DOKUZ EYLÜL UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE

OF SATURATED COHESIONLESS SOILS
ALONG MAJOR COASTAL HIGHWAY
ARTERIES OF IZMIR BAY AREA

by

Pınar ATEŞ

February, 2025

İZMİR
INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE
OF SATURATED COHESIONLESS SOILS
ALONG MAJOR COASTAL HIGHWAY
ARTERIES OF IZMIR BAY AREA

A Thesis Submitted to the

Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Dokuz Eylül University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master of Science in
Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Program

by
Pınar ATEŞ

February, 2025

İZMİR
 [Link] THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORM

We have read the thesis entitled “INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE

OF SATURATED COHESIONLESS SOILS ALONG MAJOR COASTAL
HIGHWAY ARTERIES OF IZMIR BAY AREA” completed by PINAR ATEŞ
under supervision of [Link]. GÜRKAN ÖZDEN and we certify that in our
opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree [Link]
of Science.

[Link]. Gürkan ÖZDEN

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Okan ÖNAL Doç. Dr. Hasan Fırat PULAT

Jury Member Jury Member

Prof. Dr. Abdullah Seçgin

Director
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am grateful to my advisor, Prof. Dr. Gürkan Özden, for their invaluable guidance,
encouragement, and insightful feedback throughout my master’s studies. Their
knowledge and assistance have been invaluable in shaping our research.

I am deeply grateful to my friends, who have always supported me and believed in

my accomplishments.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my family, my mother Nevin Ateş,
my father Alpaslan Ateş, my sister Tuğçe Ateş, and most importantly my grandmother
Nevriye Temel, for their continuous support and understanding throughout this
difficult road. Their encouragement has given me strength and motivation.

I would like to dedicate this work to everyone committed to advancing knowledge

in geotechnical engineering.

Pınar ATEŞ

iii
 INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SATURATED
COHESIONLESS SOILS ALONG MAJOR COASTAL HIGHWAY
ARTERIES OF IZMIR BAY AREA

ABSTRACT

Liquefaction, a critical geotechnical hazard, occurs when saturated sandy soils lose
their strength during seismic events, causing the soil to behave like a liquid. This
phenomenon, along with the resultant damage, is a fundamental problem in cities such
as İzmir, which are located near active tectonic boundaries and are characterized by
saturated sandy soil compositions.

This thesis examines the impact of earthquakes on major coastal highway arteries
along the İzmir Bay area, with a specific focus on liquefaction and post-earthquake
settlement analysis. A comprehensive geotechnical database was devoleped using
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, incorporating borehole data from
82 drilling sites along the İzmir coastline. GIS-based maps were created to evaluate
the factor of safety against liquefaction and induced settlement along the Konak-
Üçkuyular and Altınyol highways under different seismic scenarios (DD-2 and DD-3,
corresponding to magnitudes Mw=6.5 and Mw=5.5 respectively). The analyses
revealed that the safety factor in all regions, Alsancak-Konak, Konak-Üçkuyular, and
Bayraklı, declined to extremely low levels during the DD-2 earthquake event. It was
observed that both at DD-2 and DD-3 levels, post-liquefaction settlements could reach
significantly high values.

Therefore, a dynamic compaction procedure has been proposed to enhance

liquefaction resistance in these areas, accompanied by an exemplary study.
Additionally, colloidal silica, a novel soil improvement technique, has been
introduced. The results of the study aim to provide valuable insights for geotechnical
engineers and decision-makers in assessing the vulnerability of main coastal arteries.

Keywords: Liquefaction, earthquake, geographical information system (GIS), post-

earthquake settlement, liquefaction-resistance, colloidal silica

iv
 İZMİR KÖRFEZ BÖLGESİ SAHİL BOYU ANA KARAYOLLARI
BOYUNCA SUYA DOYGUN KOHEZYONSUZ ZEMİNLERİN SIVILAŞMA
DİRENCİNİN ARTTIRILMASI

ÖZ

Sıvılaşma, doymuş kumlu zeminlerin sismik olaylar sırasında dayanımını

kaybetmesi ile sonuçlanan en önemli geoteknik tehlikelerden biridir. Sıvılaşma ve
sonucunda meydana gelen deformasyonlar, aktif tektonik faylara yakın olan ve suya
doygun kumlu zeminleri yapısında bulunduran İzmir gibi şehirlerde temel bir sorun
teşkil etmektedir. Bu tez kapsamında, İzmir körfezi boyunca ana otoyol arterlerinde
sıvılaşma ve sıvılaşma sonrası oturma analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. İzmir kıyı
kesimindeki 82 adet sondaj kuyusuna ait veriler kullanılarak Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi
(CBS) ortamında geoteknik veri tabanı oluşturulmuştur.

Alsancak-Konak, Konak-Üçkuyular ve Bayraklı otoyolları boyunca sıvılaşmaya

karşı güvenlik faktörleri ve bu tabakalarda oturma analizleri yapılarak farklı deprem
büyüklükleri (Mw=6.5 ve Mw=5.5 büyüklüğüne karşılık gelen DD-2 ve D-3) için
hesaplanmış CBS tabanlı enterpolasyon haritaları elde edilmiştir. Analizler, Alsancak-
Konak, Konak-Üçkuyular ve Bayraklı bölgelerinde güvenlik faktörünün DD-2 deprem
seviyesinde son derece düşük değerlere düştüğünü ortaya koymuştur. DD-2 ve DD-3
seviyelerinde ise sıvılaşma sonrası oturmaların oldukça yüksek değerlere ulaşabileceği
gözlemlenmiştir.

Bu sonuçlara göre, bu bölgede dinamik kompaksiyon ile iyileştirme yapılması

tavsiye edilmiş ve örnek bir çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, yeni bir
teknik olan kolloidal silika ile iyileştirme yöntemi de tanıtılmıştır. Çalışmanın
sonuçlarının, bölgenin sismik risklere karşı hassasiyetini değerlendirmek ve bu tür
tehlikelere karşı dayanıklılığı artırmak adına, geoteknik mühendisleri ve karar
vericilere değerli bilgiler sağlaması amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Sıvılaşma, deprem, coğrafi bilgi sistemleri (CBS), deprem

sonrası oturma, sıvılaşma direnci, kolloidal silika

v
CONTENTS

Page
[Link] THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORM ..................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ................................................................................................................................ v
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xv
LIST OF SYMBOL .................................................................................................. xvi
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xix

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Motivation of the Thesis .................................................................................. 2
1.3 Scope of Thesis ................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER TWO - STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Liquefaction ..................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Liquefaction Mechanism ...................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Liquefaction Types ............................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Liquefaction Susceptibility................................................................. 13
2.2.4 Assessment of Liquefaction Resistance ............................................. 18
2.3 Post-Earthquake Settlement ........................................................................... 32
2.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 32
2.3.2 Mechanism of Post-earthquake Settlement ........................................ 33
2.3.3 Studies on Post-Earthquake Settlement Characteristics ..................... 36
2.3.4 Prediction of Post-Earthquake Settlement Approaches ...................... 40
2.4 GIS in Lifeline Performance Assessment ...................................................... 45

vi
CHAPTER THREE - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DATABASE .................... 47

3.1 Data Sources .................................................................................................... 47

3.1.1 Borehole Data .......................................................................................... 47
3.1.2 Standart Penetration Test (SPT) Data ...................................................... 48
3.1.3 Laboratory Test Data ............................................................................... 48
3.1.4 Geotechnical Database Creation .............................................................. 49
3.1.5 Historical Seismic Data ........................................................................... 49
3.1.6 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Data....................................... 49
3.2 Soil Profiles ..................................................................................................... 50
3.2.1 Konak-Üçkuyular Area ............................................................................ 51
3.2.2 Alsancak-Konak Area .............................................................................. 53
3.2.3 Bayraklı Area (Altınyol) .......................................................................... 56
3.3 Data Layers...................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER FOUR - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ............................................ 61

4.1 Liquefaction Maps for the Konak-Üçkuyular Area ....................................... 63

4.2 Liquefaction Maps for the Alsancak-Konak Area ......................................... 66
4.3 Liquefaction Maps for the Bayraklı (Altınyol) Area ..................................... 69

CHAPTER FIVE - POST-EARTHQUAKE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ........ 72

CHAPTER SIX - DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS ......................................... 76

CHAPTER SEVEN - INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF

SOIL IN THE STUDY AREA USING CONTEMPORARY TECHNIQUES ... 80

7.1 Dynamic Compaction ..................................................................................... 80

7.1.1 Process and Mechanism ..................................................................... 83
7.1.2 Advantages and Limitations ............................................................... 83
7.1.3 Design Guideline of Dynamic Compaction Method .......................... 84
7.2 Proposal for Improvement through Dynamic Compaction in the Konak Coastal
Area ................................................................................................................ 87
7.3 A Novel Technique Against Liquefaction with Colloidal Silica ................... 91

vii
 7.3.1 Physical Properties of Colloidal Silica ............................................... 93
7.3.2 Mechanism ......................................................................................... 94
7.3.3 Literature Review ............................................................................... 96
7.3.4 Applicability of the CSM in Konak-Üçkuyular Area....................... 107

CHAPTER EIGHT - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 109

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 112

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 120

Appendix-1: Borehole Data Information ............................................................ 120

Appendix-2: Data Layers .................................................................................... 122
Appendix-3: Liquefaction Analysis Results........................................................ 158
Appendix-4: Post-Earthquake Settlement Analysis Results ............................... 205
Appendix-5: ArcGIS Database ............................................................................ 210
Appendix-6: Python Codes ................................................................................. 211

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1 Location map of the study area................................................................... 1

Figure 1.2 The change of İzmir's coastline throughout time due to earthfills (a)
Coastline with the inner harbor in the 18th century, (b) In the 2000s
earthfilling works along the kordon (Ozbey & Gunes Golbey, 2021) ..... 3

Figure 2.1 Simplified geological map showing the neogene–quaternary basins in

western Anatolia with main tectonic lines and distribution of the
neogene−quaternary deposits (modified from MTA 2002, Geological Map
of Türkiye, Scale 1:500.000; Bozkurt 2000, 2001, Uzel et al. 2012) ....... 6

Figure 2.2 Simplified geological map of the region around the Gulf of İzmir. UFZ:
Uzunada Fault Zone, IF: Izmir Fault Zone, ICG: Izmir Central Graben,
FSF: FocaSuzbeyli Fault, OFZ: Orhanli (Tuzla) Fault Zone, GFZ:
Gulbahce Fault Zone, GB: Gulbahce Bay, MEFZ: Menemen Fault Zone,
SFZ: Seferihisar Fault Zone, KFZ: Karsiyaka Fault Zone, UI: Uzun Island,
HI: Hekim Island, CA: Cicek Archipelago (modified from Uzel et al.,2012
and Coşkun et al., 2017) ............................................................................ 6

Figure 2.3 Transfer of state of deposition via liquefaction (Ishiara, 1985)................ 10

Figure 2.4 Flow-liquefaction example of a highway embankment during the 1957 Daly
City, California, earthquake (Youd, 2003)................................................ 11

Figure 2.5 Piles sheared by lateral spreading during the 1964 Niigata, Japan,
earthquake (Youd, 2003) ........................................................................ 11

Figure 2.6 (a) Sand boiling caused by liquefaction of underlying sediments during the
1978 Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, earthquake (source unknown), (b) Sand boil
after liquefaction-induced boiling from the 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquake has ceased (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008) ............................... 12

ix
Figure 2.7 Schematic illustration of flow failure, lateral spread, and ground oscillation:
(a) flow failure: liquefaction develops beneath the ground surface, causing
the soil to lose strength and flow, (b) lateral spread: the surface layer moves
laterally and breaks up from the fissures, (c) ground oscillation: liquefaction
decouples the surface layer from the stable ground beneath, causing the
surface to vibrate differently, leading to fissures and impacts between
oscillating blocks and the firm ground (National Research Council, 1985
and Youd 1984b) ....................................................................................... 12

Figure 2.8 Data presented by Wang on plasticity chart ............................................. 14

Figure 2.9 Liquefiable soils on plasticity chart (Seed et al., 2003) ............................ 16

Figure 2.10 (a) Data from a cyclic triaxial test from Bray and Sancio (2006); (b) Data
from Bray et al. (2004a) .......................................................................... 18

Figure 2.11 Method of evaluating liquefaction potential (Seed & Idriss, 1971) ....... 20

Figure 2.12 Determination of maximum shear stress (Seed & Idriss, 1971) ............. 21

Figure 2.13 Stress reduction factor recommendations (Seed & Idriss, 1971) ........... 22

Figure 2.14 Stress reduction factor recommendations by Seed & Idriss (1971) with
added average lines from the above equations by National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (2001) ............................................. 23

Figure 2.15 Simplified base curve modified from Seed et al., 1985 (Seed et al.,2003)
................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 2.16 Relationship between CRR and (𝑁1)60𝑓 for clean sand curve (Idriss &
Boulanger, 2010) .................................................................................... 27

Figure 2.17 Schematic illustration of liquefaction-induced ground vertical

displacement mechanisms (Seed et al., 2001) ................................... 34

Figure 2.18 Stress-strain and pore pressure curves from undrained triaxial compression
tests on saturated Ottawa sand (data from Castro, 1969; curves modified
from Youd, 1975; Youd, 2003). .............................................................. 36

x
Figure 2.19 Relationship between post-liquefaction volumetric strain and maximum
shear strain (Tkusumoto et al., 2004) ..................................................... 37

Figure 2.20 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric
strain (Tkusumoto et al., 2004) ............................................................... 38

Figure 2.21 Connection between vertical strain and cumulative shear strain at different
strain levels (Matsuda et al., 2011) ......................................................... 39

Figure 2.22 The variation of vertical strain with the number of cycles for multi-
directional and single-directional shear (Matsuda et al., 2004) ............ 40

Figure 2.23 Proposed chart for volumetric strain based on CSR and SPT-N from field
performance (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) .............................................. 42

Figure 2.24 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric
strain ........................................................................................................ 43

Figure 2.25 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric
strain ........................................................................................................ 44

Figure 2.26 Relationship between CSR and volumetric strain as a function of (𝑁1)60𝑓
(Wu et al., 2003) ...................................................................................... 45

Figure 3.1 Borehole locations along the study area ................................................... 48

Figure 3.2 Borehole data incorporated into ArcGIS map .......................................... 50

Figure 3.3 Konak-Üçkuyular borehole locations ....................................................... 52

Figure 3.4 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Konak-Üçkuyular area
................................................................................................................. 52

Figure 3.5 Schematic illustration and N30 values for boreholes 1_SK-1, 1_SK-2, and
1_SK-3 ..................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3.6 Alsancak-Konak borehole locations ......................................................... 54

Figure 3.7 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Alsancak-Konak area
................................................................................................................. 54

xi
Figure 3.8 Schematic illustration for boreholes 4_SK-1, 4_SK-2, and 4_SK-3 ........ 55

Figure 3.9 Bayraklı borehole locations ...................................................................... 57

Figure 3.10 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Bayraklı area .......... 57

Figure 3.11 Schematic illustration and N30 values for boreholes 6_SK-1, 6_SK-2, and
6_SK-3 ................................................................................................... 58

Figure 3.12 Measured SPT (𝑁30) distribution at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Konak-
Üçkuyular and Alsancak Konak Area .................................................... 59

Figure 3.13 Measured SPT (𝑁30) distribution at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Bayraklı
Area ........................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.1 The workflow of data processing and liquefaction analysis ..................... 63

Figure 4.2 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5)
earthquake levels at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area .. 64

Figure 4.3 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and
average for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the
Konak-Üçkuyular area ........................................................................... 65

Figure 4.4 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m,
5m, 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area .......................................... 66

Figure 4.5 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m,
5m, and 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area ................................... 67

Figure 4.6 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and
average for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the
Alsancak-Konak area .............................................................................. 68

Figure 4.7 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m,
5m, 10m depths in the Bayraklı (Altınyol) area ....................................... 69

Figure 4.8 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m,
5m, and 10m depths in the Bayraklı (Altınyol) area ................................ 70

xii
Figure 4.9 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and
average for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the
Bayraklı (Altınyol) area ......................................................................... 71

Figure 5.1 Volumetric strain determination (Wu et al., 2003) ................................... 73

Figure 5.2 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3
(Mw=5.5) earthquake levels in the Konak-Üçkuyular area ..................... 74

Figure 5.3 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3
(Mw=5.5) earthquake levels in the Alsancak-Konak area ....................... 75

Figure 7.1 Schematic illustration of dynamic compaction method (Nicholson,2014)

................................................................................................................. 81

Figure 7.2 Soil types for dynamic compaction (Lukas, 1995) ................................... 82

Figure 7.3 Square layout of drop points (Shaban, 2018) .......................................... 83

Figure 7.4 Location of improvement area .................................................................. 88

Figure 7.5 Soil profile of improvement area .............................................................. 89

Figure 7.6 30m x 150m Improvement area pattern .................................................... 91

Figure 7.7 Passive site stabilization concept (Gallagher et al., 2002) ....................... 93

Figure 7.8 Colloidal silica particle illustration (Silco International, 2005) ............... 94

Figure 7.9 Surface charge of silica particles for the cases of different pH values; (a)
pH> 8, O- on the particle surface and repulsive forces, (b) 5≤pH≤8, some
particles still have negative charges, (c) pH<5, H₂O⁺ ions attach to the
particle surfaces (Zhao et al., 2019) ......................................................... 95

Figure 7.10 Gelling mechanism (a) before gelling, (b) during gelling (c) after gelling
(Wong et al., 2018) .................................................................................. 95

Figure 7.11 Variation of peak static strength with silica content (Rosenharb &
Hackman, 1981) ................................................................................... 97

xiii
Figure 7.12 Static stress-strain response: confined and unconfined (Rosenharb &
Hackman, 1981) .................................................................................... 97

Figure 7.13 Colloidal silica versus strain during cyclic loading (Gallagher & Mitchell,
2002)........................................................................................................ 98

Figure 7.14 Untreated Monterey sand (CSR:0.27) and treated sand (CSR:0.24) axial
strain vs cycles (Gallagher & Mitchell, 2002) ....................................... 99

Figure 7.15 Strain during cyclic loading for 10% CS Samples with different curing
time (Gallagher & Mitchell, 2002) ........................................................ 99

Figure 7.16 Strain during cyclic loading for 10% CS samples with different curing
time (Liao et al., 2003) ........................................................................ 100

Figure 7.17 Comparison of liquefaction resistance between untreated sand and treated
sand at various curing durations (Liao et al., 2003) ............................. 101

Figure 7.18 Observed settlements in treated and untreated zones (Gallagher et al.,
2007).................................................................................................... 102

Figure 7.19 Dynamic properties comparison: shear modulus and damping ratio of
treated and untreated samples (Spencer et al., 2007) .......................... 102

Figure 7.20 Change in shear modulus of 5% CS sample over a 28-day aging period
(Spencer et al., 2007)............................................................................ 103

Figure 7.21 Unconfined compression test (a) before and (b) after cyclic loading
(Mahmutoğlu & Yılmaz, 2010) .......................................................... 104

Figure 7.22 Impact of colloidal silica content on axial strain at different confining
pressures (relative density: 30%, 40%, 60%) (Krishnan et al., 2020). 106

Figure 7.23 Hysteresis response during cyclic loading (a) untread sand, (b) treated sand
(Krishnan et al., 2020) ........................................................................... 106

Figure 7.24 Excess pore water pressure vs. axial strain during cyclic loading (a)
untread sand, (b) treated sand (Krishnan et al., 2020)......................... 107

xiv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Liquefactions susceptibility of silty soils (Andrews & Martin, 2000) ....... 15

Table 2.2 Comparison of field test accounting liquefaction resistance (Youd & Idriss,
1997) .......................................................................................................... 24

Table 2.3 Corrections to SPT (modified from Skempton, 1986) as listed by Robertson
and Wride (1998) ....................................................................................... 30

Table 2.4 Representative number of cyclic and corresponding factors (Seed and Idriss,
1982) .......................................................................................................... 32

Table 3.1 Borehole data information ......................................................................... 47

Table 4.1 Local soil classes (TBDY, 2018) ............................................................... 62

Table 4.2 Peak ground acceleration (PGA) values .................................................... 62

Table 7.1 Suitability of dynamic compaction method ............................................... 82

Table 7.2 Recommended nc value for different soil types (Lukas, 1995) .................. 85

Table 7.3 Required unit applied energy from standard proctor test (Lukas, 1995) ... 86

Table 7.4 Approximate induced settlement relation with improvement depth (Shaban,
2015) .......................................................................................................... 87

Table 7.5 Input values for dynamic compaction energy ............................................ 89

Table 7.6 Dynamic compaction energy calculations ................................................. 90

xv
LIST OF SYMBOL

𝑀 : Moment magnitude

𝑁 : Measured SPT blow count

No200 : The percentage of soil particles that pass through a 200-mesh sieve

wn : Water content

𝜏 : Maximum shear stress

𝛾 : Unit weight of soil

h : Depth

𝑎 : Peak horizontal acceleration

g : The acceleration of gravity

𝑟 : Stress reduction coefficient

𝜏 : Avarage effective shear stress

𝜎 : Overburden pressure

𝜎 : Effective overburden pressure

𝑉 : Shear wave velocity

(𝑁 ) : Corrected SPT blow count

𝐶𝑅𝑅 . : Cyclic resistance ratio for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake

(𝑁 ) : Corrected SPT blow count for clean sand

Ks : Fines correction factor

𝐶 : Fines correction factor

𝑝 : Reference pressure

xvi
𝐶 : Overburden pressure correction

𝐶 : Energy ratio correction

𝐶 : Borehole diameter correction

𝐶 : Rod length correction

𝐶 : Sampling method correction

𝜏 : Liquefaction resistance of soil

𝜏 : Average cyclic shear stress in the ground caused by an earthquake

𝜀 : Vertical strain/ Post-liquefaction volumetric strain

Dr : Relative density

cu : Undrained shear resistance

𝛾 : Maximum shear strain

𝛾 : Cumulative shear strain

𝛥𝑧 : Thickness of the layer

Na : Adjusted SPT blow count in Japanese Standart

𝑁 : Corrected SPT blow count without overburden correction

𝐷İ : Depth of improvement

𝑛 : Coefficient according to soil type

𝑊 : Weight of temper

𝐻 : Drop height

𝐴𝐸 : Total applied energy

𝐴𝐸 : Applied energy during high energy pass

𝐴𝐸 : Applied energy during ironing pass

xvii
𝑁 : Number of drops

𝑁 : Number of passess

𝐴 : Effective area

𝑑 : Crater depth

ru : Pore Water Pressure Ratio

𝐻𝑂 : Water Molecule

xviii
ABBREVIATIONS

GIS : Geographical Information System

SPT : Standart penetration test

USCS : Unified Soil Classification System

FS : Safety factor

LL : Liquid limit

IP, PI : Plasticity index

CRR : Cyclic resistance ratio

CSR : Cyclic stress ratio

CPT : Cone penetration test

BPT : Becker penetration test

FC : Fine content

MSF : Magnitude scaling factor

S : Settlement

NCEER : National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

SPT-N : Measured SPT resistance

UU : Unconfined compression test

PGA : Peak ground accelaration

EBK : Emprical bayesian kriging

DC : Dynamic Compaction

UAE : Unit Applied Energy

xix
HEP : High Energy Pass

CS : Colloidal silica

CSM : Colloidal Silica Method

xx
 CHAPTER ONE
- INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Area

İzmir is the third-largest city in Türkiye and is located in the Aegean Region. Its
geographical coordinates are 38°25′19″N and 27°07′44″E (Figure 1.1). The
coastal regions of Izmir serve as the focal point of the thesis. The study investigates
two major transportation arteries the Konak-Üçkuyular and Altınyol coastal highways,
to characterize earthquake hazards associated with liquefiable soils that underlain the
highways.

Figure 1.1 Location map of the study area

İzmir is highly susceptible to seismic events due to its proximity to the active
tectonic boundaries. Earthquakes in the region can lead to severe consequences such
as liquefaction, post-earthquake settlement or even ground failure. Understanding the

1
area's earthquake potential and its implications is crucial for assessing the region’s
resilience. Moreover, this area hosts critical transportation links for relief efforts in the
event of a major earthquake and is adjacent to densely populated districts.

1.2 Motivation of the Thesis

The phenomenon of liquefaction, which will be discussed in more detail in the

following section, occurs when repeated earthquake shaking causes the soil to lose
strength and stiffness. This leads to a condition where the soil behaves like a liquid.
Liquefied soil can no longer support the structures above it, potentially causing
buildings to sink and tilt. Additionally, liquefaction can rupture underground utilities
and destabilize embankments and levees. In most severe cases, it can result in the total
collapse of the structures and infrastructure.

Liquefaction is more pronounced in cities like İzmir, where loose soils and shallow
groundwater levels create favourable conditions for its occurence. The interest area of
this thesis is the coastline of İzmir. During the early 20th century, earthfill projects
were conducted to expand the land area available for urban development. Extensive
earthfill activities were carried out in areas such as Alsancak and Kordon area over
time. In the early 2000s, the coastal area was further modified, with the see along the
coastline being filled to facilitate the construction of a highway, shaping the coastline
into its present form (Figure 1.2).

This thesis seeks to investigate the effects of earthquakes on İzmir’s coastal lifeline
roads, focusing on post-earthquake settlement, liquefaction, and the influence of
potential tectonic plate movements. The study aims to provide insight into liquefaction
hazards in this area by gathering geotechnical data and spatial information powered by
a geographic information system (GIS). GIS technology enables spatial analysis,
visualization, and meaningful evaluation of subsurface data. This information is vital
for geotechnical engineers in assessing the area and for policymakers in developing
strategies to enhance the region’s resilience.

2
 (a)

(b)

Figure 1.2 The change of İzmir's coastline throughout time due to earthfills (a) Coastline with the inner
harbor in the 18th century, (b) In the 2000s earthfilling works along the kordon (Ozbey & Gunes Golbey,
2021)

1.3 Scope of Thesis

This thesis explores the state of the lifelines of the İzmir coastal area, with a
particular emphasis on liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement under different
seismic scenarios, including DD-2, and DD-3, corresponding to magnitudes Mw=6.5
and Mw=5.5. The primary objectives of this research are to analyze the effects of
liquefaction and settlement risks along the İzmir coastline following seismic events
and to visualize these properties for future reference through mapping. In addressing
this topic, the research seeks to answer several essential questions. These include
identifying the soil layers in the region, evaluating liquefaction risks along the primary
transportation routes on the İzmir coastline and estimating the expected post-
earthquake settlement in the area following seismic activity.

The study focuses explicitly on İzmir’s coastal regions, particularly two major
transportation arteries: the Konak-Üçkuyular Coastal Highway and Altınyol. The data
for this analysis are from boreholes drilled in the area between 1990 and 2010,

3
covering approximately 82 locations during various projects along İzmir’s coastline.
A geotechnical database was created in ArcGIS utilizing these data.

Liquefaction analyses were based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and
laboratory data. The factor of safety against liquefaction was calculated using the
Standard Penetration Resistance (N30), fines content (No200) and according to the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The safety factors, denoted as FS (2) and
FS (3) for DD-2 and DD-3 respectively, were visualized at various depths to create
maps. These safety values were also visualized by computing each borehole's
minimum, maximum, and average values.

Liquefaction-induced settlement was assessed for the layers expected to undergo

liquefaction, employing established methodologies from the literature. Interpolation
maps, such as safety factor analysis, were generated at depths (3m, 5m, 10m). These
three specific depths were chosen because modal structural failure will likely be
affected by liquefaction without occurrence at these depths. Assessing these soil layers
will provide engineers with critical insights to enhance risk assessment and devise
effective mitigation strategies. Furthermore, this study presents a dynamic
improvement project proposal covering 30x150 meters as a liquefaction mitigation
measure between the Konak-Üçkuyular section. A novel liquefaction mitigation
technique utilizing colloidal silica has been proposed.

The focus on lifelines along the coastal areas, rather than the entire İzmir region, is
attributed to their role as critical transportation routes essential for regional
connectivity and mobility. These routes are vital for maintaining resilience and
ensuring the efficient movement of goods and services during emergencies,
constituting the study's key emphasis. The thesis concentrates on this area due to its
importance in supporting essential services, infrastructure functioning and continuity.

4
 CHAPTER TWO
- STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

2.1 Introduction

İzmir coastal region, a critical area for social and economic activity in Türkiye, is
exceptionally vulnerable to seismic events since it is located near the active tectonic
boundaries of the Aegean Sea.

Izmir Bay is located within a tectonically active region, shaped by N-S extension
and the reactivation of ancient tectonic structures (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2). The
Bornova flysch zone underlies the basin, forming the basement, with a distinct
metamorphic core complex to the west. The area is intersected by E-W and NE-SW
trending normal faults, while NE-SW trending strike-slip faults have played a very
significant role in the region’s structural evolution (Bozkurt, 2001; Sözbilir, 2002;
Uzel et al., 2012).

Two faults that continue the Gediz Graben to the north and south surround the inner
Gulf Area: The southern shore of the Gulf is home to the Izmir Fault Zone (IF). It can
be followed up east of Balçova, beginning in the neighbors of İzmir (Coşkun et al.,
2017). IF constitutes the northern boundary of the Seferihisar Heights (Emre & Barka,
2000). On the other hand, its offshore continuation westward from Balçova-Narlıdere
has not been investigated. IF was accepted as an active normal fault zone in the past
(Sözbilir et al., 2004; Emre et al., 2005). By the geomorphologic indicators such as
drainage nets and alluvial fans, IF was accepted as an active normal fault zone in the
past (Sözbilir et al., 2004; Emre et al., 2005; Coskun et. Al, 2017). The Karşıyaka Fault
Zone (KFZ), which stretches from Karşıyaka in the west to the E-W direction,
influences the northern shoreline of the Inner Gulf. This is a normal fault, with the
northern block acting as the footwall, while the majority of the hanging wall block to
the south is submerged beneath the waters of the Gulf of Izmir (Sözbilir et al., 2008).

5
Figure 2.1 Simplified geological map showing the neogene–quaternary basins in western Anatolia with
main tectonic lines and distribution of the neogene−quaternary deposits (modified from MTA 2002,
Geological Map of Türkiye, Scale 1:500.000; Bozkurt 2000, 2001, Uzel et al. 2012)

Figure 2.2 Simplified geological map of the region around the Gulf of İzmir. UFZ: Uzunada Fault
Zone, IF: Izmir Fault Zone, ICG: Izmir Central Graben, FSF: FocaSuzbeyli Fault, OFZ: Orhanli (Tuzla)
Fault Zone, GFZ: Gulbahce Fault Zone, GB: Gulbahce Bay, MEFZ: Menemen Fault Zone, SFZ:
Seferihisar Fault Zone, KFZ: Karsiyaka Fault Zone, UI: Uzun Island, HI: Hekim Island, CA: Cicek
Archipelago (modified from Uzel et al.,2012 and Coşkun et al., 2017)

6
 There are also two well-known Seferihisar (SFZ) and Orhanlı fault zone (OFZ)
bounds the Seferihisar massif between the western and eastern sides (Uzel et al., 2012)

The Seferihisar Fault Zone (SFZ) is a NE-trending dextral fault zone located
between Sığacık Bay and the Güzelbahçe district. (İnci et al. 2003; Ocakoğlu et al.
2004, 2005; Emre et al. 2005; Sözbilir et al. 2008). This fault zone begins with Yelki
town, striking N20°E and then in the north fault changes to N40–50°E and it connects
with the İzmir Fault Zone (IFZ) (Uzel et al., 2012).

The Orhanlı Fault Zone (OFZ) is mainly aligned NE–SW fault zone. It reaches out
to İzmir Bay from Kuşadası Bay about 45 km. The main motion along the slip surfaces
is dextral strike-slip, however, there is some geomorphological and structural evidence
for an earlier sinistral strike-slip motion (Uzel & Sözbilir, 2008)).

The northern part of İzmir Bay is surrounded by E-W trending normal and oblique
faults, while the southern part has NE-SW trending strike-slip faults (Figure 2.1 and
Figure 2.2). Normal faults normally result in vertical displacements, while strike-slip
ones result in horizontal displacements. The simultaneous rupture of both fault types
can lead to complex ground movements, severely threatening the stability of buildings
and infrastructure. Simultaneously normal and strike-slip fault ruptures could create
an extensive fault rupture zone on the surface, especially the inner part of the L-shaped
basin area which is the main focus of this work, bringing about widespread structural
damage affecting roads, buildings, and energy lines. Additionally, the movement of
the water in the bay could increase the risk of tsunamis.

Furthermore, the reclaimed lands and artificial fills along İzmir's coastline make it
one of the city's most earthquake-vulnerable places. This study investigates the
geotechnical and infrastructural impacts on the lifeline performance of the İzmir
coastal area in the event of an earthquake. Liquefaction is a major concern in this
context, as it often occurs in loose, saturated soils during large-scale earthquakes.

7
Historical information also promotes the area's susceptibility and underlines the need
for detailed geotechnical investigations and precautions.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are a widely used for managing complex
and dense databases, integrating diverse data and to creating a meaningful framework.
GIS offers numerous applications in geotechnical engineering, including consolidating
various geotechnical data sources with spatial information, hazard mapping and
modeling potential scenarios. By leveraging these capabilities, we can estimate and
propose mitigatiton solutions for potential seismic hazards affecting the İzmir coast's
vital infrastructure.

2.2 Liquefaction

Liquefaction, one of the most important geotechnical hazards, was first coined by
Terzaghi and Peck (1948). Initially, it was described as the spontaneous liquefaction
of sand and causing become liquid. Subsequently, Mogami and Kubo (1953)
highlighted the term "liquefaction" as an engineering term that occurs during an
earthquake (Ishiara, 1993). The Niigata Earthquake is considered a milestone in
recognizing this phenomenon in the modern age. Similarly, The Great Alaskan
Earthquake of 1964 raised significant awareness within the geotechnical community.
Early contributions to the field was made by Yoshimi et al. (1977), Seed (1979) and
Finn et al. (1981).

Liquefaction occurs when seismic events cause saturated, loose sandy soils and
non-plastic silts to lose strength and behave like a liquid. The change of state occurs
most readily in loose to moderately dense granular soils with poor drainages, such as
silty sands or sands and gravels capped by or containing seams of impermeable
sediments (Youd et al., 2001)

8
 When cyclic stress is applied during an earthquake event, loose sands tend to
contract and decrease in volume. Due to the rapid nature of the event, pore water
pressure increases in a short time if the soil is saturated and unable to drain in such a
short time. This increase in pore water pressure reduces the effective stress between
the soil particles, thereby decreasing the overall strength of the soil and causing it to
behave like a viscous fluid. This behavior allows for significant ground deformations,
which can range from several feet to several thousand feet depending on the severity
of the earthquake and soil conditions (Seed and Idriss, 1971). This can lead to
significant ground deformations such as settlements, slope failures, lateral spreadings,
and structural failures.

2.2.1 Liquefaction Mechanism

Liquefaction, as previously mentioned, describes the behavior of loose and

saturated sands exhibiting a liquid-like response during strong ground shaking. This
phenomenon is triggered by cyclic shear stresses induced by seismic waves
propagating from the underlying bedrock.

Ishihara's 1985 study provided a clear schematic of liquefaction, illustrating how

water and soil grains interact in such cases and offering straightforward approach to
understanding the core mechanics of liquefaction. Under normal circumstances, soil is
only affected by confining pressure (a). Soil particles tend to compress during an
earthquake and strive to occupy a densely packed position, thereby increasing the
water pressure inside the pores (b). Thus, decreasing confining pressure may reach
zero if the sand is loose enough and shear stresses are high. At this stage, there is no
intergranular stress, causing sand particles to become suspended in the water. It is the
primary characteristics of liquefaction phenomena. When the earthquake ceased, sand
particles settled in a denser way (c). Grain size, drainage conditions, and the duration
and magnitude of the shaking influence the length of the liquefied state (Figure 2.3).

9
 Figure 2.3 Transfer of state of deposition via liquefaction (Ishiara, 1985)

2.2.2 Liquefaction Types

According to Kramer (1996), liquefaction-related processes can be divided into two

main groups: flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility. The static shear stresses drive flow
liquefaction. Under cyclic loading, soil strength decreases, leading to an unstable state,
and this instability combined with the static stresses already present in the field, can
result in flow failure. Briefly, it can be described as static shear stresses in a liquefied
state exceeding the undrained shear strength. It leads to flow-like movement, happens
abruptly and causes large deformations (Figure 2.4).

On the other hand, cyclic mobility differs in that it progresses gradually under
repeated loading and unloading conditions. The accumulation of shear strain can cause
significant damage, such as tilting or settling, even when developing slowly.
According to Kramer, cyclic mobility is influenced by both static and cyclic shear
stresses and is often associated with lateral spreading (Figure 2.5). In cyclic mobility,
the soil’s behavior depends on density, confining pressure and amplitude, and loading
duration.

10
 Level-ground liquefaction, a specific instance of cyclic mobility, results in ground
oscillation. It is often described by observers as slow-moving ground waves, reaching
up to one meter in height, accompanied by the opening and closing of fissures (Youd,
2003). The built-up pore water pressure, induced by seismic loading gradually
dissipates upward, manifesting as excessive settlement, flooding, and the formation of
sand boils (Figure 2.6). Flow failure, lateral spread, and ground oscillation are
schematically illustrated in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.4 Flow-liquefaction example of a highway embankment during the 1957 Daly City, California,
earthquake (Youd, 2003)

Figure 2.5 Piles sheared by lateral spreading during the 1964 Niigata, Japan, earthquake (Youd, 2003)

11
 (a) (b)

Figure 2.6 (a) Sand boiling caused by liquefaction of underlying sediments during the 1978 Miyagi-
ken-oki, Japan, earthquake (source unknown), (b) Sand boil after liquefaction-induced boiling from the
1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake has ceased (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008)

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2.7 Schematic illustration of flow failure, lateral spread, and ground oscillation: (a) flow failure:
liquefaction develops beneath the ground surface, causing the soil to lose strength and flow, (b) lateral
spread: the surface layer moves laterally and breaks up from the fissures, (c) ground oscillation:
liquefaction decouples the surface layer from the stable ground beneath, causing the surface to vibrate
differently, leading to fissures and impacts between oscillating blocks and the firm ground (National
Research Council, 1985 and Youd 1984b)

12
2.2.3 Liquefaction Susceptibility

Liquefaction susceptibility refers to the likelihood of soil undergoing liquefaction

when subjected to seismic loading or other dynamic stresses. It is a critical concept for
evaluating the potential for liquefaction in specific soil types under given conditions.
Key factors influencing liquefaction susceptibility include soil types, grain size
distribution, density of soil, soil plasticity and the depth of the groundwater table.

[Link] Liquefiable Soil Types

Identifying soil types susceptible to liquefaction is essential before investigating the

triggers and onset of soil liquefaction. Early liquefaction studies primarily focused on
clean sand with low fines contents. However, research has since demonstrated that
soils with high fines content can also liquefy during significant seismic events.
Laboratory findings have colloborated field observations (Kishida, 1969; Tohno &
Yasuda, 1981). Numerous studies (Chu et al., 2004; Bray et al., 2004a; Martin et al.,
2004) have shown that sandy soils as well as saturated silty and clayey soils undergo
substantial strength reduction and large deformations under earthquake loading. Post-
earthquake investigations, including those following the 1994 Northridge, 1999
Kocaeli, and 1999 Chi-Chi earthquakes, revealed ground failures and structural
damage in areas with soils containing more than 15% silt and clay fractions.

The ‘Chinese Criteria’ were widely adopted in the United States as a practical
method for designating clayey soils as non-liquefiable. This criterion, established by
Wang (1979) based on various sites where liquefaction was observed during strong
earthquakes in China, was later summarized by Seed and Idriss (1982). It indicates that
soils with over 15%-20% of particles smaller than 0.005, a liquid limit to water content
ratio greater than 0.9 and a liquid limit below 35, are prone to liquefaction. However,
according to Figure 2.8, no evidence suggests that silty (ML) soils would undergo
liquefaction.

13
 Figure 2.8 Data presented by Wang on plasticity chart

Andrews and Martin (2000) clarified the misconceptions about silty soils and
refined the criteria outlined by Seed et al. (1983), summarized below Table 2.1. They
indicated that silt grains are, in fact, regarded as very fine sand. Both sand grains and
silt grains are rock-forming minerals and they share the same grain form. As a result,
attraction forces such as hydrogen and van der Waals bonds are negligible for silt
grains, just as they are between sand grains (Mitchell, 1976). On the other hand, clay
minerals exhibit plasticity. The susceptibility characteristics of the silts are very similar
to those of sands. Consequently, they arrived at the following conclusions:

 Silty soils can be susceptible to liquefaction

 Clay content can be a key parameter for distinguishing liquefiable and
non-liquefiable silty soils.
 Liquid limit can be a key parameter for distinguishing liquefiable and non-
liquefiable silty soils.
 Using a liquid limit criterion and a clay content criterion helps address
cases where clay-sized grains are non-plastic and non-clay-sized grains are
plastic.

14
Table 2.1 Liquefactions susceptibility of silty soils (Andrews & Martin, 2000)

Liquid Limit < 32 Liquid Limit ≥ 32

Further Studies Required
Clay Content < 10% Susceptible (Considering plastic non-clay sized
grains – such as Mica)
Further Studies Required
(Considering non-plastic clay sized
Clay Content ≥ 10% Not susceptible
grains – such as mine and quarry
tailings

From 1994 to 1999, a group of experts collaborated and published a summary

article in the ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
(Youd et al., 2001). The article emphasized re-examination of Chinese Criteria
defining fines regarding cohesive soil. However, no concensus was reached on this
matter.

In 1999, Chi Chi and Kocaeli led to changes in the liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for fines. It was discovered that, contrary to the Modified Chinese Criteria,
significant liquefaction-induced ground deformations occurred in cohesive soils.
Based on field performance observations, many researchers concluded the following:

- Soils with higher plasticity might be prone to remarkable cyclic pore pressure
increase and subsequently loss of strength contrasting with Modified Chinese
Criteria
- Soils with even higher plasticity may have also been exposed to cyclic pore
pressure generation in a gradual rather than prompt form.

Seed [Link]. (2003) examined the advancements in soil liquefaction within a

comprehensive framework. Sandy soils and low-plasticity silty soils tend to develop
cyclically induced liquefaction at relatively low shear strains of 3% to 6%, primarily
accompanied by a substantial loss in strength. In higher-plasticity soils, strength loss
accompanied by a rise in pore pressures can occur, but these effects are observed at
larger shear strains with less severe pore pressure buildup. As soil plasticity increases,
the behavior becomes more ductile and the transition between soils prone to classic

15
liquefaction and those that are not, is more gradual than distinct. To categorize this
behavior, the liquefaction susceptibility of soils with a high fine content has been
examined by dividing them into three distinct zones on the plasticity chart. In Figure
2.9 soils containing sufficient fines to influence their behavior and that fall within Zone
A are considered potentially susceptible to classic, cyclic-induced liquefaction. Soils
in Zone B represent a transitional range; they may liquefy, particularly if their in-situ
water content exceeds 85% of their liquid limit. However, these soils tend to behave
more ductilely and may not fully lose strength under low cyclic shear strains. While
conventional penetration-based liquefaction evaluations are less reliable for these
soils, they can be effectively tested in the laboratory using undisturbed samples and
sensitivity should also be assessed in these cohesive soils. Soils located within Zone C
(the area except Zone-A and Zone-B), on the other hand, rarely experience classic
liquefaction. Nevertheless, they may experience significant strength loss due to
remolding or large shear movements. Cohesive soils, such as clays and plastic silts,
are particularly sensitive and prone to substantial strength loss if sheared or remolded
and they may fall into Zones B and C depending on their specific composition and
behavior.

Figure 2.9 Liquefiable soils on plasticity chart (Seed et al., 2003)

16
 Bray and his colleagues (2004) revealed that low-plasticity silts in Adapazarı were
typically responsible of severe structural damage. Low liquid limits (LL<35) and high
water contents (wn>0.9 LL) were identified as reliable markers of liquefaction or
notable strength loss from shaking in the Adapazari silts. Fine-grained soils were more
frequently softened by cyclic mobility and the working of buildings into the softer soils
beneath these structures. Bray et al. (2004a) also highlighted that contrary to the
Chinese method, fine-grained soils with clay contents greater than 15% liquefied and
led to significant ground failure. They concluded that loose soils with PI> 12 and
wn/LL> 0.85 were liquefaction-prone. Conversely, the loose soils for which 12<PI<20
and wn/LL>0.8 were always more resistant to liquefaction but still less resistant to
cyclic mobility, and the soils with PI>20 were not liquefiable.

Bray and Sancio (2006) performed the cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear tests
(Figure 2.10). They concluded that the plasticity index (PI) plays a significant role for
clay-sized particles. Loose soils with a PI of less than 12 and wn/LL>0.85 were shown
to be susceptible to liquefaction. In contrast, soils with 12<PI<18 and wn/LL>0.8
consistently demonstrated higher resistance to liquefaction. Additionally, when
wn/LL>0.8, a relatively constant liquefaction resistance level was observed. For soils
with low plasticity index (PI) values, resistance to liquefaction and the associated
seismic demand were generally considered negligible when PI exceeded 18.

17
Figure 2.10 (a) Data from a cyclic triaxial test from Bray and Sancio (2006); (b) Data from Bray et al.
(2004a)

2.2.4 Assessment of Liquefaction Resistance

In geotechnical engineering, evaluating liquefaction resistance is a critical process,

as it addresses the fundamental question of soil stability during seismic events.
Accurately predicting liquefaction resistance is essential for assessing the safety of
existing structures and guiding the design of future developments.

Liquefaction resistance is generally described as a soil’s ability to endure seismic

activity without losing its strength. Two key factors influence soil behaviour during
seismic shaking: liquefaction resistance (Cyclic Resistance Ratio; CRR) and the
seismic demand imposed on the soil. (Cyclic Stress Ratio; CSR).

The most popular approach for evaluating liquefaction resistance is still the
“simplified procedure” established by Seed and Idriss in 1971. This method uses the
depth of the soil layer, the maximum ground acceleration, and the earthquake

18
magnitude to determine CSR. It is normalized by vertical consolidation effective
stress. On the other hand, while cyclic resistance ratios are estimated through practical
testing methods like standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT), or
analyzing shear wave velocity, the insight into soil behavior and the crucial role played
by on-site evaluations in the assessment process cannot be overstated. Since they offer
insight into soil behavior, the in-situ tests are particularly helpful and play a vital role
in the assessment process.

Liquefaction is anticipated when the CSR value exceeds CRR for a given depth.
Therefore, accurately identifying these parameters and assessing their interaction with
the relevant soil layers is essential for evaluating liquefaction potential. This process
has evolved over the years, incorporating advancements in understanding soil
behaivor, earthquake dynamics and spatial variability. Numerous researchers have
contributed new perspectives, proposing modifications and innovative techniques to
refine the assessment process.

[Link] Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR

Seed and Idriss (1971) introduced a comprehensive method for evaluating

liquefaction potential, involving the following steps:

1. Determination of shear stress: During an earthquake, the shear stress history

at various soil depths is analyzed and converted into an equivalent number of uniform
stress cycles.

2. Calculation of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR): The equivalent cycles are used to
develop a CSR curve as a depth function, which represent the cyclic shear stress
induced by the earthquake (Figure 2.11).

3. Estimation of Cylic Resistance Ratio (CRR): Laboratory tests, such as cyclic

triaxial compression or cyclic simple shear tests, are conducted to determine the cyclic
shear stress required to induce liquefaction. These values are plotted against depth,

19
forming the CRR curve, which reflects the soil’s shear strength under cyclic loading
conditions.

The comparison of these results led to the conclusion that liquefaction occurs only
in areas where the shear stresses induced by the earthquake exceed the soil's critical
resistance. At other depths, the shear stresses generated by the earthquake are
insufficient to trigger liquefaction.

Figure 2.11 Method of evaluating liquefaction potential (Seed & Idriss, 1971)

As previously indicated, a simplified approach for assessing liquefaction resistance

has been suggested. The upward propagation of shear waves during an earthquake is
the primary cause of the shear stresses in a soil deposit. The maximum shear stress
would be if the soil column above a soil element at depth h behaved as a rigid body
(Figure 2.12a).

20
 During an earthquake, the shear stresses in a soil deposit can be illustrated as a soil
block and the loads acting on it at depth h to calculate CSR. The maximum shear stress
would be:

(𝜏 ) = 𝛾ℎ (2.1)

Since the soil column is a deformable body, the actual shear stress at depth h, is
reduced by the stress reduction coefficient (𝑟 ) (Figure 2.12c). It starts with 1 near the
ground surface and drops significantly with depth. Actual shear stress can be expressed
by Equation 2.2:

(𝜏 ) =𝑟 (𝜏 ) (2.2)

Figure 2.12 Determination of maximum shear stress (Seed & Idriss, 1971)

21
 Laboratory and field data have shown that the average shear stress ( 𝜏 ) is
approximately 65% of the maximum shear stress. The CSR value is then calculated
using Equation 2.3. The cyclic stress ratio (CSR), 𝜏 /𝜎 , in a soil layer can be
described as (Seed and Idriss, 1971);

𝐶𝑆𝑅 = ( )=0.65 ( ) 𝑟 (2.3)

where

𝑎 : Peak horizontal Acceleration

g: The acceleration of gravity

𝜎 : Overburden pressure

𝜎 : Effective overburden pressure

𝑟 : Stress reduction coefficient

Therefore, CSR is a crucial parameter for predicting liquefaction resistance.

Seed and Idriss (1971) introduced the stress reduction coefficient (rd), shown in
Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13 Stress reduction factor recommendations (Seed & Idriss, 1971)

22
 Liao and Whitman (1986b) offered the 2.4a and 2.4b equations below. Robertson
and Wride (1997) presented the 2.4c, and William F. Marcuson (US Army Engineers,
oral commun) added the last equations for the stress reduction factor (Youd & Idriss,
1997). The average line proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) for the stress reduction
coefficient was revised by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
in the session organized in 2001, by adding an approximate average line, as in Figure
2.14.

𝑟 =1.0-0.00765 z for z≤ 9.15 m (2.4a)

𝑟 =1.174-0.0267 z for 9.15 m≤z≤ 23.0 m (2.4b)

𝑟 =0.744-0.008 z for 23.0 m ≤z≤ 30.0 m (2.4c)

𝑟 =0.5 for z> 30.0 m (2.4d)

T.F. Blake (1996) approximated the mean curve and stated the rd as the equation
below.

( . . . . . . )
𝑟 =( . . . . . . .
(2.5)

Figure 2.14 Stress reduction factor recommendations by Seed & Idriss (1971) with added average lines
from the above equations by National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (2001)

23
 [Link] Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) must be determined to estimate the potential of

liquefaction. The only feasible method for this might be retrieving the undisturbed soil
and testing it under cyclic loading. However, removing the granular soil is inherently
disruptive and it is challenging to imitate site conditions in the laboratory. As a result,
a field test would be a better fit for the liquefaction evaluation procedure. Standard
penetration tests, cone penetration tests, shear wave velocity tests, and Becker
penetration tests (BPT) are frequently applied in the field. SPTs and CPTs are
commonly used due to their extensive database and performance records, but other
tests may apply to sites underlain by gravelly sediments, such as BPT. Field tests other
than the SPT (Standard Penetration Test), such as the BPT (Becker Penetration Test),
CPT (Cone Penetration Test), and other similar in-situ tests, are excluded from the
scope of this thesis. Youd and Idriss, in the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research Workshop, summarized the advantages and disadvantages of
field tests (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Comparison of field test accounting liquefaction resistance (Youd & Idriss, 1997)

Test Type
Feature
SPT CPT Vs BPT
Past Measurements at Abundant Abundant Limited Sparse
liquefaction sites
Type of stress-strain Partially Drained, large Small Partially
behavior influencing test drained, strain Strain drained,
considerable considerable
strain strain
Quality control and Poor to good Very Good Good Poor
repeatability
Detection of variability of Good for Very Good Fair Fair
soil deposits closely
spaced test
Soil types in which the test Nongravel Nongravel All Primarily
is recommended Gravel
Soil sample retrieved Yes No No No
Test measures index or Index Index Engineering Index
engineering property

24
 [Link].1 Standard Penetration Test, SPT

The evaluation of liquefaction resistance using Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

blow counts has been a standard method in geotechnical engineering for many years.
However, it’s important to consider the quality issues that often arise in SPT testing in
Türkiye. The reliability of SPT results can be influenced by various real-world
challenges. Essentially, the Standart Penetration Test (SPT) is used to assess
liquefaction, settlement and soil behavior. However, the results obtained can vary for
various reasons, such as failure to follow proper test procedures, the use of low-quality
drilling equipment, insufficiently trained operators or site-specific conditions.
Common issues include deformed drilling rods, improper sample collection and test
durations that are too short. These problems can lead to inaccurate soil parameter
estimates and flawed conclusions regarding critical factors, like liquefaction potential.

A major challenge in Türkiye is the absence of water in the borehole during drilling
in sandy soils. In these cases, water can flow into the borehole and create a boiling
effect at the bottom of the well in sandy soils. This causes SPT resistance values to be
lower than expected. As a result, the estimated soil properties, based on standard SPT
correlations, appear weaker than they are. Regretfully, neglecting this problem
degrades the quality of SPT results in Türkiye. However, these problems are ignored,
which produces great uncertainties of SPT results for Türkiye. SPT resistances as low
as 0-1 were observed in this study of the analyzed boreholes, even at depths of 15 to
20 meters which is not a common condition. This highlights the urgent need for
accurate and reliable geotechnical assessment results. Without adressing the issue, the
foundation for engineering solutions remains uncertain and risky.

The Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) versus corrected blow count (𝑁 ) plot is widely
used for assessment, as it effectively differentiates between liquified and non-liquified
zones. The figure below presents Critical Resistance Ratio (CRR) curves for various
fine contents, incorporating data from multiple field experiments, where liquefaction
was either observed or not. A commonly used criterion for assessing liquefaction
resistance is the simplified base curve for fine contents of 5%, 15% and 35%. This

25
CRR curve is specifically calibrated for earthquakes of magnitude 7.5, while
adjustments required for other magnitudes.

In Figure 2.15, several instances of liquefaction that would not have occurred above
the fines content lines are observed, as represented by the criteria established by Seed
et al. (1984). However, Liao et al. (1985) confirmed the significant impact of fines on
liquefaction susceptibility. (National Research Council, 1985).

Figure 2.15 Simplified base curve modified from Seed et al., 1985 (Seed et al.,2003)

Thomas F. Blake (Fugro-West, Inc., Ventura, Calif., written commun.), expressed

the base curve by below equation.

𝐶𝑅𝑅 . = (2.6)

26
 where CRR . is the cyclic resistance ratio for earthquake magnitude 7.5; x: (N ) ;
a=0.048; b=-0.1248; c=-0.004721; d=0.009578; e=0.0006136; f=-0.0003285;
g=-1.673E-05; h=3.714E-06

A.F. Rauch (personal communication, 1998) also suggested the base curve equation
as below (Youd and Idriss, 2001).

( )
𝐶𝑅𝑅 . = ( )
( )+( ( ) )
- (2.7)

Both equations valid for (𝑁 ) less than 30.

Idriss and Boulanger (2004) and Cetin [Link]. (2004) also recommended CRR-
(𝑁 ) curves for clean sand (Figure 2.16).

Figure 2.16 Relationship between CRR and (𝑁 ) for clean sand curve (Idriss & Boulanger, 2010)

27
 [Link].2 Influence of Fine Content

Assessing liquefaction potential in sandy soils often requires fine content correction
to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values, as the presence of fines (FC) significantly
affects the soil’s resistance to liquefaction. Fines can fill the voids between sand
particles, increasing soil density and reducing its permeability, which in turn affects
the buildup of pore water pressure during seismic activity.

For soils with a fine content of less than 5%, no correction is needed, as this amount
of fines does not significantly affect the behavior of the sand. However, for fines
content between 5% and 35%, corrections are applied using specific correlations.
Since liquefaction-triggering correlations are primarily based on clean sands, the
presence of fines reduces the SPT resistance of sandy soils. These corrections account
for that effect, ensuring more accurate assessments. When the fine content exceeds
35%, studies in the literature indicate that the behavior of the soil governed by the fine
particles, and liquefaction is no longer the primary concern. Instead, other failure
mechanisms or behaviors are expected, and liquefaction analysis is therefore not
performed for such soils.

SPT-based CRR curves were initially developed by Seed and Idriss in 1971 for
clean sands (FC≤5%). In 1985, Seed et al. suggested that the fines content in sand
influences the CRR value for the given (𝑁 ) . The equations developed by I.M. Idriss
with support from R.B. Seed are used to adjust the standard penetration resistance
values in silty sands to represent clean sands.

(𝑁 ) =α+β(𝑁 ) (2.8)

α=0; β=1.0 for FC≤5 (2.9a)

. ( )
α=𝑒 ; β=[0.99+(( )] for 5%<FC<35% (2.9b)

α=5.0; β=1.2 for FC≥35% (2.9c)

28
 Idriss and Boulanger (2004) developed the curve mentioned above and
recommended fines content correction for standard penetration.

(𝑁 ) =(𝑁 ) +𝛥(𝑁 ) (2.10)

. .
Δ(N ) =𝑒 ( . ( )
(2.11)

The fines content discussed here applies to silty soil. While plasticity is a significant
factor influencing CRR, data on its effects are currently unavailable.

In the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Workshop 1997,

Robertson and Wride reviewed fines content data and proposed a correction factor Ks
to adjust standard penetration value.

(𝑁 ) =𝐾 (𝑁 ) (2.12)
.
𝐾 =1 + [ ∗ (𝐹𝐶 − 5) (2.13)

Seed et al. (2001) proposed a new fines content correction using the ‘regression
method’ as part of the Bayesian update analyses. This correction addresses and
minimizes the overestimation of the 35% fines content present in the correction
proposed by Seed et al. (1984).

(𝑁 ) =𝐶 (𝑁 ) (2.14)

𝐶 = (1 + 0.004 ∗ 𝐹𝐶) + 0.05 ∗ (( )

) (2.15)

for FC≥5% and FC≤%35

29
 [Link].3 Other SPT Corrections

Additional corrections must be applied to calibrate the SPT results in Equation 2.16,
alongside fine content adjustments. A list of correction factors is provided in Table
2.3.

(𝑁 ) =𝑁 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 (2.16)

where 𝑁 =measured standard penetration resistance

Table 2.3 Corrections to SPT (modified from Skempton, 1986) as listed by Robertson and Wride (1998)

Factor Equipment Variable Term Correction

𝑝
( ).
Overburden Pressure - 𝐶 𝜎
𝐶 ≤1.7
Donut Hammer 0.5-1.0
Energy Ratio Safety Hammer 𝐶 0.7-1.2
Automatic-trip Donut-type Hammer 0.8-1.3
65-115mm 1.0
Borehole Diameter 150mm 𝐶 1.05
200mm 1.15
<3 m 0.75
3-4 m 0.8
Rod Length 4-6 m 𝐶 0.85
6-10 m 0.95
10-30 m 1.0
Standard sampler 1.0
Sampling Method 𝐶
Sampler without liners 1.1-1.3

Liao and Whitman (1986a) proposed the following equation to account for
overburden correction.

.
𝐶 =( ) (2.17)

30
where 𝑝 ≈100 kPa (1 atm)

Youd and Idriss, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research workshops
held in 1996 and 1998, stated that the following equation better fits the original curve
proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982).

.
𝐶 =( ) (2.18)
.

[Link].4 The Factor of Safety

The factor of safety (FS) is a critical concept in liquefaction analysis, as it helps to

assess whether the soil is prone to liquefaction during an earthquake. In simple terms,
the FS compares the soil's resistance liquefaction, known as the cyclic resistance ratio
(CRR), with the stresses induced by seismic activity, referred to as the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR). The Turkish Building Earthquake Code states that soil with a FS> 1.1
may withstand seismic pressures, whereas soil with a FS < 1.1 may have higher
liquefaction potential. This simple method offers a clear method for evaluating
liquefaction potential and serves as a guide to risk-reduction strategies.

A commonly accepted expression for the factor of safety for liquefaction resistance
introduced as follows:

.
𝐹𝑆 = ∗ 𝑀𝑆𝐹 (2.19a)

𝐹𝑆 = (2.19b)

Equation 2.20 defines the factor of safety, which is more than or equal to 1.1 by the
Turkish Building Earthquake Code (2018).

31
 𝐹𝑆 = = ≥1.1 (2.20)

Table 2.4 Representative number of cyclic and corresponding factors (Seed and Idriss, 1982)

Earthquake Magnitude Number of Representatives at 0.65 τmax Factor to Correct

8.5 26 0.89
7.5 15 1.0
6.75 10 1.13
6 5-6 1.32
5.25 2-3 1.5

The CRR curves are calculated for earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5, regardless
of the method used. Therefore, the MSF (magnitude scaling factor) can account for the
selected earthquake magnitude when calculating the safety factor. There are many
methods for calculating MSF in literature. Seed and Idriss (1982) suggested MSF
factors corresponding magnitudes in Table 2.4. The following equation, which was
agreed upon by researchers at the 1998 National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research workshop (Youd and Idriss, 2001), is recommended.

.
𝑀𝑆𝐹 = . (2.21)

2.3 Post-Earthquake Settlement

2.3.1 Introduction

In recent years, understanding and mitigating the effects of liquefaction on the

seismic performance of vital infrastructure has become increasingly important. This
growing recognition has underscored the need for reliable methodologies to predict
ground deformations, particularly minor to moderate ones. Liquefaction-induced
ground settlements and lateral displacement have become major contributors to
earthquake-related structural damage. Despite decades of research focusing on

32
determining liquefaction susceptibility, little attention has been paid to post-
earthquake settlement caused by liquefaction.

When an earthquake shakes saturated sandy soil, pore pressure rises significantly
causing strength reduction or complete liquefaction. Granular soils are compacted by
cyclic shear forces induced by earthquake-induced shaking. Immediate volume
decrease is impeded by temporary pore water pressures that arise from inadequate
drainage. However, as these pore pressures gradually dissipate, the soil layer
consolidates, resulting in ground settlement and volumetric strain. Post-earthquake
settlement is one of the major geotechnical risks caused by soil liquefaction during
earthquakes.

2.3.2 Mechanism of Post-earthquake Settlement

It has been possible to divide the two main types of liquefaction-induced settlement:
large displacement and small to moderate displacement. In the former, there is usually
a movement of ground greater than 1 meter, normally occasioned by gravity-induced
slumping after seismic shaking. This occurs when the strength of the soil after
liquefaction is not adequate to resist the static shear stresses that develop substantial
deformations. A notable example of history is the 1964 Niigata earthquake, during
which triggered massive flow failures, resulting in the displacement of embankments
and structures. On the other hand, small to moderate displacements are less severe and
more confined. These deformations occur when liquefaction leads to a temporary loss
of strength without causing extensive failures. This kind of settlement is relatively
more common in regions with dense soils or where shear stresses are insufficient to
cause significant movement. Figure 2.17 illustrates different ways settlement and
displacement as an example of small to moderate type. In Figure 2.17(a) and (b), the
focus is on settlement caused by the densification of soils and the escape of pore water
during drainage, as well as secondary ground loss from the soil being eroded through
cracks, often seen as “sand boils.” Figure 2.17(c) and (d) show how rotational
movements and shear deformations can lead to settlements around slopes and
embankments. Issues such as localized soil movement, which can result in areas of

33
both uplift and settlement, and lateral spreading, which produces pull-apart zones, are
highlighted in Figure 2.17(e) and (f). Finally, structural settlements, such as those
brought on by whole or partial bearing failures and restricted "punching" settlements
where soil softening and re-stiffening take place, are examined in Figure 2.17(g)
through (i). Since predicting these behaviors is challenging and currrent instruments
are sufficient, engineers often rely on cautious and conservative methods to mitigate
hazards.

Figure 2.17 Schematic illustration of liquefaction-induced ground vertical displacement mechanisms

(Seed et al., 2001)

Liquefaction-induced ground deformations depend strongly on cyclic stresses

produced by strong shaking and the engineering properties of the liquefiable soil layer
(Dashti et al., 2010). Granular soils exhibit different behaviors under cyclic loading
depending on their density, such as loose, moderately dense, and dense conditions. For
instance, triaxial compression tests were conducted on Ottawa sand with three different
densities. The stress-strain behavior and pore water pressure development were

34
analyzed to understand the soil's response under cyclic loading. The response curves
from specimens 4-4, 4-7, and 4-8 show how various granular soils behave under
loading in Figure 2.18. The loose granular material in specimen 4-4 liquefies readily
under stress, and the pore pressures increase to almost equal the lateral confining
pressure. This triggers significant flow deformation, with about 20% shear strain
occurring in just one second. Such soils are termed "contractive" because their loose
structure allows shear deformation at constant volume while pore pressures either
stabilize or rise slightly. In this case, the pore pressure increases as the soil attempts to
transition from a loose to a dense state. The soil's density decreases as a result. Even
if the pore pressure remains constant, the continued increase in axial deformation
indicates that the soil is undergoing plastic deformation. This leads to a loss of bearing
capacity and causes the expected settlement to be much higher than anticipated.

On the other hand, specimen 4-7, in a moderately dense state, behaves differently.
The increased density prevents uncontrollable flow deformation even when it liquefies
under load. At 1% shear strain, pore pressures reach a critical level, triggering
liquefaction. However, shortly after, dilatation occurs, which increases shear
resistance, decreases pore pressures, and halts the flow. This phenomenon, known as
"dilative arrest," restores the soil to its cemented state. Since the soil is moderately
dense, there is an initial rise in pore pressure and axial strain. After that, the soil reaches
a point where it starts to expand, which causes the pore pressure to decrease. Even
though this happens, some settlement is still likely to take place.

In conclusion, specimen 4-8, which depict a dense granular soil, does not liquefy
despite an increase in pore pressure. Finally, even when pressure increases in the gaps
between the particles, specimen 4-8, composed of closely spaced tiny particles, do not
become a liquid. Rather, it dilates, which makes the particles more widely spaced.
Because of this expansion, the earth becomes more resilient to sliding forces and the
pressure is reduced. Although some settlement may still occur in densely packed soils
like samples 4–8, which expand significantly under stress, it is typically limited. The
soil is less likely to undergo significant shape change because of its ability to expand,

35
which widens the interval between particles and reduces pressure in those spaces.
However, a slight settlement may occur due to repetitive stress, particularly if the
shaking is severe or prolonged. Even though there is little risk of significant settlement
due to liquefaction, depending on the intensity and duration of the loading, some
settlement, either mild or moderate, may still happen.

Figure 2.18 Stress-strain and pore pressure curves from undrained triaxial compression tests on
saturated Ottawa sand (data from Castro, 1969; curves modified from Youd, 1975; Youd, 2003).

2.3.3 Studies on Post-Earthquake Settlement Characteristics

Lee and Albasia (1974), Yoshimi et al. (1975), and Tatsuoka et al. (1984) were the
first to examine the characteristics of settlements caused by earthquakes. They
conducted undrained cyclic loading tests and drained consolidation tests to investigate
the volumetric changes in sandy soils following earthquakes. Post-liquefaction
settlement refers to the vertical strain 𝜀 , representing the deformation the soil
undergoes during the reconsolidation stage. It is defined as the ratio of the settlement
to the initial height of the specimen in the tests. Identifying the parameters that
influence post-liquefaction volumetric strain is crucial for a better understanding of its
effects. Key factors influencing post-earthquake settlement include shear strain,
cumulative shear strain during cyclic loading, soil relative density, number of cycles,

36
and the direction of cyclic loading. These factors have been examined through
laboratory tests conducted by researchers, and some of their findings will be presented
below.

Tsukamoto et al. (2004) demonstrated the relationship between the maximum shear
strain experienced by the soil and post-liquefaction volumetric strain through
undrained triaxial tests conducted on silty sands (Figure 2.19). The results of studies
conducted on Toyoura sand indicated that as the maximum shear strain applied during
undrained triaxial tests increased, the reconsolidation volumetric strain also increased.
Beyond a certain point, however, it began to stabilize. Additionally, experiments
conducted at varying relative densities showed that the volumetric strain increased
with decreasing relative density. From this point, it can be understood that the shear
strain experienced by the soil and relative density are significant contributors to
volumetric strain. Similar research was done in the study of by Tatsuoka et al. (1984)
and they found that during cyclic loading, volumetric strain increased with maximum
shear strain. However, their findings did not show a stabilization of volumetric strain
beyond a certain point.

Figure 2.19 Relationship between post-liquefaction volumetric strain and maximum shear strain
(Tkusumoto et al., 2004)

37
Figure 2.20 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric strain
(Tkusumoto et al., 2004)

Additionally, to determine the volumetric strain at the point where liquefaction

begins, a graph showing the relationship between volumetric strain and the safety
factor (FS) has been presented. In the study, the point where the factor of safety reaches
1, marking the onset of liquefaction, is clearly indicated. As shown in Figure 2.24, as
the factor of safety decreases, the volumetric deformations increase. Even after
liquefaction starts, some additional deformation occurs before it stabilizes. Therefore,
at the point of initial liquefaction (FS = 1), the volumetric deformation in the soil is
approximately 60% of the total post-liquefaction volumetric deformation.

Another important factor influencing post-liquefaction volumetric strain is

cumulative shear strain (𝛾 ). It represents the total deformation accumulated during
cyclic loading and is critical for interpreting the post-liquefaction settlement.
Experimental results demonstrate a clear relationship between higher (𝛾 ) values
and greater settlement magnitudes. Matsuda et al. (2011) carried out a series of
multidirectional simple shear tests on Toyoura sand at various shear strain levels. They
found that increasing the total shear strain accumulated during cyclic loading also

38
increases the vertical strain but with different patterns (Figure 2.21). The observed
increase in settlement at higher shear strain levels aligns with the results of Tsukamoto
et al. (2004) and Tatsuoka et al. (1984).

Figure 2.21 Connection between vertical strain and cumulative shear strain at different strain levels
(Matsuda et al., 2011)

Matsuda et al. (2004) examined the effects of the effects of number of loading
cycles and earthquake direction on vertical strain (𝜀 ). They concluded that vertical
strain increased significantly at low strain levels as the number of cycles increased.
Furthermore, samples subjected to multidirectional loading exhibited vertical strains
1.5 to 2 times higher than those under unidirectional loading. This findings highlights
the importance of considering the multidirectional nature of earthquakes to ensure
accurate evaluations.

39
Figure 2.22 The variation of vertical strain with the number of cycles for multi-directional and single-
directional shear (Matsuda et al., 2004)

2.3.4 Prediction of Post-Earthquake Settlement Approaches

Understanding post-earthquake settlement is important in assessing the potential

impacts of liquefaction on structures and infrastructure. Several investigators have
developed simplified methods to estimate how much settlement might occur, relying
on data from laboratory tests and real-world case studies of earthquake-induced ground
deformations over the last decades. Among others, contributions to such methods
come from Lee and Albasia (1974), Yoshimi et al. (1975), Tokimatsu and Seed (1987),
Shamoto (1998), and Wu et al. (2003), who have helped establish a practical method
for settlement prediction in liquefied soils. These approaches are based on a
combination of laboratory results and field observations and aim to provide a quick
and reliable way to estimate settlement when soil liquefies during an earthquake. The
ground surface settlement for one-dimensional reconsolidation can be computed by
equating the vertical strains to the volumetric strains and then integrating the vertical
strains over the depth interval of concern. This relationship is expressed in the
following equation:

𝑆=∑ 𝜀 𝛥𝑧 (2.22)

40
 This equation expresses the settlement as the sum of the vertical strains (𝜀 ) in each
layer multiplied by the thickness of the layers. Simplified procedures for this purpose
are widely used in engineering practice to provide a rapid estimate of probable
settlement in liquefiable ground. These provide useful guidelines for the design and
planning of earthquake-resistant infrastructure. While these methods provide an
approach to estimating settlement, it remains a useful tool in early-stage assessments
and help engineers make informed decisions within earthquake-prone regions.

[Link] Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) Approach

This method provides a basic approximation for estimating earthquake-induced

settlements in sandy soils. It uses primary factors cyclic stress ratio, maximum shear
strain, SPT-N and earthquake magnitude in both dry and partially saturated sands.

This predictive approach has been derived based on the strains developed past
earthquakes. Considering the works of Lee and Albasia (1974) and Yoshimi et al.
(1975), Tatsuoka et al. (1984) established the relationships between relative density
and volumetric deformation following liquefaction. Seed et al. (1984a) also
demonstrated the potential for shear deformation during the earthquake based on a
combination of in-situ shear deformation, cyclic stress ratio (CSR), and normalized
SPT-N values. These two works combined with the aid of the relationship between
SPT-N and relative density and obtained the relation of CSR, (N1)60 and volumetric
strain (Figure 2.23). This basic approach involves determining the CSR (Cyclic Stress
Ratio) of an earthquake and the (N1)60 value of the soil layer. Once these parameters
are identified, the corresponding volumetric strain line can be specified, which
represents the deformation in the soil layer. From here, the settlement value can be
calculated.

41
Figure 2.23 Proposed chart for volumetric strain based on CSR and SPT-N from field performance
(Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987)

[Link] Ishiara and Yoshimine (1992) Approach

This study examined laboratory test data on sands using a simple shear device. A
series of curves were developed relating the volumetric stain resulting from the
dissipation of pore water pressures to the sand's density and the safety factor against
liquefaction. The proposed method has been applied to soil samples at several sites
affected by liquefaction during the recent major earthquake. The relationship between
the safety factor and shear stress amplitude is established based on the laboratory test
data. This method was developed based on clean sands with little fines. When the
settlement values calculated using this method are compared with the observed
settlements from the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan, highly consistent results are
obtained. Once the safety factor is known, the post-liquefaction volumetric strain (εv)
can be determined according to relative density (Figure 2.24). The factor of safety
should be evaluated procedures according to Seed et al. (1983) and Ishiara (1985).
Relative density (Dr) correlations with SPT and CPT exist in the literature.

42
 Figure 2.24 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric strain

[Link] Shamoto et al. (1992) Approach

Shamoto and colleagues investigated the lateral and vertical deformations during
the Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake and developed empirical correlations for shear
strain and volumetric strain. A relationship between γmax, Na and (γmax)seis was
established by Tokimatsu and Osaka (1998). It is important to note that Na values are
based on typical Japanese SPT practice and can be adjusted by multiplying 1.1 to
obtain (𝑁 ) values. The relationship and correlations developed in this study were
used to generate graphs for determining residual volumetric deformation based on
CSR and SPT-N for FC=0%, 10% and 20%. The results are presented in Figure 2.25.

43
 Figure 2.25 Relationship between the factor of safety and post-liquefaction volumetric strain

[Link] Wu and Seed (2004) Approach

A recent comprehensive laboratory study at U.C. Berkeley (Kammerer et al., 2002;

Wu et al., 2003) focused on liquefaction-related difficulties using cyclic simple shear
tests on fully saturated Monterey 0/30 sand samples. By using the reconsolidation of
volumetric strain, they enlarged the chart developed by Wu. et al. (2003). Key steps in
assessing liquefaction susceptibility for this procedure are as follows.

44
 -Assess the liquefaction susceptibility of each saturated soil layer or sub-layer using
the (𝑁 ) and CSR, M=7.5 values from Seed et al. (2001).

- Use the hypothesized correlations between CSR and (𝑁 ) (Figure 2.26) to

estimate reconsolidation volumetric strain for each layer.

-To calculate overall settlement, sum the volumetric changes across all levels.

Figure 2.26 Relationship between CSR and volumetric strain as a function of (𝑁 ) (Wu et al., 2003)

2.4 GIS in Lifeline Performance Assessment

Major arteries or "lifeline" infrastructure are crucial to the functioning of cities.

Basic assessments for the liquefaction potential of lifelines are required to further
inform disaster planning and building resilience during future events in seismically
active regions, as recently experienced in İzmir, Türkiye.

The Geographical Information System (GIS) provides powerful tools for mapping
and analyzing the vulnerabilities of these essential arteries to liquefaction, which can
severely disrupt transportation networks and emergency response systems. This thesis

45
concentrates on liquefaction risk assessment of İzmir vitals arterial roads: Altınyol,
Alsancak, Konak and extending to Üçkuyular.

The city of İzmir is a geotechnically significant due to its location within an active
tectonic setting and the presence of several major fault lines. The İzmir fault zone,
along with the Seferihisar and Karaburun faults, are among the area's that are most
active and potentially hazardous faults. The combination of loose cohesionless,
saturated soil in the Bay Area and the seismic activity potential of nearby faults
increases the risk of liquefaction. This poses a particular threat to vital infrastructure
including the Üçkuyular, Konak, Alsancak and Altınyol arteries, where liquefaction-
induced ground failure could severely disrupt emergency response and transportation.

By leveraging GIS capabilities, these vulnerabilities along the lifeline arteries can
be spatially analyzed and detailed visualization created. The integration of geological
data, borehole information and soil properties enables the identification of zones with
the highest potential of liquefaction. This study focuses on developing liquefaction
susceptibility maps based on geographical and geotechnical data.

İzmir’s primary routes, the Altınyol and Konak-Üçkuyular highways, serve as

critical lifeline arteries, facilitating the movement of goods, services and emergency
response in and out of the city. Any disruption to these routes caused by liquefaction
or liquefaction-induced settlement could severely hinder immediate relief efforts and
long-term recovery. Mapping these risks allows urban planners and engineers to
prioritize the mitigation measures, such as soil improvement, ensuring this vital routes
remain accessible during seismic emergencies. Utilizing GIS capabilities to pinpoint
and display regions highly vulnerable to seismic hazards enables authorities to take
proactive steps in protecting İzmir’s critical lifeline infrastructure.

46
 CHAPTER THREE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DATABASE

3.1 Data Sources

The study incorporated approximately 82 boreholes from previous projects along

İzmir's coastline. The study area is divided into 3 parts: Bayraklı, which covers
Altınyol, Alsancak-Konak, and Konak-Üçkuyular. These sections encompass İzmir’s
vital lifeline arteries, making them primary focus of thesis.

3.1.1 Borehole Data

This study utilized the data from boreholes drilled in the İzmir coastal region. It
consists of 82 borehole data collected from different companies (Figure 3.1). The
boreholes were drilled over a period from 1990 to 2010. Depending on site-specific
conditions, information was gathered through standard drilling techniques, including
rotary and auger drilling. Borehole information is given in Table 3.1, and it will be
presented in detail in Appendix 1.

Table 3.1 Borehole data information

Location # Name Company Borehole #

1 Gümrük Üçkuyular Sahil Yolu Ege Üniversitesi 33
2 SGK Ek Hizmet Binası Alanyalı Sondajcılık 1
3 İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Radon Mühendislik 7
4 Konak-İkiztepe Yolu Temelson Jeoteknik 22
5 Konak Akişhanı Ege Temel Sondajcılık 2
6 Bayraklı Sahil Güvenlik Yüksel Proje 7
7 Yeni Kent Merkezi Gedik/Geokon/Radon 8
8 Ahmet Adnan Saygun Kültür Merkezi Toker Sondajcılık 2
Total 82

47
3.1.2 Standart Penetration Test (SPT) Data

SPT data plays a crucial role in assessing soil resistance, which is particularly
important for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility and post-earthquake settlement. As
one of the most widely used field tests, the SPT is supported by numerous empirical
correlations in the literature. When integrated with these correlations, it offers valuable
insights into the soil's mechanical properties.

Figure 3.1 Borehole locations along the study area

3.1.3 Laboratory Test Data

Multiple laboratory tests were performed to determine soil characteristics,

including:

 Sieve Analysis and Hydrometry Test to assess the particle distribution

 Specific Gravity Test
 Unconfined Compression Test or Triaxial Test (UU)
 Consolidation Test

These tests help classify soils and understand their behavior.

48
3.1.4 Geotechnical Database Creation

The ArcGIS program created a geotechnical database that integrates all collected
data. The database includes spatial data representation, allowing for the visualization
of geotechnical properties across the İzmir coastline. This database combined SPT
field data, laboratory test information, and geographical information. This information
includes depth, soil type, groundwater level, SPT-N values, soil properties obtained
from laboratory tests, soil classification and borehole coordinates.

3.1.5 Historical Seismic Data

This thesis investigates the condition of the lifelines within the İzmir coastal region,
emphasizing liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement under varying seismic
scenarios, specifically DD-2 and DD-3, corresponding to magnitudes Mw=6.5 and
Mw=5.5, respectively. Using AFAD’s seismic hazard maps application, the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) values will be later used in the calculation of CSR.
Furthermore, the active fault map of Türkiye, available in the ArcGIS library, has been
added to the study area to facilitate interpretation during a seismic event.

3.1.6 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Data

The role of geographical Information Systems (GIS) in organizing, analyzing and

visualizing geotechnical data is crucial for the İzmir coastal region. By integrating
borehole data with soil profiles into the GIS environment, an effective spatial database
has been developed. This database enables efficient management and analysis of
geotechnical information, supporting better decision-making regarding liquefaction
potential, settlement risks and other soil-related factors. This, in turn, the mapping of
liquefaction risks and induced settlement predictions at various depths. Moreover, GIS
allows the intersection of critical infrastructure, like transportation arteries and active
faults data, to clearly understand vulnerabilities and where risk would be spatially
concentrated. The incorporation of GIS enhances decision-making by visually
presenting further steps in planning, risk assessment and mitigation.

49
3.2 Soil Profiles

The profile identification and characterization of the soils along the major coastal
highway arteries of the İzmir Bay area are crucial for understanding the behavior of
these soils under seismic loading. All the borehole data from different geotechnical
projects between 1990 and 2010 provide extensive information on the subsurface,
including soil type, layer thickness, classification, and strength properties.

Figure 3.2 Borehole data incorporated into ArcGIS map

Each depth at which the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is conducted provides
unique information about the soil at that level. In this way, the soil stratification is
determined along the borehole depth. At certain depths, the SPT-N values and the
results of laboratory tests performed on samples taken from those depths allow for the
determination of soil properties such as grain size distribution, Atterberg limits,
specific gravity, water content and strength parameters. The results classified each soil
layer according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Combined with the
borehole coordinates, these data are merged into ArcGIS, enabling the 3D
visualization of the soil properties at various depths within the mapping system (Figure
3.2).

50
 The study area has been divided into 3 regions based on relevant boreholes: the
Bayraklı boreholes representing the Altınyol section, the area between Alsancak-
Konak and the region extending from Konak to Üçkuyular. These divisions were made
to enhance the interpretation of the interpolation and visualization processes. Region
numbers 1,2,3,8 belong to the Konak-Üçkuyular section. The Alsancak-Konak region
is represented by boreholes 4 and 5, while the Bayraklı region is represented by
boreholes 6,7.

3.2.1 Konak-Üçkuyular Area

In the region between Konak and Üçkuyular (Borehole Region #1, 2, 3 and 8), 45
boreholes were considered. The locations of these boreholes are illustrated on the map
in Figure 3.3. Borehole depths in this area vary between 6 and 30 meters, with
groundwater levels ranging from 10 to 1 meter (near ground level). The soil
stratigraphy encountered throughout the borehole depths is often composed of sand,
silt sand, clayey sand, or gravelly sand with occasional layers of inorganic clay. To
better visualize the soil classification distribution, it is presented as a pie chart in Figure
3.4). The SPT-N values around 3 meters depth range from 1 to 25, occasionally
reaching 50. At 5 meters, these values range between 5-25 and 50 at some locations,
whereas at 10-meter depths, the values range between 22-50, occasionally reaching 6-
8. Refusal values were found where the borehole encountered weathered rock
(sandstone or claystone). In other depths, gravel within the layer is believed to be
an affecting factor. Figure 3.5 illustrates the soil stratification and corresponding SPT-
N values for boreholes 1_SK-1, 1_SK-2 and 1_SK-3.

51
 Figure 3.3 Konak-Üçkuyular borehole locations

Figure 3.4 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

52
 Figure 3.5 Schematic illustration and N30 values for boreholes 1_SK-1, 1_SK-2, and 1_SK-3

3.2.2 Alsancak-Konak Area

There are 24 borehole records in the Alsancak-Konak area (Borehole Region #4

and 5). This area extends between Konak Pier and Alsancak Harbor (Figure 3.6). The
depths of boreholes range between 20 and 50 meters, while the groundwater level
varies between 3-10m. The general profile of the boreholes in this area consists of silty
clay and clayey silt layers. The distribution of soil classes is illustrated in the pie chart
below (Figure 3.7). Clayey and gravelly sand layers with thicknesses varying from 2
to 6 meters can be found between these layers.

53
 In the first 3 meters, SPT-N values range from 30 to 50 in gravelly sandy layers,
while clay layers show much lower values, like 0 to 1. At 5 meters depth, the SPT-N
values are around 50 in gravelly sections, 20 to 30 in sandy layers, and as low as 1 in
clays. At 10 meters, SPT-N values fluctuate between 0 and 12 in sandy layers and 0 to
13 in clayey ones. The schematic illustration of the soil layering and corresponding
SPT-N values for boreholes 4_SK-1, 4_SK-2 and 4_SK-3 is provided in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.6 Alsancak-Konak borehole locations

Figure 3.7 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Alsancak-Konak area

54
Figure 3.8 Schematic illustration for boreholes 4_SK-1, 4_SK-2, and 4_SK-3

55
3.2.3 Bayraklı Area (Altınyol)

Altınyol has been included in this study due to its significance as one of İzmir’s
primary transportation arteries. Although abundant borehole data exist along the
Konak-Üçkuyular road's coastal section, there is a notable deficiency in data around
Altınyol. Consequently, 15 borehole logs (Borehole Region #6 and 7), located on or
near the road have been incorporated into the analysis. It is assumed that these data
adequately represent the geotechnical conditions of the area. Borehole locations is
shown on the map in Figure 3.9.

The borehole depths vary from 30 meters to 80 meters. In the boreholes from
Bayraklı Sahil Güvenlik (Borehole Region #7), the groundwater is nearly at the surface
(GWL≈0.75m), whereas in other boreholes, it is encountered at approximately 5
meters. The general soil stratification consists of silty clay and clayey silt layers.
Interspersed within these layers are sandy gravel deposits and clayey sand/silty sand
layers that reach up to 10 meters thick. In the Bayraklı Sahil Güvenlik area boreholes,
clayey silty sand layers are present within the first 10 meters of depth, and the andesite
layer has been encountered at 30 meters. The soil classification distribution is
presented as a pie chart in Figure 3.10.

At a depth of 3 meters, SPT-N values were recorded as 35 in the gravel layer, 3-8
in the clayey and silty layer, and 0-5 in the sand layer. At 5 meters, the values were 36
in the gravel layer and 0-18 in the sand and clay layers. At 10 meters, in areas where
the andesite layer was encountered, the values ranged from 40 to 50. In the gravel
layer, the SPT-N value remained at 36, while in the clayey silt layers, it ranged from
1 to 10, and in the sand layer, from 18 to 39. A depiction of the soil layer, along with
the corresponding SPT-N values for boreholes 6_SK-1, 6_SK-2, and 6_SK-3, can be
found in Figure 3.11.

56
 Figure 3.9 Bayraklı borehole locations

Figure 3.10 Soil classification distribution for boreholes in the Bayraklı area

57
 Figure 3.11 Schematic illustration and N30 values for boreholes 6_SK-1, 6_SK-2, and 6_SK-3

3.3 Data Layers

This section presents maps of the geotechnical parameters integrated into the GIS
environment by using an exported table. This database will be presented in Appendix-
3. Parameters such as 𝑁 , 𝑁 , (𝑁 ) and also other relevant information were
derived from field and laboratory data, then processed and visualized using ArcGIS.
These maps illustrate the spatial variation within the study area and provide essential

58
information for interpreting results, which is usually required in further geotechnical
analysis. The following figures represent the 𝑁 distribution maps. The SPT-N values
for the Konak-Üçkuyular, Alsancak-Konak, and Bayraklı regions at depths of 3 m, 5
m, and 10 m are presented in Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13, respectively. Other maps
will be presented in the Appendices.

Figure 3.12 Measured SPT (𝑁 ) distribution at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular and
Alsancak Konak Area

59
Figure 3.13 Measured SPT (𝑁 ) distribution at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Bayraklı Area

60
 CHAPTER FOUR
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

In the scope of the study, a total of borehole data points from different projects have
been collected from Üçkuyular-Konak, Konak-Alsancak and Bayraklı regions, which
encompass the main arterial roads along the İzmir coastal area. Utilizing the borehole
data, liquefaction analyses were conducted according to the SPT-based calculations in
TBDY-2018. The safety factors against liquefaction have been visualized in the
ArcGIS Pro application for the critical depths of 3m, 5m, and 10m.

This thesis considers the liquefiable soil layers at varying depths from boreholes in
the three regions described in the previous section. Liquefaction analyses were
conducted at these borehole locations, specifically on saturated, sandy soils. The
plasticity of fines was not considered in the scope of this study. The liquefaction
analysis was performed using a simplified SPT-based method described in Appendix
16-B of the Turkish Seismic Design Code (TBDY). The calculations were conducted
for earthquake levels DD-2 and DD-3, with corresponding earthquake magnitudes of
6.5 and 5.5, respectively. It is essential to know the peak ground acceleration values
corresponding to these seismic levels to calculate the shear stress induced by an
earthquake. The maximum ground accelerations for the İzmir coastal region were
determined by inputting the local soil class and earthquake level on the AFAD TDTH
platform ([Link] Considering the general soil conditions, including
SPT resistance values ranging from 0 to 10, and gravel layers with resistances reaching
20-30 or even refusal values, the local soil class was deemed appropriate as ZE,
according to Table 4.1. Accordingly, the PGA values considered are shown in Table
4.2.

61
Table 4.1 Local soil classes (TBDY, 2018)

First 30 m
Local Soil
Soil Type (Vs)30 (N60)30
Class (cu)30
[m/sn] (blows/30 cm)
ZA Strong, hard rocks >1500 - -
ZB Slightly weathered, moderately strong rocks 760-1500 - -
ZC Very dense sand, gravel and stiff clay layers 360-760 >50 >250
ZD Medium-dense to dense sand, gravel, or very stiff 180-360 15-50 70-250
clay layers
ZE Loose sand, gravel, or soft to firm clay layers, or <180 <15 <70
profiles containing a soft clay layer (cu < 25 kPa)
thicker than 3 meters in total that meet the
conditions of PI > 20 and w > 40%.
ZF Soils requiring site-specific investigation and assessment:
[Link] with settlement and potential collapse risk under seismic impact (liquefiable soils, highly
sensitive clays, weakly cemented collapsible soils, etc.),
[Link] and/or high-organic-content clays with a total thickness greater than 3 meters,
[Link]-plasticity clays (PI > 50) with a total thickness exceeding 8 meters,
[Link] thick (> 35 m) soft or medium-firm clays.

Table 4.2 Peak ground acceleration (PGA) values

Earthquake Level Mw amax (g)

DD-2 6.5 0.459
DD-3 5.5 0.175

Using the ArcGIS software, SPT-N values and soil information at the depths where
SPT tests were conducted were transferred into the GIS environment. Based on this
transferred data, the factor of safety against liquefaction can be calculated through
Python scripting and the computational tools available within the software. The Python
scripts used for these calculations are provided in Appendix-6. Initially, the SPT-N
values were corrected according to Table 2.3 to obtain the (𝑁) and (𝑁 ) values.
Then, the CSR and CRR values required for the liquefaction analysis were calculated.
The CSR values for the corresponding seismic levels were determined using Equation
2.3 based on the ground accelerations specified in Table 4.2. The CRR . values were
calculated using Equation 2.7. The (𝑁 ) value, corrected for fine grains, was
adjusted as described in Equation 2.8. Accordingly, the factor of safety was calculated
using Equation 2.19. The workflow of the data processing and analysis is presented in
Figure 4.1.

62
 Figure 4.1 The workflow of data processing and liquefaction analysis

Based on the data presented in Appendix 3, the liquefaction safety factor

distribution maps have been created using the 3D Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK)
tool for three regions. These maps were developed through three-dimensional
interpolation utilizing the data from the boreholes in the respective areas. The
calculations were conducted for the first 30 meters, and the results for the critical
depths of 3,5 and 10 meters are presented. Additionally, the minimum, maximum and
average factor of safety values calculated for each borehole were determined, and the
worst-case scenario, best-case scenario and average situation have been visualized
accordingly. The results obtained for the Konak-Üçkuyular, Alsancak-Konak, and
Bayraklı regions will be presented respectively.

4.1 Liquefaction Maps for the Konak-Üçkuyular Area

Figure 4.2 illustrates the liquefaction safety factors at depths of 3m, 5m, and 10m
in the Konak-Üçkuyular area for two different earthquake levels. Moreover, Figure 4.3
presents the worst-case, best-case, and average scenarios for these two earthquake
magnitudes. The minimum, maximum, and average values were calculated using a 2D
Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) interpolation method based on the lowest, highest,
and average values recorded for each borehole.

63
Figure 4.2 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake levels at
3m, 5m, 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

64
Figure 4.3 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and average for DD-2
(Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

65
4.2 Liquefaction Maps for the Alsancak-Konak Area

Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 illustrate the liquefaction safety factors at depths of 3m,
5m, and 10m in the Konak-Üçkuyular area for two different earthquake levels.
Moreover, Figure 4.6 presents the worst-case, best-case, and average scenarios for
these two earthquake magnitudes. The minimum, maximum, and average values were
calculated using a 2D Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) interpolation method, based
on the lowest, highest, and average values recorded for each borehole.

Figure 4.4 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in
the Alsancak-Konak area

66
Figure 4.5 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m, 5m, and 10m depths
in the Alsancak-Konak area

67
Figure 4.6 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and average for DD-2
(Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the Alsancak-Konak area

68
4.3 Liquefaction Maps for the Bayraklı (Altınyol) Area

Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 illustrate the liquefaction safety factors at depths of 3m,
5m, and 10m in the Konak-Üçkuyular area for two different earthquake levels.
Moreover, Figure 4.9 presents the worst-case, best-case, and average scenarios for
these two earthquake magnitudes. The minimum, maximum, and average values were
calculated using a 2D Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) interpolation method, based
on the lowest, highest, and average values recorded for each borehole.

Figure 4.7 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m, 5m, 10m depths in
the Bayraklı (Altınyol) area

69
Figure 4.8 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m, 5m, and 10m depths
in the Bayraklı (Altınyol) area

70
Figure 4.9 Factor of safety distribution for scenarios; minimum, maximum, and average for DD-2
(Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the Bayraklı (Altınyol) area

71
 CHAPTER FİVE
POST-EARTHQUAKE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

A post-earthquake settlement study is conducted to better understand ground

settlement resulting from seismic loads during an earthquake. This analysis is essential
for ensuring the safety of buildings and infrastructure. Settlement calculations were
performed at 36 borehole locations in the Üçkuyular-Konak area, 31 in the Alsancak-
Konak area, and 15 in Bayraklı area. Settlement values were calculated for each layer
to determine the liquefaction safety factor. The total settlement values at each borehole
location was then obtained by summing the settlement values of all layers. These
settlement estimates were then utilized to build interpolation maps in ArcGIS using
the 2D Empirical Bayesian Kriging tool, which enabled spatial display of settlement
distribution across the region.

Post-earthquake settlement calculations for liquefaction are performed by obtaining

volumetric deformation values using the relationship between Cyclic Stress Ratio
(CSR) and (𝑁 ) data, as applied in Wu and Seed (2004) approach which has shown
to to be well correlated with other common methods. Since the Ishihara Yoshmine
(1992) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) approaches do not consider fine content, Wu
and Seed (2004) have been selected for this study.

72
 Figure 5.1 Volumetric strain determination (Wu et al., 2003)

The (𝑁 ) values must be computed using the method of Seed et al. (2001) in
order to utilize the Wu and Seed (2004) graph. Equation 2.15 is used to get the
𝐶 values, and Equation 2.14 is used to estimate the (𝑁 ) values for each layer.
For example, for a (𝑁 ) =11 and CSR = 0.25, the volumetric strain is determined as
shown in Figure 5.1. For each layer, the volumetric strains are calculated in this
manner, and the total settlement is obtained using Equation 2.22.

In Figure 5.1, the CSR value is limited to 0.6. Since the CSR value indicates soil
stability and liquefaction potential, a critical threshold of 0.6 is commonly accepted
for assessing liquefaction risk. When CSR exceeds 0.6, it suggests that liquefaction
should be addressed in more complex methods, as standard approaches may no longer
be insufficient. In such cases, instead of post-earthquake settlement, the main issue
would be the total strength loss. This indicates a potential for severe consequences if
an earthquake of this magnitude occurs in these areas.

The calculations resulted in the maps for the DD-2 and DD-3 earthquake levels,
which are presented in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3. However, due to the insufficient
distribution of boreholes in the Bayraklı area, the liquefaction distribution map could
not be generated for this region.

73
Figure 5.2 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake
levels in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

74
Figure 5.3 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) and DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake
levels in the Alsancak-Konak area

75
 CHAPTER SİX
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

The findings of this chapter provide a detailed analysis of the liquefaction potential
and post-earthquake settlement along the major coastal highways of the İzmir Bay
area. The results highlight the varying levels of safety factors (FS) under different
seismic scenarios (DD-2 and DD-3), offering valuable insights into the vulnerabilities
across various regions. The calculation of the liquefaction safety factor was performed
exclusively for sandy soils. The plasticity of fine-grained soils was not considered in
this study.

In the Konak-Üçkuyular region, at the DD-2 earthquake level, the safety factor
reaches a maximum of 1 in some areas but generally remains around 0.5. Specific
values for this seismic level include a minimum of 0.2, a maximum of 0.4, and an
average of 0.3, indicating significant vulnerability to liquefaction. Under the DD-3
earthquake level, the safety factor generally exceeds the threshold value of 1.1, with
distributions ranging between 2 and 4. However, a small portion of the region exhibits
safety factors as low as 0.6–1.1. Overall, most areas in this region appear to be safe
against liquefaction at this level. This region predominantly consists of sandy layers
with very low fine-grained content, and the groundwater table is approximately 1
meter below the surface. The presence of significantly low SPT values, ranging
between 1 and 20, indicates a high likelihood of liquefaction occurrence in this area.

In the Alsancak-Konak region, although the results in this area are pretty similar to
those obtained in the Konak-Üçkuyular region, the soil profile is predominantly
composed of sandy and clayey soils. The groundwater level ranges between 5 and 10
meters, while the SPT-N values vary from 0 to 30. At the DD-2 seismic level, the
safety factor decreases to as low as 0.3 in some regions, with a maximum value of 1.
Even at depths of 10m, the average safety factor is approximately 0.4, exposing a high
risk of liquefaction. Specific borehole analyses yielded minimum, maximum, and

76
average FS values of 0.45, 1.0, and 0.75, respectively. Safety factors for the DD-3
earthquake level drop to around 0.7, especially at depths of 5m and 10m but typically
exceed the 1.1 threshold as depth increases. These results are also reflected in the
minimum, maximum, and average distribution maps.

In the Bayraklı region, the safety factor exhibits a homogeneous and similar
distribution across DD-2, and DD-3 earthquake levels. At the DD-2 earthquake level,
except for a small portion, the values range between 0.1 and 1, indicating a very high
likelihood of liquefaction in the Bayraklı coastal area at this seismic level. In the
minimum factor of safety distribution map, the values range between 0.125 and 0.7,
while in the maximum distribution map, they vary between 0.13 and 1.50. The average
values obtained in this region are approximately 0.5. At the DD-3 earthquake level,
most of the region shows values lower than 1 at depths of 3m and 5m, with only a tiny
portion ranging between 1 and 3. At a depth of 10m, the values range between 2 and
6. Although the minimum values range between 0.5 and 2.8, the overall distribution
appears to be around 0.75. In the map of the average result, the general distribution is
observed to be around [Link] borehole depths in this area range from 30 to 80 meters,
predominantly of clayey silt layers. Among these layers, there are notably thick sandy
strata where the SPT-N values generally range from 0 to 18, occasionally reaching up
to 39 in certain sections. The Bayraklı region is identified as the most vulnerable area
to liquefaction, as evidenced by the devastating effects it experienced during the 2020
Samos earthquake.

Post-earthquake settlement calculations were performed using well-established

correlations in the literature. Volumetric stresses in sandy soil were calculated using
the association between cyclic shear strength (CSR) and corrected N1,60 values
provided by Wu and Seed (2004). Settlement values for each layer were then
calculated, and the total settlements at each borehole were obtained by summing the
layer-specific settlements. These settlement values were mapped in ArcGIS, and a 2D
Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) interpolation map was created to visualize the
spatial distribution of settlements. According to the results, settlements in the Konak-

77
Üçkuyular region ranged between 10 cm and 80 cm for the DD-2 earthquake level and
between 4 cm and 60 cm for the DD-3 earthquake level. However, the interpolation
map reflects the distribution weighted, avoiding extreme values to provide a more
representative settlement distribution. As a result, the EBK interpolation map shows
settlement values predominantly in the range of 10-40 cm (DD-2) and 10-30 cm (DD-
3).

Similarly, in the Alsancak-Konak region, settlements ranged between 3 cm and 40

cm for the DD-2 earthquake level and between 4 cm and 30 cm for the DD-3
earthquake level. However, the weighted distribution reflects settlements
predominantly in the 11-15 cm range for DD-2 and 7-10 cm for DD-3. Although the
safety factor for DD-3 exceeds 1.1 in this region, the settlements still reach critical
levels, highlighting potential concerns for post-earthquake performance.

The calculation results for the Bayraklı region indicate that, at the DD-2 earthquake
level, settlements range from 7 cm to 50 cm, with an average of 30 cm. At the DD-3
earthquake level, settlements vary between 5 cm and 35 cm, with an average of 20 cm.
Considering the abundance of sandy layers in this region, with SPT-N values ranging
from 1 to 15 in these layers, significant settlements are expected for both seismic
levels. Due to insufficient data distribution in the Bayraklı region, mapping through
2D interpolation could not be achieved.

The results indicate that a significant liquefaction risk is expected in all three
regions at the DD-2 level. Although the situation is critical in the first 3 meters of
depth, similar conditions are also observed in the analyses at 10 meters. For a general
evaluation on a borehole basis, minimum, maximum, and average graphs can be
examined. Upon reviewing the average interpolation maps, liquefaction is expected
across all sections of the coastal areas, including the major highway arteries, in all
three regions. At the DD-3 level, although the safety factor generally exceeds 1.1,
certain areas in the Konak-Üçkuyular and Bayraklı regions remain below this

78
threshold. The findings indicate that liquefaction-induced settlements are a significant
concern for the study area, particularly for earthquakes with magnitudes greater than
6.5. The study's findings reveal that safety and post-earthquake settlement values are
overly crucial along major coastal highway arteries.

79
 CHAPTER SEVEN
INCREASING LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SOIL IN THE STUDY
AREA USING CONTEMPORARY TECHNIQUES

Dynamic compaction will be applied along the major coastal highway arteries in
the İzmir Bay area to mitigate the risk of liquefaction and improve the stability of the
region's soil. This method has been chosen for its ability to quickly and cost-effectively
enhance the soil’s load-bearing capacity, which is vital in areas with time and budget
constraints. The presence of large rock formations in the region further justifies the
use of dynamic compaction, as it can be effectively implemented in locations with
underlying hard layers without causing significant disruption to the surrounding
environment.

In densely built areas where rapid results are required, dynamic compaction is a
flexible and practical option. By delivering a heavyweight multiple times to compact
loose soil, this technique can significantly improve the stability of areas susceptible to
liquefaction or with loose soil, especially along transportation routes. It ensures that
the infrastructure, such as highways, remains stable and secure in the long term. As a
result, dynamic compaction is the ideal method for improving the stability and safety
of major urban roads, providing a balance of speed, cost, and environmental
considerations for long-term performance.

7.1 Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic compaction is one of the in-situ ground improvement methods widely

adapted to densify loose, granular soils and engineered fills by dropping heavy weights
from significant heights onto the ground surface. In this way, the energy of impact is
imported profoundly into the soil to increase its density and strength while reducing
settlement and liquefaction potential. Initially developed by Louis Menard, the process
has been in application for many years in stabilizing loose soils for significant projects
such as roads, airports, and industrial areas. Generally, the dynamic compaction

80
process involves dropping a heavy steel or concrete tamper weighing 5 to 40 tons from
heights between 10 to 40 meters.

Figure 7.1 Schematic illustration of dynamic compaction method (Nicholson,2014)

The dynamic compaction method applies to sandy soils and is not recommended for
clayey soils of the nature of the soil type. However, it can be applied by giving time to
dissipate porewater pressure due to applied dynamic load. Dynamic compaction can
be used for many kinds of soils and purposes. These can be loose, natural soils like
alluvial, floodplain, new or old landfills, mine spoils, collapsible soils, loose sand and
silt, etc. Lukas (1995) presented the soil types into three categories to which dynamic
compaction can be applied. Dynamic compaction is most effective in soils with high
permeability.

81
 Figure 7.2 Soil types for dynamic compaction (Lukas, 1995)

In the table below, some recommendations were made by Fletcher Construction

Private Ltd. according to soil type and saturation degree.

Table 7.1 Suitability of dynamic compaction method

Degree of
General Soil Type Suitability of DC
Saturation
Granular Deposits in the grain size range of boulders High/Low Excellent
to sand with 0% passing the 0.074mm sieve
Granular deposits containing not more than 35% High Good
silts Low Excellent
Semi-permeable soil deposits are generally silty High Fair
soils containing some sand but less than 25% clay Low Good
with PI<8
Impermeable soil deposits generally clayey soils High Not Recommended
where PI>8 Low Fair minor improvements w(%)<PI
Miscellaneous fill, including paper, organic deposits, Low Fair-long term settlement anticipated
metal and wood due to decomposition. Limit use the of
embankments
Highly organic deposits of peat-organic silts High Not recommended unless sufficient
energy is applied to mix granular with
organic soils

82
7.1.1 Process and Mechanism

Dynamic compaction involves several passes over the treatment area, each
consisting of crossing over the area at least once. Thereafter, the tamper is dropped at
pre-determined grid positions a specified number of times per pass. These grid patterns
can be square or triangular. Figure 7.3 shows a square pattern; phase 1 consists of two
phases, Phases 1-1 and 1-2. In phase 1, compaction is applied with larger spacing to
reach deeper depths. Phase 2 is applied over smaller spacing to densify shallow depths
and use lower energy. This phase is also called ironing compaction.

Figure 7.3 Square layout of drop points (Shaban, 2018)

Key factors are the weight of the tamper, the height of the fall, grid spacing, and the
number of passes. The weight of the tamper generally falls between 5-27 tons, and the
drop height ranges from 12-30 m. The grain size distribution and saturation are the
most influential factors in the amount of energy required to achieve the proper depth
of compaction and efficiency. Indeed, adequate densification may require two or three
processes, especially in deep or highly variable soils.

7.1.2 Advantages and Limitations

The major advantage of dynamic compaction is that large areas of poor-quality soil
can be treated with minimum excavation and disturbances. This method can also reach
moderately significant depths, eliminating the need for costly deep foundation systems

83
such as piles and caissons. Moreover, it is quite cheaper than other improvement
techniques such as stone columns and vibro compaction. It provides improved bearing
capacity, reduced differential settlement and enhanced liquefaction susceptibility.

However, it does have some limitations. While it is a highly effective method on

granular soils such as sand, in clayey soil, since it absorbs the energy, it reduces the
effect of compaction. The compaction weight may sink or embed itself into the soil if
the clay soil is highly plastic and water saturated. For compaction in such soils, a
granular layer should be added to aid in effective compaction. Additionally, to prevent
sinking, the depth of the craters formed after each impact should be monitored and
should not exceed the value of the tamper height+0.3 meters.

This process generates some noises, vibrations, and lateral movement, which could
affect the area in which the treatment is located. If compaction is close to a residential
area, vibrations become a significant concern and it should be monitored and
prevention has been taken. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, particle velocities
around 13–19 mm/s are unlikely to cause cracking in modern buildings, and structural
damage is unlikely if particle velocities are kept below 50 mm/s. To prevent Rayleigh
waves generated by impacts from reaching nearby structures and residential areas, a
trench approximately 3 meters wide can be excavated. If positioned carefully to avoid
impacting other nearby structures, this method can effectively mitigate vibration
effects.

7.1.3 Design Guideline of Dynamic Compaction Method

An empirical formula developed by Menard (1975) as follows.

𝐷 =𝑛 𝑊𝐻 (7.1)

84
 where 𝐷 (𝑚) is depth of improvement, 𝑊 (ton) is weight of tamper and 𝐻 (m)
is drop height. Depth of improvement is determined approximately and constant nc is
determined below table. 𝑊 𝐻 can be calculated using Equation 7.1.

Table 7.2 Recommended nc value for different soil types (Lukas, 1995)

Soil Type Degree of Saturation Recommended 𝒏𝒄 value

Pervious soil deposits High 0.5
Granular soils Low 0.5-0.6
Semipervious deposits High 0.35-0.4
Primary silts with PI<8 Low 0.4-0.5
Impervious soil deposits High Not Recommended
Primarily clayey soils Low 0.35-0.4 (w<PL)
a
PI =Plasticity index, w=water content, PL=plastic limit

Mayne et al. (1984) provided a relationship based on field data;

.
𝐻 = (𝑊 𝐻 ) (7.2)

Then, drop height can be calculated as in Equation 7.2.

Total applied energy ( 𝐴𝐸 ) during compaction represents the unit applied

energy (UAE) multiplied by the thickness of the layer (𝐷 ) to be improved. It is also a
sum of the Phase 1 (Deep Compaction Stage) and Phase 2 (Ironing Phase). Deep
compaction stage energy at one phase (𝐴𝐸 ) can be calculated as Equation 7.4 where
𝐴 denotes the effective area according to applied pattern (square or triangular). The
total applied energy is the sum of the energy applied during the high-energy pass
phases (𝐴𝐸 ) and ironing pass (𝐴𝐸 ).

𝐴𝐸 = 𝑈𝐴𝐸 𝐷 (7.3)

𝐴𝐸 = (7.4)

85
 𝐴 = 𝑠 for square pattern (7.5a)

𝐴 = 0.867𝑠 for triangular pattern (7.5b)

where 𝑁 is number of drops, 𝑁 is number of passess and s is grid spacing.

This process is used in a triangular or square design with uniform spacing. Drop
spacing (s) is generally taken by multiplying the tamper diameter or width by 1.5-2.5.
Energy applied during high-energy passes assumes for one pass. If the number of drops
differs from 7-15, grid spacing should be adjusted.

Table 7.3 allows you to select the required unit applied energy (UAE) for the
compacted and ironing layers according to the zones in Figure 7.2.

Table 7.3 Required unit applied energy from standard proctor test (Lukas, 1995)

Soil Type Unit Applied Energy (kj/m3) Standard Proctor Energy (%)
Pervious coarse-grained soil-Zone-1 200-250 33-41
Semipervious fine-grained soil-Zone-2
250-350 41-60
Clay fills above water table -Zone 3
Landfills 600-1100 100-180

The loosened upper section of the layer will be compacted using low-level energy,
known as ironing layer energy (𝐴𝐸 ), applied across the entire surface. During the
ironing pass, energy should be at least 400 kj/m2 (Lukas, 1995). This energy
requirement can be estimated based on the expected crater depth, assumed to be
approximately 1.0–1.5 meters.

𝐴𝐸 = 𝑈𝐴𝐸 ∗ 𝑑 (7.6)

Where 𝑑 is crater depth in m.

Allowable crater depth (𝑑 )al calculated as follows:

86
 (𝑑 )al =0.075(𝑑 )+0.3 (7.7)

The depth of the crater formed should not exceed this depth. Then, number of passes
can be calculated from Equation 7.3.

After several drops and passes were completed, the bulldozers leveled the surface.
The ground settlement is measured by comparing the current elevation of the ground
from the initial level. In unsaturated soils, it happens abruptly after compaction,
whereas in saturated soils, it develops with time after every compaction phase. Most
of the settlement arises from filling large craters created by the tampers. The
approximate percentage of induced settlement is provided below.

Table 7.4 Approximate induced settlement relation with improvement depth (Shaban, 2015)

Soil Type Percent of Depth

Natural Clays 1-3
Clay Fills 3-5
Natural Sands 3-10
Granular Fills 5-15
Uncontrolled Fills 5-20

7.2 Proposal for Improvement through Dynamic Compaction in the Konak

Coastal Area

As observed from the calculated safety factors against liquefaction along the İzmir
coastal region, liquefaction is anticipated in these areas. This section proposes an
improvement approach using dynamic compaction over a 30x150 m area. The
improvement will be applied in a designated area on the map, as shown in Figure 7.4,
encompassing a section of the coastal road within the Konak-Üçkuyular region, where
the general soil profile consists of sandy layers. The calculations will follow the
"Dynamic Compaction" methods outlined by the "U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration" (Lukas,1995).

87
 Figure 7.4 Location of improvement area

The soil profile within the selected improvement area between Konak and
Üçkuyular consists of silty-clayey sandy layers. The required compaction energy for
soil improvement has been determined based on the specified depth and area pattern.
The improvement target depth is set to an average of 7 meters. This calculation
estimates the energy needed for adequate deep compaction across the improvement
zone. Borehole 1_SK-18 was chosen to representative example of the area where
ground improvement was implemented, and the soil layers in this borehole are
illustrated in Figure 7.5.

88
 Figure 7.5 Soil profile of improvement area

The selected area is categorized as Zone-1, which is the most suitable area for
compaction, according to Figure 7.2. Specific input parameters must be chosen to
perform the dynamic compaction analysis, and calculations should be carried out
accordingly. The input values for compaction calculations are provided in Table 7.5.
The tamper weight and drop height are obtained using the nc coefficient based on the
improvement depth, according to Equation 7.2. Although the selected area consists
primarily of sand, the nc coefficient is chosen as 0.4 due to the presence of silt and clay
in specific locations (Table 7.2).

Table 7.5 Input values for dynamic compaction energy

Depth of improvement, 𝑫İ 7m
Coefficient, 𝒏𝒄 0.4
UAE -Compacted Layer- 300 kJ/m3
Tamper Diameter 1.5 m
UAE -Upper Layer- 350 kJ/m3

89
 Using the improvement depth (Di) and a coefficient, the tamper weight was
determined to be 15 tons, and the drop height was selected as 21 meters based on
Equation 7.2. According to Table 7.3, the required unit energy for the compaction layer
will be determined. The sandy layer, classified as coarse-grained permeable soil, was
assigned an average value of 300 kJ/m³ in the selected area due to the presence of clay
and silt. Tamper diameter is taken as 1.5m. Due to the presence of layers falling into
Zone-2 in specific boreholes, the required unit energy for the ironing phase has been
determined as 350 kJ/m³.

Table 7.6 Dynamic compaction energy calculations

Depth of
Coefficient, Height of Drop, Weight of Tamper
improvement, 𝑾𝒕 𝑯 𝒅
𝒏𝒄 𝑯𝒅 Tamper, 𝑾𝒕 Diameter
𝑫İ
m - tonm m ton m
7 0.4 17.5 21 15 1.5
Drop Number of Number of Total Applied Total Applied
Effective Area, 𝑨𝒆
Spacing, s Drops, 𝑵𝑫 Passes, 𝑵𝑷 Energy, 𝑨𝑬𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 Energy, 𝑨𝑬𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍
m m2 - - kJ/m2 MJ/m2
3 9 3 2 2060.1 2.06
Unit Applied Applied Energy
Unit Applied Total Applied Total Applied
Energy, UAE for Ironing Pass,
𝑨𝑬𝑰𝑷 +𝑨𝑬𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 Energy, UAE Energy, 𝑨𝑬𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 Energy, 𝑨𝑬𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍
[Upper Layer] 𝑨𝑬𝑰𝑷
kJ/m3 kJ/m2 kJ/m2 kJ/m3 kJ/m2 MJ/m2
350 525 2585 300 2100 2.1

Equation 7.3 calculates the total energy required for the compaction layer as 2100
kJ/m². The applied energy will be calculated based on the parameters selected, and the
required energy will be obtained. This energy is often supplied in many phases for
clayey soils, enabling excess pore water pressures to dissipate between phases.
However, because the soil in this case is sand, the energy will be delivered in a single
phase.

Equation 7.4 calculates the High Energy Pass (HEP), representing the energy
applied to the compaction layer. To make this computation, first decide the application
pattern and then select the drop spacing (s) value. Typically, s is 1.5 to 2 times the

90
diameter of the tamper, which can be computed as s = 1.5 × 2 = 3 meters. The
application pattern is square (Figure 7.5). To achieve the required 2100 kJ/m² energy
using Equation 7.4, the number of drops and passes are determined which are Nd=3
and NP=2. If the number of drops is too high, the parameters or application spacing
should be adjusted. After selecting the number of drops and number of passes, the
applied energy is calculated as 2060 kJ/m² based on these values. For the ironing phase,
the unit applied energy for the surface layer is obtained as 350 kJ/m³ using Equation
7.6, and with a 𝑑 of 1.5 m, the value becomes 525 kJ/m³. The total applied energy
is, therefore, 2060 + 525 = 2585 kJ/m² (Table 7.6).

Figure 7.6 30m x 150m Improvement area pattern

The selected points will be executed with a drop spacing of 3 meters, , following an
alternating pattern of one active and one inactive point as shown in Figure 7.5. Each
point will be impacted three times per pass, with two passes conducted in total. Finally,
each point will be subjected to a single impact during the ironing phase to complete
the process. Since the application area is close to buildings, excavating a trench to
mitigate the impact may be beneficial.

7.3 A Novel Technique Against Liquefaction with Colloidal Silica

The primary strategies for improving liquefaction resistance and minimizing

ground deformations mainly focus on densification techniques. Approaches such as
dynamic compaction, vibro-compaction, and explosive compaction have been widely
utilized to compact soil and lower the likelihood of liquefaction (Zhao et al., 2019).
Nonetheless, these methods can challenge nearby structures due to the vibrations and

91
dynamic forces they generate, which restricts their use mainly to undeveloped or open
areas. As a result, geotechnical engineers are investigating alternative solutions that
reduce disruption.

Colloidal silica (CS) has emerged as a promising material in nanotechnology for

addressing liquefaction issues (Zhao et al., 2019). The method involves gradually
injecting colloidal silica at the upgradient edge of a site, allowing groundwater flow to
transport the stabilizer to the intended location (Gallagher et al., 2007b) (Figure 7.7).
Applying improvement materials to the desired area is a critical consideration in
terrains without natural slopes. Therefore, CS, which has a viscosity very close to that
of water and excellent permeability, is a highly suitable material for this process.

Sodium silicate (commonly known as waterglass) grout, despite its chemical

similarity to colloidal silica (CS), exhibits a distinct behavior known as syneresis,
where the gel undergoes shrinkage accompanied by the expulsion of water (Yonekura
& Kaga, 1992). In contrast, colloidal silica does not display this property. Sodium
silicate is typically used at 38% solids with a viscosity of 200 centipoise and requires
dilution to achieve sufficient flowability for grouting. In contrast, colloidal silica can
be used at up to 50% solids by weight while maintaining a much lower viscosity of
around 5 centipoises, allowing for easier application and making it more stable. It is
a reliable option for long-term soil stabilization.

The application of colloidal silica grout significantly enhances the deformation

resistance of loose sand under cyclic loading conditions (Gallagher et al., 2002). This
method provides innovative stabilization by preventing pore water pressure buildup
during seismic events. CS is economically viable, minimally intrusive, and
environmentally friendly, with numerous advantages in soil treatment. It is particularly
effective in "passive site stabilization," a relatively novel approach introduced by
Gallagher in 2002, characterized by in situ reinforcement with minimal disturbance.
Colloidal silica strengthens soil by infiltrating pore spaces and forming a stabilizing

92
gel that helps reduce ground displacement during seismic activities. Thus, it is an
essential resource in geotechnical engineering for enhancing liquefaction resistance.

Figure 7.7 Passive site stabilization concept (Gallagher et al., 2002)

7.3.1 Physical Properties of Colloidal Silica

Colloidal silica consists of an aqueous suspension of silica nanoparticles (Iler,

1979), with particle sizes ranging from 7 to 22 nanometers derived from silicic acid
solutions. Its low viscosity resembles that of water. Strong interparticle interactions
lead to elevated ionic strengths that influence the gelation process; factors such as
particle size, ionic strength, pH levels, and silica concentration can affect the duration
of gelation (Persoff et al., 1998; Gallagher & Mitchell, 2002; Gallagher et al., 2007;
Zhao et al., 2019). The silica molecules possess a polymeric spherical structure with
negatively charged surfaces (Spencer et al., 2008) (Figure 7.8).

93
 Figure 7.8 Colloidal silica particle illustration (Silco International, 2005)

7.3.2 Mechanism

Colloidal silica functions by uniformly dispersing nanoscale silica particles within

water while remaining stable under specific conditions; otherwise, the particles remain
fluid. Alkaline solutions like sodium hydroxide stabilize colloidal silica solutions and
control premature gelation. These solutions interact with particle surfaces, imparting
negative charges that enhance repulsion between particles and effectively inhibit gel
formation (Figure 7.9a). Although hydroxyl ions from alkaline solutions can
encourage gel formation, maintaining high pH levels ensures stability due to strong
particle charges inhibiting rapid reactions at elevated pH levels; however, when pH
falls below five, diminishing hydroxyl ion presence, the particles lose their charge,
leading toward siloxane bond formation (Figure 7.9b). The fastest gel times occur
when pH is maintained between 5 and 6; if it drops below this threshold due to loss of
hydroxyl ions, as illustrated in Figure 7.9c, positive charges are created when H₂O⁺
ions adhere to the particle surfaces. The particles lose their charge, which slows down
siloxane bond formation and extends the gelation time.

94
Figure 7.9 Surface charge of silica particles for the cases of different pH values; (a) pH> 8, O- on the
particle surface and repulsive forces, (b) 5≤pH≤8, some particles still have negative charges, (c) pH<5,
H₂O⁺ ions attach to the particle surfaces (Zhao et al., 2019)

In their study, Wong et al. prepared a colloidal silica (CS) sample using Meyco
MP320, which has a silica concentration of 40% by weight. Colloidal silica grouting
consists of a colloidal silica suspension and an electrolyte. As shown in Figure 7.10a,
the mixture's viscosity initially remains low. However, the viscosity increases rapidly
after about one hour, triggering the gelling process, as depicted in Figure 7.10b.
Ultimately, a network of nanoparticles is formed, resulting in a solid gel within
approximately two hours, as illustrated in Figure 7.10c.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7.10 Gelling mechanism (a) before gelling, (b) during gelling (c) after gelling (Wong et al., 2018)

95
7.3.3 Literature Review

The application of colloidal silica as a ground improvement technique to mitigate

liquefaction has grown exponentially as a subject of study in recent decades. This
section aims to compile a comprehensive assessment of existing scholarly work
examining the effectiveness and usage of colloidal silica for soil stabilization and
increasing liquefaction resistance.

Countless experiments have explored the complex interactions by which colloidal

silica mingles with particulate matter, enhancing their cohesion and overall integrity.
Initial applications of colloidal silica focused primarily on its capacity to reduce fluid
transmission by lowering hydraulic conductivity (Durmusoglu & Corapcioglu, 2000)
and for immobilizing contaminants (Noll et al., 1993; Persoff et al., 1999). Since then,
the technique has evolved considerably, with proliferating research investigating
diverse injection methods, required dosages, and soil types.

This review surveys the significant contributions to the field, discussing pivotal
methodologies, conclusions, and advancements. It also pinpoints gaps in the literature
and proposes potential lines of future inquiry to fully leverage colloidal silica's
potential in mitigating risks associated with liquefaction.

[Link] Rosenfarb and Hackman Study (1981)

In their 1981 study, Rosenfarb and Hackman stabilized the sand with colloidal silica
at varying ratios (30% to 45%) and conducted drained static and dynamic triaxial tests.
The results from the drained-static triaxial tests illustrate the effect of increasing
sodium silicate concentration on static strength. As the silica content in the grout rises,
the peak strength also increases. The confinement effect was also investigated and
positively influenced static strength (Figure 7.11). Additionally, the confined samples
failed at axial strains between 3% and 5%, while the unconfined samples failed at
approximately 1.5% axial strain (Figure 7.12). Similar to static loading, under dynamic

96
loading conditions, specimens showed increasing strength with higher sodium silica
percentages. However, dynamic strengths for unconfined stage loading tests are 70-
570 kPa and 90-550 kPa in continuous loading tests, which is relatively low when
compared to static strength. The corresponding strength values for the confined stage
are 380-800 kPa in stage loading and 410-650 kPa in continuous loading.

Figure 7.11 Variation of peak static strength with silica content (Rosenharb & Hackman, 1981)

Figure 7.12 Static stress-strain response: confined and unconfined (Rosenharb & Hackman, 1981)

[Link] Gallagher and Mitchell Study (2002)

In the study conducted by Gallagher and Mitchell (2002), triaxial tests were
performed on samples injected with colloidal silica (CS) at concentrations of 5%, 10%,

97
15%, and 20%. The study used Monterey Sand#0/30 (SP) to analyze the most
liquefiable soil class according to grain size distribution. Additionally, unconfined
compression tests were conducted on some specimens before and after cyclic triaxial
testing to compare baseline and residual strength. Figure 7.13 reveals that specimens
containing higher silica concentrations accumulate less axial strain during the dynamic
loading. As shown in the Figure, samples with 15%-20% CS show very little strain,
whereas samples with 5% CS experience up to 12% strain, but they all remain intact
after the test. Figure 7.14 shows untreated and treated samples (with 5% CS) of axial
strain development with cycles. As clearly shown in the figure, although the untreated
sample exhibits only a negligible amount of strain initially, it suddenly undergoes
deformation exceeding 5% once liquefaction begins. Its deformation abruptly
increased from 2% to around 7% during the last three cycles, leading to failure in the
thirteenth cycle. These findings suggest that about a 5-10% CS rate is performed well
to mitigate liquefaction risk. Although it exhibits some deformation, the permanent
deformations remain limited, and the sample remains intact. They have stated that
increasing the percentage further is not economically feasible.

Figure 7.13 Colloidal silica versus strain during cyclic loading (Gallagher & Mitchell, 2002)

98
Figure 7.14 Untreated Monterey sand (CSR:0.27) and treated sand (CSR:0.24) axial strain vs cycles
(Gallagher & Mitchell, 2002)

Gallagher and Mitchell also investigated the effect of aging on the cyclic loading
test. Figure 7.15 highlights that the longer the curing time, the less deformation occurs
under dynamic loading.

Figure 7.15 Strain during cyclic loading for 10% CS Samples with different curing time (Gallagher &
Mitchell, 2002)

[Link] Liao et al. Study (2003)

In this study, Liao et al. conducted experiments on sand specimens collected from
the Taiwanese coastline, which was affected by liquefaction during the Chi-Chi
earthquake. The sand used in these experiments had a relative density of 50% and was
classified as SP. To stabilize the sand, Perma Rock AT-30 grout, a type of colloidal

99
silica, was applied. This grout was used to treat the sand samples, and the researchers
examined its impact on the soil's properties under different testing conditions. Using
unconfined compression tests, they examined the curing effect and observed an
increase in strength from 113 kPa on the 7th day to 141 kPa on the 28th day, as shown
in Figure 7.16. Furthermore, cyclic triaxial tests on untreated and treated soils showed
that the number of cycles and cyclic stress ratio needed to induce liquefaction was 4
to 7 times larger in treated specimens (Figure 7.17). Double amplitude strain reduction
from 16% in the untreated samples to 10% in the treated samples cured for 28 days
indicated that the liquefaction-induced strain in ungrouted sand was more tremendous
by a factor of 1.6 over that in the grouted sample.

Figure 7.16 Strain during cyclic loading for 10% CS samples with different curing time (Liao et al.,
2003)

100
Figure 7.17 Comparison of liquefaction resistance between untreated sand and treated sand at various
curing durations (Liao et al., 2003)

[Link] Gallagher et al. Study (2007)

In their study, Gallagher et al. investigated the effectiveness of colloidal silica in

reducing post-liquefaction settlement in the field. The liquefiable layer of sand is
classified as SP or SP-SM with 40-45% relative density. Ludox SM-30 colloidal silica
was used and a 2-meter-thick sand layer was treated by injecting colloidal silica
through circular injection wells, with extraction performed at the center to enhance the
improvement effect.

A colloidal silica solution with an 8% concentration was prepared and injected into
the target area. Controlled blasting was conducted near the injection wells to induce
liquefaction. The results showed that while the untreated area experienced a settlement
of 0.5 meters, the treated area exhibited a reduced settlement of 0.3 meters (Figure
7.18), demonstrating the effectiveness of the treatment. Even though liquefaction (ru =
1) occurred in both, this improvement is believed to be due to the colloidal silica
infiltrating the sand particles, forming a bonding agent, and enhancing the strength
properties.

101
 Figure 7.18 Observed settlements in treated and untreated zones (Gallagher et al., 2007)

[Link] Spencer et al. Study (2008)

This experimental study evaluates the effects of colloidal silica gel on shear
modulus and damping ratio, considering cyclic shear strain and aging. No. 120 Nevada
Sand (SP) (Dr=50%) was treated with 5% and 9% colloidal silica (Ludox SM-30), and
resonant column tests were performed to compare the dynamic parameters of the
treated soil with those of untreated soil.

Figure 7.19 Dynamic properties comparison: shear modulus and damping ratio of treated and untreated
samples (Spencer et al., 2007)

102
 The shear modulus, in Figure 7.19, is marginally affected by the increasing content
of colloidal silica at lower strain levels. However, this effect decreases with increasing
strain and plateaus at higher strain values, with no change being observed. The impact
of grouting on the damping ratio is minimal, showing minor alteration with changing
quantities of colloidal silica in the treatment. This indicates that the colloidal
modification of soil potentially increases the stiffness of the soil under low-strain
conditions. Still, it does not run groundbreaking changes to the energy dissipation of
the soil under constant amplitude cyclic loading.

Moreover, the aging effect on the shear modulus change has been analyzed. Pea-
gravel and sand-silica grout samples were monitored at intervals for 28 days. The
results of the tests performed during the 28 days of curing indicated that shear strength
increased by about 6 MPa.

Figure 7.20 Change in shear modulus of 5% CS sample over a 28-day aging period (Spencer et al.,
2007)

[Link] Mahmutoğlu & Yılmaz Study (2010)

In this study, Mahmutoğlu and Yılmaz prepared samples with colloidal silica grout
incorporating saline solution at weight ratios ranging from 10% to 25%. The effect of
salt concentration in the saline solution on the gelation time was investigated and it

103
was concluded that the presence of salt shortened the gelation time. The study utilized
MEYCO MP 320 silica, and the sand to be improved was classified as SP (Silica
Sand). Based on the particle size distribution, it was found that the sand falls into the
most liquefiable region.

It can be seen from Figure 7.21 that before dynamic loading, it was observed that
the unconfined compression strengths of all samples increased over time with curing.
However, no significant increase was observed after one year. In grouts prepared at
20%-25% concentrations, a decrease in unconfined compression strengths was
observed after cyclic loading. However, this loss was approximately 10%, which is
relatively small, and the strength did not drop to the untreated condition even at a CSR
of 0.5.

The grouted specimens were exposed to cyclic loading with CSR values ranging
from approximately 0.1 to 0.5 and applied in a sinusoidal pattern for 1000 cycles. The
loss of strength in colloidal silica grouted sand after 1000 cycles was minimal, around
10%. These results demonstrate the excellent performance of colloidal silica grouts in
resisting cyclic deformation.

(a) (b)

Figure 7.21 Unconfined compression test (a) before and (b) after cyclic loading (Mahmutoğlu &
Yılmaz, 2010)

104
[Link] Krishnan et al. Study (2020)

A poorly graded sand was used for the soil in the analysis, and Dupont Ludox SM
was selected as grout. Samples containing 7.5%, 10%, 15% and 30% silica were
prepared. Samples were treated with three different ratios, and the relative density of
the treated samples was observed while the curing time for C5-SM-30, C5-SM-40, and
C5-SM-60 was 3 days, 7 days, and 28 days, respectively. Undrained static triaxial tests
and undrained consolidated cyclic triaxial tests test were performed. Results of
unconsolidated undrained static triaxial tests of sand treated with different colloidal
silica % show that the curing time significantly affected the maximum strength, which
increased from 3 to 28 days of curing. Increasing the colloidal silica to 15% enhances
both cohesion and the internal friction angle. However, beyond this point, higher
amounts of colloidal silica reduce these values. Such behavior indicates the ideal
concentration of colloidal silica, after which the positive influence on the soil’s
mechanical properties decreases.

The results of failure axial strains at varying confining pressures and relative densities,
as a function of colloidal silica percentages, are presented in Figure [Link] to a
certain colloidal silica percentage, axial deformations increased; however, beyond that
point, they decreased. This behavior is comparable to that of dense sand, indicating
brittle failure. The maximum failure strains were observed at colloidal silica
percentages of approximately 10% to 15% for all three relative densities, which
corresponding to the point where cohesion values peak. Additionally, it was observed
that failure strain increases with the increasing confining pressure.

105
Figure 7.22 Impact of colloidal silica content on axial strain at different confining pressures (relative
density: 30%, 40%, 60%) (Krishnan et al., 2020)

Figure 7.23 compares the hysteresis response of untreated sand and sand treated
with 11% colloidal silica (CS), both having a relative density of 40%. For the untreated
sand, deviatoric stress significantly decreased immediately after the first cycle,
indicating strength loss and liquefaction. With each successive cycle, the curve
progressively flattened due to increased pore pressure causing a loss of contact
between sand grains. In contrast, the treated sand exhibited enhanced stability,
demonstrating that the colloidal silica filled the voids between sand grains and
developed frictional resistance. While the response resembled elastic behavior, it was
asymmetrical, with the treated sand bearing more load during compression.

Figure 7.23 Hysteresis response during cyclic loading (a) untread sand, (b) treated sand (Krishnan et
al., 2020)

Figure 7.24 illustrates the development of pore pressure and axial strain in untreated
and treated sand during cyclic loading. In untreated sand, excess pore water pressure
rapidly reaches adequate consolidation pressure within the first few cycles, resulting

106
in significant strength loss and permanent deformations. In contrast, the treated sand
exhibits a steady and controlled development of pore water pressure, demonstrating
improved stability under cyclic loading.

Figure 7.24 Excess pore water pressure vs. axial strain during cyclic loading (a) untread sand, (b) treated
sand (Krishnan et al., 2020)

7.3.4 Applicability of the CSM in Konak-Üçkuyular Area

In the region of Konak-Üçkuyular, the soil consists of approximately 25% SP

(poorly graded sand) and 55% sandy layers. SP layers contain negligible fine-grained
content and thus are highly suitable for CS applications. On the other hand, sandy
layers containing 25% fine-grained content may also be considered for this method
based on the performance documented in the literature for colloidal silica to improve
soil properties. In the previous section, some related studies to assess the method's
applicability in the region are summarized.

Considering the regional soil characteristics, colloidal silica seems highly suitable
for SP layers because of their negligible fine-grained content. According to the
literature, colloidal silica improves the cyclic resistance and stability of sandy soils
significantly by the following:

 Axial strain accumulation during dynamic loading is reduced (Gallagher

and Mitchell, 2002).

107
  The number of cycles and CSR required for liquefaction increases (Liao et
al., 2003).
 Improvement in soil bonding and settlement reduction under dynamic
conditions are reported by Gallagher et al. (2007).

In the case of sandy layers with 25% fines, the application is relevant, as colloidal
silica has been shown to be effective even in silty sands (SM) as demonstrated by
Krishnan et al. (2020), through the enhancement of pore pressure stability and strain
reduction under cyclic loading. Higher concentrations, such as 20-25%, may be
required for better performance. These findings align with previous studies regarding
applying colloidal silica in the Konak-Üçkuyular region, particularly for SP-
dominated layers with an almost negligible fine content. For sandy layers with a
moderate fine content, higher concentrations of silica may be needed, but the
methodology remains highly effective. Given this liquefaction potential of the area,
colloidal silica grouting has proven to be promising in improving seismic performance
and reducing the risk of settlement.

In the Konak-Üçkuyular region, applying colloidal silica to sandy layers involves a

well-planned injection process aimed at improving liquefaction resistance. The first
step is a detailed geotechnical study to understand the soil’s permeability and layering.
Based on this data, an injection grid is designed to ensure even distribution. The silica
is injected at low pressure, allowing it to seep into the soil’s pore spaces without
disrupting its natural structure. Over time, the silica forms a gel, strengthening the
bonds between soil particles, making the ground more resistant to liquefaction. To
ensure the process is effective, field monitoring and follow-up tests are carried out,
confirming the long-term stability of the treated area.

108
 CHAPTER EİGHT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, this study examined the liquefaction resistance and post-earthquake

settlement along the major coastal highways of the İzmir Bay area, focusing on three
segments, Alsancak-Konak, Konak-Üçkuyular and Bayraklı. These highways are
critical transportation routes, not only for daily commuting but also for the movement
of goods and emergency services, particularly in the aftermath of an earthquake. Their
structural integrity is essential for disaster response and maintaining economic
stability.

Through GIS-based analysis and geotechnical data, the factors of safety against
liquefaction values were interpolated with the 3D Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK)
tool. These interpolated values were mapped for critical depths of 3m, 5m and 10m.
The interpolation maps for safety factors and settlement analysis provide a spatially
continuous representation of point-based data, allowing for the identification of high-
risk areas prone to liquefaction and associated settlements. The resulting maps help
pinpoint high-risk areas susceptible to liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement,
offering valuable insights for infrastructure planning and mitigation strategies.

Additionally, post-earthquake settlement values for each borehole were analyzed

for earthquakes with magnitudes 6.5 and 5.5 under both scenarios. The findings reveal
that areas with FS values below 1.1 are highly susceptible to liquefaction. The results
underscore significant vulnerabilities in the region, especially at the DD-2 seismic
level, where the risk of liquefaction is widespread across all studied areas. The safety
factors (FS) calculated for the sandy soils indicate a higher susceptibility to
liquefaction in areas like Bayraklı. Although the safety factor improves at the DD-3
seismic level, some regions still exhibit safety factors below the critical threshold,
particularly in the Konak-Üçkuyular and Bayraklı areas.

109
 Post-earthquake settlement analyses revealed critical settlement values in several
regions. In particular, the Konak-Üçkuyular and Alsancak-Konak areas show
settlement ranges that highlight the potential for significant soil deformation following
a major seismic event. The Bayraklı region is identified as the most vulnerable area to
liquefaction-induced settlements. The estimated liquefaction values in this major
artery indicate that excessive settlement, sliding toward the sea, and loss of bearing
capacity are likely. Such hazards could compromise not only road infrastructure but
also the overall connectivity of İzmir’s transportation network, highlighting the urgent
need for intervention. It is strongly recommended that local administrators consider
this. The study stresses the need for ground improvement methods to mitigate
liquefaction risks and post-earthquake settlements in these regions.

Further mitigation of liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement risks in İzmir Bay

requires the enhancement of infrastructure for geotechnical data by increasing the
number and quality of borehole logs and records of soil properties. Such a
comprehensive database would provide a better basis for accurate modeling and risk
assessment.

Key recommendations for reducing liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement risks

in İzmir Bay include:

 Enhancing the Geotechnical Database: Expanding borehole data collection

and improving soil characterization to refine hazard assessments and
infrastructure planning.
 Developing High-Resolution Liquefaction Hazard Maps: These maps would
aid urban planning, zoning regulations, and emergency response efforts,
ensuring the development of resilient infrastructure.
 Implementing Ground Improvement Techniques: Methods such as dynamic
compaction and colloidal silica grouting should be applied in high-risk areas
like Bayraklı and Konak-Üçkuyular to reduce liquefaction susceptibility and
enhance soil stability.

110
  Integrating Post-Earthquake Settlement Analysis into Infrastructure Design:
Incorporating settlement assessments during the planning and construction
phases would help anticipate soil deformations and mitigate their impact on
roads, bridges, and other lifeline systems.
 Strengthening Emergency Response and Transportation Planning: Since
major highways play a crucial role in disaster relief and supply chain
continuity, reinforcing critical road sections against seismic hazards should
be a priority. Alternative routes and emergency response plans should also be
developed to ensure accessibility after an earthquake.
 Promoting Public Awareness and Professional Training: Educating engineers,
policymakers, and local authorities on liquefaction risks and mitigation
strategies is essential for fostering a proactive approach to disaster resilience.

In addition, alternative routes should be considered in case these highways become

unusable due to liquefaction, or ground improvement techniques can be applied as a
preventive measure. The most important step is to establish and expand developing
and growing geotechnical databases. This includes updating the borehole data and
enriching it by creating a scalable and sustainable database that can evolve over time.

By implementing these measures, İzmir Bay’s major highways can be better

protected against liquefaction and post-earthquake settlement, ensuring their
functionality in both everyday use and emergency situations. Strengthening these
transportation corridors is not only an infrastructure priority but also a crucial step in
safeguarding public safety, minimizing economic losses, and maintaining the
reliability of vital transportation networks in the face of future seismic events.

111
REFERENCES

Akhtar, S. (2018). Dynamic compaction. Springer.

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.

Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, I. M. (2004). Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or
cyclic failure of silts and clays (p. 131). Davis, California: Center for Geotechnical
Modeling.

Bozkurt, E. (2001). Neotectonics of Türkiye—a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta, 14(1-

3), 3-30.

Bray, J. D., et al. (2004a). “Subsurface characterization at ground failure sites in

Adapazari, Türkiye.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(7), 673–685.

Bray, J. D., Sancio, R. B., Riemer, M. F., and Durgunoglu, T. (2004b) .“Liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. On Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Int. Conf. On Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Stallion Press, Berkeley, Calif., Vol. 1, 655–662.

Bray, J. D., Sancio, R. B., Durgunoglu, T., Onalp, A., Youd, T. L., Stewart, J. P., Seed,
R. B., Cetin, K. O., Bol, E., Baturay, M. B., and Christensen, C. (2004). "Subsurface
Characterization at Ground Failure Sites in Adapazari, Türkiye.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, submitted.

Castro, G. (1969). ‘‘Liquefaction of sands,’’ PhD thesis, Division of Engineering and

Applied Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Kayen, R.
E., and Moss, R.E. S. (2004). Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and
deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 130(12), 1314–340.

112
Coskun, S., Dondurur, D., Cifci, G., Aydemir, A., Gungor, T., & Drahor, M. G. (2017).
Investigation on the tectonic significance of Izmir, Uzunada Fault Zones and other
tectonic elements in the Gulf of Izmir, western Türkiye, using high-resolution
seismic data. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 83, 73-83.

Dashti, S., Bray, J. D., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M., & Wilson, D. (2010). Centrifuge
testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement
mechanisms. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 136(7),
918-929.

Durmusoglu, E., & Corapcioglu, M. Y. (2000). Experimental study of horizontal

barrier formation by colloidal silica. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 126(9),
833-841.

Finn, W. D. (1981). Liquefaction potential: developments since 1976.

Gallagher, P. M., & Mitchell, J. K. (2002). Influence of colloidal silica grout on

liquefaction potential and cyclic undrained behavior of loose sand. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9-12), 1017-1026.

Gallagher, P. M., Pamuk, A., & Abdoun, T. (2007). Stabilization of liquefiable soils
using colloidal silica grout. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(1), 33-40.

Gallagher, P. M., Conlee, C. T., & Rollins, K. M. (2007). Full-scale field testing of
colloidal silica grouting for mitigation of liquefaction risk. Journal of geotechnical
and geoenvironmental engineering, 133(2), 186–196.

Görür, N., Monod, O., & Okay, A. I. (1995). Miocene to Pliocene palaeogeographic
evolution of Türkiye and its surroundings. Journal of Human Evolution, 28(4), 339-
361.

Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2010). SPT-based liquefaction triggering

procedures. Rep. UCD/CGM-10, 2, 4-13.

113
Iler, R. K. (1979). The chemistry of silica, Solubility, Polymerization. Colloid and
Surface Properties, and Biochemistry, 866.

Ishihara K, . (1985). "Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes," Proceedings,

11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.
1, pp. 321-376.

Ishihara, K., & Yoshimine, M. (1992). Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits

following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and foundations, 32(1), 173-188.

Ishihara K,. (1993). Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes,

Geotechiziq~~Veo, l. 43,No. 3,pp. 351-415.

Jolivet, L. (2001). A comparison of geodetic and finite strain pattern in the Aegean,
geodynamic implications. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 187(1-2), 95-104.

Kammerer, A. M. (2002). Undrained response of Monterey 0/30 sand under

multidirectional cyclic simple shear loading conditions. University of California,
Berkeley.

Kishida, H. (1969). Characteristics of liquefied sands during Mino-Owari, Tohnankai

and Fukui earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 9(1), 75-92.

Koçyiğit, A. & Özacar, A.A. 2003. Extensional neotectonic regime through the NE
edge of the Outer Isparta Angle, SW Türkiye: new field and seismic data. Turkish
Journal of Earth Sciences 12, 67–90.

Krishnan, J., Sharma, P., Shukla, S., Pancholi, V., & Dwivedi, V. K. (2020). Cyclic
behaviour and durability analysis of sand grouted with optimum colloidal silica
content. Arabian journal for science and engineering, 45, 8129-8144.

Lee, K. L., & Albaisa, A. (1974). Earthquake induced settlements in saturated

sands. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 100(4), 387-406.

Liao, H. J., Huang, C. C., & Chao, B. S. (2003). Liquefaction resistance of a colloid
silica grouted sand. In Grouting and ground treatment (pp. 1305-1313).

114
Lukas, R. (1995). Geotechnical engineering circular No. 1-dynamic compaction (No.
FHWA-SA-95-037). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of
Technology Applications.

Matsuda, H., Shinozaki, H., Okada, N., Takamiya, K., & Shinyama, K. (2004, August).
Effects of multi-directional cyclic shear on the post-earthquake settlement of
ground. In 13th world conference on earthquake engineering (Vol. 2890). 13
WCEE Secretariat, Vancouver, Canada.

Matsuda, H., Hendrawan, A. P., Ishikura, R., & Kawahara, S. (2011). Effective stress
change and post-earthquake settlement properties of granular materials subjected to
multi-directional cyclic simple shear. Soils and foundations, 51(5), 873-884.

Menard, L., & Broise, Y. (1975). Theoretical and practical aspect of dynamic
consolidation. Geotechnique, 25(1), 3-18.

Mitchell, J. K. (1976). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. John Wiley & Sons Inc., p 319.

Mogami, T., and Kubu, K. (1953). The behavior of soil during vibration, Proceedings,
3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Zurich, Vol. l, pp. 152-155.

Mollamahmutoglu, M., & Yilmaz, Y. (2010). Pre- and post-cyclic loading strength of
silica-grouted sand. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical
Engineering, 163(6), 343-348.

Moradi, G., Seyedi, S., Moradi, G., & Seyedi, S. (2015). Effect of sampling method
on strength of stabilized silty sands with colloidal nano silica. J Civ Eng Res, 5(6),
129-135.

National Research Council. (1985). Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. National

Academy Press.

Nicholson, P. G. (2014). Soil improvement and ground modification methods.

Butterworth-Heinemann.

115
Noll, M. R., Epps, D. E., Bartlett, C. L., & Chen, P. J. (1993, May). Pilot field
application of a colloidal silica gel technology for in situ hot spot stabilization and
horizontal grouting. In Proc., 7th National Outdoor Action Conf (pp. 207-219).

Ozbey and Gunes Golbey / Turkish Journal of Forest Science 5(2) 2021: 551-561

Persoff, P., Apps, J., Moridis, G., & Whang, J. M. (1999). Effect of dilution and
contaminants on sand grouted with colloidal silica. Journal of geotechnical and
geoenvironmental engineering, 125(6), 461-469.

Rosenfarb, J. L., & Hackman, R. E. (1981). The cyclic loading behavior of grouted
sand.

Sancio, R. B. (2003). “Ground Failure and Building Performance in Adapazari,

Türkiye”, Ph.D. Dissertation (in progress), supervised by Prof. J.D. Bray,
University of California, Berkeley.

Seed. H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Vol. 107, No. SM9, pp. 1249-1274.

Seed, H. B. (1979) "Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground
during earthquakes." Journal of the geotechnical engineering division 105.2: 201-
255.

Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982). “Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes.” EERI Monograph, Berkeley, Calif.

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I. (1983). Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Using Field Performance Data. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No.
GT3, pp 458-482.

Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., &
Reimer, M. F. (2001). Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic
site response evaluation.

116
Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., ... &
Faris, A. (2003). Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and
consistent framework. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles
Geotechnical Spring Seminar: Long Beach, CA.

Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J. M., & Tokimatsu, K. (1998). Methods for evaluating residual
post-liquefaction ground settlement and horizontal displacement. Soils and
Foundations, 38, 69-83.

Silco International. (2005). “Colloidal Silica Technical Information.” Silco

International, LLC, Portland, OR, [Link]

Sözbilir, H. (2002). Revised stratigraphy and facies of the Upper Cretaceous-Lower

Tertiary sequences in the southern part of the Menderes Massif, western Türkiye.
Geodinamica Acta, 15(1), 1-21.

Spencer, L., Rix, G. J., & Gallagher, P. (2008). Colloidal silica gel and sand mixture
dynamic properties. In Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV
(pp. 1-10).

Tatsuoka, F., Sasaki, T. and Yamada, S. (1984): Settlements in saturated sand induced
by cyclic undrained simple shear, Proc. 8th.

Tohno, I., & Yasuda, S. (1981). Liquefaction of the ground during the 1978
Miyagiken-Oki earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 21(3), 18-34.

Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H. B. (1987). Evaluation of settlements in sands due to

earthquake shaking. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 113(8), 861-878.

Tokimatsu, K., & Asaka, Y. (1998). Effects of liquefaction-induced ground

displacements on pile performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake. Soils
and Foundations, 38, 163-177.

Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., & Sawada, S. (2004). Settlement of silty sand deposits
following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 44(5), 135-148.

117
Uzel, B., Sözbilir, H., & Özkaymak, Ç. (2012). Neotectonic evolution of an actively
growing superimposed basin in western Anatolia: The inner bay of Izmir,
Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 21(4), 439-471.

Wang, W. (1979). Some findings in soil liquefaction, Water Conservancy and

Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China.

Wong, C., Pedrotti, M., El Mountassir, G., & Lunn, R. J. (2018). A study on the
mechanical interaction between soil and colloidal silica gel for ground
improvement. Engineering geology, 243, 84-100.

Wu, J. (2002). Liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction deformation of Monterey

0/30 sand under unidirectional cyclic simple shear loading. University of
California, Berkeley.

Wu, J., & Seed, R. B. (2004). Estimation of liquefaction-induced ground settlement

(case studies).

Yonekura, R., & Kaga, M. (1992). Current chemical grout engineering in Japan. In
Grouting, soil improvement and geosynthetics (pp. 725-736). ASCE.

Yoshimi, Y., Kuwabara, F., & Tokimatsu, K. (1975). One-dimensional volume change
characteristics of sands under very low confining stresses. Soils and
Foundations, 15(3), 51-60.

Youd, T. L., & Craven, T. N. (1975). Lateral stress in sands during cyclic
loading. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 101(2), 217-221.

Yoshimi, Y., & Tokimatsu, K. (1977). Settlement of buildings on saturated sand during
earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 17(1), 23-38.

Youd, T. L. (1984b). Geologic effects—Liquefaction and associated ground failure. In

Proceedings of the Geologic and Hydrologic Hazards Training Program (pp. 210-
232). Open-File Report 84-760. U.S. Geological Survey.

118
Youd, T. L., & Idriss, I. M. 1997,'Summary report.' Proc., NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Tech. Rep. NCEER-97-0022,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,

Youd, T. L., & Idriss, I. M. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
engineering, 127(4), 297-313.

Youd, T. L. (2003). Liquefaction mechanisms and induced ground failure. In W. H.

K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, & C. Kisslinger (Eds.), International
Geophysics (Vol. 81, Part B, pp. 1159-1173).

Zhao, M., Liu, G., Zhang, C., Guo, W., & Luo, Q. (2019). State-of-the-art of colloidal
silica-based soil liquefaction mitigation: An emerging technique for ground
improvement. Applied Sciences, 10(1), 15.

Larisch, M. & Pervan, T. (2024, September 15).

[Link]
slidespdf/264743142?from_search=1#46

Earthquake Hazard Map. (2024, July 18). [Link]

119
APPENDICES

Appendix-1: Borehole Data Information

Borehole Groundwater Coordinates
Borehole # Depth Level
(m) (m) X Y
1_SK-1 27.0 -3 511273.5834 4252550.4547
1_SK-2 26.0 0 511211.6605 4252472.6639
1_SK-2A 31.0 0 511176.289 4252490.3835
1_SK-2B 30.0 0 511151.0359 4252502.8322
1_SK-3 31.0 0 511126.9929 4252401.6055
1_SK-4 28.0 0 511089.0795 4252308.3968
1_SK-5 25.0 0 511003.0736 4252184.0272
1_SK-6 28.0 0 510930.2964 4252100.7451
1_SK-7 25.5 0 510827.1519 4252046.0583
1_SK-8 9.5 0 510759.6715 4251973.3341
1_SK-9 12.5 0 510701.6711 4251896.9126
1_SK-14A 13.5 0 510105.6082 4251323.5033
1_SK-15 18.0 0 509747.2164 4251306.0226
1_SK-16 7.0 0 509546.2423 4251216.1098
1_SK-17 7.5 0 509420.8348 4251143.2285
1_SK-18 15.0 0 509322.8564 4251132.5349
1_SK-20 6.5 0 509042.7077 4251081.1291
1_SK-23 6.5 0 508491.8781 4250770.3036
1_SK-24 12.0 0 508375.4803 4250595.5471
1_SK-25 26.5 0 508255.1746 4250493.8666
1_SK-26 7.0 0 508150.7354 4250433.583
1_SK-27 10.0 0 508046.2471 4250371.8476
1_SK-29 8.3 0 507944.0917 4250214.8026
1_SK-30 15.5 0 507791.6213 4250116.90
1_SK-31 16.5 0 507662.8682 4250076.369
1_SK-32 24.0 0 507610.9177 4250054.0353
1_SK-33 23.0 0 507522.878 4250034.1554
1_SK-34 20.5 0 507459.8302 4250048.9233
1_SK-35 29.0 0 507375.9439 4250093.6887
1_SK-36 21.5 0 507155.6167 4250209.1581
1_SK-37 6.5 0 507030.516 4250255.5252
1_SK-38 8.0 0 506949.7832 4250306.4219
1_SK-39 20.0 0 506858.4498 4250282.6701
2_SK-1 40.0 -1.7 511345.92 4252570.62
3_SK-1 20.0 -2.5 511195.2241 4252374.5633
3_SK-2 51.5 -2.5 511259.24 4252616.10
3_SK-3 20.0 -2.6 511247.87 4252592.96
3_SK-4 20.0 -2.6 511305.10 4252630.56
3_SK-5 20.0 -2.7 511300.87 4252585.83

120
 Borehole Groundwater
Coordinates
Borehole No Depth Level
(m) (m) X Y
3_SK-6 51.5 -2.6 511300.87 4252540.92
3_SK-7 20.0 -2.6 511280.09 4252566.53
4_SK-1 35.0 -6.5 511511.8685 4252924.7465
4_SK-2 53.5 -8.5 511481.8346 4252931.7075
4_SK-3 51.0 -6.0 511553.0992 4253055.9002
4_SK-4 53.5 -8.6 511571.3934 4253104.7101
4_SK-5 50.0 -4.5 511771.9011 4253408.1946
4_SK-6 52.5 -7.0 511762.8946 4253497.8863
4_SK-7 49.0 -3.5 512017.8742 4253745.4974
4_SK-8 51.5 -6.5 511965.0993 4253787.3252
4_SK-9 49.0 -5.5 512073.11 4254045.63
4_SK-10 52.0 -5.5 512222.986 4254204.332
4_SK-11 45.5 -4.5 512422.36 4254625.1548
4_SK-12 50.5 -4.5 512387.7731 4254631.1463
4_SK-13 47.5 -1.5 512480.3259 4254876.6258
4_SK-14 48.5 -3.8 512422.9566 4254802.672
4_SK-54 56.0 -10.5 511545.9962 4253192.1989
4_SK-55 54.0 -8.5 511878.5731 4253748.3837
4_SK-56 50.5 -5.5 512350.2852 4254553.0866
4_SK-66 46.0 -9.5 511680.4391 4253390.3728
4_SK-67 41.5 -6.0 511884.5491 4253600.2278
4_SK-68 44.5 -8.0 511839.3662 4253631.8145
4_SK-181 42.0 -7.0 511421.9603 4252784.9517
4_SK-184 43.0 -7.7 511461.826 4252854.1988
5_SK-1 39.5 -2.6 512565.3212 4254893.0513
5_SK-2 21.5 -3.0 505872.2444 4249962.3508
6_SK-1 30.0 -0.75 513614.2069 4257739.5863
6_SK-2 30.0 -0.7 513631.9849 4257730.401
6_SK-3 30.0 -0.75 513615.6884 4257720.3267
6_SK-4 30.0 -0.85 513631.3923 4257706.6969
6_SK-5 30.0 -0.75 513629.0219 4257724.1787
6_SK-6 30.0 -0.6 513646.5036 4257717.0674
6_SK-7 30.0 -0.75 513623.9848 4257713.2155
7_SK-10 36.5 -7.0 516390.1119 4255809.3949
7_SK-11 39.5 -4.2 515077.4163 4256879.4318
7_SK-12 39.5 -6.0 514948.778 4256221.6222
7_SK-14 73.0 -4.6 515965.7537 4256807.5691
7_SK-15 73.0 -11.0 515062.7983 4255897.1028
7_SK-16 40.0 -1.6 516577.2222 4257209.7984
7_SK-17 48.0 0 515770.3091 4256364.8785
7_SK-19 80.0 -3.5 514504.3911 4256952.5217
8_SK-1 30.0 -1.6 506850.2279 4249859.2194
8_SK-2 30.5 -1.4 506841.6556 4249972.0308

121
Appendix-2: Data Layers

Figure A2.1 N30 distribution at 3 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

122
Figure A2.2 N30 distribution at 5 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

123
Figure A2.3 N30 distribution at 10 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

124
Figure A2.4 No200 distribution at 3 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

125
Figure A2.5 No200 distribution at 5 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

126
Figure A2.6 No200 distribution at 10 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

127
Figure A2.7 N60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

128
Figure A2.8 N60 distribution at 5 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

129
Figure A2.9 N60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

130
Figure A2.10 (N1)60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

131
Figure A2.11 (N1)60 distribution at 5 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

132
Figure A2.12 (N1)60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

133
Figure A2.13 N30 distribution at 3 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

134
Figure A2.14 N30 distribution at 5 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

135
Figure A2.15 N30 distribution at 10 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

136
Figure A2.16 No200 distribution at 3 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

137
Figure A2.17 No200 distribution at 5 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

138
Figure A2.18 No200 distribution at 10 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

139
Figure A2.19 N60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

140
Figure A2.20 N60 distribution at 5 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

141
Figure A2.21 N60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

142
Figure A2.22 (N1)60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

143
Figure A2.23 (N1)60 distribution at 5 m Depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

144
Figure A2.24 (N1)60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Alsancak-Konak area

145
Figure A2.25 N30 distribution at 3 m depth in the Bayraklı area

146
Figure A2.26 N30 distribution at 5 m depth in the Bayraklı area

147
Figure A2.27 N30 distribution at 10 m depth in the Bayraklı area

148
Figure A2.28 No200 distribution at 3 m depth in the Bayraklı area

149
Figure A2.29 No200 distribution at 5 m depth in the Bayraklı area

150
Figure A2.30 No200 distribution at 10 m depth in the Bayraklı area

151
Figure A2.31 N60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Bayraklı area

152
Figure A2.32 N60 distribution at 5 m depth in the Bayraklı area

153
Figure A2.33 N60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Bayraklı area

154
Figure A2.34 (N1)60 distribution at 3 m depth in the Bayraklı area

155
Figure A2.35 (N1)60 distribution at 5 m depth in the Bayraklı area

156
Figure A2.36 (N1)60 distribution at 10 m depth in the Bayraklı area

157
Appendix-3: Liquefaction Analysis Results
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒇 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
1_SK-1 8 29.85 148.1 95.8 0.93 0.431 0.164 0.457 1.53 6.16
1_SK-1 20.45 8.49 382.1 199.8 0.59 0.339 0.129 0.162 0.69 2.77
1_SK-1 22 8.32 400.1 207.8 0.58 0.331 0.126 0.160 0.70 2.80
1_SK-1 22.45 7.66 418.1 215.8 0.56 0.325 0.124 0.152 0.67 2.71
1_SK-1 24 7.52 436.1 223.8 0.55 0.320 0.122 0.150 0.68 2.73
1_SK-1 24.45 7.42 449.6 229.8 0.54 0.316 0.121 0.149 0.68 2.74
1_SK-1 25.5 7.33 463.1 235.8 0.53 0.313 0.119 0.148 0.68 2.75
1_SK-1 25.95 9.20 472.1 239.8 0.53 0.311 0.119 0.106 0.49 1.98
1_SK-1 26.5 9.13 481.1 243.8 0.53 0.309 0.118 0.105 0.49 1.98
1_SK-2 10.95 13.56 213.9 99.1 0.87 0.561 0.214 0.146 0.38 1.51
1_SK-2 12 13.08 228.9 106.6 0.85 0.544 0.208 0.141 0.37 1.50
1_SK-2 12.45 15.45 243.9 114.1 0.83 0.528 0.201 0.165 0.45 1.81
1_SK-2 13.5 14.96 258.9 121.6 0.80 0.510 0.195 0.160 0.45 1.82
1_SK-2 13.95 13.20 273.9 129.1 0.78 0.493 0.188 0.226 0.66 2.66
1_SK-2 15 12.83 288.9 136.6 0.75 0.475 0.181 0.220 0.67 2.69
1_SK-2 15.45 10.00 303.9 144.1 0.73 0.458 0.175 0.113 0.36 1.43
1_SK-2 16.5 9.75 318.9 151.6 0.70 0.442 0.169 0.111 0.36 1.45
1_SK-2 16.95 12.49 333.9 159.1 0.68 0.427 0.163 0.136 0.46 1.84
1_SK-2 18 12.20 348.9 166.6 0.66 0.413 0.157 0.133 0.46 1.87
1_SK-2 18.45 4.55 363.9 174.1 0.64 0.400 0.153 0.069 0.25 1.00
1_SK-2 19.5 4.45 378.9 181.6 0.62 0.388 0.148 0.068 0.25 1.02
1_SK-2 19.95 10.36 393.9 189.1 0.61 0.378 0.144 0.087 0.33 1.33
1_SK-2 21 10.17 408.4 196.2 0.59 0.369 0.141 0.085 0.33 1.34
1_SK-2 21.45 11.96 435.4 208.2 0.57 0.355 0.136 0.100 0.41 1.63
1_SK-2 24 11.63 462.4 220.2 0.55 0.345 0.131 0.097 0.41 1.64
1_SK-2 24.45 11.97 475.9 226.2 0.54 0.340 0.130 0.100 0.42 1.71
1_SK-2 25.5 11.81 489.4 232.2 0.53 0.336 0.128 0.099 0.42 1.71
1_SK-3 8.3 13.77 144.8 60.3 0.93 0.667 0.254 0.235 0.51 2.04
1_SK-3 8.6 13.38 152.1 63.8 0.93 0.658 0.251 0.229 0.50 2.02
1_SK-3 15 32.60 283.3 132.3 0.76 0.484 0.184 0.422 1.26 5.06
1_SK-3 15.2 31.30 307.1 143.6 0.72 0.457 0.174 0.367 1.16 4.66
1_SK-3 17.5 29.96 334.2 156.7 0.67 0.429 0.164 0.327 1.10 4.43
1_SK-3 18 29.52 343.1 161.4 0.66 0.420 0.160 0.316 1.09 4.37
1_SK-3 18.35 29.10 352.0 166.0 0.65 0.412 0.157 0.307 1.07 4.32
1_SK-3 18.85 28.70 361.0 170.7 0.64 0.404 0.154 0.298 1.06 4.28
1_SK-3 19.2 28.31 371.4 175.4 0.63 0.396 0.151 0.290 1.06 4.25
1_SK-3 20 27.98 381.6 179.6 0.61 0.389 0.148 0.284 1.05 4.24
1_SK-3 20.4 27.75 388.2 182.7 0.61 0.385 0.147 0.280 1.05 4.22
1_SK-4 7.85 12.50 154.4 73.1 0.94 0.589 0.225 0.165 0.40 1.63
1_SK-4 19.2 29.05 360.2 166.7 0.63 0.408 0.156 0.413 1.46 5.87

158
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
1_SK-4 19.5 28.73 367.7 170.4 0.62 0.402 0.153 0.398 1.43 5.75
1_SK-4 19.95 28.12 382.7 177.9 0.61 0.390 0.149 0.374 1.38 5.55
1_SK-4 21 27.54 397.7 185.4 0.59 0.380 0.145 0.354 1.34 5.41
1_SK-4 21.45 26.83 417.7 195.4 0.58 0.368 0.140 0.334 1.31 5.26
1_SK-6 0 28.69 42.8 20.3 0.98 0.620 0.236 0.396 0.92 3.70
1_SK-6 4.5 29.33 89.8 42.5 0.97 0.609 0.232 0.427 1.01 4.06
1_SK-6 4.95 26.34 104.0 49.3 0.96 0.606 0.231 0.321 0.76 3.07
1_SK-6 6 27.61 118.3 56.0 0.96 0.602 0.230 0.356 0.85 3.43
1_SK-6 6.45 12.59 132.5 62.8 0.95 0.598 0.228 0.137 0.33 1.33
1_SK-6 7.5 11.96 146.8 69.5 0.94 0.592 0.226 0.131 0.32 1.28
1_SK-6 7.95 22.68 175.3 83.0 0.92 0.579 0.221 0.252 0.63 2.52
1_SK-6 10.5 22.14 203.8 96.5 0.89 0.560 0.214 0.244 0.63 2.53
1_SK-6 10.95 23.62 218.0 103.3 0.87 0.548 0.209 0.267 0.70 2.82
1_SK-6 12 22.86 232.8 110.3 0.85 0.535 0.204 0.255 0.69 2.76
1_SK-6 12.5 27.04 247.0 117.0 0.83 0.521 0.199 0.340 0.94 3.78
1_SK-6 13.5 26.32 260.8 123.5 0.80 0.506 0.193 0.321 0.91 3.68
1_SK-6 13.95 13.96 299.5 139.7 0.73 0.466 0.178 0.150 0.46 1.86
1_SK-6 18 13.23 337.7 155.5 0.66 0.428 0.163 0.143 0.48 1.93
1_SK-6 18.45 12.23 363.2 166.0 0.62 0.407 0.155 0.167 0.59 2.37
1_SK-6 21 11.86 388.7 176.5 0.59 0.390 0.149 0.162 0.60 2.41
1_SK-6 21.45 11.68 401.5 181.7 0.58 0.383 0.146 0.160 0.60 2.43
1_SK-6 22.5 12.06 414.7 187.2 0.57 0.376 0.143 0.165 0.63 2.54
1_SK-6 23 11.99 420.2 189.4 0.56 0.374 0.142 0.164 0.63 2.55
1_SK-6 23.15 11.92 425.3 191.5 0.56 0.371 0.142 0.163 0.63 2.55
1_SK-6 23.6 11.19 441.0 198.0 0.55 0.365 0.139 0.155 0.61 2.46
1_SK-6 25 11.01 456.7 204.5 0.54 0.359 0.137 0.153 0.61 2.47
1_SK-6 25.45 12.98 466.1 208.8 0.53 0.356 0.136 0.096 0.39 1.56
1_SK-6 26 12.75 481.1 216.3 0.53 0.350 0.133 0.094 0.39 1.56
1_SK-6 26.95 13.54 496.1 223.8 0.52 0.344 0.131 0.101 0.42 1.69
1_SK-6 27.5 13.39 506.1 228.8 0.52 0.341 0.130 0.099 0.42 1.69
1_SK-7 11.8 9.01 218.5 99.7 0.86 0.562 0.214 0.126 0.32 1.30
1_SK-7 11.95 8.90 224.3 102.3 0.85 0.557 0.212 0.125 0.32 1.30
1_SK-7 13.55 6.27 253.5 116.0 0.80 0.523 0.199 0.099 0.27 1.10
1_SK-7 13.95 5.94 281.5 129.3 0.75 0.489 0.187 0.101 0.30 1.20
1_SK-7 16.5 5.64 311.5 143.5 0.70 0.455 0.173 0.098 0.31 1.25
1_SK-8 6 16.49 116.2 54.0 0.96 0.614 0.234 0.150 0.35 1.42
1_SK-8 6.45 5.39 132.7 63.0 0.95 0.597 0.228 0.057 0.14 0.56
1_SK-8 7.5 5.04 149.2 72.0 0.94 0.582 0.222 0.055 0.14 0.55
1_SK-16 1 2.87 32.6 15.1 0.99 0.635 0.243 0.058 0.13 0.52
1_SK-16 2.5 2.87 51.6 24.4 0.98 0.619 0.236 0.058 0.13 0.54
1_SK-16 2.95 3.06 66.3 31.5 0.98 0.611 0.233 0.059 0.14 0.56

159
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
1_SK-17 1 11.48 37.5 17.5 0.99 0.629 0.240 0.100 0.23 0.92
1_SK-17 3 12.24 61.4 29.1 0.98 0.613 0.234 0.107 0.25 1.01
1_SK-17 3.45 11.96 76.0 36.3 0.97 0.607 0.232 0.104 0.25 1.00
1_SK-18 1 10.52 33.6 15.6 0.99 0.634 0.242 0.118 0.27 1.08
1_SK-18 2.6 10.52 53.6 25.3 0.98 0.617 0.236 0.118 0.27 1.10
1_SK-18 3.05 11.22 72.1 34.4 0.97 0.609 0.233 0.124 0.29 1.18
1_SK-18 4.5 10.65 90.6 43.4 0.97 0.602 0.230 0.119 0.28 1.14
1_SK-18 4.95 4.77 118.0 55.7 0.96 0.602 0.230 0.085 0.20 0.82
1_SK-23 3 29.58 60.5 28.2 0.98 0.624 0.238 0.441 1.02 4.09
1_SK-25 3.5 23.51 80.1 35.6 0.97 0.649 0.248 0.271 0.60 2.42
1_SK-25 5.4 21.79 115.3 51.8 0.95 0.633 0.242 0.244 0.56 2.23
1_SK-25 7.3 19.75 139.0 63.0 0.94 0.619 0.236 0.221 0.52 2.07
1_SK-25 7.9 19.27 145.7 66.2 0.94 0.615 0.235 0.215 0.50 2.02
1_SK-25 8 18.98 149.9 68.2 0.93 0.612 0.234 0.211 0.50 2.00
1_SK-26 1.9 12.43 35.2 15.7 0.99 0.660 0.252 0.136 0.30 1.20
1_SK-26 2 12.43 40.4 18.1 0.99 0.653 0.250 0.136 0.30 1.21
1_SK-26 2.45 5.74 48.5 22.0 0.98 0.645 0.247 0.054 0.12 0.49
1_SK-31 3 6.12 58.3 26.0 0.98 0.650 0.249 0.081 0.18 0.72
1_SK-31 3.45 6.08 86.8 39.5 0.97 0.631 0.242 0.134 0.31 1.23
1_SK-32 3 14.28 63.0 28.0 0.98 0.652 0.250 0.153 0.34 1.36
1_SK-32 4 15.13 78.3 34.8 0.97 0.648 0.248 0.162 0.36 1.44
1_SK-32 4.7 14.22 88.7 39.4 0.97 0.646 0.247 0.153 0.34 1.36
1_SK-32 5.15 13.36 100.4 44.6 0.96 0.642 0.246 0.144 0.32 1.30
1_SK-33 0.5 0.96 16.2 7.2 1.00 0.665 0.255 0.049 0.11 0.43
1_SK-33 1.8 0.96 34.2 15.2 0.99 0.660 0.253 0.049 0.11 0.43
1_SK-33 2 0.96 46.8 20.8 0.98 0.657 0.251 0.049 0.11 0.43
1_SK-33 3.2 14.28 64.8 28.8 0.98 0.652 0.250 0.153 0.34 1.35
1_SK-33 4 15.17 73.8 32.8 0.97 0.650 0.249 0.162 0.36 1.44
1_SK-33 4.2 13.66 82.8 36.8 0.97 0.647 0.248 0.147 0.33 1.31
1_SK-34 0.5 0.96 13.1 5.8 1.00 0.666 0.255 0.060 0.13 0.52
1_SK-34 0.95 0.96 35.6 15.8 0.99 0.660 0.253 0.060 0.13 0.52
1_SK-34 3 1.02 63.0 28.0 0.98 0.652 0.250 0.058 0.13 0.52
1_SK-34 4 10.68 80.1 35.6 0.97 0.648 0.248 0.119 0.27 1.06
1_SK-34 4.9 9.72 96.8 43.0 0.96 0.643 0.246 0.111 0.25 0.99
1_SK-34 5.85 9.26 106.7 47.4 0.96 0.641 0.245 0.107 0.24 0.96
1_SK-34 6 10.23 109.0 48.5 0.96 0.639 0.245 0.115 0.26 1.04
1_SK-34 6.1 10.09 111.9 49.9 0.96 0.637 0.244 0.114 0.26 1.03
1_SK-35 2 0.96 40.1 17.8 0.99 0.658 0.252 0.060 0.13 0.52
1_SK-35 2.45 1.02 58.1 25.8 0.98 0.654 0.250 0.058 0.13 0.52
1_SK-35 4 1.08 76.4 34.1 0.97 0.645 0.247 0.057 0.13 0.51
1_SK-35 4.45 9.65 95.9 43.6 0.96 0.629 0.241 0.093 0.21 0.85

160
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
1_SK-35 6 9.77 115.4 53.1 0.96 0.617 0.236 0.094 0.22 0.88
1_SK-35 6.45 9.18 130.0 60.3 0.95 0.608 0.233 0.089 0.21 0.84
1_SK-35 7.5 19.03 145.4 67.9 0.94 0.598 0.229 0.252 0.61 2.43
1_SK-35 8 18.36 155.1 72.9 0.93 0.591 0.226 0.241 0.59 2.36
1_SK-35 8.45 16.90 180.7 86.0 0.91 0.571 0.219 0.219 0.55 2.22
1_SK-35 10.5 16.57 206.4 99.1 0.89 0.550 0.211 0.215 0.56 2.25
1_SK-36 3.5 3.06 67.1 29.8 0.97 0.651 0.249 0.073 0.16 0.64
1_SK-36 5.8 25.66 116.1 52.1 0.95 0.632 0.242 0.254 0.58 2.32
1_SK-36 7 23.93 132.2 59.9 0.95 0.620 0.237 0.229 0.53 2.13
1_SK-36 7.45 23.29 139.0 63.3 0.94 0.615 0.236 0.220 0.52 2.07
1_SK-36 7.7 4.27 151.7 69.7 0.93 0.604 0.231 0.076 0.18 0.73
1_SK-36 8.7 4.05 166.6 77.3 0.92 0.591 0.226 0.074 0.18 0.72
1_SK-36 9.15 3.98 171.7 79.9 0.92 0.587 0.225 0.074 0.18 0.72
1_SK-36 9.2 3.94 175.3 81.8 0.92 0.584 0.224 0.073 0.18 0.73
1_SK-36 9.5 3.87 180.9 84.7 0.91 0.579 0.222 0.073 0.18 0.73
1_SK-36 9.75 3.81 186.0 87.3 0.91 0.574 0.220 0.072 0.18 0.73
1_SK-36 10 3.93 193.2 91.0 0.90 0.568 0.218 0.073 0.19 0.74
1_SK-39 1.5 3.83 33.6 16.4 0.99 0.603 0.231 0.064 0.15 0.61
1_SK-39 1.95 23.91 48.3 23.5 0.98 0.599 0.230 0.272 0.65 2.62
1_SK-39 3 25.50 62.9 30.6 0.98 0.596 0.228 0.302 0.73 2.93
1_SK-39 3.45 22.10 106.8 52.0 0.96 0.587 0.225 0.231 0.57 2.27
1_SK-39 7.5 4.16 150.6 73.4 0.94 0.574 0.220 0.058 0.15 0.59
1_SK-39 7.95 3.97 165.3 80.5 0.93 0.568 0.217 0.057 0.15 0.58
1_SK-39 9 6.09 179.9 87.6 0.92 0.560 0.215 0.072 0.18 0.74
1_SK-39 9.45 5.86 194.5 94.8 0.91 0.552 0.211 0.070 0.18 0.73
1_SK-39 10.5 3.71 209.6 102.1 0.89 0.542 0.208 0.056 0.15 0.59
1_SK-39 11 3.63 218.9 106.6 0.88 0.535 0.205 0.055 0.15 0.60
1_SK-39 11.45 4.94 231.6 112.8 0.86 0.524 0.201 0.063 0.17 0.70
1_SK-39 12.3 4.81 244.2 119.0 0.84 0.513 0.196 0.063 0.18 0.70
1_SK-39 12.75 4.03 255.9 124.7 0.82 0.502 0.192 0.065 0.19 0.75
1_SK-39 13.5 3.94 267.6 130.4 0.80 0.490 0.188 0.064 0.19 0.76
1_SK-39 13.95 3.82 284.2 138.5 0.78 0.473 0.181 0.064 0.19 0.78
1_SK-39 15.2 3.73 298.8 145.6 0.75 0.457 0.175 0.063 0.20 0.80
1_SK-39 15.45 3.65 311.5 151.8 0.73 0.444 0.170 0.063 0.20 0.81
1_SK-39 16.5 29.75 326.1 158.9 0.70 0.430 0.164 0.451 1.51 6.06
1_SK-39 16.95 29.10 340.8 166.0 0.68 0.416 0.159 0.415 1.44 5.77
1_SK-39 18 28.50 355.4 173.1 0.66 0.403 0.154 0.388 1.39 5.57
1_SK-39 18.45 27.93 370.0 180.3 0.64 0.391 0.150 0.367 1.35 5.42
1_SK-39 19.5 27.39 384.6 187.4 0.62 0.380 0.146 0.350 1.33 5.31
2_SK-1 4.95 10.54 109.5 71.8 0.96 0.438 0.167 0.141 0.47 1.87
2_SK-1 6 11.22 124.3 79.0 0.96 0.448 0.171 0.149 0.48 1.92

161
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
2_SK-1 6.45 12.31 138.5 85.8 0.95 0.457 0.174 0.161 0.51 2.04
2_SK-1 7.5 11.85 152.8 92.5 0.94 0.463 0.177 0.156 0.48 1.95
2_SK-1 19.95 25.28 399.0 211.3 0.61 0.343 0.131 0.306 1.29 5.18
2_SK-1 21 24.91 412.9 217.6 0.59 0.336 0.128 0.298 1.28 5.14
2_SK-1 21.45 7.02 426.8 224.0 0.58 0.330 0.126 0.088 0.38 1.54
2_SK-1 22.5 6.92 440.6 230.4 0.57 0.325 0.124 0.087 0.39 1.55
3_SK-1 9.5 14.50 182.1 107.1 0.90 0.459 0.175 0.197 0.62 2.48
3_SK-1 10.5 14.12 195.2 112.9 0.89 0.459 0.175 0.192 0.60 2.42
3_SK-1 12.45 11.70 237.9 133.2 0.83 0.441 0.168 0.204 0.67 2.68
3_SK-1 13.5 11.41 252.2 139.9 0.80 0.432 0.165 0.200 0.67 2.68
3_SK-1 13.95 11.16 266.1 146.4 0.78 0.422 0.161 0.196 0.67 2.70
3_SK-1 15 10.91 280.5 153.0 0.75 0.412 0.157 0.193 0.68 2.72
3_SK-1 15.5 10.69 294.4 159.4 0.73 0.401 0.153 0.190 0.68 2.75
3_SK-1 18 24.20 334.9 177.6 0.66 0.372 0.142 0.462 1.79 7.20
3_SK-2 10.95 14.86 213.0 123.3 0.87 0.449 0.171 0.177 0.57 2.29
3_SK-2 12 14.47 227.3 130.0 0.85 0.443 0.169 0.173 0.56 2.26
3_SK-2 12.45 17.96 241.5 136.8 0.83 0.436 0.166 0.211 0.70 2.80
3_SK-2 13.5 17.53 255.8 143.5 0.80 0.427 0.163 0.205 0.69 2.79
3_SK-2 18.45 18.58 353.0 188.3 0.64 0.359 0.137 0.264 1.06 4.26
3_SK-2 19.5 18.28 366.9 194.6 0.62 0.351 0.134 0.258 1.06 4.26
3_SK-2 19.95 12.70 380.8 201.0 0.61 0.344 0.131 0.163 0.68 2.74
3_SK-2 21 12.49 395.1 207.6 0.59 0.337 0.128 0.160 0.69 2.76
3_SK-2 21.5 12.31 409.0 214.0 0.58 0.331 0.126 0.158 0.69 2.77
3_SK-2 22.5 12.13 422.4 220.1 0.57 0.326 0.124 0.156 0.69 2.78
3_SK-2 25.95 8.96 492.5 252.8 0.53 0.306 0.117 0.168 0.79 3.17
3_SK-2 27 8.83 507.5 260.3 0.52 0.303 0.116 0.166 0.79 3.18
3_SK-2 27.45 15.12 522.5 267.8 0.52 0.300 0.114 0.199 0.95 3.84
3_SK-2 28.5 14.92 537.5 275.3 0.51 0.297 0.113 0.196 0.95 3.83
3_SK-3 6.5 6.16 129.6 85.6 0.95 0.428 0.163 0.100 0.33 1.35
3_SK-3 7.5 5.92 144.1 92.9 0.94 0.436 0.166 0.097 0.32 1.29
3_SK-3 10.95 5.31 216.6 127.8 0.87 0.440 0.168 0.092 0.30 1.21
3_SK-3 12 5.17 231.1 134.9 0.85 0.435 0.166 0.091 0.30 1.21
3_SK-3 12.45 6.32 244.6 140.9 0.83 0.429 0.163 0.137 0.46 1.85
3_SK-3 13.5 6.19 258.1 146.9 0.80 0.421 0.161 0.135 0.46 1.86
3_SK-3 13.95 6.07 271.6 152.9 0.78 0.413 0.157 0.134 0.47 1.88
3_SK-3 15 7.73 285.6 159.1 0.75 0.403 0.154 0.153 0.55 2.20
3_SK-3 15.5 7.58 299.3 165.3 0.73 0.393 0.150 0.151 0.55 2.23
3_SK-3 16.5 7.45 312.7 171.5 0.70 0.383 0.146 0.150 0.56 2.26
3_SK-3 16.95 7.31 326.6 177.8 0.68 0.374 0.142 0.148 0.57 2.30
3_SK-3 18 7.18 340.9 184.4 0.66 0.364 0.139 0.146 0.58 2.33
3_SK-3 18.5 7.06 354.8 190.8 0.64 0.356 0.136 0.145 0.59 2.37

162
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
3_SK-4 1.5 22.95 29.8 29.8 0.99 0.295 0.112 0.253 1.24 4.98
3_SK-4 2 21.59 39.1 39.1 0.98 0.294 0.112 0.233 1.15 4.61
3_SK-4 2.6 19.90 48.0 46.0 0.98 0.305 0.116 0.211 1.00 4.01
3_SK-4 3 20.40 56.1 49.8 0.98 0.328 0.125 0.217 0.95 3.84
3_SK-4 3.45 19.14 70.3 56.6 0.97 0.361 0.138 0.202 0.81 3.25
3_SK-4 4.5 19.19 85.1 63.6 0.97 0.386 0.147 0.203 0.76 3.04
3_SK-4 5 24.42 98.8 69.8 0.96 0.406 0.155 0.372 1.32 5.31
3_SK-4 9.45 8.22 181.8 108.1 0.91 0.454 0.173 0.119 0.38 1.52
3_SK-4 10.5 8.41 195.9 114.6 0.89 0.453 0.173 0.121 0.39 1.55
3_SK-4 12.45 9.70 238.3 134.6 0.83 0.437 0.167 0.141 0.47 1.87
3_SK-4 13.5 9.45 252.9 141.6 0.80 0.428 0.163 0.138 0.47 1.88
3_SK-4 15 23.60 279.9 153.6 0.75 0.409 0.156 0.438 1.54 6.20
3_SK-5 12.5 5.15 238.8 135.8 0.83 0.434 0.165 0.124 0.41 1.65
3_SK-5 13.5 5.04 251.8 141.6 0.80 0.426 0.163 0.123 0.41 1.67
3_SK-5 13.95 23.46 265.3 147.6 0.78 0.418 0.159 0.333 1.15 4.63
3_SK-5 15 22.96 279.3 154.0 0.75 0.407 0.155 0.320 1.13 4.55
3_SK-6 6.5 7.05 126.8 82.8 0.95 0.433 0.165 0.110 0.37 1.47
3_SK-6 7.5 6.81 139.9 88.6 0.94 0.443 0.169 0.107 0.35 1.41
3_SK-6 21.5 18.87 410.4 216.4 0.58 0.329 0.125 0.216 0.95 3.81
3_SK-6 22.5 18.58 424.4 223.2 0.57 0.323 0.123 0.212 0.95 3.81
3_SK-6 24.5 14.97 465.4 241.4 0.54 0.311 0.119 0.189 0.87 3.52
3_SK-6 25.5 14.79 478.4 247.2 0.53 0.308 0.118 0.187 0.87 3.51
3_SK-6 25.95 6.60 491.9 253.2 0.53 0.306 0.117 0.106 0.50 2.02
3_SK-6 27 6.52 505.4 259.2 0.52 0.303 0.116 0.106 0.50 2.02
3_SK-6 27.45 18.42 518.9 265.2 0.52 0.301 0.115 0.257 1.23 4.95
3_SK-6 28.5 18.22 532.4 271.2 0.51 0.299 0.114 0.253 1.22 4.91
3_SK-6 28.95 18.02 545.9 277.2 0.50 0.297 0.113 0.328 1.60 6.42
3_SK-6 30 17.82 559.9 283.4 0.50 0.295 0.112 0.322 1.58 6.34
3_SK-7 7.5 2.25 141.4 90.1 0.94 0.440 0.168 0.066 0.22 0.87
3_SK-7 7.95 2.18 154.9 96.1 0.93 0.448 0.171 0.065 0.21 0.85
3_SK-7 9 2.12 168.4 102.1 0.92 0.452 0.172 0.065 0.21 0.83
3_SK-7 9.45 2.08 177.4 106.1 0.91 0.454 0.173 0.065 0.20 0.82
3_SK-7 16.5 10.96 310.3 169.1 0.70 0.386 0.147 0.194 0.72 2.91
3_SK-7 16.95 10.82 319.8 173.6 0.69 0.379 0.144 0.192 0.73 2.93
4_SK-1 7.95 9.24 108.0 85.7 0.93 0.348 0.133 0.106 0.44 1.77
4_SK-1 9.5 8.83 126.0 93.7 0.91 0.365 0.139 0.103 0.41 1.64
4_SK-1 18.95 22.42 302.4 170.2 0.62 0.331 0.126 0.302 1.32 5.29
4_SK-1 20.5 21.91 320.4 178.2 0.60 0.324 0.123 0.291 1.29 5.21
4_SK-2 10 2.26 117.0 99.5 0.90 0.316 0.120 0.066 0.30 1.22
4_SK-2 10.5 2.20 126.5 104.3 0.89 0.322 0.123 0.066 0.29 1.18
4_SK-3 6 0.91 63.8 61.6 0.96 0.296 0.113 0.049 0.24 0.95

163
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
4_SK-3 6.45 0.87 76.6 66.8 0.95 0.324 0.124 0.049 0.22 0.87
4_SK-5 5.8 0.00 84.6 63.1 0.95 0.381 0.145 0.049 0.18 0.74
4_SK-5 7.5 0.00 104.5 72.5 0.94 0.405 0.154 0.049 0.17 0.70
4_SK-6 12.95 11.76 182.3 117.5 0.81 0.375 0.143 0.151 0.58 2.34
4_SK-6 14 11.30 199.5 127.3 0.79 0.368 0.140 0.146 0.57 2.31
4_SK-6 19.95 21.56 313.9 184.1 0.62 0.315 0.120 0.333 1.53 6.15
4_SK-6 20 21.28 323.9 188.9 0.61 0.311 0.119 0.325 1.51 6.07
4_SK-6 21 20.93 337.6 195.4 0.59 0.306 0.117 0.315 1.48 5.97
4_SK-8 14.95 17.36 213.1 126.1 0.75 0.380 0.145 0.309 1.17 4.72
4_SK-8 15.45 16.67 234.1 136.9 0.72 0.368 0.140 0.292 1.14 4.61
4_SK-8 17 16.06 254.6 147.4 0.69 0.355 0.135 0.278 1.13 4.54
4_SK-8 39.45 17.38 695.4 360.7 0.46 0.262 0.100 0.310 1.70 6.85
4_SK-8 40.5 17.19 710.8 368.5 0.45 0.261 0.099 0.305 1.69 6.78
4_SK-10 13.45 6.92 179.8 95.1 0.80 0.449 0.171 0.107 0.34 1.39
4_SK-10 14.5 6.67 194.8 102.6 0.77 0.436 0.166 0.105 0.35 1.39
4_SK-10 14.95 17.16 209.8 110.1 0.74 0.424 0.162 0.227 0.77 3.11
4_SK-10 16 16.60 224.8 117.6 0.72 0.411 0.157 0.219 0.77 3.09
4_SK-10 34.95 26.12 616.6 316.8 0.47 0.275 0.105 0.313 1.64 6.60
4_SK-10 36 25.75 633.5 326.2 0.47 0.273 0.104 0.304 1.61 6.47
4_SK-11 5.7 0.00 89.7 48.7 0.95 0.525 0.198 0.051 0.14 0.57
4_SK-11 7.5 0.00 110.5 58.2 0.94 0.534 0.202 0.051 0.14 0.56
4_SK-11 7.95 0.00 124.3 64.6 0.93 0.536 0.203 0.050 0.13 0.54
4_SK-11 9 0.00 138.2 71.0 0.92 0.535 0.202 0.050 0.13 0.54
4_SK-11 12.95 7.34 214.1 104.4 0.81 0.498 0.188 0.109 0.32 1.28
4_SK-11 14 7.09 229.1 111.9 0.79 0.482 0.182 0.107 0.32 1.30
4_SK-11 40.95 12.50 758.4 368.7 0.45 0.277 0.105 0.215 1.12 4.55
4_SK-11 42 12.36 774.2 376.9 0.45 0.275 0.104 0.213 1.12 4.54
4_SK-11 42.45 10.70 789.9 385.2 0.45 0.273 0.103 0.190 1.00 4.07
4_SK-11 43.5 10.59 805.7 393.4 0.44 0.271 0.103 0.189 1.00 4.07
4_SK-11 43.95 11.23 821.4 401.7 0.44 0.269 0.102 0.197 1.06 4.28
4_SK-11 45 11.11 837.2 409.9 0.44 0.267 0.101 0.196 1.05 4.28
4_SK-12 15.95 3.13 262.9 143.1 0.71 0.391 0.148 0.069 0.25 1.02
4_SK-12 20.5 4.40 347.9 185.6 0.60 0.338 0.128 0.116 0.49 2.00
4_SK-12 20.95 15.65 362.9 193.1 0.59 0.331 0.125 0.270 1.17 4.76
4_SK-12 22 15.36 377.9 200.6 0.58 0.325 0.123 0.264 1.17 4.74
4_SK-12 22.45 15.10 392.4 207.6 0.57 0.320 0.121 0.259 1.17 4.73
4_SK-13 16.95 16.94 302.7 142.9 0.68 0.432 0.163 0.191 0.64 2.58
4_SK-13 18 16.47 318.4 151.2 0.66 0.416 0.157 0.186 0.64 2.61
4_SK-13 18.45 12.47 334.2 159.4 0.64 0.402 0.152 0.143 0.51 2.09
4_SK-13 19.5 12.16 349.9 167.7 0.62 0.389 0.147 0.140 0.52 2.11
4_SK-13 19.95 18.66 365.7 175.9 0.61 0.378 0.143 0.212 0.81 3.27

164
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
4_SK-13 21 18.24 381.4 184.2 0.59 0.368 0.139 0.206 0.81 3.28
4_SK-13 21.45 14.06 397.2 192.4 0.58 0.359 0.136 0.159 0.64 2.60
4_SK-13 22.5 13.77 412.9 200.7 0.57 0.350 0.133 0.156 0.64 2.61
4_SK-14 28.45 16.28 482.9 231.2 0.51 0.317 0.120 0.283 1.29 5.21
4_SK-14 29.5 16.10 495.7 236.4 0.50 0.315 0.119 0.279 1.28 5.17
4_SK-14 29.95 14.47 508.4 241.7 0.50 0.314 0.119 0.247 1.14 4.61
4_SK-54 13.45 15.40 171.3 136.5 0.80 0.298 0.113 0.265 1.28 5.16
4_SK-54 14.5 15.02 185.9 143.7 0.77 0.297 0.113 0.257 1.25 5.02
4_SK-54 24.45 11.24 380.3 235.6 0.54 0.261 0.099 0.143 0.79 3.19
4_SK-54 25.5 11.05 396.2 243.7 0.53 0.259 0.099 0.141 0.79 3.17
4_SK-54 26 10.94 405.9 248.7 0.53 0.258 0.098 0.140 0.78 3.15
4_SK-55 11 1.47 137.0 104.5 0.86 0.338 0.129 0.086 0.37 1.47
4_SK-55 12.5 1.43 152.6 110.4 0.84 0.345 0.131 0.085 0.36 1.44
4_SK-55 12.95 2.10 164.6 114.9 0.81 0.347 0.132 0.092 0.38 1.54
4_SK-55 14 2.06 176.6 119.4 0.79 0.347 0.132 0.092 0.38 1.53
4_SK-55 19.45 20.69 280.7 161.0 0.61 0.316 0.121 0.456 2.08 8.36
4_SK-55 21.5 19.93 305.7 173.5 0.59 0.308 0.117 0.406 1.90 7.66
4_SK-55 21.95 16.63 325.3 183.1 0.57 0.302 0.115 0.291 1.39 5.59
4_SK-55 23.5 16.21 344.8 192.6 0.56 0.297 0.113 0.282 1.37 5.50
4_SK-56 10.5 1.57 143.9 91.6 0.89 0.418 0.158 0.061 0.21 0.85
4_SK-56 10.95 3.04 157.0 97.3 0.87 0.420 0.159 0.073 0.25 1.01
4_SK-56 12 2.96 170.1 102.9 0.85 0.420 0.159 0.072 0.25 1.00
4_SK-56 12.45 3.60 183.3 108.5 0.83 0.418 0.158 0.077 0.27 1.08
4_SK-56 26 12.58 447.5 240.3 0.53 0.295 0.112 0.157 0.77 3.12
4_SK-56 26.45 13.82 462.6 247.8 0.52 0.292 0.110 0.171 0.84 3.42
4_SK-56 27.5 13.66 474.4 253.4 0.52 0.290 0.110 0.182 0.90 3.66
4_SK-56 27.7 13.61 478.7 255.5 0.52 0.289 0.109 0.181 0.90 3.66
4_SK-56 27.95 13.46 491.1 261.3 0.51 0.287 0.109 0.179 0.90 3.64
4_SK-66 13 4.71 161.8 124.3 0.82 0.318 0.121 0.119 0.54 2.17
4_SK-66 13.5 4.65 169.8 127.6 0.80 0.319 0.122 0.118 0.53 2.15
4_SK-66 13.95 6.55 178.3 131.1 0.79 0.319 0.122 0.139 0.63 2.53
4_SK-66 14.5 6.46 187.4 134.9 0.77 0.319 0.122 0.138 0.62 2.51
4_SK-66 15 6.37 195.7 138.4 0.75 0.318 0.121 0.137 0.62 2.51
4_SK-66 17.5 4.78 240.1 157.6 0.67 0.306 0.117 0.120 0.56 2.27
4_SK-66 18.95 4.57 272.0 172.3 0.63 0.297 0.113 0.117 0.57 2.30
4_SK-66 20 4.49 285.9 178.7 0.61 0.293 0.112 0.117 0.57 2.31
4_SK-66 24.95 14.65 395.6 235.9 0.54 0.269 0.102 0.192 1.03 4.16
4_SK-66 26 14.40 411.4 244.1 0.53 0.266 0.101 0.189 1.03 4.13
4_SK-67 6 0.00 88.5 73.5 0.94 0.339 0.129 0.072 0.31 1.23
4_SK-67 9 0.00 121.3 89.0 0.92 0.374 0.142 0.072 0.28 1.12
4_SK-67 27 21.86 483.7 271.2 0.52 0.277 0.106 0.338 1.76 7.07

165
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
4_SK-67 27.5 21.67 493.2 276.0 0.52 0.276 0.105 0.332 1.74 6.98
4_SK-67 27.95 17.90 503.2 281.0 0.51 0.274 0.105 0.247 1.30 5.23
4_SK-67 28.5 17.74 513.3 285.8 0.51 0.273 0.104 0.245 1.29 5.20
4_SK-67 29 17.62 522.1 289.9 0.51 0.272 0.104 0.243 1.29 5.17
4_SK-67 30.5 12.00 556.5 306.5 0.50 0.268 0.102 0.166 0.89 3.59
5_SK-1 4.95 16.11 104.6 75.8 0.96 0.397 0.150 0.279 1.01 4.11
5_SK-1 6 17.10 120.3 84.1 0.96 0.409 0.155 0.302 1.07 4.32
5_SK-1 6.45 2.98 135.3 91.5 0.95 0.419 0.159 0.101 0.35 1.41
5_SK-1 7.5 2.87 149.9 98.7 0.94 0.427 0.162 0.100 0.34 1.36
5_SK-1 18.45 12.98 372.3 208.6 0.64 0.342 0.130 0.162 0.68 2.76
5_SK-1 19.5 12.74 387.9 216.6 0.62 0.334 0.126 0.159 0.69 2.78
5_SK-2 9 2.12 163.9 101.6 0.92 0.443 0.168 0.092 0.30 1.22
5_SK-2 9.45 3.52 190.9 113.6 0.89 0.447 0.169 0.106 0.34 1.39
5_SK-2 12 3.35 217.9 125.6 0.85 0.441 0.167 0.105 0.34 1.39
5_SK-2 12.45 3.24 235.9 133.6 0.82 0.433 0.164 0.103 0.34 1.40
5_SK-2 14 3.15 253.9 141.6 0.79 0.422 0.160 0.103 0.35 1.42
5_SK-2 18.45 2.79 340.9 181.2 0.64 0.361 0.137 0.099 0.39 1.60
6_SK-1 1.5 1.91 41.3 26.3 0.98 0.455 0.174 0.063 0.20 0.80
6_SK-1 3 2.03 59.8 35.0 0.98 0.490 0.188 0.064 0.19 0.75
6_SK-1 3.45 2.88 78.8 44.0 0.97 0.510 0.195 0.071 0.20 0.80
6_SK-1 5 2.63 97.8 53.0 0.96 0.522 0.200 0.068 0.19 0.76
6_SK-1 5.45 2.67 121.5 64.3 0.95 0.530 0.203 0.069 0.19 0.75
6_SK-3 2 1.91 41.3 26.3 0.98 0.455 0.174 0.052 0.17 0.67
6_SK-3 2.5 1.91 50.3 30.5 0.98 0.475 0.182 0.052 0.16 0.64
6_SK-3 2.95 2.86 69.3 39.5 0.97 0.502 0.192 0.058 0.17 0.66
6_SK-3 4.5 2.75 88.3 48.5 0.97 0.517 0.198 0.057 0.16 0.64
6_SK-3 4.95 3.30 112.0 59.8 0.96 0.527 0.202 0.060 0.16 0.66
6_SK-4 6.5 2.60 126.6 67.6 0.95 0.523 0.200 0.056 0.15 0.62
6_SK-4 7 2.52 135.6 71.8 0.95 0.525 0.201 0.056 0.15 0.61
6_SK-5 0.75 1.91 32.2 22.0 0.99 0.426 0.163 0.052 0.18 0.71
6_SK-5 2.8 1.91 53.6 32.1 0.98 0.481 0.184 0.052 0.16 0.63
6_SK-5 3 2.03 59.8 35.0 0.98 0.490 0.188 0.053 0.16 0.62
6_SK-5 3.45 0.00 78.8 44.0 0.97 0.510 0.195 0.049 0.14 0.56
6_SK-5 5 0.00 97.8 53.0 0.96 0.522 0.200 0.049 0.14 0.54
6_SK-5 5.45 0.00 110.1 58.9 0.96 0.527 0.202 0.049 0.13 0.54
6_SK-6 4.6 0.00 99.5 52.5 0.96 0.536 0.205 0.051 0.14 0.55
6_SK-6 6 0.00 117.1 60.8 0.96 0.541 0.207 0.051 0.14 0.54
6_SK-6 6.45 0.00 139.9 71.6 0.94 0.542 0.207 0.051 0.14 0.54
6_SK-6 8.4 0.00 163.5 82.5 0.93 0.540 0.207 0.051 0.14 0.54
6_SK-7 2.5 1.96 65.0 37.5 0.98 0.497 0.190 0.063 0.18 0.73
6_SK-7 4.5 1.83 88.3 48.5 0.97 0.517 0.198 0.062 0.17 0.69

166
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
6_SK-7 4.95 1.69 106.3 57.1 0.96 0.526 0.201 0.061 0.17 0.67
7_SK-10 22 21.01 394.3 246.8 0.58 0.271 0.104 0.327 1.74 6.93
7_SK-10 22.5 20.85 402.8 250.6 0.57 0.270 0.104 0.322 1.72 6.87
7_SK-10 22.95 13.58 416.3 256.6 0.56 0.267 0.103 0.189 1.02 4.07
7_SK-10 24 13.42 429.8 262.6 0.55 0.265 0.102 0.187 1.02 4.06
7_SK-11 1.5 2.87 31.1 31.1 0.99 0.291 0.112 0.055 0.27 1.08
7_SK-11 1.95 2.53 44.6 44.6 0.98 0.290 0.111 0.053 0.26 1.05
7_SK-11 3 3.94 58.1 58.1 0.98 0.288 0.111 0.061 0.31 1.22
7_SK-11 3.45 3.62 68.9 68.9 0.97 0.287 0.110 0.059 0.30 1.18
7_SK-11 4.2 3.64 78.3 76.8 0.97 0.291 0.112 0.072 0.36 1.43
7_SK-11 4.5 2.85 85.1 79.8 0.97 0.304 0.117 0.066 0.32 1.26
7_SK-11 4.95 2.75 98.6 85.8 0.96 0.325 0.125 0.066 0.29 1.16
7_SK-11 6 2.23 112.1 91.8 0.96 0.344 0.132 0.062 0.26 1.04
7_SK-11 6.45 2.16 125.6 97.8 0.95 0.359 0.138 0.061 0.25 0.99
7_SK-11 7.5 9.79 139.1 103.8 0.94 0.371 0.143 0.128 0.50 1.98
7_SK-11 7.95 9.61 148.1 107.8 0.93 0.378 0.145 0.126 0.48 1.92
7_SK-11 8.5 12.12 157.5 112.0 0.93 0.384 0.147 0.210 0.79 3.15
7_SK-11 9 11.92 166.1 115.8 0.92 0.388 0.149 0.207 0.77 3.07
7_SK-12 1.5 10.52 32.8 32.8 0.99 0.291 0.112 0.129 0.64 2.55
7_SK-12 1.95 9.02 47.0 47.0 0.98 0.290 0.111 0.115 0.57 2.28
7_SK-12 3 6.13 61.3 61.3 0.98 0.288 0.111 0.089 0.45 1.78
7_SK-12 27.45 20.74 506.3 289.0 0.52 0.267 0.102 0.460 2.49 9.92
7_SK-12 28 20.59 515.7 293.2 0.51 0.266 0.102 0.448 2.43 9.71
7_SK-12 28.5 20.45 524.3 297.0 0.51 0.265 0.102 0.439 2.39 9.53
7_SK-14 16.5 8.02 295.2 171.2 0.70 0.353 0.136 0.156 0.64 2.55
7_SK-14 17.5 7.88 309.1 177.6 0.67 0.345 0.133 0.155 0.65 2.58
7_SK-14 18 7.79 317.9 181.6 0.66 0.341 0.131 0.154 0.65 2.60
7_SK-14 18.45 9.30 331.8 188.0 0.64 0.333 0.128 0.172 0.74 2.97
7_SK-14 19.5 9.14 345.6 194.4 0.62 0.327 0.125 0.170 0.75 3.00
7_SK-14 21.45 19.73 380.0 208.7 0.59 0.314 0.120 0.293 1.34 5.37
7_SK-14 22 19.56 388.9 212.4 0.58 0.311 0.119 0.289 1.34 5.34
7_SK-14 22.5 19.40 397.0 215.7 0.57 0.309 0.119 0.285 1.33 5.32
7_SK-14 22.95 21.69 409.7 221.0 0.56 0.305 0.117 0.349 1.65 6.58
7_SK-14 24 21.44 422.5 226.2 0.55 0.302 0.116 0.340 1.62 6.48
7_SK-15 1.5 18.17 31.9 31.9 0.99 0.291 0.112 0.187 0.93 3.70
7_SK-15 1.95 15.79 45.8 45.8 0.98 0.290 0.111 0.162 0.81 3.21
7_SK-15 3 18.64 59.7 59.7 0.98 0.288 0.111 0.192 0.96 3.85
7_SK-15 3.45 16.79 73.5 73.5 0.97 0.286 0.110 0.172 0.87 3.46
7_SK-15 4.5 12.27 87.4 87.4 0.97 0.285 0.109 0.127 0.64 2.57
7_SK-15 12 18.45 233.6 226.1 0.83 0.254 0.098 0.342 1.95 7.77
7_SK-15 13.5 18.09 252.6 235.4 0.80 0.254 0.098 0.330 1.88 7.49

167
Borehole
Depth (𝑵𝟏 )∗𝟔𝟎 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝝈𝒗𝒐 rd 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟐 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝟑 CRR 𝑭𝑺𝟐 𝑭𝑺𝟑
#
7_SK-15 13.95 14.45 267.3 242.5 0.78 0.253 0.097 0.247 1.41 5.63
7_SK-15 15 14.24 281.9 249.6 0.75 0.250 0.096 0.243 1.40 5.59
7_SK-15 15.45 7.49 296.5 256.8 0.73 0.248 0.095 0.150 0.87 3.49
7_SK-15 16.5 7.39 311.1 263.9 0.70 0.245 0.094 0.149 0.88 3.50
7_SK-15 16.95 7.32 320.9 268.6 0.69 0.242 0.093 0.148 0.88 3.52
7_SK-15 36.45 22.92 688.2 438.5 0.47 0.216 0.083 0.403 2.69 10.73
7_SK-15 37.5 22.75 702.5 445.2 0.46 0.216 0.083 0.394 2.63 10.51
8_SK-1 2.85 12.96 59.4 48.2 0.98 0.357 0.137 0.173 0.70 2.79
8_SK-1 3.3 12.52 66.1 51.6 0.98 0.370 0.142 0.168 0.65 2.61
8_SK-1 5 4.49 106.5 72.5 0.96 0.418 0.161 0.078 0.27 1.07
8_SK-1 5.7 4.33 117.7 78.0 0.96 0.428 0.165 0.076 0.26 1.03
8_SK-1 6.15 4.73 125.5 81.8 0.95 0.433 0.167 0.080 0.27 1.06
8_SK-1 7.4 24.75 152.6 95.8 0.94 0.443 0.171 0.295 0.96 3.82
8_SK-1 23.8 22.14 508.9 286.9 0.55 0.289 0.111 0.353 1.76 7.02
8_SK-1 24.5 21.86 522.1 294.4 0.54 0.286 0.110 0.343 1.73 6.91
8_SK-1 24.95 21.50 539.4 304.1 0.54 0.281 0.108 0.317 1.63 6.48
8_SK-1 26 21.17 556.6 313.9 0.53 0.278 0.107 0.309 1.60 6.39
8_SK-1 26.45 20.85 573.9 323.6 0.52 0.274 0.105 0.301 1.58 6.30
8_SK-1 27.5 20.54 591.1 333.4 0.52 0.271 0.104 0.277 1.47 5.86
8_SK-1 27.95 20.24 608.4 343.1 0.51 0.268 0.103 0.271 1.46 5.81
8_SK-1 29 19.96 625.6 352.9 0.51 0.266 0.102 0.295 1.60 6.38
8_SK-1 29.45 19.78 637.1 359.4 0.50 0.264 0.101 0.290 1.59 6.33
8_SK-2 4 8.44 84.6 57.1 0.97 0.425 0.164 0.115 0.39 1.55
8_SK-2 4.5 8.17 92.4 60.9 0.97 0.434 0.167 0.112 0.37 1.48
8_SK-2 4.8 7.94 99.7 64.5 0.97 0.442 0.170 0.111 0.36 1.44
8_SK-2 5.25 6.85 111.4 70.2 0.96 0.451 0.174 0.101 0.32 1.28
8_SK-2 6 7.36 123.1 75.9 0.96 0.459 0.176 0.149 0.47 1.86
8_SK-2 6.45 3.13 137.7 83.0 0.95 0.466 0.179 0.102 0.32 1.26
8_SK-2 7.5 3.00 152.4 90.1 0.94 0.470 0.181 0.073 0.22 0.89
8_SK-2 7.95 11.56 167.0 97.2 0.93 0.473 0.182 0.162 0.49 1.97
8_SK-2 9 11.16 181.6 104.4 0.92 0.473 0.182 0.140 0.43 1.70
8_SK-2 9.45 10.91 191.4 109.1 0.91 0.472 0.182 0.137 0.42 1.67
8_SK-2 27.45 20.70 592.8 328.1 0.52 0.275 0.106 0.457 2.39 9.55
8_SK-2 28.5 20.40 610.1 337.8 0.51 0.272 0.105 0.435 2.30 9.19
8_SK-2 28.95 20.11 627.3 347.6 0.50 0.269 0.104 0.257 1.37 5.48
8_SK-2 30 19.84 644.6 357.3 0.50 0.267 0.103 0.252 1.36 5.44

168
Figure A3.1 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

169
Figure A3.2 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

170
Figure A3.3 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

171
Figure A3.4 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

172
Figure A3.5 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

173
Figure A3.6 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

174
Figure A3.7 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for minimum scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

175
Figure A3.8 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for maximum scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

176
Figure A3.9 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for avarage scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

177
Figure A3.10 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for minimum scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

178
Figure A3.11 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for maximum scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

179
Figure A3.12 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for avarage scenario in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

180
Figure A3.13 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

181
Figure A3.14 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

182
Figure A3.15 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

183
Figure A3.16 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

184
Figure A3.17 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

185
Figure A3.18 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Alsancak-Konak area

186
Figure A3.19 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for minimum scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

187
Figure A3.20 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for maximum scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

188
Figure A3.21 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for avarage scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

189
Figure A3.22 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for minimum scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

190
Figure A3.23 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for maximum scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

191
Figure A3.24 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for average scenario in the Alsancak-Konak area

192
Figure A3.25 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Bayraklı area

193
Figure A3.26 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Bayraklı area

194
Figure A3.27 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Bayraklı area

195
Figure A3.28 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 3m depths in the Bayraklı area

196
Figure A3.29 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 5m depths in the Bayraklı area

197
Figure A3.30 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level at 10m depths in the Bayraklı area

198
Figure A3.31 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for minimum scenario in the Bayraklı area

199
Figure A3.32 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for maximum scenario in the Bayraklı area

200
Figure A3.33 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for avarage scenario in the Bayraklı area

201
Figure A3.34 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for minimum scenario in the Bayraklı area

202
Figure A3.35 Factor of safety distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) for maximum scenario in the Bayraklı area

203
Figure A3.36 Factor of safety distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) for avarage scenario in the Bayraklı area

204
Appendix-4: Post-Earthquake Settlement Analysis Results
Borehole # St(2)cm St(3)cm Borehole # St(2)cm St(3)cm
1_SK-1 0.4 4_SK-1 10.0 5.6
1_SK-2 13.4 9.4 4_SK-2 6.4 4.3
1_SK-3 4.9 4_SK-3 13.1
1_SK-4 4.4 4_SK-6 5.6 3.0
1_SK-6 48.9 27.2 4_SK-8 4.8 1.5
1_SK-7 19.0 13.7 4_SK-10 10.1 5.8
1_SK-8 11.0 8.1 4_SK-11 6.5 4.5
1_SK-16 27.0 21.5 4_SK-12 7.4 5.3
1_SK-17 12.8 8.6 4_SK-13 10.2 5.6
1_SK-18 62.1 47.4 4_SK-54 3.0 0.8
1_SK-23 2.8 0.9 4_SK-55 26.4 21.8
1_SK-25 10.0 5.4 4_SK-56 19.3 13.8
1_SK-26 4.3 3.4 4_SK-66 19.5 12.7
1_SK-31 14.2 11.2 4_SK-68 4.5 3.0
1_SK-32 9.2 7.3 4_SK-181 4.8 3.1
1_SK-33 36.5 5_SK-1 18.4 10.7
1_SK-34 45.4 5_SK-2 39.5 28.1
1_SK-35 46.5 39.0 6_SK-1 43.6 33.4
1_SK-36 24.3 17.7 6_SK-3 43.7 36.7
1_SK-39 81.3 59.1 6_SK-4 8.6 6.7
2_SK-1 10.5 6.5 6_SK-5 27.0 26.1
3_SK-1 16.0 10.2 6_SK-7 31.9 24.1
3_SK-2 12.8 6.2 7_SK-11 48.1 33.2
3_SK-3 42.8 29.5 7_SK-12 7.1 4.6
3_SK-4 33.9 20.3 7_SK-14 11.4 8.0
3_SK-5 9.4 5.1 7_SK-15 19.2 7.6
3_SK-6 6.4 4.4 8_SK-1 12.9 7.6
3_SK-7 21.3 16.0 8_SK-2 26.5 18.5

205
Figure A4.1 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

206
Figure A4.2 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the Konak-Üçkuyular area

207
Figure A4.3 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-2 (Mw=6.5) earthquake level in the Alsancak-Konak area

208
Figure A4.4 Post-earthquake settlement distribution for DD-3 (Mw=5.5) earthquake level in the Alsancak-Konak area

209
Appendix-5: ArcGIS Database

210
Appendix-6: Python Codes

Figure A6.1 Overburden Pressure Correction

Figure A6.2 Rod Length Correction

211
Figure A6.3 Code to convert columns to numeric

Figure A6.4 Corrected SPT Calculation N60

212
 Figure A6.5 Corrected SPT Calculation (N1)60

Figure A6.6 Fine Content Correction to SPT (N1)60*

213
Figure A6.7 Stress Reduction Coefficient

Figure A6.8 Magnitude Scaling Factors

214
 Figure A6.9 Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR7.5*

Figure A6.10 Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR (for DD2 Level)

215
Figure A6.11 Factor of Safety, FS (for DD2 Level)

216