Journal of the Geological Society of India

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 297–308 | Cite as

Microzonation of Seismic Hazard for the State of Haryana, India

  • Nitish PuriEmail author
  • Ashwani JainEmail author
Research Articles


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° × 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Authors would like to acknowledge Department of Science and Technology (DST), Ministry of Science and Technology, India for providing financial assistance to carry out the study under INSPIRE Fellowship Scheme (Candidate Code IF130892). Authors are thankful to Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Delhi for providing data for preparing earthquake catalogue of the study region. Authors would like to thank Mr. Bob Simons, Employee, CoHort Software for providing CoPlot and CoStat softwares for scientific graphing and mathematical analysis. Authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments towards improving the quality of the manuscript.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Chandra, U. (1992) Seismotectonics of the Himalaya. Curr. Sci., v.62, pp.40–71.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, J. (2014) Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2014. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. GSI (2012) Geology and mineral resources of Haryana. Geological Survey of India, Miscellaneous Publication No. 30, Part 17, Second Revised Edition, Lucknow.Google Scholar
  13. Gupta, I.D. (2002) The state of the art in seismic hazard analysis. ISET Jour. Earthquake Tech., v.39(4), pp.311–346.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1954) Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Kayal, J.R. (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of south Asia, 1st edn. Springer Verlag and Capital Publishing Company, India.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ordaz, M. and Salgado-Gálvez, M.A. (2017) R-CRISIS validation and verification document. Technical Report. Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Scordilis, E.M. (2006) Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment magnitude. Jour. Seismol., v. 10, pp.225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tinti, S. and Mulargia, F. (1985) Completeness analysis of a seismic catalog. Annales Geophysicae, v.3(3), pp.407–414.Google Scholar
  38. 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).Google Scholar
  39. Vakov, A.V. (1996) Relationships between earthquake magnitude, source geometry and slip mechanism. Tectonophysics, v.261(1), pp.97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Yenier, E., Erdogan, Ö. 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. 03-01-0013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geol. Soc. India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringDelhi Technical CampusGreater NoidaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringNIT KurukshetraKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations