Natural Hazards

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 145–166 | Cite as

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore

Original Paper

Abstract

This article presents the results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for Bangalore, South India. Analyses have been carried out considering the seismotectonic parameters of the region covering a radius of 350 km keeping Bangalore as the center. Seismic hazard parameter ‘b’ has been evaluated considering the available earthquake data using (1) Gutenberg–Richter (G–R) relationship and (2) Kijko and Sellevoll (1989, 1992) method utilizing extreme and complete catalogs. The ‘b’ parameter was estimated to be 0.62 to 0.98 from G–R relation and 0.87 ± 0.03 from Kijko and Sellevoll method. The results obtained are a little higher than the ‘b’ values published earlier for southern India. Further, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore region has been carried out considering six seismogenic sources. From the analysis, mean annual rate of exceedance and cumulative probability hazard curve for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (Sa) have been generated. The quantified hazard values in terms of the rock level peak ground acceleration (PGA) are mapped for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years on a grid size of 0.5 km × 0.5 km. In addition, Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum (UHRS) at rock level is also developed for the 5% damping corresponding to 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) value of 0.121 g obtained from the present investigation is slightly lower (but comparable) than the PGA values obtained from the deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) for the same area. However, the PGA value obtained in the current investigation is higher than PGA values reported in the global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP) maps of Bhatia et al. (1999) for the shield area.

Keywords

Seismicity b’ value Probability Seismic hazard analysis Spectral acceleration and return period 

References

  1. Algermissen ST, Perkins DM (1976) A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States. USGS Open File Report 76-416, p 45Google Scholar
  2. Bhatia SC, Ravi Kumar M, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/gshap/ict/india.html, pp 1–12
  3. Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 47(2):839–858Google Scholar
  4. BIS (2002) IS 1893–2002, Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2006) Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):1967–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK (2000) Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandra U (1977) Earthquakes of Peninsular India: a seismotectonic study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:1387–1413Google Scholar
  8. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  9. Cornell CA, Van Marke EH (1969) The major influences on seismic risk. Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, A(1), pp 69–93Google Scholar
  10. Das S, Guptha ID, Guptha VK (2006) A Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Northeast India. Earthq Spectra 22(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganesha Raj K, Nijagunappa R (2004) Major lineaments of Karnataka state and their relation to seismicity: remote sensing based analysis. J Geol Soc India 63:430–439Google Scholar
  12. Ganesha Raj K (2001) Major lineaments of Karnataka and their significance with respect to seismicity—remote sensing based analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Gulbarga University, Karnataka, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  14. Heaton TH, Tajima F, Mori AW (1986) Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms. Surveys Geophys 8:25–83Google Scholar
  15. Iyengar RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87:1193–1202Google Scholar
  16. Iyengar RN, RaghuKanth STG (2004) Attenuation of strong ground motion in Peninsular India. Seismol Res Lett 75(4):530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaiswal K, Sinha R (2006) Probabilistic modeling of earthquake hazard in stable continental shield of the Indian Peninsula. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(3):49–64Google Scholar
  18. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal accelerations and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2011–2038Google Scholar
  19. Kaila KL, Gaur VK, Narain Hari (1972) Quantitative seismicity maps of India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62:1119–1131Google Scholar
  20. Khattri KN (1992) Seismic hazard in Indian region. Curr Sci 62(1–2):109–116Google Scholar
  21. Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I: Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:645–654Google Scholar
  22. Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporating magnitude heterogeneity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:120–134Google Scholar
  23. Kiureghian DA, Ang AH-S (1977) A fault-rupture model for seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67(4):1173–1194Google Scholar
  24. Klügel J-U (2005) Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants. Eng Geol 78:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klügel J-U (2007a) Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Eng Geol 90:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klügel J-U (2007b) Comment on “Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:2198–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education Pte LtdGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar P, Yuan X, Kumar MR, Kind R, Li X, Chada RK (2007) The rapid drift of the Indian tectonic plate. Nature 449:894–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGuire RK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. US Geol Surv, Open File Rep No. 76-67Google Scholar
  30. McGuire RK (1978) FRISK—a computer program for seismic risk analysis. US Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Open-File Report 78-1007.Google Scholar
  31. Nath SK (2006) Seismic hazard and microzonation atlas of the Sikkim Himalaya. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Orozova IM, Suhadolc P (1999) A deterministic-probabilistic approach for seismic hazard assessment. Tectonophysics 312:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parvez AI, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peruzza L, Slejko D, Bragato PL (2000) The Umbria-Marche case: some suggestions for the Italian seismic zonation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Purnachandra Rao N (1999) Single station moment tensor inversion for focal mechanisms of Indian intra-plate earthquakes. Curr Sci 77:1184–1189Google Scholar
  36. RaghuKanth STG (2005) Engineering models for earthquake sources. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  37. RaghuKanth STG, Iyengar RN (2006) Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city. Curr Sci 91(11):1486–1494Google Scholar
  38. Rajendran K, Rajendran CP (1999) Seismogenesis in the stable continental interiors: an appraisal based on two examples from India. Tectonophysics 305:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ram A, Rathor HS (1970) On frequency magnitude and energy of significant Indian earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 79:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramalingeswara Rao B (2000) Historical seismicity and deformation rates in the Indian Peninsular shield. J Seismol 4:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramalingeswara Rao B, Sitapathi Rao P (1984) Historical seismicity of Peninsular India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74:2519–2533Google Scholar
  42. Ravi Kumar M, Bhatia SC (1999) A new seismic hazard map for the Indian plate region under the global seismic hazard assessment programme. Curr Sci 77(3):447–453Google Scholar
  43. Reddy PR (2003) Need for high-resolution deep seismic reflection studies in strategic locales of South India. Curr Sci 84(8):25–26Google Scholar
  44. Regulatory Guide 1.165 (1997) Identification and characterization of seismic sources and determination of safe shutdown earthquake ground motion. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  45. SEISAT: 2000, Seismotectonic atlas of India. Geological Survey of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore region. J Nat Haz 40:261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P, Ganesha Raj K (2006) Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 6:927–939Google Scholar
  48. Sridevi J (2004) Estimation of plate velocity and crustal deformation in the Indian subcontinent using GPS geodesy. Curr Sci 86:1443–1448Google Scholar
  49. Srinivasan R, Sreenivas BL (1977) Some new geological features from the Landsat imagery of Karnataka. J Geol Soc India 18:589–597Google Scholar
  50. Subrahmanya KR (1996) Active intraplate deformation in south India. Tectonophysics 262:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Subrahmanya KR (2002) Deformation related lineaments in the Indian Peninsula near 13oN. J Geophys XXIII-2:59–68Google Scholar
  52. Tandon AN (1992) Seimology in India—an overview up to 1970. Curr Sci 62(1–2):9–16Google Scholar
  53. Todorovska MI, Gupta ID, Gupta VK, Lee VW, Trifunac MD (1995) Selected topics in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Report No. CE95-08, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Trifunac MD (1990) A microzonation method based on uniform risk spectra. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 9(1):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Valdiya KS (1998) Late quaternary movements and landscape rejuvenation in south-eastern Karnataka and adjoining Tamil Nadu in southern India shield. J Geol Soc India 51:139–166Google Scholar
  56. Wang Z (2005) Discussion—Klügel, J.-U. 2005 problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants. Eng Geol 78:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang Z, Zhou M (2007) Comment on “why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:2212–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):975–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations