Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis of Some Typical Sites in Amaravati Region, Andhra Pradesh, India

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The influence of local geological and geotechnical characteristics on the scale of ground shaking during the earthquake has been well known for a long time. Typical characteristics of strong ground motion like amplitude, frequency and duration will subject to modify due to the influence of local soil conditions. The continuous modifications in the soil deposits lead to amplify or de-amplify the site. The amplification is one of the major key parameters which is significantly used to account the site effects and considered to design the earthquake-resistant structures. The shear wave velocity (Vs) is one of the most important dynamic properties of the soil and is used to represent the stiffness of the soil deposits. The Vs is significantly used to characterize the ground motion either by simplified site classification method or by prices site-specific ground response analysis (GRA). In this study, an attempt was made to estimate the site response of the Amaravati region, Andhra Pradesh, India. The selected capital region is comes under seismic zone III as per the Bureau of Indian standard code BIS: 1893-2016, with a maximum peak horizontal acceleration value of 0.16 g. To assess the penetration resistance (N) number in the selected region, a total of 65 boreholes have been conducted using standard penetration test (SPT) and the Vs of all the profiles determined using the appropriate existing correlation between Vs and SPT-N. Based on the estimated Vs, the seismic site classification is done according to the national earthquake hazard reduction program and Eurocode 08. To conduct the GRA, a total of nine representative sites have been selected and response analysis is conducted for all selected sites using DEEPSOIL software through the one-dimensional equivalent linear approach. The results from the response analysis of all selected boreholes locations have been presented in terms of acceleration time histories at the surface, variation of peak ground acceleration, site amplification along with the depth of the soil column, response spectra for 5% damping and Fourier amplitude ratio against frequency.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. BIS 1893 (2016) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  2. Satyam ND, Towhata I (2016) Site-specific ground response analysis and liquefaction assessment of Vijayawada city (India). Nat Hazards 81(2):705–724

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parihar A, Anbazhagan P (2020) Site response study and amplification factor for shallow bedrock sites. Indian Geotech J 50(5):726–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-020-00410-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2020) Site amplification factors and acceleration response spectra for shallow bedrock sites – application to Southern India. J Earthquake Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1754308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Reddy M, Rajashekara Reddy K, Ch HR, Kumar K (2020) Evaluation and comparison of seismic hazard parameters for Amaravati Region. Disaster Adv 13(8):11–22

    Google Scholar 

  6. Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109–1126

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pandey B, Jakka RS, Kumar A (2016) Influence of local site conditions on strong ground motion characteristics at Tarai region of Uttarakhand, India. Nat Hazards 81(2):1073–1089

    Google Scholar 

  8. Macmurdo J (1824) XXI Papers relating to the earthquake which occurred in India in 1819. The Philos Mag 63(310):105–119

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stone WC, Yokel FY, Celebi M, Hanks T, Leyendecker EV (1987) Engineering aspects of the September 19, 1985 Mexico earthquake. NBS Building Sci Ser 165:207

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sitharam TG, Govindaraju L (2004) Geotechnical aspects and ground response studies in Bhuj earthquake, India. Geotech Geol Eng 22(3):439–455

    Google Scholar 

  11. BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures 2003 edition. Part 1: provisions. Report no. FEMA 450, Building seismic safety council for the federal emergency management agency, Washington, DC, USA

  12. Chakrabortty P, Kumar U, Puri V (2018) Seismic site classification and liquefaction hazard assessment of Jaipur City, India. Indian Geotech J 48(4):768–779

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rahman MZ, Kamal AM, Siddiqua S (2018) Near-surface shear wave velocity estimation and V s 30 mapping for Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 92(3):1687–1715

    Google Scholar 

  14. BIS 2131 (1981) Indian Standard, Method for standard penetration test for soils, First revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  15. BIS:2132 (1986) Indian Standard Code of Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  16. BIS:1498 (1970) Indian Standard Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  17. Jakka RS, Roy N, Wason HR (2014) Implications of surface wave data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61(62):239–245

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marosi KT, Hiltunen DR (2004) Characterization of SASW phase angle and phase velocity measurement uncertainty. Geotech Test J 27(2):205–213

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marosi KT, Hiltunen DR (2004) Characterization of SASW shear wave velocity measurement uncertainty. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(10):1034–1041

    Google Scholar 

  20. Strobbia C, Foti S (2006) Multi-offset phase analysis of surface wave data (MOPA). J Appl Geophys 59(4):300–313

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013) Seismic site classification and correlation between standard penetration test N value and shear wave velocity for Lucknow City in Indo-Gangetic Basin. Pure Appl Geophys 170(3):299–318

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hanumantharao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):719–730

    Google Scholar 

  23. Maheswari RU, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR (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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kirar B, Maheshwari BK, Muley P (2016) Correlation between shear wave velocity (Vs) and SPT resistance (N) for Roorkee region. Int J Geosynthetics Ground Eng 2:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  25. Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2010) Relationship between Low Strain Shear Modulus and Standard Penetration Test ‘N’ Values. ASTM Geotech Test J 33(2):150–164

    Google Scholar 

  26. Naik SP, Patra NR, Malik JN (2014) Spatial distribution of shear wave velocity for late quaternary alluvial soil of Kanpur city, Northern India. Geotech Geol Eng 32(1):131–149

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2011) GIS-GPS based map of soil index properties for Mumbai. In: Geo-frontiers 2011: Advances in geotechnical engineering, 2366–2375

  28. Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2011) Empirical estimation of shear wave velocity from in situ tests on soil formations in Greece. Bull Eng Geol Env 70(2):291–297

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dikmen U (2009) Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils. J Geophys Eng 6(1):61–72

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lee CT, Tsai BR (2008) Mapping Vs30 in Taiwan. TAO Terrestrial Atmospheric Oceanic Sci 19(6):671–682

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2007) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Env 66(2):203–213

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kiku H, Yoshida N, Yasuda S, Irisawa T, Nakazawa H, Shimizu Y, Ansal A, Erkan A (2001) In situ penetration tests and soil profiling in Adapazari, Turkey. In: Proceedings of the ICSMGE/TC4 satellite conference on lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes, Istanbul, Turkey, 259–265

  33. Jafari MK, Asghari A, Rahmani I (1997) Empirical correlation between shear wave velocity (Vs) and SPT-N value for south Tehran soils. In: Proceedings of the 4th International conference on civil engineering, Tehran, Iran

  34. Iyisan R (1996) Correlations between shear wave velocity and in situ penetration test results. Chamb. Civil Eng. Turk. Teknik Dergi. 7(2):1187–1199

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kanai K (1966) Conference on cone penetrometer. The ministry of public works and settlement, Ankara, Turkey, presented by Y Sakai

  36. Athanasopoulos GA (1995) Empirical correlations Vso-NSPT for soils of Greece: A comparative study of reliability. In: Proceedings of 7th International conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, Computation Mechanics Publications, Southampton, Boston, 19–25

  37. Sisman H (1995) The relation between seismic wave velocities and SPT, pressuremeter tests M.Sc. thesis, Ankara University, Geophysical Engineering Department, Ankara

  38. Kalteziotis N, Sabatakakis N, Vassiliou J (1992) Evaluation of dynamic characteristics of Greek soil formations evaluation of dynamic characteristics of Greek soil formations. In: Proceedings of 2nd Hellenic conference on geotechnical engineering, Greek, 239–246

  39. Yokota K, Imai T, Konno M (1991) Dynamic deformation characteristics of soils determined by laboratory tests. OYO Tee Reply 3:13–37

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lee SHH (1990) Regression models of shear wave velocities in Taipei basin. J Chin Inst Eng 13(5):519–532

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jinan Z (1987) Correlation between seismic wave velocity and the number of blow of SPT and Depth, Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 92–100

  42. Sykora DE, Stokoe KH (1983) Correlations of in-situ measurements in sands of shear wave velocity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20(1):125–136

    Google Scholar 

  43. Imai T, Tonouchi K (1982) Correlation of N value with S wave velocity and shear modulus. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European symposium of penetration testing (Amsterdam), 57–72

  44. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction potential sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes; In: American Society for Civil Engineers National Convention, Missouri, 81–544

  45. Ohta Y, Goto N (1978) Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 6(2):167–187

    Google Scholar 

  46. Imai T (1977) P- and S-wave velocities of the ground in Japan; In: Proceedings of the IX international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Japan, 127– 132

  47. Imai T, Fumoto H, Yokota K (1975) The relation of mechanical properties of soil to P and S wave velocities in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 4th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, Japan, 89–96

  48. Imai T, Yoshimura Y (1975) The relation of mechanical properties of soils to P and S wave velocities for ground in Japan, Technical note OYO Corporation

  49. Ohsaki Y, Iwasaki R (1973) Dynamic shear moduli and Poisson’s ratio of soil deposits. Soils Found 13:61–73

    Google Scholar 

  50. FujiwaraT (1972) Estimation of ground movement in actual destructive earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the fourth European symposium on earthquake engineering (London), 125–132

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

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ohba S, Toriumi I (1970) Dynamic response characteristics of Osaka Plain. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting AIJ (in Japanese)

  53. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Reddy GR, Phanikanth VS, Yadav DN (2016) Quantitative assessment of shear wave velocity correlations in the shallow bedrock sites. Indian Geotechnical J 46(4):381–397

    Google Scholar 

  54. Boore DM (2004) Estimating V s (30) (or NEHRP site classes) from shallow velocity models (depths< 30 m). Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(2):591–597

    Google Scholar 

  55. Eurocode 8, (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1, General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998- 1, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels

  56. BIS: 2720 (1975) Indian Standard Methods of Test for Soils, Part XXIX—Determination of Dry Density of Soils In-Place by Core Cutter Method, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  57. 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 at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

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

    Google Scholar 

  59. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimastu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(11):1016–1032

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15

  61. Anbazhagan P, Prabhakaran A, Madhura H, Moustafa SS, Al-Arifi NS (2017) Selection of representative shear modulus reduction and damping curves for rock, gravel and sand sites from the KiK-Net downhole array. Nat Hazards 88(3):1741–1768

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kumar SS, Krishna AM (2013) Seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites of Guwahati City. Int J Geotech Earthquake Eng (IJGEE) 4(1):83–101

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  64. Idriss IM (1990) Response of soft soil site during earthquakes. In: Duncan JM (ed) Proceedings of H. Bolton seed memorial symposium 2 University of California Berkeley 273–289

    Google Scholar 

  65. Roblee C, Chiou B (2004) A proposed geoindex model for design selection of non-linear properties for site response analyses. International workshop on uncertainties in nonlinear soil properties and their impact on modeling dynamic soil response. PEER Headquarters, UC Berkeley, 18–19

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kamatchi P, Ramana GV, Nagpal AK, Lakshmanan N (2008) Site-specific analysis of delhi region for scenario earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, 12–17

  67. Anbazhagan P, Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Narendara Kumar JN, Sitharam TG (2010) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India. J Asian Earth Sci 38(5):186–198

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl NB, III WDD (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(5):396–405

    Google Scholar 

  69. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for Site specific ground motions, Palo Alto, California, November, TR-102293

  70. Okur DV, Ansal A (2007) Stiffness degradation of natural fine grained soils during cyclic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(9):843–854

    Google Scholar 

  71. Desai SS, Choudhury D (2015) Site-specific seismic ground response study for nuclear power plants and ports in Mumbai. Nat Hazard Rev 16(4):04015002

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  73. Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2008) Seismic microzonation of Bangalore, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(2):833–852

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author expresses his sincere thanks to Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation for providing funding (Grant no. 1782001) for a doctoral fellowship, and the authors also extend their sincere thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and review comments that improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

    M. Madhusudhan Reddy, Ch. Hanumantha Rao & K. Rajasekhara Reddy

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India

    G. Kalyan Kumar

Authors
  1. M. Madhusudhan Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ch. Hanumantha Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Rajasekhara Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Kalyan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Madhusudhan Reddy.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the current study.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

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

Reddy, M.M., Rao, C.H., Reddy, K.R. et al. Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis of Some Typical Sites in Amaravati Region, Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Geotech J 52, 39–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00562-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00562-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation