Natural Hazards

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 1105–1123 | Cite as

Surface displacement estimation along Himalayan frontal fault using differential SAR interferometry

  • Atanu Bhattacharya
  • Mukat L. Sharma
  • Manoj K. Arora
Original Paper


The Himalayan region has been studied extensively during the past few decades in terms of present ongoing deformations. Various models have been proposed for the evolution of the Himalaya to explain the cause of earthquake occurrences and to understand the seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone. However, the information on displacements from field geodetic surveys is still too scarce in time and spatial domains so as to provide convincing evidences. Moreover, classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Approaches also fail due to paucity of data in higher magnitude range, thus emphasizing the need of spatial level displacement measurements. It is in this context that the present study has been carried out to estimate the surface displacement in a seismically active region of the Himalaya between Ganga and Yamuna Tear using Differential SAR interferometry. Three single-look complex images, obtained from ASAR sensor onboard ENVISAT satellite, have been used. A displacement rate of 8–10 mm per year in N15°E direction of Indian plate has been obtained in this three-pass SAR interferometry study. It has been noted that the estimated convergence rate using Differential SAR interferometry technique is relatively low in comparison with those obtained from previous classical studies. The reported low convergence rate may be due to occurrence of silent/quite earthquakes, aseismic slip, differential movement of Delhi Hardwar ridge, etc. Therefore, in view of the contemporary seismicity and conspicuous displacements, a study of long-term observations of this surface movement has been recommended in future through a time-series SAR interferometry analysis.


Himalayan frontal fault (HFF) Differential SAR interferometry (DInSAR) Minimum cost flow (MCF) Aseismic slip 



The SAR images have been procured by Eurimage S.p.A Club, Rome, Italy for the research work. The processing has been done on GAMMA_ISP/DIFF_GEO software procured under Department of Science and Technology (DST) funded research scheme.


  1. Avouac JP, Tapponnier P (1993) Kinematic model of active deformation in central Asia. Geophys Res Lett 20:895–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker DM, Lillie RJ, Yeats RS, Johnson GD, Yousuf M, Zamin ASH (1988) Development of the Himalayan frontal thrust zone: salt range, Pakistan. Geology 16:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee P, Burgmann R (2002) Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS measurements. Geophys Res Lett 29(13):1652–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechor NBD, Zebker HA (2006) Measuring two dimensional movements using a single InSAR pair. Geophys Res Lett 33(L1):6311–6316Google Scholar
  5. Besse J, Courtillot V (1988) Paleogeographic maps of the continents bordering the Indian Ocean since the early Jurassic. J Geophys Res 93(B10):11791–11808Google Scholar
  6. Bhattacharya A, Arora MK, Sharma ML (2012a) Usefulness of SAR interferometry for DEM generation and estimation of land surface displacement in Jharia coal field area. Geocarto Int 27(1):57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharya A, Arora MK, Sharma ML (2012b) Improved digital elevation model creation using SAR interferometry in plane and undulating terrains. Himalayan Geol 33(1):29–44Google Scholar
  8. Bilham R, Ambraseys N (2005) Apparent Himalayan slip deficit from the summation of seismic moments for Himalayan earthquakes 1500–2000. Curr Sci 88(10):1658–1663Google Scholar
  9. Bilham R, Gaur VK (2000) Geodetic contributions to the study of seismotectonics in India. Curr Sci 79(9):1259–1269Google Scholar
  10. Bilham R, Larson K, Freymueller J (1997) GPS measurements of present-day convergence across the Nepal Himalaya. Nature 386:61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bilham R, Blume F, Bendick R, Gaur VK (1998) Geodetic constraints on the translation and deformation of India, implications for future great Himalayan earthquakes. Curr Sci 74(3):213–229Google Scholar
  12. Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293:1442–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgmann R, Ayhan ME, Fielding EJ, Wright TJ, McClusky S, Aktug B, Demir C, Lenk O, Turkezer A (2002) Deformation during the 12 November 1999 Düzce, Turkey, Earthquake, from GPS and InSAR Data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterjee RS, Fruneau B, Rudant JP, Roy PS, Frison PL, Lekhera RC, Dadhwal VK, Saha R (2006) Subsidence of Kolkata (Calcutta) city, India during the 1990 s as observed from space by differential synthetic aperture radar interferometry (D-InSAR) technique. Remote Sens Environ 102:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costantini M (1998) A novel phase unwrapping method based on network programming. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 36(3):813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey JF, Cande S, Pitman WC (1989) The tectonic evolution of the India/Eurasia collision zone. Ecolgae Geologicae Halvetiae 82(3):717–734Google Scholar
  17. Ding XL, Li ZW, Zhu JJ, Feng GC, Long JP (2008) Atmospheric effects on InSAR measurements and their mitigation. Sensor 8:5426–5448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein RM, Werner CL (1998) Radar interferogram filtering for geophysical applications. Geophys Res Lett 25(21):4035–4038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanssen RF (2001) Radar Interferometry, data interpretation and error analysis. Kluwer Academic, Netherlands, pp 53–54Google Scholar
  20. Jackson ME, Bilham R (1994) 1991–1992 GPS measurements across the Nepal Himalaya. Geophys Res Lett 21(12):1169–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Just D, Bamler R (1994) Phase statistics of interferograms with applications to synthetic-aperture radar. Appl Opt 33(20):4361–4368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar S, Wesnousky SG, Rockwell TK, Ragona D, Thakur VC, Seitz GG (2001) Earthquake recurrence and rupture dynamics of himalayan frontal thrust, India. Science 294:2328–2331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Wesnousky SG, Rockwell TK (2003) The Himalayan frontal thrust (HFT) is not blind. Earthquake geology in reverse faulting terrains, Seattle annual meeting, session 24, Washington, November 2–5Google Scholar
  24. Kumar S, Wesnousky SG, Rockwell TK, Briggs RW, Thakur VC, Jayangondaperumal R (2006) Paleoseismic evidence of great surface rupture earthquakes along the Indian Himalaya. J Geophys Res 111(B3):B03304–B03322Google Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Wesnousky SG, Jayangondaperumal R, Nakata T, Kumahara Y, Singh V (2010) Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern Himalayan front, India: timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 115(B1):B12422–B12441Google Scholar
  26. Larson KM, Burgmann R, Bilham R, Freymueller JT (1999) Kinematics of India Eurasia collision zone from GPS measurements. J Geophys Res 104(B1):1077–1093Google Scholar
  27. Lave J, Avouac JP (2000) Active folding of fluvial terraces across the Siwaliks Hills, Himalayas of central Nepal. J Geophys Res 105(B3):5735–5770Google Scholar
  28. Leathers M (1987) Balanced structural cross-section of the western Salt Range and Potwar Plateau: deformation near the strikeslip terminus of an overthrust sheet. M. S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 271 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyon-Caen H, Molnar P (1985) Gravity anomalies, flexture of the Indian plate, and the structure, support and evaluation of the Himalaya and Ganga Basin. Tectonics 4:513–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massonnet D, Rossi M, Carmona C, Adragna F, Peltzer G, Feigl K, Rabaute T (1993) The displacement field of the Landers earthquake mapped by radar Interferometry. Nature 364:138–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Massonnet D, Feigl K, Rossi M, Adragna F (1994) Radar interferometric mapping of deformation in the year after the Landers earthquake. Nature 369:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molnar P (1990) A review of the seismicity and the rates of active underthrusting and the deformation of the Himalaya. J Himalayan Geol 1:131–154Google Scholar
  33. Ni J, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone, geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. Geophys Res Lett 89(B2):1147–1163Google Scholar
  34. Pandey MR, Tandukar RP, Avouac JP, Lave J, Massot JP (1995) Interseismic strain accumulation on the Himalayan crustal ramp (Nepal). Geophys Res Lett 22(7):751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parkash B, Rathor RS, Pati P, Rajendra PJ, Singh S (2011) Convergence rates along the Himalayan frontal thrust inferred from terraces at Chandidevi Temple Hill, Hardwar, Northwestern Himalaya. Curr Sci 100(9):1426–1432Google Scholar
  36. Paul J, Burgmann R, Gaur VK, Bilham R, Larson KM, Ananda MB, Jade S, Mukul M, Anupama TS, Satyal G, Kumar D (2001) The motion and active deformation of India. Geophys Res Lett 28(4):647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powers PM, Lillie RJ, Yeats RS (1998) Structure and shortening of the Kangra and Dehra Dun Reentrants, Sub-Himalaya, India. Geol Soc Am Bull 110:1010–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramli HK (2007) Generation and evaluation of digital elevation model derived through spaceborne synthetic aperture radar interferometry. Masters Thesis, University Putra Malaysia, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Rao YS, Rao KS, Venkataraman G, Khare M, Reddy CD (2003) Comparison and fusion of DEMs derived from INSAR and optical stereo techniques. In: Third ESA international workshop on ERS SAR interferometry, Dec 1–5, Frascati, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  40. Rufino G, Moccia A, Esposito S (1998) DEM generation by means of ERS tandem data. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 36(6):1905–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Satyabala SP, Bilham R (2006) Surface deformation and subsurface slip of the 28 March 1999 Mw = 6.4 west Himalayan Chamoli earthquake from InSAR analysis. Geophys Res Lett 33:L23305–L23309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along Himalayan arc and long term forecasting. In: Simpson DW, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction: an international review. Maurice Ewing series, American Geophysical. Union, Washington, United States, pp 259–277Google Scholar
  43. Sharma ML, Lindholm C (2010) Use of characteristics earthquake recurrence modelling for Himalayan frontal fault (HFF) in estimating the earthquake hazard assessment for Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. In: Proceedings of 14th symposium of earthquake engineering (SEE), IIT Roorkee, vol 1, pp 1323–1334Google Scholar
  44. Small D, Werner C, Nuesch D (1993) Baseline Modelling for ERS-1 SAR Interferometry. IEEE Int Geosci Remote Sens Symp 3:1204–1206Google Scholar
  45. Sridevi J (2004) Estimates of plate velocity and crustal deformation in the Indian subcontinent using GPS geodesy. Curr Sci 86(10):1443–1448Google Scholar
  46. Strozzi T, Wegmuller U (1999) Land subsidence in Mexico City mapped by ERS differential SAR interferometry. IEEE Int Geosci Remote Sens Sympo 4:1940–1942Google Scholar
  47. Thakur VC (2004) Active tectonics of Himalayan frontal thrust and seismic hazard to Ganga plain. Curr Sci 86(11):1554–1560Google Scholar
  48. Usai S (2001) A new approach for long term monitoring of deformations by differential SAR interferometry. PhD Thesis, Delft University Press, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  49. Wegmuller U, Werner C (1997) Gamma SAR processor and interferometry software. Third ERS Scientific Symposium, Florence, Italy, pp 1687–1692Google Scholar
  50. Wesnousky SG, Kumar S, Mohindra R, Thakur VC (1999) Uplift and convergence along the Himalayan Frontal Thrust of India. Tectonics 18(6):967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright TJ, Lu Z, Wicks C (2003) Source model for the Mw 6.7, 23rd October 2002, Nenana Mountain earthquake (Alaska) from InSAR. Geophys Res Lett 30(18):1974–1977Google Scholar
  52. Zebker HA, Goldstein RM (1986) Topographic mapping from interferometric synthetic aperture radar observation. J Geophys Res 91(B5):4993–4999Google Scholar
  53. Zebker HA, Rosen PA, Goldstein RM, Gabriel A, Werner CL (1994) On the derivation of coseismic displacement fields using differential radar interferometry: the landers earthquake. J Geophys Res 99(B10):19617–19634Google Scholar
  54. Zeng Q, Li Y, Li X (2007) Correction of topospheric water vapor effect on ASAR interferogram using synchronous MERIS data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Barcelona, Spain, pp 2086–2089Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atanu Bhattacharya
    • 1
  • Mukat L. Sharma
    • 1
  • Manoj K. Arora
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Earthquake EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations