quaternary sediments area is high. On
the other hand, the trend of ground water level in mountain area is low.
27
Probability of liquefaction manifestation
Probability of liquefaction manifestation can be defined by the relation of probability of

liquefaction manifestation and liquefaction potential index that proposed by Maurer et al. (2014).
The summary of probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with peck ground acceleration in
various cases is shown in Figure 4.73 to Figure 4.84. From the summary of probability of
liquefaction manifestation varies with peck ground acceleration, it shows that probability of
liquefaction manifestation depends on peck ground acceleration and ground water level. If the
peck ground acceleration decrease, a probability of liquefaction manifestation will decrease also.
Moreover, a probability of liquefaction manifestation will decrease if ground water level decrease.
Probability of shallow foundation failure can be determined by the simplified first-order second
moment technique (SFOSM) technique to assess variation of parameters in the analysis process.
The assessment of variation of parameters is based on coefficient of variation in Table 4.26. The
size of shallow foundation in analysis is consider footing size 1x1 m, 2x2 m and 3x3 m. Moreover,
the assumption of load on footing is 20 ton. The summary of the probability of shallow foundation
failure is shown in Table 4.27, Table 4.28 and Table 4.29. From the summary of the probability of
shallow foundation failure, the probability of shallow foundation failure decrease when the size of
shallow foundation increase.
Finally, the condition probability of each event is multiplied together become the annual
probability. The material of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation are probability of
earthquake occurrence, annual probability of exceedance intensity, probability of ground water
level and probability of liquefaction manifestation. Moreover, the material of annual probability
of shallow foundation failure are probability of earthquake occurrence, annual probability of
exceedance intensity, probability of ground water level, probability of liquefaction manifestation
and probability of shallow foundation failure. The summary of annual probability of liquefaction
manifestation and annual probability of shallow foundation failure is shown in Figure 4.85 and
Figure 4.86 respectively.
The annual probability of liquefaction manifestation and annual probability of shallow foundation
failure relate to the ground water level data. The areas that have liquefaction potential will scale
down based on ground water level data. Therefore, the ground water level is the important
parameter for liquefaction assessment.
The maximum annual probability of liquefaction manifestation is 1.17  106 or 1 in 850,000. For
simplifying to understand the risk of liquefaction manifestation in Mae Lao district, the annual
probability of liquefaction manifestation can be compared with a chance of each accident in the
world. The summary of chance of each accident in the world is shown in Table 4.30. Thus, it can
be explained that the risk from liquefaction manifestation in Mae Lao district is the same level as
the risk of accident from train.
From the result of the annual probability of liquefaction manifestation and annual probability of
shallow foundation failure, it can be concluded that chance of liquefaction manifestation in Mae
28
Lao district is more than chance of shallow foundation failure in Mae Lao district. Moreover, the
conclusion of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation and annual probability of shallow
foundation failure match with evidences from the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake. The amount of
liquefaction evidence from the 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake was more than the amount of shallow
foundation failure induce by liquefaction.
Furthermore, a chance of shallow foundation failure is not worrisome because an annual

probability of shallow foundation failure is in the range of safe zone based on acceptable risk and
consequences of failure that proposed by Whitman (1984). From acceptable risk and consequences
of failure (Figure 4.87), an annual probability of failure in foundation structure is in the range 102
to 10 3 while an annual probability of shallow foundation failure in Mae Lao district is in the range
106 to 108 . Consequently, the shallow foundation in Mao Lao district will be safe if the size of
footing is more than 1m x 1m.
Moreover, this study try to do liquefaction probabilistic assessment based on characteristic of

Phayao fault but the analysis consider earthquake magnitude 5.46 (Building standard code, return
period 475 years). The results are shown in Figure 4.88 and Figure 4.89. The annual probability
from earthquake magnitude 5.46 give a lowers probability because the load from earthquake
magnitude is lower than earthquake load in a case that considers earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
Finally, an annual probability of each was plotted in Mae Lao map for establishing liquefaction
potential map of Mae Lao consist of the potential map of liquefaction manifestation based on
characteristic of Phayao fault considering earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE) and 5.46 (return
period 475 years), and the potential map of shallow foundation failure based on characteristic of
Phayao fault considering earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE) and 5.46 (return period 475 years). The
potential map are shown in Figure 4.90 and Figure 4.97.
29
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
From the result of liquefaction assessment in Mae Lao district, it can be concluded as follow
1. A result from the analysis that used cyclic stress ratio from ground response analysis is
corresponding with liquefaction evidences from 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake. On the other
hand, a result from the analysis that used cyclic stress ratio from equation that proposed by
Seed and Idriss (1971) is not corresponding with liquefaction evidences in some area.
Therefore, the appropriate liquefaction assessment for Mae Lao district is a liquefaction
assessment that used cyclic stress ratio from ground response analysis.
2. A cause of liquefaction in some area might be induced by aftershock of 2014 Chiang Rai
earthquake because BH-11 has LPI from aftershock more than LPI from mainshock of
2014 Chiang Rai earthquake and peck ground acceleration from mainshock is not strong
enough to generate ground failure from liquefaction.
3. The almost area that prone to liquefaction is the quaternary sediments area.
4. Liquefaction can occur at fine grain soil layer as silt or low plastic clay because the result
from liquefaction susceptibility of fine grain soil and liquefaction triggering of some
borehole show liquefiable soil layer locate on silt or low plastic clay layer.
5. Earthquake magnitude based on building standard code for structure design (considering
return period of earthquake as 475 years) is not appropriate for liquefaction assessment.
The result from liquefaction assessment considering earthquake magnitude 5.46 (return
period 475 years) show the almost area that prone to liquefaction locate on fluvial deposits
(Qa). However, the result from liquefaction assessment considering earthquake magnitude
6.8 (Maximum credible earthquake of Phayao fault) show the area that prone to
liquefaction locate on fluvial deposits (Qa) and flood plain deposits (Qff). From the
comparisons of the result from liquefaction assessment based on earthquake magnitude
5.46 and 6.8, the result from liquefaction assessment based on earthquake magnitude 6.8
is more conservative than the result from liquefaction assessment based on earthquake
magnitude 5.46. Therefore, earthquake magnitude based on maximum credible earthquake
is appropriate for liquefaction assessment.
6. To assess the liquefaction potential, the ground water level fluctuation is the important
parameter because the annual probability of liquefaction manifestation and annual
probability of shallow foundation failure relate to the fluctuation of ground water level
data. The areas that prone to liquefaction will be scaled down by ground water level data.
7. The shallow foundation that have the size of footing bigger than 1m x 1m will safe from
shallow foundation failure induce by liquefaction in Mae Lao district.
30
5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested for future studies:
1. The representation of quaternary deposit by location of borehole will be more accurate if

the data of quaternary deposit is the data from geology field observation.
2. The data in a potential map will be more reliable if the number of boreholes in the analysis
increases.
3. For seismic hazard analysis, the analysis should use new generation of ground motion
prediction equations because the new generation of ground motion prediction equations
will be more accurate than the old series of ground motion prediction equations.
4. For ground response analysis, the result will be more reliable if the analysis use nonlinear
model considering pore water pressure generate during earthquake shaking. The pore water
generate parameter can be obtained from special laboratory test such as cyclic triaxial test.
31
REFERENCES
Andrews, D. C., & Martin, G. R. (2000, January). Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In Proc.,
12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Upper Hutt, New Zealand: NZ Soc. for EQ
Engrg.
Baecher, G. B., & Christian, J. T. (2005). Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering.
John Wiley & Sons.
Baker, J. W. (2013). An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. White Pap, 2(1), 79.
Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, I. M. (2004). Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure
of silts and clays (p. 131). Center for Geotechnical Modeling.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder Jr, L. F., Kayen, R. E., &
Moss, R. E. (2004). Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic
assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(12), 1314-1340.
Chintanapakdee, C., Naguit, M. E., & Charoenyuth, M. (2008, October). Suitable attenuation
model for Thailand. In Proc. 14th World Conf. Eqk. Eng.
Department mineral resources (DMR). 2006. Active fault map in Thailand. In map, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Dobry, R., & Abdoun, T. (2011, January). An investigation into why liquefaction charts work: A
necessary step toward integrating the states of art and practice. In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (pp. 13-44). Santiago, Chile: Chilean Geotechnical
Society.
Finn, W. D. L. (2000). State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering practice. Soil

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 20(1), 1-15.
Hill, Randall Jones, "A Liquefaction Potential Map for Cache Valley, Utah" (1979). All Graduate
Theses and Dissertations.Paper 4523.
Idriss, I. M. (1999). An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction
potential. Proc., TRB Worshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Pubbl. n. FHWA-
RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administation.
Idriss, I. M. (1990, May). Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In Proc. H. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symposium (Vol. 2, No. 4). Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Idriss, I. M. & R.W. Boulanger. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. United States of
America. EERI Publication No. MNO-12
32
Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2003, June). Estimating K α for use in evaluating cyclic
resistance of sloping ground. In 8th US–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design
of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Report MCEER-03-0003,
MCEER, SUNY Buffalo, NY (pp. 449-468).
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 & 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.
Kang, G. C., Chung, J. W., & Rogers, J. D. (2014). Re-calibrating the thresholds for the
classification of liquefaction potential index based on the 2004 Niigata-ken Chuetsu
earthquake. Engineering Geology, 169, 30-40.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall International Series in

Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics.
Luna, R. & J.D. Frost. (1998). Spatial liquefaction analysis system. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 12 (1),
48–56.
Maurer, B. W., Green, R. A., Cubrinovski, M., & Bradley, B. A. (2014). Evaluation of the
liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New
Zealand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(7), 04014032.
Ornthammarath, T., Warnitchai, P., Worakanchana, K., Zaman, S., Sigbjörnsson, R., & Lai, C. G.
(2011). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Thailand. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 9(2), 367-394.
Papathanassiou, G., Pavlides, S., & Ganas, A. (2005). The 2003 Lefkada earthquake: Field
observations and preliminary microzonation map based on liquefaction potential index for
the town of Lefkada. Engineering Geology, 82(1), 12-31.
Pitilakis, K. & 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
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.
33
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. & I.M. Idriss. (1982). Ground motion and soil liquefaction during earthquakes
Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Ca.
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., K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Jr. Harder & 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.
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. (2002). Estimating probability of earthquake-induced failure of earth dams. Ph.D.

dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, UMI No.
3083222.
Soralump, S. & Jidakhunpipat, M. (2009). Probability Analysis of chance of failure of Srinakarin

Dam. Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD). Kasetsart
University.
Soralump, S. & J. Feungaugsorn. (2013). Probabilistic Analysis of Liquefaction Potential: The

First Eyewitness Case in Thailand. 18NCCE, Chiangmai, Thailand.
Youd, T. L. & Perkins, D. M. (1978) Mapping Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure Potential,

Journal of the geotechnical engineering division.
34
TABLES
35
Table 2.1 Modified Chinese Criteria proposed (Seed and Idriss, 1982)
Potentially liquefiable soils

fines content (< 0.005 mm) ≤ 15%
liquid limit (LL) ≤ 35%
water content (wc) ≥ (0.9 x LL) %
Table 2.2 Modified Chinese Criteria (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
plastic non-clay sized
grains.
36
Table 2.3 Correction factors for SPT N values (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
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
ERm
CE 
60
where ER m is the measured energy ratio as a percentage of the
theoretical maximum.
Empirical estimates of C E (for rod lengths of 10 m or more) involve
considerable uncertainty, as reflected by the following ranges:
Doughnut hammer C E = 0.5–1.0

Safety hammer C E = 0.7–1.2
Automatic triphammer C E = 0.8–1.3
(Seed et al. 1984, Skempton 1986, NCEER 1997)
Borehole Borehole diameter of 65–115 mm C B =1.0
diameter Borehole diameter of 150 mm C B =1.05
Borehole diameter of 200 mm C B =1.15
(Skempton 1986)
Rod length Where the ER m 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 < 3m C B = 0.75
Rod length 3–4 m C B = 0.80
Sample Standard split spoon without room for liners (the inside diameter is a
constant 1 3 in.), C s =1.0.
8
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):
C s = 1.1 for (N 1 ) 60  10
C s = 1 + ( N1 ) 60 for 10  (N 1 ) 60  30
100
C s = 1.3 for (N 1 ) 60  30
(from Seed et al. 1984, equation by Seed et al. 2001)
37
Table 2.4 Comparison of liquefaction potential index (LPI) classification (Keng et al, 2014).
Table 2.5 Liquefaction potential index and ground failure (Sonmez, 2003)
Table 2.6 Probability of liquefaction-induced ground failure (Juang et al., 2006)
Probability Description of the risk of liquefaction induced ground failure

0.9  PG extremely high to absolutely certain
0.7  PG  0.9 high

0.3  PG  0.7 medium
0.1  PG  0.3 low
0.1  PG extremely low to none
38
Table 2.7 Summary of the Crustal fault source model parameters for seismic hazard analysis in Thailand. (Ornthammarath et. al,
2010)
39
Table 2.7 continued
40
Table 2.7 continued
41
Table 3.1 Coefficients for Standard Error Terms Using Equations Derived
Sadigh et al (1997).
Standard Error Minimum Value for

Period - sec Term M  7.21
PGA 1.39  0.14M 0.38
0.07 1.40  0.14M 0.39
0.10 1.41  0.14M 0.40
0.20 1.43  0.14M 0.42
0.30 1.45  0.14M 0.44
0.40 1.48  0.14M 0.47
0.50 1.50  0.14M 0.49
0.75 1.52  0.14M 0.51
≥1.00 1.53  0.14M 0.52
Table 3.2 Coefficients for the Median Spectral Ordinates Using Equations
Derived by Sadigh et al (1997)
Period C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
M  6.5
PGA -0.624 1.000 0.000 -2.100 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.03 -0.624 1.000 0.000 -2.100 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.07 0.110 1.000 0.006 -2.128 1.29649 0.250 -0.082
0.1 0.275 1.000 0.006 -2.148 1.29649 0.250 -0.041
0.2 0.153 1.000 -0.004 -2.080 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.3 -0.057 1.000 -0.017 -2.028 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.4 -0.298 1.000 -0.028 -1.990 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.5 -0.588 1.000 -0.040 -1.945 1.29649 0.250 0.000
0.75 -1.208 1.000 -0.050 -1.865 1.29649 0.250 0.000
1 -1.705 1.000 -0.055 -1.800 1.29649 0.250 0.000
1.5 -2.407 1.000 -0.065 -1.725 1.29649 0.250 0.000
2 -2.945 1.000 -0.070 -1.670 1.29649 0.250 0.000
3 -3.700 1.000 -0.080 -1.610 1.29649 0.250 0.000
4 -4.230 1.000 -0.100 -1.570 1.29649 0.250 0.000
M  6.5
PGA -1.237 1.100 0.000 -2.100 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.03 -1.237 1.100 0.000 -2.100 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.07 -0.540 1.100 0.006 -2.128 -0.48451 0.524 -0.082
0.1 -0.375 1.100 0.006 -2.148 -0.48451 0.524 -0.041
0.2 -0.497 1.100 -0.004 -2.080 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.3 -0.707 1.100 -0.017 -2.028 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.4 -0.948 1.100 -0.028 -1.990 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.5 -1.238 1.100 -0.040 -1.945 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
0.75 -1.858 1.100 -0.050 -1.865 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
1 -2.355 1.100 -0.055 -1.800 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
1.5 -3.057 1.100 -0.065 -1.725 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
2 -3.595 1.100 -0.070 -1.670 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
3 -4.350 1.100 -0.080 -1.610 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
4 -4.880 1.100 -0.100 -1.570 -0.48451 0.524 0.000
Note that the above coefficients are applicable to ground motions generated by a strike slip
event. Sadigh et al suggest that the calculated spectral ordinates be multiplied by a factor of
1.2 for reverse / thrust events.
42
Table 4.1 Summary of liquefaction susceptibility of BH-1
Depth USCS Distribution FC % Corrected Plasticity Index Liquid Limit Liquefaction

(m) of soil (%) Clay SPT (PI) (LL) Susceptibility
0-1 SM Gap 26.33 30 Potentially Liquefiable
1-2 CH - 70.94 10 24.29 52.46 Non Liquefiable
5-6 CL - 90.58 6 16.90 38.57 Potentially Liquefiable
6-7 SM Uniform 28.92 21 Liquefiable
12-13 SM Uniform 13.62 57 Potentially Liquefiable

1-2 CL Gap 50.44 16 26.57 40.67 Liquefiable
2-3 CL - 85.60 8 20.41 44.92 Non Liquefiable
5-6 SM - 35.91 9 17.08 43.56 Potentially Liquefiable
7-8 (SM) - 15 Non Liquefiable
15-16 SM Gap 14.36 50/6" Potentially Liquefiable
43


0-1 SM well 40.25 10.21 7 Non Liquefiable
1-2 ML - 90.94 2 16.48 47.51 Potentially Liquefiable
3-4 ML Gap 54.18 29.34 8 20.07 47.80 Non Liquefiable
4-5 GM - 8 Non Liquefiable
5-6 GM Gap 40.41 6 8.90 46.26 Potentially Liquefiable
8-9 ML - 86.76 50/15 cm 21.24 49.96 Non Liquefiable
9-10 SM Gap 23.29 5.39 50/14 cm Non Liquefiable
10-11 GM - 19.73 50/15 cm Non Liquefiable
44

0-1 CL Well 53.22 18.56 36 7.46 28.03 Potentially Liquefiable
1-2 SC Well 43.38 40 17.31 41.48 Potentially Liquefiable
2-3 SC Well 43.40 18.72 34 10.56 31.94 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 SM Uniform 21.91 8.36 21 Liquefiable
5-6 SM Gap 33.23 11.63 47 Liquefiable
6-7 GW-GM Gap 10.07 57 Non Liquefiable
7-8 SM Gap 18.23 89 Non Liquefiable
8-9 GM Uniform 12.97 17 Potentially Liquefiable
9-10 SM - 24 Non Liquefiable
10-11 (SM) - 44 Non Liquefiable
12-13 SM Gap 21.89 50/15 cm Non Liquefiable
13-14 SM 50/10 cm Non Liquefiable

2-3 ML Gap 53.25 19.28 5 3.91 31.31 Liquefiable
3-4 SW-SM Gap 5.90 18 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 SW-SM Uniform 11.31 19 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 SP-SM Uniform 10.79 8 Liquefiable
6-7 CL Gap 40 Liquefiable
7-8 CL Well 54.93 33.57 13 22.72 46.08 Non Liquefiable
8-9 SC Gap 32.18 16.47 11 19.36 39.91 Liquefiable
9-10 ML - 82.64 17 19.93 48.63 Non Liquefiable
45

0-1 CL Gap 60.11 28.98 14 12.28 27.19 Potentially Liquefiable
2-3 SC Gap 36.79 21.27 4 16.37 34.76 Potentially Liquefiable
3-4 (SC) - 6 Non Liquefiable
5-6 CH Gap 64.51 43.79 17 26.56 50.19 Non Liquefiable
7-8 SM - 47.59 39 20.88 49.34 Non Liquefiable
8-9 SM - 41.21 55 16.89 46.24 Potentially Liquefiable
9-10 (ML) - 11 Non Liquefiable
10-11 ML Gap 66.81 24.41 25 15.43 45.62 Potentially Liquefiable
13-14 SM Gap 48.30 15.92 51 Non Liquefiable
14-15 SM - 46.45 53 Non Liquefiable
15-16 SM - 50.05 52 Non Liquefiable

1-2 ML Gap 53.91 10 15.22 44.14 Potentially Liquefiable
2-3 ML - 71.24 36.43 24 16.20 42.50 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 GM - 34.70 17 15.70 41.63 Potentially Liquefiable
6-7 GM - 22.98 83/27 cm -
7-8 SC - 34.23 50/5 cm 11.22 33.68 Potentially Liquefiable
46

2-3 CL - 84.70 25.64 10 10.63 34.21 Potentially Liquefiable
8-9 SM Uniform 14.73 3.69 58 NP Liquefiable
9-10 SW-SM Gap 9.63 32 NP Potentially Liquefiable
10-11 Rock 50/0 cm

1-2 SM Uniform grade 23.70 5.24 9 Liquefiable
2-3 SP-SM Uniform grade 5.20 - 22 Liquefiable
3-4 SW-SM Gab grade 8.56 - 17 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 SW-SM Gab grade 11.00 2.07 18 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 SP - - - 20 Liquefiable
6-7 SP Uniform grade 5.50 - 12 Liquefiable
7-8 SW-SM Uniform grade 6.80 - 12 Potentially Liquefiable
8-9 SW-SM Gab grade 5.45 1.20 13 Potentially Liquefiable
9-10 SW-SM Uniform grade 11.71 - 36 Potentially Liquefiable
10-11 SW-SM - 7.76 - 57 Non Liquefiable
11-12 SP Well grade 34.05 8.61 100 Non Liquefiable
12-13 SP - 13.41 - 100 Non Liquefiable
47
Depth USCS Distribution FC % Corrected Plasticity Index Liquid Liquefaction

(m) of soil (%) Clay SPT (PI) Limit Susceptibility
(LL)
0-1 SM Well 35.92 10.27 27 Non Liquefiable
2-3 SC Gap 44.76 14.25 6 11.85 26.56 Potentially Liquefiable
3-4 SC well 54.45 15.54 2 9.25 29.78 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 SW-SM - 8.00 3 4.15 21.15 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 CL Well 54.94 17.50 3 12.64 29.41 Potentially Liquefiable
8-9 SP Uniform 2.49 22 Potentially Liquefiable
Depth USCS Distribution FC % Corrected Plasticity Index Liquid Liquefaction

(m) of soil (%) Clay SPT (PI) Limit Susceptibility
(LL)
4-5 MH - 86.33 39 27.85 59.16 Non Liquefiable
6-7 CL - 68.61 50/15 cm 15.30 40.68 Potentially Liquefiable
9-10 MH Gap 71.98 28.57 14 23.58 62.56 Non Liquefiable
48

3-4 GC Gap 34.62 63 10.73 29.60 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 SC Gap 46.70 14.77 50/15 cm 10.48 24.85 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 SC Well 40.75 15.52 50/15 cm 8.66 23.07 Potentially Liquefiable
6-7 Rock 50/0 cm

1-2 SM Gap 50.56 25.81 26 14.14 38.12 Potentially Liquefiable
2-3 SM Gap 46.61 20.90 23 14.37 39.86 Potentially Liquefiable
3-4 SP-SM Gap 7.27 54 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 ML Gap 66.76 14.74 50/15 cm 13.36 41.46 Potentially Liquefiable
5-6 GM Gap 48.40 9.10 50/15 cm -
6-7 GM Gap 45.86 50/15 cm 19.60 48.52 Potentially Liquefiable

0-1 ML Gap 87.05 - 22 14.59 41.43 Potentially Liquefiable
2-3 SM Gap 39.58 - 19 19.13 47.59 Potentially Liquefiable
3-4 MH Gap 59.84 - 13 16.41 53.20 Potentially Liquefiable
4-5 MH Gap 65.37 - 16 23.91 54.31 -
5-6 MH Gap 71.67 - 12 19.83 50.84 Potentially Liquefiable
6-7 CL Gap 83.98 - 19 17.24 42.89 Potentially Liquefiable
7-8 CL Gap 87.90 - 24 22.15 49.05 -
8-9 CL Gap 93.53 - 29 22.73 49.51 -
10-11 ML Gap 92.42 - 50/15 cm 16.83 44.42 Potentially Liquefiable
11-12 ML Gap 84.96 - 50/13 cm 16.10 41.88 Potentially Liquefiable
49
Table 4.16 Summary of location of borehole, the shortest distance and PGA at bedrock
Borehole No. N E Shortest distance From M 6.3 (km) PGA (g)

BH-1 19.824 99.763 11.212 0.250
BH-2 19.824 99.763 11.212 0.250
BH-3 19.824 99.763 11.212 0.250
BH-4 19.759 99.696 1.400 0.598
BH-5 19.754 99.692 0.671 0.649
BH-6 19.763 99.720 3.446 0.483
BH-7 19.799 99.703 5.809 0.386
BH-8 19.819 99.657 8.700 0.303
BH-9 19.713 99.628 7.725 0.328
BH-10 19.687 99.683 3.478 0.481
BH-11 19.649 99.509 22.080 0.128
BH-12 19.743 99.704 1.433 0.596
BH-13 19.744 99.663 3.030 0.503
BH-14 19.806 99.676 6.646 0.359
BH-15 19.787 99.659 5.465 0.398
Table 4.17 Summary of peck ground acceleration at bedrock and surface based on
earthquake magnitude 6.3
BH PGA at bedrock (g) PGA at surface (g) Amplification ratio Remark

1 0.250 0.228 0.911 Qff
2 0.250 0.228 0.913 Qff
3 0.250 0.255 1.021 Qff
4 0.598 0.287 0.480 Qa
5 0.649 0.529 0.815 Qa
6 0.483 0.323 0.669 Qa
7 0.386 0.209 0.541 Qa
8 0.303 0.287 0.947 Qa
9 0.328 0.424 1.293 Qa
10 0.481 0.482 1.002 Qa
11 0.128 0.202 1.578 Qa
12 0.596 0.603 1.012 Qt
13 0.503 0.527 1.048 Qt
14 0.360 0.671 1.863 Qt
15 0.398 0.475 1.193 Qt
50
Table 4.18 Summary of level of severity from liquefaction based on 2014 Chiang Rai
earthquake
Level of Level of Type of

Liquefaction
LPI severity severity deposit
Evidence
BH CSR- CSR- (Deepsoil) (Seed)
(2014 Chiang
Deepsoil Seed
Rai earthquake)
1 None liquefied 0.982 0.000 Low Low Qff
4 liquefied 15.710 9.307 High High Qa
6 liquefied 7.520 3.943 High Low Qff/Qa
7 liquefied 9.156 4.971 High Low Qa
8 liquefied 0.000 0.000 Low Low CP
9 liquefied 9.766 6.220 High High SD
10 liquefied 23.136 14.366 High High Qt
*AF11 *Aftershock 25.349 18.117 High High Qa
12 None liquefied 1.286 0.000 Low Low Qa/Tr
13 None liquefied 0.000 0.000 Low Low CP/Qa
14 None liquefied 0.000 0.000 Low Low Qt
15 None liquefied 0.000 0.000 Low Low Qt/CP
*Aftershock
**The level of severity based on the criteria that proposed by Iwasaki (1986)
CSR -Deepsoil = use cyclic stress ratio from ground response analysis
CSR-Seed = use cyclic stress ratio from Seed and Idriss (1971) equation
Table 4.19 Summary of peck ground acceleration, the thickness of liquefiable soil and the
thickness (H2) and the thickness of surface layer (H1) for the verification of liquefaction
induced ground failure
BH PGA at surface (g) H1 (m) H2(m)

4 0.29 1 3
5 0.53 3 2
6 0.32 3 2
7 0.21 2.5 2
9 0.42 5 2
10 0.48 2 7
11 0.20 3 3
*11 0.29 3 3
* Summary from aftershock of BH-11
51
earthquake magnitude MCE
PGA at PGA at Type of

BH Amplification Ratio
bedrock Surface deposit
1 0.463 0.430 De-Amplification 0.930 Qff
4 0.525 0.355 De-Amplification 0.675 Qa
6 0.441 0.404 De-Amplification 0.916 Qff/Qa
8 0.683 0.510 De-Amplification 0.747 CP
9 0.680 0.815 Amplification 1.199 SD
10 0.538 0.655 Amplification 1.218 Qt
11 0.494 0.513 Amplification 1.038 Qa
12 0.503 0.655 Amplification 1.304 Qa/Tr
13 0.728 0.846 Amplification 1.163 CP/Qa
15 0.782 0.900 Amplification 1.151 Qt/CP
earthquake magnitude 5.46 (return period 475 years)
PGA at PGA at Type of

BH Amplification Ratio
bedrock Surface deposit
1 0.213 0.274 Amplification 1.285 Qff
6 0.199 0.241 Amplification 1.209 Qff/Qa
8 0.367 0.337 De-Amplification 0.917 CP
9 0.365 0.487 Amplification 1.333 SD
12 0.236 0.334 Amplification 1.414 Qa/Tr
13 0.404 0.483 Amplification 1.194 CP/Qa
15 0.446 0.535 Amplification 1.198 Qt/CP
52
Table 4.22 Summary of level of severity from liquefaction based earthquake magnitude 6.8
(MCE)

Liquefaction
Evidence
(2014 Chiang
Deepsoil Seed
Rai earthquake)
2 None liquefied 8.42 6.59 High High Qff
3 None liquefied 6.82 5.10 High High Qff
6 liquefied 10.09 6.59 High High Qff/Qa
15 None liquefied 7.23 0.11 High Low Qt/CP
Table 4.23 Summary of level of severity from liquefaction based earthquake magnitude 5.46
(return period 475 years)

Liquefaction
Evidence
(2014 Chiang
Deepsoil Seed
Rai earthquake)
5 liquefied 3.12 0.00 Low Low Qa
6 liquefied 2.83 0.20 Low Low Qff/Qa
15 None liquefied 0.000 0.000 Low Low Qt/CP
53
Table 4.24 Summary of probability of earthquake occurrence
Earthquake Probability of earthquake

magnitude occurrence
6.8 (MCE) 0.000043853
6.0 - 6.8 0.000139959
5.0 - 6.0 0.001905461
5.46 (STD) 0.002105263
Table 4.25 Summary of probability of ground water level

BH
0-1 m 1-2 m >2 m
1-3 0.000 0.800 0.200
4 0.857 0.000 0.143
5 0.429 0.286 0.286
6 0.286 0.714 0.000
7 0.000 0.857 0.143
9 0.000 0.000 1.000
10 0.000 0.836 0.164
11 0.000 0.571 0.429
12 0.000 0.857 0.143
13 1.000 0.000 0.000
14 0.000 0.000 1.000
15 0.000 0.000 1.000
54
Table 4.26 Summary of coefficient of variation of each parameter
Coefficient of
Parameter Source
variation, %
Porosity 10 Schultze (1972)
Specific gravity 2 Padilla and Vanmarcke (1974)
Silty clay 20 Padilla and Vanmarcke (1974)
Water content
Clay 13 Fredlund and Dahlman (1972)
Degree of saturation 10 Fredlund and Dahlman (1972)
Unit weight 3 Hammitt (1966)
Duncan (2000), Lacasse and Nadim
Buoyant unit weight 0 to 10
(1997)
Gravel 7 Schultze (1972)
Friction angle
Sandy 12 Schultze (1972)
c, strength parameter (cohesion) 40 Fredlund and Dahlman (1972)
Duncan (2000), Lacasse and Nadim
Undrained strength ratio 5 to 15
(1997)
Compression Sandy clay 26 Lumb (1966)
index Clay 30 Fredlund and Dahlman (1972)
Duncan (2000), Padilla and
Preconsolidation pressure 10 to 35 Vanmarcke (1974), Lacasse and
Nadim (1997)
Coefficient of permeability 68 to 90 Duncan (2000), Neilson et al. (1973)
Coefficient of consolidation 33 to 68 Duncan (2000)
Orchant, et al. ((1988), Schultze
Standard Penetration Test blow count 15 to 45
(1975)
Orchant, et al. ((1988), Schultze
Standard cone test (mechanical) 15 to 37
(1975)
55
Table 4.27 Summary of the probability of shallow foundation failure for footing size 1x1 m

BH
Punching failure Bearing failure
3 0.8014 0.7890
4 0.9135 0.6456
6 0.4628 0.2121
7 0.4171 0.2061
9 0.2267 0.1015
10 0.9948 0.1006
12 0.0109 0.0420
15 0.0758 0.1457

BH
3 0.3529 0.0307
4 0.6659 0.0268
6 0.2607 0.0153
7 0.0621 0.0152
9 0.0741 0.0242
10 0.9042 0.0228
12 0.0083 0.0092
15 0.0225 0.0130

BH
3 0.216 0.009
4 0.547 0.009
6 0.205 0.008
7 0.024 0.008
9 0.047 0.018
10 0.813 0.016
12 0.008 0.007
15 0.014 0.007
56
Table 4.30 Summary of chance of each accident in the world (Federal Aviation
Administration, FAA), (United States Department of Transportation) and (International
Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO)
Event Chance of event
Accident from driving a car 1 in 14,000

Accident from riding a bike 1 in 88,000
Accident from tornado 1 in 450,000
Accident from train 1 in 1 million
Accident from lightning 1 in 1.9 million
Accident from plane 1 in 7 million
57
FIGURES
58
Figure 2.1 Plasticity chart showing ML-CL and CL soils that were reported to have
"liquefied" in China (Wang, 1979).
Figure 2.2 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments

(Seed et al., 2003).
59
Figure 2.3 Criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained sediments
(Bray et al., 2004).
Figure 2.4 Grain size distribution curve with range of liquefaction zone (Iwasaki, 1986).
60
Figure 2.5 Variations of stress reduction coefficient with depth and earthquake magnitude
(Idriss, 1999).
Figure 2.6 Liquefaction boundary curves recommended by Seed et al. (1984).
61
Figure 2.7 Recommended MSF relation (Idriss, 1999) for sand to the MSF relations by
other investigators.
Figure 2.8 Magnitude scaling factor (MSF) relation for converting CSR or CRR to a
common magnitude of earthquake (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004).
62
Figure 2.9 Overburden correction factor ( K  ) relationship (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004).
Figure 2.10 Variation of Kα values with SPT penetration resistances at effective

overburden stresses of 1 and 4 atm (Idriss and Boulanger, 2003).
63
Figure 2.11 Probability of liquefaction manifestation
(Maurer et al, 2014).
Figure 2.12 Correlation of liquefaction evidence between earthquake magnitude and

distance from earthquake epicenter (Soralump and Feungaugsorn, 2016)
64
Figure 2.13 Chart for site identification of liquefaction-induced damage
(Ishihara et al, 1985).
Figure 2.14 Relationship between thicknesses of unliquefied layer and liquefied layer at
damaged and undamaged sites (Asuda, 1998).
65
Figure 2.15 Liquefaction susceptibility map based on liquefaction potential index
(Papathanassiou et al., 2005).
Figure 2.16 Illustration of a simple, generic event tree

(US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975).
66
Figure 2.17 Event tree used for the probability of liquefaction-failure (Lee et al, 1998).
Run x1 x2 x3 xn Performance Function, g(x) Variance Component % of Variance
E[x] E[x1] E[x2] E[x3] E[xn] E[d ]  g(E[x1 ],E[x2 ],E[x3 ],......
E[xn ])
2 E[x1]-x1 E[x2] E[x3] E[xn] g(x1)  g(E[x1]x1,E[x2],E[x3],......
E[xn]) g ( x1  )  g ( x1  ) (
g ( x1 ) 2
)
[ ]2 2
3 E[x1]+x1 E[x2] E[x3] E[xn] g(x1)  g(E[x1]x1,E[x2],E[x3],......
E[xn]) 2 [
V [d ]
]x100
4 E[x1] E[x2]-x2 E[x3] E[xn] g(E[x1],E[x2] x2, E[x3],......

E[xn]) g( x2  )  g( x2  ) (
g ( x3 ) 2
)
[ ]2 2
5 E[x1] E[x2]+x2 E[x3] E[xn] g(E[x1],E[x2] x2, E[x3],......
E[xn]) 2 [
V [d ]
]x100
6 E[x1] E[x2] E[x3]-x3 E[xn] g ( x3 ) g ( x3 ) 2 g ( x2 ) 2

( )
[ ] 2
2 [ ]x100
7 E[x1] E[x2] E[x3]+x3 E[xn] g ( x3 ) V [d ]
n E[x1] E[x2] E[x3] E[xn]-xn E[xn] xn)

g(E[x1],E[x2],E[x3],...... g ( x n  )  g ( x n  ) 2 ( g ( xn ) ) 2
[ ] 2
n+1 E[x1] E[x2] E[x3] E[xn]+xn E[xn] xn)
g(E[x1],E[x2],E[x3],...... 2 x n [
V [d ]
]x100
k
g ( x i ) 2
SUM V [d ]   [ ] 100%
i 1 2
Figure 2.18 Simplified First Orders Second Moment method analysis (Soralump, 2002)
67
Figure 2.19 Four-steps process of a deterministic seismic hazard assessment
(Kramer, 1996).
68
Figure 2.20 Schematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (Baker, 2013)
69
Figure 2.21 Active Faults map of Thailand (DMR, 2006)
70
Figure 2.22 show an epicenter of Chiang Rai earthquake on the Mae Lao district that
located at the 19.748 latitude and 99.692 longitude
(Meteorological department of Thailand).
Figure 2.23 show location of Phayao fault and adjacent active fault that cut through Chiang
Rai province (DMR).
71
Figure 2.24 Comparison of attenuation curves for active tectonic regions and recorded
PGA on rock sites in Thailand from shallow crustal earthquakes
(Chintanapakdee et. al., 2008)
Figure 2.25 show method for model of propagation of seismic wave from earthquake
epicenter: seismic hazard analysis and dynamic ground response analysis (Kramer, 1996).
72
Figure 2.26 Calculation of the Cyclic Stress Ratio (Dobry and Abdoun, 2014).
Figure 2.27 Hysteresis loop show the relation of shear stress and shear strain in the
equivalent linear model (Kramer, 1996).
73
Figure 2.28 Shear modulus and damping ratio (Kramer, 1996).
74
Liquefaction assessment of Mae Lao district, Chiangrai Thailand
Earthquake data 15 test of Spectral 15 BH of soil boring G.W.L. /Rain fall (Observation
Analysis of surface well)
wave (SASW)
Characteristic of Phayao Liquefaction

fault (Earthquake magnitude susceptibility Thickness of liquefiable soil
and the shortest distance) Dynamic soil properties
1.Soil classification 1.Thickness of susceptible layer
Shear wave velocity, v s 2.Grain size of soil 2. Thickness of non-susceptible layer
3.Plasticity chart
Deterministic Seismic
Hazard Analysis (DSHA)
based on 6.3 2014 Chiang Rai
earthquake
1. using Deepsoil program (1D) Triggering of liquefaction
Ground motion selection 2.Equivalent linear model 1.CSR from (Seed et al., 2003) and site amplification
Peck ground acceleration program (Deepsoils)
2. CRR from SPT correlation (Idriss and Boulanger,
2004)
Deterministic Seismic
Hazard Analysis (DSHA)
based on magnitude: MCE Liquefaction
and building standard code induced ground
(Phayao fault) Liquefaction potential
Index(LPI) deformation
Liquefaction verification based on
liquefaction evidence that induced by
liquefaction assessment 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake
model of Mae Lao Verification
district liquefaction assessment 1. Liquefaction evidence (2014
model of Mae Lao Chiang Rai earthquake)
district 2.G.W.L.
Level of violence from
liquefaction based on
earthquake magnitude: MCE
and building standard code
(Phayao fault) Probability of liquefaction Probability of ground water
manifestation
Prediction of violence from Maurer et al. (2014)
liquefaction based on
earthquake magnitude: MCE Event tree analysis
and building standard code Probability of occurrence of earthquake
(Phayao fault) Gutenberg and Richter equation (1942)
considering Characteristic of Phayao fault
Annualized Probability of liquefaction manifestation of
Mae Lao district. Annualized Probability of shallow
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Probability of annual rate of foundation failure induced by liquefaction
(PSHA) Considering active fault that affect exceeding a given ground motion
Mae Lao district using Crisis 2015 program intensity
Hazard curve
liquefaction map of Mae Lao district END
The first order second moment technique
(FOSM) Bearing capacity of shallow foundation Probabilistic of shallow foundation
analysis Punching of shallow foundation analysis failure Liquefaction probabilistic assessment of Mae Lao district
Figure 3.1 the flow chart of liquefaction assessment of Mae Lao district.
75
Figure 3.2 Locations of boreholes in Mae Lao district.
76
Figure 3.3 Typical configuration for SASW testing (Li, 2008).
Figure 3.4 Process of SASW testing and receiver (Geophone).
Figure 3.5 An example of shear wave velocity profile (Bay, 2002).
77
Top Bottom
Ground
Figure 3.6 An example of observation well.
78
Deterministic seismic hazard
Identification and
characterization of
earthquake sources
analysis (DSHA)
Source-site distance
selection
Controlling earthquake
selection
Definition of hazard using

controlling earthquake
Figure 3.7 show process of deterministic seismic hazard (DSHA).
Figure 3.8 show process of definition of hazard using controlling earthquake.
79
Define analysis
Procedures in Deep soil

Soil profile definition
Bedrock Definition
Input Ground motion
Analysis
Result
Figure 3.9 show an analysis flow chart in Deep soil program.
Figure 3.10 show example of the results from Deep soil program consist of variation of
peak ground acceleration, maximum shear strain and cyclic stress ratio.
80
Figure 3.11 Criteria for site class of rock that defined by shear wave velocity
(Thitimakorn, 2012).
Figure 3.12 A structure of event tree for liquefaction probabilistic assessment.
81
Identify all earthquake
sources
Probabilistic seismic hazard

Characterize the
analysis (PSHA)
distribution of earthquake
magnitudes
Characterize the
distribution of source-to-
site distances
Predict the probability

distribution of ground
motion intensity
Combine uncertainties
Figure 3.13 show process of probabilistic seismic hazard (PSHA).
Figure 3.14 An example of hazard curve (Baker, 2013).
82
Figure 3.15 A modulus reduction (G/ Gmax ) and damping ratio for sandy soils and fine grain
soils (Seed and Idriss, 1970), and (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
83
Figure 3.16 A result from CRISIS 2015 in term of the seismic hazard curve and the
uniform hazard spectra for a site (Meléndez, 2007).
84
Figure 4.1 Liquefaction evidences from 2014 Chiang Rai earthquake in Mae Lao district.
Figure 4.2 Locations of borehole in Mae Lao district: BH-4 – BH-11 found the liquefaction
evidence.
85
Figure 4.3 Locations of liquefaction evidence.
Figure 4.4 Grain size distribution curve of BH-1.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Figure 4.19 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-1 (Bray et al., 2004).
94
95
Figure 4.23 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-4 (Seed and Idriss, 1982).
Figure 4.24 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-4 (Andrews and Martin, 2000).
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Figure 4.56 Summary of target response acceleration of each borehole.
112
Figure 4.57 Variation of amplification of peck ground acceleration with thickness of soil
deposit based on earthquake magnitude 6.3.
Figure 4.58 Summary of peck ground acceleration, the thickness of liquefiable soil and the
thickness (H2) and the thickness of surface layer (H1).
113
Figure 4.59 Target response acceleration of each borehole for earthquake magnitude 5.46
(return 475 years).
Figure 4.60 Target response acceleration of each borehole for earthquake magnitude
6.8(MCE).
114
Amplification ratio vs Depth
1.6
1.4
Amplification ration 1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (m.)
deposit based on earthquake magnitude 6.8 (MCE).
Amplification ratio vs Depth

2.5
2
Amplification ration
1.5
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (m.)
deposit based on earthquake magnitude 5.46 (return period 475 years).
115
Figure 4.63 Seismic hazard map of Chiang Rai that performed by CRISIS 2015 program.
Hazard curve
BH-3
0.10000
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
PGA (g)
Figure 4.64 Hazard curve of BH-3.
116
Hazard curve
BH-4
0.10000

0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.00000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
PGA (g)
Hazard curve
BH-6
0.10000
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
PGA (g)
117
Hazard curve
BH-7
0.1
ANNUAL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE INTENSITY 0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
PGA (G)
Hazard curve
BH-9
0.10000
ANNUAL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE INTENSITY
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
PGA (g)
118
Hazard curve
BH-10
0.10000
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.00000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
PGA (g)
Hazard curve
BH-12
0.10000
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
PGA (g)
119
Hazard curve
BH-15
0.10000

0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
PGa (g)
Figure 4.72 Map of Mae Lao district divided by group of ground water level.
120
GWL. at -1 m, Mw = MCE
1
Probability of lyquefaction manifestation

0.9
BH-3
0.8
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
0.4 BH-7
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
0 BH-12
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
Figure 4.73 Probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with peck ground acceleration
in case ground water level 1 m below ground surface and earthquake magnitude 6.8
(MCE).
1
0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
(MCE).
121
1

0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
(MCE).
GWL. at -1 m, Mw = 6.4
1
0.9
BH-3
0.8
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
0.4 BH-7
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
0 BH-12
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
in case ground water level 1 m below ground surface and earthquake magnitude 6.4.
122
GWL. at -2 m, Mw = 6.4
1

0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
GWL. at -3 m, Mw = 6.4
1
0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
123
GWL. at -1 m, Mw = 5.5
1
Probability of lyquefaction manifestation 0.9
BH-3
0.8
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
0.4 BH-7
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
0 BH-12
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
GWL. at -2 m, Mw = 5.5
1
0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
124
GWL. at -3 m, Mw = 5.5
1

0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
GWL. at -1 m, Mw = 5.46(STD)
1
0.9
BH-3
0.8
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
0.4 BH-7
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
0 BH-12
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
125
GWL. at -2 m, Mw = 5.46(STD)
1

0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
GWL. at -3 m, Mw = 5.46(STD)
1
0.9
0.8 BH-3
0.7 Bh-4
0.6 BH-6
0.5
BH-7
0.4
0.3 BH-9
0.2 BH-10
0.1
BH-12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BH-15
PGA
126
Figure 4.85 Summary of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation.
Figure 4.86 Summary annual probability of shallow foundation failure.
127
Figure 4.87 An acceptable risk and consequences of failure (Whitman,1984).
Figure 4.88 Summary of annual probability of liquefaction manifestation based on return

period of earthquake 475 years.
128
Figure 4.89 Summary annual probability of shallow foundation failure based on return
period of earthquake 475 years.
129
Figure 4.90 Potential map of liquefaction manifestation considering characteristic of
Phayao fault.
130
Figure 4.91 Potential map of liquefaction manifestation considering return period
475 years.
131
Figure 4.92 Potential map of shallow foundation failure considering characteristic of
Phayao fault (Footing size 1m x 1m).
132
133
134
Figure 4.95 Potential map of shallow foundation failure considering return period
475 years (Footing size 1m x 1m).
135
Figure 4.96 Potential map of shallow foundation failure considering return period
475 years (Footing size 2m x 2m).
136
Figure 4.97 Potential map of shallow foundation failure considering return period 475
years
(Footing size 3m x 3m).
137
APPENDIX A
(BORING LOG)
138
BORING LOG
PROJECT : การศึกษาการเกิดสภาพดิน เหลวต ัวเนือ
่ งจากแผ่น ดิน ไหว BORING STARTED : 2/2/2559
LOCATION : อาเภอแม่ลาว จ ังหว ัดเชียงราย BORING COMPLETED : 2/2/2559
BORING NO : BH-1 TOTAL DEPTH : 14.45 m GROUND WATER LEVEL : -0.70 m
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
STANDARD UNDRAINED SHEAR ATTERBERG LIMITS TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SPT-N PENETRATION STRENGTH PL Wn LL WEIGHT
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) TEST VALUE UC FVT PP
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 20 40 60 80 0 3 6 9 12 0 15 30 45 60 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

0.00- Ground Surface - 0.00
- (0.00 - 2.00 m) Silty SAND some WO -
- gravel (SM) SS 1 - 30
- Reddish brown, medium dense, WO -
2.00- fine to coarse grained. SS 2 - 10 2.00 7.33 1.84

- (2.00 - 6.00 m) Sandy CLAY some WO -
- gravel, Silty CLAY (CH) SS 3 - 14

- Greyish brown, brown, stiff, WO -
4.00- high plasticity. SS 4 - 9 4.00 7.04 1.79

- WO -
- SS 5 - 11
- WO -
6.00- SS 6 - 6 6.00
- (6.00 - 7.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, medium, medium plasticity. SS 7 - 21 NP

- (7.00 - 14.45 m) Silty SAND trace, WO -
8.00- some, and gravel (SM) SS 8 - 24 8.00 NP

- Grey, medium dense to very dense, WO -
- fine to medium grained. SS 9 - 31 NP

- WO -
10.00- SS 10 - 14 10.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 11 - 49 NP
- WO -
12.00- SS 12 - 51 12.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 13 - 57 NP
- WO -
14.00- SS 14 - 68 14.00 NP
- -
- End of boring 14.45 m -
- -
16.00- - 16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- - 18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- - 20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- - 22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- - 24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- - 26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- - 28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- - 30.00
Thin Wall Tube Wash Out UC : Unconfined Compression Test PL : Plastic Limit
FVT : Field Vane Shear Test Wn : Natural Water Content
Split Spoon Augering PP : Pocket Penetrometer Test LL : Liquid Limit
139
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 3 6 9 12 0 15 30 45 60 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

- (0.00 - 3.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, brown, very stiff, SS 1 - 21

- medium plasticity. WO -
2.00- SS 2 - 16 2.00
- WO -
- SS 3 - 8 4.91 1.81
- (3.00 - 6.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
4.00- Brown, medium to stiff, medium SS 4 - 12 4.00 8.85 1.94

- plasticity. WO -
- SS 5 - 7
- WO -
6.00- SS 6 - 9 6.00
- (6.00 - 8.00 m) Silty SAND trace WO -
- gravel (SM) SS 7 - 10 NP
- Brown, loose, fine to coarse grained. WO -
8.00- SS 8 - 15 8.00
- trace to some, some, and gravel (SM) SS 9 - 22 NP

- Grey, brown, medium dense to WO -
10.00- very dense, fine to coarse grained. SS 10 - 35 10.00 NP

- WO -
- SS 11 - 57 NP
- WO -
12.00- SS 12 - 39 12.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 13 - 46 NP
- WO -
14.00- SS 14 - 30 14.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 15 - 62 NP
- WO -
16.00- SS 16 - 50/6" 16.00 NP

- WO -
- SS 17 - 85 NP
- -
18.00- End of boring 17.45 m - 18.00

- -
- -
- -
20.00- - 20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- - 22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- - 24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- - 26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- - 28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- - 30.00
140
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 2 4 6 8 0 15 30 45 60 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

- (0.00 - 3.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
- Reddish brown, greyish brown, SS 1 - 10

- stiff, medium plasticity. WO -
2.00- SS 2 - 10 2.00
- WO -
- SS 3 - 6 4.93 1.84
- (3.00 - 5.00 m) Silty CLAY (CH) WO -
4.00- Brown, medium, high plasticity. SS 4 - 5 4.00 4.85 1.84

- WO -
- SS 5 - 4 NP
- (5.00 - 6.00 m) Silty SAND (SM) WO -
6.00- Brown, very loose, fine to coarse SS 6 - 18 6.00 NP

- grained. WO -
- (6.00 - 13.45 m) Silty SAND trace SS 7 - 24 NP

- some, and gravel (SM) WO -
8.00- Brown, medium dense to very dense, SS 8 - 28 8.00 NP

- fine to coarse grained. WO -
- SS 9 - 46 NP
- WO -
10.00- SS 10 - 32 10.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 11 - 57 NP
- WO -
12.00- SS 12 - 84 12.00 NP
- WO -
- SS 13 - 81 NP
- -
14.00- End of boring 13.45 m - 14.00

- -
- -
- -
16.00- - 16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- - 18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- - 20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- - 22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- - 24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- - 26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- - 28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- - 30.00
141
BORING LOG
PROJECT : แผนงานศึกษาการเกิดสภาพดิน เหลวต ัวเนือ
LOCATION : อาเภอแม่ลาว จ ังหว ัดเชียงราย N : 19.75961 BORING COMPLETED : 20/4/2559
BORING NO : BH-4 TOTAL DEPTH : 11.15 m E : 99.69688 GROUND WATER LEVEL : -2.07 m
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- gravel (SM) SS 1 - 7 NP
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 2
- (2.00 - 4.00 m) Clayey SILT (ML) WO -
- Greyish brown, very soft to medium, SS 3 - 5

4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 8
- (4.00 - 5.00 m) Sandy SILT trace to WO -
- some gravel (ML) SS 5 - 8

- Brown, medium, medium plasticity. WO -
6.00
6.00- (5.00 - 7.00 m) Silty GRAVEL (GM) SS 6 - 6
- Brown, loose. WO -
- SS 7 - 11
Brown, stiff to hard, medium plasticity. 8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 19
- WO -
- SS 9 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm
- WO -
10.00
10.00- SS 10 - 50/14 cm 50/14 cm NP
- gravel (SM) SS 11 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm NP

- Greyish brown, very dense, -
fine to coarse grained. 12.00
12.00- -
- (11.00 - 11.15 m) Silty GRAVEL (GM) -
- Brown, very dense. -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
142
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m ) 2
(%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 2.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Brown, hard, low plasticity. SS 1 - 36

- WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 40
- (2.00 - 4.00 m) Clayey SAND (SC) WO -
- Brown, dense, fine to coarse grained. SS 3 - 34

- WO -
4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 10 NP
- gravel (SM) Brown, loose, SS 5 - 21 NP

6.00
6.00- (5.00 - 7.00 m) Silty SAND trace SS 6 - 47 NP
- gravel (SM) Brown, medium dense to WO -
- dense, fine to coarse grained. SS 7 - 57 NP

- (7.00 - 8.00 m) Well Graded Silty WO -
8.00
8.00- GRAVEL (GW-GM) Brown, very dense. SS 8 - 89 NP
- gravel (SM) Brown, very dense, SS 9 - 17 NP

10.00
10.00- (9.00 - 10.00 m) Silty GRAVEL (GM) SS 10 - 24
- Brown, medium dense. WO -
- (10.00 - 14.10 m) Silty SAND trace, SS 11 - 44

- and gravel (SM) WO -
12.00
12.00- Grey, medium dense to very dense, SS 12 - 54 NP
- SS 13 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm NP
- WO -
14.00- SS 14 - 50/10 cm 14.00 50/10 cm

- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
143
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 2.00 m) Sandy SILT trace WO -
- gravel (ML) SS 1 - 13
- Grey, stiff, medium plasticity. WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 5
- Grey, medium, low to medium plasticity WO -
4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 18 NP
- SAND some, and gravel (SW-SM) SS 5 - 19 NP

- Brown, medium dense, WO -
6.00- SS 6 - 8 NP
- (6.00 - 7.00 m) Pooly Graded Silty WO -
- SAND and gravel (SP-SM) SS 7 - 40

8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 13
- (7.00 - 9.00 m) Sandy CLAY trace to WO -
- some gravel (CL) SS 9 - 11

- Brown, stiff to hard, medium plasticity. WO -
10.00
10.00- (9.00 - 10.00 m) Clayey SAND trace SS 10 - 17
- to some gravel (SC) WO -
- Brown, medium dense, SS 11 - 22 2.07

12.00
12.00- (10.00 - 14.00 m) Clayey SILT (ML) SS 12 - 28 2.07
- Brown, very stiff, medium plasticity. WO -
- SS 13 - 26
- WO -
14.00- SS 14 - 41 14.00
NP
- trace to some, some gravel (SM) SS 15 - 58 NP

- Brown, dense to very dense, WO -
16.00- fine to coarse grained. SS 16 - 61 16.00

NP
- WO -
- SS 17 - 66 NP
- -
18.00- End of boring 17.45 m -

18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
144
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 15 30 45 60 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 3.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, stiff, low plasticity. SS 1 - 14

- WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 15
- WO -
- SS 3 - 4
- (3.00 - 5.00 m) Clayey SAND trace WO -
4.00
4.00- to some gravel (SC) SS 4 - 6
- Brown, very loose to loose, WO -
- fine to coarse grained. SS 5 - 8

- (5.00 - 6.00 m) Sandy CLAY trace WO -
6.00
6.00- gravel (CL) SS 6 - 17 2.13
- Brown, medium, medium plasticity. WO -
- (6.00 - 8.00 m) Sandy CLAY trace SS 7 - 23

- gravel (CH) WO -
Brown, very stiff, high plasticity. 8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 39
- some gravel (SM) SS 9 - 55

- Brown, dense to very dense, WO -
10.00- SS 10 - 11
- (10.00 - 14.00 m) Sandy SILT (ML) WO -
- Brown, stiff to hard, medium plasticity. SS 11 - 25

- WO -
12.00
12.00- SS 12 - 21
- WO -
- SS 13 - 46
- WO -
14.00- SS 14 51 14.00
- NP
- (14.00 - 16.45 m) Silty SAND (SM) WO -
- Brown, very dense, SS 15 - 53 NP

16.00- SS 16 - 52 16.00
NP
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
145
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 4.00 m) Sandy SILT trace, WO -
- trace to some gravel (ML) SS 1 - 15

- Brown, stiff to very stiff, WO -
low to medium plasticity 2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 10
- WO -
- SS 3 - 24
- WO -
4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 24
- to some, some gravel (CL) SS 5 - 11

- Brown, stiff to very stiff, WO -
medium plasticity. 6.00
6.00- SS 6 - 17
- (6.00 - 8.00 m) Silty GRAVEL (GM) WO -
- Brown, medium dense to very dense. SS 7 - 83/27 cm 83/27 cm NP

- WO -
8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 50/5 cm 50/5 cm
- (8.00 - 8.05 m) Clayey SAND some -
- gravel (SC) -
- Brown, very dense, -

10.00- -
- -
- -
12.00
12.00- -
- -
- -
- -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
146
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 8.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, brown, greyish brown, SS 1 - 22

- stiff to hard, low to medium plasticity. WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 10
- WO -
- SS 3 - 10
- WO -
4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 23
- WO -
- SS 5 - 40 2.00
- WO -
6.00
6.00- SS 6 - 30 1.87
- WO -
- SS 7 - 22 2.11
- WO -
8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 24
- (8.00 - 9.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Brown, very stiff, low plasticity. SS 9 - 58 NP

10.00
10.00- gravel (SM) Grey, very dense, SS 10 - 32 NP
- (10.00 - 11.00 m) Well Graded Silty SS - - 50/0 cm 50/0 cm

- SAND and gravel (SW-SM) -
Grey, dense, fine to coarse grained. 12.00
12.00- -
- BED ROCK -
- -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
147
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

- (0.00 - 2.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
- Brown, medium, low plasticity. SS 1 - 7

- WO -
2.00- SS 2 - 9 2.00 NP
- (2.00 - 3.00 m) Silty SAND (SM) WO -
- Brown, loose, fine to medium grained. SS 3 - 12 NP

4.00- SAND (SP-SM) Brown, medium dense, SS 4 - 17 4.00 NP

- (4.00 - 6.00 m) Well Graded Silty SS 5 - 18 NP

- SAND trace gravel (SW-SM) Brown, WO -
6.00- medium dense, fine to coarse grained. SS 6 - 20 6.00 NP

- (6.00 - 8.00 m) Pooly Graded SAND WO -
- trace gravel (SP) Brown, SS 7 - 12 NP

- medium dense, fine to coarse grained. WO -
8.00- SS 8 - 12 8.00 NP
- SAND trace to some, some, and SS 9 - 13 NP

- gravel (SW-SM) WO -
10.00- Brown, medium dense to very dense, SS 10 - 36 10.00 NP

- SS 11 - 57 NP
- WO -
12.00- SS 12 - 50/15 cm 12.00 50/15 cm NP

- gravel (SM) SS 13 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm NP

- Brown, very dense, -
14.00- fine to coarse grained. - 14.00

- -
- -
16.00- - 16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- - 18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- - 20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- - 22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- - 24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- - 26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- - 28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- - 30.00
148
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 15 30 45 60 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- gravel (SM) Brown, medium dense, SS 1 - 27 NP

2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 26
- (2.00 - 3.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, very stiff, medium plasticity. SS 3 - 6

- (3.00 - 5.00 m) Clayey SAND (SC) WO -
Grey, very loose to loose, 4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 2
- SS 5 - 3
6.00
6.00- SAND some gravel (SW-SM) Grey, SS 6 - 3
- very loose, fine to coarse grained. WO -
- (6.00 - 7.00 m) Sandy CLAY trace to SS 7 - 24

- some gravel (CL) WO -
Grey, soft, low plasticity. 8.00
8.00- SS 8 - 23
- (7.00 - 9.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Grey, very stiff, low plasticity. SS 9 - 22 NP

- (9.00 - 10.00 m) Pooly Graded SAND WO -
10.00
10.00- trace to some gravel (SP) Grey, SS 10 - 52 NP
- medium dense, fine to coarse grained. WO -
- (10.00 - 12.45 m) Silty SAND and SS 11 - 55 NP

- gravel (SM) Grey, very dense, WO -
12.00- SS 12 - 54 NP
- -
- -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
149
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 20 40 60 80 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 5.00 m) Sandy CLAY trace, WO -
- trace to some gravel (CL) SS 1 - 25

- Grey, reddish brown, WO -
very stiff to hard, 2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 33
- low to medium plasticity. WO -
- SS 3 - 22
- WO -
4.00
4.00- SS 4 - 54
- WO -
- SS 5 - 39
- (5.00 - 7.00 m) Clayey SILT trace WO -
6.00
6.00- gravel (MH) SS 6 - 25
- Red, very stiff to hard, high plasticity WO -
- SS 7 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm
8.00
8.00- to some gravel (CL) SS 8 - 16
- Brown, very stiff to hard, WO -
- medium plasticity. SS 9 - 53
- WO -
10.00
10.00- SS 10 - 14
- (10.00 - 12.00 m) Clayey SILT trace WO -
- gravel (MH) SS 11 - 35
- Brown, stiff to hard, high plasticity WO -
12.00
12.00- SS 12 - 60
- Brown, hard, medium plasticity WO -
14.00- SS 14 - 50/15 cm 14.00 50/15 cm NP

- (14.00 - 14.15 m) Silty SAND some -
- gravel (SM) -
- Greyish brown, very dense, -
16.00- fine to coarse grained. -

16.00
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
150
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- (0.00 - 3.00 m) Sandy CLAY (CL) WO -
- Greyish brown, stiff, low plasticity. SS 1 - 11

- WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 12
- WO -
- SS 3 - 17
- (3.00 - 4.00 m) Silty CLAY (CL) WO -
4.00
4.00- Greyish brown, very stiff, low plasticity. SS 4 - 63
- (4.00 - 5.00 m) Clayey GRAVEL (GC) WO -
- Greyish brown, very dense. SS 5 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm

- (5.00 - 7.00 m) Clayey SAND trace WO -
6.00
6.00- gravel (SC) SS 6 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm
- Greyish brown, very dense, WO -
- fine to coarse grained. SS - - 50/0 cm 50/0 cm

- BED ROCK -
End of boring 7.00 m 8.00
8.00- -
- -
- -
- -
10.00
10.00- -
- -
- -
- -
12.00
12.00- -
- -
- -
- -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
151
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

- (0.00 - 2.00 m) Sandy SILT (ML) WO -
- Reddish brown, very stiff, SS 1 - 16

2.00- SS 2 - 26 2.00
- (2.00 - 4.00 m) Silty SAND trace to WO -
- some, some gravel (SM) SS 3 - 23

- Brown, medium dense, WO -
4.00- fine to coarse grained. SS 4 - 54 NP

4.00
- SAND and gravel (SP-SM) Brown, SS 5 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm

- very dense, fine to coarse grained. WO -
6.00- (5.00 - 6.00 m) Sandy SILT trace to SS 6 - 50/15 cm 6.00 50/15 cm NP

- some gravel (ML) WO -
- Brown, hard, medium plasticity. SS 7 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm

- (6.00 - 7.15 m) Silty GRAVEL (GM) -
8.00- Brown, very dense. - 8.00

- -
- -
10.00- - 10.00
- -
- -
- -
12.00- - 12.00
- -
- -
- -
14.00- - 14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- - 16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- - 18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- - 20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- - 22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- - 24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- - 26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- - 28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- - 30.00
152
BORING LOG
SAMPLE NO
RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
SYMBOL
METHOD
SOIL
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(blows/ft) (t/m2) (%) (t/m3)
0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 15 30 45 60 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Ground Surface 0.00
0.00- -
- Grey, red, very stiff, medium plasticity SS 1 - 22

- WO -
2.00
2.00- SS 2 - 18
- WO -
- SS 3 - 19
4.00
4.00- gravel (SM) SS 4 - 13
- Red, medium dense, WO -
- fine to coarse grained. SS 5 - 16

- (4.00 - 7.00 m) Sandy SILT trace to WO -
6.00
6.00- some, some gravel (MH) SS 6 - 12
- Red, stiff to very stiff, high plasticity WO -
- SS 7 - 19
- (7.00 - 10.00 m) Silty CLAY trace WO -
8.00
8.00- gravel (CL) SS 8 - 24
- Grey, very stiff, medium plasticity. WO -
- SS 9 - 29
- WO -
10.00
10.00- SS 10 - 70
- Purple, hard, medium plasticity. SS 11 - 50/15 cm 50/15 cm

- WO -
12.00
12.00- SS 12 - 50/13 cm 50/13 cm
- -
- -
14.00- -
14.00
- -
- -
- -
16.00- -
16.00
- -
- -
- -
18.00- -
18.00
- -
- -
- -
20.00- -
20.00
- -
- -
- -
22.00- -
22.00
- -
- -
- -
24.00- -
24.00
- -
- -
- -
26.00- -
26.00
- -
- -
- -
28.00- -
28.00
- -
- -
- -
30.00- -
30.00
153
APPENDIX B
(THE EXAMPLE OF LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS)
154
Input parameters :
Peak ground accel (g) = 0.482 Name of boring log BH-10
Earthquake magnitude, M = 6.3 Date of drilling 2/2/2016
Water table depth (m) = 0 Location โรงเรี ยนบ้านท่าฮ้ อ อ.พาน จ.เชียงราย
Average  above water table (kN/m3)= 0
Average  below water table (kN/m3)= 18
Borehole diameter (mm) = 100 0.19
Requires correction for sampler liners (YES/NO)
NO : 22.1
Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5 m (for the above ground extension). 10
SPT Depth Measure Soil Flag Fines Ener vc vc' N Stress MSF MSF K for CRR for CRR Factor of  Hi
sample "Clay" gy for reduct. M=7.5 & for
type conten N' Su(KPa) Susceptible CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 (N1)60-cs CSR for for Su/svc' CRR wi LPI
"Unsatu ratio, fines vc' = 1 M=7.
numbe (m) dN (USCS) rated" t (%) ER (kPa) (kPa) conte Coeff, rd Sand Clay sand 5 safety (m)
atm
1 1.23 7 CL clay 79.27 7.00 41.90 PL 75 1.25 1 0.75 1 6.6 22 10 1.70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.683 1.37 1.06 1.10 4.18 n.a. 3.341 3.541 2.00 1.225 9.3875 0.00
2 2.23 9 SM 23.70 9.00 53.87 L 75 1.25 1 0.8 1 9.0 40 18 1.70 15.3 5.0 20.26 0.98 0.673 1.37 1.06 1.10 2.96 0.209 2.365 0.315 0.47 1 8.8875 4.72
3 3.23 22 SP-SM 5.20 18.50 L 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 23.4 58 26 1.70 39.7 0.0 39.74 0.96 0.661 1.37 1.06 1.10 0.00 2.000 0.000 2.000 2.00 1 8.3875 0.00
4 4.23 17 SW-SM 8.56 16.00 PL 75 1.25 1 0.85 1 18.1 76 35 1.63 29.5 0.6 30.04 0.94 0.648 1.37 1.06 1.10 0.00 0.488 0.000 0.735 1.13 1 7.8875 0.00
5 5.23 18 SW-SM 11.00 16.50 98.75 PL 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 21.4 94 43 1.45 30.9 1.6 32.51 0.92 0.635 1.37 1.06 1.10 2.31 0.699 1.846 1.053 1.66 1 7.3875 0.00
6 6.23 20 SP 17.50 104.74 L 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 23.8 112 51 1.32 31.4 0.0 31.43 0.90 0.621 1.37 1.06 1.10 2.05 0.591 1.643 0.890 1.43 1 6.8875 0.00
7 7.23 12 SP 5.50 12.00 71.82 L 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 14.3 130 59 1.30 18.6 0.0 18.57 0.88 0.606 1.37 1.06 1.07 1.21 0.190 0.971 0.277 0.46 1 6.3875 3.46
8 8.23 12 SW-SM 6.80 12.00 L 75 1.25 1 0.95 1 14.3 148 67 1.22 17.4 0.1 17.51 0.86 0.591 1.37 1.06 1.05 0.00 0.179 0.000 0.257 0.44 1 5.8875 3.33
9 9.23 13 SW-SM 5.45 13.00 PL 75 1.25 1 1 1 16.3 166 76 1.15 18.6 0.0 18.66 0.84 0.575 1.37 1.06 1.04 0.00 0.191 0.000 0.271 0.47 1 5.3875 2.85
10 10.23 36 SW-SM 11.71 25.50 152.62 PL 75 1.25 1 1 1 45.0 184 84 1.05 47.3 1.9 49.26 0.81 0.560 1.37 1.06 1.06 1.82 2.000 1.458 2.000 2.00 1 4.8875 0.00
11 11.23 57 SW-SM 7.76 36.00 215.46 N 75 1.25 1 1 1 71.3 202 92 1.03 73.0 0.3 73.34 0.79 0.544 1.37 1.06 1.03 2.34 2.000 1.875 2.000 2.00 1 4.3875 0.00
12 12.23 100 SM 34.05 57.50 344.14 N 75 1.25 1 1 1 125.0 220 100 1.00 125.3 5.5 130.77 0.77 0.528 1.37 1.06 1.00 3.44 2.000 2.750 2.000 2.00 1 3.8875 0.00
13 13.15 100 SM 13.41 57.50 344.14 N 75 1.25 1 1 1 125.0 237 108 0.98 122.9 2.7 125.58 0.75 0.514 1.37 1.06 0.98 3.20 2.000 2.556 2.000 2.00 0.925 3.425 0.00
LPI= 14.37
155
BH-10
SPT sample Soil type SPT SPT Depth CRR CRR CSR CSR FS FS LPI Analysis
number (USCS) N N60 (m) (silt+clay) (origin) (Deepsoil) (Seed) (Deepsoil) (Seed) D Hi (m) wi LPI-Deepsoil LPI-Seed
1 CL 7 7 1.225 3.541 n.a. 1.025 0.683 3.456 5.184 1.23 9.39 0.00 0.00
2 SM 9 9 2.225 0.315 0.315 1.054 0.673 0.299 0.468 1.00 8.89 6.23 4.72
3 SP-SM 22 18.5 3.225 2.000 2.000 1.060 0.661 1.886 3.026 1.00 8.39 0.00 0.00
4 SW-SM 17 16 4.225 0.735 0.679 1.056 0.648 0.696 1.133 1.00 7.89 2.40 0.00
5 SW-SM 18 16.5 5.225 1.053 0.953 1.075 0.635 0.980 1.658 1.00 7.39 0.15 0.00
6 SP 20 17.5 6.225 0.890 0.816 1.071 0.621 0.831 1.434 1.00 6.89 1.16 0.00
7 SP 12 12 7.225 0.277 0.269 1.067 0.606 0.260 0.458 1.00 6.39 4.73 3.46
8 SW-SM 12 12 8.225 0.257 0.250 1.062 0.591 0.242 0.435 1.00 5.89 4.46 3.33
9 SW-SM 13 13 9.225 0.271 0.263 1.056 0.575 0.256 0.471 1.00 5.39 4.01 2.85
10 SW-SM 36 25.5 10.225 2.000 2.000 1.049 0.560 1.906 3.574 1.00 4.89 0.00 0.00
11 SW-SM 57 36 11.225 2.000 2.000 1.042 0.544 1.919 3.678 1.00 4.39 0.00 0.00
12 SM 100 57.5 12.225 2.000 2.000 1.034 0.528 1.933 3.788 1.00 3.89 0.00 0.00
13 SM 100 57.5 13.225 2.000 2.000 1.021 0.514 1.959 3.894 1.00 3.39 0.00 0.00
23.14 14.37
156
157
158

Dejphumee S. (2017) .Liquefaction Assessment A Case of Mae Lao District, Chiangrai Thailand

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

Dejphumee S. (2017) .Liquefaction Assessment A Case of Mae Lao District, Chiangrai Thailand

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liquefaction Assessment: A Case of Mae Lao District, Chiangrai Thailand

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Examination Committee: Dr. Kuo-Chieh Chao (Chairperson)

Scholarship Donor: Royal Thai Government Fellowship

Asian Institute of Technology

First of all, I am sincerely thankful to the Geotechnical Engineering Research and

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

4 Result and Discussion 24

5 Conclusion and Recommendation 30

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2.1 Modified Chinese Criteria proposed (Seed and Idriss, 1982) 36

TABLE TITLE PAGE

4.24 The summary of probability of earthquake occurrence 54

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

2.24 Comparison of attenuation curves for active tectonic regions and 72

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.14 The grain size distribution curve of BH-11. 91

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.51 Liquefaction susceptibility analysis of BH-13 110

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.77 Probability of liquefaction manifestation varies with peck 123

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.97 The potential map of shallow foundation failure considering 137

Figure 1.1 tilting of buildings in Niigata, Japan, 1964

Figure 1.3 show the liquefied soil evidence

1.3 Objectives of the Research

The objectives of this study are

1.4 Scope of Work

The scope of work involves:

Study area: Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai Thailand.

2.1 Liquefaction Potential Assessment

Liquefaction susceptibility assessment

There were many studies of liquefaction susceptibility assessment. The assessment of

1.Estimating cyclic load from earthquake

Where CSR = Cyclic shear ratio induced by earthquake.

Where Z = depth (m)

Where CE = the energy ratio correction factor ( C E = ER m /60)

N1(60)  CN N60 (2.7)

N1 60cs  N1 60  (N1 ) 60 (2.10)

N1 60  9.7

CRR M , '  CRR M 7.5, '  MSF  K   K  (2.12)

Magnitude scaling factor

where the coefficient C can be expressed (equation 2.17) in terms of penetration

Static Shear Stress Correction Factor ( K  )

3.Factor of safety of liquefaction assessment

Where z = depth of the midpoint of the soil layer (0 to 20 m)

Where Fi = 1- FS i for FS i < 1.0

 = standard cumulative normal distribution

The upper and lower bounds probability of liquefaction manifestation,

P  (3 *105 ) LPI 3  (0.0025) LPI 2  (0.0756) LPI  0.0879, (2.21)

P  (3 *105 ) LPI 3  (0.0027) LPI 2  (0.0746) LPI  0.2977 (2.22)

Where PG = probability for liquefaction induced ground failure

Liquefaction induce ground failure

The liquefaction map

Papathanassiou et al. (2005) established a preliminary liquefaction susceptibility map for

2.2 Risk Assessment

Event tree analysis

The first order second moment technique (FOSM)

2.3 Seismic Hazard Analysis

Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)

3. Controlling earthquake selection: It is primarily the selection of earthquake corresponding

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)