Natural Hazards

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 555–578 | Cite as

Estimation of ground response and local site effects for Vishakhapatnam, India

  • Swathi Priyadarsini PuttiEmail author
  • Neelima Satyam Devarakonda
  • Ikuo Towhata
Original Paper


Ground motion intensity due to an earthquake changes as it disseminates through the soil media from bedrock to the surface. As the ground motion intensity and damage levels mainly depend upon the local site conditions, it is mandatory to carry out the detailed site-specific hazard studies to assure safety of the structure against seismic risk. In this research paper, an effort has been made to estimate seismic hazard associated with the city of Vishakhapatnam. The city lies in east coast region of southern India and falls under seismic zone II (IS 1893-2016 in Criteria for earthquake-resistant design of structures: part 1—general provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2016). Seismic activity in the Eastern Ghats mobile belt region has increased due to subduction of Burma plate toward the Bay of Bengal, which resulted in activation of inactive faults and new fault development in the region. Therefore, increasing seismic risk and importance of the study area has motivated the researchers to carry out probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and estimation of local site effects using ground response analysis and microtremor testing. From the results, hazard maps were generated in terms of peak ground acceleration (surface, bedrock level), H/V frequency and H/V amplitude. The seismic hazard parameters, uniform hazard response spectrum and hazards curves from probabilistic seismic hazard assessment are further useful in design and construction of prominent structures. The peak ground acceleration at surface and bedrock, predominant frequency and H/V amplitude indicate the variation in local site conditions and will be of great help in seismic design of structures as well as retrofitting of the existing structures to withstand against seismic hazards. Hazard maps from the study will be helpful in further seismic microzonation studies and also identifying zones of potential seismic risk.


DEEPSOIL Ground response analysis Probabilistic seismic hazard Site effects Microtremor 



  1. Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR, Suganthi A, Uma Maheswari R (2007) Seismic hazard assessment considering local site effects for microzonation studies of Chennai city. In: Proceedings of microzonation a workshop at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, pp 94–104Google Scholar
  2. Bour M, Fouissac D, Dominique P, Martin C (1998) On the use of micrometer recordings in seismic microzonation. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chavez-Garcia FJ, Cuenca J (1996) Site effects in Mexico City urban zone. A comolementry study. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(8):717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavez-Garcia FJ, Tejeda J (2010) Site response in Tecoman, Colima, Mexico—II. Determination of subsoil structure and composition with observations. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(8):717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gosar A (2007) Microtremor HVSR study for assessing site effects in the Bovec basin (NW Slovenia) related to 1998 M w 5. 6 and 2004 M w 5. 2 earthquakes. Eng Geol 91(2-4):178–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gutenberg R, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  7. Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D, Musgrove M (2012) DEEPSOIL 5.1. User manual and tutorial, p 107Google Scholar
  8. Herak D, Herak M, Tomljenović B (2009) Seismicity and earthquake focal mechanisms in North-Western Croatia. Tectonophysics 465(1–4):212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IS 1893-2016 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: part 1—general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, BIS, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Iyengar RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87(9):1193–1202Google Scholar
  11. Jaiswal K, Sinha R (2007) Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:318–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen VH (2000) Seismic microzonation in Australia. J Asian Earth Sci 18:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonathan MP, Srinivasalu S, Thangadurai N et al (2012) Offshore depositional sequence of 2004 tsunami from Chennai, SE coast of India. Nat Hazards 62:1155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaila KL, Gaur VK, Narain H (1972) Quantitative seismicity maps of India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62:1119–1131Google Scholar
  15. Raghukanth STG, Iyengar RN (2006) Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city. Curr Sci 91(11):1486–1494Google Scholar
  16. Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part II: Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):120–134Google Scholar
  17. Kuo C-H, Cheng D-S, Hsieh H-H, Chang T-M, Chiang H-J, Lin C-M, Wen K-L (2009) Comparison of three different methods in investigating shallow shear wave velocity structures in Ilan, Taiwan. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(1):133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manne A, Satyam ND (2011) Geotechnical site characterization for Vijayawada urban. In: Proceedings of 3rd Indian young geotechnical engineers conference (3IYGEC), New Delhi. Indian Geotechnical Society, New Delhi, pp 191–196Google Scholar
  19. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Seismic response of horizontally layered soil deposits. Report no. ENG-93-182Google Scholar
  20. Mohanty WK, Walling MY, Vaccari F, Tripathy T, Panza GF (2009) Modelling of SH and P-SV-wave fields and seismic microzonation based on response spectra ratio for Talchir Basin, India. Eng Geol 104:80–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mundepi AK (2008) Site response studies using horizontal to vertical ratio in the city of Chandigarh, North India. Himal Geol 29(1):87–93Google Scholar
  22. Nakamura Y (2000) Clear identification of fundamental idea of Nakamura’s technique and its applications. In: Proceedings 12WCEE: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  23. NDMA Report (2012) 18 September 2011 Sikkim earthquake: post earthquake reconnaissance report. Prepared by Indrejeet Barua et alGoogle Scholar
  24. Neelima Satyam D, Towhata I (2016) Site specific ground response analysis and liquefaction assessment of Vijayawada City (India). Nat Hazards 81(2):705–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ohmachi T, Nakamura Y (1992) Local site effects detected by microtremor measurements on the damage due to the 1990 Philippine earthquake. In: Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 997–1002Google Scholar
  26. Putti SP, Satyam N (2018) Ground response analysis and liquefaction hazard assessment for Vishakhapatnam city. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3:12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raghukanth STG (2011) Seismicity parameters for important urban agglomerations in India. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ram A, Rathore HS (1970) On frequency magnitude and energy significant Indian earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 79:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao AT (1978) Red sediments from Visakhapatnam area, Andhra Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 19:79–82Google Scholar
  30. Rao KS, Neelima Satyam D (2007) Liquefaction studies for seismic microzonation of Delhi region. Curr Sci 92:646–654Google Scholar
  31. Roshan AD, Basu PC, Jangid RS (2016) Tsunami hazard assessment of Indian coast. Nat Hazards 82(2):733–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontal layered sites, Report No EERC 72-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  33. Seismotectonic Atlas by Geological Survey of India (2000) Government of India Ministry of MinesGoogle Scholar
  34. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for the Bangalore region. Nat Hazards 40:261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stepp JC (1972) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on microzonazion, Seattle, vol 2, pp 897–910Google Scholar
  36. Subba Rao N (2008) Iron content in groundwaters of Visakhapatnam environs, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Monit Assess 136:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Subba Rao N, Madhusudhana Reddy P (2006) Monitoring the groundwater quality in an urban area: an environmental impact assessment and management. J Appl Geochem 8:37–56Google Scholar
  38. Surve G, Mohan G (2010) Site response studies in Mumbai using (H/V) Nakamura technique. Nat Hazards 54:783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teves-Costa P, Costa Nunes JA, Senos L, Oliveira CS, Ramalhete D (1995) Predominant frequencies of soil formations in the town of Lisbon using microtremor measurements. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on seismic zonation, October 17–19, pp 1683–1690Google Scholar
  40. Vipin KS et al (2009) Estimation of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for south India with local site effects: probabilistic approach. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 9:865–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zuccolo E, Vaccari F, Peresan A, Panza GF (2011) Neo-deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard assessments: a comparison over the Italian territory. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–2):69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swathi Priyadarsini Putti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Neelima Satyam Devarakonda
    • 2
  • Ikuo Towhata
    • 3
  1. 1.Geotechnical Engineering Lab, Earthquake Engineering Research CenterInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Discipline of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology IndoreSimrolIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations