ORIGINAL PAPER

Seismic Liquefaction Hazard and Site Response for Design of Pilesin Mumbai City

Deepankar Choudhury • V. S. Phanikanth •

Sumedh Y. Mhaske • Reshma R. Phule •

Kaustav Chatterjee

Received: 29 June 2012 / Accepted: 11 February 2014

� Indian Geotechnical Society 2014

Abstract Mumbai city is the financial capital of India

with the highest population density and formed by recla-

mation of land over time from original seven different

islands. As per Indian seismic design code IS 1893-Part 1,

Mumbai city is located in Zone III, hence may experience

moderate intensity earthquake which may lead to lique-

faction of some typical soil sites of Mumbai city. In this

paper, using available recent procedures for liquefaction

analysis, seismic liquefaction hazard maps for Mumbai

city are prepared. Also the typical coastal soft soil strata

of Mumbai may be prone to soil amplification for dif-

ferent bed rock earthquake motions and the present study

shows that typical ranges of soil amplification factor for

bed rock acceleration are 1.2–3.5. Hence, construction of

pile foundation, which is mostly used for the effective use

of the most precious land of Mumbai city for construction

of high rise buildings, need special attention in design

when such possibly liquefied soil strata with soil ampli-

fication during moderate earthquake intensity is consid-

ered. Present study shows the response of pile foundation

in both non-liquefied and liquefied soil by considering

both kinematic and inertial responses in terms of dis-

placement and bending moments of piles, which are

necessary to consider for seismic design of pile foundation

in typical Mumbai soil.

Keywords Seismic liquefaction hazard �Ground response analysis � Soil amplification � Pile �Earthquake motion � Mumbai

Introduction

For urban cities with high population, the infrastructural

growth demands several high rise constructions which are

challenging tasks for civil engineers to provide safe and

economic design for such structures. This task becomes

more complex in earthquake prone areas. Apart from using

country specific seismic design codes, like the Indian

standard code IS 1893-Part 1 [1], use of various seismicity

factors for design and analysis of pile foundation for high

rise constructions need special zone and case specific

attention. Hence, the study of seismic hazard, possibility of

liquefaction, preparation of seismic liquefaction hazard

map for starting the basic design are topics of research

around the world. Moreover, not only the seismic design

approaches developed some parts of the world may not

D. Choudhury (&) � V. S. Phanikanth �S. Y. Mhaske � R. R. Phule � K. Chatterjee

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology

Bombay (IIT Bombay), Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

e-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in; dchoudhury@iitb.ac.in

V. S. Phanikanth

e-mail: vphanikanth@gmail.com

S. Y. Mhaske

e-mail: symhaske@vjti.org.in

R. R. Phule

e-mail: reshmaraskar@iitb.ac.in

K. Chatterjee

e-mail: kaustav.c@iitb.ac.in

D. Choudhury

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New

Delhi, India

V. S. Phanikanth

CED, B.A.R.C., Mumbai 400085, India

S. Y. Mhaske

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, V.J.T.I.,

Matunga (East), Mumbai 400019, India

123

Indian Geotech J

DOI 10.1007/s40098-014-0108-4

suite at another site but also the country specific study is

too broad to consider in design.

In India, various researchers like Raghukanth and

Iyengar [2], Rao and Satyam [3], Sitharam and Anbazha-

gan [4], Hanumanthrao and Ramana [5], Maheswari et al.

[6], Mhaske and Choudhury [7, 8], Shukla and Choudhury

[9, 10], Chatterjee and Choudhury [11], Kolathayar et al.

[12], Desai and Choudhury [13] and few others showed the

need for location specific study of seismic soil properties

and liquefaction analysis. Hence, location or city specific

seismic hazard study with ground response analysis by

considering local soil properties are needed for important

areas across the world.

Post earthquake investigations on damages of piles are

well documented by Tazoh et al. [14], Madabushi et al.

[15] and few others. Also laboratory test results for piles

under seismic conditions by using centrifuge and shaking

table are available [16–18]. These results show the need of

rigorous soil–pile interaction for accurate prediction of pile

response under earthquake conditions. EN 1998-1 Euro-

code 8 [19] recommends the consideration of both kine-

matic and inertial interactions. Additionally, piles in

liquefying soils are subjected to both vertical and lateral

loads and the presence of liquefying soil due to vertical

loading makes the pile vulnerable to buckling due to sig-

nificant stiffness degradation [20]. A number of simplified

procedures are available in literature for evaluation of

kinematic bending moments along piles, such as dynamic

Winkler models and the P–Y static models [21–24]. Ma-

heswari and Sarkar [25] performed parametric studies on

seismic behavior of soil–pile–super structure interaction in

liquefiable soils. Hence, the importance of such study on

piles in liquefiable soil is well documented.

However, such seismic design procedure for pile in one

of the most important city like Mumbai by considering

local soil conditions, ground motions, liquefaction and

seismic hazard is scarce in literature. Hence, in the present

paper, an attempt has been made to study and prepare the

seismic liquefaction hazard map for Mumbai city, which

was originated from seven different islands with sur-

rounding marshy lands and comes under seismic zone III as

per IS 1893-Part 1 [1]. Since reclaimed marshy lands,

which are prone to liquefaction during the occurrence of a

strong earthquake, may also be prone to soil amplification

which can be obtained by using site-specific seismic

ground response analysis. Finally the above information

from the site-specific ground response analysis and seismic

liquefaction hazard study for Mumbai city, can be utilized

for seismic design of pile foundations in both liquefied and

non-liquefied soils of Mumbai city. It has been aimed to

obtain the seismic response of piles in terms of pile

bending moment and pile deflection considering both

kinematic and inertial interactions.

Study Area and Need for Study

For the present study, the area of Mumbai city bounded

between latitude of about 19�150N to 18�540N and longitude

of about 72�470E to 73�000E is chosen. Mumbai is the

financial (economical) capital of India, which is located in

the western part of India and it is the capital of Maharashtra

state of India. Mumbai city covers an area of about 437 sq.

km. with the population of about 12.5 million as per census

data of 2011. In India, Mumbai is the most populous city

being the financial hub of the country. This city is subjected

to tropical climate with average annual rainfall of about

250 cm but concentrated during three months of the year

and hence heavy rainfall intensity is experienced in this

city. Being the most populous and financial hub of India,

Mumbai city is having maximum number of high rise

buildings in India due to scarcity of vacant land. All these

high rise structures are mostly founded on pile foundation

due to typical soft nature of soil strata in Mumbai which is a

typical coastal city. Also all modes of transport system like

bus, train, metro, ship, airplanes, cars etc. are available in

Mumbai for commuters. All these characteristics of the city

already show the amount of possible hazards which may

occur due to any earthquake disaster in this city [26].

Moreover, Mumbai city was originated from original

seven different islands that were joined together to create a

single island which is called as present day Mumbai city.

As per seismic zonation map of India [1], Mumbai city

comes under seismic zone III. Figure 1 is showing the

seismic zonation map of India with a highlight on Mumbai

city which was originated from seven islands with sur-

rounding marshy lands [7]. The original seven islands were

lush green thickly wooded, and dotted with 22 hills; with

the Arabian Sea washing through them at high tide. It has

been a natural shipping and trading centre throughout its

history and has grown in spite of lying in a seismically

active zone. The original island of Mumbai was only

24 km long and 4 km wide from Dongri to Malabar hill

and the other six islands were Colaba, Old Woman’s

island, Mahim, Parel, Worli and Mazgaon. From past his-

tory, it has been found that Mumbai and surrounding area

had experienced earthquakes of various magnitudes/inten-

sity from time to time as shown in Table 1 (Modified after

[7]). Also the seismic zoning map of India [1] provides the

information that for seismic zone III, an earthquake of

intensity between 5.5 and 6.5 can be expected. Moreover a

reclaimed land can easily liquefy during a major earth-

quake. Hence, in this study, Mumbai and surrounding city

area are chosen as the study area for the preparation of

seismic liquefaction hazard map followed by site-specific

ground response analysis which in turn can be used for

design of pile foundation in liquefied and no-liquefied soil

under seismic conditions.

Indian Geotech J

123

Liquefaction Hazard Map for Mumbai

After knowing the importance of the present study from

above section, the next step is to identify the possible areas

within Mumbai city which may prone to liquefaction under

different magnitudes of earthquake. To carry out the liq-

uefaction analysis for any particular soil site, the necessary

basic soil data and dynamic soil properties need to be

obtained. Over 500 borehole data and soil testing reports

for entire Mumbai was collected / obtained from different

government and private institutions and consultants. The

thematic maps of soil index properties such as moisture

content, specific gravity, liquid limit, plastic limit etc. were

generated by Mhaske and Choudhury [27] by using vector

analysis module of Geographic Information System (GIS)

GRAM?? software (version 1.4) [28]. GRAM?? (v1.4)

[28] is relatively costeffective than other available com-

mercial GIS software with similar quality of outputs. These

will be very helpful to know the variation of soil profile

from place to place and in varying depth to depth. Geo-

technical engineers can very easily locate the suitable soil

strata for laying foundation of structures.

The typical subsurface soil profiles for Mumbai city is

shown in Fig. 2. It is found that there are a lot of variations in

soil of Mumbai city. In the south-west part of Mumbai city

(Girgaon), it is found that the soil having yellowish sand is

overlaying on black to yellowish clay and hard rock is

observed at the depth of 10 m. In the south-east part of

Mumbai city (Wadala), it is found that the overburden soil is

consisting of sand and gravel overlaying on medium stiff

grayish black marine clay and slightly weathered to

moderately weathered rock is observed at the depth of 13 m

onwards. In the extreme north-west part of Mumbai city

(Andheri), it is found that the gray stiff clay, brown plastic

sandy clay is sandwiched between the overburden soil con-

sisting of sand and gravel and brown silty sand and moderately

weathered rock is observed at the depth of 5 m onwards. The

ground water table is observed to fluctuate from the depth of

1.5–4 m during the period from October to April.

Table 2 shows the typical details of average shear wave

velocity of overburden soil at various sites in Mumbai city,

which are calculated by using the co-relationship between

SPT ‘N’ value and shear wave velocity (Vs) for typical

Mumbai soil, that has been proposed by Mhaske and

Choudhury [8] as given below,

Vs ¼ 72 Nð Þ0:4 for all soilsð Þ ð1Þ

where Vs is the shear wave velocity of soil (m/s), N is the

measured SPT value.

Also the empirical relation between corrected SPT value

with clean-sand condition [(N1)60,cs] and shear wave

velocity was given as [8],

Vs ¼ 40 N1ð Þ60; cs

h i0:47

ð2Þ

These Eqs. (1) and (2) can be used for further site-

specific ground response analysis or liquefaction study for

Mumbai city. Table 2 also shows the classification of

typical Mumbai soil sites in terms of seismic classification

as proposed by NEHRP [29]. It may be noticed that as per

NEHRP [29], typical Mumbai soil mostly belongs to class

D or class E types of soil as per average shear wave

Fig. 1 Seismic zonation map of India with highlight on Mumbai city, which was originated from seven islands with surrounding marshy lands

(Modified after [7])

Indian Geotech J

123

velocity of overburden soil. This information is extremely

useful for determination of design acceleration spectra as

per codal provisions for earthquake resistant design of

super and sub-structures in and around Mumbai city.

Table 3 shows typical ranges of SPT ‘N’ values and

estimated average shear wave velocities of soil in Mumbai

city. It will be very useful for design and site engineers for

preliminary analysis for foundations in Mumbai city.

Figure 3 shows geospatial contour map of average shear

wave velocity (Vs) of soil for Mumbai city at an interval of

Fig. 2 Typical subsurface soil profiles of Mumbai city

Table 1 Tremors that shook

Mumbai city in the past

(Modified after [7])

Year Month Earthquake magnitude/intensity Scale

1906 March VI Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)

1929 February V

1933 July V

1951 April VIII

1966 May V

1967 April 4.5 (R) Richter/local magnitude (R)

1967 June 4.2 (R)

1993 September 6.4 (R)

1998 May Mw = 3.8 Moment magnitude (Mw)

2005 March Mw = 5.1

2005 June Mw = 3.7

2005 August Mw = 4.1

2010 July Mw = 2.5

2010 August Mw = 2.6

2011 September Mw = 3.1

2012 April Mw = 4.6

2013 November Mw = 3.3

Indian Geotech J

123

100 m/s. This information will be highly useful for further

dynamic analysis and design in Mumbai city. Figure 4

provides the correlations between shear wave velocity (Vs)

and SPT ‘N’ value for various Indian soils as done by

different researchers like Hanumantharao and Ramana [5]

for Delhi city, Anbazhagan and Sitharam [30] for Banga-

lore city, Maheswari et al. [6] for Chennai city, Mhaske

and Choudhury [8] for Mumbai city and Chatterjee and

Choudhury [11] for Kolkata city. It may be noted that the

proposed empirical relation for Mumbai soil is similar to

that of Chennai soil and the reason may be attributed to the

fact that both the cities are coastal city with similar type of

soil profile at various locations.

It is well known that Youd et al. [31] approach is widely

accepted worldwide for the calculation of seismic lique-

faction potential at any depth of soil. However, it may be

noted that other recent developments are further going on

for computation of liquefaction potential by considering

various other aspects like effect of fine grained soil as

proposed by Boulanger and Idriss [32], for probabilistic

estimation of liquefaction as proposed by Cetin et al. [33]

etc. (see [34, 35]). The estimation of soil liquefaction due

Table 2 Typical average shear wave velocity of overburden soil and soil type at various locations of Mumbai city

Bore

log no.

Latitude

(N)

Longitude

(E)

Station Depth

of SPT

(m)

SPT

‘N’

value

Shear wave

velocity of

soil Vs =

72(N)0.40

(m/s)

Average shear

wave velocity of

overburden soil

above the rock

VsOBS in (m/s)

Soil class

as per

NEHRP

[29]

Type of soil

as per

NEHRP

[29]

BL1 19�050400 72�5401900 LBS Marg to

Ghatkopar

5.0 34 295 334 D Stiff soil

BL109 19�0605000 72�5105000 Chakala 3.6 23 252 234 D Stiff soil

BL11 19�0503500 72�540600 Subhash Nagar to

as alpha

3.6 25 261 235 D Stiff soil

BL110 19�0604100 72�5201100 Chakala to Airport

Road

6.6 39 312 268 D Stiff soil

BL117 18�0304100 72�5402900 Chembur 4.6 10 181 141 E Soft soil

BL141 19�0703600 72�4905900 D N Nagar Yard 5.1 18 229 173 E Soft soil

BL15 19�0601100 72�5301700 Sakinaka to Subhas

Nagar

2.1 14 207 99 E Soft soil

BL317 19�0205600 72�5005300 Mahim 6.55 55 358 360 C Very dense soil

and soft rock

BL35 19�0705400 72�4901600 Andheri 15.4 16 218 184 D Stiff soil

BL300 18�5903900 72�4904900 Lower Parel 2.6 15 213 216 D Stiff soil

Table 3 Typical ranges of SPT ‘N’ values and estimated average shear wave velocities of soil in Mumbai city (Modified after [8])

Location Soil type Depth

(m)

Range of SPT

‘‘N’’ value

Range of shear wave velocity (m/s) of soil

for Mumbai city Vs = 72(N)0.40Range of soil class as

per NEHRP [29]

Andheri Stiff clay 3–8 6–24 140–250 E–D

Bandra-Kurla

Complex

Black marine clay/stiff clay 2.5–5.5 3–50 110–350 E–D

Charni road Stiff clay 2–9 11–34 185–290 D

Chembur Stiff clay 1.5–5 6–35 140–300 E–D

Tulpule

chowk

Very stiff yellowish brown

silty clay with gravel

3.1–5.6 12–25 194–305 E–D

Vikhroli Yellowish hard Murrum 1.5–12 9–50 170–340 E–D

Walkeshwar Backfilled soil 1.1–3.1 12–15 190–210 D

Azad nagar Filled up soil consisting of silt

clay with gravel

2.1–3.8 5–45 137–330 E–D

Girgaon Yellowish loose sand 1.5–6 9–16 170–210 E–D

Goregaon Yellowish clayey soil 2.1–3.6 4–16 125–220 E–D

Indian Geotech J

123

to earthquake can be expressed in terms of factor of safety

against liquefaction (FSL), which is expressed as,

FSL ¼ CRR7:5=CSR ð3Þ

In Eq. (3), CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio at

earthquake moment magnitude Mw = 7.5 as defined by

Youd et al. [31] and CSR = Cyclic stress ratio as defined

by Seed and Idriss [36]. But the estimation of CSR as

function of stress reduction coefficient (rd), which varies

with depth of soil layer is still thoroughly researched by

various experts worldwide. To name a few, Idriss (see [37])

had modified the expression of rd and later Cetin et al. [33]

and Kishida et al. [38] had updated the variation of rd with

depth. As very recently reported by Idriss and Boulanger

[37], the effect of earthquake magnitudes and shear wave

velocity also should be taken into consideration for

estimation of rd with depth instead of taking it as

function of depth only as was originally proposed by

Seed and Idriss [36]. Figure 5 shows the comparison of

variation of rd with depth as proposed by various

researchers for earthquake moment magnitude of 7.5. It

may be noted that Youd et al. [31] and Idriss and

Boulanger [37] relationships are identical at depth below

12 m but deviate significantly with increasing depth

beyond 12 m. Curve given by Idriss (see [37]) showed

the greater spread than other relationships because it was

developed to represent about the 67th percentile values.

Relationships given by Cetin et al. [33] and Kishida et al.

[38] for peak acceleration of 0.2 g and shear wave velocity

of 160 m/s yields lower rd values than that proposed by

others. At greater depths ([15 m), all the procedures vary

significantly from each other and hence showing increased

uncertainty in rd values at larger depths. However, at

depths larger than about 12 m (i.e., beyond the range

covered by the available case histories), the rd relationship

should play a relatively minor role because dynamic site

response analyses are often warranted when liquefaction at

large depths is of concern as stated by Idriss and Boulanger

[37]. These latest findings should be considered for

computation of liquefaction potential at a soil site.

Table 4 indicates the complexity of the relationships for

the estimation of CSR in computation of liquefaction

potential. Keeping all these aspects in mind, for the present

study, approaches given by Youd et al. [31] and Idriss and

Boulanger [39] are used to estimate CRR values from field

data of SPT ‘N’ values after carrying out suitable

Fig. 3 Geospatial contour map of shear wave velocity (Vs) of soil for Mumbai city at an interval of 100 m/s

Indian Geotech J

123

corrections. Moreover, amax value of 0.16 g is considered

for different magnitudes of earthquakes (based on the

concept of design basis earthquake as per design code

provision) since Mumbai city is located in seismic zone III

according to IS 1893-Part 1 (2002). The results obtained

from the analysis of factor of safety against liquefaction of

soil under various earthquake moment magnitudes by using

simplified procedure of Youd et al. [31] and Idriss and

Boulanger [39] are divided into three different categories

as shown in Table 5. Table 6 gives the typical lowest

values of factor of safety against liquefaction using Youd

et al. [31] approach at various locations in Mumbai city for

earthquake moment magnitudes (Mw) ranging from 5.5 to

7.5. These moment magnitudes are selected in the present

study for Mumbai soil sites which is located in seismic

zone III as per IS 1893-Part 1 (2002) because, the

earthquake motions which have been later considered for

seismic ground response analysis and analysis and design

of piles in liquefied soil, i.e., 1989 Loma Gilroy, 1989

Loma Prieta, 1995 Kobe and 2001 Bhuj motions, typically

had their moment magnitudes in this considered range.

Further, the seismic zonation map of India as per IS

1893-Part 1 (2002) provides the information that for

seismic zone III, an earthquake of intensity between 5.5

and 6.5 can be expected, which justifies the selection of Mw

of 5.5–7.5 in the present study. Table 7 shows the

comparison of typical lowest values of factor of safety

against liquefaction obtained by using Youd et al. [31] and

Idriss and Boulanger [39] procedures at various locations in

Mumbai city for earthquake of moment magnitudes (Mw)

as 5.5.

Finally, a GIS map of Mumbai city based on the cal-

culation soil liquefaction potential using the simplified

procedure of Youd et al. [31] is generated by using soft-

ware GRAM?? (version 1.4) [28]. Figure 6a shows the

typical map of the critically liquefiable areas in Mumbai

city at earthquake moment magnitude Mw = 7.0. Also

Fig. 6b shows the typical variation of factor of safety

against liquefaction with depth as obtained by using Youd

et al. [31] procedure for earthquake moment magnitude

Mw = 7.0. Similarly GIS maps for liquefaction of soils of

Mumbai city by adopting the procedure of Idriss and

Boulanger [39] are also generated by using Quantum GIS

(QGIS) (version 1.8.0-Lisboa) [40], which is a free open

source software as compared to GRAM?? which is a

licensed GIS software. Figure 7a shows the typical map of

the critically liquefiable areas in Mumbai city at earthquake

moment magnitude Mw = 5.5. Figure 7b shows the com-

parison of typical variation of factor of safety with depth as

obtained by using procedures of Youd et al. [31] and Idriss

and Boulanger [39] for earthquake moment magnitude

Mw = 5.5. It can be seen that the factor of safety values

predicted by both the procedures are nearly identical for an

earthquake of magnitude (Mw) 5.5. It is also observed that

the typical depth and thickness of the liquefiable soil layers

at different locations of Mumbai city varies depending on

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Shea

r w

ave

Vel

ocit

y 'V

s' (

m/s

)

SPT 'N' value

Hanumantharao and Ramana [5] [Delhi]

Anbazhagan and Sitharam [30] [Bangalore]

Maheshwari et al. [6] [Chennai]

Mhaske and Choudhury [8] [Mumbai]

Mhaske and Choudhury [8] [Mumbai]

Chatterjee and Choudhury [11] [Kolkata]

Vs=82.6N0.43

Vs=78[(N60)CS]0.4

Vs=95.64N0.301

Vs=72N0.4

Vs=40[(N1)60,CS]0.47

Vs=78.21N0.38

Fig. 4 Correlations between

shear wave velocity (Vs) and

SPT ‘N’ value for soils of

various Indian cities

0

50

100

150

200

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00E

ffec

tive

Ver

tica

l Str

ess,

σ'v

o (k

Pa)

Dep

th b

elow

gro

und

leve

l (m

)

Stress reduction coefficient, rd

Youd et al.[31]

Cetin et al. [33](amax=0.2,Vs=160,Mw=7.5)Idriss and Boulanger [37]

Idriss [see 31]

Kishida et al. [38](amax=0.2,Vs=160,Mw=7.5)

Fig. 5 Comparison between various relationships for stress reduction

coefficient (rd) with depth as proposed by different researchers

Indian Geotech J

123

Table 4 Evaluation of the complexity of the relationships for the estimation of CSR in computation of liquefaction potential

Criteria Input parameters Different cases Applicability

Liao and Whitman (1986) (see [31]) z Yes Easy

Blake (1996) (see [31]) z No Relatively easy

Youd et al. [31] z Yes Easy

Cetin et al. [33] z, ML, amax, Vs Yes Complicate

Idriss and Boulanger [39] z, ML No Relatively easy

Kishida et al. [38] z, ML, amax, Vs No Complicate

Different cases Different equations according to the depth, applicability the relationships are more difficult to use when the number of input

parameters and functions (sine, exponential…) increase, z depth, ML local magnitude, amax peak horizontal acceleration, Vs relative shear wave

velocity

Table 5 Classification of soil based on lowest factor of safety against liquefaction (Modified after [7])

Sr.

no.

Lowest factor of safety against

liquefaction of soil FSL

Remark Recommendation

1 FSL B 1.0 Critically

liquefiable

soil

Unsafe, hence no foundation is recommended without proper and significant design

care including soil improvements

2 1.0 \ FSL B 1.3 Moderately

liquefiable

soil

Marginally safe, hence limited foundation is recommended with least importance

factor with marginal design care and/or soil improvement

3 FSL [ 1.3 Non liquefiable

soil

Safe, hence foundation can be installed without any liquefaction related problem

Table 6 Typical lowest values of factor of safety against liquefaction of soil at Mumbai for earthquake magnitude from Mw = 5.5 to 7.5

Sr.

no

Site address Factor of safety

against liquefaction

at Mw = 5.5

Factor of safety

against liquefaction

at Mw = 6.0

Factor of safety

against liquefaction

at Mw = 6.5

Factor of safety

against liquefaction

at Mw = 7.0

Factor of safety

against liquefaction

at Mw = 7.5

FSL FSL FSL FSL FSL

1. Ashajeevan CSH plot no.

24 Mhada malvani [BL

321]

1.24 0.99 0.81 0.67 0.561

2. Prathmesh view Bhandup

[BL 86]

1.14 0.91 0.74 0.62 0.516

3. Saraswati Apt Chikuwadi

Borivali (W) [BL 105]

1.56 1.25 1.02 0.84 0.706

4. Shivam Enterprises

Chikuwadi Borivali

(W) [BL 106]

1.61 1.29 1.05 0.87 0.729

5 Vishwanath Construction

Kandarpada Dahisar

(w) [BL 170]

1.45 1.16 0.95 0.78 0.656

6 Incubatation Centre for

Nirton Ltd. Goregaon

[BL 220]

1.74 1.40 1.14 0.94 0.789

7 Krishna Niwas Roshan

Nagar Borivali

(W) [BL 107]

1.58 1.26 1.03 0.85 0.712

8 Extn Industrial bldg

charkop Kandivali

(w) [BL 262]

2.62 2.10 1.71 1.41 1.184

Indian Geotech J

123

soil profile at various borehole locations. However

depending on magnitude of earthquake, soil and ground

water table conditions etc. the lowest factor of safety

against liquefaction were observed typically within top

10 m from ground surface at selected locations. Hence it

can be concluded that several locations in Mumbai city

may be prone to moderate to critical liquefaction at dif-

ferent magnitudes of earthquakes as shown in Figs. 6a and

7a. As a result, the site specific equivalent-linear and non-

linear seismic ground response analyses of some typical

soil sites of Mumbai city are conducted to study the per-

formance of pile foundation placed in liquefied soil, the

failure mechanism and behavior of which is well known

from literature and given in Choudhury et al. [41]. Hence, a

proper design of pile foundation for high rise structures in

Mumbai city is essential.

Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis for Mumbai

Site-specific ground response analysis is the next step at

any soil site to understand the effect of bed rock motion

when it passes through various soil layers. Mumbai city is

typically having from medium to thick soil layer and hence

such site-specific ground response analysis of bed rock

earthquake motion is necessary for Mumbai city. Various

researchers worldwide had given different techniques to

carry out such analysis. Also linear, equivalent-linear and

non-linear ground response analyses are three different

options to carry out site-specific ground response analysis

[42, 43].

A typical soil borehole data of Mangalwadi site at

Mumbai (MBH#1) which has been considered in the soil–

pile interaction analysis under non-liquefied conditions is

given in Table 8. By using 2001 Bhuj earthquake motion,

the equivalent-linear [44] and non-linear site-specific

ground response analyses are carried out by using geo-

technical software DEEPSOIL v3.5 [45]. The acceleration–

time history of 2001 Bhuj earthquake motion as was given

by Govindaraju et al. [46] with maximum horizontal

acceleration (MHA) = 0.106 g and mean time period

Tm = 0.603 s is used as input data for ground response

analysis. Figure 8 gives the results of acceleration–time

history of 2001 Bhuj earthquake motion at soil site MBH#1

in Mumbai city by using equivalent-linear and non-linear

ground response analyses. It may be noted that for com-

plete picture on the site-specific ground response analysis

of typical Mumbai soil sites, other available earthquake

input motions, like 1995 Kobe earthquake, 1989 Loma

Prieta earthquake and 1989 Loma Gilory earthquake

motions are also chosen for the present study. Consider-

ation for the wide ranges of MHA and Tm values had been

given for selection of such four different types of earth-

quake motion in the present analysis. Figure 9a, b gives the

acceleration response spectra for equivalent-linear ground

response analysis and non-linear ground response analysis,

respectively at the ground level with 5 % damping for soil

site MBH#1 subjected to four different earthquake

motions. From Fig. 9, the peak responses can be observed

for 1989 Loma Gilroy earthquake motion with acceleration

response of 3.75 g at a period of 0.23 s using equivalent-

linear ground response analysis, whereas by using non-

linear ground response analysis, 1995 Kobe motion is

producing an acceleration response of 5.43 g at a period of

0.38 s. These acceleration response spectrum curves will

be beneficial to design engineers for the earthquake resis-

tant design of various geotechnical structures in and across

Mumbai city. Figure 10 shows the typical soil amplifica-

tion for earthquake acceleration at various soil sites in

Mumbai city subjected to four different earthquake

motions. As experienced from 1985 Mexico city earth-

quake, it may be noted from the results given in Fig. 10

Table 7 Comparison of typical lowest values of factor of safety against liquefaction of soil by using procedures of Youd et al. [31] and Idriss

and Boulanger [39] for Mumbai city for earthquake magnitude of Mw = 5.5

Sr. no. Bore log no. Site address Factor of safety against

liquefaction at Mw = 5.5

using procedure of Idriss

and Boulanger [39]

Factor of safety against

liquefaction at Mw = 5.5

using procedure of

Youd et al. [31]

FSL FSL

1 BL321 Ashajeevan CSH plot no 24 Mhada malvani, Malad 1.27 1.24

2 BL86 Prathmesh view Bhandup 1.22 1.14

3 BL105 Saraswati Apt Chikuwadi Borivali (W) [BL 105] 1.50 1.56

4 BL106 Shivam Enterprises Chikuwadi Borivali (W 1.50 1.61

5 BL170 Vishwanath Construction Kandarpada Dahisar (w) 1.45 1.45

6 BL220 Incubatation Centre for Nirton Ltd. Goregaon 1.60 1.74

7 BL107 Krishna Niwas Roshan Nagar Borivali (w) 1.53 1.58

8 BL262 Extn Industrial bldg charkop Kandivali (w) 1.82 2.62

Indian Geotech J

123

Fig. 6 a Map of the critically liquefiable areas in Mumbai city for earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.0. b Typical variation of factor of safety

against liquefaction with depth for earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.0 using simplified procedure of Youd et al. [31]

Fig. 7 a GIS Map of Mumbai city showing the variation of lowest

factor of safety against liquefaction using Idriss and Boulanger [39]

procedure for Mw = 5.5. b Typical variation of factor of safety

against liquefaction with depth at Mw = 5.5 using simplified

procedures of Youd et al. [31] and Idriss and Boulanger [39]

Indian Geotech J

123

that in Mumbai also at soil site with thick soft clay layer

experiences high value of amplification of bed rock motion.

The values of soil amplification ranges varying between 1.2

and 3.5 for typical soil sites in Mumbai city, are obtained in

the present study. Moreover the amplification due to 2001

Bhuj motion is maximum when compared to that due to

1995 Kobe motion, although the later one had a higher

MHA. This is due to the higher frequency content and

duration of 2001 Bhuj motion, resulting in more load

reversals, when compared to the other input motion. It may

be noted that for carrying out seismic ground response

study, the recorded ground motion of a particular earth-

quake should be applied by deconvoluting it till bed rock

and then by convoluting one can obtain soil amplification

in realistic manner. Hence proper care for such soft soil

sites where large amplification is expected during an

earthquake must be considered for seismic design of pile

foundations.

Table 8 Typical soil profile of Mangalwadi site at Mumbai (MBH#1) considered in the soil–pile interaction analysis under non-liquefied

conditions

Layer

no.

Stratum Layer

thickness (m)

Depth below

GL (m)

SPT

value (N)

Eo (MPa) B = D=pile

dia. (cm)

khn

(MN/m3)

sf kh = khnsf

(kN/m3)

Ip

(m4)

1 Filled up soil 1.5 1.5 10 7 50 29.78 1.0 29,782.46 0.0031

2 Yellowish loose

sand

1.5 3 12 8.4 50 35.74 1.0 35,738.95 0.0031

1.5 4.5 13 9.1 50 38.72 1.0 38,717.19 0.0031

1.5 6 16 11.2 50 47.65 1.0 47,651.93 0.0031

3 Black clayey soil 2 8 20 14 50 59.57 1.0 59,564.91 0.0031

4 Yellowish clayey

soil

1.8 9.8 25 17.5 50 74.46 1.0 74,456.14 0.0031

5 Greyish hard rock – [9.8 – – – – – – –

‘–’ indicates not reported or relevant

Fig. 8 a Acceleration–time

history of 2001 Bhuj earthquake

motion at soil site MBH#1 in

Mumbai city using equivalent-

linear ground response analysis

(Modified after [44]).

b Acceleration–time history of

2001 Bhuj earthquake motion at

soil site MBH#1 in Mumbai city

using non-linear ground

response analysis

Indian Geotech J

123

Fig. 9 a Acceleration response

spectra obtained from

equivalent-linear ground

response analysis at ground

level with 5 % damping for soil

site MBH#1 under various

earthquake motions (Modified

after [44]). b Acceleration

response spectra obtained from

non-linear ground response

analysis at ground level with

5 % damping for soil site

MBH#1 under various

earthquake motions

Fig. 10 Typical soil

amplification for earthquake

acceleration at various soil sites

in Mumbai under different

earthquake motions (Modified

after [44])

Indian Geotech J

123

Piles in Liquefied Soil

It is now well understood that for Mumbai city, piles

subjected to earthquake motion and passing through both

non-liquefiable and liquefiable soil layers are important

areas of study. Current design methods are based on

bending failure due to lateral inertial load and loads due

to lateral spreading during earthquake in a liquefiable soil

strata as discussed by researchers like Liyanapathirana

and Poulos [47], Bhattacharya [48] etc. Again Dobry

et al. [49] proposed simplified limit equilibrium method

for computing maximum bending moment in a pile in

liquefied soil under earthquake condition. In case of liq-

uefying soils, the subgrade modulus (kh) of soil is

degraded and the degradation of khn is expressed as [50,

51, 58],

L1

L2

L3

x

Non-liquefied soil layer

Liquefied soil layer

Non-liquefied soil layer

y

Single pile

L

Fig. 11 Schematic diagram of a

single pile passing through

liquefied and non-liquefied soil

layers (Modified after [58])

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Deflection(combined)-mm

MBH#1,Bhuj(2001);H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Kobe (1995);H=810.0 kN

MBH#1, Loma Prieta(1989);H=567.0 kN

MBH#1, Loma Gilroy (1989); H=1003.0 kN

Dis

tanc

e fr

om to

p(m

)

L=10.0m; r=0.25m; E=2.74×107kN/m 2; sf=0.01;

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Deflection(Inertial)-mm

MBH#1,Bhuj(2001);H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Kobe (1995);H=810.0 kN

MBH#1, Loma Prieta(1989);H=567.0 kN

MBH#1, Loma Gilroy(1989); H=1003.0 kN

Dis

tanc

e fr

om to

p(m

)

L=10.0m; r=0.25m; E=2.74×107 kN/m 2;sf=0.01

(a)

(b)

Fig. 12 a Pile deflections

(combined) in liquefied soils

considering various ground

motions for free headed pile

with floating tip. b Pile

deflections (inertial) in liquefied

soils considering various ground

motions for free headed pile

with floating tip

Indian Geotech J

123

kh ¼ khnsf ð4Þ

where sf is the scaling factor for the liquefied soil. It has

been observed from various case-studies that sf varies from

0.001 to 0.01 [52].

The subgrade modulus for non-liquefied soil, khn pro-

posed by AIJ [53], JRA [54] as mentioned in [58] can be

reported as,

khn ¼ 80 EoB�0:75o ð5Þ

Eo ¼ 0:7N ð6Þ

where khn is in MN/m3, and Eo is the modulus of defor-

mation in MN/m2, N is the SPT value, and Bo is the

diameter of the pile in cm.

Recently, Haldar and Babu [55] carried out parametric

studies on the failure mechanisms of pile foundations in

liquefiable soils by using geotechnical software FLAC.

Liyanapathirana and Poulos [56] considered the effect of

two layer soil deposit with liquefying and non-liquefying

layers on behavior of single pile using numerical analysis.

Abdoun et al. [57] conducted dynamic centrifuge tests and

compared the maximum bending moment on single pile

with results of Liyanapathirana and Poulos [56] which was

found within a difference of 15 %. Figure 11 shows a

schematic diagram of a single pile passing through both

liquefied and non-liquefied soil layers (modified after [58]).

Peak ground accelerations obtained from equivalent-linear

ground response analysis are 0.251 g for 2001 Bhuj

motion, 0.641 g for 1989 Loma Prieta motion, 1.136 g for

1989 Loma Gilroy motion, and 0.917 g for 1995 Kobe

motion for typical MBH#1 soil site in Mumbai city. The

modulus of subgrade reaction approach based on finite

difference technique by considering Winkler springs for

pile–soil interaction is used in the present study. The code

using finite difference approach [59] is written using

MATLAB [60]. A pile with radius of 0.25 m is considered

in the present study, while a typical single pile length (L) of

10 m is considered based on the depth of the soil profile in

the borehole dimensions MBH#1. Young’s modulus of the

pile is considered as 2.74 9 107 kN/m2. It is first assumed

that the soil is non-liquefying and hence stiffness degra-

dation effects are not considered (sf = 1.0) for evaluating

the pile response. Later, for liquefiable soil layer, such

stiffness degradation is considered in the analysis. Recently

Phanikanth et al. [58] used the following notations for the

study which are also adopted in the present analysis. For

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

MBH#1,Bhuj (2001); L2/L=0.20; H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Bhuj(2001); L2/L=0.40; H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Bhuj(2001); L2/L=0.60; H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Bhuj(2001); L2/L=0.80; H=222.0 kN

MBH#1, Bhuj(2001); L2/L=1.0; H=222.0 kN

Pile deflection (combined)-mm

Dis

tanc

e fr

om to

p(m

)

L=10.0m; r=0.25m; E=2.74×107 kN/m2;sf=0.01

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-200.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0

MBH1,Bhuj (2001);H=222.0 kN;sf=0.01

MBH1,Bhuj(2001); H=222.0 kN;sf=1.0

MBH#1,Loma Prieta(1989); H=567.0 kN; sf=1.0

MBH#1,Loma Prieta(1989);H=567.0 kN;sf=0.01

MBH#1,Loma Gilroy(1989);H=1003.0 kN;sf=1.0

MBH#1,loma Gilroy(1989);H=1003.0 kN;sf=0.01

MBH#1,Kobe(1995); H=810.0 kN;sf=1.0

MBH#1,Kobe(1995); H=810.0 kN;sf=0.01

Bending Moment (combined)-kNm

Dis

tanc

efro

m to

p(m

)

L=10.0m; r=0.25m;E=2.74×107 kN/m2

(a)

(b)

Fig. 13 a Typical effect of

thickness of liquefiable soil

layer on pile deflections

(combined) along depth for free

headed single pile with floating

tip subjected to 2001 Bhuj

motion. b Typical pile bending

moments (combined) with and

without soil liquefaction for

various earthquake motions for

free headed pile with floating tip

Indian Geotech J

123

example, non-liquefied depth factor r (=L1/L), liquefied

depth factor s (=L2/L), embedded depth factor t (=L3/L),

pile flexibility factor R [=EpIp/(EsL4)], ratio of Young’s

modulus of the pile to the soil modulus K (=Ep/Es), the pile

length to pile diameter ratio L/D (slenderness ratio), soil

modulus to soil strength ratio Q (=Es/su),vertical load factor

V(=4P/pD2Es), horizontal load factor H (=HT/suD2),

moment factor M(=MT/suD3), ratio of distance of location

of pile from the waterfront to the effected distance of lat-

eral spreading, i.e., location factor Lx (=x/Ls), scale factor

for liquefied soil (sf) and gradient of surface topography

(sl). The non-dimensional deflection coefficient, is Y* = y/

D, where y is pile deflection, D is diameter of pile and non-

dimensional bending moment coefficient is, M* = M/

(suD3), where M is the bending moment developed at the

pile soil interface, su is the shear strength of soil. Phanik-

anth et al. [58] validated the results for kinematic response

by comparing with the similar results obtained by Meera

and Basudhar [61]. It was observed that for single pile,

both the maximum deflection and maximum bending

moment increases many folds in liquefiable layer compared

to non-liquefiable layer, as expected.

In the present study, individually kinematic and inertial

loads are imposed and finally the combined displacement

and bending moment of pile are obtained by superimposing

these two cases. The kinematic interaction response is

obtained by considering the ground deformations alone.

For inertial effect, horizontal earthquake load is applied at

the pile top as pseudo-static load and the pile bending

response is obtained. The pile deflections are presented for

liquefying soils in Fig. 12a for combined effect i.e., both

kinematic and inertial interactions and in Fig. 12b only for

inertial interactions. It can be observed from Fig. 12a that

for combined interactions, the maximum and minimum

values of pile head displacements are 2,500 mm for 1989

Loma Gilroy motion and 525 mm for 2001 Bhuj earth-

quake motion. However for inertial loading only, the cor-

responding values are obtained as 2,450 and 510 mm,

respectively. Hence it can be concluded that, the pile

deflections due to inertial loads are significant and also

from the load deflection curve, the pile behavior was

observed to be rigid. Further it can be seen that the relative

movement between the soil and the pile is significant. It

gives a design guideline for estimation of important com-

ponent of pile deflection under seismic loading.

Figure 13a shows the typical results for the effect of

thickness of liquefiable soil layer on combined (inertial and

kinematic) pile deflection profile of free headed single pile

with floating tip when subjected to 2001 Bhuj earthquake

motion at typical soil site MBH#1 in Mumbai city. As

expected, with increase in the thickness of liquefiable soil

layer, the displacement of pile is significantly increasing.

The pile head deflection increases from 45 to 537 mm

when liquefied depth factor (s = L2/L) is changed from 0.2

to 1.0. Figure 13b shows typical combined (inertial and

kinematic) pile bending moments when passing through

either in non-liquefied or in liquefied soil during various

earthquake motions for free headed pile with floating tip.

As expected, huge increase in the design bending moment

in pile is observed for pile passing through liquefied soil

layer compared to non-liquefied soil. Hence, proper tech-

niques must be taken during design of piles in Mumbai city

under possible liquefied zones in different earthquake

motions.

Conclusions

From the present study the following major conclusions

can be obtained,

GIS based thematic maps of seismic liquefaction hazard

for Mumbai city under three categories of critically,

moderately and non liquefiable are developed for

earthquake moment magnitudes of 5.5 and 7.5 for entire

Mumbai city. It has been noticed that the reclaimed areas

of Mumbai city may be prone to liquefaction at moderate

earthquake of magnitude 6.0 and above only.

It is observed that the seismic ground response depends

not only on amplitude of MHA but also on frequency

content and duration of earthquake. It is observed that

2001 Bhuj earthquake had low MHA, but due to high

frequency content and higher duration the soil sites

experienced higher ground amplifications compared to

1995 Kobe earthquake motion with high MHA and low

frequency content, duration.

The acceleration response spectrum along various soil

layers using four strong motion earthquakes having wide

variations in MHA and mean time periods are obtained

which are useful for designers for earthquake resistant

geotechnical constructions at Mumbai city with an

emphasis for high rise buildings.

It can be concluded that non-linear ground response

analysis is mostly giving critical design value of soil

amplification for Mumbai city compared to that obtained

by using equivalent-linear ground response analysis.

Soil amplification factor for typical Mumbai soil sites

varies between 1.2 and 3.5 for different available

earthquake ground motions.

The pile response in liquefied soils is significantly

amplified compared to that in non-liquefying soil and the

amplification in peak bending moment is found as high

as 2.50.

It is observed that the effect of depth of liquefying layer

has significant influence on the pile bending response.

Peak bending moment occurs at the interface of

Indian Geotech J

123

liquefying and non-liquefying layer for typical pile

foundation in Mumbai soil.

Hence, the present analysis and results for seismic

design of pile in Mumbai city by considering local soil

effect will be useful for engineers in practice.

References

1. IS 1893-Part 1 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of

structure. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

2. Raghukanth STG, Iyengar RN (2006) Seismic hazard estimation

for Mumbai city. Curr Sci 91(11):1486–1494

3. Rao KS, Satyam ND (2007) Liquefaction studies for seismic

microzonation of Delhi region. Curr Sci 92(5):646–654

4. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for

the Bangalore region. Nat Hazards 40(2):261–278

5. Hanumanthrao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamics soil properties

for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):

719–730

6. Maheswari UR, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR (2010) Use of

surface waves in statistical correlations of shear wave velocity

and penetration resistance of Chennai soils. Geotech Geol Eng

28:119–137

7. Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2010) GIS-based soil liquefaction

susceptibility map of Mumbai city for earthquake events. J Appl

Geophys 70(3):216–225

8. Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2011) Geospatial contour mapping of

shear wave velocity for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards 59(1):

317–327. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9758-z

9. Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Estimation of seismic ground

motions using deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat.

Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2019–2037

10. Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Seismic hazard and site-specific

ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60(2):

541–565

11. Chatterjee K, Choudhury D (2013) Variations in shear wave

velocity and soil site class in Kolkata city using regression and

sensitivity analysis. Nat Hazards 69(3):2057–2082. doi:

10.1007/s11069-013-0795-7

12. Kolathayar S, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2013) Probabilistic liq-

uefaction potential evaluation for India and adjoining areas.

Indian Geotech J. doi:10.1007/s40098-013-0079-x

13. Desai SS, Choudhury D (2014) Spatial variation of probabilistic

seismic hazard for Mumbai and surrounding region. Nat Hazards.

doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0984-4

14. Tazoh T, Shmizu K, Wakahata T (1987) Seismic observations

and analysis of grouped piles. Dynamic response of pile foun-

dations: experiments, analysis and observation. Geotechnical

Special Publication No. 11, ASCE (in CD)

15. Madabhushi SPG, Knappett J, Haigh S (2010) Design of pile

foundation in liquefiable soils. Imperial College Press, London

16. Wilson DW (1998) Soil–pile superstructure interaction in lique-

fying sand and soft clay. Ph.D. thesis, University of California,

Davis, USA

17. Meymand PH (1998) Shaking table model tests of nonlinear soil

pile superstructure interaction in soft clay. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-

sity of California, Berkley, USA

18. Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M (2004) Effects of inertial and

kinematic forces on pile stresses in large shaking table tests. In:

Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engi-

neering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 1322

19. EN 1998-1 Eurocode-8 (2004) Design of structure for earthquake

resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for

buildings

20. Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A (2010) Bending–

buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in liquefiable

soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(1–2):32–39

21. Novak M (1974) Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can

Geotech J 4(11):574–597

22. Nogami T, Chen HL (1987) Prediction of dynamic lateral

response of nonlinear single pile by using Winkler soil model. In:

Proceedings of the session on dynamic response of pile founda-

tions—experiments, analysis and observation: Geotechnical

Special Publication No. 11, Atlantic City, NJ, ASCE pp 39–52

23. Markis N, Gazetas G (1992) Dynamic pile–soil–pile interac-

tion—part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn

21(2):145–162

24. Maheshwari BK, Watanabe H (2009) Seismic analysis of pile

foundations using simplified approaches. Int J Geotech Eng

3(3):387–404

25. Maheshwari BK, Sarkar R (2011) Seismic behavior of soil–pile–

structure interaction in liquefiable soils: parametric study. Int J

Geomech ASCE 11(4):335–347

26. Desai S, Choudhury D (2014) Deterministic seismic hazard

analysis for greater Mumbai, India. In: Proceedings of the 2014

geo-congress, geo-characterization and modeling for sustain-

ability, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 234, ASCE,

Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 23–26 Feb 2014, GSP 234:389–398

27. Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2011) GIS–GPS based map of soil

index properties for Mumbai. Geo-Frontiers 2011, Geotechnical

Special Publication No. 211, ASCE pp 2366–2375. doi:

10.1061/41165(397)242

28. Venkatachalam P, Mohan BK (2007) GRAM?? (1.4)—indige-

nous GIS software suite. CSRE, IIT Bombay

29. NEHRP (2000) Commentary, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, USA, 369 for seismic regulations for new buildings and

other structures. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Pro-

gram, USA

30. Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2010) Correlation between low

strain shear modulus and standard penetration test ‘N’ value’. In:

Proceedings of fifth international conference on recent advances

in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San

Diego, CA. Paper No. 1.13b: p 10

31. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian

JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF Jr, Hynes Mary Ellen,

Ishihara K, Koester Joseph P, Liao Sam SC, Marcuson William F

III, Martin Geoffrey R, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS,

Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH II (2001) Liquefaction

resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and

1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction

resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):

817–833

32. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility cri-

teria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE

132(11):1413–1426

33. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kiureghian AD, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF,

Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based

probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil lique-

faction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(12):

1313–1340

34. Prakash S, Puri VK (2010) Past and future of liquefaction, vol.

III. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference—2010,

GEOtrendz, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India, pp 63–72

35. Katzenbach R, Clauss F, Rochee S, Choudhury D (2012) A

critical comparison of estimations of liquefaction potential using

recent methods. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference

on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical

Indian Geotech J

123

engineering, II PBD, Taormina, Italy, 28–30 May 2012, Paper

No. 6.08 in CD, pp 753–764

36. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedures for evaluating

soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE

97(SM9):1249–1273

37. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction trig-

gering procedures. Department of Civil Construction and Envi-

ronmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, USA

38. Kishida T, Boulanger RW, Abrahamson NA, Driller MW,

Wehling TM (2009) Seismic response of levees in Sacramento–

San Joaquin Delta. Earthq Spectra 25(3):557–582

39. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earth-

quakes. MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,

Oakland, CA

40. QGIS (2013) Version: 1.8.0-Lisboa, Free and open source soft-

ware, Copyright 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc., Boston,

MA, USA

41. Choudhury D, Phanikanth VS, Reddy GR (2009) Recent advances

in analysis and design of pile foundations in liquefiable soils during

earthquake: a review. In: Proceedings of the national academy of

sciences, India (section A—physical sciences), 79(II): 141–152

42. Kramer SL (2005) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson

Education, Singapore

43. Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer

Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering, Heidelberg

44. Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-

linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in

Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109–1126. doi:10.1007/

s10706-011-9443-8

45. Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Philips CA, Park D (2008)

DEEPSOIL v3.5beta, User manual and tutorial. University of

Illinois, UC

46. GovindaRaju L, Ramana GV, Hanumanta Rao C, Sitharam TG

(2004) Site specific ground response analysis. Curr Sci 87(10):

1354–1362

47. Liyanapathirana DS, Poulos HG (2005) Pseudo-static approach

for seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. J Geotech Geo-

environ Eng ASCE 131(12):1480–1487

48. Bhattacharya S (2007) Design of foundations in seismic areas:

principles and applications. National Information Centre for

Earthquake Engineering (NICEE), IIT Kanpur, India

49. Dobry R, Abdoun T, O’Rourke TD (2003) Single piles in lateral

spreads: field bending moment evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron

Eng ASCE 129(10):879–889

50. Tokimatsu K, Oh-Oka H, Satake K, Shamoto Y, Asaka Y (1998)

Effects of lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in

the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake. In: Geotechnical earth-

quake engineering and soil dynamics 3rd conference, ASCE

pp 1175–1186

51. Tokimatsu K (1999) Performance of pile foundations in later-

ally spreading soils. In: Proceedings of 2nd international

conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Lisbon,

Portugal, pp 957–964

52. Ishihara K, Cubrinovski M. (1998) Soil–pile interaction in liq-

uefied deposits undergoing lateral spreading. In: Maric B. et al.

(eds) Geotechnical hazards. Balkema p 51–64

53. AIJ (2001) Recommendations for designing of building founda-

tions. Architectural Institute of Japan, Japan

54. JRA (2002) Specification for highway bridges, Part V, seismic

design. Japanese Road Association, Japan

55. Haldar S, Babu GLS (2010) Failure mechanisms of pile foun-

dations in liquefiable soil: parametric study. Int J Geomech ASCE

10(2):74–84

56. Liyanapathirana DS, Poulos HG (2005) Seismic lateral response

of piles in liquefying soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE

131(12):1466–1479

57. Abdoun T, Dobry R, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH (2003) Pile response

to lateral spreads: centrifuge modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron

Eng ASCE 129(10):869–878

58. Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2012) Behaviour of

single pile in liquefied deposits during earthquake. Int J Geomech

ASCE 13(4):454–462. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.

0000224

59. Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design.

Wiley, New York

60. MATLAB (2004) Programming, version 7, The Math Works, Inc.

61. Meera RS, Basudhar PK (2008) Effect of soil liquefaction on

flexural behavior of axially and laterally loaded piles. Geotech-

nical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV, Geotechnical

Special Publication No. 181, ASCE (in CD)

Indian Geotech J

123