IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Liquefaction Potential Based on Geology
Liquefaction potential analysis based on standard and Geotechnical Data on Sanana
Region, Sula Island Regency, North
penetration test in coastal area (Case study: Loh Maluku, Indonesia
U S Pajrin, A Mubarak, J P Basuki et al.

Buaya, Rinca Island, Indonesia) - Liquefaction disaster mitigation on railway

corridors in Padang City, West Sumatra
B M Adji, B Istijono, A Hakam et al.
To cite this article: Heryawan Kurnia Rakhman et al 2024 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1314
012123 - Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of
Nagpur Region Using SPT Data: Field
Assessment
Manish Bawankule and Shantanu N.
Pawar

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 213.188.89.61 on 18/03/2024 at 12:05

The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Liquefaction potential analysis based on standard penetration

test in coastal area (Case study: Loh Buaya, Rinca Island,
Indonesia)

Heryawan Kurnia Rakhman1, Sito Ismanti1* and Trias Aditya2

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
2
Department of Geodetic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah
Mada, Indonesia

*Email : [email protected]

Abstract. An area has liquefaction potential when it has a shallow groundwater level, loose
sandy soil, and is prone to earthquakes. There are several areas with such criteria that have not
been analysed for liquefaction potential. This study aims to analyse and plot the liquefaction
potential in the coastal area of Loh Buaya, Rinca Island, East Nusa Tenggara Province. Soil
investigation data, such as SPT, sieve analysis, and groundwater level, as well as earthquake
history that occurred from 1922-2022, served as the main data for liquefaction potential
analyses. The methods used were Ground Motion Equation Prediction (GMPE) to calculate
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), Simplified Procedure, and Liquefaction Severity Index
(LSI) to make a liquefaction hazard assessment. LSI scores were used to provide micro-
zonation of liquefaction potential with Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation in
QGIS. The result obtained is very dense gravel has no liquefaction potential whereas loose
sandy soil has very high in LSI classification because loose sandy soil has liquefaction
potential up to 20 meters of depth. The applying of micro-zonation LSI by IDW interpolation
method can estimate the potential level of liquefaction hazard on Loh Buaya, Rinca Island with
limited soil investigation data.

1. Introduction
Liquefaction research has become a popular topic in Indonesia, especially since the liquefaction in
Palu in September 2018. An earthquake with 7.5 mw triggered the liquefaction that caused large
numbers of mortalities [1]. Besides causing deaths, liquefaction in Palu in 2018 caused massive
infrastructure damage and huge economic losses [2]. In other places, liquefaction also occurred in
Wenchuan China in 2008 [3,4], Kanto Region Japan in 2011 [5], Christchurch New Zealand in 2011
[6], Kumamoto Japan in 2016 [7], Tibetan Plateau China in 2021 [8], and Central Thessaly Greece in
2021 [9].
Liquefaction occurs in loose sandy soils, and shallow groundwater levels and is initiated by large
earthquakes. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated cohesionless soil loses its shear strength
and behaves like a liquid because the effective stress of the soil drops to zero [10]. During an
earthquake, the pore water pressure will increase so that the sandy soil, which is a non-cohesive soil,

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

will be saturated and lose its strength. Liquefaction causes ground instability such as foundation
settlement, lateral spreading, and soil damage. [11].
Coastal areas with loose sandy soil types and close to active faults have liquefaction potential. Palu
Bay, located near the Palu-koro Fault, has a liquefaction potential at 16 boreholes out of 22 borehole
SPT samples [12]. In the Long Beach area on the east coast of Cyprus, the predominantly loose sandy
soils have liquefaction potential at depths of 2-18 meters. [13]. An alluvial flood plain in a coastal area
of Catania has liquefaction potential at depths of 3 and 7 m [14]. In Jizan coastal area of Saudi Arabia
has liquefaction potential in fine sand to silty clay soil with a groundwater level of less than 2 m depth
[15]. The coastal regions of Albania and Montenegro are formed of sediments prone to liquefaction
[16]. Also in Eco-Delta City Busan has the potential for liquefaction in coastal areas and alluvium
soils [17].
Various soil investigation data can be used as a basis for analyzing liquefaction potential. The soil
investigation data are able to use standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), and
microtremor measurement. Among these soil investigation data, SPT is the most used data. SPT data
was also used in the study of liquefaction potential in the Jammu Region, India [18], Roorkee Region,
India [19], Kathmandu Valley in Nepal [20], Imperial Valley, California [21], Surat City, India [22].
Currently, there are limited number of studies on liquefaction potential analysis in coastal areas in
Indonesia.

Figure 1. Study site in Loh Buaya, Rinca Island, Indonesia

There are three objectives in this study. The first is the Study of liquefaction potential in the coastal
area. The case study took place in the coastal area of Loh Buaya, Rinca Island (Figure 1). This
liquefaction potential analysis used the simplified procedure by Idriss-Boulanger [23] according to 8
SPT boreholes. It procedure has also been applied in Jono Oge-Paneki River [24], Gumbasa Irrigation
Area [25] dan Bangga River [26] for liquefaction potential. The second is to determine the

2
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI). Factor of Safety (FS) from simplified procedure is used to make a
liquefaction hazard assessment using Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI) [27,28]. The third is to
determine micro-zonation maps of LSI. micro-zonation map was created to determine the extent of
liquefaction-prone areas [29–32]. Micro-zonation map created using Inverse Distance Weighted
interpolation method based on LSI number in each borehole [33,34].

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Tectonics and Geology of Loh Buaya, Pulau Rinca

The vulnerable location for earthquakes is characterized by its location near active faults or subduction
zones. Rinca Island is located between several active faults, which are Flores back arc thrust, Sape
strike-slip, and Bondowatu fault. Rinca Island is also located near the subduction zone between the
Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates [35]. As a result of being near 3 active faults and subduction zone,
Rinca Island is categorized as a high-risk earthquake area [36]. According to the Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI) scale, Rinca Island has the potential to be impacted by earthquakes more than VIII
MMI [37]. Soil conditions in Loh Buaya Rinca Island are composed of quaternary period of alluvial
sediments and young volcanic rock [37] The quaternary period is the youngest age compared to other
geological ages so it will be easily found loose and poorly compaction soil layers.

2.2. Subsurface Geotechnical Investigation

The geotechnical investigation included standard penetration test and sieve analysis. Soil investigation
was obtained from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results on 8 boreholes in Loh Buaya, Rinca Island.
B-1 to B-5 are on land while B-6 to B-8 are underwater. Based on land cover, B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5 are
swamp areas; B-2 is shrubs and B-6, B-7, B-8 are mangroves (Figure 2).
The SPT value obtained various results (Table 1). B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5 obtained values below 20
blows. B-2 has 60 blows at 2 to 6 m and 12 to 16 m depth. However, at 8-10 m depth, the SPT blows
decreased to 30 and 32. At B-6, B-7, and B-8, the SPT value obtained 60 blows from 2 to 14 m depth,
indicating that the soil is classified as stiff soil.
The groundwater depth value found that B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 have a shallow groundwater
level that is below 2m of depth. B-6, B-7, and B-8 are located underwater so that the groundwater
level is above the ground. The results of the sieve analysis test found that the type of soil at points B-1,
B-3, B-4, and B-5 is relatively similar, which is dominated by fine sand (Figure 3). While B-2, B-6, B-
7, B-8 are gravel.

2.3. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

PGA calculations are performed to calculate the level of ground acceleration that occurs due to
earthquakes based on hypocenter distance, epicenter distance, magnitude, and soil conditions. The
greater the PGA value, the more the impact of earthquake shaking will be felt. Liquefaction may occur
if the PGA value is more than 0.09 g [38]. In predicting PGA, a deterministic approach using Ground
Motion Equation Prediction (GMPE) is used. This study chose GMPE Kanno [39] according to the
equation (1) dan (2):
For focal earthquake depth D ≤ 30 km
log 𝑦 = 𝑎1 𝑀𝑤 + 𝑏1 𝑋 − log(𝑋 + 𝑑1 100,5𝑀𝑤 ) + 𝑐1 (1)
For focal earthquake depth, D > 30 km:
log 𝑦 = 𝑎2 𝑀𝑤 + 𝑏2 𝑋 − log(𝑋) + 𝑐2 (2)
with y is PGA (cm/s ); a1 = 0.56; a2 = 0.4; b1 = -0.0031; b2 = -0.0039; c1 = 0.26; c2 = 1.56; d1 = 0.0055.
2

The PGA obtained needs to be corrected according to the V S30. The equations are as follow equations
(3) and (4):

3
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Figure 2. Map of SPT boreholes location and land cover at the study site

Table 1. SPT results and depth of groundwater level

measurements
Borehole B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8
GWL (m) -1.0 -0.9 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 9.0 5.0 1.0
Depth (m) NSPT Value
2 0 60 0 0 0 60 60 60
4 3 60 0 0 0 60 60 60
6 3 60 3 2 3 60 60 60
8 4 30 4 4 4 60 60 60
10 2 32 4 4 4 60 60 60
12 6 60 5 4 4 60 60 60
14 8 60 6 6 6 60 60 60
16 9 60 10 10 10
18 11 14 14 14
20 6 12 12 12
22 9 17 17 17
24 13 19 19 19
26 12 14 14 14
28 18 19 18

4
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Figure 3. Stratigraphy between B-1 to B-5 (A to A’)

𝐺 = 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑉𝑠30) + 𝑞 (3)
log 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑝𝑟𝑒 + 𝐺 (4)
with G is correction to VS30 (g); p = -0.55; q = 1.35 and log 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟 is the corrected log PGA (g). To
derive VS30, the correlation of SPT blows to Vs by Iyisan (1996) was used. Iyisan correlation has a
degree of correlation efficiency of 81% [40]. The correlation equation is as follows equation (5):
𝑉𝑠 = 51.5𝑁 0.516 (5)
with N is SPT value. N is the SPT value. The earthquake data used in the calculation is based on
earthquake records from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from 1922 until 2022. To
analyse liquefaction potential, the largest PGA value would be used.

2.4. Liquefaction Potential Analysis

Analysis of liquefaction potential begins with a preliminary study based on grain size distribution.
Grain size distribution by Tsuchida chart [41]. This chart describes the grain boundaries in areas that
have the potential and most potential for liquefaction. Fine sand is the highest liquefaction
vulnerability and silty sand is the soil with the high liquefaction vulnerability (Figure 4).
Further analysis of liquefaction potential using the simplified procedure by Idriss and Boulanger
[23]. The data required are SPT value, Ground Water Level (GWL), Moment Magnitude (Mw), Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA), and Fines Content (FC). When the soil is not saturated, it has no
liquefaction potential. This potential analysis is used to determine the Factor of Safety (FS) value in
each soil layer. The FS value is obtained from the comparison between Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
and Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR). When FS < 1, it has the liquefaction potential. The FS equation is as
follows equation (6):
𝐶𝑅𝑅 (6)
𝐹𝑆 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅

5
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

100

Percent finer by weight (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10
Grain Size (mm)
Boundaries for potential liquefable soil
Boundaries for most potential liquefable soil

Figure 4. Grain size distribution by Tsuchida [41]

The calculation of the FS value is limited to 20m of depth because liquefaction incidents only occurred
at a maximum of 20m of depth [23]. The CSR equation is as follows equation (7):
𝜎𝑣 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 1 (7)
𝐶𝑆𝑅 = 0,65 𝑟𝑑
𝜎′𝑣 𝑔 𝑀𝑆𝐹 𝐾𝜎
with rd is shear stress reduction coefficient, σv is vertical total stress (KPa), σ′v is vertical effective
stress (KPa), amax is maximum peak ground acceleration (g), MSF is magnitude scaling factor and Kσ
is overburden correction factor. The CRR equation is as follows equation (8):
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 2 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 3 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 4 (8)
𝐶𝑅𝑅 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( + − + − 2.8)
14.1 14.1 23.6 25.4

with (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 is equivalent clean sand SPT value count.

2.5. Liquefaction Severity Index

The level of liquefaction vulnerability was calculated using Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI) by
Sonmez [42]. This method evaluates the vulnerability of liquefaction potential according to the value
of the Factor of Safety (FS). The LSI equation is as follows equation (9-12):
20 (9)
𝐿𝑠 = ∫ 𝑃𝐿 (𝑧) . 𝑤(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
0
1 (10)
𝑃𝐿 (𝑧) = 𝐹𝑆 4.5 ; FS < 1.411
1+( )
0.96

𝑃𝐿 (𝑧) = 0 ; 𝐹𝑆 > 1.411 (11)

𝑤(𝑧) = 10 − 0.5𝑧 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑧 < 20𝑚 (12)
Table 2. LSI Classification [42]
Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI) Liquefaction Severity Class
0 No liquefaction
0 < LS < 15 Very low
15 < LS < 35 Low
35 < LS < 65 Moderate
65 < LS < 85 High
85 < LS < 100 Very high

6
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

with LS is liquefaction severity, PL is liquefaction probability, dan z is depth of soil layer (m). The LSI
has 6 classifications of liquefaction vulnerability (Table 2). The higher the LSI value, the higher the
level of potential liquefaction vulnerability. To predict the surrounding liquefaction-prone area, micro-
zonation was made. The micro-zonation method uses Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW). IDW will
determine the value of an unknown point using a combination of linear weights from sample points.
The IDW equation is as follows equation (13):
1
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑍
(𝑑𝑖 )𝑝 𝑖
𝑍= (13)
1
∑𝑛𝑖=1
(𝑑𝑖 )𝑝

with Z is predicted point value, Zi is value at sample points, n is value of total sample data, d i is the
distance between the sample point and the predicted point, and p is weighting power. IDW method is
an interpolation method that has been widely used in spatial data, images, and optimization algorithms
[43]. IDW interpolation is performed based on the results of the LSI calculation in each borehole with
QGIS version 3.22.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Peak Ground Acceleration Calculation

The maximum corrected PGA at Loh Buaya on Rinca Island was obtained as 0.57 g (table 4). The
PGA correction value is derived from the SPT value at B-3 which is correlated to VS30. This PGA is
derived from the 1968 earthquake with 6.8 Mw, 30.6 km of depth, and 64.91 km of epicenter distance
from Loh Buaya [44]. In terms of depth, the earthquake was a shallow earthquake (depth < 70 km).

Table 3. Calculation of PGA using GMPE Kanno (2006) at Loh Buaya on Rinca Island
Date of Depth Magnitude Distance PGA PGAcor
Latitude Longitude VS30
earthquake (km) (Mw) (km) (g) (g)
26/01/1968 -8.875 120.265 30.6 6.8 64.91 0.417 160.03 0.57
19/12/1983 -8.964 119.728 35.5 5.9 34.17 0.289 160.03 0.29
25/07/1983 -8.141 119.504 48.1 6.4 61.56 0.248 160.03 0.25
30/07/1935 -9.101 119.471 60.0 6.3 56.29 0.199 160.03 0.20
03/01/1936 -9.349 119.548 35.0 6.3 78.97 0.186 160.03 0.19
11/11/2002 -8.651 119.274 33.0 5.3 48.86 0.138 160.03 0.14
01/11/1983 -9.016 119.180 83.4 6.4 71.37 0.133 160.03 0.13
19/07/1999 -9.030 120.159 33.0 5.5 63.81 0.122 160.03 0.12
05/12/1992 -8.391 119.894 40.8 5.1 35.07 0.120 160.03 0.12
25/03/2003 -8.294 120.743 33.0 6.5 119.73 0.113 160.03 0.11
13/07/2009 -9.139 119.320 65.0 5.9 69.13 0.110 160.03 0.11
02/11/1954 -8.128 118.986 20.0 6.7 99.49 0.110 160.03 0.11
28/11/1928 -8.700 120.666 20.0 6.7 104.46 0.102 160.03 0.10

3.2. Liquefaction Potential Analysis

Figure. 5 is the sample at 3m below ground surface at B-1 until B-5. In B-6, B-7, and B-8, the grain
size distribution graph was not conducted because the soil is gravel. The results obtained that B-1, B-
3, B-4, and B-5 are included in the range of grains that have the liquefaction potential. While B-2 is
not included in the range of potential liquefaction because more than 40% of the soil consists of coarse
sand with grain size > 2mm.

7
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

100,00 B-1
90,00
Percent finer by weight (%)

80,00 B-2

70,00
B-3
60,00
50,00 B-4
40,00
B-5
30,00
20,00 Boundaries for
10,00 potential
liquefaction soil
- Boundaries for
most potential
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100 liquefaction soil
Grain size (mm)
Figure 5. Grain size distribution of 5 boreholes at 3.0 m depth from the ground surface.

The results of the FS calculation obtained that B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5 have liquefaction potential
while B-2, B-6, B-7, and B-8 do not have liquefaction potential (Table 4-5). B-6, B-7, and B-8 have
similar results because the SPT results obtained are the same at each depth. The FS value obtained is
very low due to 4 factors, which are: SPT blows < 20%, and the soil is dominated by fine sand and
cohesionless; FC<35% up to 20m depth; shallow groundwater level, GWL<2m; and large of PGA
value, PGA>0.09 g. The low SPT value and saturated condition resulted in a low CRR value and thus
a low FS. Meanwhile, B-2, B-6, B-7, and B-8 do not have the potential for liquefaction even in
saturated conditions because the soil conditions are dominated by gravel with SPT blows > 60, so the
CRR and FS values obtained will be high.
This proves that the coastal area in Loh Buaya, Rinca Island has a potential liquefaction hazard.
Engineering is needed to mitigate the occurrence of liquefaction. Liquefaction mitigation methods
need to consider the location and construction costs. Utilizing local resources can reduce the cost of
mitigation. Locations close to rock deposits can be utilized to create stone columns or soil
reinforcement to increase SPT.

Table 4. Calculation of FS at each borehole at 2, 6, and 10 m depth and LSI

Depth 𝜎𝑣 𝜎′𝑣
Location 𝑟𝑑 𝐾𝜎 (N1)60cs CSR CRR FS LSI
(m) (KPa) (Kpa)
B-1 2.00 30.54 10.92 0.98 1.13 0.91 0.77 0.06 0.08 89.98
6.00 93.47 34.61 0.92 1.08 4.88 0.73 0.09 0.12
10.00 156.40 58.30 0.85 1.04 3.73 0.89 0.08 0.11
B-2 2.00 49.00 10.92 0.98 0.68 79.53 0.51 2.00 4.86 0.00
6.00 146.99 33.07 0.92 0.95 72.30 0.34 2.00 7.27
10.00 227.15 56.15 0.85 0.93 35.49 0.34 1.23 4.49
B-3 2.00 30.54 9.47 0.98 1.10 0.01 0.79 0.06 0.08 89.98
6.00 91.93 9.47 0.92 1.09 5.39 0.75 0.09 0.12
10.00 154.25 9.47 0.85 16.96 6.17 0.70 0.09 0.14
B-4 2.00 30.54 10.92 0.99 1.10 1.98 0.79 0.07 0.09 89.97
6.00 92.24 33.38 0.92 1.08 3.27 0.75 0.08 0.11
10.00 155.79 57.69 0.85 1.05 7.63 0.69 0.10 0.16
B-5 2.00 30.54 10.92 0.99 1.10 0.00 0.79 0.06 0.08 89.96
6.00 92.55 33.69 0.92 1.09 7.64 0.73 0.10 0.15
10.00 156.09 57.99 0.85 1.05 8.38 0.69 0.11 0.16

8
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Table 5. Recapitulation of factor of safety at 20 meters depth

Bore Hole B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05 B-06 B-07 B-08
Depth (m) Factor of Safety (FS)
2.0 0.08 4.86 0.08 0.09 0.08 8.24 8.24 8.24
4.0 0.11 5.84 0.08 0.08 0.08 8.49 8.49 8.49
6.0 0.12 7.27 0.12 0.11 0.15 8.79 8.79 8.79
8.0 0.14 5.43 0.14 0.15 0.16 9.14 9.14 9.14
10.0 0.11 4.49 0.14 0.16 0.16 9.56 9.56 9.56
12.0 0.17 7.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 10.02 10.02 10.02
14.0 0.20 7.12 0.17 0.19 0.20 10.53 10.53 10.53
16.0 0.21 7.13 0.24 0.26 0.27 11.07 11.07 11.07
18.0 0.25 0.31 0.33 0.35
20.0 0.18 0.27 0.30 0.31

3.3. Micro-zonation of Liquefaction Severity Index

The LSI level varies from no liquefaction to very high level (Table 4). Very high LSI located in
swamps area (B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5), while B-2 and B-6 to B-8 are areas that are secure from
liquefaction because the FS<1 with land cover types such as mangroves and sea. The very high LSI in
B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5 are due to up to 20 meters of depth has the potential for liquefaction (Table 5).
The FS value obtained is not more than 0.3 in each soil layer. If there are layers that do not have the
potential liquefaction (FS > 1), the resulting LSI can be decreased to moderate or low.

Figure 6. LSI mapping using IDW interpolation in QGIS

9
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

Micro-zonation mapping is the result of interpolation using IDW method to predict the potential for
liquefaction in locations around the SPT boreholes. IDW interpolation is limited to a maximum
distance of 50 m from the borehole. The soil condition in the swamp area is dominated by loose sandy
soil with GWL < 2 m. By using the PGA value of 0.57 g, the swamp area has high until very high LSI
level (Figure 6). No Liquefaction until low of LSI classification outside swamp area.
In this research, there may be errors in predicting liquefaction potential because of limited data and
SPT boreholes that spread far from each other. To improve the accuracy of mapping, more soil
investigation sites and other interpolation methods can be used. Soil investigations can include SPT,
CPT, and microtremor tests.

4. Conclusions
Based on the analysis to calculate the safety factor of liquefaction potential, some parts of the coastal
area in Loh Buaya, Rinca Island, were concluded to have liquefaction potential. Four boreholes have
liquefaction potential until 20m depth and four borehole points do not have liquefaction potential. This
dissimilarity is obtained due to differences in soil types in each borehole. The result of the
Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI) analysis using 8 boreholes showed that the coastal area in Loh
Buaya, Rinca Island was classified as very high severity due to liquefaction by 4 boreholes and no
liquefaction by the rest. Saturated sandy soil resulted in very high level of LSI. Meanwhile, gravel
soils with a very dense consistency remain secure from potential liquefaction. Micro-zonation map
based on the LSI classification showed that swamp area with sandy soil has moderate-Very High LSI
classification, while outside swamp area with gravel soil has Low-No Liquefaction of LSI
classification. Micro-zonation Mapping accuracy can be improved by increasing the number of soil
investigation sites. This needs to be a concern to increase awareness when constructing around the
coastal area.

Acknowledgments
Special gratitude to the Indonesian Ministry of Public Works and Housing for data and financial
support during this study

References
[1] Hidayat R F, Kiyota T, Tada N, Hayakawa J and Nawir H 2020 J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 52 51–65
[2] Kiyota T, Furuichi H, Hidayat R F, Tada N and Nawir H 2020 Soils Found. 60 722–35
[3] Cui S, Pei X, Jiang Y, Wang G, Fan X, Yang Q and Huang R 2021 Geol. 295 106455
[4] Sahin A and Cetin K O 2023 Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 9 42
[5] Tsukamoto Y, Kurosaka N, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance
Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (Beijing 2022) Geotechnical,
Geological and Earthquake Engineering 52, ed L Wang, J-M Zhang and R Wang (Cham:
Springer International Publishing) 1995–2003
[6] Li Z, Zhang S and Yuan X-M 2022 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (Beijing 2022)
Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering 52, ed L Wang, J-M Zhang and R
Wang (Cham: Springer International Publishing) 1875–83
[7] Anderson D J, Franke K W, Kayen R E, Dashti S and Badanagki M 2022 Geosciences 13 7
[8] Yuan J, Wang Y, Zhan B, Yuan X, Wu X and Ma J 2022 Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 155 107191
[9] Valkaniotis S, Papathanassiou G, Ganas A, Evagellos Kremastas and Caputo R 2021
Preliminary report of liquefaction phenomena triggered by the March 2021 earthquakes in
Central Thessaly, Greece (Zenodo)
[10] Gurung L and Chatterjee K 2023 Pure Appl. Geophys. 180 439–74
[11] Jalil A, Fathani T F, Satyarno I and Wilopo W 2020 Int. J. GEOMATE 18 147-55
[12] Patriaman F, Fathani T F and Wilopo W 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 930 012077
[13] Selcukhan O and Ekinci A 2023 Infrastructures 8 99

10
The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314 (2024) 012123 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012123

[14] Grasso S, Massimino M R and Sammito M S V 2020 Geosciences 11 12

[15] Abdelrahman K, Al-Amri A M, Alzahrani H, Qaysi S and Al-Otaibi N 2022 Arab. J. Geosci.
15 611
[16] Todorovic L and Silva V 2022 Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 161 107430
[17] Bahari B, Hwang W, Kim T-H and Song Y-S 2020 Int. J. Geo-Eng. 11 14
[18] Ansari A, Zahoor F, Rao K S and Jain A K 2022 Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 81 349
[19] Muley P, Maheshwari B K and Kirar B 2022 s Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 8 26
[20] Subedi M and Acharya I P 2022 Geoenvironmental Disasters 9 1
[21] Guan Z and Wang Y 2022 Comput. Geotech. 148 104807
[22] Thakur S, Bhanwar P and Dave T 2022 Geohazard Mitigation Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering 192, ed B R Adhikari and S Kolathayar (Singapore: Springer Singapore) 109–
18
[23] Idriss I M and Boulanger R W 2008 Soil liquefaction during earthquakes (Oakland, CA:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI))
[24] Widyatmoko A, Legono D and Hardiyatmo H C 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 930
012084
[25] Pratama A, Fathani T F and Satyarno I 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 930 012093
[26] Fauzan, Rifa’i A and Ismanti S 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 930 012083
[27] Satyam N and Priyadarsini S 2023 Theory and Practice in Earthquake Engineering and
Technology Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering ed T G Sitharam, S Kolathayar, R S Jakka
and V Matsagar (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore) pp 177–93
[28] Silahtar A, Karaaslan H and Kocaman K 2023 Sustainability 15 1534
[29] Hossain Md S, Kamal A S M M, Rahman Md Z, Farazi A H, Mondal D R, Mahmud T and
Ferdous N 2020 SN Appl. Sci. 2 777
[30] Kumar S, Muley P and Syed N M 2023 Indian Geotech. J. 53 139–53
[31] Miftah A, Hussain M and Bilsel H 2022 Indian Geotech. J. 52 1278–91
[32] Sett S, Chattopadhyay K K and Ghosh A 2023 Nat. Hazards
[33] Boumpoulis V, Depountis N, Pelekis P and Sabatakakis N 2021 Arab. J. Geosci. 14 1631
[34] Hartono N and Fathani T F 2022 Civ. Eng. Dimens. 24 62–70
[35] Pusgen 2017 Peta sumber dan bahaya gempa Indonesia tahun 2017 (Bandung: Ministry of
Public Works and Housing)
[36] BNPB 2023 Indeks Risiko Bencana Indonesia Tahun 2022 vol 01 (Indonesian National Agency
for Disaster Countermeasure (BNPB))
[37] Geological Agency of Indonesia 2013 Earthquake Hazard Zone Map of East Nusa Tenggata
Province
[38] Magistris F S D, Lanzano G, Forte G and Fabbrocino G 2013 Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 54 17–9
[39] Kanno T 2006 Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96 879–97
[40] Iyisan R 1996 Tech J Chamb. Civ. Eng Turk. 6 1187–99
[41] Tsuchida H 1970 Semin. Port Harb. Res. Inst. 31–333
[42] Sonmez H and Gokceoglu C 2005 Environ. Geol. 48 81–91
[43] Liu Z-N, Yu X-Y, Jia L-F, Wang Y-S, Song Y-C and Meng H-D 2021 Sci. Rep. 11 2689
[44] United States of Geological Survey 2023 Search Earthquake Catalog [Accessed: February 16,
2022]

11