Liquefaction potential assessment of Guwahati city using first-order second-moment method

  • Longbir Singnar
  • Arjun SilEmail author
Technical Paper


Soil liquefaction is the failure of the soil due to the sudden increase in a pore water pressure causing the effective stress to reduce significantly thus losing shear strength, with the resulting effect causing the fluid type behavior of the soil. Guwahati city, the capital of Assam, lies in the northeastern region of India and this whole region is considered seismically very active (seismically sixth position globally). The whole region is categorized in Zone-V according to the seismic zoning map of India as per IS 1893:2002 (Part 1). This region witnessed/experienced several major and great earthquakes in the past such as 1897 Shillong and 1950 Assam earthquakes. The soil deposits of the city mainly consist of an alluvial type of Holocene age and the presence of shallow groundwater table makes it vulnerable to soil liquefaction. In this study, an assessment of soil liquefaction potential of Guwahati city is performed based on the methods proposed by Youd and Idriss (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:297, 2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010; CPT- and SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures, 2014) using standard penetration test data. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is carried out for 82 borehole sites considering the Great 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 with a peak ground acceleration of 0.36 g. In the deterministic approach, the various parameters are involved in the evaluation of liquefaction potential, and the uncertainties of the input parameters as well as model cause the dissimilarity of the result. For instance, the same input parameters for both the models show different factor of safety. Hence, a comprehensive probability approach considering the uncertainty of parameters is essential for the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. In this study, reliability analysis for both the models based on first- order second-moment method has been used. The Reliability Index based on input parameters such as cyclic resistance ratio and cyclic stress ratio computed for both the models and subsequent liquefaction probability are established. The result shows the city is in most vulnerable condition even up to 15 m depth considering both the methods proposed by Youd and Idriss (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:297, 2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010; CPT- and SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures, 2014). Therefore, extra measure should be taken while constructing structure in and around the study area.


Soil liquefaction SPT Peak ground acceleration Reliability Index 


  1. 1.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 97(SM9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering proceduresGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performances data. J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(3):458–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(12):1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on the evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(4):297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-10/02. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can Geotech J 1999(36):612–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan J (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(4):307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang JH et al (2004) A practical reliability-based method for assessing soil liquefaction potential. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng (Elsevier) 24(2004):761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jha SK, Suzuki K (2008) Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard penetration test. Comput Geotech (Elsevier) 36(2009):589–596Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hough SE, Bilham R, Ambraseys N, Feldl N (2005) Revisiting the 1897 Shillong and 1905 Kangra earthquakes in northern India: site response, Moho reflections and a triggered earthquake. Curr Sci 88(10):1632–1638Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Youd TL, Hoose SN (1977) Liquefaction susceptibility and geologic setting. In: Proceedings of the 6th world conference on earthquake engineering, New Delhi, India, vol 6, pp 37–42Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Youd TL, Perkins DM (1978) Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure potential. J Geotech Eng Div Am Soc Civ Eng 104:433–446Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell JK (1986) Practical problems from surprising soil behavior. J Geotech Eng 112(3):259–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell JK, Solymar ZV (1984) Time-dependent strength gain in freshly deposited or densified sand. J Geotech Eng 110(11):1559–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmertmann JH (1991) The mechanical aging of soils. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1288–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sil A, Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Tripura and Mizoram states. Nat Hazards (Springer publication) 68(2):1089–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zarola A, Sil A (2018) Forecasting of future earthquakes in the Northeast region of India. Comput Geosci (Elsevier Publication) 113:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zarola A, Sil A (2017) Artificial neural networks (ANN) and stochastic techniques to estimate earthquake occurrences in Northeast region of India. Ann Geophys INGV 60(4):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gupta HK, Singh VP (1980) Teleseismic P-wave residual investigations at Shillong, India. Tectonophysics 66:T19–T29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guha SK, Bhattacharya U (1984) Studies on the prediction of seismicity in northeastern India. In: Presented at the 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, 21–27 July 1984Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau pop-up during the great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature (Lond) 410:806–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seed HB (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 105(GT2):201–255Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liao SSC, Whitman RV (1986a) Catalogue of liquefaction and non-liquefaction occurrences during earthquakes. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liao SC, Whitman RV (1986b) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J GeotechEng ASCE 112(3):373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Christian JT, Baecher GB (2001) Discussion of Factor of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(8):700–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baecher GB, Christian JT (2001) Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raghukanth STGR, Dash SK (2010) Evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction at Guwahati city. Environ Earth Sci 2010(61):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raghukanth STG, Dash SK (2008) Stochastic modelling of SPT n-value and evaluation of probability of liquefaction at Guwahati city. J Earthq Tsunami 2(3):175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NIT Silchar IndiaSilcharIndia

Personalised recommendations