Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obtaining the surface PGA from site response analyses based on globally recorded ground motions and matching with the codal values

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 29 June 2016

Abstract

Destructive moderate to major earthquakes across the globe have highlighted various possible forms and extent of damages. Subsoil properties play a vital role in controlling the actual damage scenario. Induced effects such as liquefaction and landslide are also the functions of surface ground shaking. In the present work, site response analyses based on equivalent linear model using SHAKE2000 are attempted to assess the surface scenario. In the absence of recorded data at the site under consideration, globally recorded ground motions from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research database are considered. Site response analyses results show variation in amplification factor as high as 7.4. Post-filtering of the analyses results has been proposed in this work considering the site condition as well as the design requirements. Based on the filtering, the above value of amplification factor has been reduced to 2.5. This reduction will considerably affect the design values and subsequently the construction cost. In addition, the value of surface peak ground acceleration proposed in this work matches closely with the earlier published literature as well as the codal provisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2008) Site characterization and site response studies using shear wave velocity. J Seism Earthq Eng 10(2):53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2009) Spatial variability of the weathered and engineering bed rock using multichannel analysis of surface wave survey. Pure Appl Geophys 166(3):409–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Kumar JN, Sitharam TG (2010a) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India. J Asian Earth Sci 38(5):186–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2010b) Site response of Deep soil sites in Indo-Gangetic plain for different historic earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, California 3.21b: 12

  • Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2011) Amplification factor from intensity map and site response analysis for the soil sites during 1999 Chamoli earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Indian young geotechnical engineers conference, New Delhi pp 311–316

  • Anbazhagan P, Parihar A, Rashmi HN (2012) Review of correlations between SPT N and Shear Modulus: a new correlation applicable to any region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 36:52–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansal A, Tonuk G (2007) Source and site factors in microzonation. In: KD Pitilakis (eds) Earthq Geotech Eng 73–92

  • Ashford SA, Warrasak J, Panitan L (2000) Amplification of Earthquake Ground Motions in Bangkok. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering 1466

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program, PEER rep. No 2011/xx. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE (1998) Three proposals for characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic response. J Struct Eng 124(11):1281–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia SC, Ravi MK, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofis 42:1153–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 8(1):43–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR, Suganthi A, Maheshwari RU (2008) Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provision for seismic regulation for new buildings and other structures (FEMA 450). Part 1: provisions, building safety seismic council for the federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

  • Chen JC (1997) Site response studies for magnitude 7.25 Hayward Fault Earthquakes, Independent Seismic evaluation of the 24-580-980 connector ramps. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, UCRL-CR-123201, 2

  • Deodatis D (1996) Non-stationary stochastic vector processes: seismic ground motion applications. Probab Eng Mech 11:145–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai SS, Choudhury D (2014) Spatial variation of probabilistic seismic hazard of Mumbai and surrounding region. Nat Hazards 17(1):1873–1898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai SS, Choudhury D (2015) Site specific seismic ground response study for Nuclear power plants and ports in Mumbai. Nat Hazards Rev. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000177,04015002

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorourdian M, Vucetic M (1995) A direct simple shear device for measuring small-strain behavior. Geotech Test J 18(1):69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPRI (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motion. Palo Alto, CA, Electric Power Research Institute, 1, EPRI TR-102293

  • EERI (2012) The M w 6.9 Sikkim Nepal Border Earthquake of September 18, 2011, EERI special earthquake report. https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/Sikkim-EQ-report-FINAL_03-08.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2014

  • Govindraju L, Bhattacharya S (2008) Site Response studies for Seismic hazard analysis for Kolkata city. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics, pp 2899–2907

  • Haselton CB, Baker JW, Bozorgnia Y, Goulet CA, Kalkan E, Luco N, Shantz T, Shome N, Stewart JP, Tothong P, Watson-Lamprey J, Zareian F (2009) Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings. PEER technical report 2009/01, Berkeley, California 288

  • IS 1498 (1970) Indian standard classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes. First revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • IS 1892 (1974) Indian standard code of practice for subsurface investigation for foundations. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • IS 2131 (1981) Indian standard, method for standard penetration test for soils. First revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • IS 2132 (1986) Indian Standard code of Practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils. Second revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • IS 1893 (2002) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyenger RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87(9):1193–1202

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain SK, Murthy CVR, Jaswant NA, Rajendran CP, Rajendran K, Sinha R (1999) Chamoli (Himalaya, India) Earthquake of 29 March 1999. EERI special report 33 (7)

  • Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley California earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2011–2038

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, Mundepi AK (2007) Site response studies in Dehradun: First Step towards microzonation. In Natural Hazards, Spl Vol IGC, Proceedings of Indian Geological Congress, pp 175–181

  • Kennedy R, Short S, Merz K, Tokarz F, Idriss I, Power M, Sadigh K (1984) Engineering characterization of ground motion—Task I: effects of characteristics of free field motion on structural response. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Khattri KN, Rogers AM, Perkins DM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics 108:93–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kılıc H, Özener PT, Ansal A, Yıldırım M, Özaydın K, Adatepe S (2006) Microzonation of Zeytinburnu region with respect to soil amplification: a case study. J Eng Geol 86:238–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Sitar N (2007) Probabilistic analysis of seismic slope stability. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on geotechnical safety and risk, Tongji University, China

  • Kolathayar S, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2011) Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across India and adjoining area. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9898-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL, Mitchell RA (2006) Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation. Earthq Spectr 22(2):413–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krawinkler H, Medina R, Alavi B (2003) Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions. Eng Struct 25(5):637–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2012) Site specific ground response study of deep Indo-Gangetic Basin Using representative regional ground motions, Geo-Congress, State of art and practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Oakland California, paper no. 1065

  • Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2013) seismic hazard analysis of Lucknow considering local and active seismic gaps. Nat Hazards 69:327–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan AK, Virdi KS (2001) Macroseismic field generated by 29 March, 1999 Chamoli Earthquake and its Seismotectonics. J Asian Earth Sci 19(4):507–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavroeidis GP, Dong G, Papageorgiou AS (2004) Near-fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(9):1023–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2010) GIS-based soil liquefaction susceptibility map of Mumbai city for earthquake events. J Appl Geophys 70(3):216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2011) Geospatial contour mapping of shear wave velocity for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards 59(1):317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoES (2014) A report on seismic hazard microzonation of NCT Delhi on 1:10,000 scale. Technical report by Ministry of Earth Science, Government of India

  • Naik N, Choudhury D (2013) site specific ground response analysis for typical sites in Panjim city, Goa. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, Roorkee, India

  • Nihon (2011) Liquefaction induced damages caused by the M 9.0 East Japan mega earthquake on March 11, 2011, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hisataka Tano, Nihon University, Koriyama Japan, with cooperation of save Earth co. and Waseda University

  • Ohsaki Y, Iwasaki R (1973) On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson’s ratio of soil deposits. Soils Found 13(4):61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou A, Halldorsson B, Dong G (2000) Target Acceleration Spectra Compatible Time Histories. University of Buffalo NY

  • Parvez IA, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips WS, Aki K (1986) Site amplification of coda waves from local earthquakes in central California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:627–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitilakis K (2004) Site effects, recent advances in earthquake geotechnical engineering and microzonation. Geotech Geol Earthq 1:139–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao H, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):719–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao H, Ramana GV (2009) Site specific ground response analyses at Delhi, India. Electron J Geotech Eng 14:1–16

  • Romero SM, Rix GJ (2005) Ground motion amplification of soils in the upper Mississippi embayment. Report no. GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1, National Science Foundation Mid America Earthquake Center

  • Sastri VV, Bhandari LL, Raju ATR, Datta AK (1971) Tectonic framework and subsurface stratigraphy of the Ganga basin. J Geol Soc India 12(3):222–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel PB (1973) Effect of local geology and distance from source on earthquake ground motion. Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE—a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no. EERC 72-12. University of California Berkeley

  • Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Jacob KH (1999) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard for the state of Maharashtra. Report to Government of Maharashtra Earthquake Rehabilitation Cell, Mumbai

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report no. EERC 70-10. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Eng 97:1249–1273

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng 109(3):458–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semblat JF, Duval AM, Dangla P (2000) Numerical analysis of seismic wave amplification in Nice (France) and comparison with experiments. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:347–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, ML, Narayan JP, Rao KS (2004) Seismic microzonation of Delhi region in India. In: Proceedings 13th world conference of earthquake engineering, Vancouver Canada, paper no. 2043

  • Sharma ML, Wason HR (2004) Estimation of Seismic Hazard and Seismic zonation at bedrock level at Delhi region. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference of earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper no, 2046

  • Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012a) Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 12:2019–2037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012b) Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60(2):541–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slob S, Hack R, Scarpas T, Bemmelen V, Duque A (2002) A methodology of seismic microzonation GIS and SHAKE-A case study from Armenia, Colombia. In: Proceedings of the 9th congress of the international association for engineering geology and the environment, Durban, South Africa, September 16–20

  • Srivastava VK, Roy AK (1982) Seismotectonics and seismic risk study in and around Delhi region. In: Proceedings of 4th congress international association of engineering geology, New Delhi, III, pp 77–86

  • Srivastava LS, Somayajulu JG (1966) The seismicity of the area around Delhi. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on earthquake engineering, Roorkee, pp 417–422

  • Stewart JP, Liu AH, Choi Y, Baturay MB (2001) Amplification factors for spectral acceleration in active regions. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, PEER report 2001/10

  • Stewart JP, Chiou SJ, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA (2002) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2(9–12):765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP, Andrew HL, Yoojoong C (2003) Amplification factors for spectral acceleration in tectonically active regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(1):332–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Report no. EERC 88-15. University of California, Berkeley

  • Tandon AN (1953) The very great earthquake of August 15, 1950. A compilation of papers on the Assam earthquake of August 15, 1950 (compiled by M.B. Ramachandra Rao). The Central Board of Geophysics, Govt. of India, 80–89

  • Topal T, Doyuran V, Karahanoglu N, Toprak V, Suzen ML, Yesilnacar E (2003) Microzonation for earthquake hazards: Yenisehir settlement, Bursa, Turkey. Eng Geol 70(1):93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wills CJ, Silva W (1998) Shear wave velocity characteristics of Geological units in California. Earthq Spectr 14(3):533–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

In order to develop guidelines for future borehole drilling and site response analysis, this work has been treated as a research problem. Authors are thankful for the client to share the borehole data without whom to come up with such observations would be impossible and the design team of L&T Geostructure, Chennai, to provide necessary borehole data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India

    Abhishek Kumar, Olympa Baro & N. H. Harinarayan

Authors
  1. Abhishek Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olympa Baro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. H. Harinarayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Kumar.

Ethics declarations

The authors with their full knowledge ensure here that this work has not been submitted to any other journal in any form. Also the work presented here is original to this manuscript. Proper referencing has been done for all the necessary works published previously. In case the work is found matching or similar to other works, the Journal authorities have full right to reject the work and take needful action.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, A., Baro, O. & Harinarayan, N. Obtaining the surface PGA from site response analyses based on globally recorded ground motions and matching with the codal values. Nat Hazards 81, 543–572 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2095-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2095-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation