Assessment of Seismic Liquefaction of Soil Site at Mundra Port, India, Using CPT and DMT Field Tests

  • Pradnya Singbal
  • Santiram ChatterjeeEmail author
  • Deepankar Choudhury
Original Paper


Cyclic soil liquefaction in the past has resulted in severe damage to structures and lifeline services. Mostly, standard penetration test and cone penetration test (CPT) are used for evaluation of liquefaction; however, the dilatometer test (DMT) is better suitable due to its ability to detect soil stress history and aging. This study aims to compare the DMT-based cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) correlations available in the literature with well-established CPT-based CRR correlation at a site in Mundra, Gujarat, that had moderately liquefied in 2001 during the Bhuj earthquake. The available earthquake history is scaled using attenuation relationship for Peninsular India, and the peak ground acceleration is assessed by ground response analysis using the CPT data. The factor of safety (FSL) against liquefaction is evaluated using field data obtained from CPT and DMT. Also, Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI), settlement (S) and Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) are evaluated to determine the consequence of liquefaction, and the performance of the foundations supported on liquefied soil. The results verify the liquefaction damage observed in 2001 during the Bhuj earthquake and indicate that the site possesses a moderate risk of liquefaction. It shows that the site is susceptible to minor to moderate consequences of liquefaction, such as sand boils and small damage to existing structures. It also indicates that the CPT-based CRR correlation is conservative compared to DMT-based CRR correlation and warrants the use of independent DMT-based CRR correlations or use of at least two methods to assess liquefaction at critical sites.


Liquefaction Dilatometer test (DMT) Cone penetration test (CPT) Horizontal Stress Index (KDGround response analysis 



  1. 1.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone penetration test. J Geotech Eng 22(3):298–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT et al (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(10):817–833. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquake. Monograph MNO-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) OaklandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report UCD/CGM-10/02. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) SPT and CPT liquefaction triggering procedures. Report UCD/CGM-14/01, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Youd TL, Noble SK (1997) Liquefaction criteria based on statistical and probabilistic analyses. Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research SUNY Buffalo New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1314–1340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moss RES, Seed RB, Kayen RE, Stewart JP, Der Kiureghian A, Cetin KO (2006) CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(8):1032–1051. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2015) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng 106(3):299–321Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson PK (2015) Soil behavior type using the DMT. In: Proceedings of 3rd international flat dilatometer conference, RomaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monaco P, Marchetti S (2007) Evaluating liquefaction potential by seismic dilatometer (SDMT) accounting for aging/stress history. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, Paper No. 1626Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S, Choi S, Kim M, Lee W (2011) Effect of stress history on CPT and DMT results in sand. Eng Geol 117:259–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Calibrese M (2001)The flat dilatometer test (DMT) in soil investigations—a report by the ISSMGE committee TC16. In: Proceedings international conference on in-situ measurement of soil properties and case histories, Bali, pp 95–131Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamiolkowski M, Lo Presti M (1998) DMT research in sand: what can be learned from calibration chamber tests. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on site characterization ISCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamiolkowski M, Baldi G, Bellotti R, Ghionna V, Pasqualini E (1985) Penetration resistance and liquefaction of sands. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, pp 1891–1896Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marchetti S (1982) Detection of liquefiable sand layers by means of quasi-static penetration tests. In: Proceedings of 2nd European symposium on penetration testing, Amsterdam, pp 689–695Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1986) Estimating liquefaction potential of sands using the flat plate dilatometer. Geotech Test J 9(1):38–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reyna F, Chameau JL (1991) Dilatometer based liquefaction potential of sites in the imperial valley. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on recent advance in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, pp 385–392Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monaco P, Marchetti S, Totani G, Calabrese M (2005) Sand liquefiability assessment by flat dilatometer test (DMT). In: Proceedings of 16th ICSMGE-Osaka, pp 2693–2697Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grasso S, Maugeri M (2006) Using KD and Vs from seismic dilatometer (SDMT) for evaluating soil liquefaction. In: Proceedings 2nd international flat dilatometer conference, pp 281–288Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsai PH, Lee DH, Kung GTC, Juang CH (2009) Simplified DMT—based methods for evaluation liquefaction resistance of soils. Eng Geol 103:13–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertson PK (2012) Interpretation of in situ tests—some insight, Mitchell Lecture. In: Proceedings of ISC-4 Brazil, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marchetti S (2015) Incorporating the stress history parameter KD of DMT into the liquefaction correlations in clean uncemented sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    IS 1893: (Part 1) (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures—part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oldham RD (1926) The Cutch (Kachchh) earthquake of the 16th June 1819 with a revision of the great earthquake of the 12th June 1897. Mem Geol Surv 46(1926):1–77Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bardet JP, Rathje EM, Stewart JP (2002) 2001 Bhuj India earthquake reconnaissance report. Earthq Spectra 18:101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ediniger JM (2001) Gujarat (Kutch) India M7.7 earthquake of January 26, 2001 and Napa M 5.2 earthquake of September 3, 2000. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) Monograph 19. ASCEGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ESRI (2014) ArcGIS desktop release 10.2.1. Environmental Systems and Research Institute, Redland CAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iyenger RN, Raghukanth STG (2004) Attenuation of strong ground motion in peninsular India. Seismol Res Lett 75(4):530–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1. User manual. Urbana IL Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2008) Seismic microzonation principles practices and experiments India. EJGE Special Volume 8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yadav RBS, Tripathi J, Rastogi BR, Chopra S (2008) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard in Gujarat and adjoining region of India. Pure appl Geophys 165(9–10):1813–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60(2):541–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Andrus RD, Mohanan NP, Piratheepan P, Ellis BS, Holzer TL (2007) Predicting shear wave velocity from cone penetration resistance. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, paper no. 1454Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seed HB, Wong K, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 112(11):1016–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 117(1):89–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on microzonation for safer construction research and application, pp 885–896Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman RWI (2002) Estimating liquefaction induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Can Geotech J 39(5):1168–1180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ishihara K, Yoshimine M (1992) Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 32(1):173–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van Ballegooy S, Malan P (2013) Liquefaction vulnerability study. Earthquake Commission Tonkin and Taylor Ltd, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Ballegooy S, Green RA, Lees J, Wentz F, Maurer BW (2015) Assessment of various CPT based liquefaction severity index frameworks relative to the Ishihara (1985) H 1H 2 boundary curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:347–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Amoroso S, Rodrigues C, Fonseca AV, Cruz N (2015) Liquefaction evaluation of aveiro sands from SCPTU and SDMT tests. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on flat dilatometer, Rome, pp 293–300Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rollins K, Amoroso S, Hryciw R (2015) Comparison of DMT, CPT, SPT, and VS based liquefaction assessment on treasure island during the Loma Prieta earthquake. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on flat dilatometer, Rome, pp 349–356Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Geotechnical Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayPowai, MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations