Microzonation of Seismic Hazard for the State of Haryana, India
Authors
-
Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technical Campus, Greater Noida – 201 306, Uttar Pradesh
Nitish Puri -
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra, Haryana – 136 119
Ashwani Jain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-019-1310-xKeywords:
No Keywords.Abstract
Seismic hazard analysis has been carried out for the state of Haryana using probabilistic approach. An area with a radius of about 300 km around Haryana, between 25° to 33° N latitude and 72° to 81° E longitude, has been considered as seismic study region for the evaluation seismic hazard. The potential seismic hazard of the state is controlled by three different tectonic regimes, Himalayan frontal thrust, Aravalli-Delhi fold belt and Sargodha-Lahore-Delhi ridge. An earthquake catalogue has been developed based on the data from both historic and instrumental periods. The final catalogue has 942 events after it has been homogenized, examined to remove duplicate events, declustered and checked for completeness. The active tectonic features of the study region have been identified by superimposing epicenters of earthquakes on the tectonic map. There are 39 active tectonic features in the study region and 13 features have been identified as potential seismogenic sources. Maximum magnitude potential of the seismogenic sources has been calculated using various methods based on total fault length, sub-surface rupture length and maximum observed magnitude. Seismicity parameters have also been obtained in order to calculate return period corresponding to expected earthquake magnitude. Considering a grid size of 0.1° í— 0.1°, hazard maps have been developed for expected PGA and Sa for return periods of 475 years, 2475 years and 4975 years with 10%, 2% and 1% probability of exceedance respectively in 50 years. It has been observed that the PGA values for the north and northeastern parts of the state range from 0.1g-0.35g and for rest of the areas to be ≤ 0.1g for 10% probability of exceedance in a time frame of 50 years. The PGA map developed for Haryana for the return period of 475 years has been modified for site class D using the amplification factors specified in NEHRP provisions. The PGA value ranging from 0.074g to 0.376g has been observed. The results obtained in the study have been compared with the specifications given in Indian standard code of practice.
Downloads
Metrics
Issue
Section
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
References
Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett., v.68(1), pp.94-127.
Anbazhagan, P., Bajaj, K., Moustafa, S.S.R. and Nassir, S.N.A. (2015a) Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character. Jour. Seismol., v.19(3), pp.695-719.
Anbazhagan, P., Bajaj, K. and Patel, S. (2015b) Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters. Natural Hazards, v.78, pp.1163-1195.
Bonilla, M.G., Mark, R.K. and Lienkaemper, J.J. (1984) Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., v.74(6), pp.2379-2411.
Chandra, U. (1992) Seismotectonics of the Himalaya. Curr. Sci., v.62, pp.4071.
Chopra, S., Kumar, D., Rastogi, B.K., Choudhury, P. and Yadav, R.B.S. (2012) Deterministic seismic scenario for Gujrat region, India. Natural Hazards, v.60, pp.517-540.
Dasgupta, S., Pande, P., Ganguly, D., Iqbal, Z., Sanyal, K., Venkatraman, N.V., Dasgupta, S., Sural, B., Harendranath, L., Mazumdar, K., Sanyal, S., Roy, A., Das, L.K., Misra, P.S. and Gupta, H. (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geol. Surv. India, Calcutta.
Douglas ,J. (2014) Ground motion prediction equations 1964-2014. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
FEMA 450 (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., USA.
FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., USA.
Gardner, J.K. and Knopoff, L. (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California with aftershocks removed, poissonian?. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., v.64(5), pp.1363-1367.
GSI (2012) Geology and mineral resources of Haryana. Geological Survey of India, Miscellaneous Publication No. 30, Part 17, Second Revised Edition, Lucknow.
Gupta, I.D. (2002) The state of the art in seismic hazard analysis. ISET Jour. Earthquake Tech., v.39(4), pp.311-346.
Gupta, A.K., Chopra, S., Prajapati, S.K., Sutar, A.K. and Bansal, B.K. (2013) Intensity distribution of M 4.9 Haryana-Delhi border earthquake. Natural Hazards, v.68(2), pp.405-417.
Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1954) Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
IS:1893-Part 1 (2016) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Iyengar, R.N., Paul, D.K., Bhandari, R.K., Sinha, R., Chadha ,R.K., Pande, P., Murthy, C.V.R., Shukla, A.K., Rao, K.B. and Raghu Kanth, S.T.G. (2011) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India. Technical report. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Kataria, N.P., Shrikhande, M. and Das, J.D. (2013) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Jour. Earthquake and Tsunami, v.7(4), pp.1-19.
Kayal, J.R. (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of south Asia, 1st edn. Springer Verlag and Capital Publishing Company, India.
Kolathayar, S., Sitharam, T.G. and Vipin, K.S. (2012) Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across India and adjoining areas. Natural Hazards, v.60, pp.1365-1379.
Mahajan, A.K., Thakur, V.C., Sharma, M.L. and Chauhan, M. (2010) Probabilistic seismic hazard map of NW Himalaya and its adjoining area, India. Natural Hazards, v.53(3), pp.443-457.
Malik, J.N., Shah, A.A., Sahoo, A.K., Puhan, B., Banerjee, C., Shinde, D..P, Juyal, N., Singhvi, A.K. and Rath, S.K. (2010) Active fault, fault growth and segment linkage along the Janauri anticline (frontal foreland fold), NW Himalaya, India. Tectonophysics, v.483, pp.327-343.
Mark, R.K. (1977) Application of linear statistical model of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquake. Geology, v.5, pp.464-466.
Nath, S.K. and Thingbaijam, K.K.S. (2010) Peak ground motion predictions in India: an appraisal for rock sites. Jour. Seismol., v.15, pp.295-315.
Ordaz, M. and Salgado-Gálvez, M.A. (2017) R-CRISIS validation and verification document. Technical Report. Mexico City, Mexico.
Peltzer, G. and Saucier, F. (1996) Present day kinematics of Asia derived from geological fault rates. Jour. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth Banner, v.101(B12), pp.27943-27956.
Prakash, R. and Shrivastava, J.P. (2012) A review of seismicity and seismotectonics of Delhi and adjoining areas. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.79, pp.603-617.
Puri N. and Jain A. (2016) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis for the state of Haryana, India. Indian Geotech. Jour., v.46(2), pp.164-174.
Puri, N. and Jain, A. (2018) Possible seismic hazards in Chandigarh city of north-western India due to its proximity to Himalayan frontal thrust. Jour. Indian Geophys. Union, v.22(5), pp.485-506.
Sati, D. and Nautiyal, S.P. (1994) Possible role of Delhi-Haridwar subsurface ridge in generation of Uttarkashi earthquake, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Curr. Sci, v.67(1), pp.39-44.
Scordilis, E.M. (2006) Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment magnitude. Jour. Seismol., v.10, pp.225-236.
Sharma, M.L., Wason, H.R. and Dimri, R. (2003) Seismic zonation of Delhi region for bedrock ground motion. Pure Appld. Geophys., v.160, pp.2381-2398.
Sitharam, T.G., Kolathayar, S. and James, N. (2015) Probabilistic assessment of surface level seismic hazard in India using topographic gradient as a proxy for site condition. Geoscience Frontiers, v.6(6), pp.847-859.
Sitharam, T.G. and Sil, A. (2014) Comprehensive seismic hazard assessment of Tripura and Mizoram states. Jour. Earth Syst Sci., v.123(4), pp.837-857.
Stepp, J.C. (1972) Analysis of the completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effects on statistical estimates of earthquakes hazard. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research and Application, Seattle, Washington.
Thaker, T.P., Rathod, G.W., Rao, K.S. and Gupta, K.K. (2012) Use of seismotectonic information for the seismic hazard analysis for Surat city, Gujrat, India: deterministic and probabilistic approach. Pure Appld. Geophys., v.169, pp.37-54.
Tinti, S. and Mulargia, F. (1985) Completeness analysis of a seismic catalog. Annales Geophysicae, v.3(3), pp.407-414.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1997) Regulatory Guide 1.165; identification and characterization of seismic sources and determination of safe shut down (SSE) ground motion. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, USNRC (1997), Regulatory Guide DG-1032 (RG 1.165).
Vakov, A.V. (1996) Relationships between earthquake magnitude, source geometry and slip mechanism. Tectonophysics, v.261(1), pp.97-113.
Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J. (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., v.84(4), pp.974-1002.
Yenier, E., Erdogan, í–. and Akkar, S. (2008) Empirical relationships for magnitude and source-to-site distance conversions using recently compiled Turkish strong-ground motion database. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Paper No. 0301-0013.
