9 Soil Liquefaction Hazard

Assessment for Kolkata

9.1 Introduction

Soil liquefaction is a secondary phenomenon triggered by a large earthquake in alluvium filled

terrain implicating high seismic risk of a region. It causes the soil to act like a viscous fluid due
to reduction in shear resistance when monotonic, cyclic or shock loading is applied (Sladen et
al., 1985). Many earthquakes have exhibited sand & water ejection, lateral spreading, ground
failure and land subsidence resulting due to this phenomenon viz. 18th April 1906 San Francisco
earthquake, 1st September 1923 Kwanto earthquake, 18th April 1928 Bulgarian earthquake, 18th
May 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake to name a few (Ambraseys and Sarma, 1969). In the year
1964 the Great Alaskan earthquake of Mw 9.2 & Niigata earthquake of Mw 7.6 triggered huge
liquefaction related damages including slope failure, bridge & building foundation failure, and
floatation of buried structures (Nath, 2011; USGS, 2008). On the other hand, in India the 1897
Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 exhibited widespread sand and water emission along with ground
subsidence in Assam, Meghalaya, North Bangladesh and West Bengal (Oldham, 1899; Ambraseys
and Sarma, 1969). Generation of fissure, ground subsidence, collapse of building, tilting of
foundation and development of water spouts were reported during 1930 Dhubri earthquake of Mw
7.1 (Gee, 1934; Lister, 1934; Ambraseys and Sarma, 1969), and 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of
Mw 8.1 (GSI, 1939). The 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 also created a series of step faults
and hundreds of water spouts throwing up water, sand and peat in the north of the Ganges. Due to
the thick alluvial filled geological and geomorphological set up of West Bengal, the intensifying
effect of ground motion triggered due to this earthquake was reportedly felt in various districts
of West Bengal (GSI, 1939). In the state capital Kolkata cracks in the buildings with subsidence
and collapse were also reported presumably due to the effect of soil liquefaction triggered by the
intensifying ground motion coupled with shallow ground water table and soft unconsolidated &
semi-consolidated sediments of Bengal Basin on which the City is situated.
The Bengal Basin, a huge pericratonic Tertiary basin formed by the Ganga-Bramhaputra river
system, has enormous thickness of fluvio-marine deposits of varying texture from fine to coarse
size which when saturated with water are susceptible to liquefaction hazard (Kramer, 1996; Nath,
2011). From the detailed geotechnical investigations carried out at 654 borehole locations spread
over 435 km2 area of Kolkata it has been observed that the lithology of the region consists of the
layers of organic clay and silt interbedded with sand lenses (described in Chapter 2). It is well
known that sand is prone to liquefaction but this phenomenon has also been observed in non-
plastic and cohesionless silts with bulky particle shape (Ishihara, 1984; 1985; 1993). Although
clays are known to be non-susceptible to liquefaction, they may exhibit strain softening behavior
similar to that of liquefied soil (Kramer, 1996).

335
336 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Considering the favorable geological and geomorphological condition and recognizing the
probable seismic hazard level, a detailed study has been conducted by undertaking an extensive
geotechnical investigation in the city by drilling 654 boreholes spread over the entire territory
(details described in Chapter 6). It is widely known that liquefaction potential increases with
earthquake magnitude and intensity (Day, 2012).Therefore, to understand soil liquefaction potential
of alluvium below Kolkata, two major seismic events viz. the 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake and
the 1897 Shillong earthquake both of Mw 8.1 which reported to have caused sporadic damage
in the city have been considered. Owing to non-availability of recorded data the ground motion
of aforementioned earthquakes are stochastically simulated at bedrock level which has further
been convolved with local site conditions to provide Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at surface
level. The site response due to liquefaction potential has been expressed in terms of Factor of
Safety to categorize each soil layer in question as safe or unsafe, but for more detailed analysis
Probability of Liquefaction has also been estimated for the same. In order to consider the severity
of liquefaction for the entire soil column of about 20 m thickness, Liquefaction Potential Index
(LPI) and Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) have also been assessed. Moreover the surface consistent
liquefaction susceptibility scenario of the city has been generated in line with surface consistent
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model of Kolkata with 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years
thus predicting a deterministic scenario with 475 years of return period.

9.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria, Level ‘A’ Study

Liquefaction is not observed in all soil types e.g. loose, poorly graded soils are more prone
to liquefaction in comparison with the dense, well graded soil sediments, therefore, an initial
prediction that whether a site will undergo liquefaction or not has been made for Kolkata based
on various liquefaction susceptibility criteria viz. geology, geomorphology, ground water table
depth, grain size etc. The study of superficial features like geology, geomorphology, age of
deposits and ground water conditions provide qualitative analysis and hence an initial indication
of liquefaction susceptibility of the terrain. An initial qualitative study of the sensitivity towards
liquefaction has been carried out for the city of Kolkata under Level ‘A’ study using geological &
geomorphological, compositional and hydrogeological information.

9.2.1 Geological and Geomorphological Criteria

The geological and geomorphological features of an alluvial plain bears good correlation with
subsurface ground conditions such as soil type, soil density, depth of ground water table, depositional
environment etc. Geological age of sedimentary deposits is one of the dominant factors influencing
the liquefaction susceptibility as older sediments are believed to be more compacted and, therefore,
less prone towards liquefaction in comparison with the younger sediments (Kramer, 1996; Nath,
2011). On the other hand, the geomorphological land classification which can be determined by
the interpretation of aerial photographs and field inspection, without expensive geotechnical tests,
 337 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

act as suitable index for practical evaluation of soil liquefaction susceptibility (Wakamatsu, 1980;
Iwasaki et al., 1982; Yasuda, 1985; Kotoda et al., 1988). Youd and Perkins (1978) has proposed a
qualitative liquefaction susceptibility classification of sedimentary deposits based on depositional
environment and geologic age by assigning a relative liquefaction susceptibility rating from very
low to very high to each geomorphological unit. This classification indicates that the recently
deposited relatively unconsolidated soils such as Holocene-age river channel, flood plain, delta
deposits and uncompact artificial fills located below the groundwater table have high to very high
liquefaction susceptibility (FEMA, 2003; Youd, 1991). This classification has already been used
to propose the qualitative liquefaction potential map by several researchers for identifying the
regions where detailed site specific investigations are required (Youd and Perkins, 1978; Oya et
al., 1982; Kotoda et al., 1988; Kuwano et al., 1992). The liquefaction susceptibility criteria for
the geomorphological units identified in Kolkata based on this classification has been compiled
and presented in Table 9.1. Kolkata is a typical deltaic flat land with deltaic plain, interdistributary
marsh, palaeo channels, swampy lands, younger levee adjacent to the river Hoogly and older levee
on both the sides of the old Adi Ganga as the important geomorphological units (Roy et al., 2012;
Nath et al., 2014). Table 9.1 suggests the likelihood of soil liquefaction in these geomorphological
units as very high to moderate.

Table 9.1 Liquefaction Susceptibility of Sedimentary deposits present in Kolkata based on Geological and
Geomorphological criteria (After Youd and Perkins, 1978)

Type of deposit General distribution Likelihood that cohesionless sediments, when

of cohesionless saturated, would be susceptible to liquefy (by age of
sediments in deposits deposit)
<500 years Holocene Pleistocene Pre-pleistocene
Continental Deposits
River channel Locally Variable Very high High Low Very low
Flood plain Locally Variable High Moderate Low Very low
Alluvial fan and Widespread - Low Very low Very low
plain
Delta and fan- delta Widespread High Moderate Low Very low
Residual soils Rare Low Low Very low Very low
Coastal zone
Delta Widespread Very high High Low Very low
Esturine Locally Variable High Moderate Low Very low
Artificial
Uncompact Fill Variable Very High - - -
Compacted Fill Variable Low - - -
338 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

9.2.2 Compositional Criteria

Liquefaction in soil occurs due to excessive pore water pressure generation and, therefore, is
directly related to the compositional characteristics of the soil viz. gradation, fine content, plasticity
index etc. Mostly non-cohesive sands undergo liquefaction but non-plastic & cohesionless silty
clay and sensitive clay have also exhibited this phenomenon (Updike et al., 1988; Kramer, 1996).
Wang (1979) proposed Chinese Criteria to determine the likelihood of liquefaction based on the
earthquake observations in China. Fine grained sediments that satisfy following four criteria may
be considered susceptible to liquefaction (Wang, 1979; Kramer, 1996):

• Fraction finer than 0.005 mm ≤ 15%

• Liquid limit, LL ≤ 35%
• Natural Water Content ≥ 0.9LL
• Liquidity Index ≤ 0.75

However, research endeavors followed by this suggested that silty and clayey soils containing
more than 15% clay size particles also cause widespread damage due to liquefaction (Bray et al.,
2004; Bray and Sancio, 2006). Based on water content (wc), liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index
(PI), Bray and Sancio (2006) proposed the following new compositional criteria obtained from the
results of cyclic triaxial test to determine liquefaction susceptibility:
1) Highly Susceptible towards liquefaction: PI <12 and (wc/LL) ≥0.85.
2) Moderately Susceptible towards liquefaction: 12< PI <18 and 0.85> (wc/LL) ≥0.8.
3) Non-Susceptible towards liquefaction: PI >18 and (wc/LL) < 0.8.
This criteria has been applied in the physical and shear parameters obtained from the
geotechnical database of Kolkata and presented in the graphical plots shown in Figure 9.1 for soil
samples of all 654 boreholes in the depth range: (i) 0-5 m, (ii) 5-10 m, (iii) 10-15 m, (iv) 15-20 m,
(v) 20 m & below. This fine grained soil liquefaction susceptibility criterion suggests that soil
samples of depth range 5-10 m are prone to liquefaction hazard followed by 0-5 m and 10-15 m
while, soil samples of depth range 15-20 m and 20 m & below are less prone to liquefaction which
may result due to the consolidation of sediments.
 339 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.1 Graphical representation of liquefaction susceptibility criteria proposed by Bray and Sancio (2006)
exhibiting borehole soil samples associated with different liquefaction potentials: Non-susceptible,
Moderately Susceptible and Highly Susceptible for the depth range of (a) 0-5 m, (b) 5-10 m, (c) 10-15 m,
(d) 15-20 m, and (e) 20 m & below.

9.2.3 Particle Size/Grain Size Criteria

Grain size distribution curve visualizes quantitatively the distribution of soil particles and
provides the fraction of sand, silt and clay present at various depths. The distribution of grain size
of soil sediments strongly influences how susceptible a material is to liquefaction and, therefore,
is considered as a useful proxy for the identification of sediments susceptible to liquefaction
(Obermeir, 1996; Tsuchida and Hayashi, 1971; Andrus et al., 1986). Owing to this Tsuchida and
Hayashi (1971) proposed the upper and lower bounds, based on the grain size analysis of liquefied
soil for most liquefiable soil sediments as well as for potentially liquefiable soil sediments also
known as the limiting curves for liquefaction. Figure 9.2 depicts the grain size distribution curves
obtained from particle size analysis of the collected sediment samples at various depths along
with the ranges of liquefiable soil and potentially liquefiable soils for two representative sites viz.
Saltlake and Sealdah. These curves display that most of the soil layers fall within the boundaries of
most liquefiable and potentially liquefiable soils thus necessitating in-depth liquefaction analysis
over the region.
 340 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.2 Grain size distribution curves obtained from the grain size analysis of insitu soil sediments at various
depths for (a) Saltlake, and (b) Sealdah. Superimposed are grain size boundaries for most liquefiable soil
and potentially liquefiable soil proposed by Tsuchida and Hayashi (1971) suggesting the liquefaction prone
environment in the terrain.

9.2.4 Effect of Ground Water Table Depth

Ground water table depth is among the major contributors affecting the stability of soil due to
liquefaction which provides the extent of water saturation in the insitu soil sediments. Since,
soil liquefaction results due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure, therefore, liquefaction
susceptibility decreases with increasing ground water table depth. Obermeier (1996) attempted
to relate liquefaction susceptibility with the geological age and depth of ground water table, as
presented in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility of the near surface geological deposits present in Kolkata based on the
ground water table depth during strong shaking (After Obermeier, 1996)

Age of Deposit
Depth to Groundwater Table Latest Holocene Earlier Holocene Late Pleistocene
0-3 m High Moderate Low
3-10 m Low Low Nil
>10 m Nil Nil Nil

Figure 9.3 depicts the variation of water table depth in Kolkata obtained from 654 drilled
boreholes in addition to the data obtained from post-monsoon piezometer survey which indicates
the fluctuation of water table depth from 0.5 m to 7.7 m. The majority of the regions are in
shallow ground water table zone with the range of 0.5-3 m. As described in Chapter 7, major
water bearing formation of Kolkata is Quaternary alluvium composed of sand interbedded
 341 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

with silt and clay. With dominant water table depth fluctuation of 0.5-3 m, the classification
proposed by Obermeier (1996), presented in Table 9.2 places the city in high to moderate
liquefaction hazard.

Figure 9.3 Ground Water Table depth variation in Kolkata derived from Geotechnical borehole, Piezometric survey,
and Dug Well information exhibiting the variation of 0.5-7.7 m with dominant water table depth in the
range of 0.5-3 m.

9.3 Factor of Safety Assessment, Level ‘B’ Study

Level ‘A’ studies performed in Kolkata suggests the region to be prone to liquefaction hazard and
thus, necessitate site specific Level ‘B’ investigation. Level ‘B’ study uses mechanical properties
of soil to generate liquefaction hazard scenario for the provided seismic conditions. This study
 342 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

follows the methodology initially proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) further modified by Youd
et al. (2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004; 2010) and is based on the database of 654 drilled
boreholes consisting information of SPT-N values and other index properties viz. unit weight,
atterberg limits, percent of fine content etc. for each location.
Semi-empirical field based procedure is used to quantify liquefaction in terms of Factor of
Safety (FOS) against liquefaction which is defined as the ratio of insitu soil resistance expressed in
terms of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) and earthquake induced loading in terms of Cyclic Stress
Ratio (CSR) (Youd et al., 2001) as

 CRR 
FOS =   (9.1)
 CSR 

If the FOS value is less than 1, the site is considered to be liquefiable and if it is greater than 1, the
site is considered to be non-liquefiable thus this classifies the soil layer as safe or unsafe (Seed and
Idriss, 1971). However, Day (2012) states that the soil layer with FOS value slightly greater than
1 may still liquefy.

9.3.1 Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR )

The capacity of an insitu soil layer to resist liquefaction to the applied seismic demand has been
assessed by using SPT-N values in terms of Cyclic Resistance Ratio or CRR. SPT-N values have
been corrected into (N1)60 values by following IS code 2131-1981 (described in Chapter 6). Seed
et al. (1985) has proposed three potential liquefaction damage ranges for (N1)60 values as presented
in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Three approximate potential damage ranges of (N1)60 based on the standard penetration test and field
performance data proposed by Seed et al. (1985) (After Day, 2012)

(N1)60 range 0-20 20-30 >30

Potential Damage High Intermediate No significant damage

The presence of fine content (FC) affects the soil resistance, higher the FC percentage in the
sediment more resistive it will be towards liquefaction. Therefore, fine content correction has been
applied to (N1)60 in order to convert it into equivalent clean sand value (Idriss and Boulanger, 2004)

(N1)60cs = (N1)60 + ∆ (N1)60(9.2)

where,

 9.7  15.7  
2

D( N1 )60 =exp 1.63 + −   (9.3)

 FC + 0.01  FC + 0.01  
343 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

These (N1)60cs values have been further used to compute Cyclic Resistance Ratio by using the
following formulation of Idriss and Boulanger (2004)

 2 3
 ( N1 )60 cs  ( N1 )60 cs   ( N1 )60 cs   ( N1 )60 cs 
4


CRR = exp  +  −  +  − 2.8 (9.4)
 14.1
  126   23.6   25.4  


9.3.2 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR )

The seismic demand induced by an earthquake can be quantified in terms of Cyclic Stress Ratio
(CSR) by using peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the causing earthquake magnitude for a
particular site. Idriss and Boulanger (2004; 2010) and Youd et al. (2001) have modified CSR
previously defined by Seed and Idriss (1971) by introducing Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) and
overburden correction factor (Kσ) in the expression as follows

 s v   amax   1  1 
CSR = 0.65  '   ( rd )    (9.5)
s v  g   MSF   Ks 

where σv , σ′v = total and effective overburden stresses respectively, g= acceleration due to gravity,
amax= peak ground acceleration (PGA), rd = stress reduction coefficient, MSF= magnitude scaling
factor, Kσ= effective overburden correction. The factor of 0.65 has been introduced by Seed et al.
(1985) to convert the peak cyclic shear stress ratio to a cyclic stress ratio that is representative of
the most significant cycles over the full duration of loading (Idriss and Boulanger, 2004).

9.3.2.1 Stress Reduction Coefficient (rd)

Stress reduction coefficient (rd) accounts for the flexibility and dynamic response of the soil and
has been introduced by Seed and Idriss (1971) to represent the variation of shear stress amplitude
with depth (Youd et al., 2001; Idriss and Boulanger, 2004; 2010; Dixit et al., 2012). Initially
proposed rd was an average curve extended only to a depth of about 12 m and was intended for
all the earthquake magnitudes. This factor was further modified by several researchers (Liao and
Whitman, 1986; Golesorkhi, 1989; Robertson and Wride, 1998; Blake, 1996; Cetin et al., 2004)
and was eventually benchmarked as a function of moment magnitude and depth by Idriss and
Boulanger (2004; 2010) as

=rd exp(a + b M ) (9.6)

where,
−1.012 − 1.126sin[5.133 + ( z / 11.73)]
a=
(9.7)
0.106 + 0.118sin[5.142 + ( z / 11.28)]
b=

here z is the depth of interest and M is the moment magnitude.

344 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

9.3.2.2 Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF )

The magnitude scaling factor (MSF  ), has been used to adjust CSR of magnitude Mw to account for
the duration effect of seismic ground motions which is not reflected in PGA (Youd et al., 2001;
Idriss and Boulanger, 2004). It was introduced by Seed and Idriss (1982) and further modified by
several researchers based on the field liquefaction data (Ambraseys, 1988; Arango, 1996; Andrus
and Stokoe, 1997; Youd and Noble, 1997). However, the MSF relations proposed by previous
researchers are believed to produce unstable results for shallow depth during small magnitude
earthquakes, therefore, in the present study the MSF relation produced by Idriss (1999) and
suggested by Idriss and Boulanger (2004) has been used which is limited to a maximum value of
1.8 for small magnitude earthquakes of Mw ≤5.4 and is expressed as

MSF = −0.058 + 6.9exp(− M w / 4)

MSF ≤ 1.8 (9.8)

where, Mw is the moment magnitude.

9.3.2.3 Overburden Correction Factor (Kσ)

In order to adjust CSR values to an equivalent overburden pressure of 1 atmosphere, overburden
correction factor (Kσ) has been included in the expression of CSR (Idriss and Boulanger, 2004;
Dixit et al., 2012), which is evaluated by the following expression

1 − Cs ln(s 'v / pa ) ≤ 1.0 

Ks = (9.9)

where,

1
=Cs ≤ 0.3 (9.10)
18.9 − 2.55 ( N1 )60,cs

Here, pa is the reference pressure.

9.4 Level ‘C’ Study

Level ‘B’ study only classifies the soil layers as safe or unsafe, therefore, to understand severity
of soil liquefaction Level ‘C’ study has been conducted which consist of the Probability of
Liquefaction evaluation for each insitu soil layer in addition to Liquefaction Potential Index and
Liquefaction Risk Index estimation for the entire soil column.

9.4.1 Probability of Liquefaction (PL)

The probability of liquefaction (PL) quantifies the liquefaction occurrence for a given soil layer
for the provided PGA and Mw. It has been evaluated by using FOS values from the following
expression (Idriss and Boulanger, 2010; Juang et al., 2012)
 345 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

 ln( FOS ) + 0.13 

PL ( FOS ) = 1 − f   (9.11)
 0.13 

The evaluated values have been categorized by following Chen and Juang (2000) classification
scheme as: PL< 35% (Unlikely to liquefy), 35% ≤ PL< 65% (Liquefaction and no liquefaction are
equally likely), 65% ≤ PL< 85% (Very likely to liquefy), PL ≥ 85% (Almost certain it will liquefy).

9.4.2 Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI )

Iwasaki et al. (1978; 1982) introduced Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) in order to estimate the
severity of liquefaction for the upper 20 m soil column of a specific borehole location (Iwasaki,
1986). As surface effects resulting from liquefaction are seldomly reported beyond the depth of
20 m, the computation of LPI has been restricted upto this depth (Toprak and Holzer, 2003).
According to Iwasaki et al. (1978), the severity of liquefaction is directly proportional to the
thickness of liquefied layer, closeness of the liquefied layer to the surface and the quantity by
which the factor of safety is lesser than 1, thus, defining LPI as weighted integral of the product of
aforementioned attributes as (Iwasaki et al., 1978; 1982; Rix and Huddock, 2006)
n
LPI = ∑ wi Si H i
(9.12)
i =1

where, ‘n’ is the number of layers present in the upper 20 m of the soil deposit, ‘w’ is the weighting
function introduced to account for liquefaction extent with respect to depth and is expressed as
(Iwasaki et al., 1978; 1982; Iwasaki, 1986)

w( z=
) 10 − 0.5 z (9.13)
‘z’ is the depth of layers in metres, ‘H’ is the thickness of each layer, and ‘S’ is estimated by

 0 for FOS > 1 

S =  (9.14)
1 − FOS for FOS < 1 

LPI distribution over an area is used for liquefaction hazard mapping due to a unique value for
the entire soil column on the contrary of several safety factors for different soil layers. Liquefaction
Potential Index categorization has been presented in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4 Liquefaction Susceptibility categorization based on Liquefaction Potential Index (Iwasaki et al., 1982)

Liquefaction Potential Index Liquefaction Susceptibility

LPI = 0 Low
0 < LPI ≤ 5 Moderate
5 < LPI ≤1 5 High
LPI > 15 Severe
 346 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

9.4.3 Liquefaction Risk Index (IR)

Lee et al. (2004) proposed Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) to map liquefaction risk associated with
induced ground failure potential of sediments present in the top 20 m soil column as
n
I R = ∑ wi PH
i i (9.15)
i =1

where,

1
P= 4.5
 FOS  (9.16)
1+  
 0.96 

here ‘n’ is the number of layers in the upper 20 m of the soil deposit and ‘w’ is the same weighting
function which was used in the computation of LPI. Ground failure potential is low for IR < 20,
high for 20 < IR ≤ 30 and extremely high for IR > 30.
Both Level ‘B’ and Level ‘C’ studies have been integrated to generate a framework shown in
Figure 9.4, for the soil liquefaction assessment of the study region.

Figure 9.4 Framework followed for the assessment of soil liquefaction in terms of Factor of Safety (FOS ), Liquefaction
Probability (PL), Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI ) and Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) (After Nath et al., 2014).
 347 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

9.5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Assessment

Analyses of the historical seismic events provide in-depth site specific information of the hazard
associated with the region. It has been previously mentioned that Kolkata gets affected by the three
tectonic provinces: Northeast India, Central Himalaya and Bengal Basin. Therefore, the largest
seismic events triggered in Northeast India and Central Himalaya viz. 1897 Shillong earthquake
of Mw 8.1 & 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 have been considered to understand the
liquefaction hazard scenario for the terrain. In order to study the effect of Bengal Basin, a
liquefaction hazard scenario has been generated by performing near source approximation of all
the potential seismic sources.
The non-availability of ground motion data for the considered earthquakes necessitated the
synthesis of ground motion at surface level for the study region. Ground motion synthesis is a two-
step technique which includes its estimation at the engineering bedrock which is further convolved
with the local site conditions to bring it at the surface level. In the present analysis stochastic
finite fault modeling approach proposed by Motazedian and Atkinson (2005) has been followed
to estimate the ground motion at bedrock level, which has further been convolved with local site
effects by performing one dimensional equivalent linear site response analysis, introduced by
Seed and Idriss (1970) through the DEEPSOIL software which results in the extraction of surface
PGA at each site.

9.5.1 Scenario due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of Mw 8.1

The 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 inflicted considerable damage to life and property in
Kolkata (GSI, 1939), adhering to the Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity of VI–VII (Nath et al.,
2014). Owing to the paucity of recorded data, ground motions at bedrock level corresponding to
this earthquake have been stochastically simulated at each borehole site by using EXSIM software
package provided by Motazedian and Atkinson (2005). The earthquake parameters which have
been used to perform stochastic simulation are inherited from Nath et al. (2014), as presented in
Table 9.5. These stochastically generated ground motions have further been convolved with the
local site amplification to assess the same at the surface level.

Table 9.5 Parameters used in stochastic simulation of 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 to assess ground
motions at bedrock level for each borehole site (After Nath et al., 2014)

Earthquake Parameters 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of Mw 8.1

Strike 285°
Dip 6°
Focal Depth 20 km
Epicenter 27.55°N, 87.09°E
Stress 275 bars
Crustal Density 2.7 g/cm3
Quality Factor 400f 0.48
Shear Wave Velocity 3.8 kms-1
Damping 5%
348 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values extracted from the simulated ground motions at
surface level have been found to be varying from 0.05g-0.14g and are further used to create a
liquefaction hazard scenario. The ground motion at surface level for representative sites of Kolkata
viz. Barabazar (PGA: 0.080g), Saltlake (PGA: 0.098g), Paikpara (PGA: 0.093g), Howrah (PGA:
0.094g), Shibpur (PGA: 0.078g), Sarsuna (PGA: 0.081g), Alipur (PGA: 0.073g), Sonarpur (PGA:
0.086g), Dum Dum (PGA: 0.068g), Rajarhat (PGA: 0.106g) have been presented in Figure 9.5.
 349 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.5 Stochastically simulated ground motion at bedrock (blue curve) and ground motion at surface (red curve)
corresponding to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 for representative sites of Kolkata at: (a) Barabazar
with PGA 0.080g, (b) Saltlake with PGA 0.098g, (c) Paikpara with PGA 0.093g, (d) Howrah with PGA 0.094g,
(e) Shibpur with PGA 0.078g, (f) Sarsuna with PGA 0.081g, (g) Alipur with PGA 0.073g, (h) Sonarpur with
PGA 0.086g, (i) Dum Dum with PGA 0.068g, and (j) Rajarhat with PGA 0.106g.

The FOS values corresponding to the PGAs assessed from the simulation of 1934 Bihar-Nepal
earthquake of Mw 8.1 have been computed for each lithological layer at every site. In order to
analyze the overall variation of FOS values of the region with depth, box plot of FOS values
against liquefaction of the study region for the four depth ranges i.e. 0-5 m, 5-10 m, 10-15 m
and 15 m & below has been generated and depicted in Figure 9.6. The fundamental statistical
elements, i.e. minimum value, maximum value, mean value, first quartile (25th percentile) and
third quartile (75th percentile) of FOS values, are also shown in the box plot. It has been observed
in these box plots that FOS values are at its lowest, with Factor of Safety less than 1.5 at most of
the sites, with closest interquartile range for the depth range of 5-10 m. The water table depth of
the region has been found to be in the range of 0.5-7.7 m, which makes the depth range of 5-10 m
more likely to liquefy.
 350 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.6 Box Plot of Factor of Safety for 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 at a depth ranges of 0-5 m, 5-10 m,
10-15 m and 15 m & below. ‘q1’ and ‘q3’ represents first quartile (25th percentile) and third quartile (75th
percentile) respectively whereas, ‘min’, ‘median’ and ‘max’ indicate minimum, median and maximum value
of computed FOS values.

A representative computation for a borehole located at Rajarhat with PGA of 0.106g for the
considered scenario is presented in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6 A representative computation of attributes viz. FOS, PL and LPI to quantify soil liquefaction for Rajarhat
by considering 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1

BH No. 630 GWL 6.4 m PGA 0.106g

Depth SPT-N FC(%) (N1)60 (N1)60cs CRR rd CSR FOS PL
1.95 4 80 6.3236 12.0712 0.1330 0.9967 0.0928 1.4600 0.00
3.45 4 71 5.0072 10.8399 0.1240 0.9884 0.1168 1.1130 3.41
4.95 3 58 3.2067 9.2114 0.1126 0.9787 0.1297 0.9089 39.55
6.45 3 80 3.0202 8.7678 0.1097 0.9679 0.1369 0.8321 66.04
351 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

BH No. 630 GWL 6.4 m PGA 0.106g

Depth SPT-N FC(%) (N1)60 (N1)60cs CRR rd CSR FOS PL
7.95 3 80 2.8638 8.6114 0.1086 0.9560 0.1414 0.7936 78.17
9.45 1 80 0.9200 6.6676 0.0961 0.9430 0.1463 0.6637 98.43
10.95 6 42 5.2445 11.6170 0.1296 0.9292 0.1465 0.9268 33.91
12.45 7 42 5.8341 12.2066 0.1340 0.9145 0.1472 0.9543 26.10
13.95 9 42 7.1708 13.5434 0.1443 0.8992 0.1475 1.0306 10.90
15.45 11 42 8.3899 14.7624 0.1541 0.8834 0.1472 1.1074 3.72
16.95 15 42 10.9560 17.3286 0.1770 0.8671 0.1468 1.2938 0.14
18.45 18 42 12.6115 18.9841 0.1941 0.8507 0.1460 1.4394 0.01
19.45 19 42 12.9616 19.3342 0.1980 0.8396 0.1452 1.4765 0.00
21.45 18 31 11.6804 18.5457 0.1894 0.8177 0.1427 1.4148 0.01
22.95 24 31 15.0177 21.8829 0.2313 0.8014 0.1425 1.7799 0.00
24.45 28 31 16.8966 23.7619 0.2634 0.7857 0.1418 2.0799 0.00
25.5 25 31 14.7205 21.5858 0.2269 0.7749 0.1392 1.7665 0.00
27 26 31 14.8029 21.6682 0.2281 0.7602 0.1374 1.7925 0.00
28.5 30 31 16.5211 23.3864 0.2563 0.7464 0.1368 2.0546 0.00
30 32 31 17.0472 23.9125 0.2664 0.7335 0.1355 2.1605 0.00
31.5 28 31 14.4511 21.3164 0.2230 0.7218 0.1319 1.8004 0.00
33 34 31 17.0238 23.8891 0.2659 0.7114 0.1326 2.1833 0.00
34.5 50 31 24.3182 31.1834 0.5699 0.7024 0.1403 5.1156 0.00
36 54 31 25.5413 32.4066 0.6873 0.6950 0.1420 6.2846 0.00
37.5 59 31 27.1679 34.0332 Stable 0.6892 0.1453 Stable 0.00
39 62 31 27.8218 34.6870 Stable 0.6852 0.1473 Stable 0.00
40.5 76 31 33.2658 40.1311 Stable 0.6831 0.1696 Stable 0.00
42 100 31 42.7319 49.5972 Stable 0.6830 0.1886 Stable 0.00
43.5 59 31 24.6333 31.4986 0.5968 0.6850 0.1432 5.0265 0.00
45 98 31 40.0079 46.8732 Stable 0.6892 0.1978 Stable 0.00
LPI 8.5

The Factor of Safety values have further been used to estimate the extent of liquefaction in
terms of Probability of Liquefaction for each insitu soil layer of all the 654 borehole sites along
with the Liquefaction Potential Index and Liquefaction Risk Index of the soil column of top 20 m.
The variation of FOS and the Probability of Liquefaction values with depth for a few representative
sites of Kolkata have been presented in Figure 9.7.
352 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata
353 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata
 354 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.7 Factor of Safety plot with the corresponding Probability of Liquefaction profile for the representative sites
of Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1, green label represents the stable layer with
SPT-N value greater than 35 (Youd et al., 2001) associated with the corresponding sites at (a) Barabazar,
(b) Saltlake, (c) Paikpara, (d) Howrah, (e) Shibpur, (f) Sarsuna, (g) Alipur, (h) Sonarpur, (i) Dum Dum, and (j)
Rajarhat.

The presented FOS plots of Saltlake, Paikpara, Howrah, Shibpur, Sarsuna, Sonarpur and
Rajarhat displays the FOS values attaining its lowest at the average depth range of 5-10 m resulting
in an increase in the Probability of Liquefaction for the same. On the other hand, Barabazar, Alipur
and Dum Dum exhibit all the FOS values greater than 1 thus, resulting in a very low probability
of liquefaction. To understand the behavior of the probability of liquefaction with respect to depth
of the region, its distribution has been plotted on a GIS platform for the four depth ranges: (i) 0-5
m, (ii) 5-10 m, (iii) 10-15 m, and (iv) 15-20 m as shown in Figure 9.8.
 355 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.8 Probability of Liquefaction distribution in Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 for the
depth ranges of (a) 0-5 m: Sparse liquefaction has been observed in eastern and northern part of Kolkata,
(b) 5-10 m: depicts widespread liquefaction especially concentrated in the northeastern part of the City
encompassing Saltlake and New Town. Southeastern and northern part of the City along with few central
regions also displaying high probability of liquefaction, (c) 10-15 m: except a small northeastern part, the
entire City falls in the low probability region, and (d) 15 m & below: Very low probability is observed in
the region for this depth range.
 356 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Sparse liquefaction has been observed in the eastern and northern part of Kolkata for the
depth range of 0-5 m, whereas, for 5-10 m the region depicts widespread liquefaction especially
concentrated in the northeastern part of the City encompassing Saltlake and New Town.
southeastern and northern part of the City along with few central regions also display high
probability of liquefaction. For the depth range of 10-15 m except for a small northeastern part
and Saltlake, the entire City falls in the low probability region. However, very low probability is
observed in the region for the depth range of 15 m & below. The LPI and IR of the aforementioned
locations, presented in Table 9.7 places Barabazar, Alipur and Dum Dum in the Low susceptibility
region and at Low risk due to the 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of Mw 8.1. On the other hand,
Saltlake and Rajarhat falls in High susceptibility zone and are at Very High risk due to the impact
of this earthquake.

Table 9.7 Liquefaction Potential Index and Liquefaction Risk Index associated with the representative sites of
Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1

Location Liquefaction Potential Index Liquefaction Risk Index

Barabazar 0 (Low Susceptibility) 1.7 (Low Risk)
Saltlake 12.2 (High Susceptibility) 34.9 (Extremely High Risk)
Paikpara 3.9 (Moderate Susceptibility) 27.2 (High Risk)
Howrah 2.2 (Moderate Susceptibility) 20.1 (High Risk)
Shibpur 1.9 (Moderate Susceptibility) 17.6 (Low Risk)
Sarsuna 1.3 (Moderate Susceptibility) 16.0 (Low Risk)
Alipur 0 (Low Susceptibility) 0.02 (Low Risk)
Sonarpur 1.6 (Moderate Susceptibility) 11.5 (Low Risk)
Dum Dum 0 (Low Susceptibility) 1.08 (Low Risk)
Rajarhat 8.5 (High Susceptibility) 35.7 (Extremely High Risk)

The spatial distribution of Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) provides the liquefaction
susceptibility map of Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1, shown in Figure 9.9
by categorizing LPI values in four sub-classes: Low (LPI=0), Moderate Susceptibility (0<LPI≤5),
High Susceptibility (5<LPI≤15) and Severe Susceptibility (LPI>15) which places the patches in
Eastern and Central Kolkata encompassing parts of Rajarhat and Gobra in Severely liquefaction
susceptible zone with LPI value greater than 15, while majority of the northeastern and eastern
regions viz. Saltlake, Niccopark, New Town, Baguiati, Baubazar, Dhapa etc. are in the Highly
Liquefaction Susceptible Zone (5<LPI≤15). Patches of Highly Susceptible Liquefaction Zone has
also been observed in central, southwestern and northern regions consisting Belur, Thakurpukur,
Teghari etc. leaving the rest of the city to be associated with the Low Susceptibility Zone (LPI≤5).
 357 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.9 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 prepared by
spatially distributing Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values. An LPI>15 indicates a severe liquefaction
hazard condition, an LPI between 5 and 15 indicates a tendency to liquefy, and LPI <5 depicts a non-
liquefiable condition. All the reported damage sites due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1, marked
as ‘’ falls in Moderate and High Liquefaction Zone.

The Liquefaction Risk Map of Kolkata for 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 displayed
in Figure 9.10 has been generated by classifying Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) in three zones: Low
Risk Zone (IR<20), High Risk Zone (20<IR≤30) and Extreme Risk Zone (IR>30). This map clearly
exhibits Liquefaction Risk Index associated with Rajarhat, Dhapa and patches near Belur and
central Kolkata to be greater than 30 which makes these areas extremely high and sensitive to the
hazards of liquefaction while parts of New Town, Saltlake, Rajarhat, Bagdoba, Sanatanpur are in
high risk zone.
 358 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.10 Liquefaction Risk Map of Kolkata due to 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1 prepared by spatially
distributing Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) values. An IR<20 indicates Low Risk Zone, IR between 20 to 30 is
High Risk Zone whereas, IR>30 depicts Extremely High Risk zone. All the reported damage sites due to
1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake of Mw 8.1, marked as ‘’ falls in High Risk Zone.

9.5.2 Scenario due to 1897 Shillong Earthquake of Mw 8.1

The 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 inflicted Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity of IV–V
in Kolkata and its surrounding region (GSI, 1899; Ambraseys and Bilham, 2003) thus, causing
considerable damage to life and property, therefore demanding its consideration to study
liquefaction potential of the region on the impact of this earthquake. Ground motion at bedrock
level corresponding to the 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 at each borehole site has been
stochastically simulated using EXSIM software by using the earthquake parameters presented in
Table 9.8 and inherited from Nath et al. (2014).
 359 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Table 9.8 Parameters used in stochastic simulation of 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 to assess ground motion
at bedrock level at each borehole site (After Nath et al., 2014)

Earthquake Parameters 1897 Shillong Earthquake of Mw 8.1

Strike 112°
Dip 50°
Focal Depth 35 km
Shear Wave Velocity (β) 3.8 kms-1
Epicenter 26.0°N, 91.0°E
Stress 159 bars
Crustal Density 2.7 g/cm3
Quality Factor 400f 0.48
Damping 5%

Stochastically synthesized ground motions of the considered earthquake convolved with local
site effects generated peak ground acceleration (PGA) depicting a variation of 0.03-0.11g at surface
level. The ground motion at surface level for the representative sites of Kolkata viz. Barabazar (PGA:
0.064g), Saltlake (PGA: 0.080g), Paikpara (PGA: 0.086g), Howrah (PGA: 0.057g), Shibpur (PGA:
0.061g), Sarsuna (PGA: 0.059g), Alipur (PGA: 0.043g), Sonarpur (PGA: 0.061g), Dum Dum (PGA:
0.054g), and Rajarhat (PGA: 0.092g) have been presented in Figure 9.11.
 360 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.11 Stochastically simulated ground motion at bedrock (blue curve) and ground motion at surface (red curve)
corresponding to 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 at representative sites of Kolkata viz. (a) Barabazar
with PGA 0.064g, (b) Saltlake with PGA 0.080g, (c) Paikpara with PGA 0.086g, (d) Howrah with PGA 0.057g,
(e) Shibpur with PGA 0.061g, (f) Sarsuna with PGA 0.059g, (g) Alipur with PGA 0.043g, (h) Sonarpur with
PGA 0.061g, (i) Dum Dum with PGA 0.054g, and (j) Rajarhat with PGA 0.092g.
 361 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

The PGA values extracted from the simulation of 1897 Shillong Earthquake of Mw 8.1 have
been used for the computation of FOS values for each lithological layer of 654 sites. The box
plot of the FOS values against liquefaction due to this earthquake for the four depth ranges i.e.
0-5 m, 5-10 m, 10-15 m and 15 m & below has been generated and depicted in Figure 9.12. The
fundamental statistical elements i.e. minimum value, maximum value, mean value, first quartile
(25th percentile) and third quartile (75th percentile) of FOS values are also shown in the box plot.
It has been observed in these box plots that FOS values are at its lowest, with Factor of Safety less
than 2.5 at most of the sites, with closest interquartile range of 1.5-2.5 for the depth range of 5-10
m. The water table depth of the region has been found to be in the range of 0.5-7.7 m, which makes
the depth range of 5-10 m more likely to liquefy.

Figure 9.12 Box Plot of Factor of Safety for 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 at a depth range of 0-5 m, 5-10 m,
10-15 m and 15 m & below. ‘q1’ and ‘q3’ represents first quartile (25th percentile) and third quartile (75th
percentile) respectively whereas, ‘min’, ‘median’ and ‘max’ indicate minimum, median and maximum value
of computed FOS values.

A representative computation for a borehole located at Rajarhat with PGA of 0.0927g for the
considered scenario is presented in Table 9.9.
 362 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Table 9.9 A representative computation of attributes viz. FOS, PL and LPI to quantify soil liquefaction for Rajarhat
by considering 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1

BH No. 630 GWL 6.4 m PGA 0.0927g

Depth SPT N FC(%) (N1)60 (N1)60cs CRR rd CSR FOS PL
1.95 4 80 6.3236 12.0712 0.1330 0.9967 0.0704 1.8889 0.00
3.45 4 71 5.0072 10.8399 0.1240 0.9884 0.0698 1.7761 0.00
4.95 3 58 3.2067 9.2114 0.1126 0.9787 0.0691 1.6294 0.00
6.45 3 80 3.0202 8.7678 0.1097 0.9679 0.0786 1.3957 0.02
7.95 3 80 2.8638 8.6114 0.1086 0.9560 0.0861 1.2610 0.27
9.45 1 80 0.9200 6.6676 0.0961 0.9430 0.0923 1.0410 9.53
10.95 6 42 5.2445 11.6170 0.1296 0.9292 0.0971 1.3355 0.06
12.45 7 42 5.8341 12.2066 0.1340 0.9145 0.1005 1.3338 0.07
13.95 9 42 7.1708 13.5434 0.1443 0.8992 0.1031 1.3993 0.02
15.45 11 42 8.3899 14.7624 0.1541 0.8834 0.1050 1.4678 0.00
16.95 15 42 10.9560 17.3286 0.1770 0.8671 0.1066 1.6605 0.00
18.45 18 42 12.6115 18.9841 0.1941 0.8507 0.1077 1.8027 0.00
19.45 19 42 12.9616 19.3342 0.1980 0.8396 0.1080 1.8338 0.00
21.45 18 31 11.6804 18.5457 0.1894 0.8177 0.1076 1.7603 0.00
22.95 24 31 15.0177 21.8829 0.2313 0.8014 0.1086 2.1303 0.00
24.45 28 31 16.8966 23.7619 0.2634 0.7857 0.1090 2.4173 0.00
25.5 25 31 14.7205 21.5858 0.2269 0.7749 0.1075 2.1105 0.00
27 26 31 14.8029 21.6682 0.2281 0.7602 0.1069 2.1341 0.00
28.5 30 31 16.5211 23.3864 0.2563 0.7464 0.1071 2.3935 0.00
30 32 31 17.0472 23.9125 0.2664 0.7335 0.1067 2.4975 0.00
31.5 28 31 14.4511 21.3164 0.2230 0.7218 0.1044 2.1360 0.00
33 34 31 17.0238 23.8891 0.2659 0.7114 0.1054 2.5220 0.00
34.5 50 31 24.3182 31.1834 0.5699 0.7024 0.1117 5.1017 0.00
36 54 31 25.5413 32.4066 0.6873 0.6950 0.1133 6.0643 0.00
37.5 59 31 27.1679 34.0332 Stable 0.6892 0.1162 Stable 0.00
39 62 31 27.8218 34.6870 Stable 0.6852 0.1180 Stable 0.00
40.5 76 31 33.2658 40.1311 Stable 0.6831 0.1338 Stable 0.00
42 100 31 42.7319 49.5972 Stable 0.6830 0.1590 Stable 0.00
43.5 59 31 24.6333 31.4986 0.5968 0.6850 0.1161 5.1403 0.00
45 98 31 40.0079 46.8732 Stable 0.6892 0.1674 Stable 0.00
LPI 0
363 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

The Factor of Safety values have further been used to estimate the extent of liquefaction in
terms of Probability of Liquefaction for each layer of all the 654 borehole sites along with the
Liquefaction Potential Index and Liquefaction Risk Index of the top 20 m soil column. The
variation of FOS and the Probability of Liquefaction values with depth for few representative
sites have been presented in Figure 9.13.
364 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata
 365 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Figure 9.13 Factor of Safety plot with the corresponding Probability of Liquefaction curve of representative sites of
Kolkata due to 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1, green label represents the stable layer with SPT-N
value greater than 35 (Youd et al., 2001) associated with corresponding sites at: (a) Barabazar, (b) Saltlake,
(c) Paikpara, (d) Howrah, (e) Shibpur, (f) Sarsuna, (g) Alipur, (h) Sonarpur, (i) Dum Dum, and (j) Rajarhat.

The presented FOS plots of all the representative sites displays the FOS values greater than
1 resulting in very low probability of liquefaction and, therefore, these sites are less likely to
liquefy except for Saltlake, Paikpara and Rajarhat which displays the FOS values attaining its
lowest to the proximity of FOS value 1 at the average depth range of 5-10 m resulting in the
increase in the Probability of Liquefaction. The LPI and IR values of these locations due to the
considered earthquake, presented in Table 9.10 places all the representative sites in Very low to
low susceptibility region and at Low to High risk zones.

Table 9.10 Liquefaction Potential Index and Liquefaction Risk Index associated with the representative sites of
Kolkata due to 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1

Location Liquefaction Potential Index Liquefaction Risk Index

Barabazar 0 ( Low Susceptibility) 0.6 (Low Risk)
Saltlake 2.3 (Moderate Susceptibility) 21.1 (High Risk)
Paikpara 2.4 (Moderate Susceptibility) 23.5 (High Risk)
Howrah 0 (Low Susceptibility) 2.5 (Low Risk)
 366 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

Location Liquefaction Potential Index Liquefaction Risk Index

Shibpur 0 (Low Susceptibility) 8.1 (Low Risk)
Sarsuna 0 (Low Susceptibility) 6.40 (Low Risk)
Alipur 0 (Low Susceptibility) 0.004 (Low Risk)
Sonarpur 0 (Low Susceptibility) 0.86 (Low Risk)
Dum Dum 0 (Low Susceptibility) 0.65 (Low Risk)
Rajarhat 0 (Low Susceptibility) 10.6 (Low Risk)

The spatial distribution of Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) provides the liquefaction
susceptibility map of Kolkata due to 1897 Shillong Earthquake of Mw 8.1, shown in Figure 9.14
which places Dhapa in Severe liquefaction zone (LPI>15), on the other hand, parts of Saltlake and
Dhapa are in the High liquefaction zone (5<LPI≤15), and Beliaghata, Jagtala, Paikpara are in the
Moderate liquefaction zone (0<LPI≤5), the rest of the city falls in Low liquefiable zone (LPI=0)
for this earthquake.

Figure 9.14 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Kolkata due to 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 prepared by spatially
distributing Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) values. An LPI>15 indicates a severe liquefaction hazard
condition, an LPI between 5 and 15 indicates a tendency to liquefy, and LPI <5 depicts a non-liquefiable
condition.
 367 Soil Liquefaction Hazard Assessment for Kolkata

The Liquefaction Risk Map of Kolkata for 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 displayed
in Figure 9.15 has been generated by classifying Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) in three zones:
Low Risk Zone (IR<20), High Risk Zone (20<IR≤30), and Extreme Risk Zone (IR>30). This map
exhibits that Liquefaction Risk Index associated with Dhapa and Topsia falls in the Extremely
High Risk range while IR of Saltlake region is in the High Risk range. Rest of the city is in the Low
Risk range for this earthquake.

Figure 9.15 Liquefaction Risk Map of Kolkata due to 1897 Shillong earthquake of Mw 8.1 prepared by spatially
distributing Liquefaction Risk Index (IR) values. An IR< 20 indicates Low Risk Zone, IR between 20 to 30 is
High Risk Zone whereas, and IR> 30 depicts Extremely High Risk zone.