Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 725–769 | Cite as

Earthquake hazard potential of Indo-Gangetic Foredeep: its seismotectonism, hazard, and damage modeling for the cities of Patna, Lucknow, and Varanasi

  • Sankar Kumar NathEmail author
  • Manik Das Adhikari
  • Soumya Kanti Maiti
  • Chitralekha Ghatak
Original Article
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

The Indo-Gangetic Foredeep region lies in close proximity to the Himalayan collision tectonics and the Peninsular Shield thereby subjecting it to repeated strong ground shaking from large and great earthquakes from these active tectonic regimes. An attempt is, therefore, made to understand the seismotectonic regime of the Indo-Gangetic Foredeep region while performing probabilistic seismic hazard modeling of its important cities of Patna and Lucknow and the religious city of Varanasi based on consideration of seismogenic source characteristics, smoothened gridded seismicity zoning, and generation of next generation ground motion attenuation models appropriate for this region along with other existing region-specific ground motion prediction equations in a logic tree framework. In the hazard modeling, peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5% damped pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) at different time periods for 10 and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years with a return period of 475 and 2475 years have been estimated at firm rock site condition (site class B/C) with an average shear-wave velocity of about 760 m/s, of which, however, the results of only 475 years of return period have been presented here for urban development and earthquake engineering point of view. Surface-consistent probabilistic seismic hazard is modeled using the International Building Code-compliant short and long period site factors corresponding to topographic gradient-derived shear-wave velocity-based site classes. The estimated surface-consistent PGA is seen to vary in the range of 0.222–0.238 g in Patna City, while it varies in the range 0.257–0.295 g in Lucknow and 0.146–0.172 g in the city of Varanasi. The cumulative damage probabilities in terms of ‘none,’ ‘slight,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘extensive,’ and ‘complete’ have been assessed using the capacity spectrum method in the Seismic Loss Estimation Approach (SELENA) using both the fragility and capacity functions for six model building types in these cities. The discrete damage probability exhibits that the building types ‘IGW-RCF2IL (PAGER/FEMA:C1L),’ ‘IGW-RCF21M (PAGER/FEMA:C1M),’ and ‘IGW-RCF11L (PAGER/FEMA:C3L)’ will suffer minimum damage, while ‘IGW-RCF21H (PAGER/FEMA:C1H),’ ‘IGW-RCF11M (PAGER/FEMA:C3M),’ and ‘PAGER/FEMA:C3H’ will suffer extensive damage in the event of a maximum earthquake of Mw 7.2 impacting the terrain as predicted from median nodal maximum magnitudes in a heuristic search in the probabilistic protocol. The estimated probabilistic seismic hazard and damage scenario are expected to play vital roles in the earthquake-inflicted disaster mitigation and management of these cities for better predisaster prevention, preparedness, and postdisaster rescue, relief, and rehabilitation. The results may also be incorporated in the building codal provisions of these smart cities as intended by the Federal Government of India.

Keywords

Probabilistic seismic hazard GMPEs Site condition SELENA Structural damage Indo-Gangetic Foredeep 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The critical review and constructive suggestions of both the anonymous reviewers and the Journal Editorial Board are thankfully acknowledged. Sincere thanks are also due to the handling editor of this manuscript for apt handling of the same.

Funding information

This work has been supported by the Geosciences/Seismology Division of the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, vide sanction order no. CS/EHRA/5/2013 dated: 19/26 June 2014 and 23 June 2015.

References

  1. Abrahamson N, Silva W (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):67–97Google Scholar
  2. Adhikari MD, Nath SK (2016) Site-specific next generation ground motion prediction models for Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya using strong motion seismometry. J Indian Geophys Union 20(2):151–170Google Scholar
  3. Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a - bM and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Instit 43:237–239Google Scholar
  4. Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology: theory and methods. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen TI, Wald DJ (2009) On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (Vs 30). Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:935–943Google Scholar
  6. Allen TI, Gibson G, Brown A, Cull JP (2004) Depth variation of seismic source scaling relations: implications for earthquake hazard in southeastern Australia. Tectonophysics 390:5–24Google Scholar
  7. Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2010) Site response study of deep soil column in Lucknow, India. Recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. May 24-29, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  8. Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013a) Seismic site classification and correlation between standard penetration test N value and shear wave velocity for Lucknow City in Indo-Gangetic Basin. Pure Appl Geophys 170(3):299–318Google Scholar
  9. Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013b) Ground motion prediction equation considering combined dataset of recorded and simulated ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:92–108Google Scholar
  10. Anbazhagan P, Sreenivas M, Ketan B, Moustafa SS, Al-Arifi NSN (2015a) Selection of ground motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis of peninsular India. J Earthq Eng 20(5):699–737Google Scholar
  11. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Patel S (2015b) Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters. Nat Hazards 78(2):1163–1195Google Scholar
  12. Anderson JG, Wesnousky SG, Stirling MW (1996) Earthquake size as a function of fault slip rate. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:683–690Google Scholar
  13. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their applications to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1717Google Scholar
  14. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion predictions for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205Google Scholar
  15. Azzaro R, Ferreli L, Michetti AM, Serva L, Vittori E (1998) Environmental hazard of capable faults: the case of the Pernicana fault, Mt. Etna, Sicily. Nat Hazards 17(2):147–162Google Scholar
  16. Bagchi S, Raghukanth STG (2017) Seismic response of the central part of Indo-Gangetic Plain. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Available at  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1323044
  17. Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b-values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:831–851Google Scholar
  18. Besana GM, Ando M (2005) The central Philippine fault zone: location of great earthquakes, slow events, and creep activity. Earth Planets Space 57:987–994Google Scholar
  19. Bhatia SC, Kumar MR, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofis 42(6):1153–1166Google Scholar
  20. Bhattacharya SN, Suresh G, Mitra S (2009) Lithospheric S-wave velocity structure of the Bastar craton, Indian peninsula, from surface-wave phase-velocity measurements. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4):2502–2508Google Scholar
  21. Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau ‘pop up’ in the great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature 410:806–809Google Scholar
  22. BIS (2002) IS1893-2002 (part 1): Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structure part 1—resistant provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  23. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2006) Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis often lead to increase hazard estimates? Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1967–1977Google Scholar
  24. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341Google Scholar
  25. Cáceres D, Monterroso D, Tavakoli B (2005) Crustal deformation in northern Central America. Tectonophysics 404:119–131Google Scholar
  26. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1012–1033Google Scholar
  27. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:314–331Google Scholar
  28. Cassidy JF, Rogers GC (2004) The Mw 7.9 Denali fault earthquake of 3 November 2002: felt reports and unusual effects across western Canada. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6B):S53–S57Google Scholar
  29. Chadha RK, Srinagesh D, Srinivas D, Suresh G, Sateesh A, Singh SK, Pérez-Campos X, Suresh G, Koketsu K, Masuda T, Domen K, Ito T (2016) CIGN, a strong-motion seismic network in central Indo-Gangetic Plains, foothills of Himalayas: first results. Seismol Res Lett 87(1):37–46Google Scholar
  30. Chandra U (1977) Earthquakes of peninsular India—a seismotectonic study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:1387–1413Google Scholar
  31. Chandra U (1978) Seismicity, earthquake mechanisms and tectonics along the Himalayan mountain range and vicinity. Phys Earth Planet Inter 16(2):109–131Google Scholar
  32. Chiou B, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 24:173–215Google Scholar
  33. Christova C (1992) Seismicity depth pattern, seismic energy and b value depth variation in the Hellenic Wadati-Benioff zone. Phys Earth Planet Inter 72:38–48Google Scholar
  34. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  35. Cornell CA, Vanmarcke EH (1969) The major influence on seismic risk, the 4th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, pp. 69–93Google Scholar
  36. Das S, Henry C (2003) Spatial relation between main earthquake slip and its aftershock distribution. Rev Geophys 41(3)Google Scholar
  37. Das S, Gupta ID, Gupta VK (2006) A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of northeast India. Earthquake Spectra 22:1–27Google Scholar
  38. Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay B (2015) Historiography and commentary from archives on the Kathmandu (Nepal)-India earthquake of 26 August 1833. Indian Journal of History of Science (INSA), 50Google Scholar
  39. Dasgupta S, Pande P, Ganguly D, Iqbal Z, Sanyal K, Venaktraman NV, Dasgupta S, Sural B, Harendranath L, Mazumdar K, Sanyal S, Roy A, Das LK, Misra PS, Gupta H (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geological Survey of India, Calcutta, India, Special Publication 59:–87Google Scholar
  40. Delavaud E, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Riggelsen C (2009) Information-theoretic selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis: an applicability study using Californian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3248–3263Google Scholar
  41. Dietz LD, Ellsworth WL (1990) The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, California, earthquake and its aftershocks: geometry of the sequence from high-resolution locations. Geophys Res Lett 17(9):1417–1420Google Scholar
  42. Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61:41–104Google Scholar
  43. Duggal R, Sato N (1989) Damage report of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of August 21, 1988 (no. 89-2, p. 12), Available at http://www.ers.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/PDF/ERSNo.22/1989-03-No.22-09.pdf
  44. Eguchi RT, Goltz JD, Seligson HA, Flores PJ, Blais NC, Heaton TH, Bortugno E (1997) Real-time loss estimation as an emergency response decision support system: the early post-earthquake damage assessment tool (EPEDAT). Earthquake Spectra 13(4):815–832Google Scholar
  45. Engdahl ER, van der Hilst R, Buland R (1998) Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(3):722–743Google Scholar
  46. Esteva L (1970) Seismic risk and seismic design decisions. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 142–182Google Scholar
  47. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington, D.C., p 356Google Scholar
  48. FEMA N (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—HAZUS 99. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Buildings Sciences, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Frankel A (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 66:8–21Google Scholar
  50. Freeman SA (1978) Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion, publication SP-55. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp 589–605Google Scholar
  51. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1363–1367Google Scholar
  52. Ghatak C, Nath SK, Devaraj N (2017) Earthquake induced deterministic damage and economic loss estimation for Kolkata, India. J Rehabil Civil Eng 5(2):1–24.  https://doi.org/10.22075/jrce.2017.3090.1166 Google Scholar
  53. Ghosh GK, Mahajan SK (2013) Intensity attenuation relation at Chamba–Garhwal area in north-west Himalaya with epicentral distance and magnitude. J Earth Syst Sci 122(1):107–122Google Scholar
  54. Gomberg J, Bodin PP, Reasenberg A (2003) Observing earthquakes triggered in the near field by dynamic deformations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:118–138Google Scholar
  55. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  56. Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2006) New generation of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the area Cologne/Aachen considering the uncertainties of the input data. Nat Hazards 38:159–176Google Scholar
  57. GSI (1939) The Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934. Geol Surv India, Memo 73:391Google Scholar
  58. GSI (1993) Bihar–Nepal earthquake, August 20, 1988. Geol Surv India Spec Publ 31:104Google Scholar
  59. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  60. Hainzl S, Scherbaum F, Beauval C (2006) Estimating background activity based on interevent-time distribution. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:313–320Google Scholar
  61. Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M (2010) ELER software—a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(12):2677–2696Google Scholar
  62. IBC (2006) International Code Council, Inc., Country Club Hills, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  63. IBC (2009) International Code Council, Inc., Country Club Hills, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  64. Iyengar RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87(9):1193–1202Google Scholar
  65. Jaiswal K, Sinha R (2004) Webportal on earthquake disaster awareness in India. Available at www.earthquakeinfo.org
  66. Jaiswal K, Sinha R (2007) Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:318–330Google Scholar
  67. Kanamori H, Anderson DL (1975) Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(5):1073–1095Google Scholar
  68. Kayabalia K, Akin M (2003) Seismic hazard map of Turkey using the deterministic approach. Eng Geol 69:127–137Google Scholar
  69. Kayal JR (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia, Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  70. Khattri KN, Rogers AM, Perkins DM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics 108:93–134Google Scholar
  71. Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude. Pure Appl Geophys 161:1655–1681Google Scholar
  72. Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: part I—estimation of maximum regional magnitude mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 152:413–442Google Scholar
  73. Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2013) Seismic hazard analysis of Lucknow considering local and active seismic gaps. Nat Hazards 69:327–350Google Scholar
  74. Mahajan AK, Thakur VC, Sharma ML, Chauhan M (2010) Probabilistic seismic hazard map of NW Himalaya and its adjoining area, India. Nat Hazards 53(3):443–457Google Scholar
  75. Maiti SK, Nath SK, Adhikari MD, Srivastava N, Sengupta P, Gupta AK (2017) Probabilistic seismic hazard model of West Bengal, India. J Earthq Eng 21:1113–1157Google Scholar
  76. Marin S, Avouac JP, Nicolas M, Schlupp A (2004) A probabilistic approach to seismic hazard in metropolitan France. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2137–2163Google Scholar
  77. Mark RK (1977) Application of linear statistical model of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes. Geology 5:464–466Google Scholar
  78. Martin S, Szeliga W (2010) A catalog of felt intensity data for 570 earthquakes in India from 1636 to 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:562–569Google Scholar
  79. McGuire RK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. US Geological Survey:76–67Google Scholar
  80. Molina S, Lindholm C (2005) A logic tree extension of the capacity spectrum method developed to estimate seismic risk in Oslo, Norway. J Earthq Eng 9(6):877–897Google Scholar
  81. Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36(3):257–269Google Scholar
  82. Monsalve G, Sheehan A, Schulte-Pelkum V, Rajaure S, Pandey MR, Wu F (2006) Seismicity and one-dimensional velocity structure of the Himalayan collision zone: earthquakes in the crust and upper mantle. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111(B10)Google Scholar
  83. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010Google Scholar
  84. Nasu N (1935) The great Indian earthquake of January 15, 1934. Bull Earthq Res Inst 13(2):417–432Google Scholar
  85. Nath SK (2011) Seismic microzonation handbook. © Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  86. Nath SK (2016) Seismic hazard, vulnerability and risk microzonation atlas of Kolkata, © Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New Delhi, 530pGoogle Scholar
  87. Nath SK, Adhikari MD (2013) Next generation attenuation models and time independent probabilistic seismic hazard of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya. Int J Earthq Eng Hazard Mitig 1(1):29–54Google Scholar
  88. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2009) Seismic hazard assessment—a holistic microzonation approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(4):1445–1459Google Scholar
  89. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2011a) Peak ground motion predictions in India: an appraisal for rock sites. J Seismol 15:295–315Google Scholar
  90. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2011b) Assessment of seismic site conditions: a case study from Guwahati city, Northeast India. Pure Appl Geophys 168(10):1645–1668Google Scholar
  91. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2012) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India. Seismol Res Lett 83:135–149Google Scholar
  92. Nath SK, Raj A, Thingbaijam KKS, Kumar A (2009) Ground motion synthesis and seismic scenario in Guwahati city—a stochastic approach. Seismol Res Lett 80(2):233–242Google Scholar
  93. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS, Maiti SK, Nayak A (2012) Ground-motion predictions in Shillong region, northeast India. J Seismol 16:475–488Google Scholar
  94. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS, Adhikari MD, Nayak A, Devaraj N, Ghosh SK, Mahajan AK (2013) Topographic gradient based site characterization in India complemented by strong ground-motion spectral attributes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:233–246Google Scholar
  95. Nath SK, Adhikari MD, Maiti SK, Devaraj N, Srivastava N, Mohapatra LD (2014) Earthquake scenario in West Bengal with emphasis on seismic hazard microzonation of the city of Kolkata, India. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:2549–2575Google Scholar
  96. Nath SK, Mandal S, Adhikari MD, Maiti SK (2017) A unified earthquake catalogue for South Asia covering the period 1900-2014. Nat Hazards 85(3):1787–1810Google Scholar
  97. NDMA (2010) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India, technical report publicized by Govt. of India, New Delhi, Working committee of experts (WCE), NDMA, available at http://www.hpsdma.nic.in/Development %20of%20Probablistic %20Seismic%20Hazard%20Map%20of%20India.pdfGoogle Scholar
  98. Ni J, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone: geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 89(B2):1147–1163Google Scholar
  99. NIBS (2002) Earthquake loss methodology, HAZUS 99, USAGoogle Scholar
  100. Nyffenegger P, Frohlich C (2000) Aftershock occurrence rate decay properties for intermediate and deep earthquake sequences. Geophys Res Lett 27:1215–1218Google Scholar
  101. Okazaki K, Villacis C, Cardona C, Kaneko F, Shaw R, Sun J, ..., Tobin LT (2000) RADIUS: risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters. UN. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). sd Geneva. CH.Google Scholar
  102. Page R (1968) Afetrshocks and micro aftershocks of the great Alaska earthquake of 1964. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(3):1131–1168Google Scholar
  103. Pandey MR, Molnar P (1988) The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J Nepal Geol Soc 5(1):22–44Google Scholar
  104. Parvez IA, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508Google Scholar
  105. Pathak J, Bharali R, Deka B, Pathak S, Ahmed I, Dominik HL, Meslem A (2015) Building classification scheme and vulnerability model for the city of Guwahati, Assam, EQRISK-Technical Report, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301198716
  106. Phillips WM (2011) Redme documentation NEHRP site class map of Teton County, Idaho. Available at http://www.idahogeology.org/PDF/Digital_Data_(D)/Digital_Databases_ (DD)/DD6_Teton_NEHRP_Liquefaction/NEHRP/README_Documentation_NEHRP_Site_Class_Map_Teton_County_Idaho.PDF
  107. Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson NA, Roblee C, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T (2008) An introduction to NGA. Earthquake Spectra 24:3–21Google Scholar
  108. Raghukanth STG, Iyengar RN (2007) Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in peninsular India. Journal of Earth System Science 116:199–214Google Scholar
  109. Raghukanth STG, Kavitha B (2014) Ground motion relations for active regions in India. Pure Appl Geophys 171(9):2241–2275Google Scholar
  110. Rai DC, Singhal V, Raj SB, Sagar SL (2016) Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7. 8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015. Geomat, Nat Haz Risk 7(1):1–17Google Scholar
  111. Reasenberg PA (1985) Second-order moment of Central California seismicity. J Geophys Res 90:5479–5495Google Scholar
  112. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  113. Saaty TL (2000) Models, methods, concepts and application of the analytical hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  114. Saikia CK (2006) Modeling of the 21 May 1997 Jabalpur earthquake in central India: source parameters and regional path calibration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4A):1396–1421Google Scholar
  115. Saragoni GR, Hart GC (1974) Simulation of artificial earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2:249–268Google Scholar
  116. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3234–3247Google Scholar
  117. Schorlemmer D, Neri G, Wiemer S, Mostaccio A (2003) Stability and significance tests for b-value anomalies: example from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Geophys Res Lett 30(16):1835Google Scholar
  118. Schorlemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M (2005) Variations in earthquake size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature 437:539–542Google Scholar
  119. Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Quittmeyer RC (1981) Seismicity and continental subduction in the Himalayan arc, Zagros Hindu Kush Himalaya Geodynamic Evolution. American Geophysics Union 215–242Google Scholar
  120. Sengupta P (2012) Stochastic finite-fault modelling of strong earthquakes in Narmada south fault, Indian shield. J Earth Syst Sci 121(3):837–846Google Scholar
  121. Seyrek E, Tosun H (2011) Deterministic approach to the seismic hazard of dam sites in Kizilirmak basin. Turkey Nat Hazards 59:787–800Google Scholar
  122. Sharma ML, Douglas J, Bungum H, Kotadia J (2009) Ground-motion prediction equations based on data from the Himalayan and Zagros regions. J Earthq Eng 13(8):1191–1210Google Scholar
  123. Shrikhande M, Basu S, Mathur BC, Mathur AK, Das JD, Bansal MK (2000) Strong motion data. Report on Chamoli Earthquake of March 29, 1999. Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, pp 27–43Google Scholar
  124. Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2019–2037Google Scholar
  125. Shukla UK, Raju NJ (2008) Migration of the Ganga river and its implication on hydro-geological potential of Varanasi area, UP, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(4):489–498Google Scholar
  126. Singh DD, Gupta HK (1980) Source dynamics of two great earthquakes of the Indian subcontinent: the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of January 15, 1934 and the Quetta earthquake of May 30, 1935. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:757–773Google Scholar
  127. Singh SK, Ordaz M, Dattatrayam RS, Gupta HK (1999) A spectral analysis of the 21 May 1997, Jabalpur, India, earthquake (Mw 5.8) and estimation of ground motion from future earthquakes in the Indian shield region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(6):1620–1630Google Scholar
  128. Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Seismic hazard analysis of India using areal sources. J Asian Earth Sci 62:647–653Google Scholar
  129. Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S, James N (2015) Probabilistic assessment of surface level seismic hazard in India using topographic gradient as a proxy for site condition. Geosci Front 6(6):847–859Google Scholar
  130. Slemmons DB, McKinney R (1977) Definition of ‘active fault’, Miscellaneous Paper S-77-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Soils and Pavements Laboratory, pp. 23, Vicksburg, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  131. Srinivas D, Srinagesh D, Chadha RK, Ravi Kumar M (2013) Sedimentary thickness variations in the Indo-Gangetic foredeep from inversion of receiver functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:2257–2265Google Scholar
  132. Srivatsava AB (2001) District resource maps of Geological Survey of India, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, available at www.portal.gsi.gov.in
  133. Stork AL, Selby ND, Heyburn R, Searle MP (2008) Accurate relative earthquake hypocenters reveal structure of the Burma subduction zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(6):2815–2827Google Scholar
  134. Thitimakorn T, Channoo S (2012) Shear wave velocity of soils and NEHRP site classification map of Chiang Rai City, northern Thailand. Electron J Geotech Eng 17:2891–2904Google Scholar
  135. Toro GR (2002) Modification of the Toro et al. (1997) Attenuation equations for large magnitudes and short distances, Risk Eng. Inc.Google Scholar
  136. Tsapanos TM (2000) The depth distribution of seismicity parameters estimated for the South American area. Earth Planet Sci Lett 180(1):103–115Google Scholar
  137. Uhrhammer RA (1986) Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity. Earthq Notes 57:21Google Scholar
  138. Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in the formula log N=a-bM showing the magnitude–frequency relation for the earthquakes. Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:99–103Google Scholar
  139. Utsu T (2002) Statistical features of seismicity. Int Geophys Ser 81(A):719–732Google Scholar
  140. Valdiya KS (1976) Himalayan transverse faults and folds and their parallelism with subsurface structures of north Indian plains. Tectonophysics 32(3–4):379–386Google Scholar
  141. Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H (1999) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15(3):557–564Google Scholar
  142. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  143. WHE-PAGER (2008). WHE-PAGER phase 2, development of analytical seismic vulnerability functions. EERI-WHE-US Geological Survey (Available at http://pager.world-housing. net/)Google Scholar
  144. Wong I, Silva W, Bott J, Wright D, Thomas P, Gregor N, Li S, Mabey M, Sojourner A, Wang Y (2000) Earthquake scenario and probabilistic ground shaking maps for the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. Portland Hills fault M, 6Google Scholar
  145. Yeh CH, Jean W, Loh CH (2000) Building damage assessment for earthquake loss estimation in Taiwan. Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vol 30Google Scholar
  146. Yin An, Dubey CS, Kelty TK, Webb, AAG, Harrison TM, Chou CY, Julien C (2009) Geologic correlation of the Himalayan orogen and Indian craton: Part 2. Structural geology, geochronology, and tectonic evolution of the Eastern Himalaya. Geol Soc Am Bull : B26461-1.Google Scholar
  147. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc 97:369–380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations