Advertisement

Probabilistic seismic hazard at the archaeological site of Gol Gumbaz in Vijayapura, south India

  • Shivakumar G Patil
  • Arun Menon
  • G R Dodagoudar
Article
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is carried out for the archaeological site of Vijayapura in south India in order to obtain hazard consistent seismic input ground-motions for seismic risk assessment and design of seismic protection measures for monuments, where warranted. For this purpose the standard Cornell-McGuire approach, based on seismogenic zones with uniformly distributed seismicity is employed. The main features of this study are the usage of an updated and unified seismic catalogue based on moment magnitude, new seismogenic source models and recent ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) in logic tree framework. Seismic hazard at the site is evaluated for level and rock site condition with 10% and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, and the corresponding peak ground accelerations (PGAs) are 0.074 and 0.142 g, respectively. In addition, the uniform hazard spectra (UHS) of the site are compared to the Indian code-defined spectrum. Comparisons are also made with results from National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA 2010), in terms of PGA and pseudo spectral accelerations (PSAs) at T = 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.25 s for 475- and 2475-yr return periods. Results of the present study are in good agreement with the PGA calculated from isoseismal map of the Killari earthquake, \({\hbox {M}}_{\mathrm{w}} = 6.4\) (1993). Disaggregation of PSHA results for the PGA and spectral acceleration (\({\hbox {S}}_{\mathrm{a}}\)) at 0.5 s, displays the controlling scenario earthquake for the study region as low to moderate magnitude with the source being at a short distance from the study site. Deterministic seismic hazard (DSHA) is also carried out by taking into account three scenario earthquakes. The UHS corresponding to 475-yr return period (RP) is used to define the target spectrum and accordingly, the spectrum-compatible natural accelerograms are selected from the suite of recorded accelerograms.

Keywords

Seismic hazard GMPEs PGA uniform hazard spectra spectrum-compatible natural accelerograms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Vladimir Graizer for providing the MATLAB code for G-16 GMPE and for productive discussions of the results and Prof. Mario Gustavo Ordaz for providing CRISIS 2014 code. The authors also thank Dr G Kalyan Kumar for his timely technical assistance.

References

  1. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya M A and Bommer J J 2014 Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12(1) 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldama-Bustos G, Bommer J J, Fenton C H and Stafford P J 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for rock sites in the cities of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ra’s Al Khaymah, United Arab Emirates; Georisk 3(1) 1–29.Google Scholar
  3. Allen T I, Adams J and Halchuk S 2015 The seismic hazard model for Canada?: Past, present and future; Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  4. Anbazhagan P, Vinod J S and Sitharam T G 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore; Nat. Hazards 48(2) 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anbazhagan P, Smitha C V, Kumar A and Chandran D 2013 Seismic hazard assessment of NPP site at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India; Nucl. Eng. Des. 259 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Moustafa S S R and Al-Arifi N S 2015a Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture characteristics; J. Seismol. 19(3) 695–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anbazhagan P, Sreenivas M, Bajaj K, Moustafa S S R and Al-Arifi N S 2016 Selection of ground motion prediction equation for seismic hazard analysis of peninsular India; J. Earthq. Eng.,  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1104747.
  8. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Dutta N, R Moustafa S S and Al-Arifi N S 2017 Region-specific deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Kanpur city; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 126(1) 12.Google Scholar
  9. Atkinson G M and Silva W 2000 Stochastic modeling of California ground motions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90(2) 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker J W and Gupta A 2016 Bayesian treatment of induced seismicity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106(3) 860–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bazzurro P and Cornell C A 1999 Disaggregation of seismic hazard; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89(2) 501–520.Google Scholar
  12. Bilham R, Bendick R and Wallace K 2003 Flexure of the Indian plate and intraplate earthquakes; Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., Earth Planet. Sci. 112(3) 315–329.Google Scholar
  13. BMTPC 1997 Vulnerability Atlas of India: Earthquake, Windstorm and Flood Hazard Maps and Damaged Risk to Housing, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, First Revision, Government of India.Google Scholar
  14. Bommer J J and Acevedo A B 2004 The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis; J. Earthq. Eng. 8(1) 43–91.Google Scholar
  15. Bommer J J and Abrahamson N 2006 Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96(6) 1967–1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bommer J J, Douglas J, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Bungum H and Fäh D 2010 On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis; Seismol. Res. Lett. 81(5) 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boore D M, Stewart J P, Seyhan E and Atkinson G M 2014 NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes; Earthq. Spectra 30(3) 1057–1085.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell K W 2003 Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern north America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93(3) 1012–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chandra U 1977 Earthquakes of peninsular India – a seismotectonic study; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 67(5) 1387–1413.Google Scholar
  20. Copley A, Mitra S, Sloan R A, Gaonkar S and Reynolds K 2014 Active faulting in apparently stable peninsular India: Rift inversion and a Holocene-age great earthquake on the Tapti Fault; J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth 119(8) 6650–6666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corigliano M, Lai C G, Menon A and Ornthammarath T 2012 Seismic input at the archaeological site of Kancheepuram in southern India; Nat. Hazards 63(2) 845–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cornell C A 1968 Engineering seismic risk analysis; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58(5) 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  23. Dasgupta S, Pande P, Ganguly D, Iqbal Z, Sanyal K, Venkataraman N V, Sural B, Harendra-nath L, Mazumdar K, Sanyal S, Roy A, Das LK, Misra P S and Gupta H K 2000 Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs; Spec. Publ. Geol. Surv. India.Google Scholar
  24. Desai S S and Choudhury D 2013 Spatial variation of probabilistic seismic hazard for Mumbai and surrounding region; Nat. Hazards 71 1873–1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Douglas J 2003 Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: A review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates; Earth-Sci. Rev. 61(1–2) 43–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douglas J 2016 Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2016; http://www.gmpe.org.uk.
  27. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2012 Seismic performance assessment of buildings, FEMA P-58, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  28. Gardner J and Knopoff L 1974 Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64(5) 1363–1367.Google Scholar
  29. Graizer V 2016 Ground-motion prediction equations for central and eastern North America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106(4) 1600–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guha S K and Basu P C 1993 Catalogue of earthquakes (\(\ge \) M 3.0) in peninsular India; AERB technical document, Anushakti Nagar Bombay, India.Google Scholar
  31. Gupta I D 2006 Delineation of probable seismic sources in India and neighbourhood by a comprehensive analysis of seismotectonic characteristics of the region; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 26(8) 766–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta S, Rai S S, Prakasam K S, Srinagesh D, Bansal B K, Chadha R K, Priestley K and Gaur V K 2003 The nature of the crust in southern India: Implications for Precambrian crustal evolution; Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(8) 1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gutenberg B and Richter C F 1944 Frequency of earthquakes in California; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34(4) 185.Google Scholar
  34. Haselton C B, Baker J W and Stewart J P et al. 2017 Response history analysis for the design of new buildings in the NEHRP provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 standard: Part I. Overview and specification of ground motions; Earthq. Spectra 33:032114EQS039M,  https://doi.org/10.1193/032114EQS039M.
  35. Iyenger R N, Sharma D and Siddiqui J M 1999 Earthquake history of India in medieval times; Indian J. History Sci. 34(3) 181–237.Google Scholar
  36. Jaiswal K and Sinha R 2007 Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97(1) 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jain S K 2016 Earthquake safety in India: Achievements, challenges and opportunities; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14(5) 1337–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. James N, Sitharam T G, Padmanabhan G and Pillai C S 2014 Seismic microzonation of a nuclear power plant site with detailed geotechnical, geophysical and site effect studies; Nat. Hazards 71(1) 419–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston A C 1996 Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions – I. Instrumental seismicity; Geophys. J. Int. 124(2) 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnston A C and Kanter L R 1990 Earthquakes in stable continental crust; Scientific American 262(3) 68–75.Google Scholar
  41. Katsanos E I, Sextos A G and Manolis G D 2010 Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 30(4) 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kayal J R 2000 Seismotectonic study of the two recent SCR earthquakes in central India; J. Geol. Soc. India 55(2) 123–138.Google Scholar
  43. Kijko A 2004 Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, mmax, Pure and Applied Geophysics 161 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kolathayar S and Sitharam T G 2012 Characterization of regional seismic source zones in and around India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83(1) 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering; In: Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  46. Kramer S L, Arduino P and Sideras S S 2012 Earthquake ground motion selection; The State of Washington Department of Transportation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  47. Kulkarni R B, Youngs R R and Coppersmith K J 1984 Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis; 8th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., pp. 263–270.Google Scholar
  48. Kumar P, Yuan X, Kumar M R, Kind R, Li X and Chadha R K 2007 The rapid drift of the Indian tectonic plate; Nature 449(7164) 894–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mandal P, Manglik A and Singh R 1997 Intraplate stress distribution induced by topography and crustal density heterogeneities beneath the Killari, India, region; J. Geophys. Res. 102(B6) 719–729.Google Scholar
  50. McGuire R K 1976 EQRISK: FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis.Google Scholar
  51. McGuire R K 1995 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85 1275–1284.Google Scholar
  52. McGuire R K 2004 Seismic hazard and risk analysis; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  53. McGuire R K and Arabasz W J 1990 An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Geotech. Environ. Geophys., pp. 333–353.Google Scholar
  54. Menon A, Ornthammarath T, Corigliano M and Lai C G 2010 Probabilistic seismic hazard macrozonation of Tamil Nadu in southern India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100(3) 1320–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Molina S, Lindholm C D and Bungum H 2001 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Zoning free versus zoning methodology; Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 42(1–2) 19–39.Google Scholar
  56. Nath S K and Thingbaijam K K S 2011 Peak ground motion predictions in India: An appraisal for rock sites; J. Seismol. 15 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nath S K and Thingbaijam K K S 2012 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83(1) 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. NDMA 2010 Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India; Technical Report by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India.Google Scholar
  59. NIST 2011 Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analysis; Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  60. Ordaz M, Martinelli F, Aguilar A, Arboleda J, Meleti C and D’Amico V 2011 CRISIS2014 Ver 1.2: Program for computing seismic hazard; Institute of Engineering, UNAM, Mexico.Google Scholar
  61. Pezeshk S, Zandieh A and Tavakoli B 2011 Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101(4) 1859–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rao B R and Rao P S 1984 Historical seismicity of peninsular India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74(6) 2519–2533.Google Scholar
  63. Sabetta F 2013 Seismic hazard and design earthquakes for the central archaeological area of Rome; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12(3) 1307–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scandella L, Lai C G, Spallarossa D and Corigliano M 2011 Ground shaking scenarios at the town of Vicoforte, Italy; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 31(5–6) 757–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scherbaum F, Schmedes J and Cotton F 2004 On the conversion of source-to-site distance measures for extended earthquake source models; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94(3) 1053–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) and Budnitz R J 1997 Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts (Vol. 1); Washington DC.Google Scholar
  67. Sextos A G 2014 Selection of ground motions for response history analysis; Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  68. Shahjouei A and Pezeshk S 2016 Alternative hybrid empirical ground-motion model for central and eastern North America using hybrid simulations and NGA-West2 models; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106(2) 734–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sharma B, Teotia S S and Kumar D 2007 Attenuation of P, S, and coda waves in Koyna region, India; J. Seismol. 11(3) 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Singh S K, Bansal B K, Bhattacharya S N, Pacheco J F, Dattatrayam R S, Ordaz M, Suresh G, Kamal and Hough S E 2003 Estimation of ground motion for Bhuj (26 January 2001; Mw 7.6 and for future earthquakes in India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93(1) 353–370.Google Scholar
  71. Sitharam T G, James N, Vipin K S and Ganesha Raj K 2012 A study on seismicity and seismic hazard for Karnataka state; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121(2) 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stepp J C 1972 Analysis of the completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard; In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Microzonation for Safer Construct: Research and Application, Seattle, Washington, pp. 1189–1207.Google Scholar
  73. Stewart J P, Douglas J, Javanbarg M, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson N, Boore D M, Campbell K W, Delavaud E, Erdik M and Stafford P J 2015 Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model; Earthq. Spectra 31(1) 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tinti S and Mulargia F 1985 An improved method for the analysis of the completeness of a seismic catalogue; Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento Series 2 42(1) 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trifunac M D and Brady A G 1975 On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded strong ground motion; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65(1) 139–162.Google Scholar
  76. Valdiya K S 2016 The Making of India. Social Scientist; Society of Earth Scientists Series, Springer International Publishing, Cham.Google Scholar
  77. Verma M and Bansal B K 2016 Active fault research in India: Achievements and future perspective; Geomat. Nat. Hazards and Risk 7(1) 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vita-Finzi C 2004 Buckle-controlled seismogenic faulting in peninsular India; Quat. Sci. Rev. 23(23–24) 2405–2412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang G, Youngs R, Power M and Li Z 2015 Design ground motion library: An interactive tool for selecting earthquake ground motions; Earthq. Spectra 31(2) 617–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiemer S 2001 A software package to analyse seismicity: ZMAP; Seismol. Res. Lett. 72(2) 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zimmaro P 2015 Seismic response of the farneto del principe dam in Italy using hazard-consistent and site-specific ground motions; Thesis, Università della Calabria, Italy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shivakumar G Patil
    • 1
  • Arun Menon
    • 1
  • G R Dodagoudar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations