Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis for Site Classes D and E of Bihar Region, India

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

Abstract

According to the NEHRP (2003), the soil site classes C, D and E are more responsible for the seismic wave amplification; however, among these three site classes, the site class E is more responsible for soil liquefaction. Based on the borehole profiles and SPT-N values, collected from all 48 sites within Bihar region, it was observed that the entire Bihar region comes under the range of site classes D and E with the variations of Vs30 ranging from 180 to 360 m/s. Therefore, an attempt has been made to perform nonlinear seismic ground response analysis (GRA) of site classes D and E of Bihar region using DEEPSOIL software, since the entire Bihar region comes under the seismic zone of III, IV and V. Three acceleration time histories of different peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.1 g, 0.26 g and 0.45 g indicating low, moderately high and very high seismic hazard scenarios, respectively, have been chosen for this analysis. The results obtained from seismic GRA have been presented in terms of the variations of acceleration, amplification/deamplification of seismic waves, shear strain, shear stress ratio and pore water pressure along with the depth. The high shear strains (greater than 0.5%) observed within the soil deposit may cause permanent deformation in the ground resulting catastrophic damage to the existing structures. The amplification factor (i.e., ratio of output acceleration to the input acceleration) of seismic wave was found to be in the range 0.35–3.0. Further, the results obtained from nonlinear GRA also indicated that the seismic wave is amplified by 180%, but the deamplification by 50%. The increase of pore water pressure ratio up to 0.93, with increasing seismic energy or higher PGA input motion, indicates the initiation of soil liquefaction at most of the soil site. The results indicated that the seismic GRA is significantly affected by input motion and the soil variability. It can be stated that this study can be useful for the geotechnical engineers to design the earthquake-resistant structures; however, more experimental investigations are required to understand the mechanism of soil liquefaction in the entire Bihar region. Further, this study can also be utilized for the development of surface level ground motion attenuation relationship for the Bihar region. Overall, this study is one of the preliminary investigations toward seismic microzonation study of Bihar region, which can be useful for the development of disaster management plan by providing seismic microzonation map.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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 Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  3. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC 2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Report FEMA-450 (Provisions), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington

  4. Kumar S, Muley P, Madani SN (2022) Ground response analysis and liquefaction for Kalyani region, Kolkata. Environ Sci Pollut Res, pp 1–20

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Silahtar A (2022) Evaluation of local soil conditions with 1D nonlinear site response analysis of Arifiye (Sakarya District), Turkey. Nat Hazards, pp 1–25

  7. 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 Scien Techn Trans Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00858-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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 Technol 55:33–46

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chatterjee K, Choudhury D (2018) Influences of local soil conditions for ground response in Kolkata city during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, India Section A: physical sciences. 88(4):515–528

  13. Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Trent WL (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(4):607–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. 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 

  18. Pawirodikromo W (2022) Ground Motions, site amplification and building damage at near source of the 2006 Yogyakarta, Indonesia earthquake. Geotech Geolog Eng 40:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dammala PK, Krishna AM (2022) Nonlinear seismic ground response analysis in Northeastern India considering the comprehensive dynamic soil behavior. Indian Geotech J 52:650–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00598-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yildiz Ö (2022) Seismic site characterization of Battalgazi in Malatya, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 15(9):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mase LZ (2022) Local seismic hazard map based on the response spectra of stiff and very dense soils in Bengkulu city, Indonesia. Geod Geodyn 13(6):573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yıldız Ö (2021) Nonlinear and equivalent linear site response analysis of Istanbul soils. NATURENGS MTU J Eng Nat Sci Ozal Univ 1:88–101. https://doi.org/10.46572/naturengs.895283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Puri N, Jain A (2020) Estimation of Local site effect on earthquake ground motions for sites in the state of Haryana, India. In: Emerging trends in civil engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp 101–110

  25. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sil A, Haloi J (2018) Site-specific ground response analysis of a proposed bridge site over Barak River along Silchar bypass road, India. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3:63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0167-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad S, Bhattacharjee A (2017) Seismic ground response analysis and pore pressure evaluation at selected locations of Jorhat city. In: The proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, GeoNEst, 14–16 December 2017, IIT Guwahati, India

  29. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Singhai A, Kumar SS, Dey A (2016) Site-specific 1-D nonlinear effective stress GRA with pore water pressure dissipation. In: Proceeding of 6th International conference on recent advance in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamic, New Delhi, pp 1–11

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Akhila M, Ghosh C, Satyam DN (2012) Detailed ground response analysis at park hotel in Kolkata city India. 15WEEE, Lisboa

  33. Naik N, Choudhury D (2013) Site specific ground response analysis for typical sites in Panjim city, Goa. In Proceedings of Indian Geotech Conference, Roorkee, India

  34. Shiuly A, Sahu RB, Mandal S, Roy N (2018) Local site effect due to past earthquakes in Kolkata. J Geol Soc India 91(4):400–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pallav K, Raghukanth STG, Singh KD (2010) Surface level ground motion estimation for 1869 Cachar earthquake (Mw 7.5) at Imphal city. J Geo Phys Eng 7(3):321–331

    Google Scholar 

  36. Thaker TP, Rao KS, Gupta, KK (2009) Ground response and site amplification studies for coastal soil, Kutch, Gujarat: a case study. In: Proceeding of International Conference at BITS Pilani (ACSGE), India

  37. Ranjan R (2005) Seismic response analysis of Dehradun City, India. M.Sc Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observations–Enschede. Netherlands, p 92

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

  39. 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 

  40. 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 

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

  42. 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 

  43. Mridula S, Sinvhal A, Wason HR, Rajput SS (2016) Segmentation of main boundary thrust and main central thrust in Western Himalaya for assessment of seismic hazard. Nat hazards 84:383–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ghosh T, Mukhopadhyay A (2012) Schematic natural hazard zonation of Biharusing geoinformatics. International Growth Centre, London, p 82

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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

  46. Banghar AR (1991) Mechanism solution of Nepal–Bihar eartbquake of August 20, 1988. J Geol Soc India 1–78(37):25–30

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gansser A (1974) Himalaya geology. Soc Lond Spec Publ 4:267–278

  49. Valdiya KS (1976) Himalayan transverse faults and folds and their parallelism with subsurface structures of North Indian plains. Tectonophysics 32:353–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(76)90069-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Joshi DD, Bhartiya SP (1991) Geomorphic history and lithostratigraphy of a part of Eastern Gangetic plain, Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 1–78(37):569–576

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sinha R, Friend PF, Switsur VR (1996) Radiocarbon dating and sedimentation rates in the Holocene alluvial sediments of the northern Bihar plains, India. Geol Mag 133:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800007263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Chandra S (1993) Fluvial landforms and sediments in the north-central Gangetic Plain, India. Darwin College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  54. Quittmeyer RC, Jacob KH (1979) Historical and modern seismicity of Pakistan, Afghanistan, northwestern India, and southeastern Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 69:773–823

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sinha R, Tandon SK, Bhattarcharjee PS, Dasgupta AS (2005) Late Quaternary geology and alluvial stratigraphy of the Ganga basin. Himal Geology 26:223–240

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM (2018) Response of saturated cohesionless soil subjected to irregular seismic excitations. Nat Hazards 93(1):509–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  66. 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 

  67. Fujiwara T (1972) Estimation of ground movements in actual destructive earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the fourth European symposium on earthquake engineering. London, pp 125–132

  68. 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

  69. 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 

  70. 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

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

  72. Sykora D, Stokoe K (1983) Correlations of in situ measurements in sands of shear wave velocity, soil characteristics, and site conditions. Report gr 83–33. Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas at Austin

  73. 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 

  74. Zheng J (1987) Correlation between seismic wave velocity and the number of blow of spt and depths. In: Proceedings of Chinese journal of geotechnical engineering—1985, China. ASCE, pp 92–100

  75. 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 

  76. 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  79. 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 

  80. 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  83. 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 

  84. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 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 Geolog Eng 28(2):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-009-9285-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kondner RL, Zelasko JS (1963) A hyperbolic stress‐strain formulation of sands. In: The Proceedings of the 2nd Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Brazilian Associate Soil Mechanics. São Paulo, Brazil, pp 289–324

  87. Matasović N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng 119(11):1805–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Matasović N, Vucetic M (1995) Generalized cyclic-degradation-pore-pressure generation model for clays. J Geotech Eng 121(1):33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

  91. Nath SK, Raj A, Sharma J et al (2008) Site amplification, Qs, and source parameterization in Guwahati Region from seismic and geotechnical analysis. Seismol Res Lett 79:526–539. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.79.4.526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. SEISMOSIGNAL program (https://seismosoft.com/product/seismosignal/). Accessed 03 Nov 2022

  93. Mian JF, Kontoe S, Free M (2013) Assessing and managing the risk of earthquake-induced liquefaction to civil infrastructure. In: Woodhead Publishing Series Civil Structural Engineering, A Handbook of Seis Risk Ana Manag Civil Infra Sys. Woodhead Publishing, pp 113–138

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Khushboo Kumari

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology (NIT) Patna, Bihar, 800005, India

    Prabhakar Kumar & Shiv Shankar Kumar

Authors
  1. Khushboo Kumari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prabhakar Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shiv Shankar Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KK was involved in conceptualization, formal analysis and writing—original draft preparation; PK was involved in formal analysis and development of synthetic ground motion; and SSK was involved in conceptualization, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing and supervision.

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Kumari, K., Kumar, P. & Kumar, S.S. Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis for Site Classes D and E of Bihar Region, India. Indian Geotech J 54, 358–393 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00775-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00775-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation