Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of synthetic acceleration time histories for seismic ground response studies for site classes C to E for Bihar region: a case study

  • Case Study
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study presents a detailed analysis of the seismic ground responses for Bihar region, India. The research focuses on the development of synthetic acceleration time histories for ground response studies, which are essential for assessing the seismic vulnerability of structures in earthquake-prone region. This study utilizes EXSIM computer program to develop region-specific acceleration time histories due to the lack of recorded motion. The synthetic acceleration time histories were further used for region-specific ground response studies (GRS). Further, two different methods, equivalent linear (EL) method and nonlinear (NL) method, have been utilized to estimate the structural design parameters. The results from both methods can be utilized for ground response studies depending on the local soil site condition and the requirement of structural design parameters. It was also noticed that the amplification factor (AF) obtained from NL method is nearly 20–45% less than EL method. A high value of shear strain obtained from NL method, in comparison with EL method, hints that NL method can be adopted to understand the variations of shear strain within the soil deposits. The results of the study help to understand the seismic ground response in the Bihar region and can also be used to develop a seismic microzonation map of the region, which is crucial for mitigating the impact of earthquakes on structures and infrastructure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Some of the data obtained during this study are already included in this manuscript. However, the remaining data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority) (2014) National disaster management guidelines, seismic retrofitting of deficient buildings and structures. Government of India. NDMA, New Delhi, India. https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/NDMA/16.pdf

  2. Bird J, Bommer J (2004) Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Eng Geol 75(2):147–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New York, p 673

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar P, Kumar SS, Harinarayan HN (2023) Development of synthetic ground motion-based attenuation relationship for Bihar Region for seismic ground response analysis considering central seismic gap. Manuscript accepted for publications in Annals of Geophysics

  5. Hassan SA, Shitote SM, Kiplangat DC (2022) Predictive models to evaluate the interaction effect of soil-tunnel interaction parameters on surface and subsurface settlement. Civ Eng J 8(11):1–21. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-11-05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kumar S, Muley P, Madani SN (2022) Ground response analysis and liquefaction for Kalyani region, Kolkata. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23680-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhusal B, Aaqib M, Paudel S, Parajuli HR (2022) Site specific seismic hazard analysis of monumental site Dharahara, Kathmandu, Nepal. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 13(1):2674–2696. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2130109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yildiz Ö (2022) Seismic site characterization of Battalgazi in Malatya, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 15(9):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10170-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawan CK, Maskey PM, Motra G (2022) A study of local soil effect on the earthquake ground motion in Bhaktapur City, Nepal using equivalent linear and non-linear analysis. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00858-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nguyen VQ, Aaqib M, Nguyen DD, Luat NV, Park D (2020) A site-specific response analysis: a case study in Hanoi, Vietnam. Appl Sci 10(11):3972. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Basu D, Dey A, Kumar SS (2017) One-dimensional effective stress non-masing nonlinear ground response analysis of IIT Guwahati. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 8(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGEE.2017010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shahri AA, Esfandiyari B, Hamzeloo H (2011) Evaluation of a nonlinear seismic geotechnical site response analysis method subjected to earthquake vibrations (case study: Kerman Province, Iran). Arab J Geosci 4:1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-009-0120-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shahri AA, Esfandiyari B, Rajablou R (2012) A proposed geotechnical-based method for evaluation of liquefaction potential analysis subjected to earthquake provocations (case study: Korzan earth dam, Hamedan province, Iran). Arab J Geosci 5:555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0199-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Desai SS, Choudhury D (2015) Site-specific seismic ground response study for nuclear power plants and ports in Mumbai. Nat Hazards Rev 16(4):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Singhai A, Kumar SS, Dey A (2016) Site-specific 1-D nonlinear effective stress GRA with pore water pressure dissipation. In: Proceeding of 6th Int Conf on recent Adv in Geotech Earthq Eng and Soil Dyn, New Delhi, p 11

  16. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear ground response analysis of two typical sites at Guwahati city. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference (IGC-2013), Kakinada, India, p 10

  17. Nandy DR (2007) Need for seismic microzonation of Kolkata megacity. In: Proceedings of workshop on microzonation. Indian Institute of science, Bangalore, India, p 2627

  18. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2018) High strain dynamic properties of perfectly dry and saturated cohesionless soil. Indian Geotech J 48:549–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0255-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ullah S, Younas SW, Asim M, Fahad M, Fahim M (2022) Site effects study in the Peshawar District using seismic noise. Civ Eng J 8(4):751–764. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-04-010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar SS, Krishna AM (2013) Seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites of Guwahati City. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 4:83–101. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgee.2013010106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2018) Response of saturated cohesionless soil subjected to irregular seismic excitations. Nat Hazards 93(1):509–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3312-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Anbazhagan P (2018) Study on the variations of ground motion parameters with distance for Mw 6.9 Sikkim 2011 earthquake. ISET J Earthq Tech 55:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ayele A, Woldearegay K, Meten M (2023) Seismic hazard evaluation using site response analysis and amplitude parameters at Hawassa town, Main Ethiopian Rift. Arab J Geosci 16(3):212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11301-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar S, Muley P, Madani SN (2022) Ground response analysis and liquefaction for Kalyani region, Kolkata. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23680-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ansari A, Zahoor F, Rao KS, Jain AK (2023) Seismic response and vulnerability evaluation of Jammu Region (Jammu and Kashmir). Indian Geotech J 53(3):509–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00694-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Silahtar A (2022) Evaluation of local soil conditions with 1D nonlinear site response analysis of Arifiye (Sakarya District), Turkey. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05695-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reddy MM, Hanumantha Rao C, Reddy KR, Kumar GK (2021) Site-specific ground response analysis of some typical sites in Amaravati region, Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Geotech J 52(1):39–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00562-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sisodiya SK, Kumar P, Kumar SS (2023) Site-specific GRA to quantify ground motion amplification for Bettiah Site: a case study. Lect Notes Civ Eng 300(2001):453–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6998-0_39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 Geophy 179:104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dammala PK, Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Bhattacharya S (2019) Dynamic soil properties and liquefaction potential of northeast Indian soil for non-linear effective stress analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 17:2899–2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00592-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Satyam ND, Towhata I (2016) Site-specific ground response analysis and liquefaction assessment of Vijayawada city (India). Nat Hazards 81(2):705–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2166-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. IS 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-general provision and buildings. (Sixth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  33. Raghukanth STG (2008) Ground motion estimation during the Kashmir earthquake of 8th October 2005. Nat Hazards 46:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9178-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Raghukanth STG (2008) Simulation of strong ground motion during the 1950 Great Assam earthquake. Pure Appl Geophy 165:1761–1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-008-0403-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ramkrishnan R, Sreevalsa K, Sitharam TG (2022) Strong motion data based regional ground motion prediction equations for North East India based on non-linear regression models. J Earthq Eng 26(6):2927–2947. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1778586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Choudhury P, Roy KS, Kamra C, Chopra S (2022) Development of empirical relationship between the observed and the estimated ground acceleration values of small to moderate earthquakes in northwest (Gujarat) and northeast (NE) regions of India. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 13(1):364–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2028906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Raghukanth STG, Kavitha B (2014) Ground motion relations for active regions in India. Pure Appl Geophy 171:2241–2275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-014-0807-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013) Ground motion prediction equation considering combined dataset of recorded and simulated ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nath SK, Raj A, Thingbaijam KKS, Kumar A (2009) Ground motion synthesis and seismic scenario in Guwahati city-a stochastic approach. Seismol Res Lett 80:233–242. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.2.233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for the Bangalore Region. Nat Hazards 40:261–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0012-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Beresnev I, Atkinson G (2002) Source parameters of earthquakes in eastern and western North America based on finite-fault modelling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2):695–710. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dewey JF, Bird JM (1970) Mountain belts and the new global tectonics. J Geophys Res 75:2625–2647. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB075i014p02625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 2–4:47

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hayes GP (2017) The finite, kinematic rupture properties of great-sized earthquakes since 1990. Earth Planet Sci Lett 468:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay M, Nandy DR (1987) Active transverse features in the central portion of the Himalaya. Tectonophysics 136:255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(87)90028-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Burnwal ML, Burman A, Samui P, Maity D (2017) Deterministic strong ground motion study for the Sitamarhi area near Bihar-Nepal region. Nat Hazards 87:237–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2761-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dasgupta S, Narula PL, Acharyya SK, Banerjee J (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs, Geological Survey of India New Delhi. ISBN: ISSN: 02540436

  48. Ghosh T, Mukhopadhyay A (2013) Schematic natural hazard zonation of Bihar using geoinformatics: a schematic approach. Springer Cham Publisher, p 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04438-5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Verma AK, Pati P, Sharma V (2017) Soft sediment deformation associated with the East Patna Fault south of the Ganga River, northern India: influence of the Himalayan tectonics on the southern Ganga plain. J Asian Earth Sci 143:109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2017.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Patel S (2015) Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters. Springer, Netherlands, vol 78(2), pp 1163–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1764-0

  51. Choudhury SK (1975) Gravity and crustal thickness in the Indo-Gangetic plains and Himalayan Region, India. Geophys J Rres Astron Soc 40:441–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1975.tb04141.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Joshi DD, Bhartiya SP (1991) Geomorphic history and lithostratigraphy of a part of Eastern Gangetic plain, Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 78(37):569–576

    Google Scholar 

  53. Harinarayan NH, Kumar A (2020) Ground motion prediction equation for north India, applicable for different site classes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Çakır Ö, Coşkun N (2021) Theoretical issues with rayleigh surface waves and geoelectrical method used for the inversion of near surface geophysical structure. J Hum Earth Futur 2(3):183–199. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2021-02-03-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Çakır Ö, Coşkun N (2022) Dispersion of rayleigh surface waves and electrical resistivities utilized to invert near surface structural heterogeneities. J Hum Earth Futur 3(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2022-03-01-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sreejaya KP, Raghukanth STG, Gupta ID, Murty CVR, Srinagesh D (2022) Seismic hazard map of India and neighbouring regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 163:107505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (1987) Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard-rock sites in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:440–467. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0770020440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(06):865–1894. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA07306A1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kanno T, Narita A, Morikawa N, Fujiwara H, Fukushima Y (2006) A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(3):879–897. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019) Comprehensive amplification estimation of the Indo Gangetic Basin deep soil sites in the seismically active area. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 127:105855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Beresnev IA, Atkinson GM (2002) Source parameters of earthquakes in eastern and western North America based on finite-fault modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:695–710. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Singh R, Khan PK (2021) Crustal configuration and seismic stability of the Eastern Indian shield and Adjoining Regions: insights for incidents of great earthquakes in the Nepal-Bihar-Sikkim Himalaya. Front Earth Sci 9:586152. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.586152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Mukhopadhyay S, Kayal JR (2003) Seismic tomography structure of the 1999 Chamoli earthquake source area in the Garhwal Himalaya. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1854–1861. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019) Regional stochastic GMPE with available recorded data for active region–application to the Himalayan region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 126:105825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kayal JR (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, p 503. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8180-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Bilham R (2015) Raising Kathmandu. Nat Geosci 8:582–584. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Srivastava HN, Verma M, Bansal BK, Sutar AK (2015) Discriminatory characteristics of seismic gaps in Himalaya. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 6:224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2013.839483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Jaiswal AK, Gupta ID (2020) Probabilistic seismic hazard mapping of Northwest India using area sources with non-uniform spatial distribution of seismicity, Paper No. 556, ISET J Earthq Tech 57(3):103–150

  73. Paudyal H, Shanker D, Singh HN (2011) Characteristics of earthquake sequence in northern Himalayan region of South Central Tibet-Precursor search and location of potential area of future earthquake. J Asian Earth Sci 41(4–5):459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Chandra S (1993) Fluvial landforms and sediments in the north-central Gangetic Plain, India. Doctoral Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK. https://isni.org/isni/0000000135273744

  75. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/1268522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Ilhan O, Xing G, Numanoglu O, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2020) DEEPSOIL 7.0, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of 966 Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  77. Kondner RL (1963) A hyperbolic stress‐strain formulation of sands. In: The Proc. 2nd Pan Am. Conf. on Soil Mech and Found Eng, Brazilian Asso Soil Mecha, São Paulo, Brazil, vol 1, pp 289–324

  78. Matasović N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng 119(11):1805–1822. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Matasović N, Vucetic M (1995) Generalized cyclic-degradation-pore-pressure generation model for clays. J Geotech Eng 121(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin

  81. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2018) Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies: ground response analysis. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 9:78–98. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGEE.2018010105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Reoprt. EERC-70, p 48

  83. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117:89–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Imai T, Yoshimura Y (1970) Elastic wave velocity and soil properties in soft soil. Tsuchito-Kiso 18(1):17–22

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ohba S, Toriumi I (1970) Dynamic response characteristics of Osaka plain. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting AIJ (in Japanese), Washington, DC

  86. Ohsaki Y, Iwasaki R (1973) On dynamic shear moduli and poisson’s ratios of soil deposits. Soils Found 13(4):61–73. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.13.4_61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Fujiwara T (1972) Estimation of ground movements in actual destructive earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the fourth European symposium on earthquake engineering, London, pp 229–247

  88. Imai T, Yoshimura M (1972) The relation of mechanical properties of soils to p and s wave velocities for soil ground in Japan. Urana Research Institute, OYO Corp

  89. Ohta Y, Goto N (1978) Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(2):167–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290060205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of sand deposits based on observations of performance in previous earthquakes. Pre-print 81–544, Session on in-situ testing to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility. ASCE National Convention, St. Louis, Missouri

  91. Imai T (1982) Correlation of n value with s wave velocity and shear modulus. In: Proceedings 2nd ESOPT, Amsterdam, pp 57–72

  92. Sykora DE, Stokoe KH (1983) Correlations of in-situ measurements in sands of shear wave velocity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:125–136

    Google Scholar 

  93. Athanasopoulos G (1970) Empirical correlations vso-nspt for soils of Greece: a comparative study of reliability. WIT Trans Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.2495/SD950031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Zheng J (1987) Correlation between seismic wave velocity and the number of blow of spt and depths. In: proceedings of Chinese J Geotech Eng-1985, China. ASCE, pp 92–100

  95. Lee SHH (1990) Regression models of shear wave velocities in Taipei basin. J Chin Inst Eng 13(5):19–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.1990.9677284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Iyisan R (1996) Correlations between shear wave velocity and in-situ penetration test results. Teknik Dergi-tmmob Insaat Muhendisleri Odasi 7:371–374

    Google Scholar 

  97. Kiku H (2001) In-situ penetration tests and soil profiling in Adapazari, Turkey. In: Proc. 15th ICSMGE TC4 satellite conference on lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes, August 25, 2001, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 259–265

  98. Yokota K, Imai T, Konno M (1981) Dynamic deformation characteristics of soils determined by laboratory tests. OYO Tec Rep 3:13–37

    Google Scholar 

  99. Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2010) Gis-based soil liquefaction susceptibility map of Mumbai city for earthquake events. J Appl Geophys 70(3):216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Hanumantharao C, Ramana G (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi. India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(2):719–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0066-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Kalteziotis N, Sabatakakis N, Vassiliou J (1992) Evaluation of dynamic characteristics of Greek soil formations. In: Second Hellenic conference on geotechnical engineering, vol 2, pp 239–246

  102. Jafari MK, Shafiee A, Razmkhah A (2002) Dynamic properties of fine grained soils in south of Tehran. J Seismol Earthq Eng 4(1):25

    Google Scholar 

  103. Dikmen Ü (2009) Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils. J Geophy Eng 6(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/6/1/007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2007) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(2):203–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-006-0063-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Maheswari RU, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar G (2010) Use of surface waves in statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance of Chennai soils. Geotech Geol Eng 28(2):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-009-9285-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Khattri KN (1999) Probabilities of occurrence of great earthquakes in the Himalaya. In: Proceeding of Indian Academic and Science, Earth Planet Sci 108:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02840486

  107. SEISMOSIGNAL program (https://seismosoft.com/product/seismosignal/); Dated: 03/12/2022

  108. Tempa K, Aryal KR, Chettri N, Forte G, Gautam D (2022) Sensitivity analysis of input ground motion on surface motion parameters in high seismic regions: a case of Bhutan Himalaya. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 22:1893–1909. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1893-2022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Noolu V, Paluri Y (2023) A study on site specific ground response analysis in Bihar. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012039

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Technology (NIT) Patna, Patna, Bihar, 800005, India

    Prabhakar Kumar & Shiv Shankar Kumar

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Bhagalpur College of Engineering Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar, India

    Prabhakar Kumar

Authors
  1. Prabhakar Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shiv Shankar Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiv Shankar Kumar.

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.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, P., Kumar, S.S. Development of synthetic acceleration time histories for seismic ground response studies for site classes C to E for Bihar region: a case study. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 8, 292 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01265-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01265-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation