assessing the liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction potential...

Assessing the Liquefaction Susceptibility and Liquefaction Potential

of Srinagar City, J&K on the basis of Standard Penetration Test

Sidrat Ul Muntaha Anees#1, Ajaz Masood*2

#Govt. College for Women, M.A Road, Srinagar, J&K, *Road Research & Material Testing

Laboratory Design Inspection & Quality Control Department, Srinagar, J&K. [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract - Soil liquefaction induced by earthquake shaking is a major contributor to urban seismic risk. Evaluation of

the liquefaction resistance of soils is an important step in many geotechnical investigations in earthquake prone regions.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is one of the most broadly used tests worldwide to characterize in situ soil strength.

The SPT data of 206 boreholes falling within Srinagar city has been used in present study. The parameters selected for the

assessment of liquefaction potential of the study area were; SPT N-values, Liquid Limit, Water content of the soil and

Presence of potential sandy layer. The data was analyzed to obtain the average SPT N-values, Liquid limit, water content

and presence of sandy layer for the soil up to the significant depth of 9 meters for all the 206 boreholes. The values of the

same were spatially interpolated using the kriging method for the preparation of the maps respectively. Liquefaction

susceptibility was assessed on the basis of SPT N-values while as liquefaction potential was assessed on the basis of all the

four selected parameters. The results of the study indicate that almost the entire city depicts occurrence of potential

liquefaction which makes the city vulnerable especially at the time of earthquakes. Also a large portion of city area has high

liquefaction susceptibility; therefore, proper mitigation strategies must be adopted in order to reduce the vulnerability of

areas which are highly susceptible to potential liquefaction.

Keywords - Liquefaction, Standard Penetration Test (SPT), SPT N-values, Liquefaction susceptibility,

Liquefaction potential

1. INTRODUCTION

Liquefactions have been widely observed during numerous devastating earthquakes [16]. During earthquakes, the shaking

of the ground may cause saturated granular soils to lose their resistance and behave like a liquid. This phenomenon is

called soil liquefaction and may cause building settlement or tipping, sand boils, landslides and other failures [29].

Earthquake liquefaction is a major contributor to urban seismic risk [41]. The shaking causes increased pore water pressure

which reduces the effective stress and therefore reduces the shear strength of the sand [14]. Soil liquefaction is a major

cause of damage during earthquakes [50].

Liquefaction does not occur at random, but is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily

recently deposited sands and silts in areas with high ground water levels. Generally, the younger and looser the sediment,

and the higher the water table, the more susceptible the soil is to liquefaction [6]. Liquefaction is likely to occur when a

loose sand is in saturated conditions and shaken by a strong earthquake or shocks which result in a built up of hydrostatic

pore pressure and a decrease of the effective stress [5]. Liquefaction is also likely to occur in loose to moderately saturated

granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands, sandy silts, clayey sands [24] or sands and gravels capped or

containing seams of impermeable sediments [61]. The objective of the study is to assess the Liquefaction Susceptibility and

Liquefaction Potential of Srinagar city, Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of Standard Penetration Test.

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 4, APRIL/2018

ISSN NO: 2394-8442

http://iaetsdjaras.org/350

ssc

Textbox

Soil liquefaction is a major concern for structures constructed with or on saturated sandy soils. Since 1964, much work

has been carried out to explain and understand soil liquefaction. The major earthquakes of Niigata in 1964 and Kobe in

1995 have illustrated the significance and extent of damage that can be caused by soil liquefaction [39]. When the soil

supporting a building or other structure liquefies and loses strength, large deformations can occur within the soil which

may allow the structure to settle and tip [6]. It is caused by large deformation or cracks in the foundation ground due to

subsidence and displacement in the liquefied layers [5]. It causes failure of foundations, soil embankments and dams and

these failures ultimately affect the social and financial status of the region [59]. When liquefaction is accompanied by some

form of ground displacement, it is destructive to the built environment [6]. Buildings whose foundations bear directly on

clayey silty up to silty sandy and sandy soil which liquefies will experience a sudden loss of support, which will result in

drastic and differential settlement of the building. Sand boils can erupt into buildings through utility openings and may

allow water to damage the structure or electrical systems [41].

2. EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY AND

POTENTIAL

Evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of soils is an important step in many geotechnical investigations in earthquake

prone regions [4]. The phenomenon of liquefaction has been extensively studied for the case of cohesionless soils under

seismic loading conditions [41]. The international research on liquefaction behavior of cohesionless soils has shown that

reasonable estimates of liquefaction potential and prediction can be made based on simple in-situ test data, such as

standard penetration values (S.P.T. tests), some lab tests and the experience during the past earthquakes [10], [30], [36],

[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [61], [62].

Liquefaction susceptibility is strongly a function of density (typically relative density of cohesionless soils). The capacity for

volume reduction in a soil is the basic cause for cyclic pore pressure development and consequent liquefaction [27].

Measures to mitigate the damages caused by liquefaction require accurate evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils [16].

The evaluation of liquefaction potential at a site is essential to take measures for the prevention of seismic disasters and

reduction of damage [5]. The liquefaction potential of a soil layer can be determined through either laboratory tests on

undisturbed soil samples or from in situ tests [25].

The field test which has gained common usage for evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility is the Standard Penetration Test

[62]. The Standard Penetration Test, known as the SPT, is one of the most broadly used tests worldwide to characterize in

situ soil strength. It is currently the most popular and economical means to obtain subsurface information [1]. SPT is the

most commonly used in situ test for liquefaction potential prediction [25]. The penetration resistance of the split-spoon

sampler could provide useful in situ test data that might be correlated with the consistency and density of the soils

encountered [40]. A large data base of SPT blow counts, normalized to account for the effects of different overburden

pressure and performance conditions, has been correlated to occurrence and non-occurrence of liquefaction in a wide

variety of soils [17], [45], [49]. The SPTs empirical method [36] is commonly used for evaluation of liquefaction potential

of silty soils up to silty sands [41].

3 STUDY AREA

The Kashmir valley located in North-western Himalayas lies between the Pir-Panjal and the Zanskar thrusts, making it

vulnerable to earthquakes [20]. Srinagar is the largest city of Jammu and Kashmir state [12]. It is located between

33º53´49´´- 34º17´14´´ North latitudes and 74º36´16´´- 75º01´26´´ East longitudes (Fig. 1), 1585 meters above sea level.

Srinagar has been shaken numerous times by earthquakes in the past millennium, most recently by damaging earthquakes

in 1885 (M 6.2) and 2005 (M 7.6) with estimated EMS (European Macroseismic Scale) intensity VI-VII [8]. Srinagar lies on

one of the most waterlogged soft soil sites for a capital city in the world [28].



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


The city is located on both the sides of the Jhelum River which passes through the city and meanders through the valley.

The best quality loams and clayey loams extend over the entire length of the Valley on either side of the Jhelum, has its

main expanse in the central part consisting of parts of Srinagar tahsil (a revenue subdivision within a district) [38]. The

low-lying tracts in the Valley, particularly those on the left bank of the Jhelum, have two main types of soil, clayey and

swampy soils [38]. The Kashmir valley especially the Jhelum valley floor has the vast tracts of land comprising of alluvial

soil. In the Kashmir valley, the soils vary from clayey loams to loams [26], [38]. In Srinagar, thick sediments in the Jhelum

River valley and around lakes are likely to amplify shaking significantly [8].

The Himalayan zone is divided into three seismic gaps; Kashmir gap, Central gap and Assam gap. The Jammu and

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand falls under Kashmir gap which is the highest earthquake prone seismic zone

[52]. Bilham's studies show that the Indian tectonic plate is moving along a major fault beneath the Himalaya at about 1.8

centimetres a year. (This is about one-third of the total plate movement of India toward Asia - 5.4 centimetres a year. The

remaining rate of plate motion is responsible for tectonic deformation and uplift in Tibet and other parts of central Asia)

[56]. The state of Jammu and Kashmir falls in a region of high to very high seismic hazard with Srinagar falling in the High

seismic hazard zone. As per the 2002 Bureau of Indian Standards [9] map (Fig. 2), this state also falls in Zones IV & V [2].

The history of earthquakes goes back to 1505 in this region [18]. The earthquake record of the past decades shows that the

Kashmir region has been hit at least by one earthquake of magnitude 5 or larger every year or two [56]. The tectonic

movement in the region is responsible for the creation of the Himalayan mountain ranges through compressive and

bending stresses. The subduction mechanism has triggered a few great and several intermediate earthquakes in a band of

about 50-80 km width and an arc length of about 2500 km [7], [18], [32], [33].

Fig. 1 Location of the Study area

Fig. 2 High seismic hazard zones of Jammu and Kashmir



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

One of the most widely used procedure for estimation of liquefaction potential includes the Standard Penetration Test

(SPT) N-values to estimate a soil’s liquefaction resistance [31]. SPT conducted by means of the split spoon, furnishes in-

place data about resistance of the soils to penetration which can be used to evaluate in-place soil strength data and other

characteristic properties like density, consistency, in terms of N value of soil (number of blows per 30 cm of penetration of

standard split spoon sampler) [21]. The liquid limit is defined as the minimum moisture content at which a soil will flow

upon application of a very small shearing force [23] while as water content indicates the natural moisture content of the

soil [22]. The SPT data of 206 boreholes executed within Srinagar city was used and the data was collected from Design

Inspection and Quality Control Department, Srinagar (J&K). The Survey of India toposheets (1971) (J12, J16, K13 and

N4) on scale 1:50000 were used to present the spatial distribution of the executed boreholes selected for the study as

indicated in Fig. 3. Softwares like Arcview 3.2a and ArcGIS were used for the preparation of maps. The Srinagar city map

was used as the base map for the preparation of all the other maps generated for the depiction of the liquefaction

susceptibility and liquefaction potential of the area. Based on reviewed literature [15], in order for a cohesive soil to liquefy,

the soil must have a Liquid limit (LL) that is less than 35 (i.e. LL < 35) and the water content (W) of the soil must be

greater than 90% of the liquid limit {i.e. W > 0.9 (LL)}. The data for these two criteria was used along with the SPT N-

values [34], [37], [40], [55], [58] and presence of sandy layer [3], [37] for the assessment of liquefaction potential. Therefore,

on the basis of in-place Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data, the parameters selected for the assessment of liquefaction

potential were; N values, Liquid Limit, Water content of the soil, and Presence of sandy layer. The data of 206 boreholes

used for the study were from different sites within Srinagar city which were spatially distributed almost over the entire

study area. The average SPT N-values, Liquid limit, water content and presence of sandy layer for the soil up to the

significant depth of 9 meters for all the 206 boreholes were interpolated spatially using the kriging method [35] for the

preparation of the maps respectively. Liquefaction susceptibility was assessed on the basis of SPT N-values while as

liquefaction potential was assessed on the basis of all the four selected parameters. Among the four selected parameters, if

any one fulfilled the criteria for the occurrence of potential liquefaction, the soil was taken to be potentially liquefiable at

that place. Table 1 includes the SPT data of one representative borehole.

Fig. 3 Location of the executed 206 sampling boreholes



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


5 ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY

Liquefaction susceptibility refers to the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction. Investigations by several researchers have

shown that there is a rational basis to expect a good correlation to exist between soil liquefaction resistance and soil

penetration resistance [45], [53], [57]. According to Woods (1978), Seed (1979) and Prakash (1981), the Standard

Penetration Test is a reliable method that could be used in an empirical way for the correlation with liquefaction risk

probability of the ground. SPT tests can be performed to correlate the SPT N values with geotechnical design parameters

such as soil density, etc to provide an index of soil liquefaction resistance [1]. On the basis of the SPT N-values obtained

from the 206 boreholes, the ranges considered for the Liquefaction susceptibility based on the density/consistency of soil

for Srinagar city were framed as in Table I [40], [54], [58].

TABLE I

CATEGORIZATION OF BOREHOLES ON THE BASIS OF THEIR POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION

SUSCEPTIBILITY BASED ON

PENETRATION RESISTANCE AND SOIL PROPERTIES BASED ON THE SPT (VARGHESE 2005 AND

ROGERS 2006)

S.No

.

SPT

N-value

Soil packing

Cohesion less/Cohesive

Liquefaction

susceptibility

1. 0 - 4 Very loose/ Very soft to

soft

High

2. 4 - 10 Loose/ Firm Moderate

3. 10 - 30 Medium/ Stiff to Very

stiff

Low

4. 30 - 50 & > 50 Dense to Very dense/

Hard

Very Low

According to the Liquefaction susceptibility of Srinagar city on the basis of interpolated N-values (Fig. 4); out of the total

area (i.e. 278.1 km2) about 22.88% (63.62 km2) area depicts high liquefaction susceptibility including areas which lie in

close proximity of Dal Lake and river Jhelum in the inner part of the city. About 30.32% (84.32 km2) area depicts

moderate liquefaction susceptibility including almost the entire inner city. 41.44% (115.26 km2) area depicts low

liquefaction susceptibility comprising of the peripheral areas of the city and 5.36% (14.9 km2) area depicts very low

liquefaction susceptibility including only few chunks of the area of the city.

Fig. 4 Potential liquefaction susceptibility of Srinagar City as per the interpolated SPT N-values



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


The relationship between SPT N-values with increasing depth of soil was presented graphically in order to show that in

most of the boreholes the SPT N-values are low which indicates higher susceptibility to liquefaction. In only some cases,

the SPT N-values are high indicating lower susceptibility to liquefaction (Fig. No.’s 5a to 5t). The trend indicates a higher

susceptibility of soil to potential liquefaction which is a matter of great concern and requires immediate response.

According to the data obtained from most of the boreholes, the SPT N-values increase with the increasing depth of soil

but in some cases the N-values decrease or depict constant values, the reasons for which can be attributed to presence of

potential sandy layer or encounter with layer of soft soil, proximity of water table or any water source or any other reasons.

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5a SPT N-values for Boreholes 1-10

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5b SPT N-values for Boreholes 11-20

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m7.5 m

0

5

10

15

20

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5c SPT N-values for Boreholes 21-30

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

20

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5d SPT N-values for Boreholes 31-40

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

20

25

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5e SPT N-values for Boreholes 41-50

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5f SPT N-values for Boreholes 51-60

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5g SPT N-values for Boreholes 61-70

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5h SPT N-values for Boreholes 71-80

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

60SP

T N

-val

ue

s

Fig. 5i SPT N-values for Boreholes 81-90

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

20

40

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5j SPT N-values for Boreholes 91-100

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5k SPT N-values for Boreholes 101-110

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

20

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5l SPT N-values for Boreholes 111-120

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

20

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig.5m SPT N-values for Boreholes 121-130

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

20

40

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig.5n SPT N-values for Boreholes 131-140

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

20

40

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5o SPT N-values for Boreholes 141-151

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m7.5 m0

20

40

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5p SPT N-values for Boreholes 152-162

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


Fig. 5a – 5t Relationship of SPT N-values with the increasing depth of soil (in meters) for all the 206 boreholes

6 ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

Liquefaction potential for Srinagar City was assessed on the basis of SPT N-values, Liquid Limit, Water content and

Presence of potential sandy layer. Among these parameters if any one fulfilled the criteria for the occurrence of potential

liquefaction, then the soil was taken to be potentially liquefiable at that place.

TABLE II

AVERAGE SPT N-VALUES, LIQUID LIMIT (%AGE), WATER CONTENT (%AGE) AND PRESENCE OF

POTENTIAL

SANDY LAYER CALCULATED FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE 206 BOREHOLES EXECUTED WITHIN

SRINAGAR CITY

S.No. SPT

N-values

Number of boreholes

included

0.9 of

Liquid Limit (%age)

Number of

boreholes included

1. 1 – 15 144 18 – 29 33

2. 16 – 30 50 30 – 41 170

3. 31 – 45 12 42 – 53 3

Liquid

Limit

(%age)

Number of boreholes

included

Water content (%age) Number of

boreholes included

1. 20 – 32 30 8 – 25 68

2. 33 – 45 171 26 – 43 135

3. 46 – 58 5 44 – 61 3

Presence of potential sandy layer Yes No

Number of boreholes included 58 148

Source: Computed from RRMTL, Srinagar (J&K) data

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

5

10

15

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5q SPT N-values for Boreholes 163-173

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m7.5 m0

20

40

60

80

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5r SPT N-values for Boreholes 174-184

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5s SPT N-values for Boreholes 185-195

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m

1.5 m

4.5 m

7.5 m0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SPT

N-v

alu

es

Fig. 5t SPT N-values for Boreholes 196-206

1.5 m

3 m

4.5 m

6 m

7.5 m

9 m



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


On the basis of the methodology adopted, the soils of the study area were classified into liquefiable and non-liquefiable

ones. Maps were prepared based on the interpolated values of Liquid limit, water content and presence of potential sandy

layer (Fig. 6, 7 and 8). Fig. 9 represents the potentially liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils within Srinagar city on the basis

of all the parameters taken into consideration. The figure clearly indicates that almost the entire city consists of potentially

liquefiable soils leaving only few areas in southern and north-eastern parts of city which consist of potentially non

liquefiable soils.

Fig. 6 Potentially Liquefiable and

Non liquefiable soils of Srinagar

City on the basis of Liquid Limit


Non liquefiable soils of Srinagar

City on the basis of Water content


Non liquefiable soils of Srinagar City on the

basis of presence of potential sandy layer


Non liquefiable soils of Srinagar City on

the basis of all the selected parameters



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

According to the Liquefaction susceptibility of Srinagar city about 63.62 km2 (22.88%) area is highly susceptible and 84.32

km2 (30.32%) area is moderately susceptible to liquefaction; while as 115.26 km2 (41.44%) area depicts low and 14.9 km2

(5.36%) area depicts very low liquefaction susceptibility. The SPT N-values increase with the increasing depth of soil but in

some cases the N-values decrease or depict constant values, the reasons for which can be attributed to presence of

potential sandy layer or encounter with layer of soft soil, proximity of water table or any water source or any other reasons.

On the basis of Liquid limit, about 106.92 km2 (38.45%) area is potentially non-liquefiable and about 171.19 km2 (61.55%)

area is potentially liquefiable. According to the water content, 125.8 km2 (45.24%) area is potentially liquefiable while as

remaining 152.3 km2 (54.76%) area is potentially non-liquefiable. As per the presence of potential sandy layer, 131.23 km2

(47.19%) area is potentially liquefiable and the rest 146.88 km2 (52.81%) is potentially non-liquefiable. On the basis of all

the parameters, about 52.82 km2 (18.99%) area is potentially non-liquefiable while as the rest 225.29 km2 (81.01%) area is

potentially liquefiable which covers almost entire 63 wards out of a total of 68 wards and includes almost 1,58,697 (87%)

residential structures, 10,21,620 (86.5%) population and 4,88,813 (87%) female population of city. Thus, almost the entire

city depicts occurrence of potential liquefaction which makes the city vulnerable especially at the time of occurrence of

earthquakes. Also a large portion of city area has high liquefaction susceptibility; therefore, proper mitigation strategies

must be adopted in order to reduce the potential liquefaction of areas which are highly susceptible to potential

liquefaction.

Demarcation of the areas highly susceptible to potential liquefaction within the city can be done so that the residential or

commercial constructions can be avoided especially in the close proximity of water bodies where the risk is high. Before

the construction of any building (residential or commercial) soil testing of the site should be carried out in order to check

the resistance of the soil to potential liquefaction and construction should be carried out only after joint approval of the

concerned authorities. This broader categorization of potential liquefaction can further be filtered and improved by

statistically more accurate, intense, representative and site specific parametric studies, which may yield site specific

characterization or even micro zoning of potentially liquefiable regions within the city.

REFERENCES

[1] Aggour, M.S. and Radding, W.R. (2001) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Correction, The Bridge Engineering Software and

Technology Center, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, University of Maryland, SP007B48 Final Report 2: 1-11.

[2] Amateur Seismic Centre (2006), www.asc.india.org.

[3] Andrews, D.C.A. and Martin, G.R. (2000) Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils, 12WCEE: 1-8.

[4] Andrus, R.D. and Stokoe II, K.H. (2000) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (11): 1015-1025.

[5] Benouar, D. and Yanagisawa, E. (1992) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the spectrum at depth, Earthquake

Engineering,

Tenth World Conference Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1441-1446.

[6] Bertero, V., Frohmberg, K., Gath, E., Greene, M., Hays, W., Power, M. and Youd, T.L. (1994) Earthquake Basics Brief No. 1,

Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California: 1-8.

[7] Bilham, R. (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history, Annals of Geophysics, 47 (2): 839-858.

[8] Bilham, R., Bali, B.S., Bhat, M.I. and Hough, S. (2010) Historical earthquakes in Srinagar, Kashmir: Clues from the Shiva Temple at

Pandrethan, The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 471: 1-12.

[9] BIS (2002) IS 1893-2002 (Part 1): Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 - General

Provisions and

Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


[10] Bouckovalas G., Valsamis A., Anastasopoulos G. and Nikolaidi M. (2006) Comparison of empirical evaluation of liquefaction

resistance

from SPT and CPT tests, 5th Hellenic Conference on Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Xanthi 2: 97-104.

[11] Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2004) Evaluating the potential for Liquefaction or Cyclic failure of Silts and Clays, Center for

Geotechnical Modeling, Report No. UCD/CGM-04/01, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering,

University of California. pp 1-1-3-1.

[12] Census 2011 www.census2011.co.in/census/state/jammu+and+kashmir.html

[13] Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, Jr. L.F., and Kayen, R.E. (2000) SPT - Based Probabilistic

and

Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Initiation Hazard, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Report No.

PEER-

2000/05. pp 1-69.

[14] Crone, A.J., Wheeler, R.L. (2000) Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features and Possible Tectonic Features in the Central

and

Eastern United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front, United States Geological Survey.

[15] Day, R.W. (2002) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook. McGraw Hill Publications, pp 6.6-6.10.

[16] Dixit, J., Dewaikar, D.M. and Jangid, R.S. (2012) Assessment of liquefaction potential index for Mumbai city, Natural Hazards and

Earth

System Sciences 12: 2759-2768.

[17] Farrar, J.A. (1988) Study of In situ Testing for Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance and Occurrence, Proceedings, 19th Joint Meeting

of

the U.S. - Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 239-280.

[18] Ghaffar, A. and Abbas, S.F. (2010) An Overview of Past History Based on Seismicity Pattern of Kashmir Region, An Interpretation

from

2005 Earthquake, The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 20 (4): 297-304.

[19] Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M.J., Ponti, D.J. and Tinsley III, J.C. (1999) Liquefaction and Soil Failure During 1994 Northridge

Earthquake,

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(6): Paper No. 17861. pp 438-452.

[20] IND: Jammu and Kashmir Urban Sector Development Investment Program - Jammu City Urban Road Subproject, 2012: pp 15.

[21] IS 2131-1981 (1997) Method for standard penetration test for soils CED 43: Soil and Foundation Engineering. p. 3-9.

[22] IS 2720-2 (1973) Methods of test for soils: Determination of water content CED 43: Soil and Foundation Engineering. p. 3-5.

[23] IS 2720-5 (1985) Methods of test for soils: Determination of liquid and plastic limit CED 43: Soil and Foundation Engineering. p. 4-

8.

[24] Jefferies, M. and Been, K. (2006) Taylor & Francis, Soil Liquefaction.

[25] Kayabah, K. (1996) Soil liquefaction evaluation using shear wav velocity, Elsevier, Engineering Geology 44: 121-127.

[26] Khan, A.R. (2007) Geography of Jammu and Kashmir. Gulshan Books, Chapter 5, p. 72-77.

[27] Koester, J.P., Sharp, M.K. and Hynes, M.E. (2000) Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC. pp. 1-105.

[28] Langenbach, R. (2009) Don’t Tear it Down; Preserving the Earthquake Resistant Vernacular Architecture of Kashmir, United

Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); Oinfroin Media, Oakland, California.

[29] Law, K.T. and Ling, Y.H. (1992) Liquefaction of granular soils with non-cohesive and cohesive fines, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth

World

Conference Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1491-1496.

[30] Lee, K.L. and Seed, H.B. (1967) Cyclic Stress Conditions Causing Liquefaction of Sand, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering Division, ASCE 93: 47-70.

[31] Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. (1999) Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for

Analyzing



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, pp. 1-63.

[32] Molnar, P. (1992) A review of seismicity, recent faulting and active deformation of the Tibetan plateau, J. Him. Geol., 3: 43-78.

[33] Molnar, P. and Tapponnier, P. (1975) Cenozoic tectonics of Asia: Effects of continental collision, Science, 189: 419-426.

[34] Obermeier, S.F. (1996) Use of Liquefaction-induced features for Paleoseismic analysis, Eng. Geol. Vol. 44, Nos. 1-4, Elsevier Publ.

Co.

[35] Pokhrel, R.M., Kuwano, J. and Tachibana, S. (2013) A kriging method of interpolation used to map liquefaction potential over alluvial

ground, Elsevier, Engineering Geology 152(1): 26–37.

[36] Prakash, S. (1981) Soil Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, Reprinted by S.P. Foundation, Rolla, 1991.

[37] Pusch, R. (2000) On the risk of liquefaction of buffer and backfill, Technical Report TR-00-18: 1-31.

[38] Raza, M., Ahmad, A. and Mohammad, A. (1978) The Valley of Kashmir, A Geographical Interpretation Vol. I The Land, Vikas

Publishing

House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. pp. 115-123.

[39] Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (Fear) (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Can. Geotech. J.

35:

442-459.

[40] Rogers, J.D. (2006) Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test, Environmental and

Engineering Geoscience 12(2): 161-179.

[41] Sachpazis, C.I. (2011) Soil liquefaction potential assessment of a coastal foundation ground and its suitability for a CCGT Power Plant

construction in Greece, EJGE 16: 679-708.

[42] Seed H.B. (1979) Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation of Level Ground During Earthquakes, Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASSCE 105(GT2): 201-255.

[43] Seed H.B. and Idriss, I. M. (1967) Soil Liquefaction in the Niigata Earthquake, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,

ASCE

93(SM3): 83-108.

[44] Seed H.B. and Idriss, I. M. (1971) Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Geotechnical Engg. Div., ASCE

97(9):

1249-1273.

[45] Seed H.B. and Idriss, I. M. and I. Arango (1983) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential using Field Performance data, Journal of

Geotechnical

Engg, ASCE 109(3): 458-482.

[46] Seed H.B., and De Alba (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction Resistance of Sands, Proc., INSITU ’86,

ASCE

Spec. Conf. on Use of InSitu testing in Geotechnical Engg., Spec. Publ. No. 6, ASCE, New York, N.Y.

[47] Seed H.B., Tokamatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. (1984) The Influence of SPT Procedure on Soil Liquefaction Resistance

Evaluations, Rep. No. UCB/EERC-84/15, Earthquake Engg. Res Ctr., University of California.

[48] Seed R.B. and Harder Jr., L. F. (1990) SPT-based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength,

Proc., H.

B. Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishing, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, 351-376.

[49] Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. (1985) Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance

Evaluations,

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 111(12): 861-878.

[50] Seed, R.B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M. F. (2001) Recent Advances in Soil

Liquefaction Engineering and Seismic Site Response Evaluation, Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics SPL-2: 1-45.

[51] Shariatmadari, N., Eslami, A. and Karimpour-Fard, M. (2008) Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles in Sands from SPT–applied to 60

Case

histories, Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, Engineering 32(B2): 125-140.

[52] Sharma, S., Kumar, A. and Ghangas, V. (2013) Seismicity in Jammu and Kashmir Region with Special Reference to Kishtwar,

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3 (9): 1-5.



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


[53] Shibata, T. and Teparaksa, W. (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration tests, Soils Found 28(2): 49-

60.

[54] Sitharam, T.G. and Vipin, K.S. (2009) Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on In situ Test Data, IGC, Guntur, India, Indian

Geotechnical

Society GEOTIDE, pp. 857-864.

[55] Sitharam, T.G., Anbazhagan, P. and Mahesh, G.U. (2007) 3-D Subsurface Modelling and Preliminary Liquefaction Hazard

Mapping of

Bangalore City using SPT Data and GIS, Indian Geotechnical Journal 37(3): 210-226.

[56] Sorkhabi, R. (2006) The Great Himalayan Earthquakes, The Himalayan Journal, 62.

[57] Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y. (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT-N value and fines content, Soil Mech.

Found

23(4): 56-74.

[58] Varghese, P.C. (2005) Foundation Engineering, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, pp. 16-18.

[59] Vipin, K.S., Sitharam, T.G. and Anbazhagan, P. (2010) Probabilistic evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential based on SPT

data,

Springer, Nat Hazards 53: 547–560.

[60] Woods, R.D. (1978) Measurement of Dynamic soil properties-state of the Art. Proc, ASCE specialty Conference on Engineering and

soil

dynamics, Pasadena.

[61] Youd T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (2001) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998

NCEER/NSF

Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE

127(10):

297-313.

[62] Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F.Jr., Hynes,

M.E.,

Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K.,

Seed,

R.B., Stokoe, K.H. (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF

workshops on

evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127: 817-833.



ISSN NO: 2394-8442


assessing the liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction potential...

Documents