Final M.Tech Thesis - Asim Bashir (Roll No. 14210022) PDF

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS OF
GUJARAT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON SEISMIC

DESIGN
A Thesis Submitted
In the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
By
Asim Bashir
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GANDHINAGAR

January, 2017
Dedicated to
My Parents
For their endless love, support and encouragement
Certificate
It is certified that the work contained in the thesis entitled “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis of Gujarat and its implications on Seismic Design” by Asim Bashir, has been
carried out under my supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for a
degree.
DHIMAN BASU
Assistant Professor
Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar
January, 2017 Palaj-382355, India
i
Abstract
Seismic hazard assessment is the key tool for rational planning, safety and design in seismically
vulnerable regions. The Gujarat state of India is the only state in peninsular India with the
maximum seismic hazard of large shallow earthquakes originating from intra-plate seismicity. In
the present study, seismic hazard assessment for the Gujarat is performed by using state-of-art
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment procedures. Regional seismicity parameters are
established for each of three regions of Gujarat state, namely, Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland
Gujarat. It is done by reviewing the seismotectonic setting of the region and then by
performing catalogue completeness based on available earthquake records. A novel procedure is
developed for assigning the maximum magnitude to each fault considered in the analysis, given
the limitation in the available seismicity data for the region. Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment in terms of the horizontal component of peak ground acceleration for the rock sites is
carried out using a suitably selected ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). Seismic hazard
curves are developed for some of the major cities of Gujarat and hazard map showing the
variation and distribution of seismic hazard in the state of Gujarat is produced. The results show
the need for revision of the Seismic zoning of Gujarat as per IS 1893 Part 1 (2002) due to the
observation of increased seismic hazard in some parts of Saurashtra. The output of the seismic
hazard computations is also used to develop uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for the earthquake
return periods (i.e. 475-years and 2475-years). The developed 2475 year uniform hazard spectra
are compared with the spectra specified in the Indian seismic code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002)
considering rock, medium and soft soil sites. While the codal spectra are found to be on the safer
side, certain recommendations are put forth for modifications in the design response spectrum for
Gujarat region. A practically reliable and more accurate definition of Importance factor assigned
to buildings while designing is presented based on the obtained design spectra from hazard
assessment. This is followed by assessing the effect of incorporating time dependent magnitude
frequency model in the conventional seismic hazard analysis. While mostly the effect is not
much, however in certain cases, the effect of using a time dependent model is found to be
appreciable and hence cannot be neglected. The results of the probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment of different cities of Gujarat are finally used for selection and scaling of ground
motions for the selected cities.
ii
Acknowledgement
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Dhiman Basu for his
supervision and guidance. I thank him immensely for motivating me and developing the sence of
research in me. I surely find myself lucky to have been mentored by him.
I am highly thankful to Dr. Sumer Chopra, Director Institute of Seismological Research
for providing valuable guidance, suggestions and encouragement throughout the progress of this
research. His time to time suggestions helped me improve my research immensely and gave me
better insight into the subject.
I am thankful to my parents for their relentless support and encouragement any all my
endeavors throughout my life. They are my constant source of encouragement and guidance and
any accomplishment would not be possible without their prayers and wishes.
I also want to extend my gratitude to all the teachers and friends at IIT Gandhinagar. I
find myself extremely lucky to be in the company of very nice, supporting and cooperative
people. My stay at IIT Gandhinagar would have been a lot difficult without their support and
warmth. I want to take this opportunity to specially thank all my friends who have been an
important part of this small journey of mine.
Asim Bashir
iii
Table of Contents
Certificate....................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General.......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Organization of thesis ................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2 Review of literature .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Seismic Hazard distribution as per Indian seismic code IS: 1893 ................................................. 5
2.3 Seismicity and seismotectonic set-up of Gujarat.......................................................................... 6
2.4 Review of seismic hazard assessment studies ............................................................................ 10
2.4.1 Petersen et al. (2004) .......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Yadav et al. (2008)............................................................................................................... 11
2.4.3 Thaker et al. (2012) ............................................................................................................ 12
2.4.4 Singh R.K. (2009) ................................................................................................................. 14
2.4.5 Thaker and Rao (2014) ........................................................................................................ 14
2.4.6 Chopra et al. (2013)............................................................................................................ 15
2.4.7 J. C. Shukla (2012) ............................................................................................................... 17
2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 3 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Methodology ............................................................... 20
3.1 Introduction: ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA): ...................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Identification of earthquake sources .................................................................................. 23
3.2.2 Characterization of earthquake size (size uncertainty): ..................................................... 23
3.2.3 Characterization of earthquake distances (Spatial uncertainty): ....................................... 26
3.2.4 Prediction of ground motion intensity (Effect Uncertainty): ............................................. 28
3.2.5 Combining all information: ................................................................................................. 30
3.2.6 Exceedance probabilities for various return periods (Temporal uncertainty): .................. 31
iv
3.3 Deaggregation ............................................................................................................................. 33
3.4 Uniform Hazard Spectrum .......................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4 Earthquake catalog and Seismicity parameters ...................................................................... 37
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.2 Catalogue Completeness ............................................................................................................ 38
4.2.1 Stepp’s method ................................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Regional Magnitude frequency relations.................................................................................... 45
4.3.1 Estimation of b-value using Maximum likelihood estimate ............................................... 47
4.4 Maximum magnitude.................................................................................................................. 49
4.4.1 A new proposed approach to assign Mmax........................................................................ 50
Chapter 5 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Gujarat .................................................................... 55
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 55
5.2 Delineation of seismic sources.................................................................................................... 55
5.3 Ground Motion Prediction Equation .......................................................................................... 56
5.4 Seismic hazard computation for some important cities in Gujarat ............................................ 60
5.5 Hazard Map ................................................................................................................................. 71
5.6 Deaggregation ............................................................................................................................. 73
5.7 Uniform Hazard Spectrum .......................................................................................................... 75
5.7.1 Suggested Design response spectrum for Gujarat region .................................................. 77
5.7.2 Alternative representation of Importance factor: ............................................................. 81
Chapter 6 Ground motion selection and scaling ..................................................................................... 86
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 86
6.2 Target Response Spectrum ......................................................................................................... 87
6.2.1 Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) ......................................................................................... 87
6.2.2 Conditional mean spectrum (CMS) ..................................................................................... 87
6.3 Ground motion selection and scaling for major cities in Gujarat ............................................... 88
Chapter 7 Time Dependent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ................................................... 94
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 94
7.1.1 The Time-Independent (Classical) Model ........................................................................... 94
7.1.2 Time-Dependent Model ...................................................................................................... 95
7.2 Adopted Approach ...................................................................................................................... 96
Chapter 8 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 104
v
8.1 Future scope of work ................................................................................................................ 107
References ................................................................................................................................................ 108
Appendix A Earthquake Catalogue ....................................................................................................... 117
Appendix B Ground motion prediction equation: Raghukanth and Iyenger (2007) ............................ 128
Appendix C Deaggregation plots .......................................................................................................... 131
Appendix D Scaled ground motions for different cities in Gujarat ...................................................... 137
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Seismic zonation map of Gujarat as per IS: 1893 Part-I (2002)................................... 6
Figure 2.2 Active fault map of Kutch (Source: Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) report
2009-10) .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3 Location of past earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above. Faults are shown by dashed
lines. 1. South Saurashtra fault; 2. Rajula fault; 3. Saverkindela fault; 4. South Junagadh fault; 5.
North Junagadh fault; 6. Umrethi fault; 7.Shihor fault; 8.West Cambay basin fault; 9. Eastward
offsetted west Cambay basin fault; and 10. Camay-Dabhoi fault. (Source: Bhattacharya et al.,
2004) ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.4 Seismic Hazard map for western Gujarat for 2% and 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years based on model 1 (Petersen et al., 2004) .................................................................... 12
Figure 2.5 Uniform hazard response spectrum for different sites as per NEHRP classification
(Thaker et al., 2012) (a). 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (b). 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.6 PGA at bedrock level for (a) 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (b) 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (Thaker & Rao, 2014) ..................................................... 15
Figure 2.7 UHS for Ahmedabad city for (a) 475 year return period (b) 2475 year return period
(Thaker & Rao, 2014) ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.8 Contour map of simulated PGA (cm/s2) at surface in Gujarat (Chopra et al., 2013) . 16
Figure 2.9 Contour of response spectral acceleration (cm/s2) corresponding to frequency of 1 Hz

(1 sec) in Gujarat (Chopra et al., 2013) ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.10 Spatial distribution of PGA values for 2475 year return period for Gujarat region (J.
C. Shukla, 2012) ........................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.11 Spatial distribution of PGA values for 475 year return period for Gujarat region (J.
C. Shukla, 2012) ........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1 Systematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(Baker, 2008) ................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.2 Typical distribution of observed earthquake magnitudes, along with Gutenberg-
Richter and bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence laws fit to the observations (Baker, 2008). 25
vii
Figure 3.3 Illustration of discretization of a continuous magnitude distribution for a source with
a truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution (Baker, 2008). .......................................................... 26
Figure 3.4 Source zone geometries: (a) point sources; (b) two-dimensional areal sources; and (c)
three-dimensional volumetric sources (Kramer, 1996) ................................................................ 27
Figure3.5 Variations in site-to-source distance for three source zone geometries (Kramer, 1996).
....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.6 Illustration of the conditional probability of exceeding a ground motion parameter
(Kramer, 1996). ............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3.7 Sample seismic hazard curve for Berkeley, California (McGuire, 2004) .................. 31
Figure 3.8 Sample deaggregation of hazard curve (USGS, 2014) ............................................... 35
Figure 3.9 Combining hazard curves from individual periods to generate a uniform hazard
spectrum (a) Hazard curve for SA (0.3s), with UHS point identified. (b) Hazard curve for SA (1s),
with UHS point identified. (c) USH, based on a series of calculations like those in (a) and (b).
(Baker, 2008). ............................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1 Assessment of catalog completeness by cumulative visual inspection (CUVI) for
Gujarat region ............................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.2 Incomplete trend in 4< Mw <5 earthquake events in Gujarat region ......................... 39
Figure 4.3 Standard Deviation of the estimate of the mean rate of occurrence of earthquakes as a
function of sample length and magnitude class for Kutch region ................................................ 43
function of sample length and magnitude class for Saurastra region ........................................... 44
function of sample length and magnitude class for Mainland Gujarat ......................................... 44
Figure 4.6 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Kutch region .................... 45
Figure 4.7 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region ............. 46
Figure 4.8 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region ............. 46
Figure 4.9 Correlation between length of the fault and the parameter ........ 52
Figure 5.1 Fault map in and around Gujarat region digitized using ArcGIS ............................... 56
viii
Figure 5.2 Comparison of different ground motion attenuation relationships for Mw 5.0 with the
data points recorded at different recording stations across the Gujarat ........................................ 60
Figure 5.3 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Ahmedabad city .............................................. 62
Figure 5.4 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Anand city ....................................................... 62
Figure 5.5 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bharuch city .................................................... 63
Figure 5.6 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bhavnagar city ................................................ 63
Figure 5.7 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bhuj city .......................................................... 64
Figure 5.8 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Gandhinagar city ............................................. 64
Figure 5.9 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Himatnagar city............................................... 65
Figure 5.10 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Jamnagar city ................................................ 65
Figure 5.11 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Junagarh city ................................................. 66
Figure 5.12 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Mehsana city ................................................. 66
Figure 5.13 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Morbi city ..................................................... 67
Figure 5.14 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Palanpur city ................................................. 67
Figure 5.15 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Porbandar city ............................................... 68
Figure 5.16 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Rajkot city ..................................................... 68
Figure 5.17 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Surat city ....................................................... 69
Figure 5.18 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Surendernagar city ........................................ 69
Figure 5.19 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Vadodra city .................................................. 70
Figure 5.20 Comparison of Hazard curve various cities in Gujarat ............................................ 70
Figure 5.21 2475 Year return period Seismic Hazard Map (PGA) of Gujarat .......................... 72
Figure 5.22 475 Year return period Seismic Hazard Map (PGA) of Gujarat ............................. 73
Figure 5.23 Deaggregation of 2% in 50 years probability of exceedance PGA hazard values for
....................................................................................................................................................... 74
ix
Figure 5.24 Grid points for which UHS was generated in order to develop a region specific
modified design response spectrum for Gujarat ........................................................................... 76
Figure 5.25 Spectral shapes obtained for Gujarat region ............................................................ 77
Figure 5.26 Comparison of mean + x.ζ (x=0, 1, 1.67, 2, 3) UHS with IS: 1893 for (a) Hard Soil,
and (b) Medium soil. ..................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.27 Idealized mean plus ζ design spectrum .................................................................... 78
Figure 5.28 Idealized mean plus 1.67 ζ design spectrum ............................................................ 79
Figure 5.29 Idealized mean plus 2 ζ design spectrum ................................................................. 80
Figure 5.30 Idealized mean plus 3 ζ design spectrum ................................................................. 80
Figure 5.31 Illustration showing that Importance factor should be based on increased confidence
level rather than scaling up the spectrum ...................................................................................... 82
Figure 5.32 Comparison of 99.9th percentile normalized uniform hazard spectrum with the
IS:1893 spectral shape scaled up by the importance factor of 1.5 ................................................ 82
Figure 5.33 Proposed Spectral Shape for Ordinary and Important Structures on Hard Soil ...... 83
Figure 5.34 Proposed Spectral acceleration Shape for Ordinary and Important structures on
Medium soils................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 5.35 Ratio between 95th and 99.9th percentile spectral shapes for hard and medium soil
site conditions ............................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.36 Proposed spectral shapes for Gujarat region ........................................................... 85
Figure 6.1 Spectral matching with target spectrum at 0.25 to 0.75 sec (Ahmedabad) ................ 91
Figure 6.4 Spectral matching with target spectrum at 0.25 to 0.75 sec (Bhuj) ............................ 92
x
Figure 7.1 Observed distribution of inter-arrival time for events with magnitude ≥ 5.5 in Gujarat
....................................................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 7.2 Comparison of PGA Hazard Curve for time dependent and time independent models
for Ahmedabad............................................................................................................................ 100
for Bhuj ....................................................................................................................................... 101
for Jamnagar................................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 7.5 Variation of PGA hazard values with increasing dormant period from the date of last
occurrence of the earthquake ...................................................................................................... 102
xi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Kutch Region ............................. 40
Table 4.2 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Saurashtra Region ...................... 41
Table 4.3 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Mainland Gujarat ....................... 41
Table 4.4 Seismicity parameters for Gujarat region .................................................................... 47
Table 4.5 Faults having shown significant activity is past to assign a maximum magnitude
based on the past seismicity .......................................................................................................... 51
Table 4.6 Final assigned Mmax values for each fault considered in the study ........................... 54
Table 5.1 Estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA) hazard values based on Model I: based on
proposed fault wise Mmax values; Model II: based on zonal Mmax values ................................ 61
Table 5.2 NEHRP soil profile types (Wair, Dejong, & Shantz, 2012) ....................................... 76
Table 6.1 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Ahmedabad ................ 89
Table 6.2 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Bhuj ............................ 90
Table 7.1 The results of K-S test for checking the fitting of lognormal ...................................... 97
Table 7.2 Comparison of Time dependent and Time Independent PGA hazard values for
important cities in Gujarat .......................................................................................................... 100
Table 6.7.3 Variation of PGA hazard values with increasing dormant period from the date of last
occurrence of the earthquake ...................................................................................................... 102
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
The Gujarat state in India is one of the most seismically vulnerable intra-continental
regions of the world. Characterized by less frequent but more intensity earthquakes, the region
has witnessed some of the devastating earthquakes in the last two centuries. In particular, the
western part of the state, known as Kutch region has experienced most of such events. This
region has been hit by several major earthquakes in the past. However, over past two decades,
there has been a rapid growth of large cities and industrial areas in Gujarat. Gujarat has emerged
as a center of several industries like petroleum, power, textiles and steel. The region houses one
of the world‟s largest refineries, lots of chemical industries, large maritime facilities, etc. Gujarat
is also in the process of developing number of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and Special
Investment Regions (SIR).
With such a massive scale infrastructure coming up coupled with the inherent seismic
risk in the region, it becomes imperative to emphasize the seismic hazard studies in the region.
However, most of the hazard studies carried out in the Gujarat region are restricted to Kutch and
the implications of the hazard studies to seismic analysis and design of structures is not studied
to the extent demanded. Moreover, the hazard studies conducted for the region end with the
hazard values or hazard maps and give zero importance to the implications of the hazard values
on the civil engineering structures. Thus there still exists a gap between the seismological studies
and the structural engineering, although the clear input for design and analysis of structures for
earthquakes comes from seismic hazard studies. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive
study on seismic hazard in the region of Gujarat, taking into due consideration the implications
to the design of vital facilities in the region so that the associated risk can be mitigated and
rational decisions on seismic safety in the region can be taken.
1
1.2 Objectives of the study
In the present study, the following objectives are aimed as the initiatives towards the
study of seismic hazard and mitigating the seismic risk in the state of Gujarat.
1. The review of the seismicity of the Gujarat region as per the latest available/compiled
earthquake catalog. This includes the estimation of regional seismicity parameters and the
maximum magnitudes associated with the seismic sources. The present practice of
estimating the magnitude potential of a source is flawed and needs review.
2. To carry out the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for major urban cities in
Gujarat representing different sub-regions of Gujarat and to develop a hazard contour map
for the region in order to review/assign seismic zoning to different parts of the state.
3. To develop hazard curves and Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) for major urban cities in the
Gujarat using state-of-art probabilistic seismic hazard assessment procedures. The Uniform
Hazard Spectra would be developed for two different return periods, i.e. 475 years and 2475
years, which correspond to the Design Basis earthquake (10% probability of exceedance in
50 years) and Maximum Credible earthquake (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years).
4. To obtain design spectra for the entire Gujarat region which could be used in place of the
design spectrum recommended by Indian seismic design code IS: 1893 Part-I (2002). The
design spectrum recommended by the Indian Seismic code is developed for entire India and
is not based on the rigorous probabilistic seismic hazard considerations. As such there is a
need for a localized design spectrum for the Gujarat region for efficient design of
infrastructure in the region. It is aimed to compare the obtained design spectra with the
normalized spectra in Indian seismic code and recommend the modifications in the design
spectra for Gujarat region.
5. To suggest a more flexible, logical and rational definition for the Importance factor
recommended by Indian seismic design code IS: 1893 Part-I (2002) for the design of
important structures like hospitals, bridges, fire stations, nuclear power plants etc.
6. To select and scale ground motions for the major cities of Gujarat using different available
methods based on the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of the region and to create a
database of ground motions that can be directly used by the practicing structural engineers
for the analysis and design of buildings the respective regions.
2
7. To analyze the effect of incorporation time-dependent magnitude frequency model in the
conventional time-independent seismic hazard analysis. While most of the literature
suggests that the effect of incorporating time dependency in seismic hazard calculations is
negligible, some researchers share a different opinion about the same. Thus it is aimed to
study the effect in case of Gujarat.
1.3 Organization of thesis
The thesis is organized into eight chapters and four appendices. In chapter 1, i.e. the
present chapter, the introduction to the problem is stated, and the objectives and organization of
the thesis is outlined.
Chapter 2 presents the published literature in the field of seismic hazard analysis carried
out in India in general and Gujarat in particular.
Chapter 3 discusses the different types of hazard assessments and the detailed
methodology and mathematical formulations for carrying out the probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment.
Chapter 4 involves the study of seismicity of the Gujarat region and the updated seismic
catalog of the region is studied to establish the new seismicity parameters for the three sub-
regions of Gujarat. The catalog is checked and subsequently corrected for completeness using the
standard methods of completeness corrections. The Gutenberg-Richter relationships are
developed for each sub-region of Gujarat using least square regression analysis. The flaws in the
present methods for assigning the magnitude potential to the seismic sources is discussed and a
novel method developed for assigning the maximum magnitude to the seismic sources in the
region is presented and used to assign the maximum magnitude to each seismic source.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the
Gujarat region. The chapter presents the obtained hazard maps, hazard curves and the uniform
hazard spectra for the sites under consideration. The results are discussed in detail in this chapter.
Chapter 6 deals with the selection and scaling of ground motions for various urban cities
in Gujarat. Selection of ground motions is done on the basis of the deaggregation of the seismic
hazard in the selected cities and the selected ground motions are scaled to match the target
uniform hazard spectrum obtained from the probabilistic seismic hazard calculations of the
selected cities.
3
Chapter 7 discusses the effect of incorporating time-dependent recurrence models on the
seismic hazard values. As against in the conventional PSHA calculations which is based on the
assumption that the earthquake events occur randomly in a time independent manner, an attempt
has been made to incorporate the actual time dependent nature of the earthquake events into the
PSHA calculations and assess its deviation from the conventional PSHA results.
Finally the summary and conclusions are presented in Chapter 8 which also includes the
scope for future research.
4
Chapter 2
Review of literature
2.1 Introduction
The vulnerability of Gujarat to earthquakes is known since ancient times. Gujarat is one
of the most seismically active regions in the Indian sub-continent. Characterized by less frequent
but more intensity earthquakes, this region has experienced some of the most devastating
earthquake events in the past. 1668 Indus Delta (M 7), 1819 Allah Bund (M 7.8), 1956 Anjar
earthquake (Mw 6), and most recent 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw 7.7) are some of the major
earthquakes that have occurred in the past (Quittmeyer & Jacob, 1979 ; Rastogi, 2004). The 1819
earthquake caused widespread collapse of structures and around 1500 fatalities were observed
(Bendick et al., 2001), and the July 21,1956 Anjar earthquake that took place very close to the
location of the 1819 Kutch event also caused considerable damage and casualties (Chung & Gao,
1995). Bhuj earthquake on January 26, 2001 (Mw 7.7) that resulted in a death toll exceeding
20,000 and a widespread collapse and damage of poorly engineered structures is the largest
continental intra-plate earthquake in more than 100 years (Bodin & Horton, 2004).
Since the earthquakes cannot be prevented from occurring, the onus comes on engineers
to design and construct the structures in such a manner that the loss of life and damage to the
infrastructure as a result of earthquake events is minimized if not prevented. But this depends
entirely on how well and accurately the forces and ground motions resulting from a future
seismic event, for which our infrastructure and facilities are designed, are estimated. Again this
is a very difficult task as the earthquakes are uncertain phenomena and cannot be predicted. The
problem is even more complicated in Indian context for the lack of recorded seismic data and
reliable information on fault activities.
2.2 Seismic Hazard distribution as per Indian seismic code IS: 1893
The existing practice for estimation of earthquake loads for design and analysis of
structures in India is to utilize the seismic hazard zonation map as per Indian seismic design code
IS: 1893 Part-I (2002). As per this code, India is divided into four seismic zones – II, III, IV, and
5
V. Each seismic zone is assigned peak ground acceleration (PGA) value of 0.08g, 0.16g, 0.24g
and 0.32g respectively. As per the seismic zoning map of India, Gujarat comes under all four
seismic zones. Kutch and the adjoining region along with Indo-Pak border falls in zone V, which
happens to be the highest seismic zone. Zone IV covers a narrow fringe of northern Kathiawar
peninsula and the remaining part of Kutch. The rest of Gujarat falls in zone III, while a small
eastern portion of the state bordering with Madhya Pradesh falls in zone II. The seismic zonation
of Gujarat as per IS: 1893 Part-I (2002) is shown in Figure 2.1. Kutch is the seismically most
active intra-continental region where several high intensity earthquakes have occurred.
Figure 2.1 Seismic zonation map of Gujarat as per IS: 1893 Part-I (2002)
(Source: ISR Report 2008-09)
2.3 Seismicity and seismotectonic set-up of Gujarat
The seismicity of the Gujarat state is characterized by a relatively high frequency of large
earthquakes but a low frequency of moderate earthquakes. On the basis of seismicity, tectonics
and geomorphology, the Gujarat region of India is comprised of three distinct zones: Kutch,
Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat (Yadav et al., 2008). Kutch is the westernmost peninsular part
of Gujarat, the Saurashtra peninsula is in the south of it and the Mainland is in the east of both
these regions. The Gujarat region is a junction of three Mesozoic rifts: Kutch, Cambay and
6
Narmada, with several active faults (S. K. Biswas, 1987). These rifts were the result of rifting
along major Precambrian trends. The rifting occurred at successive stages during the northward
movement of the Indian plate after the breakup from Gondwanaland in the Mesozoic era
(Rastogi et al., 2013). The Kutch rifting took place in the Late Triassic-Early Jurassic period,
Cambay rifting in Early Cretaceous and Narmada rifting in the Late Cretaceous. The rifting
ceased in the Late Cretaceous era during the pre-collision stage of Indian plate. Post-collision,
the Kutch and Narmada rifts became zones of compression giving strike-slip and thrusting
(Rastogi et al., 2013). The Kutch and Narmada rifts have E–W trending major faults that are
active, while the Cambay basin has N to NW trending marginal faults that are less active. There
are some smaller transverse strike-slip faults in Kutch. South of Kutch, in the Deccan volcanics
of Saurashtra, the NW and NE trending smaller strike-slip faults are also activated in the form of
moderate earthquakes in response to the plate-tectonics stress.
Kutch and the adjoining region is seismically the most active intercontinental region
where high intensity but less frequent earthquakes have occurred and ruptured several faults,
although the Herat-Chaman plate boundary is 400 km in the west and the Himalayan plate
boundary is more than 1000 km in the north (Rastogi, 2001, 2004).There are records of many
historical events that have occurred in Kutch and west of it. One such record is of 1030 A.D.
earthquake, which destroyed the city of Braminabad (Quittmeyer and Jacob, 1979). In 1668, an
earthquake of magnitude 7.8 (intensity X) occurred in the Indus Delta to the north-west of Kutch.
The next higher earthquake with magnitude 7.8 occurred on June 16, 1819 near the north-
western international border of Kutch ( Bendick et al., 2001). In 1956, an earthquake of
magnitude Mw 6.0 devastated the Anjar region, causing a widespread damage to life and
property( Tandon, 1959). The latest catastrophic earthquake of magnitude Mw 7.7 occurred in
the region of Kutch Mainland Fault ( 23.442 N, 70.310 E) on January 26, 2001, followed by a
large number of aftershocks ( Gupta et al., 2001). Seismotectonic setup of Kutch has been
described by many researchers like Biswas (1987), Sukhtankar et al. (1993), Malik et al. (1999),
Rastogi (2001), Chopra et al. (2010), Rastogi et al. (2013). Kutch is bound by the south-dipping
Nagar-Parker Fault (NPF) in the north and the south dipping Kathiawar fault in the south. Some
major faults of Kutch like Allah Bund Fault, Island Belt Fault, Kutch Mainland Fault (KMF) and
Katrol HillFault are trending east-west. Allah Bund fault was associated with 1819 earthquake
7
(S. K. Biswas, 2005). The 2001 Bhuj earthquake accured along the North Wagad Fault, which is
around 25 km north of KMF.
Figure 2.2 Active fault map of Kutch

(Source: Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) report 2009-10)
The Saurashtra has also experienced seismic activity in the past. Several places such as
Junagadh, Jamnagar, Dwarka, Paliyad, Rajkot, Ghogha and Bhavnagar have witnessed recurring
seismic activities in the past (Bhattacharya et al., 2004). A total of 10 earthquakes of M ≥ 5.0
have occurred in Saurashtra region since 1872 ( Yadav et al., 2008). In the Paliyad sequence of
1938, more than 190 shocks were felt from July 1, 1938 to August 15, 1938 (Bapat et al., 1989 ;
Yadav et al., 2008), with four earthquakes of M ≥ 5.0 (Chandra, 1977). A strong earthquake
occurred in Dwarka in 1940 ( M 5.0; Intensity VI) and is reported by several researchers
(Tandon, 1959; Chandra, 1977; Guha & Basu, 1993; Shukla, 2012). Junagadh experienced an
earthquake of Mw 4.3 on September 3, 1985 and three earthquakes of Mw ≥ 4.0 recently in 2011
(ISR Report, 2012-13). There is also a magnitude 5.0 offshore earthquake event that occurred
near Rajula on August 24, 1993. On August 3, 2000 the region of Girnar Hills near Una has
experienced an earthquake of Mw =4.3 which was strongly felt up to Jamnagar. Saurashtra
region is bounded by North Kathiawar Fault (NKF) in the North, extension of Son-Narmada
8
fault in the south, west coast fault system in the west and the extension of West Cambay fault
system in the east (Biswas, 2005).
Figure 2.3 Location of past earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above. Faults are shown by dashed lines. 1.
South Saurashtra fault; 2. Rajula fault; 3. Saverkindela fault; 4. South Junagadh fault; 5. North Junagadh
fault; 6. Umrethi fault; 7.Shihor fault; 8.West Cambay basin fault; 9. Eastward offsetted west Cambay
basin fault; and 10. Camay-Dabhoi fault.
(Source: Bhattacharya et al., 2004)
Mainland Gujarat has also witnessed moderate seismicity. Around nine earthquakes of
M≥ 5.0 have occurred in the region. Mount Abu (1848, M 6; 1969, M 5.5), Ahmedabad (1864,
M 5), Surat (1856, M5.7; 1817, M 5 and 1935, M 5.7), Satpura (1938, M 6), and Bharuch (1970,
M 5.4) are some of the significant earthquakes experienced in the region ( Rao et al., 1991;
Yadav et al., 2008). The mainland region of Gujarat consists of two important tectonic features,
Cambay rift zone and Narmada rift zone. The ENE trending Narmada rift zone is associated with
a seismicity of magnitude about 6.0, while the NW trending Cambay rifts are associated with
seismicity of magnitude up to 5.0.
9
2.4 Review of seismic hazard assessment studies
Many researchers have been working on the seismic hazard assessment of different parts
of the Indian sub-continent. In India, hazard assessment studies are not only limited to
seismically active Himalayan regions but appreciable efforts have also been put forward to
update the state of seismic hazard assessment in Peninsular India. Bhatia, Kumar, & Gupta
(1999), Kumar & Bhatia (1999), Walling & Mohanty (2009), Parvez et al (2003), Kolathayar et
al. (2012), Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2007), Raghukanth (2011) and Nath & Thingbaijam (2012)
are some of the studies carried out for the seismic hazard assessment of the entire Indian
subcontinent and the adjoining regions. Apart from these, a number of region specific studies on
seismic hazard assessment have been carried out over time. Jaiswal & Sinha (2007) carried out
the seismic hazard assessment for the peninsular region of India. In order to capture the detailed
variations and distribution of seismic hazard, a number of micro level seismic hazard assessment
projects have also been taken up where the urban cities with higher seismic risk are being
assessed for seismic hazard and micro-zonation of the region. Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2006)
performed the seismic hazard studies on Mumbai city. Bangalore city has been studied for
seismic hazard assessment by Sitharam, Anbazhagan, & Raj (2006), Sitharam & Anbazhagan
(2007) and Anbazhagan, Vinod, & Sitharam (2009). Nath S. K. (2006) carried out the
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sikkim and also prepared a micro-zonation map for the
region. Micro-zonation of Delhi has been performed by Ghosh (2003). Boominathan et al. (2008)
performed seismic hazard assessment for Chennai city while Menon et al. (2010) performed the
analysis for entire Tamil Nadu. Similar studies have been carried out by several researchers like
Ranjan (2005) for Dehradun, Baranwal et al. (2005) for Guwahati, Sandeep Das et al. (2006) for
Northeast India, Pallav et al. (2012) for Manipur, Mahajan et al. (2010) for Northwest Himalaya
and adjoining regions and Shaligram Patil et al. (2014) for Himachal Pradesh and adjoining
regions. As far as Gujarat is concerned, owing to the high seismic activity in the past, several
attempts have been made to study the seismic hazard in the region. The major studies are
performed by Petersen et al. (2004), Yadav et al. (2008), Thaker et al. (2012), J. C. Shukla
(2012), J.Shukla & Choudhury (2012), Thaker & Rao (2014) and Chopra et al. (2013). Since all
these researches carried out cannot be discussed in this thesis, the seismic hazard studies carried
out for the Gujarat region and relevant to the present study are discussed below.
10
2.4.1 Petersen et al. (2004)
Petersen et al., 2004 conducted a preliminary seismic hazard sensitivity evaluation for
Kutch region in Gujarat. Sensitivity of seismic hazard to three fault source models for the north-
western portion of Gujarat was tested. The models incorporated different characteristic
earthquake magnitudes on three faults with individual recurrence intervals of either 800 or 1600
year. The hazard for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 1-Hz spectral acceleration with 5%
damping on soft rock site was calculated with 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years. The PGA and the spectral acceleration hazard values were observed to be greater than 1 g
over a broad region for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years hazard level, while the 10%
in 50 years hazard level were observed to be considerably lower, generally ranging between 0.2
g and 0.7 g across north-western Gujarat. Owing to the application of intra-plate attenuation
relations, the obtained hazard levels are higher than other published models which use crustal
inter-plate relations as the intra-plate attenuation relations account for less severe attenuation of
seismic waves when compared to the crustal inter-plate relations.
2.4.2 Yadav et al. (2008)

Yadav et al., 2008 estimated the probability of occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude ≥
5.0 during a specified time interval for different elapsed times on the basis of observed time
intervals between earthquakes using three stochastic models namely, Weibull, Gamma and
Lognormal. A complete earthquake catalog covering the time interval of 1819 to 2006 has been
used to estimate the earthquake hazard parameters using the method of maximum likelihood. The
whole Gujarat state is divided into the three major seismic regions i.e. Kutch, Saurashtra and
Mainland and the suitability of different models in these three regions is tested using the
logarithmic of likelihood function (ln L). It has been found that in Saurashtra and Kutch, Weibull
model fits well with the actual data, while lognormal model fits well in Mainland Gujarat. The
estimated mean interval of occurrence of earthquakes in the Saurashtra, Mainland Gujarat and
Kutch are estimated to be 40.455, 20.249 and 13.338 years respectively. The conditional
probability (probability that the next earthquake will occur during some specific time interval
after a certain elapsed time from last earthquake) is estimated to be about 0.8 to 0.9 during the
time interval of about 57 to 66 years from the last earthquake (1993) in Saurashtra region, 31 to
11
51 years from the last earthquake (1969) in Mainland Gujarat and about 21 to 28 years from the
last earthquake (2006) in Kutch region.
Figure 2.4 Seismic Hazard map for western Gujarat for 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years based on model 1 (Petersen et al., 2004)
2.4.3 Thaker et al. (2012)

Thaker et al., 2012 evaluated the seismic hazard for Surat City in Gujarat based on the
probabilistic as well as deterministic seismic hazard analysis. A catalog of historical earthquakes
that occurred in 350 km radius around the city was collected, statistically analysed and a
deterministic seismic hazard analysis was carried out considering the known seismic sources. A
PGA of 0.158 g has been recommended for the city based on deterministic analysis. This is
followed by a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the region considering five seismic sources
12
selected from a deterministic approach and the ground motion prediction equation developed by
Iyengar & Raghukanth, 2004. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration values
at 0.01s and 1 second at bedrock level, corresponding to 2% and 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years have been calculated. The peak ground accelerations (PGA) of 0.1 and 0.138 g were
obtained for 10 and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years based on the probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis. The uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) at rock level for 5% damping, and 2% and
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, has also been presented for the region considering
different site classes and is shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 Uniform hazard response spectrum for different sites as per NEHRP classification
(Thaker et al., 2012)
(a). 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (b). 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
13
2.4.4 Singh R.K. (2009)
The study involves the assessment of seismic hazard and risk for Ahmedabad city using the
probabilistic methods. The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has been carried out for the
region incorporating various levels of uncertainties involved in the seismic sources, recurrence
and size of the earthquakes, and the ground motion attenuation relationships. The seismic hazard
is estimated by considering six seismic sources, capable of generating large earthquakes of
magnitude ranging from 5.0 to 8.0, with source to site distance in the range of 140 km to 390 km.
The seismicity data compiled by the Institute of Seismological Research, Gujarat is used and
several ground motion prediction equations are investigated for their applicability to Ahmedabad
based on the ground motion recorded during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake at Passport office
building in Ahmedabad and the relationship proposed by (Jain et al., 2000) is found to be most
applicable and used in the study with some modifications. The 10% and 2% probabilities of
exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to 475 year and 2475 year return period respectively) are
obtained as 0.06 g and 0.128 g respectively. This is followed by the vulnerability analysis of
multistory reinforced concrete buildings using the damage data from Ahmedabad after 2001
Bhuj earthquake.
2.4.5 Thaker and Rao (2014)

Thaker & Rao (2014) attempted to estimate the seismic hazard at bedrock level in terms
of PGA using probabilistic approach for Ahmedabad city in Gujarat, India. A detailed catalogue
of historical and recent seismic events within 350 km radius around the Ahmedabad region has
been compiled and a new seismotectonic map has been generated. The completeness of the
seismicity data is checked using different independent techniques before carrying out seismic
hazard analysis. The complete earthquake data has then been analyzed statically and the
seismicity of the region is evaluated by defining „a‟ and „b‟ parameters of the Gutenberg Richter
relationship. Eventually probabilistic hazard map for to 500 and 2475 years of return period
(corresponding to 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years respectively) have been
developed for the region. The Uniform Hazard Response Spectra with 5% structural damping
have also been developed at both rock level and considering local site effects. Peak Ground
Acceleration (g) value for 2475 years return period are found to vary from 0.106 g to 0.142 g at
rock level to 0.25 g and 0.28 g for class „C‟ and „D‟ respectively. However for the return period
14
of 475 years, the PGA values 0.140 g and 0.170 g for class „C‟ and „D‟ are obtained. The study
highlights the need for the revision of current code of practice (IS 1893: 2002) in India.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.6 PGA at bedrock level for (a) 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (b) 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years (Thaker & Rao, 2014)
Figure 2.7 UHS for Ahmedabad city for (a) 475 year return period (b) 2475 year return period (Thaker
& Rao, 2014)
2.4.6 Chopra et al. (2013)

In this paper, the seismic hazard in the Gujarat region has been evaluated. The spatial
distribution of various parameters like peak ground Acceleration (PGA), characteristic site
frequency and spectral acceleration for different periods have been presented in this paper. The
15
paper also estimates the expected damage to buildings from future large earthquakes in Gujarat
region. Kutch region is observed to have more seismic hazard as compared to Saurashtra and
Mainland Gujarat. Peak acceleration in excess of 500 cm/sec2 at the surface is found to be
expected in Kutch from major faults in Kutch region. Saurashtra is estimated to expect
accelerations of less than 200 cm/s2 at surface, while the mainland Gujarat is found to have the
lowest seismic hazard as compared to the other two regions. The expected accelerations in the
mainland are less than 50 cm/s2 at most of the places. Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9 shows the
contour map of simulated peak ground accelerations and response spectral acceleration
corresponding to frequency of 1 Hz in the state of Gujarat as per the studies carried out by
Chopra et al. (2013).
Figure 2.8 Contour map of simulated PGA (cm/s2) at surface in Gujarat (Chopra et al., 2013)
16
Figure 2.9 Contour of response spectral acceleration (cm/s2) corresponding to frequency of 1 Hz (1 sec)
in Gujarat (Chopra et al., 2013)
2.4.7 J. C. Shukla (2012)

J. C. Shukla, 2012 carried out a comprehensive study on the seismic hazard of Gujarat.
Seismic hazard assessment for Gujarat state of India is performed by using the deterministic as
well as probabilistic seismic hazard assessment procedures for selected 25 urban areas spreading
all over Gujarat state. Regional seismicity parameters are established separately for the three
region of Gujarat state, namely, Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat. The seismotectonic
setting of region are reviewed a possible fault map is prepared. A seismic catalog for the region
is compiled, checked for catalog completeness and the earthquake recurrence relationships are
established for each fault, using the calculated regional seismicity parameters. Deterministic
seismic hazard analysis procedure is used to establish the deterministic seismic scenarios for
selected 25 urban areas and compared with the ground motion recommended in IS: 1893 Part 1
(2002). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment is carried out in terms of horizontal component
of peak ground acceleration for 5% structural damping for the rock sites. Seven different ground
motion prediction equations (GMPEs) including one from India are used in the study. The output
17
of the seismic hazard computations are then used to develop uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for
the three earthquake return periods (i.e. 72-years, 475-years and 2475-years). The deterministic
spectra and uniform hazard spectra developed from the study are compared with the spectra
specified in the Indian seismic code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002) considering rock sites. Out of 25
urban cities studied, cities within Kutch region (i.e. Bhuj, Gandhidham, Anjar and Dholavira) are
observed to have the greatest seismic hazard compared to other urban cities. The study also
carries out the site specific ground response analysis for four major port sites of Gujarat State i.e.
Kandla, Mundra, Hazira and Dahej port (J. Shukla & Choudhury, 2012 a; 2012 b). Figure 2.10
and Figure 2.11 shows the contour map of Gujarat depicting the spatial distribution of peak
ground acceleration values for 2475 year (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and 475
year (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) return period hazard levels respectively.
Figure 2.10 Spatial distribution of PGA values for 2475 year return period for Gujarat region (J. C.
Shukla, 2012)
18
Figure 2.11 Spatial distribution of PGA values for 475 year return period for Gujarat region (J. C. Shukla,
2012)
2.5 Summary
The detailed review reveals that the seismic scenario in Gujarat region is complex and the
seismicity is not constant. The seismicity in different sub-regions is also not uniform. Most of the
seismic hazard analysis carried out for Gujarat and adjoining regions assume single hazard
parameters for the entire region, which may, most likely not capture the actual seismic scenario
in the region. However some studies with different hazard parameters for three different sub-
regions in Gujarat have been carried out, yet there is enough scope for further refinement and
improvisation. In the present study, the region/fault specific seismic hazard parameters are
proposed to be derived for its use in seismic hazard analysis. Further in most of the studies,
almost no or very little emphasis is given to the implications of the hazard results to the design
and analysis of structures. Thus there is a need for a holistic study on the seismic hazard
assessment of the region, giving due emphasis to its implications on the analysis and design of
civil engineering structures. The subsequent chapters will discuss the state-of-the-art
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the region with updated seismicity and the possible
modifications and extensions of the hazard estimation to the structural design and safety.
19
Chapter 3
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis:
Methodology
3.1 Introduction:
Seismic hazard is defined as any physical phenomenon, such as ground shaking or ground
failure, which is associated with an earthquake and that, may produce adverse effects on the built
environment and human activities (Arnold, 1995) . A seismic hazard analysis is the estimation of
ground-shaking hazard at a particular site quantitatively. Seismic hazards analysis may be carried
out deterministically, where a particular earthquake scenario is assumed, or probabilistically, in
which uncertainties in earthquake size, location, and time of occurrence are explicitly considered
(Kramer, 1996). Although deterministic seismic hazard analysis is somewhat simpler to perform,
but it encounters some conceptual problems as it does not take into account the most important
property associated with any seismic hazard i.e. uncertainty. Probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA) on the other hand is more rigorous and is the most widely used approach for the
determination of seismic design loads for engineering structures. The probabilistic approach of
seismic hazard analysis does not ignore the uncertainties associated with the problem. It rather
incorporates them into the calculations of potential hazard or ground motion intensity. Although
incorporating uncertainties in the hazard calculations adds complexity to the procedure, but the
results obtained from probabilistic considerations are much more reliable and defensible for
seismic risk reduction and the associated decision making. The use of probabilistic approach
allows the explicit consideration of uncertainties in the size, location, and rate of occurrence of
earthquakes and the subsequent variation of ground motion characteristics with earthquake size
and location in the evaluation of seismic hazard. In other words, PSHA provides a frame work
for the proper identification and quantification of uncertainties associated with the seismic
hazard and the subsequent combination of these uncertainties in a rational manner to provide a
complete picture of the seismic hazard at a place.
20
3.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA):
The earthquake engineering analyses aim to ensure that a structure withstands a given
level of ground shaking while maintaining the desired level of performance. However the level
of ground shaking that our structures should be able to withstand or should be made to withstand
is something which needs to be estimated. This estimation is not at all straightforward as there is
a great deal of uncertainty about the size, location and resulting shaking intensity of future
earthquakes. The aim of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is to quantify these
uncertainties, and combine them to produce an explicit description of the distribution of future
shaking that may occur at a site (Baker, 2008). In PSHA we are no longer searching for elusive
worst case ground motion intensity, as in case of deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA).
Instead, all the possible earthquake events and resulting ground motions are considered along
with their associated probabilities of occurrence, in order to obtain a level of ground motion
intensity exceeded with some tolerably low rate. The PSHA involves the determination of
probability distributions for the magnitude of possible earthquake on each source, f M (m) , the
location of each earthquake in or along each source, f R (r ) ,and the prediction of the response
parameter of interest P( pga  pga | m, r ) .

At its most basic level, PSHA is composed of five steps (Baker, 2013).
1. Identification of all earthquake sources capable of producing damaging ground motions.
2. Characterization of the distribution of earthquake magnitudes (the rates at which
earthquakes of various magnitudes are expected to occur).
3. Characterization of the distribution of source-to-site distances associated with potential
earthquakes.
4. Prediction of the resulting distribution of ground motion intensity as a function of
earthquake magnitude, distance, etc.
5. Combination of uncertainties in earthquake size, location and ground motion intensity, using
a calculation known as the total probability theorem.
The end result of these calculations will be a full distribution of levels of ground shaking
intensity, and their associated rates of exceedance. The illusion of a worst-case ground motion
will be removed, and replaced by identification of occurrence frequencies for the full range of
21
ground motion intensities of potential interest. These results can then be used to identify a
ground motion intensity having an acceptably small probability of being exceeded.
Figure 3.1 Systematic illustration of the basic five steps in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(Baker, 2008)
22
3.2.1 Identification of earthquake sources
The first step in the evaluation of seismic hazard for a particular site or a region is to
identify all earthquake sources capable of producing damaging ground motions at a site. These
sources could be faults, which are typically planar surfaces identified through various means
such as observations of past earthquake locations and geological evidence. If individual faults are
not identifiable, then earthquake sources may be described by areal regions in which earthquakes
may occur anywhere. Once all possible sources are identified, we can identify the distribution of
magnitudes and source-to-site distances associated with earthquakes from each source.
3.2.2 Characterization of earthquake size (size uncertainty):

The next step in PSHA is the estimation of earthquake size of the future earthquake.
Earthquake size is most commonly expressed in terms of its magnitude. Recurrence laws
describe the distribution of probable earthquake size over a period of time. One basic assumption
is that past recurrence rates for a source are appropriate for the prediction of future seismicity
(Applied Technology Council, 2012a). The best known recurrence law, Gutenberg and Richter
Law (1944), is based on data collected from Southern California earthquakes over a period of
years. Data were plotted according to the number of earthquakes that exceeded different
magnitudes during that time period. The number of exceedances of each magnitude was divided
by the length of the time period used to assemble the data, defining the mean annual rate of
exceedance, λm, of an earthquake of magnitude, m. The reciprocal of the mean annual rate of
exceedance for a particular magnitude is termed the return period for earthquakes exceeding that
magnitude. Gutenberg and Richter (1944) plotted the logarithm of the annual rates of exceedance
against magnitude and obtained the following linear regression relationship:
log m  a  bm (3.1)
where λm is the rate of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than m, and a and b are
constants. This equation is called the Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law. The a value indicates
the overall rate of earthquakes in a region (10a being the mean annual number of earthquakes
with magnitude greater than or equal to zero), and the b value indicates the relative ratio of small
and large magnitudes (typical b values are approximately equal to 1).However the mean rate of
small magnitude earthquakes is often under-predicted because historical records are used to
supplement the instrumental records, and larger magnitude events dominate the historical record
23
(Applied Technology Council, 2012a). Values of seismicity parameters a and b are estimated
from past seismic records using statistical methods like Least squares regression analysis,
maximum likelihood method or Gumbel‟s extreme value theory.
Once the values of seismicity parameters are obtained equation (3.1) can also be used to
compute a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the magnitudes of earthquakes that are
larger than some minimum magnitude mmin (this conditioning is used because earthquakes
smaller than mmin are ignored due to their lack of engineering importance).This minimum
magnitude, incapable of causing damage to our structures is taken to be 4.5 (Applied Technology
Council, 2012b).
FM ( m)  P ( M  m | M  mmin )
Rate of earthquakes with mmin  M  m

Rate of earthquakes with mmin  M
m  m
 min
m min
a  bmmin
10  10a bm

10 a bm
 1  10 b ( m  mmin ) , m  mmin (3.2)
where FM (m) denotes the cumulative distribution function for M. One can compute the
probability density function (PDF) for M by taking the derivative of the CDF
d
f M ( m)  FM ( m)
dm
d
 
1  10  b ( m  mmin ) 

dm
 b ln(10)10  b ( m  mmin ) , m  mmin (3.3)
f M (m)
where denotes the probability density function for M.
This PDF given in equation

(3.3) comes from the Gutenberg-Richter law, which theoretically predicts magnitudes with no
upper limit, although physical constraints make this unrealistic. Since the earthquake magnitude
is related to the area of the seismic rupture, there is generally some limit on the upper bound of
24
earthquake magnitudes in a region, due to the finite size of the source faults. This limit on the
upper bound of the earthquake magnitudes modifies the associated probability distributions and
is termed as bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law.
1  10b ( mmmin )
FM (m)  , mmin  m  mmax (3.4)
1  10b ( mmax mmin )
and
b ln(10)10b ( m mmin )
f M (m)  , mmin  m  mmax (3.5)
1  10b ( mmax mmin )
where mmax is the maximum earthquake that a given source can produce. Figure 3.2 shows a
typical distribution of observed earthquake magnitudes.
Figure 3.2 Typical distribution of observed earthquake magnitudes, along with Gutenberg-Richter and
bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence laws fit to the observations (Baker, 2008).
For practical PSHA calculations, we generally convert the continuous distribution of

magnitudes into a discrete set of magnitudes as illustrated in Figure 3.3. This discrete probability
distribution of magnitudes is obtained using the following equation
P(M  m j )  FM (m j 1 )  FM (m j ) (3.6)
25
where mj are the discrete set of magnitudes, ordered so that mj < mj+1. This calculation
assigns the probabilities associated with all magnitudes between mj and mj+1 to the discrete value
mj. As long as the discrete magnitudes are closely spaced, the approximation will not affect
numerical results.
Figure 3.3 Illustration of discretization of a continuous magnitude distribution for a source with a
truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution (Baker, 2008).
3.2.3 Characterization of earthquake distances (Spatial uncertainty):

Earthquake source geometries are typically characterized as shown in Figure 3.4. Source
zone geometries include: (1) point sources (e.g., volcanoes); (2) two-dimensional areal sources
(e.g., a well-defined fault plane); and, (3) three-dimensional volumetric sources (e.g., areas
where earthquake mechanisms are poorly defined such as the Central and Eastern United States)
(Applied Technology Council, 2012a).
26
Figure 3.4 Source zone geometries: (a) point sources; (b) two-dimensional areal sources; and (c) three-
dimensional volumetric sources (Kramer, 1996)
To predict ground shaking at a site, it is also necessary to model the distribution of
distances from earthquakes to the site of interest. For a given earthquake source, it is generally
assumed that earthquakes will occur with equal probability at any location on the fault. Given
that locations are uniformly distributed, it is generally simple to identify the distribution of
source-to-site distances using only the geometry of the source. However in a few special cases,
analysts use non-uniform distributions for future earthquake locations based on models for stress
transfer and time-dependent earthquake occurrence (Baker, 2013). For a point source, the
distance R is rs. The probability that R= rs is 1.0, and the probability that R ≠ rs is 0. For more
complex source zones, it is easier to evaluate f R (r ) by numerical integration. For example, the
source zone in Figure3.5 is broken up into a large number of discrete elements of the same area.
A histogram that approximates f R (r ) can be constructed by tabulating the values of R that
correspond to the center of each element.
Figure3.5 Variations in site-to-source distance for three source zone geometries (Kramer, 1996).
27
It has to be noted that in PSHA the term “distance” is not well-defined. One can use distance to
the epicenter or hypocenter, distance to the closest point on the rupture surface, or distance to the
closest point on the surface projection of the rupture. While some distance definitions account
for the depth of the rupture, while others consider only distance from the surface projection of
the rupture. However the analyst‟s choice of distance definition depends upon the required input
to the ground motion prediction model.
3.2.4 Prediction of ground motion intensity (Effect Uncertainty):

We are basically interested in quantifying and analyzing ground motions, not
earthquakes. Having quantified the distribution of potential earthquake magnitudes and locations,
we should now aim at analyzing ground motions. As such, next step is ground motion prediction
model. The ground motion prediction models are the empirically based estimates of ground
motion characteristics. These models predict the probability distribution of ground motion
intensity, as a function of many predictor variables such as the earthquake‟s magnitude, distance,
faulting mechanism, the near-surface site conditions, the potential presence of directivity effects,
etc. Ground motion prediction models are generally developed using statistical regression on
observations from large libraries of observed ground motion intensities (Baker, 2008). The
observed ground motion intensities, even after accounting for the effect of magnitude, distance,
etc. exhibit a significant scatter in observed intensity values. Thus, these predictive models must
provide a probability distribution for intensities, rather than just a single intensity. This is
important to maintain the probabilistic rigor in our PSHA calculations and to account for the
possibility of unlikely outcomes such as extreme intensities much larger than the predicted mean
(Julian J. Bommer & Abrahamson, 2006). In order to describe this probability distribution,
prediction models take the following general form:
ln IM  l n IM (M , R, )   (M , R, ). (3.7)
where lnIM, modeled as a random variable, is the natural log of the ground motion intensity
measure of interest (such as spectral acceleration at a given period)and has been seen to be well-
represented by a normal distribution. The terms ln IM (M , R, ) and  (M , R, ) are the outputs
of the ground motion prediction model; they are the predicted mean and standard deviation,
28
respectively, of lnIM. These terms are both functions of the earthquake‟s magnitude (M) distance
(R) and other parameters (generically referred to as θ). Finally, ε is a standard normal random
variable that represents the observed variability in lnIM. Positive values of ε produce larger-than-
average values of lnIM, while negative values of ε produce smaller-than-average values of lnIM.
The probability that a ground motion parameter IM exceeds a certain value x for an earthquake
of magnitude, m, occurring at a distance, r, is given by:
 ln x  ln   (3.8)
P( IM  x | m, r )  1  Fx ( IM )  1    
  
Where Fx ( IM ) is the value of the cumulative distribution function of IM at m and r,
which is assumed to be lognormal in form; θ is the median value of IM; and β is the dispersion.
Using the same discretization approach as we did for magnitude and distance distributions, we
can also compute the probability of equaling the particular values of IM using:
(3.9)
P( IM  x j )  P( IM  x j )  P( IM  x j 1 )
Figure 3.6 illustrates the conditional probability of exceeding a particular value of a ground
motion parameter for a given combination of m and r.
Figure 3.6 Illustration of the conditional probability of exceeding a ground motion parameter (Kramer,
1996).
29
3.2.5 Combining all information:
Seismic hazard curve calculations are straightforward once the uncertainties in
earthquake size, location, and frequency are established. The probability of exceeding a
particular value x of a ground motion parameter, IM, is calculated for one possible source
location, and then multiplied by the probability of that magnitude earthquake occurring at that
particular location. The calculation is then repeated for all possible magnitudes and locations,
and the probabilities of each are summed to compute the P( IM  x) at the site. In order to
illustrate the process, we first compute the probability of exceeding an IM intensity level x, given
occurrence of a future earthquake from a single source. The ground motion prediction model
used earlier allows us to compute the probability of exceeding that IM level for a given
magnitude and distance. The magnitude and distance of the future earthquake are not yet known,
but their probability distributions are known. Therefore, we combine this information using the
total probability theorem
mmax rmax
P( IM  x)    P(IM  x | m, r ) f
mmin 0
M (m) f R (r ) dr dm (3.10)
where P( IM  x | m, r ) comes from the ground motion model, f M (m) and f R (r ) are our
PDFs for magnitude and distance, and we integrate over all considered magnitudes and
distances. If the site is in a region of Ns potential earthquake sources, each of which has an
average threshold rate of exceedance  (M  mmin ) , the total average IM exceedance rate for the
region is given by:
Ns mmax rmax
 ( IM  x)    ( M  mmin )   P( IM  x | m, r ) f Mi (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm (3.11)

i 1 mmin 0
where Mi / Ri denote the magnitude / distance distributions for sources i. This equation is
typically solved by numerical integration. One simple approach described by Kramer (1996) is to
discretize the possible ranges of magnitude and distance into NM and NR segments, respectively
and convert the integrals into discrete summations as follows:
30
Ns NM NR
 ( IM  x)    ( M i  mmin )  P( IM  x | m j , rk ) f M (m j ) f R (rk ) r m
i i
i 1 j 1 k 1
Ns NM NR
(3.12)
   ( M i  mmin ) P( IM  x | m j , rk ) f M i (m j ) f Ri (rk ) r m
i 1 j 1 k 1
The above statement is equivalent to assuming that each source is capable of generating
only NM different earthquakes of magnitude, mi, at only NR different source-to-site distances of,
rk. The accuracy of this method increases with smaller segments and, thus, larger values of NM
and NR.This equation is represented in terms of seismic hazard curve for the given IM. Figure 3.7
presents a sample seismic hazard curve for peak ground acceleration at a site in Berkeley,
California, reported by (McGuire, 2004) . The figure shows contributions to the annual
frequency of exceedance from nine different seismic sources.
Figure 3.7 Sample seismic hazard curve for Berkeley, California (McGuire, 2004)
3.2.6 Exceedance probabilities for various return periods (Temporal uncertainty):

Seismic hazard curves give us the rates of exceeding a given ground motion intensity.
Sometimes, PSHA results are also formulated in terms of probabilities or return periods. The
return period exceedance (more precisely mean return period) is defined as the reciprocal of the
rate of occurrence. For example, if a given ground motion intensity has a 0.01 annual rate of
31
occurrence, then the return period is equal to 1/0.01=100 years. For a given rate of exceedance,
one can also compute a probability of exceeding a given ground motion intensity within a given
window of time. On account of randomness in the occurrence of earthquakes, exceedance
probabilities in a selected time period can be computed using seismic hazard curves combined
with the Poisson model. In a Poisson process, the number of occurrences in one time interval are
independent of the number that occur in any other time interval; the probability of occurrence
during a very short time interval is proportional to the length of the time interval; and the
probability of more than one occurrence in a very short time interval is negligible. Events in a
Poisson process occur randomly, with no memory of the time, size, or location of any preceding
events. However the basic assumption involved in selecting the simple probability model like the
poisons model has been called to question by the implications of elastic rebound theory, which
suggests that the occurrence of earthquakes on a particular fault or fault segment should not be
independent of past seismicity (Kramer, 1996). In order to account for that, a number of models
have been proposed by various researchers (e.g., Anagnos & Kiremidjian (1988), Vere-Jones &
Ozaki (1982), Esteva (1969), Hagiwara (1974), Kiremidjian & Anagnos (1984), Savy et al.,
(1980), Anagnos & Kiremidjian (1984), Cornell & Winterstein (1988)). However Poisson model
is a reasonably good choice because apart from resulting in simple mathematical equations,
Poissonian model appears to match observations in most cases and more complicated models
typically do not impact the final results significantly. Cornell and Winterstein (1986) showed that
the Poisson model is useful for probabilistic hazard analysis unless the hazard is dominated by a
single source zone that produces characteristic earthquakes, and the time since the previous
significant event exceeds the average time between events.
In a Poisson process, the probability of a random variable, N, representing the number of

occurrences of a particular event in a given time period is given by:
 n e 
P ( N  n)  (3.13)
n!
where µ is the average number of occurrences of the event in the time period. To characterize the
temporal distribution of earthquake recurrence for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, the
Poisson probability is normally expressed as:
32
( t ) n e   t
P ( N  n)  (3.14)
n!
where λ is the average rate of recurrence of the event, and t is the time period of interest. Thus
the probability of occurrence of at least one event in a period of time t is given by:
P( N  1)  1  P( N  0)  1  et (3.15)
Assuming a Poisson process for ground motion occurrences (McGuire, 2004), the
probability of occurrence of an event, is related to annual frequency of exceedance of the
intensity measure (IM) and the exposure time T as:
P( IM  x)  1  et (3.16)
Using this equation, we can calculate the probability that a particular value of intensity measure
(e.g. PGA) will be exceeded in a certain time window for a site characterized by a particular
hazard curve. An alternative, often made, computation is the value of the ground motion
parameter corresponding to a particular probability of exceedance in a given time period. This is
done by rearranging the above equation as:
ln(1  P  IM  x )
y   (3.17)
T
It can be easily observed that as the exposure time, T, increases, the probability of exceeding a
particular ground motion parameter value also increases. Similarly, the value of ground motion
parameter with a particular probability of exceedance increases with increasing exposure time.
3.3 Deaggregation
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis enables calculation of annual rates of exceedance of

ground motion parameters (e.g., PGA) at a particular site based on aggregating the risks from all
possible source zones. While the ability of PSHA to account for all possible earthquake sources
in an area when computing seismic hazard of that area is projected as one of its advantages, it is
also a disadvantage. Once the PSHA computations are complete, one natural question that arises
33
is that which earthquake scenario is most likely to cause PGA>x. Having aggregated all
scenarios together in the PSHA calculations, the answer is not immediately clear and obvious. To
estimate most likely earthquake magnitude and/or the most likely source-site distance may be
useful in some situations. These quantities may be used, for example, to select existing ground
motion records (recorded in earthquakes of similar magnitude at similar source-site distance) for
response analysis (Kramer, 1996). This process of establishing the relative contributions of
various combinations of magnitude, distance, and source to the particular values of an intensity
measure (IM) is termed as deaggregation. Hazard deaggregation requires expression of the mean
annual rate of exceedance as a function of magnitude and distance. For example, the mean
annual rate of exceedance can be expressed as a function of magnitude by
Ns NR
 ( IM  x, M  m)    ( M i  mmin )  P( IM  x | m, rk ) P( M i  m) P( Ri  rk ) (3.18)
i 1 k 1
The same calculation can be done to find the conditional distribution of distance, by simply
modifying the above equation to have a summation over magnitudes but not over distances.
Finally one can also compute the mean annual rate of exceedance as functions of both
earthquake magnitude and source-site distance as:
Ns
 ( IM  x | M  m, R  r )  P( M  m) P( R  r )  (M i  mmin ) P( IM  x | m, r ) (3.19)
i 1
We can also express the above result in terms of conditional joint probability distribution of
magnitudes and distances, using the following equation:
 ( IM  x | M  m, R  r )
P( M  m, R  r | IM  x) 
 ( IM  x) (3.20)
This relationship can also be derived more rigorously, as an application of Bayes‟ rule (Baker,
2013). The denominator is exactly what we computed in our earlier PSHA calculations and the
numerator is computed above. For illustration, Figure 3.8, showing sample deaggregation results
for horizontal spectral acceleration at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s for a site in the Western United
States, for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Figure 3.8(b) shows contributions to the
1-second uniform hazard spectral ordinate as a function of moment magnitude and distance.
34
Approximately 50% of the total 1-second seismic demand can be ascribed to a MW 7.8
earthquake at a distance of 14 km. The [M, r] pair that dominates the 1-second spectral demand
at this site is, therefore, [7.8, 14]. Figure 3.8 also introduces another important ground motion
variable, termed epsilon, ε. Epsilon can be defined as:
ln Sa  ln 

 (3.21)
where all variables vary as a function of period; Sa is the computed spectral acceleration for a
given probability of exceedance (e.g., 2%) in a specified time period (e.g., 50 years) equal to
0.829 g in this instance at a period of 1 second; θ is the median value of spectral acceleration
computed by an appropriate attenuation relationship for the dominant [M, r] pair equal to [7.8,
14] in this instance); and β is the dispersion in the attenuation relationship. In this example, and
using the modal [M, r, ε] triple, ε ranges between 1 and 2, meaning that less than 15% of moment
magnitude 7.8 earthquakes at a distance of 14 km would produce spectral demands in excess of
0.829 g (Applied Technology Council, 2012a).
(a). 0.2 second deaggregation (b) 1.0 second deaggregation
Figure 3.8 Sample deaggregation of hazard curve (USGS, 2014)
3.4 Uniform Hazard Spectrum
The main aim of dynamic structural analysis is to predict the response of a structure
subjected to certain seismic design forces or ground motions having a specified spectral
35
acceleration at a given period. The prediction is generally obtained by selecting ground motions
that match a target response spectrum, and then subsequently using those ground motions as
input to dynamic analysis. The commonly used target response spectrum used for selection of
ground motions to perform dynamic structural analyses is uniform hazard spectrum (USH). This
spectrum is developed after performing the probabilistic seismic hazard (PSHA) calculations for
spectral accelerations at different time periods. This is followed by identifying the spectral
acceleration amplitude for each time period corresponding to a specific target rate of exceedance.
These spectral acceleration amplitudes are then plotted versus their periods, as illustrated in
Figure 3.9. This spectrum is called a uniform hazard spectrum because every ordinate has an
equal rate of being exceeded.
Figure 3.9 Combining hazard curves from individual periods to generate a uniform hazard spectrum (a)
Hazard curve for SA (0.3s), with UHS point identified. (b) Hazard curve for SA (1s), with UHS point
identified. (c) USH, based on a series of calculations like those in (a) and (b). (Baker, 2008).
36
Chapter 4
Earthquake catalog and Seismicity parameters
4.1 Introduction
A reliable earthquake catalog, which provides information about the time, magnitude and
the source of the past earthquakes that have occurred in a region, is an essential input data
required for seismic hazard analysis. Historical seismicity is a major reference for seismic hazard
analysis. Based on the seismotectonic and geologic setting, the entire Gujarat region is divided
into three sub regions namely Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat. Institute of seismological
Research (ISR) has prepared and compiled earthquake catalogue of the Kutch, Saurashtra and
Mainland Gujarat, bounded by latitude 20.0 -25.5 N and longitude 68.0 –75.0 E from the
earliest time to March 2014 for all earthquake magnitude ranges and made available on the web
portal (http://www.isr.gujarat.gov.in). The historical earthquakes of Gujarat region before 1900
were taken from the catalogue prepared by Oldham, 1883.The catalogues prepared by Tandon &
Srivastava (1974), Chandra (1977), Quittmeyer & Jacob (1979), and Malik et al (1999) are
considered for Gujarat region for some other historical and modern earthquakes. The sources of
modern seismicity database are Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Geological Survey of
India (GSI), USGS, International Seismological Centre (ISC), and Gujarat Engineering Research
Institute (GERI).
In the present study, the earthquake catalog obtained from the ISR is used to find out the
required seismicity parameters. The catalogue is already de-clustered i.e. the dependent
earthquakes events- foreshocks and aftershocks are removed from the catalog. After assessing
the earthquake catalogue for de-clustering, an earthquake catalogue spanning a time period of
1819 – 2014 for earthquake magnitude Mw ≥ 3.5 is prepared in order to derive the seismicity
parameters for the three regions of Gujarat. The database consists of 309 events of all
magnitudes, presented in Appendix-I, with all the magnitudes expressed as moment magnitude
(Mw).
37
4.2 Catalogue Completeness
An important pre requisite for any data analysis is the investigation of available data set to
assess the nature and degree of its completeness. All the earthquake catalogs are biased against
small earthquake events, because of seismograph station density, or the early records, population
density (Stepp, 1972). As such, the bias is more severe in older reporting periods. Incomplete
earthquake catalog can lead to erroneous estimation of seismicity parameters as the recurrence
rate predicted by the incomplete catalog may not be the true estimation of the real scenario. Thus
the earthquake catalog necessarily needs to be assessed for completeness in order to obtain the
reliable recurrence relations for the estimation of hazard. While the recurrence rates of the
smaller magnitude events can be evaluated from the most recent data due to their short return
periods, in order to get a reliable estimate of the occurrence rates of larger magnitude events, one
has to consider the data over a much longer period due to their long return periods. Since the
seismic instrumentation is recently initialized in the Gujarat by GS-Net (Gujarat State-Network)
under the umbrella of Institute of Seismological Research and most of the events reported in the
catalog are reported by non-local agencies, it is expected that the low magnitude events could be
under reported which can result in incompleteness of smaller magnitude events. The same is
indicated by Cumulative Visual Inspection (CUVI) of the catalog data (Tinti & Mulargia, 1985)
which is based on the visual assessment of the plot between the cumulative number of events
with time .
90
80 4 to 5
70 5 to 6
Cumulative No. of earthquakes
60 6 to 7
7 to 8
50
40
30
20
10
0
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
Time
Figure 4.1 Assessment of catalog completeness by cumulative visual inspection (CUVI) for Gujarat region
38
As per Figure 4.1, it is observed that the rate of occurrence of earthquakes with 5< M w< 6 is
almost stable throughout and so is the case with magnitude ranges > 6. However there is an
apparent increase in seismicity after around 1962 for 4< M w <5, as shown in Figure 4.2, which
may be attributed to increased seismological network during that period. Thus the determination
of the mean rate of occurrence, λ = No. of events / year, from the entire catalog may lead
significant underestimation of λ for the middle and lower magnitude ranges, making it necessary
to address the completeness issue. In order to check a catalog for its completeness and henceforth
obtain the completeness period for different magnitude ranges, the most widely used and reliable
method is the one proposed by Stepp (1972), described in detail by Shanker & Sharma (1997).
90
80
70
Cumulative No. of earthquakes
60
50
40
30
20
10 1962
0
1920
1940
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1960
1980
2000
2020
Time
Figure 4.2 Incomplete trend in 4< Mw <5 earthquake events in Gujarat region
4.2.1 Stepp’s method

In the present study the method proposed by Stepp (1972) and discussed by Shanker &
Sharma (1997) is employed to address the completeness issue. While considering the earthquake
catalog over the entire period may lead to serious underestimation of the rate of occurrences, the
shortening of the sample to the time interval in which the lowest magnitude included in the
computation is completely reported will most likely result in lack of sufficient data to establish
mean rate of occurrence for large events. To overcome this problem, Stepp suggested a method
to determine the subinterval of the entire period of catalog in which the rate of occurrence is
39
stable for each magnitude class and a separate mean rate of occurrence can be determined from
the interval of complete data for each magnitude class. This method uses a moving time window.
The catalog is grouped into magnitude ranges of say Δm = 1, in a time interval of about 5-10
years. In the present study, the average number of events per year in the magnitude ranges 4 <
Mw <5, 5 < Mw < 6, 6 < Mw < 7, 7 < Mw < 8 is determined for increasing time interval lengths,
starting with the most recent time interval. The first window consists of most recent 10 years, the
next consists of the recent 20 years and so on. This is done separately for the three seismically
different regions of Gujarat- Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat. The earthquake
distribution data by magnitude and time are shown for Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat
region in Table 4.1, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 respectively.
Table 4.1 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Kutch Region
Kutch Region
Rate of Occurrence for magnitude
Time
Time Period Interval 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8
2004 - 2014 10 1.4000 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000
1994 - 2014 20 0.8000 0.1500 0.0000 0.0500
1984 - 2014 30 0.7667 0.1333 0.0000 0.0333
1974 - 2014 40 0.6750 0.1250 0.0000 0.0250
1964 - 2014 50 0.6200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0200
1954 - 2014 60 0.5167 0.1500 0.0167 0.0167
1944 - 2014 70 0.4429 0.1429 0.0143 0.0143
1934 - 2014 80 0.4000 0.1250 0.0125 0.0125
1924 - 2014 90 0.3556 0.1111 0.0111 0.0111
1914 - 2014 100 0.3500 0.1100 0.0100 0.0100
1904 - 2014 110 0.3455 0.1000 0.0091 0.0091
1894 - 2014 120 0.3417 0.1000 0.0083 0.0083
1884 - 2014 130 0.3231 0.0923 0.0077 0.0077
1874 - 2014 140 0.3000 0.1071 0.0071 0.0071
1864 - 2014 150 0.2800 0.1000 0.0067 0.0067
1854 - 2014 160 0.2625 0.0938 0.0063 0.0063
1844 - 2014 170 0.2529 0.0941 0.0118 0.0059
1834 - 2014 180 0.2389 0.0889 0.0111 0.0056
1824 - 2014 190 0.2263 0.0842 0.0105 0.0053
1819 - 2014 195 0.2205 0.0821 0.0103 0.0103
40
Table 4.2 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Saurashtra Region
Saurashtra Region
Time
2004 - 2014 10 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000
1994 - 2014 20 0.3500 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000
1984 - 2014 30 0.2667 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000
1974 - 2014 40 0.2250 0.0750 0.0000 0.0000
1964 - 2014 50 0.2200 0.0600 0.0000 0.0000
1954 - 2014 60 0.1833 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000
1944 - 2014 70 0.1571 0.0429 0.0000 0.0000
1934 - 2014 80 0.1500 0.1250 0.0000 0.0000
1924 - 2014 90 0.1444 0.1111 0.0000 0.0000
1914 - 2014 100 0.1400 0.1100 0.0000 0.0000
1904 - 2014 110 0.1273 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000
1894 - 2014 120 0.1167 0.0917 0.0000 0.0000
1884 - 2014 130 0.1308 0.0846 0.0000 0.0000
1874 - 2014 140 0.1286 0.0786 0.0000 0.0000
1864 - 2014 150 0.1200 0.0800 0.0000 0.0000
1854 - 2014 160 0.1125 0.0750 0.0000 0.0000
1844 - 2014 170 0.1059 0.0706 0.0000 0.0000
1834 - 2014 180 0.1000 0.0667 0.0000 0.0000
1824 - 2014 190 0.0947 0.0632 0.0000 0.0000
1819 - 2014 195 0.0923 0.0615 0.0000 0.0000
Table 4.3 Earthquake distribution by time and magnitude for Mainland Gujarat
Mainland Gujarat Region
Time
2004 - 2014 10 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1994 - 2014 20 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1984 - 2014 30 0.2667 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1974 - 2014 40 0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1964 - 2014 50 0.2400 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000
1954 - 2014 60 0.2167 0.0333 0.0000 0.0000
1944 - 2014 70 0.1857 0.0286 0.0000 0.0000
1934 - 2014 80 0.1625 0.0250 0.0000 0.0000
1924 - 2014 90 0.1444 0.0222 0.0000 0.0000
1914 - 2014 100 0.1300 0.0200 0.0000 0.0000
41
1904 - 2014 110 0.1273 0.0182 0.0000 0.0000
1894 - 2014 120 0.1250 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000
1884 - 2014 130 0.1154 0.0154 0.0000 0.0000
1874 - 2014 140 0.1071 0.0143 0.0000 0.0000
1864 - 2014 150 0.1200 0.0200 0.0000 0.0000
1854 - 2014 160 0.1188 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000
1844 - 2014 170 0.1118 0.0353 0.0000 0.0000
1834 - 2014 180 0.1167 0.0333 0.0000 0.0000
1824 - 2014 190 0.1105 0.0316 0.0000 0.0000
1819 - 2014 195 0.1128 0.0308 0.0000 0.0000
For a particular magnitude range, if k1, k2, k3, kn are the number of earthquakes per unit
time interval obtained from the catalog, then an unbiased estimate of the mean rate per unit time
interval of this sample is
1 n
  ki
n i 1 (4.1)
An analysis of the series of λ obtained for different time windows for each magnitude
interval will show the length of the time window for which λ becomes stationary(I. D. Gupta,
2002). Stepp‟s method aims at determining this fraction of the total time in which the mean rate
of occurrence, λ is stable for a given magnitude class. In order to achieve this objective, λ is
modeled as Poisson distribution and the variance of this mean rate per unit time interval is given
by

 2 
n (4.2)
where n is the number of unit time intervals in a sample. Taking unit time interval to be one year
and taking T as the duration of each sample, the standard deviation of the estimate of mean can
be written as

  (4.3)
T
For λ to be a constant, σx varies as . The plot between standard deviation of the mean and the
√
time interval T is called the completeness plot. The deviation of the standard deviation of the
sample mean from the linearity of slope indicates the period up to which a particular
√
42
magnitude range may be taken as complete. The standard deviation shows stability in shorter
time window for smaller earthquakes and in longer time windows for larger magnitudes (Iyengar
& Ghosh, 2004).The completeness plots of the available earthquake data for Kutch, Saurashtra
and Mainland Gujarat are shown in Figure 4.3,Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 respectively. It is
observed that in Kutch region, for magnitude class 4-5 and 5-6, the completeness period is 50,
170years respectively. For Saurashtra region these values are 50 and 142 years while for
Mainland Gujarat these values are found to be 50 and 193 years respectively. There are very less
number of events above magnitude 6.Thus it is reasonable to assume that the catalog is complete
for magnitudes greater than 6 in all the three regions. The span of the entire catalog is 195 years
for Kutch region, 142 years for Saurashtra and 193 years for Mainland Gujarat.
1
4< Mw< 5
5< Mw <6
6< Mw <7
7< Mw <8
Standard Deviation ( σ)
0.1
0.01
0.001
10 Time Interval (Years) 100
function of sample length and magnitude class for Kutch region
43
1
4 < Mw < 5
5 < Mw < 6
0.1
0.01
10 100
Time Interval (Years)
function of sample length and magnitude class for Saurastra region
4 < Mw < 5
5 < Mw < 6
0.1
0.01
10 100
Time Interval (Years)
function of sample length and magnitude class for Mainland Gujarat
44
4.3 Regional Magnitude frequency relations
The earthquake catalog divided into Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat, after
checking for completeness is used to obtain the Gutenberg-Richter (GR) relation for each region.
Hence the seismicity parameters, which serve as one of the basic inputs for hazard computations,
can be obtained for each region. This is done using least square regression analysis of the
seismicity data for each region. The annual numbers of earthquakes are represented in each of
the selected magnitude intervals. The threshold magnitude for the calculation of seismicity
parameters is takes as 3.5 as the earthquakes below this magnitude have no or almost negligible
effect on our built environment. The cumulative number of occurrences of events of particular
magnitude is the calculated and the constants of the Gutenberg-Richter relation (Equation (3.1)
are obtained using least square regression approach. Figure 4.6, Figure 4.7, and Figure 4.8 show
the least square regression plots for obtaining the seismicity parameters for Kutch, Saurashtra
and Mainland respectively and the obtained values of seismicity parameters i.e. a and b values
and Vmin are listed in Table 4.4.
1.000
0.500 y = -0.689x + 2.789

R² = 0.9278
0.000
-0.500
Log λ
-1.000
-1.500
-2.000
-2.500
3 4 5 6 7 8
Magnitude (Mw)
Figure 4.6 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Kutch region
45
0.500
y = -0.879x + 3.136
0.000 R² = 0.95
-0.500
Log λ
-1.000
-1.500
-2.000
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Magnitude (Mw)
Figure 4.7 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region
0.200
0.000
-0.200 y = -0.816x + 2.903
R² = 0.92
-0.400
-0.600
Log λ
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
-1.600
-1.800
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Magnitude (Mw)
Figure 4.8 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region
46
Table 4.4 Seismicity parameters for Gujarat region
Region G-R relation a-value b-value R2
Kutch LogN = 2.79 - 0.69 Mw 2.79 0.69 0.93
Saurashtra LogN = 3.14 - 0.88 Mw 3.14 0.88 0.95
Mainland Gujarat LogN = 2.90 - 0.82 Mw 2.90 0.82 0.92
N= cumulative number of earthquake of given magnitude; Mw = Earthquake Moment Magnitude
The b-value is typically in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 and are more frequently around 1
(McGuire, 2004; Marzocchi & Sandri, 2003). In Gutenberg-Richter function, a higher value of b-
value coefficient indicates numerous small earthquakes as compared to large magnitude
earthquakes, whereas a small value of b-value indicates the predominance of big earthquakes in
the region. As per the results obtained it can be seen clearly that the smaller value of b-value
shows predominance of large magnitude earthquakes in Kutch region. The b-value of other
region is comparatively higher which can be attributed to the less frequency of large magnitude
earthquakes in those regions.
4.3.1 Estimation of b-value using Maximum likelihood estimate

The more accepted approach for estimation of seismic source recurrence parameters is the
maximum likelihood procedure (Weichert, 1980; Kijko & Sellevoll, 1989; McGuire, 2004).
Weichert, (1980) published the derivation of seismicity parameters β (=2.303 b) and seismic
activity rate for magnitude distribution for earthquake data with unequal periods of
completeness. Suppose there are observations of earthquakes in discrete magnitude intervals and
let ith contain zi earthquakes during a period of completeness of ti years. The total number of
events is z , ith interval be represented by central magnitude mi and the magnitude interval is Δm.
These observations represent a multinomial distribution:
P  z1events of m1during t1 , z2 events of m2 during t2 ,  |  
z! (4.4)
  Pi zi
 zi ! i
i
47
where Pi is the probability that, given all the magnitude intervals and their periods of
completeness, a random selected event will fall into the ith magnitude interval and time window.
It is also known that the probability density function of earthquake magnitude fM (m) is given by
following equation,
f M (m)   .e  ( mm0 ) (4.5)
Following this fundamental equation for magnitude distribution,
e  mi
P(m withen m of mi )  (4.6)
e j
 m
In order to account for different periods of completeness, the above equation can be weighted by
the appropriate completeness period to obtain:
ti e  mi
Pi 
t
 mj (4.7)
j e
j
Given the earthquake observations, the likelihood for β can be obtained by substituting Pi from
equation (4.7) in (4.4). The likelihood for β, l(β) equals the quantity in equation (4.4). After
taking logarithm of l(β), the derivative of ln l(β) with respect to β is equated to zero. This leads to
the following condition of maximum likelihood value of β which can be solved recursively to get
the values of β.
t m e  i i
 mi
m z i i
(4.8)
i
 i
m
t e
  mj
i
z
i
where m is the average magnitude of the earthquake data. The estimated b-values for Gujarat
region using the Equation (4.8) are 0.696, 0.840 and 0.801 for Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland
Gujarat, respectively. These are close to the values obtained in Table 4.4.
48
4.4 Maximum magnitude
In order to obtain a realistic estimation of seismic hazard values, one of the important
parameter that needs to be assessed is the maximum magnitude that is capable of occurring due
to the seismic sources considered in the seismic hazard analysis. Following the assumption that
earthquake magnitudes follow a doubly truncated Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law, it becomes
imperative to assign maximum possible magnitude to all the seismic sources considered in the
PSHA computations. “A realistic risk analysis must admit a regional maximum possible
magnitude, even though it may not yet be possible to estimate this magnitude reliably”
(Weichert, 1980).Despite being an important input parameter in seismic hazard assessment, no
widely accepted method exists for estimating Mmax at present.
Generally Mmax can be found based on geological characteristics like fault rupture length, fault
rupture area, fault slip rate. However in absence of geological, geophysical and structural
information of the seismic source, maximum magnitude is assigned to the fault based on
maximum observed past seismicity. The general standard rule is to assign the maximum
observed magnitude plus an increment (generally 0.5) (Nuttli, 1979). While such an approach
can be easily used to assign Mmax values to a seismic region, the paucity of seismic data makes it
difficult to assign Mmax to individual faults, particularly when the site is surrounded by a large
number of faults.
Another commonly used practice of assigning a single maximum magnitude to all the faults is
from its empirical relationships with the key fault parameters like fault rupture length, rupture
displacement and rupture area etc. Based on the worldwide data it is found that generally the
maximum rupture length of a fault is equal to one-third or one half of the fault length(Mark,
1977).The maximum magnitude can be obtained using the empirical relations between rupture
length and the earthquake magnitude, given by several researchers (Nowroozi, 1985)(Bonilla,
Mark, & Lienkaemper, 1984)(Wells & Coppersmith, 1994). Wells & Coppersmith, 1994 is the
most recent and most widely used. However, the empirical nature and arbitrary assumption of
rupture length equal to some fraction of the fault length renders this approach questionable. Thus
a more reliable and region specific approach is sought to get a proper and reliable estimation of
maximum magnitude.
49
4.4.1 A new proposed approach to assign Mmax
In our present study of carrying out probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Gujarat, the
accurate amount of slip and slip rate or the fault rupture could not be obtained due to lack of
instrumentations. In such a case the best practice is to assign a maximum magnitude to a region.
As such all the faults in that region shall be assigned the same Mmax. This appears to be
intuitively logical as seismicity parameters (a, b) are also assigned to the entire region instead of
individual faults owing to the paucity of data. However, in the present study an attempt was
made to associate Mmax to each based on the past seismicity observed in nearby region keeping
the future seismicity in consideration. Owing to its strong intuitive appeal, we chose past
seismicity records to assign maximum magnitude to individual faults in Gujarat region.
However, although apparently simple, this alternative cannot be applied to all the seismic
sources considered in the present study. Some practical problems were encountered while
assigning the maximum observed past earthquake to the faults in the region. These are:
a) Most of the sources showing the seismic activity are very poorly known and do not
providing a reliable maximum magnitude earthquake estimate because the seismic events
obtained from the catalog are scattered all over the region and at times it becomes
difficult to associate the causative fault to certain events especially when two or more
faults are nearby located and the events are not distinctly near a specific fault.
b) All the faults mapped as active in the present study did not show any predominant
activity during the past history. There are a large number of faults that are not surrounded
or very sparsely surrounded by seismic events in the past, however their activity is
confirmed. The reason may be that the fault may have triggered a large event before the
age of the earthquake catalog available or maybe the fault is yet to trigger a large
magnitude event. In any such case, their inclusion into PSHA computations is inevitable.
At the same time, arbitrarily assigning the maximum magnitude in line with the nearby
faults may be a flawed approach. Thus there has to be a logically acceptable approach for
assigning maximum magnitude potential to all such faults.
In order to associate earthquake event to the faults, given the limited data regarding the fault
structure, proximity of the seismic events to each fault is being taken as the basis for assigning
the seismic events to individual faults in the available literature. However the term proximity is
not given a quantitative definition in the literature. In our present study we used average dip
50
angle (which varies between 40-50 degrees in present case) and depth of the faults to come up
with a zone of influence around each fault and the event lying in each zone were associated with
the fault. For a particular depth, more dip means smaller area of influence, while a gentle dip
means larger area of influence. The events lying in the zone of influence of each fault were
assigned to it and the maximum magnitude among them added by an increment of 0.5 was
assigned as the maximum earthquake potential for that fault. In this way maximum magnitude
potential of the faults surrounded by sufficient number of events was estimated. Out of the total
of 65 faults considered in the study, 27 faults, as shown in
Table 4.5 were identified having significant number of events in their zone of influence and were
assigned maximum magnitude accordingly. Now in order to assign the maximum magnitude
potential to the remaining other faults in the region that have not apparently triggered any
significant earthquake during the age of catalog, however are active, an attempt was made to
obtain a reliable empirical relation based on the faults whose maximum magnitude potential has
been estimated. Since length of the fault is the only available variable parameter available, the
relationship between length of fault and the maximum magnitude assigned based on past
seismicity was studied. It was found that there is a strong correlation between the length of the
fault and the parameter . Figure 4.9 shows the correlation between the parameters
involving length of the fault and the maximum magnitude associated with it.
Table 4.5 Faults having shown significant activity is past to assign a maximum magnitude based on the
past seismicity
Mmax observed
Length of the
S. No. Fault based on past
fault (km)
seismicity
1 F-1 184.81 5.1

2 F-2 189.98 5
3 F-3 46.31 4.9
4 F-4 113.38 5.7
5 F-5 167.22 6
6 F-6 79.75 5
7 F-7 58.86 4.6
8 F-8 11.66 4.9
9 F-9 13.47 6
10 F-10 37.58 5
51
11 F-11 10.03 5.5
12 F-12 10.32 5.1
13 F-13 420.04 4.6
14 F-14 290.55 5.7
15 F-15 51.34 5.5
16 F-16 147.02 5.6
17 F-19 44.12 5.7
18 F-20 150.75 4.6
19 F-21 162.31 5
20 F-30 10.48 4.1
21 F-31 7.61 4.1
22 F-41 370.80 5.7
23 F-42 20.98 7.7
24 F-52 11.94 5.4
25 F-63 176.66 4.6
26 F-64 226.02 7.8
27 F-65 74.86 4
500
450
400
350
300
Length of the fault
250
200
150 y = 0.7102x + 1.5575
R² = 0.9862
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
γ = length/log (Mmax)
Figure 4.9 Correlation between length of the fault and the parameter
52
On the basis of this plot an empirical relation has been obtained by linear regression of
the available data, which can be used to find the Mmax of all the faults in the study region, given
their lengths.
  0.71l  1.56 (4.9)
l
where 
log( M max )
l  Length of the fault
M max  Maximum magnitude associated with the fault
It is worth noting that the above equation is expected to hold true only for the Gujarat
region and is specific for the region and the given catalog. A similar independent study needs to
be done in order to find a similar relationship for any other region. It is expected that there
should be certain correlation between the Mmax and the length of the fault irrespective of where
the location is. The above equation can be used to assign maximum magnitude to the faults that
have not triggered earthquakes in the past but have shown signs of activity or the faults for which
the events are older and not included in the catalog. This approach is logically more correct than
the existing practice of assigning a single maximum magnitude to all the faults or arbitrarily
assuming the rupture length equal to one-third or one half of the fault length in order to obtain
maximum magnitude using the empirical relations developed for some other region. Although it
is applicable only for the specific region i.e. Gujarat but the same simplistic approach can be
used to obtain similar relation in other regions of study. Table 4.6 shows the final values of
Mmax assigned to each fault based on past seismicity and the adopted approach to extend the
past observed seismicity to faults with limited data. The obtained Mmax values are incremented
by 0.5 units in order to account for the uncertainty involved with future events. However, an
upper limit is fixed. If the maximum magnitude assigned to the fault is found more than the
maximum magnitude earthquake experienced in the region where the fault is located, the
magnitude potential of the fault is taken as the regional Mmax .
53
Table 4.6 Final assigned Mmax values for each fault considered in the study
Length of Length of
Assigned Assigned
Fault the fault Fault the fault
Mmax (Mw) Mmax (Mw)
(km) (km)
F-1 184.81 5.6 F-34 68.81 5.8
F-2 189.98 5.5 F-35 75.70 5.8
F-3 46.31 5.4 F-36 36.98 6.0
F-4 113.38 6.2 F-37 89.35 5.8
F-5 167.22 6.5 F-38 16.81 5.5
F-6 79.75 5.5 F-39 15.48 5.5
F-7 58.86 5.1 F-40 8.72 5.1
F-8 11.66 5.4 F-41 370.80 6.2
F-9 13.47 6.5 F-42 20.98 8.2
F-10 37.58 5.5 F-43 9.06 6.0
F-11 10.03 6.0 F-44 40.70 6.0
F-12 10.32 5.6 F-45 181.77 5.7
F-13 420.04 5.1 F-46 16.05 6.0
F-14 290.55 6.2 F-47 116.44 5.7
F-15 51.34 6.0 F-48 31.56 6.0
F-16 147.02 6.1 F-49 47.08 5.5
F-17 22.09 5.0 F-50 51.52 5.5
F-18 15.04 6.2 F-51 19.49 5.5
F-19 44.12 6.2 F-52 11.94 5.9
F-20 150.75 5.1 F-53 25.55 5.9
F-21 162.31 5.5 F-54 15.13 5.9
F-22 10.95 5.1 F-55 23.40 5.9
F-23 11.66 5.1 F-56 27.72 5.0
F-24 14.06 5.1 F-57 11.46 4.8
F-25 7.35 5.1 F-58 21.13 5.5
F-26 9.49 5.1 F-59 32.56 5.5
F-27 35.34 5.5 F-60 61.14 5.5
F-28 16.91 5.5 F-61 35.65 5.1
F-29 6.64 4.6 F-62 23.67 5.1
F-30 10.48 4.6 F-63 176.66 5.1
F-31 7.61 4.6 F-64 226.02 8.3
F-32 114.90 5.7 F-65 74.86 4.5
F-33 45.07 5.1
54
Chapter 5
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Gujarat
5.1 Introduction
As already discussed earlier, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis involves the

probability of exceedance of spectral acceleration Sa at a site due to all possible future
earthquakes, as visualized by previous hazard scenario (Raghu Kanth & Iyengar, 2006).The steps
involved and the general methodology involved in PSHA is described in detail in chapter 3. In
order to carry out the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Gujarat, a MATLAB program
was developed, based on the standard PSHA methodology initially proposed by
Cornell(1968),improved by Kiureghian & Ang (1977) and discussed in great detail by
Kramer(1996) and McGuire, (2004).The results of the PSHA are expressed in terms of hazard
curve and the uniform hazard spectrum for various selected important cities of Gujarat region.
Besides, a contour map showing the variation of PGA hazard over the entire Gujarat region is
produced which could facilitate in seismic micro-zonation as well as proper understanding of the
seismicity patterns in the state of Gujarat.
5.2 Delineation of seismic sources
It is a standard practice to investigate a broad region of about 250-300 km around the site
for estimating the seismic hazard at that site. Accordingly in the present study the fault sources in
the area covering about 350 km from the boundaries of Gujarat state has been considered and all
the faults present in the region have been used in the study. The seismic sources in the present
study have been identified from the Seismotectonic Atlas of India (GSI, 2000), published by
Geological Survey of India. The base map for the study has been prepared by considering the
bounded region and seismic sources like major faults, lineaments are superimposed on it. The
faults are digitized using ArcGIS and the digitized fault map for the Gujarat region has been
prepared for the region. The digitized fault map can be directly input into the MATLAB program
for further calculations. A total of 65 faults have been identified from the seismotectonic atlas
and have been considered in the present study. Figure 5.1 shows the digitized map of all the
seismic sources considered for the determination of the seismic hazard in the Gujarat region.
55
Figure 5.1 Fault map in and around Gujarat region digitized using ArcGIS
5.3 Ground Motion Prediction Equation
Ground motion prediction equations form the most important part of any seismic hazard
analysis procedure. The prediction of the expected ground motion and its intrinsic variability at a
particular site for earthquake sources with given characteristics is the factor to which seismic
hazard is most sensitive (Cotton et al., 2006). Till recent past, the ground motion prediction
equations were most commonly developed for the peak ground acceleration, which was used to
scale a normalized standard spectral shape (Gupta, 2002; Biot, 1942; Housner, 1960; Newmark
and Hall, 1969; Seed et al., 1976; Mohraz, 1976). However, this approach suffers from several
drawbacks and is unable to represent various characteristics of the response spectra in a realistic
way (Trifunac, 1992; Gupta, 2002). It is well recognized that PGA does not uniquely influence
damage in the structures and engineers prefer the response spectra as better descriptor of seismic
hazard. This frequency domain representation of the expected ground motion gives additional
advantage to the design engineer to know how structures behave under a postulated earthquake
event. A considerable number of ground motion prediction equations, using variety of models
and datasets, predicting ground motions are available are available for different parts of the
world. Various researchers have studied attenuation of PGA (peak horizontal ground
56
acceleration) and Sa (horizontal spectral accelerations) worldwide, based on considerations of
engineering seismology. The pattern of decay of PGA with distance is a property of the region
and varies from place to place. Ground motion prediction equations are generally derived
empirically on the basis of data recorded by strong motion accelerographs (SMA) and structural
response recorders. However in regions lacking strong motion data, various seismological
models based on simulated ground motions are a viable alternative.
For India, there are a very few such relations derived. As such, the general practice is to
use the predictions equations developed for some other places with similar geologic and
seismotectonic setup. Since our region of study is a stable continental region (SCR), the
prediction equations developed for other stable continental regions elsewhere in the world can be
considered for use in our study. The eastern North American region shares the similar
seismotectonic features as the Gujarat, both being stable continental regions. Selection of
appropriate ground motion prediction equation is the key element in the seismic hazard analysis
(Bommer et al., 2010). The following ground motion equations were found relevant to the
Gujarat region and were considered for selection of the appropriate attenuation relation.
1. Atkinson & Boore (2006)

 Based simulated ground motions using stochastic finite model. The model
incorporates information obtained from ENA seismographic data gathered over
past ten years.
 Assumes linearity of motions for hard rock site (NEHRP-A, V30 ≥ 2000 m/s), but
can accommodate non-linearity for soil sites.
 Provide a sound basis for estimating peak ground motions and response spectra
for earthquakes of magnitude 4-8, at distance from 1 to 200 km over a frequency
range of 0.2 to 20 Hz.
 The model can be used to predict ground motions much closer to the fault due to
improved considerations of finite fault effects. However values at close distances
(<10km) are model based rather empirically driven.
 Distance measured in terms of Rcd (closest distance to the fault).
 Magnitude is defined in terms of moment magnitude.
57
2. Campbell (2003)
 Based on hybrid empirical method that uses the ratio of stochastic or theoretical
ground motion estimates to adjust empirical ground motion relations developed
for WNA to use in ENA.
 Most appropriate for estimating ground motion on ENA hard rock with a shear
wave velocity of 2800 m/s for earthquakes of Mw ≥5.0 and Rrup ≤ 70 km.
However it has been extended to large distances using stochastic ground motion
estimates.
 Ground motion parameters are defined as geometric mean of two horizontal
components of PGA and 5% damped PSA.
 Magnitude is defined in terms of moment magnitude.
 Ground motions defined for random unknown style of faulting.
 Valid for earthquakes of Mw 5.0 to 8.2 and fault rupture distance of 0 to 1000 km.
3. Pezeshk, Zandieh, & Tavakoli (2011)

 Based on hybrid empirical method.
 PGA for hard rock site in ENA.
 Hybrid empirical model developed for Rrup<= 70 km and hybrid empirical
estimations are supplemented with stochastic ENA predictions for beyond 70 km
in order to extend GMPEs up to 1000 km.
 Developed for hard rock site with Vs>=2000 m/s (NEHRP site class A).
 Suitable for magnitudes 5 to 8.
4. Toro et al. (1997)

 Derived for rock sites in central and eastern North America.
 Based on stochastic ground motion model using point source modeling
assumption.
 For moment magnitudes 5 to 8.
 Distance range is 1 to 500 Km.
 Directly applicable to hard rock sites having shear wave velocities of 6000 ft/s at
the surface.
58
5. Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2007)
 Based on statistical simulation of ground motion in peninsular India.
 Covers bedrock and soil conditions.
 Approach validated by comparing analytical results of the present model with the
instrumental data of two strong earthquakes in peninsular India-Koyna earthquake
and Bhuj earthquake records.
 Distance measured in terms of hypocentral distance.
6. Sumer Chopra & Choudhury (2011)

 Developed specifically for Gujarat.
 Based on recorded strong motion data with moment magnitude ranging from 3.5
to 5.7.
 Developed for six periods to predict geometric mean of horizontal sprctral
amplitudes for rock and soil site.
 Hypocentral distance range of 0 to 300 km.
The above ground motion prediction equations were checked for suitability by comparing with
the recorded values of peak ground accelerations at various stations across the Gujarat state.
Figure 5.2 shows the comparison of different ground motion prediction equations mentioned
above with the recorded data points at different stations across Gujarat. It has been found that the
attenuation relation given by Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2007) fits sufficiently well with the
observed data points and has been chosen for the present study. Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2007)
present a separate set of coefficients for the attenuation relationship for Gujarat and the western
India. The results have also been validated by 2001 Bhuj earthquake. The detailed description of
the GMPE proposed by Raghukanth and Iyengar (2007) is region specific for present study is
described in some detail in the Appendix-II.
59
Figure 5.2 Comparison of different ground motion attenuation relationships for Mw 5.0 with the data
points recorded at different recording stations across the Gujarat
5.4 Seismic hazard computation for some important cities in Gujarat
One of the important results of PSHA is the development of hazard curve which shows the
probability of exceeding a certain threshold ground motion for given range of ground motion
values. The mean hazard curves for zero period ground motions (i.e. PGA) are plotted in Figure
5.3 to Figure 5.19. Table 5.1 shows the 475 year return period (10% probability of exceedance in
50 years) and 2475 year return period (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) zero period
spectral acceleration (PGA) hazard values for 17 major cities of Gujarat. Seismic hazard values
are estimated for two cases: Model-I, in which the maximum magnitude is assigned based on the
suggested approach for Mmax determination, and Model-II, in which maximum magnitude is
assigned to the three seismic regions of Gujarat (Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland) based on the
maximum past observed seismicity in the region plus an increment of 0.5.As such in Model-II,
all the seismic sources in the three different regions have three different values of seismicity
parameters (a, b) and Mmax. Table 5.1 also shows the maximum values of PGA assigned to each
of these cities as per IS-1893 (2002).This corresponds to the maximum credible earthquake
(MCE) in the region, which is based on 2475 year return period. The comparison of seismic
hazard curves are given in Figure 5.20 which suggest that the seismic hazard for the cities
60
representing the Kutch region have very high hazard compared to other cities. For the cities like
Rajkot, Surendernagar, Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Vadodara etc., the seismic hazard is observed to
be very low. As per Figure 5.20, it is quite clear that the cities within the Kutch region (e.g.
Bhuj) have the highest seismic hazard in terms of annual frequency of exceedance. The
Jamnagar, Morbi and Porbandar have lesser seismic hazard for all earthquake return period.
Ahmedabad, Surat, Gandhinagar, Mehsana have comparatively even lesser seismic hazard but
more than Vadodara, Surendernagar, Palanpur and Rajkot. Comparison of results from the two
Mmax models indicate that the difference in hazard values is not much in most of the cases except
Jamnagar, Bhuj, Junagadh, Morbi and Porbandar. Although we suggest the use of Model-I for
assigning of maximum magnitude to the faults, in subsequent studies Model-II has been used so
that we could have a better comparison with the past studies.
Table 5.1 Estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA) hazard values based on Model I: based on
proposed fault wise Mmax values; Model II: based on zonal Mmax values
Location 2475 Year Return 475 Year Return
S.No. City Period Period IS-1893
Lat(N ) Lon(E ) Model I Model II Model I Model II Zone PGA
1 Ahmedabad 23.040 72.647 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.05 III 0.16
2 Anand 22.560 72.930 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06 III 0.16
3 Bharuch 21.715 72.977 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 III 0.16
4 Bhavnagar 21.770 72.143 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 III 0.16
5 Bhuj 23.497 70.029 0.49 0.46 0.28 0.25 V 0.36
6 Gandhinagar 23.229 71.651 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.05 III 0.16
7 Himatnagar 23.604 72.964 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04 III 0.16
8 Jamnagar 22.466 70.066 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.07 IV 0.24
9 Junagadh 21.515 70.456 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 III 0.16
10 Mehsana 23.598 72.380 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.05 IV 0.24
11 Morbi 22.814 70.829 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.14 IV 0.24
12 Palanpur 24.174 72.433 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 IV 0.24
13 Porbandar 21.643 69.611 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.14 III 0.16
14 Rajkot 22.283 70.800 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 III 0.16
15 Surat 21.194 72.819 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05 III 0.16
16 Surendernagar 22.718 71.637 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 III 0.16
17 Vadodra 22.306 73.187 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.05 III 0.16
61
1 E+00
1 E-01
Ahmedabad
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance
1 E-02
1 E-03
1 E-04
1 E-05
1 E-06
1 E-07
1 E-08
1 E-09
1 E-10
1 E-11
1 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Figure 5.3 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Ahmedabad city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Anand
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.4 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Anand city
62
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Bharuch
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.5 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bharuch city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Bhavnagar
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.6 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bhavnagar city
63
1.0 E+00
Bhuj
1.0 E-01
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.7 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Bhuj city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Gandhinagar
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.8 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Gandhinagar city
64
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Himatnagar
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1
Figure 5.9 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Himatnagar city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Jamnagar
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.10 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Jamnagar city
65
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Junagarh
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.11 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Junagarh city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
1.0 E-02 Mehsana
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.12 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Mehsana city
66
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Morbi
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.13 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Morbi city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Palanpur
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1
Figure 5.14 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Palanpur city
67
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
1.0 E-02
Porbandar
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.15 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Porbandar city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Rajkot
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1
Figure 5.16 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Rajkot city
68
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Surat
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.17 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Surat city
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Surendernagar
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1
Figure 5.18 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Surendernagar city
69
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01
Vadodra
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 5.19 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Vadodra city
1 E+00 Ahmedabad
1 E-01 Anand
1 E-02 Bharuch
Bhavnagar
1 E-03
Bhuj
1 E-04 Gandhinagar
1 E-05 Himatnagar
1 E-06 Jamnagar
1 E-07 Junagarh
1 E-08 Mehsana
Morbi
1 E-09
Palanpur
1 E-10 Porbandar
1 E-11 Rajkot
1 E-12 Surat
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Surendernagar
Peak Ground Acceleration (g) Vadodra
Figure 5.20 Comparison of Hazard curve various cities in Gujarat
70
5.5 Hazard Map
Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 shows the seismic hazard map of Gujarat obtained from the
present study, corresponding to 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. These
contour map are developed in MATLAB with a grid spacing of 10 km over a 600x600 km
around Surendernagar, which lies in the middle of Gujarat state. The square area considers the
entire Gujarat. From the figure it is clear that the major seismic hazard in Gujarat comes from the
western part, i.e. Kutch region. This is as per the expectations as this region has experienced
some of the worst forms of seismic activity in past and is considered as one of the most
seismically active intra-plate region in the entire world. Rest of the Gujarat shows comparatively
less acceleration values. However some part of Saurashtra (lower left portion of the map) shows
somewhat higher accelerations than most of the other regions.
The current code of practice IS: 1893 Part I (2002) which divides entire India into four
seismic zones assigns these zones to the Gujarat as shown in Figure 2.1. Kutch and the adjoining
region along with the Pakistan border fall under Zone-V (highest seismic zone). Zone-IV covers
a narrow fringe around the Kutch and a portion along Saurashtra. The rest of Gujarat region falls
under zone-III, except a small eastern part bordering Madhya Pradesh state with zone II. The
assigned peak ground acceleration (PGA) values on that map are 0.08g, 0.16g, 0.24g and 0.32 g
for Zones, II, III, IV and V respectively.
This is somewhat in agreement with the results obtained in the present study which shows
high seismic hazard in Kutch, lesser in the surrounding region and even lesser in the rest of
Gujarat. However there is a comparatively more hazard values obtained in south-western part of
Gujarat (southern part of Saurashtra), which as per IS:1893 is designated zone III, while the 2475
year return period PGA hazard values observed are more than 0.16g and should be assigned a
higher zone. This claim is in agreement with some of the studies conducted by Institute of
seismological research (ISR), which suggest that the seismicity in Gujarat has shown a migratory
trend towards the Saurashtrian region in the recent past. There are significant shocks which were
recorded near Jamnagar region of Saurashtra in 2006-2007 and seismicity was migrated to Talala
region near Junagadh city where earthquakes of Mw≤4 were frequently observed (R. B S Yadav
et al., 2011; Institute of Seismological Research, 2009).This calls for a relook into the seismic
zone mapping of Gujarat state as some of the regions may be at a higher hazard than assigned by
the codal provisions.
71
Furthermore it is also observed that a small region in Kutch, possibly around Bhuj shows high
values of hazard values, as high as around 0.6, which is much more that the value of 0.36
suggested by IS: 1893 for zone V. Thus further site specific assessment for the region is asserted
to get a proper picture of the associated hazard levels.
Figure 5.21 2475 Year return period Seismic Hazard Map (PGA) of Gujarat
72
Figure 5.22 475 Year return period Seismic Hazard Map (PGA) of Gujarat
5.6 Deaggregation
As already discussed in section 3.3, the hazard curve gives the combined effect of all
magnitudes and distances on the probability exceeding a given ground motion level. Since all of
the sources, magnitudes, and distances are mixed together, it is difficult to get an intuitive
understanding of what is controlling the hazard at given site from the hazard curve. To provide
insight into which sources are the most important for the hazard at a given site for given ground
motion level, the hazard curve is broken down into its contributions from different earthquake
scenarios. It is becoming common practice to display the relative contributions to that hazard
from the range of values of magnitude, M, distance, R, and epsilon, e, the number of standard
deviations from the median ground motion as predicted by an attenuation equation (Bazzurro &
Cornell, 1999). This process is called deaggregation. Deaggregation plots can provide useful
information on the distance and magnitude of predominant sources, which can be used to
73
generate scenario earthquakes and select corresponding time histories for seismic design
(Halchuk et al., 2007). Basically, deaggregation plots are useful for two purposes. Firstly they
show which magnitudes, distances and epsilons contribute most of the seismic hazard which
indicates where to concentrate efforts for better models. Secondly, the dominant magnitude eand
distancecan be used to derive secondary parameters for design such as duration of strong
shaking, and thus makes makes it possible to reprersent the ground motions in a realistic way
In the present study, 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years peak ground acceleration
hazard value has been deaggregated into various contributing magnitude-distance pairs. Epsilon
deaggregation has not been undertaken in the present study. The results of M-R deaggregation
for various cities is given in Appendix C. Figure 5.23 show the deaggregation plots for Bhuj and
Rajkot. From the deaggregation plots, the most likely or the most dominant seismic source and
the governing magnitude for a specific site can be identified. This provides an important input
for selecting the ground motion time histories for a region, as shown in the next chapter.
(a) (b)
Figure 5.23 Deaggregation of 2% in 50 years probability of exceedance PGA hazard values for
(a). Bhuj (b). Rajkot
74
5.7 Uniform Hazard Spectrum
Uniform Hazard spectra provide the spectral accelerations of a single-degree-of-freedom

system for a range of periods but for a uniform level of hazard. Uniform hazard spectrum forms
an important output of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and forms the basis of seismic
design of man-made structures. In the present study, the horizontal component of the uniform
hazard spectra for the rock site (bedrock) corresponding to return periods of 475 and 2475 years
and 5 % damping, are developed based on the seismic hazard computations for several cities in
Gujarat region. These generated uniform hazard spectra do not represent ground motion for a
single earthquake, but may be considered as a combination of the ground motion parameters,
which will not be exceeded with a certain probability in specified time span (say 10% in 100
years). Generated UHS for several cities are compared with the response spectra specified by
seismic design code of India,IS:1893,Part 1- 2002.On comparison it was found that there is a
significant scope to modify the spectrum provided by IS:1893 for Gujarat region.
UHS for 65 uniformly spaced sites, placed at a grid spacing of 50 km, were computed
and compared with the spectra given by IS:1893. Figure 5.24 shows the sites for which the UHS
was generated. The uniform hazard spectra were obtained for bedrock and then adjusted to
account for different soil types classified as per National Earthquake Hazard Reduction program,
NEHRP(BSSC 2001) .Raghu Kanth & Iyengar (2007) has suggested modification factors for
central and peninsular India in their ground motion prediction equation in order to extend the
spectral accelerations from the bedrock level to different soil types. Following Raghu Kanth &
Iyengar (2007) , UHS was obtained for each of the 65 sites for soil type A: (V30 > 1.5 km/s); B:
(0.76 km/s < V30 < 1.5 km/s); C: (0.36 km/s < V30 < 0.76 km/s); D:(0.18 km/s < V30 < 0.36
km/s). E and F type soils as per NEHRP classification are prone to liquifaction and failure and
hence the UHS for such soil needs further analysis and hence is not reported in the present study.
While IS code specifies its design spectrum for three soil types: rock or hard soil, medium soil
and soft soil, differentiated by their standard penetration test N-values. On comparison with the
above NEHRP classification, as shown in Table 5.2, it was observed that the medium soil as per
IS:1893 corresponds to site class D as per NEHRP classification and the hard soil corresponds to
site class C. Although IS:1893 also specifies design spectrum for soft soil, corresponding to site
class E in NEHRP classification, it is vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic
75
loading (i.e. liquefiable soil, quick and highly sensitive soil) and thus requires site specific
studies and has been excluded from the comparisons made in the present study.
Figure 5.24 Grid points for which UHS

was generated in order to develop a
region specific modified design
response spectrum for Gujarat
Table 5.2 NEHRP soil profile types (Wair, Dejong, & Shantz, 2012)
1
Site Class E also includes any profile with more than 10 ft (3 m) of soft clay, defined as soil with
Plasticity Index > 20, water content > 40%, and undrained shear strength < 500 psf (25 kPa).
2
Site Class F includes: (1) Soils vulnerable to failure or collapse under seismic loading (i.e., liquefiable
soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, and collapsible weakly-cemented soils). (2) Peat and/or highly
organic clay layers more than 10 ft (3 m) thick. (3) Very high plasticity clay (PI > 75) layers more than
25 ft (8 m) thick. (4) Soft to medium clay layers more than 120 ft (36 m) thick.
76
In order to come up with a design response spectrum for the Gujarat region which could
be compared with the existing design spectrum proposed by IS:1893 for entire India, the mean
(50th percentile), mean+ζ (84.13th percentile), mean+1.67ζ (95th percentile), mean+2ζ (97.72th
percentile) and mean+3ζ (99.87th percentile) spectra were obtained from the set of 65 uniform
hazard spectra generated for 65 different uniformly spaced sited selected across the Gujarat
region.
5 4
Soil class : A Soil class : B
Mean 3.5 Mean
Spectral acceleration (g)

4
Mean + σ Mean + σ
3
Mean + 1.67σ Mean + 1.67σ
3 Mean + 2σ
2.5 Mean + 2σ
Mean + 3σ 2 Mean + 3σ
2 1.5
1
1
0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time Period (sec) Time Period (sec)
3.5 3.5 Soil class: D

Soil class : C
Mean
3 3 Mean
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Mean + σ
Mean+σ
2.5 Mean + 1.67σ 2.5
Mean+1.67σ
2 Mean + 2σ
2 Mean+ 2σ
Mean + 3σ
Mean+ 3σ
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.25 Spectral shapes obtained for Gujarat region
5.7.1 Suggested Design response spectrum for Gujarat region

The obtained mean and mean plus x.ζ (x=1, 1.67, 2, 3) uniform hazard spectra for site
class C and D were compared with the hard and medium soil design spectra recommended by
IS:1893 respectively. Figure 5.26 show the comparison of the plotted spectra with the IS:1893
design spectrum.
77
Mean
3.5 3.5 Medium Soils
Hard Soil Mean + σ
Mean
3 3 Mean+σ
Mean +

Mean+1.67σ
2.5 1.67σ
Mean + 2σ 2.5
Mean+ 2σ
2 Mean + 3σ 2 Mean+ 3σ
1.5 IS:1893 1.5 IS:1893
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(b)
(a)
Figure 5.26 Comparison of mean + x.σ (x=0, 1, 1.67, 2, 3) UHS with IS: 1893 for (a) Hard Soil, and (b)
Medium soil.
For each case, the uniform hazard spectrum was idealized to obtain a mathematical
representation. This was done by fitting the least square regression curve to the ordinates of the
uniform hazard spectra in each case.
Case I: Mean plus ζ uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)
3.0 3.0
Hard Soil (Mean + σ) Medium Soil (Mean + σ)
2.5 2.5
Idealized Idealized
2.0 2.0
Actual Actual
1.5 IS:1893 1.5 IS:1893

Sa/g
Sa/g
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time Period (Sec) Time Period (Sec)
Figure 5.27 Idealized mean plus σ design spectrum
78
For rocky or hard soil sites: For medium soils:
   
1  15 T (0.00  T  0.10)  1  15 T (0.00  T  0.10) 
Sa   Sa  
  2.50 (0.10  T  0.29)    2.50 (0.10  T  0.50) 
g  0.799  g 1.169 
 0.932 (0.29  T  4)   1.107 (0.50  T  4) 
T  T 
Case II: Mean + 1.67 ζ uniform hazard spectrum
3.0 3.5
Hard Soil (Mean + 1.67 σ) Medium (M+1.67S)
2.5 3.0
Idealized
2.5 Idealized
2.0 Actual
2.0 Actual
1.5 IS:1893 IS:1893
Sa/g
Sa/g
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.28 Idealized mean plus 1.67 σ design spectrum
For rocky or hard soil sites: For medium soils
   
1  17 T (0.00  T  0.10)  1  17 T (0.00  T  0.10) 
Sa   Sa  
  2.70 (0.10  T  0.31)    2.70 (0.10  T  0.566) 
g  0.93  g  1.438 
 0.913 (0.31 T  4.00)   1.1068 (0.566  T  4.00) 
T  T 
79
Case III: Mean + 2 ζ uniform hazard spectrum
3.5 3.5
3.0 Hard Soil (Mean + 2 σ) 3.0 Medium (Mean +2σ)
2.5 2.5
Idealized Idealized
2.0 Actual 2.0 Actual
Sa/g
Sa/g
IS:1893 1.5 IS:1893

1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.29 Idealized mean plus 2 σ design spectrum
   
1  18 T (0.00  T  0.10)  1  18 T (0.00  T  0.10) 
Sa   Sa  
  2.80 (0.10  T  0.32)    2.80 (0.10  T  0.566) 
g g 1.1.58 
 0.995 
 0.9056 (0.32  T  4.00)   1.1068 (0.566  T  4.00) 
T  T 
Case IV: Mean + 3ζ uniform hazard spectrum
3.5 3.5
Hard Soil (Mean + 3σ) Medium (Mean + 3σ)
3.0 3.0
Idealized Idelized
2.5 2.5
Actual Actual
2.0 2.0
IS:1893 IS:1893
Sa/g
Sa/g
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.30 Idealized mean plus 3 σ design spectrum
80
   
1  20 T (0.00  T  0.10)  1  20 T (0.00  T  0.10) 
Sa   Sa  
  3.00 (0.10  T  0.32)    3.00 (0.10  T  0.73) 
g 1.195  g  2.124 
 0.893 (0.36  T  4.00)   1.1068 (0.73  T  4.00) 
T  T 
5.7.2 Alternative representation of Importance factor:

In India, the engineers throughout the country have been using the design response
spectral shape recommended by the code of practice IS:1893 (2002) throughout the country. The
same is modified by a zone factor in order to account for the peak ground accelerations at
different regions and an importance factor to account for the factor of safety intended in the
design. More important structures are designed for higher factors of safety than others.IS:1893
suggests a multiplying factor of 1.5 for important structures. However there is possibly no sound
reason for choosing this factor. Moreover, the selection of design spectrum for important
structures should be based on more confidence in spectrum rather than simply increasing it by a
factor. Figure 5.31 shows a simple schematic diagram illustrating that the importance assigned
to a structure should be based on the increased confidence attributed to the selected spectrum
rather than just increasing the spectral ordinates by certain arbitrary factor.
On comparison of the obtained spectral shapes with the one recommended by IS code,
th
95 percentile spectral shape is chosen as the representative spectral shape as a replacement for
the spectral shape suggested by IS:1893, for Gujarat region. It is because it not only offers a
sufficient degree of safety in design but is also shows comparatively closer to the IS code
spectral shape. If we take mean + 1.67 ζ uniform hazard spectrum as the design response
spectrum, the general mathematical form of the idealized spectral shape shall be modified as per
the equation given above. It must however be noted that the above spectral shape holds true only
for Gujarat region. Furthermore, for more important structures, instead of scaling up the spectral
shape by a factor of 1.5, it is logically more correct to use mean plus 3ζ spectral shape which
gives about 99.9 % chances that the spectral acceleration will not be exceeded. Figure 5.32
shows the comparison of mean + 3ζ spectral shape with that of the codal spectral shape scaled
up by a factor of 1.5.
81
Important buildings
Residential building
Figure 5.31 Illustration showing that Importance factor should be based on increased confidence level
rather than scaling up the spectrum
It can be very clearly seen that the factor 1.5 results in unnecessary overestimation of the
spectral acceleration values by significant amounts, especially in hard soils. Although in medium
stiff soils, the difference is not much. Mean + 3ζ spectral shape offers a more reliable, logically
acceptable and better design inputs to the designer rather than simply multiplying the spectral
shape by an arbitrary factor.
4.0 4.0
Hard Soil (Mean + 3σ) Medium (Mean + 3σ)
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
Mean + 3σ Mean + 3σ
2.5 2.5
IS:1893 ( x1.5) IS:1893 (x 1.5)
Sa/g
2.0 2.0
Sa/g
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.32 Comparison of 99.9th percentile normalized uniform hazard spectrum with the IS:1893
spectral shape scaled up by the importance factor of 1.5
82
Figure 5.33 and Figure 5.34 shows the 95th percentile (mean + 1.67ζ) spectral shape as the
proposed spectral shape for Gujarat region, in modification to the spectral shape recommended
by IS:1893 and 99.9th percentile (mean + 3ζ ) spectral shape as the spectral shape for important
structures to be constructed in Gujarat.
3.5
Hard Soil
3.0
2.5 Proposed spectral shape for Important

Structures
2.0 Proposed Spectral shape for Ordinary
Sa/g
Structures
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Period (Sec)
Figure 5.33 Proposed Spectral Shape for Ordinary and Important Structures on Hard Soil
3.5
Medium Soil
3.0
Proposed Spectral Shape for Important
2.5
Structures
2.0 Proposed Spectral Shape for ordinary
Sa/g
Structures
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Period (Sec)
Figure 5.34 Proposed Spectral acceleration Shape for Ordinary and Important structures on Medium
soils.
The ratio between the two curves is precisely what is designated as Importance factor in IS:
1893(2002). In order to get a proper estimation of this designated importance factor, ratio
83
between the two curves was assessed .It is expected that instead of being a single multiplying
factor, the importance factor should vary (a). for different time periods (b). for the type of soil
considered. Figure 5.35 shows the observed trend of the ratio between the two curves.
1.6
1.5
1.4
(Sa)99.9/(Sa)95
1.3
1.2 Medium Soil
1.1 Hard Soil
1
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
Time Period (Sec)
Figure 5.35 Ratio between 95th and 99.9th percentile spectral shapes for hard and medium soil site
conditions
From the above figure, it is clear that although the factor of 1.5 has been intelligently
suggested, however the same could be reduced for lower time periods and hard soil conditions.
Thus Figure 5.35 could be used to obtain more realistic estimation of importance factor rather
than arbitrarily assuming 1.5 for all time periods and soil types in Gujarat region. Furthermore it
is also suggested that that if interested, the designer can choose the spectral shape as per the
degree of safety intended in design. Unlike the present practice of discriminating the structures
on the basis of being important and ordinary, the obtained results give better flexibility to the
designer to design as per the varying safety standards. The designer can choose among 84.13th,
95th, 97.72th, and 99.87th percentile spectral shapes as per the degree of safety required in the
design. 99.87th percentile spectral shape is almost a deterministic extension and is most likely not
to be exceeded and thus can be considered for very important structures.
84
3.0 3.0
Mean + σ 2.5 Mean + 1.67σ
2.5
Hard Soil Hard Soil
2.0 2.0
Medium Soil
Sa/g
1.5 1.5
Sa/g
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(a) (b)
3.0 3.5
2.5 Mean + 2σ 3.0 Mean + 3σ
Hard Soil
Hard Soil 2.5
2.0 Medium Soil
Medium Soil
2.0
Sa/g
1.5
Sa/g
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time Period (Sec) Time Period (sec)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.36 Proposed spectral shapes for Gujarat region
85
Chapter 6
Ground motion selection and scaling
6.1 Introduction
To perform any dynamic structural analysis, besides an adequate structural model, we

also require a set of appropriate and realistic ground motion time histories. Selection of input
ground motions that could enable a dependable determination of structural behavior is a critical
part in performing most of the dynamic analyses (Bommer et al., 2008). Unfortunately, there is
currently no consensus in the earthquake engineering community on how to appropriately select
and scale earthquake ground motions for code-based design and seismic performance assessment
of buildings using nonlinear response-history analysis (Whittaker et al., 2012). However the
general practice is to match the ground motion response spectra with a target spectrum in order
to arrive at a set of ground motions. This target response spectrum has to be estimated based on
the seismic hazard at the site. If we have a set of ground motions available for a site based on the
seismic hazard values at the site under considerations, it will become easier for a structural
engineer to simply pick the time histories from the provided set of ground motions and directly
use it for analysis and design.
Ground motions must be either selected from previous recorded earthquake events or
supplemented by physics-based simulations where there is a lack of appropriate recordings
(Haselton et al., 2012). Recorded ground motions can be selected from a bin of recorded
motions such as the PEER NGA database (http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu, 2015), COSMOS
(http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/), or K-NET (http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp). Before
selecting the ground motion suite, the seismic hazard at the site should be deaggregated.
Deaggregation of the seismic hazard curve will identify the combinations of earthquake
magnitude, site-to-source distance, and ε that dominate the hazard around the period of the
building and these parameters can be used to select the ground motions. The appropriate number
of ground motions for use is structural design is still a topic of needed research. The appropriate
number of ground motions is dependent on the application, such as which structural responses
are to be predicted, whether mean values or distributions of responses is desired, the required
accuracy of the estimated values of mean and variance, the possible prediction of maximum
86
responses or collapse responses, and the expected degree of inelastic response (Haselton et al.,
2012).
6.2 Target Response Spectrum
For the proper scaling of the ground motion, a target spectrum is used as a reference for a
particular site. All the ground motions are scaled to the target spectrum and the scaled ground
motions can be used directly in the time history analysis. The target spectrum may be:
6.2.1 Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)
The Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) has been used as the target spectrum in design
practice for the past two decades. As already discussed, the Uniform Hazard Spectrum is created
for a given hazard level by enveloping the results of seismic hazard analysis (for a given
probability of exceedance) for each time period. However the probability of observing all of the
spectral amplitudes predicted by uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) in any single ground motion is
highly unlikely and conservative, especially for large and rare ground motion, unless the
structure responds elastically in only its first translational mode (Haselton et al., 2012). This
inherent conservatism comes from the fact that the spectral values at each period are not likely to
all occur in a single ground motion. This limitation of the Uniform Hazard Spectrum has been
noted for many years (e.g. Bommer et al., 2000; Naeim and Lew, 1995; Reiter, 1990).
6.2.2 Conditional mean spectrum (CMS)
The Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) is an alternative target spectrum to the Uniform
Hazard Spectrum and can be used as a target for ground motion selection in performance-based
engineering (Baker, 2011). As mentioned above, the spectral amplitudes predicted by Uniform
Hazard Spectrum (UHS) are conservative and the realization of the ordinates of UHS at all the
time periods by a single ground motion is highly unlikely. On the other hand, the Conditional
Mean Spectrum (CMS) conditions the spectrum calculation on spectral acceleration at a single
period (the period of importance or interest), and then computes the mean (or distribution of)
spectral acceleration values at all other periods. This method of conditioning the spectrum at a
single period ensures that the resulting spectrum is reasonably likely to occur, and the ground
motions selected to match the spectrum have appropriate properties of naturally occurring
ground motions for the site of interest. The calculation of conditional mean spectrum (CMS)
87
requires the disaggregation information, hence making it a site-specific calculation. It is also
period-specific since it is conditioned on spectral acceleration at a specified period.
6.3 Ground motion selection and scaling for major cities in Gujarat
In the present study, the seismic hazard at major cities in Gujarat were deaggregated to
obtain the dominant magnitude-distance pair (M-R) pair. This was followed by selecting a set
ground motions from PEER ground motion database for each city. For selection of ground
motions with the given values of magnitude and distance, PEER ground motion database web
application was used. These selected ground motions then need to be scaled to match the target
spectrum for the region. The target spectrum used for the scaling is the uniform hazard spectrum
for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years developed for all the considered cities in Gujarat.
The selected ground motions were scaled to match the target uniform hazard spectrum at a range
of periods around 0.5 seconds, 1 second and 2 seconds which correspond to the approximate
time period values of a 5-storey, 10-storey and 20-storey reinforced concrete building. Instead of
scaling at the single period, a range of around 0.5 seconds was selected so that lower periods
could account for higher mode shape excitations and the higher periods could account for non-
linearity. The scaling was done by the geometric mean scaling method involving amplitude
scaling of a pair of ground motions by a single factor to minimize the sum of the squared errors
between the target spectral values and the scaled geometric mean of the spectral ordinates for the
pair.
n
SSE   bi (k . yi  yTi )2 (6.1)
i 1
where bi is the weighing factor for the residual value at period Ti ; k is the scaling factor for the
pair of ground motions of interest; yi is the geometric mean of the spectral ordinates for the pair
at period Ti; y Ti is the target spectral ordinate at the period Ti and n is the number of target
spectral values. The scaling factor, k, that minimizes the SSE is computed as follows:
 ( SSE ) n
0   2bi yi (k. yi  yTi )  0
k i 1
88
n
 b .y . y i i Ti
k i 1
n
 b .y
i 1
i
2
i
(6.2)
Multiplying each ground motion spectrum with the obtained scaling factor at each period
gives us a set of ground motions appropriate for the site. The set of ground motions is arranged
in the order of increasing mean squared error for each city and are presented in Appendix C.
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 shows the selected ground motions for Ahmedabad and Bhuj city along
with the corresponding selecting factors. The corresponding time histories can be obtained from
PEER ground motion database using the mentioned record sequence number. Separate scaling
factors are presented for 5-storey, 10-storey and 20-storey buildings. Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.6
shows a plot showing the mean and mean ζ of the scaled spectra and the target uniform hazard
spectrum with the ground motions are matched.
Table 6.1 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad
5-storey 10-storey 20-storey
S. Record Record Record

Scale Scale Scale
No. Sequence Sequence Sequence
Factor Factor Factor
Number Number Number
1 4366 0.751 647 0.709 702 3.2625

2 618 0.7741 2415 1.0297 704 9.9664
3 4523 2.5637 1649 3.3198 2420 3.5335
4 672 0.4059 2228 3.6232 2383 1.6663
5 2415 1.1508 155 1.7583 151 3.9866
6 4426 8.1183 672 0.7364 2259 5.7882
7 2388 1.3489 2419 0.7223 644 1.932
8 671 0.3968 4366 0.7656 2415 2.9134
9 4350 0.4559 213 0.9351 4283 3.4939
10 4329 0.688 593 0.804 3628 5.1508
11 4526 5.0504 4283 1.4305 693 2.9526
12 702 1.2579 673 0.6476 3629 5.2601
13 4283 1.3979 4350 0.3885 4521 6.9978
14 704 1.2726 4338 1.1361 2159 3.1801
15 213 0.8843 4426 5.5962 4338 1.2096
89
16 2420 0.7058 2427 0.8078 647 1.8616
17 593 0.5163 3628 1.7073 2228 10.292
18 673 0.3435 4329 0.6452 155 3.1858
19 631 1.4777 2388 0.9822 213 1.1644
20 695 0.2662 618 1.2694 593 1.9857
21 2159 1.4549 704 2.8109 631 11.143
22 2383 0.3335 151 1.2315 1755 1.9491
23 693 1.0624 2159 1.8107 671 1.6108
24 151 0.9897 693 1.1267 661 5.8011
25 2419 1.0007 702 1.0879 4426 8.0973
26 2228 2.319 2259 2.4996 2382 0.6705
27 2427 1.1906 4526 6.9658 4350 0.1821
28 4338 1.4595 2420 1.367 2372 1.6253
29 2259 0.9806 4523 4.2752 4523 13.519
30 661 0.5712 1755 0.9115 617 7.8529
31 617 0.4677 4521 2.3933 2388 3.2145
32 3629 1.1859 695 0.6399 673 1.4296
33 2372 0.4662 2382 0.1675 695 1.7652
34 3628 0.9657 631 2.9179 4526 14.872
35 647 0.8727 644 0.5002 4329 2.3321
36 155 1.831 671 0.5623 2427 2.9063
37 1755 0.4713 617 1.5829 4366 0.8074
38 2382 0.334 2372 0.7265 672 2.1396
39 644 0.6951 2383 0.5116 618 5.4418
40 4521 2.4801 3629 1.6533 2419 2.9225
41 1649 1.3811 661 1.204 1649 11.878
Table 6.2 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Bhuj
Bhuj

No. Scale Scale Scale
Sequence Sequence Sequence
1 6928 1.1511 6953 1.0258 6969 1.1383

2 3757 1.6832 5990 1.1035 6912 0.9652
3 882 1.5713 1613 6.7556 6915 2.8311
4 6953 0.9305 6928 1.4886 6953 0.8926
5 5990 0.853 6966 1.148 6966 0.7373
6 6965 1.2953 3750 0.9913 880 2.2907
90
7 1613 6.232 6988 2.4755 6013 1.2368
8 900 1.0022 882 1.5568 5990 1.9742
9 850 1.2539 1616 4.4541 6988 3.7029
10 5838 1.1708 5832 0.7445 5838 1.4798
11 6966 0.9618 3757 1.5519 6942 1.0381
12 6013 1.033 5836 0.9804 5836 1.357
13 5836 0.7453 6912 1.0075 5832 0.7618
14 880 2.0707 6969 1.0205 900 1.168
15 5832 1.0184 6915 1.4747 6965 2.5023
16 5985 0.5127 6013 0.9791 6928 2.8566
17 4455 0.8897 6971 0.7726 1613 5.7136
18 3759 1.9086 138 1.8102 4455 4.8101
19 138 1.9186 5985 0.5925 882 1.2636
20 6971 0.9961 6942 1.2985 3753 3.1722
21 6969 1.0768 880 2.4048 5985 1.1143
22 3750 0.8848 900 0.7315 3750 0.8323
23 1616 6.6302 850 1.0937 3757 1.3309
24 6912 1.1942 5838 1.1961 850 1.6659
25 3753 0.7678 3759 2.1516 3759 4.2563
26 6988 2.6948 830 10.3182 138 1.6956
27 6942 0.9988 6965 2.0374 1616 6.9105
28 6915 0.5393 4455 1.3342 6971 1.808
29 830 3.5198 3753 0.9644 830 14.9224
1
Ahmedabad (5 storey)
0.1
0.01
Target pSa (g)
Arithmetic Mean pSa (g)
0.001
Arithmetic Mean + Sigma pSa (g)
Arithmetic Mean - Sigma pSa (g)
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (Seconds)
Figure 6.1 Spectral matching with target spectrum at 0.25 to 0.75 sec (Ahmedabad)
91
1
0.1

0.01 Target pSa (g)

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (Seconds)
10
1
0.1
Target pSa (g)

0.01
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (Seconds)
10
Bhuj (5 storey)
0.1
Target Spectrum
Mean
Mean+Sigma
Mean-Sigma
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Period (Seconds)
Figure 6.4 Spectral matching with target spectrum at 0.25 to 0.75 sec (Bhuj)
92
10
Bhuj (10 storey)

1
0.1
Target Spectrum
Mean
Mean+Sigma
Mean-Sigma
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Period (Seconds)
10
Bhuj (20 storey)
0.1
Target Spectrum
Mean
Mean+Sigma
Mean-Sigma
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Period (Seconds)
93
Chapter 7
Time Dependent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment
7.1 Introduction
A key assumption in standard probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is that

earthquake occurrence rate is considered as independent of time. The time independent
occurrence of earthquakes can be modeled as a Poisson process. In the classical PSHA, the
earthquake occurrence rate is considered as constant and is extracted from Poisson process.
However, the classical methods cannot properly calculate the rate, when it varies with time. In
such cases, time dependent rate analyses are required and Poisson model can no longer be used.
The occurrence of ground motions at a site in excess of a specified level is also a Poisson
process, if (1) the occurrence of earthquakes is a Poisson process, and (2) the probability that any
one event will result in ground motions at the site in excess of a specified level is independent of
the occurrence of other events. In a departure from standard PSHA, we have calculated time-
dependent hazard in the Gujarat region using a time dependent of model.
7.1.1 The Time-Independent (Classical) Model

A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) for a specific site consists of determining
the frequency with which an earthquake ground shaking (e.g. peak or spectral ground
acceleration) takes on a defined range of values (e.g. > 0.5 g) with a fixed probability during a
given time (e.g. 10% within 50 years). The seismic hazard at a site for earthquake ground
shaking Y is defined as the frequency λ with which a specific value y is exceeded during time t.
This total frequency λ is made up of contributions from a number of independent sources j,
where the frequency of exceedance of a specified value y from each source is calculated as:
mmax rmax
 j ( y)   j  
mmin 0
P(Y  y | m, r ) f M i (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm
(7.1)
94
where λj (y) is the frequency with which y is exceeded at the site of interest from earthquakes at
source j, λj is the occurrence rate of earthquakes of interest at source j. Then, the total seismic
hazard at the site of interest can be calculated as a summation of hazards on all sources j as:
Ns mmax rmax
 j ( y)    j   P(Y  y | m, r ) f M i (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm
j 1
(7.2)
mmin 0
According to the classic methods of PSHA, the parameter λj in the above two equations
is generally extracted from a Poisson process and is time-independent. In the Poisson model, the
probability of occurrence of the next earthquake is independent of the time of occurrence of the
previous one. The Poisson distribution has the important property of the hazard function that
shows the conditional probability of an event occurring, given that some interval has elapsed
since the last even, is constant. Thus, it has no memory of the time of the most recent event. This
assumption is reasonable when the hazard may depend on a number of different and independent
sources. For sites near dominating faults, this assumption is questionable: an earthquake is not
just as likely to occur on a fault segment one day after the most recent event as it is to occur on a
day 200 year later.
7.1.2 Time-Dependent Model

In recent years, time-dependent earthquake recurrence models have been an important
component of many probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses (Jackson,1996; WGCEP,1999;
Stewart et al., 2002; Cramer et al., 2000; Convertito et al., 2012). There has been some debate on
the relative merits of time independent and time dependent recurrence models for use in building
codes and earthquake insurance rates. However, the question of whether the time-dependent
models of seismic hazard provide sufficiently important information for public policy
applications is still open (Akinci et al., 2009). In contrast to the Poisson model, a time-dependent
recurrence model is based on the assumption that after one earthquake on a fault segment,
another earthquake on that segment is unlikely until sufficient time has elapsed to build sufficient
stress for another rupture (Anagnos & Kiremidjian, 1984; Nishenko & Buland, 1987). Various
statistical models have been proposed and applied to find the distribution of earthquake
recurrences (inter‐event times), such as Gaussian, log-normal, Weibull, Gamma, and Brownian
95
(Ellsworth et al, 1999). Time-dependent hazard functions change with time. Suppose that t is a
generic time after an earthquake occurrence, then the earthquake occurrence rate, λ(t) is a non-
constant function of t. Considering a time-dependent hazard function, equation (7.2) changes to
Ns mmax rmax
 j (t , y)    j (t )   P(Y  y | m, r ) f Mi (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm
i 1 mmin 0
(7.3)
As mentioned above, the PSHA is generally estimated during some fixed time span in the
future. In the case of time-independent PSHA, the seismic hazard in a given time unit remains
constant during the time. In contrast, in time-dependent PSHA cases, the hazard function λ (t, c)
changes with time. In order to calculate time-dependent hazard during a time span [t1, t2], the λj
(t) in above equation can be replaced by some appropriate value that will be a function of t1 and
t2 .
7.2 Adopted Approach
The time-dependent distributions, generally applied to earthquake inter-event time

modeling are: Weibull, Gamma, Lognormal and inverse Gaussian, known as Brownian Passage
Time. Out of these Weibull, Gamma, and Lognormal distributions were fitted to the given data
of inter arrival times of the earthquake events in Gujarat region and were checked for goodness
of fit using Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (K–S test). After assessing the inter arrival times it has
been observed that as the magnitude increases, the distribution of inter arrival times cease to
exhibit exponential distribution and start exhibiting time dependent modal distribution trend. For
the catalog used in the present study, it was observed that beyond magnitude Mw 5.5, lognormal
distribution fits well to the distribution of inter-event times of earthquake events above that
magnitude. Due to very less number of events above Mw 6, the same could not be applied for
higher magnitudes. For the threshold below Mw 5.5, the time independent exponential
distribution is being observed and the lognormal distribution fails the K-S test at 0.05
significance level. This points out to the property of the earthquake catalog that there is a specific
magnitude above which the distribution has a distinct modal distribution. Below this magnitude,
the distribution tends to an exponentially decreasing one. For example in the present case events
greater than Mw 5.5 show a modal recurrence distribution. This magnitude is characteristic of a
catalog and is similar to the characteristic magnitude of a fault.
96
In order to validate this property, similar tests were carried on the catalog of earthquakes
for Himalayan Delhi prepared by Ghosh (2003) and similar observations were noticed. It was
observed that the catalog shows lognormal distribution beyond Mw 5. Below Mw 5, the
lognormal distribution fails the K-S test while for all the magnitudes above Mw 5, K-S test holds
for lognormal distribution. Table 7.1 shows the results of K-S test for different sets of inter-
arrival times.
Table 7.1 The results of K-S test for checking the fitting of lognormal
distribution to the inter-arrival time data
Mw ≥3 ≥4 ≥ 4.5 ≥ 5 ≥ 5.5 ≥ 6
-19 -12 -08
P 5.12e 1.72e 9.80e 0.053 0.6 0.42
KSSTAT 0.35 0.33 0.3 0.222 0.17 0.28
CV 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.224 0.3 0.43
KS TEST Fail Fail Fail OK OK OK
This means that above a certain magnitude, which may be the property of a catalog, the
earthquake occurrences cease to be random and start exhibiting a definite recurrence pattern.
This is not manifested in the conventional doubly truncated G-R magnitude frequency relation
and in order to account for the dependence of hazard on the time, the inclusion of this observed
hybrid magnitude frequency relation is necessary. The magnitude above which the such a trend
is visible may be the property of a catalog and may vary from catalog to catalog. In our catalog
the events above 5.5 were found to follow the specific recurrence pattern. Thus the entire
magnitude range has been divided into two intervals – (i) threshold magnitude M 4 to M 5.5 and
(ii) M > M 5.5. While the occurrence of M 4 to M 5.5 is modeled as time independent process
similar to the classical time independent PSHA, for the magnitudes greater than 5.5, the observed
time dependent model is used. The contribution of the two is added to give the resulting hazard.
5.5 rmax mmax rmax
 ( IM  x)  vi  
mmin 0
P( IM  x | m, r ) f M i (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm + vc ,t   P( IM  x | m, r ) f
5.5 0
Mi (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm
(7.4)
Where vi = the Poisson rate of occurrence of earthquakes with mmin  m  5.5 and vc ,t = the
time dependent rate of events > M 5.5 evaluated from the conditional probability density
97
f (t | t  te ) . The conditional probability density f (t | t  te ) is evaluated by truncating the inter
arrival probability distribution f (t) at t=te , the time elapsed since the last event, and normalizing
the resulting distribution. These probabilities are said to be conditional because they change as
function of the time elapsed since the last earthquake. The probability over a time interval (say
50 Years) is calculated. The 50 year conditional probabilities, thus calculated, are converted to
effective Poissonian annual probabilities by the use of following expression:
eff   ln(1  Pcond ) / T (7.5)
Probabilistic seismic hazard is computed from the modified rate of occurrence obtained from the
time dependent recurrence model and is compared with the hazard obtained from the
conventional time independent rate of occurrence.
While following the above approach to account for the time dependence of hazard, we are
actually incorporating two changes in the general PSHA process.
a. The first is the introduction of a hybrid recurrence model in place of the generalized
doubly truncated G-R relation. Although , up to Mw5.5, the relation is same based on G-R
law, but above Mw5.5, the mean annual rate of exceedance obtained from the observed
distribution of occurrence of earthquake events is used , which is higher than what is
predicted by G-R relation.
b. Following the change in magnitude-recurrence model, hazard is analyzed for the effect of
dormant period from the last occurrence of earthquake > Mw5.5.The results are presented
in the form of change in 2% and 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years hazard
values due to varying the dormant period during which no event has occurred.
From the above discussion it is clear that the key step in the development of the time predictable
model is the construction of f(t). In the present catalog the inter arrival time of events greater
than Mw 5.5 were observed to follow lognormal distribution with the parameters of the
distribution μ=3.203 and ζ = 0.865. Figure 7.1 shows the observed distribution of the inter-arrival
time for the region under study.
98
Figure 7.1 Observed distribution of inter-arrival time for events with magnitude ≥ 5.5 in Gujarat
The last earthquake above Mw 5.5 occurred in 2006, thus the time from the last
earthquake to the present is 10 years. The modified λ is calculated by truncating f(t) at te = 10
years and the same is used to compute the hazard curve and the contour maps for several
important cities in Gujarat. Table 7.2 shows the observed values of 475 and 2475 year return
period PGA hazard values for the important cities of Gujarat following time dependent approach.
The corresponding time independent hazard values are also shown for comparison. The above
results show that although for most of the cities the difference between the time independent and
time dependent hazard values is insignificant but for some cities like Bhuj, Jamnagar, Rajkot and
Palanpur, this may not be the case. The difference comes out to be significant and cannot be
ruled out.
99
Table 7.2 Comparison of Time dependent and Time Independent PGA hazard values for important cities
in Gujarat
2475 Year Return Period 475 Year Return Period
S.No City Time Time Difference Time Time Difference
Independent Dependent (%) Independent Dependent (%)
1 Ahmedabad 0.10 0.10 0.41 0.06 0.06 4.26
2 Anand 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.17
3 Bharuch 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
4 Bhavnagar 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.03 0.04 9.51
5 Bhuj 0.49 0.63 28.13 0.28 0.36 26.33
6 Gandhinagar 0.13 0.13 1.35 0.06 0.06 4.11
7 Himatnagar 0.07 0.07 3.02 0.04 0.05 5.48
8 Jamnagar 0.24 0.29 21.93 0.14 0.16 11.67
9 Junagadh 0.09 0.09 2.20 0.05 0.06 7.36
10 Mehsana 0.12 0.15 17.42 0.06 0.07 10.13
11 Morbi 0.27 0.29 6.74 0.18 0.19 6.01
12 Palanpur 0.09 0.13 36.30 0.06 0.07 17.84
13 Porbandar 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.40
14 Rajkot 0.10 0.16 56.81 0.06 0.07 17.88
15 Surat 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
16 Surendarnagar 0.08 0.10 27.32 0.05 0.06 27.40
17 Vadodra 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.17
1.0 E+00
1.0 E-01 Time Dependent
1.0 E-02 Time Independent

1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08 Ahmedabad
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-10
1.0 E-11
1.0 E-12
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 7.2 Comparison of PGA Hazard Curve for time dependent and time independent models for Ahmedabad
100
1.0 E+01
Time Dependent
1.0 E+00
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance Time Independent
1.0 E-01
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05 Bhuj
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 7.3 Comparison of PGA Hazard Curve for time dependent and time independent models for Bhuj
1.0 E+01
Time Dependent
1.0 E+00
Time Independent
1.0 E-01
1.0 E-02
1.0 E-03
1.0 E-04
Jamnagar
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 7.4 Comparison of PGA Hazard Curve for time dependent and time independent models for Jamnagar
101
The above hazard values are obtained for the present year that is 2016 which is 10 years from the
last >M5.5 event (Dormant period=10 years). In order to assess how the hazard values may
change as the time from the last event increases without the occurrence of next event, the same
analysis was carried down for the dormant period ranging from zero to 50 years. The results
obtained are given in Table 6.7.3 and Figure 7.5.
2475 year R.P 475 year R.P

0.630 0.360
0.620 0.350
PGA Hazard value
PGA Hazard value

0.610 0.340
0.600 0.330
0.590 0.320
0.580 0.310
0.570 0.300
0.560 0.290
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Dormant Period (Years) Dormant Period (Years)
Figure 7.5 Variation of PGA hazard values with increasing dormant period from the date of last occurrence of the
earthquake
Table 6.7.3 Variation of PGA hazard values with increasing dormant period from the date of last occurrence of the
earthquake
2475 Year Return 475 Year Return

Te
Period PGA Period PGA
(Years)
Hazard (g) Hazard (g)
0 0.600 0.335
2 0.611 0.344
4 0.620 0.351
6 0.624 0.354
8 0.626 0.355
10 0.626 0.355
12 0.625 0.354
14 0.623 0.353
16 0.621 0.351
18 0.618 0.349
20 0.615 0.347
25 0.605 0.339
30 0.597 0.331
102
35 0.591 0.322
40 0.585 0.314
45 0.577 0.304
50 0.571 0.298
From the above results it can be concluded that:
1. Above a certain magnitude, the earthquake events exhibit a definite recurrence trend with
a mean return period or mean rate of occurrence. This rate of occurrence is more than
what is predicted by Gutenberg Richter recurrence law. The use of hybrid recurrence
model results in significant change in the hazard value.
2. As the time from the last event without any earthquake increases the probability of the
occurrence of the earthquake also increases as the time approaches the mean return
period of the event. The same is manifested in the hazard values. The hazard first
increases till it reaches a maximum value and then decreases. Although the change in
hazard observed over a period of 50 years is not more than 10% but it may even be more
depending on the distribution of larger magnitude events considered.
3. Also it may be contended that the use of the maximum hazard value should be reported
for design purposes rather than the static time independent value calculated which
underestimates the associated risk.
103
Chapter 8
Summary and Conclusions
In the present study, it is attempted to map seismic hazard assessment for entire Gujarat
region using the state-of-art probabilistic seismic hazard analysis procedure. Seismic hazard is
assessed for major urban cities in the state of Gujarat and a seismic hazard contour map is
developed for the entire region for different return periods based on the regional seismicity.
Updated regional seismicity parameters are obtained for the region. Incompleteness of the
earthquake catalog has been reviewed and considered in the computation. It is also attempted to
address the problem associated with assigning maximum magnitude to the individual faults in
the region owing to the limited seismicity data available for the region. The design spectra are
developed for the Gujarat region based on the 2475 year return period Uniform hazard spectra.
On the basis of the observations from the results of seismic hazard assessment, some
recommendations are also made to the Indian code of practice IS: 1893 (2002). Apart from the
conventional procedure of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, a time dependent approach
and its effect on the hazard values is also studied. Besides, a set of ground motion database is
also presented for various urban cities which are selected and scaled on the basis of the results of
the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The main findings in the present study are
summarized as follows:
1. Regional seismicity parameters are established for each of three region of Gujarat state,
namely, Kutch, Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat. It is done by reviewing the seismotectonic
setting of region and then by performing catalogue completeness based on available
earthquake records. It is found that the earthquake catalog is incomplete for magnitude 4 to 5.
However higher magnitudes events are found to be almost complete for its use in seismic
hazard assessment.
2. The variation is seismicity parameters for the three regions of Gujarat affirm the complexity
in the regional seismicity and indicate that the three regions i.e. Kutch, Saurashtra and the
Mainland Gujarat exhibit different seismicity patterns and have different earthquake
recurrence rates. Hence the seismic hazard assessment using single seismicity parameters for
the entire state may not be a realistic representation of the true scenario and will lead to
104
incorrect estimates of seismic hazard. The seismicity parameter (b-value) for Kutch,
Saurashtra and Mainland Gujarat are estimated to be 0.69, 0.88 and 0.82 respectively.
3. A strong correlation is found between the length of the fault and an arbitrary parameter
involving the maximum magnitude potential of the fault. On the basis of this correlation, an
empirical equation is presented for the estimation of the magnitude potential of various faults
in the region. This equation is applicable only to the region under study. However, similar
equations can be obtained for other regions with different correlation coefficients. The
magnitude potential is assigned to various faults in the region following the proposed
equation.
4. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in terms of horizontal component of peak ground
acceleration for the rock sites are carried out using a suitably selected ground motion
prediction equation (GMPE). Hazard maps showing the variation and distribution of 475 year
(10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and 2475 year (2% probability of exceedance in
50 years) return period seismic hazard in the state of Gujarat is produced, which indicate very
high seismic hazard in the Kutch region of Gujarat. The seismic hazard values at Bhuj are
found to be 0.46g and 0.25g at the bed rock level for 2475 year and 475 year return periods
respectively. This is somewhat in agreement with the recorded value of around 0.6g peak
ground acceleration at Bhuj during 2001 earthquake. Similarly the recorded values at the
passport office in Ahmedabad were around 0.08 g and the hazard values obtained in the
present study (0.05 g and 0.09 g for 475 year and 2475 year return period respectively) agree
well with the recorded observations.
5. The contour map for the entire Gujarat regions shows a portion in Kutch where the 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 year (2475 year return period) peak ground acceleration
hazard values are estimated as high as 0.6 g at bedrock level. Thus further site specific
assessment for the region is asserted to get a proper picture of the associated hazard levels.
6. The 2475 year return period PGA hazard values in the north-western part (northern part of
Saurashtra) of Gujarat, which as per IS:1893 is designated zone III, are observed to be
significantly higher than the assigned PGA (0.16 g) to the region by IS: 1893 (2002). This
claim is in agreement with some of the studies conducted by Institute of seismological
research (ISR), which suggest that the seismicity in Gujarat has shown a migratory trend
towards the Saurashtrian region in the recent past.
105
7. The 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years hazard values are deaggregated into the
corresponding magnitude and distance pairs. The deaggregation plots showing the
contribution of different magnitude-distance (M-R) pair to the estimated hazard values at the
selected urban cities in Gujarat is presented.
8. The output of the seismic hazard computations are then used to develop Seismic hazard
curves and uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for the major urban cities of Gujarat. The
developed 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475 year return period) uniform
hazard spectra are compared with the design spectra specified in the Indian seismic code IS
1893 Part 1 (2002) considering rock, medium and soft soil sites. On the basis of the observed
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years uniform hazard spectra for various sites in Gujarat,
a new set of design spectra are suggested for Gujarat region which are based on the
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and hence are more reliable and realistic for use in
design and analysis of structures in the region.
9. Instead of arbitrarily multiplying the design spectrum by the importance factor of 1.5 for
important structures at all time periods and soil types, a more realistic and logical alternative
of assigning importance to the structures is presented. Different spectral shapes with different
confidence levels are presented for Gujarat region which can give structural designers the
flexibility to choose the spectral shape as per the degree of safety intended in design.
10. This is followed by including the effect of incorporating time dependent magnitude
frequency model in the conventional seismic hazard analysis. The effect of time dependent
model is found to be appreciable in some regions and hence it is contended that the time
dependent occurrence of earthquake events cannot be blindly overseen in PSHA in general
and for Gujarat region in particular.
11. The results of the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of different cities of Gujarat are
finally used for selection and scaling of ground motions for the selected cities. The selected
ground motions are scaled differently for the analysis of 5, 10, and 20 storey buildings. A
suite of ground motions is presented which can be directly used by design engineers for
design and analysis of buildings in the selected important cities of Gujarat.
106
8.1 Future scope of work
The following suggestions can be made for further research on the present topic:
1. The present study is purely based on the fault map prepared for the region based
on the published data. However, all the faults are not precisely mapped and the study can
be updated using the updated information for faults.
2. The seismicity of the sources needs to be quantified in terms of their physical
characteristics like the slip rate. In order to achieve more reliable estimates of seismicity,
more rigorous geological and geophysical data is required.
3. The ground motion prediction equations form the most important imput to the seismic
hazard calculations. Despite being of primary importance, a proper ground motions
prediction equation for Gujarat region using the actual recorded ground motions is not
available.
4. The time dependent model used in the present study is in the most basic form. Better time
dependent models can be studied and incorporated in the probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment.
5. The effect of aftershocks and foreshocks on the estimated hazard can be studied. Since a
main-shock can cause strength degradation in a structure, the aftershocks can be critical
for the failure of a building and hence must be accounted in the hazard estimation at a
particular built environment.
6. Selection and scaling of ground motions is an important step for any non-linear dynamic
analysis of a structure and is still a topic of research. Better selection criteria and scaling
methods need to be developed for obtaining appropriate ground motion at a particular
site.
107
References
Akinci, A., Galadini, F., Pantosti, D., Petersen, M., Malagnini, L., & Perkins, D. (2009). Effect of time
dependence on probabilistic seismic-hazard maps and deaggregation for the central Apennines,
Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(2 A), 585–610.
http://doi.org/10.1785/0120080053
Anagnos, T., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1984). Stochastic Time-Predictable Model for Earthquake Occurences.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(6), 2593–2611. http://doi.org/10.1016/0266-
8920(88)90002-1
Anagnos, T., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1988). A review of earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard
analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 3(1), 3–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/0266-
8920(88)90002-1
Anbazhagan, P., Vinod, J. S., & Sitharam, T. G. (2009). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore.
Natural Hazards, 48(2), 145–166. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9253-3
Applied Technology Council. (2012a). FEMA P-58-1 Seismic Performance Assessment for Buildings,
Volume 1 – Methodology. Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council. (2012b). FEMA P-58-2 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume
2–Implementation Guide.
Arnold, C. (1995). Nontechnical explanation of the 1994 nehrp recommended provisions. Diane Pub Co.
Atkinson, G. M., & Boore, D. M. (2006). Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern
North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(6), 2181–2205.
http://doi.org/10.1785/0120050245
Baker, J. W. (2008). An introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). Stanfordedu, 1–72.
Baker, J. W. (2013). Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, 1–79.
Bapat, A., Deshpande, N. V., Das, P. B., & Bhavnarayana, V. (1989). Pre-impoundment seismicity studies
around Sardar Sarovar Site. 55th Research & Development Session of Central Board of Irrigation
and Power, Srinagar, India, July, 13, 17.
Baranwal, M., Pathak, B., & Syiem, S. M. (2005). Preliminary first level seismic microzonation of Guwhati.
Journal of Geophysics, 26(1), 32–40.
Bazzurro, P., & Cornell, C. A. (1999). Disaggregation of Seismic Hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 89(2), 501–520.
Bendick, R., Bilham, R., Fielding, E., Gaur, V. K., Hough, S. E., Kier, G., … Mukul, M. (2001). The 26 January
2001 “Republic Day” Earthquake, India. Seismological Research Letters, 72(3), 328–335.
http://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.72.3.328
108
Bhatia, S. C., Kumar, M. R., & Gupta, H. K. (1999). A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and
adjoining regions. Annali Di Geofisica. http://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3777
Bhattacharya, S. N., Karanth, R. V., Dattatrayam, R. S., & Sohoni, P. S. (2004). Earthquake sequence in
and around Bhavnagar, Saurashtra, western India during August-December 2000 and associated
tectonic features. Current Science, 86(8), 1165–1170.
Biot, M. A. (1942). Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology. ASCE Transactions,
5(0), 365–408.
Biswas, S. (2005). A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin, western India, with special
reference to earthquakes. Curr Sci.
Biswas, S. K. (1987). Regional tectonic framework, structure and evolution of the western marginal
basins of India. Tectonophysics, 135(4), 307–327. http://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(87)90115-6
Biswas, S. K. (2005). A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin, western India, with special
reference to earthquakes. Curr. Sci., 88(10), 1592–1600.
Bodin, P., & Horton, S. (2004). Source Parameters and Tectonic Implications of Aftershocks of the Mw
7.6 Bhuj Earthquake of 26 January 2001. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(3),
818–827. http://doi.org/10.1785/0120030176
Bommer, J. J., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2006, December 1). Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard
analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
Seismological Society of America. http://doi.org/10.1785/0120060043
Bommer, J. J., Douglas, J., Scherbaum, F., Cotton, F., Bungum, H., & Fäh, D. (2010). On the Selection of
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Seismic Hazard Analysis. Seismological Research Letters,
81(5), 783–793. http://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783
Bommer, J. J., Scott, S. G., & Sarma, S. K. (2000). Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 19(4), 219–231. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00012-9
Bommer, J., Pinho, R., & Stafford, P. (2008). Selection and Scaling of Ground-Motion Records for
Nonlinear Response-History Analyses Based on Equivalent Sdof Systems, (2004).
Bonilla, M. G., Mark, R. K., & Lienkaemper, J. J. (1984). Statistical relations among earthquake
magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 74(6), 2379–2411.
Boominathan, A., Dodagoudar, G. R., Suganthi, A., & Uma Maheswari, R. (2008). Seismic hazard
assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects. Journal of Earth System Science,
117(SUPPL.2), 853–863. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0072-4
Bureau of Indian Standards. (2002). IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision).
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.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(3), 1012–1033.
109
http://doi.org/10.1785/0120020002
Chandra, U. (1977). Earthquakes of Peninsular India- A Seismotectonic Study. Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America, 67(5), 1387–1413.
Chopra, S., & Choudhury, P. (2011). A study of response spectra for different geological conditions in
Gujarat, India. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(11), 1551–1564.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.06.007
Chopra, S., Kumar, D., & Rastogi, B. (2010). Estimation of strong ground motions for 2001 Bhuj (M w
7.6), India earthquake. Pure and Applied Geophysics.
Chopra, S., Kumar, D., Rastogi, B. K., Choudhury, P., & Yadav, R. B. S. (2013). Estimation of seismic hazard
in Gujarat region, India. Natural Hazards, 65(2), 1157–1178. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-
0117-5
Chung, W. Y., & Gao, H. (1995). Source parameters of the Anjar earthquake of July 21, 1956, India, and
its seismotectonic implications for the Kutch rift basin. Tectonophysics, 242(3–4), 281–292.
http://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(94)00203-L
Convertito, V., Maercklin, N., Sharma, N., & Zollo, A. (2012). From induced seismicity to direct time-
dependent seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(6), 2563–2573.
http://doi.org/10.1785/0120120036
Cornell, C. A., & Winterstein, S. R. (1986). (1986). Applicability of the Poisson Earthquake Occurrence
Model in Seismic Hazard Methodology for The Central and Eastern United States. EPRI Research
Report NP-4726., Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
58(5), 1583–1606. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(83)90143-5
Cornell, C. A., & Winterstein, S. R. (1988). Temporal and magnitude dependence in earthquake
recurrence models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 78(4), 1522–1537.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83252-9_2
Cotton, F., Scherbaum, F., Bommer, J. J., & Bungum, H. (2006). Criteria for selecting and adjusting
ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites.
Journal of Seismology, 10(2), 137–156. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-005-9006-7
Cramer, C. H., Petersen, M. D., Cao, T., Toppozada, T. R., & Reichle, M. (2000). A time-dependent
probabilistic seismic-hazard model for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
90(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1785/0119980087
Das, S., Gupta, I. D., & Gupta, V. K. (2006). A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Northeast India.
Earthquake Spectra, 22(1), 1–27. http://doi.org/10.1193/1.2163914
Ellsworth, W. L., Matthews, M., & Nadeau, R. (1999). A physically based earthquake recurrence model
for estimation of long-term earthquake probabilities. Earthquake Recurrence: State of the Art and
Directions for the Future, 22–25.
Esteva, L. (1969). Seismic risk and seismic design decisions. In MIT Seminar on the Earthquake Resistant
110
Design of Nuclear Reactors (pp. 142–181).
Ghosh, S. (2003). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and microzonation of Delhi city. Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
GSI. (2000). Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from
http://www.portal.gsi.gov.in/gismap/seismotectonicmap/
Guha, S. K., Basu, P. C., & India. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. (1993). Catalogue of earthquakes (=>
M. 3.0) in peninsular India. AERB technical document.
Gupta, H. K., Rao, N. P., Rastogi, B. K., & Sarkar, D. (2001). The Deadliest Intraplate Earthquake. Science,
291(5511).
Gupta, I. D. (2002). The state of the art in seismic hazard analysis. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology, 39(4), 311–346.
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 34, 185–188.
Hagiwara, Y. (1974). Probability of earthquake occurrence as obtained from a Weibull distribution

analysis of crustal strain. Tectonophysics, 23(3), 313–318. http://doi.org/10.1016/0040-
1951(74)90030-4
Halchuk, S., Adams, J., & Anglin, F. (2007). Revised deaggregation of seismic hazard for selected
Canadian cities. 9th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 432(June), 420–432.
http://doi.org/10.4095/223221
Haselton, C. B., Whittaker, A. S., Hortacsu, A., Baker, J. W., Bray, J., & Grant, D. N. (2012). Selecting and
Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses. In 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Housner, G. W. (1960). Behavior of structures during earthquakes. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, 86, 109–129. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu. (2015). PEER Ground Motion Database. Retrieved January 6, 2017, from
http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/
http://www.isr.gujarat.gov.in/. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.isr.gujarat.gov.in/
Institute of Seismological Research. (n.d.). Annual Report 2012-13.
Institute of Seismological Research. (2009). Annual Report 2009-10.
Iyengar, R., & Kanth, S. (2004). Attenuation of strong ground motion in peninsular India. Seismological
Research Letters, 75(4).
Iyengar, R. N., & Ghosh, S. (2004). Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Greater Delhi area. Current
Science, 87(9), 1193–1202.
Jackson, D. D., Aki, K., Cornell, C. A., Dieterich, J. H., Henyey, T. L., Mahdyiar, M., … Ward, S. N. (1995).
Seismic hazards in Southern California; probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024. Bulletin of the
111
Seismological Society of America, 85(2), 379–439. http://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(96)83795-8
Jain, S. K., Roshan, A. D., Arlekar, J. N., & Basu, P. C. (2000). Empirical attenuation relationships for the
Himalayan earthquakes based on Indian strong motion data. Empirical Attenuation Relationships
for the Himalayan Earthquakes Based on Indian Strong Motion Data, 3–8.
Jaiswal, K., & Sinha, R. (2007). Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 97(1 B), 318–330. http://doi.org/10.1785/0120050127
Kijko, A., & Sellevoll, M. A. (1989). Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data
files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes.
Kiremidjian, A. S., & Anagnos, T. (1984). Stochastic Slip-Predictable Model for Earthquake Occurrences.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2010.05.019
Kiureghian, A. Der, & Ang, A. H.-S. (1977). A fault-rupture model for seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 67(4), 1173–1194.
Kolathayar, S., Sitharam, T. G., & Vipin, K. S. (2012). Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across
India and adjoining areas. Natural Hazards, 60(3), 1365–1379. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-
9898-1
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Vol. 6).

http://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-540-35783-4
Kumar, M. R., & Bhatia, S. C. (1999). A new seismic hazard map for the indian plate region under the
global seismic hazard assessment programme. Current Science, 77(3), 447–453.
Mahajan, A. K., Thakur, V. C., Sharma, M. L., & Chauhan, M. (2010). Probabilistic seismic hazard map of
NW Himalaya and its adjoining area, India. Natural Hazards, 53(3), 443–457.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9439-3
Malik, J., Sohoni, P., & Karanth, R. (1999). Modern and historic seismicity of Kachchh Peninsula, western
India. Geological Society of IndiaGeological Society of India, 54(5), 545-550.
Malik, N., Sohoni, P. S., Karanth, R. V, & Merh, S. S. (1999). Modern and historic seismicity of Karachchh
Peninsula, western India. Journal of the Geological Society of India.
Mark, R. K. (1977). Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in
estimating maximum expectable earthquakes. Geology, 5(8), 464. http://doi.org/10.1130/0091-
7613(1977)5<464:AOLSMO>2.0.CO;2
Marzocchi, W., & Sandri, L. (2003). A review and new insights on the estimation of the b -value and its
uncertainty. Annals of Geophysics, 46(6). http://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3472
McGuire, R. K. (2004). Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Menon, A., Ornthammarath, T., Corigliano, M., & Lai, C. G. (2010). Probabilistic seismic hazard
macrozonation of Tamil Nadu in Southern India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
100(3), 1320–1341. http://doi.org/10.1785/0120090071
112
Mohraz, B. (1976). A study of earthquake response spectra for different geological conditions. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 66(3), 915–935.
Naeim, F., & Lew, M. (1995, February). On the Use of Design Spectrum Compatible Time Histories.
Earthquake Spectra. http://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585805
Nath, S. K. S., & Thingbaijam, K. K. S. (2012). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India.
Seismological Research …, 83(3), 577–586. http://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135
Nath S. K. (2006). Seismic Hazard and Microzonation Atlas of the Sikkim Himalaya. Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, India.
NEHRP RECOMMENDED PROVISIONS FOR SEISMIC REGULATIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND OTHER
STRUCTURES Part 1: Provisions (FEMA 368). (n.d.).
Newmark, N.M., Hall, W. J. (1969). Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities. Proceedings 4th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Nishenko, S. P., & Buland, R. (1987). A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake
forecasting. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77(4), 1382–1399.
Nowroozi, A. A. (1985). Empirical relations between magnitudes and fault parameters for earthquakes in
Iran. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75(5), 1327–1338.
Nuttli, O. W. (1979). Seismicity of the central United States. In Reviews in Engineering Geology (Vol. 4,
pp. 65–94). Geological Society of America. http://doi.org/10.1130/REG4-p65
Oldham, T. (1883). A catalogue of Indian earthquakes from the earliest time to the end of 1869 AD.
Memory of Geological Survey of India, 1, 163–215.
Pallav, K., Raghukanth, S. T. G., & Singh, K. D. (2012). Probabilistic seismic hazard estimation of Manipur,
India. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 9(5), 516–533. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
2132/9/5/516
Parvez, I. A., Vaccari, F., & Panza, G. F. (2003). A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent
areas. Geophysical Journal International, 155(2), 489–508. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
246X.2003.02052.x
Petersen, M. D., Rastogi, B. K., Schweig, E. S., Harmsen, S. C., & Gomberg, J. S. (2004). Sensitivity analysis
of seismic hazard for the northwestern portion of the state of Gujarat, India. Tectonophysics,
390(1–4), 105–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2003.06.004
Pezeshk, S., Zandieh, A., & Tavakoli, B. (2011). Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for
Eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 101(4), 1859–1870. http://doi.org/10.1785/0120100144
Quittmeyer, R. C., & Jacob, K. H. (1979). Historical and modern seismicity of Pakistan, Afghanistan,
northwestern India, and southeastern Iran. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 69(3),
773–823.
Raghu Kanth, S. T. G., & Iyengar, R. N. (2006). Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city. Current
Science, 91(11), 1486–1494.
113
Raghu Kanth, S. T. G., & Iyengar, R. N. (2007). Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in Peninsular
India. Journal of Earth System Science, 116(3), 199–214. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-007-0020-
8
Raghukanth, S. T. G. (2011). Seismicity parameters for important urban agglomerations in India. Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, 9(5), 1361–1386. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9265-3
Ranjan, R. (2005). Seismic response analysis of Dehradun city, India. International Institute for Geo-
Information Science and Earth Observation, Enscheda, the Netherland.
Rao DT, Jambusaria BB, Srivastava S, Srivastava NP, Hamid A, Desai BN, S. H. (1991). Earthquake swarm
activity in south Gujarat. Mausam, 42(1), 89-98.
Rastogi, B. (2001). Ground deformation study of M~ w 7.7 Bhuj earthquake of 2001. Episodes, 24(3),
160-165.
Rastogi, B. K. (2004). Damage due to the Mw 7.7 Kutch, India earthquake of 2001. Tectonophysics,
390(1), 85–103. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.03.030
Rastogi, B. K., Kumar, S., & Aggrawal, S. K. (2013). Seismicity of Gujarat. Natural Hazards, 65(2), 1027–
1044. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0077-1
Reiter, L. (1990). Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights. Columbia University Press.
Savy, J. B., Boore, D., & Shah, H. C. (1980). Nonstationary risk model with geophysical input. Journal of
the Structural Division, 106(1), 145-163.
Seed, H. B., Ugas, C., & Lysmer, J. (1976). Site-dependent spectra for earthquake-resistant design.
Shaligram Patil, N., Das, J., Kumar, A., Mohan Rout, M., & Das, R. (2014). Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment of Himachal Pradesh and adjoining regions. Journal of Earth System Science, 123(1),
49–62. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0378-8
Shanker, D., & Sharma, M. L. (1997). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPLETENESS OF SEISMICITY DATA OF
THE I-IEMALAYAS AND ITS EFFECT ON EARTHQUAKE HAZARD DETERMNATION. Bulletin of the
Indian Society of Baxthquah: Technoloy., 159–170. http://doi.org/10.3109/10717544.2013.779332
Shukla, J. C. (2012). Seismic hazard estimation and ground response analysis for Gujarat region. Indian
Institute of Technology Bombay.
Shukla, J., & Choudhury, D. (2012a). Estimation of probabilistic seismic hazard and site specific ground
motions for two ports in Gujarat. In Geotechnical Special Publication (pp. 1650–1659). Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers. http://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412121.170
Shukla, J., & Choudhury, D. (2012). Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approach
for major cities of Gujarat. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 12(6), 2019–2037.
http://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2019-2012
Shukla, J., & Choudhury, D. (2012b). Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of
Gujarat. Natural Hazards, 60(2), 541–565. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0042-z
114
Singh, R. K. (2009). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis : A Case Study for Ahmedabad City.
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
Sitharam, T. G., & Anbazhagan, P. (2007). Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bangalore Region. Natural
Hazards, 40(2), 261–278. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0012-z
Sitharam, T. G., Anbazhagan, P., & Raj, K. G. (2006). Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic
parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science,
6(6), 927–939.
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. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Microzonazion,
Seattle,Vol. 2 (pp. 897–910).
Stewart, J. P., Chiou, S.-J., Bray, J. D., Graves, R. W., Somerville, P. G., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2002).
Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 22(9), 765–772. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00097-0
Sukhtankar, R. K., Pandian, R. S., & Guha, S. K. (1993). Seismotectonic studies of the coastal areas of
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. Natural Hazards, 7(3), 201–210.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00662646
Tandon, A. N. (1959). The Rann of Kutch earthquake of 21 July 1956. Indian J. Meteorol. Geophys, 10,
137-146.
Tandon, & Srivastava, H. (1974). Earthquake occurrence in India AN - Earthquake Engineering: Jai
Krishna Sixtieth Birth. Jai Krishna Sixtieth Birth Anniversary Commemoration Volume, 1–48.
Thaker, T. P., & Rao, K. S. (2014). Seismic Hazard Analysis for Urban Territories: A Case Study of
Ahmedabad Region in the State of Gujarat, India. In Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation
Engineering (pp. 219–228). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
http://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413425.023
Thaker, T. P., Rathod, G. W., Rao, K. S., & Gupta, K. K. (2012). Use of seismotectonic information for the
seismic hazard analysis for Surat city, Gujarat, India: Deterministic and probabilistic approach. Pure
and Applied Geophysics, 169(1–2), 37–54. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-011-0317-z
Tinti, S., & Mulargia, F. (1985). Completeness analysis of a seismic catalog. Annales Geophysicae.
Toro, G. R., Abrahamson, N. a., & Schneider, J. F. (1997). Model of Strong Ground Motions from
Earthquakes in Central and Eastern North America: Best Estimates and Uncertainties. Seismological
Research Letters, 68(1), 41–57. http://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.41
Trifunac, M. D. (1992). Should peak accelerations be used to scale design spectrum amplitudes ? Proc.
10th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Madrid, (2), 5817–5822.
USGS. (2014). Seismic Hazard Maps and Data. Retrieved December 29, 2016, from
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/
Vere-Jones, D., & Ozaki, T. (1982). Some examples of statistical estimation applied to earthquake data -
I. Cyclic Poisson and self-exciting models. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 34(1),
115
189–207. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02481022
Wair, B. R., Dejong, J. T., & Shantz, T. (2012). PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER
Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles.
Walling, M. Y., & Mohanty, W. K. (2009). An overview on the seismic zonation and microzonation studies
in India. Earth-Science Reviews. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2009.05.002
Weichert, D. H. (1980). Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation
periods for different magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 70(4), 1337–
1346. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture
Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002. http://doi.org/<p></p>
Whittaker, A. S., Atkinson, G. M., Baker, J. W., Bray, J. D., Grant, D. N., Hamburger, R., … Somerville, P. G.
(2012). Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Analyses. 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–256. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1769.6800
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003). Earthquake probabilities in the San
Francisco Bay region: 2002-2031. (n.d.).
Yadav, R. B. S., Papadimitriou, E. E., Karakostas, V. G., Shanker, D., Rastogi, B. K., Chopra, S., … Kumar, S.
(2011). The 2007 Talala, Saurashtra, western India earthquake sequence: Tectonic implications and
seismicity triggering. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 40(1), 303–314.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.07.001
Yadav, R. B. S., Tripathi, J. N., Rastogi, B. K., & Chopra, S. (2008). Probabilistic Assessment of Earthquake
Hazard in Gujarat and Adjoining Region of India. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165(9–10), 1813–
1833. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-008-0397-6
116
Appendix A
Earthquake Catalogue
Table A.1 Earthquake Catalogue for Mw ≥3.5 for Gujarat region (1668 to 2014)
Depth
S.No Year MM DD Lat Long Mw Location Ref.
(km)
1 1668 5 6 25 68 7.8 Samaji, Indus IMD
2 1684 21.2 72.9 3.7 Surat USGS
3 1819 6 16 24 69 7.8 Kutch IMD
4 1820 1 27 23.2 69.9 3.7 Kutch USGS
5 1820 11 13 23.2 69.9 3.7 Kutch USGS
6 1821 8 13 22.7 72.7 4.6 Kaira USGS
7 1828 7 20 23.24 69.66 4.4 Kutch USGS
8 1840 11 10 23.05 72.67 4.6 Ahmedabad USGS
9 1842 10 9 22.3 73.2 4.3 Baroda OLD
10 1843 2 8 23 72.7 3.7 Ahmedabad OLD
11 1844 24.33 69.5 4.3 Lakhpat USGS
12 1845 4 19 23.8 68.9 6.3 Lakhpat OLD
13 1845 6 19 23.8 68.9 5.7 Lakhpat OLD
14 1848 4 26 24.4 72.7 5.7 Mount Abu OLD
15 1856 11 2 23.2 69.9 4.6 Anjar USGS
16 1856 12 25 20 73 5.7 Surat CHAN
17 1858 12 31 21 75 4.3 Khandeish OLD
18 1863 11 18 22 75 5 Barwani IMD
19 1864 4 29 22.3 72.8 5.7 Ahmedabad CHAN
20 1869 7 4 20.2 74.2 4.3 Nasik OLD
21 1869 7 12 20.9 74.8 4.3 Dhulia OLD
22 1871 1 3 21.2 72.9 4.3 Surat OLD
23 1871 1 31 21.2 72.9 5 Surat USGS
24 1872 4 14 21.75 72.15 5 Bhavnagar CHAN
25 1882 6 10 23.2 71.38 3.5 Bhachau MALIK
26 1882 6 28 23.35 70.58 5 Lakadia MALIK
27 1882 6 29 23.35 70.58 5 Bhachau MALIK
28 1883 10 20 21.7 71.97 4.4 Bhavnagar USGS
29 1886 4 14 22.47 70.1 4.4 Jamnagar USGS
30 1887 11 11 22.3 70.88 4.4 Rajkot USGS
31 1888 8 20 23.83 70 3.5 Khavda MALIK
32 1890 6 1 23.83 68.83 4 Lakhpat MALIK
33 1891 7 27 21.33 71.37 4.4 Amreli USGS
34 1892 1 11 23.83 70 3.5 Lakhpat MALIK
35 1892 7 9 23.5 70.72 3.5 Rapar MALIK
36 1893 11 4 23.83 68.83 3.5 Lakhpat MALIK
37 1896 2 26 23.83 69.67 3.5 Lakhpat MALIK
38 1897 10 0 23 72.7 3.7 Ahmedabad USGS
117
39 1898 1 30 23.16 70.08 3.5 Anjar MALIK
40 1898 4 1 23.25 69.67 4 Bhuj MALIK
41 1898 9 13 23.3 69.75 4 Bhuj MALIK
42 1898 10 23.05 72.67 4.3 Kheda USGS
43 1898 10 15 23.33 69.67 4 Bhuj MALIK
44 1900 12 21 23.5 70.67 3.5 Rapar MALIK
45 1903 1 14 24 70 5.6 Kutch IMD
46 1904 4 9 23.33 68.67 4 Bhuj IMD
47 1904 4 28 23.5 70.16 4 Anjar MALIK
48 1904 7 30 23.83 70.33 3.5 Khadir MALIK
49 1904 11 30 24.33 69.58 3.5 Lakhpat MALIK
50 1905 7 10 23.33 69.67 3.5 Bhuj MALIK
51 1906 1 11 23.83 70.33 3.5 Khadir MALIK
52 1906 6 30 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
53 1906 8 15 24.4 72.7 4.3 MountAbu USGS
54 1907 3 12 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
55 1907 7 12 22.91 69.83 3.5 Mundra MALIK
56 1907 10 9 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
57 1907 10 21 23.25 70.33 3.5 Bhachau MALIK
58 1908 9 29 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
59 1908 10 21 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
60 1909 2 7 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
61 1909 4 9 23.25 70.33 3.5 Bhachau MALIK
62 1910 3 24 23.25 69.75 3.5 Bhuj MALIK
63 1910 8 1 23.83 69.67 3.5 Khavda MALIK
64 1910 12 13 23.41 70.58 4 Lakadia MALIK
65 1910 12 16 23.25 70.33 3.5 Bhachau MALIK
66 1911 1 23 23.41 70.58 3.5 Lakadia MALIK
67 1911 10 11 24.33 69.5 3.5 Lakhpat MALIK
68 1912 10 1 23.83 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
69 1912 11 7 23.83 70.33 3.5 Khadir MALIK
70 1913 6 26 23.75 69.75 3.5 Khavda MALIK
71 1918 6 10 23.5 70.41 3.5 Bhachau MALIK
72 1919 4 21 21.7 72.25 5.7 Ghogha (Bhavnagar) CHAN
73 1920 10 18 23.5 70.75 3.5 Rapar MALIK
74 1920 11 13 23.33 69.58 3.5 Bhuj MALIK
75 1921 2 11 25 70.7 4.2 Thar, Pakistan ISC
76 1921 10 26 25 68 5.5 Indus, Kutch IMD
77 1921 10 27 23.83 69.67 4 Narayan Sarovar MALIK
78 1922 2 9 23.41 70.67 3.5 Chitrod MALIK
79 1922 3 13 23.41 69.37 3.5 Mandvi MALIK
80 1922 3 13 22 71 4.3 Jhalavad CHAN
81 1923 8 7 22.91 69.45 4 Bhuj MALIK
82 1924 3 5 23.91 69.83 3.5 Khavda MALIK
83 1924 10 25 23.67 68.91 3.5 Khavda MALIK
84 1925 10 1 23.83 69.67 3.5 Khavda MALIK
85 1925 10 13 23.33 70.28 3.5 Shikra MALIK
118
86 1926 12 26 23.91 69.7 3.5 Khavda MALIK
87 1927 11 18 23.45 69.67 3.5 Bhuj MALIK
88 1930 22.4 71.8 4.3 Paliyad CHAN
89 1930 12 30 23.91 69.45 3.5 Khavda MALIK
90 1932 3 6 23.83 70.33 3.5 Khadir MALIK
91 1935 1 25 23.75 70.67 3.5 Rapar MALIK
92 1935 7 20 21 72.4 5.7 Surat IMD
93 1935 7 23 23.25 69.5 3.5 Bhuj MALIK
94 1938 6 22.3 71.6 5 Botad TAN
95 1938 7 19 22.4 71.8 5 Paliyad CHAN
96 1938 7 23 22.4 71.8 5.7 Paliyad CHAN
97 1940 10 31 22.5 70.4 5 Jamuanathali, Jamnagar CHAN
98 1940 11 13 23.57 70.33 4 Anjar MALIK
99 1941 1 30 23.83 70.25 3 Khadir MALIK
100 1950 6 14 24 71.2 5.3 Kutch CHAN
101 1956 7 21 23.3 70 35 6 Kutch IMD
102 1956 7 22 23.16 70 3 Anjar MALIK
103 1962 3 12 24.1 70.9 3 Kutch MALIK
104 1962 9 1 24 73 4.6 Palanpur IMD
105 1963 7 13 24.9 70.3 35 5.3 Thar, Pakistan IMD
106 1965 3 26 24.4 70 33 5.1 Kutch IMD
107 1966 5 27 24.46 68.69 5 5 Thar, Pakistan ISC
108 1966 11 12 25.12 68.04 33 4.8 Kutch ISC
109 1967 1 6 21.97 74.27 4.5 Tankhala IMD
110 1968 21.6 71.25 4.3 Amreli GSI
111 1968 21.73 70.45 4.3 Dhoraji GSI
112 1969 3 23 24.54 68.79 19 4.4 Kutch ISC
113 1969 10 24 24.76 72.54 31 5.5 MountAbu IMD
114 1970 2 13 24.6 68.61 33 5.2 Kutch USGS
115 1970 3 23 21.6 72.96 8 5.4 Bharuch USGS
116 1970 8 9 21.7 73 3.5 Bharuch USGS
117 1970 8 30 21.7 73 4.1 Bharuch USGS
118 1970 9 10 21.6 72.7 3.4 Bharuch USGS
119 1971 5 14 25.12 68.11 57 4.5 Thar, Pakistan USGS
120 1971 6 18 21.7 73 3.4 Bharuch IMD
121 1973 6 5 25.09 68.07 33 4.8 Thar-Pakistan USGS
122 1974 10 20 21.7 74.2 4.6 Narmada USGS
123 1975 22.1 71.2 4.3 Jasdan GSI
124 1975 9 19 24.69 71.03 33 3.7 Kutch USGS
125 1975 9 25 20.8 74.2 4.2 Gujarat USGS
126 1976 6 4 24.51 68.45 18 5.1 Allah Band, Pakistan ISC
127 1977 9 26 25.38 68.24 33 4.5 Kutch ISC
128 1978 4 10 21.84 72.9 3 Amod IMD
129 1978 11 25 21.97 72.91 2.8 Amod IMD
130 1979 2 22 21.33 72.15 3.3 Bhavnagar GERI
131 1979 6 9 21.83 73.85 2.6 Rajpipla GERI
132 1979 8 24 22.11 72.43 3.1 Khambhat GERI
119
133 1979 9 5 21.33 72.12 3.6 Bhavnagar GERI
134 1979 9 22 21.75 72.15 3.3 Bhavnagar GERI
135 1979 12 10 21.9 72.9 3.2 Amod GERI
136 1980 1 6 22.23 71.78 3.2 Botad GERI
137 1980 3 18 21.81 73.03 2.9 Nabipur GERI
138 1980 6 4 21.68 73.21 2.6 Nartrang GERI
139 1980 6 4 21.68 73.21 3.1 Nartrang GERI
140 1980 7 21 22.87 72.14 3.1 Nartrang GERI
141 1980 8 27 22.82 72.82 2.7 Chandraga GERI
142 1980 10 20 21.96 72.95 2.6 Kevadia GERI
143 1981 4 26 24.12 69.51 33 4.3 Bhuj ISC
144 1982 1 31 24.21 69.84 33 4.8 Kutch ISC
145 1982 3 10 21.38 73 3.1 Bharuch GERI
146 1982 4 9 22.07 72.19 2.9 Khadi GERI
147 1982 5 10 21.9 72.27 3.2 Bhavnagar GERI
148 1982 6 24 22 72.88 3.6 Amod GERI
149 1982 6 26 22.25 71.82 3.1 Dhandhuka GERI
150 1982 7 2 21.86 72.04 3.5 Bhavnagar GERI
151 1982 7 18 23.4 70.66 33 4.8 Bhuj ISC
152 1984 9 13 24.95 70.46 33 4.2 Allah Band Pakistan ISC
153 1985 4 7 24.36 69.74 33 5 Kutch ISC
154 1985 4 27 20.66 73.21 4.6 Dharampur GERI
155 1985 9 3 21.03 70.88 4.3 Visavadar, Junagadh GERI
156 1986 2 26 20.48 73.72 33 4.3 Gujarat USGS
157 1986 9 16 20.6 71.4 3.8 Rajula GERI
158 1986 11 15 24.45 73.57 22 4.1 Near Mount Abu ISC
159 1987 2 10 24.1 70.39 10 3.9 Kutch ISC
160 1987 4 10 24.55 70.12 10 2 Kutch IMD
161 1987 12 31 21.71 74.38 3.5 Narmada GERI
162 1988 7 17 25.16 70 33 2 Kutch IMD
163 1989 3 21 24.27 68.96 33 4 Bhuj ISC
164 1989 6 21 20.09 72.91 33 4.1 Valsad ISC
165 1989 12 10 24.81 70.88 33 4.7 Kutch ISC
166 1991 1 20 23.13 69.83 35 2 Kutch IMD
167 1991 1 20 23.4 69.71 33 4.9 Bhuj USGS
168 1991 1 30 20.55 73.15 4.6 Anklach GERI
169 1991 9 10 24.16 68.68 35 4.7 Kutch ISC
170 1991 9 10 24.28 68.8 26 4.7 Kutch ISC
173 1993 8 9 20.68 71.4 3.1 Rajula GERI
174 1993 8 24 20.6 71.4 29 5 Rajula IMD
175 1993 12 31 20.65 71.4 35 4.1 Rajula ISC
176 1996 2 17 23.33 69.67 33 4.5 Bhuj IMD
177 1996 8 5 22.83 68.43 23 3.8 Bhuj ISC
178 1996 11 17 21.4 73.06 10 4 Gujarat ISC
179 1998 7 19 22.42 70.86 4.4 Rajkot IMD
120
180 1998 9 21 21.81 71.93 3 Bhavnagar GERI
181 1998 10 8 24.45 69.8 33 3.7 Bhuj ISC
182 1998 11 28 21.94 71.06 3.2 Gondal GERI
183 1999 9 21 21.7 72.1 2.5 Bhavnagar GERI
184 2000 8 10 21.78 72.31 3.6 Bhavnagar GERI
185 2000 8 13 21.02 70.99 7 4.6 Tulsi Shyam, Junagadh ISC
186 2000 9 12 21.72 72.16 10 4.2 Bhavnagar IMD
187 2000 12 24 24.01 70.09 43 4.7 Bhuj ISC
188 2001 1 26 23.44 70.31 16 7.7 Kutch ISC
189 2001 21.02 70.88 2.5 Tulsi Shyam, Junagadh GERI
190 2003 1 13 22.3 70.93 2 Rajkot GERI
191 2003 1 29 21.46 70.51 3.1 Haripur, Junagadh IMD
192 2003 8 22.2 69.92 2.5 LalpurTq, Jamnagar GERI
193 2004 21 70.5 3 Talala Tq, Junagadh GERI
194 2006 2 3 23.92 70.44 28 5 Gedi, Rapar NGRI
195 2006 3 7 23.79 70.73 3 5.7 Gedi, Rapar NGRI
196 2006 4 6 23.78 70.74 3 4.9 Gedi, Rapar NGRI
197 2006 4 6 23.34 70.39 29 5.5 Lakadia NGRI
198 2006 4 10 23.51 70.06 4.9 4.9 Kutch NGRI
199 2006 9 30 22.31 70.21 10 4 Khankotda, Jamnagar ISR
200 2007 7 16 22.49 71.29 18 3.9 Paliyad ISR
201 2007 9 2 22.33 70.22 10 3.2 Khankotda, Jamnagar ISR
202 2007 10 9 21.08 70.73 11 3.1 Ankolwadi, Junagadh ISR
203 2007 11 6 21.12 70.51 8.5 4.8 Hirenvel, Junagadh ISR
204 2007 11 6 21.16 70.54 4.5 5 Haripur, Junagadh ISR
205 2007 11 11 21.93 69.82 10 2.9 Verad, Bhanwad ISR
206 2007 12 2 22.01 69.2 7.9 2.4 Dwarika
207 2008 1 25 21.79 71.76 35 2.8 Bhavnagar ISR
208 2008 3 9 23.39 70.33 30 4.9 Chobari, Kutch ISR
209 2008 5 20 21.16 73.05 7.4 3.2 Surat ISR
210 2008 11 5 21.95 73.89 8.5 3.6 Kevadiya ISR
211 2008 10 4 21.9 69.96 3.7 3.6 Bhanvad ISR
212 2009 3 28 22.17 70.75 6.2 3 Rajkot ISR
213 2010 1 26 23.29 72.98 15 2.3 Gandhinagar ISR
214 2010 3 30 23.61 72.57 11 3.2 Mehsana ISR
215 2010 9 2 23.88 71.87 6.1 4.4 Patan ISR
216 2010 6 23 22.16 71.36 21 3.3 Botad ISR
217 2010 9 23 21.9 69.7 3.1 3 Advana ISR
218 2010 11 28 22.28 70.25 6.6 2.7 Sanala ISR
219 2010 12 6 22.35 74.03 12 3.2 Chota Udiapur ISR
220 2011 1 18 23.27 70.51 3.8 Samkhayali
221 2011 4 18 22.45 71.51 6.1 2.4 Sayla ISR
222 2011 4 29 21.27 70.49 3.1 4.1 Talala ISR
223 2011 5 23 21.1 70.53 3.9 4 Talala ISR
224 2011 5 17 23.55 70.57 18.2 4.2 North Wagad, Kutch ISR
225 2011 7 3 21.14 73.16 26 3.2 Bardoli ISR
226 2011 8 13 23.45 70.4 22.2 4.5 South Wagad, Kutch ISR
121
227 2011 8 20 22.43 70.93 8.4 2.6 Rajkot ISR
228 2011 9 14 22.38 69.99 6.3 3.4 Lalpur, Jamnagar ISR
229 2011 10 3 22.65 72.47 32.3 1.5 Dholka, Ahmedabad ISR
230 2011 10 18 21.26 71.19 7.9 3.1 Visavadar ISR
231 2011 10 20 21.09 70.45 5.8 5.1 Talala ISR
232 2011 11 7 24.38 72.66 13.7 3.1 Palanpur ISR
233 2012 1 26 21.11 70.52 8 3.2 Talala ISR
234 2012 2 19 21.12 72.29 22.1 3.2 offshore ISR
235 2012 3 21 21.72 72.41 15 3 offshore ISR
236 2012 4 11 21.68 72.05 7 2.6 Bhavanagar ISR
237 2012 5 10 22.49 71.55 3.1 2.4 Surendranagar ISR
238 2012 5 26 21.85 74.16 23.2 3.3 Kuwant, Vadodara ISR
239 2012 6 8 22.26 69.93 10.4 3.7 Rajkot ISR
240 2012 6 19 23.65 70.28 11.1 5 Dholavira, Kutch ISR
241 2012 7 30 21.21 72.83 9.8 3.6 Surat ISR
242 2012 8 24 25.34 70.56 27.5 3.3 Rajasthan (Indo- Pak Border) ISR
243 2012 8 28 20.63 70.46 9.5 3 Offshore Veraval ISR
244 2012 9 1 22.07 70.1 8.2 2.7 Jamnagar ISR
245 2012 10 9 21.13 70.57 3.1 2.3 Talala ISR
246 2012 11 15 21.6 72.8 9.6 2.4 Bharuch ISR
247 2012 11 16 22.2 72.54 9.8 2.4 Khambhat ISR
248 2012 12 8 23.13 70.42 21 4.5 Kandla, Kutch ISR
249 2012 12 16 24.47 71.89 3.2 2.8 Kutch ISR
38 Km NNW from Dwarika,
250 2013 1 2 22.56 68.82 6.1 3.3 ISR
Saurashtra
251 2013 1 6 21.99 69.85 6.6 2 25 km SSW from Lalpur, Saurashtra ISR
252 2013 1 16 21.13 70.57 12.3 2.2 9 km NNE from Talala, Saurashtra ISR
25 km NNW of Surendranagar,
253 2013 1 21 22.86 71.46 20.6 2.7 ISR
Saurashtra
254 2013 1 27 21.14 70.82 3.1 2.1 31 km ENE of Talala, Saurashtra ISR
19 km WSW of Bhavnagar,
255 2013 1 30 21.67 71.99 3.7 2.2 ISR
Saurashtra
257 2013 2 11 22.72 70.93 23 2.9 15 km ESE of Morbi, Saurashtra ISR
258 2013 2 15 24.3 71.7 10.4 3.2 20 km ESE from Vav, Banaskantha ISR
259 2013 3 1 21.31 70.78 15 2.2 39 Km NNE from Talala, Saurashtra ISR
30 km SSE from Surendranagar,
260 2013 3 1 22.46 71.63 3.1 2.5 ISR
Saurashtra
261 2013 3 2 21.15 70.7 7.6 2.3 21 km ENE from Talala, Saurashtra ISR
262 2013 3 7 21.39 70.18 14.2 2.3 Bhanvad,Dwarika, Saurashtra ISR
30 km SSW from Surendranagar,
263 2013 3 14 22.49 71.53 3.1 2.5 ISR
Saurashtra
48 km SSE from Bhavnagar,
264 2013 3 19 21.43 72.43 3.6 2.4 ISR
Saurashtra
122
265 2013 3 30 23.57 70.38 22 4.5 27 km WSW of Rapar,Kutch ISR
22 km NNE of Radhanpur,North
266 2013 4 4 24.02 71.71 8.8 2.4 ISR
Gujarat
267 2013 4 8 24.27 71.73 6.1 2.2 24 km ESE of Vav, North Gujarat ISR
37 km SSW of Kevadiya, South
268 2013 4 8 21.56 73.47 11.4 2.6 ISR
Gujarat
269 2013 4 9 23.2 70.98 40.6 2 45 km NNE of Morbi, Saurashtra ISR
270 2013 4 26 23.64 71.64 13.8 2.7 22 km SSE from Radhanpur, Patan ISR
271 2013 5 20 20.36 72.78 0.6 2.5 31 km SSW of Valsad,South Gujarat ISR
17 km WSW from Bhavnagar,
272 2013 6 4 21.67 72.02 2.6 2.1 ISR
Saurashtra
273 2013 6 15 21.67 72.02 15 2 ISR
Saurashtra
274 2013 6 21 21.08 70.69 9.2 2.8 17 Km ENE of Talala, Saurashtra ISR
55 km SSW from Mangrol,
275 2013 7 8 20.63 70.09 6.3 2.2 ISR
Saurashtra
276 2013 7 28 21.87 70.52 10.5 2 28 km ENE from Upleta, Saurashtra ISR
277 2013 7 29 23.45 70.58 18.8 4.5 8 Km NE of Vamka, Kutch ISR
44 km NNE from Dharoi, North
278 2013 8 3 24.4 72.85 14.1 3.3 ISR
Gujarat
280 2013 8 11 21.31 71.1 13.1 2 35 km SSW from Amreli, Saurashtra ISR
281 2013 8 26 24.2 71.25 6.1 2.4 32 km WSW from Wav,Banaskantha ISR
49 km NNE From Khavda, Kutch
282 2013 9 3(2) 24.28 69.78 6.2 4.1 ISR
(INDO-PAK Border)
283 2013 9 4 20.28 70.39 7.8 2.1 87 km SSW from Talala, Saurashtra ISR
284 2013 9 11 22.21 71.26 14.8 2.2 41 km WNW from Botad, Saurashtra ISR
67 km NNE from
285 2013 9 24 24.71 72.74 18.6 2.3 ISR
Palanpur,Banaskantha
286 2013 9 24 21.16 70.65 6 2.5 17 km ENE from Talala,Saurashtra ISR
24 km NNW from Deesa,
287 2013 10 4 24.46 72.09 8 2.6 ISR
Banaskantha
33 km ENE from Valsad, South
288 2013 10 6 20.71 73.23 0.8 2.1 ISR
Gujarat
51 km WSW from Mangrol,
289 2013 10 10 21.01 69.63 6.6 2 ISR
Saurashtra
290 2013 10 11 21.66 72 2.7 2.1 ISR
Saurashtra
291 2013 10 15 21.24 70.46 7.7 2.2 22 km NNW of Talala,Saurashtra ISR
292 2013 10 15 21.23 70.44 15 3.6 22 km NNW of Talala,Saurashtra ISR
29 km SSE from Valsad, South
293 2013 11 5 20.35 72.96 3.1 2.9 ISR
Gujarat
123
294 2013 11 7 20.77 73.43 3.1 2.2 50 km SSW from Ukai, ISR
295 2013 11 11 21.13 71.16 6.1 2.1 36 km NNE from Una, Saurashtra ISR
296 2013 11 26 21.71 71.99 6.1 2.4 ISR
Saurashtra
297 2013 11 29 22.37 71.2 13.1 2.2 42 km ENE from Rajkot, Saurashtra ISR
28 Km ESE from Sardar Sarovar
298 2013 12 10 21.74 73.8 15 2.4 ISR
Dam
48 km WSW from Surendranagar,
299 2013 12 14 22.44 71.27 46 2.5 ISR
Saurashtra
46 km WSW from Surendranagar,
300 2013 12 17 22.45 71.29 28 2.6 ISR
Saurashtra
301 2013 12 24 20.59 71.43 10 2.1 47 km ESE from Una, Saurashtra ISR
17 km NNW from Upleta,
302 2014 1 5 21.88 70.2 5.8 3.4 ISR
Saurashtra
07 km ESE from Saputara, South
303 2014 1 7 20.55 73.81 1.4 3.5 ISR
Gujarat
135 km ENE from Saputara, Sourth
304 2014 1 8 21.06 74.95 12.2 2.7 ISR
Gujarat
31 km NNE from Deesa,
305 2014 1 9 24.52 72.3 22.7 2.8 ISR
Banaskantha
306 2014 1 10 22.51 71.43 5 2.1 ISR
Saurashtra
307 2014 1 22 22.43 71.41 6.1 2 38 km NNW from Botad, Saurashtra ISR
308 2014 1 23 24.87 73.19 6.1 2.8 ISR
Gujarat
309 2014 1 26 22.48 71.47 2.1 2.4 ISR
Saurashtra
10 Km NNE from Godhra,
310 2014 2 1 22.86 73.63 18.8 3.1 ISR
Panchmahals
56 km SSW from Mehsana,
311 2014 2 4 23.23 72.01 137.6 2.6 ISR
Mehsana
24 km NNE from Dwarika,
312 2014 2 5 22.45 69.04 50.4 2.7 ISR
Saurashtra
313 2014 2 10 21.47 71.68 6.8 2.9 16 km WSW from Palitana, Saurashtra ISR
314 2014 2 15 23.7 74.79 15 2 107 Km ENE from Kadana ISR
60 Km NE from Valsad, South
315 2014 2 25 20.75 73.46 10 2.1 ISR
Gujarat
48 km ESE from SSNNL Dam,
316 2014 2 27 21.8 74.2 10 2.3 ISR
South Gujarat
317 2014 2 27 23.45 70.26 10 2.2 19 km NNW from Bhachau, Kutch ISR
318 2014 3 5 18.75 70.1 10 3 251 Km SSW from Una, Saurashtra ISR
66 Km ESE from Kevadiya, South
319 2014 3 6 21.81 74.34 35 3 ISR
Gujarat
320 2014 3 9 23.36 70.29 36.2 4.1 08 km NNW from Bhachau,Kutch ISR
321 2014 3 12 22.49 71.47 6.1 2.3 ISR
Saurashtra
124
322 2014 3 13 22.47 71.55 4.4 2.4 ISR
Saurashtra
323 2014 3 14 22.52 71.65 17.7 2.4 ISR
Saurashtra
324 2014 4 3 24.95 70.7 15 2.1 104 km WNW from Vav ISR
70 km NNE from Deesa,North
325 2014 4 3 24.81 72.53 10 2.6 ISR
Gujarat
326 2014 4 8 23.12 69.69 14.4 3.1 16 Km SSE from Bhuj, Kutch ISR
327 2014 4 12 22.52 71.67 10 2 ISR
Saurashtra
328 2014 4 20 20.97 70.94 17.4 2.4 19 km NNW from Una, Saurashtra ISR
329 2014 4 22 24.67 70.04 10 2.1 ISR
Gujarat
41 km NNE from Bhavnagar,
330 2014 4 22 22.05 72.4 10 2.3 ISR
Saurashtra
30 km ENE from Bhavnagar,
331 2014 4 23 21.95 72.37 17.4 2.7 ISR
Saurashtra
34 km NNE from Deesa, North
332 2014 5 1 24.54 72.3 15 2.8 ISR
Gujarat
333 2014 5 12 22.31 70.05 17.6 3.4 16 km NNE from Lalpur,Jamnagar ISR
18 km NNW from Gondal,
334 2014 5 17 22.12 70.78 10 2.3 ISR
Saurashtra
19 km NNW from Gondal,
335 2014 5 20 22.13 70.78 6.4 2.8 ISR
Saurashtra
8 km ESE from Surendranagar,
336 2014 5 31 22.68 71.69 8.1 2 ISR
Saurashtra
337 2014 6 2 22.45 71.39 6.7 2 ISR
Saurashtra
36 km SSE from Radhanpur, North
338 2014 6 4 23.56 71.79 21.9 2 ISR
Gujarat
340 2014 6 18 21.84 70.75 19.3 2 14 km SSW from Gondal, Saurashtra ISR
38 km ESE from Bharuch, South
341 2014 6 21 21.55 73.3 15 3.6 ISR
Gujarat
342 2014 6 22 22.29 69.86 12.5 3 15 km NNE from Lalpur,Saurashtra ISR
33 km NNE from Radhanpur,North
343 2014 7 1 24.11 71.74 6.1 2 ISR
Gujarat
49 km NNW from Deesa, North
344 2014 7 8 24.7 72.13 10 2.3 ISR
Gujarat
32 km NNE from Palanpur,North
345 2014 7 15 24.44 72.55 15 2.2 ISR
Guajarat
346 2014 7 16 22.43 71.42 6.1 2 30 km NNW from Botad,Saurashtra ISR
95 km ENE from Dharoi, North
347 2014 7 18 24.36 73.7 10 2 ISR
Gujarat
42 km WNW from Lakhpat,Kutch
348 2014 7 24 24.04 68.43 5.8 3.8 ISR
(Indo-Pak Border)
125
36 Km. WNW from Porbandar,
349 2014 7 25 21.79 69.3 6.3 2 ISR
Saurashtra
38 km NNW from Deesa,
350 2014 8 4 24.57 72.03 10 2.7 ISR
Banaskantha
351 2014 8 5 22.49 71.76 33.8 2.5 ISR
Saurashtra
40 Km WSW from Mangrol,
352 2014 8 26 21.03 69.74 8.9 2.2 ISR
Saurashtra
353 2014 8 28 21.23 70.89 10 3 42 km ENE from Talala, Saurashtra ISR
50 km WNW from Surat, South
354 2014 9 12 21.31 72.35 6 2 ISR
Gujarat
355 2014 9 13 23.39 70.35 26 2.3 10 km NNE from Bhachau, Kutch ISR
356 2014 9 14 23.38 70.41 23.1 2 11 km NNE from Bhachau, Kutch ISR
357 2014 9 14 23.7 70.7 10 2 14 km NNE from Rapar, Kutch ISR
358 2014 9 15 23.79 68.42 10 2.4 37 km WSW from Lakhpat, Kutch ISR
359 2014 9 18 24.25 72.93 7.1 2 ISR
Gujarat
360 2014 9 19 22.45 71.43 7.6 2 ISR
Saurashtra
361 2014 9 22 24.24 72.97 9 2.1 ISR
Gujarat
22 km WSW from Jamnagar,
362 2014 9 23 22.38 69.88 9.8 2.9 ISR
Saurashtra
363 2014 9 24 22.46 71.44 6.1 2 ISR
Saurashtra
364 2014 9 28 22.44 71.46 0.4 2 ISR
Saurashtra
365 2014 10 2 22.17 71.16 11.4 2.4 40 km ESE from Rajkot, Saurashtra ISR
34 km NNE from Vav, North
366 2014 10 7 24.61 71.72 10 2.4 ISR
Gujarat
367 2014 10 20 20.84 69.62 25.2 2.9 ISR
saurashtra
368 2014 10 20 22.41 71.37 3.1 2 40 km WNW from Botad, Saurashtra ISR
369 2014 10 20 20.82 69.6 35 3.6 ISR
Saurashtra
370 2014 10 20 23.85 70.13 12.4 2 9 km WSW from Dholavira, Kutch ISR
371 2014 11 1 25.42 71.76 10 3.7 120 Km NNE from Vav,In Rajasthan ISR
23 km ESE from Radhanpur, North
372 2014 11 4 23.73 71.8 6.1 2.4 ISR
Gujarat
10 Km SSW From
373 2014 11 7 22.64 71.61 10 2 ISR
Surendranagar,Saurashtra
374 2014 11 7 22.5 71.27 33.5 2.1 17 Km ENE From Rajkot,Saurashtra ISR
35 Km SSW From
375 2014 11 10 22.46 71.44 1 2 ISR
Surendranagar,Saurashtra
126
376 2014 11 15 22.08 70.12 24.2 2 20 km ESE from Lalpur,Saurashtra ISR
12 km WNW from Rajkot,
377 2014 11 18 22.32 70.69 20 2.2 ISR
Saurashtra
23 km NNE from Deesa,
378 2014 11 19 24.47 72.18 2.7 3 ISR
Banaskantha
379 2014 11 19 22.46 71.42 10 2.2 ISR
Saurashtra
380 2014 11 25 21.88 70.82 6.1 2.3 10 km SSE from Gondal, Saurashtra ISR
381 2014 11 25 22.5 71.5 4.4 2 ISR
Saurashtra
382 2014 11 27 22.42 71.41 8.1 2 37 km NNW from Botad, Saurashtra ISR
383 2014 11 28 22.1 68.74 77.4 1.9 Dwarika
41 km ESE from Surendranagar,
384 2014 11 29 22.51 71.95 35.2 2.1 ISR
Saurashtra
385 2014 12 5 22.52 71.59 7.4 2 ISR
Saurashtra
31 Km SSE from Surendranagar,
386 2014 12 6 22.51 71.82 19.2 2.1 ISR
Saurashtra
127
Appendix B
Ground motion prediction equation:
Raghukanth and Iyenger (2007)
The Ground motion prediction equation proposed for Peninsular India is in the similar
form to the one used for other intra-plate regions (Atkinson and Boore 1995). The basic form of
the equation is given below.
ln(Ybr )  c1  c2 (M  6)  c3 (M  6)2  ln(r )  c4 (r )  ln( br )
In the above equation, Ybr = Sa/g stands for the ratio of spectral acceleration (Sa) at bed rock
level to acceleration due to gravity (g) and M, r refers to moment magnitude and hypocentral
distance respectively. The coefficients of the above equation are obtained from the simulated
database of a by a two-step stratified regression following Joyner and Boore (1981). The average
of the error term ln(εbr) is zero, but the standard deviation is of importance in probabilistic hazard
analysis. The regression coefficients and the standard error ln(εbr) are reported in originally for
three areas of Peninsular India namely Southern India, Koyna-Warna region and Western and
Central region of Peninsular India. However, the Gujarat region is part of Western and Central
region hence the coefficients related to it are described in the Table B.2.
Figure B.1 Response spectra for the three sub-regions of PI (Raghukanth and Iyenger, 2007)
128
Table B.2 Coefficients of attenuation equation, western–central (W–C) region.
σ
Period (s) C1 C2 C3 C4
(lnεbr)
0 1.7236 0.9453 0.0725 0.0064 0.3439
0.01 1.8063 0.9379 -0.0725 0.0062 0.3405
0.015 1.9263 0.932 -0.0703 0.0066 0.3572
0.02 2.1696 0.9224 -0.0663 0.0072 0.3977
0.03 2.7092 0.9087 -0.0602 0.0081 0.4152
0.04 2.8823 0.909 -0.0597 0.0078 0.3422
0.05 2.8509 0.9153 -0.0617 0.0073 0.3087
0.06 2.7684 0.9235 -0.0648 0.0067 0.2988
0.075 2.6403 0.9372 -0.0703 0.0061 0.2919
0.09 2.527 0.9518 -0.0766 0.0056 0.2868
0.1 2.4597 0.962 -0.0811 0.0053 0.2839
0.15 2.1912 1.016 -0.1065 0.0043 0.2726
0.2 1.99 1.0728 -0.1338 0.0037 0.2654
0.3 1.6827 1.1852 -0.1854 0.0029 0.2575
0.4 1.4382 1.2883 -0.2279 0.0023 0.252
0.5 1.2271 1.3799 -0.2606 0.0019 0.2461
0.6 1.0376 1.4605 -0.2848 0.0017 0.2398
0.7 0.8639 1.5316 -0.3023 0.0015 0.2337
0.75 0.7821 1.5639 -0.309 0.0014 0.231
0.8 0.7031 1.5945 -0.3147 0.0013 0.2285
0.9 0.5527 1.6506 -0.3231 0.0011 0.2244
1 0.4115 1.701 -0.3287 0.001 0.2215
1.2 0.1521 1.7878 -0.3334 0.0009 0.2191
1.5 -0.1909 1.8922 -0.3308 0.0007 0.2214
2 -0.6722 2.0209 -0.3148 0.0006 0.2321
2.5 -1.0731 2.1142 -0.2939 0.0006 0.2437
3 -1.4164 2.185 -0.2724 0.0006 0.2531
4 -1.9828 2.2851 -0.2329 0.0006 0.2649
The Raghukanth and Iyenger (2007) attenuation equation also provides the site correction
coefficients. The general approach of spectral attenuation described above can be extended to A,
B, C and D-type sites with the help of soil profiles (NEHRP classification) and shear wave
velocity (Vs) values sampled from the region. The site coefficient Fs, (s = A, B, C, D) defined as
the ratio of spectral acceleration at the surface to the bedrock value is determined for all the
previous 27 natural periods. It can be observed that FA and FB the site coefficients for A and B
type soils respectively are randomly scattered, indicating that these are nearly independent of the
129
bedrock values. However, site coefficients for C and D type sites exhibit strong dependence on
bedrock values. This relation can be empirically expressed as,
Ln Fs  a1 ybr  a2  ln  s
where a1 and a2 are the regression coefficients and δs is the error term. These coefficients along
with the standard deviation of ln δs are presented in Table B-3. The site coefficient Fs is a
function of the natural period and is like a modification factor on the average Sa value at
bedrock. With the help of Table B-2 and attenuation equation, the average 5% response spectrum
can be easily found for any A, B, C and D-type site in PI from the expression
ys = ybr .Fs
It is found numerically that the error terms εbr and δs are uncorrelated. Hence, the deviation of ys
from its mean in terms of εs is characterized by the standard deviation,
 (ln  s )   (ln  br )2   (ln  s )2
Table B-3 Coefficients for including local site conditions
130
Appendix C
Deaggregation plots
Table C.1 Deaggregation plots for various cities in Gujarat ( 2% P.E in 50 yrs hazard level)
Ahmedabad Anand
Bharuch Bhavnagar
Bhuj Gandhinagar
131
Himatnagar Jamnagar
Junagarh Mehsana
Morbi Palanpur
132
Porbandar Rajkot
Surat Surendernagar
Vadodra
133
Table C.2 Deaggregation plots for various cities in Gujarat using time-dependent PSHA ( 2% P.E in 50 yrs
hazard level)
Ahmedabad Anand
Bharuch Bhavnagar
Bhuj Gandhinagar
134
Himatnagar Jamnagar
Junagarh Mehsana
Morbi Palanpur
135
Porbandar Rajkot
Surat Surendernagar
Vadodra
136
Appendix D
Scaled ground motions for different cities in Gujarat
Table D.1 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad

Scale Scale Scale
No. Sequence Sequence Sequence
1 4366 0.751 647 0.709 702 3.2625

2 618 0.7741 2415 1.0297 704 9.9664
3 4523 2.5637 1649 3.3198 2420 3.5335
4 672 0.4059 2228 3.6232 2383 1.6663
5 2415 1.1508 155 1.7583 151 3.9866
6 4426 8.1183 672 0.7364 2259 5.7882
7 2388 1.3489 2419 0.7223 644 1.932
8 671 0.3968 4366 0.7656 2415 2.9134
9 4350 0.4559 213 0.9351 4283 3.4939
10 4329 0.688 593 0.804 3628 5.1508
11 4526 5.0504 4283 1.4305 693 2.9526
12 702 1.2579 673 0.6476 3629 5.2601
13 4283 1.3979 4350 0.3885 4521 6.9978
14 704 1.2726 4338 1.1361 2159 3.1801
15 213 0.8843 4426 5.5962 4338 1.2096
16 2420 0.7058 2427 0.8078 647 1.8616
17 593 0.5163 3628 1.7073 2228 10.292
18 673 0.3435 4329 0.6452 155 3.1858
19 631 1.4777 2388 0.9822 213 1.1644
20 695 0.2662 618 1.2694 593 1.9857
21 2159 1.4549 704 2.8109 631 11.143
22 2383 0.3335 151 1.2315 1755 1.9491
23 693 1.0624 2159 1.8107 671 1.6108
24 151 0.9897 693 1.1267 661 5.8011
25 2419 1.0007 702 1.0879 4426 8.0973
26 2228 2.319 2259 2.4996 2382 0.6705
27 2427 1.1906 4526 6.9658 4350 0.1821
137
28 4338 1.4595 2420 1.367 2372 1.6253
29 2259 0.9806 4523 4.2752 4523 13.519
30 661 0.5712 1755 0.9115 617 7.8529
31 617 0.4677 4521 2.3933 2388 3.2145
32 3629 1.1859 695 0.6399 673 1.4296
33 2372 0.4662 2382 0.1675 695 1.7652
34 3628 0.9657 631 2.9179 4526 14.872
35 647 0.8727 644 0.5002 4329 2.3321
36 155 1.831 671 0.5623 2427 2.9063
37 1755 0.4713 617 1.5829 4366 0.8074
38 2382 0.334 2372 0.7265 672 2.1396
39 644 0.6951 2383 0.5116 618 5.4418
40 4521 2.4801 3629 1.6533 2419 2.9225
41 1649 1.3811 661 1.204 1649 11.878
Table D.2 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Anand
Anand

1 1681 0.2702 560 2.4988 133 0.68

2 4509 0.3726 237 0.9557 561 1.9269
3 4072 1.6215 132 0.8761 318 1.3805
4 4085 0.5518 238 0.7251 239 0.8368
5 4075 0.5877 4285 0.3674 692 0.4775
6 314 0.3728 502 0.243 4346 1.196
7 315 0.5238 4391 0.3447 4125 1.9652
8 238 0.607 4137 0.5016 545 1.6053
9 129 2.8182 133 0.7165 237 1.1425
10 1647 0.3385 4392 0.4449 4512 3.0804
11 157 1.5591 545 0.9901 4137 0.7462
12 4508 0.3395 27 0.382 4124 1.093
13 2399 1.2317 18 2.1231 1740 3.4606
14 502 0.3084 314 0.5057 238 1.0052
15 412 0.1692 634 0.209 146 1.3291
16 411 0.184 4085 0.7759 4347 3.5419
17 4129 0.4405 4124 0.6723 560 2.9341
138
18 2390 1.1411 215 0.6258 4284 2.0144
19 4369 0.377 4348 0.2932 316 0.1449
20 1632 0.5015 1681 0.3308 2399 2.4589
21 477 0.5643 1099 0.4178 4511 4.3244
22 4312 0.9617 4125 1.336 4277 2.1451
23 146 0.8468 1646 0.3753 315 1.2572
24 4389 2.7218 633 0.3436 4387 6.6282
25 4512 0.8162 2399 1.6892 412 0.4405
26 133 0.6533 2390 1.5206 157 8.4355
27 633 0.3337 26 0.3131 154 1.0086
28 4137 0.4274 146 0.7252 242 1.8019
29 1740 0.3825 4363 0.8808 4345 1.6245
30 4106 0.7982 4129 0.5157 4510 2.7257
31 545 1.2022 211 0.9475 243 1.4343
32 4387 2.3328 97 0.374 650 2.4952
33 692 0.0945 4389 5.9833 4075 1.8794
34 4284 0.3728 4387 3.0947 4385 1.7142
35 4278 0.6797 477 0.9309 4390 0.8632
36 241 0.8986 129 3.5457 128 7.0556
37 215 0.7819 4106 0.8196 4318 28.3207
38 4392 0.4589 214 0.2785 4389 9.5233
39 4124 0.3585 316 0.1508 1681 0.4987
40 127 1.1278 1740 0.9331 27 1.0042
41 318 0.6471 4072 1.7887 411 1.4368
42 4285 0.3644 4313 3.1121 97 0.8105
43 154 0.3964 4278 1.1302 4339 3.7149
44 242 0.5738 4512 1.4847 4514 4.277
45 561 0.5068 239 0.4286 26 0.5522
46 4347 0.8019 4390 0.3325 4369 2.1004
47 1099 0.444 4385 0.2877 4313 10.8729
48 634 0.1895 245 0.8477 314 0.603
49 4510 0.4354 4312 1.8832 211 1.4191
50 239 0.1968 4362 1.1625 132 0.8047
51 4345 0.2761 4508 0.447 4508 1.366
139
Table D.3 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Bharuch
Bharuch

1 522 0.5217 2897 0.4963 2820 1.9425

2 8060 0.4005 3456 0.5834 2712 0.5335
3 3020 0.3535 535 0.8268 3317 0.1079
4 519 0.63 935 1.6391 3845 0.1856
5 8133 0.3595 2754 0.4005 4503 1.0827
6 934 1.0552 2605 0.8983 122 0.5023
7 2753 1.217 2467 0.2986 347 0.3934
8 2710 0.3869 2465 0.2407 343 0.3146
9 2715 0.2567 2997 0.5521 3456 0.9048
10 2701 1.0978 472 0.3659 3843 0.1351
11 2608 0.8531 4485 2.8132 268 0.4822
12 2714 0.2764 2616 0.4079 930 0.3617
13 268 0.4038 3504 0.2875 2467 0.1707
14 3509 0.4695 2611 0.6789 522 0.3975
15 1137 0.7603 3509 0.4217 2616 0.4601
16 357 0.3343 3268 0.1874 2742 0.53
17 511 0.552 471 0.4859 935 1.6207
18 472 0.4711 3502 0.428 3489 0.4574
19 2997 0.3988 2649 0.298 542 2.6996
20 3021 0.3475 2656 0.2701 2746 0.2985
21 358 0.4393 2935 0.8638 3856 1.8035
22 3464 0.9894 3854 0.5551 453 0.9745
23 2743 0.3706 453 1.2072 2715 0.4015
24 930 0.3274 3488 0.529 3217 1.3193
25 3854 0.4927 3008 1.3295 2754 0.2242
26 4350 0.3587 536 2.287 2821 2.2867
27 2820 1.0344 3843 0.3869 2753 1.7161
28 535 0.6706 2714 0.2733 3461 0.6636
29 3017 0.6685 3017 0.8237 2459 0.2733
30 2631 0.6173 3461 0.4396 2462 0.2756
31 3456 0.8112 2710 0.4958 471 0.7773
32 449 0.339 2743 0.659 352 0.483
33 3008 0.679 1137 0.5859 3458 0.7297
34 3457 0.7838 3495 0.4253 2884 0.2594
140
35 4283 1.0998 2610 0.6173 2644 0.4875
36 2644 0.5238 3317 0.2278 8069 0.7374
37 352 0.2611 2631 0.5963 2701 0.5612
38 8069 0.4365 3496 0.262 8060 0.5784
39 3495 0.3859 4283 1.1773 2465 0.2345
40 3458 0.6625 2466 0.1533 3462 0.7837
41 4491 0.6164 2645 0.2501 526 2.1565
42 4485 3.4151 555 1.7833 2611 0.7046
43 526 0.5071 2607 0.6647 555 2.1554
44 3462 0.891 2646 0.4332 2509 0.1136
45 453 1.3017 8133 0.41 4485 6.6288
46 538 0.4011 3455 0.7264 2645 0.4384
47 3268 0.1998 4466 1.5418 3021 1.9824
48 3502 0.6173 8069 0.5651 3850 0.2869
49 1656 1.7215 3845 0.1599 3268 0.2447
50 2746 0.6675 3457 0.5644 344 0.316
51 2646 0.3619 357 0.4869 2656 0.2462
Table D.4 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Bhuj
Bhuj

1 6928 1.1511 6953 1.0258 6969 1.1383

2 3757 1.6832 5990 1.1035 6912 0.9652
3 882 1.5713 1613 6.7556 6915 2.8311
4 6953 0.9305 6928 1.4886 6953 0.8926
5 5990 0.853 6966 1.148 6966 0.7373
6 6965 1.2953 3750 0.9913 880 2.2907
7 1613 6.232 6988 2.4755 6013 1.2368
8 900 1.0022 882 1.5568 5990 1.9742
9 850 1.2539 1616 4.4541 6988 3.7029
10 5838 1.1708 5832 0.7445 5838 1.4798
11 6966 0.9618 3757 1.5519 6942 1.0381
12 6013 1.033 5836 0.9804 5836 1.357
13 5836 0.7453 6912 1.0075 5832 0.7618
14 880 2.0707 6969 1.0205 900 1.168
141
15 5832 1.0184 6915 1.4747 6965 2.5023
16 5985 0.5127 6013 0.9791 6928 2.8566
17 4455 0.8897 6971 0.7726 1613 5.7136
18 3759 1.9086 138 1.8102 4455 4.8101
19 138 1.9186 5985 0.5925 882 1.2636
20 6971 0.9961 6942 1.2985 3753 3.1722
21 6969 1.0768 880 2.4048 5985 1.1143
22 3750 0.8848 900 0.7315 3750 0.8323
23 1616 6.6302 850 1.0937 3757 1.3309
24 6912 1.1942 5838 1.1961 850 1.6659
25 3753 0.7678 3759 2.1516 3759 4.2563
26 6988 2.6948 830 10.3182 138 1.6956
27 6942 0.9988 6965 2.0374 1616 6.9105
28 6915 0.5393 4455 1.3342 6971 1.808
29 830 3.5198 3753 0.9644 830 14.9224
Table D.5 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Gandhinagar
Gandhinagar

1 4316 0.6174 135 0.9597 3574 1.4006

2 4328 0.8055 3571 0.6236 311 1.0657
3 212 0.4133 4150 1.0355 309 1.1929
4 4330 0.3918 544 0.3981 3561 1.327
5 3570 0.4293 2423 1.1646 3564 1.4126
6 544 0.499 307 0.588 3568 0.9748
7 4320 1.3363 3567 0.5242 3570 1.1226
8 312 0.5111 2398 4.6688 3566 0.7635
9 135 1.0082 312 0.4784 3559 1.1507
10 559 0.7525 596 1.1225 3573 1.2424
11 598 0.718 3565 0.4673 3565 1.0833
12 2385 0.7156 212 0.401 602 1.0025
13 2398 5.5603 3574 0.7883 3571 0.9905
14 3565 0.4806 311 0.7538 627 1.7705
15 643 1.8024 309 0.6808 1643 2.0448
16 4317 2.7529 630 0.7648 3578 0.9808
142
17 1754 0.2609 629 0.844 4328 2.6837
18 685 1.1061 559 1.0842 4330 1.5622
19 627 0.3301 2385 0.8095 307 0.9777
20 546 1.5899 4078 0.5377 135 1.6669
21 1643 0.5935 1754 0.4738 652 0.9335
22 3560 0.469 3566 0.435 3575 1.1613
23 310 0.4006 685 2.0171 606 3.764
24 3576 0.4605 1644 0.6713 4317 4.2968
25 625 0.2928 4320 1.3711 153 2.6309
26 629 0.6544 4340 1.2224 4150 1.1226
27 591 0.7468 1643 0.7165 3562 1.3267
28 307 0.4991 3568 0.4973 1741 3.2512
29 602 0.2134 3575 0.4475 306 1.1756
30 3572 0.4594 627 0.5358 152 2.619
31 4340 1.245 2389 0.8325 629 2.8154
32 3561 0.41 3573 0.6747 4524 10.0276
33 3575 0.4754 3561 0.8118 630 2.4158
34 3568 0.5004 10 1.2157 641 2.2656
35 4351 0.5564 3563 0.7037 212 0.4873
36 3562 0.5628 591 1.389 3572 1.157
37 543 1.0244 3562 0.7508 34 1.779
38 2426 2.903 3577 0.5571 312 0.7735
39 34 0.4309 4328 0.8091 3576 0.9632
40 2423 0.6756 3559 0.5179 4351 1.8266
41 3559 0.4456 3578 0.5767 546 3.6944
42 596 0.4921 310 0.5463 625 1.7825
43 3577 0.5475 1741 1.6449 4078 1.0337
44 606 0.3738 308 0.6297 1754 1.1064
45 652 0.2005 3576 0.6403 10 2.3164
46 3574 0.5705 4316 0.5803 3560 1.1547
47 646 0.2226 306 0.5593 559 2.4461
48 3765 0.7607 3564 0.7032 2398 6.2496
49 3566 0.3911 3572 0.7784 543 2.5757
50 306 0.3794 606 1.0866 310 0.981
51 630 0.8441 3560 0.5109 1644 1.2758
143
Table D.6 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Himatnagar
Himatnagar

1 4431 5.8322 2220 0.7672 2255 1.9514

2 2220 0.6744 686 2.2026 1742 23.9268
3 3626 1.1071 4431 5.6233 2226 4.3267
4 2421 0.8175 2253 0.845 3616 3.976
5 2206 1.0226 131 1.0697 487 3.0182
6 3616 0.8985 2384 1.5206 492 6.123
7 131 1.3631 2255 1.7093 486 3.4289
8 4314 0.7726 4527 8.0193 488 3.3953
9 2160 0.5934 2236 1.2173 2374 2.1908
10 2408 0.7338 4434 5.5918 3624 4.1309
11 2370 1.2797 2225 1.5413 131 1.2835
12 2369 1.5142 2254 1.5115 2375 2.5415
13 490 0.5749 3626 1.7728 2408 2.5932
14 3620 0.7179 2252 1.002 2397 2.8474
15 2375 0.8114 2370 1.3084 2409 1.1473
16 2371 1.0394 2239 2.3742 2373 2.8173
17 2225 1.4397 2409 0.6067 491 4.9839
18 491 1.1208 4314 0.893 2236 3.1543
19 3618 0.8892 2238 2.0903 2384 1.9066
20 481 0.8354 624 1.7989 2224 2.9994
21 3615 0.8845 2163 2.4004 4434 7.7449
22 3631 1.244 4388 2.1879 3621 3.6316
23 3623 1.0655 2375 1.0507 2253 1.5278
24 487 0.6578 2190 2.5278 3609 3.7974
25 4388 2.5185 4432 7.4383 3623 3.8924
26 2374 1.1856 1679 4.4978 2206 1.9991
27 2253 0.6907 481 0.8055 3631 3.6535
28 2226 1.3787 2425 1.4498 2163 4.919
29 2238 1.5558 2206 1.4626 2242 8.8033
30 4086 0.8597 489 1.9112 2404 2.6296
31 3621 0.5872 2374 1.2364 3626 5.6256
32 2384 1.1189 2397 1.8483 3611 4.0948
33 3617 0.6243 3632 1.5596 3619 3.8869
34 2403 1.4398 3625 1.8163 2239 7.4135
144
35 2379 1.1169 3633 2.1319 3620 4.5609
36 686 1.5451 2226 1.9086 2407 1.7028
37 2239 1.585 3624 1.6175 2369 3.9563
38 2252 0.6845 2408 0.5982 3613 3.4599
39 3611 0.7927 2421 0.6334 3618 4.1712
40 2373 0.9558 3609 1.3855 2222 1.6337
41 3609 0.8046 2257 1.8633 2377 2.1837
42 246 0.3552 2407 0.6953 2257 6.6998
43 3614 0.7185 2195 1.0456 3633 4.1273
44 4434 4.5818 2216 1.3048 605 3.5335
45 2222 0.8371 2410 0.4498 489 5.544
46 492 0.9505 486 1.3604 3625 4.7573
47 2216 0.8905 2222 0.6667 2160 2.7417
48 3619 0.8792 4086 1.6738 2190 5.9511
49 2377 1.3768 3614 1.3525 3612 3.6897
50 3613 0.7032 3608 1.5887 3632 4.1568
51 2224 1.0334 488 1.3432 3615 3.5293
Table D.7 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Jamnagar
Jamnagar

1 5859 0.2387 5842 0.8043 897 1.9676

2 1813 0.3654 897 1.7183 3674 0.2353
3 826 0.2172 3679 0.1694 1627 1.5244
4 1776 0.4023 1813 0.3119 578 0.2793
5 1762 0.1903 6036 0.6323 5976 0.3903
6 5972 0.2019 3682 0.2186 3754 0.257
7 8492 0.3492 5976 0.2869 3745 0.4392
8 3679 0.1957 8492 0.3455 1836 1.7439
9 891 1.0986 583 0.1525 577 0.2511
10 6891 0.2692 3756 0.1836 572 0.7673
11 6949 0.3272 579 0.1368 5989 0.2529
12 3682 0.2669 1636 0.3632 3760 0.717
13 1836 0.66 3683 0.1305 5859 0.3283
14 5989 0.1717 3678 0.1432 584 0.2399
145
15 1620 2.2284 5989 0.1732 3673 0.2294
16 578 0.1218 3670 0.1804 3681 0.2448
17 5830 0.8134 5859 0.2296 1636 0.2441
18 1795 0.4507 1776 0.4267 571 0.148
19 6963 0.6756 8163 1.8569 575 0.2332
20 573 0.1652 3677 0.1677 583 0.2158
21 1144 0.3126 582 0.1433 862 0.402
22 8163 1.1981 1627 1.626 6036 0.6275
23 572 0.2029 580 0.1485 1785 1.096
24 6036 0.9019 891 1.5125 3680 0.2548
25 8522 0.2289 575 0.1496 891 1.6546
26 3680 0.1751 1144 0.5243 582 0.2114
27 1636 0.2379 1620 2.091 580 0.1971
28 3752 0.3559 581 0.1498 826 0.2207
29 3674 0.1477 3681 0.1472 1620 2.5786
30 3760 0.2303 571 0.1395 576 0.2472
31 3665 0.1554 3680 0.1597 3672 0.2298
32 5842 0.7597 3675 0.1606 3682 0.2544
33 3745 0.1473 584 0.1482 8163 3.537
34 3670 0.2269 6891 0.2654 1762 0.2454
35 3681 0.1718 3663 0.1473 579 0.237
36 3669 0.2054 3752 0.3441 8522 0.3454
37 862 0.2745 862 0.2813 5830 3.0352
38 582 0.1817 3671 0.158 3676 0.2159
39 3671 0.1892 3664 0.147 5842 0.8699
40 3675 0.1489 3665 0.1518 3677 0.1907
41 570 0.1556 573 0.1516 3679 0.2198
42 577 0.151 1795 0.7962 8492 0.3284
43 3666 0.1819 3666 0.1755 6891 0.4733
44 579 0.1598 576 0.1193 3675 0.2396
45 5976 0.4376 1836 1.0661 3663 0.2018
46 1785 0.3208 3676 0.1521 573 0.2208
47 3663 0.1576 3669 0.1645 6949 0.9635
48 3664 0.177 6949 0.4767 3665 0.2166
49 3677 0.2218 3674 0.1738 3671 0.2251
50 3672 0.1474 826 0.2787 3664 0.1995
51 897 0.935 3673 0.16 3666 0.2289
146
Table D.8 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Junagarh
Junagarh

1 3187 1.2315 2494 1.8955 2879 3.4359

2 4080 4.9826 3318 1.5066 2719 0.8774
3 2474 2.1235 3213 0.8625 2779 4.5441
4 2923 3.4314 2596 1.9072 3031 10.7494
5 2771 7.2793 2698 3.6702 3209 2.0358
6 2725 3.3878 2544 11.776 3267 0.7681
7 2759 3.1043 3661 0.2072 923 1.5625
8 3320 0.5057 3247 1.6609 3247 2.9459
9 2602 3.4755 2864 2.3956 2602 7.2585
10 3267 0.4498 2901 1.5412 2778 8.2997
11 923 1.198 2522 6.9774 3306 0.7455
12 4501 6.9013 2790 5.6872 928 8.1049
13 2719 1.1304 2889 1.0099 2474 1.7989
14 2779 3.6599 3209 1.0764 2528 14.5262
15 2596 2.2741 2657 3.0415 539 2.289
16 3173 1.4165 3309 0.2899 3541 4.8045
17 3540 2.6075 2502 1.9151 3171 3.8675
18 3213 0.7291 2932 3.6941 3445 2.5514
19 3449 0.7192 3212 1.0516 2657 1.9698
20 2747 3.066 2474 2.0884 2864 3.6297
21 3249 1.501 3210 0.6989 3449 1.5451
22 3501 0.9373 2755 0.6152 3452 1.9146
23 3171 1.1375 3537 1.3392 816 4.0497
24 2534 7.6967 2880 2.6149 2918 9.6156
25 2722 0.9364 3271 0.3925 4093 4.4562
26 2944 1.062 3844 1.1887 2783 6.5838
27 8147 0.6082 2567 2.8152 2524 13.17
28 3212 0.6319 3480 1.1323 2722 1.4909
29 3306 0.3113 2599 1.8904 2549 4.9684
30 2879 5.3062 3095 1.4537 2747 1.7454
31 2545 7.564 2464 1.0518 2880 2.1561
32 3851 2.0105 2879 3.2742 2596 1.9939
33 917 1.4238 3851 2.1987 3284 1.4672
34 2790 4.1388 2719 0.8158 2475 1.5112
147
35 8128 0.7547 2693 7.6285 3540 2.6704
36 32 4.5075 2718 0.6403 3869 1.9385
37 2502 1.7905 539 0.989 2771 13.7752
38 2778 5.3007 3653 0.1865 3212 1.5492
39 2551 4.5468 2952 1.2181 3249 5.5266
40 3031 1.5491 2523 6.2737 3537 1.26
41 2783 3.9329 2725 3.4309 2713 1.41
42 2896 5.0817 2549 3.1529 3013 9.5735
43 3844 0.8671 2868 1.873 2944 1.814
44 304 1.9938 2781 3.0679 3857 1.5947
45 3246 1.7496 509 0.195 2544 13.0538
46 2880 4.3482 2925 5.3449 2952 2.0542
47 2713 1.2641 2722 1.3085 3213 1.473
48 2657 3.0531 2918 5.2082 2877 1.6816
49 2718 0.9688 2929 3.8351 3246 1.4355
50 3445 1.6657 4080 6.1134 3446 1.5027
51 4087 4.4459 3012 2.333 3037 18.0423
Table D.9 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Mehsana
Mehsana

1 4328 0.9457 135 1.1214 3573 1.4588

2 212 0.4852 3567 0.6125 4317 5.045
3 4330 0.46 2423 1.3608 153 3.089
4 4316 0.7249 4150 1.2099 3561 1.5581
5 643 2.1163 544 0.4652 152 3.075
6 3570 0.5041 307 0.6871 3568 1.1445
7 312 0.6001 3574 0.9211 3574 1.6445
8 4320 1.569 312 0.559 309 1.4006
9 685 1.2987 3565 0.5461 3572 1.3585
10 2385 0.8403 2385 0.9459 311 1.2513
11 4317 3.2323 3571 0.7287 3565 1.2719
12 627 0.3876 212 0.4685 3566 0.8964
13 559 0.8835 4078 0.6283 135 1.9571
14 3565 0.5643 3566 0.5083 652 1.096
148
15 1754 0.3064 2398 5.4554 3571 1.163
16 598 0.8431 4320 1.6021 3765 0.955
17 3560 0.5507 311 0.8808 1643 2.4008
18 544 0.5859 3575 0.5229 2398 7.3378
19 135 1.1838 309 0.7955 3564 1.6585
20 310 0.4704 591 1.623 3570 1.3181
21 3576 0.5407 1754 0.5537 546 4.3376
22 2398 6.5286 629 0.9862 4316 2.0286
23 629 0.7683 3563 0.8222 627 2.0787
24 307 0.5861 1643 0.8373 3559 1.3511
25 591 0.8768 630 0.8936 307 1.1479
26 1643 0.6969 596 1.3116 4078 1.2137
27 602 0.2506 1644 0.7844 602 1.1771
28 546 1.8668 3573 0.7884 4524 11.7735
29 4340 1.4619 1741 1.922 4330 1.8342
30 3568 0.5876 10 1.4205 3578 1.1515
31 625 0.3438 685 2.357 625 2.0929
32 3572 0.5394 3568 0.5811 4328 3.1509
33 3562 0.6609 559 1.2669 310 1.1518
34 3561 0.4814 3562 0.8773 641 2.66
35 3575 0.5582 4328 0.9455 3575 1.3634
36 3559 0.5232 308 0.7357 606 4.4194
37 2426 3.4085 4340 1.4283 306 1.3802
38 543 1.2028 3578 0.6738 4351 2.1446
39 4351 0.6533 2389 0.9727 629 3.3056
40 34 0.506 627 0.626 1741 3.8172
41 596 0.5778 3559 0.6051 4150 1.3181
42 3566 0.4592 3577 0.651 3562 1.5577
43 3567 0.5623 4316 0.6781 544 0.9703
44 2423 0.7932 3561 0.9486 34 2.0888
45 306 0.4454 310 0.6384 630 2.8364
46 3577 0.6429 3576 0.7482 1754 1.299
47 3578 0.4498 306 0.6535 212 0.5721
48 606 0.4389 3560 0.5969 312 0.9081
49 308 0.5228 4351 0.536 3576 1.1309
50 630 0.9911 2426 5.0747 3560 1.3558
51 641 0.8107 3765 0.5971 543 3.0241
149
Table D.10 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Morbi
Morbi

1 4106 2.3567 296 2.5942 231 1.8965

2 718 0.969 31 1.0998 4124 3.1759
3 6874 0.7345 4285 1.2667 8134 0.6773
4 4137 1.2619 530 0.8786 4489 4.4265
5 4478 6.1437 8102 1.0333 33 1.5482
6 125 0.3262 455 5.8008 455 5.5765
7 8099 0.4952 4137 1.7295 2739 1.2866
8 549 0.5487 6874 1.0178 4347 10.2915
9 2699 1.6847 549 0.6747 4137 2.1682
10 4075 1.7352 8062 1.0623 4346 3.4751
11 530 1.0401 2457 1.198 266 0.4973
12 4489 2.4624 457 1.0051 4125 5.7104
13 2625 2.7439 454 6.6414 8142 1.2911
14 4285 1.0759 266 0.8067 550 1.4788
15 28 2.7486 550 3.4141 549 0.9378
16 4129 1.3006 2658 0.7255 457 0.9716
17 457 0.8324 456 1.6504 2658 1.2081
18 2626 0.6596 2655 0.8621 2626 1.6891
19 8102 1.1475 4085 2.6753 518 3.6867
20 550 2.4277 4125 4.6063 4284 5.8533
21 31 0.8205 4124 2.318 2699 1.2262
22 2627 0.3944 265 0.4141 454 5.8681
23 2655 0.6147 8134 0.4936 4345 4.7203
24 265 0.3453 458 0.6092 537 18.8651
25 458 0.4647 4478 5.9553 2622 1.9162
26 266 0.844 2703 1.9051 4075 5.4609
27 4072 4.7874 28 2.7106 2625 3.8695
28 8062 0.7611 8142 1.7114 718 0.8335
29 456 1.1151 4129 1.7782 125 1.228
30 4085 1.6293 8110 3.2104 31 1.5382
31 2658 0.42 2622 1.6488 2655 0.8634
32 4348 0.8185 2627 0.4334 8110 3.3297
33 297 1.4806 1126 1.9784 3764 15.1289
34 231 0.4868 4489 2.9015 1126 3.8867
150
35 8134 0.6378 2626 0.9102 8099 0.6439
36 2739 0.9476 4106 2.8258 8062 0.9875
37 8142 1.1387 460 3.3014 456 1.9698
38 4284 1.1005 718 1.3389 530 1.1219
39 3764 1.7558 4072 6.167 460 5.2851
40 296 3.0483 4348 1.0107 4129 2.582
41 2703 1.234 2625 3.3056 8102 0.6024
42 518 1.3466 2699 1.4464 458 1.248
43 2457 0.7874 537 5.3448 2703 1.4054
44 2622 1.0296 125 0.5172 4478 7.2199
45 454 3.4835 297 0.9835 297 0.8528
46 8110 1.794 33 1.1744 2627 0.7372
47 4124 1.0585 231 0.759 4072 15.7547
48 4347 2.3677 4284 2.2076 4106 3.2778
49 455 3.325 4075 3.0045 28 1.4954
50 537 2.6527 518 1.274 4348 1.3256
51 4345 0.8151 4345 3.6816 265 0.7487
Table D.11 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Palanpur
Palanpur

1 4366 0.8677 2415 1.2277 704 11.886

2 618 0.8945 2419 0.8611 2420 4.2141
3 4523 2.9621 647 0.8453 3629 6.2732
4 672 0.469 4366 0.9128 151 4.7545
5 2415 1.3297 4283 1.7055 702 3.8909
6 671 0.4585 2228 4.3197 3628 6.1428
7 4426 9.3801 1649 3.958 2259 6.9031
8 2388 1.5586 155 2.0963 4283 4.1669
9 4350 0.5268 4426 6.672 2383 1.9873
10 4329 0.7949 593 0.9586 2415 3.4745
11 4526 5.8354 672 0.8779 644 2.3042
12 702 1.4534 4329 0.7692 693 3.5214
151
13 704 1.4704 2427 0.9631 4426 9.657
14 213 1.0217 151 1.4682 4526 17.7366
15 4283 1.6152 213 1.1148 647 2.2202
16 2420 0.8155 2388 1.171 4521 8.3456
17 673 0.3969 673 0.7721 2159 3.7926
18 593 0.5965 2159 2.1588 2228 12.2746
19 631 1.7073 3628 2.0356 4338 1.4426
20 695 0.3075 702 1.297 4350 0.2172
21 2383 0.3853 704 3.3513 593 2.3681
22 693 1.2275 618 1.5134 631 13.2889
23 2159 1.681 693 1.3433 1755 2.3245
24 151 1.1435 4338 1.3545 155 3.7994
25 2419 1.1563 2420 1.6298 213 1.3886
26 2259 1.133 4350 0.4632 671 1.9211
27 2427 1.3756 4526 8.3049 661 6.9185
28 2228 2.6795 2259 2.9801 2382 0.7997
29 4338 1.6864 1755 1.0867 2372 1.9383
30 661 0.66 4523 5.097 617 9.3655
31 617 0.5404 2382 0.1997 4523 16.123
32 3629 1.3702 4521 2.8534 673 1.7049
33 2372 0.5386 695 0.7629 2388 3.8336
34 3628 1.1158 631 3.4788 4329 2.7812
35 647 1.0084 644 0.5963 695 2.1052
36 155 2.1156 671 0.6704 2427 3.4661
37 1755 0.5446 617 1.8872 4366 0.9629
38 2382 0.3859 2372 0.8662 672 2.5517
39 644 0.8031 2383 0.6099 618 6.4899
40 4521 2.8656 3629 1.9711 2419 3.4854
41 1649 1.5958 661 1.4354 1649 14.1663
Table D.12 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Porbandar
Porbandar

1 6874 0.6638 2627 0.2743 8134 0.4407

2 4075 1.5681 4129 1.1254 4489 2.8801
3 4478 5.5522 2622 1.0435 231 1.234
152
4 549 0.4959 2658 0.4591 4124 2.0664
5 4489 2.2253 2626 0.5761 455 3.6283
6 718 0.8757 125 0.3273 33 1.0073
7 28 2.484 454 4.2033 4346 2.2611
8 2699 1.5226 4125 2.9153 2739 0.8371
9 4106 2.1298 4106 1.7884 549 0.6102
10 457 0.7522 4489 1.8364 4125 3.7154
11 4137 1.1404 718 0.8474 4137 1.4107
12 550 2.194 4085 1.6932 4347 6.6962
13 4129 1.1754 2655 0.5456 8142 0.8401
14 8099 0.4475 530 0.556 266 0.3235
15 125 0.2948 4072 3.903 2658 0.786
16 2655 0.5555 231 0.4803 550 0.9622
17 530 0.94 460 2.0894 457 0.6322
18 458 0.42 31 0.696 4284 3.8084
19 4072 4.3265 4284 1.3972 518 2.3987
20 8062 0.6879 6874 0.6442 2699 0.7978
21 456 1.0077 4137 1.0946 2626 1.099
22 31 0.7415 4285 0.8017 454 3.8181
23 4085 1.4724 537 3.3827 537 12.2746
24 2625 2.4798 4075 1.9015 4345 3.0712
25 4285 0.9723 4124 1.4671 2622 1.2468
26 2626 0.5961 296 1.6418 718 0.5423
27 8102 1.037 550 2.1608 4075 3.5531
28 265 0.312 455 3.6713 2625 2.5177
29 4284 0.9946 456 1.0445 2655 0.5617
30 2658 0.3796 8102 0.654 31 1.0008
31 2627 0.3564 266 0.5106 125 0.799
32 3764 1.5868 549 0.427 8110 2.1665
33 266 0.7627 457 0.6361 1126 2.5288
34 2703 1.1152 8062 0.6723 3764 9.8436
35 8142 1.0291 2457 0.7582 8062 0.6425
36 2622 0.9304 518 0.8063 8099 0.419
37 4348 0.7397 2703 1.2057 456 1.2816
38 231 0.44 4478 3.7691 530 0.73
39 454 3.1482 4345 2.3301 460 3.4388
40 297 1.3381 8142 1.0831 458 0.812
41 8134 0.5764 8134 0.3124 8102 0.392
42 2739 0.8564 265 0.2621 2703 0.9144
43 4124 0.9566 2625 2.0921 4129 1.6799
44 8110 1.6213 8110 2.0318 4478 4.6976
153
45 4347 2.1398 3764 2.7588 297 0.5549
46 455 3.005 4346 0.8264 2627 0.4797
47 2457 0.7116 458 0.3856 4072 10.2508
48 537 2.3973 28 1.7155 4106 2.1327
49 1126 1.0738 4347 5.0371 28 0.973
50 4345 0.7366 4348 0.6397 4348 0.8625
51 296 2.7549 1126 1.2521 265 0.4871
Table D.13 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Rajkot
Rajkot

1 2115 1.1938 1823 1.1518 5854 7.0776

2 5846 1.5971 849 0.7716 8574 13.4669
3 1823 1.2738 2115 1.2646 5866 1.6819
4 852 2.8144 1451 0.7765 6882 3.3184
5 6882 3.7994 852 1.8649 1153 1.0312
6 854 0.9627 1822 5.2972 1823 0.8861
7 5883 0.7345 5854 7.7008 1449 2.2881
8 6031 6.0967 1449 1.3677 2115 1.2516
9 6032 2.6773 1771 0.9539 1440 0.7672
10 5876 2.6077 1443 1.2772 1451 2.131
11 1153 0.8562 1378 3.6809 5880 1.5472
12 849 1.2452 5847 1.6625 5851 1.9998
13 5878 1.4558 6882 2.3018 5847 2.4681
14 1822 5.2865 1153 0.7979 5846 1.2775
15 3818 2.6243 1440 1.2845 13 0.9526
16 5880 1.3182 858 0.8382 5878 1.8618
17 6021 2.2731 3818 5.4577 1450 0.7345
18 858 1.3171 13 0.7258 1443 2.5393
19 6007 1.7443 5878 1.3353 854 1.264
20 5847 1.3084 854 1.1038 1822 5.0092
21 5866 1.4324 5851 1.6992 3818 4.5761
22 1771 1.8205 5846 1.1245 849 0.4433
23 1450 1.5299 3815 5.9923 852 1.607
24 6903 3.2823 1450 0.8368 1771 0.6334
154
25 1571 9.8587 1571 4.4767 6913 2.0271
26 8574 4.7069 6903 1.6659 6007 1.6691
27 1449 2.6608 6031 7.8047 3815 3.7358
28 5851 1.5448 5876 3.3989 6031 11.0383
29 1440 2.5665 6032 3.4939 1571 3.1259
30 5854 6.2621 5880 1.141 1378 2.831
31 1378 7.0681 8574 5.7074 6021 4.211
32 1443 2.8654 5883 0.8217 858 0.669
33 3815 3.3861 5866 0.9524 5883 4.4253
34 13 1.156 6007 1.1037 6032 4.0372
35 1451 2.3587 6913 0.8961 5876 3.9337
36 6913 1.717 6021 2.0563 6903 1.5655
Table D.14 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Surat
Surat

1 4096 0.3276 4107 0.0489 209 0.3526

2 4383 0.2702 240 0.3454 4123 0.9074
3 4069 0.3986 1 0.6428 445 1.0132
4 4134 0.163 150 0.1242 4383 0.7374
5 3553 0.67 4113 0.154 4121 1.0735
6 4365 0.3052 4135 0.547 4130 0.2352
7 4126 0.0804 4098 0.0887 4071 0.2267
8 4127 0.3871 147 0.1957 4136 0.5134
9 4352 0.0857 4065 0.1041 4097 0.198
10 4367 0.3081 4110 0.2321 4096 0.5117
11 407 0.0808 4084 0.0616 145 0.7531
12 1631 0.2688 4131 0.1739 4120 0.6929
13 233 0.2446 4115 0.0563 415 0.283
14 4066 0.2843 4067 1.3147 4067 1.4877
15 4064 0.2302 4073 1.0067 4118 0.6978
16 4105 0.1548 4108 0.1854 4122 0.7
17 244 0.4849 4111 0.1443 568 0.0823
18 4103 0.0934 4365 0.4441 106 28.1347
19 4099 0.1729 445 1.0237 4133 0.5924
155
20 4120 0.3001 233 0.254 235 0.528
21 150 0.1052 4127 0.395 148 0.246
22 4121 0.3565 4071 0.2226 319 0.1222
23 148 0.1867 148 0.1202 4116 0.1482
24 149 0.1347 4117 0.1362 4103 0.3974
25 147 0.1919 235 0.3172 317 0.3112
26 4122 0.2221 4104 0.1848 4135 0.8325
27 4070 0.1178 4114 0.2878 4368 1.5435
28 4110 0.3147 4337 0.1165 4114 0.7882
29 4139 0.1557 4100 0.0622 4070 0.372
30 4128 0.4798 4096 0.5479 156 1.0058
31 4337 0.1455 4133 0.4383 4134 0.3772
32 4123 0.464 569 0.0478 569 0.1047
33 2 12.4938 4120 0.4367 4112 0.8369
34 4368 0.413 149 0.1215 4064 0.6111
35 4104 0.1511 317 0.1962 1 0.7914
36 156 0.3359 2395 0.2253 4321 20.4694
37 4135 0.4177 4066 0.33 4066 0.4097
38 4142 0.1248 4074 0.1482 4128 0.5516
39 4132 0.1603 4364 0.1943 150 0.213
40 4131 0.3225 4118 0.3291 3553 5.6779
41 4148 0.1508 4102 0.1114 4108 0.5248
42 4140 0.1904 547 0.261 4102 0.3021
43 2387 0.3156 4128 0.3788 407 0.4459
44 209 0.4672 4122 0.3327 4104 0.428
45 4364 0.4184 4134 0.1649 4349 0.3247
46 585 0.0671 2 22.9163 4065 0.2343
47 4146 0.1422 4130 0.1228 4101 0.5895
48 4349 0.2455 4383 0.4577 4084 0.1331
49 4071 0.1464 319 0.0657 244 2.057
50 1 0.3982 4349 0.1373 2 32.7659
51 4144 0.1623 1631 0.3522 4131 0.3929
156
Table D.15 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Surendernagar
Surendernagar

1 5883 0.5675 1823 0.9791 5854 6.3728

2 5846 1.2339 1822 4.5032 8574 12.1258
3 852 2.1743 849 0.656 5866 1.5144
4 1823 0.9841 852 1.5854 1823 0.7978
5 1822 4.0843 5854 6.5465 6882 2.9879
6 6882 2.9353 1771 0.8109 5880 1.3932
7 6031 4.7102 6882 1.9568 5846 1.1502
8 854 0.7437 5847 1.4133 5851 1.8006
9 849 0.962 854 0.9384 5847 2.2224
10 3818 2.0275 3818 4.6397 3818 4.1204
11 6032 2.0684 858 0.7125 5878 1.6764
12 5876 2.0147 5878 1.1352 854 1.1381
13 6021 1.7562 3815 5.0942 13 0.8578
14 858 1.0176 13 0.617 1822 4.5104
15 8574 3.6364 5851 1.4445 1771 0.5703
16 5878 1.1247 5846 0.956 3815 3.3638
17 5880 1.0184 6903 1.4162 849 0.3991
18 5854 4.838 5876 2.8894 852 1.4469
19 5866 1.1066 6032 2.9702 6007 1.5029
20 6007 1.3476 6031 6.6349 6913 1.8252
21 1771 1.4065 5880 0.97 6031 9.939
22 6903 2.5358 8574 4.8519 6021 3.7916
23 3815 2.616 5883 0.6986 858 0.6024
24 5847 1.0109 5866 0.8096 5876 3.542
25 5851 1.1934 6007 0.9383 6032 3.6352
26 13 0.8931 6913 0.7618 5883 3.9846
27 6913 1.3265 6021 1.7481 6903 1.4096
157
Table D.16 Selected ground motions for 5, 10 and 20 storey buildings in Vadodra
Vadodra

1 212 0.3608 135 0.8062 4317 2.9226

2 3570 0.3748 4150 0.8699 152 1.7814
3 4320 1.1667 544 0.3344 153 1.7895
4 4316 0.539 3567 0.4404 3561 0.9026
5 559 0.657 2398 3.9223 3572 0.787
6 1754 0.2278 212 0.3369 3573 0.8451
7 2385 0.6248 2423 0.9784 2398 4.2509
8 4317 2.4034 3574 0.6622 135 1.1338
9 598 0.6269 307 0.494 309 0.8114
10 643 1.5736 3571 0.5239 3565 0.7369
11 4328 0.7032 3565 0.3926 3574 0.9527
12 685 0.9657 4078 0.4517 652 0.6349
13 3565 0.4196 312 0.4019 3568 0.663
14 546 1.3881 2385 0.6801 1643 1.3908
15 544 0.4357 3566 0.3655 3571 0.6737
16 627 0.2882 4340 1.0269 311 0.7249
17 312 0.4462 4320 1.1519 4078 0.7031
18 4330 0.342 596 0.943 310 0.6672
19 135 0.8803 311 0.6333 625 1.2124
20 1643 0.5182 591 1.1669 3564 0.9608
21 591 0.652 3575 0.3759 627 1.2042
22 3576 0.4021 630 0.6425 3566 0.5193
23 3560 0.4095 309 0.5719 3765 0.5532
24 3572 0.4011 629 0.7091 4524 6.8206
25 310 0.3498 1754 0.3981 3570 0.7636
26 602 0.1863 3563 0.5912 544 0.5621
27 3561 0.358 685 1.6946 641 1.541
28 2398 4.8545 1644 0.5639 3559 0.7827
29 307 0.4358 3573 0.5668 4351 1.2424
30 629 0.5713 1643 0.602 4330 1.0626
31 2426 2.5345 1741 1.3819 629 1.915
32 2423 0.5898 559 0.9109 4328 1.8254
33 3562 0.4914 3568 0.4178 306 0.7996
34 4340 1.087 10 1.0213 3578 0.6671
158
35 3575 0.4151 627 0.4501 307 0.665
36 596 0.4296 2389 0.6994 3575 0.7899
37 625 0.2556 3562 0.6308 606 2.5602
38 543 0.8943 308 0.529 4316 1.1752
39 3568 0.4369 4328 0.6798 546 2.5129
40 3574 0.4981 3578 0.4845 602 0.6819
41 606 0.3263 4316 0.4875 1754 0.7525
42 306 0.3312 3559 0.4351 34 1.2101
43 308 0.3887 3561 0.682 1741 2.2114
44 309 0.3497 3577 0.468 4150 0.7636
45 3559 0.3891 310 0.459 630 1.6432
46 641 0.6028 306 0.4698 212 0.3314
47 3566 0.3415 3576 0.5379 3560 0.7854
48 3578 0.3344 8487 0.645 312 0.5261
49 3567 0.4181 3560 0.4292 3562 0.9024
50 3571 0.2543 3564 0.5907 543 1.7519
51 3573 0.3911 2426 3.6486 3576 0.6551
159

Final M.Tech Thesis - Asim Bashir (Roll No. 14210022) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final M.Tech Thesis - Asim Bashir (Roll No. 14210022) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS OF

GUJARAT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON SEISMIC

In the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GANDHINAGAR

Figure 2.9 Contour of response spectral acceleration (cm/s2) corresponding to frequency of 1 Hz

Figure 3.8 Sample deaggregation of hazard curve (USGS, 2014) ............................................... 35

Figure 5.9 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Himatnagar city............................................... 65

Figure 5.20 Comparison of Hazard curve various cities in Gujarat ............................................ 70

Figure 5.25 Spectral shapes obtained for Gujarat region ............................................................ 77

Figure 5.27 Idealized mean plus ζ design spectrum .................................................................... 78

Figure 5.28 Idealized mean plus 1.67 ζ design spectrum ............................................................ 79

Figure 5.29 Idealized mean plus 2 ζ design spectrum ................................................................. 80

Figure 5.30 Idealized mean plus 3 ζ design spectrum ................................................................. 80

Figure 5.36 Proposed spectral shapes for Gujarat region ........................................................... 85

Table 4.4 Seismicity parameters for Gujarat region .................................................................... 47

1.3 Organization of thesis

2.3 Seismicity and seismotectonic set-up of Gujarat

Figure 2.2 Active fault map of Kutch

2.4.2 Yadav et al. (2008)

2.4.3 Thaker et al. (2012)

2.4.5 Thaker and Rao (2014)

2.4.6 Chopra et al. (2013)

2.4.7 J. C. Shukla (2012)

parameter of interest P( pga  pga | m, r ) .

3.2.2 Characterization of earthquake size (size uncertainty):

This PDF given in equation

For practical PSHA calculations, we generally convert the continuous distribution of

3.2.3 Characterization of earthquake distances (Spatial uncertainty):

3.2.4 Prediction of ground motion intensity (Effect Uncertainty):

ln IM  l n IM (M , R, )   (M , R, ). (3.7)

 ( IM  x)    ( M  mmin )   P( IM  x | m, r ) f Mi (m) f Ri (r ) dr dm (3.11)

3.2.6 Exceedance probabilities for various return periods (Temporal uncertainty):

In a Poisson process, the probability of a random variable, N, representing the number of

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis enables calculation of annual rates of exceedance of

(a). 0.2 second deaggregation (b) 1.0 second deaggregation

Figure 3.8 Sample deaggregation of hazard curve (USGS, 2014)

3.4 Uniform Hazard Spectrum

4.2.1 Stepp’s method

0.500 y = -0.689x + 2.789

Figure 4.6 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Kutch region

Figure 4.7 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region

Figure 4.8 Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relationship for Saurashtra region

Region G-R relation a-value b-value R2

Kutch LogN = 2.79 - 0.69 Mw 2.79 0.69 0.93

Saurashtra LogN = 3.14 - 0.88 Mw 3.14 0.88 0.95

Mainland Gujarat LogN = 2.90 - 0.82 Mw 2.90 0.82 0.92

N= cumulative number of earthquake of given magnitude; Mw = Earthquake Moment Magnitude

4.3.1 Estimation of b-value using Maximum likelihood estimate

f M (m)   .e  ( mm0 ) (4.5)

Following this fundamental equation for magnitude distribution,

1 F-1 184.81 5.1

  0.71l  1.56 (4.9)

As already discussed earlier, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis involves the

5.2 Delineation of seismic sources

5.3 Ground Motion Prediction Equation

1. Atkinson & Boore (2006)

3. Pezeshk, Zandieh, & Tavakoli (2011)

4. Toro et al. (1997)

6. Sumer Chopra & Choudhury (2011)

5.4 Seismic hazard computation for some important cities in Gujarat

Figure 5.3 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Ahmedabad city

Figure 5.4 Estimated Seismic Hazard Curve for Anand city