Seismic hazard and risk assessment based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes: thirteen principal urban agglomerations of India

  • Imtiyaz A. Parvez
  • Anastasia Nekrasova
  • Vladimir Kossobokov
Original Paper
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

The deterministic seismic hazard map of India with spatially distributed peak ground acceleration was used to estimate seismic risk using two data sets of the Indian population—the model population data set and the data set based on India’s Census 2011. Four series of the earthquake risk maps of the region based on these two population density sets were cross-compared. The discrepancy of the population data and seismic risks estimation were illuminated for the thirteen principal urban agglomerations of India. The confirmed fractal nature of earthquakes and their distribution in space implies that traditional probabilistic estimations of seismic hazard and risks of cities and urban agglomerations are usually underestimated. The evident patterns of distributed seismic activity follow the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes, USLE, which generalizes Gutenberg–Richter recurrence relation. The results of the systematic global analysis imply that the occurrence of earthquakes in a region is characterized with USLE: log10N (M, L) = A + B × (5 − M) + C × log10L, where N(M, L)—expected annual number of earthquakes of magnitude M within an area of liner size L, A determines seismic static rate, B—balance between magnitude ranges, and C—fractal dimension of seismic loci. We apply the seismic hazard and risk assessment methodology developed recently based on USLE, pattern recognition of earthquake-prone geomorphic nodes, and neo-deterministic scenarios of destructive ground shaking. Objects of risk are individuals (1) as reported in the 2011 National Census data and (2) as predicted for 2010 by Gridded Population of the World (model GPWv3); vulnerability depends nonlinearly on population density. The resulting maps of seismic hazard and different risk estimates based on population density are cross-compared. To avoid misleading interpretations, we emphasize that risk estimates presented here for academic purposes only. In the matter of fact, they confirm that estimations addressing more realistic and practical kinds of seismic risks should involve experts in distribution of objects of risk of different vulnerability, i.e., specialists in earthquake engineering, social sciences, and economics.

Keywords

Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment (NDSHA) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE) Earthquake risk Population density PGA and vulnerability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grants: DST No. INT/RFBR/P-176 and RFBR No. 14-05-92691, 15-55-45005).

References

  1. Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88:178501–178504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia SC, Kumar R, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofis 42:1153–1164Google Scholar
  3. Center for International Earth Science Information Network—CIESIN—Columbia University, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical—CIAT (2005) Gridded population of the world, version 3 (GPWv3): population density grid, future estimates. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Palisades.  https://doi.org/10.7927/H4ST7MRB Google Scholar
  4. Gaur VK, Chouhan RKS (1968) Quantitative measures of seismicity applied to Indian regions. Bull Indian Soc Earthq Technol 5:63–78Google Scholar
  5. Guha SK (1962) Seismic regionalization of India. In: Proceedings of second symposium on earthquake engineering, Roorkee, pp 191–207Google Scholar
  6. Haldar P, Singh Y, Lang DH, Paul DK (2013) Comparison of seismic risk assessment based on macroseismic intensity and spectrum approaches using ‘SeisVARA’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 48:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaila KL, Rao M (1979) Seismic zoning maps of Indian subcontinent. Geophys Res Bull 17:293–301Google Scholar
  8. Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1989) On similarity in spatial distribution of seismicity. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Levshin AL (eds) Theory and algorithms of interpretation of geophysical data. Nauka, Moscow, pp 28–40 (Computational Seismology 22, in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Khattri KN, Rogers AM, Perkins DM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics 108:93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kossobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1994) On similarity in the spatial distribution of seismicity. Comput Seismol Geodyn 1:6–15Google Scholar
  11. Lang DH, Singh Y, Prasad JSR (2012) Comparing empirical and analytical estimates of earthquake loss assessment studies for the city of Dehradun, India. Earthq Spectra 28:595–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lyubushin AA, Parvez IA (2010) Map of seismic hazard of India using Bayesian approach. Nat Hazards 55(2):543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nath SK, Adhikari MD, Devaraj N, Maiti SK (2014) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of Kolkata city, India. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:3015–3063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V, Parvez IA, Tao X (2015) Seismic hazard and risk assessment based on the unified scaling law for earthquakes. Acta Geod Geophys 50(1):21–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-014-0082-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Panza GF, Romanelli F, Vaccari F (2001) Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory and application to seismic zonation. In: Dmowska R, Saltzman B (eds) Advances in geophysics, vol 43. Academic, San Diego, pp 1–95Google Scholar
  16. Panza G, Irikura K, Kouteva-Guentcheva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (eds) (2011) Advanced seismic hazard assessment. Pure appl Geophys 168(1–4), 752pGoogle Scholar
  17. Panza GF, La Mura C, Peresan A, Romanelli F, Vaccari F (2012) Seismic hazard scenarios as preventive tools for a disaster resilient society. Adv Geophys 53:93–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Panza GF, Peresan A, La Mura C (2013) Seismic hazard and strong ground motion: an operational neo-deterministic approach from national to local scale. In: UNESCO-EOLSS Joint Committee (ed) Geophysics and geochemistry. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed under the auspices of the UNESCO. EOLSS Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Parvez IA (2007) On the Bayesian analysis of the earthquake hazard in the North-East Indian Peninsula. Nat Hazard 40(2):397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parvez IA, Ram A (1997) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the north-east Indian Peninsula and Hidukush region. Pure appl Geophys 149:731–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parvez IA, Ram A (1999) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian Subcontinent. Pure appl Geophys 154:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parvez IA, Vaccari Franco, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parvez IA, Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2014) Estimation of seismic hazard and risks for the Himalayas and surrounding regions based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Nat Hazards 71:549–562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0926-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parvez IA, Magrin A, Vaccari F et al (2017a) Neo-deterministic seismic hazard scenarios for India—a preventive tool for disaster mitigation. J Seismol 21(6):1559–1575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9682-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parvez IA, Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2017b) Earthquake hazard and risk assessment based on unified scaling law for earthquakes: state of Gujarat, India. Pure appl Geophys 174(3):1441–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1475-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prasad JSR, Singh Y, Kaynia AM, Lindholm C (2009) Socioeconomic clustering in seismic risk assessment of urban housing stock. Earthq Spectra 25:619–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wyss M, Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2012) Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates. Nat Hazards 62(3):927–935.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0125-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imtiyaz A. Parvez
    • 1
  • Anastasia Nekrasova
    • 2
  • Vladimir Kossobokov
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.CSIR Fourth Paradigm Institute (Formerly CSIR C-MMACS)BangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, RASMoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Institut de Physique du Globe de ParisParisFrance
  4. 4.International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSOArsitaItaly

Personalised recommendations