Figure 1
Geographical location of the study region and location of the CPT surveys.
Table 1
Computation of LPI for peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.3 g corresponding to Mw = 6.8.
| Depth (m) | Average Density (KN/m3) | Overburden Stress σV0 (Kpa) | Effective stress σ′V0 (Kpa) | qc (Kpa) | fs (Kpa) | CRR | rd | CSR | Fs | z (m) | H (m) | w(z) | F | w(z)*F*H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.50 | 19.58 | 48.95 | 23.95 | 2550.00 | 125.00 | 0.59 | 0.98 | 0.30 | 1.95 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 9.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 3.50 | 19.58 | 68.53 | 33.53 | 1140.00 | 41.00 | 0.19 | 0.98 | 0.30 | 0.62 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 8.50 | 0.38 | 3.21 |
| 8.50 | 19.58 | 166.43 | 81.43 | 2430.00 | 130.00 | 0.33 | 0.93 | 0.29 | 1.15 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 10.50 | 19.58 | 205.59 | 100.59 | 1450.00 | 51.00 | 0.13 | 0.89 | 0.28 | 0.48 | 9.50 | 2.00 | 5.25 | 0.52 | 5.43 |
| 14.50 | 19.58 | 283.91 | 138.91 | 2860.00 | 112.00 | 0.18 | 0.78 | 0.24 | 0.73 | 12.50 | 4.00 | 3.75 | 0.27 | 4.02 |
| LPI | 12.66 |
Figure 2
Example plots showing key steps in calculating liquefaction potential at one CPT (BH34): (a) tip resistance (qc); (b) side friction (fs); (c) soil type index (Ic); (d) corrected equivalent tip resistant (qc1N)cs; (e) cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic resistance ratio (CRR); (f) factor of safety (FS).
Table 2
Calculated values of liquefaction potential index (LPI).
| Borehole | Coordinates | LPI | Borehole | Coordinates | LPI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easting (m) | Northing (m) | Easting (m) | Northing (m) | ||||
| BH1 | 519039.1 | 4062223 | 5.57 | BH32 | 517267.3 | 4060744 | 24.11 |
| BH2 | 519247.8 | 4061957 | 0.00 | BH33 | 517582.2 | 4061421 | 16.97 |
| BH3 | 519471.7 | 4061669 | 0.73 | BH34 | 516748.6 | 4060166 | 12.66 |
| BH4 | 519697.4 | 4061414 | 0.00 | BH35 | 516205.9 | 4060353 | 26.85 |
| BH5 | 519931.9 | 4061204 | 0.00 | BH36 | 516494 | 4060620 | 26.54 |
| BH6 | 519925.8 | 4060761 | 0.00 | BH37 | 515785.8 | 4060475 | 21.12 |
| BH7 | 519655.4 | 4061015 | 0.00 | BH38 | 515446.7 | 4061284 | 23.90 |
| BH8 | 519438.6 | 4061314 | 0.00 | BH39 | 515676.1 | 4061850 | 30.48 |
| BH9 | 519187.1 | 4061546 | 2.34 | BH40 | 515196.3 | 4061971 | 32.72 |
| BH10 | 518939.2 | 4061757 | 5.73 | BH41 | 517075.7 | 4059634 | 27.74 |
| BH11 | 518750.8 | 4062111 | 8.60 | BH42 | 516106.9 | 4061729 | 29.61 |
| BH12 | 519674.6 | 4060860 | 8.75 | BH43 | 515283.1 | 4059841 | 13.44 |
| BH13 | 519369.7 | 4060970 | 3.80 | BH44 | 515430 | 4060130 | 12.45 |
| BH14 | 519124.5 | 4061169 | 0.00 | BH45 | 515829.7 | 4059942 | 23.93 |
| BH15 | 518443.2 | 4061889 | 9.97 | BH46 | 518340.9 | 4061656 | 19.64 |
| BH16 | 519199.3 | 4060493 | 8.61 | BH47 | 517981.9 | 4061644 | 6.18 |
| BH17 | 518900 | 4060902 | 5.38 | BH48 | 517343.3 | 4058514 | 0.93 |
| BH18 | 518591 | 4061257 | 16.25 | BH49 | 517268.7 | 4058736 | 0.00 |
| BH19 | 518848 | 4060181 | 3.69 | BH50 | 517249.5 | 4058958 | 0.00 |
| BH20 | 518474.9 | 4060857 | 19.59 | BH51 | 517536.8 | 4059125 | 0.21 |
| BH21 | 518374.6 | 4060557 | 24.41 | BH52 | 517465.8 | 4058892 | 0.00 |
| BH22 | 518288 | 4060102 | 26.39 | BH53 | 517511 | 4058648 | 3.24 |
| BH23 | 518125.3 | 4059736 | 13.89 | BH54 | 517506.3 | 4058348 | 0.00 |
| BH24 | 517678.6 | 4059724 | 24.30 | BH55 | 517628.5 | 4058870 | 1.83 |
| BH25 | 517901.1 | 4060124 | 28.98 | BH56 | 517669.1 | 4058681 | 5.21 |
| BH26 | 518152.4 | 4060413 | 25.75 | BH57 | 517711.5 | 4058493 | 1.61 |
| BH27 | 518130.8 | 4060901 | 24.28 | BH58 | 515780.4 | 4058544 | 6.00 |
| BH28 | 517660.5 | 4060689 | 13.15 | BH59 | 515724.8 | 4059143 | 3.29 |
| BH29 | 517854.7 | 4060945 | 11.10 | BH60 | 515743.1 | 4059410 | 4.85 |
| BH30 | 517444.4 | 4059335 | 0.00 | BH61 | 515869.5 | 4059687 | 11.92 |
| BH31 | 517097.9 | 4061032 | 20.12 | BH62 | 515898.42 | 4059487.6 | 11.66 |
Figure 3
Spatial distribution and histogram of liquefaction potential index.
Table 3
Basic statistics of liquefaction potential index.
| Number of values | Mean | Median | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | 11.459 | 8.6759 | 10.456 | 0 | 32.718 | 0.472 | 1.793 |
Figure 4
Trend analysis for the liquefaction potential index data.
Figure 5
Experimental and theoretical semivariograms for the liquefaction potential index.
Table 4
Properties of the fitted semivariograms of the liquefaction potential index.
| Model type | Nugget C0 | Partial Sill C+C0 | Major range a (m) | C/C+C0 | RSS | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spherical | 0 | 120 | 1800 | 1 | 1728 | 0.943 |
| Exponential | 0 | 135 | 1060 | 1 | 2633 | 0.885 |
| Linear | 38 | 146 | 3440 | 0.735 | 7272 | 0.629 |
| Gaussian | 5 | 125 | 1200 | 0.96 | 2205 | 0.900 |
[i] Note: R2 is the coefficient of determination; RSS is the residual sum of squares, and c/c+c0 is nugget-sill ratio.
Figure 6
Anisotropic semivariogram of liquefaction potential index variorum for directions 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°.
Figure 7
Anisotropic semivariogram model for the liquefaction potential index.
Figure 8
Cross validation of the semivariogram model for the liquefaction potential index (isotropic analysis A, anisotropic analysis B).
Figure 9
Liquefaction potential hazard map predicted by ordinary kriging (a) and corresponding standard deviation map (b) for earthquake magnitude of 6.8 and peak ground acceleration of 0.3 g (isotropic analysis).
Figure 10
Liquefaction potential hazard map predicted by ordinary kriging (a) and corresponding standard deviation map (b) for earthquake magnitude of 6.8 and peak ground acceleration of 0.3 g (Anisotropic analysis).
Figure 11
Liquefaction potential hazard map for peak ground acceleration of 0.2 g (a) and 0.25 g (b) (Isotropic analysis).