Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 1001–1023 | Cite as

Strong ground motion parameters of the 18 September 2011 Sikkim Earthquake Mw = 6.9 and its analysis: a recent seismic hazard scenario

  • Saurabh BaruahEmail author
  • Anjali Bramha
  • Sangeeta Sharma
  • Santanu Baruah
Original Paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

The 18 September 2011 earthquake in Sikkim was one the most devastating earthquake in Sikkim Himalaya in India–Asia collision boundary. The source characteristic of this earthquake is associated with NW–SE-directed strike–slip Tista fault. This particular event killed around 60 people and damaged a number of civil engineering buildings in and around Sikkim Himalaya due to strong ground motion parameters evolved out of this event. These typical strong ground motion parameters are estimated utilising the accelerograms recorded by a network of seven stations existed in the region. The highest PGA and predominant period pertinent to main event are observed at Gezing. In spite of PGA being lowest, severe damage occurs in Gangtok city. The distribution of estimated maximum acceleration and predominant period characterise the site of the region. Simultaneously, the estimation of Fourier spectra, power spectra, response spectra and the attenuation curve depicts the site-specific condition and its contribution to the ground motion parameters inferred so far. These estimations lead to the understanding of the damaging ground motions produced due to the main shock for developing better methodology for seismic hazard assessment and mitigation in Gangtok city and its vicinity.

Keywords

Sikkim Himalaya Source characteristics Ground motion parameters Site characteristics Seismic hazard 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. D. Ramaiah, Director, CSIR-North East Institute of Science and Technology (NEIST), Jorhat, for his kind support in carrying out this research. We also thank Prof. Harsh K. Gupta, Chairman, Research Council, CSIR-NEIST, for his encouragement. We thank the anonymous reviewer for the thorough review and highly appreciate the comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. The financial supports from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, New Delhi, and the North Eastern Council, Shillong (Government of India), are duly acknowledged.

Funding

Funding was provided by the Ministry of Earth Sciences (IN) and North Eastern Council, Shillong, Govt. of India (Grant Nos. MoES/PO/(Seismo)/NPEP-16/2011 dated 23/09/2014 and NEC/ST/AS/689/2012 dated 11/1/2013).

References

  1. Acton CE, Priestley K, Mitra S, Gaur VK (2011) Crustal structure of the Darjeeling–Sikkim Himalaya and Southern Tibet. Geophys Jour Int 184:829–852.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365246X.2010.04868.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Kale O, Yenier E, Bommer JJ (2011) The high-frequency limit of usable response spectral ordinates from filtered analogue and digital strong-motion accelerograms. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40:1387–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruah S, Hazarika D (2008) A GIS based tectonic map of Northeastern India. Curr Sci 95:176–177Google Scholar
  4. Baruah S, Baruah S, Gogoi NK, Erteleva O, Aptikav FF, Kayal JR (2009) Ground motion parameters of Shillong Plateau, one of the most seismically active zones of Northeastern India. Earthq Sci 22:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruah S, Saikia S, Baruah S, Bora PK, Tatevossian R, Kayal JR (2016) The September 2011 Sikkim Himalaya earthquake Mw 6.9: is it a plane of detachment earthquake? Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 7(1):248–263.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.895963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin JR and Associates (1988) A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. EPRI report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau “pop-up” in the Great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature 410:806–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS-1893 2002):Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structuresGoogle Scholar
  10. Clough RW, Penzien J (1994) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. De R, Kayal JR (2004) Seismic activity at the MCT in Sikkim Himalaya. Tectonophysics 386:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas J, Boore DM (2011) High-frequency filtering of strong-motion records. Bull Earthq Eng 9:395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EERI (2012) EERI special earthquake report on “The Mw 6.9 sikkim-nepal border earthquake of September 18, 2011, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher JB, Brady AG, Hanks TC (1980) Strong motion accelerograms of the Oroville, California, aftershocks: data processing and the aftershock of 0350 August 6, 1975 Bull. Seismol Soc Am 72:1867–1880Google Scholar
  15. IMD report (2011) A detailed report on the earthquake (M:6.8) of 18th September, 2011 in Sikkim–Nepal border regionGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennings PC (1985) Ground Motion parameters that influence structural damage. In: Scholl RE, King JL (eds) Strong ground motion simulation and engineering applications. EERI Publication 85-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1988) Measurement, characterisation and prediction of strong ground motion. In: Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II-recent advances in ground motion evaluation. Geotechnical Special Publication 20, ASCE New York, pp 43–102Google Scholar
  18. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New York, p 653Google Scholar
  19. Logorio HJ (1990) Earthquakes: an architects’ guide to non-structural seismic hazards. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahadavian A, Aptikaev FF, Erteleva OO (2005) Ground motion parameters in seismically active zones of Iran. Izvestiya Phys Solid Earth 41:114–120Google Scholar
  21. Mahajan AK, Gupta V, Thakur VC (2012a) Macroseismic field observations of 18th September 2011 Sikkim Earthquake. Nat Hazards 63:589–603.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0170-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahajan AK, Thakur VC, Gupta V (2012b) Seismotectonics of 18 September 2011 Sikkim earthquake: a component of transcurrent deformation in eastern Himalaya. Him Geol 33(1):89–96Google Scholar
  23. Nandy DR (2001) Geodynamics of Northeastern India and the adjoining region. ACB publication, Calcutta, p 209Google Scholar
  24. Nath et al (2004) Seismic hazard mapping and microzonation in the Sikkim Himalaya through GIS integration of site effects and strong ground motion attributes. Nat Hazard 31:319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nath SK, Vyas M, Pal I, Singh AK, Mukherjee S, Sengupta P (2006) Spectral attenuation models in the Sikkim Himalaya from the observed and simulated strong motion events in the region. Curr Sci 88(2):295–303Google Scholar
  26. Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design. EERI Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, p 103Google Scholar
  27. Nuttli OW (1979) The relation of sustained maximum ground acceleration and velocity to earthquake intensity and magnitude miscellaneous paper S-71-1, report 16, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  28. Patro P, Harinarayana T (2009) Deep geoelectric structure of the Sikkim Himalaya (NE India) using magnetotelluric studies. Phys Earth Planet Inter 173:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rai DC, Mondal G, Singhal V, Parool N, Pradhan T (2012) Reconaissance repot of M 6.9 Sikkim (Nepal–India border) earthquake of 18 September 2011. Geom Nat Hazards Risk 3(2):99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (1998) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(2):150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ray (2000) Culmination zones in Eastern Himalaya geological survey of India special publication 55, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  32. Sarma SK, Yang KS (1987) An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environment (2000) GSI special publication, p 86Google Scholar
  34. Thun V, Rochim JL, Scott GA, Wilson JA (1988) Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II—recent advance in ground motion evaluation geotechnical special publication 20. ASCE, New York, pp 463–481Google Scholar
  35. Vanmarcke EH (1976) Structural response to earthquakes seismic risk and engineering decisions. In: Lomnitz C, Rosenblueth E (EDs) Chapter 8Google Scholar
  36. Venkata P, Teja M (2012) Earthquake building vulnerability and damage assessment with reference to Sikkim earthquake, 2011, Ph.D. thesis, p 111Google Scholar
  37. Yang CY (1986) Random vibration of structures. Wiley, New York, p 295Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saurabh Baruah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anjali Bramha
    • 2
  • Sangeeta Sharma
    • 1
  • Santanu Baruah
    • 1
  1. 1.Geoscience and Technology DivisionCSIR-North East Institute of Science and TechnologyJorhatIndia
  2. 2.Indian School of MinesDhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations