227

IGC-2004
MICROZONATION OF LIQUEFACTION FACTOR OF
SAFETY OF CHENNAI CITY
P. Anbazhagan, P.G. Student
K. Premalatha, Assistant Professor
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 600 025
ABSTRACT: The scope of present study is to prepare the microzonation map with respect to the Liquefaction factor of
safety for the Chennai City based on the SPT bore log details available for Chennai. The Liquefaction Factor of Safety
calculated based on Simplified Approach and Seed and Idriss (1983) CRR curve. Microzonation is subdivision of a region
in to number of zones that have relatively similar exposure to various earthquake related effects. The authors subdivided the
Chennai region in to zones based on the Liquefaction Factor of Safety and mapped by using GIS package. The methodology
and the mapping procedures are discussed detail in the paper.
1. INTRODUCTION
Microzonation is a process that involves incorporation
of Geologic, Seismologic and Geotechnical concerns into
economically, sociologically and politically justifiable and
defensible land-use planning for earthquake effects so that
architects and engineers can site and design structures that
will be less susceptible to damage during earthquakes.
Microzonation should provide general guidelines for the
types of new structure that are most suited to an area, and it
should also provide information on the relative damage
potential of the existing structures in a region. They are
also useful in establishing criteria for land-use planning and
a strategy for the formulation of a systematic and informed
decision making process, for the siting and development of
new communities in areas that are made hazardous by nature.
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
With the revised seismic zoning map pegged Chennai,
at a higher activity zone III there is a need to prepare
Seismic map which will enable urban planners to design
earthquake resistant structures and strengthen existing
unstable structures. Satellite images also showed fault
lines running through Tamil Nadu and cracks under the
tectonic plateau. As a result the status of Chennai along
with major towns in the eastern coast, in terms of their
vulnerability, has been enhanced, especially, after Chennai
experienced tremors in September 2001 following a quake
measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale.
3. METHODOLOGY
Liquefaction phenomenas is usually observed in low-
lying areas near water bodies. The analysis whether a
granular soil deposit at a given place will liquefy or not when
struck by earthquake, a ground level of shaking, is usually
based on
Soil profile, field and laboratory testing
Data analysis and
Value judgment
Since this work is an initiation in the direction of
mapping of liquefaction, the various stage of operation in
the Liquefaction factor of safety mapping, are listed below.
Stage 1: Collection of pre-existing historic seismic data.
Stage 2: Collection of Geomorphological data and
Topographical map.
Stage 3: Collection of Field SPT soil data with bore
log characteristics
Stage 4: Analysis of N with bore log characteristics and
identification of various deposits
Stage 5: Computation of Liquefaction factor of safety,
Stage 6: Grouping the determined factor of safety of
Liquefaction.
Stage 7: Zoning the severity Boundaries in Chennai
city.
3.1 COLLECTION OF THE DATA
Chennai Metropolitan Area forms a part Tamil Nadu
coastal plain. A major part of the area is built up with a flat
topography having on elevation of 20-30m in the west to
sea level in the east. Four cycles of erosion have been
identified and the land forms constitute assemblage of fluvial
estuarine and marine deposits.
228
IGC-2004
Geomorphological map of Chennai metropolitan area consist
of alluvial plain, beach and beach ridges, beach and coastal
plain, built-up land, coastal plain, deep buried pediment,
moderate buried pediment, shallow buried pediment,
dissected / undissected pediment, flood plain, in selberg,
lagoon/back water, marsh, mud flat, paleo channel,
sedimentary high ground, tertiary plain and structural hills.
The approximate soil distribution is show in Table.1.
Table 1 Soil Distribution in Chennai
Soil classification Distribution %
Alluvial / Sandy soil 1.6%
Red Sandy and Red Loamy soil 54.7%
Red Sandy to Brown clayey soil 34.4%
Brown clayey to clayey soil 9.3%
3.2 SPT DATA OF SOIL AND SEISMIC DATA
A total Number of 2000 bore hole data were collected.
These Bore logs are grouped into 50 groups as Adyar,
Thiruvanmiyur, etc., based on their nearness. One such is
shown in Figure 1.To understands the possible occurrence
and the severity of the Liquefaction Potential of particular
site, the historic Seismic data were also collected and
analyzed. The liquefaction Potential was calculated for the
individual bore log data not for the typical bore log.
Type of Boring: Calyx
Depth of Water Table: 4.7m at the time of Investigation.
Soil Profile Thickness of N value IS
layer in meter classification
Fine to medium 0-5 21-40 SP
Sand
Soft Lose deposit 5-8 0-5 SP/SC
of Clay and Sand
Fine to Medium 8-10 20-32 SP
sand
Sandy clay, 10-15 50-100 SP/SC
Silty sand and
Weathered rock
Figure 1 Typical Bore log of Gandhi Nagar
3.3 DETAILS OF CALCULATION
The two most common approaches used for the
evaluation of the initiation of liquefaction is cyclic stress
approach. In this method, the earthquake induced loading is
expressed in terms of cyclic shear stress and is compared
with the liquefaction resistance of the soil, which is also
expressed in terms of cyclic shear stress. The liquefaction
potential and resistance are calculated as detailed below.
Step.1. The seismic demand on a soil layers, expressed in
term of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR).
Step.2. The capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction,
expressed in terms of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR).
The Cyclic Stress Ratio is calculated based on simplified
approach recommended by Seed and Idriss (1971),
equation 1.
Cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
CSR = 0.65 (1)
d
vo
vo max
r
' g
a

,
_

,
_

The parameter amax peak horizontal acceleration at the

surface generated by earthquake and is calculated using
relations given below.
M = 1+ (2/3) Io (2)
Log a
max
= (Io/3) - (1/2) (3)
Where
Io = Maximum Earthquake Intensity
M = Earthquake Magnitude
These two equations are proposed by Gutenberg from
the earthquake data of for California. The amax relation can
be used for other places also. The observed N value must
necessarily be corrected for (a) Overburden Pressures (C
N
),
(b) Hammer energy (C
E
), (c) Bore hole diameter (CB), (d)
presence or absence of liner (C
S
), (e) Rod length (C
R
) and
(f) fine content (C
fines
). Corrected N value (N
60
) is obtained
using the following equation.
N
60
= N*C
N
*C
E
*C
B
*C
S
*C
R
*C
fines
(4)
After the corrections, the Atterberg limits of soil are
considered as per the Modified Chinese Criteria. The
assumption made is if Liquid limit of the soil is greater than
35 the deposit is non liquefiable. For the other deposits cyclic
resistance ratio is arrived based corrected N value ( Seed et.
al 1985) proposed the curve for the magnitude of 7.5, For
the present study of microzonation the magnitude of 6 &7are
considered and hence the Magnify Scaling Factor (MSF) is
applied. The Magnify Scaling Factor for the magnitude less
than 7.5 is
MSF = (5)
(6)
The sample calculation which was done using Excel software
package, for one bore log is show as table 2.
1
1
]
1

56 . 2
W
24 . 2
M
10
MSF
CSR
CRR
FS
5 . 7
1
]
1

229
IGC-2004
4. ZONATION
Seismic Microzonation is a procedure for estimating
the total seismic hazard from ground shaking and related
phenomena by taking into account the effects of local site
condition. The subsurface and topographic conditions can
amplify or reduce the peak ground acceleration at a site with
respect to what would be expected for a firm ground at that
location. These local effects could be incorporated in a seis-
mic microzonation map. Zoning of the city is carried out
based on the calculated potential variations.
The factor of safety of liquefaction is calculated by con-
sidering depth of 10m, because observation from case study
indicated that liquefiable depth was around 10m.these fac-
tors are grouped based on their numerical position such as
liquefaction factor of safety less than one, factor of safety
ranges from one to three (1 to 3), factor of safety more than
3 and non liquefiable.
Based on these values and soil bore log details, the
severity boundary for each group is marked and that is
indicated in the zoning map. The guide map showing various
places of Chennai city is shown in Figure2. The map showing
Liquefaction Factor of Safety for the Magnitude of 6 and 7
are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Figure 2 Chennai City Locations Marking
Figure 3 Liquefaction Map of Chennai City for the
Magnitude 6
Table 2 Variation of Liquefaction Factor of Safety
Magnitude = 6 Peak Acceleration (g) = 0.3
230
IGC-2004
Figure 4 Liquefaction Map of Chennai City for the
Magnitude 7
5. CONCLUSION
The Liquefaction zonation and the geological formation
of Chennai City were compared and the following
observations were made.
1. The Shales, Sandstone and white clay deposits are Non
Liquefiable for the Magnitude of 6 and 7.
2. Part of the Chornackite deposits (have mud flats) are
Non Liquefiable and others have the Factor of Safety
more than three (3).
3. The Costal and Alluvium deposits (Adyar and Coovam
rivers) have factor of safety less than one. The lands in
between the two rivers have a better safety against the
Liquefaction i.e. the factor of safety is 1 to 3.
4. Increase in the magnitude of Earthquake i.e from the
Magnitude 6 to Magnitude 7 , included the area of area
which had a factor of Safety 1 to 3 for the Magnitude 6
and is reduced to the factor of safety of less than one.
5. The area which has a factor of safety greater than 3 for
the magnitude of 6 is reduced to a factor of safety less
the 3 for the magnitude of 7.
This prepared Liquefaction Factor of Safety maps, can
be used conjunctively with other scientific data banks,
integrated in an expert system, to prepare land use and urban
planning maps fully accounting for the complete interaction
between the solid earth system, the environmental system
and the social, economic and political system, in addition to
providing well estimated seismic inputs needed for
seismically resilient building design. Considering the extant
situation obtaining in the country, a drastic change is required
in the basic approach to hazard mitigation that must no longer
be considered a post disaster activity. To make this possible,
it is imperative to invest our resources in developing
insightful scientific knowledge products that could be
usefully employed to mitigate the effects of the next
earthquake, using all available technologies.
REFERENCES
Aki. K. and Irikura K. (1993), Characterization and Map-
ping of Earthquake Shaking for Seismic Zonation,
4ICSZ,61-111.
Poulos, S.J. and France, J.W (1985). Liquefaction Evalua-
tion procedure Journals of Geotechnical Engineering, III(6),
772-791.
Polito, C.P. and James Martin II R (2001). Effects of Non
plastic fines on the liquefaction Resistance of Sands, Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
127(5), 408-415.
Seed. H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1981), Evaluation of Lique-
faction Potential of Sand Deposits Based on Observation of
Performance in Previous Earthquake, in: In Situ Testing to
Evaluate Liquefaction Susceptibility, Preprint 81-544, ASCE
Natl. Convention, St. Louis, Mo. October.
Todorovska M.I. and Trifunac. M.D (1999). Liquefaction
opportunity mapping via seismic wave energy Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(12),
1032-1042.