Natural Hazards

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 1241–1257 | Cite as

A review of strong motion studies in Gujarat State of western India

  • Pallabee Choudhury
  • Sumer Chopra
  • Ketan Singha Roy
  • B. K. Rastogi
Review Article

Abstract

The present work reviews the strong motion studies done in Gujarat State of western India. Prior to the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, no strong motion instrument was in operation in Gujarat. After the earthquake, number of research institutes/universities from India and abroad deployed strong motion instruments to study aftershock activity, source dynamics, path and site effects. The strong motion recordings have enhanced the general understanding of the physics of earthquakes in the region. An attempt has been made to develop attenuation relationship for the Gujarat region from the actual ground motions recorded by the strong motion networks. The Government of Gujarat with the help from Asian Development Bank, World Bank (WB), Ministry of Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, has established a permanent dense network of strong motion accelerograph (SMA) all over Gujarat. In addition, the Institute of Seismological Research has been established in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, with the help of WB for carrying out seismological research. Recently, many important studies have been carried out using actual acceleration data obtained from a dense network of 54 SMA, as well as synthetic data generated using region-specific ground motion parameters. The recorded data are used to obtain region-specific ground motion parameters and ground motion prediction equation. A deterministic hazard analysis for the entire state of Gujarat has been carried out using site-specific ground motion parameters. The estimated peak ground acceleration and modified Mercalli intensity values have been used to estimate the vulnerability of the different types of buildings in 31 cities of Gujarat. As Gujarat has three distinct regions having varied geological conditions, the recorded strong motion data gave an opportunity to study the effect of geological and local-site conditions on the response spectra. This study for an intra-plate region like Gujarat is a pioneer work. Still, lots of research work need to be carried out as more and more data are available, such as development of more robust ground motion prediction equations and a 3D-velocity structure of Gujarat. Generation of shake maps in real time and a credible early earthquake warning system is need of the hour for disaster mitigation and management.

Keywords

Strong motion Gujarat Bhuj earthquake Response spectra Stochastic method 

References

  1. Anon (2001) Bhuj earthquake of Jan. 26, 2001. IMD consolidated preliminary report 44Google Scholar
  2. BIS (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part I—General provisions and buildings Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893 (Part I) 2002Google Scholar
  3. Biswas SK (1980) Structure of Kutch-Kathiawar Regio. W India Proc 3rd Ind Geol Cong, Pune, 255–272Google Scholar
  4. Biswas SK (1987) Regional tectonic framework, structure and evolution of the western marginal basins of India. Tectonophysics 135:307–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas SK (2005) A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin, western India, with special reference to earthquake. Curr Sci 88:1592–1600Google Scholar
  6. Bodin P, Horton S (2004) Source parameters and tectonic implications of aftershocks of the Mw7.6 Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:818–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin P, Malagnini L, Akinci A (2004) Ground-Motion Scaling in the Kachchh Basin, India, deduced from aftershocks of the 2001 Mw 7.6 Bhuj earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1658–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra U (1977) Earthquakes of peninsular India-A Seismotectonic study. Bull Seisml Soc Am 67:1387–1413Google Scholar
  9. Chopra S, Choudhury P (2011) A study of response spectra for different geological conditions in Gujarat. India. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 31:1551–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chopra S, Yadav RBS, Patel H, Kumar S, Rao KM, Rastogi BK, Hameed A, Srivastava S (2008) The Gujarat (India) seismic network. Seism Res Lett 79:799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chopra S, Kumar D, Rastogi BK, Choudhury P, Yadav RBS (2012) Deterministic seismic scenario in Gujarat, India. Nat Haz 60:517–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra S, Kumar D, Rastogi BK, Choudhury P, Yadav RBS (2013) Estimation of seismic hazard in Gujarat region, India. Nat Haz 65:1157–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choudhury P, Chopra S, Rastogi BK (2011) Advances in generating design ground motion, proceedings of post-SMiRT conference seminar on “Advances in Seismic Design of Structures, Systems and Components of Nuclear Facilities”, Nov 14-15, BARC, Mumbai, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  14. Cramer Chris H, Ashok Kumar (2003) 2001 Bhuj, India, earthquake engineering seismoscope recordings and Eastern North America ground-motion attenuation relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:91390–91394Google Scholar
  15. Gupta HK, Purnachandra Rao N, Rastogi BK, Sarkar D (2001a) The deadliest intraplate earthquake: perspectives. Science 291:2101–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta HK, Harinarayana T, Kousalya M, Mishra DC, Mohan I, Rao N, Purnachandra N, Raju PS, Rastogi BK, Reddy PR, Sarkar D (2001b) Bhuj earthquake of 26 January 2001. J Geol Soc India 57:275–278Google Scholar
  17. Iyengar RN, Raghukant STG (2002) Strong ground motion at Bhuj City during the Kutch earthquake. Curr Sci 82:1366–1372Google Scholar
  18. Malik JN, Sohoni PS, Karanth RV, Merh SS (1999) Modern and historic seismicity of Kachchh Peninsula, western India. J Geol Soc India 54:545–550Google Scholar
  19. Mandal P (2007) Sediment thicknesses and Qs vs. Qp relations in the Kachchh Rift Basin, Gujarat, India using Sp converted phases. Pure App Geophys 164:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandal P, Johnston A (2006) Estimation of source parameters for the aftershocks of the 2001 Mw 7.7 Bhuj earthquake India. Pure Appl Geophys 163:1537–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mandal P, Narsaiah R, Sairam B, Satyamurty C, Raju IP (2006) Relocation of early and late aftershocks of the 2001 Bhuj earthquake using joint hypocentral determination (JHD) technique: implication toward the continued aftershock activity for more than four years. Pure Appl Geophys 163:1561–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mandal P, Dutta U, Chadha RK (2008) Estimation of site response in the Kachchh seismic zone, Gujarat, India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2559–2566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mandal P, Kumar N, Satyamurthy C, Raju IP (2009) Ground Motion attenuation relation from strong motion records of the 2001 Mw7.7 Bhuj earthquake sequence (2001–2006), Gujarat India. Pure Appl Geophys 166:451–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merh SS (1995) Geology of Gujarat. Geol Soc Ind, 222Google Scholar
  25. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oldham T (1883) A catalogue of Indian earthquakes from the earliest time to the end of AD 1869. Mem Geol Surv India 19(3):53Google Scholar
  27. Quittmeyer RC, Jacob KH (1979) Historical and modern seismicity of Pakistan, Afghanistan, northwestern India, and southeastern Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 69:773–823Google Scholar
  28. Rastogi BK (2001) Ground deformation study of Mw 7.7 Bhuj earthquake of 2001. Episode 24:160–165Google Scholar
  29. Rastogi BK (2004) Damage due to the Mw7.7 Kutch, India earthquake of 2001. Tectonophysics 390:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rastogi BK, Gupta HK, Mandal P, Satyanarayana HVS, Kousalya M, Raghavan R, Jain R, Sarma ANS, Kumar N, Satyamurthy C (2001) The deadliest stable continental region earthquake occurred near Bhuj on 26 January 2001. J Seismol 5:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh SK, Bansal BK, Bhattarchya S N, Pacheco JF, Dattatrayam RS, Ordaz M, Suresh G, Kamal, Hough SE (2003) Estimation of ground motion for Bhuj (26 January 2001; Mw 7.6) and for future earthquakes in India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:353–370Google Scholar
  32. Singh UP, Dastageer F, Mittal R, Singh A, Khandve S, Kumar BS, Ingole SM, Chhatre A G (2011) Earthquake ground motion generation for nuclear power plant, Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6–11 Nov 2011, New Delhi, pp 3582–3589Google Scholar
  33. Yadav RBS, Tripathi JN, Rastogi BK, Chopra S (2008) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard in Gujarat and adjoining region, India. Pure Appl Geophys 165:1813–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pallabee Choudhury
    • 1
  • Sumer Chopra
    • 2
  • Ketan Singha Roy
    • 1
  • B. K. Rastogi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Seismological ResearchGandhinagarIndia
  2. 2.Seismology DivisionMinistry of Earth SciencesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations