Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 170, Issue 3, pp 299–318 | Cite as

Seismic Site Classification and Correlation between Standard Penetration Test N Value and Shear Wave Velocity for Lucknow City in Indo-Gangetic Basin

  • P. AnbazhaganEmail author
  • Abhishek Kumar
  • T. G. Sitharam
Article

Abstract

Subsurface lithology and seismic site classification of Lucknow urban center located in the central part of the Indo-Gangetic Basin (IGB) are presented based on detailed shallow subsurface investigations and borehole analysis. These are done by carrying out 47 seismic surface wave tests using multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) and 23 boreholes drilled up to 30 m with standard penetration test (SPT) N values. Subsurface lithology profiles drawn from the drilled boreholes show low- to medium-compressibility clay and silty to poorly graded sand available till depth of 30 m. In addition, deeper boreholes (depth >150 m) were collected from the Lucknow Jal Nigam (Water Corporation), Government of Uttar Pradesh to understand deeper subsoil stratification. Deeper boreholes in this paper refer to those with depth over 150 m. These reports show the presence of clay mix with sand and Kankar at some locations till a depth of 150 m, followed by layers of sand, clay, and Kankar up to 400 m. Based on the available details, shallow and deeper cross-sections through Lucknow are presented. Shear wave velocity (SWV) and N-SPT values were measured for the study area using MASW and SPT testing. Measured SWV and N-SPT values for the same locations were found to be comparable. These values were used to estimate 30 m average values of N-SPT (N 30) and SWV (V s 30 ) for seismic site classification of the study area as per the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil classification system. Based on the NEHRP classification, the entire study area is classified into site class C and D based on V s 30 and site class D and E based on N 30. The issue of larger amplification during future seismic events is highlighted for a major part of the study area which comes under site class D and E. Also, the mismatch of site classes based on N 30 and V s 30 raises the question of the suitability of the NEHRP classification system for the study region. Further, 17 sets of SPT and SWV data are used to develop a correlation between N-SPT and SWV. This represents a first attempt of seismic site classification and correlation between N-SPT and SWV in the Indo-Gangetic Basin.

Keywords

Subsurface lithology site classification deep basin NEHRP MASW SPT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Earth Science (MoES) for the funding project “Site Characterization of Lucknow urban centre with studies of Site Response and Liquefaction Hazard” ref. no. MoES/P.O.(Seismo)/23(656)/SU/2007. Thanks are also due to Jal Nigam, Government of Uttar Pradesh, India for providing necessary borehole data across Lucknow, which was found to be very useful in understanding the subsurface geology of Lucknow. Thanks go to Aditya Parihar and Naveen James for their help in conducting field studies.

References

  1. Aki, K., P. G. Richards, (1980), Quantitative seismology, W. H. freeman and Co. Google Scholar
  2. Ambraseys, N., and R. Bilham, (2003), Revaluated intensities for the Great Assam Earthquake of 12 June 1897, Shillong India, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93(2), 655–673.Google Scholar
  3. Anbazhagan P, Sitharam, TG, and Vipin K. S. (2009), Site classification and estimation of surface level seismic hazard using geophysical data and probabilistic approach, J. Appl. Geophys. 68(2), 219–230.Google Scholar
  4. Anbazhagan P., and Sitharam T. G. (2009), Spatial Variability of the Weathered and Engineering Bed rock using Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave Survey, Pure Appl. Geophys. 166(3), 409–428.Google Scholar
  5. Anbazhagan, P. and Sitharam, T. G. (2010), Relationship between Low Strain Shear Modulus and Standard Penetration Test ‘N’ Values, ASTM Geotech. Test. Jour. 33(2), 150–164.Google Scholar
  6. Anbazhagan, P., and Sitharam, T. G. (2008a), Mapping of Average Shear Wave Velocity for Bangalore Region: A Case Study, Journ. Environ. Eng. Geophy. 13(2), 69–84.Google Scholar
  7. Anbazhagan P. and Sitharam, T. G. (2008b), Site Characterization and Site Response Studies Using Shear Wave Velocity, Journ. Seism. Earthq. Eng. 10(2), 53–67.Google Scholar
  8. Anbazhagan, P., Thingbaijam K. K. S., Nath, S. K., Narendara Kumar, J.N. and Sitharam, T.G. (2010), Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India, J. Asian Earth Sci. 38, 186–198.Google Scholar
  9. Anbazhagan, P., P. Adithya and H. N. Rashmi (2011), Amplification Based on Shear Wave Velocity for Seismic zonation: Comparison of Empirical Relations and Site Response Results for Shallow Engineering Bedrock Sites, Geomechanics and Engineering, An International Journal, 3(3), 189–206.Google Scholar
  10. AnbazhaganP, AdityaParihar, H.N.Rashmi (2012), Review of correlations between SPT N and shear modulus: A new correlation applicable to any region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, published in on line, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.01.005.
  11. Athanasopoulos G. A. (1995), Empirical correlation Vs-N SPT for soils of Greece; a comparative study of reliability study of reliability, Proceedings of the 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering (Chania, Crete) A S Cakmak (Southampton: Computation Mechanics). 19–36.Google Scholar
  12. Bendick, R., Bilham, R., Fielding, S. E., Gaur, V., Hough, S. E., Kier, G., Kulkarni, M. N., Martin, S., Muller, K and Mukul, M. (2001), The January 26, 2001 “Republic Day” Earthquake, India, Seismol. Res. Lett. 72(3), 328–335.Google Scholar
  13. Boore, D. M. (2004), Estimating Vs (30) (or NEHRP Site Classes) from Shallow Velocity Models (Depth < 30 m), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94(2), 591–597.Google Scholar
  14. Borcherdt, R. D. (1994), Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification), Earthquake Spectra. 10, 617–653.Google Scholar
  15. BSSC (2003), “NEHRP recommended provision for seismic regulation for new buildings and other structures (FEMA 450), Part 1: Provisions,” Building Safety seismic council for the federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D. C. Google Scholar
  16. Dikmen, U., (2009), Statistical Correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils, J. Geophys. Eng. 6, 61–72.Google Scholar
  17. District Resource Map (DRM) (2001), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Geological Survey of India (GSI), Northern Region.Google Scholar
  18. Dorman, J., M. Ewing, (1962), Numerical inversion of seismic surface wave dispersion data and crust-mantle structure data in the New York-Pennsylvania area, J. Geophys. Res. 67, 5227–5241.Google Scholar
  19. Farrar, J.A., Nickell, J., Alien, M.G., Goble, G. and Berger, J. (1998), Energy loss in long rod penetration testing — Terminus Dam liquefaction investigation, Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conf. on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Seattle. 75, 554–567.Google Scholar
  20. Fujiwara, T. (1972), Estimation of ground movement in actual destructive earthquakes, Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Earthquake Engineering (London), 125–132.Google Scholar
  21. Hanumantharao C. and G. V. Ramana (2008), Dynamic Soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India, J. Earth. Syst. Sci. 117(S2), 719–730.Google Scholar
  22. Hasancebi N and R. Ulusay, (2007), Empirical correlation between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessment, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 66, 203–213.Google Scholar
  23. IBC (2009). International Building Code, published by International Codes Council. Google Scholar
  24. Imai T and K. Tonouchi (1982), Correlation of N value with S wave velocity and shear modulus, Proceedings of the 2nd Eurpean Symposium of Penetration Testing (Amsterdam). 57–72.Google Scholar
  25. Imai T, Fumoto H and K. Yokota, (1975), The relation of mechanical properties of soil to P and S wave velocities in Japan, Proceedings of the 4th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium (in Japanese). 89–96.Google Scholar
  26. Imai, T. and Yoshimura, Y. (1975), The relation of mechanical properties of soils to P and S wave velocities for ground in Japan, Technical note OYO Corporation.Google Scholar
  27. Imai T., (1977), P and S wave velocities of the ground in Japan, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 2, 127–32.Google Scholar
  28. IS 1498 (1970), Indian Standard Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes, First revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  29. IS 1892 (1974), Indian Standard code of Practice for subsurface investigation for foundations, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  30. IS 2131 (1981), Indian Standard, Method for standard penetration test for soils, First revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Google Scholar
  31. IS 2132 (1986), Indian Standard code of Practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils, Second revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  32. IS 1893 (2002), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 - General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  33. Iyisan R. (1996), Correlation between Shear wave velocity and in situ penetration test results, Tech. Journ. Chamber Civil Eng. Turkey (in Turkish). 7, 1187–99.Google Scholar
  34. Jafari M. K., A. Asghari and I. Rahmani (1997), Empirical correlation between shear wave velocity and SPT-N values for south of Tehran soils, Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. on Civil Engineering, (Tehran, Iran) (in Persian). Google Scholar
  35. JRA (Japan Road Association, 1980), Specification for Highway bridges. Part V, Earthquake Resistant design. Google Scholar
  36. Khan, K. (1874), Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, M. H., Bibl. India series, Calcutta.Google Scholar
  37. Khattri K. N. (1987), Great Earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential of earthquake disaster along the Himalayan plate boundary, Tectonophysics, 138(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  38. Koçkar, M. K., Akgün, H., and Rathje, E. M. (2010), Evaluation of site conditions for the Ankara Basin of Turkey based on seismic site characterization of near-surface geologic materials, Soil Dynam. Earthquake Eng. 30(1), 8–20.Google Scholar
  39. Kovacs, W.D., L. A. Salomone and F. Y. Yokel (1981), Energy Measurement in the Standard Penetration Test, U.S. Department of Commerce and National, Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C. Google Scholar
  40. Mahajan, A. K. and Virdi, K. S. (2001), Macroseismic field generated by 29 March, 1999 Chamoli Earthquake and its seismotectonics, J. Asian Earth Sci. 19(4), 507–516.Google Scholar
  41. Mahajan, A. K., R. J. Sporry, P. K. Champati Ray, R. Ranjan R, S. Slob and W. S. Van (2007), Methodology for site-response studies using multi-channel analysis of surface wave technique in Dehradun city, Curr. Sci. 92(7), 945–955.Google Scholar
  42. Mari, J. L., (1984), Estimation of static correction for shear wave profiling using the dispersion properties of Love waves, Geophysics. 49, 1169–1179.Google Scholar
  43. Mark, A.R. and J. D. Bray, N. A. Abrahamson (2001), An Empirical Geotechnical Seismic Site Response Procedure, Earthquake Spectra. 17(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
  44. Nadeshda, TNN, “Lucknow is on Earthquake List” Published online, Times of India. (2004), http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Lucknow-is-on-earthquake-list/articleshow/679471.cms (Last accessed on 11/1/2011).
  45. Nihon (2011), Liquefaction induced damages caused by the M 9.0 East Japan mega earthquake on March 11, 2011, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hisataka Tano, Nihon University, Koriyama Japan, with cooperation of save Earth co. and Waseda University. Google Scholar
  46. Ohba, S., and Tourima, I. (1970), Dynamic response characteristics of Osaka plain, Proceedings of Annual Meeting, AIJ (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  47. Ohsaki, Y. and R. Iwasaki (1973), Dynamic shear moduli and Poisson’s ratio of soil deposits, Soils and Foundation. 13, 61–73.Google Scholar
  48. Ohta, Y. and N. Goto (1978), Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 6(2), 167–87.Google Scholar
  49. Oldham, T. (1883), A catalogue of Indian earthquakes, Mem Geol. Surv. India, Geol. Surv. India. 19, 163–215.Google Scholar
  50. Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1999. Multi-channel analysis of surface waves, Geophysics 64(3), 800–808.Google Scholar
  51. PCRSMJUA “Project Completion Report of Seismic Microzonation of Jabalpur Urban Area”. (2005), published by Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. Google Scholar
  52. Pitilakis, K. (2004), Site Effects in Recent Advances in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation, Ed Ansal, A. Kluwer Academic Publications, Netherlands, 368, 139–197.Google Scholar
  53. Press, W. H., S. A. Teukosky, W. T. Vettering and B. P. Flannery, (1992), Numerical recipes in C: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  54. Raghukanth, S. T. G. and R. N. Iyengar (2007), Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in Peninsular India, Journ. Earth Syst. Sci. 116(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  55. Rajendran, C. P., K. Rajendran, K. H. Voha and A. S. Gaur (2003), The odds of seismic source near Dwarka, NW Gujarat: An evaluation based on Proxies, Curr. Sci. 84, 695–701.Google Scholar
  56. Rao, K. S. and Neelima, S. D. (2007), Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region, Curr. Sci. 92(5), 646–654.Google Scholar
  57. Sastri, V. V., Bhandari, L. L., Raju, A. T. R. and Datta, A. K. (1971), Tectonic framework and subsurface stratigraphy of the Ganga basin, J. Geol. Soc. India. 12(3), 222–233.Google Scholar
  58. Schmertmann, J. H. and A. V. Palacios, (1979), Energy dynamics of SPT, J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 105 (8), 909–926.Google Scholar
  59. Schwab, F. A. and L. Knopoff, (1972), Fast surface wave and free mode computation, In: Bolt, B. A. (Ed.), Methods in Computational Physics, Academic press, 87–180.Google Scholar
  60. Seed, H. B., Idriss I. M. and Arango I. (1981), Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data, Journ. Geo. Eng., ASCE. 109, 458–482.Google Scholar
  61. Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol, E. (2006), Determination of undrained strength of fine grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey, Eng Geol. 86(1), 52–69.Google Scholar
  62. SURFSEIS© Software for Multichannel Analysis of Surface 1006 Waves, Kansas Geological Survey, http://www.kgs.ku.edu/1007software/surfseis/index.html, last visited on 12/12/2011.
  63. Uma Maheshwari, R., Boominathan, A. and Dodagoudar, G. R. (2010), Use of surface waves in statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and Penetration Resistance of Chennai soils, Geotech Geol Eng, 28, 119–137.Google Scholar
  64. Vipin K. S., Anbazhagan P., Sitharam T. G. (2009), Estimation of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for South India with local site effects: probabilistic approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 865–878.Google Scholar
  65. Xia, J., Miller, R.D., Park, C.B., 1999. Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave, Geophysics 64(3), 691–700.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Anbazhagan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abhishek Kumar
    • 1
  • T. G. Sitharam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations