Journal of Seismology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 345–369 | Cite as

Stochastic ground-motion simulation of two Himalayan earthquakes: seismic hazard assessment perspective

Original article


The earthquakes in Uttarkashi (October 20, 1991, M w 6.8) and Chamoli (March 8, 1999, M w 6.4) are among the recent well-documented earthquakes that occurred in the Garhwal region of India and that caused extensive damage as well as loss of life. Using strong-motion data of these two earthquakes, we estimate their source, path, and site parameters. The quality factor (Q β ) as a function of frequency is derived as Q β (f) = 140f 1.018. The site amplification functions are evaluated using the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio technique. The ground motions of the Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes are simulated using the stochastic method of Boore (Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894, 1983). The estimated source, path, and site parameters are used as input for the simulation. The simulated time histories are generated for a few stations and compared with the observed data. The simulated response spectra at 5% damping are in fair agreement with the observed response spectra for most of the stations over a wide range of frequencies. Residual trends closely match the observed and simulated response spectra. The synthetic data are in rough agreement with the ground-motion attenuation equation available for the Himalayas (Sharma, Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1063–1069, 1998).


Strong ground motion Site amplification Stochastic simulation Response spectra 



Thanks are due to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions for improving the article. We are also thankful to the Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee and the Indian Meteorological Department for providing Earthquake data. The support of the Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation & Management, IIT Roorkee is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Aki K (1980) Attenuation of shear waves in the lithosphere of frequencies from 0.05 to 25 Hz. Phys Earth Planet Interiors 21:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson GM (1984) Attenuation of strong ground motion in Canada from a random vibration approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74:2629–2653Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson GM (2004) Empirical attenuation of ground-motion spectral amplitudes in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1079–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:17–30Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson GM, Cassidy J (2000) Integrated use of seismograph and strong motion data to determine soil amplification in the Fraser delta: results from Duvall and Georgia state earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beresnev IA, Atkinson GM (2002) Source parameters of earthquakes in eastern and western North America based on finite-fault modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:695–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894Google Scholar
  9. Boore DM (1986) The effect of finite bandwidth on seismic scaling relationships. In: Das S, Boatwright J, Scholz C (eds) Earthquake source mechanics, geophysical monograph 37. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, pp 275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brune JN (1971) Corrections. J Geophys Res 76(26):6488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandrasekaran AR, Das JD (1992) Analysis of strong motion accelerogram of Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20, 1991. Bull Indian Soc of Earthq Tech 29(1):35–55Google Scholar
  13. Dewey JF, Bird JM (1970) Mountain belts and new global tectonics. J Geophys Res 75:2625–2647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankel A (1995) Simulating strong motions of large earthquakes using recordings of small earthquakes—the Loma Prieta main-shock as a test case. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1144–1160Google Scholar
  15. Gupta SC, Kumar A (2002) Seismic wave attenuation characteristics of three Indian regions: a comparative study. Curr Sci 82:407–413Google Scholar
  16. Gupta SC, Teotia SS, Rai SS, Gautam N (1998) Coda Q estimates in the Koyna region, India. Pure and Appl Geophys 153:713–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta SC, Singh VN, Kumar A (1995) Attenuation of coda waves in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. Phys of Earth and Planet Interiors 87(3):247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanks TC, McGuire RK (1981) The character of high frequency strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2071–2095Google Scholar
  19. Hermann RB (1985) An extension of random vibration theory estimated of strong ground motion to large distances. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1447–1553Google Scholar
  20. Huang CH, Teng TL (1999) An evaluation of H/V ratio vs. spectral ratio for the site-response estimation using the 1994 Northridge earthquake sequences. Pure and App Geophys 156:631–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joshi A (2004) A simplified technique for simulating wide-band strong ground motion for two recent earthquakes. Pure and App Geophys 161:1777–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshi A (2006) Use of acceleration spectra for determining the frequency dependent attenuation coefficient and source parameter. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2165–2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khattri KN, Chander R, Gaur VK, Sarkar I, Kumar S (1989) New seismological results on the tectonics of the Garhwal Himalaya. Proc Indian Acad Earth Planet Sci 98:91–109Google Scholar
  24. Kumar N, Parvez IA, Virk HS (2004) Estimation of coda waves attenuation for NW Himalayan region using local earthquakes, research report CM-0404, C MMACS, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar D, Sarkar I, Sriram V, Khattri KN (2005) Estimation of the source parameters of the Himalaya earthquake of October 19, 1991, average effective shear wave attenuation parameter and local site effects from accelerogram. Tectonophysics 407:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langston CA, Chi Chiu SC, Lawrence Z (2010) Array observations of micro-seismic noise and the nature of H/V in the Mississippi embayment. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5):2893–2911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Le fort P (1975) Himalaya, the collided range. Am J Sci 278:1–44Google Scholar
  28. Lermo L, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1993) Site effect evaluation using spectral ratio with only one station. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:1574–1594Google Scholar
  29. Mandal P, Rastogi BK (1998) A frequency-dependent relation of coda Qc for Koyna Warna region, India. Pure Appl Geophys 153:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molnar P, Tapponnier P (1975) Cenozoic tectonics of Asia: effect of continental collision. Science 489:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Motazedian D (2006) Region specific key seismic parameters of earthquakes in northern Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1383–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakamura Y (1989) A method of dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using micro-tremor on the ground surface. Quarterly Report on Railroad Research 30:25–33Google Scholar
  34. Narula PL (1992) Neo-tectonic activity, seismicity and related contemporary deformation in the NW Himalaya. Intl Symp on Himalayan Geology, Shimate, Japan, pp 33–36Google Scholar
  35. Paul A, Gupta SC, Pant CC (2003) Coda Q estimate from Kumaon Himalaya. Proc Ind Acad Soc Earth Planet Sc 112:569–678Google Scholar
  36. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) A computer program of earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no. EERC72-12, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma ML (1998) Attenuation relationship for estimation of peak ground horizontal acceleration using data from strong motion arrays in India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1063–1069Google Scholar
  38. Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long term earthquake prediction: an international review. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 259–277Google Scholar
  39. Silva W, Gregor N, Darragh R (2002) Department of Regional Hard Rock Attenuation Relations for Central and Eastern North America.
  40. Singh SK, Ordaz M, Dattatrayam RS, Gupta HK (1999) A spectra 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
  41. Singh SK, Garcia D, Pacheo JF, Valenzuela R, Bansal BK, Dattatrayam RS (2004) Q of Indian shield. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1564–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suzuki T, Adachi Y, Tanaka M (1995) Application of micro tremor measurement to the estimation of earthquake ground motion in Kushiro City during the Kushiro-Oki earthquake of 15 January 1993. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:595–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thakur VC (1993) Geology of Western Himalaya. Pergman, Oxford, p 355Google Scholar
  44. Thakur VC, Kumar S (1995) Seismotectonics of the 20 October 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake in Garhwal Himalaya, North India. Memoir Geol Soc of India 30:101–108Google Scholar
  45. Theodulis NP, Bard PY (1995) Horizontal to vertical spectral ratio and geological conditions: an analysis of strong motion data from Greece and Taiwan (SMART-1). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14:177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toro GR, McGuire RK (1987) An investigation into earthquake ground motion characteristics in the eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:468–489Google Scholar
  47. Valdiya KS (1988) Tectonics and evolution of the central sector of the Himalaya. Phil Trans Roy Soc London A 326:801–803Google Scholar
  48. Vladimir Yu, Sokolov Chin-Hsiung Loh, Jean Wen-Yu (2007) Application of horizontal to-vertical (H/V) Fourier spectral ratio for analysis of site effect on rock (NEHRP-class B) sites in Taiwan. Soil Dyn and Earthq Eng 27(4):314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu G, Khattri KN, Anderson JG, Brune JN, Zeng Y (1995) Strong ground motion from the Uttarkashi, Himalaya, India Earthquake: comparison of observation with synthetics using the composite source model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:31–50Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earthquake EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations