Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Site response analysis for deep and soft sedimentary deposits of Dhaka City, Bangladesh

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ground motion intensity of an earthquake is significantly changed when seismic waves propagate from the bedrock to the near-surface soft geological materials. The ground where the shear wave velocity (Vs) exists greater than 760 m/s is generally considered as bedrock. As a common practice in the last three decades, the surface ground motion of a soil site is estimated by multiplying the bedrock motion with the site coefficient that is empirically determined from the time-averaged shear wave velocity in the top 30 m (Vs30) of the site. The site coefficient is defined as the ratio of the ground motion intensity at the ground surface to that of the bedrock. If the bedrock of a site exists at a depth of greater than 30 m, the site effect from the depth of 30 m to the bedrock is not accounted in the Vs30-based site coefficient. In Dhaka City, the minimum depth of the bedrock is approximately 175 m. Therefore, the use of the Vs30-based site coefficient to estimate the surface ground motion is not appropriate for the soft and deep sedimentary deposits of this city. In this study, site response analysis using the Vs30-based site coefficient, linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear approaches has been performed to estimate the surface ground motion at different sites of Dhaka City and to compare the results of different approaches. It is observed that the surface ground motion is decreased with increasing the depth of the bedrock due to low shear strain and viscous damping in the soft sedimentary deposits.

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

modified from Alam et al. (1990) is superimposed on the seismotectonic map (modified from Rahman et al. 2018)

Fig. 2

modified from Rahman et al. 2015) showing geotechnical borehole locations and ground response analysis sites

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson N, Gregor N, Addo K (2016) BC hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 32:23–44. https://doi.org/10.1193/051712EQS188MR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30:1025–1055. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS198M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison JC, Ali JR, Davis AM (2007) When and where did India and Asia collide? J Geophys Res 112:1978–2012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alam M, Alam MM, Curray JR (2003) An overview of the sedimentary geology of the Bengal Basin in relation to the regional tectonic framework and basin-fill history. Sed Geol 155:179–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alam MK, Hasan AKMS, Khan MR, Whitney JW (1990) Geological map of Bangladesh. Geol Surv Bangladesh, Dhaka

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2004) Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophys J Int 159:165–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02323.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Aditya P, Rashmi HN (2011) Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites. Geomech Eng 3:189–206. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2011.3.3.189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Sheikh MN, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazards Rev 14:108–121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP et al (2013) PEER NGA-West2 Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • 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 93:1703–1729. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019a) 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 

  • Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019b) Identification of shear modulus reduction and damping curve for deep and shallow sites: kik- net data identification of shear modulus reduction and damping curve. J Earthquake Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1643807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barani S, De FR, Ferretti G (2013) Influence of soil modeling uncertainties on site response. Earthq Spectra 29:705–732. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004a) Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2090–2109. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004b) Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2110–2123. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 30:1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/072114EQS116M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design. Earthq Spectra 10:617–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSSC (1994) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. Part 1 (provisions). FEMA 222A, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C

  • BSSC (2015) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Part 1 (provisions) and Part 2 (commentary), FEMA P-1050–1, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1114. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seismic hazard and vulnerability assessment of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet city corporation areas. Final report, Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP). Dhaka, Bangladesh

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30:1117–1153. https://doi.org/10.1193/072813EQS219M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer CH (2003) Site-specific seismic-hazard analysis that is completely probabilistic. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1841–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curray JR, Emmel FJ, Moore DG, Raitt RW (1982) Structure, tectonics, and geological history of the northeastern Indian ocean. In: Nairn AEM, Stehli FG (eds) The oceans basins and margins. Plenum, New York, pp 399–449

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobry R, Borcherdt RD, Crouse CB et al (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthq Spectra 16:41–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2012) Site-specific earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India. Nat Hazards 61:943–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9940-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Kim B et al (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis supplement data. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142:04016042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YM, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. Paper presented at fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in Honor of Professor I.M. Idriss. pp 1–22

  • Hashash YMA, Musgrove M, Harmon J, et al (2017) DEEPSOIL 7.0, User manual

  • Hashash YMA, Park D (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Eng Geol 62:185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00061-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss I, Sun J (1992) SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits (User’s Manual). University of California Davis, Davis, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM (2014) An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1155–1177. https://doi.org/10.1193/070613EQS195M

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayal JR (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayal JR, Arefiev SS, Baruah S et al (2012) Large and great earthquakes in the Shillong plateau-Assam valley area of Northeast India region: pop-up and transverse tectonics. Tectonophysics 532–535:186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Hashash YMA (2013) Site response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions. Earthq Spectra 29:S37–S54. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2012) Site specific ground response study of deep Indo-Gangetic Basin using representative regional ground motions. Geotech Spec Publ. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412121.194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear ground response analysis of two typical sites at Guwahati city. Indian Geotechnical Conference. Kakinada, India, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Wang Z, Shen C (1992) SUMDES: a nonlinear procedure for response analysis of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multidirectional earthquake loading. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Malekmohammadi M, Pezeshk S (2015) Nonlinear site amplification factors for sites located within the Mississippi embayment with consideration for deep soil deposit. Earthq Spectra 31:699–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin S, Szeliga W (2010) A catalog of felt intensity data for 570 earthquakes in India from 1636 to 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:562–569. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurin T, Rangin C (2009) Structure and kinematics of the Indo-Burmese Wedge: recent and fast growth of the outer wedge. Tectonics 28:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008TC002276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middlemiss CS (1885) Report on the Bengal earthquake of July 14, 1885. Rec Geol Surv India 8 (4):200–221

  • Okada H (2006) Theory of efficient array observations of microtremors with special reference to the SPAC method. Explor Geophys 37:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada H, Suto K (2003) The microtremor survey method. Geophysical monograph series number 12. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK

  • Oldham RD (1899) Report on the great earthquake of 12th June 1897. Mem Geol Surv India 29:1–379

  • Ordóñez G (2010) SHAKE2000: a computer program for the 1-D analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problems (User’s Manual). GeoMotions LLC, Lacey, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Park D, Hashash YMA (2005) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi Embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri N, Jain A, Mohanty P, Bhattacharya S (2018) Earthquake response analysis of sites in state of Haryana using DEEPSOIL software. Procedia Comput Sci 125:357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri N, Jain A, Nikitas G et al (2020) Dynamic soil properties and seismic ground response analysis for North Indian seismic belt subjected to the great Himalayan earthquakes. Springer, Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MZ, Kamal ASMM, Siddiqua S (2018) Near-surface shear wave velocity estimation and Vs30 mapping for Dhaka City. Natural Hazards, Bangladesh. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3266-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MZ, Siddiqua S, Kamal ASMM (2019) Seismic source modeling and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangladesh. Natural Hazards submitted

  • Risk Engineering I (2014) EZ-FRISK 7.65, user manual

  • Roberts J, Asten M (2005) Estimating the shear velocity profile of Quaternary silts using microtremor array (SPAC) measurements. Explor Geophys 36:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG05034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki T, Hayashi H, Tanase A et al (2015) The S-wave velocity structure and the phase velocity distribution by the Microtremor array survey. In: 10th Asian regional conference of IAEG, 26–29 Sep 2015. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, pp 1–4

  • Schnabel P, Lysmer J, Seed H (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites (Report No.UCB/EERC-72/12). Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report no. EERC 70-10. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Engrg 112:1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia M, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) The OpenSees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh A, Bhushan K, Singh C et al (2016) Crustal structure and tectonics of Bangladesh: new constraints from inversion of receiver functions. Tectonophysics 680:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.04.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steckler MS, Mondal DR, Akhter SH et al (2016) Locked and loading megathrust linked to active subduction beneath the Indo-Burman ranges. Nat Geosci 9:615–618. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP, Afshari K, Goulet CA (2017) Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 33:1385–1414. https://doi.org/10.1193/081716EQS135M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart M (1920) The Srimangal earthquake of 8th July 1918. Mem Geol Surv India 46 (1):1–70

  • Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Report no. UCB/EERC-88/15. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • 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 100:570–584. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS (2015) M 7.8–36 km E of Khudi, Nepal. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#executive. Accessed May 2018

  • Vardanega PJ, Bolton MD (2011) Strength mobilization in clays and silts. Can Geotech J 48:1485–1503. https://doi.org/10.1139/T11-052

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Sieh K, Tun ST et al (2014) Active tectonic and earthquake Myanmar region. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 119:3767–3822. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010762.Received

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee E, Stewart JP, Tokimatsu K (2013) Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:1789–1801. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:453–464. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A et al (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the University of British Columbia for supporting this study through University Graduate Fellowship (UGF) and for procuring the EZ-FRISK software to carry out this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) for giving access to use the strong ground motion data from NGA WEST2 for this research. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the developer team of DEEPSOIL for freely providing the software to carry out this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Disaster Science and Management, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh

    Md. Zillur Rahman & A. S. M. Maksud Kamal

  2. School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Md. Zillur Rahman & Sumi Siddiqua

Authors
  1. Md. Zillur Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sumi Siddiqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. S. M. Maksud Kamal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sumi Siddiqua.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahman, M.Z., Siddiqua, S. & Kamal, A.S.M.M. Site response analysis for deep and soft sedimentary deposits of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 106, 2279–2305 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04543-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04543-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation