Journal of Earth System Science

, Volume 117, Supplement 2, pp 809–831

Earthquake hazard in Northeast India — A seismic microzonation approach with typical case studies from Sikkim Himalaya and Guwahati city

  • Sankar Kumar Nath
  • Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam
  • Abhishek Raj


A comprehensive analytical as well as numerical treatment of seismological, geological, geomorphological and geotechnical concepts has been implemented through microzonation projects in the northeast Indian provinces of Sikkim Himalaya and Guwahati city, representing cases of contrasting geological backgrounds — a hilly terrain and a predominantly alluvial basin respectively. The estimated maximum earthquakes in the underlying seismic source zones, demarcated in the broad northeast Indian region, implicates scenario earthquakes of MW 8.3 and 8.7 to the respective study regions for deterministic seismic hazard assessments. The microzonation approach as undertaken in the present analyses involves multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation through thematic integration of contributing factors. The geomorphological themes for Sikkim Himalaya include surface geology, soil cover, slope, rock outcrop and landslide integrated to achieve geological hazard distribution. Seismological themes, namely surface consistent peak ground acceleration and predominant frequency were, thereafter, overlaid on and added with the geological hazard distribution to obtain the seismic hazard microzonation map of the Sikkim Himalaya. On the other hand, the microzonation study of Guwahati city accounts for eight themes — geological and geomorphological, basement or bedrock, landuse, landslide, factor of safety for soil stability, shear wave velocity, predominant frequency, and surface consistent peak ground acceleration. The five broad qualitative hazard classifications — ‘low’, ‘moderate’, ‘high’, ‘moderate high’ and ‘very high’ could be applied in both the cases, albeit with different implications to peak ground acceleration variations. These developed hazard maps offer better representation of the local specific seismic hazard variation in the terrain.


Seismic microzonation maximum earthquake Guwahati city Sikkim Himalaya 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aki K 1988 Local site effects on strong ground motion; Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II — Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, June 27–30, Park City, Utah.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Menahem A, Aboodi E and Schild R 1974 The source of the great Assam earthquake — an interplate wedge motion; Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 9 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beresenev I and Atkinson G M 1997 Modeling finite fault radiation from wn spectrum; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87 67–84.Google Scholar
  4. Beresenev I and Atkinson G M 2001 Sub-event structure of large earthquakes — a ground motion perspective; Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 53–56.Google Scholar
  5. Bhatia S C, Kumar M R and Gupta H K 1999 A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions; Annali di Geofisica 42 1153–1164.Google Scholar
  6. Bilham R and England P 2001 Plateau ‘pop-up’ in the great 1897 Assam earthquake; Nature 410 806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BIS 2002 IS1893-2002 (Part 1): Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure Part 1 — Resistant Provisions and Buildings; Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  8. Boatwright J, Fletcher J B and Fumal T E 1991 A general inversion scheme for source, site and propagation characteristics using multiple recorded sets of moderate-sized earthquakes; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81 1754–1782.Google Scholar
  9. Boore D M 1983 Stochastic simulation of high frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73 1865–1894.Google Scholar
  10. Boore D M and Atkinson G M 1987 Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hardrock sites in Eastern North America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 77 440–467.Google Scholar
  11. Borcherdt R D 1970 Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60 29–61.Google Scholar
  12. Field E H, Jacob K H and Hough S E 1992 Earthquake site response estimation: A weak motion case study; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 82 2283–2307.Google Scholar
  13. Hanks T C and McGuire R K 1981 Character of high frequency ground motion; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71 2071–2095.Google Scholar
  14. Irdiss I M 1999 An update of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential, Presentation Notes, Transportation Research Board’ 99Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction Analysis. Washington D.C., January 10, p. 21.Google Scholar
  15. Idriss I M and Boulanger R W 2006 Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes; J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engg. 26 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISC 2007 On-line Bulletin,,Internatl.; Seis. Cent., Thatcham, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  17. Jaiswal K and Sinha R 2007 Spatial variation of maximum considered and design basis earthquakes in peninsular India; Curr. Sci. 92 639–645.Google Scholar
  18. Kijko A 2004 Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude m max; Pageoph 161 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kijko A and Graham G 1998 “Parametric-Historic” Procedure for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Part I: Assessment of Maximum Regional Magnitude m max; Pageoph 152 413–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King J L and Tucker B E 1984 Observed variations of earthquake motion across a sediment-filled valley; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74 137–151.Google Scholar
  21. Knopoff L, Kagan Y Y and Knopoff R 1982 b-values for foreshocks and aftershocks in real and simulated earthquake sequences; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72 1663–1676.Google Scholar
  22. Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical earthquake engineering; Prentice-Hall international series in civil engineering and engineering mechanics, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  23. Lermo J and Chávez-García F J 1993 Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83 1574–1594.Google Scholar
  24. Liao S S C and Whitman R V 1986 Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand; J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE 112 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liao S S C, Veneziano D and Whitman R V 1988 Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability; J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE 114 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGuire R K, Becker A M and Donovan N C 1984 Spectral estimates of seismic shear waves; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74 2167–2185.Google Scholar
  27. Motazedian D and Atkinson G M 2005 Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 995–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakamura Y 1989 A method for dynamic characteristics estimations of subsurface using microtremors on the ground surface; Q.R of R.T.R.I. 30 25–33.Google Scholar
  29. Nandy D R 2001 Geodynamics of north eastern India and the adjoining region 1st edn., ACB Publications, Kolkata.Google Scholar
  30. Nath S K 2004 Seismic hazard mapping and microzonation in the Sikkim Himalaya through GIS integration of site effects and strong ground motion attributes; Nat. Haz. 31 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nath S K 2005 An Initial Model of Seismic Microzonation of Sikkim Himalaya through thematic mapping and GIS Integration of Geological and Strong Motion Features J. Asian Earth Sci. 25 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nath S K, Chatterjee D, Biswas N N, Dravinski M, Cole D A, Papageorgiou A, Rodriguez J A and Poran C J 1997 Correlation Study of Shear Wave velocity in Near Surface Geological Formations in Anchorage, Alaska; Earthquake Spectra 13 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nath S K, Sengupta P, Sengupta S and Chakrabarti A 2000 Site response estimation using strong motion network: A step towards microzonation of Sikkim Himalayas; Seismology 2000, Curr. Sci. 79 1316–1326.Google Scholar
  34. Nath S K, Sengupta P and Kayal J R 2002 Determination of Site Response at Garhwal Himalaya from the aftershock sequence of 1999 Chamoli Earthquake; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 1072–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nath S K, Vyas M, Pal I and Sengupta P 2005 A Hazard Scenario in the Sikkim Himalaya from Seismotectonics Spectral Amplification Source Parameterization and Spectral Attenuation Laws using Strong Motion Seismometry; J. Geophys. Res. 110 B01301doi;10.1029/2004/2004JB003199.Google Scholar
  36. Nath S K, Thingbaijam K K S, Raj A, Shukla K, Pal I, Nandy D R, Yadav M K, Bansal B K, Dasgupta S, Majumdar K, Kayal J R, Shukla A K, Deb S K, Pathak J, Hazarika P J and Paul D K 2007 Seismic Scenario of Guwahati City; Proc. Int. Workshop on Earthquake Haz. Mitigations 210–218.Google Scholar
  37. Nath S K, Raj A, Sharma J, Thingbaijam K K S, Kumar A, Nandy D R, Yadav M K, Dasgupta S, Majumdar K, Kayal JR, Shukla A K, Deb SK, Pathak J, Hazarika P J, Paul D K and Bansal B K 2008 Site Amplification, Qs and source parameterization in Guwahati region from seismic and geotechnical analysis; Seis. Res. Lett. 79 526–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. NBSS 1994 Master Plan for Irrigation Development Sikkim Govt. of Sikkim, Report 2, National Bureau of Soil Survey, Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd. 35–47.Google Scholar
  39. Ordonez G A 2004 SHAKE2000 A Computer Program for the 1D Analysis of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Problems, User’s Manual, 306 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Saaty T L 1980 The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill International New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  41. Saragoni G R and Hart G C 1974 Simulation of artificial earthquakes; Earthquake Engg. Struct. Dyn. 2 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seed H B and Idriss I M 1971 Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential; J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 97 1249–1273.Google Scholar
  43. Seed H B, Yokimatsu K, Harder L F and Chung R M 1985 Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation; J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE 111 1425–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh S K, Mohanty W K, Bansal B K and Roonwal G S 2002 Ground motion in Delhi from future Large/Great Earthquakes in the Central Seismic Gap of the Himalayan arc; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thingbaijam K K S and Nath S K 2008 Estimation of Maximum Earthquakes in northeast India region; Pageoph 165 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Yadav A, Raj A, Walling Y M and Mohanty W K 2008 Recent Seismicity in northeast India and its adjoining Region; J. Seismol. 12 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sankar Kumar Nath
    • 1
  • Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam
    • 1
  • Abhishek Raj
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations