Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Region-specific deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Kanpur city

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A seismic hazard map of Kanpur city has been developed considering the region-specific seismotectonic parameters within a 500-km radius by deterministic and probabilistic approaches. The maximum probable earthquake magnitude (M max) for each seismic source has been estimated by considering the regional rupture characteristics method and has been compared with the maximum magnitude observed \(\left ({M_{\max }^{\text {obs}}}\right )\), \(M_{\max }^{\text {obs}} +0.5\) and Kijko method. The best suitable ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) were selected from 27 applicable GMPEs based on the ‘efficacy test’. Furthermore, different weight factors were assigned to different M max values and the selected GMPE to calculate the final hazard value. Peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration at 0.2 and 1 s were estimated and mapped for worst-case scenario and 2 and 10% probability of exceedance for 50 years. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) showed a variation from 0.04 to 0.36 g for DSHA, from 0.02 to 0.32 g and 0.092 to 0.1525 g for 2 and 10% probability in 50 years, respectively. A normalised site-specific design spectrum has been developed considering three vulnerable sources based on deaggregation at the city center and the results are compared with the recent 2011 Sikkim and 2015 Nepal earthquakes, and the Indian seismic code IS 1893.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson N A and Litehiser J J 1989 Attenuation of vertical peak accelerations; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 79 549–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson N A and Silva W J 2007 Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground motion relation for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Abrahamson N A and Silva W J 2008 Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground motion relations; Earthq. Spectra 24 67–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghabarati H and Tehranizadeh 2009 Near-source ground motion attenuation relationship for PGA and PSA of vertical and horizontal components; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 7 609–635. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9114-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S and Bommer J J 2010 Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral acceleration in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East; Seismol. Res. Lett. 81 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Algermissen S T, Perkins D M, Thenhaus P C, Hanson S L and Bender B L 1982 Probabilistic estimates of maximum acceleration and velocity in rock in the contiguous United States; Open File Report 82–1033 USGS, Washington DC 99.

  • Ambraseys N and Douglas J S 2004 Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes; Geophys. J. Int. 159 165–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys N, Douglas J S, Sarma K and Smit P M 2005 Equation for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal peak ground acceleration and the spectral acceleration; Bull. Earthq. Eng. 3 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Vinod J S and Sitharam T G 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore; Nat. Hazards 481 45–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Kumar A and Sitharam T G 2013a Ground motion prediction equation considering combined data set of recorded and simulated ground motions; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 53 92–108.

  • Anbazhagan P, Smitha C V, Kumar A and Chandran D 2013b Seismic hazard assessment of NPP site at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India; Nucl. Eng. Des. 259 41–64.

  • 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.

  • Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K and Patel S 2015b Seismic hazard mapping and spectrum for Patna considering region specific seismotectonic parameters; J. Nat. Hazards, doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1764-0.

  • 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., doi:10.1080/13632469.2015.1104747.

  • ASC (Amateur Seismic Centre) 2010 Seismicity of Uttar Pradesh; http://asc-india.org/seismi/seis-uttar-pradesh.htm.

  • Atkinson G and Boore D M 2003 Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93 1703–1729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson G M and Boore D M 2006 Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96 2181–2205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruah S, Gogoi N K, Erteleva Q, Aptikaev F and Kayal J R 2009 Ground motion parameters of Shillong plateau: One of the most seismically active zones of northeastern India; Earthq. Sci. 22 283–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia S C, Ravi M K and Gupta H K 1999 A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions; Ann. Geofis. 42 1153–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R 2015 Rising Kathmandu; Natural Geosci. 8 (8) 582–584.

    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 and Atkinson G M 2008 Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and 5% damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 and 10.0 s; Earthq. Spectra 24 (1) 99–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K W 1997 Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra; Seismol. Res. Lett. 68 (1) 154–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K W and Bozorgnia Y 2006 Next generation attenuation relation (NGA) empirical ground motion models: Can they be used for Europe; In: Proceedings of first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 458p.

  • Campbell K W and 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 period ranging from 0.01 to 10 s; Earthq. Spectra 24 139–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadha R K, Srinagesh D, Srinivas D, Suresh G, Sateesh A, Singh S K, Pérez-Campos X, Suresh G, Koketsu K, Masuda T, Domen K and Ito T 2016 CIGN, A strong-motion seismic network in Central Indo-Gangetic Plains, foothills of Himalayas: First results; Seismol. Res. Lett. 87 (1) 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Das S, Gupta I D and Gupta V K 2006 A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of northeast India; Earthq. Spectra 22 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delevaud E, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N and Riggelsen C 2009 Information-theoretic selection of ground motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis: An applicability study using Californian data; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 3248–3263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delavaud E, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N and Allen T 2012 Testing the global applicability of ground-motion prediction equations for active shallow crustal regions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102 (2) 702–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EERI Committee on Seismic Risk 1984 Glossary of terms for probabilistic seismic-risk and hazard analysis; Earthq. Spectra 1 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EM-1110 1999 Engineer manual 1110–2-6050 Department of Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC-20314–1000.

  • Frankel A 1995 Mapping seismic hazard in the central eastern United States; Seismol. Res. Lett. 66 (4) 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner J K 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 

  • Grünthal G 1998 European macroseismic scale; Cahiers du Centre Européende Géodynamiqueet de Séismologie, vol. 15.

  • GSI 2000 Eastern Nepal–Himalaya and Indo-Gangetic plains of Bihar; In: Seismotectonics atlas of India and its environs (eds) Narula P L, Acharyya S K and Banerjee J, Geol. Surv. India, pp. 26–27.

  • Gutenberg B and Richter C F 1956 Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 46 105–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta I D 2010 Response spectral attenuation relations for inslab earthquakes in Indo-Burmese subduction zone; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 30 368–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAEA S. -9 2010 Seismic hazards in site evaluation for nuclear installations; http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1448_sweb.pdf.

  • Idriss I M 2008 An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes; Earthq. Spectra 16 363–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • IS 1893 2002 Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: General provisions and buildings: Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

  • Joshi G C and Sharma M L 2008 Uncertainties in the estimation of M max; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117 (S2) 671– 682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayal J R 2008 Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia; Springer, N Y co-published with Capital Publishing Company, India.

  • Kaklamanos J and Baise L G 2011 Model validations and comparisons of the next generation attenuation of ground motions (NGA–West) project; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101 (1) 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 96 879–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A and Sellevoll M A 1989 Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files: Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogues with different threshold magnitudes; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 79 645–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolathayar S, Sitharam T G and Vipin K S 2012 Deterministic seismic hazard microzonation of India; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121 1351–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S 2012 Seismicity in the NW Himalaya India: Fractal dimension, b-value mapping and temporal variation for hazard evaluation; Geosci. Res. 3 (1) 83–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2013 Seismic hazard analysis of Lucknow considering local and active seismic gaps; Nat. Hazards 69 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin P S and Lee C H 2008 Ground-motion attenuation relationship for subduction-zone earthquakes in northeastern Taiwan; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98 (1) 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra P K 2006 Smooth spectra of horizontal and vertical ground motions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96 (2) 506–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadesha 2004 Lucknow is on earthquake list; http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Lucknow-is-onearthquakelist/articleshow/679471.cms.

  • 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. 83 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath S K, Vyas M, Pal I and Sengupta P 2005 A hazard scenario in the Sikkim Himalaya from seismotectonics spectral amplification source parameterization and spectral attenuation laws using strong motion seismometry; J. Geophys. Res. 110 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath S K, Raj A, Thingbaijam K K S and Kumar A 2009 Ground motion synthesis and seismic scenario in Guwahati city: A stochastic approach; Seismol. Res. Lett. 80 (2) 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Parvez I A, Vaccari F and Panza G F 2003 A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas; Geophys. J. Int. 155 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reasenberg P 1985 Second-order moment of central California seismicity 1969–1982; J. Geophys. Res. 90 5479–5495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum F, Delavaud E and Riggelsen C 2009 Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: An information theoretic perspective; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 3234–3247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scordilis E M 2006 Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude; J. Seismol. 10 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanker D and Sharma M L 1998 Estimation of seismic hazard parameters for the Himalayas and its vicinity from complete data files; Pure Appl. Geophys. 152 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma M L 1998 Attenuation relationship for estimation of peak ground horizontal acceleration using data from strong motions arrays in India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88 1063–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma M L and Bungum H 2006 New strong ground motion spectral acceleration relation for the Himalayan region; In: First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, p. 1459.

  • Sharma M L, Douglas J, Bungum H and Kotadia J 2009 Ground-motion prediction equations based on data from Himalayan and Zagros regions; J. Earthq. Eng. 13 1191–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh R P, Aman A and Prasad Y J J 1996 Attenuation relations for strong ground motion in the Himalayan region; Pure Appl. Geophys. 147 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spudich P, Joyner W B, Lindh A G, Boore D M, Margaris B M and Fletcher J B 1999 SEA99: A revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89 (5) 1156–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sreevalsa K, Sitharam T G and Vipin K S 2011 Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across India and adjoining area; Nat. Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9898-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Proc. Int. Conf. Microzonation, Seattle, October 30–November 3, 1972 2 897–910.

  • Stiphout V T, Zhuang J and Marsan D 2010 Seismicity declustering; Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis; http://www.corssa.org.

  • Takahashi T, Saiki T, Okada H, Irikura K, Zhao J X, Zhang J, Thoi H K, Somerville P G, Fukushima Y and Fukushima Y 2004 Attenuation models for response spectra derived from Japanese strong-motion records accounting for tectonic source types; In: 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, paper 1271.

  • Uhrhammer R A 1986 Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity; Earthquake Notes 1 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 4 (84) 975–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S and Wyss M 1994 Seismic quiescence before the Landers (M = 7.5) and Big Bear (M = 6.5) 1992 earthquakes; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84 900–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S and Wyss M 1997 Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: An improved technique to calculate recurrence times; J. Geophys. Res. 102 15,115–15,128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WGCEP (Working Group on Central California Earthquake Probabilities) 1995 Seismic hazard in Southern California: Probable earthquakes 1994 to 2024; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85 379–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav R B S, Bayrak Y, Tripathi J N, Chopra S, Singh A P and Bayrak E 2011 A probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard parameters in NW Himalayan and adjoining regions; Pure Appl. Geophys. 169 1619–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngs R R, Chiou S J, Silva W J and Humphrey J R 1997 Strong ground motion relationship for subduction earthquakes; Seismol. Res. Lett. 68 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao J X, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio H K, Somerville P G, Fukushima Y and Fukushima Y 2006 Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96 898–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments to improve the manuscript. The authors extend their sincere appreciations to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for its funding this Prolific Research Group (PRG-1436–06).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560 012, India

    Anbazhagan P, Ketan Bajaj & Nairwita Dutta

  2. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Anbazhagan P & Sayed S R Moustafa

  3. National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Cairo, 11421, Egypt

    Sayed S R Moustafa & Nassir S N Al-Arifi

Authors
  1. Anbazhagan P
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ketan Bajaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nairwita Dutta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sayed S R Moustafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nassir S N Al-Arifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anbazhagan P.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: N Purnachandra Rao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anbazhagan P, Bajaj, K., Dutta, N. et al. Region-specific deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Kanpur city. J Earth Syst Sci 126, 12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0779-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0779-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation