Site specific seismicity assessment of a port in India M BADRAKIA.… · 2020. 2. 12. · Researchers in [19] developed attenuation relationships for peak horizontal ground acceleration

78

Site specific seismicity assessment of a port in India

Badrakia, Pranav M.

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Navi Mumbai,

Maharashtra, India

Gandage, Abhijeet S.

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maharashtra Institute of

Technology, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Joshi, Rahul A.

Assistant Professor, Research Centre in Geology, Department of Petroleum Engineering,

Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

India‟s rapid growth and increase in population makes it highly vulnerable to earthquakes and is classified

into four seismic zones, as per IS 1983 (Part 1): 2002. However, the dynamic movement of earth during an

earthquake might change according to the local site conditions, it is thus necessary to determine the seismic

hazard at a smaller scale. This study presents an approach to estimate the seismic hazard considering local

site effects. Seismicity assessment is carried out for a port located in southern Gujarat which falls under the

seismic zone III as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Site characterization is done by using the shear wave

velocity determined from Standard Penetration Test, Cone Penetration Test and Triaxial test data.

Seismicity assessment is carried out to determine the Peak Ground Acceleration by locating the various

historical earthquakes around the site. This methodology can be applied to determine the seismic hazard at

any other study area with certain modifications. The results obtained from such hazard determination

method can be used as input data for designing earthquake resistant structures.

1. Introduction:

Earthquakes are one of the most damaging natural hazards. Earthquakes can be caused by

a number of factors including meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions and nuclear tests. But

most of the naturally occurring earthquakes are caused by tectonic plate movements. The

hazards associated with earthquakes are known as seismic hazards. In order to mitigate

the seismic hazards or any hazards for that matter it is important to be able to identify

those hazards. Very preliminary process of reducing the effects of earthquakes is by

assessing the hazard itself [1]. The earthquake risk significantly increases near places of

economic importance such as major cities and ports. The Bureau of Indian Standard has

published a seismic zonation map in 1962 dividing the country into six zones. In 2002 the

fifth revision took place and only four zones were adapted (Figure 1). After the 2001

magnitude (Mw) 7.7 Bhuj earthquake which took a toll of 14,000 human lives and

collapsed several thousand houses up to 300 Km distance, it was realized that there is a

lack of understanding of such earthquakes and how as well as in which ground conditions

the waves get amplified is not allknown [2]. It is thus important to consider the safety of a

site related to geotechnical phenomena in practice of earthquake hazard safety.

Journal of Engineering Geology Volume XLII, Nos. 1 & 2

A bi-annual Journal of ISEG June-December 2017

79

Figure 1 Seismic zones of India(IS 1893:2002)

Ports are a vital part of a country‟s economy. The growth and development of ports leads

to greater trade activity, increased supply, greater foreign reserves and reduced prices for

commodities as a whole [3]. Ports and harbours are likely to be of immense importance in

earthquake-tsunami disaster response and recovery operations. Because other

transportation lifelines will be hard hit and take many months or even years to re-

establish, ports and harbours are likely to play a key role in response and recovery

operations [4].During the Bhuj earthquake, Kandla a port located at a mouth of little

Rann of Kutch about 50 Km from the epicenter, experienced significant damage. Many

pile-supported buildings, warehouses and cargo berths in the Kandla area were damaged

during the earthquake [5].

In this paper an attempt has been made to determine the seismic hazard at a port (Figure

2) located in southern Gujarat, using methods described below.

2. Objective of Study:

The objectives of this study are:

1. Determination of shear wave velocity (Vs) using correlations.

2. Site classification using the determined shear wave velocity.



80

3. Determination of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA).

Figure 2 Location of the study area

3. Literature Review:

Many researchers have attempted to evaluate seismic hazard in India. A Seismic Hazard

map of India for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years was presented [6]. In [7]

seismic hazard maps for north east India based on the uniform hazard response spectra

for absolute acceleration at stiff sites were prepared. Researchers mapped the quantified

hazard for Delhi area in terms of rock level peak ground acceleration for a grid size of 1

Km x 1 Km, for a return period of 2500 years [8]. In [9] researchers investigated the

seismic hazard of Mumbai city using probabilistic analysis and derived a uniform hazard

response spectra for 2 and 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years. In [1] researchers

performed the seismic hazard analysis considering the local site effects and developed

micro-zonation maps for Bangalore. National Disaster Management Authority

[10]prepared all India probabilistic seismic hazard map using linear seismic sources and

attenuation relations. In [11] researchers performed the seismic hazard analysis of

Jabalpur by using attenuation relationships.Probabilistic seismic hazard maps were

produced using past earthquake data for Japan [12]. In [13] researcherspresented the

spatial variation of seismic hazard at surface level for India and developed contour maps

for peak horizontal acceleration for return periods of 475 years and 2475 years. Artificial

neural network (ANN) was used for estimation of peak ground acceleration in Japan for

earthquakes of magnitude more than 5 and distance less than 50 Km. Six input variables

were used to train the neural network it was found that ANN is a valuable tool to predict

peak ground acceleration of a site [14].

Empirical relationships between geotechnical properties and dynamic parameters of soil

are presented by several researchers in the past. Researchers in [15] developed an

empirical relationship between shear wave velocity and standard penetration resistance in



81

Chennai city. The correlations in previous studies involved corrected SPT N values i.e.

N¬60 however in this research it was shown that field N values can effectively predict

shear wave velocity. A correlation between shear strength of soil and shear wave velocity

was proposed in [16]. In [17] a correlation was developed between cone tip resistance

and shear wave velocity evaluated using laboratory and full scale field tests.

Attenuation relationships are presented by some researchers for regions in India.

Attenuation relationship for peak vertical ground accelerations for Himalayan region was

developed from a database of 66 peak ground vertical accelerations from five earthquakes

recorded by strong motion arrays [18]. Researchers in [19] developed attenuation

relationships for peak horizontal ground acceleration for short distances and low

magnitudes for a region in South India. The distance range up to 5 Km and magnitudes

ranging from 0 to 3 were used.Researchers in [20] developed an attenuation relationship

for peninsular based on statistically stimulated seismological data. The equation for peak

ground acceleration, under bed rock conditions was presented and correction factors were

calculated for three regions of peninsular India

4. Research Methodology:

Safety against earthquake hazards has two aspects: firstly, structural safety against

potentially destructive dynamic forces and secondly the safety of site itself related with

geotechnical phenomena such as amplification, land sliding and liquefaction [21]. This

study focuses on the second aspect.The flow chart for the methodology adapted is shown

in figure 3.

Figure 3 Methodology flow chart

Data Collection

Site

Characterization

Input Output

SPT

CPT

Su

Shear wave

velocity (Vs)

SHA

Historical

earthquake

data PGA

VsContours

at various

depths



82

5. Data Collection:

Data was collected from 27 boreholes in the site. Out of which Cone Penetration test was

conducted in 10 boreholes. Standard Penetration Test was conducted in remaining

boreholes and various laboratory tests such as Atterberg‟s limits, triaxial test, unconfined

compression test, particle size distribution was obtained. The locations of boreholes are

shown in figure 4, and a part of data collected is given in Appendix A.

Figure 4 Borehole location plan

Site Characterization:

Sites are classified into six categories by Caltrans seismic design criteria [22] based on

shear wave velocity (Vs) of the top 30m of the soil (Vs 30). Similar classifications are

adapted by National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program [23] and California Building

Code [24]. The time averaged shear wave at a depth „n‟ is calculated as shown in

equation (1).

VS n= Σdi / Σ (di /VSi) (1)

Where,di is the soil laver thickness with a shear wave velocity of Vsi. The shear wave

velocity is calculated at various depths of 5 m, 7.5 m, 10 m, 12 m and up to weathered

rock depth using equation (1). Usually, for soil amplification and site response study the

30m average Vs is considered. However, if rock is found within a depth of 30 m, average

shear wave velocity of soil thickness needs to be considered. Otherwise Vs30 obtained



83

will be higher due to the velocity of hard rock mass[25].Hence, the site is classified based

on shear wave velocity taken up to weathered rock at each borehole location.Shear wave

velocity was calculated from three soil parameters i.e. standard penetration test blow

count, cone tip resistance and undrained shear strength.

For shear wave velocity from standard penetration test blow counts (N) the empirical

correlation [15] given for all soils was used as shown in equation (2). Typical Vs

calculation is shown in table 1.

Vs = 95.64 N 0.301

(2)

Table 1

Calculating Vs from SPT

BH No. Depth (m) Normalized SPT

blow counts(N) Vs(m/s)

From To

BH 114

0 1.5

1.5 1.95 6 164.00727

1.95 4.5

4.5 4.95 7 171.79641

4.95 6

6 6.45 3 133.12299

6.45 9

9 9.45 3 133.12299

9.45 12

12 12.45 4 145.16423

12.45 13.5

13.5 13.95 61 329.62781

A proposed correlation [17] between shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance for all

soils, equation (3), was used to determine Vs from Cone Penetration Test (CPT).

Vs = [αvs (qt – σv)/pa] 0.5

(3)

Where, αvs is the shear wave velocity cone factor calculated from equation (4), qt is the

corrected cone tip resistance in KPa, σv is the total overburden pressure in KPa and pa is

the atmospheric pressure in the same units.

αvs=10(0.55 Ic + 1.68)

(4)

The soil behaviour type was proposed using normalized cone parameters [26] and later

the soil behaviour type index (Ic) was defined [27], given in equation (5).

Ic = [(3.47-logQt1) 2

+ (log Fr + 1.22)2]

0.5 (5)

Where Qt1 and Fr are normalized cone parameters as suggested in [26], which are given in

equations (6) and (7).

Qt1= (qt– σv) / σ‟v (6)

Fr = [fs(qt– σv)] 100 % (7)

Where qtis the corrected cone tip resistance obtained from the cone tip resistance (qc),

pore water pressure (u2) and net area ratio (an)as per equation (10), in Kpa, σ‟vis effective

overburden pressure in Kpa and fs is the sleeve friction in Kpa.The overburden pressure



84

beneath a uniform surface layer with density ρ, and thickness „t‟ is given in equation (8)

where „g‟ is the acceleration due to gravity. The effective overburden pressure given in

equation (9) is the difference between total overburden stress and pore pressure.

σv= ρ g t (8)

σ‟v = σv-µ (9)

qt = qc + (1-an).u2 (10)

Undrained shear strength (Su) obtained from unconfined compression test and

unconsolidated undrained triaxial test was used to obtain shear wave velocity using the

proposed relation [16] given in equation (11). For boreholes where CPT was conducted,

Su was obtained for two cone factors (Nk) i.e. 15 and 20, Vs was evaluated from both the

factors.

Vs 30 = 18 (Su) 0.475

(11)

Table 2 shows the time average Vs calculated from equation (1) for CPT boreholes. Su 15

and Su 20 are shear strengths with a cone factor of 15 and 20 respectively.Contour maps

are then hand drawn at a scale of 1:12,500 depicting Vs contours at various depths

obtained from all three properties shown in Appendix B.

Table 2

Vs at various depths

BH No From Vs 5

(m/s)

Vs 7.5

(m/s)

Vs 10

(m/s)

Vs 12

(m/s)

Vswr

(m/s)

CPTU

L01

Su 20 40.8891 51.5294 59.7306 65.6459 71.2994

Su 15 46.876 59.0742 68.4763 75.2577 81.7391

CPT 65.5957 76.3377 84.3390 91.0628 97.2342

CPTU

L02

Su 20 47.2314 59.4870 67.5974 74.3289 79.4917

Su 15 54.1476 68.1977 77.4957 85.2128 91.1317

CPT 67.7094 79.2647 87.1607 93.8869 100.400

CPTU

L03

Su 20 108.912 104.783 107.633 112.101 116.863

Su 15 124.860 120.126 123.394 128.516 133.975

CPT 92.3652 96.0037 102.127 108.176 118.935

CPTU

M01

Su 20 51.2275 56.9990 65.1710 74.0380 62.9886

Su 15 58.7285 65.3452 74.7137 84.8791 72.2117

CPT 58.7888 66.4792 76.1982 86.2511 73.7126

CPTU

M02

Su 20 45.9523 52.4820 60.2962 68.0388 69.5593

Su 15 52.6809 60.1667 69.1251 78.0014 79.7446

CPT 52.3889 61.0237 70.0235 78.4173 80.3124

CPTU

M03

Su 20 49.0128 56.6466 64.4484 72.9020 73.4410

Su 15 56.1896 64.9411 73.8853 83.5767 84.1947

CPT 54.5998 63.0313 71.0658 79.1348 79.728



85

6. Seismic Hazard Analysis:

A catalogue of earthquake data was collected from United States Geological Survey

earthquake archives, the distribution of earthquake data with respect to magnitude and

year of occurrence is shown in table 3. Figure 5 shows the histogram of earthquake

events used in this study. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was calculated from the

attenuation relationship [20], given in equation (12). A total of 56 number of historical

earthquake were used to evaluate the rock level PGA. More earthquakes are observed in

the year 2001 to 2010 from the data set with number of events of magnitude between 4

and 4.9, being the highest.

ln (PGA) = c1 + c2 (M-6) + c3 (M-6)2 – ln R – c4 R + ln ε (12)

Where M and R refer to moment magnitude and hypo-central distance respectively. The

correction factors for western-central region given are c1=1.7236, c2=0.9453, c3=-0.0740,

c4=0.0064 and σ (ln ε) = 0.3439. Since PGA is known to be distributed nearly as

lognormal random variable,ln(PGA) would be normally distributed with the average of ln

ε being almost zero. Hence, with ε = 1 equation (12) represents a 50 percentile or median

level hazard estimation formula for PG [20]. Thus, ln ε is taken as zero in the calculation

of PGA. Table 4 shows the maximum PGA obtained for each borehole.

Table 3

Number of earthquake events

Sr.

No. Years

Number of events

3 < M < 3.9 4 < M < 4.9 5 < M < 5.9 6 < M

1 1950-1960 0 0 0 1

2 1961-1970 0 0 0 0

3 1971-1980 0 0 1 0

4 1981-1990 0 0 0 0

5 1991-2000 0 2 1 0

6 2001-2010 7 35 4 1

7 2011-2016 0 3 1 0

Figure 5 Distribution of historic earthquake events

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Number of earthquake events in past decades

3 < M < 3.9 4 < M < 4.9 5 < M < 5.9 6 < M



86

Table 4

Calculation of rock level PGA

Sr. No. B.H. No. Maximum PGA (g)

1 BH 101 0.0373

2 BH 102 0.0373

3 BH 103 0.0373

4 BH 104 0.0374

5 BH 105 0.0374

6 BH 106 0.0375

7 BH 107 0.0376

8 BH 108 0.0377

9 BH 109 0.0379

10 BH 110 0.0379

11 BH 111 0.0381

12 BH 112 0.0382

13 BH 113 0.0373

14 BH 114 0.0374

15 BH 115 0.0372

16 BH 116 0.0373

17 BH 117 0.0373

18 CPTU L-01 0.0373

19 CPTU L-02 0.0374

20 CPTU L-03 0.0373

21 CPTU M-01 0.0373

22 CPTU M-02 0.0373

23 CPTU M-03 0.0374

24 CPTU M-04 0.0374

25 CPTU M-05 0.0374

7. Results and Discussion:

The shear wave velocities obtained are fairly consistent with values from CPT and

undrained shear strength with a cone factor of 15 closer to each other (figure 6), with the

exception of values from borehole CPTU L03 where Vs from undrained shear strength is

considerably higher than those computed from CPT.

Figure 6 Comparison of Vswr obtained from three parameters

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Su

20

Su

15

Cp

t

Vs

wr (

m/s

)

Vs wr



87

This may be attributed to the presence of loose sand in the top layer and soft to firm clay

for a depth up to 9.84 meters which results in a higher shear strength values for lower

depth which in turn increases the shear wave velocity computed from shear strength.

Figure 7 shows the Vswr obtained from SPT.

Figure 7 Vswr from SPT

The site class obtained as per NEHRP is shown in table 6 and 7, majority of boreholes

fall under site class „E‟ with the exception of borehole BH 110, BH 115

and BH 116, which fall under site class „D‟. BH 115 has

Vswr of 182.36 m/s and BH 116 has Vswr of 184.775 which are closer to site class „E‟

whose upper limit is 180 m/s as shown in table 5.

Table 5

NEHRP soil profile types [23]

Site Class Soil Profile name Vs 30 (m/s)

A Hard rock > 1500

B Rock 760 to 1500

C Very dense soil and soft rock 360 to 760

D Stiff soil 180 to 360

E Soft soil < 180

F Soils requiring Site specific evaluation ----

Table 6

Site Class for SPT boreholes

Sr. No. BH No. Vswr (m/s) Site Class

1 BH 101 97.00841 E

2 BH102 106.3855 E

3 BH 103 114.3687 E

4 BH 104 107.2457 E

5 BH 105 138.2717 E

0

50

100

150

200

250

BH

10

1

BH

10

2

BH

10

3

BH

10

4

BH

10

5

BH

10

6

BH

10

7

BH

10

8

BH

10

9

BH

11

0

BH

11

1

BH

11

2

BH

11

3

BH

11

4

BH

11

5

BH

11

6

BH

11

7

Vs

wr

(m/s

)

Vs wr from SPT



88

6 BH 106 127.9243 E

7 BH 107 149.4954 E

8 BH 108 162.486 E

9 BH 109 106.7643 E

10 BH 110 223.4616 D

11 BH 111 103.3251 E

12 BH 112 98.95004 E

13 BH 113 146.0166 E

14 BH 114 150.0993 E

15 BH 115 182.3601 D

16 BH 116 184.7795 D

17 BH 117 126.9339 E

Table 7

Site Class derived from CPT boreholes

BH No Vs From Vswr (m/s) Site Class

CPTU L01

Su 20 71.299447 E

Su 15 81.739098 E

CPT 97.234261 E

CPTU L02

Su 20 79.491759 E

Su 15 91.131702 E

CPT 100.40068 E

CPTU L03

Su 20 116.86319 E

Su 15 133.97495 E

CPT 118.93594 E

CPTU M01

Su 20 62.988637 E

Su 15 72.211786 E

CPT 73.71266 E

CPTU M02

Su 20 69.559367 E

Su 15 79.744624 E

CPT 80.312403 E

CPTU M03

Su 20 73.441065 E

Su 15 84.194719 E

CPT 79.728001 E

CPTU M04

Su 20 85.607228 E

Su 15 98.142279 E

CPT 95.796465 E

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is calculated at each borehole location from 56

historical earthquakes, table 8 shows a few PGA calculations for a central location in the

site. The maximum PGA of 0.038 g is obtained from the earthquake of magnitude 5

located at distance of 33.62 Km from the site.



89

Table 8

Evaluation of PGA for the site

Sr.

No. Magnitude Depth (km) Distance in Km Hypocentral distance (km)

PGA

(g)

1 4.7 14.3 71.68 73.09 0.012

2 3.8 10 62.59 63.38 0.005

3 4.9 10 71.58 72.28 0.016

4 5.1 10 85.90 86.48 0.015

5 5.1 10 105.75 106.22 0.011

6 5 24 33.62 41.31 0.038

7 4.2 10 197.35 197.60 0.001

8 4.9 33 331.29 332.93 0.001

9 4 10 252.02 252.22 0.000

10 4.4 10 300.32 300.49 0.000

Contours for rock level PGA are plotted as shown in figure 8. PGA is higher towards the

southern side as it is nearer to the Son Narmada fault and Kim fault where the earthquake

causing maximum PGA has originated.

Figure 8 Peak Ground Acceleration contours



90

8. Conclusion and Future Work:

The Site was classified as per NEHRP guidelines and seismic hazard was assessed using

historical earthquake data. The following conclusions are obtained:

1) Shear wave velocities obtained from CPT are lesser than those obtained from SPT

as the interval of testing is greater for SPT but the site classification obtained is

the same from both methods.

2) The site class is „E‟ and the soil profile is „soft soil‟.

3) The maximum Peak Ground acceleration obtained with a value of 0.038 g.

In the future, it is planned to conduct a liquefaction hazard assessment as the site profile

is „soft soil‟ there is a potential for soil liquefaction during an earthquake. It is also

important to conduct Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment to obtain a complete

picture of the seismic hazard.

References:

1. T. G. Sitharam and P. Anbazhagan. (2008). Seismic microzonation: principles,

practices and experiments. EJGE Special Volume.[Online].Bouquet 08.Available:

www.ejge.com/Bouquet08/Sitharam/Sitharam_abs.pdf

2. B. K. Rastogi. (2014). Seismicity and earthquake hazard studies in

Gujarat.Journal of Earthquake Science and Engineering.[Online].1.pp 110-123.

Available: http://www.joes.org.in/openaccess/P9-Rastogi_Seismicity_F.pdf

3. G. S. Dwarakish and A.S. Muhammad.(2015). Review on the role of ports in the

development of a nation.Aquatic Procedia.[Online]. 4. pp 295–301. Available:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214241X15000413

4. N. Wood, J Good, and R. Goodwin. (2002). Reducing vulnerability of ports and

harbors to earthquake and tsunami hazards.Presented at Solutions to coastal

disasters.[Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40605(258)81

5. S.R. Dash, L. Govindaraju and S. Bhattacharya. (2008). On the probable cause of

the failure of Kandla port and customs office tower during the 2001 Bhuj

earthquake. Presented at the 14th

world conference on earthquake

engineering.[Online].Available: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_05-

01-0283.PDF

6. S.C. Bhatia, M.R. Kumar and H.K. Gupta. (1999). A probabilistic seismic hazard

map of India and adjoining regions.Annals of Geophysics.[Online].42(6).pp1153-

164.

Available:http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/37

77/3841

7. S. Das, I.D. Gupta and V.K. Gupta.(2006). A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

of northeast India.Earthquake Spectra.[Online].22(1).pp 1-27. Available:

http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vinaykg/pap64.pdf

8. R.N. Iyengar, S. Ghosh. (2004). Micro zonation of earthquake hazard in greater

Delhi area.Current science.[Online].87(9).pp 1193-2004. Available:

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/nov102004/1193.pdf

http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/



91

9. S.T.G. Raghu Kant and R.N. Iyengar. (2006). Seismic hazard estimation of

Mumbai city.Current science.[Online].92(11).pp 1486-1498. Available:

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/dec102006/1486.pdf

10. Iyengar etal. (2010). Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of

India.NDMA.New Delhi, [online]. Available: http://www.ndma.gov.in/

images/pdf/Indiapshafinalreport.pdf

11. R.K. Grover et al. (2013). Estimation of peak ground acceleration for Jabalpur

city.International journal of engineering research and

applications.[Online].3(1).pp 1777-1780. Available: http://www.ijera.com/

papers/Vol3_issue1/JN3117771780.pdf

12. N. Yoshihiro and K. Takaaki.(2004). Procedure for making probabilistic seismic

hazard map and understanding of the evaluated hazard.Presented at 13th

world

conference on earthquake engineering.[Online]. Available:

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_793.pdf

13. T.G. Sitharam, S. Kolathayar, N. James. (2015). Probabilistic assessment of

surface level seismic hazard in India using topographic gradient as a proxy for site

condition.Geoscience frontiers.[Online].6(6).pp 847-859. Available:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987114000930

14. C.R. Arjun and A. Kumar.(2009). Artificial neural network-based estimation of

peak ground acceleration.ISET journal of earthquake technology.[Online]. 46. pp.

19-28. Available: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vinaykg/Iset501.pdf

15. U.R. Maheshwari, A. Boominathan, G.R. Dodagoudar. (2008). Development of

empirical correlation between shear wave velocity and standard penetration

resistance in soils of Chennai city.Presented at the 14th world conference on

earthquake engineering.[Online]. Available:

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_04-01-0090.PDF

16. S.E. Dickenson, “Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive soils during the

Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Civil

Engg., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1994.

17. P.K. Robertson. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified

approach.Canadian geotechnical journal.[Online].46(11). pp. 1337-1355.

Available: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/T09-

5#.V0BrsZF97IV

18. M.L. Sharma. (1998). Attenuation relationship for estimation of peak ground

acceleration using data from strong-motion arrays in India.Bulletin of the

seismological society of America.[Online].88(4). pp. 1063-1069. Available:

http://www.bssaonline.org/content/88/4/1063.

abstract

19. C. Srinivasan et al. (2008). Peak ground horizontal acceleration attenuation

relationship for low magnitudes at short distances in south Indian region.

Presented at 14th world conference on earthquake

engineering.[Online].Available: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_02-

0135.PDF

20. R.N. Iyengar and S.T.G. Raghu Kant.(2004). Attenuation of strong ground

motion in Peninsular India.Seismological research letters.[Online].75(4). pp. 530-

540. Available: http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/content/75/4/530.article-info



92

21. Manual for zonation on seismic geotechnical hazards, The Japanese geotechnical

society, Tokyo, 1999, pp. 3-4.

22. Caltrans seismic design criteria, 1.7, California department of transportation,

Sacramento, 2013, pp. B14-B15.

23. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and

other structures, Building seismic safety council, Washington, 2003, pp. 47-49

24. California building code, part 2, California building standards commission,

Sacramento, Calf.,pp 42-45

25. P. Anbazhagan and T.G. Sitharam.(2008). Seismic microzonation of Bangalore,

India.Journal of earth system science.[Online].117(2).pp 833-852. Available:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12040-008-0071-5#page-1

26. P.K. Robertson. (1990). Soil classification using the cone penetration

test.Canadian geotechnical journal.[Online].27(1). pp. 151-158. Available:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/t90-014#.V0CxEpF97IU

27. P.K. Robertson and C.E. Wride. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential

using the cone penetration test. Canadian geotechnical journal.[Online].35(3). pp.

442-459. Available: http://www.nrcresearch

press.com/doi/abs/10.1139/t98-017#.V0CwK5F97IU

93

APPENDIX A

Collected data of various boreholes showing results obtained from various field and laboratory tests.

Sr. No. BH No.

Top

R.L.

(m)

From (m) To (m)

SPT

N

value

Total Core

recovery

(%)

Solid Core

recovery

(%)

R.Q.D.

(%) Lithology

1 BH 101 -3.49 0 7.5 0 - - Very soft dark greenish grey CLAY

7.5 7.63 346 - - - Very dense brown sandy GRAVEL

7.63 9 0 78 27 7

Moderately weak moderately weathered buff

coloured SANDSTONE with closely spaced

fractures

9 10.5 100 63 34

10.5 12 100 84 53

12 13.5 97 73 69

13.5 15 98 90 29

15.1 16.5 99 97 63

2 BH 102 1.54 0 10.5 0 Very soft dark greenish grey CLAY

10.5 10.95 48 Dense to very dense dark greenish

grey to brown sandy GRAVEL (weathered rock

pieces)

10.95 12

12 12.25 300

12.25 13.5 60 27 0 Weak to very weak moderately

weathered to highly weathered whitish brown to

buff

coloured SANDSTONE with very closely to

medium spaced

fractures

13.5 15 88 80 41

15.1 16.5 100 97 85

16.5 18

100 100 67

BH

No.

Specimen

Depth

Atterbergs

limits Particle size distribution (%)

Density (g/cc)

Porosity (%) Fro

m

T

o WL WP IP clay silt

sand

Gravel Fine

Mediu

m Coarse Bulk Dry

BH

101 1.5

1.

95 53 22 31 44 40 11 5 0 0 1.63 0.97

4.5

4.

95 30 14 16 48

40 10 1 1

10.5 12

2.2 24.46

15

16

.5 2.21 19.42



94

APPENDIX B

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY CONTOURS FOR WEATHERED ROCK LEVEL FROM SPT, CPT, AND SHEAR STRENGTH

Documents

Site specific seismicity assessment of a port in India M BADRAKIA.… · 2020. 2. 12. · Researchers in [19] developed attenuation relationships for peak horizontal ground acceleration