International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application

Liquefaction Susceptibility Assessment, Ground Improvement Efficacy, and Residual Settlement Prediction for Loose Sandy Deposits Along the Sabarmati Riverbank Corridor Using In-Situ Testing, Laboratory Cyclic Triaxial Investigations, and Numerical Modelling Devashish Bhattacharya

Author(s):Devashish Bhattacharya

Affiliation: Department of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India Collaborating Institution: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Page No: 14-20

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3, Issue 6, 2026/06/05

Journal: International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application (IJAEA)

ISSN NO: 3048-6807

DOI:

Download PDF Cite this article

Abstract:
The 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) triggered widespread liquefaction across the Rann of Kutch and the Sabarmati alluvial basin, causing differential settlements of 0.3–1.8 m, lateral spreading of up to 4 m, and structural damage to more than 18,000 buildings underlain by loose to medium-dense Holocene sandy deposits. Despite two decades of post-Bhuj geotechnical investigation, systematic characterisation of residual liquefaction susceptibility across the Sabarmati riverbank corridor — a zone of active urban expansion in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar where metro rail infrastructure, industrial parks, and residential high-rises are under construction — has not been conducted using the combined in-situ and laboratory framework required to support performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) design. This study presents: (i) a comprehensive liquefaction susceptibility zonation of a 48 km reach of the Sabarmati corridor based on 186 Cone Penetration Tests (CPT), 42 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), and 28 Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) profiles obtained from Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) surveys; (ii) cyclic triaxial test results for undisturbed tube samples from 14 critical sites, determining Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) curves and post-liquefaction volumetric strain relationships; and (iii) numerical simulation of liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading using the PM4Sand constitutive model in PLAXIS 2D, calibrated to the CPT and cyclic triaxial data, for four representative cross-sections under peak ground acceleration (PGA) scenarios of 0.16g, 0.24g, and 0.36g consistent with IS 1893:2016 seismic zone IV hazard levels.
Results identify 62% of the investigated corridor as highly susceptible to liquefaction at 0.24g PGA, with Factor of Safety against liquefaction (FSL) below 1.0 in the upper 6 m for 34% of CPT soundings. Ground improvement efficacy of stone column densification and compaction grouting was evaluated through before-and-after CPT measurements at six instrumented trial sites, demonstrating FSL improvements of 1.4–2.1 times in densified zones with effective treatment radii of 1.2–1.8 m for stone columns at 2.0 m triangular grid spacing. PM4Sand finite element simulations predict maximum post-earthquake settlements of 0.42 m and lateral displacements of 0.68 m at the critical Vasna Barrage cross-section under 0.36g PGA — findings that underpin the GSDMA's revised ground improvement specification for metro rail pile foundations in the affected corridor.

Keywords: soil liquefaction, Sabarmati riverbank, CPT, cyclic triaxial test, PM4Sand, PLAXIS, stone columns, compaction grouting, performance-based earthquake engineering, Ahmedabad, IS 1893, ground improvement

Reference:

• 1. Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, I. M. (2014). CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. University of California Davis.
• 2. Boulanger, R. W., & Ziotopoulou, K. (2017). PM4Sand (Version 3.1): A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Report No. UCD/CGM-17/01. University of California Davis.
• 3. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 — Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. BIS.
• 4. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1981). IS 2131:1981 — Method for standard penetration test for soils (1st rev.). BIS.
• 5. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA). (2024). Revised Ground Improvement Guidelines for Seismic Zone IV Urban Sites. GSDMA Technical Report GT-2024-01.
• 6. Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph MNO-12.
• 7. Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., Stewart, J. P., Der Kiureghian, A., & Cetin, K. O. (2006). CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(8), 1032-1051.
• 8. Polito, C. P., & Martin, J. R. (2001). Effects of nonplastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(5), 408-415.
• 9. Priebe, H. J. (1995). The design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineering, 28(10), 31-37.
• 10. Robertson, P. K., & Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3), 442-459.
• 11. Thevanayagam, S., Shenthan, T., Mohan, S., & Liang, J. (2002). Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(10), 849-859.
• 12. Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H. B. (1987). Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878.
• 13. Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. M., & Bartlett, S. F. (2002). Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(12), 1007-1017.
• 14. Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., & Stokoe, K. H. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10), 817-833.
• 15. Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., Wald, D. J., & Knudsen, K. L. (2015). A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1813-1837.