Advertisement

Typical Sites in the Proposed Smart City Ludhiana

  • Manish BhutaniEmail author
  • Sanjeev Naval
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 30)

Abstract

Ground response analysis for a specific site plays an important role in designing earthquake-resistant structures as several conditions at the surface may occur due to the amplification of rock/hard layers at the bed level. In this study, 1D EQL ground response investigation has been conducted for sites of Ludhiana city using DEEPSOIL software. The analysis has been carried out by considering Sikkim 2011 and Uttarkashi 1999 earthquake. Geotechnical data have been collected from various organizations and Shear wave velocity estimated using already available correlation between SPT-N value and Vs. The sites were characterized on the basis of average SPT ‘N’ values as per the recommendations of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The peak ground acceleration for different sites has been calculated and found to vary between 0.173 and 0.254 g. It has been observed that sites of Ludhiana can amplify due to which site-specific seismic ground motion analysis should be adopted for RCC structures having high important value.

Keywords

Equivalent linear ground response analysis Input motion SPT-N value Soil characterization Shear wave velocity Peak ground acceleration 

References

  1. BBSC (2000) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Desai SS, Choudhury D (2015) Site specific seismic ground response study for nuclear power plant and ports in Mumbai. National Hazards 16:1–13Google Scholar
  3. Gupta R et al (2017) Equivalent linear ground response analysis of typical sites in state of Haryana using spectrum compatible ground motions. In: Sixth Indian young geotechnical engineers conference 6IYGEC2017, 10–11 March 2017. NIT Trichy, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanumantharao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117:719–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hashash YMA et al (2016) DEEPSOIL—1-D wave propagation analysis program for geotechnical site response analysis of deep soil deposits version 6.1, user manual and tutorial. University of Illinois, UCGoogle Scholar
  6. Nath RR, Jakka RS (2012) Effect of bedrock depth on site classification. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 15WCEE. Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 Sept 2012Google Scholar
  7. Naval S, Chandan K (2017) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis for proposed smart city, Ludhiana (India). Electron J Geotech Eng 22:4255–4270Google Scholar
  8. Phanikanth VS et al (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. J Geotech Geol Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9443-8
  9. Puri N, Jain A (2016) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis for the state of Haryana, India. Ind Geotech J 46:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Siddhartha S et al (2017) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis of Chandigarh city. In: Sixth Indian young geotechnical engineers conference 6IYGEC2017, 10–11 March 2017. NIT Trichy, IndiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CE, DAVIETJalandharIndia

Personalised recommendations