Natural Hazards

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 245–260 | Cite as

First Order Seismic Microzonation of Delhi, India Using Geographic Information System (GIS)

  • William K. Mohanty
  • M. Yanger Walling
  • Sankar Kumar Nath
  • Indrajit Pal


A first order seismic microzonation map of Delhi is prepared using five thematic layers viz., Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) contour, different soil types at 6 m depth, geology, groundwater fluctuation and bedrock depth, integrated on GIS platform. The integration is performed following a pair-wise comparison of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), wherein each thematic map is assigned weight in the 5-1 scale: depending on its contribution towards the seismic hazard. Following the AHP, the weightage assigned to each theme are: PGA (0.333), soil (0.266), geology (0.20), groundwater (0.133) and bedrock depth (0.066). The thematic vector layers are overlaid and integrated using GIS. On the microzonation theme, the Delhi region has been classified into four broad zones of vulnerability to the seismic hazard. They are very high (> 52%), high (38–52%), moderate (23–38%) and less ( < 23%) zones of seismic hazard. The “very high” seismic hazard zone is observed where the maximum PGA varies from 140 to 210 gal for a finite source model of Mw 8.5 in the central seismic gap. A site amplification study from local and regional earthquakes for Delhi region using Delhi Telemetry Network data shows a steeper site response gradient in the eastern side of the Yamuna fluvial deposits at 1.5 Hz. The ‘high’ seismic hazard zone occupies most of the study area where the PGA value ranges from 90 to 140 gal. The ‘moderate’ seismic hazard zone occurs on either side of the Delhi ridge with PGA value varying from 60 to 90 gal. The ‘less’ seismic hazard zone occurs in small patches distributed along the study area with the PGA value less than 60 gal. Site response studies, PGA distribution and destruction pattern of the Chamoli earthquake greatly corroborate the seismic hazard zones estimated through microzonation on GIS platform and also establishes the methodology incorporated in this study.


seismic microzonation GIS integration PGA AHP seismic hazard 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avouac J. and Tapponnier P. (1993). Kinematic model of active deformation in central Asia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20: 895–898Google Scholar
  2. Bilham R. and Gaur V. K. (2000). The geodetic contribution to Indian seismotectonics. Current Sci. 79: 1259–1269Google Scholar
  3. Bilham R., Blume F., Bendick R. and Gaur V. K. (1998). The geodetic constraints on the translation and deformation of India: Implications for future great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Sci. 74: 213–229Google Scholar
  4. Bilham R., Gaur V. K. and Molnar P. (2001). Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293: 1442–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilham R. (1995). Location and magnitude of the Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupture zones of the contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Sci. 69: 101–128Google Scholar
  6. BIS: 2002, IS 1893–2002 (Part 1): Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 – General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandra U. (1992). Seismotectonics of the Himalaya. Current Sci. 62: 40–71Google Scholar
  8. Chauhan P. K. S., Mohanty W. K. and Roonwal G. S. (1998). Earthquake Hazards in area of low seismicity: An example from NE. Available in Delphi region. The Indian Precambrian. Sci. Publ., Jodhpur, 523–530Google Scholar
  9. DeMets C., Gordon. R. G., Argus D. F. and Stein S. (1994). Effect of recent version to the geomagnetism reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 21: 2191–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gahalaut V. K. and Chander R. (1997). On interseismic elevation change and strain accumulation for great thrust earthquakes in the Nepal Himalaya. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24: 1101–1014Google Scholar
  11. Gansser A. (1964). Geology of the Himalayas. Interscience, New York, 289Google Scholar
  12. GSI Report: 2000, A Geoseismological report on Chamoli earthquake of March 29, 1999Google Scholar
  13. Jain, S. K., Murty, C. V. R., Arlekar, J., Rajendran, C. P., Rajendran, K., and Sinha, R.: 1999, Special Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), California 33, 1–8Google Scholar
  14. Kamble, V. P. and Chaudhury, H. M.: 1979, Recent seismic activity in Delhi and neighborhood. Mausam 30, 2&3, 305–312Google Scholar
  15. Khattri K. N. (1999). An evaluation of the earthquake hazard and risk in northern India. Himalayan Geol. 20: 1–46Google Scholar
  16. Kumar, S., Chandra, P., Srivastava, S. S., Kar, S. K., Sharma, V. K., Sanwal, R. K., Ram, S., Dungrakoti, B. D., Khan, E. A., and Baranwal, M.: 1997, Contributions of Geological Survey of India in Delhi AreaA Resume, 1–37Google Scholar
  17. Lyon-Caen H. and Molnar P. (1985). Gravity anomalies, flexure of the Indian plate and structure, support, and evolution of the Himalaya and Ganga basin. Tectonics 4: 513–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohanty, W. K. 1997, Seismicity and related studies of Delhi and the adjoining region, Unpublished. PhD Thesis, Delhi University, India, 139Google Scholar
  19. Molnar, P. and Chen, W. P.: 1982, Seismicity and mountain building. In: K. Hsu (ed.), Mountain Building Processes. Academic, New York, pp. 41–57Google Scholar
  20. Nath S. K., Sengupta P., Srivastav S. K., Bhattacharya S. N., Dattatrayam R. S., Prakash R. and Gupta H. V. (2003). Estimation of S-wave site response and around Delhi region from weak motion data, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Earth and Planet. Sci.), 112, No. 3, Sept. 2003, 441–462Google Scholar
  21. Nath S. K. (2004). Seismic hazard mapping in the Sikkim Himalaya through GIS integration of site effects and strong ground motion attributes. Nat. Hazards 31(2): 319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rajendran C. P. and Rajendran K. (2005). The status of central seismic gap: A perspective based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan earthquakes. Tectonophysics 395: 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rajendran K., Rajendran C. P., Jain S. K., Murty C. V. R. and Arlekar J. N. (2000). The Chamoli earthquake, Garhwal Himalaya: Field observations and implications for seismic hazard. Current Sci. 78(1): 45–51Google Scholar
  24. Seeber, L. and Armbruster, J. G.: 1981, Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long-term forecasting, in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, Maurice Ewing Series 4. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 259–277Google Scholar
  25. Singh S. K., Mohanty W. K., Bansal B. K. and Roonwal G. S. (2002). Ground motion in Delhi from future large/great earthquakes in the central seismic gap of the Himalayan arc. Bull. Seismological Soc America 92(2): 555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verma R. K., Roonwal G. S., Kamble V. P., Mohanty W. K., Dutta U., Gupta Y., Chatterjee D., Kumar N. and Chauhan P. K. S. (1995). Seismicity of Delhi and its surrounding region. J. Himalayan Geology 6(1): 75–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • William K. Mohanty
    • 1
  • M. Yanger Walling
    • 1
  • Sankar Kumar Nath
    • 1
  • Indrajit Pal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations