Journal of Earth System Science

, Volume 117, Supplement 2, pp 833–852 | Cite as

Seismic microzonation of Bangalore, India

Article

Abstract

In the present study, an attempt has been made to evaluate the seismic hazard considering local site effects by carrying out detailed geotechnical and geophysical site characterization in Bangalore, India to develop microzonation maps. An area of 220 km2, encompassing Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) has been chosen as the study area. Seismic hazard analysis and microzonation of Bangalore are addressed in three parts: in the first part, estimation of seismic hazard is done using seismotectonic and geological information. Second part deals with site characterization using geotechnical and shallow geophysical techniques. In the last part, local site effects are assessed by carrying out one-dimensional (1-D) ground response analysis (using the program SHAKE2000) using both standard penetration test (SPT) data and shear wave velocity data from multichannel analysis of surface wave (MASW) survey. Further, field experiments using microtremor studies have also been carried out for evaluation of predominant frequency of the soil columns. The same has been assessed using 1-D ground response analysis and compared with microtremor results. Further, the Seed and Idriss simplified approach has been adopted to evaluate the soil liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction resistance assessment. Microzonation maps have been prepared with a scale of 1:20,000. The detailed methodology, along with experimental details, collated data, results and maps are presented in this paper.

Keywords

Seismic hazard site characterization SPT MASW ground response analysis liquefactions Microzonation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aki K and Richards P G 1980 Quantitative Seismology; Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson G M and Boore D M 1995 Ground-motion Relations for Eastern North America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85(1) 17–30.Google Scholar
  3. Bansal B K and Vandana C 2007 Microzonation Studies in India: DST initiatives; Proceedings of Workshop on Microzonation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 1–6.Google Scholar
  4. Boore D M 1983 Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73 1865–1894.Google Scholar
  5. Boore D M 2003 Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method; Pure Appl. Geophys. 160 635–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bullen K E 1965 An introduction to the theory of seismology; Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  7. Cetin K O, Seed R B, Kiureghian A D, Tokimatsu K, Harder L FJr., Kayen R E and Moss R E S 2004 Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential; Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 12 1314–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobry R, Borcherdt R D, Crouse C B, Idriss I M, Joyner W B, Martin G R, Power M S, Rinne E E and Seed R B 2000 New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions; Earthquake Spectra 16 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganesha Raj K and Nijagunappa R 2004 Major Lineaments of Karnataka State and their Relation to Seismicity; Remote Sensing Based Analysis, J. Geol. Soc. India 63 430–439.Google Scholar
  10. GovindaRaju L, Ramana G V, HanumanthaRao C and Sitharam T G 2004 Site specific ground response analysis, Special section; Geotechnics and Earthquake Hazards, Curr. Sci. 87(10) 1354–1362.Google Scholar
  11. Heaton, Tajima T F and Mori A W 1986 Estimating Ground motions using recorded Accelerograms; Surveys in Geophysics 8 25–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang H and Huo J R 1997 Attenuation relations of ground motion for rock and soil sites in eastern United States; Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 16 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Idriss I M and Boulanger R W 2004 Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes; Proc. 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (eds) Doolin D et al, Stallion Press, 1 32–56.Google Scholar
  14. Idriss I M and Sun J I 1992 User’s Manual for SHAKE91; Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis, CA, USA, 12.Google Scholar
  15. Imai T and Tonouchi K 1982 Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus; Proceedings, 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam 57–72.Google Scholar
  16. Iyengar R N and Raghukanth S T G 2004 Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion in Peninsular India; Seismological Research Letters 75(4) 530–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanli A I, Tildy P, Pronay Z, Pinar A and Hemann L 2006 V s 30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey; Geophysics J. Int. 165 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakamura Y 1989 Earthquake Alarm System for Japan Railways; Japanese Railway Engineering 28(4) 3–7.Google Scholar
  19. Pearce J T and Baldwin J N 2005 Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping ST. Louis, Missouri and Illinois — Final Technical Report; Published in web.er.usgs.gov/reports/abstract/2003/cu/03HQGR0029.pdf.
  20. Regulatory Guide 1.165 1997 Identification and characterization of seismic sources and determination of safe shutdown earthquake ground motion; Published by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USNRC, March 1997.Google Scholar
  21. Schnabel P B 1973 Effects of Local Geology and Distance from Source on Earthquake Ground Motion; Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  22. Schnabel P B, Lysmer J and Seed H Bolton 1972 SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley: Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12: 102.Google Scholar
  23. Seed H B and Idriss I M 1971 Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential; Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 97(9) 1249–1274.Google Scholar
  24. Seed H B and Idriss I M 1970 Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, Rep. No. EERC-70/10.Google Scholar
  25. Seed H B, Idriss I M and Arango I 1983 Evaluation of Liquefaction potential Using Field Performance Data; J. Geotech. Engg. 9(3) 458–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seed H B, Tokimatsu K, Harder L F and Chung R M 1985 The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations; J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE 111(12) 1425–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SEISAT 2000 Seismotectonic Atlas of India; Published by Geological Survey of India.Google Scholar
  28. Sitharam T G and Anbazhagan P 2007 Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bangalore Region; Natural Hazards 40 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sitharam T G, Anbazhagan P and Ganesha Raj K 2006 Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore; Natural Hazards Earth System Sci. 6 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sitharam T G, Anbazhagan P and Mahesh G U 2007 Liquefaction Hazard Mapping using SPT Data; Indian Geotechnical Journal 37(3) 210–226.Google Scholar
  31. Sitharam T G, Srinivasa Murthy B R and Aravind Kolge 2001 A Post-Mortem of the Collapse of Structures in Ahmedabad during the Bhuj Earthquake; Proceedings, Indian Geotechnical Conference I 344–347.Google Scholar
  32. TC4-ISSMGE 1999 Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazard; Revised edition, Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (TC4) of the International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE), 209.Google Scholar
  33. Tripathi J N and Ugalde A 2004 Regional estimation of Q from seismic coda observations by the Gauribidanur seismic array (southern India); Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 145 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wells D L and Coppersmith K J 1994 New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84 975–1002.Google Scholar
  35. Xia J, Miller R D and Park C B 1999 Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave; Geophysics 64(3) 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Youd T L, Idriss I M, Andrus R D, Arango I, Castro G, Christian J T, Dobry R, Liam Finn W D, HarderJr. L H, Hynes M E, Ishihara K, Koester J P, Liao S S C, Marcuson W F, Marting G R, Mitchell J K, Moriwaki Y, Power M S, Robertson P K, Seed R B and Stokoe K H 2001 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils; Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(10) 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations