Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation of strong ground motion for 1905 Kangra earthquake and a possible megathrust earthquake (Mw 8.5) in western Himalaya (India) using Empirical Green’s Function technique

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Earthquakes are deadliest among all the natural disasters. The areas that have experienced great/large earthquakes in the past may experience big event in future. In this study, we have simulated Kangra earthquake (1905, Mw 7.8) and a hypothetical great earthquake (Mw 8.5) in the north-west Himalaya using Empirical Green’s Function (EGF) technique. Recordings of Dharamsala earthquake (1986, Mw 5.4) are used as Green function with a heterogeneous source model and an asperity. It has been observed that the towns of Kangra and Dharamsala can expect ground accelerations in excess of 1 g in case of a Mw 8.5 earthquake and could have experienced an acceleration close to 1 g during 1905 Kangra earthquake. The entire study region can expect acceleration in excess of 100 cm/s2 in case of Mw 7.8 and 200 cm/s2 in case of Mw 8.5. The sites located near the rupture initiation point can expect accelerations in excess of 1 g for the magnitudes simulated. For validation, the estimates of the PGA for Mw 7.8 simulation are compared with isoseismal studies carried out in the same region after the Kangra earthquake of 1905 by converting PGA values to intensities. It was found that the results are comparable. The target earthquakes (Mw 7.8 and Mw 8.5) are simulated at depth of 20 km and 30 km to examine the effect of PGA for different depths. The PGA values obtained in the present analysis gave us an idea about the level of accelerations experienced in the area during 1905 Kangra earthquake. Future construction in the area can be regulated, and built environ can be strengthened using PGA values obtained in the present analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambraseys N, Bilham R (2000) A note on the Kangra Ms = 7.8 earthquake of 4 April 1905. Curr Sci 79:101–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Arya SPS (1995) Modeling and parameterization of near-source diffusion in weak winds. J Appl Meteorol 34:1112–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee P, Bürgmann R (2002) Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS measurements. Geophys Res Lett 29(13):30-1–30-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia SC, Ravi Kumar M, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geophys 42(6):1153–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (1995) Location and magnitude of the Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupture zones of the contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Curr Sci 69:101–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (2001) Slow tilt reversal of the Lesser Himalaya between 1862 and 1992 at 78°E, and bounds to the southeast rupture of the 1905 Kangra earthquake. Geophys J Int 144:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 47:2–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R, Gaur VK (2000) The geodetic contribution to Indian seismotectonics. Curr Sci 79:2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R, Wallace K (2005) Future Mw 8 earthquake in Himalaya: Implication for the 26 December, 2004 M = 9 earthquake on eastern margin. Geol Surv India 85:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293(5534):1442–1444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 77:440–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Chander R, Gahalaut VK (1994) Preparations for future great earthquakes seen in levelling observations along 2 lines across the outer Himalaya. Curr Sci 67(7):531–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandra U (1978) Seismicity, earthquake mechanism and tectonics along the Himalayan mountain range and vicinity. Phys Earth Planet Inter 16:109–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, Kumar Dinesh, Rastogi BK (2010) Estimation of Strong Ground Motions for 2001 Bhuj (M 7.6), India Earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 167:1317–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, Kumar D, Choudhury P, Yadav RBS (2012a) Stochastic finite fault modelling of M 4.8 earthquake in Kachchh, Gujarat, India. J Seismol 16(3):435–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, Kumar Vikas, Suthar Anup, Kumar Pankaj (2012b) Modeling of strong ground motions for 1991 Uttarkashi, 1999 Chamoli earthquakes, and a hypothetical great earthquake in Garhwal-Kumaun Himalaya. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0289-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinesh Kumar, Sriram V, Kattri KN (2006) A study of source parameters, site amplification functions and average effective shear wave quality factor Qseff from analysis of accelerograms of 1999 Chamoli Earthquake, Himalaya. Pure Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-006-0078-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel A (1995) Simulation strong motions of great earthquakes using recordings of small earthquakes: the Loma Prieta mainshock as a test case. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1144–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Gansser A (1964) Geology of the Himalayas. Interscience, New York 289

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller RS (1976) Body force equivalents for stress drop seismic sources. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66:1801–1804

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh GK, Mahajan AK (2011) Interpretation of intensity attenuation relation in 1905 Kangra earthquake with epicentral distance and magnitude in the northwest Himalayan region. Geol Soc India 77:511–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh GK, Mahajan AK (2013) Intensity attenuation relation at Chamba-Garhwal area in north-west Himalaya with epicentral distance and magnitude. J Earth Syst Sci 122:107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta H, Gahalaut VK (2014) Seismotectonics and large earthquake generation in the Himalayan region. Gondwana Res 25:204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/JB084iB05p02348

  • Hartzell S (1978) Earthquake aftershock as Green’s functions. Geophys Res Lett 5:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough SE, Bilham R, Ambraseys N, Feldl N (2005) Revisiting the 1897 Shillong and 1905 Kangra earthquakes in northern India: site response, Moho reflections, and a triggered earthquake. Curr Sci 88:1632–1638

    Google Scholar 

  • Irikura K (1983) Semi-empirical estimation of strong ground motions during large earthquakes. Bull Dis Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ 32:63–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Irikura K (1986) Prediction of strong acceleration motion using empirical Green’s function. In: Proceedings of the 7th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, pp 151–156

  • Irikura K, Miyake H (2011) Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. Pure Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Irikura K, Kagawa T, Sekiguchi H (1997) Revision of the Empirical Green’s function method. In: Program and abstracts of the seismological society of Japan, vol 2, p B25

  • Kayal JR (2008) Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatri KN, Rogers AM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophys 108:93–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khattri KN (1999) An evaluation of earthquakes hazard and risk in northern India. Himal Geol 20:1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S (1990) Gravity anomalies, seismicity, subducting slab folding and surface deformation in the orogenic belts. An example from the Andaman–Nicobar region. J Geodyn 12:39–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Mahajan AK (1990) Studies of Intensities of 26th April, 1986 Dharamsala earthquake and associated tectonics. Geol Soc India 35:213–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Mahajan AK (1991) Dharamsala seismotectonics zone, Neotectonic and state of stress in the area. J Himal Geol 21:53–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Mahajan AK (2001) Seismotectonics of Kangra region, Northwest Himalaya. Tectonophysics 331(4):359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Wesnousky WG, Rockwell TK, Ragona D, Thakur VC, Seitz GG (2001) Earthquake recurrence and rupture dynamics of Himalayan Frontal Thrust, India. Science 294:2328–2331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar N, Paul A, Mahajan AK, Yadav DK, Bora C (2012) The M 5.0 Kharsali, Garhwal Himalayan earthquake of 23 July 2007: source characterization and tectonic implications. Curr Sci 102(12):1674–1682

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkimer L (2008) Relationship between peak ground acceleration and Modified Mercalli intensity in Costa Rica. Rev Geol Am Central 38:81–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan AK, Thakur VC, Sharma ML, Chauhan M (2010) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard map of NW Himalaya and its adjoining area. Natural Hazards, India, pp 443–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake H, Iwata T, Irikura K (2001) Estimation of rupture propagation direction and strong motion generation area from azimuth and distance dependence of source amplitude spectra. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2000GL011669

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake H, Iwata T, Irikura K (2003) Source characterization for broadband ground-motion simulation: kinematic heterogeneous source model and strong motion generation area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:2531–2545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar P, Chen WP (1982) Seismicity and mountain building. In: Hsu K (ed) Mountain Building Processes. Academic, New York, pp 41–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhopadhyay B, Acharyya A, Dasgupta S (2011) Potential source zones for Himalayan earthquake: constraints from spatial–temporal clusters. Nat Hazards 57:369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JR, O’Brien LJ (1977) The correlation of peak ground acceleration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:877–915

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordaz M, Arboleda J, Singh SK (1995) A scheme of random summation of an empirical Green’s function to estimate ground motions from future large earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1635–1647

    Google Scholar 

  • Ou GB, Herrmann RB (1990) A statistical model for ground motion produced by earthquakes at local and regional distances. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80:1397–1417

    Google Scholar 

  • Parvez IA, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prajapati SK, Kumar A, Chopra S, Bansal BK (2013) Intensity map of Mw 6.9 2011 Sikkim–Nepal border earthquake and its relationships with PGA, distance, and magnitude. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0776-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long-term forecasting. Earthquake Prediction: An International Review in Maurice Ewing Series4. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp 259–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaligram P, Das J, Kumar A, Rout MM, Das R (2014) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Himachal Pradesh and adjoining regions. J Earth Syst Sci 123(1):49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma ML, Lindholm C (2011) Earthquake hazard assessment for Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, including a characteristic earthquake recurrence model for the Himalaya Frontal Fault (HFF). Pure Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-011-0427-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma ML, Wason HR (1994) Occurrence of low stress drop earthquakes in the Garhwal Himalaya region. Phys Earth Planet Inter 85:265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma B, Chopra S, Sutar AK, Bansal BK (2013) Estimation of strong ground motion from a great earthquake Mw 8.5 in central seismic gap region, Himalaya (India) using empirical Green’s function technique. Pure Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-013-0647-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Mohanty WK, Bansal BK, Roonwal GS (2002) Ground motion in Delhi from future large/great earthquakes in the central seismic gap of the Himalayan arc. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2):555–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville PG, Irikura K, Graves R, Sawada S, Wald D, Abrahamson N, Iwasaki Y, Kagawa T, Smith N, Kowada A (1999) Characterizing earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seismol Res Lett 70:59–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srikantia SV, Bhargava ON (1998) Geology of Himachal Pradesh. Geological Society of India, Bangalore

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriram V, Khattri KN (1999) Modelling of strong ground motions from Dharmsala earthquake of 1986 (mb 5.7). Curr Sci 76:429–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriram V, Kumar D, Khattri KN (2005) The 1986 Dharamsala earthquake of Himachal Himalaya estimates of source parameters, average intrinsic attenuation and site amplification functions. J Seismol 9:473–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava HN, Verma M, Bansal BK (2010) Seismological constraints for the 1905 Kangra earthquake and associated hazard in northwest India. Curr Sci 99(11):1549–1559

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur VC, Sriram V, Mundepi AK (2000) Seismotectonics of the great 1905 Kangra earthquake meizoseismal region in Kangra-Chamba, NW Himalaya. Tectonophysics 326:289–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro G, McGuire R (1987) Calculational procedures for seismic hazard analysis and its uncertainty in the eastern United States. In: Proceedings, third international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, Princeton, NJ, pp 195–206

  • Valdiya KS (1988) Dynamic Himalaya. Universities Press, Hyderabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H (1999) Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified mercalli intensity in California. Earthq Spectra 15(3):557–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace K, Bilham R, Blume F, Gaur VK, Gahalaut V (2005) Surface deformation in the region of the 1905 Kangra Mw = 7.8 earthquake in the period 1846–2001. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2005GL022906

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng Y, Anderson JG, Yu G (1993) A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong motions. Geophys Res Lett 21:725–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to the Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India and Head, Geosciences, Ministry of Earth Sciences for support and encouragement to do this study. The authors are grateful to the Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT, Roorkee, for providing the data used in the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Seismology, Ministry of Earth Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Babita Sharma, Sumer Chopra & Vikas Kumar

  2. Institute of Seismological Research, Gandhinagar, India

    Sumer Chopra

Authors
  1. Babita Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sumer Chopra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikas Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Babita Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, B., Chopra, S. & Kumar, V. Simulation of strong ground motion for 1905 Kangra earthquake and a possible megathrust earthquake (Mw 8.5) in western Himalaya (India) using Empirical Green’s Function technique. Nat Hazards 80, 487–503 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1979-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1979-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation