Ground response analysis and liquefaction hazard assessment for Vishakhapatnam city

  • Swathi Priyadarsini PuttiEmail author
  • Neelima Satyam
Case Study


Liquefaction is a complex phenomenon where the soil is subjected to high strain levels due to dynamic loading at the time of seismic events, contributing to severe damage and collapse of the structures. The effect of liquefaction can be predicted in three stages, i.e., evaluation of susceptibility, hazard and deformations. Soil susceptibility to liquefaction can be assessed using the geotechnical properties such as grain size, age of the soil deposit, penetration resistance of the soil, whereas hazard can be assessed in terms of factor of safety estimated against liquefaction. In the present study, one-dimensional equivalent linear ground response analysis has been carried in the study area Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) and the surface peak ground acceleration (PGA) has been estimated using DEEPSOIL. The surface PGA values obtained have been used in liquefaction hazard assessment using stress-based method (SBM) and energy-based method (EBM). Hazard maps were generated from the estimated values of PGA and factor of safety against liquefaction (F L). The surface PGA values obtained are in the range of 0.09–0.14 g which are higher than 0.1 g (limiting value provided by Seismic code of India (IS: 1893-2002)). It is observed that the locations in the central part of the city are prone to higher accelerations comparatively. From liquefaction potential assessment, it is evident that most of the locations in northern and central parts of the city are prone to liquefaction. As the study area has two operational ports and is highly industrialized, findings from the present study will be helpful in retrofitting, analysis and design of structures, therefore, solving practical challenges in structural and geotechnical engineering.


Seismic energy Earthquake Liquefaction potential Surface peak ground acceleration Excess pore pressure 


  1. 1.
    Akhila M, Ghosh C, Satyam DN (Sep 2012) Detailed ground response analysis at Park Hotel in Kolkata city, India. In: 15 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Lisbon)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2009) Site classification and estimation of surface level seismic hazard using geophysical data and probabilistic approach. J Appl Geophys 68(2):219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (1997) Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity (No. Technical Report NCEER-97)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berrill JB, Davis RO (1985) Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction of sands: revised model. Soils Found 25(2):106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bird JF, Bommer JJ (2004) Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Eng Geol 75(2):147–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2004) Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Davis, California, p 131Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapman R, Lisle JC, Mo JN, Paul E, Simcock A, Willmott JC, Leslie JR, Price HG, Walker PM, Bacelar JC, Garrett JD (1983) Rotational behavior at high spin in Hf 168. Phys Rev Lett 51(25):2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis RO, Berrill JB (1982) Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction in sands. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 10(1):59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figueroa JL, Dahisaria N (1991) An energy approach in defining soil liquefaction. In: 2nd International conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamicsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Figueroa JL, Saada AS, Liang L, Dahisaria NM (1994) Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles. J Geotech Eng 120(9):1554–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ganapathy GP, Rajawat AS (2012) Evaluation of liquefaction potential hazard of Chennai city, India: using geological and geomorphological characteristics. Natl Hazards 64(2):1717–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo T, Prakash S (2000) Liquefaction of silt-clay mixtures. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. New Zealand Society for Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hashash Y, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, California, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D, Musgrove M (2012) DEEPSOIL 5.1, user manual and tutorial. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering–University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzer TL (2008) Probabilistic liquefaction hazard mapping. In: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idriss IM (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, vol 2, No. 4. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Idriss IM, Moriwaki Y, Wright SG, Doyle EH, Ladd RS (1980) Behavior of normally consolidated clay under simulated earthquake and ocean wave loading conditions. In: International symposium on soils under cyclic and transient loading, pp 437–445Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S, Sato H (1982) Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. In: Proceedings 3rd international conference on microzonation, Seattle, USA, pp 1319–1330Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kokusho T (2013) Liquefaction potential evaluations: energy-based method versus stress-based method. Can Geotech J 50(10):1088–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar BL, Rao GR, Rao KS (2012) Seismic hazard analysis of low seismic regions, Visakhapatnam: probabilistic approach. J Ind Geophys Union 16(1):11–20Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Law KT, Cao YL, He GN (1990) An energy approach for assessing seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 27(3):320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murthy KSR, Subrahmanyam AS, Subrahmanyam V (2012) Tectonics of the eastern continental margin of India. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Satyam ND, Towhata I (2016) Site specific ground response analysis and liquefaction assessment of Vijayawada city (India). Natl Hazards 81(2):705–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nemat-Nasser S, Shokooh A (1979) A unified approach to densification and liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic shearing. Can Geotech J 16(4):659–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Obermeier SF (1989) The new Madrid earthquakes: an engineering-geologic interpretation of relict liquefaction features. U.S. geological survey professional paper 1336-B, p 114Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramana CV, Bhaskar CH, Rao PP, Reddy TB (2015) Soil quality in four different areas of Visakhapatnam city, Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 4(1):528–532Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reddy PR, Chandrakala K (2004) Seismicity in and around Ongole, Andhra Pradesh-an appraisal. J Indian Geophys Union 8(2):143–146Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotechn J 35(3):442–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roy SK, Srinagesh D, Saikia D, Singh A, Kumar MR (2012) Seismic anisotropy beneath the Eastern Dharwar craton. Lithosphere 4:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Satyam DN (2006) Seismic microzonation of delhi region, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontal layered sites. Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Report No EERC 72-12Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seed HB, Peacock WH (1971) Test procedures for measuring soil liquefaction characteristics. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 97(8):1099–1119Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seed HB, Sun JI (1989) Implications of site effects in the Mexico City earthquake of Sept. 19, 1985 for earthquake-resistant design criteria in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, vol 89, No. 3. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P, Vinod JS (2009) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore. Nat Hazards 48(2):145–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Subba Rao N, Madhusudhana Reddy P (2006) Monitoring the groundwater quality in an urban area – An environmental impact assessment and management. J Appl Geochem 8:37–56Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Susumu Y (2000) Collection of surface data for the prediction of liquefaction potential (partially quoted from the papers by Ishihara and Yasuda (1991) and TC4 (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wakamatsu K, Yoshida N, Kiku H (2006) Liquefaction during the 2004 niigata-ken chuetsu earthquake—general aspect and geotechnical and geomorphologic conditions—. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshuu C 62:236–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, Miura K (2002) Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(3):205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Youd TL, Hoose SN (1977) Liquefaction susceptibility and geologic setting. In: Proceedings of 6th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 6, New Delhi, pp 37–42Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 Geotechn Geo Environ Eng 127(4):297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, EERCInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations