How to cite:
Intan Puspitaningrum (2021). Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in
the Region of Mataram City in Indonesia. Journal Eduvest. 1(8): 706-716
E-ISSN:
2775-3727
Published by:
https://greenvest.co.id/
Eduvest Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
p- ISSN 2775-3735 e-ISSN 2775-3727
ANALYSIS OF SUBSOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN THE
REGION OF MATARAM CITY IN INDONESIA
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Received:
July, 24
th
2021
Revised:
August, 14
th
2021
Approved:
August, 16
th
2021
One of the reasons of subsoil liquefaction are cyclical loads
induced from earthquake. It generally take in the subsoil when
there is a loose saturated granular soil. Loose, sand and silty
sand have the highest probability of liquefaction. Most places
prone to this event are the subsoil that is close to water source,
namely river or bay area. Mataram city is located on the west
coast of Lombok Island. It acts as the capital and economic
powerhouse of the region. The 2018 M7.0 earthquake showed
how devastating the earthquake effect on people’s livelihood.
Understanding the potential of subsoil liquefaction to happen
is crucial to help government and people on the potentially
affected area to adjust the proper mitigation actions. Upon
analysis of soil data taken from 9 SPT sites and 22 CPT sites, it
is concluded that the subsoil of Mataram city is prone to
exposed with liquefaction with the most severe area is the west
coast of the city and the least probable is the eastern part.
Maximum settlement is forecasted to be 0.458 m taken from
CPT-21 site.
KEYWORDS
Liquefaction potential, Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR, Cyclic Resistance
Ratio CRR, displacement, Mataram
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
No Derivatives 4.0 International License
INTRODUCTION
The 2018 earthquake that happen on Sunday 29
th
of July with magnitude of M6.4
in Lombok and Bali, or to be precise on 47 km away from Lombok’s capital of Mataram
with epicenter on 24 km deep left a devastating effects. With reportedly a considerable
amount of death toll and people suffering from injury, it is one of the strongest that ever
occurred in the area. Thousands of people were left with no place to return, while
infrastructure are being not functional and further threats from landslide increasing the
Intan Puspitaningrum
Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in the Region of Mataram City in
Indonesia 707
possibility of worsening situation.
The earthquake occurred in several series, namely foreshock (July 29
th
) with M6.4,
main shock (August 5
th
) with M7.0, and aftershock (August 9
th
) M6.2. Lombok is
surrounded by several active earthquake sources, Back Arc Thrust Zone in the north,
megathrust in the south, and faults on both west and east sides.
After the M7.0 mainshock, several phenomenons happen in numbers of locations
scattered along the west coast to north coast of Lombok. Landslide was the major
phenomonon occurred along the west coast resulting in cut of transportation and access
from the main port in west coast to the most affected area in the north. Land subsidiary and
uplift were also spotted in several areas. Land subsidance was identified mostly occurred
along the west coast with signs of small tsunami. Vertical uplift mainly happen on the
northern part of the island, close to the epicenter with recorded number of 0.44 m higher
prior to the earthquake.
Signs of liquefaction is observed on smaller scale. It happen as a result of a strong
earthquake’s vibration in an area with mostly containing aluvial sedimentation combined
with fine particles of soil, saturated, and typically shallow groundwater depth.
Looking back at the 2018 earthquake, Mataram as the capital of Lombok acts as
economic powerhouse and the most populous city in the island shall be suffering from the
effects of the upcoming earthquake in the future. Therefore understanding the potential
possibility of the upcoming aftermath of earthquake in the form of liquefaction is one
among many things we can do to mitigate the outcome.
RESEARCH METHODS
The aim of this research is to analyze the liquefaction potential of the subsoil of
Mataram city in Lombok using the soil data taken using SPT and CPT in several locations.
Soil data then being analyzed to calculate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and stress ratio
(CSR) in order to obtain the factor of safety (FS). For the further analysis we only use FS
value from CPT result to obtain vertical (S) and lateral displacement (LD). CPT has become
very popular for site characterization because of its greater repeatability and the continuous
nature of its profile as compared with other field test (Zhang et al., 2002). The liquefaction
degree was assessed by using the liquefaction potential index (I
L
). Vertical and lateral
displacements were also evaluated based on the calculated settlements and lateral
displacement index (LDI).
Warman & Jumas (2013) did research on three locations to identified the factor of
safety over the potential of liquefaction in Padang city, Sumatra on 2009 after the M7.6
tectonic earthquake. Soil investigation is done using CPT referring to ASTM D 3441-86
Standard. The result then analyzed using Seed & Idriss (1970) equation to calculate the
Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) and Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). Result shows area with
relatively safe from liquefaction potential is having cone resistance (q
c
) > 100 kg/cm
2
(10
MPa), and dominated by soil types of sandy silt and silty sand.
Obermeier (1996) also describe the term “Liquefaction potential” relates to the
likelihood of liquefaction occurring during a specific earthquake at a particular strength of
shaking. Even a saturated, very loose sand has no liquefaction potential if the severity of
shaking is low enough. Calculation or an estimation in determining the potential of a soil
to experience liquefaction requires two variables: (1) the seismic demand on a soil layer,
or CSR, and (2) the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction, expressed in Cyclic Resistance
Ratio (CRR). Seed & Idriss (1971) composed the following formula for calculation of
Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR):
, Where
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
708 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
a
max
= peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by the earthquake
g = acceleration of gravity
σ
v0
= total stress
σ’
v0
= total effective stress
r
d
= stress reduction coefficient.
Accounts for the flexibility of the soil profile. Blake (1996) provides with
approximation formula to determine the r
d
value derived from the mean curve formula by
Liao & Whitman (1986) and further developed by Seed & Idriss (1971):
Where z is the depth beneath ground surface in meter.
As for the CRR value, several field test that are common to be used have gained
evaluation of liquefied resistance, including the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), the Cone
Penetration Test (CPT), shear-wave velocity measurement (Vs), and the Becker penetration
test (BPT). SPT and CPT are generally preferred due to the more extensive database and
experience.
Criteria for evaluation of liquefaction resistance based on the SPT is largely
constitute of CSR versus (N
1
)
60
plot as shown in Figure 1. (N
1
)
60
is the SPT blow count
normalized to an overburden pressure of approximately 100 kPa (1 ton/sq ft) and a hammer
energy ratio or hammer efficiency of 60%. Curves were made to accommodate granular
soils with the fines contents of 5% or less, 15%, and 35% as shown. The CRR curve for
fines contents <5% is the basic penetration criterion for the simplified procedure and is
referred as “SPT clean-sand base curve”.
Figure 1. SPT Clean-Sand Base Curve for M7.5 earthquake with data from liquefaction
history
(Source: Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2001)
Rauch (1997) further developed an approximated formula for clean-sand base curve plotted
in Figure 1 by the following equation:
The above equation valid for (N
1
)
60
< 30. For (N
1
)
60
≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense
to liquefy and are classed as non-liquefiable.
Youd & Idriss on the Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER
workshop recommend the following formula as correction for the influence of fines content
(FC) on CRR:
Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in the Region of Mataram City in
Indonesia 709
Where α and β is coefficient obtained from the following relationship:
for FC ≤ 5%
for 5% < FC < 35%
for FC ≥ 35%
for FC ≤ 5%
for 5% < FC < 35%
for FC ≥ 35%
Other correction due to the additional factors involve to fines content and grain
characteristics influence SPT result, as shown in Table 1. Equation below constitutes the
corrections:
Where
N
m
= measured standard penetration resistance
C
N
= factor to normalize Nm to a common reference effective overburden stress
C
E
= correction for hammer energy ratio (ER)
C
B
= correction factor for borehole diameter
C
R
= correction factor for rod length
C
S
= correction for samplers with or without liners
Table 1. Corrections to SPT
Factor
Equipment
variable
Term
Correction
Overburden
pressure
Overburden
pressure
Energy ratio
Energy ratio
Energy ratio
Borehole diameter
Borehole diameter
Borehole diameter
Rod length
Rod length
Rod length
Rod length
Rod length
Sampling method
Sampling method
-
-
Donut hammer
Safety hammer
Automatic-trip
Donut-type hammer
65 – 115 mm
150 mm
200 mm
<3 m
3 – 4 m
4 – 6 m
6 – 10 m
10 – 30 m
Standard sampler
Sampler without
liners
C
N
C
N
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
S
C
S
C
N
≤ 1.7
0.5 – 1.0
0.7 – 1.2
0.8 – 1.3
1.0
1.05
1.15
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.1 – 1.3
As for liquefaction analysis using CPT data, A primary advantage of using CPT is
that a nearly continuous profile of penetration resistance is developed for stratigraphic
interpretation. The result is generally more consistent compared to that of SPT. The
stratigraphic capability of CPT makes it particularly good for assessing liquefaction-
resistance profile. Figure 2 given by Robertson and Wride (1998) for direct determination
of CRR for clean sands (FC ≤ 5%) from CPT data is valid for M7.5 earthquakes only. It
shows calculated cyclic resistance ratio plotted as a function of dimensionless, corrected,
and normalized CPT resistance q
c1N
from sites where surface effects of liquefaction were
or were not observed following past earthquakes.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
710 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Figure 2. Recommended cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sand under level ground
conditions based on CPT
The clean-sand curve at Figure 2 may be approached by the following equation (Robertson
and Wride, 1998)
If
then
If
then
Where the (q
c1N
)
cs
is the clean-sand cone penetration resistance normalized to
approximately 100 kPa (1 atm).
The CPT procedure requires normalization of tip resistance. This corrections lead
to normalized, dimensionless cone penetration resistance q
c1N
.
Where
Where
C
Q
= normalizing factor for cone penetration resistance
P
a
= 1 atm of pressure in the same units used for σ’
v0
n = exponent that varies with soil type
q
c
= field cone penetration resistance measured at the tip
Robertson and Wride (1998) give Figure 3 for estimation of soil type. The
boundaries between soil types 2 – 7 can be approximated by concentric circles and can be
used to account for effects of soil characteristics on q
c1N
and CRR. The radius of circles, is
referred as soil behavior type index I
c
, is calculated by the following formula:
Where
and
Figure 3. CPT-Based soil behavior-type chart
Intan Puspitaningrum
Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in the Region of Mataram City in
Indonesia 711
The soil behavior chart in Figure 3 was developed using an exponent n of 1.0,
which is appropriate value for clayey soil types. However, for clean sand, an exponent
between 0.5 is more appropriate, and a value between 0.5 and 1.0 would be appropriate
for silts and sandy silts. Differentiation is performed by assuming an exponent n of 1.0
(characterized as clay) and calculating the dimensionless CPT tip resistance Q from the
following equation:
If the I
c
calculated with an exponent of 1.0 is >2.6, the soil is classified as clayey
and is considered too clay-rich to liquefy, and the analysis is complete. If the calculated I
c
is <2.6, the soil is most likely granular in nature, thus C
Q
and Q should be recalculated
using an exponent n of 0.5. I
c
then shall be recalculated. If the recalculated Ic is <2.6, the
soil is classified as non-plastic and granular. However if the I
c
is >2.6, the soil is likely to
be very silty and possibly plastic. In this case, q
c1N
should be recalculated using an
intermediate exponent n of 0.7.
In order to normalized penetration resistance (q
c1N
) for silty sands is corrected to
an equivalent clean sand value (qc1N)cs by the following equation:
Where K
c
, the correction factor for grain characteristics, is defined by the following
formula:
for
Kc = 1.0
for
,
Since the clean-sand base or CRR of SPT and CPT on the above section of this
chapter is only apply to magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. To adjust the clean-sand curves to
magnitude smaller or larger than 7.5, Seed & Idriss (1982) introduced correction factors
coined ‘magnitude scaling factors (MSF)’. Therefore, the equation on finding the safety
factor FS of the potential of liquefaction to be happened is written as follows:
Where
CSR = calculated cyclic stress ratio generated by the earthquake shaking
CRR
7.5
= cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes
Several scaling factors are proposed by researches as provided in Table 2. For engineering
practice purpose, it is recommended for magnitude <7.5 the lower bound for the
recommended range is the new MSF proposed by Idriss in column 3 of Table 2.
Table 2. MSF value defined by various investigators
Magnitude
(1)
Seed and Idriss
(2)
Idriss
(3)
Andrus and Stokoe
(4)
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
1.43
1.32
1.19
1.08
1.00
0.94
0.89
2.20
1.76
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.84
0.72
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.25
1.00
0.8
0.65
For sites with level ground, far from any free face, it is reasonable to assume that
little or no lateral displacement occur after earthquake, such that the volumetric strain will
be equal or close to the vertical strain. If the vertical strain in each soil layer is integrated
with depth using this equation, the result should be an appropriate index of potential
liquefaction-induced ground settlement at the CPT location due to the design earthquake.
(Zhang et al., 2002).
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
712 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
S =
Where S is the calculated liquefaction-induced ground settlement; ɛ
vi
is the postliquefaction
volumetric strain for the soil sublayer i ; Δzi is the thickness of the sublayer i; and j is the
number of soil sublayers.
Generally, liquefaction-induced ground failure include flow slides, lateral spreads,
ground settlements, ground oscillation, and sand boils. Lateral spreads are the pervasive
types of liquefaction-induced ground failures for gentle slopes or for nearly level ground
with free face (Zhang et al., 2004).
Lateral displacement index (LDI) is defines as follows:
Where
Z
max
= maximum depth below all the potential liquefiable layers with a calculated SF< 2.0
γ
max
= maximum cyclic shear strains
Where γ
max
be approach by the following mathematical expressions:
if
for 0.7≤SF≤2.0
if
for SF≤0.7
if
for 0.56 ≤SF≤2.0
if
for SF≤0.56
if
for 0.59 ≤SF≤2.0
if
for SF≤5.9
if
for 0.66 ≤SF≤2.0
if
for SF≤0.66
if
for 0.72 ≤SF≤2.0
if
for SF≤0.72
if
for 1.0 ≤SF≤2.0
if
for 0.81 ≤SF≤1.0
if
for SF≤0.81
Approach for Lateral Displacement (LD) is recommended for use based on the
research mostly in Japan and America with its earthquake properties and ground condition,
moment magnitude between 6.4 and 9.2, peak surface acceleration between 0.19 g and 0.6
g, and free face height less than 18 m. (Zhang et al., 2002).
Lateral Displacement can be estimated with equation bellow :
LD = (S + 0.2) LDI, Where
LD = Lateral Displacement
S = Knowing ground slope
Figure 4 shows several locations in Mataram city in where soil data is being taken by using
SPT or CPT. Most locations are being tested by either SPT or CPT and some are taken by
both SPT and CPT. The earthquake profile is based on the 2018 M7.0.
Figure 4. Locations of data SPT and CPT taken
Intan Puspitaningrum
Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in the Region of Mataram City in
Indonesia 713
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter of master thesis, results of factor of safety acquired from the
calculations of CPT and CPT data in accordance to the depth of observation are depicted
in Figuure 5 to Figure 6.
Figure 5. SF on location 04 and 19 (downtown and west coast)
Figure 6. SF on location 14 and 15 (north area and eastern area
Table 3. Recapitulation of settlement and lateral displacement
Location
Coordinates
Depth ( z )
max
Σ I
L
Σ S
Max LD
(m)
(m)
(m)
CPT - 01
-8.5777629 , 116.086348
16.8
35.62
0.35
0.015
CPT - 02
-8.5777486 , 116.0867196
22
31.70
0.40
0.010
CPT - 03
-8.5777486 , 116.0867196
22
31.40
0.40
0.010
CPT - 04
-8.5790728 , 116.0886944
22
32.30
0.10
0.010
CPT - 05
-8.6200626 , 116.0822933
8
13.58
0.09
0.010
CPT - 06
-8.6181029 , 116.1648509
9
16.81
0.10
0.0064
CPT - 07
-8.6176298 , 116.1649291
8.4
9.21
0.06
0.0064
CPT - 08
-8.6176298 , 116.1649291
6.6
13.40
0.09
0.0065
CPT - 09
-8.6055768 , 116.0904813
10.8
36.73
0.21
0.010
CPT - 10
-8.5733601 , 116.1022052
6
7.19
0.05
0.0064
CPT - 11
-8.5945499 , 116.102548
17.6
36.85
0.37
0.010
CPT - 12
-8.5971415 , 116.1601164
5.6
15.90
0.12
0.010
CPT - 13
-8.6194192 , 116.0975514
11.6
31.95
0.23
0.010
CPT - 14
-8.5664244 , 116.1131799
9
29.36
0.19
0.010
CPT - 15
-8.5927082 , 116.1559701
3.8
6.42
0.06
0.0064
CPT - 16
-8.5844697 , 116.1286235
12.4
22.0
0.21
0.010
CPT - 17
-8.5641529 , 116.0981165
14.4
37.12
0.28
0.010
CPT - 18
-8.5955247 , 116.1126641
8.6
13.22
0.10
0.0064
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
714 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
CPT - 19
-8.6003905 , 116.0836751
7.4
19.69
0.12
0.0064
CPT - 20
-8.5842564 , 116.1072639
12
16.51
0.14
0.010
CPT - 21
-8.5705941 , 116.728371
2
38.80
0.46
0.010
CPT - 22
-8.588308 , 116.1453149
4.8
6.29
0.05
0.010
CONCLUSION
Generally speaking, Mataram city is prone to liquefaction with most of the
liquefaction potential may happen from at 2 meters below the surface. Figure 5 shows that
downtown area is heavily prone to liquefaction starting from 2 meter below until more than
20 meter. While the west coast is also have a high potential of liquefaction according to
Figure 5 and having the biggest settlement potential (0.46 m) according to data obtained
on CPT-21. This may due to the its location close to the epicenter of the past earthquake
and the location of most of rivers downstream, the place where most of the soil being soft.
It shows a significant potential up to 20 m below. The same pattern is also observed on the
northern part of the city, where the FS < 1 is commonly observed from 2 m up until 13 m.
Nevertheless, it shows a smaller magnitude compared to that of the western coast.
Moreover, the eastern part shows the least potential of liquefaction as shown in
Figure 6 and the least settlement potential on only 0.05 m obtained at CPT-22 site. This
can happen due to the higher altitude and the presence of strong soil in the surrounding
area. Lastly, the southern part of the city indicates a relatively medium potential of
liquefaction, although it is worth noticing the effect of liquefaction might increase due to
its close location to the west sites.
Finally, looking at the calculation results, it is can be concluded that Mataram city
has a high potential of liquefaction and it is recommended to take a further actions
concerning this threat.
REFERENCES
Ribudiman, N., Pramana, M. W., & Basoka, W. A. (2016). Liquefaction Potential Analysis
Using Spt And Cpt Data (Case Study: Benoa Area, Denpasar). The 3rd International
Conference On Earthquake Engineering And Disaster Mitigation 2016 (Iceedm-Iii
2016), 7.
Badan Geologi Pusat Air Dan Geologi Tata Lingkungan. (2019). Atlas: Zona Kerentanan
Likuefaksi Indonesia (1st Ed.) [Map]. Kementerian Energi Dan Sumber Daya
Mineral.
Blake, T. F. (1996). Spreadsheet Template Liq2_30. Wq1-A Computer Program For The
Determination Of Liquefaction Potential.
Bolton Seed, H., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., & Chung, R. M. (1985). Influence Of Spt
Procedures In Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. Journal Of Geotechnical
Engineering, 111(12), 1425–1445. Https://Doi.Org/10.1061/(Asce)0733-
9410(1985)111:12(1425)
Castelli, F., & Lentini, V. (2010). Spt-Based Evaluation Of Soil Liquefaction Risk.
International Conference On Recent Advances In Geothecnical Earthquake
Engineering And Soil Dynamics, 7.
Iwasaki, T., & Tokida, K.-I. (1984). Simplified Procedures For Assessing Soil Liquefaction
During Earthquakes. 10.
Jefferies, M., & Been, K. (2019). Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach. Crc Press.
Kaliakin, V. N. (2017a). Example Problems Involving Phase Relations For Soils. In Soil
Mechanics (Pp. 1–50). Elsevier. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804491-
9.00001-X
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
Analysis of Subsoil Liquefaction Potential in the Region of Mataram City in
Indonesia 715
Kaliakin, V. N. (2017b). Example Problems Related To Soil Identification And
Classification. In Soil Mechanics (Pp. 51–92). Elsevier.
Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804491-9.00002-1
Kayen, R. E., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., Lodge, A., Nishio, S., & Coutinho, R. (1992).
Evaluation Of Spt-, Cpt-, And Shear Wave-Based Methods For Liquefaction Potential
Assessment Using Loma Prieta Data. Proceedings Of The 4th Japan-Us Workshop
On Earthquake Resistant Design Of Lifeline Facilities And Countermeasures For Soil
Liquefaction, Hamada, M. And O’rourke, Td, Eds.
Liao, S. S. C., & Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden Correction Factors For Spt In Sand.
Journal Of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(3), 373–377.
Https://Doi.Org/10.1061/(Asce)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373)
Lonteng, C. V. D., Balamba, S., Monintja, S., & Sarajar, A. N. (2013). Analisis Potensi
Likuifaksi Di Pt. Pln (Persero) Uip Kit Sulmapa Pltu 2 Sulawesi Utara 2 X 25 Mw
Power Plan. 1, 13.
Obermeier, S. F. (1996). Use Of Liquefaction-Induced Features For Paleoseismic
Analysis—An Overview Of How Seismic Liquefaction Features Can Be
Distinguished From Other Features And How Their Regional Distribution And
Properties Of Source Sediment Can Be Used To Infer The Location And Strength Of
Holocene Paleo-Earthquakes. Engineering Geology, 44(1–4), 1–76.
Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/S0013-7952(96)00040-3
Oglesby, D., & Day, S. (2004). Fault Geometry And The Dynamics Of The 1999 Chi-Chi
(Taiwan) Earthquake. Bulletin Of The Seismological Society Of America, 91(5),
1099–1111. Https://Doi.Org/10.1785/0120000714
Putra, R. R., Kiyono, J., Ono, Y., & Parajuli, H. R. (2012). Seismic Hazard Analysis For
Indonesia. Journal Of Natural Disaster Science, 33(2), 59–70.
Https://Doi.Org/10.2328/Jnds.33.59
Rauch, A. F. (1997). Epolls: An Empirical Method For Prediciting Surface Displacements
Due To Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading In Earthquakes. Virginia Tech.
Robertson, P. K. (1998). Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using The Cone
Penetration Test. 35, 18.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1970). Analyses Of Ground Motions At Union Bay, Seattle
During Earthquakes And Distant Nuclear Blasts. Bulletin Of The Seismological
Society Of America, 60(1), 125–136.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified Procedure For Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential. Journal Of The Soil Mechanics And Foundations Division, 97(9), 1249–
1273.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground Motions And Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes. Monograph Series. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, Ca.
Siahaan, S. P. (2015). Percobaan Potensi Likuifaksi Pada Tanah Pasir Seragam Dengan
Permodelan Alat Di Laboratorium. Padang: Universitas Andalas.
Tijow, K. C., Sompie, O. B. A., & Ticoh, J. H. (2018). Analisis Potensi Likuifaksi Tanah
Berdasarkan Data Standart Penetration Test (Spt) Studi Kasus : Dermaga Bitung,
Sulawesi Utara. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 6, 10.
Tim Pusat Studi Gempa Nasional. (2018). Kajian Gempa Lombok (Lombok Earthquake
Report) (Vol. 1–1). Badan Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Kementerian Pekerjaan
Umum Dan Perumahan Rakyat.
Townsend, F. C., Marcuson, W. F., & Mulilis, J. P. (1978). Cyclic Triaxial And Spt For
Predicting Liquefaction. From Volume I Of Earthquake Engineering And Soil
Dynamics--Proceedings Of The Asce Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 1 Number 8, August 2021
716 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Conference, June 19-21, 1978, Pasadena, California. Sponsored By Geotechnical
Engineering Division Of Asce In Cooperation With:, Proceeding.
Warman, H., & Jumas, D. Y. (2013). Kajian Potensi Likuifaksi Pasca Gempa Dalam
Rangka Mitigasi Bencana Di Padang. Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil (Jrs-Unand), 9(2), 1.
Https://Doi.Org/10.25077/Jrs.9.2.1-19.2013
Youd, T. L., & Idriss, I. M. (N.D.). Liquefaction Resistance Of Soils: Summary Report
From The 1996 Nceer And 1998 Nceer/Nsf Workshops On Evaluation Of Liquefaction
Resistance Of Soilsa. 17.
Zettyara, F., & Zaika, Y. (2018). Analisis Potensi Likuifaksi Akibat Gempa Bumi
Menggunakan Data Cpt (Cone Penetration Test) Di Kabupaten Tulungagung
[Bachelor Thesis, Universitas Brawijaya]. Http://Repository.Ub.Ac.Id/12320/
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., & Brachman, R. W. I. (2004). Estimating Liquefaction-
Induced Lateral Displacements Using The Standard Penetration Test Or Cone
Penetration Test. Journal Of Geotechnical And Geoenvironmental Engineering,
130(8), 861–871. Https://Doi.Org/10.1061/(Asce)1090-0241(2004)130:8(861)
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., & Brachman, R. W. I. (2002). Estimating Liquefaction-
Induced Ground Settlements From Cpt For Level Ground. Journal Of Geotechnical
And Geoenvironmental Engineering, 39, 1168–1180. Https://Doi.Org/10.1139/T02-
047
Pupr (2021). Aplikasi Online Respon Spektra Indonesia 2021.
Https://Rsa.Ciptakarya.Pu.Go.Id/2021/
