ADDIS ABABA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF

EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION

POTENTIAL: A CASE STUDY IN HAWASSA TOWN

BY

HAIMANOT GASHAW

A Thesis Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements for the

Award of the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
(Geotechnical Engineering)

to

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF CIVIL AND ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

JUNE 2020

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

ii
iii
 ABSTRACT

Hawassa is located in the Rift Valley of seismically active area which is found on alluvial
deposit. On top of this, high population growth, rapid development and being a lake side
town makes the liquefaction problem a potential hazard that calls for serious consideration
in Hawassa. This study evaluated the potential of liquefaction in the town based on soil
type and characteristics, rock units, slope data and soil investigation data. Analysis of soil
type, rock units and slope of landforms in the town examined using qualitative approach.
Available subsurface investigation data of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Ground Water
Table (GWT) and Fine Content (FC) for the selected four sites also used to evaluate
liquefaction potential of soil using Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values of
probabilistic analysis and deterministic method. SeismoMatch software used for
earthquake matching in probabilistic analysis and ArcGIS software also used to show
liquefaction susceptible areas in the town based on qualitative approach. According to the
analysis result, central, northern and the areas along Lake Hawassa side were
comparatively susceptible to liquefaction hazard than the south and southeast part of the
town. Selected sites in this study have fallen under low and very low liquefaction severity
categories since the LPI were on the range of 0 to 5 for the considered earthquake
magnitudes of 6.5, 6.7, 6.9 and 7.2. This study recommended, emphasis should be given
for areas in threat with liquefaction.

Key words: ArcGIS, Liquefaction, Qualitative approach, LPI, SPT

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I praise my Lord, Jesus Christ almighty and his mother, for their ultimate help since I
commenced and finalized this work and as well as the whole my studies.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Feto Esimo for his
guidance, constructive criticism and constant encouragements he has provided me
throughout my research. I sincerely appreciate his cooperation in sharing his knowledge
and in giving reference materials, texts and journals for the best outcome of the research.
He is the best advisor I haven’t ever seen before who has facilitated everything for me.

I gratefully thank all organizations and individuals who directly or indirectly supported me
during my study. First my especial thanks goes to Mr. Getachewu Haile who is a GIS
expert in Oromia Agriculture Research Institution office. Your support and guidance
makes me to overcome all the difficulties that I have encountered. I would also like to
thank Mr. Daniel H/ Mariam who is a senior engineer and laboratory technician at Hawassa
university. Conducting laboratory soil tests in Hawassa university was very easy because
of you. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ing. Tensay G/Medhin, who gave me
soil dynamics course. My acknowledgement is also extending to Mr. Yohannes Gudeta,
who is a staff of Addis Ababa Science and Technology University. Mr. Mekibib, Mr.
Mignot and their colleagues who are working in Hawassa construction office have also
appreciated for their positivity and kind response.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all my families, friends and all who were
beside me during my research. Most precious, my handsome husband Simon
Hailemichael. Your presence always gave me strength and love. Thank you for being such
an amazing husband especially your continuous follow up in my research.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. V

TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................. VI

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objective of the Study ...................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 General Objective ..................................................................................... 2

1.3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................... 2

1.4 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 3

1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 3
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study.................................................................... 4
1.6.1 Scope ........................................................................................................ 4

1.6.2 Limitation of the Study ............................................................................. 4

1.7 Organization of Thesis ..................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 6

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Earthquake History in Ethiopia......................................................................... 7
2.3 Types of Liquefaction ...................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Flow Liquefaction ..................................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Cyclic Mobility ......................................................................................... 8

2.4 Liquefaction Potential ...................................................................................... 9

2.5 Evaluation Methods of Liquefaction Potential .................................................. 9
2.5.1 Deterministic Approach .......................................................................... 10

2.5.2 Probabilistic Approach ............................................................................ 15

2.5.3 SPT-based Probabilistic Approach .......................................................... 15

vi
 2.5.4 Index Properties-based Criteria for Liquefaction ..................................... 17

2.6 Factors Affecting Liquefaction ....................................................................... 18

2.6.1 Earthquake Magnitude ............................................................................ 18

2.6.2 Soil Type ................................................................................................ 19

2.6.3 Ground Water Table................................................................................ 21

2.6.4 Geology .................................................................................................. 22

2.6.5 Slope....................................................................................................... 23

2.6.6 Faulting................................................................................................... 24

2.7 Engineering Software ..................................................................................... 24

2.7.1 SeismoMatch .......................................................................................... 25

2.7.2 ArcGIS ................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................... 26

3.1 Description of Study Area .............................................................................. 26

3.1.1 Geographical Location ............................................................................ 26

3.1.2 Geographical Information ....................................................................... 27

3.1.3 Population and Development................................................................... 27

3.1.4 Seism-tectonics of the Area ..................................................................... 27

3.2 Methods and Procedures ................................................................................ 28

3.2.1 Methods .................................................................................................. 28

3.2.2 Procedures .............................................................................................. 28

3.2.3 Materials ................................................................................................. 29

3.3 Assessment of Liquefaction on Areas Without Construction .......................... 30

3.3.1 Qualitative Approach .............................................................................. 30

3.4 Evaluation of Liquefaction on Areas with Constructions ................................ 35

3.4.1 Deterministic Method.............................................................................. 35

3.4.2 Simplified Procedure............................................................................... 50

3.4.3 Probabilistic Analysis.............................................................................. 53

3.5 SeismoMatch Simulation ............................................................................... 54

vii
 3.6 Dynamic Soil Properties ................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................... 59

4.1 Qualitative Liquefaction Analysis .................................................................. 59

4.1.1 Input for Qualitative Evaluation .............................................................. 59

4.2 Probabilistic Analysis ..................................................................................... 62

4.3 Matching by SeismoMatch ............................................................................. 62
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ......................... 64

5.1.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 64

5.1.2 Recommendations ................................................................................... 65

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 66

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 72

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................. 73

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. 75

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................. 76

APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................. 77

APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................. 78

APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................. 80

APENDIX I................................................................................................................. 86

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Correction factor of SPT-blow recommended [13]........................................ 14

Table 2-2 Liquefaction likelihood classification [24] .................................................... 16
Table 2-3 Liquefaction severity from the liquefaction potential index (LPI) [27] .......... 17
Table 2-4 Weightage factor for assessing liquefaction susceptibility [15] ..................... 22
Table 2-5 Seismic intensity that generates liquefaction in a geomorphological unit
(Wakamatsu, 1997) [46] ............................................................................................... 23
Table 2-6 Variation of critical peak ground velocity [47] .............................................. 23
Table 3-1 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major soil types in Hawassa ............ 31
Table 3-2 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major rock units in Hawassa ............ 31
Table 3-3 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major slopes in Hawassa ................. 32
Table 3-4 Types of faults in Awassa town .................................................................... 34
Table 3-7 Sources of data gathered for the study .......................................................... 36
Table 3-8 SPT correction for Progress Hotel ................................................................ 38
Table 3-9 SPT correction for Tekola Cheru’s building (BH-1) ..................................... 38
Table 3-10 SPT correction for Ato Tekola Cheru’s building (BH 2) ............................. 38
Table 3-11 SPT correction for Nib International Bank .................................................. 39
Table 3-12 SPT correction for SEPDM office buildings ............................................... 39
Table 3-13 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for Progress hotel ...................................... 40
Table 3-14 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for Nib International Bank ....................... 40
Table 3-15 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for SEPDM office building ....................... 41
Table 3-16 Sieve analysis of Progress Hotel ................................................................. 43
Table 3-17 Sieve analysis of NIB ................................................................................. 44
Table 3-18 Sieve analysis of SPEDM bldg ................................................................... 44
Table 3-19 Average fine content of selected boreholes ................................................. 45
Table 3-20 Equivalent clean sand adjustment Δ(N1)60 for selected sites ...................... 45
Table 3-21 (N1)60cs for Progress Hotel ....................................................................... 46
Table 3-22 Ground condition of Hawassa town. ........................................................... 47
Table 3-23 General description of previous happened earthquakes ............................... 47
Table 3-24 Generated maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) ................................ 48
Table 3-25 Magnetic scaling factor for the selected earthquakes ................................... 48
Table 3-26 Stress reduction factor for every depth of considered earthquakes ............... 49
Table 3-27 Overburden Correction Factor (Kσ) for Progress Hotel ............................... 49

ix
Table 3-28 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) for Progress Hotel) (Mw=6.5) ........................... 50
Table 3-29 Cyclic Resistance Ratio for Progress Hotel ................................................. 51
Table 3-30 Factor of safety for Progress Hotel.............................................................. 53
Table 3-31 LPI determination for Progress Hotel borehole ........................................... 53
Table 3-32 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (Progress hotel) ............................... 56
Table 3-33 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (SEPDM) ........................................ 56
Table 3-34 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (NIB) .............................................. 57
Table 4-1 Weightage given for each parameter ............................................................. 59
Table 4-2 Discussion of results on qualitative approach ................................................ 60
Table 4-5 LPI values summary of all boreholes for severity level ................................. 62
Table 4-6 Input parameters for simulation .................................................................... 63
Table 5-1 Historical earthquake record of Hawassa ...................................................... 71
Table 5-2 Damping ratio values for soil similar to Hawassa town ................................. 72
Table 5-3 Ground condition based on ES EN 8............................................................. 73
Table 5-4 Classification of condition based on EUROCODE 8 ..................................... 74
Table 5-5 correlation between shear wave velocity and measured N value.................... 77
Table 5-6 Summary of correlations between SPT data and shear wave velocity ............ 77
Table 5-7 LPI results for all selected sites..................................................................... 86

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Contact Forces Between Individual Soil Grains ............................................. 7

Figure 2-2 Lower San Fernando Dam following liquefaction failure its upstream slope in
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake [1] ............................................................................ 8
Figure 2-3 The Showa Bridge following the 1964 Niigata earthquake. Lateral spreading
caused bridge pier foundations to move and rotate sufficiently for simply supported bridge
spans to fall [1]............................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-4 The graph used to estimate Kσ values [20] .................................................. 15
Figure 2-5 Chinese criteria adapted to ASTM [30] ....................................................... 18
Figure 2-6 Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils
(Tsuchida, 1970) [39] ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-1 Location of study area (Source: Google Earth Pro) ...................................... 26
Figure 3-2 Hawassa earthquake location with cross sections in depth where 0 km is sea
level [2] ........................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 3-3 Flow chart showing over all methodology of the study ................................ 30
Figure 3-4 Dominant soil types in Hawassa town ......................................................... 32
Figure 3-5 Dominant rock types in Hawassa town ........................................................ 33
Figure 3-6 Dominant slopes in Hawassa town .............................................................. 33
Figure 3-7 Structure of faulting in Hawassa .................................................................. 34
Figure 3-8 Identified structures of regional fault plane and extensional joints ............... 35
Figure 3-11 Depth versus N corrected for progress hotel .............................................. 41
Figure 3-12 Depth versus N corrected for NIB ............................................................. 42
Figure 3-13 Depth versus N corrected for SPEDM ....................................................... 42
Figure 3-14 Gradation curve of progress hotel .............................................................. 43
Figure 3-15 Gradation curve of NIB ............................................................................. 44
Figure 3-16 Gradation curve of SPEDM bldg ............................................................... 45
Figure 3-17 Depth versus CRR for magnitude of 6.5 ( Progress hotel) .......................... 51
Figure 3-18 Depth versus CRR for magnitude of 6.5 (NIB) .......................................... 52
Figure 3-19 Depth versus CRR for Mw=6.5 (SPEDM bldg.) ........................................ 52
Figure 3-20 Acceleration time history curve of the original accelerogram of Friuli
earthquake .................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3-21 Acceleration time history curve of the matched accelerogram ................... 55

xi
Figure 3-22 Response spectrum curve of the original accelerogram of Friuli earthquake
..................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 3-23 (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum of matched earthquake
from Friuli earthquake .................................................................................................. 55
Figure 3-24 Depth versus shear wave velocity for Progress hotel.................................. 57
Figure 3-25 Depth versus shear wave velocity for SPEDM bldg ................................... 58
Figure 3-26 Depth versus shear wave velocity plot of NIB ........................................... 58
Figure 4-1 Liquefaction susceptibility map of Awassa town ......................................... 61
Figure 4-2 Comparison of response spectrum ............................................................... 63
Figure 5-1 Photo captures of cracks due to earthquake and shallow ground water table at
Hawassa ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5-2 Photo captures of materials used and during field works and laboratory test 75
Figure 5-3 Liquefaction evaluation of fine grained soil (@ depth of 1.5m) using Index-
based analysis .............................................................................................................. 76
Figure 5-4 Liquefaction evaluation of fine grained soil (@ depth of 3m) using Index-based
analysis ........................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 5-5 Original Acceleration time-histories of considered earthquakes ................... 79
Figure 5-6 Soil investigation report data of Progress hotel, Ato Tekola’s building, Nib
Bank and SEPDM office building (source: Hawassa Construction office) .................... 85

xii
 ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ES EN Ethiopian Standard based on European Norm;

PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center;

PLHA Probabilistic Liquefaction Hazard Analysis;

MER Main Ethiopia Rift Valley;

SPT Standard Penetration Test;

CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio;

CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio;

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration;

LPI Liquefaction Potential Index;

N60 Corrected SPT N value

xiii
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Liquefaction is one of the most important, interesting, complex, and controversial topics
in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Its devastating effects sprang to the attention of
geotechnical engineers in a three-month period of 1964 when the Good Friday earthquake
(Mw=9.2) in Alaska is followed by the Niigata earthquake (Mw=7.5) in Japan. Both
earthquakes produced failures, and flotation of buried structures [1]. The Main Ethiopian
Rift (MER) is a magmatic rift that marks the axis of continental extension between the
Nubian and Somalian plates. It represents the portion of the greater East African Rift
System that traverses through Ethiopia and is characterized by numerous magmatic
segments and volcanic centers. Earthquakes of low to intermediate magnitudes are a
commonly observed features of continental rifting and particularly in regions of
Quaternary to Recent volcanism such as in the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER) [2].

Seismic hazard of South Ethiopia (6,0° - 8,5°N, 37,5° - 39,5°) is conditioned by the rift
character of the region. The upper bound magnitude for this zone was estimated to 7.0 with
error 0.2. Around lakes inside the rift, intensive urban development has been taking place,
which is a very worrying process, considering seismic hazard. Therefore, south Ethiopia
has to be considered as a region with high seismic risk. The earthquakes from 19 December
2010 and 19 March 2011 were felt by many people despite the fact that they were relatively
small with magnitude approximately 5 [3]. Hawassa, which is lakeside city, is located at
the heart of rift valley (zone 4) was frequently visited by earthquakes from small to high
magnitudes. The town was built on Early Pleistocene Hawassa Caldera and in the shade
of two silicic volcanoes emerging from the floor of Middle Pleistocene Corbetti Caldera.
The Hawassa Caldera is filled by thick accumulations of unconsolidated sediments and
resedimented pyroclastic. Such a setting has the potential to amplify seismic effects during
earthquakes in the wider surroundings. For this reason, higher buildings should preferably
be constructed in the eastern part of the town on the basaltic ridge. The western part of the
Hawassa Caldera (west of Lake Hawassa) is strongly affected by spreading of the rift floor
and formation of ground cracks (fissures). Unexpected opening of these cracks causes loss
of property and occasionally also loss of life [4].

1
The aim of this study was to assess and evaluate Earthquake-induced soil liquefaction
potential in Hawassa town. The evaluation has been performed using two different
mechanisms; Qualitative method and SPT-based Probabilistic methods. Liquefaction
susceptibility map has been also prepared considering dominant types of rock unit, slope
data and soil type as a factor by using ArcGIS software.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Before designing structures at seismic prone areas, geotechnical engineers should know
the liquefaction vulnerability and the dynamic properties of such soils as well. Hawassa, a
fast-growing city in southern part, is found at the heart of the main Ethiopia Rift Valley
(MER) which is frequently attacked by a series of minor to strong magnitudes of
earthquakes. Different suggestions have been raised about the reason for earthquake
induced damages regarding the quality and standard of construction in Hawassa even
though detail and deep investigations about real causes of such problems have not yet
done. Liquefaction and lateral spreading due to earthquake in areas adjust to rivers, lakes
and wetland have a significant damage for residential buildings and lots of facilities.
Hawassa has many water bodies and there exists a shallow groundwater table.

Growth of Hawassa town and increasing number of inhabitants requires better knowledge
on the geological setting of this area giving the limits to construction work and growth of
the town according to seismic hazard consideration. Therefore, rapid growth of urban
population, extensive house building and infrastructure development calls for a serious,
deep and detail seismological investigation in the town.

1.3 Objective of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The main aim of this study is to evaluate earthquake-induced soil liquefaction potential in
Hawassa town by using both existing borehole data.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To evaluate liquefaction potential of soil on some selected sites in Hawassa town
using qualitative method, deterministic method and probabilistic analysis by
considering secondary data

2
  To prepare liquefaction susceptibility map using ArcGIS-software based on
qualitative approach

 To estimate earthquake magnitudes which trigger liquefaction problem in the town

according to the considered magnitudes using probabilistic method

1.4 Research Questions

This study answers the following questions;

 How can we evaluate liquefaction potential of soil in some selected sites of
Hawassa town? And how much sever it is?

 How can we prepare liquefaction susceptibility map using ArcGIS software based
on qualitative approach?

 What is the probable range of earthquake magnitude which trigger liquefaction in

the town according to the considered magnitudes?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Lots of hazard assessment researches and liquefaction problem related works throughout
the world have done after the occurrence of the damages and after seeing its consequences.
The justifications, suggestions and empirical criteria they provide about liquefaction
susceptibility are based up on the post liquefied soil behavior. Investigation on seismic
prone area for the susceptibility of liquefaction problem before damages have occurred is
not obvious. This work has its own significance by giving an initial overview about how
much vulnerable is Hawassa soil for liquefaction. The outcome of this research will
contribute to the ongoing researches in this domain area, it will be an input for different
stakeholders especially persons or institutions who have directly or indirectly contact in
code reviewing (code reviewers), geologist, geotechnical researchers and interested groups
doing on hazard assessment areas. Similarly, it provides its own contribution to structural
designers during design of building to consider liquefaction problem on that specific site
according to the type of soil they have in hand which proposed their building laid upon.
Proper respective measurements and liquefaction mitigation methods will be proposed
before the problem is happened.

3
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study

1.6.1 Scope
This study proposed to estimate earthquake-induced soil liquefaction susceptibility at
some selected sites of Hawassa town. The scope of the investigation required is dependent
on the SPT-based deterministic and probabilistic method using existing borehole data and
available rock unit and slope data.

1.6.2 Limitation of the Study

This study didn’t consider site specific parameters and didn’t include conducting in situ
soil tests like SPT and CPT. It focused only on geological (rock unit), historical and
compositional criteria on liquefaction susceptibility assessment and evaluation on the basis
of SPT blow count (N) values, rock units, slope, ground water table depth, fine content
and the magnitude of the earthquakes.

1.7 Organization of Thesis

In this study five Chapters are presented. Chapter one presented general introduction part
about liquefaction and the problem considering Ethiopian context. What problem raised
this issue as title of research has been presented by statement of the problem. Objective of
the study, scope and limitation of the study and significance of the study has also presented
in this chapter.
Chapter two devoted to literature review about previous studies of liquefaction. It presents
literatures on types of liquefaction, assessment and methods of evaluations and factors
affecting liquefaction. The engineering soft wares used for evaluation have also reviewed.
The third Chapter discussed about details of the site’s location, the population growth and
seismicity behavior of the study area. The laboratory investigation for soil characteristics
determination described and their results discussed, these include; geotechnical
investigation and soil sampling procedures. Material used, assumptions made and
simulations also presented in this chapter.
Chapter four briefly outlines the results of both laboratory tests, qualitative estimations
and probabilistic evaluations of liquefaction. it presents the analysis and results of the
laboratory soil tests with respect to, liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), water content
(Wc) and percentage of clay fraction. Software simulation analysis and liquefaction

4
potential index (LPI) based analysis also illustrated in this chapter. The results and their
implications with respect to the level of liquefaction problem discussed here.
Chapter 5 presented conclusions for laboratory testing, software simulation and LPI
evaluation and qualitative analysis of liquefaction. It also summarizes the findings from
this research program. Recommendations have also drawn regarding appropriate
mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation measurements.

5
 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The word liquefaction is derived from the Latin verb liquefacere, which means to weaken,
to melt, or to dissolve, liquefaction is an engineering phenomenon referring to the total
and sharp loss of soil shear strength due to rapid pore water pressure build up. Seismic soil
liquefaction occurs when the structure of a loose and saturated soil breaks down due to
some rapidly applied loading. As the soil structure breaks down, the loosely-packed
individual soil particles attempt to move into a denser and more stable configuration.
During an earthquake event, however, there is not enough time for the water within the
pores of the soil to be squeezed out or dissipate, but instead, water is trapped in the soil
pores and prevents the soil particles moving to a denser state. Simultaneously, this is
accompanied by an increase in pore water pressure which reduces the contact forces
between the individual soil particles, and consequently resulting in softening and
weakening of the soil deposit to a considerable extent. Because of this high pore water
pressure, the contact forces become very small or almost zero, and in an extreme case, the
excess pore water pressure may increase to a level that may break the particle-to-particle
contact. In such cases, the soil will have very little or no resistance to shearing, and will
exhibit a behavior more like a viscous liquid than a solid body [5].

Liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes has become a major topic in soil
dynamics since the earthquakes in Niigata, Japan and in Alaska in 1964 caused widespread
damage by inducing liquefaction of the ground. The quantitative study of seismically
induced liquefaction began with the publication by Seed and Lee (1966) of their pioneering
work on the cyclic triaxial test. Sparked by this development, the study of liquefaction
grew rapidly [6]. The majority of liquefaction studies to date have concentrated on
relatively clean sands. Comparatively little liquefaction research has been undertaken on
soils within the grain size range of very silty sand to silt with or without some clay content
[7]. However, it is notable that the liquefaction phenomenon is observed in loose saturated
sands. NCEER (1997) stated that liquefaction is generally observed on materials, which
are loose to somewhat dense granular soils having high drainage capability like silty sands
or sands and gravels having junction of impermeable deposits [8].

6
2.2 Earthquake History in Ethiopia

As the seismically active East African Rift System passes through Ethiopia, earthquake
activity is expected. Seismological observation in Ethiopia started in February, 1959 at the
Geophysical Observatory of Addis Ababa University. The only major earthquake
sequence ever to shake Addis Ababa in living memory occurred from June to September
1961 near Kara Kore with a main shock magnitude of mb = 6.4. Over 3,500 earthquakes
of magnitude ML (AAE) >3.5 were recorded during the Kara Kore seismic crisis in 1961
with a relatively less equipped instrument facility. The village of Majete was completely
destroyed but there were no casualties. The first seismic zoning map of Ethiopia was
published in 1976 in relation to the national effort to draft a code for earthquake-resistant
structures [9].

Seismic hazard of the studied area of South Ethiopia (6,0° - 8,5°N, 37,5° - 39,5°) is
conditioned by the rift character of the region. A global catalog of earthquakes provided
by United States Geological Survey (USGS) is available since 1973. However,
earthquakes from South Ethiopia are not reported in the catalog before 1983 [3]. The
reported events from the catalogue are found on appendix of this paper.

To understand liquefaction, it is important to recognize the conditions that exist in a soil

deposit before an earthquake. Liquefaction occurs when the structure of a loose, saturated
sand breaks down due to some rapidly applied loading. Earthquake increases the water
pressure which reduces the contact forces of soil particles, thereby softening the soil
deposit as Figure 2-1 (https://depts.washington.edu/liquefy/html/how/susceptible.html).

Figure 2-1 Contact Forces Between Individual Soil Grains

7
2.3 Types of Liquefaction

Generally, liquefaction can be divided into two main categories; flow liquefaction and
cyclic mobility.

2.3.1 Flow Liquefaction

Flow liquefaction produces the most dramatic effects of all the liquefaction related
phenomena tremendous instabilities known as flow failures. Flow liquefaction can occur
when the shear stress required for static equilibrium of a soil mass (static shear stress) is
greater than the shear strength of the soil in its liquefied state. Flow liquefaction failures
are characterized by the sudden nature of their origin, the speed with which they develop,
and the large distance over which the liquefied materials often move. Slide failures of
Sheffield Dam and Lower San Fernando Dam are examples of flow liquefaction (Figure
2-2) [1].

Figure 2-2 Lower San Fernando Dam following liquefaction failure its upstream slope in
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake [1]

Evaluating the seismic stability of earth dams against the possibility of slope failures due
to soil liquefaction is a considerably more complex problem then the evaluation of level
ground [10].

2.3.2 Cyclic Mobility

Cyclic mobility is another phenomenon that can also produce unacceptably large
permanent deformations during earthquake shaking. Cyclic mobility occurs when the
static shear stress is less than the shear strength of the liquefied soil. The deformations

8
happened, termed lateral spreading, can occur on very gently sloping ground or on virtually
flat ground adjacent to water bodies [1]. Lateral spreading landslides were the most
prevalent consequences of liquefaction. Alluvial low lands along rivers and loose sand fills
proved most susceptible to this type of failure. Several flow landslides occurred on wet
sandy slopes. [11].

Figure 2-3 The Showa Bridge following the 1964 Niigata earthquake. Lateral spreading
caused bridge pier foundations to move and rotate sufficiently for simply supported bridge
spans to fall [1]

2.4 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction potential is generally evaluated by comparing consistent measures of

earthquake loading and liquefaction resistance. It has become common to base the
comparison on cyclic shear stress amplitude, usually normalized by initial vertical
effective stress and expressed in the form of a cyclic stress ratio, CSR, for loading and a
cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, for resistance [12].

2.5 Evaluation Methods of Liquefaction Potential

The assessment of the potential for an earthquake‐induced loss of strength (liquefaction)

of a granular deposit involves methods which are based on empirical observations, field
and lab characterization data and associated analyses [13].

A platform for exploring and understanding the liquefaction phenomenon developed and
the various state of the practice tools available to assess it. The tool relies on standard
penetration test (SPT) or cone penetration test (CPT) field test results, soil characteristic

9
properties and earthquake data. Test specific corrections for various field parameters are
applied along with other adjustments associated with soil characteristics/composition [13].

Based on the study conducted by [14], there are a variety of methods based on three
approaches to evaluate liquefaction potential. These three approaches are (1) energy-
based, (2) cyclic stress-based and (3) strain-based. According to the study [15], a
liquefaction potential can be evaluated based on the geotechnical data, deterministic and
probabilistic method and liquefaction potential can be reported in terms of SPT and CPT
values. Liquefaction factor of safety evaluated based on the available geotechnical data
and using probabilistic techniques can then be used for the liquefaction hazard assessment.

Soil Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) can be used to assess seismic hazards according to
the study of [16]. The factor of safety (FL) only determines whether a soil layer will liquefy
or not. It is not possible to quantify the severity of liquefaction based on the factor of safety
only. The severity of liquefaction can be quantified and categorized spatially using the
liquefaction potential index (LPI).

2.5.1 Deterministic Approach

In the deterministic approach, the standard penetration test (SPT) along with the semi-
empirical equations and models (giving liquefaction boundary curves) is widely used to
determine liquefaction susceptibility of a soil. This approach assesses the cyclic stress ratio
(CSR) anticipated at the site during a certain design earthquake and compares to that
required to produce liquefaction (CRR). The cyclic stress ratio (CSR) anticipated at the
site during a certain design earthquake is estimated by using the simplified procedure
pioneered by Seed and Idriss (1971) [17]. The simplified methods for liquefaction
potential evaluation that follow Seed and Idriss (1971, 1982) had been characterized with
in situ tests (such as standard penetration test, SPT). These simplified methods are
generally expressed as a deterministic model. In a deterministic approach, liquefaction of
a soil is predicted to occur if the factor of safety (FS), defined as the ratio of cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR) over cyclic stress ratio (CSR), is less than or equal to 1; on the other
hand, no soil liquefaction is said to occur if FS greater than [18].

Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR as defined by Seed and Idriss (1971), is the average cyclic shear
normalized by the initial vertical effective stress σ′v to incorporate the increase in shear

10
strength due to increase in effective stress. In the method presented by Youd et.al (2001)
the CSR is calculated according to Equation 2.1.

The soil’s CSR is affected by the duration of shaking (which is expressed through an
earthquake magnitude scaling factor, MSF), effective overburden stress (which is
expressed through a Kσ factor). These effects are accounted for in the processing of case
histories by adjusting the earthquake induced CSR to a reference M = 7.5 and σv' = 1atm.
The soil’s CSR are also affected by rd, a stress reduction coefficient that accounts for the
flexibility of the soil column [17].

𝛕𝐚𝐯 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝛔𝐯
𝐂𝐒𝐑 = ′
= 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 ∗ ∗ ′ ∗ 𝐫𝐝 2. 1
𝛔𝐯 𝐠 𝛔𝐯
Where 𝑔 = acceleration of gravity

𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface generated by the earthquake

σv and σ’v are total and effective vertical over-burden stresses, respectively

rd = stress reduction coefficient function of the depth (z) below the ground surface

In the method, the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for a reference earthquake of magnitude
Mw = 7.5 (CRR7.5) is obtained graphically as a function of the corrected standard
penetration number (N1)60, which is a normalized value of penetration resistance to an
effective stress of 1 atmosphere and 60% efficiency of the driving hammer.

Therefore, the adjusted Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR is defined as;

𝛔𝐯 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝟏 𝟏
𝐂𝐒𝐑 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 ∗ ′
∗ ∗ 𝐫𝐝 ∗ ∗ 2. 2
𝛔𝐯 𝐠 𝐌𝐒𝐅 𝐊 𝛔
A reduction factor rd is a function of depth and accounts the flexibility of soil and it is
calculated using equation 2.3 based on Idriss and Boulangar (2010);

𝐫𝐝 = 𝐞𝐱𝐩[𝛂(𝐙) + 𝛃 (𝐙) ∗ 𝐌) 2. 3
𝐙
𝛂 (𝐙) = −𝟏. 𝟎𝟐𝟏 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟐𝟔 ∗ 𝐬𝐢𝐧 ( + 𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟑) 2. 4
𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟑
𝛃(𝐙)
𝐙
= 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟔 + 𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟖 ∗ 𝐬𝐢𝐧 ( + 𝟓. 𝟏𝟒𝟐) 2. 5
𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟖

11
A workshop on Liquefaction resistance evaluation [19], recommend minor modification
to the procedure for calculation of CSR to estimate average values of rd. Cyclic Resistance
Ratio CRR is defined as the ratio of the cyclic strength of the soil over the effective over
burden pressure. to determine soil liquefaction resistance, two types of methods have been
used to measure the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and then compare it with the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR): laboratory test-based methods and in situ test-based methods [14]. The soil’s
CRR is usually correlated to an in situ parameter such as SPT blow count (number of blows
per foot). SPT blow counts are affected by a number of procedural details (rod lengths,
hammer energy, sampler details, borehole size) and by effective overburden stress. Thus,
the correlation to CRR is based on corrected penetration resistance [20],

(𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎 = 𝐂𝑵 ∗ 𝐂𝑬 ∗ 𝐂𝑹 ∗ 𝐂𝑩 ∗ 𝐂𝑺 ∗ 𝐍𝒎 2. 6
Where CN is an overburden correction factor, CE =ERm/60% (ERm is the measured value
of the delivered energy as a percentage of the theoretical free-fall hammer energy), CR is
a rod correction factor to account for energy ratios being smaller with shorter rod lengths,
CB is a correction factor for nonstandard borehole diameters, C B is a correction factor for
using split spoons with room for liners but with the liners absent, and Nm is the measured
SPT blow count. The factors CB and CS are set equal to unity if standard procedures are
followed [20]. Table 2-1 shows how each parameter can be estimated.

The soil's CRR is also affected by the duration of shaking (magnitude scaling factor, MSF)
and effective overburden stress (Kσ). The correlation for CRR is therefore developed for a
reference M = 7.5 and σ'v= 1 atm, and then adjusted to other values of M and σ'v using the
following expression [20]:

𝐂𝐑𝐑(𝐌, 𝛔′𝐯 )
= 𝐂𝐑𝐑(𝐌 = 𝟕. 𝟓, 𝛔′𝐯 = 𝟏𝐚𝐭𝐦) ∗ 𝐌𝐒𝐅 ∗ 𝐊 𝛔 2. 7
According to [20], the correlation of CRR to (N1)60 is affected by the soil's fines content
(FC) and is expressed as,

𝐂𝐑𝐑(𝐌 = 𝟕. 𝟓, 𝛔′𝒗 = 𝟏𝐚𝐭𝐦) =

𝐟{(𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎, 𝐅𝐂} 2. 8
CRR can then be expressed in terms of (N1)60cs,

𝐂𝐑𝐑(𝐌 = 𝟕. 𝟓, 𝛔′𝒗 = 𝟏𝐚𝐭𝐦) = 𝐟{(𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔 } 2. 9

And (N1)60 can be obtained using the following expression;
12
 (𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎𝐜𝐬 = (𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎 + 𝚫(𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎 2. 10
where the adjustment Δ(N1)60 is a function of FC.

According to [18], Δ(N1)60 can be calculated;

𝜟(𝑵𝟏)𝟔𝟎
𝟗. 𝟕
= 𝒆𝒙𝒑{𝟏. 𝟔𝟑 +
𝑭𝑪 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏
𝟐
𝟏𝟓. 𝟕
−( ) } 2. 11
𝑭𝑪 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) is computed as;

2 3 4
(N1)60cs (N1)60cs (N1)60cs (N1)60cs
CRR((N1)60cs) = exp{ +( ) −( ) +( )
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
− (2.8) 2. 12

Therefore, the factor of safety against liquefaction is then determined as;

CRR(M = 7.5, σ′ v = 1)
FS = 2. 13
CSR(M = 7.5, σ′ v = 1)

13
 Table 2-1 Correction factor of SPT-blow recommended [13]

In order to account earthquake magnitudes other than 7.5, magnitude scaling factor (MSF)
should be calculated using the following equation after Idriss et. al. (2010).

𝐌
𝐌𝐒𝐅 = 𝟔. 𝟗 ∗ 𝐞𝐱𝐩 (− 𝟒 ) − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟖 ≤

𝟏. 𝟖 2. 14

Over burden Correction factor (Kσ) can be read graph containing the relation of vertical
effective stress and corrected N value as Figure

14
 Figure 2-4 The graph used to estimate Kσ values [20]

2.5.2 Probabilistic Approach

There are many studies which tried to evaluate liquefaction using probabilistic manner.
They have put their own conclusion based on their findings even though deterministic
liquefaction analysis is the base for probabilistic approach. Probabilistic approach is used
to assess the probability of initiation of liquefaction.) [17].

The probabilistic relationship proposed by Liao et al, was developed using binary
regression of logistic models with high overall uncertainty in the proposed correlation. The
basic methodology used by Youd and Noble is also the same as Liao et al. which is binary
regression [21]. The entire range of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and earthquake
magnitudes was used in the evaluation of liquefaction return period. The seismic hazard
analysis for was done using probabilistic approach to evaluate the peak horizontal
acceleration at bed rock level [22]. Probabilistic analysis of liquefaction resistance follows
from the form of deterministic analysis used. Deterministic liquefaction evaluation
methods are either analytical (constitutive models based on first principles of soil
behavior), empirical (field observations and laboratory testing), or a combination of the
two. This is based on the standard recommended in the 1997 evolution of the Seed and
Idriss procedure. [23].

2.5.3 SPT-based Probabilistic Approach

Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential can be analyzed based on either logistic
regression analysis or Bayesian mapping analyses of the SPT- based field performance

15
records. Performing a logistic regression analysis yields the following probability equation
[24];

𝐏𝐋
𝐥𝐧 [ ]
𝟏 − 𝐏𝐋
= 𝟏𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟗 − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓𝟕𝟐 (𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔
+ 𝟑. 𝟒𝟖𝟐𝟓 𝐥𝐧(𝐂𝐒𝐑 𝟕.𝟓 ) 2. 15
Where PL is the probability the probability of liquefaction

Table 2-2 Liquefaction likelihood classification [24]

Class Probability of Description of likelihood
Liquefaction (PL)
5 PL ≥ 0.85 Almost certain that it will
liquefy
4 0.65 ≤ PL < 0.85 Very likely to liquefy
3 0.35 ≤ PL < 0.65 Liquefaction and no
liquefaction are equally
likely
2 0.15 ≤ PL < 0.35 Unlikely to liquefy

The probabilistic boundary curves indicate that the simplified base curve is characterized
by a probability of liquefaction of approximately 20% for (N1)60, cs below 10 blows per
foot. For (N1)60, cs above 10, the simplified base curve is characterized a probability of
approximately 50% [25].

Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI), is another probabilistic means to evaluate liquefaction

potential which is developed by Iwasaki et. al. The index attempted to provide a measure
of the severity of liquefaction, and according to its developer, liquefaction risk is very high
if IL (LPI)> 15, and liquefaction risk is low if IL (LPI) ≤5 [26].

The Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) defined by Iwasaki et al. (1978, 1982) can be
expressed as follows [27];

𝐋𝐏𝐈
𝟐𝟎
= ∫ 𝐅(𝐳)𝐖(𝐳)𝐝𝐳 2. 16
𝟎

F(z)= 1-FS for FS <1, F(z)= 0 for FS ≥1& W(z)= 10-0.5z for z ≤ 20m, W(z)= 0 for z >20m

16
z denotes the depth of the midpoint; dz denotes the increment of depth; and F(z) represents
the liquefaction severity, and, W(z) is the weighting function.

For the soil profiles with the depth less than 20 m, LPI is calculated using the following
expression (Luna and Frost 1998) [28];

𝐋𝐏𝐈 = ∑ 𝐰𝐢 ∗ 𝐇𝐢 ∗ 𝐅𝐈 2. 17
𝐢=

with Fi = 1 – FSi for FSi < 1.0

Fi = 0 for FSi ≥ 1.0

where Hi is thickness of the discretized soil layers; n is number of layers; Fi is liquefaction

severity for i-th layer; FSi is the factor of safety for i-th layer; wi is the weighting factor (=
10–0.5 zi); and zi is the depth of i-th layer (m)

According to [27], Table 2-3 shows the categories of liquefaction severity as;

Table 2-3 Liquefaction severity from the liquefaction potential index (LPI) [27]
LPI Liquefaction Severity
0 Very low
0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
5 <LPI ≤15 High
15 < LPI ≤ 100 Very high
The Factor of safety (FS) value which is determined from the conventional procedure is
not a sufficient tool by itself for the evaluation of the liquefaction potential. The simplified
procedure predicts what will happen to a soil element whereas, I L (LPI) predicts the
performance of the whole soil column and the consequence of liquefaction at the ground
surface [26]..

2.5.4 Index Properties-based Criteria for Liquefaction

Some researchers shown, soil behavior Index (If) and Atterberg limits can reflect the
characteristics of soil and identify whether the soil can liquefy or not.

Based on reevaluation of Wang’s work, Seed and Idriss (1982) stated that soil which
susceptible to liquefaction behavior must fulfill three basic criteria. It had become the state
of practice in evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. The criteria including (1) contains

17
less than 15% clay fraction (finer than 0.005 mm); (2) liquid limit (LL) less than 35%; (3)
water content (WC) higher than 90% LL [29].

The Chinese practice of determining the liquid and plastic limits, water content and clay
fraction differs somewhat from the ASTM procedures followed in USA and some other
countries. Therefore, the Chinese criteria modified and applied to the index properties
determined following the US. Figure 2-5 further illustrates the Modified Chinese Criteria
[30].

Figure 2-5 Chinese criteria adapted to ASTM [30]

A criterion for liquefaction of silty soils based on the clay content parameter alone, does
not adequately address cases where at one extreme, clay sized grains are non-plastic, and
at the other extreme, non-clay sized grains are plastic. Therefore, the liquid limit criterion
is considered appropriately [31]. According to [32], none of the soils containing more than
20% clay liquefied. This fact is in a good agreement with the Chinese study. The liquefied
soils are also classified according to the unified soil classification system.

2.6 Factors Affecting Liquefaction

2.6.1 Earthquake Magnitude

Based on field observations and a simple parametric study, we conclude that earthquakes
as small as moment magnitude 4.5 can trigger liquefaction in extremely susceptible soil
deposits. However, for soil profiles that are suitable for building structures, the minimum
earthquake magnitude for the triggering of liquefaction is about 5. We therefore propose

18
that in liquefaction hazard assessments of building sites, magnitude 5.0 be adopted as the
minimum earthquake size considered, while magnitudes as low as 4.5 may be appropriate
for some other types of infrastructure. The motivation for exploring the lower magnitude
limit associated with liquefaction triggering is for probabilistic liquefaction hazard
analysis (PLHA; e.g., Kramer and Mayfield 2007), for which a lower limit is required in
the same way as for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) [33]. But the most
devastating effects of major earthquake-induced soil liquefaction hazards in the world are
trigged with higher magnitudes of ranges. The New Zealand earthquake sequence includes
the Darfield earthquake of September 4, 2010, registered on the moment-magnitude scale
(MW) as Mw=7.1, and the Christchurch earthquake of February 22, 2011, registered as
Mw 6.2, as well as 11 other moment magnitude scale events registering at Mw 5.0 or
greater that were epicentrally located within 20 km of central Christchurch. In the
Christchurch earthquake of February 22, 2011, nearly half of the city’s developed land
was affected by liquefaction [33].

Historical earthquake record shows Awassa town is frequently encountered with

earthquake hazard having magnitude range of 6-4 with a maximum possibility of
happening in the future with magnitude of 7 with an error of 0.2.

2.6.2 Soil Type

Luvisols link the soil continuum on the Quaternary landscapes. These soils are developed
from parent materials rich in Ca and Mg in a relatively humid climate. An acidic eluvial
horizon overlying a phyllosilicate-enriched illuvial Bt horizon is the common horizon
sequence in Luvisolic soils [34]. Luvisols are composed from sandy deposit with silt (23%-
24%) and clay (11%) [35]. Fluvial landforms such as abandoned riverbeds, levee ridges
and alluvial ridges are a preferential location for the occurrence of liquefaction. It is
observed that a very high liquefaction susceptibility is found in coincidence with fluvial
land forms [36].

Leptosols are soils with a very shallow profile depth and they often contain large amounts
of gravel. They typically remain under natural vegetation, being especially susceptible to
erosion, desiccation, or waterlogging ( https://www.britannica.com/science/Leptosol).

The liability of different type of soil against liquefaction can be identified based on Index
properties, shape of particle, relative density (r d), age of the soil and permeability of soil.

19
Liquefaction is mainly observed in fine to average grained cohesion less sands and
majority of the clays are not liable to liquefaction. And in shape, the with round particles
are more liable to seismic soil liquefaction than the soils with angular particles [37].

Soils with lower relative density (rd) are more liable to liquefaction than the soil with
advanced relative density because the loose soil will increase the pore water pressure when
it is subjected to cyclic loading. According to age of soil, the older soil deposits have less
exposure to liquefaction because of the constant arrangement of particles and better inter
particle bond. Considering permeability, soils with greater permeability will be less subject
to liquefaction when related to similar soils with lower permeability [37].

2.6.2.1 Liquefaction Behavior of Cohesive Soil

Several studies and earthquake evidences indicated the occurrence of liquefaction in loose
saturated sand deposits at shallower depths. Apart from sandy soils, which are more
commonly prone to liquefaction, natural soil deposits in the field comprises different types
of soil and soil mixtures such as silty-sand, silt, silty-clay, clay or any combinatorial soils.
Among these soils, cohesive soil, owing to its small particle size and substantially low
void ratio, is considered to be more resistant to liquefaction in comparison to the cohesion
defiles soils in the event of an earthquake [38].

2.6.2.2 Liquefaction Behavior of Cohesion-Less Soil

The type of soil most susceptible to liquefaction is one in which the resistance to
deformation is mobilized by friction between particles. If other factors such as grain shape,
uniformity coefficient and relative density are equal, the frictional resistance of cohesion
less soil decreases as the grain size of soils becomes smaller. Soils with a higher percentage
of gravels tend to mobilize higher strength during shearing, and to dissipate excess pore
pressures more rapidly than sands. However, there are case histories indicating that
liquefaction has occurred in loose gravelly soils when the gravel layer is confined by an
impervious layer. Tsuchida (1970) proposed ranges of grain size curves separating
liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils as shown in Figure 2-7 [39]. Although, not enough
verification and reconsideration have been performed about the ranges of grain size
distribution of liquefiable soil [40].

It is generally considered that liquefaction resistance increases as the grain size becomes
coarser due to improved drainage, and it increases as the grain size becomes finer due to

20
increased cohesion. Consequently, clarifying the gradation curve of liquefiable soil is an
important approach to liquefaction susceptibility of a ground [40].

Figure 2-6 Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils
(Tsuchida, 1970) [39]
Most of previous studies result indicate that, as the fines content increases the critical state
line (CSL) and steady state line (SSL) shifts to downwards, i.e., dilation decreases within
the given range of pressures which indicate that the liquefaction susceptibility of sand
increases with the addition of the fine content.

2.6.3 Ground Water Table

Research on earthquake mechanisms indicates that groundwater likely plays a significant
role in many large earthquakes. Furthermore, groundwater can magnify the damaging
effects of ground surface. Groundwater can also play a significant role in how earthquakes
affect the ground surface when an earthquake occurs. The most well-known effect is
liquefaction. During the shaking cause by an earthquake, certain types of fluid saturated
sediments can lose their structure and become liquefied. Noack and Fah (2001) gave
weight according to the depth of water table (Table 2-2 , more weight more damage, less
weight less damage) [15]. The evaluation of the depth of the groundwater is a crucial issue
for the estimation of liquefaction potential since soil layer can be liquefied only when it is
saturated. The degree of liquefaction susceptibility is high if the groundwater table depth
is less than 6m [41].

21
 Table 2-4 Weightage factor for assessing liquefaction susceptibility [15]
Depth of water table Weightage
10m-20m 2
3m-10m 3
1m-3m 4
According to [42], the effect of ground water level was studied by simulation using carried
a soil-water-air coupled finite deformation analysis code. The result indicated that on
ground with the high groundwater level, the co-seismic deformation is greater and the
mean skeleton stress decreases sharply. It was also shown that after the earthquake, the
groundwater level rises because water flows toward the unsaturated area. And if the
groundwater level is high, in particular, a phreatic line is formed temporarily within the
area. A three dimensional model was developed to identify the major groundwater sources
of recharge over the Hawassa Lake Basin and to investigate the Groundwater-Lake water
interaction [43]. Based on the study result of [44], Groundwater flow take place from south
east towards north west and to the west; and there are also flows from central west (Yirba
area) to the north (Lake Hawassa) in the study corridor. Since the study area is a part of
the rift system, groundwater flow is strongly controlled by the rift structures like faults and
fractures.

2.6.4 Geology
Ground failure susceptibility in a given area is a function of the geologic materials in the
area and the relative likelihood that these materials would undergo liquefaction and ground
failure during intense seismic shaking. Data needed for this include geologic setting and
correlations between geologic setting and liquefaction susceptibility [11]. Youd and
Perkins estimated susceptibility of sedimentary deposits to liquefaction on their work.

The approach introduced by Youd and Perkins (1978), who proposed a descriptive
classification of liquefaction susceptibility of different sedimentary deposits on the basis
of their geology and age. They recognized that sedimentary processes responsible for
deposition of geologic deposits and the subsequent geologic history can strongly influence
liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction susceptibility rankings of geologic deposits are
often modified with local geotechnical and historical liquefaction frequency data [45]. The
susceptibility to liquefaction of a geological unit can be evaluated based on its depositional
environment; the depositional process affects the liquefaction susceptibility of sediments
since fine and coarse grained soils sorted by fluvial or wave actions are more susceptible

22
than unsorted sediments. The younger, looser and more segregated the deposit, the greater
the susceptibility and low in the Pre-Pleistocene sediments [41].

2.6.5 Slope
Although the geomorphological criteria generally do not provide us with definitive
information for site-specific evaluation, the strong point of liquefaction zoning maps
denoted by area based on the criteria is that boundaries can be delineated on features that
best reflect the surface ground conditions. This approach is especially effective in small
areas such as former river channels and former ponds. Therefore, Wakamatsu [1997]
evaluated geomorphological conditions and seismic intensity at sites of liquefaction as
shown in Table 2-5 [46].

Table 2-5 Seismic intensity that generates liquefaction in a geomorphological unit

(Wakamatsu, 1997) [46]
Seismic intensity on the J.M.A scale Geomorphological unit
Units liquefied in excess of 5 Natural levee, Point bar, Former river
channel, Lower slope of sand dune,
Lowland between dunes, Interleave
lowland, Delta, Landfill, Reclaimed land,
Back marsh, Valley plain consisting of
sandy soil
Units liquefied in excess of 6 Gentle-sloped alluvial fan, Sand bar
Units liquefied in excess of 7 Steep-sloped alluvial fan, Valley plain
consisting of cobble or gravel, Gravel
bar, Lower terrace, Hollow
Units liquefied at intensity 7 Mountain, Hills, Beach, Top of sand
dune with high elevation
It is known that the geomorphological land classification correlates with liquefaction
susceptibility. The geomorphological land classification is a suitable index for practical
evaluation of soil liquefaction potential. The authors have investigated the critical intensity
of ground motion which separates liquefiable form non-liquefiable conditions for the
ground with high liquefaction susceptibility. The occurrence of liquefaction is better
correlated with Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) than Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). The
lower the Peak Ground Velocity (PGV), the higher is the degree of liquefaction [47].

Table 2-6 Variation of critical peak ground velocity [47]

Geomorphological Unit Critical peak Ground Velocity kine
(cm/s)
Reclaimed Land, Drained Land, Natural 15
Levee, River Channel, Sand Dune,
Lowland between Sand Dunes
23
 Back Marsh, Valley Plain, Delta 25
Sand Bar, Alluvial Fan 35

2.6.6 Faulting
Fault is a fracture plane in the Earth’s across which relative displacement has occurred.
Faulting is the movement which produces relative displacement of adjacent rock masses
along a fracture while, the zone surrounding a major fault, consisting of numerous
interlacing small faults is named as fault zone [15]. Existence of scattered minor cracks or
small sand boils or shortly faults in an area has also an effect for liquefaction to be happen.

The most distant effects of liquefaction commonly consist of only a few widely scattered
minor cracks or small sand boils with negligible potential for causing damage. Past
earthquakes indicate that differential lateral or vertical ground displacements greater than
about 4 in. (100mm) are required to cause significant damages to most structures. The
source zone for each event is assumed for normal and strike faults, to be the zone ruptured
by surface faulting or, the thrust faults, the zone of tectonic uplifts [11]. According to [15];

 Normal Fault: A fault under tension where the overlying block moves down the
dip or slope of the fault plane.

 Strike-Slip Fault (or lateral slip): A fault whose relative displacement is purely
horizontal.

 Thrust (Reverse) Fault: A fault under compression where the overlying block
moves up the dip or slope of the fault plane.

 Oblique-Slip Fault: A combination of normal and slip or thrust and slip faults
whose movement is diagonal along the dip of the fault plane.

According to Kramer and Mitchell, reverse faulting in comparison with strike-slip and
normal faulting shows around 30% higher spectra acceleration. Furthermore, near-fault
zones experienced high peak horizontal ground acceleration with high frequency and a
short period, with a less active load on structures and no liquefaction occurrence [14].

2.7 Engineering Software

Geotechnical software (GEOS) are package of programs designed to solve various

geotechnical problems. The easy-to-use suite consists of individual programs with a
unified user-friendly interface. Each program is used to analyses a different geotechnical

24
task but all modules communicate with each other to form an integrated suite
(https://www.engineeringcivil.com/softwares)

2.7.1 SeismoMatch
seismic provision. [48]. SeismoMatch is an application to match earthquake accelerograms
to a specific target response spectrum. In this software users can load accelerograms and
define target spectral response, and then determine spectral matching algorithm, adjust
spectral matching period range, from there, spectral matching is executed
(http://www.dynamisassociates.com/en/software/).

2.7.2 ArcGIS
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are considered a relatively new technology, and in
engineering they are still gaining recognition as new applications are being developed.
Specifically, in geotechnical engineering, the process of adopting GIS requires the design
and development of an application oriented system that models the three-dimensional
subsurface data and establishes links to process the data spatially and represent it
graphically onto two-dimensional surfaces. The GIS program used in the current system
is Arc/Info by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), which is considered
by many as the industry standard in vector-based GIS technology [16]. GIS can construct
a GIS-produced liquefaction hazard map based on both qualitative and quantitative
methods. GIS is the final component of application which uses aspects of both the Visual
Basic (VB) code and the Graphical User Interface (GUI), and in turn interacts with both
[49].

25
 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of Study Area

3.1.1 Geographical Location

Hawassa is located in the southern nations nationalities and people region on the shores of
Lake Hawassa in the great rift valley; 273 Km south of Addis Ababa via DebreZeit and
1,125 km north of Nairobi) [50].

Geographically the town lays between 7⁰3’ latitude North and 38⁰28’ longitudes east.
Hawassa town is bounded by Lake Hawassa in the west, Oromia region in the north
Wendogenet woreda in the East and Shebedino woreda in the south. Hawassa served as
the Capital of southern Nations Nationalities & peoples Region, the Sidama zone
administration & Hawassa town administration. The town administration has an area of
157.2 km², divided in to 8 sub-cities and 32 Kebeles, These Eight sub-cities are Hayek
Dare, Menehariya, and Tabore, Misrak, Bahile Adarash, Addis Ketema, Hawela-Tula and
Mehal sub city [50]. Figure 3-1 shows the location of Hawassa.

Figure 3-1 Location of study area (Source: Google Earth Pro)

26
3.1.2 Geographical Information
The town of Hawassa enjoys favorable climatic conditions because of its geographic
location on the shores of Lake Hawassa, the sky is generally clear, fog is uncommon, the
temperature is mild, and the moderate winds often have a positive influence on the
temperature. Rainfall mostly occurs in the summer season. The daily minimum and
maximum temperature values are always moderate and only for the few days of the year
when either the minimum temperature is 9.7 or the maximum temperature is 30.91°C [50].

3.1.3 Population and Development

Much of the population growth has been the result of internal migration and expansion of
educational and other facilities, also widening of the town’s boundaries has caused some
of the increase. Therefore, there is a rapid growth of population in the town. Hawassa is
one of the most important customer center of the country and the core of its industrial and
commercial activity. Nowadays the town serves as the center for public corporations [50].

3.1.4 Seism-tectonics of the Area

Earthquakes of low to intermediate magnitudes are commonly observed feature of
continental rifting and particularly in regions of Quaternary to Recent volcanism such as
in the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER). The Hawassa caldera basin is located at the eastern
escarpment of the rift, forming a topographic depression of 35x20 km that is elongated E-
W. The basin is characterized by silicic lava flows, pumices and welded tuffs.. Recent
volcanism has resulted in the formation of the Corbetti volcanic center at the northwestern
edge of the Hawassa caldera, where rhyolitic lava flows accumulated and initiated a
caldera collapse event. Satellite imaging has shown significant surface at Corbetti over the
past twenty years, while the volcano has also been outlined as a geothermal energy
resource of vast potential [2].

The maximum probability event location in Figure 3-2 occurs in the blue star with the 68
and 95% uncertainty ellipsoids. The locations reported by the National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) and Centre Sismologique Euro-Mediterranean CSEM are red
stars. Focal mechanisms for the 1995 Corbetti and 1983 Hawassa caldera events are also
presented. Pink lines are the Corbetti and Hawassa caldera structures. Black and red lines
are border and Wonji faults respectively. The towns of Shashemene and Hawassa are grey
squares [2].

27
 Figure 3-2 Hawassa earthquake location with cross sections in depth where 0 km is sea
level [2]

3.2 Methods and Procedures

3.2.1 Methods
In this study, two different methods of liquefaction evaluation have been used together on
areas without construction as well as on areas having already built buildings. The first
mechanism used to assess and estimate liquefaction susceptibility was qualitative analysis.
This method accounts the geological formation (rock units), geomorphological landforms
(slope) and major soil types in the town, and used ArcGIS software to generate liquefaction
susceptibility map. Three parameters (major rock units, geomorphological landforms
(slope) and dominant soil type in the town) according to their influence on liquefaction
have been considered.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) based deterministic and probabilistic method of

liquefaction evaluation have been also applied on some selected sites. Liquefaction
Potential Index (LPI), which indicates the severity of liquefaction, was used to estimate
severity of liquefaction. The basis for this method is factor of safety determined from
simplified procedure of deterministic method. Soil investigation

3.2.2 Procedures
The general procedures used for qualitative analysis in this study;

28
 1. Collecting secondary GIS shape file data for soil type, geology and geomorphology
2. Adjusting and arranging those data to be valid in GIS software
3. Add the valid data to the ArcGIS software and generate a map showing dominant
soil type, geology (rock unit) and geomorphology (slope) in the town
4. Give weightage value for each parameter and use raster calculator to get the final
liquefaction susceptibility map which is a merging effect all factors.

General procedure of SPT-based Deterministic approach;

1. Select sites and collect subsurface geotechnical data for boreholes

2. Analyze the borehole data and do appropriate corrections
3. Put list of earthquake magnitudes considered for the study
4. Determine all parameters needed to calculate factor of safety
5. Calculate factor of safety using simplified procedure

Probabilistic analysis method;

1. Factor of safety (FOS) values have been used for probabilistic analysis
2. Determine Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and estimate the severity of
liquefaction for all sites with respect to earthquake magnitudes considered
3. Estimate the earthquake magnitudes which trigger liquefaction using LPI result
6. Make analysis, discussion and conclusion

3.2.3 Materials
Some materials and tools have been used to achieve the objectives of this study. Software
tools used for simulation in this study were; ArcGIS version 10.3.1 and SeismoMatch
version 2016.

29
 Figure 3-3 Flow chart showing over all methodology of the study

3.3 Assessment of Liquefaction on Areas Without Construction

3.3.1 Qualitative Approach

Based on qualitative method, three parameters have been considered in order to reach a
decision of liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil. Dominant geological units, major soil
types and geomorphological landforms have considered. In order to determine the
dominant geological units, soil types and geomorphological landforms in Awassa town,
GIS shape files of each unit has been used. After shape file analysis, ArcGIS generated the
classification of the town based on major landforms and soil types. The weightage (rank)
given for each parameter is based on how much the parameter affects liquefaction
phenomena comparing one another. The factor affecting most had larger value and
smallest value had given to for the least affecting factor. According to this, soil type affects
liquefaction more than geology. And geology has greater influence than geomorphology
weather liquefaction to be happen or not. Finally, the summation of these parameters have
been modelled with ArcGIS so that liquefaction susceptibility map of Hawassa generated.

30
3.3.1.1 Dominant Soil Types
According to Figure 3-4 most part of the town is covered by Fluvial soil, and leptosols are
found on very small part of central and southwest of Hawassa. The three major soil types
in Hawassa are susceptible to liquefaction even if their degree varies (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major soil types in Hawassa

Major soil Available moisture in the Description Susceptibility for
types soil liquefaction
Fluvi High to very high Fine sandy to Very high
sandy clay
Luvi Medium to high Sandy loam to High
clay loam
Lepto Low to medium Deeper soil Low
extremely gravelly

3.3.1.2 Dominant Rock Units

Based on the assessment works three dominant rock units have found in Hawassa town
and all they are susceptible to liquefaction with varying degree. The dominant rock units
are; Ignimbrites tuffs water lain pyrodestics, occasional Iac (Qdi), Lacustrine sediments,
sand, silt pyroclastic deposits, diatomites (QI)) and Rhyolite and trachyte lava flows (Qwa)

Table 3-2 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major rock units in Hawassa

Major rock Description Rock type Susceptibility for
units composed liquefaction
Ignimbrites Hot suspension of Igneous rock Very High
particles and gases
flowing rapidly
Lacustrine Found in the bottom of Sedimentary rock Low
sediments ancient lakes
Lava flows Molten rock creates Igneous rock High
subsurface voids

3.3.1.3 Slope
Alluvial landform, structural landform and volcanic landforms are the dominant and major
geomorphological landforms or slopes in Hawassa town and they all are susceptible for
liquefaction with varying degree according to the characteristics they behave (Table 3-3).

31
Table 3-3 Degree of liquefaction susceptibility of major slopes in Hawassa
Major slopes Description Susceptibility for
liquefaction
Alluvial Deposited by rivers and is Very high
loose unconsolidated
sediment
Volcanic Results of materials emitted High
from volcanic eruption
Structural Land forms created by Low
solidification

Figure 3-4 Dominant soil types in Hawassa town

32
Figure 3-5 Dominant rock types in Hawassa town

Figure 3-6 Dominant slopes in Hawassa town

33
3.3.1.4 Fault Zone
A kind of faults and brittle structures such as caldera related faults, regional normal faults,
strike slip faults and extension joints are observed in the study area. From secondary shape
files of Hawassa, we have generated fault structure locations in the town using ArcGIS
(Figure 3-7).

Table 3-4 Types of faults in Awassa town

Types of faults Description
Caldera related Irregular shape on the surface
faults cross section, have normal
kinematic, dip steeply to
moderately towards the central
part of the caldera
Regional normal With well-developed lineation
faults (slickensides) and indicator of
normal kinematics .
Strike slip faults Relatively younger than regional
normal faults

Figure 3-7 Structure of faulting in Hawassa

34
 Figure 3-8 Identified structures of regional fault plane and extensional joints

3.3.1.5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map

The software used for creating the maps in this study was the ESRI ArcGIS 10.3.1
(http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgis10/index.html), with most of the data
processing performed by the ArcMap program of the software package.

Since liquefaction evaluation basically aims to estimate the liquefaction level and its
damage, soil type, rock units and slope based assessment and evaluation had considered
to come up with reliable result. The liquefaction is assumed at a shallow water depth,
where the occurrence of alluvial slopes and fluvial soil types are larger than structural
slopes and leptosol in the study area. After giving rank for each dominant soil type, rock
unit and slope, ArcGIS generated liquefaction susceptibility map by merging all the factors
considered.

3.4 Evaluation of Liquefaction on Areas with Constructions

To analyze the liquefaction potential of soil on areas which have already buildings, both
deterministic and probabilistic methods have been used.

3.4.1 Deterministic Method

3.4.1.1 Data Collection

The primary tasks to perform liquefaction potential assessment was identification of
subsurface conditions (stratification and depth to bedrock) including groundwater table.
Subsurface condition of Hawassa town has been studied by gathering the available

35
geotechnical investigation data for buildings in the town and by direct performing soil
laboratory tests at five selected sites. Geotechnical investigation data are mainly comprised
of shallow depth ranging 10m to 15m. But the test conducted for Nib International Bank
(NIB) was at depth of 20m. All geotechnical data consisted of Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) data. Subsurface information gathered and their sources are summarized in Table 3-
7.

Table 3-5 Sources of data gathered for the study

Data Source
Parameters Primary Secondary data Secondary data Previous
data from borehole from shape file studies/Literatures
SPT 
GWT  
Dominant geology 
Dominant 
geomorphology
Dominant soil type 
Fault type 
Moisture content 
Liquid limit 
Plastic limit 
Fine content 

3.4.1.2 Summary of Collected Data

I. Site Selection

Site selection have been performed considering already built-up buildings and availability
of data. Available geotechnical data of four sites have been used for liquefaction evaluation
purpose. Nib International Bank (NIB), Progress Hotel (PH), Ato Tekola Cheru’s building,
and South Ethiopian People Democratic Movement (SEPDM)

1. Progress Hotel (PH)

It is found at the shore of Awassa lake. Ground water table is recorded at 3.6m during the
investigation. Geotechnical investigation is conducted using 12 borehole drilling
operation. The layer stratification shows loose to medium-dense silty sand soil is
embedded by thick moderately weathered ignimbrite. It is found on Appendix of this
paper.

36
 2. Ato Tekola Cheru’s Building

The proposed B+G+6 commercial building site is located along main road and left side of
Awassa to Addis Ababa road, in front of military camp. The building site is covered by
loose, dark grey silty sand top soil and medium dense to very dense light gray sandy silt
(ash) is encountered within depth of 1.20m-10.0m. No ground water was recorded during
drilling operation on the two boreholes. The two boreholes (BH1 and BH2) have been used
for evaluation of liquefaction in this study. The layer stratification is found on Appendix
of this document.

3. Nib International Bank (NIB)

The investigation is performed for a 2B+G+11 building and the stratification shows it is
covered by loose to medium dense, silty sand soil interbedded with thick moderately
weathered ignimbrite. Ground water table has been recorded at depth of 13.6m during
investigation.

4. SEPDM building

It is found at southeast area of Awassa. It is an office building and boreholes are drilled up
to a depth of 10m. The investigation shows about 4m slightly weathered tuff extending
from 3m to 7m interbedded between clayey silt and silty sand layers. The ground water
table has been recorded at depth of 3m from ground surface.

3.4.1.3 Mechanism of Evaluation

Probabilistic approach is the recent and reliable method of assessing and evaluating
liquefaction hazard compared to deterministic approach. It involves estimating
liquefaction potential of soil based on the site parameters. Liquefaction Potential Index
(LPI) is one of probabilistic index to estimate how much sever is an area for liquefaction
phenomena. First the factor of safety based on deterministic method has been calculated.
Next, seismic and site parameter uncertainties are included. By analyzing the value of LPI,
probabilities of different severities of liquefaction has been estimated. The benefit of this
method is, it incorporates local site conditions and regional seismicity, as well as
uncertainties in seismic and site parameters.

37
3.4.1.4 Data Processing

3.4.1.4.1 Correction of SPT N Values

In order to determine the resistance against liquefaction, Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
is mostly used. The SPT-N value that is collected from the field is without applying any
correction. The N values that are obtained from the field should be corrected for over
burden pressure, hammer energy, borehole diameter, presence of liners, rod length and
fine contents. Correction for the measured SPT values is done according to equation 2.6
of this paper. Table 3-8-3-12 show the correction of SPT for the considered boreholes.

Table 3-6 SPT correction for Progress Hotel

Depth layer Nm Depth Erm CE CB Rod CR CS N60
range thick (SPT) (m) (%) length(m)
(m) (m)
0-3.3 3.3 10 3.3 70 1.17 1 5.8 0.85 1 10
3.3-6.4 3.1 6.4 70 1.17 1 1 0
6.4-7 0.6 12 7 70 1.17 1 9.5 0.95 1 13
7-9 2 23 9 70 1.17 1 11.5 1 1 27
9-11 2 21 11 70 1.17 1 13.5 1 1 25
11-15 4 21 15 70 1.17 1 17.5 1 1 25

Table 3-7 SPT correction for Tekola Cheru’s building (BH-1)

Depth layer Nm Depth Erm CE CB Rod CR CS N60
range(m) thick(m) (SPT) (m) (%) length(m)
0-3 3 17 3 50 0.83 1 3.75 0.8 1 11
3-5 2 27 5 50 0.83 1 6.75 0.95 1 21
5-7 2 49 7 50 0.83 1 8.25 0.95 1 39
7-9 2 52 9 50 0.83 1 9.75 0.95 1 41

Table 3-8 SPT correction for Ato Tekola Cheru’s building (BH 2)
Depth layer Nm Depth Erm CE CB Rod CR CS N60
range(m) thick(m) (SPT) (m) (%) length(m)
0-2 2 15 3.3 50 0.83 1 3.75 0.8 1 10
2-4 2 14 6.4 50 0.83 1 5.25 0.85 1 10
4-6 2 38 7 50 0.83 1 6.75 0.95 1 30
6-9 2 46 9 50 0.83 1 9.75 0.95 1 36

38
 Table 3-9 SPT correction for Nib International Bank
Depth layer Nm Depth Erm CE CB Rod CR CS N60
range(m) thick(m) (SPT) (m) (%) length(m)
0-0.5 0.5 0.5 55 0.92 1 3 0.8 1
0.5-3.45 2.95 20 3.45 55 0.92 1 5.95 0.85 1 16
3.45-5 1.55 5 7.5 0.95 1
5-6.4 1.4 6.4 8.9 0.95 1
6.4-8.45 2.05 24 8.45 55 0.92 1 10.95 1 1 22
8.45-10.45 2 20 10.45 55 0.92 1 12.95 1 1 18
10.45-12.45 2 23 12.45 55 0.92 1 14.95 1 1 21
12.45-14.45 2 27 14.45 55 0.92 1 16.95 1 1 25
14.45-16.45 2 20 16.45 55 0.92 1 18.95 1 1 18
16.45-20 3.55 20 55 0.92 1 22.95 1 1

Table 3-10 SPT correction for SEPDM office buildings

Depth layer Nm Depth Erm Rod
range(m) thick(m) (SPT) (m) (%) CE CB length(m) CR CS N60
` 1.2 6 1.2 70 1.17 1 3.7 0.8 1 6
1.2-3.0 1.8 15 3 70 1.17 1 5.5 0.85 1 15
3.0-4.5 1.5 4.5 70 1.17 1 7 0.95 1 0
4.5-7.0 2.5 7 70 1.17 1 9.5 0.95 1 0
7.0-10 3 12 10 70 1.17 1 12.5 1 1 14

3.4.1.4.2 Normalized SPT Values (N1)60

Groundwater level is the major factor affecting liquefaction phenomena. The Cyclic Stress
Resistance (CSR) of a soil depends on the depth of ground water table. From previous
studies the shallower ground water table is found around Lake Hawassa and when we go
far from Lake Awassa the ground water depth is deeper. This is due to the rise of the lake
level, which then affects the depth of ground water table.

Ground Water Table (GWT) has been recorded at all selected sites based on the
investigation of surface geotechnical data. The water showed up at depth of 3.6m, 13.6m
and 3m for the respective sites of progress hotel, Nib and SEPDM office building
respectively whereas Ato Tekola Cheru’s building didn’t have any ground water table
record. Therefore, no need of considering this site afterwards. The ground water depth of
the selected boreholes has considered here to get overburden correction factor (CN). The
normalized SPT (N1)60 values were then calculated by multiplying overburden correction

39
factor (CN) by the respective corrected SPT N values (N60). The (N1)60 values has shown
from Table to Table 3-13 to 3-15.

Table 3-11 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for Progress hotel

Thick Depth ϒsat ϒw CN CN
Layer (m) (m) N60 (KN/m^3) (KN/m^3) U σv σ'v calc used N1(60)
1 1 1 10 18.33 9.81 0.00 18.3 18.3 2.34 1.7 17.0
2 1 2 10 18.33 9.81 0.00 36.7 36.7 1.65 1.7 17
3 1.3 3.3 10 18.33 9.81 0.00 60.5 60.5 1.29 1.3 13
4 3.1 6.4 24.23 9.81 27.47 135.6 108.1 0.96 1.0 0.0
5 0.6 7 13 19.54 9.81 33.35 147.3 114.0 0.94 0.9 12
6 1 8 27 19.54 9.81 43.16 166.9 123.7 0.90 0.9 24
7 1 9 27 19.54 9.81 52.97 186.4 133.4 0.87 0.9 23
8 1 10 25 19.54 9.81 62.78 205.9 143.2 0.84 0.8 21
9 1 11 25 19.54 9.81 72.59 225.5 152.9 0.81 0.8 20
10 1 12 25 19.76 9.81 82.40 245.2 162.8 0.78 0.8 20
11 1 13 25 19.76 9.81 92.21 265.0 172.8 0.76 0.8 19.0
12 1 14 25 19.76 9.81 102.02 284.8 182.7 0.74 0.7 19
13 1 15 25 19.76 9.81 111.83 304.5 192.7 0.72 0.7 18.0

Table 3-12 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for Nib International Bank
Thick Depth ϒsat ϒw CN CN
Layer (m) (m) N60 (KN/m^3) (KN/m^3) U σv σ'v calc used N1(60)
1 1.5 1 10 17 9.81 0.00 25.5 25.5 1.98 1.70 17.0
2 1 2 16 17 9.81 0.00 42.5 42.5 1.53 1.53 25
3 1 3 16 17 9.81 0.00 59.5 59.5 1.30 1.30 21
4 1 4 16 17 9.81 0.00 76.5 76.5 1.14 1.14 18
5 1 5 0 17 9.81 0.00 93.5 93.5 1.03 1.03 0.0
6 1.4 6.4 22 22.67 9.81 0.00 125.2 125.2 0.89 0.89 20
7 0.6 7 27 17 9.81 0.00 135.4 135.4 0.86 0.86 23
8 1 8 22 17 9.81 0.00 152.4 152.4 0.81 0.81 18
9 1 9 18 17 9.81 0.00 169.4 169.4 0.77 0.77 14
10 1 10 18 17 9.81 0.00 186.4 186.4 0.73 0.73 13
11 1 11 21 17 9.81 0.00 203.4 203.4 0.70 0.70 15
12 1 12 21 17 9.81 0.00 220.4 220.4 0.67 0.67 14
13 1 13 25 17 9.81 0.00 237.4 237.4 0.65 0.65 16
14 1 14 25 17 9.81 9.81 254.4 244.6 0.64 0.64 16
15 1 15 15 17 9.81 117.72 271.4 153.7 0.81 0.81 12
16 1 16 15 17 9.81 127.53 288.4 160.9 0.79 0.79 12
17 1 17 20 17 9.81 137.34 305.4 168.1 0.77 0.77 15
18 1 18 20 17 9.81 147.15 322.4 175.3 0.76 0.76 15
19 1 19 20 17 9.81 156.96 339.4 182.5 0.74 0.74 15
20 1 20 20 17 9.81 166.77 356.4 189.7 0.73 0.73 15

40
 Table 3-13 Normalized SPT (N1)60 values for SEPDM office building
Thick Depth ϒsat ϒw CN CN
Layer (m) (m) N60 (KN/m^3) (KN/m^3) U Σv σ'v calc used N1(60)
1 1 1 6 17 9.81 0 17 17 2.43 1.7 11
2 1 2 6 17 9.81 0 34 34 1.71 1.7 11
3 1.2 3.2 15 17 9.81 9.81 54.4 44.59 1.5 1.5 23
4 1.8 5 0 18 9.81 9.81 86.8 76.99 1.14 1.4 0
5 1 6 0 18 9.81 19.6 104.8 85.18 1.08 1.1 0
6 1 7 14 18 9.81 29.4 122.8 93.37 1.03 1.04 15
7 1 8 14 18 9.81 39.2 140.8 101.56 0.99 1 14
8 1 9 14 18 9.81 49.1 158.8 109.75 0.95 1 14
9 1 10 14 18 9.81 58.9 176.8 117.94 0.92 1 14

The plots of depth versus corrected N values for the three sites shown on (Figure 3-11 to
3-13).

Seismically induced liquefaction (SIL) with associated densification and/or lateral-

movement of fluidized sediments is a well-documented factor in relatively small-scale
subsidence not involving depths greater than 30 meters. If SIL was a significant factor in
the subsidence of these large areas the depths of liquefaction would have to extend 50
meters or more in depth [51]. In this thesis there are no documented cases of seismically
induced liquefaction (SIL) at such depths.

depth Vs Ncor
14
12
10
depth (m)

8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
N cor

Figure 3-9 Depth versus N corrected for progress hotel

41
 depth Vs Ncor
25

20
depth (m)
15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ncor

Figure 3-10 Depth versus N corrected for NIB

depth Vs Ncor
12

10

8
depth (m)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ncor

Figure 3-11 Depth versus N corrected for SPEDM

3.4.1.4.3 Fine content

As previous studies examination, liquefaction is exhibited by sands containing some
amount of fine. The liquefaction resistance of silty sand is initially decreased as the silt
content increases until minimum resistance is reached. For silty sands and sandy silts, there
is a large decrease in a cyclic resistance that occurs the silt content exceeds the limiting
fine content. In this study, the soils of the selected sites under consideration is cohesion
less soil so that applying simplified procedure is a right decision. Based on the geotechnical
investigation data, the average fine content for the boreholes of each site is presented here
in Table 3-19. The gradation curve for these three sites have been conducted using sieve

42
analysis during soil investigation. The percentage of particles passing 0.075mm are fine
contents.

Table 3-14 Sieve analysis of Progress Hotel

Mass of Total Sample = 5000gm)

weight of
sieve with Mass of %tage
Sieve Size weight of soil Retained Percentage cumulative Percentage
S. No (mm) sieve retained Soil (gm) Retained (%) retained Passing (%)

1 4.75 1166 1350 184 3.68 3.68 96.32

2 2.00 503 1001 498 9.96 13.64 86.36

3 1.18 407 919 512 10.24 23.88 76.12

4 0.6 439.5 673 233.5 4.67 28.55 71.45

5 0.425 383.5 484 100.5 2.01 30.56 69.44

6 0.3 405.5 487 81.5 1.63 32.19 67.81

7 0.15 346 450 104 2.08 34.27 65.73

8 0.075 364 414 50 1 35.27 64.73

9 PAN 367 404 37 0.74 36.01 63.99

Gradation curve (Progress Hotel)

120
Percentage passing (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 3-12 Gradation curve of progress hotel

43
 Table 3-15 Sieve analysis of NIB
Mass of Total Sample = 5000gm)
weight of
sieve with Mass of Percentage %tage
Sieve Size weight of soil Retained Retained cumulative Percentage
S. No (mm) sieve retained Soil (gm) (%) retained Passing (%)
1 4.75 1166 1950 784 15.68 15.68 84.3
2 2.00 503 1300 797 15.94 31.62 68.4
3 1.18 407 650 243 4.86 36.48 63.5
4 0.6 440 673 233 4.66 41.14 58.9
5 0.425 383.5 484 100.5 2.01 43.15 56.9
6 0.3 405.5 487 81.5 1.63 44.78 55.2
7 0.15 346 450 104 2.08 46.86 53.1
8 0.075 364 385 21 0.42 47.28 52.7
9 PAN 367 404 37 0.74 48.02 52.0

Gradation curve (NIB)

90.0
80.0
Percentage passing (%)

70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 3-13 Gradation curve of NIB

Table 3-16 Sieve analysis of SPEDM bldg

Mass of Total Sample = 5000gm)
weight of
sieve with Mass of Percentage %tage
Sieve Size weight of soil Retained Retained cumulative Percentage
S. No (mm) sieve retained Soil (gm) (%) retained Passing (%)
1 4.75 1166 1800 634 12.68 12.68 87.3
2 2.00 503 1200 697 13.94 26.62 73.4
3 1.18 407 920 513 10.26 36.88 63.1
4 0.6 439.5 650 210.5 4.21 41.09 58.9
5 0.425 383.5 470 86.5 1.73 42.82 57.2
6 0.3 405.5 485 79.5 1.59 44.41 55.6
7 0.15 346 430 84 1.68 46.09 53.9
8 0.075 364 414 50 1 47.09 52.9
9 PAN 367 404 37 0.74 47.83 52.2

44
 Gradation curve (SPEDM bldg)
100.0

Percentage passing (%)

80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 3-14 Gradation curve of SPEDM bldg

Table 3-17 Average fine content of selected boreholes

Selected sites Average Fine content (%FC)
Progress Hotel BH9 65
Nib international Bank BH1 53
SEPDM office building BH3 53

3.4.1.4.4 Equivalent Clean Sand Adjustment (ΔN1)60

The equivalent clean sand adjustment accounts the fine contents; this is done by adjusting
SPT (N1)60 values to the equivalent clean sand (N1)60cs values. It is calculated according
to fine content. In this study this adjustment has been done for the selected sites as Table
3-20 shows the results for all sites.

𝟗.𝟕
(𝚫𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎 = 𝐄𝐗𝐏 (𝟏. 𝟔𝟑 + + 𝟎.01)-
𝐅𝐂

(15.7/FC+0.01)^𝟐) 3. 1
Table 3-18 Equivalent clean sand adjustment Δ(N1)60 for selected sites
BH FC Δ(N1)60
Name of site No. (%) Δ(N1)60 used
Progress
Hotel BH9 65 5.617907 6
Ato Tekola
Cheru's BH1 62 5.624678 6
Ato Tekola
Cheru's BH2 54 5.636057 6
NIB BH9 53 5.636393
SEPDM BH3 53 5.6336393 6

45
3.4.1.4.5 Equivalent Clean Sand (N1)60cs
After adjustments has completed, equivalent clean sand has been determined as the
summation of normalized SPT values (N1)60 and equivalent clean sand adjustment
(ΔN1)60 (equation 2.10). This is performed for all selected sites and it is found on
Appendix part of this paper. Table 3-21 shows the equivalent clean sand of Progress Hotel
(BH 9) at all depths.

Table 3-19 (N1)60cs for Progress Hotel

Progress Hotel

layer (N1)60 Δ(N1)60 (N1)60cs

1 17.0 6 23
2 16.5 6 23
3 12.9 6 19
4 0.0 6 6
5 12.2 6 18
6 24.3 6 30
7 23.4 6 29
8 20.9 6 27
9 20.2 6 26
10 19.6 6 26
11 19.0 6 25
12 18.5 6 24
13 18.0 6 24

3.4.1.4.6 Earthquake Magnitude

Amongst the factor affecting earthquake-induced soil liquefaction, earthquake magnitude
is believed the main factor. The stronger the magnitude the higher is the probability of
liquefaction happening and vice versa. From historical earthquake data, the maximum
expectation of earthquake magnitude in Hawassa is 7.0 with error of 0.2. The town has
also attacked by earthquake with magnitude of equal to and greater than 6. In this study,
earthquake magnitudes of 6.5, 6.7, 6.9 and 7.2 have been considered to estimate earthquake
magnitudes which trigger liquefaction problem in the town.

3.4.1.4.7 Peak Ground Acceleration

To determine the cyclic stress resistance (CSR) of a soil, peak ground acceleration (PGA)
values should be determined for each respective earthquake magnitudes considered. For
this analysis, SeismoMatch software has been used. This software has been used to
generate the time history and response spectrum from already previous happened
earthquakes which is called earthquake matching.

46
The input parameters for this simulation were ground condition and PGA value of Hawassa
town. EBCS 8 which is now revised as ES EN 8 has been used as a reference to determine
the PGA value and ground condition of Hawassa town as bench mark. PGA of 0.15g of
zone IV has been used as an initial input. The conditions of subsoil for the selected sites
in this study is medium dense sand. The type of ground condition according to ES EN 8 is
shown in Table 3-22.

Table 3-20 Ground condition of Hawassa town.

Ground SPT Sites selected SPT range Type of
condition (ES range ground
EN 8) condition
A - Progress 15-50 C
Hotel
B >50 Nib 15-50 C
International
Bank
C 15-50 SEPDM 15-50 C
office
building
D <15
E -

The previous earthquakes used to earthquake matching using SeismoMatch software were;
Friuli earthquake, Northridge earthquake, Loma Prieta earthquake and Kobe earthquake.
The general description of these earthquakes is shown in Table 3-23.

Table 3-21 General description of previous happened earthquakes

Name of Year Place Moment
earthquake magnitude
Friuli May 06, 1976 Italy 6.5
Northridge January 17, 1994 USA 6.7
Loma prieta October 18, 1989 USA 6.9
Kobe January 16, 1995 Japan 7.2

Using these earthquakes and input parameters of soil condition and PGA value, the peak
ground acceleration for respective earthquake magnitudes has been determined as shown
in Table 3-24.

47
 Table 3-22 Generated maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA)
Earthquake magnitude (Mw) Generated PGA (amax)
6.5 0.255
6.7 0.203
6.9 0.224
7.2 0.217

3.4.1.4.8 Magnetic Scaling Factor (MSF)

This factor is used to account duration effects to trigger liquefaction problem and it is used
to covert the conventional CRR value (CRR for Mw=7.5) to the respective earthquake
magnitudes. It is determined using equation of Idriss after 1999.

𝑀
𝑀𝑆𝐹 = 6.9 ∗ exp (− ) − 0.058 ≤ 1.8
4

Table 3-23 Magnetic scaling factor for the selected earthquakes

Earthquake magnitude considered (M) MSF
6.5 1.3
6.7 1.23
6.9 1.17
7.2 1.08

3.4.1.4.9 Stress Reduction Coefficient (rd)

This factor accounts the flexibility of the soil with respect to depth and can be determined
using equations 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of Idriss and Boulangar (2010) and is shown in Table 3-
26.

48
 Table 3-24 Stress reduction factor for every depth of considered earthquakes
Depth α (z) β (z) rd6.5 rd6.7 rd6.9 rd7.2
(Z)
0 0.02 0.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
1 -0.03 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 -0.08 0.01 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99
3 -0.13 0.02 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98
4 -0.20 0.02 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97
5 -0.27 0.03 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95
6 -0.34 0.04 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94
7 -0.42 0.05 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92
8 -0.50 0.06 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.91
9 -0.59 0.07 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89
10 -0.68 0.08 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.88
11 -0.77 0.09 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.86
12 -0.87 0.10 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.84
13 -0.96 0.11 0.77 0.78 0.80 0.83
14 -1.06 0.12 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.81
15 -1.16 0.13 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.79
16 -1.25 0.14 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.77
17 -1.34 0.15 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.76
18 -1.43 0.16 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.74
19 -1.52 0.17 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.73
20 -1.61 0.18 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.71

3.4.1.4.10 Overburden Correction Factor (Kσ)

Overburden stress effects on CRR could be accounted by the factor of over burden
correction and a chart is used to determine this factor. The chart is found in Figure 2.4.
Table 3-27 shows the Kσ for Progress Hotel and the other results are found on Appendix
part of the document.

Table 3-25 Overburden Correction Factor (Kσ) for Progress Hotel

Depth (N1)60 Kσ
1 17.0 0.97
2 16.5 0.95
3 12.9 0.92
4 0.0 0
5 12.2 0.86
6 24.3 0.75
7 23.4 0.74
8 20.9 0.75
9 20.2 0.74
10 19.6 0.77
11 19.0 0.72
12 18.5 0.71
13 18.0 0.7

49
3.4.2 Simplified Procedure
Simplified procedure has been used to determine factor of safety which is a ratio of Cyclic
Stress Ratio (CSR) and Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR).

3.4.2.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

After all the factors calculated, the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR), which is a dynamic load
induced due to earthquake, has been determined. Friuli earthquake is considered at first
and the other earthquakes has been also accounted next.

Table 3-26 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) for Progress Hotel) (Mw=6.5)
Depth amax σv σ'v rd6.5 CSR
1 0.255 18.3 18.3 1 0.16575
2 0.255 36.7 36.7 0.98 0.162435
3 0.255 60.5 60.5 0.97 0.160778
4 0.255 135.6 108.1 0.95 0.19752
5 0.255 147.3 114 0.93 0.199175
6 0.255 166.9 123.7 0.91 0.203508
7 0.255 186.4 133.4 0.89 0.206126
8 0.255 205.9 143.2 0.87 0.207341
9 0.255 225.5 152.9 0.85 0.207784
10 0.255 245.2 162.8 0.83 0.207204
11 0.255 265 172.8 0.81 0.205893
12 0.255 284.8 182.7 0.79 0.204118
13 0.255 304.5 192.7 0.77 0.201674

3.4.2.2 Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)

Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR, which is a resistance of a soil against dynamic loading, has
been calculated for earthquake magnitude of 6.5 which is a function of (N1)60cs in Table
3-29)

50
 Table 3-27 Cyclic Resistance Ratio for Progress Hotel
Progress Hotel Mw 6.5 MSF 1.3

Depth (N1)60cs CRR7.5 MSF Ka CRR6.5

1 23 0.314864 1.3 0.97 0.397044
2 23 0.315636 1.3 0.95 0.38981
3 19 0.298814 1.3 0.92 0.357381
4 6 0.116203 1.3 0
5 18 0.291908 1.3 0.86 0.326354
6 30 0.219941 1.3 0.75 0.214442
7 29 0.23832 1.3 0.74 0.229264
8 27 0.281352 1.3 0.75 0.274318
9 26 0.290496 1.3 0.74 0.279457
10 26 0.297807 1.3 0.77 0.298104
11 25 0.303429 1.3 0.72 0.28401
12 24 0.307676 1.3 0.71 0.283985
13 24 0.310801 1.3 0.7 0.282829

The plots of depth versus CRR for magnitude of 6.5 found on Figure 3-17 up to Figure 3-
19.

CRR Vs depth
14
12
10
depth(m)

8
6
4
2
0
-0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
CRR(6.5)

Figure 3-15 Depth versus CRR for magnitude of 6.5 ( Progress hotel)

51
 CRR Vs depth
25

20

depth (m)
15

10

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
CRR 6.5

Figure 3-16 Depth versus CRR for magnitude of 6.5 (NIB)

CRR Vs depth
12
10
depth (m)

8
6
4
2
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
CRR6.5

Figure 3-17 Depth versus CRR for Mw=6.5 (SPEDM bldg.)

3.4.2.3 Factor of Safety (FOS)

It is a ratio of soil resistance to soil stress (FOS=CRR/CSR) and measures the ability of a
soil to resist liquefaction. Table 3-30 shows the factor of safety values for Progress Hotel.

52
 Table 3-28 Factor of safety for Progress Hotel

Depth CSR CRR FOS

1 0.16575 0.397044 2.395439
2 0.162435 0.38981 2.399792
3 0.160778 0.357381 2.22283
4 0 0 0
5 0.199175 0.326354 1.638528
6 0.203508 0.214442 1.053728
7 0.206126 0.229264 1.112249
8 0.207341 0.274318 1.323024
9 0.207784 0.279457 1.344944
10 0.207204 0.298104 1.438702
11 0.205893 0.28401 1.379406
12 0.204118 0.283985 1.391274
13 0.201674 0.282829 1.402408

3.4.3 Probabilistic Analysis

Since the soil investigation of Progress hotel, which is one of the selected sites in this
study, has been done for depth of 10m, Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values have
been calculated with equation which works for depth less than 20m based on equation
2.17. Table 3-31 shows the results.

Table 3-29 LPI determination for Progress Hotel borehole

Mw 6.5

Layer FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F

1 1.91 0.5 1 9.75 0.00 0
2 3.92 1.5 1 9.25 0.00 0
3 2.54 2.5 1 8.75 0.00 0
4 0.00 3.5 1 8.25 0.00 0
5 0.00 4.5 1 7.75 0.00 0
6 1.31 5.7 1.4 7.15 0.00 0
7 1.19 6.7 0.6 6.65 0.00 0
8 1.02 7.5 1 6.25 0.00 0
9 0.96 8.5 1 5.75 0.04 0.20976
10 0.97 9.5 1 5.25 0.03 0.15398
11 0.89 10.5 1 4.75 0.11 0.54381
12 0.86 11.5 1 4.25 0.14 0.60662
13 0.83 12.5 1 3.75 0.17 0.6224
LPI 2.13657

53
3.5 SeismoMatch Simulation

Accelerograms are recorded through accelerograph, they are recording of acceleration as

a function of time during earthquakes. To demonstrate the ability of the new method in
simulating earthquake-induced site response, the Friuli, Lom Prieta, Northridge and Kobe
earthquake have been analyzed. The steps used in this study to get the matched spectral
were;

Step 1. Input the source Accelerograms

Step 2. Define the target spectrum

Step 3. Carry out spectral matching

Acceleration time history and Response spectrum of new matched model from Friuli
earthquake is shown in Figure 3.8 and the other earthquakes simulation is found on
Appendix of this document.

Time history curve

0.4

0.3

0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (second)

Figure 3-18 Acceleration time history curve of the original accelerogram of Friuli
earthquake

54
 Time history curve
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g) 0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-3 2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37
Time (second)

Figure 3-19 Acceleration time history curve of the matched accelerogram

Response spectrum curve

1.3
Acceleration (g)

0.8

0.3

-0.2 0 1 2 3 4
Period (second)

Figure 3-20 Response spectrum curve of the original accelerogram of Friuli earthquake

Response spectrum curve

0.57
Acceleration (g)

0.37

0.17

-0.03
0 1 2 3 4
Period (second)

Figure 3-21 (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum of matched earthquake
from Friuli earthquake

55
3.6 Dynamic Soil Properties

To determine dynamic soil properties, the correlation formulas which relates SPT N values
with shear wave velocity, V s (m/s) has been used. The shear wave velocity has been
determined according to [52], the correlation which is used for all soil.

𝑽𝒔
= 𝟔𝟓. 𝟔𝟒𝑵𝟎.𝟒𝟎𝟕 3. 2
Based on the records of SPT N values, shear wave velocity has been determined for each
selected sites (Table 3-32-3-34)

Table 3-30 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (Progress hotel)
Progress Hotel
depth N measured Vs
1 10 167.6
2 10 167.6
3 10 167.6
4 0.0
5 0.0
6.4 0.0
7 12 180.5
8 23 235.2
9 23 235.2
10 21 226.6
11 21 226.6
12 21 226.6
13 21 226.6

Table 3-31 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (SEPDM)

SEPDM
depth N measured Vs
1 6 136.1
2 15 197.6
3.2 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 12 180.5
8 12 180.5
9 12 180.5
10 0.0

56
 Table 3-32 Shear wave velocity from SPT N data (NIB)
NIB
depth N measured Vs
1 0.0
2 20 222.2
3 20 222.2
4 20 222.2
5 0.0
6.4 0.0
7 24 239.3
8 24 239.3
9 20 222.2
10 20 222.2
11 23 235.2
12 23 235.2
13 27 251.0
14 27 251.0
15 20 222.2
16 20 222.2
17 20 222.2
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0

depth Vs Shear wave velocity (Vs)

14

12

10
depth (m)

0
-50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
Vs (m/s)

Figure 3-22 Depth versus shear wave velocity for Progress hotel

57
 depth Vs Shear wave velocity (Vs)
12

10

8
depth (m)

0
-50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Vs (m/s)

Figure 3-23 Depth versus shear wave velocity for SPEDM bldg

depth Vs Shear wave velocity (Vs)

25

20
depth (m)

15

10

0
-50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
Vs (m/s)

Figure 3-24 Depth versus shear wave velocity plot of NIB

58
 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Qualitative Liquefaction Analysis

The qualitative analysis results revealed that, there are three major types of soil in Awassa
such as; Fluvisol, Luvisol and Leptosol; three types of rock units such as Ignimbrites,
lacustrine sediments and rhyolite and trachyte lava flows; as well as three
geomorphological landforms (slope) of alluvial, structural and volcanic structures. The
merged effect of these factors on liquefaction generated map of liquefaction susceptibility
of Hawassa town.

4.1.1 Input for Qualitative Evaluation

The input data for qualitative evaluation were the weightage or rank for each parameter
considered in this study. The rank for each parameter shown in Table 4-1. For the factor
affecting most, the largest rank or weightage has given and vice versa.

Table 4-1 Weightage given for each parameter

Parameters Soil Rank Rock unit Rank slope Rank
Type
D1ominant/ Fluvial 3 Ignmbrites 3 Alluvial 3
major units Luvi 2 Lacustrine 1 Volcanic 2
in Hawassa sediments
Lepto 1 Lava flows 2 Structural 1

According to the result (Figure 4-2) the maximum likelihood of liquefaction susceptible
area is found at the central, norther and the area along Lake side of Awassa. The central
part of Awassa town is highly susceptible than northern part of the town implies highest
liquefaction prone area is found at the central part of the town. This means, on that area
the occurrence of fluvial type of soil, alluvial deposit of landform formation and
ignimbrites water lain geomorphological rocks are very high. So that, the sum of these
factors brought highly susceptible area whereas leptosol, lacustrine sediment deposits and
structural landforms are largely found on southeast part of the town which is comparatively
less susceptible.

It is believed that the surface rock unit data is very important in detecting liquefaction
prone area. The classification of liquefaction risk zone is based on rock units, slope and

59
soil type vulnerability for liquefaction hazard. Based on the map., a yellow, light blue and
white color scheme was used to show the areas which has high susceptibility to
liquefaction risk. It also shows light green and black color schemes which is used to
indicate places that are classified as very low risk of liquefaction hazard and dark green
color is for medium risk based on rock units, slope and soil type data. Therefore, structural
and geotechnical engineers should have to consider this classification in order to be safe
against earthquake-induced soil liquefaction problem.

The GIS analysis results of fault zones in Hawassa have also confirmed, fault zones are
mostly found on the areas around lake Hawassa and central part of the town. This result
was in agreement with the generated liquefaction susceptibility map of Hawassa.
Therefore, GIS output of fault zone in the town proved the output of qualitative analysis
which makes the result reliable and trusted.

Table 4-2 Discussion of results on qualitative approach

Susceptibility values Interpretation
14, 16 and 18 The merging effect of soil, rock unit and
slope on liquefaction is very high, highly
susceptible soil type, rock unit and slope
is found and emphasis should have to be
given
10, 11, 12 and 13 Liquefaction susceptibility is moderate
when it is compared to values of 14, 16
and 18. Still emphasis should be given for
these areas
5, 7, 8 and 9 The total effect of soil type, rock unit and
slope on liquefaction is slightly low
compared to the other part of the town

60
Figure 4-1 Liquefaction susceptibility map of Awassa town

61
4.2 Probabilistic Analysis

The liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values determine the extent of liquefaction severity
in Hawassa town. This method of analysis (LPI) can better indicate severity than
deterministic procedure (FOS). Almost all results indicated, the LPI values has fallen with
the range of 0 and 5 and very small results had values of 0 for the considered earthquake
magnitudes. Therefore, according to probabilistic analysis, the liquefaction severity in
Hawassa is Very low and low for the considered earthquake magnitudes. Table 4-5
summarizes the Liquefaction Potential Index values (LPI) for each selected sites and the
level of severity has been estimated according to LPI values.

Table 4-3 LPI values summary of all boreholes for severity level

Summary
Selected
sites BH Mw LPI Range Severity
Progress hotel BH9 6.5 2.14 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH9 6.7 0.11 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH9 6.9 2.33 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH9 7.2 2.19 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
NIB bldg BH1 6.5 0.35 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH1 6.7 0 0 Very low
BH1 6.9 0.48 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH1 7.2 1.08 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
SEPDM bldg BH3 6.5 0.78 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH3 6.7 0 0 Very Low
BH3 6.9 0.78 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low
BH3 7.2 1.44 0 < LPI ≤ 5 Low

4.3 Matching by SeismoMatch

The results indicated that, acceleration time history and response spectrum of the targeted
area has been changed because of the regional factors. Spectral matching has been carried
out using the parameters of targeted spectral. This implies if an earthquake with
magnitudes of 6.5, 6.7, 6.9 and 7.2 will happen in Hawassa, the response exactly looks
like figure 4-2. The comparison is presented in Figure 4-4. The input parameters for this
simulation shown as in Table 4-6

62
 Table 4-4 Input parameters for simulation
Input parameters Values Description
PGA 0.15g Zone IV
Ground condition C SPT N (15 -50)
Ground values Type 1 Mw > 5

Figure 4-2 Comparison of response spectrum

63
 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1.1 Conclusions
Generally, the following conclusions have been drawn from this study;

 Based on qualitative approach, some part of areas around central, northern and
areas along the lakeside of Hawassa were susceptible to liquefaction compared to
the south and southeastern part of the town. This implies if liquefaction will
happen, the areas which are susceptible for this problem will be the central,
northern and part of the area around the lake.
 According to the earthquake magnitudes considered (6.5, 6.7, 6.9 and 7.2), none of
the four selected earthquakes will trigger liquefaction in Hawassa town based on
the data used.
 Probabilistic analysis has confirmed the liquefaction severity falls under low and
very low categories since Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values falls on the
range of 0 and 5. But this doesn’t mean any liquefaction problem is not expected
in the town rather the considered magnitudes didn’t trigger liquefaction in the study
area.

64
5.1.2 Recommendations
 During code review, it is recommended to consider liquefaction problem on
earthquake prone areas which are categorized zone IV like Hawassa.

 It is recommended avoiding liquefaction susceptible soil, building liquefaction

resistant structures or improving soil on areas which are susceptible for
liquefaction.

 Accuracy and availability of secondary data and other additional studies

concerning liquefaction will enable other researches to involve in this area.

 It is recommended that site specific study shall be carried out for important
structures at areas in which liquefaction might be a threat.

 It is recommended to evaluate liquefaction using many other additional

earthquake magnitudes and additional soil investigation data to get a very
accurate result and to estimate the range of earthquake magnitude which
triggers liquefaction.

 Adding number of sites and conducting geophysical tests will give accurate
result therefore the coming researchers have to consider this.

 For index-based analysis excavating a pit for a depth greater than 3m is

recommended.

65
 REFERENCES

[1] S. L.Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 1996.

[2] M. Wilks, A. Ayele, J. Kendall, and J. Wookey, ‘The 24th January 2016 Hawassa
earthquake : Implications for seismic hazard in the Main Ethiopian Rift’, J. African
Earth Sci., vol. 125, no. January, pp. 118–125, 2016.

[3] J. Málek, ‘Seismic hazard of Southern Ethiopia’, pp. 2–6.

[4] Z. Tadesse, ‘Hawassa Subsheet’, 2003.

[5] W. M. K. AL BAWWAB, ‘Probabilistic Assessment of Liquefaction-Induced

Lateral Ground Deformation’, 2005.

[6] W. D. L. Finn, ‘Liquefaction Potential: Developments Since 1976’, 1976, vol. 17,
p. 28.

[7] G. Martin, ‘Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils’, no. January, 2016.

[8] M. ILGAC, ‘A Comparative Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Triggering

Relationships’, 2015. .

[9] D. K. Li et al., ‘Index Properties-Based Criteria for Liquefaction Susceptibility of

Clayey Soils : A Critical Assessment’, J. Geotech. GEOENVIRONMENTAL Eng.
© ASCE, vol. 133, no. January, pp. 110–115, 2007.

[10] H. B. Seed, ‘The Role of Case Studies in the Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction
Potential’, in Internationa Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, 1984.

[11] L. T. Youd and M. D. Perkins, ‘Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure

potential.’, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., vol. 104, pp. 433–446, 1978.

[12] S. L. Kramer, M. Asce, and R. T. Mayfield, ‘Return Period of Soil Liquefaction’,

J. Geotech. GEOENVIRONMENTAL Eng. © ASCE /, no. July, pp. 802–813, 2007.

[13] S. Sadek, S. Najjar, Y. Mostapha, and M. Mostapha, ‘Assessment of the Potential

for Earthquake- Induced Liquefaction in Granular Soils’, Spreadsheets Educ., vol.
7, no. 2, 2014.

66
[14] N. Pirhadi, X. Tang, Q. Yang, and F. Kang, ‘A New Equation to Evaluate
Liquefaction Triggering Using the Response Surface Method and Parametric
Sensitivity Analysis’, 2019.

[15] B. & G. Sitharam, ‘Geotechnical/Geophysical Investigations for Seismic

Microzonation Studies of Urban Centres in India’, 2011.

[16] S. Hossain et al., ‘Assessment of soil liquefaction potential : a case study for
Moulvibazar’, SN Appl. Sci., 2020.

[17] B. S. & M. Chetia, ‘Deterministic and Probabilistic Liquefaction Potential

Evaluation of Guwahati City’, in The 15th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2017, p. 7.

[18] C. H. Juang, J. Ching, and Z. Luo, ‘Assessing SPT-based probabilistic models for
liquefaction potential evaluation: a 10-year update’, Georisk, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 137–
150, 2013.

[19] B. T. L. Youd et al., ‘LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SOILS : SUMMARY

REPORT FROM THE 1996 NCEER AND 1998 NCEER / NSF WORKSHOPS
ON EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SOILS’, J. Geotech.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL Eng. © ASCE, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 817–833, 2001.

[20] I. M. Idriss and R. W. Boulanger, ‘SPT-Based liquefaction triggering procedures’,

2010.

[21] O. Cetin, B. Seed, and A. D. E. R. Kiureghian, ‘PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT

OF LIQUEFACTION INITIATION HAZARD’, in 12nd World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2000, pp. 1–8.

[22] S. . Vipin, G. . Sitharam, and P. Anbazhagan, ‘Probabilistic evaluation of seismic

soil liquefaction potential based on SPT data’, Nat Hazards, Springer, pp. 547–560,
2010.

[23] E. . Hynes, ‘Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis’, Washington, DC, 1999.

[24] C. H. Juang, T. Jiang, R. D. Andrus, and D. Lee, ‘Assessing Probabilistic Methods

for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation — An Update’, in 4th International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, 2001.

[25] S. Toprak, L. T. Holzer, J. M. Bennett, and C. J. Tinsley, ‘CPT-and SPT-based

67
 probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential’, in 7th U.S -Japan workshop on
Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against
Liquefaction, 2015, no. May.

[26] D. K. Li, C. H. Juang, and R. D. Andrus, ‘LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL INDEX :

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT USING PROBABILITY CONCEPT’, J. Geoengin.,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–24, 2006.

[27] H. S. Kim, N. G. Cho, and C. K. Chung, ‘Real-time LPI-based Assessment of the

Liquefaction Potential of the Incheon Port in Korea’, in 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2012.

[28] J. Dixit and R. S. Jangid, ‘Assessment of liquefaction potential index for Mumbai
city’, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., no. September, 2012.

[29] A. Marto and T. C. Soon, ‘Short Review on Liquefaction Susceptibility’, Int. J. Eng.
Res. Appl., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 2115–2119, 2012.

[30] S. Prakash and K. V. Puri, ‘Liquefaction of Silts and Silt-Clay Mixtures’, J.

Geotech. Geoenviromental Eng., vol. 0241, no. July, pp. 1–28, 2014.

[31] D. C. A. Andrews and G. R. Martin, ‘CRITERIA FOR LIQUEFACTION OF

SILTY SOILS’, in 12nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, pp.
1–8.

[32] K. Tokimatsu and Y. Yoshimi, ‘Criteria of Soil Liquefaction with SPT and Fines
Content’, in World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, 1983.

[33] R. A. Green and J. J. Bommer, ‘What is the Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that
Needs to be Considered in Assessing Liquefaction Hazard?’, Earthq. Spectra, no.
January, 2019.

[34] L. M. Lavkulich and J. M. Arocena, ‘Luvisolic soils of Canada : Genesis ,

distribution , and classification’, Can. J. Soil Sci., 2011.

[35] R. Bertici, A. Grozav, and G. Rogobete, ‘Sedimentary Processes’, Res. J. Agric.

Sci., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 325–331, 2014.

[36] R. Civico, C. A. Brunori, P. M. De Martini, S. Pucci, F. R. Cinti, and D. Pantosti,

‘Liquefaction susceptibility assessment in fluvial plains using high-resolution
airborne lidar data: the case of the 2012 Emilia earthquake sequence area ( Italy )’,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., no. July 2015, 2015.

68
[37] V. Kumar and P. Kumar, ‘Review on Liquefaction Potential by Deterministic
Approach Based on Standard Penetration Test’, J. Remote Sensing, GIS Geotech.
Eng., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–13, 2016.

[38] S. S. Kumar, A. M. Krishna, and A. Dey, ‘Dynamic Properties and Liquefaction

Behaviour of Cohesive Soil in Northeast India Under Staged Cyclic Loading’, J.
Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng., pp. 1–10, 2018.

[39] L. R. Sack, ‘LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF COHESIONLESS SOILS’, New

York, 2015.

[40] A. Numata and S. Mori, ‘LIMITS IN THE GRADATION CURVES OF

LIQUEFIABLE SOILS’, in 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
2004, no. 1190.

[41] G. Papathanassiou, S. Valkaniotis, and S. Pavlides, ‘Assessment of Liquefaction

Susceptibility of Geological Units in the Area of Gulf of Corinth , Greece’, in 5th
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2010, pp. 1–10.

[42] T. Yoshikawa, T. Noda, T. Kodaka, and T. Takaine, ‘Analysis of the effect of

groundwater level on the seismic behavior of an unsaturated embankment on clayey
ground’, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 85, pp. 217–230, 2016.

[43] Y. Atnafu, ‘Characterization of Groundwater-Lakewater Interaction in Lake

Hawassa Basin’, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,
2014.

[44] M. Mulugeta, ‘Groundwater Circulation and Hydrochemistry of the Corridor

(Upper Gidabo River and Lake Awassa Catchements), Sidama Zone, SNNPR’,
Addis Ababa University, 2007.

[45] L. T. Holzer, E. T. Noce, and J. M. Benette, ‘Liquefaction Probability Curves for

Surficial Geologic Deposits’, United States, 2010.

[46] K. Wakamatsu, A. Yamamoto, and I. Tanaka, ‘Geomorphological Criteria for

Evaluating Liquefaction Potential Considering the Level-2 Ground Motion in
Japan’, in 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2001, pp. 1–6.

[47] K. Kotoda, K. Wakamatsu, and S. Midorikawa, ‘Seismic Microzoning on Soil

Liquefaction Potential Based on Geomorphological Land Classification’, Japanese
Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 127–143, 1988.

69
[48] S. I. Yansiku, ‘Impact of Artificially Seismic Loading on the Response of Building
Structure in Various Site classifications’, J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci., 2017.

[49] A. J. Wilding, ‘Development of a GIS-based seismic hazard screening tool’,

Missouri University of Science and Technology, 2008.

[50] A. Alemayehu and A. Getachew, ‘Socio - Economic & Geo-Spatial Data Analysis
and Dissemination Core Work Process’, Awassa, Ethiopia, 2014.

[51] D. Stewart and R. Knox, ‘What is the Maximum Depth Liquefaction Can Occur?’,
Third Int. Conf. Recent Adv. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn., 1995.

[52] C.-G. SUN, C.-S. CHO, M. and SON, and J. S. SHIN, ‘Correlations Between Shear
Wave Velocity and In-Situ Penetration Test Results for Korean Soil Deposits’, Pure
Appl. Geophys. @springer, vol. 170, pp. 271–281, 2013.

[53] A. Mengistu, ‘INVESTIGATION IN TO SOME DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF

SOILS AROUND ZIWAY’, Addis Ababa University, 2015.

70
 APPENDIX A

Earthquakes of magnitude M>4.3 in the region (6°N - 8.5°N), (37.5°N - 39.5°N),

according to USGS catalog [3]. The events from the catalogue shows from 1983 until 2013
thirteen earthquakes with magnitude more or equal to 4.4 are reported.

Historical catalog from 1960 to 1980 contains also several smaller earthquakes with
magnitudes ranging between 4 and 5:

1. 11 July 1964 (N 08.5°, E 39.3°)

2. 11 January 1972 (N 6.8°, E 38,4°)

3. 13 April 1972 (N 6.0°, E 37,7°)

4. 8 March 1973 (N 7.7°, E 37,8°)

5. Seismic swarm in March 1974 (N 6.2°, E 37,7°)

6. 30 June 1974 (N 6,3°, E 37,7°)

Table 5-1 Historical earthquake record of Hawassa

Year Time References Latitude longitude Moment
magnitude
6 Sep 1944 Gouin (1979) 7⁰ 38.5⁰ 6
4 Jul 1960 Gouin (1979) 7.1⁰ 38.4⁰ 6.3
2 Dec 1983 Hofstetter and Beyth 2003 7.03⁰ 38.599⁰ 5.1
20 Jan 1995 Hofstetter and Beyth 2003 7.16⁰ 38.441⁰ 5
24 Jan 2016 [2] 7.0404⁰ 38.3478⁰ 4.29

71
 APPENDIX B

Figure 5-1 Photo captures of cracks due to earthquake and shallow ground water table at
Hawassa

Table 5-2 Damping ratio values for soil similar to Hawassa town
Strain level Place Range of damping References
values
Medium strain level Ziway 2.85-10% [53]
Higher strain level Ziway 10-27%

72
 APPENDIX C

Table 5-3 Ground condition based on ES EN 8

73
Table 5-4 Classification of condition based on EUROCODE 8

74
 APPENDIX D

Figure 5-2 Photo captures of materials used and during field works and laboratory test

75
 APPENDIX E

45

40

35

30
LIQUID LIMIT, LL

25
w Vs LL
20
boundary 1
15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
MOISTURE CONTENT, wc

Figure 5-3 Liquefaction evaluation of fine grained soil (@ depth of 1.5m) using Index-based
analysis

45

40

35

30
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOISTURE CONTENT, WC

Figure 5-4 Liquefaction evaluation of fine grained soil (@ depth of 3m) using Index-
based analysis

76
 APPENDIX F

Table 5-5 correlation between shear wave velocity and measured N value

Table 5-6 Summary of correlations between SPT data and shear wave velocity

77
APPENDIX G

78
Figure 5-5 Original Acceleration time-histories of considered earthquakes

79
APPENDIX H

80
 Construction Design Sco
Borehole Log Sheet
Project Hawassa Hotel and Resort (B+G+6) Boring Type Rotary Coring
Location Hawassa Ground Water Level 3.6m BH 9
Client Progress Internationa Hotel P.L.C BH Elevation
Date started 12/04/2010 Inclination Vertical
Date completed 13/04/2010

Depth Ground Drilling size Sample SPT N Depth

(m) size (mm) (mm) record value (m) Profile TCR (%) RQD (%) Strata Description Remark
0 0.0 100
0.50 100
1 1.0 100
1.50 100
2 116 100
2.10 Loose to medium dense, grey to pinkish
3.00 grey, sand at the top, sandy silt with cay
3 116 2.5 >50 3.30 100
3.70 100
4 4.00 100
RS 100 0
4.7
5 5.00 100 55
5.10 100 0

6 Moderately strong to strong, grey to pink

6.4 30 slitely weathered Ignimbrite
100
7 12 7.0 100

8
8.5 8.5 100
9 23 9.00 100
9.7
10 100
100 10.6
11 21 11.0 100
11.7 100
12
12.6
13 13 13.0 100

15 15.0 100 Medium dense grey wet to pink Sand/ Silty

sand
75
Nc Cone Penetration Test RQD Rock Quality Designation Crew Bizuneh Adamu Drawn by Kasech Zena
N Blows/30cm DS Disturbed Soil Sample Supervisor Tewodros Mako SIG
RS Rock sample UD Undisturbed Soil Sample Logged by Tewodros Mako SIG
W water sample SPT Standard Penetration Checked by Getachewu Teferi SIG
TCR Total Core Recovery End of Drilling
81
82
83
 ADDIS GEOSYSTEMS PLC
Title: Borehole Log Sheet
Project 2B+G+11 Mixed Use Building Boring Type Rotary Coring
Location Hawassa Town Ground Water Level 13.6m BH No. 1
Client Nib Internationa Bank and Nib insurance company (s.co) BH coordinates N-0441707, E-0779143
Date started 03/04/2015 BH Elevation 1708m
Date completed 05/04/2015 Inclination Vertical Total BH depth 20m
Hole
Depth diameter SPT/DPT N Run Length
(m) (mm) Sample record value Legend Strata Description depth (m) TCR (%) RQD (%) Remark
0 Top soil 0.5 100
1 100
1 1.5 100
100
2 100
100
3 3 100
DS 20 3.45 100
Medium dense to dense , light grey, silty sand
4 R 100
/Sandy silty (derived from welded TUFF 4.5 100
5 /IGNIMBRITE rock) 5 100
100
6 Greyish, medium grained, moderately weathered 100
and fracturede, medium strong IGNIMBRITE rock 6.4 100 24
7 7 100
7.65 100
8 8 100
24 8.45 100
9 100
100
10 10 100
20 10.45 100
11 11 100
11.6 100
12 12 100
23 12.45 100
13 13 100
13.6 100
14 14 100
DS 27 14.45 100
15 15 100
15.5 100
16 16 100
16.45 100
20 16.8 100
17 100
17.4 100
18 18 100
100
19 19 100
19.3 100
20 Medium dense, light brown to reddish brown , 20 100
89 Sandy silt /Silty sand 100
B Borehole RQD Rock Quality Designation Logged by Biruk Wolde 05/04/2015
Nc Cone Penetration Test TCR Total Core Recovery Drawn by Mintamer Fikadu 06/04/2015
N Standard Penetration Test DS Disturbed soil sample Approved byDr. Addisalem Zeleke 06/04/2015
Blows/30cm UD Undisturbed soil sample
W Water Sample RK Rock sample
NGL Natural Ground Level R Refusal
84
Figure 5-6 Soil investigation report data of Progress hotel, Ato Tekola’s building, Nib
Bank and SEPDM office building (source: Hawassa Construction office)

85
86
 APENDIX I

Table 5-7 LPI results for all selected sites

MW=6.5
Progress Hotel
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.255 18.3 18.3 1.00 0.17 65 6 17.0 23.0 1.3 0.97 0.25 0.31 1.91 0.5 1 9.75 0.00 0
2 2 0.255 36.7 36.7 0.98 0.16 65 6 25.0 31.0 1.3 0.95 0.56 0.69 4.21 1.5 1 9.25 0.00 0
3 3 0.255 60.5 60.5 0.97 0.16 65 6 21.0 27.0 1.3 0.92 0.35 0.41 2.59 2.5 1 8.75 0.00 0
4 4 0.255 135.6 108.1 0.95 0.20 65 6 19.0 0.0 1.3 0.06 0.00 0.00 3.5 1 8.25 0.00 0
5 5 0.255 147.3 114.0 0.93 0.20 65 0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 1 7.75 0.00 0
6 6.4 0.255 166.9 123.7 0.91 0.20 65 6 22.0 24.3 1.3 0.75 0.27 0.27 1.31 5.7 1.4 7.15 0.00 0
7 7 0.255 186.4 133.4 0.89 0.21 65 6 27.0 23.4 1.3 0.74 0.26 0.25 1.19 6.7 0.6 6.65 0.00 0
8 8 0.255 205.9 143.2 0.87 0.21 65 6 22.0 20.9 1.3 0.75 0.22 0.21 1.02 7.5 1 6.25 0.00 0
9 9 0.255 225.5 152.9 0.85 0.21 65 6 17.0 20.2 1.3 0.74 0.21 0.20 0.96 8.5 1 5.75 0.04 0.2097634
10 10 0.255 245.2 162.8 0.83 0.21 65 6 17.0 19.6 1.3 0.77 0.20 0.20 0.97 9.5 1 5.25 0.03 0.15398001
11 11 0.255 265.0 172.8 0.81 0.21 65 6 19.0 19.0 1.3 0.72 0.19 0.18 0.89 10.5 1 4.75 0.11 0.54381396
12 12 0.255 284.8 182.7 0.79 0.20 65 6 18.0 18.5 1.3 0.71 0.19 0.17 0.86 11.5 1 4.25 0.14 0.60661673
13 13 0.255 304.5 192.7 0.77 0.20 65 6 21.0 18.0 1.3 0.7 0.18 0.17 0.83 12.5 1 3.75 0.17 0.62239862
LPI 2.13657

86
 MW=6.7
Progress Hotel
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.203 18.3 18.3 1.00 0.13 65 6 17.0 17.0 1.23 0.97 0.17 0.21 1.58 0.5 1 9.75 0.00 0
2 2 0.203 36.7 36.7 0.98 0.13 65 6 25.0 16.5 1.23 0.95 0.17 0.20 1.52 1.5 1 9.25 0.00 0
3 3 0.203 60.5 60.5 0.97 0.13 65 6 21.0 12.9 1.23 0.92 0.14 0.16 1.23 2.5 1 8.75 0.00 0
4 4 0.203 135.6 108.1 0.95 0.16 65 6 19.0 0.0 1.23 0.06 0.00 0.00 3.5 1 8.25 1.00 0
5 5 0.203 147.3 114.0 0.94 0.16 65 0 0.0 12.2 1.23 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 1 7.75 1.00 0
6 6.4 0.203 166.9 123.7 0.92 0.16 65 6 22.0 24.3 1.23 0.75 0.27 0.25 1.54 5.7 1.4 7.15 0.00 0
7 7 0.203 186.4 133.4 0.90 0.17 65 6 27.0 23.4 1.23 0.74 0.26 0.23 1.40 6.7 0.6 6.65 0.00 0
8 8 0.203 205.9 143.2 0.88 0.17 65 6 22.0 20.9 1.23 0.75 0.22 0.20 1.20 7.5 1 6.25 0.00 0
9 9 0.203 225.5 152.9 0.86 0.17 65 6 17.0 20.2 1.23 0.74 0.21 0.19 1.13 8.5 1 5.75 0.00 0
10 10 0.203 245.2 162.8 0.84 0.17 65 6 17.0 19.6 1.23 0.77 0.20 0.19 1.14 9.5 1 5.25 0.00 0
11 11 0.203 265.0 172.8 0.82 0.17 65 6 19.0 19.0 1.23 0.72 0.19 0.17 1.03 10.5 1 4.75 0.00 0
12 12 0.203 284.8 182.7 0.80 0.16 65 6 18.0 18.5 1.23 0.71 0.19 0.16 1.00 11.5 1 4.25 0.00 0
13 13 0.203 304.5 192.7 0.78 0.16 65 6 21.0 18.0 1.23 0.7 0.18 0.16 0.97 12.5 1 3.75 0.03 0.11173381
LPI 0.11173

87
 MW=6.9
Progress Hotel
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.224 18.3 18.3 1.00 0.15 65 6 17.0 17.0 1.17 0.97 0.17 0.20 1.36 0.5 1 9.75 0.00 0
2 2 0.224 36.7 36.7 0.99 0.14 65 6 25.0 16.5 1.17 0.95 0.17 0.19 1.31 1.5 1 9.25 0.00 0
3 3 0.224 60.5 60.5 0.97 0.14 65 6 21.0 12.9 1.17 0.92 0.14 0.15 1.06 2.5 1 8.75 0.00 0
4 4 0.224 135.6 108.1 0.96 0.18 65 6 19.0 0.0 1.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 3.5 1 8.25 0.00 0
5 5 0.224 147.3 114.0 0.94 0.18 65 0 0.0 12.2 1.17 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 1 7.75 0.00 0
6 6.4 0.224 166.9 123.7 0.93 0.18 65 6 22.0 24.3 1.17 0.75 0.27 0.24 1.32 5.7 1.4 7.15 0.00 0
7 7 0.224 186.4 133.4 0.91 0.19 65 6 27.0 23.4 1.17 0.74 0.26 0.22 1.20 6.7 0.6 6.65 0.00 0
8 8 0.224 205.9 143.2 0.89 0.19 65 6 22.0 20.9 1.17 0.75 0.22 0.19 1.02 7.5 1 6.25 0.00 0
9 9 0.224 225.5 152.9 0.87 0.19 65 6 17.0 20.2 1.17 0.74 0.21 0.18 0.96 8.5 1 5.75 0.04 0.2222431
10 10 0.224 245.2 162.8 0.86 0.19 65 6 17.0 19.6 1.17 0.77 0.20 0.18 0.96 9.5 1 5.25 0.04 0.18574371
11 11 0.224 265.0 172.8 0.84 0.19 65 6 19.0 19.0 1.17 0.72 0.19 0.16 0.88 10.5 1 4.75 0.12 0.58709593
12 12 0.224 284.8 182.7 0.82 0.19 65 6 18.0 18.5 1.17 0.71 0.19 0.16 0.84 11.5 1 4.25 0.16 0.6590484
13 13 0.224 304.5 192.7 0.80 0.18 65 6 21.0 18.0 1.17 0.7 0.18 0.15 0.82 12.5 1 3.75 0.18 0.68026834
LPI 2.3344

88
 MW=7.2
Progress Hotel
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.217 18.33 18.33 1.00 0.140789 65 6 17.0 17 1.08 0.97 0.173906 0.182184 1.294028 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.217 36.66 36.66 0.99 0.139405 65 6 25.0 17 1.17 0.95 0.169406 0.188295 1.3507 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3 0.217 60.489 60.489 0.98 0.137855 65 6 21.0 13 1.17 0.92 0.138935 0.14955 1.084835 2.5 1 8.75 0 0
4 4 0.217 135.602 108.134 0.97 0.170735 65 6 19.0 0 1.17 0.06081 0 0 3.5 1 8.25 0 0
5 5 0.217 147.326 113.972 0.95 0.173611 65 0 0.0 12 1.17 0.86 0 0 0 4.5 1 7.75 0 0
6 6.4 0.217 166.866 123.702 0.94 0.178516 65 6 22.0 24 1.17 0.75 0.273842 0.240297 1.346081 5.7 1.4 7.15 0 0
7 7 0.217 186.406 133.432 0.92 0.181976 65 6 27.0 23 1.17 0.74 0.256079 0.221713 1.218364 6.7 0.6 6.65 0 0
8 8 0.217 205.946 143.162 0.91 0.184265 65 6 22.0 21 1.17 0.75 0.217248 0.190635 1.034569 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
9 9 0.217 225.486 152.892 0.89 0.185595 65 6 17.0 20 1.17 0.74 0.208537 0.180551 0.972823 8.5 1 5.75 0.027177 0.15626763
10 10 0.217 245.246 162.842 0.88 0.18605 65 6 17.0 20 1.17 0.77 0.200984 0.181066 0.973211 9.5 1 5.25 0.026789 0.14064155
11 11 0.217 265.006 172.792 0.86 0.185856 65 6 19.0 19 1.17 0.72 0.194482 0.163832 0.881497 10.5 1 4.75 0.118503 0.56288752
12 12 0.217 284.766 182.742 0.84 0.18513 65 6 18.0 18 1.17 0.71 0.188807 0.156842 0.847201 11.5 1 4.25 0.152799 0.64939607
13 13 0.217 304.526 192.692 0.83 0.183967 65 6 21.0 18 1.17 0.7 0.183794 0.150527 0.818226 12.5 1 3.75 0.181774 0.68165311
LPI 2.19085

89
 MW=6.5
NIB
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.255 25.5 25.5 1.00 0.17 53 6 17.0 23 1.3 0.98 0.25 0.32 1.93 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.255 42.5 42.5 0.98 0.16 53 6 25.0 31 1.3 0.93 0.56 0.67 4.12 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3 0.255 59.5 59.5 0.97 0.16 53 6 21.0 27 1.3 0.91 0.35 0.41 2.56 2.5 1 8.75 0 0
4 4 0.255 76.5 66.7 0.95 0.18 53 6 18.0 24 1.3 0.9 0.27 0.31 1.74 3.5 1 8.25 0 0
5 5 0.255 93.5 73.9 0.93 0.20 53 0 0.0 0 1.3 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5 1 7.75 0 0
6 6.4 0.255 125.2 91.9 0.91 0.21 53 6 20.0 26 1.3 0.9 0.32 0.37 1.79 5.7 1.4 7.15 0 0
7 7 0.255 135.4 96.2 0.89 0.21 53 6 23.0 29 1.3 0.84 0.43 0.47 2.25 6.7 0.6 6.65 0 0
8 8 0.255 152.4 103.4 0.87 0.21 53 6 18.0 24 1.3 0.85 0.27 0.30 1.39 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
9 9 0.255 169.4 110.6 0.85 0.22 53 6 14.0 20 1.3 0.85 0.21 0.23 1.05 8.5 1 5.75 0 0
10 10 0.255 186.4 117.8 0.83 0.22 53 6 13.0 19 1.3 0.84 0.19 0.21 0.97 9.5 1 5.25 0.03 0.1377899
11 11 0.255 203.4 125.0 0.81 0.22 53 6 15.0 21 1.3 0.82 0.22 0.23 1.07 10.5 1 4.75 0 0
12 12 0.255 220.4 132.1 0.79 0.22 53 6 14.0 20 1.3 0.81 0.21 0.22 1.00 11.5 1 4.25 0 0
13 13 0.255 237.4 139.3 0.77 0.22 53 6 16.0 22 1.3 0.77 0.23 0.23 1.08 12.5 1 3.75 0 0
14 14 0.255 254.4 146.5 0.74 0.21 53 6 16.0 22 1.3 0.76 0.23 0.23 1.07 13.5 1 3.25 0 0
15 15 0.255 271.4 153.7 0.72 0.21 53 6 12.0 18 1.3 0.82 0.18 0.20 0.92 14.5 1 2.75 0.075 0.207
16 16 0.255 288.4 160.9 0.70 0.21 53 6 12.0 18 1.3 0.82 0.18 0.20 0.94 15.5 1 2.25 0.063 0.141
17 17 0.255 305.4 168.1 0.68 0.21 53 6 15.0 21 1.3 0.78 0.22 0.22 1.08 16.5 1 1.75 0 0
18 18 0.255 322.4 175.3 0.66 0.20 53 6 15 21 1.3 0.77 0.22 0.22 1.08 17.5 1 1.25 0 0
19 19 0.255 339.4 182.5 0.65 0.20 53 6 15 21 1.3 0.76 0.22 0.22 1.08 18.5 1 0.75 0 0
20 20 0.255 356.4 189.7 0.63 0.20 53 6 15 21 1.3 0.76 0.22 0.22 1.10 19.5 1 0.25 0 0
LPI 0.486

90
 MW=6.7
NIB
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.203 25.5 25.5 1.00 0.1315 53 6 17.0 23 1.23 0.98 0.24937 0.30059 2.2863 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.203 42.5 42.5 0.98 0.1298 53 6 25.0 31 1.23 0.93 0.55511 0.63499 4.8913 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3 0.203 59.5 59.5 0.97 0.128 53 6 21.0 27 1.23 0.91 0.34651 0.38784 3.0307 2.5 1 8.75 0 0
4 4 0.203 76.5 66.69 0.95 0.1445 53 6 18.0 24 1.23 0.9 0.26815 0.29684 2.0547 3.5 1 8.25 0 0
5 5 0.203 93.5 73.88 0.94 0.1566 53 6 0.0 6 1.23 0.9 0.09204 0.10189 0.6505 4.5 1 7.75 0 0
6 6.4 0.203 125 91.884 0.92 0.1655 53 6 20.0 26 1.23 0.9 0.31578 0.34956 2.1119 5.7 1.4 7.15 0 0
7 7 0.203 135 96.198 0.90 0.1676 53 6 23.0 29 1.23 0.84 0.4289 0.44314 2.6448 6.7 0.6 6.65 0 0
8 8 0.203 152 103.39 0.88 0.1717 53 6 18.0 24 1.23 0.85 0.26815 0.28035 1.6324 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
9 9 0.203 169 110.58 0.86 0.1745 53 6 14.0 20 1.23 0.85 0.20585 0.21522 1.2333 8.5 1 5.75 0 0
10 10 0.203 186 117.77 0.84 0.1761 53 6 13.0 19 1.23 0.84 0.19428 0.20073 1.1398 9.5 1 5.25 0 0
11 11 0.203 203 124.96 0.82 0.1768 53 6 15.0 21 1.23 0.82 0.21867 0.22055 1.2478 10.5 1 4.75 0 0
12 12 0.203 220 132.15 0.80 0.1766 53 6 14.0 20 1.23 0.81 0.20585 0.20509 1.1612 11.5 1 4.25 0 0
13 13 0.203 237 139.34 0.78 0.1759 53 6 16.0 22 1.23 0.77 0.23305 0.22072 1.255 12.5 1 3.75 0 0
14 14 0.203 254 146.53 0.76 0.1746 53 6 16.0 22 1.23 0.76 0.23305 0.21785 1.2476 13.5 1 3.25 0 0
15 15 0.203 271 153.72 0.74 0.173 53 6 12.0 18 1.23 0.82 0.18369 0.18527 1.0712 14.5 1 2.75 0 0
16 16 0.203 288 160.91 0.72 0.171 53 6 12.0 18 1.23 0.82 0.18369 0.18527 1.0834 15.5 1 2.25 0 0
17 17 0.203 305 168.1 0.70 0.1688 53 6 15.0 21 1.23 0.78 0.21867 0.20979 1.2426 16.5 1 1.75 0 0
18 18 0.203 322 175.29 0.686 0.1665 53 6 15 21 1.23 0.77 0.21867 0.2071 1.2438 17.5 1 1.25 0 0
19 19 0.203 339 182.48 0.669 0.1641 53 6 15 21 1.23 0.76 0.21867 0.20441 1.2458 18.5 1 0.75 0 0
20 20 0.203 356 189.67 0.652 0.1616 53 6 15 21 1.23 0.76 0.21867 0.20441 1.2647 19.5 1 0.25 0 0
LPI 0

91
 MW=6.9
NIB
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.224 25.5 25.5 1.00 0.1452 53 6 17.0 23 1.17 0.98 0.24937 0.28593 1.9695 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.224 42.5 42.5 0.99 0.1435 53 6 25.0 31 1.17 0.93 0.55511 0.60402 4.2089 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3 0.224 59.5 59.5 0.97 0.1416 53 6 21.0 27 1.17 0.91 0.34651 0.36892 2.6046 2.5 1 8.75 0 0
4 4 0.224 76.5 66.69 0.96 0.1601 53 6 18.0 24 1.17 0.9 0.26815 0.28236 1.7633 3.5 1 8.25 0 0
5 5 0.224 93.5 73.88 0.94 0.1739 53 6 0.0 6 1.17 0.9 0.09204 0.09692 0.5574 4.5 1 7.75 0 0
6 6.4 0.224 125 91.884 0.93 0.1841 53 6 20.0 26 1.17 0.9 0.31578 0.33251 1.8066 5.7 1.4 7.15 0 0
7 7 0.224 135 96.198 0.91 0.1866 53 6 23.0 29 1.17 0.84 0.4289 0.42152 2.2584 6.7 0.6 6.65 0 0
8 8 0.224 152 103.39 0.89 0.1917 53 6 18.0 24 1.17 0.85 0.26815 0.26667 1.3913 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
9 9 0.224 169 110.58 0.87 0.1951 53 6 14.0 20 1.17 0.85 0.20585 0.20472 1.0491 8.5 1 5.75 0 0
10 10 0.224 186 117.77 0.86 0.1973 53 6 13.0 19 1.17 0.84 0.19428 0.19094 0.9677 9.5 1 5.25 0.0323 0.1696545
11 11 0.224 203 124.96 0.84 0.1984 53 6 15.0 21 1.17 0.82 0.21867 0.20979 1.0572 10.5 1 4.75 0 0
12 12 0.224 220 132.15 0.82 0.1987 53 6 14.0 20 1.17 0.81 0.20585 0.19509 0.9818 11.5 1 4.25 0.0182 0.0774777
13 13 0.224 237 139.34 0.80 0.1983 53 6 16.0 22 1.17 0.77 0.23305 0.20995 1.0589 12.5 1 3.75 0 0
14 14 0.224 254 146.53 0.78 0.1973 53 6 16.0 22 1.17 0.76 0.23305 0.20723 1.0505 13.5 1 3.25 0 0
15 15 0.224 271 153.72 0.76 0.1958 53 6 12.0 18 1.17 0.82 0.18369 0.17624 0.9 14.5 1 2.75 0.1 0.2748793
16 16 0.224 288 160.91 0.74 0.194 53 6 12.0 18 1.17 0.82 0.18369 0.17624 0.9085 15.5 1 2.25 0.0915 0.2059411
17 17 0.224 305 168.1 0.73 0.1919 53 6 15.0 21 1.17 0.78 0.21867 0.19956 1.0399 16.5 1 1.75 0 0
18 18 0.224 322 175.29 0.708 0.1896 53 6 15 21 1.17 0.77 0.21867 0.197 1.0389 17.5 1 1.25 0 0
19 19 0.224 339 182.48 0.691 0.1872 53 6 15 21 1.17 0.76 0.21867 0.19444 1.0386 18.5 1 0.75 0 0
20 20 0.224 356 189.67 0.675 0.1847 53 6 15 21 1.17 0.76 0.21867 0.19444 1.0526 19.5 1 0.25 0 0
LPI 0.72795

92
 Mw=7.2
NIB
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.217 25.5 25.5 1.00 0.1408 53 6 17.0 23 1.08 0.98 0.24937 0.26394 1.8747 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.217 42.5 42.5 0.99 0.1394 53 6 25.0 31 1.08 0.93 0.55511 0.55756 3.9995 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3 0.217 59.5 59.5 0.98 0.1379 53 6 21.0 27 1.08 0.91 0.34651 0.34055 2.4703 2.5 1 8.75 0 0
4 4 0.217 76.5 66.69 0.97 0.1562 53 6 18.0 24 1.08 0.9 0.26815 0.26064 1.6689 3.5 1 8.25 0 0
5 5 0.217 93.5 73.88 0.95 0.17 53 6 0.0 6 1.08 0.9 0.09204 0.08946 0.5263 4.5 1 7.75 0 0
6 6.4 0.217 125 91.884 0.94 0.1804 53 6 20.0 26 1.08 0.9 0.31578 0.30693 1.7016 5.7 1.4 7.15 0 0
7 7 0.217 135 96.198 0.92 0.1834 53 6 23.0 29 1.08 0.84 0.4289 0.3891 2.1216 6.7 0.6 6.65 0 0
8 8 0.217 152 103.39 0.91 0.1889 53 6 18.0 24 1.08 0.85 0.26815 0.24616 1.3034 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
9 9 0.217 169 110.58 0.89 0.1928 53 6 14.0 20 1.08 0.85 0.20585 0.18897 0.98 8.5 1 5.75 0.02 0.1150112
10 10 0.217 186 117.77 0.88 0.1956 53 6 13.0 19 1.08 0.84 0.19428 0.17625 0.9012 9.5 1 5.25 0.0988 0.5186852
11 11 0.217 203 124.96 0.86 0.1973 53 6 15.0 21 1.08 0.82 0.21867 0.19366 0.9816 10.5 1 4.75 0.0184 0.0875919
12 12 0.217 220 132.15 0.84 0.1982 53 6 14.0 20 1.08 0.81 0.20585 0.18008 0.9087 11.5 1 4.25 0.0913 0.3880881
13 13 0.217 237 139.34 0.83 0.1984 53 6 16.0 22 1.08 0.77 0.23305 0.1938 0.977 12.5 1 3.75 0.023 0.0862309
14 14 0.217 254 146.53 0.81 0.198 53 6 16.0 22 1.08 0.76 0.23305 0.19128 0.9662 13.5 1 3.25 0.0338 0.1098556
15 15 0.217 271 153.72 0.79 0.1971 53 6 12.0 18 1.08 0.82 0.18369 0.16268 0.8253 14.5 1 2.75 0.1747 0.4805032
16 16 0.217 288 160.91 0.77 0.1959 53 6 12.0 18 1.08 0.82 0.18369 0.16268 0.8305 15.5 1 2.25 0.1695 0.3814664
17 17 0.217 305 168.1 0.76 0.1944 53 6 15.0 21 1.08 0.78 0.21867 0.18421 0.9478 16.5 1 1.75 0.0522 0.0914142
18 18 0.217 322 175.29 0.742 0.1926 53 6 15 21 1.08 0.77 0.21867 0.18185 0.9442 17.5 1 1.25 0.0558 0.0698079
19 19 0.217 339 182.48 0.727 0.1907 53 6 15 21 1.08 0.76 0.21867 0.17949 0.9413 18.5 1 0.75 0.0587 0.0440211
20 20 0.217 356 189.67 0.712 0.1886 53 6 15 21 1.08 0.76 0.21867 0.17949 0.9515 19.5 1 0.25 0.0485 0.0121288
LPI 2.3848

93
 MW=6.5
SEPDM bldg BH3
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.255 17 17 1.00 0.17 53 6 11 17 1.3 0.96 0.174 0.217 1.315 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.255 34 34 0.98 0.16 53 6 11 17 1.3 0.95 0.174 0.2148 1.319 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3.2 0.255 54.4 44.59 0.97 0.2 53 6 23 29 1.3 0.945 0.429 0.5269 2.695 2.6 1.2 8.7 0 0
4 5 0.255 86.8 76.99 0.95 0.18 53 6 0 6 1.3 0.943 0.092 0.1128 0.635 4.1 1.8 7.95 0 0
5 6 0.255 104.8 85.18 0.93 0.19 53 0 0 0 1.3 0.87 0.061 0.0688 0.362 5.5 1 7.25 0 0
6 7 0.255 122.8 93.37 0.91 0.2 53 6 15 21 1.3 0.789 0.219 0.2243 1.127 6.5 1 6.75 0 0
7 8 0.255 140.8 101.56 0.89 0.21 53 6 14 20 1.3 0.788 0.206 0.2109 1.027 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
8 9 0.255 158.8 109.75 0.87 0.21 53 6 14 20 1.3 0.74 0.206 0.198 0.946 8.5 1 5.75 0.05 0.310468
9 10 0.255 176.8 117.94 0.85 0.21 53 6 14 20 1.3 0.72 0.206 0.1927 0.91 9.5 1 5.25 0.09 0.470221

LPI 0.7807

MW=6.7
SEPDM bldg BH3
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.203 17 17 0.9964 0.13 53 6 11 17 1.23 0.96 0.174 0.2053 1.562 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.203 34 34 0.9839 0.13 53 6 11 17 1.23 0.95 0.174 0.2032 1.565 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3.2 0.203 54.4 44.59 0.9698 0.16 53 6 23 29 1.23 0.945 0.429 0.4985 3.193 2.6 1.2 8.7 0 0
4 5 0.203 86.8 76.99 0.9545 0.14 53 6 0 6 1.23 0.943 0.092 0.1068 0.752 4.1 1.8 7.95 0 0
5 6 0.203 104.8 85.18 0.9379 0.15 53 0 0 0 1.23 0.87 0.061 0.0651 0.427 5.5 1 7.25 0 0
6 7 0.203 122.8 93.37 0.9204 0.16 53 6 15 21 1.23 0.789 0.219 0.2122 1.329 6.5 1 6.75 0 0
7 8 0.203 140.8 101.56 0.9019 0.16 53 6 14 20 1.23 0.788 0.206 0.1995 1.209 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
8 9 0.203 158.8 109.75 0.8828 0.17 53 6 14 20 1.23 0.74 0.206 0.1874 1.112 8.5 1 5.75 -0.11 0
9 10 0.203 176.8 117.94 0.8631 0.17 53 6 14 20 1.23 0.72 0.206 0.1823 1.068 9.5 1 5.25 -0.07 0

LPI 0

94
 MW=6.9
SEPDM bldg BH3
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.224 17 17 0.9971 0.15 53 6 11 17 1.17 0.96 0.174 0.1953 1.345 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.224 34 34 0.9857 0.14 53 6 11 17 1.17 0.95 0.174 0.1933 1.347 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3.2 0.224 54.4 44.59 0.9728 0.17 53 6 23 29 1.17 0.945 0.429 0.4742 2.744 2.6 1.2 8.7 0 0
4 5 0.224 86.8 76.99 0.9588 0.16 53 6 0 6 1.17 0.943 0.092 0.1015 0.645 4.1 1.8 7.95 0 0
5 6 0.224 104.8 85.18 0.9436 0.17 53 0 0 0 1.17 0.87 0.061 0.0619 0.366 5.5 1 7.25 0 0
6 7 0.224 122.8 93.37 0.9275 0.18 53 6 15 21 1.17 0.789 0.219 0.2019 1.137 6.5 1 6.75 0 0
7 8 0.224 140.8 101.56 0.9105 0.18 53 6 14 20 1.17 0.788 0.206 0.1898 1.033 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
8 9 0.224 158.8 109.75 0.8928 0.19 53 6 14 20 1.17 0.74 0.206 0.1782 0.948 8.5 1 5.75 0.05 0.301662
9 10 0.224 176.8 117.94 0.8746 0.19 53 6 14 20 1.17 0.72 0.206 0.1734 0.908 9.5 1 5.25 0.09 0.480988

LPI 0.7827

MW=7.2
SEPDM bldg BH3
layer depth amax σv σ'v rd CSR FC % Δ (N1)60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs MSF Kσ CRR7.5 CRR7.2 FS z H w(z) F H*w(z)*F
1 1 0.217 17 17 0.9981 0.14 53 6 11 17 1.08 0.96 0.174 0.1803 1.281 0.5 1 9.75 0 0
2 2 0.217 34 34 0.9883 0.14 53 6 11 17 1.08 0.95 0.174 0.1784 1.28 1.5 1 9.25 0 0
3 3.2 0.217 54.4 44.59 0.9773 0.17 53 6 23 29 1.08 0.945 0.429 0.4377 2.603 2.6 1.2 8.7 0 0
4 5 0.217 86.8 76.99 0.9653 0.15 53 6 0 6 1.08 0.943 0.092 0.0937 0.611 4.1 1.8 7.95 0 0
5 6 0.217 104.8 85.18 0.9522 0.17 53 0 0 0 1.08 0.87 0.061 0.0571 0.346 5.5 1 7.25 0 0
6 7 0.217 122.8 93.37 0.9382 0.17 53 6 15 21 1.08 0.789 0.219 0.1863 1.071 6.5 1 6.75 0 0
7 8 0.217 140.8 101.56 0.9235 0.18 53 6 14 20 1.08 0.788 0.206 0.1752 0.97 7.5 1 6.25 0 0
8 9 0.217 158.8 109.75 0.9081 0.19 53 6 14 20 1.08 0.74 0.206 0.1645 0.888 8.5 1 5.75 0.11 0.645936
9 10 0.217 176.8 117.94 0.8922 0.19 53 6 14 20 1.08 0.72 0.206 0.1601 0.849 9.5 1 5.25 0.15 0.795294

LPI 1.4412

95