Natural Hazards

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 249–269 | Cite as

Hybrid attenuation model for estimation of peak ground accelerations in the Kutch region, India

  • A. Joshi
  • Ashvini Kumar
  • K. Mohan
  • B. K. Rastogi
Original Paper


The Kutch region of Gujarat in India is the locale of one of the most devastating earthquake of magnitude (M w) 7.7, which occurred on January 26, 2001. Though, the region is considered as seismically active region, very few strong motion records are available in this region. First part of this paper uses available data of strong motion earthquakes recorded in this region between 2006 and 2008 years to prepare attenuation relation. The developed attenuation relation is further used to prepare synthetic strong motion records of large magnitude earthquakes using semiempirical simulation technique. Semiempirical simulation technique uses attenuation relation to simulate strong ground motion records of any target earthquake. The database of peak ground acceleration obtained from simulated records is used together with database of peak ground acceleration obtained from observed record to develop following hybrid attenuation model of wide applicability in the Kutch region:
$$ \begin{aligned} \ln \left( {\text{PGA}} \right) & = - 2.56 + 1.17 \, M_{\text{w}} - \, 0.015R - 0.0001\ln \left( {E + 15} \right) \\ &\quad 3.0 \le M_{\text{w}} \le 8.2;\quad 12 \le R \le 120;\quad {\text{std}} . {\text{ dev}}.(\sigma ): \pm 0.5 \\ \end{aligned} $$

In the above equation, PGA is maximum horizontal ground acceleration in gal, M w is moment magnitude of earthquake, R is hypocentral distance, and E is epicentral distance in km. The standard deviation of residual of error in this relation is 0.5. This relation is compared with other available relations in this region, and it is seen that developed relation gives minimum root mean square error in comparison with observed and calculated peak ground acceleration from same data set. The applicability of developed relation is further checked by testing it with the observed peak ground acceleration from earthquakes of magnitude (M w), 3.6, 4.0, 4.4, and 7.7, respectively, which are not included in the database used for regression analysis. The comparison demonstrates the efficacy of developed hybrid attenuation model for calculating peak ground acceleration values in the Kutch region.


Strong ground motion Attenuation relation Semiempirical Seismicity 



Authors sincerely thank Department of Science and Technology Gujarat, for carrying the research work presented in this paper. Thanks are also due to the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India and Institute of Seismological Research, Ghandhinagar, Gujrat, India for supporting this research work.


  1. Abramson NA, Litehiser JJ (1989) Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:549–580Google Scholar
  2. Biswas SK (2005) A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin, western India, with special reference to earthquakes. Curr Sci 88:10–25Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (1987) Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard-rock sites in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:440–467Google Scholar
  5. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1982) The empirical prediction of ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72(6):S43–S60Google Scholar
  7. Campbell KW (1985) Strong motion attenuation relations: a ten year perspective. Earthq Spectra 1:759–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramer CH, Kumar A (2003) 2001 Bhuj, India, earthquake engineering seismoscope recordings and eastern North America ground-motion attenuation relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1390–1394Google Scholar
  9. Dimri VP (1992) Deconvolution and inverse theory: application to geophysical problems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 230Google Scholar
  10. Douglas J (2001) A comprehensive worldwide summary of strong-motion attenuation relationships for peak ground acceleration and spectral ordinates (1969–2000). Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, London, Errata of and additions to ESEE Report No. 01-1Google Scholar
  11. Fukushima Y, Tanaka T (1990) A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80:757–783Google Scholar
  12. Hadley DM, Helmberger DV (1980) Simulation of strong ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:610–617Google Scholar
  13. Hartzall SM (1978) Earthquake aftershocks as green functions. Geophy Res Lett 5:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartzall SM (1982) Simulation of ground accelerations for May 1980. Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:2381–2387Google Scholar
  15. Hutchings L (1985) Modeling earthquakes with empirical green’s functions (abs). Earthq Notes 56:14Google Scholar
  16. Irikura K (1983) Semi empirical estimation of ground motion during large earthquake. Bull Disaster Prevvent Res Inst (Kyoto Univ) 33:63–104Google Scholar
  17. Irikura K (1986) Prediction of strong acceleration motion empirical green’s function. In: Proceedings of the 7th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, pp 151–156Google Scholar
  18. Irikura K, Muramatu I (1982) Synthesis of strong ground motion from large earthquake using observed seismograms of small event. In: Proceeding of 3rd international earthquake microzonation conference, Seattle, pp 447–458Google Scholar
  19. Iyengar RN, Raghukanth STG (2004) Attenuation of strong ground motion in peninsular India. Seismol Res Lett 79(5):530–540Google Scholar
  20. Joshi A (1997) Modeling of peak ground acceleration for Uttarkashi earthquake of 20th October, 1991. Bull Indian Soc Earthq Tech 34:75–96Google Scholar
  21. Joshi A (1998) Study of the Uttarkashi earthquake in terms of rupture model and isoseismals. J Geophys 19:133–140Google Scholar
  22. Joshi A (2000) Modelling of rupture planes for peak ground accelerations and its application to the isoseimal map of MMI scale in Indian region. J Seismol 4:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshi A, Midorikawa S (2004) A simplified method for simulation of strong ground motion using finite rupture model of the earthquake source. J Seismol 8:467–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi A, Mohan K (2008) Simulation of accelerograms from simplified deterministic approach for the 23rd October 2004 Niigata-ken Chuetsu, Japan earthquake. J Seismol 12:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joshi A, Patel RC (1997) Modeling of active lineaments for predicting possible earthquake scenario around Dehradun, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Tectonophysics 283:289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joshi A, Singh S, Giroti K (2001) The simulation of ground motions using envelope summations. Pure Appl Geophys 158:877–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshi A, Kumar B, Sinvhal A, Sinvhal H (1999) Generation of synthetic accelerograms by modelling of rupture plane. ISET J Earthq Technol 36(1):43–60Google Scholar
  28. Joshi A, Mohanty M, Bansal AR, Dimri VP, Chadha RK (2010) Use of spectral acceleration data for determination of three-dimensional attenuation structure in the Pithoragarh region of Kumaon Himalaya. J Seismol 14:247–272Google Scholar
  29. Joshi A, Kumari P, Singh S, Sharma ML (2012a) Near field and far field simulation of accelerograms of Sikkim earthquake of September 18, 2011 using modified semi empirical approach. Nat Hazards 64:1029–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joshi A, Kumari P, Kumar S, Sharma ML, Ghosh AK, Agarwal MK, Ravikiran A (2012b) Estimation of model parameter of Sumatra earthquake using empirical green’s function technique and generation of hypothetical earthquake scenario for Andaman Island, India. Nat Hazards 62:1081–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1988) Measurement, characterization and prediction of strong ground motion. In: Proceeding of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II, Utah, pp 43–100Google Scholar
  32. Kamae K, Irikura K (1998) Source model of the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu earthquake and simulation of near source ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:400–412Google Scholar
  33. Kameda H, Sugito M (1978) Prediction of strong earthquake motion by evolutionary process model. In: Proceeding of 6th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  34. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 82:2981–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanamori H (1979) A semi empirical approach to prediction of long period ground motions from great earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 69:1645–1670Google Scholar
  36. Kanamori H, Anderson DL (1975) Theoretical basis of come empirical relations in seismology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:1073–1095Google Scholar
  37. Kumar D, Teotia SS, Khattri KN (1997) The representation of attenuation characteristics of strong motions observed in the 1986 Dharamsala and 1991 Uttarkashi earthquakes by available empirical relations. Curr Sci 73:543–548Google Scholar
  38. Lai SP (1982) Statistical characterization of strong motions using power spectral density function. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:259–274Google Scholar
  39. Levenberg K (1944) A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Q Appl Math 2:164–168Google Scholar
  40. Mandal P, Rastogi BK, Satyanarayana HVS, Kousalya M (2004) Results from local earthquake velocity tomography: implications toward the source process involved in generating the 2001 Bhuj earthquake in the lower crust beneath Kachchh (India). Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(2):633–649Google Scholar
  41. Mandal P, Kumar N, Satyamurthy C, Raju IP (2009) Ground-motion attenuation relation from strong-motion records of the 2001 Mw 7.7 Bhuj earthquake sequence (2001–2006), Gujarat, India. Pure Appl Geophys 166:1–19Google Scholar
  42. Midorikawa S (1993) Semi empirical estimation of peak ground acceleration from large earthquake. Tectonophysics 218:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikumo T, Irikura K, Imagawa K (1981) Near field strong motion synthesis from foreshock and aftershock records and rupture process of the main shock fault (abs). IASPEI 21st General Assembly, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Munguia L, Brune JM (1984) Simulation of strong ground motion for earthquakes in the Mexicali-Imperial valley. In: Proceedings of workshop on strong motion simulation and earthquake engineering applications Pub. 85-02. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Los Altos California 21-19Google Scholar
  45. Petersen MD, Rastogi BK, Schweig ES, Harmsen SC, Gomberg JS (2004) Sensitivity analysis of seismic hazard for the northwestern portion of the state Gujarat, India. Tectonophysics 390:105–115Google Scholar
  46. Rajendran CP, Rajendran K (2001) Character of deformation and past seismicity associated with the 1819 Kachchh earthquake, northwestern India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(3):407–426Google Scholar
  47. Rastogi BK (2004) Damage due to the Mw 7.7 Kutch, India earthquake of 2001. Tectonophysics 390:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saikia CK (1993) Ground motion studies in great Los Angles due to Mw = 7.0 earthquake on the Elysian Thrust fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:780–810Google Scholar
  49. Saikia CK, Herrmann RB (1985) Application of waveform modeling to determine focal mechanisms of four 1982 Miramichi aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1021–1040Google Scholar
  50. Shakal AF, Huang MJ, Graizer VM (2004) CSMIP strong motion data processing. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on strong motion record processing May 26–27, COSMOS, Richmond, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Singh SK, Pimprikar SD, Bansal BK, Pacheco JF, Dattatrayam RS, Suresh G (2007) An analysis of the Mw 4.7 Jabalpur, India, earthquake of 16 October 2000: toward ground-motion estimation in the region from future events. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1475–1485Google Scholar
  52. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, and surface displacements. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  53. Yu G (1994) Some aspect of earthquake seismology: Slip partitioning along major convergent plane boundaries; Composite source model for estimation of strong motion; and nonlinear soil response modeling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada, RenoGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu G, Khattri KN, Anderson JG, Brune JN, Zeng Y (1995) Strong ground motion from the Uttarkashi earthquake, Himalaya, India, earthquake: comparison of observations with synthetics using the Composite source model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:31–59Google Scholar
  55. Zeng Y, Anderson JG, Su F (1994) A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong ground motions. Geophys Res Lett 21:725–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Joshi
    • 1
  • Ashvini Kumar
    • 1
  • K. Mohan
    • 2
  • B. K. Rastogi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Institute of Seismological Research, RaisanGandhinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations