Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

A Large-Scale Model Experiment on the Effect of Sheet Pile Wall on Reducing
the Damage of Oil Tank Due to Liquefaction
Nanase OGAWA
Chief, Construction Solutions Department, GIKEN LTD., Tokyo, Japan
Email: ogawa@giken.com

Yukihiro ISHIHARAManager, Press-in Technologies Support Department, GIKEN LTD., Tokyo, Japan
Email: ishihara@giken.com

Katsuhiko ONOManager, Construction Solutions Development Department, GIKEN LTD., Tokyo, Japan

Masanori HAMADA
Professor emeritus, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT
After the Alaska Earthquake and the Niigata Earthquake in 1964, many researches have been conducted on theliquefaction and its caused damage. In the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, liquefaction of sandy ground was observedin wide areas. The authors have built a large-soil tank for the experiment to develop effective liquefaction
countermeasures. The soil box can cause and keep the liquefaction continuously by injecting the water flow from thebottom of the model ground. This paper introduces this experimental apparatus and reports one of the test results on the
behaviour of the oil tanks during liquefaction and the effectiveness of the measures by using sheet pile walls.
Key words: Liquefaction, Large-scale model experiment, Seepage force, Oil tank, Sheet pile wall

1. Introduction
According to Sangawa (2008), due to the spread of

As a cause of liquefaction, duration of earthquake groundearthquake archaeology, many traces of liquefaction havemotion. In the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake in 1995 andbeen discovered by excavation investigations. It has been

the Kumamoto Earthquake in 2016, a maximum

proven in Japan, that many cases of liquefaction haveacceleration was recorded 5 seconds after the groundtaken place from long before. In the study by Kusano et al.

began to quake, and the ground motion ceased in the next

(1989), information on liquefaction was scarce at the time

10 to 20 seconds. On the other hand, the quake of the Greatof the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, since the disaster

East Japan Earthquake in 2011 showed a maximum

due to fires was enormous. However, they reported that

acceleration 20 seconds after the initial quake, and it lasted

liquefaction did occur in the wide Kanto area. Following

more than 150 seconds. Many people may still have a clear

this, after the Fukui Earthquake in 1948, studies on

image of the occurrence of sand boils in reclaimed landsliquefaction by Mogami et al. (1953) began, and many

along the Tokyo Bay coast and damages in the form of

researches on liquefaction have conducted after thetilted buildings due to differential settlements, since they

Niigata Earthquake and the Alaska Earthquake in 1964

were broadcast by many media. The economical damage

which caused heavy liquefaction damages (Yasuda 1988).

due to liquefaction became a record making incident.

motion is pointed out, together with the intensity of the

At the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake in

At auhors, a liquefaction generator was built to

2011, liquefaction occurred in wide areas of the east Japan.

develop liquefaction countermeasures using piles and- 193 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

sheet piles, and to clarify the characteristics of pile andof piles and structures in the liquefied ground.

sheet pile structures in liquefied grounds. This paper

As a result, a soil tank was developed that could

presents the characteristics of the liquefaction generator

simulate constructions of recently popular 1,000 mm

and an experimental result on the effect of liquefaction

diameter steel tubular piles, and also could

countermeasures for oil tanks.

accommodate pile loading tests. From the standard
on the influence range of pile loading test, the tank

2. Outline of liquefaction generator

built had a dimension of 7 m x 7 m cross-section with

2.1. Development concept

a depth of 9 m (Fig. 1).

Shaking table and dynamic centrifugal experiments
have

been

carriedout

tosimulateliquefaction

phenomenon in the ground. In these experimental
apparatuses, the size of the experimental models is limitedby the dimensions of soil tanks that can be installed on the
shaking table. The model scales of 1:10 to 1:50 have been
often used (e.g., The Japanese Geotechnical Society 1994,
Tani 2013). The stress state is simulated by taking into
account the strain dependency of the ground properties inthe shaking table experiments, while it is simulated usinga) vertical load test

the centrifugal force corresponding to the reduction scaleFig. 1b) horizontal load test

The influenced area of test pile (JGS 2002&2010)of the model is considered in the dynamic centrifugal
experiments (Hayashi 1997). There is an advantage ineither case that the experiments can be repeated relatively
easily, since a contracted small model is used in the

2.2. Reproductive method of liquefaction
Liquefaction phenomenon of the ground induced byexperiments. However, small model have drawbacks such

earthquake ground motion is explained as shown in Fig. 2

as selection of materials and constraints on measurement(a). When shear force due to earthquake acts in the groundpoints. Therefore, the similarity in the experiments has tothat is loosely piled up below the groundwater level,

be increased, using as large a model as possible. From thecontacts between soil particles are lost, and the particles

viewpoints of time and cost required to build the model, it

tend to move in the sedimentation direction due to gravity.

may be said that there might be a compromise necessary

Liquefaction is a state where soil particles in a sequential

to some extent.

change completely float in the pore water, and effectiveThe

authorshavedevelopedliquefaction

stress becomes zero. At this state, since the surcharge loadcountermeasures by driving piles and sheet piles that arethat was carried and transmitted through the soil particles

effective and easy to use in construction into liquefiable

is now born by the pore water pressure, and then poregrounds. They have also developed an experimental

water pressure increases. After the seismic motion ceases,

apparatus that can simulate the behaviour of the developeddischarge of pore water and soil particle sedimentation

countermeasures against the occurrence of liquefaction.

continue, and the contacts between the soil particles are

The followings are concepts for the development ofexperimental apparatus;

restored. Besides the vibration of the ground, theliquefaction status can be caused by the upward seepage

1) The experiment apparatus should be able toof the ground water, as shown in Fig. 2 (b). When upward

accommodate models in dimensions close to theseepage pressure acts on the soil particles due to upward

full-scale piles/sheet piles, so that the construction

water flow, contacts between the soil particles are lost, andefficiency may be studied; andthe particles become in a state of floating in pore water and2) It should be able to accommodate vertical andeffective stress of the soil is lost. In this method, when thehorizontal loading tests (Japan Geotechnicalupward seepage flow ceases, soil particles start to pile up,

Society (JGS) 2002 and 2010) to verify behaviours

and effective stress is restored.

- 194 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi[i] before liquefaction[ii] shear deformation[iii] liquefaction[iv] after liquefactiona) The state variation of sandy soil caused by shear deformation[i] before liquefaction[ii] upward seepage flow[iii] liquefaction[iv] after liquefactionb) The state variation of sandy soil caused by upward seepage flow
Fig. 2The liquefaction mechanism (as in Ishihara (1998))

Steel tubular sheet pile(s) : The wall of soiltank is made from 26 no. tubular piles of
1000mm diameter. It is 7m square crosssection and 9m depth.
Water tank : The water reservoir tank, 11
no. Water tank utilize the inside of thetubular piles for the walls.
Drainage channel : The drainage channel
was provided so that the water
overflowing from the soil tank into thewater reservoir tank again.

2.3. Structure of equipment
As shown in Fig. 3, theexperiment apparatus consists of asoil tank by steel tubular sheet piles(hereafter tubular piles), a water
reservoir tank utilizing the inside of
the tubular piles, and a piping to
generate upward seepage flow froma) Plan view
Pump

P

Gravellayer
Water
supplypiping

9m

Sand
layer

the bottom of the soil tank. The soil

Water supply piping : Water in the water
reservoir tank has supplied from thebottom of the soil tank to generate upward
seepage flow.
Gravel layer : Material for providing a gap
installed around the supply piping so thatthe water pressure distribution in the soiltank rises uniformly.
Sandy layer : Single sand ground consistingof artificial material with controlled grain
size distribution.

tank was built in such a way that arectangular earth retaining wallwith an inner dimension of 7 m x 7
m was first built using 26 tubularpiles of diameter 1000mm, and thebottom slab was installed after the
inner soil was excavated, and theinner space was filled with sand. 26
tubular piles, 11 out of which areb) Cross section view

numbered, were connected to build

Fig. 3 Plan view and cross section view of tankan earth retaining wall for a water- 195 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Fig. 4

The grain size distribution curves

reservoir tank and has a total capacity of about 70 m3 (Fig.

grain size distribution at which liquefaction possibility3 a)). Since a large volume of water is required to maintain

was high. The grain size distribution of the selected

the liquefaction state for several tens of minutes, an open

Shimane sand (NSK-40) is shown by the solid circles,

channel was installed on the upper rim of the soil tank sowhile those of the gravel filter materials are shown bythat the water filled in the water reservoir could be

solid squares and solid triangles in Fig. 4. In selecting thecirculated.

filter materials, the concept of zone type filters used in the

An incline was given to the open channel, so thedesign of rockfill dams by Ohne (2006) was referred to.

overflown water could flow into Nos.1 and 11 tubular

After installing the pipe channel, a 200 mm thick Gravel-

piles. The water that flowed into the two tubular piles is

1 layer with an average particle size of 25 mm was set,collected in No. 6 tubular piles and pumped up from thefollowed by a 100 mm thick Gravel-2 layer with anbottom of the soil tank. The water that flowed inside theaverage particle size of 3.5 mm, and finally the layer ofground reached the ground surface, and flowed into the

NSK-40 with an average particle size of 0.31 mm. Table

open channel and returned back to the reservoir tank.

1 shows physical properties of NSK-40.

Repeating these stages, upward seepage flow can begenerated continuously and liquefaction state can be

Table 1.

Physical properties of soil (NSK-40)

continued for a certain amount of time.
A filter layer by gravel was installed to make thewater flow uniform, and to prevent sand particles fromflowing into the water supply piping through the holes
prepared along the piping (Fig. 3 b)).
3. Soil property
3.1. Model groundThe sand for the experiment was selected in such a

3.2. Relationship between the water discharge andexcess pore water pressure ratio
The liquefaction state of the ground is one in which

way that it would take some time for pore water pressure
to dissipate and was easily commercially available in large
amounts, among those described in The Ports & Harbours
Association of Japan (2007), especially from ones with apore water pressure supports the surcharge load that had
been supported by the soil particle contacts. It may be seenthat the pore water pressure is zero at the ground surface,- 196 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

and an upward seepage flow is generated by the waterhead difference caused by the occurrence of excess porewater pressure. The velocity of the seepage flow in the soil
v is given by the permeability k and a hydraulic gradient iby the Darcy’s law in Eq. (1).
(1)

v = k ・iThe hydraulic gradient at which soil particles become into
a floating condition is termed the critical hydraulicgradient, and is given by Eq. (2),i cr =

Fig. 6

G s -11+e(2)Model test of liquefaction systemamount of supplied water and the pore water pressure in
the sand layer were measured. Note the sand layer was

where Gs is the specific gravity of the soil particle and e isthe void ratio. When i≧α icr , liquefaction takes place.
Yamashita et al. (1981) carried out one-dimensional
permeability test, and presented a correction factor α using
Kyudai sand and Toyoura sand (Fig. 5), comparing the

prepared with a relative density of 53 %. In Fig. 7, flowrate Q is plotted against the excess pore water pressure
ratio ru. As shown in Eq. (3), ru is the ratio of the excess
pore water pressure u to the effective stress ’v0.
ru =measured critical hydraulic gradient obtained from thestate at which sand boil was confirmed by eye observation
with the value obtained using Eq. (2).
Based on this, an experiment was conducted to verify
the correction factor α of NSK-40 using a small soil tankshown in Fig. 6. Water was supplied through the holes
prepared in the bottom slab of the soil tank, and an upwardΔu
σ ' v0The flow rate Q at ru = 1 was taken as the flow rate at theoccurrence of liquefaction. Substituting Eq. (1) and thecoefficient of Yamashita et al. into Eq. (4) used to
calculate the amount of water supplied, α was calculatedusing Eq. (5),seepage flow was generated through the gravel layers. The

Fig. 5(3)

The gradation curves for preliminarily tests(Add with Uchida(1981))- 197 -

(4)

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

where Q is the amount of water, A is the cross-section of
the soil tank and α is the correction factor for the criticalhydraulic gradient. Fig. 8 shows the results of the smallscale model experiments added to the calculated
correction factor α and the experimental results by
Yamashita et al. (1981). Note that the correction factor α

Excess pore water pressure
ratio, ru

(5)

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

was calculated based on the uniformity coefficient Uc of0

NSK-40, since there was correlation between Uc and α.

2

4Flow rate [ℓ/min.]

6

8

With this, amount of water necessary to cause liquefaction
Fig. 7

Qest was estimated to be 1.35m3/min. from Eq. (5).

Relationship between flow rateand excess pore water pressure (using Fig.6 tank)

Based on these results, Q and ru were verified using
the model ground prepared in the large soil tank. Fig. 9
depicts Q, ru and estimated Qest. Four water pressure

3.0

sensors were installed at depths of 0.5, 2.5, 4.5 and 6.5 m

Yamashita(1981)

from the surface of the soil layer. The change in water

2.5

NSK-40αpressure was measured, generating upward seepage flow.
At a depth of 0.5 m, ru abruptly changed and it reachedKyudai sand

2.0

unity right after the beginning of the measurement. This
1.5

results from variable unit weight of the ground near the

Toyoura sandground surface, since the phreatic surface of the seepage

1.0

flow became 0.3 m higher than the ground surface of the01

model ground. The value of ru increased with the increase

2

3

4

Uc

in Q, and it was verified the ground at depths shallower
Fig. 8

Considering an average value of Q for the entire soil layer,
Qest is on the approximate line at a depth of 6.5 m,
suggesting that the average behaviour of the soil layer canbe represented by the relationship shown in Fig. 8.
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 10, it was verified that ru in the
ground could be maintained constant, if the amount of
supply water was kept constant.
3.3. Assumption of seismic ground motion
For the judgement of ground liquefaction, theExcess pore water pressure ratioruthan 6.5 m liquefied when Q was about 1.3m3/min.

Factor of critical hydraulic gradient

1.2

1.0
0.8
G.L. -0.5m
G.L. -2.5m
G.L. -4.5m
G.L. -6.5m
Qest.

0.6
0.4

0.50

0.70
0.90
1.10
1.30
Flow rate,Q [m3/min.]Fig. 9Relationship between flow rate

1.50

liquefaction resistance factor FL has been used in many
guidelines including the Specifications for Highway
Bridges (Japan road association (2017)). FL is the ratio ofand excess pore water pressure (using Fig. 3 tank)dynamic shear strength ratio R to the seismic shear stressratio L (Eq. (6) – (8)). The ground is judged to liquefy
when FL≤1. Fig. 11 shows the relationship between thevalue of FL in the model ground and the horizontal
acceleration on the ground surface.

FL = R / L
R=c W ・ R L
L=r d ・ k hgL ・ σ v / σ' v

(6)
(7)
(8)

Here, cw is modification factor on earthquake- 198 -

1.2

2.4

1.0

2.0

ru_G.L.-6.5m

0.8

0.6

1.6

1.2

Q

ru_G.L.-4.5m

0.4

0.8

ru_G.L.-2.5m

0.2

0.4

ru_G.L.-0.5m

0.0
0Flow rate, Q [m3/min.]

Excess pore water pressure ratioru

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

0.0

25

50

Photo 1.

Time [min.]Fig. 10

An example of time relationship between ru and Q

300

Horizontal acceleration, β [gal]

液状化によるタンクの傾斜・沈下・移動1）

Inclination and(神戸市長田区)
subsidence of tanks (Hamada, 2011)

TypeⅡ ground250

βLevel 2 (TypeⅡ）

200
150

β
Level 1,
Level 2 (TypeⅠ）

100
50
0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

FL
Fig. 11

Fig. 12 Sheet pile ring method

Relationshop beween FL and horizonal acceleration(Japan road association (2017))

the seismic intensity scale of the Meteorological Agency
ground motion, RL is cyclic triaxial shear stress ratio,in Japan.

rd is reduction factor of seismic shear stress ration in
depth direction, khgL is design horizontal seismic
coefficient, σv is total overburden pressure and σ’v is

4. Effect of liquefaction measure of oil tank
During the 1983 Japan Sea Earthquake and the 1995

effective overburden pressure (Referring to Japan

Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, settlement and tilting ofroad association (2017)).

oil tanks built on reclaimed land were caused by the soil

If the shear stress ratio of the model ground isliquefaction. Photo 1 shows examples of tilted oil tanks

estimated in terms of effective stress, the horizontal

caused by the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake. After thisacceleration on the ground surface for FL = 1, which is thedamage of the oil tanks, the Steel Sheet Pile Ring Method

condition where liquefaction occurs, is estimated to be 120

was developed as a liquefaction countermeasure. As

gals in Level 1 earthquake (seismic motion of a medium

shown in Fig. 12 by during steel sheet piles around theintensity and relatively high probability) and in Type 1 oftank foundation the shear deformation of the foundation

Level 2 earthquake (large marine earthquake that occurs

ground can be restrained. This construction method is also

at the tectonic plate boundaries with low frequency ofeffective to prevent lateral flow of liquefied soil.

occurrence), while it is estimated to be 167 gals in Type 2

The effect of this countermeasure on the reduction ofof Level 2 earthquake (inland earthquake directly below

tilting and settlement of the tanks was verified in an

major cities with extremely low frequency of occurrence ).

experiment with a 1:6 scale model. The model used for theThis is equivalent to seismic intensity of 5+, if referred toexperiment is shown in Fig. 13. In making the model, the- 199 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

similarity low in bending stiffness, and the embedded
depth was 2.2 m. A pile toe was set in a liquefiable layer.
In the figure, Tank-1 have liquefaction countermeasure,and the steel sheet pile rings and the foundation of the tankwere fixed. On the other hand, Tank-2 have noliquefaction countermeasures and were placed directly on
the ground surface. In the experiments, a weight was
installed to create eccentric load on the bottom slab of thetank, assuming sloshing vibration would occur (Photo 2).

Fig. 13 Model tankTwo experiments were carried out with different flowrate Q. Settlement and tilting of the tanks were obtained
from the static image (Photo 3) filmed during experiments.
Table 2 shows the ratios of settlements and tilting of thetanks with liquefaction countermeasures to those of thetanks without any. The duration of liquefaction in theexperiments was set at 10 minutes. In Case-1, the ratios
were about 10% for settlements and 0 % for tilting, while
they were about 60 % for settlements and 34 % for tilting
in Case-2. It is thought that the differences occurred
Photo 2.

because the upward seepage pressure increased with Q,

Sloshing (Hamada, 2014)

and the volume increase of the ground was large near the
ground surface, it became easier for the settlements andtilting to occur.
Fig. 14 shows the settlement reduction, together withthe results of existing researches. Honda (1994 and 1995)
and Sakemi et al. (1996) simulated the liquefaction
countermeasures of the tanks in the results of centrifugal
experiments. They embedded the toes of sheet piles
installed in a circular configuration into non-liquefiablesoil layer. While Kato (2014) conducted centrifuge(a) Before

experiments by shaking table on the effects of the sheet
pile wall surrounding house on liquefied ground. On theother hand, in the experiments described in this paper,liquefaction state differs depending on the suppliedamount of water as shown in Fig. 9. Using excess porepressures measured at 4 locations, ru at depths shallower
than 6.5 m was estimated by linear interpolation, and thethickness of liquefied layer h was defined for a range of ru≒ 1. The embedment ratio during experiments was(b) After
Photo 3.

calculated as the ratio of embedded depth to h and isSide viewshown in Fig. 14 by hollow circles. Though the shapes ofsimilarity low in the gravity field proposed by Tobita

the sheet pile configuration are different (rectangular in(2016) was referred to. Thin steel plates with creases in

Kato (2014), and circular in this study), the experimental

polygonal shape were used as steel sheet piles. The

results obtained here are consistent with what was

thickness of the steel plate was determined to satisfy theobtained by Kato (2014) in shaking table experiments, in- 200 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

which the connection condition between the sheet pile andthe tank was relatively similar.

Table 2.

Effectiveness of liquefaction countermeasure,settlement and inclination of model tanks

5. Conclusions

Condition

With countermeasure／No countermeasure
Settlement

Inclination

Case-1

Q [m3/min.]
0.7

0.06

0.00

Case-2

1.3

0.62

0.34

No.

From the results of the study, the following summaryand conclusions may be drawn:
1) A soil tank was built to simulate hydraulic gradientat the time of ground liquefaction by generating
upward seepage water flow in the model ground.

Honda (1994), (50G)
Sakemi (1996), (50G)
Kato (2014), (1G)

groundcouldbemaintained

constantby

Method,a

Settlement(with countermeasure) / (no countermeasure)2) It was verified that the strength of the model
controlling the upward water flow.
3) The

Steel

Sheet

countermeasure

Pile

againstRingliquefaction,

was1

Our test (1G) : Quick sand
Kato (2014), (1G) : Shaking table test
Others : Centrifuge test

0.8

simulated by a 1:6 scale model in the soil tank, andHonda (1995), (50G)
Kato (2014), (40G)
Our test (1G)

0.6

the pile settlements and inclinations were measured.
It was verified that the method had an effect to0.4

reduce pile settlements and inclinations even when
the steel sheet pile toe was in the liquefiable layer.

0.2

In future, liquefaction state will be verified not only
by ru, but by combining it with the change in σ’v toincrease accuracy in the evaluation of ground conditions,and to make use of the results in the development of new

0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Embedment length / Liquefaction layer depth

Fig. 14 Effectiveness of liquefaction countermeasureliquefaction countermeasures for the evaluation of their(add to Kato (2014))

effects.

The Japanese Geotechnical Society. 2002. Method for axial loadReferences
Hamada, M. 2017. Risks of coastal industrial facilities, Waseda
University press. (in Japanese)
Hayashi, K., Fujii, N., Muramatsu, T. and Houjyou, K. 1997.
Direct comparison of gravity model and centrifuge modelfor the seismic problem, Journal of Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 582, pp. 207-216.

test of single piles and commentaries. (in Japanese)
The Japanese Geotechnical Society. 2010. Method for lateralload test of piles and commentaries. (in Japanese)
Japan Road Association. 2017. Specifications for highway
bridges Part V: Seismic design. (in Japanese)
The Japanese Geotechnical Society. 1994. Introduction to modelexperiments in geotechnical engineering, The Japanese

Honda, M., Yamada, T., Hayashi, H. and Katoh, K. 1994.
Dynamic centrifuge test on verification of Steel sheet-piles
ring foundation method as antiliquefaction measure, Japan

Geotechnical Society. (in Japanese)
Kato, I., Hamada, M. Higuchi, S., Kimura, H. and Kimura, Y.
2014. Effectiveness of the sheet pile wall against house

National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering ， pp.

subsidence and tilting induced by liquefaction, Journal of

945-946. (in Japanese)

Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 14,

Honda, M., Obo, N., Yoshizako, K., Katoh, K. 1995.
Effectiveness of the steel sheet-piles ring foundation
method –Dynamic centrifugal loading experiment test

No.4, pp. 35-49. (in Japanese)
Kusano, K. 1989. Liquefaction-induced ground failures during
the 1923 Kanto earthquake in Tokyo lowland, Journal ofassuming non-contiguous steel sheet-piles ring- ， Japan

Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 406, pp. 213-222. (inAssociation for Earthquake Engineering Annual Meeting,Vol. 23, pp. 361-364. (in Japanese)
Ishihara, K. 1998. Basic soil mechanics, Kajima InstituteJapanese)
Mogami, T., Kubo, K. 1953. The behaviour of soil during

Publishing Co., Ltd. (in Japanese)- 201 -

vibration, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference onProceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Soil Mechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 152-155.

Japanese)

Ohne, Y. 2006. Geotechnical engineering, Gihodo shuppan Co.,

Yamashita, A. 1981. The Study of failure process and problems

Ltd., pp. 253-257. (in Japanese)for one-dimensional seepage model tests of sand, 16th

The Ports & Harbours Association of Japan. 2007. TechnicalJapan National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering,standards and commenaries for port and harbor facilities inJapan. (in Japanese)

pp. 1117-1120. (in Japanese)Tani, K. 2013. Suggestions for the use of E-defense to disaster

Sakemi, T., Tanaka, M. and Yuasa, Y. 1996. Settlements of oil

prevention in geotechnical engineering, 58th Geotechnicalstorage tank during liquefaction, Journal of Japan Societyof Civil Engineers, Vol. 547, pp. 57-65. (in Japanese)

Symposium, pp. 199-202. (in Japanese)
Tobita, T. 2016. Scaling law and centrifuge modeling in

Sangawa, A. 2008. Traces of pale-earthquakes observed at

geotechnical engineering, Engineering & Technology, Vol.

archaeological sites, Journal of Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Ser. C (Geosphere Engineering), Vol. 64, No. 3,

23, pp. 11-17. (in Japanese)
Uchida, I., Murata, S. 1981. On the study of shear strength of

pp. 672-679. (in Japanese)sand under seepage pressure, Journal of Japan Society of

Yasuda, S., 1988. From investigation of liquefaction tocountermeasures, Kajima Institute Publishing Co., Ltd. (in- 202 -

Civil Engineers, Vol. 310. (in Japanese)