Method for Seismic Microzonation with Geotechnical Aspects

This study presents an overview of seismic microzonation and existing methodologies with a newly proposed methodology covering all aspects. Earlier seismic microzonation methods focused on parameters that affect the structure or foundation related problems. But seismic microzonation has generally been recognized as an important component of urban planning and disaster management. So seismic microzonation should evaluate all possible hazards due to earthquake and represent the same by spatial distribution. This paper presents a new methodology for seismic microzonation which has been generated based on location of study area and possible associated hazards. This new method consists of seven important steps with defined output for each step and these steps are linked with each other. Addressing one step and respective result may not be seismic microzonation, which is practiced widely. This paper also presents importance of geotechnical aspects in seismic microzonation and how geotechnical aspects affect the final map. For the case study, seismic hazard values at rock level are estimated considering the seismotectonic parameters of the region using deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Surface level hazard values are estimated considering site specific study and local site effects based on site classification/characterization. The liquefaction hazard is estimated using standard penetration test data. These hazard parameters are integrated in Geographical Information System (GIS) using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and used to estimate hazard index. Hazard index is arrived by following a multi-criteria evaluation technique - AHP, in which each theme and features have been assigned weights and then ranked respectively according to a consensus opinion about their relative significance to the seismic hazard. The hazard values are integrated through spatial union to obtain the deterministic microzonation map and probabilistic microzonation map for a specific return period. Seismological parameters are widely used for microzonation rather than geotechnical parameters. But studies show that the hazard index values are based on site specific geotechnical parameters.

[1]  Steven F. Bartlett,et al.  Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement , 2002 .

[2]  石原 研而,et al.  Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes , 1992 .

[3]  Ayfer Erken,et al.  Seismic Microzonation: A Case Study , 2004 .

[4]  Francisco J. Chávez-García,et al.  Site Effects and Microzonation in Acapulco , 1998 .

[5]  Hh Tsang,et al.  Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: direct amplitude-based approach , 2006 .

[6]  P. Anbazhagan,et al.  Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites , 2011 .

[7]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic Microzonation: Principles,Practices and Experiments , 2008 .

[8]  Jayan S Vinod,et al.  Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore , 2009 .

[9]  S. Sarma.  GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING , 2015 .

[10]  Kenji Ishihara,et al.  EVALUATION OF SETTLEMENTS IN SAND DEPOSITS FOLLOWING LIQUEFACTION DURING EARTHQUAKES , 1992 .

[11]  Janusz Wasowski,et al.  An Approach to Time-Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismically Induced Landslide Hazard , 2003 .

[12]  Ross W. Boulanger,et al.  Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes , 2006 .

[13]  W. K. Mohanty,et al.  First Order Seismic Microzonation of Haldia, Bengal Basin (India) Using a GIS Platform , 2008 .

[14]  Jim Mori,et al.  Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Linear Site-Response Amplifications in the Los Angeles Region , 2000 .

[15]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-BASED PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 2004 .

[16]  K. Hudnut,et al.  Liquefaction caused by the 2009 Olancha, California (USA), M5.2 earthquake , 2010 .

[17]  Takaji Kokusho,et al.  Surface-to-base amplification evaluated from KiK-net vertical array strong motion records , 2008 .

[18]  Atilla Ansal.  Recent advances in earthquake geotechnical engineering and microzonation , 2004 .

[19]  D. Giardini,et al.  Seismic microzonation for earthquake risk mitigation in turkey , 2004 .

[20]  Riley M. Chung,et al.  Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations , 1985 .

[21]  P. Anbazhagan.  Site Characterization Using Geotechnical and Geophysical Techniques and Applicability of 30m Average Concept , 2009 .

[22]  C. Gokceoglu,et al.  Landslide Susceptibility Zoning North of Yenice (NW Turkey) by Multivariate Statistical Techniques , 2004 .

[23]  F. Vaccari,et al.  Modeling of SH- and P-SV-wave fields and seismic microzonation based on response spectra for Talchir Basin, India , 2009 .

[24]  D. Wald,et al.  Global earthquake casualties due to secondary effects: a quantitative analysis for improving rapid loss analyses , 2010 .

[25]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic Microzonation of Bangalore , 2007 .

[26]  T. Sitharam,et al.  Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore , 2006 .

[27]  S. T. G. Raghu Kanth,et al.  Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city , 2006 .

[28]  R. Ranjan.  Seismic Response Analysis of Dehradun City, India , 2005 .

[29]  K. S. Rao,et al.  Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region , 2007 .

[30]  P. Anbazhagan.  Liquefaction Hazard Mapping of Bangalore, South India , 2009 .

[31]  Kohji Tokimatsu,et al.  Simplified procedures for the evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking , 1987 .

[32]  Sridevi,et al.  Evaluation of Seismic Hazard Parameters for Bangalore Region in South India , 2010 .

[33]  Maria Rosaria Gallipoli,et al.  Comparison between VS30 and other estimates of site amplification in Italy , 2006 .

[34]  S. Nath.  Seismic Microzonation Framework – Principles & Applications , 2007 .

[35]  Randall W. Jibson,et al.  A Method for Producing Digital Probabilistic Seismic Landslide Hazard Maps: An Example from the Los Angeles, California, Area , 1998 .

[36]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 1971 .

[37]  K. K. S. Thingbaijam,et al.  Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India , 2010 .

[38]  D. Giardini,et al.  Earthquake scenarios for the city of Basel , 2001 .

[39]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , 2001 .

[40]  R. Fell.  Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk , 1994 .

[41]  R. N. Iyengar,et al.  Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Greater Delhi area , 2004 .

[42]  Probabilistic evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential based on SPT data , 2010 .

[43]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Site classification and estimation of surface level seismic hazard using geophysical data and probabilistic approach , 2009 .

[44]  Analysis of the global tsunami data for vulnerability and risk assessment , 2009 .

[45]  T. Topal,et al.  Microzonation for earthquake hazards: Yenisehir settlement, Bursa, Turkey , 2003 .

[46]  Steven F. Bartlett,et al.  Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads , 1992 .

[47]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Definition of Terms Related to Liquefaction , 1978 .

[48]  Atilla Ansal,et al.  Seismic microzonation and earthquake damage scenarios for urban areas , 2010 .

[49]  A methodology for seismic microzonation using GIS and SHAKE : a case study from Armenia, Colombia , 2002 .

[50]  T. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bangalore Region , 2007 .

[51]  P. Anbazhagan,et al.  Seismic hazard map of Coimbatore using subsurface fault rupture , 2012, Natural Hazards.

[52]  Steven F. Bartlett,et al.  EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED LATERAL SPREAD , 1995 .

[53]  M. K. Arora,et al.  An artificial neural network approach for landslide hazard zonation in the Bhagirathi (Ganga) Valley, Himalayas , 2004 .

[54]  Silvia Castellaro,et al.  Vs30: Proxy for Seismic Amplification? , 2008 .

[55]  Walter J. Silva,et al.  Shear-Wave Velocity Characteristics of Geologic Units in California , 1998 .

[56]  Giandomenico Spezzano,et al.  Simulation of a cellular landslide model with CAMELOT on high performance computers , 2003, Parallel Comput..

[57]  William K. Mohanty,et al.  First Order Seismic Microzonation of Delhi, India Using Geographic Information System (GIS) , 2007 .

[58]  J. A. Canas,et al.  Preliminary Map of Soil's Predominant Periods in Barcelona Using Microtremors , 2001 .

[59]  Estimation of Ground Response Parameters and Comparison with Field Measurements , 2009 .

[60]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Mapping of Average Shear Wave Velocity for Bangalore Region: A Case Study , 2008 .

[61]  H. Bolton Seed,et al.  Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data , 1983 .

[62]  P. Anbazhagan,et al.  Seismic site classification practice in Australia, China and India: suitability , 2010 .

[63]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Local Site Effects on Strong Ground Motion , 1988 .

[64]  J. Sims,et al.  Recurrent liquefaction induced by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1990 and 1991 aftershocks: Implications for paleoseismicity studies , 1995 .