See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308039099

Engineering Geophysics

Conference Paper · March 2016

DOI: 10.4133/SAGEEP.29-028

CITATION READS

1 3,166

37 authors, including:

A. F. Mcclymont Ernst Niederleithinger

BGC Engineering Inc. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung
62 PUBLICATIONS   921 CITATIONS    191 PUBLICATIONS   1,596 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Julio Cesar Galindo Guerreros Michael Mooney

Komm.ONE Colorado School of Mines
14 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    101 PUBLICATIONS   2,324 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sensor integration, data fusion and information management for industrial monitoring systems View project

Geophysical Methods for Aquifer Delineation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rambhatla G. Sastry on 25 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL STUDY BASED ON INTEGRATED
GEOELECTRICAL IMAGING AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA – A CASE
STUDY
Rajni Devi1
Rambhatla G. Sastry*1
1. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Narendra K. Samadhiya2
2. Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Corresponding author: *R.G. Sastry (e-mail: rgss1fes@iitr.ac.in / rgssastry@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
Soil liquefaction potential through low-resolution shear wave velocity (V s ) information
derived from Multi-channel analysis of shear waves (MASW) and Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) results of geotechnical engineering is a standard procedure. But such an estimate is
crude at shallow depths. So, we propose an alternate refined method based on combined use
of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and SPT ‘N’ in a case study (Vigyan Kunj site,
IIT Roorkee campus, India), which shows that the site is having minimal soil liquefaction
hazard for an earthquake magnitude M w 7.5.
INTRODUCTION
Combined Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and Induced polarization imaging (IPI) are
powerful effective non-invasive geoelectric tools for near surface investigations, which
includes subsurface soil and rock characterization in real-time (Panek et al., 2010; Batayneh
et al., 2002; Drahor et al., 2006; Hauck and Kneisel, 2006). Shear modulus (G) and shear
wave velocity (V s ) of near surface soil can be obtained through the dispersive characteristics
(MASW) of Rayleigh wave (Park et al., 1999; Xia et al., 1999; Kant, 2014; Satyam and Rao,
2010; Mohanty, 2001).
Geotechnical site characterization can be carried out using Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
and Cone Penetration Test (Murthy, 2008). However, their implementation at sites is both
expensive and time consuming. Some geophysical investigations have been tried for
Geotechnical sites characterization (Anbazhagan et al., 2013; Gautam et al., 2007; Sastry and
Gautam, 2013).
Liquefaction is defined as the granular material transformation from a solid to a liquefied state
as a consequence of increased pore-water pressure and reduced effective stress (Marcuson
1978). Increased pore-water pressure induces the tendency of granular materials to compact
when subjected to cyclic shear deformations due to earthquakes. Generally, cyclic shear
stresses could be estimated through simplified procedures (Seed and Idriss, 1971, 1983; Seed,
1979) or based upon results of a site response analysis. The cyclic shear resistance of soils
could be evaluated in the laboratory or based upon empirical relationships by using in-situ
material parameters e.g., SPT, CPT, or Vs (Finn et al. 1994; Seed et al.1985; Youd et al.,
2001).
CASE STUDY
Our study region in I.I.T Roorkee campus includes Vigyan Kunj site (Fig. 1), which is located
on a river terrace of the Solani River (Parkash et al., 2001) and it belongs to Indo-Gangetic
Alluvial Plains (IGP) in Uttarakhand State, India. IGP covers 2,50,000 sq. km extending
between the latitude 24o N to 30o N and longitude 77o E to
88o E. Approximately 200 million live in the IGP, which is one of the most
densely populated regions of India. Our study region is underlain by siliclastic and carbonate
rocks, thickness of which may reach an order of 4.5 km. Our geophysical and site
geotechnical investigations include resistivity, IP imaging and Standard Penetration Test
(SPT).
METHODOLOGY
1) Estimation of Shear-wave velocity (V s ) from 2-D resistivity image data based on
experimental relationship given by Jones and Skibtizke (1956) for common soil types.
2) Computation of ‘N’- value from Shear wave velocity (V s ) based on regression
equation given by Maheshwari et al. 2010 for all soils types.
3) Estimation of cyclic stress ratio (CSR). It is the stress developed during earthquake of
magnitude, M w resulting in soil liquefaction and it is based on the simplified
procedure based on Seed and idriss (1971) equation.
𝑎𝑎 σ
CSR = 0.65 × 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × σ vo ’ × 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 (1)
𝑔𝑔 vo
where a max, the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by an
earthquake; g, acceleration due to gravity; σ vo and σ vo’ are total and effective vertical
over burden stresses, respectively; and r d, stress reduction coefficient. a max is R

estimated using Boore et al. 1993 relation.

4) Computation of (N 1 ) 60cs (for equivalent clean sand condition) from (N 1 ) 60 (statistical
value of N after all corrections) based on following relationship:
(N1) 60cs = α+ β(N1) 60 (2)

where α and β are coefficients based on FC (fines content) determined from the
following conditional relationships:

Case: 1
α = 0 for FC≤5% (3a)
β = 1.0 for FC ≤5% (3b)

Case: 2
α = exp [1.76 - (190/FC)] for 5% < FC < 35% (4a)
β = [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)] for 5% < FC < 35% (4b)
Case: 3
α = 5.0 for FC ≥ 35% (5a)
β = 1.2 for FC ≤ 35% (5b)
5) Computation of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) based on corrected “N” (for Clean sand
condition), (N 1 ) 60

𝟏𝟏 (𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵)𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝟏𝟏
CRR 7.5 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑−(𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵) + + [𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏∙𝟎𝟎(𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵) − 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 (6)
𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 +𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒]𝟐𝟐

6) Computation of factor of safety (FS) for soil liquefaction based on ratio of stresses,
(CRR/CSR) as
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
FS= 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
× 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (7)
The magnitude- Scaling factor (Seed and Idriss, 1983) for the an earthquake of magnitude,
Mw < 7.5 is given by
10 2.24
MSF = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 2.76 (8)
𝑤𝑤
DATA
By using a 48-electrode resistivity and IP chargeability imaging equipment (SYSCAL Jr.
PRO, IRIS make), geo-electric data is gathered with a Wenner–Schlumberger electrode
configuration of two meter inter-electrode separation along profiles AB, CD and EF (Fig. 1).
Apparent resistivity data are inverted using Loke & Barker’s (1995) inversion algorithm to
yield ERT sections along profiles, AB, CD and EF (Figs. 2a, 2b and 2c) .

Fig.1. Geophysical and geotechnical site investigation at Vigyan Kunj site (Encircled) on I.I.T
Roorkee Campus, Roorkee, India.
RESULTS
Figures 2 shows true resistivity section obtained after inverting ERT section. As per outlined
methodology, inferred safety factor (FS) section is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2 True resistivity section at Vigyan Kunj site, IIT Roorkee Campus, India
DISCUSSION
As ERT reflects near-surface resistivity inhomogenities with a high resolution, we expect that
our soil liquefaction sections could be of higher resolution than that of MASW derived ones.
We have independently derived a regression equation for our campus by relating resistivity
with Vs through MASW results (Srivasatava et al. 2015; Srivastava et al. 2015) for four ERT
sites (not included here) on our campus.

Fig. 3 Safety factor section for soil liquefaction assessment at Vigyan Kunj site.
CONCLUSIONS
We have designed a methodology for assessing soil liquefaction potential of a site based on
ERT section as better alternative to current MASW based one. We have demonstrated our
methodology successfully in a case study. Obtained results indicate our reported sites is free
from soil liquefaction hazard (FS>1.0) for future earthquakes of magnitude Mw ≤ 7.5.
Our ERT based method offers higher depth resolution in soil liquefaction potential section.
Our designed methodology is general enough to accommodate any developed site-specific
regression relations connecting resistivity with shear wave velocity (Vs) and SPT N, thereby
estimating FS sections.
REFERENCES
Anbazhagan, P., Kumar, A.and Sitaram, T.G., 2013. Seismic Site Classification and
Correlation between Standard Penetration Test N- Values and Shear Wave Velocity for
Lucknow in Indo Gangetic Basin, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 299-318.
Batayneh, A. T. and Al–Diabat, A. A., 2002. Application of a Two-Dimensional Electrical
Tomography Technique for Investigating Landslides along the Amman–Dead Sea Highway,
Jordan, Environmental Geology 42, 399–403.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fual , T.E., 1993.Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Acceleration from Western Naorth Aerica Earthquake, An Interim Report, U.S. Geological
Survey , Reston , Virginia, 72.
Drahor, M. G., Gokturkler, G., Berge, M.A., and Kurtulmus, T. O., 2006. Application of
Electrical Resistivity Tomography Technique for Investigation of Landslides a Case from
Turkey, Environmental Geology 50, 147–155.
Finn, W. L., Ledbetter, R. H., and Wu, G., 1994. Liquefaction in silty soils: design and
analysis, Ground failures under seismic conditions, Geotechnical Special Publication No 44,
ASCE, Reston, 51–79.
Gautam P. K., Sastry R. G., and Mondal S. K., 2007. The utility of Multi-electrode resistivity
data in geotechnicalinvestigations-A case study, 20th Symposium on theApplication of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), 731-737.
Hauck, Ch. and Kneisel, 2006. Application of Capacitively-coupled and DC Electrical
Resistivity Imaging for Mountain Permafrost Studies, Chapter In: Permafrost and Periglacial
Processes 17, 169–177.
Jones, P.H. and Skibitzke, H.E., 1956. Subsurface Geophysical Methods in Ground Water
Hydrology, Journal on Advances in Geophysics, Volume 3, 242-300.
Kant, L., 2014. An Evolution of In situ Shear Wave Velocity from Various Field Tests,
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee.
Loke, M. H. and Barker, R. D., 1995. Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity
pseudo sections, Geophysics, 60, 1682-1690.
Maheswari, U.R., Boominathan, A., and Dodagoudar, G.R., 2010. Use of Surface Waves in
Statistical Correlation of Shear Wave Velocity and Penetration Resistance of Chennai soils,
Geotechnical and Geology Engineering,
Marcuson, W.F., 1978. Definition of terms related to liquefaction, Journal of the Geotechnical
engineering division, 104, 1197-1200.
Mohanty, S.K., 2001. Evaluation of Shear Modulus of Soil Using Geophysical Methods,
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee.
Murthy, V. N. S., 2008. Soil Mechanics and foundation engineering, CBS Publisher and
Distributors, 1043pp.
Panek,T., Margieleski, W., Taborik, P., Urban, J., Hradecky, J., and Szura, C., 2010.
Gravitationally induced caves and other discontinuities detected by 2-d electrical resistivity
tomography: Case studies from the Polish Flysch Carpathians, Geomorphology, 123, 165-
180,
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., and Xia, J., 1999. Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves,
Geophysics, 64, No.3, 800-808.
Parkash, B., Kumar, S., Rao, M. S., Giri, S. C., Kumar, C.S., and Gupta, S., 2001. Active
Tectonics of Western Gangetic Plain, In: DST’s special volume 2 on seismicity, Publication of
IGC, 141-158.
Sastry, R.G. and Gautam, P.K., 2013. Geotechnical Site Characterization through
Geoelectrics, 10th Biennial International Conference and Exposition, SAGEEP, P050.
Satyam, N. and Rao, K.S., 2010. Multi-Channel Analysis Of Surface Wave (MASW)
Testing For Dynamic Site Characterization Of Delhi Region, Fifth International Conference
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering And Soil Dynamics.
Seed, H. B., 1979. Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during
earthquakes, Journal of. Geotechnical. Engineering Div., ASCE, 105, 201-255.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Div., ASCE, 97(9), 1249–1273.
 Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1983. Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland, Calif.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M., 1985. The influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
111(12), 1425–1445.
Srivastava, S., 2015. Assesment of In-situ Shear Wave Velocity from Electrical Resistivity
Values, Unpublished M.Tech Thesis.
Srivastava, S., Mukherjee, S., Sastry, R.G., 2015 Regression based in-situ shear wave velocity
estimation from electrical resistivity data, Paper ID 572, 50th Indian Geotechnical Conference
(IGC-2015), Pune, 17-19 Dec. 2015.
Xia, J., Miller, R.D., and Park, C.B., 1999. Estimation of near surface Shear Wave Velocity
by Inversion of Rayleigh Waves, Geophysics, 64, 691-700.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., & Christian, J. T., 2001.
Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1998. NCEER/NSF
workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, (ASCE), 1090-0241.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First author is thankful to Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government
of India for research fellowship support.

View publication stats