Advertisement

Indian Geotechnical Journal

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 768–779 | Cite as

Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Hazard Assessment of Jaipur City, India

  • Pradipta Chakrabortty
  • Uttam Kumar
  • Vishal Puri
Technical Note
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) is one of the latest geophysical methods used for determining the shear wave velocity of the soil. A series of MASW tests were carried out in this study using a multi channel seismograph with 24 numbers of 4.5 Hz vertical geophones. Collected data were analysed using Surface Plus software. One-dimensional shear wave velocity models were developed from the analyses of the collected data for the Jaipur city. The average shear wave velocity (VS30) for the top 30 m of soil deposit was estimated for the Jaipur city. Based on this VS30 value, the Jaipur city was finally divided into various sub-zones as per the NEHRP guidelines. From the study it has been observed that all the studied areas are falling either in site class C or D. In top 15 m depth, almost all studied area is having average shear wave velocity less than 360 m/s. The estimated shear wave velocity data were used in the assessment of liquefaction potential of soil at various locations in the city. From the liquefaction potential results it can be concluded that most of the city area is not susceptible to liquefaction.

Keywords

Seismic hazard Geotechnical zonation Site characterization Shear wave velocity MASW Liquefaction 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The financial support provided by Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) under Research Grant No. SR/FTP/ETA-24/2012 is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Popescu R, Prevost JH, Deodatis G, Chakrabortty P (2006) Dynamics of nonlinear porous media with applications to soil liquefaction. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(6–7):648–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD (1970) Vibrations of soils and foundations. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iyengar RN (1999) Earthquakes in ancient India. Curr Sci 77:827–829Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geoscience Division (2011) Seismic microzonation manual. Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bansal BK, Vandana C (2007) Microzonation Studies in India: DST initiatives. In: Proceedings of workshop on microzonation, Indian Institute of Science, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahajan AK, Slob S, Ranjan R, Sporry R, Ray PKC (2007) Seismic microzonation of Dehradun City using geophysical and geotechnical characteristics in the upper 30 m of soil column. J Seismol 11(4):355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2008) Seismic microzonation: principles, practices and experiments. Electron J Geotech Eng, Special Volume Bouquet 08(61)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bullen KE (1963) An introduction to the theory of seismology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller RD, Xia J, Park CB, Ivanov J (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves to map bedrock. Lead Edge 18(12):1392–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stokoe II KH, Wright SG, Bay JA, Roesset JM (1994) Characterization of geotechnical sites by SASW method. In Woods RD (ed) Geophysical characterization of sites. ISSMGE Technical Committee#10. Oxford Publishers, New Delhi, pp 15–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Long M, Donohue S (2007) In situ shear wave velocity from MASW at eight Norwegian research sites. Can Geotech J 44:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boore DM (2003) A compendium of P- and S-wave velocities from surface-to-borehole logging: Summary and reanalysis of previously published data and analysis of unpublished Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report: 03-191Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheriff RE (1991) Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics, 3rd edn. Society of Exploration GeophysicistsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wills CJ, Silva W (1998) Shear-wave velocity characteristics of geologic units in California. Earthq Spectra 14(3):533–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boore DM, Brown LT (1998) Comparing shear wave velocity profiles from inversion of surface wave phase velocities with downhole measurements: systematic differences between the CSX method and downhole measurements at six USC strong motion sites. Seismol Res Lett 68:128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunter JA, Benjumea B, Harris JB, Miller RD, Pullan SE, Burns RA (2002) Surface and downhole shear wave seismic methods for thick soil site investigations. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology, vol I. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iyengar RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87:1193–1202Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Satyam DN, Rao KS (2009) Seismic site characterization in Delhi region using multi channel analysis of shear wave velocity (MASW) testing. Int J Earth Sci Eng 2(1):32–42Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pavlovic N (2006) Geotechnical zonation–principles, criteria and procedure. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21(3):228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64(3):800–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 64(3):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park CB, Miller RD (2004) MASW to map shear-wave velocity of soil. Kansas Geological Society, Open-file Report 2004-30Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park CB, Miller RD, Miura H (2002) Optimum field parameters of an MASW survey. In: Expanded abstracts: 6th international symposium society of exploration geophysics of Japan, Tokyo, May 22–23Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (FEMA 450), Part 1: provisions. Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uniform Building Code (1997) International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, vol 2Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dobry R, Borcherdt RD, Crouse CB, Idriss IM, Joyner WB, Martin GR, Power MS, Rinne EE, Seed RB (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthq Spectra 16(1):41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanli AI, Tildy P, Pronay Z, Pinar A, Hemann L (2006) Vs30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey. Geophys J Int 165(1):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boore DM (2004) Estimating Vs(30) (or NEHRP Site Classes) from shallow velocity models (depths < 30 m). Bull Seismo Soc Am 94(2):591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boore DM, Thompson EM, Cadet H (2011) Regional correlations of Vs30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bull Seismo Soc Am 101(6):3046–3059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Laio SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (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 Geo-environ Eng J ASCE 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    CGWB (2013) Ground water information, Jaipur District, Rajasthan. Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shelly EO, Mussio V, Rodriguez M, Chang JGA (2015) Evaluation of soil liquefaction from surface analysis. Geofísica Int 54(1):95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (1997) Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. In: Proceeding NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp 89–128Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geo-environ Eng ASCE 126(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kumar U (2016) Geotechnical zonation of Jaipur City, Master’s thesis, DCEE, Indian Institute of Technology PatnaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Geotechnical Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology PatnaBihtaIndia

Personalised recommendations