You are on page 1of 15

Article Title Page

Assessment of Seismic Hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya


Author Details: Prabhat Kumar, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India Ashwini Kumar, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India Amita Sinvhal, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India Corresponding author: Amita Sinvhal, E mail: amitafeq@iitr.ernet.in, amitafeq@gmail.com

Structured Abstract: Purpose: For a state like Uttarakhand that is located in the seismically active Himalayan region, and in the vicinity of plate boundaries, estimation of seismic hazard and preparation of a zoning map are an urgent necessity. Methodology: 32 potential seismo tectonic source zones were identified in a very wide area in and around the state, on the basis of seismicity and tectonics, and the longer ones were segmented. Maximum magnitude that each seismo tectonic source zone can support was then estimated. Seismic hazard due to each seismo tectonic source zone was assessed at 180 sites, in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). Findings: The maximum PGA at each site varied between 0.06g and 0.50g. Seismic hazard was highest around the Main Central Thrust and the Main Boundary Thrust, and 5 other thrusts which were between these two thrusts. This assessment was adapted to make a seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand, with 5 distinct zones. Research limitations: If seismo tectonic source zones from the contiguous regions of Nepal and Tibet were included as part of this assessment, then higher hazard would be expected in Uttarakhand. Practical implications: Threat perceptions of a potential earthquake disaster can be assessed in this zoning map. Disaster mitigation strategies will vary geographically, with priorities defined by the zoning map presented here. The methodology evolved has the potential to be extended to other vulnerable states in the Himalayan arc. Value: The assessed seismic hazard has been adapted to formulate a seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand. Keywords: Himalaya, seismicity, tectonics, uttarakhand, hazard, zoning map

Article Classification: Research paper

For internal production use only Running Heads:

Introduction The Indian subcontinent is a seismically active part of the world. Major seismic activity in India is concentrated along the geologically young and seismo tectonically active Himalayan arc due to the ongoing continent-continent collision between Indian and Eurasian plates. As part of the Alpine Himalayan seismic belt this arc has experienced four great earthquakes, i.e. earthquakes with magnitude greater than 8, within a span of 53 years. No great earthquake has occurred within the Himalayan arc after 1950, i.e. in the last 60 years, and such an earthquake can occur any time soon. The Himalayan state of Uttarakhand lies in the region between epicenters of two great earthquakes namely, Kangra (1905) and Bihar Nepal earthquakes (1934). This seismic gap, (Khattri, 1987), has not experienced a major earthquake during a time interval when most other segments of the gap have ruptured. Seismic gaps are supposed to have a high future earthquake potential. Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess seismic hazard and have a detailed zoning map of the state. Seismic hazard involves a quantitative estimate of ground shaking at a particular site or within an area. Seismicity and seismic source zones To assess seismic hazard it is essential to first identify seismic source zones. This requires a detailed examination of the seismicity pattern of the area in and around Uttarakhand. Initially, a very wide area, falling between the great Kangra earthquake of 1905 and the great Bihar Nepal earthquake of 1934 was selected. This area lies between latitude 25 N to 37 N and longitude 72 E to 87 E. Catalogue of earthquake data, as per India Meteorological Department (IMD), revealed 2097 epicenters of magnitude 4 and above for the period 1552 to 2007, as shown in Figure 1. Spatial distribution of seismicity is nonuniform. A diffused pattern was observed over a very large area, whereas several clusters of epicenters were aligned in an almost northwest southeast trending belt, parallel to the Himalayan trend, between epicenters of the two great earthquakes. This NW_SE trending seismic belt passes through Uttarakhand. Eleven earthquakes of magnitude more than 6.0 have originated within the state since A D 1552. The Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20 1991, (magnitude Ms 7.0, Mw 6.8, mb 6.5, USGS), and Chamoli earthquake of March 29 1999, (magnitude Ms 6.6, mb 6.4, USGS) had the highest magnitude of all earthquakes that originated within the state. A region where seismicity is concentrated can be considered to indicate a preliminary seismic source zone. The observed pattern of seismicity can be taken to represent the expected future pattern of seismicity. Since epicentral data available for Uttarakhand and the region around it is available for a short span of time as compared to the average return period between large earthquakes therefore seismicity alone was not enough to identify seismic source zones. Inclusion of tectonics helped in circumventing this problem. Tectonic Units The most commonly used tectonic units considered for assessing seismic hazard are faults and thrusts. Initially, regional tectonic set up of the area was examined (Narula et. al., 2000), for the same area as for seismicity. Tectonic features, such as faults, thrusts, suture

zones and lineaments, identified and digitized, using GIS software package, are shown in Figure 1. The vast study area, for which seismicity was initially studied, was narrowed down to a distance of about 300 km from every corner of Uttarakhand. Due to collision zone tectonics a complex network of mega faults, thrusts and suture zones, exist in the area. North and south of the Indus Suture Zone, (ISZ), which forms the tectonic boundary between the Indian and Eurasian plates, are the Tethys Himalayas and the Main Central Thrust (MCT), respectively. The two mega thrusts, MCT and Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), separate three geologically distinct settings. The Greater Himalayas lie north of the MCT, between the MCT and ISZ; the Lesser Himalayas lie between MCT and MBT, and the Outer Himalaya lie south of the MBT. The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), also known as the Frontal Foothill Thrust, FFT, is south of the MBT, and is a neo-tectonic thrust. These form the foothills bordering the Indo Gangetic plains. The ISZ, MCT, MBT and FFT manifest throughout the Himalayan arc, between the eastern and western syntaxis, and have prominent surface manifestations at several places. The MCT terminates against the Kishtwar fault in Jammu and Kashmir in the northwest. The MCT, MBT and FFT traverse prominently through Uttarakhand and are prone to frequent earthquakes and landslides. The genesis of the Kangra earthquake is associated with the MBT, and there is a concentration of epicenters on the MBT around the Kangra earthquake. Seismicity is concentrated north of (MBT), mainly between MBT and MCT, and in the vicinity and north of MCT. The MBT, also known as Krol Belt in Uttarakhand, shows neo-tectonic activity at several places. Besides these mega Himalayan thrusts several other faults and thrusts exist in the study area. Karakoram Fault (KF) exhibits a huge offset and extends for more than 1000 km from central Pamir to north of Uttarakhand Himalayas. The region between the MBT and the MFT is traversed by several thrusts. Some of these, such as Jwalamukhi Thrust (JMT), Drang Thrust, (DT), and the Sundernagar Fault (SNF), also known as Manali Fault; can be traced over long distances. Neo-tectonic activity has been documented in western parts of Jwalamukhi Thrust. In addition to tectonic features mentioned here, several faults and lineaments are transverse to the Himalayan trend. Prominent among these are the Kaurik fault system, (KFS); Mahendragarh Dehradun Fault (MDF), Great Boundary Fault (GBF), and Moradabad fault (MF), which exists in the Delhi-Moradabad region. Several tectonic features are prominent in Uttarakhand. These include the Alaknanda fault (AF), which is a conspicuous neo-tectonic feature in the area; North Almora Thrust, (NAT), South Almora Thrust, (SAT), Martoli Thrust, (MT1 and MT2), Vaikrita Thrust (VT), Ramgarh Thrust (RT), and Munsiari thrust. Besides these major thrusts the region also has a large number of smaller thrusts, mostly within curves and loops, most of which are less than 50 km long. To proceed with hazard assessment those potential sources not named in the Atlas were given a unique name. Eight of these were christened as Thrust Zone 1 to 8, (TZ1, TZ2, TZ3, TZ4, TZ5, TZ6, TZ7, and TZ8). Faults involving basement and cover were named as Fault G1, G2 and G3 and Fault R1 is a neo tectonic fault. All the 32 identified source zones are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Segmentation of Seismo-tectonic Source zones In certain regions there is a clear cut relationship between faults and earthquakes, e.g., San Andreas Fault in southern California. However, in the Himalayas, any spatial

association of tectonic features with seismicity is poorly understood. For such regions for assessing seismic hazard seismicity has to be considered in association with tectonics of the region, i.e. seismo tectonic source zones acquire an enhanced importance. A seismo-tectonic source is a geological structure, which is capable of generating earthquakes. Discontinuity and intersection of mega thrusts with neo tectonic faults were important diagnostic features which were used as an aid for segmentation of mega thrusts. The very long and highly contorted MCT was divided into 4 segments for assessing seismic hazard. Segment MCT1 was in the western portion of the study area. It was considered between two faults that are transverse to the Himalayan trend, the Kishtwar fault and a small neo tectonic fault along which the MCT exhibits a pronounced discontinuity. Segment MCT2 was considered between this neo tectonic fault discontinuity that marked one extremity of MCT1 and the Sundernagar Fault (SNF), mainly because of seismicity south of MCT. Segment MCT3 was marked between Sundernagar Fault (SNF) in the west and its abrupt termination in the east due to unavailability of tectonic data east of Uttarakhand, at 810E longitude. This segment is mainly within Uttarakhand. MCT4 is east of the study area, between approximately 81.60 and 840 longitude, in Nepal Himalayas. MBT was considered as two segments, marked by a pronounced discontinuity across neo tectonic fault R1. MBT1 is between 78.40 longitude and 81 0 longitude. This portion is mainly within Uttarakhand. MBT2 is the portion between 750 longitude and 81 0 longitude. Each fault, thrust and segment was used separately for estimating seismic hazard. Studies of fault rupture worldwide indicate that during an earthquake the entire length of a fault does not rupture, but individual segments rupture and this process appears to repeat through several seismic cycles, (Coppersmith, 1991). Therefore, each segment aided in estimating the length of rupture likely to occur along that thrust. In the present study it was assumed that one third of the identified seismo-tectonic segment was involved in rupture for generating the maximum magnitude earthquake (Mark, 1977). All identified seismo-tectonic sources, which were capable of producing significant ground motion at a site, were idealized as line sources. The rupture length estimated for various sources ranged from 7 km for fault G3, to 215 km for the segment of MCT that is within Uttarakhand. Seismic hazard The next important step in assessment of seismic hazard was to assign maximum magnitude to an earthquake that can occur on an identified seismo tectonic source zone. The size of an earthquake is empirically related to dimensions of rupture, (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), and this correlation was used to compute maximum magnitude that each seismo tectonic source zone could support. This is also termed as maximum credible earthquake or maximum considered earthquake. These emerged in the range 6.1 to 7.8, a condition which cannot be ruled out within a seismic gap. A critical part of seismic hazard assessment is the quantitative estimation of strong ground shaking expected to occur at a site, and is determined as Peak Ground Acceleration, (PGA). This is estimated by using a predictive model, (Abrahamson and Lithehiser, 1989) that correlates acceleration to maximum magnitude and distance between the zone of energy release and site. This empirical formulation, based on four independent parameters: magnitude, distance, fault type and tectonic environment, is one of the very few attenuation formulations that introduces the concept of tectonic environment and fault type in estimating peak ground acceleration, for earthquakes that have focal depths less than 25 km,

a condition prevalent in Uttarakhand. The study area was further narrowed down around Uttarakhand, and was encompassed by longitudes 77 30 E to 81 00 and latitudes 28 45 to 31 30. As this area was divided into a closely spaced grid of 0.25 intervals, the center of each block of 180 grid points was considered to be a potential site. To assess the worst case scenario it was assumed that the maximum magnitude earthquake in each identified seismotectonic source will occur at the closest possible distance from the site. An ensemble of PGAs was computed for every site, due to each seismo-tectonic source. The highest of these acceleration values was taken as a measure of seismic hazard at the center of the grid point under consideration. In this way the highest acceleration value was determined for all sites. PGA computed in the present study had a large variation, from 0.06g to 0.5g, and a wide geographical spread all over Uttarakhand and contiguous regions. Twelve seismotectonic sources, spread over 47, sites generated the highest accelerations, in the range 0.4 to 0.5g. MBT and MCT emerge as the two most potent thrusts. Several thrusts in the Lesser Himalayas, i.e., between MBT and MCT, also emerge as high contributors. These are the North Almora Thrust, Ramgarh Thrust, and Thrust Zones TZ1, TZ2 and TZ7. The other high contributors, FFT, Martoli Thrust MT1 and MT2, South Almora Thrust, and ISZ are parallel to the Himalayan trend. The other significant contributors are Fault G3, Karakoram Fault, Great Boundary Fault, Mahendragarh Dehradun Fault, and Moradabad fault. Seismic hazards can occur in many forms, such as fault rupture, ground failure, topographic changes, surface distortions, liquefaction, sand boils, mudflows and ground fissures. Waterfalls, damming and diversion of rivers, change of drainage system, sloshing of water over stream banks and canals, and floods are some other water-related disastrous consequences of earthquakes. Other hazards include landslides in mountainous terrains, a phenomenon highly prevalent in Uttarakhand, even without a seismic trigger. These phenomena often result in adverse consequences such as damage to the built environment and loss of life and injuries. Hazard zoning map Seismic hazard assessed here was used to prepare a hazard zoning map. Isoacceleration contours, drawn at intervals of 0.1g, show a large variation of PGA in and around the entire state, as shown in Figure 3. Contours follow the trend of the MBT in the southern part of the state. An abrupt increase of acceleration occurs all along the MBT, where the PGA increases from 0.2g to 0.5g. This indicates a sharp increase of hazard along and north of MBT. This situation is repeated along the MCT. The entire region between MBT and MCT, i.e. the Lesser Himalayas, is beset with high acceleration values, between 0.3g and 0.5g, and that too over a short distance spanning 25 km to 40 km. This indicates high seismic hazard along the MBT and the MCT, and in the region in between, together with several other places in Uttarakhand and beyond. Out of 13 districts in Uttarakhand large parts of 11 districts have PGA values above 0.4g, which indicates a very high level of seismic hazard. This includes Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehra Dun, Nainital, Pauri, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag, Tehri and Uttarkashi districts. Only two districts, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar, south of the MBT, show accelerations below 0.3g.

The entire state is prone to earthquake hazards which are expected in the two highest seismic zones, IV and V, as per the seismic zoning map of India (BIS: 1983-2002). As such, parts of the state are prone to accelerations of 0.24 g and 0.36, respectively. Out of the 180 sites considered in the present study, 86 sites were within Uttarakhand, and 53 of these exhibited PGA values above those for Zone V. This indicates that more than 60% area of the state is prone to PGA values above that expected in the earthquake code. Clearly, the code needs an upward revision in view of these high values in a state like Uttarakhand which is going through a phase of rapid techno-economic development. This reveals an increased threat perception. With this in view, the hazard assessed here was adapted to yield a seismic zoning map of the state. Uttarakhand was divided into five seismic zones, in contrast to the present two, (BIS 1893-2002). Accelerations expected in each zone are given in Table 1 and in Figure 4. Zones II, III, IV and V have the same connotations as in the seismic zoning map of India (BIS: 1983-2002), and an additional zone VI is added which depicts accelerations higher than that given in the code. Comparison with Other Studies The maximum peak ground acceleration observed for the Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20 1991, (epicenter 30.75N, 78.86E; Ms 7.0, 6.6 mb, USGS), at a hypo central distance of 40 km, for the Uttarkashi recording station, was 0.31g (After Chandrasekaran and Das, 1992). Uttarkashi, Chamoli and Tehri districts suffered maximum damage in this earthquake. In contrast to this, the zoning map presented in Figure 3, indicates that an earthquake of a higher magnitude, 7.6 Mw, at a closer hypo central distance of 21 km, due to rupture of 128 km of North Almora Thrust, is expected to produce a higher PGA of 0.38g at the Uttarkashi recording station. Similarly, for the Chamoli earthquake of March 29 1999, (epicenter 30.41N, 79.42E; Ms 6.6, USGS), the maximum acceleration recorded was 0.41g, at a hypo central distance of 22 km, for the Gopeshwar recording station, (after Shrikhande et. al., 2000). Chamoli and Rudraprayag Districts were the worst affected. However, for the same site, the zoning map reveals a PGA value of 0.48g, at a hypo central distance of 17 km, for an earthquake of magnitude 7.1, produced by a 57 km long rupture of thrust TZ1. This means that a higher magnitude earthquake, at a closer hypo central distance, is yielding higher PGA as given in figure 3, when compared to recorded data. It is reasonable to expect this, and it indicates an increased threat perception in the area. In a seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions, Bhatia et al. (1999) computed PGA for 10% exceedence in 50 years in grids of 0.5 by 0.5. Since 86 large sized seismic sources were used, and local tectonic features and sources were excluded, the values for Uttarakhand ranged between 0.05g to 0.35g, less than those obtained in the code and in the present study. Another hazard map of India and adjacent areas used seismograms, (Parvez et. al., 2003) which were synthesized up to 1 Hz frequency, i.e., for large epicentral distances, on the basis of structural models, seismo genic zones, focal mechanisms and earthquake catalogues. The PGA values obtained for western Himalaya varied between 0.15g to 0.3g, which is much lower than those given in earthquake code BIS 1893-2002, and also in the present study. Joshi and Mohans (2009) method of estimating hazard, involved modeling of rupture planes along identified lineaments in Uttarakhand. As the southward dipping North Almora Thrust was considered in its entirety, and not segmented, it gave PGA values much higher than anywhere else, of the order of 0.55 g, and that too south and west of MFT, i.e. in the Ganga plains. It is pertinent to note that for the much longer MCT and MBT this trend is

neither reflected in the direction of their down dip nor in the geographical spread of these high accelerations. When the severest seismic micro zone, that emerged when micro earthquake data and tectonics of Tehri Garhwal region were subjected to a pattern recognition technique based on discriminant analysis, (Sinvhal et. al., 1990, 1991, 2010), was subjected to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the MBT, at coordinates 3000810 N and 7802030E, it revealed that 59% population of Narendra Nagar administrative block was at risk with damage associated with accelerations of 0.41g, (Gupta et. al. 2006, 2008, Gupta and Sinvhal, 2010). This PGA is in fair agreement with the present study, and brings out the efficacy of this study which gives a corresponding value of 0.40g at the same site. Limitations Since seismic hazard maps are strongly influenced by characteristics and size of seismo tectonic source zones, non inclusion of this data from contiguous regions of Nepal and Tibet has a strong bearing on the results of hazard zoning. If extensions of MCT and MBT were considered in this area, then reasonably higher hazards would result in Uttarakhand. Results and discussion For assessing seismic hazard of Uttarakhand, out of 32 potential seismo-tectonic sources considered, twelve made maximum contribution towards hazard. These were MCT, MBT and thrusts and faults between these two mega Himalayan thrusts. It is pertinent to note that the great Kangra earthquake of 1905 had its genesis in the vicinity of MBT, and the Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes originated in the vicinity of MCT. The zoning map presented in Figure 4, with 5 zones, has several applications. Threat perceptions and disaster implications on housing stock, roads and infrastructure, which can be expected to be profound in an earthquake, can be reasonably assessed in any area within the map. Appropriate long term, medium term and short term action plans can be formulated and implemented which will vary geographically, with priorities defined by the zoning map. Despite the known high seismic hazard in Uttarakhand more than 90% houses here do not incorporate any earthquake resistant design, and are made of mud, adobe, burnt brick and stones. That these vulnerable abodes become a risk to human life was amply demonstrated by the earthquakes of Uttarkashi in 1991 and Chamoli in 1999, which together claimed more than a thousand human lives in Uttarakhand. A long-term action plan is required, which will include the formulation of earthquake mitigation strategies and preparedness plans for the entire state. This map also finds useful applications in earthquake-resistant design of structures for which it is not possible to carry out detailed site-specific studies. In the medium term action plan, seismic up gradation of the existing and vulnerable built environment can be taken up, phase wise. Short-term action plan for rescue, relief and emergency management can be developed for the entire state. When applied, all this will have the added advantage that it will reduce the uncertainty of a potential disaster, and simultaneously post earthquake recovery costs will reduce tremendously. Conclusions

The seismic zoning map, presented here, we believe, gives a reasonably representative seismic hazard map of Uttarakhand. As the nascent state of Uttarakhand has immense hydro electric potential and is going through a rapid phase of development, and if benefits reaped by this are to remain sustainable, then this detailed seismic zoning map can be used to take urgent mitigation measures before the next earthquake takes its toll. The methodology evolved here has the potential to be extended to other vulnerable states in the Himalayan arc. References Abrahamson, N.A, Lithehiser, J.J., 1989, Attenuation of Vertical Peak Acceleration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v 79, No.3, pp. 549-567. Bhatia, S.C, Kumar, M.R, Gupta, H.K., 1999, A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India and Adjoining Regions, Annals of Geophysics, v 42, No. 6, pp. 1153-1164. BIS-1893 (Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Fifth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. Chandrasekaran, A.R. and J. D. Das, 1992, Analysis of Strong Motion Accelerograms of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991, Bull Ind Soc Earthq Tech, v 29, no 1, p 35 55. Coppersmith, K. J., 1991, Seismic Source Characterization for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, EERI, Stanford, California, v 1, pp. 3-60. Gupta, I, A. Sinvhal and R. Shankar, 2006, Himalayan Population at Risk: Strategies for Preparedness, Disaster Prevention and Management, v 15, no. 4, p 608 619. Gupta I., R. Shankar and Amita Sinvhal; 2008, Earthquake vulnerability assessment of house construction in Himalayas; Journal of Design and the Built Environment, v 3, No 3, p 114. Gupta, I, and A. Sinvhal, 2010, Assessment of Seismic Risk in a Micro zone, accepted in Proceedings of 14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, December 17-19, 2010. Joshi, I, Mohan, K., 2009, Expected Peak Ground Acceleration in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India Region from a Deterministic Hazard Model, Natural Hazards, DOI 10.10007/s 11069-009-9373-4. Khattri, K.N., 1987, Great Earthquake, Seismicity Gaps and Potential for Earthquake Disaster along the Himalaya Plate Boundary, Elservier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam, Printed in The Netherlands, Tectono physics, 138, p 79-92. Mark, R.K., 1977, Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes, Geology 5, p 464 - 466. Narula, P. L., S. K. Acharyya and J. Banerjee, 2000, Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs, Geological Survey of India. Parvez, I.A, Vaccari, F, Panza, G.F., 2003, A Deterministic Seismic Hazard Map of India and Adjacent Areas, Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 155, No. 2, pp. 489-508 Shrikhande, M., S. Basu, B. C. Mathur, A. K. Mathur, J. D. Das, and M. K. Bansal, Strong Motion Data, p 27 43, in A Report on Chamoli Earthquake of March 29,1999, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Univ of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 89 p. Sinvhal, Amita, 2010, Understanding Earthquake Disasters, Tata McGraw Hill Education Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, 328p.

Sinvhal, A., G. Joshi, H. Sinvhal and V. N Singh, 1990, A pattern recognition technique for micro zonation, p 24 - 30, in Proceedings of Ninth Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Roorkee, India. Sinvhal, A., H. Sinvhal, G. Joshi and V.N. Singh, 1991, A valid pattern of micro zonation, p 641 648, in Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Stanford University, USA. Wells, D.L, Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Area and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, v 84, No.4, p 974-1002.
_____ _________

List of Tables Table 1 Peak acceleration assigned to different seismic zones, and perceived damage implications.

List of Figures Figure 1. Seismicity and tectonics between latitudes 25 N and 37 N, and longitudes 72 E and 87E. Outline of Uttarakhand is shown between longitudes 77E and 81 E. Inset shows area of study. Various tectonic elements are labeled as: AF Alaknanda Fault; AtF Attock Fault; ATF Altyn Tagh Fault; ASL Ajmer Sandia Lineament; BF Bhagu Fault; BMAL Bharatpur Mount Abu Lineament; BNS Bangong Nujiang Suture; CF Chahapoli Fault; CF Chau Fault; CJL Chambal Jamnagar Lineament; DF Dhandu Fault; DL Delwar Lineament; DT Drang Thrust; EL Everest Lineament; EPF East Patna Fault; GBF Great Boundary Fault; GL Gouri Shankar; HF Hathusar Fault; ISZ Indus Suture Zone; JhF Jhelum Fault; JF Judi Fault; JMT Jwala Mukhi Thrust; KaF Kanti Fault; KaF Kalu Fault; KCF Kishanagar Chipri Fault; KCG Kung Co graben; KF Karakoram Fault; KFS Kaurik Fault System; KISHF Kishtwar Fault; KKF Kallar Kabar Fault; KhF Khatu Fault; LF Lucknow Fault; LSL Luni Sukri Lineament; MBT Main Boundary Thrust; MCT Main Central Thrust; MDF Mahendragarh Dehra Dun Fault; MF Moradabad Fault; MF Mangla Fault; MFT Main Frontal Thrust; MKT Main Karakoram Thrust; MMT Main Mantle Thrust; MSRF Munger Saharsa Ridge Fault; MT Martoli Thrust; NAT North Almora Thrust; PF Peshawar Fault; PVL Pisanyau Vadnagar Lineament; RNL Raisingh Nagar Fault; RT Ramgarh Thrust; SaF Sadassar fault; SoF Soniasar Fault; SAT South Almora Thrust; SF Shinkiari Fault; SNF Sundar Nagar Fault; SRT Salt Range Thrust; SS Shyok Fault; SSF Sardar Shahar Fault; TF Tarbela Fault; TG Takhola Graben; TL Tonk Lineament; TM Tso Morari Fault; VT Vaikrita Thrust; and WPF West Patna Fault. Figure 2 Seismo tectonics of Uttarakhand. Figure 3 Map shows variation of peak ground acceleration in Uttarakhand and contiguous areas, and MBT and MCT. Figure 4 Seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand.

Assessment of Seismic Hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya Prabhat Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Amita Sinvhal Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 247667, India.

Authors
1. Prabhat Kumar, Post graduate Student, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, 247667 E mail: prabhatkumarhcst@gmail.com 2. Ashwini Kumar, Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, 247667. E mail: ashwnfeq@iitr.ernet.in 3. Amita Sinvhal, Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, 247667 Telephone, 01332 285517, E mail: amitafeq@iitr.ernet.in, amitafeq@gmail.com Mobile 094 120 720 33

Seismic Zone II III IV V VI

Acceleration, (%g) < 0.10 0.10 to 0.16 0.16 to 0.24 0.24 to 0.36g > 0.36g

Damage implications Slight damage Moderate damage Heavy damage Destruction catastrophic

Table 1 Peak acceleration assigned to different seismic zones, and perceived damage implications.

Figure 1

Figure 2.

Figure 3

Figure 4