Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 2899–2933 | Cite as

Dynamic soil properties and liquefaction potential of northeast Indian soil for non-linear effective stress analysis

  • Pradeep Kumar DammalaEmail author
  • Shiv Shankar Kumar
  • A. Murali Krishna
  • Subhamoy Bhattacharya
Original Research


This article presents a comprehensive study of dynamic soil properties [namely, initial shear modulus-Gmax; normalized shear modulus reduction (G/Gmax); and damping ratio (D) variation curves] and pore water pressure parameters of a river bed sand (Brahmaputra sand), sampled from a highly active seismic region (northeast India). Two independent high quality apparatus (resonant column-RC and cyclic triaxial-CTX) are adopted in the study. Resonant column apparatus was used to obtain the small strain properties (up to 0.1%) while CTX equipment was adopted to obtain the high strain properties along with the pore water pressure parameters. The results obtained from both the equipment are combined to provide a comprehensive data of dynamic soil properties over wide range of strains. A modified hyperbolic formulation was suggested for efficient simulation of G/Gmax and D variations with shear strain. Based on the CTX results, a pore water pressure generation model is presented. Furthermore, a nonlinear effective stress ground response study incorporating the pore water pressure generation, is performed using the recorded earthquake motions of varying peak bed rock acceleration (PBRA) in the region, to demonstrate the applicability of proposed dynamic soil properties and pore pressure parameters. High amplification for low PBRA ground motions (< 0.10 g) was observed and attenuation of seismic waves was witnessed beyond a PBRA of 0.10 g near the surficial stratum due to the induced high strains and the resulting high hysteretic damping of the soil. Also, increased excess pore pressure generation with increased PBRA of the input motion was observed and the considered soil stratum is expected to liquefy beyond a PBRA of 0.1 g. The established properties can be handy to the design engineers during seismic design of structures in the northeast Indian region.


Dynamic soil properties Resonant column Cyclic triaxial Pore water pressure Nonlinear effective stress analysis 



  1. ASTM D2487 (2006) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM Stand Guid D5521–5:1–5. Google Scholar
  2. ASTM D3999 (2003) Standard test methods for the determination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus. Am Soc Test Mater 91:1–16. Google Scholar
  3. ASTM D4015 (2014) Standard test methods for modulus and damping of soils by resonant-column 1–22.
  4. ASTM D5311 (1996) Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil. ASTM D5311(92):1–11. Google Scholar
  5. Ayothiraman R, Raghu Kanth STG, Sreelatha S (2012) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of Guwahati: Gateway city to Northeastern India. Nat Hazards 63:449–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bai L (2011) Preloading effects on dynamic sand behavior by resonant column tests. Doctoral thesis, Technischen Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Basu D, Dey A, Kumar SS (2017) One-dimensional effective stress non-Masing nonlinear ground response analysis of IIT Guwahati. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 8:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 8(spec01):43–91Google Scholar
  9. Carlton BD (2014) An improved description of the seismic response of sites with high plasticity soils, organic clays, and deep soft soil deposits. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Chattaraj R, Sengupta A (2016) Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai River sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 90:467–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatterjee K, Choudhury D (2016) Influences of local soil conditions for ground response in Kolkata city during earthquakes. Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect A Phys Sci. Google Scholar
  12. Chehat A, Hussien MN, Abdelazize M, Chekired M (2018) Stiffness-and damping-strain curves of sensitive Champlain clays through experimental and analytical approaches. Can Geotech J. Google Scholar
  13. Chiaradonna A, Tropeano G, Onofrio A, Silvestri F, Park D (2015) Application of a simplified model for the prediction of pore pressure build-up in sandy soils subjected to seismic loading. In: 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiaradonna A, Tropeano G, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2018) Development of a simplified model for pore water pressure build-up induced by cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  15. Chung R, Yokel F, Drnevich V (1984) Evaluation of dynamic properties of sands by resonant column testing. Geotech Test J 7:60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dammala PK, Krishna AM, Bhattacharya S (2015) Cyclic threshold shear strains in cohesionless soils based on stiffness degradation. In: Indian geotechnical conference, Pune, Paper ID: 291Google Scholar
  17. Dammala PK, Krishna AM, Bhattacharya S, Aingaran S (2016) Cyclic repones of cohesionless soil using cyclic simple shear testing. In: 6th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering. ICRAGEE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  18. Dammala PK, Bhattacharya S, Krishna AM, Kumar SS, Dasgupta K (2017a) Scenario based seismic re-qualification of caisson supported major bridges? a case study of Saraighat Bridge. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:270–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dammala PK, Krishna AM, Bhattacharya S, Rouholamin M, Nikitas G (2017b) Dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies in Northeastern India. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:357–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darendeli M (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping. Doctoral thesis, University of TexasGoogle Scholar
  21. Desai SS, Choudhury D (2012) Site-specific seismic ground response study for nuclear power plants and ports in Mumbai. Nat Hazards Rev 13:205–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dobry R, Pierce W, Dyvik R, Thomas GE, Ladd R (1985) Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, TroyGoogle Scholar
  23. Drnevich VP, Hall JR, Richart Jr F (1967) Large amplitude vibration effects on the shear modulus of sand. Michigan University Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  24. El Mohtar CS, Drnevich VP, Santagata M, Bobet A (2013) Combined resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests for measuring undrained shear modulus reduction of sand with plastic fines. Geotech Test J 36:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Esteva L (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985-consequences, lessons, and impact on research and practise. Earthq Spectra 4:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finn WDL, Bhatia SK (1982) Prediction of seismic pore water pressures. In: 10th international conference in soil mechanics and foundations, Stockholm, pp 201–206Google Scholar
  27. Govindaraju L (2005) Liquefaction and dynamic properties of sandy soils. Doctoral thesis, IISc BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  28. Guha S, Bhattacharya U (1984) Studies on prediction of seismicity in northeastern India. In: 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Hardin BO (1978) The nature of stress-strain behavior for soils. In: From Volume I of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics--Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Conference, June 19–21, 1978, Pasadena, California. Sponsored by Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCEGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div SM7:667–692Google Scholar
  31. Hardin BO, Richart FE (1963) Elastic wave velocities in Granular soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 89:33–65Google Scholar
  32. Hashash YMA, Musgrouve MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  33. Heshmati AA, Shahnazari H, Sarbaz H (2015) The cyclic threshold shear strains in very dense clean sand. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 19:884–899. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hsu C-C, Vucetic M (2004) Volumetric threshold shear strain for cyclic settlement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:58–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Imai T, Tonouchi K (1982) Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European symposium on penetration testing, Amsterdam, pp 57–72Google Scholar
  37. IS:1893 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Indian Stand 1–44Google Scholar
  38. Ishibashi I, Zhang X (1993) Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 33:182–191. Google Scholar
  39. Ivsic T (2006) A model for presentation of seismic pore water pressures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kayal JR, De R (1991) Microseismicity and tectonics in Northeast India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:131–138Google Scholar
  41. Khattri KN (1999) Probabilities of occurrence of great earthquakes in the Himalaya. Proc Indian Acad Sci Earth Planet Sci 108:87–92Google Scholar
  42. Kiku H, Yoshida N (2000) Dynamic deformation property tests at large strains. World Conf Earthq Eng 12:1–7Google Scholar
  43. Kokusho T (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils Found 20:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuhlemeyer R, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99:421–427Google Scholar
  46. Kumar A, Harinarayan NH, Baro O (2015) High amplification factor for low amplitude ground motion: assessment for Delhi. Disaster Adv 8:1–11Google Scholar
  47. Kumar A, Baro O, Harinarayan NH (2016) Obtaining the surface PGA from site response analyses based on globally recorded ground motions and matching with the codal values. Nat Hazards 81:543–572. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2017) Evaluation of dynamic properties of sandy soil at high cyclic strains. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 99:157–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2018) Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 9:1–21. Google Scholar
  50. Maheshwari BK, Kirar B (2017) Dynamic properties of soils at low strains in Roorkee region using resonant column tests. Int J Geotech Eng 6362:1–12. Google Scholar
  51. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1994) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 119:1805–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1995) Generalized cyclic-degradation–pore-pressure generation model for clays. J Geotech Eng 121:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mohanty P, Dutta SC, Bhattacharya S (2017) Proposed mechanism for mid-span failure of pile supported river bridges during seismic liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 102:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newmark NM (1959) A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics. J Eng Mech Div 85:67‒94Google Scholar
  55. Oldham R (1899) Report of the great earthquake of 12 June 1897. Mem Geol Surv India 29:1–379Google Scholar
  56. Pagliaroli A, Aprile V, Chamlagain D, Lanzo G, Poovarodom N (2018) Assessment of site e ff ects in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal, during the 2015 Mw 7. 8 Gorkha earthquake sequence using 1D and 2D numerical modelling. Eng Geol 239:50–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Park D, Hashash YMA (2008) Rate-dependent soil behavior in seismic site response analysis. Can Geotech J 45:454–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Park T, Park D, Ahn JK (2015) Pore pressure model based on accumulated stress. Bull Earthq Eng 13(7):1913–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Phillips C, Hashash YMA (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1143–1158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. PHRI Port and Harbour Research Institute (1997) Handbook on liquefaction remediation of reclaimed land, BalkemaGoogle Scholar
  61. Poddar M (1950) The Assam earthquake of 15th August 1950. Indian Miner 4:167–176Google Scholar
  62. Raghu Kanth STG, Dash SK (2010) Evaluation of seismic soil-liquefaction at Guwahati city. Environ Earth Sci 61:355–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ramirez J, Asce SM, Barrero AR, Chen L, Dashti S, Ghofrani A, Taiebat M, Arduino P (2018) Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 144:1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Romero SM, Rix GJ (2005) Ground motion amplification of soils in the upper Mississippi embayment. Report no. GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1, National Science Foundation Mid America Earthquake CenterGoogle Scholar
  65. Saxena SK, Reddy KR (1989) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for Monterey No.0 sand by resonant column tests. Soils Found 29:37–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report EE 70-10, Earthquake Engineering and Research Center, University of Californina BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  67. Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div 92:105–134Google Scholar
  68. Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1975) The generation and dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction. University of California Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  69. Silvestri F (2001). Looking for objective criteria in the interpretation of laboratory stress–strain tests. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of geometerials. Jamiolkowski, Lancellotta e Lo Presti (eds). Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 9058090752Google Scholar
  70. Singhai A, Kumar SS, Dey A (2016) Site-specific 1-D nonlinear effective stress GRA with pore water pressure dissipation. In: 6th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, New Delhi, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  71. Sitharam T, Govindaraju L, Srinivasa Murthy B (2004) Evaluation of liquefaction potential and dynamic properties of silty sand using cyclic triaxial testing. Geotech Test J 27:Paper ID GTJ11894Google Scholar
  72. Stokoe KH, Hwang SK, Darendeli M, Lee NJ (1995) Correlation study of nonlinear dynamic soils properties. Westinghouse Savanah River Company, AikenGoogle Scholar
  73. Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vardanega PJ, Bolton MD (2013) Stiffness of clays and silts: normalizing shear modulus and shear strain. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 9:1575–1589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vucetic M (1995) Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 120:2208–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Cyclic triaxial strain-controlled testing of liquefiable sands. Adv Triaxial Test Soil Rock. Google Scholar
  77. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 117:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:453–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringKalinga Institute of Industrial Technology BhubaneswarBhubaneswarIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations