International Journal of Earth Sciences

, Volume 106, Issue 7, pp 2371–2386 | Cite as

Variable anelastic attenuation and site effect in estimating source parameters of various major earthquakes including M w 7.8 Nepal and M w 7.5 Hindu kush earthquake by using far-field strong-motion data

  • Naresh Kumar
  • Parveen Kumar
  • Vishal Chauhan
  • Devajit Hazarika
Original Paper


Strong-motion records of recent Gorkha Nepal earthquake (M w 7.8), its strong aftershocks and seismic events of Hindu kush region have been analysed for estimation of source parameters. The M w 7.8 Gorkha Nepal earthquake of 25 April 2015 and its six aftershocks of magnitude range 5.3–7.3 are recorded at Multi-Parametric Geophysical Observatory, Ghuttu, Garhwal Himalaya (India) >600 km west from the epicentre of main shock of Gorkha earthquake. The acceleration data of eight earthquakes occurred in the Hindu kush region also recorded at this observatory which is located >1000 km east from the epicentre of M w 7.5 Hindu kush earthquake on 26 October 2015. The shear wave spectra of acceleration record are corrected for the possible effects of anelastic attenuation at both source and recording site as well as for site amplification. The strong-motion data of six local earthquakes are used to estimate the site amplification and the shear wave quality factor (Q β) at recording site. The frequency-dependent Q β(f) = 124f 0.98 is computed at Ghuttu station by using inversion technique. The corrected spectrum is compared with theoretical spectrum obtained from Brune’s circular model for the horizontal components using grid search algorithm. Computed seismic moment, stress drop and source radius of the earthquakes used in this work range 8.20 × 1016–5.72 × 1020 Nm, 7.1–50.6 bars and 3.55–36.70 km, respectively. The results match with the available values obtained by other agencies.


Strong motion Gorkha Nepal earthquake Hindu kush earthquake Seismic moment Stress drop 



We thank the Director, WIHG, Dehradun, for giving permission to publish this work. The MPGO-EPR team of WIHG is thankworthy for collecting strong-motion data through a Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), New Delhi, sponsored project (MoES/P.O. (Seismo)/NPEP(15)/2009). The earthquakes information obtained from the official websites of Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) is thankfully acknowledged. Associated Editor: S. Mukherjee, Managing Editor: Monika Dullo, Chief Editor: W.C Dullo and two anonymous reviewers are highly acknowledged for constructive suggestions and critical review.


  1. Aki K (1967) Scaling law of seismic spectrum. J Geophys Res 72:1217–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali SM, Shanker D (2016) Study of seismicity in the NW Himalaya and adjoining regions using IMS network. J Seismol. doi: 10.1007/s10950-016-9603-7 Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relation for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:17–30Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1998) Evaluation of models for earthquake source spectra in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:917–934Google Scholar
  5. Bilham R (2015) Raising Kathmandu. Nat Geosci 8:582–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894Google Scholar
  7. Boore DM, Atkinson G (1987) Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard-rock sites in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894Google Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Bommer J (2005) Processing of strong motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brune JM (1970) Tectonic stress and spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brune JM (1971) Correction. J Geophys Res 76:5002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatelain JL, Roecker SW, Hatzfeld D, Molnar P (1980) Microearthquake seismicity and fault plane solutions in the Hindukush region and their tectonic implications. J Geophys Res 85(B3):1365–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott JR, Jolivet R, Gonzalez PJ, Avouac JP, Hollingsworth J, Searle MP, Stevens VL (2016) Himalayan megathrust geometry and relation to topography revealed by the Gorkha earthquake. Nat Geosci 6:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fletcher JB (1980) Spectra from high dynamic range digital recordings at Oroville, California aftershocks and their source parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:735–755Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher JB (1982) A comparison between the tectonic stress measured in situ and stress parameters from induced seismicity at Monticello reservoir, South Carolina. J Geophys Res 87:6931–6944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadley DM, Helmberger DV, Orcutt JA (1982) Peak ground acceleration scaling studies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:959–978Google Scholar
  16. Hanks TC (1977) Earthquake stress drops, ambient tectonic stresses and stresses that drive plate motions. Pure Appl Geophys 115:441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res 84(B5):2348–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irikura K (1983) Semi empirical estimation of strong ground motion during large earthquakes. Bull Disaster Prev Res Inst 33:63–104Google Scholar
  19. Islam R, Thakur VC (1998) Geology of Bhilangna valley, Garhwal Himalaya. Geosci J 9(2):143–152Google Scholar
  20. Jain AK (2014) When did India-Asia collide and make the Himalaya? Curr Sci 106(2):254–266Google Scholar
  21. Joshi A (2006) Use of acceleration spectra for determining the frequency dependent attenuation coefficient and source parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2165–2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshi A, Kumar P, Mohanty M, Bansal AR, Dimri VP, Chadha RK (2012) Determination of Q β(f) at different places of Kumaon Himalaya from the inversion of spectral acceleration data. Pure Appl Geophys 169:1821–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshi A, Kumar P, Arora S (2014) Use of site amplification and anelastic attenuation for the determination of source parameters of the Sikkim earthquake of September 18, 2011, using far-field strong-motion data. Nat Hazards 70:217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Kumar N, Khandelwal D (2015) Strong motion data analysis of the 4 April 2011 Western Nepal earthquake (M 5.7) and its implications to the seismic hazard in the Central Himalaya. Curr Sci 109(10):1822–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar D, Sarkar I, Sri Ram V, Khattri KN (2005a) Estimation of the source parameters of the Himalaya earthquake of October 19, 1991, average effective shear wave attenuation parameter and local site effects from accelerograms. Tectonophysics 407:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar N, Parvez IA, Virk HS (2005b) Estimation of coda wave attenuation for NW Himalayan region using local earthquakes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 151:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar N, Yadav DK, Mondal SK, Roy PNS (2013a) Stress drop and its relation to tectonic and structural elements for the meizoseismal region of great 1905 Kangra earthquake of the NW Himalaya. Nat Hazards 69(3):2021–2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar P, Joshi A, Verma OP (2013b) Attenuation tomography based on strong motion data: case study of central Honshu region, Japan. Pure Appl Geophys 170:2087–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar N, Mate S, Mukhopadhyay S (2014a) Estimation of Qp and Qs of Kinnaur Himalaya. J Seismol 18:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar P, Joshi A, Arora S, Kumar A (2014b) Three-dimensional attenuation structure in the region of Kumaon Himalaya, India based on inversion of strong motion data. Pure Appl Geophys 172:333–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar P, Joshi A, Sandeep Kumar A, Chadha RK (2015) Detailed attenuation study of shear waves in the Kumaon Himalaya, India, using the inversion of strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):1836–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lorenzo SD, Zollo A, Zito G (2010) Source, attenuation, and site parameters of the 1997 Umbria-Marche seismic sequence from the inversion of P wave spectra: a comparison between constant QP and frequency-dependent QP models. J Geophys Res 115:B09306. doi: 10.1029/2009JB007004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitra S, Paul H, Kumar A, Singh SK, Dey S, Powali D (2015) The 25 April 2015 Nepal earthquake and its aftershocks. Curr Sci 108:1938–1943Google Scholar
  35. Mukherjee S (2005) Channel flow, ductile extrusion and exhumation of lower-mid crust in continental collisional zones. Curr Sci 89:435–436Google Scholar
  36. Mukherjee S (2013) Channel flow extrusion model to constrain dynamic viscosity and Prandtl number of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone. Int J Earth Sci 102:1811–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mukherjee S, Koyi HA (2010) Higher Himalayan Shear Zone, Sutlej section: structural geology & extrusion mechanism by various combinations of simple shear, pure shear & channel flow in shifting modes. Int J Earth Sci 99:1267–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mukherjee S, Mukherjee B, Thiede R (2013) Geosciences of the Himalaya-Karakoram-Tibet Orogen. Int J Earth Sci 102:1757–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mukherjee S, Carosi R, van der Beek PA, Mukherjee BK, Robinson DM (2015) Tectonics of the Himalaya: an introduction. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 412:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muller RD (2010) Tectonics: sinking continents. Nat Geosci 3:79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2009) Seismic hazard assessment—a holistic microzonation approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1445–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nath SK, Vyas M, Pal I, Singh AK, Mukherjee S, Sengupta P (2005) 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
  43. Papageorgiou A, Aki K (1983) A specific barrier model for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong ground motion. Part 1. Description of the model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:693–722Google Scholar
  44. Pavlis GL (2000) The Pamir-Hindu Kush seismic zone as a strain marker for flow in the upper mantle. Tectonics 19(1):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roecker SW, Soboleva OV, Nersesov IL, Lukk AA, Hatzfeld D, Chatelain JL, Molnar P (1980) Seismicity and fault plane solutions of intermediate depth earthquakes in the Pamir-Hindukush region. J Geophys Res 85(B3):1358–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruff LJ (1999) Dynamic stress drop of recent earthquakes: variations within subduction zones. Pure Appl Geophys 154:409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharma ML, Wason HR (1994) Occurrence of low stress drop earthquakes in the Garhwal Himalaya region. Phys Earth Planet Inter 34:159–172Google Scholar
  48. Valdiya KS (1980) Geology of the Kumaon Lesser Himalaya. Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, p 291Google Scholar
  49. Vyshnavi S, Islam R, Sundriyal YP (2014) Comparative study of soil profiles developed on metavolcanic (basaltic) rocks in two different watersheds of Garhwal Himalaya. Curr Sci 108(4):699–707Google Scholar
  50. Whipple KX, Shirzaei M, Hodges KP, Arrowsmith JR (2016) Active shortening within the Himalayan orogenic wedge implied by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Nat Geosci 9:711–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu R, Aki K (1988) Multiple scattering and energy transfer of seismic waves—separation of scattering effect from intrinsic attenuation II. Application of the theory to Hindu Kush region. Pure Appl Geophys 128(1):49–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yadav RBS, Tsapanos TM, Bayrak Y, Koravos GC, Devlioti KD (2013) Spatial mapping of earthquake hazard parameters in the Hindukush-Pamir Himalaya and adjacent regions: implication for future seismic hazard. J Asian Earth Sci 70–71:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yin A (2006) Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation. Earth Sci Rev 76:1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 Seismol Soc Am 85:31–50Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naresh Kumar
    • 1
  • Parveen Kumar
    • 1
  • Vishal Chauhan
    • 1
  • Devajit Hazarika
    • 1
  1. 1.Wadia Institute of Himalayan GeologyDehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations