Skip to main content

Liquefaction Hazard Mapping Using Various Types of Field Test Data

Abstract

The so-called “Simplified Method” is the current state-of-practice (SoP) for liquefaction hazard assessment. It is based on correlations between observed soil behaviour during seismic events and common in-situ soil properties, such as: standard penetration resistance (SPT-N), cone penetration resistance (CPT-q), or shear wave velocity (Vs). The method has been certified by the 1996 and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance for all three types of in-situ test results. The major objective of this study is to determine the liquefaction susceptibility of the IIT Patna campus soil and prepare microzonation maps. Results of extended in-situ soil test programs, comprising all three soil index properties mentioned above (SPT-N, CPT-q and Vs), are available for the campus of IIT Patna (about 500 acres in size). The study presents and compares hazard maps in terms of factor of safety for liquefaction and liquefaction potential index for all three types of field test results. Susceptibility for lateral spreading is also discussed. As a significant part of the campus subgrade consists of fine-grained soils, the potential for cyclic softening of these soils, as addressed by various SoP methods, is also analysed. All three methods indicated various degrees of liquefaction susceptibility for the “safety criterion” (assuming structural damage without collapse). The study analyses the details of the three approaches and concludes that the CPT-based method along with a comprehensive procedure for assessing liquefaction potential of soil with high fines content may be the most appropriate for a site such as the IIT Patna Campus.

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

Availability of Data and Materials

All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

No code was generated or used during the study.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Detailed numerical results are listed in Table S1, in the supplementary material.

  2. 2.

    The detailed FOS estimation using MASW data for test location M2 is shown in Table S2 in the supplementary material.

  3. 3.

    Detailed numerical results are listed in Table S3, in the supplementary material.

Abbreviations

a, b :

Curve fitting parameters for use with Vs criterion for evaluating liquefaction resistance

a max :

Peak acceleration at the ground surface

α, β :

Coefficients, that are functions of fines content used to correct (N1)60 to [(N1)60]CS

C B :

Correction factor for borehole diameter

C E :

Correction factor for hammer energy

C N :

Correction factor for overburden pressure applied to SPT

C Q :

Correction factor for overburden pressure applied to CPT

C R :

Correction factor for drilling rod length

C S :

Correction factor for split spoon sampler without liners

CPT:

Cone penetration test

CPT-q:

Measured cone resistance in a CPT test

CSR:

Cyclic stress ratio

CRR:

Cyclic resistance ratio

CRR7.5 :

Cyclic resistance ratio for Mw = 7.5 earthquakes

EPF:

East Patna fault

F :

Normalised friction ratio

F*:

Severity factor

f s :

Sleeve friction measured with CPT

FC:

Fines content

FOS:

Factor of safety

OF:

Frequency of failures

I c :

Soil behaviour type index for use with CPT liquefaction criterion

K c :

Correction factor for grain characteristics applied to CPT

K H :

Thin-layer correction factor for use with CPT

K α :

Correction factor for soil layers subjected to large static shear stresses

K σ :

Correction factor for soil layers subjected to large static normal stresses

LL:

Liquid limit

LPI:

Liquefaction potential index

MASW:

Multi-channel analysis of surface wave

MSF:

Magnitude scaling factor

M w :

Moment magnitude

n :

Exponent used to normalize CPT resistance for overburden stress

(N1)60 :

Corrected standard penetration resistance

(N1)60cs :

(N1)60 Adjusted to equivalent clean-sand value

PGA:

Peak ground acceleration

P a :

Atmospheric pressure, approximately 100 kPa

Q tn :

Normalised and dimensionless cone penetration resistance with a variable stress exponent n

Q t1 :

Normalised and dimensionless cone penetration resistance with the stress exponent for stress normalisation n = 1

(Q tn)cs :

Normalised and dimensionless clean sand equivalent cone penetration resistance with a variable stress exponent n

σ v 0 :

Total vertical stress

σ v 0′:

Effective vertical stress

r d :

Shear stress reduction coefficient

SBT:

Soil behaviour type

SPT:

Standard penetration test

SPT-N:

Measured number of blows in SPT test

SASW:

Spectral analysis of surface waves

τ av :

Average cyclic shear stress

V S :

Measured shear-wave velocity

V S1 :

Overburden-stress corrected shear-wave velocity

V S1 * :

Limiting upper value of VS1 for liquefaction occurrences

z :

Depth below ground surface (m)

WPF:

West Patna fault

References

  1. 1.

    Castro G, Poulos SJ (1977) Factors affecting liquefaction and cyclic mobility. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 103:501–516

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Popescu R, Prevost JH, Deodatis G, Chakrabortty P (2006) Dynamics of nonlinear porous media with applications to soil liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J Geotech Eng 111:384–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (1997) Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. In: Proceeding NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, pp 89–128

  6. 6.

    Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT 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. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2001)127:4(297)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35:442–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Rep No UCD/CGM-14

  9. 9.

    Robertson P (2009) Performance based earthquake design using the CPT. Perform Based Des Earthq Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1201/noe0415556149.ch1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, Yasuda S (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference microzonation safer construction research application, San Francisco, CA, USA, Washington, DC, pp 885–896

  13. 13.

    Sonmez H (2003) Modification of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol, Turkey). Environ Geol 44:862–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-003-0831-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ansal A, Erdik M, Studer J, Springman S, Laue J, Buchheister J, et al (2004) Seismic microzonation for earthquake risk mitigation in Turkey. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering

  15. 15.

    Ulusay R, Kuru T (2004) 1998 Adana-Ceyhan (Turkey) earthquake and a preliminary microzonation based on liquefaction potential for Ceyhan Town. Nat Hazards 32:59–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chakrabortty P, Pandey AD, Mukerjee S, Bhargava A (2004) Liquefaction assessment for microzonation of Kolkata city. In: 13th world conference earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp 1–6

  17. 17.

    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 82:12–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rao KS, Satyam DN (2007) Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region. Curr Sci 10:646–54

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Dixit J, Dewaikar DM, Jangid RS (2012) Assessment of liquefaction potential index for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Muley P, Maheshwari BK, Paul DK (2015) Liquefaction potential of Roorkee region using field and laboratory tests. Int J Geosynth Gr Eng 1:37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Park KH, Kim MG, Song YW, Chung CK (2017) Simplified procedure for LPI assessment using shear wave velocity. In: ICSMGE 2017—19th international conference on soil mechanics on geotechnical engineering, vol 2017, pp 1561–1564

  22. 22.

    Chakrabortty P, Kumar U, Puri V (2018) Seismic site classification and liquefaction hazard assessment of Jaipur City. India Indian Geotech J 48:768–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    BIS 1893 (Part 1). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures general provision and building. Bur Indian Stand Manak Bhawan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg 2016

  24. 24.

    Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Patel S (2015) Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters. Nat Hazards 78:1163–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1764-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Surfer. Surfer—Quick start guide 2018

  26. 26.

    Disaster Management Department (DMD) (2019) Government of Bihar. http://disastermgmt.bih.nic.in/Map/images/EarthquakeBig.gif

  27. 27.

    Sahu S, Raju NJ, Saha D (2010) Active tectonics and geomorphology in the Sone-Ganga alluvial tract in mid-Ganga Basin. India Quat Int 227:116–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sahu S, Saha D, Dayal S (2015) Sone megafan: a non-Himalayan megafan of craton origin on the southern margin of the middle Ganga Basin, India. Geomorphology 250:349–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Boulanger RW, Moug DM, Munter SK, Price AB, Dejong JT (2016) Evaluating liquefaction and lateral spreading in interbedded sand, silt, and clay deposits using the cone penetrometer. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on geotechnical geophysics site characterisation, ISC 2016, vol 1, pp 81–97

  30. 30.

    Central Ground Water Board (2015) Report on Pilot project on aquifer mapping in Maner-Khagaul area, Patna District, Bihar

  31. 31.

    Bolton Seed H, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111:1425–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, et al (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. In: Proceedings of 26th annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotech. Spring Semin. Long Beach, CA

  33. 33.

    Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1165–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2007) Evaluation of cyclic softening in silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthq Eng Res Institute

  36. 36.

    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:1015–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27:151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman RWI (2002) Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Can Geotech J 39:1168–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2003) Regulatory Guide 1.198. Report

  40. 40.

    Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanbe S, Yasuda S, Sato H (1982) Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on earthquake microzonation, Seattle, pp 1319–1330

  41. 41.

    Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida K-I (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3:49–58

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Herath P (2016) Calculating liquefaction potential of northern Mississippi using shear wave data. Peshani Herath

  43. 43.

    Ndoj A, Shkodrani N, Hajdari V (2015) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil using CPT and SPT. In: Proceedings of international conference on architect structural civil engineering, Antalya, Turkey, pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17758/ur.u0915314

  44. 44.

    Nasseri-moghaddam A, Provencal J, Bennett J (2011) Assessment of liquefaction potential at a site in Ottawa using SPT and shear wave velocities. 2011 Pan-Am CGS geotechnical conference, pp 2–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author (s) would like to thank Institute works department of IIT Patna for providing test data of SPT, CPT, and undergraduate student Mr Ashutosh Singh for providing some of the MASW test data conducted within the campus. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Funding

The first author acknowledges the Department of Higher Education (Govt. of India) for providing the funding in present research work to carry out the study for which no specific grant number is allotted.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Mr Nishant Nilay and Dr Pradipta Chakrabortty. Mr Nishant Nilay wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pradipta Chakrabortty.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author (s) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that can have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nilay, N., Chakrabortty, P. & Popescu, R. Liquefaction Hazard Mapping Using Various Types of Field Test Data. Indian Geotech J (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00570-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Liquefaction potential index
  • Standard penetration test
  • Cone penetration test
  • Shear wave velocity