Natural Hazards

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 299–317 | Cite as

Expected peak ground acceleration in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India region from a deterministic hazard model

Original Paper


A method of seismic zonation based on the deterministic modeling of rupture planes is presented. Finite rupture planes along identified lineaments are modeled in the Uttarakhand Himalaya based on the semi empirical technique of Midorikawa (Tectonophysics 218:287–295, 1993). The expected peak ground acceleration thus estimated from this technique is divided into different zones similar to zones proposed by the Bureau of Indian standard, BIS (Indian standards code of practice for earthquake-resistant design of structures, 2002). The proposed technique has been applied to Kumaon Himalaya area and the surrounding region for earthquakes of magnitude M > 6.0. Approximately 56000 km2 study area is classified into the highest hazard zone V with peak accelerations of more than 400 cm/s2. This zone V includes the cities of the Dharchula, Almora, Nainital, Haridwar, Okhimath, Uttarkashi, Pithorahargh, Lohaghat, Munsiari, Rudraprayag, and Karnprayag. The Sobla and Gopeshwar regions belong to zone IV, where peak ground accelerations of the order from 250 to 400 cm/s2 can be expected. The prepared map shows that epicenters of many past earthquakes in this region lie in zone V, and hence indicating the utility of developed map in defining various seismic zones.


Deterministic modeling Semi empirical technique Expected peak ground acceleration 


  1. Abe K (1981) Magnitudes of large shallow earthquakes from 1904 to 1980. Phys Earth Planet Inter 27:72–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Litehiser JJ (1989) Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration. Bull Seism Soc Am 79:549–580Google Scholar
  3. Araya R, Kiureghian AD (1988) Seismic hazard analysis, improved models, uncertainties and sensitivities. Report no. EERC-90/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, C.A. 155 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhatia SC, Ravi Kumar M, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofisica 42:1153–1164Google Scholar
  5. Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293:1442–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BIS (2002) Indian standards code of practice for earthquake-resistant design of structures. Indian Standards Institution, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  7. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high frequency ground motion based on seismological models of radiated spectra. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:1865–1894Google Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Atkinson CM (1987) Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard rock sites in eastern North America. Bull Seism Soc Am 77:440–467Google Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1991) Estimation of ground motion at deep soil sites in eastern north America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:2167–2185Google Scholar
  10. Chandrasekaran AR, Das JD (1992) Strong motion arrays in India and analysis of data from Shillong array. Curr Sci 62:233–250Google Scholar
  11. GSI (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geological survey of India, CalcuttaGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadley DM, Helmberger DV (1980) Simulation of strong ground motions. Bull Seism Soc Am 70:617–630Google Scholar
  13. Hartzell SH (1978) Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s functions. Geophys Res Lett 5:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartzell SH (1982) Simulation of ground accelerations for May 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 72:2381–2387Google Scholar
  15. Housner GW, Jennings PC (1964) Generation of artificial earthquakes. Proc ASCE 90:113–150Google Scholar
  16. Hutchings L (1985) Modeling earthquakes with empirical Green’s functions (abs). Earthquake Notes 56:14Google Scholar
  17. Irikura K (1983) Semi empirical estimation of strong ground motion during large earthquakes. Bull Dis Prevent Res Inst 33:63–104Google Scholar
  18. Irikura K (1986) Prediction of strong acceleration motion using empirical Green’s function. Proceedings of the 7th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, pp 151–156Google Scholar
  19. Irikura K, Muramatu I (1982) Synthesis of strong ground motions from large earthquakes using observed seismograms of small events. Proceedings of the 3rd international microzonation conference, Seattle, pp 447–458Google Scholar
  20. Joshi A (1997) Modeling of peak ground acceleration for Uttarkashi earthquake of 20th October, 1991. Bull Ind Soc Earthq Tech 34:75–96 Google Scholar
  21. Joshi A (2001) Strong motion modeling of the source of the Chamoli earthquake of March 29, 1999 in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. J Seismol 5:499–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshi A (2004) A simplified technique for simulating wide band strong ground motion for two recent Himalaya earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 161:1777–1805CrossRefGoogle 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, Midorikawa S (2005) Attenuation characteristics of ground motion Intensity from earthquakes of intermediate depth. J Seismol 9:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joshi A, Mohan K (2008) Simulation of accelerograms from simplified deterministic approach for the 23rd October 2004 Niigata-ken Chuetsu earthquake. J Seismol 12:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joshi A, Patel RC (1997) Modeling of active lineaments for predicting a possible earthquake scenario around Dehradun, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Tectonophysics 283:289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshi A, Singh S, Kavita G (2001) The simulation of ground motions using envelope summations. Pure Appl Geophys 158:877–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joshi A, Mohan K, Patel RC (2007) A deterministic approach for preparation of seismic hazard maps in North East India. Nat Hazards 43:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamae K, Irikura K (1998) Source model of the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake and simulation of near source ground motion. Bull Seism Soc Am 88:400–412Google Scholar
  30. Kameda H, Sugito M (1978) Prediction of strong earthquake motions by evolutionary process model. Proceedings of 6th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  31. Kanamori H (1979) A semi empirical approach to prediction of long period ground motions from great earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 69:1645–1670Google Scholar
  32. Kanamori H, Anderson DL (1975) Theoretical basis of some empirical relation in seismology. Bull Seism Soc Am 65:1073–1095Google Scholar
  33. Karunakaran C, Ranga Rao A (1979) Status of exploration for hydrocarbons in the Himalayan region. Contributions to stratigraphy and structure. Geol Surv India Pub 41:1–66Google Scholar
  34. Khattri KN (1987) Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake disaster along Himalayan plate boundary. Tectonophysics 138:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khattri KN, Tyagi AK (1983) Seismicity patterns in the himalayan plate boundary and identification of areas of high seismic potential. Tectonophysics 96:281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lai SP (1982) Statistical characterization of strong ground motions using power spectral density function. Bull Seism Soc Am 72:259–274Google Scholar
  37. Lay T, Wallace TC (1995) Modern global seismology. Academic Press, California, p 521Google Scholar
  38. Mendoza C, Hartzell SH (1988) Inversion for slip distribution using GDSN P waves: North Palm Springs, Borah Peak, and Michoacan earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 78:1092–1111Google Scholar
  39. Midorikawa S (1993) Semi empirical estimation of peak ground acceleration from large earthquakes. Tectonophysics 218:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Munguia L, Brune JM (1984) Simulations of strong ground motions for earthquakes in the Mexicali-Imperial Valley. Proceedings of workshop on strong ground motion simulation and earthquake engineering applications, Pub. 85-02 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Altos, California, 21-1-21-19Google Scholar
  42. Nakamura Y (1989) Inference of seismic response of surficial layer based on microtremor measurement, Quarterly report on railroad research 4. Railway Technical Railway Institute, pp 18–27 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  43. Pant CC, Paul A (2007) Recent trends in seismicity of Uttaranchal. J Geol Soc India 70:619–626Google Scholar
  44. Paul A, Pant CC, Darmwal G, Pathak V, Joshi KK (2005) Seismicity pattern of Uttaranchal (1999–2004) as recorded by DTSN in Kumaon Himalaya. Geol Surv India Spec Publ 85:89–93Google Scholar
  45. Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis. Columbia printing press, New York, 244 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Saikia CK (1993) Ground motion studies in Great Los Angles due to Mw = 7.0 earthquake on the Elysian thrust fault. Bull Seism Soc Am 83:780–810Google Scholar
  47. Saikia CK, Hermann RB (1985) Application of waveform modelling to determine focal mechanisms of four 1982 Miramichi aftershocks. Bull Seism Soc Am 75:1021–1040Google Scholar
  48. Sato R (1989) Handbook of fault parameters of Japanese earthquakes. Kajima, Tokyo, p 390 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  49. Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long-term forecasting. Earthquake prediction: an international review, Maurice Ewing Series, 4. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 259–277Google Scholar
  50. Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Quittmeyer RC (1981) Seismicity and continental subduction in the Himalayan Arc, Zagros, Hindukush Himalaya, Geodynamic evolution. Geodynamic Ser 3:259–279Google Scholar
  51. Valdiya KS (1980) Geology of Kumaun lesser Himalaya. Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradoon, India, p 291Google Scholar
  52. Valdiya KS (1999) Fast uplift and geomorphic development of the western Himalaya in quaternary period. In: Jain AK, Manickavasagam (eds) Geodynamics of NW Himalaya. Gondwana Research Group Memoir, Japan, pp 179–187Google Scholar
  53. Verma RK, Roonwal GS, Kamble VP, Dutta U, Kumar N, Gupta Y, Sood S (1995) Memoir of Geological Society of India. No. 30, pp 83–99Google Scholar
  54. Yu G (1994) Some aspects of earthquake seismology: slip portioning along major convergent plate boundaries: composite source model for estimation of strong motion and non linear soil response modeling. Ph.D. thesis, University of NevadaGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 Seism Soc Am 85:31–50Google Scholar
  56. Zeng Y, Anderson JG, Yu G (1994) A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong ground motions. Geophys Res Lett 21(8):725–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of Technology (IIT)RoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Institute of Seismological Research (ISR)Raisan, GandhinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations