J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01403-2 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

Seismic liquefaction potential assessment of Capital region

USHA SAI BANDARU and VENKATA RAMA SUBBA RAO GODAVARTHI* Department of Civil Engineering, Velagapudi Ramakrishna Siddhartha Engineering College, , Andhra Pradesh, . *Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]

MS received 24 April 2018; revised 22 February 2020; accepted 16 March 2020

Seismic liquefaction hazard is an actuated ground failure which is responsible for significant damage to life and property. Andhra Pradesh state authorities are aiming to develop major infrastructural projects in the capital region. Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) can predict the severity of liquefaction at a place. The present work aims at assessing liquefaction severity using LPI for different locations in the new capital region of Indian state, Andhra Pradesh. Further, current study presents a preliminary liquefaction severity map of the Andhra Pradesh state Capital region. This study reveals that the majority of the locations in this region may not be proned to liquefaction in the event of light earthquakes. Keywords. Liquefaction potential; SPT; magnitude of earthquake; LPI.

1. Introduction of ground, severity and frequency of the ground motion, kind of soil and thickness of soil deposit, In numerous major earthquakes, liquefaction and distribution of grain size, Bnes content, plasticity of related ground failures were widely observed. Liq- Bnes, degree of saturation, relative density, con- uefaction happens in saturated soils, that is, soil Bning pressure, permeability properties of soil where the space between various particles is fully layer, position and ground water table, etc. (Chung saturated with water. Liquefaction is a phe- and Rogers 2017). Liquefaction-actuated ground nomenon in which earthquake loading or other failure aAects the thickness of liqueBed and non- rapid loading which reduces the soil’s strength and liqueBed soil layers (Dixit et al. 2012). Measures to stiAness. The pressure exerted by the water on the mitigate the harms caused by liquefaction require thicknesses of the soil which aAects how tightly the exact assessment of liquefaction capability of soils. layers are packed together themselves. The water In general, factor of safety against liquefaction pressure is relatively significant in an earthquake (FSL) is used for evaluation of liquefaction sus- and water pressure increases during earthquake. As ceptibility. FSL is the fraction of cyclic resistance liquefaction happens, the soil strength reduces for ratio (CRR) to cyclic shear stress ratio. If the value the infrastructure to support foundation and of FSL is B1, the soil is susceptible to liquefaction bridges. Tilt or slide occurs when the liqueBed soil (L). If the value of FSL [1, the soil is not suscep- exerts high pressure. Increasing water pressure tible to liquefaction (NL). FSL has a limitation that may also cause landslides and lead dams to fall. it will not speak about the severity of liquefaction Soil liquefaction relies on the earthquake magni- potential. Liquefaction potential index (LPI) tude (Mw), conditions speciBc to site, acceleration was suggested by Iwasaki et al. (1978, 1982)to 144 Page 2 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 overcome the limitations of FSL. LPI estimates the of Krishna delta. Krishna River is the Capital severity of liquefaction to cause harm at surface region’s biggest perennial river which crosses the level of the site. region about a length of 135 km.

1.1 Study area – Andhra Pradesh Capital region 1.2 Geology and lithology

The capital region with India map was presented in The soils in the capital region were primarily red Bgure 1. Andhra Pradesh Capital region covered gravel, alluvial, black cotton, loams of sand clay with plateau, mountains and Cat terrains. Coastline and loams of red. Iron oxide and limestone are the is 21 km away from the border of the capital region. major minerals found in this region. Minor miner- Kondapalli hill area extends in the Krishna district als are granite, rough rock, gravel, quartz bricks, between Vijayawada and Nandigama for a length of sand and highway metal. South of Vijayawada, the about 24 km. Other lesser hills are Mogalarajpuram, Krishna River constructed up its delta. So, with Jammalavoidurgam, and Indrakiladri (Vijayawada). great lithological structures, Tulluru had a good The southern belt is made up of rich soils in the region basement. North, northeast and south of Nuzvid

Figure 1. Map showing the Andhra Pradesh Capital region. J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 Page 3 of 9 144 are revealed Kamthi sandstone. Amaravathi was Deepankar (2017) have done seismic liquefaction the capital city of Andhra Pradesh and it lies in hazard analysis and mapping of existing important Guntur district. Amaravathi city was underlined buildings in Mumbai city. A comprehensive lique- by multiple geological structures from Archean to faction susceptibility assessment of Kolkata city Recent (Rambabu et al. 2015). was done by Nath et al. (2017). Liquefaction potential map for Kanpur city and Allahabad city were performed by Naik and Patra (2018). 1.3 Historical earthquakes Anbazhagan et al. (2019) studied the seismic site The historical earthquakes in this region are classiBcation of Himalayan region. Studies in rela- collected from Andhra Pradesh State Disaster tion to seismic microzonation of Chandigarh were Management Authority (APSDMA) and the same done by Kandpal et al. (2019). Liquefaction sus- was presented in table 1. According to seismic zone ceptibility of central Kerala has been studied by mapping code (IS: 1893-Part 1, 2016), capital Akhila et al. (2019). region will experience maximum earthquake of 6.5 magnitudes on the Richter scale. For instance, the 2. Methodology worst case scenario in the capital region may experience an earthquake of a magnitude up to 7.5. A simpliBed approach for liquefaction vulnerability assessment using standard penetration test (SPT) 1.4 Liquefaction studies in India value was explained by various investigators (Seed and Idriss 1971; Poulos et al. 1985; Seed et al. 1985; Seismic microzonation of Delhi region was done by Idriss and Boulanger 2006). SimpliBed approach Rao and Neelima (2007). Seismic microzonation for liquefaction vulnerability assessment starts of Bangalore city was performed by Anbazhagan with computation of CSR. For computing CSR, and Sitharam (2008). Assessment of liquefaction PGA is required. SPT value is utilized while eval- potential of Guwahati city was done by Binu and uating the CRR of in-situ soil. SPT was conducted Hazarika (2013). Liquefaction hazard mapping of according to the standard operating procedure laid Lucknow was examined by Abhishek et al. (2013). in IS: 2131 (1981). The SPT (instrument setup was Anbazhagan et al. (2014) presented seismic hazard shown in Bgure 2) is done in the boreholes of 150 map of Coimbatore city. Anbazhagan et al. (2015) mm diameter. In this test, a standard ‘split-spoon’ presented a seismic intensity map of South India sampler is driven through soil by applying repeti- for estimated potential earthquakes. Reshma and tive blows with a 63.5 kg weight of hammer falling

Table 1. Historical earthquakes in and around the capital region from APSDMA (2017)(http://apsdma.ap.gov.in/view- earthquakes).

Sl. no. Place Date Magnitude Sl. no. Place Date Magnitude 1 Ongole–Kanuparti 18.10.1800 4.3 19 Ongole 25.10.1976 3.5 2 Guntur 21.07.1859 4.3 20 Darsi–Ongole 25.05.1977 3.5 3 Guntur 02.08.1859 3.7 21 Chirala 2.11.1981 3.5 4 Guntur 09.08.1859 3.7 22 Ongole 18.08.1986 3.5 5 Ongole 12.10.1859 5.0 23 Ongole 19.08.1986 3.5 6 Krishna 24.07.1861 3.7 24 Ongole 03.12.1987 4.0 7 Krishna 13.01.1862 3.7 25 Ongole 03.12.1987 4.0 8 Vinukonda 6.01.1867 3.7 26 Ongole 14.11.1992 3.6 9 Ongole 11.03.1867 3.7 27 Guntur 24.05.1995 4.0 10 Ongole 13.10.1956 5.0 28 Ongole 21.10.1995 3.9 11 Ongole 12.10.1959 5.0 29 Addanki 04.08.1996 4.1 12 Ongole–Guntur 08.10.1960 4.3 30 Guntur 14.04.1997 3.8 13 Guntur 05.12.1963 3.7 31 Ongole 04.08.2006 3.4 14 Ongole 27.03.1967 5.4 32 South coast of AP 16.12.2006 3.5 15 Vinukonda 11.08.1967 3.5 33 Sattenapalli 29.10.2012 3.9 16 Vinukonda 06.01.1967 3.7 34 Ongole 06.06.2013 2.9 17 Ongole 28.07.1971 4.3 35 Guntur 22.05.2014 – 18 Ongole 28.11.1974 3.9 144 Page 4 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144

Finally, factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) was found by dividing CRR with CSR. CSR was ascertained from the below expression (Idriss and Boulanger 2006). ! ! a r CSR ¼ 0:65 max v0 Â r ; ð1Þ g r0 d v0

where amax is the peak ground acceleration, g is amax the acceleration due to gravity, g is the factor

of zone, rv0 is the total overburden pressure (in kPa), r0 is the eAective vertical overburden v0 2 pressure (in kN/m ), rd is the coefBcient of stress reduction.

½ŠaðÞþz ðÞbðÞÂz M rd ¼ e ; ð2Þ Figure 2. SPT instrument. where M is the earthquake magnitude, hi from an elevation of 750 mm. The resistance of z aðÞ¼Àz 1:012 À 1:126 sin þ 5:133 ; ð3Þ penetration (N) is the number of blows needs to 11:73 penetrate the split-spoon through soil for the pen- hi z etration of 300 mm. The SPT values observed in bðÞ¼z 0:106 þ 0:118 sin þ 5:142 ; ð4Þ the Beld was corrected and the detailed procedure 11:28 for applying various corrections to arrive corrected In equations (3 and 4), z is the depth of soil N value, i.e., (N1)60 was given in Bgure 3. layer.

Corrected N value : (N1)60 = CN * CER * CB * CR * CS * N where

’ CN = Correction for CN = 0.77* log10 (2000/σ )Where Overburden Effect σ’ = Effective overburden pressure.

CER = Correction for For Doughnut hammer: 0.5 to 1.0 Hammer Effect For Safety hammer: 0.7 to 1.2

Automatic trip Doughnut hammer: 0.8 to 1.3

CB = Correction for CB = 1.00 for diameter of the bore hole = 65mm to Borehole Effect 115mm

CB = 1.05 for diameter of the bore hole = 150mm

CB = 1.15 for diameter of the bore hole = 200mm

CR = Correction for CR = 0.75 for l < 3m Rod Length CR = 0.8 for l = 3m to 3.99m

CR = 0.85 for l = 4m to 5.99m

CR = 0.95 for l = 6m to 9.99m

CS = Correction CS = 1.00 for Standard sampler for Sampler CS = 1.1 to 1.3 for samplers without liners

Figure 3. Corrected (N1)60 value calculation. J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 Page 5 of 9 144 ÂÃ CRR was ascertained from the below expression: ðÞN1 60CS ¼ ðÞN1 60þDðÞN1 60 : ð7Þ hihihi 2 3 4 ðÞN1 60CS ðÞN1 60CS ðÞN1 60CS ðÞN1 60CS Factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL)is 14:1 þ 126 þ 23:6 þ 25:4 À2:8 CRR ¼ e ; ð5Þ evaluated as follows: where (N1)60CS is the corrected SPT value incor- CRR FS ¼ ; ð8Þ porating correction for Bnes. L CSR =MSF Correction for Bnes [D(N1)60] was done by using equation (6). where MSF is the magnitude scaling factor ÂÃ ÂÃ 2 1:63 9:7 15:7 þðÞfcþ0:001 ÀðÞfcþ0:001 2:24 DðÞN1 60 ¼ e ; ð6Þ 10 MSF ¼ 2:56 : ð9Þ fc is the Bnes content. M

Corrected SPT value including correction for If FSL B 1, then the soil is vulnerable to Bnes [(N1)60CS] was given below liquefaction (L), otherwise FSL [1, then the soil is not vulnerable to liquefaction (NL). Table 2. Liquefaction severity (Iwasaki et al. 1982). 2.1 Evaluation of liquefaction potential index LPI Liquefaction severity (LPI) LPI = 0 Very low LPI is a single parameter which is used to assess 0 \ LPI \ 5 Low local liquefaction severity. LPI at a site was cal- 5 \ LPI \ 15 High culated by coordinating the factor of safety along 15 \ LPI Very high the soil section up to 20 m depth. An equation for

EARTHQUAKE DATA GEOTECHNICAL DATA

Magnitude of Earthquake (MW) SPT (N) Effective Overburden Fine content

pr(σ’vo)

Formula to Magnitude Scaling α,β (N1)60 compute amax Factor (MSF)

(N1)60CS

Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio (CSR) Cyclic Shear Resistance (CRR)

Factor of safety against

Liquefaction (FSL)

Determination of Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI)

Liquefaction Severity

Figure 4. Flow chart for the probability based liquefaction susceptibility analysis. 144 ae6o 9 of 6 Page

Table 3. LPI analysis at Thullur location for earthquake M6.

Saturated Reduction Magnitude scaling Fi Depth, density factor (rd) factor (MSF) Fines (N1)60 CSR CRR FSi z Hi (eqn. 16 & 3 Z (m) (kN/m ) (eqn. 2) (eqn. 9) (%) (eqn. 10) (eqn. 1) (eqn. 5) (eqn. 8) (m) (m) w (z) eqn. 17) w(z)ÁFiÁHi 1.5 16.0 0.96 1.77 98 5.72 0.26 0.13 0.87 0.75 1.5 9.625 0.13 1.88 3.0 17.0 0.92 1.77 97 7.18 0.23 0.14 1.04 2.25 1.5 8.875 0.0 0.00 5.0 17.0 0.85 1.77 3 7.06 0.21 0.10 0.81 4.00 2.0 8.00 0.19 3.04 6.0 17.0 0.81 1.77 6 11.66 0.20 0.13 1.13 5.50 1.0 7.25 0.00 0.0 7.0 17.0 0.78 1.77 3 15.11 0.19 0.16 1.43 6.5 1.0 6.75 0.00 0.00 8.0 17.0 0.74 1.77 5 18.80 0.18 0.19 1.84 7.5 1.0 6.25 0.00 0.00 9.0 17.0 0.71 1.77 3 20.64 0.18 0.21 2.16 8.5 1.0 5.75 0.00 0.00 10.0 17.0 0.67 1.77 4 23.22 0.17 0.25 2.69 9.5 1.0 5.25 0.00 0.00 11.0 17.0 0.64 1.77 5 25.70 0.16 0.31 6.45 10.5 1.0 4.75 0.00 0.00 12.0 17.0 0.60 1.77 9 28.09 0.15 0.42 4.96 11.5 1.0 4.25 0.00 0.00 .ErhSs.Sci. Syst. Earth J. 13.0 17.0 0.57 1.77 5 30.40 0.14 0.51 6.39 12.5 1.0 3.75 0.00 0.00 14.0 17.0 0.54 1.77 4 27.56 0.13 0.37 4.84 13.5 1.0 3.25 0.00 0.00 15.0 17.0 0.41 1.77 5 29.84 0.13 0.48 6.63 14.5 1.0 2.75 0.00 0.00 16.0 17.0 0.49 1.77 5 32.05 0.12 0.65 9.56 15.5 1.0 2.25 0.00 0.00 17.0 17.0 0.46 1.77 5 26.67 0.11 0.34 5.22 16.5 1.0 1.75 0.00 0.00 18.0 17.0 0.44 1.77 4 21.50 0.11 0.23 3.69 17.5 1.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 Pn LPI= wiFiHi= 4.92 i¼0 (2020) 129:144 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 Page 7 of 9 144 LPI LPI

4 5 6 7 7.5 4 5 6 7 7.5 MW MW

Figure 5. Mw vs. LPI for the site Thullur. Figure 7. Mw vs. LPI for the site Tadikonda. LPI w M

4 5 6 7 7.5

MW

Figure 6. Mw vs. LPI for the site Kunchanapalli. 4 5 6 7 7.5 LPI

Figure 8. Mw vs. LPI for the site Gollapudi. evaluating LPI was presented below, which was originally developed by Iwasaki et al. (1978, 1982). Z 20 Fi ¼ 0; for FSi  1:0; ð17Þ LPI ¼ FzðÞ:wzðÞdz; ð10Þ 0 where weighting factor is represented as wi, Fi is where z is depth of the midpoint of the soil layer the liquefaction severity for ith layer, Hi is the soil (0–20 m); severity factor F(z); weighting factor thickness, n is the layers number, FSi is the factor w(z) and dz is differential of depth increment. of safety for ith layer, and zi is the depth of ith layer (in m).

wzðÞ¼10 À ðÞ0:5zi ; for z\20 m; ð11Þ Table 2 shows the liquefaction severity corre- sponding to LPI values. A Cow chart for LPI based wzðÞ¼0; for z [ 20 m; ð12Þ liquefaction severity assessment was shown in Bgure 4. FzðÞ¼1 À FSL; for FSL\1:0; ð13Þ 3. Results and discussions FzðÞ¼0; for FSL [ 1:0: ð14Þ

For the layers of the soil under 20 m, LPI is LPI for various Mw, i.e., 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.5 were calcu- computed as follows: lated at 107 locations of Andhra Pradesh Capital Xn region. Since the River Krishna is crossing through LPI ¼ wiFiHi; ð15Þ the Krishna and Guntur Districts, ground water i¼0 table was assumed to be found near to ground surface. The LPI at Thullur location was evaluated Fi ¼ 1ÀFSi; for FSi \ 1:0; ð16Þ for an earthquake of magnitude 6 (M6) and was 144 Page 8 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144

Figure 9. Preliminary liquefaction severity map of Andhra Pradesh Capital region. presented in table 3. The variation of LPI values 2. From LPI analysis, it was observed that lique- with various magnitudes of earthquakes at Thul- faction severity was found to be low for the lur, Kunchanapalli, Tadikonda, and Gollapudi earthquake magnitudes of 4 and 5. When Mw locations were shown in Bgures 5–8, respectively. exceeds 6, liquefaction severity was found to be From Bgures 5 to 8, it is observed that liquefaction high. severity was found to be low for the earthquake 3. Many of the locations in the capital region may magnitudes of 4 and 5. When Mw exceeds 6, not liquefy when a light earthquake happens. liquefaction severity was found to be high. There is chance for liquefaction in this region, in Larger portion of the Andhra Pradesh Capital case a strong earthquake. region will experience low liquefaction severity 4. The Bnding of the study is helpful to identify when a light seismic earthquake happens. The seismic liquefaction-prone areas in this region, majority of the locations in the Capital region were which inturn helps to take proper measures to vulnerable to liquefaction in the event of a strong mitigate liquefaction hazard. seismic earthquake. A preliminary liquefaction severity map for Andhra Pradesh Capital region was prepared for Mw of 7.5 and same was presented Acknowledgement in Bgure 9. The likely chance of liquefaction is identiBed mainly because of presence of saturated Authors express gratitude to Dr N R K Murthy, silty Bne sandy soils at top layers in the various Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, locations of this region. Velagapudi Ramakrishna Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada for his valuable suggestions.

4. Conclusions References Liquefaction severity assessment using LPI with the help of SPT value was done at more than 107 Abhishek K, Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2013 Liquefac- locations of the Andhra Pradesh Capital region. tion hazard mapping of Lucknow: A part of Indo-Gangetic The major conclusions of the present study are as Basin (IGB); Int. J. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. 4(1) 17–41. Akhila M, Rangaswamy K and Sankar N 2019 Liquefaction follows: susceptibility of central Kerala; J. SN Appl. Sci. 1 583. 1. Seismic liquefaction susceptibility study indi- Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2008 Seismic microzonation of Bangalore, India; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117(2) 833–852. cates that six locations are in safe zone, while Anbazhagan P, Smitha C V and Abhishek K 2014 Represen- rest of 101 locations were observed to be tative seismic hazard map of Coimbatore, India; J. Eng. susceptible to liquefaction. Geol. 171 81–95. J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2020) 129:144 Page 9 of 9 144

Anbazhagan P, Moustafa S R and Nassir S N A 2015 Seismic using simpliBed methods; Proc. 2nd International Confer- intensity map of South India for estimated future earth- ence on Microzonation, Seattle, pp. 1319–1330. quakes; Arab. J. Geosci. 8(11) 9365–9371. Kandpal G C, Biju J and Joshi K C 2019 Geotechnical studies Anbazhagan P, Srilakshmi K N, Ketan B, Moustafa S R and in relation to seismic microzonation of union territory of Nassir S N A 2019 Determination of seismic site classiBcation Chandigarh; J. Geophys. 13 75–83. of seismic recording stations in the Himalayan region using Naik S P and Patra N R 2018 Generation of liquefaction HVSR method; J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 116 304–316. potential map for Kanpur city and Allahabad city of Binu S and Hazarika P J 2013 Assessment of liquefaction northern India: An attempt for liquefaction hazard assess- potential of Guwahati city: A case study; J. Geotech. Geol. ment; J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36(1) 293–305. Eng. 31(5) 1437–1452. Nath S K, Nishtha S, Chitralekha G, Manik D A, Ambar- Chung J and Rogers J D 2017 Deterministic and probabilistic ish G and Ray S P S 2017 Earthquake induced liquefaction assessment of liquefaction hazards using the liquefaction hazard, probability and risk assessment in the city of potential index and liquefaction reduction number; J. Kolkata, India: Its historical perspective and deterministic Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143(10). scenario; J. Seismol. 22(1) 35–68. Dixit J, Dewaikar D M and Jangid R S 2012 Assessment Poulos S J, Castro G and France J W 1985 Liquefaction eval- of liquefaction potential index for Mumbai city; J. Nat. uation procedure; J. Geotech. Eng. 111(6) 772–792. Hazards, Earth Syst. Sci. 12 2759–2768. Rambabu T, Raghuram P, Pitchaiah P S and Raju P A R K APSDMA 2017 Historical record of earthquake in Andhra 2015 Geoenvironmental evaluation of Amaravathi, New Pradesh (District wise); http://apsdma.ap.gov.in/view- capital city of Andhra Pradesh, India; Int. J. Geol., Earth earthquakes. Environ. Sci. 5(3) 11–18. Idriss I M and Boulanger R W 2006 Semi-empirical procedures Rao K S and Neelima Satyam D 2007 Liquefaction studies for for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes; seismic microzonation of Delhi region; Curr. Sci. 92(5) J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 26 115–130. 646–654. IS:1893-Part 1 2016 Criteria for earthquake resistant design of Reshma R P and Deepankar C 2017 Seismic liquefaction structure – General provisions and buildings, Bureau of hazard-vulnerability analysis and mapping of existing Indian Standards, New Delhi. important buildings of Mumbai city, India; Proc. 19th IS:2131 1981 Method for standard penetration test for soils, International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotech- Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. nical Engineering, Seoul, pp. 3319–3322. Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K and Yasuda S 1978 A practical Seed H B and Idriss I M 1971 SimpliBed procedure for method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case evaluating soil liquefaction potential; J. Soil Mech. Foun- studies at various sites in Japan; Proc. 2nd International dation Division 97 1249–1273. Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, pp. 885– 896. Seed H B, Tokimatsu K, Harder L F and Chung R M 1985 Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S and InCuence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance Sato H 1982 Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential evaluations; J. Geotech. Eng. 111(12) 1425–1445.

Corresponding editor: N V CHALAPATHI RAO