Skip to main content

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

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.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Anbazhagan P, Vinod J S and Sitharam T G 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore; Nat. Hazards 48(2) 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Atkinson G M and Silva W 2000 Stochastic modeling of California ground motions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90(2) 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzurro P and Cornell C A 1999 Disaggregation of seismic hazard; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89(2) 501–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra U 1977 Earthquakes of peninsular India – a seismotectonic study; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 67(5) 1387–1413.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell C A 1968 Engineering seismic risk analysis; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58(5) 1583–1606.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Desai S S and Choudhury D 2013 Spatial variation of probabilistic seismic hazard for Mumbai and surrounding region; Nat. Hazards 71 1873–1898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J 2016 Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2016; http://www.gmpe.org.uk.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Graizer V 2016 Ground-motion prediction equations for central and eastern North America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106(4) 1600–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B and Richter C F 1944 Frequency of earthquakes in California; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34(4) 185.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Jaiswal K and Sinha R 2007 Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97(1) 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain S K 2016 Earthquake safety in India: Achievements, challenges and opportunities; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14(5) 1337–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston A C 1996 Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions – I. Instrumental seismicity; Geophys. J. Int. 124(2) 381–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston A C and Kanter L R 1990 Earthquakes in stable continental crust; Scientific American 262(3) 68–75.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kijko A 2004 Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, mmax, Pure and Applied Geophysics 161 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolathayar S and Sitharam T G 2012 Characterization of regional seismic source zones in and around India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83(1) 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering; In: Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

  • Kramer S L, Arduino P and Sideras S S 2012 Earthquake ground motion selection; The State of Washington Department of Transportation, University of Washington.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • McGuire R K 1976 EQRISK: FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis.

  • McGuire R K 1995 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85 1275–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire R K 2004 Seismic hazard and risk analysis; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.

  • McGuire R K and Arabasz W J 1990 An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Geotech. Environ. Geophys., pp. 333–353.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath S K and Thingbaijam K K S 2012 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83(1) 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NDMA 2010 Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India; Technical Report by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India.

  • NIST 2011 Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analysis; Gaithersburg, Maryland.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao B R and Rao P S 1984 Historical seismicity of peninsular India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74(6) 2519–2533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabetta F 2013 Seismic hazard and design earthquakes for the central archaeological area of Rome; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12(3) 1307–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sextos A G 2014 Selection of ground motions for response history analysis; Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–10.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Valdiya K S 2016 The Making of India. Social Scientist; Society of Earth Scientists Series, Springer International Publishing, Cham.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vita-Finzi C 2004 Buckle-controlled seismogenic faulting in peninsular India; Quat. Sci. Rev. 23(23–24) 2405–2412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S 2001 A software package to analyse seismicity: ZMAP; Seismol. Res. Lett. 72(2) 373–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun Menon.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: P S Agram

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patil, S.G., Menon, A. & Dodagoudar, G.R. Probabilistic seismic hazard at the archaeological site of Gol Gumbaz in Vijayapura, south India. J Earth Syst Sci 127, 16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-0917-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-0917-4

Keywords

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