Skip to main content

Estimation of local site effects and seismic vulnerability using geotechnical dataset at flyover site Agartala India

Abstract

Considering future earthquakes, the vulnerability of Agartala city is following an increasing trend mainly due to the recent surge in population density and significant infrastructure developments. The recent moderate intensity earthquake at Tripura, namely the 2017 Dhalai Earthquake (Mw 5.7), with its epicentre being the adjoining district of Agartala, resulted in liquefaction cases, sand blows and lateral spreads, which may be an alarm for the geotechnical engineering fraternity. The present study attempts to evaluate local soil sites’ effect in the form of developing site-specific ground motions using stochastic point-source program SMSIM based on past scenario earthquakes in this region and performing one-dimensional nonlinear ground response analysis (1D GRA) of a recently constructed flyover site of 2.3 km length at Agartala city. Further, the seismic vulnerability of the flyover structure incorporating the local site effect is also assessed herein. The results obtained are explained in terms of surface acceleration time history, the ratio of shear stress to effective vertical stress with depth, acceleration response spectrum, Fourier amplitude ratio with frequency, etc. 1D GRA presented contrasting results with higher values of acceleration in areas with stiffer soils due to attenuation of the seismic waves. In general, the amplification ratio (Af) evaluated from the present study indicated that the central portion of the flyover yielded high values and a high fundamental frequency value of 6.0 Hz, which might be detrimental for low-lying buildings. The generated synthetic motions of scenario earthquakes will be helpful for researchers and designers for earthquake resistant assessment or design of geotechnical structures in north-eastern India or similar sites in the absence of site-specific data. Finally, this study sheds important observations on seismic design guidelines of the structure located in this region, which may revamp the existing codal procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

References

  • Abdelrahman K, Al-Amri A, Al-Otaibi N, Fnais M, Abdelmonem E (2019) Ground motion acceleration and response spectra of Al-Mashair area, Makkah Al-Mukarramah. Saudi Arabia Arab J Geosci 12(11):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Akin MK, Kramer SL, Topal T (2011) Empirical correlations of shear wave velocity (Vs) and penetration resistance (SPT-N) for different soils in an earthquake-prone area (Erbaa-Turkey). Eng Geol 119(1–2):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansal A, Kurtuluş A, Tönük G (2010) Seismic microzonation and earthquake damage scenarios for urban areas. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1319–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(4):1703–1729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):2181–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahuguna A, Sil A (2020) Comprehensive seismicity, seismic sources and seismic hazard assessment of Assam, North East India. J Earthquake Eng 24(2):254–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berilgen MM (2007) Evaluation of local site effects on earthquake damages of Fatih Mosque. Eng Geol 91(2–4):240–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIS 15736–2007 (2012), Geological exploration by geophysical method (Electrical Resistivity)

  • Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR, Suganthi A, Uma Maheswari R 2007. Seismic hazard assessment considering local site effects for microzonation studies of Chennai city. In: Proceedings of microzonation a workshop at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (pp. 94–104).

  • Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160(3):635–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2013) The uses and limitations of the square-root-impedance method for computing site amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(4):2356–2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Thompson EM (2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2541–2552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM 2005. SMSIM—Fortran programs for simulating ground motions from earthquakes: version 2.3—A revision of OFR 96–80-A. US geological survey open-file report, US Geological Survey open-file report 00–509, revised, 15, p.55.

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM 2014 CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM.-14, 1.

  • Brando G, Pagliaroli A, Cocco G, Di Buccio F (2020) Site effects and damage scenarios: the case study of two historic centers following the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Eng Geol 272:105647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF Jr, Kayen RE, Moss RE (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenvironm Eng 130(12):1314–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandran D, Anbazhagan P (2020) 2D nonlinear site response analysis of typical stiff and soft soil sites at shallow bedrock region with low to medium seismicity. J Appl Geophys 179:104087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury D, Savoikar P (2009) Equivalent-linear seismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL. Eng Geol 107(3–4):98–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury D, Phanikanth VS, Mhaske SY, Phule RR, Chatterjee K (2015) Seismic liquefaction hazard and site response for design of piles in Mumbai city. Indian Geotech J 45(1):62–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christenson GE (1994) Ground Shaking in Utah. Utah GeolSurv Public Inf Series 29:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Das S, Ghosh S, Kayal JR (2019) Liquefaction potential of Agartala City in Northeast India using a GIS platform. Bull Eng Geol Env 78(4):2919–2931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debbarma J, Martin SS, Suresh G, Ahsan A, Gahalaut VK (2017) Preliminary observations from the 3 January 2017, MW 5.6 Manu, Tripura (India) earthquake. J Asian Earth Sci 148:173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eker AM, Koçkar MK, Akgün H (2015) Evaluation of site effect within the tectonic basin in the northern side of Ankara. Eng Geol 192:76–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghofrani H, Atkinson GM, Goda K, Assatourians K (2013) Stochastic finite-fault simulations of the 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2B):1307–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giocoli A, Hailemikael S, Bellanova J, Calamita G, Perrone A, Piscitelli S (2019) Site and building characterization of the Orvieto Cathedral (Umbria, Central Italy) by electrical resistivity tomography and single-station ambient vibration measurements. Eng Geol 260:105195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2012) Site-specific earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city. India Natural Hazards 61(3):943–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta ID, Lee VW, Trifunac MD (2021) Seismic microzoning of Guwahati metropolitan area, Assam India. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 142:106562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2006) Evaluation of site amplification and site period using different methods for an earthquake-prone settlement in Western Turkey. Eng Geol 87(1–2):85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YM, Park D (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Eng Geol 62(1–3):185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-Champaign.

  • Hassan HM, Fasan M, Sayed MA, Romanelli F, ElGabry MN, Vaccari F, Hamed A (2020) Site-specific ground motion modeling for a historical Cairo site as a step towards computation of seismic input at cultural heritage sites. Eng Geol 268:105524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter WW, Cotton JS, Burn R, Meyer WS (1909) The imperial gazetteer of India clarenden. England, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jishnu RB, Naik SP, Patra NR, Malik JN (2013) Ground response analysis of Kanpur soil along Indo-Gangetic Plains. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 51:47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayal JR 2008 Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia. Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Khattri KM, Tyagi AK (1983) Seismicity patterns in the Himalayan plate boundary and identification of the areas of high seismic potential. Tectonophysics 96(3-4):281–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Kumar D, Rastogi BK (2014) Source parameters and scaling relations for small earthquakes in the Kachchh region of Gujarat, India. Nat Hazards 73(3):1269–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mammo T (2005) Site-specific ground motion simulation and seismic response analysis at the proposed bridge sites within the city of Addis Ababa. Ethiopia Eng Geol 79(3–4):127–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlab V 2010. 7.10. 0 (R2010a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.

  • Mitra S, Priestley K, Bhattacharyya AK, Gaur VK (2005) Crustal structure and earthquake focal depths beneath northeastern India and southern Tibet. Geophys J Int 160(1):227–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty WK, Walling MY, Nath SK, Pal I (2007) First order seismic microzonation of Delhi, India using geographic information system (GIS). Nat Hazards 40(2):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty WK, Mohapatra AK, Verma AK, Tiampo KF, Kislay K (2016) Earthquake forecasting and its verification in northeast India. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk 7(1):194–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukhopadhyay M, Dasgupta S (1988) Deep structure and tectonics of the Burmese arc: constraints from earthquake and gravity data. Tectonophysics 149(3-4):299-322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura Y 1989 A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Railway Technical Research Institute, Quarterly Reports, 30(1).

  • Nakamura Y 1997 Seismic vulnerability indices for ground and structures using microtremor. In: World congress on railway research in Florence, Italy.

  • Olson SM, Mei X, Hashash YM (2020) Nonlinear site response analysis with pore-water pressure generation for liquefaction triggering evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 146(2):04019128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagliaroli A, Aprile V, Chamlagain D, Lanzo G, Poovarodom N (2018) Assessment of site effects in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, during the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake sequence using 1D and 2D numerical modelling. Eng Geol 239:50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papathanassiou G, Pavlides S, Ganas A (2005) The 2003 Lefkada earthquake: field observations and preliminary microzonation map based on liquefaction potential index for the town of Lefkada. Eng Geol 82(1):12–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco JF, Sykes LR (1992) Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes, 1900 to 1989. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 82(3):1306–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putti SP, Devarakonda NS, Towhata I (2019) Estimation of ground response and local site effects for Vishakhapatnam. India Natural Hazards 97(2):555–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghukanth STG (2008) Simulation of strong ground motion during the 1950 Great Assam earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 165(9):1761–1787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghukanth STG, Nadh Somala S (2009) Modeling of strong-motion data in northeastern India: Q, stress drop, and site amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(2A):705–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghukanth STG, Singh KD, Pallav K (2009) Deterministic seismic scenarios for Imphal City. Pure Appl Geophys 166(4):641–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman T (2012) Seismological model parameters for northeastern and its surrounding region of India. Earthq Sci 25(4):323–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MZ, Siddiqua S, Kamal AM (2016) Shear wave velocity estimation of the near-surface materials of Chittagong City, Bangladesh for seismic site characterization. J Appl Geophys 134:210–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MZ, Siddiqua S, Kamal AM (2021) Site response analysis for deep and soft sedimentary deposits of Dhaka City. Bangladesh Natural Hazards 106(3):2279–2305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranjan R 2005 Site response analysis of Dehradun city. M. S. Thesis submitted to the international institute for geo-information science and earth observation, India

  • Roy N, Sahu RB (2012) Site specific ground motion simulation and seismic response analysis for microzonation of Kolkata. Geomech Eng 4(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha R, Debnath R, Dash S, Haldar S (2020) Engineering reconnaissance following the magnitude 5.7 Tripura earthquake on 3 January, 2017. J Perform Constr Facil 34(4):04020052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sana H, Nath SK, Gujral KS (2019) Site response analysis of the Kashmir valley during the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake (M w 7.6) using a geotechnical dataset. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(4):2551–2563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB 1970 Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. EERC.

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Foundations Division 97(9):1249–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma ML, Douglas J, Bungum H, Kotadia J (2009) Ground-motion prediction equations based on data from the Himalayan and Zagros regions. J Earthquake Eng 13(8):1191–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma ML, Malik SHIPRA 2006 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and estimation of spectral strong ground motion on bed rock in north east India. In: 4th International conference on earthquake engineering (pp. 12–13).

  • Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012a) Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat. Nat Hazard 12(6):2019–2037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012b) Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60(2):541–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil A, Sitharam TG (2014) Dynamic site characterization and correlation of shear wave velocity with standard penetration test ’N’values for the city of Agartala, Tripura state. India Pure Appl Geophys 171(8):1859–1876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil A, Sitharam TG (2016) Site specific design response spectrum proposed for the capital city of Agartala, Tripura. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7(5):1610–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil A, Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Tripura and Mizoram states. Nat Hazards 68(2):1089–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil A, Sitharam TG, Haider ST (2015) Probabilistic Models for Forecasting Earthquakes in the Northeast Region of India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(6):2910–2927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil A 2018 Stochastic simulation of rock level motion for Indo- Bangladesh border earthquake (1988) of magnitude (Mw 5.9) in North East India, Disaster Adv, pp.45–56.

  • Singh NM, Rahman T, Wong IG (2016) A new ground-motion prediction model for Northeastern India (NEI) crustal earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(3):1282–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Ordaz M, Dattatrayam RS, Gupta HK (1999) A spectral analysis of the 21 May 1997, Jabalpur, India, earthquake (Mw= 5.8) and estimation of ground motion from future earthquakes in the Indian shield region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(6):1620–1630

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitharam TG (2021) The quintessence of 25 Years of our contributions to geotechnical earthquake engineering. Indian Geotech J 51(1):3–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Seismic hazard analysis of India using areal sources. J Asian Earth Sci 62:647–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szeliga W, Hough S, Martin S, Bilham R (2010) Intensity, magnitude, location, and attenuation in India for felt earthquakes since 1762. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(2):570–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari RP (2000) Earthquake hazards and mitigation in India with special reference to northeastern India. ENVIS Bull 8(2):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck T, Goutbeek F, Haak H, Dost B (2006) Seismic hazard due to small-magnitude, shallow-source, induced earthquakes in The Netherlands. Eng Geol 87(1–2):105–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma RK, Mukhopadhyay M, Ahluwalia MS (1976) Earthquake mechanisms and tectonic features of northern Burma. Tectonophysics 32(3–4):387–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma RK, Mukhopadhyay M (1977) An analysis of the gravity field in northeastern India. Tectonophysics 42(2–4):283–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu W, Sieh K 2013 Active tectonic features that pose a seismic threat to Bangladesh. A report published by Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme.

  • Zhou YG, Chen J, Chen YM, Kutter BL, Zheng BL, Wilson DW, Stringer ME, Clukey EC (2017) Centrifuge modeling and numerical analysis on seismic site response of deep offshore clay deposits. Eng Geol 227:54–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The material presented in this paper benefited from significant interactions from time to time with Professor David M. Boore, USGS emeritus geophysicist, for generating synthetic ground motions. We thank CE Testing Engineering Consultants Agartala for providing the geotechnical dataset and valuable feedback for conducting this research. The first and second authors are grateful to the MHRD for providing research assistantship during the entire period of research. The authors sincerely acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and editor for providing their valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

KB and RS were involved in conceptualization and methodology; KB helped in data curation and software; KB and RS contributed to formal analysis and investigation; KB, RS and RD were involved in writing-original draft preparation; KB, RS and RD helped in writing-review and editing; RS helped in resources and supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajib Saha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Edited by Dr. Aybige Akinci (ASSOCIATE EDITOR) / Prof. Ramón Zúñiga (CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).

Appendices

Appendix 1

Sample calculation in case of BH 14 subjected to Assam 1950 input motion for determination of structural vulnerability.

Structural vulnerability, \(K_{sg(e)}\)

$$K_{sg} (e) = e \times \left( {\frac{3b}{{h^{2} }}} \right)/(4\pi^{2} ) \times \left( {\frac{{A_{Sg} }}{{F_{S}^{2} }}} \right)$$

Lateral stiffness of structure, \(K_{str}\)

$$K_{str} = \frac{12 \times E \times I}{{H_{str}^{3} }} = \frac{{12 \times 295804 \times 10^{4} \times 0.97}}{{3^{3} }} = 12.78 \times 10^{8} kg/m$$

Fundamental time period of structure

$$T_{{{\text{fixed}}}} = 2\pi \sqrt {\frac{m}{{K_{str} }}}$$
(18)

\(m\) = mass of flyover structure participated in first mode of vibration.

Mass of Pier, m

Length of pier = 1.80 m.

Breadth of pier = 2.00 m.

Height of pier = 3.00 m.

Density of M35 concrete = 2400 kg/m3.

Mass of pier, m = 25,920 kg

$$T_{{{\text{fixed}}}} = 2 \times \pi \times \sqrt {\frac{25920}{{12.78 \times 10^{8} }}} = 0.028$$
$$F_{s} = \frac{1}{{T_{{{\text{fixed}}}} }} = 35.71$$

\(A_{sg} = 1.13\) for BH 14

$$K_{sg} (e) = e \times \left( {\frac{3b}{{h^{2} }}} \right)/(4\pi^{2} ) \times \left( {\frac{{A_{Sg} }}{{F_{S}^{2} }}} \right)$$

\(= \frac{{3 \times 2 \times 35.71^{2} }}{{3^{2} \times 4 \times \pi^{2} \times 1.13}}\) = 18.70.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bashir, K., Debnath, R. & Saha, R. Estimation of local site effects and seismic vulnerability using geotechnical dataset at flyover site Agartala India. Acta Geophys. 70, 1003–1036 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-022-00753-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-022-00753-3

Keywords

  • Earthquake
  • Ground motions
  • Ground response analysis
  • Vulnerability
  • Amplification