Issuu

Experimental Investigation on Soil Liquefaction Susceptibility in Different Regions of Chhattisgarh

Prof. Deepanjali Sahu1, Dr. M.K. Tiwari2

1Ph.D. Scholar Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota Bilaspur, C.G.

2Principal, Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota Bilaspur, C.G.

ABSTRACT

Soil liquefaction is a significant geotechnical hazard in regions susceptible to seismic activity, as it can lead to substantialstructuraldamageandlossoflife.Thisstudy focuses on the experimental investigation of soil liquefaction susceptibility across different regions of Chhattisgarh.Representativesoilsampleswerecollected fromvariouslocationswithinthestate,characterizedby diversegeologicalandgeotechnicalconditions.

Laboratorytests,including grainsizeanalysis,Atterberg limits, and cyclic triaxial tests, were conducted to evaluate the liquefaction potential of these soils under simulated earthquake loading conditions. The study analyzes the correlation between soil properties such as particle size distribution, plasticity, and density and their susceptibility to liquefaction. Results indicate significant variations in liquefaction potential across regions,influencedbysoiltype,groundwaterconditions, andseismicloadingparameters.

This investigation provides valuable insights into the behaviour of soils in Chhattisgarh under seismic events, contributing to improved risk assessment and the development of effective mitigation strategies for earthquake-proneareas.

Keywords: - Liquefaction, Standard Penetration Test, CPT,Soil,Cohesionless.

1. INTRODUCTION

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated soils lose their strength and stiffness in response to dynamic loading, such as earthquakes, causing them to behave likealiquid.Thisphenomenonposesasignificantthreat to structures, infrastructure, and human life in seismically active regions. Although Chhattisgarh is not classified as a high-seismic zone, its varying soil compositions, coupled with potential seismic activities from neighbouring regions,makeitimperativetoassess theliquefactionsusceptibilityofitssoils.

This study aims to analyze the liquefaction potential of soils from different regions of Chhattisgarh through experimental methods. By understanding the geotechnical characteristics of these soils, the research

contributes to better risk assessment and preparedness strategiesforearthquake-relatedhazards.

2. STUDY AREA

Chhattisgarh is characterized by diverse geological formations, including alluvial soils, red lateritic soils, blackcottonsoils,andmixedsoils.Thestatehasregions with varying soil compositions and water table levels, influencing their liquefaction susceptibility. Key regions selectedforthestudyinclude:

 Raipur: Dominated by clayey soils with moderategroundwaterlevels.

 Bilaspur: Features sandy and mixed soils, with moderatetohighgroundwaterlevels.

 Durg-Bhilai Region: Characterized by black cotton soils with a high swelling potential and shallowgroundwater.

 Korba: Knownfor redlateriticsoilsand mining activities, with low to moderate groundwater levels.

 Jagdalpur: Features alluvial soils near riverbanks,withahighwatertable.

3. METHODOLOGY

The methodologies for evaluating soil liquefaction susceptibility involves a systematic approach to collect, prepares, and analyze soil samples under laboratory conditions.Belowisadetailedexplanationofeachstep:

3.1. Study Area Selection

To represent the diversity in soil types across Chhattisgarh, five key regions were selected based on theirgeologicalandhydrologicalcharacteristics:

 Raipur: Clay-rich soils with moderate seismic vulnerability.

 Bilaspur:Sandysoilswithashallowwatertable.

 Durg-Bhilai: Predominantly black cotton soils withhighswellingpotential.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 01 | Jan 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072

 Korba:Redlateriticsoilsfoundinminingzones.

 Jagdalpur: Alluvial soils near river systems with highgroundwaterlevels.

3.2.

Soil Sample Collection

Soil samples were collected from each location at multiple depths(e.g., 1m, 3 m,and5 m)usingstandard samplingtechniqueslikeboreholesandaugers.Sampling was done in accordance with IS 1892:1979 (Code of Practice for Subsurface Investigation) to ensure consistencyandaccuracy.

FieldParametersRecorded

 Groundwatertabledepth.

 Soilstratificationandtexture.

 Geographiccoordinatesofeachsamplingsite.

3.3.

Laboratory Testing

Laboratoryexperimentswereconductedonthecollected samples to evaluate their physical, chemical, and mechanical properties. The following tests were performed:

3.3.1

Grain Size Analysis

 Purpose: To determine the proportion of sand, silt,andclayinthesoil.

 Procedure: Sieve analysis for coarse fractions andhydrometeranalysisforfinerparticles.

 Significance:Sandysoilsaremoresusceptibleto liquefaction due to their low cohesion and high permeability.

3.3.2 Atterberg Limits

 Purpose: To measure the plasticity index (PI), this indicates the soil’s cohesiveness and susceptibilitytodeformation.

 Procedure: Liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit tests were performed as per IS 2720(Part5):1985.

 Significance: Soils with high plasticity, such as clays,arelesspronetoliquefaction.

3.3.3 Permeability

Test

 Purpose: To determine the ease with which waterflowsthroughthesoil.

 Procedure:Fallingheadpermeabilitytestswere conducted for fine-grained soils, and constant headtestsforcoarse-grainedsoils.

 Significance: High permeability in sandy soils accelerates pore pressure dissipation, influencingliquefactionbehavior.

3.3.4 Standard Proctor Compaction Test

 Purpose: To assess soil density and moisture contentrelationship.

 Procedure: Soil samples were compacted at varying moisture levels to determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) as per IS 2720 (Part7):1980.

 Significance: Denser soils are less likely to undergoliquefaction.

3.3.5 Cyclic Triaxial Test

 Purpose: To simulate earthquake-induced cyclic loading and evaluate the liquefaction resistance ofsoils.

 Procedure:

1. Saturatedsoilsamples were placedin a triaxialtestapparatus.

2. Cyclic loads were applied to replicate seismicstressconditions.

3. Excess pore water pressure and strain weremeasuredoversuccessivecycles.

 Significance: This test directly measures the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and critical cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), which are key parametersinliquefactionanalysis.

3.3.6 Shear Strength Test

 Purpose:Todeterminethe soil'sstrengthunder variousstressconditions.

 Procedure: Conducted using a direct shear apparatus or unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests.

 Significance: Soils with low shear strength are moresusceptibletoliquefaction.

2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 01 | Jan 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Liquefaction Potential Assessment

The liquefaction potential of each soil sample was assessed using the Factor of Safety (FoS) against liquefaction.TheFOSwascalculatedasfollows:

FOS=(CRR/CSR)

 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR): Represents the seismicdemandonthesoil.Calculatedusing:

CSR=0.65×σvσv′×amax×rd

Where:

o σv:Totalverticalstress

o σv′Effectiveverticalstress

o amax :Peakgroundacceleration(seismic loading)

o rd:Stressreductionfactor

 Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR): Obtained from cyclictriaxialtestresults.

4.2 Interpretation of Results

 SoilswithFOS<1areclassifiedasliquefiable.

 Soils with FOS≥1 are considered stable under seismicloading.

Here’sacomparativetablesummarizingtheliquefaction susceptibilityofsoilsindifferentregionsofChhattisgarh basedonkeysoilparametersandtestresults:

Regio n Soil Typ e Wate r Table Dept h

Raipu r Clay ey with silt Mode rate (~3-5 m) 15% sand, 45% silt, 40% clay

Bilasp ur Sand y and mixe d Shallo w (~1-3 m) 60% sand, 20% silt, 20% clay Low (510) 0.35 Modera teto High

DurgBhilai Blac k 10% sand, 10% sand, Very High 0.20 Negligi ble

Korba

cotto nsoil 20% silt, 70% clay 20% silt, 70% clay (>30)

Red lateri tic soil

Mode rate (~3-5 m) 25% sand, 30% silt, 45% clay Mode rate (1015) 0.30 Lowto Modera te

Jagdal pur Alluv ial soil High (~1-2 m) 70% sand, 15%silt

4.3 Raipur

Negligi ble

 Soil Type: Clayey with traces of silt and fine sand.

 Liquefaction Potential: Low due to high plasticityandlowpermeability.

4.4 Bilaspur

 SoilType:Sandyandmixedsoils.

 Liquefaction Potential: Moderate to high due to significant sand content and a shallow water table.

4.5 Durg-Bhilai Region

 SoilType:Blackcottonsoil.

 Liquefaction Potential: Negligible due to high clay content but could experience significant settlementunderdynamicloads.

4.6 Korba

 SoilType:Redlateriticsoil.

 Liquefaction Potential: Low to moderate, influencedbythedepthofgroundwaterandsoil compactness.

4.7 Jagdalpur

 SoilType:Alluvialsoilsnearriverbanks.

 Liquefaction Potential: High due to sandy compositionandahighwatertable.

5. CONCLUSION

Thestudydemonstratessignificantregionalvariationsin liquefaction susceptibility across Chhattisgarh. Areas with sandy soils and high water tables, such as Bilaspur and Jagdalpur, are more prone to liquefaction, while

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 01 | Jan 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072

clayey regions like Raipur and Durg exhibit lower susceptibility. These findings highlight the need for region-specificseismicriskmitigationstrategies.

References

1. Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.

2. Das, B. M. (2008). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering.

3. IS1893:IndianStandardCriteriaforEarthquake ResistantDesignofStructures.

4. Regional geological and soil reports of Chhattisgarh.

5. Chopra, S., Kumar, D., Rastogi, B. K., Choudhury, P.andYadav,R.B.S.,2012.

6. Estimation of Seismic Hazard in Gujarat region, India, Nat Hazards (2013), Volume 65:1157–1178.

7. Chu, D. B., et al., 2004. Documentation of soil conditions at liquefaction and non-liquefaction sitesfrom1999Chi-ChiTaiwanearthquake.Soil Dyn.EarthquakeEng.,249–10,647–657.

8. Clausen, C. J. F. 1970. Resultaterav et belastningsforsök pa Mastenyr i Oslo. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, PublicationNo.84,29–40.

9. D. Finn (1991), Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Post Liquefaction Behavior of Earth Structures: Developments 1981-1991, Proc. Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2, St Louis, 1883-1850.

10. Fang Yu,Jairi Idriss,Pirhadi Nima, (2023)Neural transfer learning for soil liquefaction tests, Computers & Geosciences, Volume 171, February 2023, 105282.

11. FEMA (2012). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model, HAZUS®–MH 2.1 technical manual, Federal Emergency ManagementAgency,Washington,D.C.,USA

12. GhorbaniE.andRajabA.M.,(2020),Areviewon SPT-based liquefaction potential evaluation to assess the possibility of performing a risk

management.TransactionsonCivilEngineering, Volume27,Issue2,Pages639-656.

13. GhorbaniE.andRajab,A.M.(2020),Areviewon SPT-based liquefaction potential evaluation to assess the possibility of performing a risk management.TransactionsonCivilEngineering, Volume27,Issue2,Pages639-656.

14. Guan Z., Wang Yu , Stuedlein A. W., (2022). Efficient three-dimensional soil liquefaction potential and reconsolidation settlement assessment from limited CPTs considering spatial variability, Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering,Volume163,December 2022,107518.

15. H.N. Wazoh and S. J. Mallo, (2014). Standard penetration test in engineering geological site investigations - A review, The International JournalofEngineedingandscience(IJES),Vol.3, Issue7,PP40-48,2014.

16. Hoeg, K., Dyvik, R., and Sandbaekken, G. 2000. “Strength of ‘undisturbed’ versus reconstituted silt and silty sand specimens.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.Eng.,1267,606–617.

17. Hokmabadi, Fatahi, A.S. and Samali, B., (2014). Retracted - Seismic response of midrise buildings on shallow and endbearing pile foundation in soft soil, Soils and Foundations,Volume 54, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages345-363.

18. Ibrahim KMHI, (2014). Liquefaction analysis of Alluvial Soil deposits in Bedsa south west of Caairo, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Volume 5,Issue3,September2014,Pages647-655.

19. Idriss and Boulanger, (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute,Oakland,USA,pp.261-271.

20. Idriss and Boulanger, (2014). CPT and SPT basedLiquefactionTriggringProcedures.Centre for Geotechnical Modelling, Report no. UCD/CGM-14/01.

21. IS 2131: Method for Standard Penetration Test forSoils,BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi (1981:Reaffirmed2002).

22. Ishihara, K. (1993) Liquefaction and Flow Failure during Earthquake. Géotechnique, 43, 351-415.

23. Ishihara, K., (1977). Simple Method of Analysis for Liquefaction of Sand Deposits during

2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 01 | Jan 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072

Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 17, no. 3,1977.

24. Ishihara, K., Lysmer, J., Yasuda, S. and Hirao, H., (1976). Prediction of liquefaction of Sand Deposits during Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, Volume 16, Issue 1, March 1976, Pages1-16.

25. Jethwa S. P. et. al., (2018). Liquefaction analysis for kutch region using deterministic In- situ analysis software. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume:05Issue:04.

26. Karima Kourtit et. Al., (2023). An analysis of naturaldisasters’effects– Aglobal comparative study of ‘Blessing in Disguise’, Socio-Economic PlanningSciences,Volume88,August2023.

27. Kayen,R.,Moss,R.,Thompson,E.,Seed,R.,Cetin, K., Kiureghian, A., Tanaka, Y., and Tokimatsu, K. (2013). ”Shear-Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.Eng.,139(3),407–419.

28. KCA,SharmaK,PokharelB(2019)Performance of heritage structures during the Nepal earthquake of April 25, 2015, Journal of EarthquakeEngineeringVolume23,2019-Issue 8.

29. KC S., Bhochhibhoya S., Adhikari P., Adhikari P., Gautam D., (2020). Probabilistic seismic liquefaction hazard assessment of Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 11(1):259–271.

30. Kharazian, A., Molina, S., Galiana, J.J., and Agea, N., (2021). Medina Risk targeted hazard maps for Spain 21 July 2021, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,Vol.19,pages5369–5389.

31. Kuribayasi, E. and Tatsiyoka, F., (1975). Brief Review of Lique-faction during Earthquakes in Japan, Soils and Foundation, vol-15, No. 4, Dec 1975.

32. Lin, M.L., Lin, C.H., Li, C.H., Liu, C.Y., and Hunga, C.H., (2021). 3D modeling of the ground deformation along the fault rupture and its impactonengineeringstructures:

33. Insights from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Shigang District, Taiwan, Engineering Geology, Volume281,February2021,105993.

34. Lindholm AC et. Al., (2016). Probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment for Peninsular, India. Journal of Seismology. 2016;20(2):629653

35. Martin, J. R.,II, Olgun, C. G., Mitchell, J. K., and Durgunoglu,H.T.2004.“High-moduluscolumns for liquefaction mitigation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.Eng.,1306,561–571.

36. Md Abdul Lahil Baki et. al., (2023). Effects of partial saturation on the liquefaction resistance of sand and silty sand from Christchurch, Soils andFoundations,Volume63,Issue6,Dec.2023.

37. Ms. M.Vineela et. al., (2019). Causes of Soil Liquefaction and how can we prevent it JETIR, Volume6,Issue6,June2019.

2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008