Abstract
This study has made the site response and liquefaction analysis of a solar power plant site in the northern part of Bangladesh. The site is situated in an area that is near to Himalayan thrust and home to numerous large earthquakes including the 1885 Bengal, the 1897 Great Indian, the 1930 Dhubri, the 1934 Bihar–Nepal, the 2011 Sikkim, and many other relatively smaller earthquakes. Because of the past seismicity and significance of the power plant site, seismic investigation has been performed in the seismic control region within a radius of 300 km from the center of the plant site. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) value at the bedrock level for a return period of 475 years for the site has been estimated to be 0.23 g. For the last few decades, the site coefficients are generally estimated from the mean shear wave velocity for the top 30 m of a location. The surface PGA of a location is equal to the product of the bedrock PGA and the estimated site coefficient. If the bedrock is located at a depth greater than 30 m below the ground, the site effect estimated from Vs30 cannot appropriately represent the site coefficient. For the study site, the bedrock is approximately 150 m below the ground. For loose sedimentary deposits of this site, the site coefficient based on Vs30 to assess the PGA on the surface is not suitable. In this research, site amplification factor based on Vs30, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear methods has been carried out to estimate the PGA at the surface of the site. In this site, the susceptibility of liquefaction has been estimated by utilizing 66 boreholes having SPT-N values at every 1.5 m distance from the surface to a depth of 20 m. Here liquefaction susceptibility has been assessed by applying Seed and Idriss’ simplified method, the Japanese method, and the Chinese method. The estimated LPI contours show that the soil up to a depth of 20 m for almost all the boreholes is highly susceptible to liquefaction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:94–127. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.94
Amiri GG, Mahdavian A, Dana FM (2007) Attenuation relationships for Iran. J Earthq Eng 11:469–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601034049
Ansary MA (2003) Status of earthquake risk mitigation in Bangladesh. In: 3rd WSSI Workshop on EQS, Bangkok
Ansary MA, Arefin MR (2020) Assessment of predominant frequencies in Dhaka city, Bangladesh using ambient vibration. Asian J Civ Eng 21:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00194-2
Ansary MA, Sharfuddin M (2002) Proposal for a new seismic zoning map for Bangladesh. J Civ Eng 30:77–89
Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019) Identification of shear modulus reduction and damping curve for deep and shallow sites: Kik-Net Data. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1643807
Bangladesh National Building Codes (2020) Housing and Building Research Institute and Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Baranowski J, Armbruster J, Seeber L, Molnar P (1984) Focal depths and fault plane solutions of earthquakes and active tectonics of the Himalaya. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 89:6918–6928. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB08p06918
Chandran D, Anbazhagan P (2020) 2D nonlinear site response analysis of typical stiff and soft soil sites at shallow bedrock region with low to medium seismicity. J Appl Geophys 179:104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104087
Chen W-P, Molnar P (1990) Source parameters of earthquakes and intraplate deformation beneath the Shillong Plateau and the Northern Indoburman Ranges. J Geophys Res Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB095iB08p12527
Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin
Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1363–1367
Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Kim B, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Stewart JP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142:04016042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496
Halldorsson B, Papageorgiou A (2005) Calibration of the specific barrier model to earthquakes of different tectonic regions. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:1276–1300. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040157
Hashash Y, Phillips C, Groholski D (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. International conference recent advance geotechnical earthquake engineering soil dynamics
He S, Wang X, Fan H, Wang H, Ren R, Guo C (2020) The study on loess liquefaction in China: a systematic review. Nat Hazards 103:1639–1669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04085-7
Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique 43:351–451. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351
Iwasaki TF, Tatsuoka K, Yasuda ST (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan, 2nd International conference on microzonation, San Franc, pp 885–896
Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F (1981) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the simplified procedure. International conference recent advance geotechnical earthquake engineering soil dynamics
Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida K-I (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(84)90027-5
Iyengar RN, Raghukanth STG (2004) Attenuation of strong ground motion in peninsular India. Seismol Res Lett 75:530–540
Jamali H, Tolooiyan A (2021) Effect of sand content on the liquefaction potential and post-earthquake behaviour of Coode Island Silt. Geotech Geol Eng 39:549–563
Kadirioğlu F, Kartal R, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman T, Eroğlu Azak T, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2018) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900–2012). Bull Earthq Eng 16:3317–3338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0064-8
Kaklamanos J, Baise L, Thompson E, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016
Karanjekar AR, Pachpor PD (2020) Experimental studies on liquefaction susceptibility and effect of fines (Silt) Using Shake Table Test. Helix 10:67–70
Kolathayar S, Thallak S (2012) Characterization of regional seismic source zones in and around India. Seismol Res Lett 83:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.77
Kolathayar S, Thallak S, Vipin KS (2012) Deterministic seismic hazard macrozonation of India. J Earth Syst Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0227-1
Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education, London
Kumar S, Dey A, Murali Krishna A (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear ground response analysis of two typical sites at Guwahati City
Le Dain AY, Tapponnier P, Molnar P (1984) Active faulting and tectonics of Burma and surrounding regions. J Geophys Res 89:453. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB01p00453
Li C, van der Hilst R, Meltzer A, Engdahl E (2008) Subduction of the Indian lithosphere beneath the Tibet Plateau and Burma. Earth Planet Sci Lett 274:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.07.016
Marcuson WF (1978) Definition of terms related to LIquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div 104:1197–1200
Molnar P, Fitch TJ, Wu FT (1973) Fault Plane solutions of shallow earthquakes and contemporary tectonics in Asia. Earth Planet Sci Lett 19:101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(73)90104-0
Rahman M, Siddiqua S, Kamal ASM (2021) Site response analysis for deep and soft sedimentary deposits of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 106:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04543-w
Raoof J, Mukhopadhyay S, Koulakov I, Kayal JR (2017) 3-D seismic tomography of the lithosphere and its geodynamic implications beneath the northeast India region. Tectonics 36:962–980. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016TC004375
Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 90:5479–5495. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479
Satyabala S (1998) Subduction in the Indo-Burma Region: is it still active? Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL02256
Satyabala SP (2003) Oblique plate convergence in the Indo-Burma (Myanmar) Subduction Region. Pure Appl Geophys 160:1611–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-003-2378-0
Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude. J Seismol 10:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9012-4
Seed H, Idriss I (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273
Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils 56
Sun H, Liu F, Jiang M (2015) Advancement of liquefaction assessment in Chinese building codes. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 26:012056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/26/1/012056
Tabassum T, Ansary M (2020) Strong ground motion in Bangladesh and north-east Indian region from 2005 to 2017 and its prediction of attenuation data during future earthquakes. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01410-6
Tatsuoka F, Iwasaki T, Tokida K-I, Yasuda S, Hirose M, Imai T, Kon-No M (1980) Standard penetration tests and soil liquefaction potential evaluation. Soils Found 20:95–111. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.20.4_95
Thokchom S, Pancholi V, Rastogi BK (2018) Liquefaction potential mapping in Dholera region of western India. Nat Hazards 92:479–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3214-2
Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72:373–382. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.72.3.373
Yin A (2006) Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation. Earth Sci Rev 76:1–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.05.004
Yin A, Harrison T (2000) Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan Orogen. Annu Rev Earth Plan Sci 28:211–280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.28.1.211
Youd T (2014) Ground failure investigations following the 1964 Alaska earthquake. NCEE 2014—10th US Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng. Front. Earthq. Eng. https://doi.org/10.4231/D3DN3ZW6P
Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:297–313. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:4(297)
Zhang W, Goh ATC (2016) Evaluating seismic liquefaction potential using multivariate adaptive regression splines and logistic regression. Geomech Eng 10(3):269–284
Zhang W, Goh ATC, Zhang YM et al (2015) Assessment of soil liquefaction based on capacity energy concept and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Eng Geol 188:29–37
Zhang Yg, Qiu J, Zhang Y (2021) The adoption of ELM to the prediction of soil liquefaction based on CPT. Nat Hazards 107:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04594-z
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ansary, M.A., Jahan, N. Site response and liquefaction susceptibility estimation of a site in northern part of Bangladesh. Environ Earth Sci 80, 781 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-10079-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-10079-w