Skip to main content

Spatial distribution of high-frequency spectral decay factor kappa (κ) for Delhi, India

Abstract

The recorded strong motion data in the Delhi region provide an excellent opportunity to study high-frequency decay parameter, kappa (κ) for the National Capital (Delhi) region and to further understand its implications to study the site effects characterized by different stations within the vicinity of the study region. The kappa values are estimated at 30 locations from 99 accelerograms of 19 earthquakes recorded in the Delhi region and are found to vary from place to place depending upon the controlling parameters, primarily the site characterization. The estimated average values of ‘κ’ lie in the range 0.0118–0.0537 s for the various locations of the region depending upon the source, path, and site characteristics of earthquakes considered in the present study. The distance dependence is found insignificant, while there is a scatter in the variation of κ values with that of magnitude which indicates that κ is more related to the site characteristic for the entire Delhi region which in turn reveals the fact of the basic criterion of the κ parameter. To affirm the total attenuation on the instruments, the site effects demonstrate the behavior of amplification to the geological exposure. It has been found that the various sites under consideration for the study area amplify between 0.6 and 7.0 Hz predominant frequency (\({f}_{\mathrm{peak}}\)) and agree with the geological arrangements of the region. Based on the present study, the most vulnerable areas are the northeastern region of Delhi which lies in proximity to the flood plains of Yamuna river and alluvial deposits of younger origins of the foreland basin along with the southwestern part of Delhi capital which is comprised of the water-saturated alluvial deposits. The estimated ‘κ’ values are found to be correlated with those of the estimated site amplifications and are useful in strong ground motions simulation for the proper evaluation of seismic hazard to build a seismic risk resilient society.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Availability of data

The data are received from website www.pesmos.in (last accessed July 2018).

Data and resources

Strong motion waveform records used in this study are obtained from www.pesmos.in (last accessed January 2020), a website managed by the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee.

References

  1. Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74:1969–1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atik AL, Kottke A, Abrahamson N, Hollenback J (2014) Kappa (κ) scaling of ground-motion prediction equations using an inverse random vibration theory approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(1):336–346. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banerjee S, Kumar A (2018) Determination of seismic wave attenuation in Delhi, India, towards quantification of regional seismic hazard. Nat Hazards 92(2):1039–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3238-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bard PY, Bora SS, Hollender F, Laurendeau A, Traversa P (2020) Are the standard VS-Kappa host-to-target adjustments the only way to get consistent Hard-Rock ground motion prediction? Pure Appl Geophys 177(5):2049–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02173-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beresnev IA (2019) Interpretation of Kappa and fmax filters as source effect. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109:822–826. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160(3):635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434

  8. Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P (2014) Fourier spectral-and duration models for the generation of response spectra adjustable to different source-, propagation-, and site conditions. Bull Earthquake Eng 12(1):467–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P, Edwards B (2015) Development of a response spectral ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) for seismic-hazard analysis from empirical Fourier spectral and duration models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):2192–2218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P (2016) On the relationship between Fourier and response spectra: Implications for the adjustment of empirical ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(3):1235–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Rbay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:29–61

    Google Scholar 

  12. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (Methodology and Justification). Earthq Spectra 10:617–653. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bureau of Indian Standards (2002) IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi

  14. Cabas A, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bonilla LF (2017) Estimation of site-specific kappa (κ0)-consistent damping values at KiK-net sites to assess the discrepancy between laboratory-based damping models and observed attenuation (of seismic waves) in the field. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2258–2271. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell KW (2009) Estimates of Shear-Wave Q and κ0 for unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sediments in Eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2365–2392. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):139–71. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546

  17. Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Tsang HH (2006) Near-surface attenuation modelling based on rock shear-wave velocity profile. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 26(11):1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang SC, Wen KL, Huang MW, Kuo CH, Lin CM, Chen CT, Huang JY (2019) The high-frequency decay parameter (Kappa) in Taiwan. Pure Appl Geophys 176(11):4861–4879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H (2006) Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: application to central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol 10:137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-005-9006-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Douglas J, Gehl P, Bonilla LF, Ǵlis C (2010) A κ model for mainland France. Pure Appl Geophys 167(11):1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0146-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Edwards B, Ktenidou OJ, Cotton F, Abrahamson N, Van Houtte C, Fäh D (2015) Epistemic uncertainty and limitations of the κ0 model for near-surface attenuation at hard rock sites. Geophys J Int 202(3):1627–1645. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fernández AI, Castro RR, Huerta CI (2010) The spectral decay parameter kappa in Northeastern Sonora. Mexico Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(1):196–206. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanks TC (1982) Fmax. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1867–1879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Iyengar RN, Ghosh S (2004) Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Greater Delhi area. Curr Sci 87(9):1193–1202

    Google Scholar 

  25. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ktenidou OJ, Gélis C, Bonilla LF (2013) A study on the variability of Kappa (κ) in a Borehole: implications of the computation process. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1048–1068. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ktenidou OJ, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA, Anderson JG (2014) Taxonomy of κ: a review of definitions and estimation approaches targeted to applications. Seismological Res Lett 85(1):135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ktenidou OJ, Drouet S, Theodulidis N, Chaljub M, Arnaouti S, Cotton F (2012). Estimation of kappa (κ) for a sedimentary basin in Greece (EUROSEISTEST): correlation to site characterization parameters. In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.

  29. Kumar A, Mittal H (2018) Strong-motion instrumentation: current status and future scenario. Adv Indian Earthq Eng Seismol, pp 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76855-7_3

  30. Kumar S, Kumar D, Rastogi BK, Singh AP (2018) Kappa (K) model for kachchh region of western india. Geomatics Natural Haz Risk 9(1):442–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1447025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar V, Chopra S, Choudhury P, Kumar D (2020) Estimation of near surface attenuation parameter kappa (κ) in Northwest and Northeast Himalaya region. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 136:106237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kumar A, Mittal H, Kumar R, Ahluwalia RS (2017) Empirical attenuation relationship for Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration for North-East Himalaya. Vietnam J Earth Sci 39(1):46–56. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7187/39/1/9183

  33. Lai TS, Mittal H, Chao WA, Wu YM (2016) A study on Kappa value in Taiwan using borehole and surface seismic array. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lancieri M, Madariaga R, Bonilla F (2012) Spectral scaling of the aftershocks of the Tocopilla 2007 earthquake in northern Chile. Geophys J Int 189(1):469–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05327.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ministry of Earth Sciences (2016) A report on Seismic Hazard Microzonation of NCT Delhi on 1:10,000 scales. National Center for Seismology, Ministry of Earth Sciences Government of India.

  36. Mishra OP (2020) Seismic Microzonation Study of South Asian Cities and Its Implications to Urban Risk Resiliency under Climate Change Scenario. Int J Geosci 11(4):197–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mishra OP, Kumar V, Gera SK (2020) A new insight into seismic attenuation characteristics of Northwest Himalaya and its surrounding region: Implications to structural heterogeneities and earthquake hazards. Phys Earth Planet Interiors: 306:106500.

  38. Mittal H, Kumar A (2015) Stochastic finite-fault modeling of Mw5.4 earthquake along Uttarakhand-Nepal border. Natural Haz 75:1145–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1367-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mittal H, Kumar A, Ramhmachhuani R (2012) Indian national strong motion instrumentation network and site characterization of its stations. Int J Geosci 03:1151–1167. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2012.326117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mittal H, Kamal KA, Singh SK (2013a) Estimation of site effects in Delhi using standard spectral ratio. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 50:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mittal H, Kumar A, Kumar A (2013b) Site effects estimation in Delhi from the Indian strong motion instrumentation network. Seismol Res Lett 84:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mittal H, Kumar A, Kumar A, Kumar R (2015) Analysis of ground motion in Delhi from earthquakes recorded by strong motion network. Arab J Geosci 8:2005–2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1357-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mittal H, Wu YM, Chen DY, Chao WA (2016) Stochastic finite modeling of ground motion for March 5, 2012, Mw 4.6 earthquake and scenario greater magnitude earthquake in the proximity of Delhi. Natural Haz 82:1123–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2236-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mittal H, Gupta S, Srivastava A, Dubey RN, Kumar A (2006) National strong motion instrumentation project: an overview. In: 13th symposium on earthquake engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee :18–20.

  45. Mittal H, Wu YM, Lin TL, Legendre CP, Gupta S, Yang BM (2019a) Time-dependent shake map for Uttarakhand Himalayas, India, using recorded earthquakes. Acta Geophys 67(3):753–63 67:753–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-00281-7

  46. Mittal H, Wu Y-M, Sharma ML, Yang BM, Gupta S (2019b) Testing the performance of earthquake early warning system in northern India. Acta Geophys 67:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-018-0210-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mittal H, Sharma B, Chao W, Wu YM, Lin TL, Chingtham P (2020) A comprehensive analysis of attenuation characteristics using strong ground motion records for the Central Seismic Gap Himalayan Region, India. J Earthquake Eng, pp 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1768969

  48. Mittal H (2011) Estimation of ground motion in Delhi. PhD Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India

  49. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Q Rep Railw Tech Res Inst 30:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2010) Earthquake scaling characteristics and the scale-(in)dependence of seismic energy-to-moment ratio: Insights from KiK-net data in Japan. Geophys Res Lett 37(19). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044572

  52. Palmer SM, Atkinson GM (2020) The high-frequency decay slope of spectra (Kappa) for M ≥ 3:5 earthquakes on rock sites in eastern and western Canada. Bull Seismol Soc Am 110(2):471–488. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pandey B, Jakka RS, Kumar A, Mittal H (2016) Site characterization of strong-motion recording stations of Delhi using joint inversion of phase velocity dispersion and H/V curve. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1254–1266. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Papageorgiou AS, Aki K (1983) A specific barrier model for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong ground motion. I. Description of the model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(3):693–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(84)90498-4

  55. Parolai S (2018) κ0: origin and usability. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108(6):3446–3456. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Perron V, Hollender F, Bard PY, Gélis C, Guyonnet-Benaize C, Hernandez B, Ktenidou OJ (2017) Robustness of kappa (κ) measurement in low-to-moderate seismicity areas: Insight from a site-specific study in provence. France Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2272–2292. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Purvance MD, Anderson JG (2003) A comprehensive study of the observed spectral decay in strong-motion accelerations recorded in Guerrero. Mexico Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(2):600–611. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sandhu M, Kumar D, Teotia SS (2017) Estimation of site amplification functions for the National Capital (Delhi) Region. India Natural Haz 85(1):171–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2572-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sandhu M, Sharma B, Mittal H, Yadav RB, Kumar D, Teotia SS (2020) Simulation of strong ground motion due to active Sohna fault in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR) of India: an implication for imminent plausible seismic hazard. Natural Haz 104(3):2389–2408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04277-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sharma J, Chopra S, Roy KS (2014) Estimation of source parameters, quality factor (Qs), and site characteristics using accelerograms: Uttarakhand Himalaya region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(1):360–380. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sharma B, Chingtham P, Sutar AK, Chopra S, Shukla HP (2015a) Frequency dependent attenuation of seismic waves for Delhi and surrounding area. India Ann Geophys 58(2):0216. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sharma B, Mittal H, Kumar A (2015b) A reappraisal of attenuation of seismic waves and its relevance towards Seismic Hazard. Int J Adv Res 3(3):296–305

    Google Scholar 

  63. Silva W, Darragh R, Gregor N (1998) Reassessment of site coefficients and near-fault factors for building code provisions. Tech Rep Progr Elem II 98-HQGR- 1010

  64. Singh SK, Mohanty WK, Bansal BK, Roonwal GS (2002) Ground motion in Delhi from future large/great earthquakes in the central seismic gap of the Himalayan Arc. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2):555–569. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tsai CCP, Chen KC (2000) A model for the high-cut process of strong-motion accelerations in terms of distance, magnitude, and site condition: An example from the smart 1 array, Lotung. Taiwan Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6):1535–1542. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Van Houtte C, Drouet S, Cotton F (2011) Analysis of the origins of κ (kappa) to compute hard rock to rock adjustment factors for GMPEs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(6):2926–2941. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Van Houtte C, Ktenidou OJ, Larkin T, Holden C (2014) Hard-site κ0 (kappa) calculations for Christchurch, New Zealand, and comparison with local ground-motion prediction models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1899–1913. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wessel P, Smith WHF (1998) New, improved version of generic mapping tools released. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 79:579. https://doi.org/10.1029/98EO00426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Yadav R, Kumar D, Chopra S (2018) The high frequency decay parameter κ (Kappa) in the region of North East India. Open J Earthquake Res 7(02):141. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojer.2018.72009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), India, to sponsor the project, under which the data used in this study were collected. The GMT software from Wessel and Smith (1998) was used in plotting part of the figures and is gratefully acknowledged. The constructive comments from two anonymous reviewer, and editor helped in improving the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HM was involved in conceptualization; HM and MS were involved in methodology; HM, BS, and MS were involved in validation; HM was involved in formal analysis; HM, BS, MS, and DK were involved in investigation; HM was involved in resources; HM and MS were involved in data curation; HM, and BS were involved in writing—original draft preparation; HM, BS and DK were involved in writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manisha Sandhu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interests.

Consent to participate

All authors have read and agree to participate in the current version of the manuscript.

Consent to publish

All authors agree to publish the current version of the manuscript.

Additional information

Communicated by Prof. Ramón Zúñiga (CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mittal, H., Sharma, B., Sandhu, M. et al. Spatial distribution of high-frequency spectral decay factor kappa (κ) for Delhi, India. Acta Geophys. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-021-00674-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Kappa value (κ)
  • Delhi region
  • Predominant frequency (\({f}_{\mathrm{peak}}\))
  • Site characterization
  • Strong motion