Advertisement

Assessment of liquefaction potential of Guwahati city by probabilistic approaches

  • Binu SharmaEmail author
  • Amar F. Siddique
  • Bhaskar J. Medhi
  • Noorjahan Begum
Technical Note
  • 257 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection from GeoMEast 2017 – Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology

Abstract

This paper presents a probabilistic assessment of the liquefaction potential of Guwahati city, in the northeastern region of India, by using eight probabilistic approaches. Northeastern region of India is one of the six most seismically active regions of the world. The assessment was done for saturated cohesionless deposits. Probabilistic liquefaction assessment is done in terms of probability of liquefaction. According to many researchers, probability of liquefaction is a better index for assessment of liquefaction than factor of safety obtained by the deterministic approach. In this paper, a review of the eight probabilistic approaches has been done and a comparative study of liquefaction potential of soil sites susceptible to liquefaction has been done using the eight SPT-based probabilistic approaches. Most of the approaches are based on logistic regression analysis of field performance data to determine empirical equations for evaluating the probability of liquefaction. Departing from logistic regression approach others have used a Bayesian mapping function that relates reliability index and factor of safety to the probability of liquefaction. Standard penetration test (SPT) N values, engineering properties of the soils and depth of water table were taken from a database of 200 boreholes up to 30 m depth covering an area of 262 km2 in Guwahati city. In the absence of ground motion relation in Guwahati city, a design peak ground acceleration of 0.36 g was used since Guwahati falls in zone V, a high earthquake risk zone, according to the seismic zoning map of India. Liquefaction susceptibility from the methods is presented as maps showing zones of levels of risk of liquefaction. The SPT-based liquefaction evaluation probabilistic procedures have been found to yield significantly different predictions. Comparisons of the methods in the probabilistic approach have shown a difference in the values of probabilities in the same depth. However, on common comparison, the soil layers susceptible to liquefaction in different zones of the city have been identified. To get a further clear picture of soil layers susceptible to liquefaction, one-dimensional equivalent linear ground-response analysis was carried out to determine the peak horizontal ground surface acceleration.

Keywords

Liquefaction Standard penetration test Probability of liquefaction Peak horizontal ground acceleration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Geotechnical data of the 200 boreholes were taken from a project work given to Assam Engineering College, titled “Liquefaction potential determination of Guwahati city” funded by the Department of Science and Technology, India for Microzonation of Guwahati city. We acknowledge the help and assistance given by DST, India for the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Boominathan A et al (2008) Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):853–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138:1185–1195.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cetin KO et al (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1314.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fear CE, McRoberts EC (1995) Report on liquefaction potential and catalogue of case records. Dep Civil Eng, Internal Res. Rep.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual, p 137Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idriss IM (1999) An update of the Seed–Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. In: Proceedings of Transportation Research Board Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2004) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. In: 11th International conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering (ICSDEE) and the 3rd internationalconference on earthquake geotechnical engineering (ICEGE)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) Report on SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Center for geotechnical modeling. Dep Civil Environ Eng, DavisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juang CH et al (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(7):580.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juang CH et al (2012) New models for probability of liquefaction using standard penetration tests based on an updated database of case histories. Eng Geol J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seed HB et al (1985) The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 12(1425):1425–1445.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharma B, Hazarika P (2013) Assessment of liquefaction potential of Guwahati city, a case study. Int J Geotech Geol Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9667-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma B, Rahman SK (2016) Use of GIS based maps for preliminary assessment of subsoil of Guwahati city. J Geosci Environ Prot 2016(4):106–116Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toprak, S et al. (1999) CPT and SPT-based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential. In: 7th U.S.–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Youd TL, Noble SK (1997) Liquefaction criteria based on statistical and probabilistic analyses. NCEER Workshop onEvaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, NCEER TechnicalRep. No: NCEER-97-0022, 201–205Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM (eds) (1997) Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, UT, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering and Research, Technical Rep. NCEER-97-022, p 276Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Youd TL 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. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    IS (1893–2002) Part-1. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistance design of structures. BIS, New DelhiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentAssam Engineering CollegeGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations