Soft Sediments and Damage Pattern-A Few

Home , 1997 Jabalpur earthquake, Doab, Garhwal Himalaya

Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 DOI 10.1007/s11069-014-1283-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Soft sediments and damage pattern: a few case studies from large Indian earthquakes vis-a-vis seismic risk evaluation

Mithila Verma • R. J. Singh • B. K. Bansal

Received: 27 November 2012 / Accepted: 2 June 2014 / Published online: 19 June 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract India is prone to earthquake hazard; almost 65 % area falls in high to very high seismic zones, as per the seismic zoning map of the country. The Himalaya and the Indo- Gangetic plains are particularly vulnerable to high seismic hazard. Any major earthquake in Himalaya can cause severe destruction and multiple fatalities in urban centers located in the vicinity. Seismically induced ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction are the two main factors responsible for severe damage to the structures, especially, built on soft sedimentary environment. These are essentially governed by the size of earthquake, epicentral distance and geology of the area. Besides, lithology of the strata, i.e., sediment type, grain size and their distribution, thickness, lateral discontinuity and ground water depth, play an important role in determining the nature and degree of destruction. There has been significant advancement in our understanding and assessment of these two phenomena. However, data from past earthquakes provide valuable information which help in better estimation of ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction for evaluation of seismic risk in future and planning the mitigation strategies. In this paper, we present the case studies of past three large Indian earthquakes, i.e., 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake (Mw 7.5); 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.1) and 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) and discuss the role of soft sediments particularly, alluvial deposits in relation to the damage pattern due to amplified ground motions and soil liquefaction induced by the events. The results presented in the paper are mainly focused around the sites located on the river banks and experienced major destruction during these events. It is observed that the soft sedimentary sites located even far from earthquake epicenter, with low water saturation, experienced high ground motion amplification; while the sites with high saturation level have under- gone soil liquefaction. We also discuss the need of intensifying studies related to ground

M. Verma (&) Á B. K. Bansal Geoscience Division, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected]

R. J. Singh 101, Shiv Vihar, Janakipuram-I, Lucknow 226020, India 123 1830 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 motion ampliﬁcation and soil liquefaction in India as these are the important inputs for detailed seismic hazard estimation.

Keywords Earthquakes Á Soft sediments Á Ground motion ampliﬁcation Á Soil liquefaction Á Seismic risk evaluation

1 Introduction

Earthquakes are considered to be the worst natural calamities in comparison with other natural events such as cyclones, floods and droughts, as they strike without any notice and cause immediate loss of life and property. The areas far from human habitation rarely get affected by these events; while they cause widespread damage and multiple fatalities, when occur in the vicinity of urban centers. The damage caused during large earthquakes is governed by geology, subsurface soil and ground water conditions of the affected area; however, the degree of damage largely depends upon the state of social development of the area, such as population density, construction practices and emergency preparedness. The damage caused by the earthquakes therefore, may be categorized into two types; (1) Direct damage and (2) Indirect damage. Direct damage may result from primary effects of the earthquake, i.e., intense ground shaking and fault displacement or from secondary effects like landslides and soil liquefaction generated by primary effects. The magnitude of damage due to strong shaking depends upon intensity and frequency of motion, whereas landslides and liquefaction depends upon slope instability, bearing capacity failure, lateral spreading etc. (3) Indirect damage generally refers to the socioeconomic and environ- mental impact of the earthquake. It includes loss in terms of life, economy and environ- mental side effects. Cities which are built on soft/unconsolidated sediments are more vulnerable, as the soft sediments are susceptible to ground motion amplification and liquefaction. The severe damage due to ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction has also been observed at sites (comprised of soft sediments), even at larger epicentral distances. For example, the Ahmadabad city (Gujarat), located about 330 km from the epicenter of 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) got severely affected by amplified ground motions due to presence of thick soft sedimentary cover. Similarly, Mexico city located about 300 km from the epicenter of 1985 Mexico earthquake (Mw 8.3) suffered great devastation by ground motion amplification. On the other hand, during the Niigata and Alaska earthquakes of 1964 (Mw 7.6 and Mw 9.2) and Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 (Mw 6.9), soil liquefaction was the major factor to cause maximum destruction. The damage due to ground motion amplification and liquefaction may, however, vary from region to region depending upon the geological and lithological conditions of the area. Most of the highly populated and urbanized centers are located either on the river banks or near sea shores (comprised of soft sediments) all over the world. But, in earthquake prone areas, these centers have gained importance in terms of urban safety due to rapid urbanization and population growth. In India, the Himalaya and the Indo-Gangetic plains (lying south of Himalaya), where more than 40 % of the Indian population resides are particularly vulnerable to high seismic hazard. As per the seismic zoning map of the country, prepared by Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 2002), about 65 % area of Indian landmass is under threat of moderate to severe seismic hazard, i.e., prone to shaking of MSK Intensity VII and above. Several important cities are lying in seismic zone III, IV and

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1831

V, particularly, in Himalayas and Indo-Gangetic plains (Fig. 1). Moreover, in recent years, cities in Indian alluvial plains have seen rapidly increasing number of high-rise buildings and massive civil engineering facilities. Occurrence of large earthquake in the vicinity may cause extensive damage to the built environment, either due to amplified ground motions or liquefaction of soft sediments. Therefore, understanding the relation between soft sediments and damage pattern due to seismically induced ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction is a basic step toward seismic hazard assessment. Various studies have been carried out toward understanding the influence of soft sediments on the damage pattern during earthquakes. The influence of local geology on the amplitude and duration of ground motions was first observed and reported by Wood (1908) after the California earthquake 1906 (Mw 7.8). Since then, there has been significant development in this area. It is worth mentioning a few important studies here. For example; Borcherdt (1970) observed that the horizontal ground velocities generally, increased with the thickness of younger sediments and were as much as 10 times greater than those recorded at nearby bedrock in the San Francisco Bay area. Seed and Idriss (1982) estimated the magnitude of amplification for different sediments as a function of peak ground acceleration. Singh et al. (1988) studied the ground motion amplification in and around Mexico city using strong motion data of the 1985 Mexico earthquake (Mw 8.3). The effect of topography on amplitude and frequency content of ground motions was studied by Geli et al. (1988) and Faccioli (1991). They reported that the hills produce scattering, focusing, or defocusing of incident energy (topographic effect) and thick alluvium-filled terrain causes reverberations due to trapped energy (basin effect). These effects were further quantified by Pedersen et al. (1994). Ground motion amplification was computed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Boatwright et al. 1991; Chin and Aki 1991) and from the aftershock sequence (Field et al. 1992). Various techniques like spectral ratio, ambient noise survey or Nakamura ratio and even the nonlinear elastic behavior have been used in investigating the local site effects and dynamic soil behavior in different geographic and geologic conditions (Field and Jacob 1993; Aki 1993; Beresnev et al. 1995; Atakan and Havskov 1996; Teves-Costa et al. 1996; Atakan et al. 1997; Field et al. 1997; Safak 2001; Albarello 2001; Parolai et al. 2002). In contrast, a very few studies related to ground motion amplification have been taken up in India as a part of seismic microzonation exercise of different urban centers, viz, Guwahati (DST report 2007), Sikkim (Nath et al. 2000), Garhwal Himalaya (Nath et al. 2002), and Delhi region (Nath et al. 2003), Ahmedabad (Govindaraju et al. 2004) and Gandhinagar, Gujarat (Sairam et al. 2011). Raghukanth and Lyenger (2007) estimated the seismic spectral acceleration on various geological conditions in peninsular India based on standard spectral ratio (SSR) technique. Chopra and Choudhury (2011) reported that the response spectra are influenced by the local geological and lithological conditions despite having the same regional geology at different sites in Gujarat. Hough and Bilham (2008) made an attempt to quantify the site response of the Ganga basin through macro-seismic intensity distribution for historical earthquakes. After 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake (Mw 6.8) occurred in northwest Himalaya, attempts were made to study the attenuation relations for strong seismic ground motions in the Himalayan regions, using strong ground motion data generated by earthquakes occurred during 1986–1988, with magnitude range from 5.7 to 7.2 (Aman et al. 1995 and Singh et al. 1996). Studies on liquefaction were started during 1960s after Nigata (1964) and Alaska (1964) earthquakes, though the evidences of liquefaction were observed during the 1934 Bihar– Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.1) (Dunn et al. 1939). Several investigations have been made to understand the phenomenon of soil liquefaction, its mechanism, assessment and mapping; 123 1832 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851

Fig. 1 Seismic zonation map of India, published by Bureau of Indian Standards (IS-2002). As per the map, the country is divided into four seismic hazard zones, i.e., low hazard (zone II) to very high hazard (zone V). The regions considered for the present study lie in Seismic zone III, IV and V e.g. Seed and Lee (1966); Seed and Idriss (1971) reported the first comprehensive data on liquefaction of sand. Peacock and Seed (1968) analyzed the liquefaction based on cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear test. Seed et al. (1985) used the standard penetration test (SPT) for liquefaction studies of saturated sand deposits. Cone penetration test (CPT) was used by Mitchell and Tseng (1990) and reported its advantages over the SPT technique. Other studies on liquefaction behavior of soils based on laboratory investigations or on simple in situ test data such as SPT or CPT and the data/information from past earthquakes are plenty in literature (Robertson and Campanella 1985; Prakash 1981; Seed et al. 1983; Andrus and Stokoe 2000; Youd and Idriss 2001; Boulanger and Idriss 2012). Many researchers studied the liquefaction of fine-grained soils (Finn 1991; Finn et al. 1994; Perlea et al. 1999; Andrews and Martin 2000; Bray et al. 2004) and reported that silts and 123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1833 silty-clay soils behave differently from sand with respect to build up of pore water pressure and deformations under cyclic loading, i.e., silts and clays can be prone to liquefaction under certain conditions. Ishihara (2006), while studying the case histories of liquefaction due to some major earthquakes in Japan, suggested that the three soil profiles namely; (1) sand deposits, (2) sandwiched sand deposits and (3) thin sand layer lying on gravelly sand are most prone to the liquefaction. A few liquefaction studies have also been carried out in India, mainly for the seismic microzonation of different urban centers like Delhi (Rao and Satyam 2007), Kolkata (Chakrabortty et al. 2004), Mumbai (Dixit et al. 2012), Bangalore (Sitharam and Anbazhagan 2007), Sikkim (Nath 2006) etc. Many advances have been made in both understanding and practices with regard to engineering treatment of seismically induced soil liquefaction and assessment of seismic site response. However, data provided by a series of past large earthquakes still play an important role in better understanding of these phenomena. In this paper, we present the past case studies of three large Indian earthquakes, i.e., 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake (Mw 7.5); 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.1) and 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) to analyze the role of soft sediments particularly, alluvial sedimentary deposits with reference to the phenomena of ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction induced by these events. Though the great Assam earthquake of 1897 (Mw 8.1) is a classical example of destruction due to intense shaking and soil liquefaction, but has not been considered for the present study. The earthquake reportedly occurred after two days of heavy rain during the monsoon season. The region had already been water logged with rivers overflowing as reported by Luttman-Johnson (1898). Ambraseys and Bilham (2003) also reported that rain started immediately after the event which caused temporary rise of the water table, and in general an increased pore pressure in soils, as typical in the monsoon period often had led to apparent liquefaction without an earthquake. Therefore, the role of water or rainfall in inducing surface deformations in an area cannot be ignored while studying seismically induced ground failure. It is also worth mentioning here some recent moderate earthquakes, occurred during last three decades viz., 1988 Bihar–Nepal (Mw 6.6); 1991 Uttarakashi (Mw 6.8); 1999 Chamoli (Mw 6.8); 1993 Latur (Mw 6.2) and 1997 Jabalpur (Mw. 6.0) etc. which provided insight into how the soft sediments influenced the damage pattern due to seismically induced ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction. For Example, the 1988 earthquake which occurred close to India–Nepal border with focal depth of about 36 miles caused widespread devastation and loss of life. About 1,004 people were killed in both India and Nepal and more than 16,000 were injured. The most affected areas were mainly the Gangetic alluvial plains of Bihar (India) and Nepal including epicentral region, the areas around Munger (India) and Bharakpur (near Kathmandu in Nepal). In most parts of Bihar, the damage occurred significantly due to intense shaking except a few places like Darb- hanga and Madhumati districts where ground fissuring and emission of sandy water were observed. In addition, severe damage was also reported at some far away sites such as Darjeeling (West Bengal) and Sikkim (Jain 1992). The 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake (Mw 6.8) which occurred in the NW Himalaya caused extensive damage to a large area and multiple fatalities. About 768 persons died while 5,066 were injured and as many as 42,400 houses were damaged. Extensive damage was reported due to intense shaking in Uttark- ashi, Tehri and Chamoli. The maximum intensity was calculated as VIII on MMI scale (Jain et al. 1992). Another damaging earthquake in this region was 1999 Chamoli (Mw 6.8) which was occurred near the town of Chamoli and caused death of 100 persons and injured hundreds more. About 2,595 houses collapsed and about 10,861 houses were partially damaged due to intense shaking and no instances of liquefaction were reported. The 123 1834 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 maximum intensity experienced during the event was VIII on MSK scale (Jain et al. 1999). Similarly, 1997 Jabalpur earthquake (Mw 6.0) which was occurred in stable Indian region, near Jabalpur city (Madhya Pradesh), caused significant destruction to the built environment in and around the epicentral region. The maximum damage was in Jabalpur and Mandla. About 8,546 houses were collapsed and about 52,690 houses were badly damaged. About 38 persons died and about 350 were injured during the event. Loss of lives was comparatively less as the earthquake was occurred in the early morning during summer season when most of the people sleep outdoors. The damage was entirely due to intense shaking, and there were no instances of liquefaction reported during the earthquake (Jain et al. 1997). The areas considered for the present study are located on the river banks and suffered major destruction during the 1803, 1934 and 2001 earthquakes; some areas present the classical examples of destruction at larger distances due to the presence of thick soft sedimentary deposits. The map given in Fig. 2 shows locations of the three large earthquakes (filled stars) and the affected areas considered for the case studies (filled rectangles). Also, the epicentral locations of recent moderate earthquakes occurred during past three decades (filled circles) are shown in the map.

2 Geology and tectonic setup of the study region

In the present study, we considered the areas which were severely affected by the three past large earthquakes, i.e., 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake (Mw 7.5); 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.1); and 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7). The areas, viz. Uttarakashi, Srinagar and Dehradun in the Garhwal Himalayan region and some parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains were severely affected by the 1803 earthquake. Bihar in India and Kathmandu and Tarai region in Nepal were largely affected by 1934 earthquake. The recent Bhuj earthquake caused severe damage in Gujarat in western India (Fig. 2). Therefore, the study region could be differentiated into three geological settings: (1) Garhwal–Kumaun and Nepal Himalaya; (2) Indo-Gangetic plains of Bihar and Nepal; and (3) Stable continental region of Gujarat.

2.1 Garhwal–Kumaun and Nepal Himalaya

The Garhwal–Kumaun region lies in Indian part of northwest and central Himalaya. It is divided into ﬁve geomorphological zones from south to north namely; the Outer (sub Himalaya), the Lower (Lesser Himalaya), the Greater (Higher) Himalaya, the Tethys (Tibetan) Himalaya and the Trans Himalaya (Thakur 1992). The Outer Himalaya largely comprised of the sediments of middle Miocene to upper Pleistocene age with the Hima- layan Frontal Fault (HFF) as a boundary in the south and the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) in the north. The Lesser Himalayan zone which has the largest width is sandwiched between MBT and MCT (Main Central Thrust). It comprises of Precambrian sedimentary rocks overlain by crystalline thrust sheets. The Higher Himalaya comprised of crystalline rocks, which has MCT in the south and Trans Himadri Fault (THF) as its northern boundary. The Tethys Himalaya lies further north of the Greater Himalaya. The northern margin of Tethys Himalaya is sharply deﬁned the Indus-Tsangpo Suture Zone (ITSZ). The Garhwal–Kumaun Himalaya is seismo-tectonically an active region of the Himalayan arc. Along the MCT, there are many geological evidences suggestive of neotectonic move- ments (Seeber et al. 1981; Ni and Barazangi 1984) based on geological, geomorphological, 123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1835

Fig. 2 Topographic map of india depicts the epicentral locations of three large earthquakes; 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake (Mw 7.5); 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.1) and 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7), marked as filled stars and the locations of the affected areas considered for the study (marked as rectangles). Most of the study areas are located on the river banks as well as on the alluvial plains as shown in the figure. Also, the epicentral locations of recent moderate earthquakes occurred during past three decades (filled circles) are shown in the map

seismological and geodetic observations. Evidences of neotectonics and reactivation of faults and thrusts have been noticed throughout the NW Himalaya (Valdiya 2001). Fig- ure 3 depicts the geological and tectonic setup of the Garhwal–Kumaun Himalaya. The Nepal Himalaya which lies to the east of Kumaun, also exhibits the same tectonic and geological setup as the Garhwal–Kumaun Himalaya. It comprises of ﬁve subdivisions from

123 1836 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851

Fig. 3 Geological and tectonic map of Garhwal–Kumaun Himalaya showing various faults (after Islam et al. 2011) south to north namely; Sub Himalaya (Siwaliks), Lesser Himalaya, Main Central Thrust zone, Higher Himalaya and Tibetan-Tethys Himalaya. To the south of Siwaliks, is present in the Tarai region, the Nepalese extension of the Indo-Gangetic plains. The region was severely affected by some large earthquakes in the past such as 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake (Mw 7.5); 1883 Garhwal earthquake (Mw 7.5) and 1905 Kangra earthquake (Mw 7.6). In last three decades, it has experienced two more devastating moderate earthquakes namely; Uttarakashi earthquake in 1991 (Mw 6.8) and Chamoli earthquake in 1999 (Mw 6.5) which caused severe damage in the area.

2.2 Indo-Gangetic plains of Bihar and Nepal

The Indo-Gangetic plains, generally defined as frontal depression, filled by sediments and alluvium of the river Indus and Ganga. It is also considered the replica of the trench systems, which are associated with the front of island arc systems at subduction zones (Khattri 1987). The major subsurface basement faults have been mapped in the area bordering the Himalayan mountains, which reflect the continuation of the tectonic features mapped in the peninsular shield (Eremenko and Negi 1968). The extension of Indo- Gangetic plains in Nepal is generally referred as the Tarai region. Although low seismicity has been reported from Indo-Gangetic plains; however, the area is considered to be at high seismic risk due to occurrence of the Himalayan earthquakes, presence of alluvial deposits of large thickness and saturated soils. The continuity to the Himalayan region, the nature of sediments and the observed neotectonic activity make this region highly susceptible to earthquake hazard due to local site effects like soil liquefaction as witnessed during the

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1837

Fig. 4 a The geology of Gujarat, western India and b The tectonic setup of three regions; Kachchh, Saurashtra and Mainland with major faults (after Chopra and Choudhury 2011) great Bihar–Nepal earthquake in 1934 (Mw 8.1) and the Bihar earthquake of 1988 (Mw 6.6).

2.3 Stable continental region of Gujarat

The Gujarat region in western India comprises of three zones: Kachchh, Saurashtra and Mainland. About 60 % of the area is covered by Deccan basalt covering major parts of Saurashtra, some portion in Kachchh and major portion of south Gujarat with intervening Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks at many places. The Kachchh basin comprises of 123 1838 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 sediments from middle Jurassic to Holocene. The Mesozoic rocks (overlain by Tertiary sediments) are exposed extensively on the highland areas, whereas Tertiary sediments are present in the low lying bordering plain land toward the coast and plains of Rann (Biswas 1987, 2005). The area is intersected with major faults namely Nagar Parkar fault (NPF), Island Belt fault (IBF), South Wagad fault (SWF), Kachchh Mainland fault (KMF) and North Kathiawar fault (NKF). Kachchh region experienced two devastating earthquakes in 1819 (Mw 7.8) and 2001 (Mw 7.6) besides many moderate earthquakes. This is one of the most active intra-plate regions of the world. The Saurashtra region shows sedimentary sequence of Upper Jurassic with majority area covered by basalts with Tertiary rocks and Quaternary formations covering the coastal areas. The mainland is mostly, covered by Quaternary deposits vary in thickness between 100 and 400 m (Merh 1995). The southern part of Mainland is covered by Deccan basalt, and the northeastern part is covered by older rocks of Proterozoic age. The Saurashtra and Mainland regions are seismically less active than the Kachchh region. Figure 4 shows the geology (a) and tectonic units (b) of Gujarat.

3 Case studies/results

Detailed analysis of damage pattern during three large earthquakes (1803 Uttaranchal; 1934 Bihar–Nepal and 2001 Bhuj) is presented below in the form of case studies.

3.1 Damage due to ampliﬁed ground motions

The severity of ground shaking during earthquake is one of the important factors for causing damage to the built environment. However, the degree of damage depends upon local geologic conditions of the area, size of the earthquake, epicentral distance, faulting, ground rupture and time of earthquake occurrence. Soft sediments are generally, found to amplify the ground motion, and hence, the structures built on such sites are susceptible to greater damage than those built on hard rock sites. Aki (1993) has stated that younger soft sediments amplify the ground motions more than older sedimentary strata. Particularly, the near surface unconsolidated sediments can significantly amplify the ground motions which in turn enhance the degree of damage (Borcherdt 1970; Singh et al. 1988). The stiffness and impedance contrast with the underlying bedrock also influence the ground motions (Aki and Richards 1980) and the soft sediments not only tend to amplify ground motion at certain frequencies, but extend the duration of propagation. The following case studies illustrate the damage pattern due to amplified ground motions in the areas located on alluvial deposits:

3.1.1 Uttaranchal earthquake of September 1, 1803 (Mw 7.5)

The September 1, 1803, earthquake that caused massive damage and loss of life in the central Himalaya and some parts of the Gangetic plains is the largest so far reported from this region. Initially, this event was reported as two distinct earthquakes; one in Srinagar (Uttarakhand) and the other near Mathura (UP), about 100 km from Delhi (Oldham 1883). Later, Rajendran and Rajendran (2005) provided conclusive evidences that this was actually one earthquake with its epicenter near Srinagar. They estimated the moment magnitude of this earthquake as 7.7 based on intensity and liquefaction observations. Szeliga et al. (2010), however, inferred its epicenter near the 1991 Uttarakashi earthquake 123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1839 and estimated its magnitude as 7.3. The Garhwal Himalaya, which occupies the drainage cover of Yamuna, Bhagirathi and Alakananda rivers, suffered severe damage from this earthquake. The most severely affected areas reported as the towns of Uttarkashi and Srinagar. In Uttarkashi, located on the banks of Bhagirathi (Ganga), almost all houses were destroyed and about 300 people were killed as reported by Raper (1810). Baird-Smith (1844) also reported intense damage at Uttarakashi, the temples and houses were described to be more or less in shattered condition. The town of Srinagar, situated on the southern bank of Alakananda, was the severely affected area. Nearly 1,000 houses were destroyed; severe damage to the palace and development of land ﬁssures due to intense shaking were also reported (Raper 1810). The large-scale destruction caused to the palace of the local ruler provides evidence of the severity of damage at Srinagar. Here, the intensity was reported close to X on MMI scale (Fig. 5). Raper (1810) reported that the city of Dev- aprayag, Joshimath, Badrinath and Almora were partially damaged. The obvious reason for limited damage could be their location on hard rock sites. Many towns in the Himalayan foothills like Dehradun, located on alluvial fan and Hardwar, situated on the banks of river Ganga were also severely shaken by the 1803 earthquake. Most parts of the Gangetic plains like Mathura situated on the western bank of river Yamuna and Aligarh, located in the middle portion of doab (land between Ganga and Yamuna rivers) too experienced this earthquake (Baird-Smith 1844). Many rubble masonry houses collapsed, and the principal mosque was shattered to pieces in Aligarh (Piddington 1804). In Ojha Ghur (Uttar Pra- desh), located on the east bank of the Yamuna river, a small fort and a village were buried; landslips and other effects of severe shaking were also observed (Hodgson 1822). Delhi, located on the west bank of the river Yamuna, nearly 350 km far from the epicenter, was one of the severely affected regions by this earthquake. Nath et al. (1967) reported the loss of lives and extensive damage to many buildings in Delhi. The most stunning effect of this earthquake in Delhi was the damage to Qutb Minar, a 72.5 m high tower, built in the thirteenth century. It is a typical case of damage to a tall structure by low-frequency waves (2–8 s) from a distant large event. The damage in Delhi could also be attributed to the local ampliﬁcation of seismic energy due to the presence of thick alluvium beneath the area.

3.1.2 Bihar–Nepal earthquake of January 15, 1934 (Mw 8.1)

The 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake was one of the worst earthquakes in the Indian history. The epicenter of this event was located in the eastern Nepal, about 240 km away from Kathmandu. The damage and destruction were severe in Bihar region of Indo-Gangetic plains; Kathmandu valley and Tarai region in Nepal (Dunn et al. 1939; Rana et al. 1935). Molnar and Pandey (1988) re-compiled the damage data and showed that most parts of the eastern Nepal were severely shaken by this earthquake. Around 30,000 people died and widespread damage caused in the northern Bihar and in Nepal. The cities in Bihar like Munger (located on the south bank of river Ganga) and Muzaffarpur (located on the south bank of Burhi Gandak river) were completely destroyed in the Indian part. During this event, three meizoseismal areas were observed; the largest was aligned from Motihari to Madhubani, the second at Monghyr (now Munger), south of Ganga river in India and third was the Kathmandu valley in Nepal. Dunn et al. (1939) reported that Monghyr (Munger) was the worst affected town in Bihar. The entire town was reduced to ruins, scarcely a house or hut escaped destruction or damage. The damage done to buildings in Monghyr (Munger) was entirely due to severe shaking which the town had experienced. Neither ﬁssures nor slumping of the ground were noticeable except near the edge of the river on the north. Similar kind of damage took place along the river fronts in Patna and Barh cities. 123 1840 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851

Fig. 5 Isoseismal map (MSK scale) of the 1803 Uttaranchal Earthquake derived from the felt reports indicating that the Srinagar and Uttarkashi were the areas of maximum destruction (after Rajendran and Rajendran 2005)

On the Nepal side, an intensity X was assigned to parts of the Kathmandu valley and IX to the surrounding areas (Rana et al. 1935). In the eastern part of the valley, the Bhaktapur and neighboring village were completely destroyed. The greater damage in Kathmandu valley as compared to the surrounding areas was probably the result of local amplification of ground motion due to local soil conditions. Dunn et al. (1939) reported that the buildings built on bedrock, survived better than those on young sediment, and in particular, the three temples Boudhnath, Pashupatinath and Swayambunath escaped severe damage in the valley. He also mentioned that since the subsidence of the ground, tilting and slumping of the houses were entirely absent, the greater destruction of structures built on unconsolidated sediment was almost surely due to amplified ground motions in the sediment filled Kathmandu basin. Richter (1957) also reported that the severe damage at Kathmandu in Nepal and Monghyr (Munger) in Bihar was entirely due to the severe shaking; neither fissure nor slumping of ground was observed.

3.1.3 Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001 (Mw 7.7)

The 2001 Bhuj earthquake that occurred in Kachchh (Gujarat), western part of Indian subcontinent, is the most recent of the three events. The epicenter of the earthquake was located at Bhuj with a focal depth of about 25 km. The region is considered to be a part of stable continental region and had experienced two damaging earthquakes in the past namely, the 1819 earthquake (Mw 7.5) and 1956 earthquake (Mw 6.0). These earthquakes located about 150 km northwest and 40 km west of the 2001 event (Rajendran et al. 2001).

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1841

Bhuj earthquake is the most disastrous earthquake in the India’s recent history. At least, 20000 people lost their lives and injured many more. Nearly, 400,000 houses were destroyed and many damaged due to intense ground shaking. The earthquake caused severe damage not only in the epicentral area, but regions spread over 350 kms away from the epicenter including major cities viz., Ahmadabad, Bhuj, Rajkot, Anjar and Gandhidham etc. Most affected areas include Ahmadabad, Bhuj and Gandhidham. The earthquake again demonstrate the influence of nature and geometry of the subsurface soils in local modifications of the ground motions and offered a great opportunity for better understanding of seismically induced ground motions and soil liquefaction. It is a well-studied earthquake in terms of seismotectonics, damage pattern, response of structures, field effects and aftershock activity etc. Here, we present a case study of damage due to local amplifications of ground motions in Ahmadabad city during Bhuj earthquake. The Ahmadabad city which is approximately 330 km from the epicenter, located on the alluvial plains of Sabarmati river, received an unexpectedly high damage due to severe shaking. A number of medium to high-rise buildings (mostly 5 story and 10 story), particularly, of reinforced concrete suffered extensive damage and collapse in number of localities scattered on left and right banks of Sabarmati river. The localities in western part of the city were completely collapsed during the earthquake, whereas the buildings located at eastern side showed hardly any damage except some cracks in the buildings, even though the number of buildings and population density is higher on this side (Govindaraju et al. 2004). The entire area is underlain by deep alluvial deposits of Sabarmati river, mainly comprised of loose silt and sand. Therefore, local modifications of amplified ground motions could be the cause of random distribution of damage, recorded from number of localities on left and right bank of Sabarmati river. The western part of the city is established over the thick deposits of cohesionless sand and silt of paleo-channel of Sabarmati river. Most of the buildings that collapsed were closely aligned with the old path of river, just west of the present river channel (Ghosh 2001). The poor soil condition might enhance ground motions and caused collapse of buildings. Moreover, the poor construction practices were also one of the major factors responsible for severe damage to built environment on the western side of the river.

3.2 Damage pattern due to soil liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is another important factor, which contributes to the damage during earthquakes. The development of liquefaction in near surface soft sediments causes failure of ground to support structures, generally, triggered by the ground vibrations. The phenomenon of liquefaction is generally observed in cohesionless soils. During earthquake shaking, the ground failure may occur due to loss of strength in loose saturated sandy soils. When the pore water pressure increases, the sedimentary layers loose the shear strength and behave like viscous fluids. Due to this, the ability of soil deposits to support building foundations become reduced. The potential damage caused by liquefaction includes the loss of bearing capacity, excessive settlement and lateral spreading etc. The liquefaction susceptibility of soft sediments, generally, depends on their grain size distribution, relative density, effective confining stress, soil structure and ground water condition etc. However, the compositional characteristics such as particle size, shape, gradation and cohesion etc. also influence the liquefaction susceptibility of the sediments, e.g., well-graded soils are generally less susceptible to liquefaction than poorly graded soils and soils with rounded particles are usually more susceptible to liquefaction than angular grained soils. The

123 1842 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 damage pattern observed due to soil liquefaction during the three earthquakes is given below:

3.2.1 Uttaranchal earthquake, 1803

Ground failure and liquefaction induced by this earthquake were reported at far distances viz, Mathura (*320 km from the epicenter) in the Yamuna plains. For example, Pidd- ington (1804) reported earthquake induced ground failure features like fissuring and bubbling of water in the Mathura region. Also, very extensive fissures in the fields, through which water rose in considerable quantity, were observed in the area (Oldham 1883). The fissures might result from liquefaction of soil. According to Baird-Smith (1844), water surged from these fissures for 23 days. The liquefaction features generated by 1803 earthquake in and around Mathura were considered to be the farthest liquefaction effect by this earthquake. The geophysical survey and drilling carried out by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) indicate that the thickness of the alluvium vary considerably in the central alluvial plains. However, the estimated average thickness of the alluvium in this region is about 600 m. The lithology of the Mathura plains comprised of fine to medium grained sand with thin layers of silt and clay. Here, the ground water table is quite shallow (Website; Central Ground Water Board, Lucknow, cgwb.gov.in/NR), which may provide favorable conditions for generation of liquefaction features.

3.2.2 Bihar–Nepal earthquake, 1934

The distribution of destruction during 1934 great earthquake in northern India was very uneven and most of it was closely associated with slumping, fissuring and tilting of ground (Dunn et al. 1939 and Rana et al. 1935). The northern part of Bihar, which lies close to the border of Nepal, reported to have experienced very extensive slumping, tilting, fissuring and sinking of ground and much of the damage was primarily attributed to slumping. The emission of sand reached its maximum, covering the floor of houses, streets and drains in towns as well as the countryside with thick mantle of sand. It was also reported that the farthest liquefaction features generated by this earthquake was at Banaras, about 400 km from the epicenter (Dunn et al. 1939). Richter (1957), while describing the Bihar–Nepal earthquake, reported that intensity X on (MMI) scale was assigned to a belt of about 80 miles long and 20 miles wide and two other spots at 100 miles away from the main belt; first ‘Monghyr’ (Munger) to the south and second ‘Kathmandu’ valley to the north. The isoseismal of intensity IX (MMI scale) was assigned to an area, which was named as ‘slump belt’; about 190 miles long and had irregular width exceeding 40 miles. The main belt of intensity X (MMI scale) lies entirely within the slump belt. It was reported that buildings and other structures were tilted and slumped into the alluvium, but hardly fell down brick after brick. Also, sinking was varied from place to place. The subsidence up to 6 feet was observed at some places and tanks, lakes, borrow pits and other depressions became shallower. The fissuring, emission of sand and water reached their maximum. The maximum tilting and sinking was observed at Sitamarhi, located in north Bihar. The area was completely destroyed by this earthquake. The sinking was observed to 3–4 feet in Purnea, located in east Bihar. Large fissures were also observed at Champaran and Sitamarhi (north Bihar). A fissure of 15 feet deep, 30 feet wide and 300 yards long was reported at Champaran. Similarly, a typical fissure of 80 yards long, 8 feet wide, filled with sand up to 3 feet to the top was observed at Sitamarhi (Richter 1957). These areas lie in the submontane alluvial tract of the Gangetic plain and 123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1843 are traversed by a number of rivers and their tributaries. The ground water level is close to the surface and the area is composed of alluvial soil, which comprised of gravels in the north and silt, clay and sand in the southern part. Rana et al. (1935) reported the similar damage pattern at Tarai region of Nepal (Nepalese extension of the Indo-Gangetic plains), extended from eastern border to Chitwan in west as reported by Dunn et al. (1939) from north Bihar region. He described that there were fissures everywhere, as wide as 3–4 yards (meters) and as deep as 20–30 m. Some fields were covered with sand and water seeped from many fissures. The numerous fissures and cracks and seepage of water from them were responsible for disrupting the rail-road and probably for much of the destruction of buildings in the Tarai region of Nepal. Auden and Ghosh (1934) also reported the similar observations from this area. He also noted that the fissures were less in the northern area than farther south. Both Rana and Auden were reported that Sirha-Saptari district in Tarai region was the worst damaged, where the houses had slumped extensively into the ground (Dunn et al. 1939). Auden also noted the sanding, fissures and slight faults in the alluvium occurred sporadically as far as Siwalik Hills. Dunn et al. (1939) described that the degree of damage correlates with the extent of fissuring and slumping and not with that of ground shaking. From the descriptions, it may be inferred that the extensive damage in these particular areas of Bihar (India) and Nepal was mainly due to seismically induced liquefaction during 1934 earthquake.

3.2.3 Bhuj earthquake, 2001

The January 26, 2001, Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) generated a variety of liquefaction features in the soft unconsolidated sediments in low lying areas of Kachchh i.e., the Runn of Kachchh, Little Rann of Kachchh as well as in the coastal areas of Gulf. Liquefaction was wide spread particularly along the sea shore, river beds, marshy land and salt pans. The liquefaction has manifested along the long fissures and at many places, it is of vent type. In coastal areas and dam reservoirs, evidences of lateral spreading were also observed. The phenomenon was responsible for failure of structures in the affected areas. No severe damage has been reported from the regions, as these are sparsely populated areas of Gujarat. In Kachchh region, several liquefaction features were developed within 50 km area of the epicentral location as reported by Rajendran et al. (2001). The features include, intense lateral spreading, extensional cracks, sand blows, craters and waterspouts etc. Much of the ground failure was related to the lateral spreading which generally, developed on very gentle slope (between 0.3° and 3°) and is gravity driven. Numerous step-like extensional cracks were observed in the epicentral area formed by lateral spreading. Ground deformation at Budharmora (48 km from Bhuj), includes one meter wide extensional cracks filled with fine sand. Numerous sand blows composed of considerable volume of sand were observed near the village of Chobari (*45 km), Lodai and Umedpur, (located *50 km) from the epicenter. These were perhaps formed through venting of sand and water by liquefaction. At some locations water had evaporated, leaving the craters dry with a perfect circular shape. Some of the largest sand blows were observed near the village of Chobari, where sand and water were spouted through the circular vent (Fig. 6a). Several craters at Lodai and Umedpur were spouting saline water even 3 weeks after the occurrence of Bhuj earthquake. A wet crater of about 3 m wide was observed at Lodai, which continued to spout water for 3 weeks after the earthquake (Fig. 6b). Besides, several dry blows were observed in this zone (within 50 km of epicenter) along many fissures and cracks. The largest crater (10 m 9 5 m) was observed at Umedpur with an apron of vented gray sand of thickness of order of 26 cm. A few dry craters of maximum dimension of 2 m 123 1844 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851

Fig. 6 a Field photograph of a sand blow near Chobari village with a circular bent through which the sand and water were spouted. Crystallized salt is also showing over the sand covered the sand blow. b A wet crater (3 m wide) near Lodai, which continued to discharge water for 3 weeks after the earthquake. c A dry hole at Umedpur (Bhachau) formed by the release of gas during Bhuj earthquake 2001 (after Rajendran et al. 2001)

were also observed at Umedpur (Rajendran et al. 2001) (Fig. 6c). A study by Rydelek and Tuttle (2004) on dry craters formed during Bhuj earthquake concluded that the large dry craters were created by explosive deformation of the ground that probably resulted from delayed effects of soil liquefaction. Singh et al. (2001) studied surface deformations on the land surface after the Bhuj event using IRS-1D, LISS-III data. They observed signiﬁcant manifestations of ground failure due to seismically induced soil liquefaction in and around Runn of Kachchh and Kandla region of Gujarat. Investigations made on liquefaction in earthen dams during the event indicated severe damage to a large number of earthen dams (within 150 km epicentral distance), mostly due to liquefaction of saturated alluvium soils in foundation (Singh et al. 2005). However, the consequence of damage was comparatively

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1845 less mainly because the reservoirs were nearly empty during the earthquake. They further reported that the most affected dam was the Chang dam which was completely collapsed. The dam was empty at the time of Bhuj earthquake; however, the soil underneath the dam was possibly in a saturated state. Severe slumping caused almost total collapse of the dam including damage to the masonry wall. Sand boils were observed near the upstream side of the Chang dam even more than 50 days passed after the earthquake. Furthermore, some lateral spreading was also observed at many locations around the reservoir. The deformation pattern clearly demonstrated a widespread liquefaction within the foundation soils of the dam. On the other hand, damage to Fatehgadh dam and Kaswati dam was relatively less severe. Though direct evidence of liquefaction was not found near Fatehgadh Dam and Kaswati Dam, Singh et al. (2005) suggested that localized liquefaction of foundation soils was one of the causes of observed deformation within the dams. Besides, liquefaction was also observed within Kandla port and its vicinity. Kandla is located on the southeast coast of the Kachchh, about 50 km from the epicenter of Bhuj earthquake. Many pile supported buildings found damaged due to liquefaction. Dash et al. (2009) analyzed the failure of building of Kandla port and customs tower located in the Kandla port during Bhuj earthquake and inferred that the building and the tower were supported on a pile raft foundation and the soil at the site consists of 10 m thick clay overlaid by 12 m deep sandy soil layer. Liquefaction of deep sandy soil strata below the clay layer was mainly responsible for failure and tilting of the building and tower.

4 Discussion

The above case studies highlight that there is a strong relationship between the soft sediments and their susceptibility to ground motion amplification and liquefaction. It has been observed that the earthquakes may cause severe damage at sites comprised of soft sediments even located at large distance from the epicenters. For example, during 1803 Ut- taranchal earthquake, the local peaks of higher damage were observed at distant places like Mathura and Delhi, whereas some local areas like Almora, Devaprayag, Joshimath etc. were less affected due to different local geological and lithological conditions. Though Mathura and Delhi are located on thick deposits of alluvium of Yamuna river; Delhi, however, mostly got affected by amplified ground motion within the thick alluvium deposits, while Mathura by soil liquefaction. This might be due to the variation of local soil and ground water conditions. The site of Qutub Minar at Delhi consists of alternate sequence of fine to medium grained sand with minor silt and siliceous gravels, mostly pebbles with average shear wave velocity 500 m/s as revealed by the MASW surveys in Delhi. The preliminary results of borehole investigations, recently carried out by Earth- quake Risk Evaluation Center (EREC), New Delhi, for seismic microzonation of Delhi region show that the shear wave velocity at a site about 600 m away from the Qutub Minar, varies from 174 to 253 m/s within the upper layer (10 m thick), which mainly comprised of sand. The average ground water depth ranges from 40 to 60 m in this area. These conditions might have caused the amplification of ground motions leading to damage of structures. On the other hand, the minimal damage at Almora was probably due to its location on the crystalline rocks/nappe. During the 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake, the severe damage at Monghyr (Munger) in Bihar and Kathmandu valley in Nepal was attributed to the amplified ground motions. Both regions are located on soft sediments. Monghyr (Munger) is situated on the alluvial plains of Ganga river and consists of a thick deposits of gravel, sand and clay. Dunn et al. (1939) 123 1846 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 explained that the high intensity at Monghyr (Munger) was due to the increased amplitude of the seismic waves propagating southward in the sediment having low thickness. The phenomenon was compared with the sea waves, where amplitude increases as they approach the sea shore. Richter (1957) explained that the severe shaking was due to the presence of a ridge of Archean quartzite, an outlier of the peninsular rocks emerges through the alluvium. The quartzite resisted the severe shaking and the greatest damage was confined to the alluvium immediately surrounding it. Whereas the Kathmandu valley comprises of Pleistocene and Holocene (recent) unconsolidated sediments, i.e., fluviatile and lacustrine deposits resting on metamorphic and partially metamorphosed pre-Tertiary bedrock series which lead to the amplification of seismic ground motions and caused severe damage in the area (Fig. 7a). The valley has two major profiles of unconsolidated sediments of about 500–550 m thickness. The lower fluviatile sediments of 200–250 m thickness consisting of gravels overlain by 200–300 m thick section of lacustrine deposits comprising of clay sediment (Fig. 7b). Shear wave velocity of the lower section is about 1200 m/s, and the adverse role is played by the 600 m/s shear wave velocity of the lacustrine clay as described by Pandey (2000) while carrying out the microtremor survey in 60 sites of the valley. These lithological conditions might have lead to the amplification of seismic waves of distant origin. Similarly, the high degree of damage in Ahmadabad city during 2001, Bhuj earthquake may be the consequence of large amplification of shear waves by thick sandy soil beneath the town. The entire area of Ahmadabad is underlain by thick alluvium of Sabarmati river, composed of cohesionless soil. The random distribution of damage recorded from number of localities on left and right bank of Sabarmati river, may be due to local modifications of amplified ground motions. Site response analysis carried out by Govindaraju et al. (2004) indicated the presence of loose soil, i.e., silt and sand up to 3 m to 15 m depth with little variation in the density from shallow to deeper depth. The moisture content varies from 8.51 % at surface to 10.08 % at 15 m depth, and the degree of saturation varies from 38.5 % (at surface) to 51.8 % at depth of 15 m. These soil characteristics indicate the remote chances of induced liquefaction and associated damage to the built environment. They further inferred that the maximum amplification of ground motion, from base to surface, occurred at the natural frequency of 3.51 Hz for 15 m deep soil cover. This indicates that the high degree of local damage is mainly due to result of large amplification of ground motions due to presence of thick sandy soil deposits. This soil amplification has caused large acceleration to some buildings particularly above four storys up to 10 storys which was responsible for their collapse. On the other hand, the sites which are located on the thick alluvium with sufficient subsurface saturation were affected by seismically induced soil liquefaction. For example, Mathura and Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh were severely affected by liquefaction during 1803 Uttaranchal earthquake; Sitamarhi, Purnea and Champaran in Bihar during 1934 Bihar– Nepal earthquake and Kachchh region in Gujarat during 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Mathura is situated on approximately 600 m thick deposits of alluvial sediments on the west bank of the Yamuna river which mainly comprised of fine to medium grained sand with thin layers of silt and clay. The groundwater table is also shallow, which favored the generation of liquefaction features. Mathura is considered to be the farthest site where liquefaction features were manifested during the 1803 earthquake. Similarly, Sitamarhi, Champaran and Purnea are located on the north Bihar plains which covered by the Gangetic alluvium of the Quaternary age, comprising several hundred meters of unconsolidated sediments. Geophysical surveys and selective test drilling carried out by the ONGC indicate that in north Bihar, the alluvium is around 300–400 m thick and is underlain by the Siwalik 123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1847

Fig. 7 a Map showing geology of the Kathmandu region in Nepal and b The NE–SW geological cross section of the area (after Pandey 2000) sediments. Moreover, the region is drained by several tributaries of Ganga river resulting high saturation in local soil. This made these areas highly vulnerable to seismically induced liquefaction. Similar damage pattern was observed at the Tarai region of Nepal, which severely got affected due to soil liquefaction. The Tarai region is the Nepalese extension of Indo-Gangetic plains; therefore, similar kind of fissuring and slumping was developed as in most part of Bihar in Indian part. The Kachchh region in Gujarat also got affected by ground failure during 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Many liquefaction features were observed in the part of Kachchh region which lies in the north of Kachchh Mainland Fault includes Banni plains and Rann of Kachchh. It is a low lying flat basin, mainly composed of thick quaternary deposits of undifferentiated sediments, i.e., silt and sand. The area is characterized by salt pans and mud flats. The region is mostly saturated by the receding sea which made the area more prone to liquefaction. During the event, intense shaking pro- duced liquefaction in the fine silt and sands below water table in the Kachchh region which lead the ground failure, as evidenced in the form of mud volcanoes, sand boils and fissures in the field. Besides, a number of earthen dams (within 150 km epicentral distance) got severely damaged due to liquefaction of saturated alluvium soils in foundation. Most severely damaged dam was the Chang dam, which was completely collapsed during the earthquake. Site analysis indicated that the site is underlain by alluvial, loose to medium

123 1848 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 dense, sand-silt mixtures over shallow sand stone bedrock. Hence, the liquefaction within top 2–2.5 m depth of foundation soils was the main cause of collapse of the dam. Simi- larly, at Kandla port, the failure and tilting of pile supported building of Kandla port and customs tower was possibly due to liquefaction of foundation soils and bending due to lateral spreading forces. The foundation soil comprised of a layer of 12 m thick loose to medium dense fine saturated sand below about 10 m thick non-liquefiable silty-clay deposits. The piles passed through the non-liquefiable strata and rested on liquefiable soil which was liquefied during Bhuj event and cause excessive settlement and tilting.

5 Concluding remarks

From the above discussion, it may be inferred that there is always a possibility of severe ground motions on sites with soft sedimentary profiles located even at large distance from causative faults. Similarly, the sites comprised of soft sediments with high level of saturation, even at distant places have potential to undergo liquefaction. Therefore, ground motion amplification and soil liquefaction need to be estimated using a very systematic approach taking into consideration the local geological, lithological and hydrological conditions. An under estimation of any of these parameters could change the whole scenario of hazard of the area and put the infrastructural facilities, human settlements and other life lines at greater risk. In India, several efforts have been made in recent past to understand the various aspects of seismic site response and soil liquefaction. Data from some recent moderate earthquakes viz., 1991 Uttarkashi, 1999 Chamoli, 1997 Jabalpur and Sikkim 2011 also provided valuable information, which led to better assessment of soil liquefaction and site response for estimating the seismic risk from future earthquake. A series of studies on scenario and parameters concerning local geological and soil conditions have been initiated during late 1990s, when the detailed seismic hazard zonation of urban centers, lying in earthquake prone areas, was started. Although standard practices have been used in site response studies and soil characterization; however, the case studies presented in the paper clearly highlight the need for detailed investigation and understanding on how the amplification relates to the lithology of an area, i.e., sediment type, grain size and their distribution, thickness and lateral discontinuity of the sedimentary deposits. Also, understanding the nature of liquefaction features, their relation to lithology and spatial distribution has important implications on earthquake hazard assessment practices. Besides, the existing building codes are required to be taken into consideration while planning/undertaking any structural design. This becomes even more important for the areas which are prone to high seismic risk and are located on soft sedimentary profiles.

Acknowledgments The Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) has been the source of consistent encouragement and support. Discussions with Dr. G V Ramana and critical comments and suggestions offered by the two Reviewers have greatly helped in improving the manuscript. Mr. Anup Kumar and Mr. Rahul Aswal helped in ﬁxing the ﬁgures and the references.

References

Aki K (1993) Local site effects on weak and strong ground motion. Tectonophysics 218:93–111 Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology: theory and methods. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1849

Albarello D (2001) Detection of spurious maxima in the site amplification characteristics estimated by the HVSR technique. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:718–724 Aman A, Singh UK, Singh RP (1995) A new empirical relation for strong seismic ground motion for the Himalayan region. Curr Sci 69(9):772–777 Ambraseys NN, Bilham R (2003) A re-evaluated Intensity for the great earthquake of 12 June 1897 Shillong India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:655–673 Andrews DCA, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In: Proceedings of 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geo- environ Eng 126(11):1015–1025 Atakan K, Havskov J (1996) Local site effects in the northern North Sea based on single-station spectral rations of OBS recordings. Terra Nova 8:22–33 Atakan K, Brandsdottir B, Halldorsson P, Fridleifsson GO (1997) Site response as function of near-surface geology in the south Iceland seismic zone. Nat Hazards 15:139–164 Auden JB, Ghosh AMN (1934) Preliminary account of the earthquake of in Bihar and Nepal. Rec Geol Survey India 68:177–239 Baird-Smith R (1844) Memoir on Indian earthquakes. Pt. III. J Asiat Soc Bengal 156:764–983 Beresnev IA, Wen KL, Yeh YT (1995) Seismological evidence for nonlinear elastic ground behavior during large earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14:103–114 Biswas SK (1987) Regional framework, structure and evolution of the western marginal basins of India. Tectonophysics 135:302–327 Biswas SK (2005) A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin, western India, with special reference to earthquake. Curr Sci 88:1592–1600 Boatwright J, Seekins LC, Fumal TE, Liu H-P, Mueller CS (1991) Ground motion amplification in the Marina district. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:1980–1997 Borcherdt R (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:29–61 Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron 138:1185–1195 Bray JD, Sancio RB, Reimer MF, Durgunoglu T (2004) Liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. In: Earthquake engineering and 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical. Engineering, Berkeley, CA, January 7–9, 1:655–662 Chakrabortty P, Pandey AD, Mukerjee S, Bhargava A (2004) Liquefaction assessment for microzonation of Kolkata city. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada August 1–6, paper no. 82 Chin B, Aki K (1991) Simultaneous study of the source, path, and site effects on strong ground motion during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: a preliminary result on pervasive nonlinear site effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(5):1859–1884 Chopra S, Choudhury P (2011) A study of response spectra for different geological conditions in Gujarat, India. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(11):1551–1564 Dash SR, Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2009) A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs tower supported on a mat-pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:333–346 Dixit J, Dewaikar DM, Jangid RS (2012) Assessment of liquefaction Potential index for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2759–2768 Dunn JA, Auden JB, Ghosh AMN, Wadia DN (1939) The Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934. Geological Survey of India Memoir (reprinted 1981), pp 73–391 Eremenko NA, Negi BS (1968) A guide to the tectonic map of India. Oil Nat Gas Comm Bull 3:1–15 Faccioli E (1991) Seismic amplification in the presence of geological and topographic irregularities. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference recent advances in geotechnical earthquake. Engineering, St Louis, MO, state-of-art paper, pp 1779–1797 Field EH, Jacob KH (1993) The theoretical response of sedimentary layers to ambient seismic noise. Geophys Res Lett 20:2925–2928 Field EH, Jacob KH, Hough SE (1992) Earthquake site response estimation: a weak motion case study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:2283–2307 Field EH, Johnson PA, Beresnev IA, Zeng Y (1997) Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Nature 390:599–602 Finn WD (1991) Assessment of liquefaction potential and post liquefaction behavior of earth structures: developments 1981–1991. In: Proceedings of second international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, March 11–15 2:1883–1850

123 1850 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851

Finn WD, Ledbetter RH, Wu G (1994) Liquefaction in silty soils: design and analysis, ground failures under seismic conditions, vol 44. Geotechnical Special publication ASCE, New York, pp 51–71 Geli L, Bard PY, Jullien B (1988) The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: a review and new result. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:42–63 Ghosh SK (2001) Observations from the Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001. PCI J 46(2):34–43 Govindaraju L, Ramana GV, HanumanthaRao C, Sitharam TG (2004) Site-specific ground response analysis. Curr Sci 87(10):1354–1362 Hodgson JA (1822) Journal of a survey to the heads of the rivers, Ganges and Jumna. Asiat Res 14:60–152 Hough SE, Bilham R (2008) Site response of the Ganges basin inferred from re-evaluated macro-seismic observation from the 1897 Shillong, 1905 Kangra, and 1934 Nepal earthquakes. J Earth Sys Sci 117:773–782 IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. General provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, p 42 Ishihara K (2006) Liquefaction of sub-surface soils during earthquakes. J Disaster Res 1(2):245–261 Islam R, Ghosh SK, Vyshnavi S, Sundriyal YP (2011) Petrography, geochemistry and regional significance of crystalline klippen in the Garhwal lesser Himalaya, India. J Earth Syst Sci 120(3):489–501 Jain SK (1992) On better engineering preparedness: lessons from the 1988 Bihar earthquake, earthquake spectra, EERI, vol 8, no. 3 Jain SK, Singh RP, Gupta VK, Nagar Amit (1992) Garhwal Earthquake of October 20 1991, EERI special earthquake report, EERI newsletter, vol 26, no. 2 Jain SK, Murty CVR, Arlekar JN (1997) Some observation on engineering aspects of the Jabalpur earthquake of 22 May 1997, EERI special earthquake report, EERI newsletter, vol 32, no. 2 Jain SK, Murty CVR, Arlekar JN (1999) Chamoli (Himalaya, India) earthquake of 29 March 1999, EERI special earthquake report, EERI newsletter, vol 33, no. 7 Khattri KN (1987) Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake disaster along the Himalaya plate boundary. In: Mogi K, Khattri KN (eds) Earthquake Prediction. Tectonophsics 138:79–92 Luttman-Johnson H (1898) The earthquake in Assam. J Soc Arts 46:473–493 Merh SS (1995) Geology of Gujarat. Geol Soc India Mitchell JK, Tseng DJ (1990) Assessment liquefaction potential by cone penetration of resistance. In: Duncan JM (ed) Proceeding, H. Bolton seed memorial symposium, vol 2. Berkeley, CA, pp 335–350 Molnar P, Pandey MR (1988) The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J Nepal Geol Soc 5(1):22–44 Nath SK (2006) Seismic Hazard and Microzonation Atlas of the Sikkim Himalaya published by Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, India Nath M, Narain K, Srivastava JP (1967) The Delhi earthquake of 27th August 1960. Rec Geol Surv Ind 95(2):367–382 Nath SK, Sengupta P, Sengupta S, Chakrabarti A (2000) Site response estimation using strong motion network: a step towards microzonation of Sikkim Himalayas, Seismology 2000. Curr Sci 79:1316–1326 Nath SK, Sengupta P, Kayal JR (2002) Determination of S-wave site response at Garhwal Himalaya from the aftershock sequence of 1999 Chamoli earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:1072–1081 Nath SK, Sengupta P, Srivastav SK, Bhattachary SN, Dattatrayam RS, Prakash R, Gupta HV (2003) Estimation of S-wave site response in and around Delhi region from weak motion data. In: Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences (Earth Planet. Sci) 112:441–462 Ni J, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone and geometry of the under thrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. J Geophys Res 89:1147–1163 Oldham T (1883) A catalogue of Indian earthquakes from the earliest to the end of 1869. Mem Geol Surv India 19(3):1–53 Pandey MR (2000) Ground response of Kathmandu valley on the basis of microtremors. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering (12 WCEE) 2000, 1206 Parolai SP, Bormann, Milkereit C (2002) New relationships between Vs, thickness of sediments and res- onance frequency calculated by the H/V ratio of seismic noise for the Cologne area (Germany). Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2521–2527 Peacock WH, Seed HB (1968) Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading simple shear conditions. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 94(3):689–708 Pedersen HB, Le Brun, Hatzfeld D, Campillo M, Bard PY (1994) Ground Motion amplitude across ridges. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1786–1800 Perlea VG, Koester JP, Prakash S (1999) How liquefiable are cohesive soils? In: Proceedings of second international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 2, pp 611–618

123 Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851 1851

Piddington H (1804) Bengal occurrences for October 1803. Asiat Ann Reg 6(35):57–65 Prakash S (1981) Soil dynamics. McGraw Hill, New York Raghukanth STG, Lyenger RN (2007) Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in peninsular India. J Earth Syst Sci 116:199–214 Rajendran CP, Rajendran K (2005) The status of central seismic gap: a perspective based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan earthquakes. Tectonophysics 395(12):19–39 Rajendran K, Rajendran CP, Thakkar M, Tuttle MP (2001) The 2001 Kutch (Bhuj) earthquake: coseismic surface features and their significance. Curr Sci 80(11):1397–1405 Rana M, Braham G, Sumsher JB (1935) Nepalko Bhukampa, (The great earthquake of Nepal), Second edition (published in Nepali), Sahyogi Prakashan, Kathmandu, Nepal Rao KS, Satyam DN (2007) Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region. Curr Sci 92(5):646–655 Raper FV (1810) Narratives of a survey for the purpose of discovering the resources of the Ganges. Asiat Res 11:446–563 Report DST (2007) Seismic microzonation of Guwahati. Report published by Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi Richter CF (1957) Introduction to seismology. Eurasia publishing house, New Delhi, p 768 Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(3):384–403 Rydelek PA, Tuttle M (2004) Explosive craters and soil liquefaction. Nature 427:115–116 Safak E (2001) Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:453–458 Sairam B, Rastogi BK, Aggarwal S, Chuahan M, Bhonde U (2011) Seismic site charactorisation Vs30 and site amplification in Gandhinagar region, Gujarat, India. Curr Sci 100(5):754–760 Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Quittmeyer (1981) Seismicity and continental subduction in the Himalayan Arc. Zagros, Hindu Kush Himalaya. Geodyn Evol Geodyn Ser 3:259–279 Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97 (Sm9) Proc 8371:1249–1273 Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engi- neering Research Institute, Oakland Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 92(SM6):105–134 Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(3):458–482 Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung R (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(12):861–878 Singh SK, Mena E, Castro R (1988) Some aspects of source of the 1985 Michoacań earthquake and ground motion amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:461–477 Singh RP, Aman A, Prsad YJJ (1996) Attenuation relations for strong seismic ground motion in the Himalayan region. Pure appl Geophys 147:161–180 Singh RP, Bhoi S, Sahoo AK, Raj U, Ravindran S (2001) Surface manifestations after the Gujarat earthquake. Curr Sci 81(2):164–166 Singh R, Roy D, Jain SK (2005) Investigation of liquefaction failure in Earthen Dams during Bhuj Earthquake. In: Proceedings, special session on seismic aspects of Dam Design, 5th international R&D conference, Bangalore, India, February 15, 40–48 Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for the bangalore region. Nat Hazards 40:261–278 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 Teves-Costa P, Matias L, Bard PY (1996) Seismic behavior estimation of thin alluvium layers using microtremor recordings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15:201–209 Thakur VC (1992) Geology of western Himalaya. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 363 Valdiya KS (2001) Reactivation of terrain-defining boundary thrusts in Central sector of the Himalaya: Implication. Curr Sci 81(11):1418–1430 Wood HO (1908) Distribution of apparent intensity in San Francisco in the California Earthquake of April 18, 1906, Report of the state earthquake investigation commission. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publishing, Washington, DC 87:220–245 Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soil: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 297–313

123