Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for some parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India

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

Abstract

Indo-Gangetic plains are seismically most vulnerable due to the proximity of adjacent great Himalayan earthquakes and thick alluvium deposits of the Ganga River system. As the urbanization on this plain is increasing, there is a need to quantify seismic hazard in the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGPs). IGP also includes major cities with high population density. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) plays an essential role in ensuring the safety of buildings, bridges and nuclear power stations. A seismic hazard analysis (SHA) was performed deterministically for most of the atomic power stations in India. An attempt has been made to perform PSHA of the part of Indo-Gangetic plains around Narora nuclear power plant (NNPP), accounting for a wide variety of uncertainties associated with SHA. Geological and tectonic features, as well as seismicity distribution around NNPP, are studied in detail, and four source zones are identified according to the geology, seismotectonics and diffuse seismicity. Mmax values for all the source zones based on 300-km distance around NNPP are 7.61 ± 0.54 for Himalaya zone (Zone 1), 6.12 ± 0.54 for Indo-Gangetic Peninsular India (IGPI) East zone (Zone 2), 6.29 ± 0.54 for IGPI Central zone (Zone 3) and 6.38 ± 0.64 for IGPI West zone (Zone 4). The b-value and return period of earthquakes in these zones are also estimated using Kijko–Sellevoll–Bayes model. The hazard curve for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) at 0.2 s for the study region is obtained. Hazard map shows a PGA value of 0.0294 g for 100-year return period, 0.0616 g for 475-year return period design-based earthquakes, 0.1033 g for 2475-year return period maximum considered earthquakes, 0.1508 g for 10K-year return period and 0.2598 g for 100K-year return period level at PGA considering all source zones. Similarly, the hazard curve and maps for PSA at 0.2 s are also plotted. According to seismic zonation map of India, most of the study area lies in Zone 4, and the PGA values reported in seismic zonation map and Global Seismic Hazard Analysis Program for the study area range from 0.3 to 0.4 g. The obtained PGA values denote the maximum expected PGA at bedrock level in the study area.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Coppersmith KJ, Koller M, Roth P, Sprecher C, Toro GR, Youngs R (2004) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Swiss nuclear power plant sites (PEGASOS Project), vol 1–6, NAGRA

  • Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81(2):195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(4):1703–1729

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2014) Alternative approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 85(6):1141–1144

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiesi M, Paczuski M (2004) Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Phys Rev E 69(6):066106

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu PC (2001) Seismic qualification of existing nuclear installations in India—a proposal (IAEA-TECDOC-1202). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2002)Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA). In: Proceedings of the 7th US national conference on earthquake engineering, pp 21–25

  • Bilham R (1995) Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Curr Sci 69(2):101–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (2009) The seismic future of cities. Bull Earthq Eng 7(4), 839–887

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ (2002) Deterministic vs. probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: an exaggerated and obstructive dichotomy. J Earthq Eng 6(spec01):43–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Crowley H (2017) The purpose and definition of the minimum magnitude limit in PSHA calculations. Seismol Res Lett 88(4):1097–1106

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):377–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Coppersmith KJ, Hattingh E, Nel AP (2013) An application of the SSHAC Level 3 process to the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Thyspunt nuclear site in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT22), San Francisco, California, pp 18–23

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri AK, Mukhopadhyay J, Deb SP, Chanda SK (1999) The Neoproterozoic Cratonic successions of peninsular India. Gondwana Res 2(2):213–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppersmith KJ, Youngs RR (1986) Capturing uncertainty in probabilistic seismic hazard assessments within intraplate tectonic environments. In: Proceedings of the third U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1, pp 301–312

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer CH, Petersen MD, Reichle MS (1996) A Monte Carlo approach in estimating uncertainty for a seismic hazard assessment of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1681–1691

    Google Scholar 

  • Das S, Gupta ID, Gupta VK (2006) A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Northeast India. Earthq Spectra 22(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCelles PG, Gehrels GE, Quade J, Ojha TP, Kapp PA, Upreti BN (1998) Neogene foreland basin deposits, erosional unroofing, and the kinematic history of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt, western Nepal. Geol Soc Am Bull 110(1):2–21

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMets C, Gordon RG, Argus DF, Stein S (1994) Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions. Geophys Res Lett 21(20):2191–2194

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMets C, Gordon RG, Argus DF (2010) Geologically current plate motions. Geophys J Int 181(1):1–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingwood BR, Mori Y (1993) Probabilistic methods for condition assessment and life prediction of concrete structures in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 142(2–3):155–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel A (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 66(4):8–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich C, Davis SD (1990) Single-link cluster analysis as a method to evaluate spatial and temporal properties of earthquake catalogues. Geophys J Int 100(1):19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Gahalaut VK, Chander R (1997) On interseismic elevation changes and strain accumulation for great thrust earthquakes in the Nepal Himalaya. Geophys Res Lett 24:1011–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrels G, Kapp P, DeCelles P, Pullen A, Blakey R, Weislogel A, Yin A (2011) Detrital zircon geochronology of pre-Tertiary strata in the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen. Tectonics 30(5):TC5016

    Google Scholar 

  • Graizer V, Kalkan E, Lin KW (2013) Global ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for shallow crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 29(3):777–791

    Google Scholar 

  • GSI (2000) Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its environs. Geol Surv India. Seisat 1–43:1–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainzl S, Scherbaum F, Beauval C (2006) Estimating background activity based on interevent-time distribution. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):313–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks TC (1979) b Values and ω−γ seismic source models: implications for tectonic stress variations along active crustal fault zones and the estimation of high‐frequency strong ground motion. J Geophys Res 84:2234–2242

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen S, Perkins D, Frankel A (1999) Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang YN, Whittaker AS, Luco N (2011) A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(II) application. Nucl Eng Des 241(9):3985–3995

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar RN (2010) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India. Technical report of WCE constituted by NDMA govt. of India, New Delhi

  • Kanamori H (1983) Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes. Tectonophysics 93(3), 185–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RP, Cornell CA, Campbell RD, Kaplan S, Perla HF (1980) Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nucl Eng Des 59(2):315–338

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, m max. Pure Appl Geophys 161(8):1655–1681

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, vol 80. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (1977) Seismic design spectra and mapping procedures using hazard analysis based directly on oscillator response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 5(3):211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (2001) Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(5):377–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty WK, Verma AK (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Kakrapar atomic power station, Gujarat, India. Nat Hazards 69(1):919–952

    Google Scholar 

  • Musson RMW, Sargeant SL (2007) Eurocode 8 seismic hazard zoning maps for UK. Technical report CR/07/125, issue no.3, British Geological Survey

  • National Research Council (US). Panel on Seismic Hazard Analysis, Keiiti Aki, National Research Council (US). Committee on Seismology, National Research Council (US). Board on Earth Sciences, National Research Council (US). Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, & Resources (1988) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. National Academies

  • Pagani M, Marcellini A (2007) Seismic-hazard disaggregation: a fully probabilistic methodology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1688–1701

    Google Scholar 

  • Parvez IA, Ram AVADH (1999) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian subcontinent. Pure Appl Geophys 154(1):23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Patil NS, 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paudel LP, Arita K (2000) Tectonic and polymetamorphic history of the Lesser Himalaya in central Nepal. J Asian Earth Sci 18(5):561–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen MD, Bryant WA, Cramer CH, Cao T, Reichle MS, Frankel AD, Schwartz DP (1996) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California (No. 96-706). California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology

  • Pezeshk S, Zandieh A, Tavakoli B (2011) Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for Eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(4):1859–1870

    Google Scholar 

  • Reasenberg P, Oppenheimer DH (1985) FPFIT, FPPLOT and FPPAGE; FORTRAN computer programs for calculating and displaying earthquake fault-plane solutions (No. 85-739). US Geological Survey

  • Reddy GR, Kushwaha HS, Vaze KK, Banerjee MM, Biswas P (eds) (1993) Seismic response of reactor structure using deterministic and stochastic approaches. In: Second international conference on vibration problems of mathematical elasticity and physics, India

  • Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis: issues and insight. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DM, Martin AJ (2014) Reconstructing the Greater Indian margin: a balanced cross section in central Nepal focusing on the Lesser Himalayan duplex. Tectonics 33:2143–2168

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers AM, Perkins DM, McKeown FA (1977) Preliminary assessment of the seismic hazard of the Nevada Test Site region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67(6):1587–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting M S and m b to moment magnitude. J Seismol 10(2):225–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, Budnitz RJ (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts, vol 1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, pp 1–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma ML, Wason HR, Dimri R (2003) Seismic zonation of the Delhi region for bedrock ground motion. Pure Appl Geophys 160(12):2381–2398

    Google Scholar 

  • Shome N (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures

  • Stepp JC (1972) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on microzonation, Seattle, vol 2, pp 897–910

  • Stewart JP, Douglas J, Javanbarg M, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Boore DM, Stafford PJ (2015) Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model. Earthq Spectra 31(1):19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering. Community Online Resour Stat Seism Anal 10:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ, Silva WJ, Stephenson DE (1991) Ground motion for the design basis earthquake at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina based on a deterministic approach (CONF-9110122--), United States

  • Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(3):898–913

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat As 97(458):369–380

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to extend their sincere gratitude to Narora Nuclear Power Plant, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), a Government of India undertaking, for supporting this study. The authors are also grateful to Prof. Andrzej Kijko for providing the program to calculate seismic hazard parameters.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, 721302, India

    Chhotu Kumar Keshri, William Kumar Mohanty & Pratul Ranjan

Authors
  1. Chhotu Kumar Keshri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Kumar Mohanty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pratul Ranjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Kumar Mohanty.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keshri, C.K., Mohanty, W.K. & Ranjan, P. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for some parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India. Nat Hazards 103, 815–843 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04014-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04014-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation