Natural Hazards

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 261–278 | Cite as

Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bangalore Region

Article

Abstract

Indian peninsular shield, which was once considered to be seismically stable, is experiencing many earthquakes recently. As part of the national level microzonation programme, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India has initiated microzonation of greater Bangalore region. The seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore region is carried out as part of this project. The paper presents the determination of maximum credible earthquake (MCE) and generation of synthetic acceleration time history plot for the Bangalore region. MCE has been determined by considering the regional seismotectonic activity in about 350 km radius around Bangalore city. The seismotectonic map has been prepared by considering the faults, lineaments, shear zones in the area and historic earthquake events of more than 150 events. Shortest distance from the Bangalore to the different sources is measured and then peak ground acceleration (PGA) is calculated for the different source and moment magnitude. Maximum credible earthquake found in terms of moment magnitude is 5.1 with PGA value of 0.146 g at city centre with assuming the hypo central distance of 15.88 km from the focal point. Also, correlations for the fault length with historic earthquake in terms of moment magnitude, yields (taking the rupture fault length as 5% of the total fault length) a PGA value of 0.159 g. Acceleration time history (ground motion) and a response acceleration spectrum for the corresponding magnitude has been generated using synthetic earthquake model considering the regional seismotectonic parameters. The maximum spectral acceleration obtained is 0.332 g for predominant period of 0.06 s. The PGA value and synthetic earthquake ground motion data from the identified vulnerable source using seismotectonic map will be useful for the PGA mapping and microzonation of the area.

Key words

seismic hazard MCE PGA seismotectonic fault length 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson G. M. and Boore D. M. (1995). Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85(1): 17–30Google Scholar
  2. Bansal B. K. and Gupta S. (1998). A glance through the seismicity of peninsular India. J. Geol. Soc. India 52: 67–80Google Scholar
  3. Boore D. M. (1983). Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 73: 1865–1894Google Scholar
  4. Boore D. M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl. Geophys. 160: 635–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brune J. (1970). Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 75: 4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganesha Raj K. and Nijagunappa R. (2004). Major lineaments of Karnataka state and their relation to seismicity: Remote sensing based analysis. J. Geol. Soc. India 63: 430–439Google Scholar
  7. Hwang H. and Huo J.-R. (1997). Attenuation relations of ground motion for rock and soil sites in eastern United States. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Eng. 16: 363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Idriss I. M.: 1985, Evaluating seismic risk engineering practice, In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 1, 255–320Google Scholar
  9. IS 1893 (part 1): 2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure, Bureau of Indian standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Iyengar R. N. and Raghukanth S. T. G. (2004). Attenuation of strong ground motion in peninsular India. Seismol. Res. Lett. 75(4): 530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer. S. L.: 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Published by Pearson Education Pte Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Krinitzsky E. (2005). Discussion on problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants. Eng. Geol. 78: 285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark R. K. (1977). Application of linear statistical model of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes. Geology 5: 464–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Project Vasundhara: 1994, Geo scientific Analysis, Database creation and Development of GIS for parts of south Indian Peninsular Shield. ISSN O254–0436Google Scholar
  15. O’Leary D. W., Driedman J. D. and Pohn H. A. (1976). Lineaments, linear, lineation: Some proposed new standards for old terms. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 87: 1463–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Radhakrishnan B. P. and Vaidyanathan R. (1997). Geology of Karnataka. Geological Society of India, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramalingeswara Rao B. and Sitapathi Rao P. (1984). Historical seismicity of peninsular India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74: 2519–2533Google Scholar
  18. Rao, R., Seshamma, C. V. and Mandal, P.: 1998, Estimation of Coda Qc and spectral characteristics of some moderate earthquakes of southern Indian peninsula, Unpublished Report.Google Scholar
  19. Regulatory Guide 1.165: 1997, Identification and characterization of seismic sources and determination of safe shutdown earthquake ground motion. Published by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1997.Google Scholar
  20. Sarkar D., Chandrakala K., Padmavathi Devi P., Sridhar A. R., Sain K. and Reddy P. R. (2001). Crustal velocity structure of western Dharwar Craton, South India. J. Geodynam. 31: 227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seismotectonic Atlas of India: 2000, published by Geological Survey of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh S. K., Ordaz M., Dattatrayam R. S. and Gupta H. K. (1999). A Spectral analysis of the 21 May 1997, Jabalpur, India, earthquake (Mw=5.8) and estimation of ground motion from future earthquakes in the Indian shield region. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89(6): 1620–1630Google Scholar
  23. USCOLD: 1995, Guidelines for Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Structures Appurtenant to Dams, United States Committee on Large Dams. 75 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Valdiya K. S. (1998). Late quaternary movements and landscape rejuvenation in south-eastern Karnataka and adjoining Tamil nadu in southern India shield. J. Geol. Soc. India 51: 139–166Google Scholar
  25. Wang, Z.: 2005, Discussion on problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants, Eng. Geol. 78, 285–307; Eng. Geol. 82, 86–88Google Scholar
  26. Wells D. L. and Coppersmith K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 4(84): 975–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations