E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

Liquefaction potential evaluation on reconstruction project of

irrigation canal in the Jono Oge and Lolu Village
I Made Widyanata1,2, Sito Ismanti1*, and Angga Fajar Setiawan1
1Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
2Directorate General of Construction Development, The Ministry of Public Works and Housing, South Jakarta 12110, Indonesia

Abstract. In Indonesia's liquefaction history, the province of Central Sulawesi was severely affected in
several locations when a 7.5 Mw earthquake occurred in September 2018. This study aims to evaluate the
liquefaction potential and generate the liquefaction hazard map in the reconstruction project of the Gumbasa
Irrigation Canals passed through Jono Oge Village and Lolu Village, closely related to the liquefaction event
in the Sigi Regency area. Using the simplified procedure method by Idriss and Boulanger, the Liquefaction
Factor of Safety (FOS) was calculated for each layer of soil from thirteen (13) locations of soil investigation
test at the end of 2021 by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing. Furthermore, it was followed by
calculating the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and Liquefaction Severity Index (LSI). The analysis
results show that the construction work area has the liquefaction potential with the observed groundwater
level. It is mapped on irrigation canals along the Jono Oge Village and Lolu Village to know the critical
segment of the irrigation project. Hereafter, an irrigation canal segment named BGKN-45 to BGKN-46 in
Jono Oge required a specific mitigation plan to prevent damage from liquefaction in the future.

1 Introduction which has a significant value in those locations [3–6].

However, the Potential for liquefaction at the irrigation
Events involving earthquake-liquefaction can cause canal reconstruction site has yet to be specifically
harmful deformations in building structures, which can discovered, and further studies must be required.
have detrimental effects like structural damage and the The latest soil investigations in 2021 on Jono Oge
possibility of expensive repair expenses. It happened and Lolu were taken by the Ministry of Public Works
and was documented during the Indonesian earthquake and Housing in the form of the Standard Penetration
of 7.5 Mw on September 28, 2018, which led to a Test (SPT) and Multichannel Analysis Surface Wave
tsunami and liquefaction in Palu, Central Sulawesi [1]. (MASW). Thirteen (13) borehole locations spread along
Massive deaths and property damage resulted from the the irrigation canal have yet to be analyzed in the
widespread liquefaction phenomena that struck various previous study. Evaluation of the possibility for
regions in Palu, Sigi, and Donggala. liquefaction along the irrigation canal of Jono Oge and
Because of the mortality of earthquake-liquefaction Lolu Village (Fig. 1) is necessary for the irrigation
events, post-disaster planning is necessary to reduce building and canal project design.
potential harm from re-liquefaction. Existing structures This study aims to evaluate the Liquefaction
and buildings are prone to liquefaction damage and can Potential to produce a liquefaction hazard map for the
be strengthened by retrofitting. Also, the soil Gumbasa Irrigation Canals reconstruction project that
improvement method through densification, passes through Jono Oge Village and Lolu Village. The
solidification, drainage, reinforcing, and soil value for the liquefaction Factor of safety (FOS) is
replacement prevent liquefaction [2]. Since 2019, the calculated using a simplified procedure method by Idriss
Ministry of Public Works and Housing Indonesia Boulanger [8]. Then it determined the Liquefaction
(MPWH) and the JICA (Japan International Potential Index (LPI) and Liquefaction Severity Index
Cooperation Agency) Team have implemented post- (LSI) [9–11]. The liquefaction hazard map for the
disaster development in Central Sulawesi Province. The reconstruction project is generated by ArcGIS software
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of the Gumbasa with the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) method
Irrigation System are one of the early 2023 using the LPI value. This research could be used to
infrastructure development packages to be carried out in determine relevant and effective liquefaction mitigation
the Sigi Regency area of Jono Oge and Lolu, which measures for the reconstruction of public facilities.
previously experienced liquefaction.
Several scholars have previously conducted analyses
of liquefaction potential in the Jono Oge and Lolu areas,

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

investigation utilized the liquefaction trigger procedure

based on SPT established by Idriss and Boulanger [8].
The FOS value is determined by comparing the cyclic
stress ratio (CSR) to the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR).
When the value of CRR divided by CSR is less than 1,
liquefaction is possible for the soil layer.

Fig. 1. Location of irrigation canal reconstruction project in

Jono Oge and Lolu Village (modified from [7]).

2 Theory and background

Geology is one factor used to determine liquefaction Fig. 2. Geological Condition in Jono Oge and Lolu Village
vulnerability [12]. Fig. 2 maps the geology formation of (modified from [13]).
Jono Oge and Lolu Area.
According to the regional geological map, there are 2.1.1 Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
five types of rock formations in the Sigi Regency and its
environs: alluvium and coastal deposits, Celebes The cyclic stress ratio (CSR) is derived from the
molasses, Tinombo formations, complex following Equations 1-9.
metamorphism, and granite [14-15]. The primary canal 𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑀,𝜎′
𝑣 (1)
𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑀=7.5,𝜎′𝑣=1 =
of Gumbasa Irrigation in Jono Oge and Lolu Village is 𝜎𝑣 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑀𝑆𝐹.𝐾𝜎
located in the southern part of Palu City, geologically an 𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑀,𝜎′𝑣 = 0.65 𝑟 (2)
𝜎′𝑣 𝑔 𝑑
alluvium and coastal deposit formation. It is categorized
𝑟𝑑 = exp⁡[𝛼(𝑧) + 𝛽(𝑧). 𝑀 (3)
as new deposits/quaternary sediment. Typically, newly 𝑧
𝛼(𝑧) = −1.012 − 1.126sin⁡ ( + 5.133) (4)
deposited soils are more prone to liquefaction than older 11.73
𝑧
soils [16]. 𝛽(𝑧) = −0.106 − 0.118sin⁡ ( + 5.142) (5)
11.28
The preliminary investigation on the flow slide in the 𝜎′ (6)
𝑣
Jono Oge region indicates that the soil layer in the Jono 𝐾𝜎 = 1 − 𝐶𝜎 𝑙𝑛 (
𝑃𝑎
) ≤ 1.1
Oge region comprises low permeability layers atop 1 (7)
loosely formed sand and sand gravel layers, which could 𝐶𝜎 = ≤ 0.3
18.9 − 2.55√(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠
cause a long-distance flow-slide [17]. The flow slide −𝑀
could be produced by liquefaction in the sand and sand- 𝑀𝑆𝐹 = 1 + (𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 1)⁡(8,64 exp ( ) (8)
4
gravel layers following ground shaking. In addition, the − 1,325)
flow slide may have originated from creating a water 2
interlayer beneath the surface layer [18]. (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 (9)
𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1,09 + ( ) ⁡ ≤ 2,2
31,5
Where, as 𝑀𝑆𝐹 is the magnitude correction factor,
2.1 Liquefaction potential analysis 𝐾𝜎 It is an overburden correction factor with a maximum
value of 1.1, 𝜎𝑣 and 𝜎′𝑣 are total and effective vertical
Potential liquefaction analysis aims to determine each 𝑎
soil layer's liquefaction factor of safety (FOS). This stress at z meters depth, 𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum horizontal
𝑔

2
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

acceleration at ground level due to earthquakes, 𝑟𝑑 is and varies from non-liquified to very high if the amount
stress reduction coefficient, 𝑃𝑎 is overburden pressure of of liquefaction potential is indicated in Table 1.
101 kPa, and (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 is penetration resistance in clean Table 1. Liquefaction potential index classification [10].
sand.
LPI Value Categories
0 Non-liquefied
2.1.2 Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) 0< LPI ≤2 Low
2< LPI ≤5 Moderate
The CRR value can be determined under the earthquake 5< LPI ≤15 High
magnitude and specific effective stresses using the 15<LPI Very High
cyclic resistance ratio derived from the circumstances M
= 7.5 and 𝜎′𝑣 = 1 atm by adjusting the N-SPT value with
a correction factor and fine-grain correlation (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 . 2.3 Liquefaction severity index (LSI)
The following Equations 10-16 describes the CRR
The value of the liquefaction severity index is
based on the SPT:
determined using the value of the liquefaction factor of
(𝑁 )
𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀=7.5,𝜎′ =1𝑎𝑡𝑚 =𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( 1 60𝑐𝑠 + (10)
𝑣 14.1 safety (FOS) derived from the potential liquefaction
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 2 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 3 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 4
( ) −( ) +( ) − 2.80) study at a depth between 0 and 20 m [11]. Sonmez and
126 23.6 25.4
Gokceoglu (2005) developed the equation of Iwasaki et
𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀,𝜎′𝑣 =𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑀=7.5,𝜎′𝑣=1 . 𝑀𝑆𝐹. 𝐾𝜎 (11)
al. (1981) with the following Equations 19-22.
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 = (𝑁1 )60 + ∆(𝑁1 )60 (12) 20 (19)
(𝑁1 )60 = 𝐶𝑁 𝑁60 (13) 𝐿𝑆 = ⁡ ∫ 𝑃𝐿 (𝑧). 𝑊(𝑧)⁡𝑑𝑍
𝑃𝑎 𝑚 (14) 0
𝐶𝑁 = ( ′ ) ≤ 1.7 1
(20)
𝜎𝑣 𝑃𝐿 (𝑧) = ⁡ 𝐹𝑂𝑆 4.5 ⁡ for FOS < 1.411
1+( )
𝑚 = 0.784 − 0.0768(√(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 ) (15) 0.96

9.7 (16) 𝑃𝐿 (𝑧) = ⁡0 for⁡FOS⁡≥⁡1.411 (21)

∆(𝑁1)60 = ⁡𝑒𝑥𝑝 (1.63 −
𝐹𝐶 + 0.01 𝑤(𝑧) = ⁡10 − 0.5𝑧 (22)
15.7 2 Where w(z) is the soil weight factor, and PL(z) is the
−( ) ) liquefaction probability based on the depth function.
𝐹𝐶 + 0.01
In which (𝑁1)60 is penetration resistance to the Table 2 classifies LSI values into six tiers, ranging from
same sand at 1 atm overburden stress if all other non-liquefied to very high, based on their LSI values.
attributes are held constant, 𝐶𝑁 is overburden correction Table 2. Liquefaction severity index classification [11].
factor, and FC is soil fines content.
LSI Value Categories
85 < LS < 100 Very high
2.1.3 Liquefaction factor of safety (FOS) 65 < LS < 85 High
35 < LS < 65 Moderate
The value of the soil safety factor for the risk of 15 < LS < 35 Low
liquefaction is the ratio of the CRR and CSR values in 0 < LS < 15 Very low
equations (2) and (11). The following Equation 17 is 0 Non-liquefied
used to determine the FOS value.
𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀,𝜎′ 𝑣 (17)
𝐹𝑂𝑆 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅
3 Results and discussion
If the FOS value is higher than 1, according to
equation (17), there is lesser to none of the liquefaction 3.1 Evaluation of the Jono Oge and Lolu
potential in the soil layer. On the other side, when the liquefaction potential results
FOS value is less than 1, it indicates that the land has the
possibility to liquefy. The liquefaction potential of 13 (thirteen) boreholes
located along the main irrigation canal was evaluated,
involving 9 (nine) boreholes in Jono Oge and 4 (four)
2.2 Liquefaction potential index (LPI)
boreholes in Lolu Village. The position of this borehole
Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) Correlation, created is close to the liquefaction event in the Sigi Regency
by Iwasaki (1981), was used to assess the liquefaction area. Based on the geotechnical investigation report of
potential. By measuring the association between the the Ministry of Public Works and Housing from 2021,
safety factor against liquefaction and the depth, the LPI soil liquefaction potential in Jono Oge and Lolu Village
value was utilized to evaluate the liquefaction potential was assessed. These geotechnical study reports served
of various sites [9]. The following Equation 18 can be as the foundational information for rehabilitating and
used to determine the LPI and express the potential reconstructing the Gumbasa irrigation system.
liquefaction index in the study area. Fig. 3 depicts the Jono Oge liquefaction-impacted
20 (18) area with the locations of nine boreholes, and the
𝐿𝑃𝐼 = ⁡ ∫ 𝐹. 𝑊(𝑧)⁡𝑑𝑍 location of four boreholes In Lolu Village is used for the
0 liquefaction analysis.
Where, F=1–FOS for F < 1.0 and F = 0 if FOS > 1.0,
The location of BH1 and BH2 between the
and W(z) = 10-0.5z where z is in meters. The LPI value
irrigation canal is named BGKN-45 (Fig. 4) and BGKN-
reflects the level of liquefaction potential in the
46. Those are very close to the liquified area of Jono Oge
examined area; the range is updated by Sonmez (2003)

3
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

in 2018. The borehole's Ground Water Level (GWL) assumes that there will be an increase in the groundwater
ranged between 4 – 11.69 meters. The five boreholes level with a height of up to -3.5 meters below the ground
named BH3, BH4, BH6, BH7, and BH12 were found surface based on observations in the Jono Oge irrigation
dry based on the standpipe observation on November canal in 2015 by the Ministry of Public Works and
30, 2021. During the earthquake, the pore water pressure Housing [4]. The third case assumes the groundwater
of potentially liquefiable soil was impacted by the depth level can be controlled to -11 meters below the ground
of the groundwater level. surface.

3.1.1 Soil grain size distribution

The soil grain size analysis results can be utilized to
conduct a simple preliminary examination of potential
liquefaction soils [19]. Sieving was used to determine
the soil grain size distribution. In this instance, the grain
size distribution of the soil is the proportion of the soil
weight in the sieve according to a particular diameter.
The boundary curve for most liquefiable and potentially
liquefiable soils was developed by Tsuchida (1970).
Several sandy soil samples were collected at each
borehole to determine the grain size of the soil in the
Jono Oge and Lolu areas for the Irrigation Canal
Reconstruction Project. The chart developed by
Tsuchida (1970) is then plotted with the grain size
analysis data graph for each borehole. Fig. 5-12
illustrate the results of grain size distribution charting.

Fig. 3. Location of thirteen boreholes (modified from [7]).

Fig. 5. Grain size analysis for BH4.

Fig. 6. Grain size analysis for BH5.

According to the analysis results based on Fig. 5-12
and the non-cohesive soil samples obtained from the
eight boreholes, the area is dominated by sandy soil with
low or uniform gradation. The graphs of soil grain
Fig. 4. Irrigation canal of BGKN-45 (Source: MPWH 2022). distribution for the remaining five boreholes are not
This study will evaluate the Potential for liquefaction displayed because they lack complete soil grain size
against the influence of the groundwater level using 3 analysis data.
cases. Case one is the groundwater level based on
observations on November 30, 2021. The second case

4
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

Fig. 7. Grain size analysis for BH6. Fig. 11. Grain size analysis for BH11.

Fig. 8. Grain size analysis for BH7. Fig. 12. Grain size analysis for BH13.

3.1.2 Liquefaction factor of safety (FOS) results

This study investigated the liquefaction factor of safety

using a simplified procedure method devised by Idriss
and Boulanger (2014). The stress-based approach was
used to evaluate the potential for liquefaction by
comparing the earthquake-induced cyclic stresses to the
cyclic resistance of the soil. The soil's cyclic stresses at
each depth depend on the earthquake's moment
magnitude and peak ground acceleration (PGA).
The PGA value for evaluating liquefaction potential
Fig. 9. Grain size analysis for BH8. was determined using earthquake magnitude data of 7.5
Mw and a maximum ground acceleration value of 3.2
m/s2 or 0.33g from a 2018 USGS report for the Palu
Valley area. Based on the results of Multichannel
Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) tests, the site class
refers to the VS30 value, and these locations are
designated as site class D. According to SNI 1726:2019,
the site coefficient (FPGA) is 1.30 for medium soil [20].
The derived PGAM value is 0.43g and is used for
analysis.
Thirteen boreholes with a maximum depth of 20
meters were analyzed for their liquefaction potential
using Equation 17. The analysis is predicated on
observations of groundwater level made on November
Fig. 10. Grain size analysis for BH9. 30, 2021, and there are five dry boreholes. Fig. 13-16
depict the Liquefaction factor of safety graph for the
However, based on the soil's lithology and the bore eight boreholes.
log description, it shares the same sandy soil type as the The results of the analysis indicate that the six
other boreholes. All non-cohesive soil samples locations of the SPT test points, BH1, BH2, BH5, BH8,
evaluated for grain gradation had liquefaction potential. BH10, and BH13, in the construction of the Gumbasa
irrigation canal in the Jono Oge and Lolu areas contain
FOS less than one at various depths of soil layers and
are susceptible to liquefaction-related damage. The most

5
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

vulnerable soil layers are located at 5.50 meters in BH2, severity index will be calculated in the following
while the deepest is at 18 meters in BH10. section.

Fig. 13. Liquefaction FOS of BH1 and BH2.

Fig. 15. Liquefaction FOS of BH9 and BH10.

Fig. 14. Liquefaction FOS of BH5 and BH8.

Fig. 16. Liquefaction FOS of BH11 and BH13.
As for the location of BH9 and BH10, their FOS is
more significant than 1.1, making them relatively
secure. It can occur if the N-SPT number is more than 3.2 Liquefaction potential index results and
20. The BH3, BH4, BH6, BH7, and BH12 lack FOS due mapping in irrigation canal
to a groundwater table's absence.
The liquefaction potential index value is derived
The findings of the performed liquefaction FOS
according to equation 18 based on the results of the FOS
calculations strengthen the conclusions of the
liquefaction calculation with the GWL observed on
preliminary study of probable liquefaction soils from the
November 30, 2021 (case 1). Table 3 summarizes the
Tsuchida chart, particularly for BH8, BH11, and BH13.
LPI calculation results. The LPI values of each borehole
In addition, GWL and SPT values considerably impact
from Table 3 were then mapped along the reconstruction
the outcomes of this analysis. Using the results of this
FOS, the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction

6
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

project using the IDW method in ArcGis, with the Table 4. LPI for case 2 and case 3.
results can be seen in Figure 17. Borehole Case 2 Case 3
Table 3. LPI for case 1. Name LPI Category LPI Category
BH1 36 Very High 7.17 High
Borehole Name GWL (m) LPI Category
BH2 22.1 Very High 6.89 High
BH1 11.69 7.17 High BH3 32.43 Very High 8.17 High
BH2 4 21.45 Very High BH4 31.99 Very High 5.02 High
BH3 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied BH5 7.51 High 0 Non-liquefied
BH4 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied BH6 6.88 High 2.11 Moderate
BH5 8.6 2.09 Moderate BH7 30.67 Very High 8.45 High
BH6 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied BH8 27.59 Very High 4.14 Moderate
BH7 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied Non-
BH9 0 0 Non-liquefied
BH8 7.49 14.53 High liquefied
Non-
BH9 6.73 0.00 Non-liquefied BH10 0 0 Non-liquefied
liquefied
BH10 10.38 0.00 Non-liquefied BH11 20.48 Very High 6.95 High
BH11 10.76 6.95 High BH12 20.76 Very High 7.21 High
BH12 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied BH13 35.59 Very High 8.62 High
BH13 7.12 19.66 Very High

Fig. 18. Liquefaction hazard map if the GWL controlled to -

11 meters (case 3) (modified from [7]).
Fig. 17. Liquefaction hazard map with observed GWL on
November 30, 2021 (case 1) (modified from [7]). In the last observation of the groundwater table (case
1), segments BGKN-45 and BGKN-46 in Jono Oge and
The potential liquefaction index was also analyzed
BGKN-52 in Lolu are prone to damage due to the high
with cases 2 (GWL -3.5m) and 3 (GWL -11m), with the
index of liquefaction potential. Also, Fig. 18 show that
following results in Table 4. Fig. 18 illustrate the results
the severity can be reduced if the groundwater level is
of LPI hazard mapping on the reconstruction project in
controlled below 11 meters.
case 3.

7
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

3.3 Liquefaction severity index results potential index analysis. The LSI value is ranged from
non-liquified to moderate. Buildings in Jono Oge's
Based on the FOS liquefaction calculation findings with BGKN-45 through BGKN-46 and Lolu Village's
the GWL recorded on November 30, 2021 (case 1), the BGKN-52 are particularly vulnerable. As the
liquefaction severity index value is produced using groundwater level rose to 3.5 meters at BH1, the highest
equation 19. Also, the LSI values for cases 2 and 3 were value of LSI was 39.95 in the moderate category.
determined. The calculation results of LSI can be seen However, when the groundwater level was regulated to
in Tables 5-6. -11 meters in cases 1 and 3, this value dropped to 9.19.
Table 5. LSI for case 1.
3.4 Liquefaction countermeasure plan
Borehole Name GWL (m) LSI Category

BH1 11.69 9.19 Very Low

The liquefaction mitigation plan for the Gumbasa
irrigation canal, especially Jono Oge and Lolu, has been
BH2 4 31.57 Low planned in several schemes by the Ministry of Public
BH3 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied Works and Housing. The first plan is to control the
groundwater level in the area. To stop water seepage,
BH4 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied
which increases the groundwater level, a 0.75 mm thick
BH5 8.6 5.79 Very Low waterproof Geomembrane will be used as the lining of
BH6 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied the irrigation canals. In addition, it is currently planned
to construct a shallow well in the Jono Oge area that
BH7 Dry 0.00 Non-liquefied
aims to release the soil pore water pressure during an
BH8 7.49 17.99 Low earthquake.
BH9 6.73 2.09 Very Low The second plan is to strengthen the embankment
that supports the irrigation canal building with
BH10 10.38 0 Non-liquefied
geotextiles. A 0.8 km stone-filled trenches will be built
BH11 10.76 10.18 Very Low west of Jono Oge village for irrigation canals from
BH12 Dry 0 Non-liquefied BGKN-45 to BGKN-46. This construction is expected
to have two effects: to help reduce excess pore water
BH13 7.12 23.91 Low
pressures and to increase the shear resistance of the soil.
Table 6. LSI for case 2 and case 3.
Borehole Case 2 Case 3 4 Conclusion
Name LSI Category LSI Category
BH1 39.95 Moderate 9.19 Very Low The 0.8-kilometer-long BGKN-45 and BGKN-46
portions are very susceptible to liquefaction based on the
BH2 31.86 Low 9.51 Very Low results of a liquefaction potential evaluation, especially
BH3 37.42 Moderate 10.49 Very Low when considering the LPI value with groundwater level
BH4 38.8 Moderate 8.24 Very Low
measurements on November 30, 2021. In addition, the
irrigation canal is situated in the Jono Oge flow-slide
BH5 15.35 Low 0.63 Very Low area. The BGKN-52 segment in Lolu village also needs
BH6 15.19 Low 5.84 Very Low particular attention, but the location was not damaged as
BH7 35.62 Moderate 8.84 Very Low severely as the liquefaction in Jono Oge.
In preventing liquefaction from causing damage to
BH8 32.02 Low 7.17 Very Low infrastructures, mitigation measures such as
BH9 4.23 Very Low 1.74 Very Low impermeable lining, geogrid, shallow wells, and stone-
Non- filled trenches have been developed. In subsequent
BH10 0 0 Non-liquefied research, the outcomes of modeling, potential scenarios,
liquefied
BH11 24.66 Low 10.18 Very Low and the efficacy of the mitigation plan will be examined.
BH12 25.58 Low 8.37 Very Low The authors would like to convey their appreciation for the
BH13 38.7 Moderate 9.67 Very Low assistance from the River Basin Organization Sulawesi III Palu
and the Directorate General of Water Resources.
In Case 1, the highest value on BH 2 with category
low is 31.57, and the lowest is 0 (non-liquified) on BH3, References
BH4, BH6, BH7, BH10, and BH12. In case 2, the
highest value in the moderate category is 39.95 on BH 1. European Commission, Mw 7.5 earthquake in
1, and the lowest value is 0 (non-liquified) on BH 10. Indonesia, 28 September 2018, in JRC Emergency
The highest value in case 3 is 10.49 on BH 3, with a Reporting – Activation #021 (2018)
category very low, and the lowest value on BH10 is 0 https://www.gdacs.org/Public/download.aspx?type
(non-liquified). =DC&id=75
According to the analysis's findings in Tables 5 and 2. R.P. Orense, Encyclopedia of Earthquake
6, the liquefaction severity index results for Cases 1, 2, Engineering, 1-13 (2015)
and 3 are comparable to those of the liquefaction

8
E3S Web of Conferences 429, 04012 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342904012
ICCIM 2023

3. A.N. Andiny, F. Faris, A.D. Adi, IOP Conf. Ser.:

Earth Environ. Sci. 861, 052030 (2021) DOI
10.1088/1755-1315/861/5/052030
4. A. Pratama, T.F. Fathani, I. Satyarno, IOP Conf.
Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 930, 012093 (2021) DOI
10.1088/1755-1315/930/1/012093
5. W. Rahayu, Nurizkatilah, E. Bahsan, IOP Conf.
Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 622, 012016 (2021) DOI
10.1088/1755-1315/622/1/012016
6. A. Widyatmoko, D. Legono, H.C. Hardiyatmo, IOP
Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 930, 012084 (2021)
DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/930/1/012084
7. National Land Agency Indonesia, PASIGALA
image in 2019, in Pasigala Image Documentation
(2019)
8. R.W. Boulanger, I.M. Idriss, Report No.
UCD/CGM-14/01 (Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, College of
Engineering, University of California, 2014)
9. T. Iwasaki, K. Tokida, F. Tatsuoka, Soil
liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the
simplified procedure, in International Conferences
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 26 Apr – 3 May,
St. Louis, Missouri (1981)
10. H. Sonmez, Env Geol 44, 862–871 (2003)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-003-0831-0
11. H. Sonmez, C. Gokceoglu, Environ Geol 48, 81-91
(2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-1263-9
12. S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical earthquake engineering
(Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996)
13. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources,
UpToDate, Geological map of sigi regency (2022)
https://geologi.esdm.go.id/
14. R. Sukamto, Geological map View of Palu Sheet,
Sulawesi (PPPG, 1973)
15. Sukido, D. Sukarna, K. Sutisna, Geological map
View of Palu Sheet, Sulawesi (PPPG, 1993)
16. R.W. Day, Geotechnical earthquake engineering
handbook: with the 2012 international building
code, 2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill Education, 2012)
17. H. Hazarika, D. Rohit, S.M.K. Pasha, T. Maeda, I.
Masyhur, A. Arsyad, S. Nurdin, Soils and
Foundations 61(1), 239-255 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.10.007
18. T. Kiyota, H. Furuichi, R.F. Hidayat, N. Tada, H.
Nawir, Soils and Foundations 60(3), 722-735
(2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.03.015
19. H. Tsuchida, Prediction and countermeasure
against liquefaction in sand Deposits, in Seminar of
the Port and Harbor Research Institute (1970)
20. National Standardization Agency, Procedures for
planning earthquake resistance for building and
non-building structures (SNI 1726:2019)