Abstract
Uttarakhand is one of the most seismically active states of India. In this study, the seismic hazard map of Uttarakhand has been developed through deterministic seismic hazard analysis approach. Seismotectonic map with various geological discontinuities has been prepared. A homogenous earthquake catalogue for moment magnitude has been prepared for the duration of 1953–2020 and the past seismic data have been checked for completeness with regard to time and magnitude. Maximum potential magnitude was then assessed for the seismic sources. Concept of logic tree with four different ground motion prediction models was employed for the assessment of hazards. For developing the microzonation map, the state was divided into several grid points (0.1°×0.1°), and the seismic hazard was estimated in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) for each of the grid points. The estimated PGA values were found to be varying from 0.12 g to as high as 0.70 g. For northern regions, Main Central Thrust, Sundernagar and Ropar faults are critical, whereas for southern regions, thrusts TT18, TT23, TT19, TT23 and faults F37, F36, and F31 are significant. It has also been observed that the current Indian standard underestimates the response spectrum values for most regions of the state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K and Patel S 2015 Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region specific seismotectonic parameters; Nat. Hazards 78 1163–1195, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1764-0.
Anbazhagan P, Kumar A and Sitharam T G 2013 Ground motion prediction equation considering combined dataset of recorded and simulated ground motions; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 53 92–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.003.
Baro O and Kumar A 2017 Seismic source characterisation for the Shillong Plateau in Northeast India; J. Seismol. 21(5) 1229–1249, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9664-2.
Bhatia S C, Kumar M R and Gupta H K 1999 A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions; Ann. Geophys. 42 1153–1164, https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3777.
Bommer J J, Douglas J, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Bungum H and Fah D 2010 On the selection of ground motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis; Seismol. Res. Lett. 81(5) 783–793, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783.
Das R, Wason H R and Sharma M L 2011 Global regression relations for conversion of surface wave and body wave magnitudes to moment magnitude; Nat. Hazards 59 801–810, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9796-6.
Dasgupta S, Pande P, Ganguly D, Iqbal Z, Sanyal K, Venkatraman N V, Dasgupta S, Sural B, Harendranath L, Mazumdar K, Sanyal S, Roy A, Das L K, Misra P S and Gupta H 2000 Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs; Geol. Surv. India Spec. Publ. 59 87.
Deniz A and Yucemen M S 2010 Magnitude conversion problem for the Turkish earthquake data; Nat. Hazards 55(2) 333–352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9531-8.
ESRI 2016 ArcGIS Release 10.5. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Redlands, California.
Eurocode-8 2005 BS-EN 1998–1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings; European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
Hanks T C 1982 f max; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72 1869–1879.
Huang J and Dapeng Z 2006 High-resolution mantle tomography of China and surrounding regions; J. Geohys. Res. Solid Earth 111(B9), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004066.
IS 1893 2016 Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: General provisions and buildings; Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Kanno T, Narita A, Morikawa N, Fujiwara H and Fukushima Y 2006 A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96(3) 879–897, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050138.
Khattri K M and Tyagi A K 1983 Seismicity patterns in the Himalayan plate boundary and identification of the areas of high seismic potential; Tectonophys. 96 281–297, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050138.
Khattri K N, Rogers A M, Perkins D M and Algermissen S T 1984 A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas; Tectonophys. 108 93–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(84)90156-2.
Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical earthquake engineering; Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Kumar P, Kumar A and Sinvhal A 2011 Assessment of seismic hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya; Disaster Prev. Manag. 20 531–542.
Mahajan A K, Thakur V C, Sharma M L and Chauhan M 2010 Probabilistic seismic hazard map of NW Himalaya and its adjoining area, India; Nat. Hazards 53 443–457, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9439-3.
Mark R K 1977 Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes; Geology 5(8) 464–466, https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1977)5%3c464:AOLSMO%3e2.0.CO;2.
MATLAB Programming Version (R2019a) The MathWorks Inc Natick, Massachusetts, United States.
Mignan A, Werner M J, Wiemer S, Chen C C and Wu Y M 2011 Bayesian estimation of the spatially varying completeness magnitude of earthquake catalogs; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101(3) 1371–1385, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100223.
Mishra O P 2020 Seismic microzonation study of south Asian cities and its implications to urban risk resiliency under climate change scenario; Int. J. Geosci. 11 197–237, https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2020.114012.
Mishra O P, Mandal H S, Singh P, Mahato R, Gera S K, Kumar V, Sharma B, Shekhar S, Gusain P, Prajapati S K and Tiwari A 2022 Seismic microzonation of Indian cities and strategy for safer design of structures; In: Social and Economic Impact of Earth Sciences, pp. 393–419.
Mishra O P, Singh P, Ram B, Gera S K, Singh O P, Mukherjee K K, Chakrabortty G K, Chandrasekhar S V N, Selinraj A and Som S K 2020 Seismic site specific study for seismic microzonation: A way forward for risk resiliency of vital infrastructure in Sikkim, India; Int. J. Geosci. 11 125–144, https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2020.113008.
Naik N and Choudhury D 2015 Deterministic seismic hazard analysis considering different seismicity levels for the state of Goa, India; Nat. Hazards 75(1) 557–580, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1346-6.
Nath S K and Thingbaijam K K S 2012 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83 135–149, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135.
Nath S K, Shukla K and Vyas M 2008 Seismic hazard scenario and attenuation model of the Garhwal Himalaya using near-field synthesis from weak motion seismometry; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117 649–670, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0062-6.
NDMA 2010 Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India; Technical report by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India, New Delhi.
Nowroozi A A 1985 Empirical relations between magnitudes and fault parameters for earthquakes in Iran; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75 1327–1338, https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0750051327.
Papageorgiou A S and Aki K 1983 A specific barrier model for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong around motion. I. Description of the model; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73 693–722.
Puri N and Jain A 2016 Deterministic seismic hazard analysis for the State of Haryana, India; Indian Geotech. J. 46(2) 164–174, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-015-0167-1.
Rajendran K, Rajendran C P, Jain S K, Murty C V R and Arlekar J N 2000 The Chamoli earthquake, Garhwal Himalaya: Field observations and implications for seismic hazard; Curr. Sci. 78 45–51.
Rout M M and Das J 2018 Probabilistic seismic hazard for Himalayan region using kernel estimation method (zone-free method); Nat. Hazards 93 967–985.
Rout M M, Das J and Das R 2015 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of NW and central Himalayas and the adjoining region; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 124 577–586.
Sabetta F, Lucantoni A, Bungum H and Boomer J J 2005 Sensitivity of PSHA results to ground motion prediction relations and logic-tree weights; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 25 317–329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.002.
Schulte S M and Mooney W D 2004 An updated earthquake catalog for stable continental regions, Intraplate earthquakes (495-2002); United States Geological Survey, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/data.
Sharma M L 1998 Attenuation relationship for estimation of peak ground horizontal acceleration using data from strong-motion arrays in India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88(4) 1063–1069.
Sharma M L and Lindholm C 2012 Earthquake hazard assessment for Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, including a characteristic earthquake recurrence model for the Himalaya Frontal Fault (HFF); Pure Appl. Geophys. 169(9) 1601–1617.
Sinha R and Sarkar R 2020 Seismic hazard assessment of Dhanbad city, India by deterministic approach; Nat. Hazards 103 1857–1880, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04059-9.
Stepp J C 1972 Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard; In: Proceeding of the International Conference on Microzonation, pp. 897–910.
Vanadana and Mishra O P 2019 Source characteristics of the NW Himalaya and its adjoining region: Geodynamical implications; Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 294 106277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2019.106277.
Wells D L and Coppersmith K J 1994 New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84(4) 974–1002, https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974.
Wiemer S and Wyss M 2000 Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90(4) 859–869, https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114.
Acknowledgements
The first author acknowledges the financial support provided by MHRD, Govt. of India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
VS was responsible for the collection of data, finalisation of methodology, development of codes, analyses of data, preparation of maps and writing the manuscript. RS was responsible for conceptualisation, finalisation of methodology, supervision, manuscript review and editing. Both VS and RS reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Munukutla Radhakrishna
Appendix
Appendix
Sl. no. | Source | Length (km) | Observed Mw | M 1,max | M 2,max | M 3,max | M 4,max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
REG-A | |||||||
1 | F10 – Kaurik Fault | 145.96 | 6.7 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 7.1 |
2 | F11 | 73.54 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 6.7 |
3 | F12 | 31.15 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 6.2 |
4 | F13 – Sundernagar Fault | 118.29 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 5.1 | 8.0 | 6.9 |
5 | F14 | 17.014 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 5.9 |
6 | F15 – Ropar Fault | 49.50 | 5.6 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 6.5 |
7 | F16 | 34.14 | 3.0 | 6.3 | 2.7 | 4.7 | 6.3 |
8 | F8 – Karakoram Fault | 323.15 | 6.7 | 7.6 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 7.5 |
9 | F9 | 25.73 | 5.0 | 6.2 | 3.6 | 6.0 | 6.1 |
10 | TT1 | 112.00 | 5.5 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 6.9 |
11 | TT2 – Jwalamukhi Thrust | 346.00 | 6.6 | 8.1 | 5.0 | 7.9 | 7.5 |
12 | TT3 | 217.00 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 7.2 |
13 | TT4 | 75.00 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 6.7 |
14 | TT5 | 237.00 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 4.1 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
15 | TT6 | 96.00 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 4.1 | 6.6 | 6.8 |
16 | TT7 – MCT1 | 143.00 | 6.8 | 7.9 | 5.1 | 8.1 | 7.1 |
17 | TT8 | 561.00 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 7.8 |
18 | TT9 | 62.00 | 6.8 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 6.6 |
19 | TT10 | 325.00 | 5.5 | 6.9 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.5 |
20 | TT11 | 88.00 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
21 | TT12 | 73.00 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.7 |
22 | TT13 | 122.00 | 5.5 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
23 | TT14 – Drang Thrust | 375.00 | 5.5 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 7.6 |
24 | TT15 | 169.00 | 5.2 | 6.7 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 7.1 |
25 | TT16 | 40.00 | 3.3 | 6.3 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 6.4 |
26 | TT17 – Ramgarh Thrust | 542.00 | 6.8 | 7.7 | 5.1 | 8.1 | 7.8 |
27 | TT18 | 231.00 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
28 | TT20 – MFT1 | 137.00 | 6.6 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 7.9 | 7.0 |
29 | TT21 | 107.00 | 3.5 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 5 | 6.9 |
30 | TT22 | 3.00 | 6.6 | 5.6 | 4.4 | 7.1 | 5.0 |
31 | TT23 | 185.00 | 5.3 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
32 | TT24 | 188.00 | 5.3 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
33 | TT25 – Maroli Thrust | 176.00 | 6.6 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 7.2 |
34 | TT26 – MCT2 | 435.00 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 8.1 | 7.6 |
35 | TT27 | 8.00 | 6.8 | 5.9 | 4.0 | 6.6 | 5.5 |
36 | F29 | 84.00 | 6.9 | 6.5 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 6.8 |
37 | F30 | 41.00 | 6.9 | 6.3 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 6.4 |
38 | F31 | 27.00 | 6.9 | 6.2 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 6.2 |
39 | F32 | 47.00 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 6.5 |
40 | F33 | 120.00 | 6.8 | 6.6 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 6.9 |
41 | F34 | 150.00 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 7.1 |
42 | F35 | 3.00 | 6.8 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 5.7 | 5.0 |
43 | F36 | 133.00 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 4.4 | 7.1 | 7.0 |
44 | F37 | 207.00 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 7.2 |
45 | F38 | 73.00 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
46 | F39 | 90.00 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
47 | F40 | 49.00 | 6 | 6.4 | 4.1 | 6.7 | 6.5 |
48 | F42 | 71.00 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
49 | F96 | 31.00 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.2 |
50 | F97 – Keytang | 184.00 | 6.7 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 7.2 |
51 | F98 | 94.00 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 6.8 |
52 | F99 | 5.00 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 3.6 | 5.9 | 5.3 |
53 | F100 | 127.00 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 7.0 |
54 | F101 | 6.00 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 5.9 | 5.4 |
55 | F102 | 104.00 | 5.2 | 6.6 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
56 | F103 | 28.00 | 3.5 | 6.2 | 2.9 | 5 | 6.2 |
57 | F104 | 30.00 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.2 |
58 | F105 | 10.00 | 4.8 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 5.9 | 5.6 |
59 | F106 | 170.00 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.1 |
60 | F107 | 119.00 | 5.5 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 6.9 |
61 | F108 | 50.00 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 6.5 |
62 | F109 | 14.00 | 5.5 | 6 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 5.8 |
63 | F92 | 21.00 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 3 | 5.1 | 6.0 |
REG-C | |||||||
64 | F91 | 30.00 | 4.7 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 5.8 | 6.2 |
65 | F87 | 37.00 | 5.3 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.3 |
66 | F88 | 41.00 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
67 | FF19 | 43.70 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 6.4 |
68 | F84 | 54.00 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.5 |
69 | F85 | 57.00 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.6 |
70 | F86 | 58.00 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.6 |
71 | FF13 | 64.92 | 6 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 6.7 | 6.6 |
72 | F81 | 70.00 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.7 |
73 | F82 | 74.00 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.7 |
74 | F77 | 76.00 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.7 |
75 | F93 | 87.00 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 5.8 | 6.8 |
76 | FF5 | 92.59 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
77 | F79 | 105.00 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 6.9 |
78 | FF15 | 121.93 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 6.7 | 7.0 |
79 | FF25 | 126.65 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.0 |
80 | F76 | 128.00 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.0 |
81 | F78 | 129.00 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.0 |
82 | F89 | 132.00 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 5.8 | 7.0 |
83 | F43 | 135.00 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
84 | F19 | 147.00 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.1 |
85 | F54 | 161.00 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.1 |
86 | FF4 | 168.27 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.1 |
87 | F41 | 169.00 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 7.1 |
88 | FF14 | 172.32 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 6.7 | 7.2 |
89 | F75 | 175.00 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
90 | F50 | 182.00 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
91 | FF11 | 185.35 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
92 | FF18 | 194.60 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 7.2 |
93 | F20 – Moradabad Fault | 204.00 | 6.1 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 7.2 |
94 | FF20 | 208.25 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 4.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
95 | F95 | 242.00 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 4.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
96 | FF17 | 244.74 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
97 | FF9 | 289.95 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 7.4 |
98 | F90 | 336.00 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 5.8 | 7.5 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, V., Sarkar, R. Evaluation of seismic hazard of Uttarakhand State of India through deterministic approach. J Earth Syst Sci 132, 176 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-023-02185-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-023-02185-z