Journal of Seismology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 499–518 | Cite as

Strong motion envelope modelling of the source of the Chamoli earthquake of March 28, 1999 in the Garhwal Himalaya, India

  • A. Joshi


Garhwal Himalaya has been rocked by two major earthquakes in the span of just eight years, viz. Uttarkashi earthquake of 20th Oct, 1991 and Chamoli earthquake of 28th March, 1999. Chamoli earthquake of March 28, 1999 was recorded at 11 different stations of a strong motion array installed in the epicentral region. The maximum peak ground acceleration (353 cm/s2) was recorded at an accelerograph located at Gopeshwar. The data from eleven stations has been used for comparison with the simulated acceleration envelopes due to a model of the rupture responsible for this earthquake. For simulation of acceleration envelope the method of Midorikawa (1993) has been modified for its applicability to Himalayan region. This method has earlier been used by Joshi and Patel (1997) and Joshi (1999) for the studyof Uttarkashi earthquake of 20th Oct, 1991. The same method has been used for study of Chamoli earthquake. Layered earth crust has been introduced in place of homogeneous one in this method. The model of rupture is placed at a depth of 12 km below the Munsiari thrust for modelling Chamoli earthquake. Peak ground acceleration was calculated from simulated acceleration envelope using layered as well as homogeneous earth crust. For the rupture placed in a layered crust model peak ground acceleration of order 312 cm/s2 was simulated at Gopeshwar which is quite close to actually recorded value. The comparison of peak ground acceleration values in terms of root mean square error at eleven stations suggests that the root mean square error is reduced by inclusion of a layered earth crust in place of homogeneous earth crust.

Chamoli earthquake layered crust rupture model semi empirical 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrahamson, N.A. and Litehiser, J.J., 1989, Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 79, 549–580.Google Scholar
  2. Araya, R. and Kiureghiann, A.D., 1988, Seismic hazard analysis: improved models, uncertainties and sensitivities, Report no. EERC,90/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, C.A.Google Scholar
  3. Boore, D.M., 1983, Stochastic simulation of high frequency ground motion based on seismological models of radiated spectra, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73, 1865–1894.Google Scholar
  4. Boore, D.M. and Joyner, W.B., 1991, Estimation of Ground Motion at Deep Soil Sites in eastern north America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, 2167–2185.Google Scholar
  5. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., Oliver, A.A. and Page, R.A., 1980, Peak acceleration, velocity and displacement from strong motion records, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 305–321.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, K.W., 1981, Near source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 2039–2070.Google Scholar
  7. Cocco, M. and Boatwright, J., 1993, The envelope of acceleration time histories, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83(4), 1095–1114.Google Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran, A.R. and Das, J.D., 1992, Analysis of strong ground motion accelerogram of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991, Bull. Indian Soc. of Earthquake Tech. 29, 35–55.Google Scholar
  9. Chandrasekaran, A.R. and Das, J.D., 1991, Analysis of strong ground motion accelerograms of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991, Report No. EQ 91-10, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, India.Google Scholar
  10. Coats, D.A., Kanamori, H. and Houston, H., 1984, Simulation of strong ground motion from the 1964 Alaskan earthquake (abs), Earthquake Notes 55, 18.Google Scholar
  11. Dziewonski, A.M., Ekstrom, G. and Saganik, M.P., 1992, Centroid moment tensor solution for October Dec 1991, Phys. Earth and Planetary Inter. 74, 89–100.Google Scholar
  12. Esteva, L. and Rosenblueth, E., 1964, Espectros De temblores a distancias moderadas y grandes, Bo. Society Mex. Ing. Sism. 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  13. Hartzell, S.H., 1978. Earthquake aftershocks as green functions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 5, 1–4.Google Scholar
  14. Hartzell, S.H., 1982, Simulation of ground accelerations for May 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, 2381–2387.Google Scholar
  15. Hadley, D.M. and Helmberger, D.V., 1980, Simulation of strong ground motions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 617–610.Google Scholar
  16. Hanks, T.C. and McGuire, R.K., 1981, Character of high frequency ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 2071–2095.Google Scholar
  17. Hisada, T. and Ando, H., 1976, Relation between duration of earthquake ground motion and magnitude, Kajima Istitute of construction technology report.Google Scholar
  18. Housner, G.W. and Jennings, P.C., 1964, Generation of Artificial earthquakes, Proc. ASCE 90, 113–150.Google Scholar
  19. Houston, H. and Kanamori, H., 1984, The effect of asperities on short period seismic radiation with application on rupture process and strong motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 76, 19–42.Google Scholar
  20. Hutchings, L., 1985, Modelling earthquakes with empirical green's functions (abs), Earthquake Notes 56, 14.Google Scholar
  21. Imagawa, K., Mikami, N. and Mikumo, T., 1984, Analytical and semi empirical synthesis of near field seismic waveforms for investigating the rupture mechanism of major earthquakes, J. Physics of Earth 32, 317–338.Google Scholar
  22. Irikura, K., 1986, Prediction of strong acceleration motion using empirical Green's function, Proceedings of 7th Japan earthquake engineering sym, 151–156.Google Scholar
  23. Irikura, K. and Muramatu, I., 1982, Synthesis of strong ground motions from large earthquakes using observed seismograms of small events, Proceedings of 3rd International Microzonation Conference, Seattle, 447–458.Google Scholar
  24. Jain, A.K. and Chander, R., 1995, Geodynamic models for Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20, 1991, Uttarkashi Earthquake, Geological Society of India, 225–233.Google Scholar
  25. Joshi, A., 1994, Strong motion modelling of rupture plane along an identified probable causative fault, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee.Google Scholar
  26. Joshi, A., 1997, Modelling of peak ground acceleration for Uttarkashi earthquake of 20th October, 1991, Bull. Ind Soc. Earthquake Tech. 34, 75–96.Google Scholar
  27. Joshi, A. and Patel, R.C., 1997, Modelling of active lineaments for predicting possible earthquake scenario around Dehradun, Garhwal Himalaya, India, Tectonophysics 283, 289–310.Google Scholar
  28. Joshi, A., 1998, Study of the Uttarkashi earthquake in terms of rupture model and isoseismals, J. Geophysics 19, 133–140. 517Google Scholar
  29. Joshi, A. and Kumar, B., 1999, Generation of synthetic accelerograms, by modelling of rupture plane, J. Indian Soc. Earthq. Tech. (Accepted).Google Scholar
  30. Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1981, Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial valley, California earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am 71, 2011–2038.Google Scholar
  31. Kakehi, Y. and Irikura, K., 1996, Estimation of high frequency wave radiation areas on the fault plane by the envelope inversion of acceleration seismogram, Geophys. J. Int. 125, 892–900.Google Scholar
  32. Kakehi, Y. and Irikura, K., 1997, High frequency radiation process during earthquake faulting-envelope inversion of acceleration seismograms from the 1993 Hokkaido – Nansei – Oki, Japan earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 904–917.Google Scholar
  33. Kameda, H. and Sugito, M., 1978, Prediction of strong earthquake motions by evolutionary process model, Proceedings of 6th Japan earthquake engineering Symp, 41–48.Google Scholar
  34. Kanamori, H., 1979, A semi empirical approach to prediction of long period ground motions from great earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 69, 1645–1670.Google Scholar
  35. Kayal, J.R., 1994, Long term seismicity, foreshocks and aftershocks of the Uttarkashi earthquake – October 20, 1991 at Garhwal Himalaya, Abst in: Group discussion on 'Geological hazards in Himalayan region: Assessment and mitigation, Dehradun, 17–18.Google Scholar
  36. Kayal, J.R., Kamble, V.P. and Rostogi, B.K., 1992, Aftershock sequence of Uttarkashi earthquake October 20, 1991, Geological Society of India Special Publication 30, 203–217.Google Scholar
  37. Kayal, J.R., Nath, S.K., Goswami, Roy, S., Ram, S. and Srirama, B.V., 1999, Site response study by shear wave spectral analysis using the 1999 Chamoli earthquake sequence in Garhwal Himalaya, Workshop on Chamoli earthquake and its impact, Department of Science and Technology, India.Google Scholar
  38. Kennedy, R.P., Short, S.A., Kipp, T.R., Banon, H., Tokarz, F.J. and Merz, K.L., 1984, Engineering characterization of ground motion-task I: Effects of characteristics of free field motion on structural response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rept. NUREG/CR-3805.Google Scholar
  39. Khattri, K.N., 1998, Simulation of earthquake strong ground motion for seismic hazard estimation, National Seminar on Recent Advances in Seismology, pp. 20 (Abstract published in Souvenir).Google Scholar
  40. Kumar, D., Teotia, S.S. and Khattri, K.N., 1997, The representation of attenuation characteristics of strong ground motions observed in the 1986 Dharamsala and 1991 Uttarkashi earthquakes by available empirical relations, Current Sci. 73, 543–548.Google Scholar
  41. Kumar, D., Khattri, K.N., Teotia, S.S. and Rai, S.S., 1999, Modelling of accelerograms for two Himalayan earthquakes using a novel semi empirical method and estimation of accelerogram for a hypothetical great earthquake in the Himalaya, Current Sci. 76, 819–830.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, W.H.K. and Stewart, S.W., 1981, Principles and Applications of Microearthquake Networks, Academic Press, New York, pp. 293.Google Scholar
  43. McGuire, R.K., 1977, Seismic design spectra and mapping procedures using hazard analysis based directly on oscillator response, J. earthquake Eng. Strut. Dyn. 5, 211–234.Google Scholar
  44. Mendoza, C. and Hartzell, S., 1988, Inversion for slip distribution using teleseismic P waveforms, North Palm Springs, Borah Peak, and Michoacan earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 1092–1111.Google Scholar
  45. Metcalfe, R.P., 1993, Pressure, temperature and time constraints on metamorphism across the Main Central Thrust zone and High Himalayan Slab in Garhwal Himalaya, Himalayan Tectonics, Geological Society Special Publication no. 74, Treloar, P.J. and Searle, M.P. (eds), pp. 485–510.Google Scholar
  46. Midorikawa, S., 1989, Synthesis of ground acceleration of large earthquakes using acceleration envelope waveform of small earthquake, J. Struct. Constr. Engin. 398, 23–30.Google Scholar
  47. Midorikawa, S., 1993, Semi empirical estimation of peak ground acceleration from large earthquakes, Tectonophysics 218, 287–295.Google Scholar
  48. Mugnuia, L. and Brune, J.M., 1984, Simulations of strong ground motions for eathquakes in the Mexicali-Imperial valley, Proc. of workshop on strong ground motion simulation and earthquake engineering applications, Pub. 85-02 Earthquake Engineering Research Institue, Los Altos, California, 21-1-21-19.Google Scholar
  49. Negi, R.S., Nawani, P.C., Rawat, J.S., Agarwal, K.K., Sawat, P.V., Gairola, B.M., Tripathi, S.K., Khanduri, K.C., Singh, Bhupendra, Dangwal, D.P., 1999, Macroseismic effects and related geotechnical problems caused by Chamoli earthquake on 29th March, 1999 in parts of Garhwal Himalaya, (Abs.), Workshop on Chamoli earthquake and its impact, Department of Science and Technology, India.Google Scholar
  50. Pande, P., Singh, R.K., Gupta, S.K. and Joshi, K.C., 1999, A Review of seismotectonics of Garhwal Himalaya – An explanation of the mechanics of 29th March, 1999 Chamoli earthquake, (Abs.), Workshop on Chamoli earthquake and its impact, Department of Science and Technology, India.Google Scholar
  51. Paul, S.K., Rautela, P. and Lakhera, R.C., 1999, Interrelationship of co-seismic fractures with tectonic setup of the area: A study of 28th March, 1999 Chamoli earthquake, (Abs.), Workshop on Chamoli earthquake and its impact, Department of Science and Technology, India.Google Scholar
  52. Reiter, L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Analysis – Issues and Insights, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Sato, R. (ed.), 1989, Handbook of fault parameters of Japanese earthquakes, Kajima, Tokyo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  54. Sharpe, R.L., 1982, An investigation of the correlation between earthquake ground motion and building performance, Appl. Tech. Counc. Rept. ATC-10, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  55. Sinozuka, M. and Sato, Y., 1967, Simulation of nonstationary random processes, Proc. ASCE 93, 11–40.Google Scholar
  56. Sinvhal, A., Sinvhal, H., Jain, A.K., Manickavasagam, R.M., Joshi, A. and Joshi, G., 1992, Modelling of Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20, 1991 in terms of seismic microzonation and causative fault (Abst.), In: Synthesis of the Uttarkashi earthquake Data, 20th Oct, 1991 and Seismotectonics of Garhwal-Kumaon Himalaya, New Delhi, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  57. Thakur, V.C. and Rohella, R.K., 1999, Geodynamic model for Chamoli earthquake of March 29, 1999 and seismic hazard assesment in the Garhwal Kumaon region, Workshop on Chamoli earthquake and its impact, Department of Science and Technology, India.Google Scholar
  58. Toro, G.R. and McGuire, R.K., 1987, An investigation into earthquake ground motion characteristics in eastern north America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 77, 468–489.Google Scholar
  59. Trifunac, M.D. and Brady, A.G., 1975, A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65, 581–627.Google Scholar
  60. Valdiya, K.S., 1977, Structural setup of the Kumaon lesser Himalaya, In: Himalayan Science de la terre, Centre Nationale Recherche Science, Paris 268, 449–462.Google Scholar
  61. Yu, G., 1994, Some aspect of earthquake seismology: Slip partitioning along major convergent plate boundaries; composite source model for estimation of strong motion; and nonlinear soil response modelling, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  62. Yu, G., Khattri, K.N., Anderson, J.G., Brune, J.N. and Zeng, Y., 1995, Strong ground motion from the Uttarkashi earthquake, Himalaya, India, Earthquake: Comparison of observations with synthetics using the composite source model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 31–50.Google Scholar
  63. Zeng, Y., Anderson, J.G. and Su, F., 1994, A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong ground motions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 725–728.Google Scholar
  64. Zeng, Y., Aki, K. and Teng, T.L., 1993, Mapping of the high frequency source radiation for the loma prieta earthquake, California, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 11981–11993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Joshi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesKurukshetra UniversityHaryaraIndia

Personalised recommendations