Major Report Final PDF

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARDS ANALYSIS OF
MADHUBANI AND SITAMARHI DISTRICT
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Technology
In
Civil Engineering
By
Sanu Kumar Chaudhary (1603065)
Divyanshu Singh (1603066)
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Patna – 800005
Page | i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our profound gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. AVIJIT

BURMAN, Department of CIVIL Engineering, NIT-Patna for introducing the
present topic and for their inspiring guidance, constructive criticism and
valuable suggestion throughout the project work.
Last but not least, our sincere thanks to all the friends who have
patiently extended all sorts of help for accomplishing this undertaking.
SANU KUMAR CHAUDHARY (1603065)

DIVYANSHU SINGH (1603066)
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Patna - 800005
Page | ii
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PATNA
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis of
Madhubani and Sitamarhi district” submitted by SANU KUMAR CHAUDHARY &
DIVYANSHU SINGH in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of
Technology degree in Civil Engineering at National Institute of Technology, Patna is an authentic
work carried out by them under my supervision and guidance. To the best of my knowledge, the
matter embodied in the report has not been submitted to any other University/Institute for the
award of any Degree.
Date: 23/05/2020 Prof. Avijit Burman

Dept. of Civil Engineering
Patna - 800005
Page | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Acknowledgement ii
Certificate iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 PGA and its importance 2
1.3 Brief history of earthquake 3
1.4 Why the Bihar Nepal region is so active 4
1.5 Probabilistic seismic hazards analysis (PSHA) 5
1.6 Deterministic seismic hazards analysis (DSHA) 5
1.7 Importance of the PSHA study 5
1.8 Arrangement of the report 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review 8

2.1 Introduction 8
Chapter 3: Methodology 12
3.1 Introduction 12
3.2 Data and Materials 13
3.3 Data collection 13
3.4 Identification and evaluation of earthquake sources 14
3.5 Why we choose PSHA over DSHA 15
3.6 Steps of DSHA 15
3.7 Variability in the design event 16
3.8 Variability of ground motion intensity for given earthquake 18
3.9 Using deterministic approach in presence of uncertainities 19
3.10 Probabilistic Seismic hazards analysis calculation 20
3.11Earthquake source characterization 22
3.12 Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law 26
3.13 Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law 27
3.14 Predictive relationships 30
3.15 Probability computations 31
3.16 Annual rate of exceedance calculation 32
Chapter 4: Study Area 33
4.1 Introduction 33
4.2 Climate 34
4.3 Geomorphology 34
4.4 Soils 35
Page | iv
4.5 Depth of water level 35
4.6 Population Census 35
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 36
5.1 Seismicity of the area 36
5.2 Liquifaction records of the area 37
5.3 Seismotectonics of Bihar-Nepal border 43
5.4 Discussion on seismogenic sources 47
5.5 PSHA results 49
Chapter 6: Conclusions 94
References 95
Page | v
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
1. Table 5.1: Seismic data for the study area 39

2. Table 5.2: Seismotectonic sources in the study area 44
3. Table 5.3: Details of Seismotectonic sources in the study area 45
4. Table 5.4: Variation of magnitude of PGA with distance of MFT source 52
5. Table 5.5: Variation of magnitude of standard normal variable with 53
distance of MFT source
6. Table 5.6: Variation of magnitude of probability that peak acceleration 54
greater than 0.1g with distance of MFT source
7. Table 5.7: Variation of magnitude of annual rate of exceedance of peak 55
acceleration of 0.1g with distance of MFT source
8. Table 5.8: Mean annual rate of exceedance of all the sources for different 56
peak ground acceleration
9. Table 5.9: Return period(T) in years for all the sources 58
10. Table 5.10: Mean annual rate of exceedance and return period for 91
different target PGA
Page | vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
No.
Fig 1.1 Plot of Earthquakes (M>=5.0) From IMD catalogue from 1800 to 2015 (GSI) 3
Fig 1.2 Figure 1.2 Movement of Indian Plates under the Eurasian plate 4
(a) Map view of indicated side , with two source around which are capable of 16
earthquake
Fig 3.1 (b) Median response spectra which are predicted from the two earthquakes,
shows that the event which produces the maximum response spectra may change
depending upon the interest period (prediction obtain from the model of
Campbell and Bozorgnia 2008)
Fig 3.2 Example site at the center of an area source, with potential earthquakes at 17
zero distance from the site.
Fig 3.3 Observed spectral acceleration values from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 19
earthquake, illustrating variability in ground motion intensity. The
predicted distribution comes from the model of Campbell and Bozorgnia
Fig 3.4 Four steps of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis 22
Fig 3.5 Examples of different source zone geometries 23
Fig 3.6 Examples of variations of source-to-site distance for different source zone 24
geometries
Fig 3.7 Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law, showing meaning of a and b parameters 27
Fig 3.8 Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence laws curve 29
Fig 3.9 Schematic illustration of conditional probability of exceeding a particular value 31

of a ground motion parameter for a given magnitude and distance
Fig 4.1 Topographical map of Sitamarhi 34
Fig 5.1 Map of the study region situated in zone iv 36
Fig 5.2 Epicentre site of earthquake and its after effects along MCT 37
Fig 5.3 Liquefaction alongside curved ruptures creating a bow and arrow shaped (left) & 38
dissolved sand surrounding the paddy ground in Madhubani District, Bihar
Page | vii
Fig 5.4 Chart showing the frequency vs Mb of earthquake magnitude > 4.5 41
Fig 5.5 Gutenberg- Richter reccurence law showing meaning of a and b parameters 42
Fig 5.6 Map showing different faults and lineaments of the study area 48
Fig 5.7 Approximation to source to site probability distribution of MFT source 50
Fig 5.8 Approximation to magnitude probability distribution for MFT source 51
Fig 5.9 Probabilities of different magnitude for each source area 60

to Fig
5.132
Page | viii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Natural disasters are disasters of nature due to some natural causes and effects. These are
a phenomenon which is hazardous to the society and the environment as it depends on a
plethora of causes which can’t be accurately predicted by available technologies. Natural
disasters like Earthquake leads to an unavoidable damages and destruction all-around. With
advancement of technology, man has tried to fight with these natural disasters in various
forms such as the development of disaster systems with early warnings, selecting new
prevention techniques.
But unluckily, it is not enough for all natural calamities. Earthquakes are such a
disaster which is associated with continuous tectonic process; it all of a sudden comes for
seconds and destroys lives and properties. So, strategy of prevention and reduction of
earthquake disaster is a global concern today. Proper planning, which is a component of
disaster management is required to combat with any disaster.
Earthquakes are phenomenon or natural disasters that occur below the earth’s
surface which discharges a high amount of energy owing to different impacts such as
continental drifts, convergent, subduction, divergent and transform boundaries. This
energy travels in the form of seismic waves, which are then diffracted, refracted, reflected,
attenuated and amplified. It undergoes acceleration when the ground vibrates during an
earthquake. Peak acceleration during the earthquake, recorded by a specific station is the
largest increase in velocity.
Peak ground accelerations (PGA) are generated by bidirectional ground movement
in vertical and horizontal directions (perpendicular and parallel to the direction of
propagation of wave) during seismic excitations. The faults length, earthquake magnitude,
the subsurface geology and the distance between the fault and the study area determine the
amplitude of PGA and how fast its impact will be its effect will be observed in remote
locations
1
The ground motion prediction equations are Attenuation relations that include the
parameters such as maximum values of: Velocity, acceleration, displacement predominant
period response spectra time of vibration of ground etc. These depend on statistical
approach performed on a huge number of records that describe the nature of variation of
amplitude when an earthquake happens with a particular magnitude at a specified distance
away from the fault.
1.2 PGA AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the highest ground acceleration which has been
occurred during the earthquake tremor in one place. PGA is the amplitude recorded in an
accelerogram for the site Special earthquake during the largest absolute acceleration.
Earthquake trembling usually occurs in all three spatial directions. Thus, the PGA is often
divided by horizontal and vertical components. Compared to the vertical direction
horizontal PGA is typically larger, but this is not always the case, especially for a major
earthquake.
In Earthquake engineering, the PGA is an important parameter which is also
referred as a measure of intensity. PGA is used to assess the effects of earthquakes, which
are strong enough to cause destruction of environments, properties and lives. It is normally
plotted on seismic hazard maps. Key identified structures (such as bridges, power plants,
and hospitals) are needed to resist the maximum credible earthquake (MCE). PGA values
are used to determine the suitable earthquake loading for structural analysis and design by
the earthquake engineers and government planning departments in each zone. PGA values
are also key requirement for evaluation of liquefaction potential of a particular site.
To incorporate the attenuation features of a region generally peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is referred. Design of Earthquake resistant Structures and services
involves the evaluation of ground trembling level which they will resist subsequently. The
PGA values obtained can be used to produce shake maps, develop response spectra and
calculate liquefaction potential for the region.
2
1.3 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EARTHQUAKE
Himalayan regions have faced many high magnitude earthquakes and are still experiencing
them. Some examples are: Nepal earthquake (April, 2015), Sikkim (2011), Indo-Pakistan
(2005), Jabalpur (1997), Killari (1993), Assam earthquake of 1950; 1934 & 19889Bihar-
Nepal9earthquake, and Kangra earthquake of 1905 with their foreshocks and aftershocks
which caused huge destruction and loss of lives and property. For all these earthquakes
considerable liquefaction were observed at various sites.
In Bihar Nepal earthquake of 1934 and 1988 large fissures were formed, with many places
suffering tilting of grounds and sinking of supports of buildings. Whole Sitamarhi District
was destroyed, not a single building was left straight. It is essential to study the strong
ground motion parameters needed to assess site-specific peak ground acceleration for
distinct kinds of research such as region-specific response spectrum growth, site
liquefaction potential, and to prepare the study area seismic micro-zonation maps. Of the
11 Bihar counties, 15.2% of the region is in zone V, 63.7% in zone IV, and 21.1% in zone
III. In 247 years, Bihar has suffered nearly 10 high magnitude 5.5-8.5 earthquakes on the
Richter scale (ML).
Fig.1.1 Plot of Earthquakes (M>=5.0) From IMD catalogue from 1800 to 2015 (GSI).
3
1.4 WHY THE BIHAR NEPAL REGION IS SO ACTIVE?
The north Indian subcontinent is defined by a great arc of mountainous consisting of the
Himalayas of Nepal, Hindu Kush, and Pataki ranges due to the Tectonic collision of the
Indian plate, a major tectonic plate which was formed when its break off from the ancient
Gondwanaland and Eurasian plates. When two plates of continental lithosphere collide,
collisional boundaries led to the formation of fold-thrust mountain belts. This process is
called folding. Himalayas is an example of such fold mountain ranges. Here, the
earthquakes are caused due to the thrust faulting and the depth of the earthquake varies
from shallow depth to about 200 km. In 2007, it was found out by geologists of Germany
that the Indian plate is only half as thick as the other plates which formerly constituted
Gondwanaland, so Indian plate is able to move very quickly.
The modern border between India and Nepal having the Eurasian plate collision
forms the orogenic region that produced the Tibetan plateau and the Himalayas. As the
India plate is drifting north-east at 5 cm/yr (2 in./ year), the Eurasian plate moves north to
only 2 cm/yr (0.8in / yr). India is therefore known as the "fastest continent". This causes
the deformation of Euroasiatic plate and Indian plate and compression at a rate of 4 cm/yr
(1.6 in./yr).The border areas of Bihar-Nepal border are located in the high seismic zone at
the boundary of a tectonic plate connecting the Himalayan tectonic plate. It has six
subsurface faults, whose strike slip fault lines penetrate the Gangetic planes in four
directions.
Fig.1.2 Movement of Indian plates under the Eurasian Plate.
4
1.5 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)
The process now referred to as Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) (although
‘‘assessment” is sometime used instead of ‘‘analysis”) depends to a great extent on work
by Cornell (1968). The use of probabilistic ideas over the previous 20 to 30 years has taken
into consideration the uncertainties in the size, place and frequency of repetition of
earthquakes and the variety of ground movement features with the size and position of the
earthquake in seismic hazard analysis. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) offers
a system for recognizing, quantifying and combining these uncertainties in a rational
approach to provide a more comprehensive image of the seismic hazard. Understanding
PSHA's concepts and mechanism needs understanding of the terminology and basic ideas
of probability theory.
1.6 DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

In the early years of geotechnical earthquake engineering, the utilization of deterministic
seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) was common. A deterministic seismic hazard analysis
(DSHA) includes the improvement of specific seismic scenario on which the assessment
of the risks of ground motion is based. The situation comprises of the postulated occurrence
of an earthquake of a predetermined size occurring at a predetermined location.
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) is a useful process particularly where
reasonably active and well-defined tectonic features are available to determine the
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) motion at the site and decide the earthquake ground
motions, which will be utilized in the design of the structure. Contrary to the intensification
of seismic events in deterministic hazard assessment approach, probabilistic method takes
into account the probable dispersion of magnitudes of earthquake in each source, the
credible distances inside the source where earthquakes could be triggered and distribution
of acceleration estimated by means of attenuation equations. The occurrence of
earthquakes is usually considered as a Poisson procedure in this methodology.
1.7 IMPORTANCE OF THE PSHA STUDY

Geotechnical earthquake engineering research needs an knowledge of the different
mechanisms through which earthquakes happen and their impacts on ground motion. There
5
are parameters of ground movement like peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity,
moment magnitude, peak displacement. Earthquake-generated ground movements can be
quite complex. At a specified stage, three translation parts and three rotation parts can fully
describe them. In practice, rotational elements are generally ignored; the most common
measurements are three orthogonal elements of translation movement. Probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is an appropriate technique to accurately convey all of this
data. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis gives us all the uncertainties or probabilities in
these parameters of ground motion. By adopting PSHA we can calculate all the hazards by
an earthquake. Although earthquakes are complex phenomena so we have to calculate all
the parameters.
1.8 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT

The dissertation has been dressed in a systematic manner in sections and appendices.
Chapter 1: It describes about the analysis of natural disasters, Introduction of the

earthquakes, and ground motion parameters study related with peak ground acceleration
and its importance. The problem definition completely elaborates about the penury of the
study, while research objective answers the need of the student.
Chapter 2: This chapter deals with the Literature review of the past seismic hazard study
of the regions. Some of the work of different researcher all-round the globe for the
Himalayan regions has been exemplified in the divisions with limited accent on their
conclusions and outcomes of their determinations.
Chapter 3: This chapter deals with the methods and methodology used for the evaluation
of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using attenuation relationships proposed by Jain et
al. (2000) for center Himalayan regions and steps involved in probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis as well as brief method of deterministic seismic hazards analysis.
Chapter 4: Gives a brief description of the site Sitamarhi and its soils, geological features,
geomorphology, climate, rainfall, depth of water table.
Chapter 5: This chapter deals with the Results and Discussion about the history of
earthquakes, various zones of earthquake in India, seismicity of Bihar-Nepal region ground
motions study for different types of seismotectonic sources, results of the probabilistic
6
seismic hazard calculation like peak ground acceleration, annual rate of exceedance and
return period for all the sources.
Chapter 6: This chapter deals with final summary of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
calculation along with outcome of the PSHA method.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Estimating ground motion from likely earthquakes depends entirely on site-specific
research of seismic hazard assessment. Different scientists have created the assessment of
peak ground accelerations using attenuation relationships for distinct areas and many such
extensive reviews for such empirical relationships have been published (Boore and Joyner,
1982; Campbell, 1985; Abrahamson and Lithehiser, 1989; Fukushima and Tanaka, 1990).
As the region of Nepal Bihar is susceptible to earthquakes, so ground motion study is
needed.
Because of its active tectonic setting, quite a few seismic hazard studies have been
performed for the Himalayan region, which includes research by Anbazhagan et al. (2015),
Verma et al. (2014), Kumar et al. (2013), Mohan and Joshi (2011), Nath et al. (2009), etc.
Each research involves the use of various attenuation relationships based on certain seismic
zone characterization assumptions. This section summarizes the main features and
disadvantages of earlier studies.
Dasgupta et al (1987) interpreted the satellite pictures of the middle Himalayas
and suggested the continuity of many transverse faults or lineaments from Himalaya to its
foredeep. The shear motion of these faults from geologic records and focal mechanism
solutions, relates to the classical stress model which is applied to northward movement of
India below the Himalayan collision front.
In this region, using seismicity information from 1800 to 1982, Khattri (1987)
recognized a seismic gap between the rupture areas of two major Kangra (1905) and Nepal-
Bihar (1934) earthquakes, known as Central Gap, in which no major earthquake has been
encountered for at least 200 years. He argued that this region is a potential scenario for
major seismic activity in the future.
Abrahamson and Lithehiser (1989) gave the relations for the PGA as:
log10 ah  0.62  0.177M  0.982* log10 (r  e( 0.284*M) )  0.132F  0.008Er (2.1)
8
where a h (g) is horizontal peak ground acceleration, M is the magnitude in Ms, r is the
distance in Km to the nearest energy release zone, F is the dummy variable that is 1 for
reverse or reverse oblique faults and 0 otherwise and E is a dummy variable is 1 for
interplate region and 0 for intraplate regions.
Singh et.al (1996)
log10 ah  1.14  0.31M  0.615log10 R (2.2)
Where R is the hypo-central distance from the source and a h is in cm/sec2.

Earthquake records from 1986 – 1993 were taken in the survey. Note there were
misprint errors in the abstract. Data were collected from three earthquakes with, mb = 7.2
one with mb = 5.8 and one with mb = 5.7 and then Adopting magnitude scaling factor
(0.31) from Boore (1983).
Sharma (2000) used regression analysis to propose the relationships provided to
PGA. Using PGA (vertical) values reported at 66 stations from five earthquakes, this
empirical relationship was assessed. This attenuation relationship has been proposed for
Himalayan regions and needs to be modified if more and more information are accessible
on strong ground motion for the area
log10 ah  1.072  ( 0.3903M) 1.21* log10 (X  e( 0.5873*M) ) (2.3)
where a h the peak ground horizontal acceleration (g), M is the magnitude and X is the
hypo-central distance from the source. The test of vertical to horizontal PGA recommends
more investigations are needed for a bigger data set.
Jain et al. (2000) gave a Simple model and regression method because of restricted
data.
log e ah = b1 +b2 M +b3 R +b4 * log e (R) (2.4)
where ah is in g, for central Himalayan earthquakes b1  4.135 , b2  0.647 ,
b3  0.00142 , b4  0.753 and   0.59 and for non-subduction earthquakes in N.E.
India b1  3.443 , b2  0.706 , b3  0 , b4  0.828 and   0 .

Statistics of strong-motion accelerographs (SMA) were used and changed from
structural response recorders (SRR), that contain six seismoscopes having natural periods
9
of 1.25s, 0.75s and 0.40s and damping levels of 5 and 10%. The translation was achieved
by developing spectral amplification factors (ratio of response ordinate and PGA) using
SMA recordings close to SRR, proving that these components were autonomous of length.
From the six spectral ordinates, the mean of the six assessments of PGA from each SRR is
then used as PGA values. PGA values are then checked for quality through statistical
comparisons and inconsistent values are discarded.
Kumar et al. (2004a) recognized four significant regions of inconsistent residual
intensities (IC>2). These areas fall around Sitamarhi town in the Lesser Himalaya and the
Sub Himalaya, close to Dehradun and Mikir hills in Assam and Monger-Saharsa ridge in
Bihar. These regions are classified by subsurface massif and undulating basement
topography and raise in the form of ridges and generally show high Bouguer gravity
irregularities. It looks like the topography of the cellar impacts the anomalous intensities
of the experiment. In these components of anomalous intensities, the estimated peak
accelerations at bedrock level should be changed while evaluating seismic hazard analysis.
Nath et al (2009): PGA has been estimated in the Guwahati region using the
modeling of four earthquakes situations. DSHA study of the region is done and the
maximum earthquake expected to be emerging from epicenter has been considered for the
estimations. It is always observed that the regions with high acceleration are related to
those of high site amplification, which means that site amplification is the major hazard-
deciding factor. Moreover, directivity effects could not be established due to the
overwhelming influence of the site amplification on the estimated peak ground
acceleration. In the 1897 Shillong earthquake source region site-specific spatial PGA
distributions estimated depict a maximum of 1.27g for the projected MW 8.7 at. In
addition, regions of high PGA (>1 g) are observed to be associated with Bordang surface
that relates to lower prevalent frequency (< 1.0 Hz) and lower shear wave velocity for 30-
m depth profiles (Vs 30) in the range of 240–280 m/s. However, PGA distribution due to
the Nepal Bihar earthquake source of magnitude MW 8.4 is no less hazardous in seismic
terms with maximum PGA of 0.25g and MMI VIII in the part. The high intensity estimated
for these earthquakes may be ascribed to the consideration of scenario/maximum
magnitude as good as local site effects. Ultimately, a site-specific attenuation relationship
10
has been worked out that tin be utilized for the prediction of PGA in the region at a denser
network.
log e ah  9.143  0.247 M  0.014 10  M   2.697 ln  rrup  32.9458e0.663M  (2.5)

3
Mohan and Joshi (2011) used the methodology provided by Joshi and Patel (1997)
to develop seismic risk maps for the seismically active northeastern Himalayas. The
attenuation relationships of Joyner and Boore (1981), Abrahamson and Lithehiser (1989)
Jain et al. (2000) and Sharma (2000) were considered in the work. This topic shows that
the selection of an attenuation relationship for any hazard analysis for a consecrated region
requires different tests to be finished.
Kumar et al. (2013) carried out seismic hazard studies of the Dehradun city in
terms of peak ground acceleration which is located in a extremely seismic area in the
Himalayan foothills. Sharma (2000) attenuation model estimated PGA to be 0.334 g and
Abrahamson and Lithehiser (1989) attenuation model to be 0.475 g.
Anbazhagan et al. (2014) estimated seismic hazard value of Patna city in Bihar.
Such information are collected for the seismic study area (SSA) of 500 km radius of Patna
city taking into account particular seismotectonic parameters such as SSA, peak moment
magnitude M w and Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPEs). The study shows site-
specific design spectrum and seismic hazard map for Patna district both probabilistically
and deterministically taking site-specific information. The maximum magnitude for each
source has been assessed by studying three methods, i.e., Kijko method, incremental
method and local rupture-based parameters and then taking the maximum one. The
outcome was somewhat more sophisticated than previous research and would be further
used to approximate the Patna district microzonation parameter.
11
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes that happen beneath the surface of earth are natural phenomena or disaster and
which releases large quantity of energy owing to different activities like transform,
continental drifts, convergent, divergent boundaries and subduction and moves in the form
of seismic wave, that are diffracted, amplified, refracted, reflected, and attenuated. At the
time of earthquake ground vibrates which experience acceleration. Peak acceleration which
was recorded during the earthquake by a specific station is the largest increase in velocity.
Due to two way movement of ground in horizontal and vertical direction (i.e.
parallel and perpendicular to wave propagation direction) during earthquake excitations
which caused the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The magnitude of earthquake, the
subsurface geology, length of the faults, and the distance between the fault and the study
region determine its amplitude and how quickly the impacts will be felt in remote locations.
Attenuation relationships are in the form of ground motion forecast equations that
include parameters such as maximum values of: velocity, acceleration and displacement of
predominant period response spectrum length of ground shaking etc. These are conducted
on a large number of records based on statistical approach which tells about the activities
of change in amplitude when an earthquake happens at a specified distance away from the
fault with a certain magnitude.
The risk to human job from earthquakes in many parts of the globe is adequate to
take due account of the buildings and amenities design. The aim of earthquake – resistant
design is to produce an installation or structure that can resist certain quantities of
earthquake without unnecessary damage.
The shaking level is clarified by a ground movement model that can be classified
by parameters of ground motion design. One of the most challenging and significant issues
12
connected with geotechnical earthquake engineering is the description of ground motion
parameters. Most of the challenges in designing ground movement requirements stem from
its inevitable dependence on subjective choices. These choices mainly revolve around
defining the limit between excessive and acceptable harm and the place, time and size
uncertainty of future earthquakes.
3.2 DATA AND MATERIALS
The basic information regarding seismic hazard analysis for the Sitamarhi region is as
follows:-
 Geotechnical data, which include
i) Unit weight, ii) Cohesion, iii) Fines content, iv) Tube well/Bore hole data which
include the information of different soil layers, and their thickness for different
locations and v) SPT Test data.
 Earthquake Data to be collected from IMD, New Delhi and GSI, 2000 from 1909-
2015.
 Distance measured from seismogenic sources (Faults, Thrusts) to the site, Sitamarhi
from GSI, 2000.
 Depth to bedrock level for different locations.
 Faults, lineaments and ridge length/areas taken from Seismotectonic Atlas of India,
GSI, 2000.
 Water table Variation data based on monsoon (Central Ground Water Board,
Ministry of Water Resources (Govt. of India) Mid-Eastern Region, Patna).
3.3 DATA COLLECTION
 Classification and identification of 38 seismotectonic sources (faults).

 Information is taken for the list of earthquakes from Indian meteorological
Department IMD, New Delhi catalogue from 1909-2015.
 SPT N values were taken from Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.
 Measuring the seismotectonic source fault length from the Seismotectonic Atlas of
India from Geological survey of India.
13
3.4 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE
SOURCES
To assess seismic risks for a specific site or region, it is necessary to identify all possible
sources of seismic activity and assess their ability to generate strong ground motion in the
future. Identification of seismic sources involves some detective work; it is necessary to
observe and interpret the indications of nature, some of which are evident and others quite
obscure.
The accessibility of contemporary seismographs and seismographic networks has
made it rather easy to observe and interpret present earthquakes. Hundreds of seismographs
around the globe are now recording the event of a large earthquake. Within hours,
seismologists can determine their magnitude, identify their rupture surface, and even assess
the parameters of the source. It is virtually impossible for a major earthquake to go
undetected anywhere in the world in the 1990s.
The present capacity to recognize and locate all sources of earthquake is a
comparatively latest development, especially when compared to the time scales that
generally involve large earthquakes. The fact that in a particular area no strong motions
have been instrumentally recorded does not guarantee that they will not occur in the past
and they will not occur in the future. Other indications of earthquake activity need to be
found in the lack of an instrumental seismic record. These can take the form of geological
and tectonic proof, or historical seismicity (pre-instrumental).
1. Geologic Evidence
2. Fault Activity
3. Magnitude Indicators
4. Tectonic Evidence
5. Historical Seismicity
6. Instrumental Seismicity
14
3.5 WHY WE CHOOSE PSHA OVER DSHA
Two types of analysis procedure are used for seismic hazard analysis, one is a Deterministic
Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) and another is Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(PSHA). These are two basic approaches to seismic hazard analysis. Both use the same
basic body of information to determine what the “design earthquake” should be. The main
difference is that the probabilistic approach systematically examines the uncertainties and
includes the likelihood of an actual earthquake exceeding the design ground motion. All
of the elements of a deterministic analysis are included in the probabilistic approach.
3.6 STEPS OF DSHA

1. Identifying and characterizing all sources of earthquake capable of producing significant
ground motion at the site. Characterization of the source includes definition of the
geometry (source zone) of each source and the potential for earthquake.
2. Selection for each source area of a source-to-site distance parameter. The shortest
distance from the source zone to the site of concern is chosen in most DSHAs. Depending
on the range measurement of the predictive interactions used in the following phase, the
distance can be expressed as an epicentral distance or hypocentric distance.
3. Choice of the governing earthquake (i.e., the earthquake supposed to generate the highest
amount of shaking), usually expressed at the site in terms of some parameter of ground
motion. The choice is made by analyzing the levels of earthquake shaking (identified in
step 1) that are expected to happen at the distances mentioned in step 2. The controlling
earthquake is described in terms of size (usually expressed as magnitude) and distance from
the site.
4. The site hazard is officially described, generally as to the ground motion generated by
the controlling earthquake at the site. Its characteristics are usually described by one or
more ground movement parameters obtained from maximum acceleration, peak velocity,
and ordinates of response spectrum. Predictive relationships are often used to characterize
the seismic hazard.
15
3.7 VARIABILITY IN THE DESIGN EVENT
A developer searching for a worst-case ground movement would first want to search for
the maximum case of magnitude that could happen at the nearest possible fault. This is
easy to state in theory, but in reality there are several problems. Consider first the
hypothetical site shown in Fig.3.1(a), situated 10 km from a fault capable of generating a
6.5 max. earthquake. It is also 30 km from a fault that can produce 7.5 earthquakes in
magnitude. Figure 3.1(b) shows the expected median reaction spectra from these two
occurrences. As seen in that figure, the neighboring incident of small magnitude generates
bigger amplitudes of spectral acceleration at brief phases, but at lengthy periods the event
of bigger magnitude generates bigger amplitudes. So, while one might take the two spectra
envelope, there is no single "worst-case" event that produces the maximum amplitudes of
spectral acceleration at all times.
Fig.3.1: (a) Map view of an indicated site, with two sources around which are capable of
producing earthquakes. (b) Median response spectra which are predicted from the two
earthquakes, shows that the event which produces the maximum response spectra may
change depending upon the interest period (prediction obtain from the model of Campbell
and Bozorgnia 2008)
While the site shown in Figure 3.1(a) presents some difficulties in defining a worst-case
incident, there are even higher difficulties when faults close a site are not evident and the
16
seismic source is quantified as an aerial source capable of generating earthquakes at any
site, as shown in Figure 3.2. The worst-case incident in this case must be the one with the
highest conceivable magnitude at a place immediately below the site of concern (i.e. 0 km
away). This is obviously the highest event, regardless of how unlikely it may be to occur.
For instance, one can quite possibly hypothesize the occurrence of magnitude 7.5 or 8
earthquakes instantly below a site in areas of the Eastern United States, particularly near
previous Charleston or New Madrid earthquakes, although that event may happen very
rarely.
Fig.3.2: Example site at the center of an area source, with potential earthquakes at zero
distance from the site. (Source: Baker, 2008).
17
3.8 VARIABILITY OF GROUND MOTION INTENSITY FOR A
GIVEN EARTHQUAKE EVENT
While choosing a "worst-case" earthquake can be hard and subjective, as mentioned in the
prior chapter, choosing the worst-case ground motion intensity associated with that
earthquake is an even higher issue with deterministic risk assessment. The reaction spectra
plotted in Figure 3.2 is the spectra of median1 predicted by empirical models calibrated to
ground motion recorded. But the ground motion recorded shows a very large quantity of
distribution around these median predictions. By definition, in 50 percent of observed
ground motions with the given magnitudes and distances, the median predictions shown in
Figure 3.1(b) are exceeded.
An instance of the big scatter around these models of ground motion prediction is shown
in Fig. 3.3, showing 1-second spectral acceleration values found in a previous earthquake
(1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan), plotted versus the nearest distance from the earthquake rupture to
the recording site. Note that observations ranging from 0.15 g to more than 1 g at distances
between 1 and 3 km— almost an order of magnitude. The mean predicted lnSA values are
also plotted along with boundaries that illustrate a standard deviation above and below that
mean. A normal distribution (leading to symmetric scatter in Fig 3.3, which is plotted in
logarithmic scale) well represents the scattering of the log of spectral accelerations around
the mean prediction. If the variations are normally distributed, the one-standard-deviation
boundaries should include about 2/3 of the observed values, and that is the case here.
Deterministic hazard analyzes sometimes indicate a response spectrum of "mean plus one
normal deviation" to account for this scatter, but even that will exceed 16 percent of the
time2. Because the scatter is normally distributed, the amplitude of ground motion that
could be generated at a specified magnitude and distance does not have a theoretical upper
bound.
18
Fig.3.3: Observed spectral acceleration values from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan
earthquake, illustrating variability in ground motion intensity. The predicted distribution
comes from the model of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008)
3.9 USING DETERMINISTIC APPROACH IN THE PRESENCE OF

UNCERTAINITIES
Given these problems, it is evident that whatever deterministic design earthquake and
ground motion intensity is ultimately chosen, it is not a real "worst-case" occurrence, as a
bigger earthquake or ground motion can always be suggested plausibly. We are left to
define a "reasonably large" event without a real worst-case case to consider. Often this is
achieved by selecting a neighboring large-scale event and then identifying some amount of
sensible intensity connected with this case. While this sort of strategy can be used, two
problems should be made clear.1) The resulting ground motion is not a “worst-case”
ground motion. 2) The outcome may be very susceptible to choices on the scenario
magnitude and intensity of ground movement selected. Historically, an event selected in
this way was defined as a "Maximum Credible Earthquake," or MCE. However, more
19
lately, the acronym has been maintained but taken to mean "Maximum Considered
Earthquake," in recognition of the reality that bigger earthquakes (and greater intensities
of ground motion) are also likely to be credible. For the rest of the paper, this "worst-case"
thinking will be abandoned, although the issues recognized here will serve as a helpful
motive to think about options based on probability.
3.10PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS CALCULATION

In this section, we will define a framework based on probability that can address the above-
mentioned issues. With PSHA, we are no longer looking for an elusive intensity of the
worst-case ground motion. Instead, we will consider all possible earthquake occurrences
and subsequent ground motion, together with their related probabilities of occurrence, to
discover the ground motion intensity level surpassed with some tolerably small pace. This
strategy includes them in calculations of prospective ground motion intensity rather than
ignoring the uncertainties present in the issue. While incorporating uncertainties adds some
complexity to the operation, the resulting calculations are much more susceptible to use for
risk reduction in engineering decision making.
The end outcome of these calculations will be a complete distribution of ground

shaking intensity concentrations and their related excess rates. It will remove the illusion
of a worst-case ground motion and replace it with the identification of occurrence
frequencies for the complete spectrum of prospective interest ground motion intensities.
These results can then be used to identify an intensity of ground motion with an acceptably
low probability of being exceeded.
The PSHA can also be defined as a four-step method (Reiter, 1990), each of which is
somewhat similar to the DSHA steps.
3.10.1 STEPS OF PSHA

1. Firstly, identify and characterize sources of earthquake, is same as the 1st step of the
DSHA, also it is necessary to characterize the probability distribution within the source of
potential rupture locations. In most instances, each source zone is allocated uniform
distributions of probability, suggesting that earthquakes are similarly probable to happen
20
at any stage in the zone of source. These distributions are then mixed with the geometry of
the source to achieve the corresponding distribution of the probability of the distance from
source to site. On the other hand, the DSHA implicitly assumes that the probability of
occurrence is 1 at the points nearest to the site in each source zone, and zero elsewhere.
2. Next, it is necessary to characterize the seismicity or temporal distribution of recurrence
of the earthquake. The seismicity of each source area is characterized by a recurrence
relationship, which indicates the average rate at which an earthquake of some magnitude
will be surpassed. The recurrence link may accommodate the maximum size earthquake,
but it does not limit consideration of that earthquake, as DSHAs frequently do.
3. By using predictive interactions, the ground motion generated at the site by earthquakes
of any possible magnitude happening at any stage in each source zone must be determined.
The uncertainty inherent in the predictive relationship is also considered in a PSHA.
4. Finally, the uncertainties in location of earthquake, the size of the earthquake and the
prediction of the parameter of ground motion are united to achieve the probability that the
parameter of ground movement will be exceeded during a given period of time.
21
Fig.3.4: Four steps of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (Source: Kramer, 1996).
3.11 EARTHQUAKE SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Description of a source of earthquake involves analysis of the source’s spatial features and
the distribution of earthquakes within that source, the distribution of the size of the
earthquake for each source, and the distribution of earthquakes over time. There is some
degree of uncertainty in each of these features.
SPATIAL UNCERTAINTY
Unlike the deterministic thinking above, which concentrated only on the biggest possible
earthquake case, we are interested in all sources of earthquake that can produce harmful
ground motion at a site. These sources could be faults, typically planar surfaces recognized
by multiple means such as previous earthquake location observations and geological proof.
22
If individual failures are not recognizable (as in Eastern United States ' less seismically
active areas), then sources of earthquake can be defined by areal areas where earthquakes
can happen 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. For
the point source of Fig3.5 (a), the distance, R, is known to be r; consequently, the
probability that R  rs is assumed to be 1 and the probability that R  rs , zero. Other cases
are not as simple. For the linear source of Figure 3.5b, the probability that an earthquake
occurs on the small segment of the fault between L  l and L  l  dl is the same as the
probability that it occurs between R  r and R  r  dr ; that is, where fL (l ) and fR (r ) are the
probability density functions for the variables land R, respectively.
Fig.3.5 Examples of different source zone geometries: (a) short fault that can be modeled as a
point source; (b) shallow fault that can be modeled as a linear source; (c) three-dimensional
source zone. (Source: Kramer, 1996)
23
Fig.3.6 Examples of variations of source-to-site distance for different source zone geometries.
The shape of the probability distribution can be visualized by considering the relative portions of
the source zone that would fall between each of a series of circles (or spheres for three-
dimensional problems) with equal differences in radius (Source: Kramer, 1996).
dl
f R (r )  f L ( L) (3.1)
dr
If earthquakes are assumed to uniformly distributed over the length of the fault
l
f L (l )  since r 2  rmin
2
the probability density function of R is given by
Lf
dl
f R (r )  f L (l ) (3.2)
L f r 2  rmin
2
For source zones with more complex geometries, it is easier to evaluate f R  r  by
numerical rather than analytical methods. For example, dividing the irregular source zone
of Fig.3.3 into a large number of discrete elements of equal 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.

For the study area of Sitamarhi district we have identified and characterized all the sources
by the following procedure:-
1. Identification of forty seismotectonic sources within a radius of 400 km around the study
area of with respect to tectonic setting and regional seismicity in Seismotectonic Atlas of
India (GSI, 2000). The data were obtained from the site
www.portal.gsi.gov.in/gismap/seismotectonicmap. (as shown in Fig. 5.6)
24
2. Seismotectonic Atlas of India comprises1:1 million scale and 43 numbers of SEISAT
sheets of maps published by various researchers of Geological Survey of India (GSI), 2000
for various regions.
3. In the Seismotectonic Atlas of India (SEISAT),the positions of Supaul are not
prelocated. Therefore, measuring of closest distance from study area is not possible from
SEISAT.
4. ArcGis software is used for measurement of the distances of epicenters from the study
area. In this software, positions of Supaul have been located with the help of ArcMap
programme.
5. After that, epicentral distances of seismic sources (faults) were calculated forSupaul area
using measuring tool in the software.All the collected geotechnical data were projected on
the Geo-referenced map of the study area by creating point shape file.
6. Depth of bed-rock level, line of faults, lineaments and ridge length/areas data were
georeferenced and projected on the georeferenced seismic map with the help of Proximity
toolset of Point Distance tool (ArcGis software, version 10.3). This toolset is helps to find
the distances between seismogenic sources (i.e. faults, thrusts etc.) to the site.
SIZE UNCERTAINTY
Once a source of earthquake is recognized and its respective source zone distinguished, the
attention of the seismic hazard analyst is focused on assessing the sizes of earthquakes that
can be expected to generate the source zone. All source zones have a maximum magnitude
of earthquake that can not be surpassed; for some it can be big and for others it can be tiny.
In general, up to the peak earthquake, the source zone will generate earthquakes of
various sizes, with smaller earthquakes happening more frequently than bigger ones.
Aseismically, or in the form of earthquakes, the stress energy can be released. Assuming
that earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 to 9.0 release all strain energy and that the average fault
displacement is half of the maximum ground displacement. Slemmons (1982) illustrated
how the rate of movement was linked to the magnitude of the earthquake and the recurrence
interval. A recurrence law describes the distribution of earthquake sizes over a given period
of time. A basic assumption of PSHA is that the recurrence law obtained from past
seismicity is suitable for the prediction of future seismicity.
25
3.12 GUTENBERG-RICHTER RECURRENCE LAW
Gutenberg and Richter (1944) collected information over a period of many years for
southern California earthquakes and organized the information according to the number of
earthquakes that surpassed various magnitudes during that era. They divided the number
of exceedance of each magnitude by the length of time to define a mean annual rate of
exceedance, Am of an earthquake of magnitude m. As expected, small earthquakes mean
annual rate of exceedance is higher than that of large earthquakes. The reciprocal of the
annual rate of exceedance for a specific magnitude is commonly referred to as the
earthquake “return period” exceeding that magnitude. When the logarithm of the annual
rate of exceedance of southern California earthquakes was plotted against earthquake
magnitude, a linear relationship was observed. The resulting Gutenberg-Richter law for
earthquake recurrence was expressed as
log m  a  bm (3.3)
Where m is the mean annual rate of exceedance of magnitude m, 10a is the mean yearly
number of earthquakes of magnitude greater than or equal to zero, and b (the b value)
describes the relative likelihood of large and small earthquakes. The Gutenberg-Richter
law is illustrated schematically in Figure 3.7 (a). As the b value increases, the number of
larger magnitude earthquakes decreases compared to those of smaller magnitudes. The
Gutenberg-Richter law is not restricted to the use of magnitude as a descriptor of
earthquake size; epicentral intensity has also been used.
26
Fig.3.7 (a) Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law, showing meaning of a andb parameters; and (b)
application of Gutenberg-Richter law to worldwide seismicity data (After Esteva,1970.)
(Source: Kramer,1996).
3.13 BOUNDED GUTENBERG-RICHTER RECURRENCE LAW
The standard Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law of equation may also be expressed as

m  10a bm  exp    m  (3.4)
where  =2.303a and  =2.303b. Equation (3.4) shows that the Gutenberg- Richter law
means an exponential distribution of the magnitudes of the earthquake. The Gutenberg-
Richter normal law includes an infinite variety of magnitudes ranging from -00 to +00. The
impacts of very tiny earthquakes are of little concern for engineering reasons and it is
prevalent to ignore those that are unable to cause substantial harm. If earthquakes smaller
than a reduced limit magnitude are eliminated, the mean annual excess rate (McGuire and
Arabasz, 1990) can be written as
m   exp   m  mo  ; m  mo (3.5)
Where  exp    mo 
The lower threshold magnitude is set at values of about 4.0 to 5.0 in most PSHAs
as magnitudes smaller than that rarely cause substantial harm. In terms of the cumulative
27
distribution function (CDF), the resulting probability distribution of magnitude for the
lower bound Gutenberg-Richter law can be given as:
m  
FM ( m)  p[ M  m | M  m0 ]   1  e  ( mm )
m
0 0
(3.6)
m 0
or the probability density function (PDF):

d
f M ( m)  FM (m)   e   ( m  m0 ) (3.7)
dm
The standard Gutenberg-Richter law predict nonzero mean rate of exceedance for
magnitudes up to infinity at the other end of the magnitude scale. For instance, this means
that the Circumpacific belt Fig.3.7(b) would generate a magnitude 10 earthquake at an
mean annual exceedance rate of approximately 0.02 per year (a return period of only 50
years), although earthquakes of this size have never been observed. All source zones are
associated with a certain maximum magnitude mmax. If recognized or estimated, the mean
annual excess rate (McGuire and Arabasz, 1990) can be expressed as:
exp     m  mo    exp     mmax  mo  

m   for m0  m  mmax (3.8)
1  exp     mmax  mo  
The bounded recurrence law of Eq. 3.4 is shown in fig.3.8(a) for conditions of
constant rate of seismicity (i.e., constant mean annual rate of exceedance of alternative
interpretation, based on a constant rate of seismic moment (hence energy) release, produces
the recurrence curves of fig 3.8(b). In the model of the constant moment rate, raising the
maximum magnitude needs a significant reduction in the mean annual rate of exceeding
reduced magnitude incidents to account for the additional energy produced in large
earthquakes. Since the seismic moment is proportional to the amount of slip (displacement)
that occurs in an earthquake, the moment rate is proportional to the slip rate. Hence the
constant-moment-rate model is equivalent to a constant-slip-rate model and can be used
when the slip rate is known to be constant. The extent to which actual slip rates vary with
time, however, appears to be different for different faults and can even fluctuate with time
along the same fault.
The CDF and PDF for the Gutenberg-Richter law with upper and lower bounds can be
expressed as:
28
1  exp     m  mo  
FM (m)  p[ M  m | m0  m  m max]  (3.9)
1  exp     mmax  mo  
 exp     m  m0  
fM  m  (3.10)
1  exp     m  m0  
Fig.3.8 Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence laws for m0=4 and mmax= 6, 7 and 8 constrained
by (a) constant seismicity rate and (b) constant moment rate (After Young’s and Coppersmith,
1985) (Source: Kramer, 1996).
29
3.14 PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
For a specific collection of strong motion parameter information, predictive relationships

are almost always acquired empirically by minimal square regression. Despite attempts to
remove questionable data and use quality-based weighting schemes, there is an inevitable
quantity of scatter in the data. The scatter results from random rupture mechanics and from
source, travel route, and site conditions variability and heterogeneity. Confidence limits
(Campbell, 1985) or the standard deviation of the predicted parameter can quantify the
scatter in the data. Usually the standard deviation of the (natural) logarithm of the expected
parameter is calculated, reflecting the form of most predictive interactions. In calculating
seismic hazards, this considerable uncertainty must be accounted for. For an earthquake of
a given magnitude, m, occurring at a given distance, r, the probability that a particular
ground motion parameter Y exceeds a certain value, y* is illustrated graphically in Fig.3.9.
The probability that, for an earthquake of a certain magnitude, m, occurring at a specified
distance, r, a particular ground motion parameter Y exceeds a specific value, y* is
illustrated graphically in Fig 3.9. It is provided in probabilistic terms by
P[Y  y*| | m, r ]  1  FY ( y* ) (3.11)
where FY  y  is the value of the CDF of Y at m and r. The value of FY  y  depends on the
probability distribution used to represent Y. In particular, ground movement parameters are

generally presumed to be normally distributed log (the logarithm of parameter is normally
distributed); however, this distribution's unbounded features may assign a non-zero
probability to unrealistic ground movement parameter values.
For Sitamarhi district region we have used predictive relationship given by Jain et
al.-2000 for central Himalayan region is:-
ln  PGA  b1  b2 m  b3 R  b4 ln  R  (3.12)
where b1  4.135 , b2  0.647 , b3  0.00142 , b4  0.735 and  ln y  0.59
30
Fig.3.9 Schematic illustration of conditional probability of exceeding a particular value of a
ground motion parameter for a given magnitude and distance (Source: Kramer, 1996).
3.15 PROBABILITY COMPUTATONS

A PSHA's results can be expressed in many ways. To assess seismic risks, all require some
amount of probabilistic computations to combine uncertainties in the magnitude, place,
frequency, and impacts of the earthquake. A common approach involves the development
of seismic hazard curves indicating the annual probability of exceeding different values of
a selected parameter of ground motion. The seismic hazard curves can then be used in a
defined period of time to calculate the probability of exceeding the chosen parameter of
ground motion.
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATION:-
The probability of the peak acceleration being higher than the normal standard distribution
function can be calculated as:
P[Z  z ]  1  P[Z  z ] (3.13)
 1  Fy  z  
where, FY  z   is cumulative distribution function of z 
STANDARD NORMAL VARIABLE CALCULATION:-
For various target peak acceleration levels a  , the corresponding standard normal variable
is given by-
31
 (ln a - ln PGA)
Z  (3.14)
 ln y
Where,
Z  is standard normal variable
a  is target peak acceleration
 ln y is standard deviation
3.16 ANNUAL RATE OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATION

The excess frequency, sometimes referred to as the annual excess rate, is the frequency at
which a random process exceeds a critical value. The critical value is usually far from the
mean. It is usually defined in terms of the number of peaks outside the boundary of the
random process. It has applications to predict extreme events like major earthquakes and
floods.
The frequency of exceedance is the number of times a stochastic process exceeds
some critical value per unit time, usually a critical value far from the mean of the process.
Overcoming the critical value can be achieved either by counting process peaks exceeding
the critical value or by counting upcrossings of the critical value where upcrossing is an
event where the process's instantaneous value crosses the critical value with a positive
slope. Annual rate of exceedance of peak acceleration a  0.1g for a given magnitude of
earthquake occurring at a particular distance is given by:
0.1g  4.5  P[ PGA  0.1g | M , R]  P[M ]  P[ R] (3.15)
Where, 0.1g is annual rate of exceedance of 0.1g peak acceleration. 4.5 is annual rate of
exceedance of 4.5 moment magnitude. By this given formula we can also calculate the
annual rate of exceedance for other peak ground acceleration like 0.16g, 0.24g and 0.36g.
By computing annual rate of exceedance we can find time period given by:-
1
Time period (T)  (3.16)

where   annual rate of exceedance.
32
Chapter 4
STUDY AREA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Sitamarhi is located at 26.6°N 85.48°E with an average altitude of 56 meters (184 ft.). The
district of Sitamarhi is drained by the rivers such as Baghmati, Aghwara, Lakhandei
(Lakshman Rekha), Manusmara and a few small streams. Sitamarhi's southern portion falls
in the Himalayan foothills. As one goes from South to North, lifting here rises. The ground
is Rocky and mountains do not exist. Land is appropriate for cultivation. As groundwater
is present, there is no shortage of water. Sitamarhi has been affected by natural disasters,
including various earthquakes and floods. Bihar Nepal earthquake in 1934 almost entirely
demolished the city. At Sitamarhi, situated in north Bihar, the extreme tilting and sinking
was noted. This earthquake totally demolished the area. The sinking was observed to 3-4
feet in Purnea, located in east Bihar. Large fissures in Champaran and Sitamarhi (north
Bihar) were also observed. At Champaran, a fissure was observed 15 feet deep, 30 feet
wide and 300 yards long (Verma et. al, 2014).Similarly, a typical fissure of 80 yards long,
8 feet wide, filled with sand up to 3 feet to the top was reported at Sitamarhi (Richter 1957).
The area Sitamarhi is situated at Bihar Nepal Border regions and was carved out of
Muzaffarpur district in 1972. The district is an acclaimed pilgrim centre and boasts of its
important position in the mythological accounts for being the birth place of the Hindu
goddess Sita. Sitmarhi is having a Geographical Area (Sq. Km.) of 2185.17 and a total
population of 34, 23,574 with geomorphology as Gangetic Alluvium as a results of
sediments brought by Bagmati, Lakhandei and Adhwara rivers. Entisols i.e. light friable
loam with higher proportion of sand and silt are the younger soils which fringes the eastern
and northern bank of Bagmati in the central and western part of the district. Sitamarhi
district lies in the North Ganga Plain. It is underlain by thick potential aquifer zones down
to the depth of 200 m below ground as per the exploratory findings made by ETO. Thick
pile of alluvium consisting of various grades of sand, silt and clay together constitute the
aquifer framework of the district. The pre-monsoon water level data of the year 2011
reveals that the depth to water level in the district remains between 2.5 and 3.9 m below
33
ground level (BGL). During the post-monsoon, the depth to water level was found varying
from 1.5 to 2.68 m BGL.
Fig.4.1Topographical map of Sitamarhi
4.2 CLIMATE
Rainfall usually varies amid of 1100mm to 1300 mm. The maximum temperature fluctuates
among 32 ºC and 41 °C. Humidity turns to be extreme in the rainy season due to its vicinity
to Himalayas. The winter rain which improves the prospect of the Rabi cultivation is also
there in the district.
4.3 GEOMORPHOLOGY
The district forms part of the Indo- Gangetic Plains and is primarily a flat alluvial terrain
with a masterly slope towards south and is devoid of any major topographic irregularity.
The elevation varies from 88 m above MSL in the north along the Nepal Border to 49 m
34
above MSL in the southern part. The only diversities that can be seen on the surface are
those caused by the fluvial action of the rivers resulting in marshy lands, natural
depressions etc. The Diara lands, alluvial low tract (Immediate vicinity of the Bagmati
River) and the alluvial upland tract (away from the rivers and the interfluves) are the major
geomorphic realms of the alluvial terrain of the district.
4.4 SOILS
Entisols i.e. light friable loam with higher proportion of sand and silt are the younger soils
which fringes the eastern and northern bank of Bagmati in the central and western part of
the district. These soils are deficient in nitrogen and phosphoric acid but generally rich in
potash and lime. The calcareous alluvial soils (Inceptisols) occur mostly in the northern
part of the district. These are generally richer in lime content. In the southern part of the
district, fairly matured soils with developed profiles (Alfisols) which are subject to
continuous leaching operation, leading to formation of calcareous nodules and ferruginous
clay pans are found.
4.5 DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL
The 2011 pre-monsoon water level data shows that the district's depth to water level
remains below ground level (BGL) between 2.5 and 3.9 m. The depth to water level 11
varied from 1.5 to 2.68 m BGL during the post-monsoon.
4.6 POPULATION CENSUS

According to 2011 Population count the District of Sitamarhi has an inhabitants of
3.419.622, around which is equal to the nation of Panama or the State of Connecticut of
the United States. This provides you an Indian ranking of 96 (out of 640 in total). The
district has a population density of 1.491 inhabitants per square kilometer (3.860/sq mi).
Its population growth rate during the 2001-2011 was 27.47%. Sitamarhi has a proportion
of sexes of 899 women for every 1000 males and a literacy rate of 53.53%.
35
Chapter 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 SEISMICITY OF THE AREA

The study regions is situated at LAT 26.5°N to LAT 28.8°N and LONG 84.10°E to LONG
87.00°E for the past 100 years (1909- 2015). Recent earthquakes in the past few years and
decades over the Himalayan regions like Kangra earthquake of 1905, 1934 & 1988 Bihar-
Nepal earthquake, Assam earthquake of 1950, Killari (1993), Jabalpur (1997), Indo-
Pakistan (2005) and Sikkim (2011), Nepal earthquake (April, 2015) and their foreshocks
and aftershocks in this region has led to a great destruction as well as the loss of lives and
property. Strong ground motion parameters need to be studied for the calculation of site-
specific peak ground acceleration needed for different kinds of research such as region-
specific response spectrum growth, site liquefaction potential, and seismic micro-zonation
maps need to be prepared for the study area.
Fig. 5.1Map of the study region situated in zone V (IS 1893 - 2002, part 1)
36
5.2 LIQUEFACTION RECORDS OF THE AREA
Ahmedabad, during Bhuj earthquake in 2001, and Sitamarhi, Munger, Supaul during Bihar
Nepal earthquake 1934 and 1988 had suffered serious damages in several portions, which
were located on newer sedimentary alluvium accumulations regardless of remarkable
farness from the site. Sitamarhi has experienced natural disasters, including various
earthquakes and superfluous flooding. The city was more or less completely destroyed by
Bihar-Nepal earthquake in 1934. The extreme tilting and sinking of structures was
observed at Sitamarhi, located in north Bihar. The Nepal Bihar border is very tectonically
active region among the world and the soft sediments around the Indo Gangetic plains and
is prone to liquefaction. There is necessity for the study of ground motions for Sitamarhi
lying in the zone V (IS 1893 -2002, Part -1) of the border regions.
Fig. 3.2 Epicenter Site of the earthquake and its after-effects, along MCT.
(Courtesy: Rai et al. 2016)
37
The regions near Kathmandu conveyed an intensity of VII in Nepal in April 2015 quake in
the Kathmandu basin was subjected to intensity IX trembling. It leads to several buildings
and temples to breakdown. Few sections of northern Bihar in India, witnessed a maximum
intensity of VI, which results in very few building damages. Iso-seismals of main
earthquake event are shown in Figure 5.2. Intensity map reported by USGS (USGS 2015)
created iso-seismals maps which were based on the interpretations in the course of the field
visits. Kaccha houses (non-engineered masonry buildings built from stone / bricks and mud
mortar) in the district of Sitamarhi, north of Bihar, suffered damage in India. About three
such dwellings have been crumpled entirely and 142 have been partly disintegrated (Rai et
al., 2016).
Following the Nepal earthquake, the Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region,
created two distinct groups to conduct the post-earthquake / Macro-seismic survey in Bihar.
GSI team was able to acknowledge an area of liquefaction irregularly distributed over
approximately 3 km while accompanying their study job. In the district of Madhubani
following the earthquake in Nepal on 25 April 2015. Table 1 reveals the seismicity data of
the study area starting from 1909 to the present day. These data have been collected from
Indian Meteriological Department, New Delhi.
Fig. 5.3 Liquefaction alongside curved ruptures creating a bow and arrow shaped (left) &
dissolved sand surrounding the paddy ground in Madhubani District, Bihar
38
Table 5.1 Seismic data for the study area Lat 26.5°N to Lat 28.8°N and Long 84.10°E to Long
87.00°E (1909-2016) for MB>4.5 (Source: IMD, New Delhi).
MAG DEPTH
SOURCE YEAR MONTH DATE HR MIN SEC LAT LONG
(Mb) (KM)
IMD 1909 2 17 0 0 0 27 87 5 -
IMD 1934 1 15 8 43 25 26.6 86.8 8.3 -
IMD 1934 1 16 4 59 22 28 86 5.6 -
IMD 1935 3 21 4 48 8 27 85 5.5 -
IMD 1936 9 7 2 30 49 27.5 87 5.7 -
IMD 1936 2 11 4 48 8 27 85 5.5 -
IMD 1936 6 9 0 2 42 27.5 87 5.5 -
IMD 1938 1 29 4 13 8 27.5 87 5.8 -
IMD 1952 10 19 10 44 28 27.8 85.7 5.5 -
IMD 1961 9 29 22 36 30 28 87 5.5 -
IMD 1962 1 11 3 1 29 27 85 5.5 38
IMD 1968 10 28 17 48 30.1 27.57 86.03 4.9 37
IMD 1970 2 26 19 30 14.5 27.62 85.7 5 96
IMD 1970 7 21 15 37 44.9 27.94 84.81 4.8 40
IMD 1970 2 26 23 21 20 27.3 85.9 4.7 31
IMD 1974 3 24 14 16 1.1 27.66 86 5.4 -
IMD 1974 3 24 16 17 35.2 27.63 86.01 4.7 3
IMD 1975 11 21 13 49 27.8 26.96 86.54 4.9 -
IMD 1976 9 12 15 36 11.8 27.68 85.94 4.5 33
IMD 1978 10 4 13 53 50.5 27.82 85.93 5.2 -
IMD 1983 8 23 22 43 12.8 27.95 84.94 4.5 64
IMD 1984 1 25 23 49 44.5 27.49 86.1 4.6 11
IMD 1984 1 6 23 48 10.6 27.83 84.61 4.5 49
IMD 1986 1 6 9 50 42 27.85 85.32 4.8 34
IMD 1986 2 2 0 13 50.7 27.92 86.45 4.5 33
IMD 1987 11 25 19 20 40 27.7 86.17 4.5 33
IMD 1988 8 20 23 9 10.1 26.72 86.63 6.4 65
IMD 1988 10 29 9 10 52.7 27.87 85.64 5.5 18
39
IMD 1988 4 20 6 40 25.7 27.02 86.72 5.4 55
IMD 1988 4 11 12 11 31.2 27.57 85.86 4.7 38
IMD 1988 4 25 16 4 3.7 26.9 86.54 4.7 79
IMD 1988 8 24 9 55 34.2 26.77 86.44 4.7 41
IMD 1988 9 1 22 4 11.3 26.8 86.53 4.5 33
IMD 1993 7 5 22 11 9.8 27.9 85.1 4.7 33
IMD 1993 7 9 16 23 17.2 26.8 86 4.6 33
IMD 1996 1 25 7 15 19.2 28 87 5.2 33
IMD 1996 12 30 11 8 18.8 27.43 86.63 5 37
IMD 1997 1 31 20 2 16.6 27.94 85.1 5.2 22
IMD 1997 3 24 21 28 7 26.8 85.3 4.8 -
IMD 1997 3 3 9 29 40 27.24 86 4.7 45
IMD 1997 3 24 21 28 6 27.89 84.99 4.5 33
IMD 1998 6 27 9 6 3.2 27.71 85.74 5.5 33
IMD 1998 9 3 23 2 30.7 27.17 86.63 5 33
IMD 1998 9 3 21 0 58.5 27.36 86.74 4.5 33
IMD 1999 3 19 5 53 45.5 27.33 85.49 4.9 33
IMD 1999 12 17 8 15 8.8 27.46 85.17 4.7 15
IMD 2000 1 20 12 54 27.5 27.78 86.02 5 33
IMD 2001 4 3 23 8 38 27.74 86.13 4.6 33
IMD 2004 1 3 13 14 30.2 27.71 85.93 4.7 20
IMD 2005 2 8 3 35 6.1 27.69 86.06 4.8 10
IMD 2006 2 3 1 57 45.9 27.33 86.5 4.6 10
IMD 2011 2 13 17 51 21.1 27.39 86.93 4.6 10
IMD 2015 4 21 19 32 16 28.9 82.4 4.9 5
IMD 2015 4 25 11 41 25 28.1 84.6 7.9 10
IMD 2015 4 25 12 15 20 28.1 84.8 6.6 10
IMD 2015 4 26 12 39 8 27.6 85.9 6.9 10
IMD 2015 4 26 21 56 5 27.6 85.7 5.3 10
IMD 2015 4 27 18 5 49 26.7 88.1 5.1 10
IMD 2015 5 12 12 35 19 27.7 86 7.3 10
IMD 2015 5 12 13 6 54 27.6 86.1 6.2 10
40
IMD 2015 5 12 13 1 23 27.6 86.2 5.4 15
IMD 2015 6 29 5 27 14 27.6 86.1 4.6 10
IMD 2015 7 11 2 43 0 27.4 86 4.5 10
IMD 2015 8 23 14 32 3 27.6 86 5 10
IMD 2015 8 15 23 41 39 27.6 85.9 4.6 10
IMD 2015 10 10 7 18 43 27.2 88.8 4.5 15
IMD 2015 12 19 3 46 55 29.3 81.7 5.4 10
IMD 2016 1 22 0 52 43 28.1 85.1 4.8 10
IMD 2016 2 24 14 52 17 27.6 85.6 4.5 19
IMD 2016 2 21 23 40 0 27.8 84.6 5 30
IMD 2016 2 5 21 50 9 27.8 85.4 5.2 10
IMD 2016 4 12 20 11 53 27.5 86.1 4.5 10
IMD 2016 4 9 18 50 14 27.6 85.2 4.5 10
While going through the information, one can comprehend that in the region there is less
frequency of occurrence from medium to large magnitude earthquakes. The graph taken
from GSI 2000 and IMD New Delhi in Figure 5.4 plotted a total of 227 earthquake
information with Mb > 4.5. The data shows that the regions are very much prone to
earthquakes and there is need to study ground motions.
45
42
40
35
35
30
FREQUENCY
30
25 23
21
20
15 14 13 12
10 9
6 4
5 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
0
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.3 7.8 7.9 8.3
Mb
Fig. 5.4 Chart showing the frequency vs Mb of earthquakes magnitude > 4.5.
41
For earthquake recurrence, the Gutenberg-Richter law is given as:
log m  a  bm (5.1)
where m is the mean annual rate of exceedance of magnitude m , 10 a is the mean yearly
number of earthquakes of magnitude m  0 , and b (the b value) describes the relative

likelihood of large and small earthquakes. The Gutenberg-Richter law is shown in Fig.
5.5.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-0.5
-1
y = -0.449x + 1.6354
log λM
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Magnitude
Fig. 5.5 Gutenberg- Richter recurrence law showing meaning of a and b parameters
42
5.3 SEISMOTECTONICS OF BIHAR NEPAL BORDER
The Bihar-Nepal earthquake in August 1833 was an intense 7.0-7.5 Magnitude earthquake
(Dunn, et al., 1939; Mittal and Srivastava, 1962). A further 8.4 magnitude earthquake
happened on January 15, 1934. It was south of MBT (Dunn et al., 1939). Due to the motion
along a rupture area between Purnea and Motihari (Dunn et al., 1939), occurrence was
originally deduced. However, Krishnaswamy (1962) inferred that the West Patna fault was
the source of this earthquake, while Singh and Gupta (1980) deduced the thrust and strike-
slip faulting mechanism solution for this case and interpreted a plane hitting almost EW
and moving south as the contributing fault plane for this case.
Various scientists around the globe have championed the importance of seismic
study area (SSA) scope for seismotectonic map construction. Taking into consideration the
region's seismicity and previous damage distribution, the radius of the seismic study area
(SSA) should be chosen. Main Boundary Thrust, Main Central Thrust and Himalayan
Frontal Thrust (HFT) locations and isoseismal map, i.e. the selection of SSA was regarded
as a map of the harm distribution. During the Bihar Nepal earthquake (1934) of moment
magnitude (MW) 8.0 with epicenter at N and E, Nath et al. (2009) recorded structural harm
of European, Macro seismic (EMS) intensity V and above over 350 km. It can therefore be
indicated from the inference that a minimum radius of 350 km SSA is needed to study the
seismotectonic characteristics around Sitamarhi used in this research. The details of
seismotectonic sources in the Sitamarhi region are shown in Table 2. It can therefore be
indicated from the inference that a minimum radius of 350 km SSA is needed to study the
seismotectonic characteristics around Sitamarhi used in this research. The details of
seismotectonic sources in the Sitamarhi region are shown in Table 2.The detail of these
data is available in the works of Burnwal et al. (2017).
43
Table 5.2 Details of seismotectonic sources in the study areas (Collected from Seismotectonic
Atlas of India published by GSI, 2000).
Sl.
SOURCE TYPE
No.
Neotectonic Thrust
1 Main Frontal Thrust(MFT)
Fault
2 Main Central Thrust(MCT) Thrust Fault
3 East Patna Fault (EPF) Thrust Fault
4 Munger Saharsa Ridge Fault (MSRF) Subsurface Fault
5 Munger Saharsa Ridge Marginal Fault (MSRMF) Subsurface Fault
6 Katihar Nailphamari Fault (KPF) Thrust Fault
7 West Patna Fault (WP-SS-1) Thrust Fault
10 Bhagalpur Neotectonic Fault (BNF) Neotectonic Fault
11 Neotectonic Fault (NF-1 ) Neotectonic Fault
12 Neotectonic Fault (NF-2) Neotectonic Fault
Subsurface Fault With Strike Slip Movement (SS-
13 Subsurface Fault
1)
14 Subsurface Fault
2)
15 Subsurface Fault
3)
16 Subsurface Fault
4)
17 Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) Thrust Fault
Fault Involving
18 Fault (G-1)
Basement and Cover
19 Sitamarhi Fault Subsurface Fault
20 Subsurface Fault
6)
21 Thrust Zone-1 (TZ-1) Thrust Fault
22 Main Central Thrust-1 (MCT-1) Thrust Fault
44
23 Main Central Thrust-2 (MCT-2) Thrust Fault
24 Main Boundary Thrust-2 (MBT-1) Thrust Fault
33 Neotectonic Fault (NF-11) Neotectonic Fault
36 Rajmahal fault (RMF) Neotectonic Fault
37 Santhia Bahmini Fault (SBF) Neotectonic Fault
Table 5.3 Details of seismotectonic sources in the study area (Collected from Seismotectonic Atlas
of India published by GSI, 2000).
Fault Moment
Sl. Fault
Source Length Lf magnitude rmin(km) rmax(km)
No. Type
(km) Mmax
1 MFT RF 95.497 6.8 112.22 192.404
2 MCT RF 965.873 8 91.524 491.533
3 EPT RF 172.22 7.1 81.789 130.386
4 MSRF RF 199.628 7.2 121.274 157.324
5 MSRMF RF 137.908 7 147.304 255.541
6 KNF SS 124.417 7 272.459 367.471
7 WPF-SS-1 SS 63.04 6.6 21.28 42.017
8 WPF-SS-2 SS 67.808 6.7 38.42 96.001
45
9 WPF-SS-3 SS 61.172 6.6 107.731 160.315
10 BNF NF 12.4 5.8 175.542 186.761
11 NF-1 NF 18.94 6 196.835 200.734
12 NF-2 NF 30.289 6.2 181.627 198.395
13 SS-1 SS 121.644 6.9 195.996 272.326
14 SS-2 SS 116.149 6.9 162.634 264.725
15 SS-3 SS 97.759 6.8 116.98 141.046
16 SS-4 SS 170.889 7.1 182.767 337.598
17 MBT RF 489.586 7.6 88.88 551.189
18 G-1 RF 155.072 7.1 85.421 164.382
19 SF SS 61.266 6.6 27.933 48.22
20 SS-6 RF 13.625 5.8 130.79 130.968
21 TZ-1 RF 440.899 7.6 174.524 281.171
22 MCT-1 RF 412.943 7.6 101.768 230.19
23 MCT-2 RF 242.92 7.3 275.559 301.14
24 MBT-1 RF 73.595 6.7 276.998 279.432
25 NF-3 NF 8.105 5.6 196.623 196.665
26 NF-4 NF 6.768 5.5 200.196 200.225
27 NF-5 NF 4.826 5.3 182.02 182.036
28 NF-6 NF 11.661 5.8 183.275 183.368
29 NF-7 NF 19.62 6 175.42 194.265
30 NF-8 NF 25.432 6.2 196.059 212.169
31 NF-9 NF 61.243 6.6 270.154 318.574
32 NF-10 NF 54.085 6.5 281.659 323.419
33 NF-11 NF 57.867 6.3 315.327 364.722
34 NF-12 NF 61.231 6.6 291.845 352.436
35 NF-13 NF 28.25 6.2 277.987 278.346
36 RMF NF 270.369 6.7 271.459 476.334
37 SBF NF 153.554 6.9 262.581 391.663
38 NF-14 NF 44.485 6.4 273.217 281.075
46
39 TZ-1(A) RF 229.702 7.6 272.175 495.405
40 TZ-1(B) RF 188.541 7.6 272.175 456.963
41 MCT-1(A) RF 51.572 7.6 96.217 129.425
42 MCT-1(B) RF 51.684 7.6 106.645 129.425
43 MCT-1 (C) RF 58.869 7.6 106.645 157.478
44 MCT-1(D) RF 42.099 7.6 157.478 167.746
45 MCT-1 (E) RF 35.957 7.6 134.123 167.746
46 MCT-1(F) RF 46.562 7.6 134.123 152.96
47 MCT-1(G) RF 34.875 7.6 152.96 159.154
48 MCT-1(H) RF 44.779 7.6 129.425 159.154
49 MCT(A) RF 164.475 8 222.908 376.435
50 MCT(B) RF 27.086 8 219.515 222.908
51 MCT(C) RF 16.583 8 205.339 219.515
52 MCT(D) RF 36.565 8 193.605 205.339
53 MCT(E) RF 40.913 8 178.061 193.605
54 MCT(F) RF 39.048 8 146.4 178.061
55 MCT(G) RF 53.069 8 146.4 150.166
56 MCT(H) RF 238.746 8 144.476 150.166
57 MCT(I) RF 32.861 8 144.476 169.824
58 MCT(J) RF 40.724 8 169.824 207.959
59 MCT(K) RF 33.191 8 207.959 225.702
60 MCT(L) RF 32.607 8 225.702 254.557
61 MCT(M) RF 76.998 8 188.995 254.557
62 MCT(N) RF 86.82 8 188.995 274.128
5.4 DISCUSSION ON SEISMOGENIC SOURCES

The Outer Himalayas are mainly covered by 20-58 million-year-old sediments with the
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) in the north and the Himalayan Frontal Fault (HFF) on the
southern edge. The Minor Himalayan area, with the largest width, between MBT and MCT
(Main Central Thrust) (see Table 3).
47
Bihar rests in the Gangetic Alluvial Plain, which is a fore deep, with its crust bend
downward of the Himalayan formation, of fluctuating depth, transformed into uniform
plains by long energetic sedimentation with complicated tectonic setting. This is identified
as geosyncline and this Gangetic Plain is called the Indo-Gangetic Geosyncline. This has
shown substantial amounts of bending and displacement at the northern end and is bounded
to the north by the Main Frontal Thrust. The base of the Gangetic trough is not a level
surface; it somewhat displays uneven inequalities and suppressed ridges (shelf faults).
Western Bihar rests on the sub-surface Faizabad ridge while the eastern sections lie on the
Munger-Saharsa Ridge. The regions adjoining the border with West Bengal lie on the Kosi
Graben (Purnea-Kisanganj Graben). The central sections of Bihar lie atop the Gandak
depression and East Uttar Pradesh shelf. The Frontal Thrust of the Himalayas runs across
the Bihar and Nepal frontier. A number of faults were recognized in the region and few of
them showed indications of Holocene epoch (NIDM Bihar) dislocation.
The West Patna Fault is heading from neighbouring Arrah in the south in a NE-SW
direction to the North Nepalese boundary near Madhubani. East Patna Fault Runs nearly
parallel to it, extending from the south-east of Patna in the south to the east of Madhubani's
Nepal boundary. The Munger-Saharsa Ridge Fault, which runs from Bihar Sharif to
neighbouring Morang in eastern Nepal, is another fault parallel to them.
Fig. 5.6 Map showing different faults and lineaments of the study area
(Courtesy: GSI, 2000)
48
The region's tectonic surroundings specifically reveal four major sub-surface faults,
West Patna Fault (WPF), Sitamarhi Fault (SF), Munger–Saharsa Ridge (MSRF) and East
Patna Fault (EPF) (Agarwal, 1977; Dasgupta, 1993; GSI, 2000) (see Fig. 2). Recent Nepal–
Bihar earthquakes in the region in 1833, 1934 and 1988 suggest that these Fault are active
and responsible for neotectonic activity in the basin (Krisnaswamy, 1962; Dasgupta et al.,
1987; Banghar, 1991; Dasgupta, 1993; GSI, 2000). The upstream block (region around
Sitamarhi) is moving up, but this region is tilting in the direction of SE owing to the
variance in vertical movements along the WPF and SF. Local seismic data indicate that
tectonically active are the Sikkim and Nepal Himalayas and their foredeep region,
including the northern Bihar Plains (area between 250 E–300 E longitude and 800N–900N
latitude). During the era 1934–1993 (GSI, 2000), this area experienced more than 100
seismic incidents comprising 46 incidents of magnitude MB > 4.5. Dasgupta et al. (1987)
described the focal points of the 16 high-magnitude earthquakes and considered that most
earthquakes were related to transverse trend characteristics of NE and NW. Dip-slip or
strike-slip motion or strike-slip with a dip-slip part are shown in the main explanations of
these earthquakes. The oblique faults played a significant part in the repetition of seismic
events in the plains of northern Bihar (Valdiya, 1976; Dasgupta et al., 1987) and also
influenced the area's fluvial dynamics.
5.5 PSHA RESULTS
For the site shown in Figure 5.7-5.133, the basic procedures of a typical PSHA can be
illustrated if the recurrence relationships are known for each of the source zones. Assuming
seismicity is defined in the corresponding source zones as :
MFT source:
log m  a  bm (5.2)
where
a =1.77
b = 0.443
The PSHA can be performed in the following four steps:
49
1. The issue statement offers each source area with its place, geometry, and maximum
magnitude. Source-to-site distance allocation also needs to be characterized. We will
characterize the distribution of source-to-site distance by a comparatively coarse histogram
to restrict the amount of computations engaged in this easy instance. Consider area 1 of the
first source. It is easy to demonstrate that the shortest possible source-to-site range will be
112.22 km and 192.404 km will be the longest feasible. This complete range can be divided
into 10 length intervals (192.404–112.22)/10= 8.018 km. If we split the source zone into a
large number of segment of equal-length sections, we can characterize the source-to-site
distance distribution by determining how many sections fall within each distance interval.
The standardized histogram of source-to-site distance is displayed in Fig for 1000 sections.
5.7. The ordinates of the standardized histogram depict the comparative frequency which
would be equivalent to the probability if an infinite number of segments were used but
which in this case is an approximation of the probability.
0.12
0.1
0.08
P[R=r]
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
116.23
164.34
188.395
124.248
132.266
140.285
148.303
156.322
172.358
180.377
Epicentral distance, r(km)
Fig. 5.7 Approximation to source-to-site probability distribution for MFT source.
2. Using the recurrence relationships given in the issue declaration, the temporal
distribution of earthquake recurrence can be defined. Assuming that earthquakes of less
50
than 4.5 magnitude do not contribute to the seismic hazard, the average rates of magnitude
4.5 events in each of the source zones are
4.076 1.02 4.5
MFT source:  1  10  0.306 (5.3)
giving total  0.306 . For MFT source, the probability that the magnitude will be within an
interval between a lower bound m1 and an upper bound m2 is given by
M  m2
 m  m2 
P  m1  m  m2    f M  m dm  f M  1   m2  m1  (5.4)
M  m1  2 
 exp     m  m0  
Where f M  m   (5.5)
1  exp     m  m0  
If N M  10 , the lowest magnitude interval for MFT source will be from M = 4.5 to M 6.8.
The probability that the magnitude would fall within that interval would be
P  4.5  m  6.8  0.9977 (5.6)
The probabilities of various magnitudes for each source zone are as shown in Fig. 5.8
0.25
0.2
0.15
P[M=m]
0.1
0.05
0
4.615 4.845 5.075 5.305 5.535 5.765 5.995 6.225 6.455 6.685
Moment Magnitude, Mw
Fig. 5.8 Approximation to magnitude probability distribution for MFT source.
3. To compare the results of this PSHA with those from the DSHA example, we will use
the same predictive relationship i.e. Jain et al. (2000) relationship
51
log e ah = b1 +b2 M +b3 R +b4 * log e (R) (5.7)
where ah is in g, for central Himalayan earthquakes b1  4.135 , b2  0.647 ,
b3  0.00142 , b4  0.735 and  ln y  0.59
4. Finally, we compute the total seismic hazard as the sum of the contributions from each
possible combination of source-to-site distance and earthquake magnitude of MFT source.
For MFT source
For the lowest magnitude interval (j =1),
P  M  m1   P  M  5.65  0.2307 (5.8)
as computed in step 2. For the lowest distance interval (k = 1),
P  R  r1   P  R  116.23  0.114 (5.9)
as computed in step 1. This combination of magnitude and distance indicates an expected

value of ln PGA indicated in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Variation of magnitude of PGA with distance of MFT source

Distance (km)
Magnitude
116.230 124.248 132.266 140.285 148.303 156.322 164.340 172.358 180.377 188.395
4.615 -4.895 -4.957 -5.015 -5.071 -5.124 -5.175 -5.224 -5.271 -5.317 -5.361
4.845 -4.746 -4.808 -4.866 -4.922 -4.975 -5.026 -5.075 -5.123 -5.168 -5.212
5.075 -4.597 -4.659 -4.718 -4.773 -4.827 -4.878 -4.927 -4.974 -5.019 -5.064
5.305 -4.449 -4.510 -4.569 -4.624 -4.678 -4.729 -4.778 -4.825 -4.871 -4.915
5.535 -4.300 -4.361 -4.420 -4.476 -4.529 -4.580 -4.629 -4.676 -4.722 -4.766
5.765 -4.151 -4.213 -4.271 -4.327 -4.380 -4.431 -4.480 -4.527 -4.573 -4.617
5.995 -4.002 -4.064 -4.122 -4.178 -4.231 -4.282 -4.331 -4.379 -4.424 -4.468
6.225 -3.853 -3.915 -3.974 -4.029 -4.082 -4.133 -4.183 -4.230 -4.275 -4.320
6.455 -3.705 -3.766 -3.825 -3.880 -3.934 -3.985 -4.034 -4.081 -4.127 -4.171
6.685 -3.556 -3.617 -3.676 -3.732 -3.785 -3.836 -3.885 -3.932 -3.978 -4.022
52
Now we can calculate the probabilities that various target peak acceleration levels will be
exceeded. For a   0.1g , the corresponding standard normal variable is indicated in Table
5.5
ln a  ln PGA
z  (5.10)
 ln y
Table 5.5 Variation of magnitude of standard normal variable with distance of MFT source
Distance (km)
Magnitude
116.230 124.248 132.266 140.285 148.303 156.322 164.340 172.358 180.377 188.395
4.615 4.394 4.499 4.598 4.692 4.782 4.869 4.952 5.032 5.109 5.184
4.845 4.142 4.246 4.345 4.440 4.530 4.617 4.700 4.780 4.857 4.932
5.075 3.890 3.994 4.093 4.188 4.278 4.364 4.447 4.528 4.605 4.680
5.305 3.637 3.742 3.841 3.935 4.026 4.112 4.195 4.275 4.353 4.427
5.535 3.385 3.490 3.589 3.683 3.773 3.860 3.943 4.023 4.100 4.175
5.765 3.133 3.237 3.337 3.431 3.521 3.608 3.691 3.771 3.848 3.923
5.995 2.881 2.985 3.084 3.179 3.269 3.355 3.439 3.519 3.596 3.671
6.225 2.629 2.733 2.832 2.926 3.017 3.103 3.186 3.266 3.344 3.419
6.455 2.376 2.481 2.580 2.674 2.765 2.851 2.934 3.014 3.092 3.166
6.685 2.124 2.229 2.328 2.422 2.512 2.599 2.682 2.762 2.839 2.914
Then Table 5.6 lists the probability that the peak acceleration is greater than 0.1 g.
Table 5.7 lists the annual rate of exceeding a peak acceleration of 0.1 g by a 5.65
magnitude earthquake at a distance of 112.22 km from MFT source.
53
Table 5.6 Variation of magnitude of probability that peak acceleration greater than 0.1g with distance of MFT source
Distance (km)
Magnitude
116.23 124.248 132.266 140.285 148.303 156.322 164.34 172.358 180.377 188.395
4.615 5.56239E-06 3.42163E-06 2.13676E-06 1.35248E-06 8.6662E-07 5.61441E-07 3.67428E-07 2.42679E-07 1.61633E-07 1.08498E-07
4.845 1.72258E-05 1.08672E-05 6.95125E-06 4.50175E-06 2.94845E-06 1.95075E-06 1.30273E-06 8.77383E-07 5.95494E-07 4.07094E-07
5.075 5.01987E-05 3.2475E-05 2.12753E-05 1.40961E-05 9.43611E-06 6.37532E-06 4.34423E-06 2.98327E-06 2.06322E-06 1.43637E-06
5.305 0.000137697 9.13371E-05 6.12783E-05 4.1533E-05 2.84137E-05 1.9602E-05 1.36281E-05 9.54181E-06 6.72386E-06 4.76669E-06
5.535 0.000355646 0.00024185 0.000166144 0.000115182 8.05216E-05 5.67166E-05 4.02282E-05 2.87148E-05 2.06156E-05 1.48813E-05
5.765 0.00086524 0.000603112 0.000424181 0.00030075 0.000214823 0.000154473 0.000111768 8.13265E-05 5.94824E-05 4.37167E-05
5.995 0.001983662 0.001417039 0.00102018 0.000739644 0.000539735 0.000396166 0.00029237 0.000216841 0.000161556 0.00012088
6.225 0.004287766 0.003138362 0.002312361 0.001714019 0.001277584 0.000957073 0.000720337 0.000544487 0.000413183 0.000314705
6.455 0.00874344 0.006555437 0.004942117 0.003744542 0.002850416 0.002178966 0.001672284 0.001288079 0.000995443 0.00077171
6.685 0.016831425 0.012922829 0.009965805 0.007716499 0.005997525 0.004677527 0.003659885 0.002872166 0.002260148 0.001783161
54
Table 5.7 Variation of magnitude of annual rate of exceedance of peak acceleration of 0.1g with distance of MFT source
Distance (km)
Magnitude
116.23 124.248 132.266 140.285 148.303 156.322 164.34 172.358 180.377 188.395
4.615 8.74698E-08 5.11672E-08 3.07655E-08 1.89073E-08 1.18332E-08 7.52056E-09 4.84428E-09 3.15727E-09 2.07926E-09 1.38229E-09
4.845 2.14235E-07 1.28526E-07 7.9156E-08 4.97729E-08 3.18405E-08 2.06663E-08 1.3584E-08 9.02782E-09 6.05856E-09 4.10192E-09
5.075 4.93762E-07 3.03764E-07 1.91607E-07 1.23261E-07 8.05923E-08 5.34167E-08 3.5826E-08 2.42773E-08 1.66016E-08 1.14465E-08
5.305 1.07119E-06 6.75693E-07 4.36473E-07 2.87233E-07 1.9193E-07 1.29895E-07 8.88866E-08 6.1412E-08 4.27897E-08 3.00427E-08
5.535 2.18813E-06 1.41502E-06 9.3594E-07 6.29997E-07 4.30172E-07 2.97245E-07 2.07513E-07 1.46165E-07 1.0376E-07 7.41785E-08
5.765 4.21023E-06 2.7908E-06 1.88986E-06 1.301E-06 9.07662E-07 6.40284E-07 4.5598E-07 3.27404E-07 2.36777E-07 1.72345E-07
5.995 7.63399E-06 5.18594E-06 3.59476E-06 2.5305E-06 1.8036E-06 1.2987E-06 9.43357E-07 6.90412E-07 5.08612E-07 3.76895E-07
6.225 1.30506E-05 9.08371E-06 6.44412E-06 4.63783E-06 3.37647E-06 2.48138E-06 1.83821E-06 1.3711E-06 1.02878E-06 7.76039E-07
6.455 2.10472E-05 1.50064E-05 1.08927E-05 8.01332E-06 5.95794E-06 4.468E-06 3.37507E-06 2.5653E-06 1.96024E-06 1.50504E-06
6.685 3.20441E-05 2.33963E-05 1.7372E-05 1.30602E-05 9.91459E-06 7.58566E-06 5.84191E-06 4.52397E-06 3.52002E-06 2.75042E-06
8.20409E-05 5.80373E-05 4.18674E-05 3.0652E-05 2.27066E-05 9.3971E-06 1.28052E-05 9.72221E-06 3.9057E-06 5.70189E-06
SUM
= 0.000276836
55
0.1g   1 P  PGA  0.1g | M  5.65, R  112.22  P  M  5.65 P  R  112.22
(5.11)
0.1g  0.0002768
If the previous calculations for 99 other possible combinations of magnitude and

distance for MFT source are repeated, each contribution will be shown in Table 5.7. To
sum up all these contributions, the mean annual rate at which an MFT source earthquake
will exceed0.lg will be 0.0002768. For this low acceleration, this means a return period of
3612.24 years from the equation 3.16. The seismic hazard curves can be developed as
shown in Fig. 5.130 by repeating this process for various target accelerations such as 0.1
g, 0.16 g, 0.24 g and 0.36 g.
Using the above calculations (as described in chapter 3), PSHA results are
converted between rates of exceedance, probabilities of exceedance, and return periods.
The mean annual rate of exceedance and return period (in years) of all the sources for
different peak ground accelerations i.e. 0.1g, 0.16g, 0.24g and 0.36g are listed in Table 5.8
and Table 5.9 respectively. A graph is also plotted between peak ground acceleration
(PGA) and annual rate of exceedance.
Table 5.8 Mean annual rate of exceedance of all the sources for different peak ground acceleration.
ANNUAL RATE OF EXCEEDANCE
Sl.
SOURCE PGA
No.
>0.1g >0.16g >0.24g >0.36g
1 MFT 0.000277 2.03E-05 1.41E-06 6.49E-08
2 MCT 0.00103 0.000174 2.69E-05 2.9E-06
3 EPT 0.002718 0.000352 4.08E-05 3.21E-06
4 MSRF 0.000709 6.7E-05 5.8E-06 3.35E-07
5 MSRMF 0.000111 7.1E-06 4.35E-07 1.76E-08
6 KNF 3.38E-06 1.07E-07 3.44E-09 7.21E-11
7 WPF-SS-1 0.047538 0.012001 0.002661 0.000423
8 WPF-SS-2 0.007388 0.001201 0.000177 1.83E-05
9 WPF-SS-3 0.00028 1.57E-05 1.22E-06 5.18E-08
10 BNF 3.71E-06 8.88E-08 2.22E-09 3.57E-11
11 NF-1 3.61E-06 8.96E-08 2.31E-09 3.84E-11
56
12 NF-2 9.81E-06 3.03E-07 9.52E-09 1.93E-10
13 SS-1 2.61E-05 1.17E-06 5.16E-08 1.49E-09
14 SS-2 5.38E-05 2.88E-06 1.5E-07 5.15E-09
15 SS-3 0.000535 4.24E-05 3.11E-06 1.5E-07
16 SS-4 3.49E-05 1.87E-06 9.74E-08 3.35E-09
17 MBT 0.000483 6.49E-05 7.99E-06 6.76E-07
18 G-1 0.002482 0.0003 3.28E-05 2.44E-06
19 SF 0.030614 0.006679 0.001278 0.000172
20 SS-6 3.36E-05 1.18E-06 4.13E-08 9.35E-10
21 TZ-1 0.000236 2E-05 1.57E-06 8.18E-08
22 MCT-1 0.001379 0.000187 2.3E-05 1.94E-06
23 MCT-2 1.58E-05 6.7E-07 2.78E-08 7.51E-10
24 MBT-1 2.87E-06 7.86E-08 2.22E-09 4.03E-11
25 NF-3 9.93E-07 1.83E-08 3.63E-10 4.6E-12
26 NF-4 5.97E-07 9.94E-09 1.8E-10 2.09E-12
27 NF-5 6.45E-07 1.04E-08 1.83E-10 2.06E-12
28 NF-6 3.43E-06 8.08E-08 1.99E-09 3.14E-11
29 NF-7 6.29E-06 1.72E-07 4.87E-09 8.88E-11
30 NF-8 5.83E-06 1.64E-07 4.76E-09 8.88E-11
31 NF-9 1.37E-06 3.33E-08 8.46E-10 1.39E-11
32 NF-10 7.29E-07 1.56E-08 3.54E-10 5.17E-12
33 NF-11 1.11E-07 1.71E-09 2.92E-11 3.19E-13
34 NF-12 6.34E-07 1.37E-08 3.13E-10 4.62E-12
35 NF-13 4.72E-07 8.73E-09 1.74E-10 2.22E-12
36 RMF 7.24E-07 1.79E-08 4.67E-10 7.9E-12
37 SBF 2.45E-06 7.4E-08 2.3E-09 4.65E-11
38 NF-14 1.03E-06 2.26E-08 5.21E-10 7.72E-12
39 TZ-1 2.12E-05 1E-06 4.68E-08 1.44E-09
40 MCT 0.012075 0.001578 0.000188 1.54E-05
41 MCT-1 0.01062 0.001341 0.000155 1.23E-05
SUM 0.11871 0.024061 0.004604 0.000653
57
Table 5.9 Return period (T) in years for all the sources.
RETURN PERIOD(T) in years

Sl.
SOURCE PGA
No.
>0.1g >0.16g >0.24g >0.36g
1 MFT 3612.243 49245.4 711410 15416956
2 MCT 971.0119 5735.248 37219.56 344793.6
3 EPT 367.8771 2843.044 24480.61 311180.9
4 MSRF 1410.72 14927.71 172531.5 2987729
5 MSRMF 9017.318 140761.5 2300773 56697989
6 KNF 295781.6 9364873 2.91E+08 1.39E+10
7 WPF-SS-1 21.03584 83.32506 375.8498 2364.115
8 WPF-SS-2 135.3466 832.3752 5650.266 54738.14
9 WPF-SS-3 3574.155 63882.83 820605.2 19295553
10 BNF 269248.2 11256550 4.5E+08 2.8E+10
11 NF-1 276718.3 11162176 4.33E+08 2.61E+10
12 NF-2 101968.2 3298879 1.05E+08 5.18E+09
13 SS-1 38290.48 853948.8 19383158 6.73E+08
14 SS-2 18584.75 346711.3 6664120 1.94E+08
15 SS-3 1868.79 23577.03 321863.2 6653540
16 SS-4 28630.47 534769.1 10262902 2.98E+08
17 MBT 2069.063 15397.72 125208.2 1479807
18 G-1 402.9789 3336.392 30445.59 409492.4
19 SF 32.66484 149.715 782.4625 5812.664
20 SS-6 29786.62 848458.3 24210229 1.07E+09
21 TZ-1 4230.428 50039.1 638200.7 12217847
22 MCT-1 725.1071 5353.12 43492.35 514731.2
23 MCT-2 63282.55 1492461 35906840 1.33E+09
24 MBT-1 348693.4 12715133 4.51E+08 2.48E+10
25 NF-3 1006881 54673804 2.76E+09 2.17E+11
26 NF-4 1675170 1.01E+08 5.55E+09 4.79E+11
58
27 NF-5 1550475 96077590 5.46E+09 4.86E+11
28 NF-6 291212.4 12378292 5.03E+08 3.18E+10
29 NF-7 159086.6 5799712 2.05E+08 1.13E+10
30 NF-8 171539 6084129 2.1E+08 1.13E+10
31 NF-9 729154.3 30043259 1.18E+09 7.21E+10
32 NF-10 1371522 64191126 2.83E+09 1.94E+11
33 NF-11 8989883 5.83E+08 3.42E+10 3.13E+12
34 NF-12 1577593 73235930 3.2E+09 2.17E+11
35 NF-13 2119173 1.15E+08 5.74E+09 4.5E+11
36 RMF 1380535 55761518 2.14E+09 1.27E+11
37 SBF 408119.9 13508439 4.35E+08 2.15E+10
38 NF-14 967276 44281968 1.92E+09 1.29E+11
39 TZ-1 47271.21 996620.7 21361854 6.96E+08
40 MCT 82.81234 633.7428 5326.515 65028.21
41 MCT-1 94.16214 745.8526 6457.905 81359.15
SUM 8.423903 41.56152 217.2143 1531.73
The distribution of source-to-site distance can be defined by determining how many of the
segments fall within each distance interval after separating the source zone into a large
number of segments of equal length. The standardized histogram from source to site range
59
and the probabilities of different magnitudes for each source area are as shown in Fig for
1000 sections. Fig.5.9 to Fig.5.132.
0.12 0.25
0.1
0.2
0.08
P [M=m]
0.15
P [R=r]
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.02 0.05
0
0
116.23
164.34
124.248
132.266
140.285
148.303
156.322
172.358
180.377
188.395
4.615
4.845
5.075
5.305
5.535
5.765
5.995
6.225
6.455
6.685
Epicentral distance, r(km) Moment Magnitude, Mw
Fig.5.9 Approximate probability distributions Fig.5.10 Approximations to magnitude

of source-to-site of MFT source probability distributions of MFT source
0.18 0.35
0.16
0.3
0.14
0.12 0.25
P[R=r]
0.1
P[M=m]
0.2
0.08
0.15
0.06
0.04 0.1
0.02
0.05
0
351.53
111.525
151.526
191.527
231.528
271.529
311.529
391.531
431.532
471.533
0
4.675
5.025
5.375
5.725
6.075
6.425
6.775
7.125
7.475
7.825

Fig.5.11 Approximate probability Fig.5.12 Approximations to magnitude
distributions of source-to-site of MCT probability distributions of MCT source
source
60
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05
0.05
0
84.219
93.939
98.798
89.07855
103.658
108.518
113.378
118.237
123.097
127.957
0
4.63
4.89
5.15
5.41
5.67
5.93
6.19
6.45
6.71
6.97

distributions of source-to-site of EPT source probability distributions of EPT source
0.12 0.3
0.1
0.25
0.08
0.2
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.06
0.15
0.04
0.1
0.02
0.05
0
123.077
126.682
130.287
133.892
137.497
141.102
144.707
148.312
151.917
155.522
0
6.795
4.635
4.905
5.175
5.445
5.715
5.985
6.255
6.525
7.065

distributions of source-to-site of MSRF source probability distributions of MSRF source
61
0.14 0.3
0.12
0.25
0.1
0.2
0.08
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.15
0.06
0.04 0.1
0.02 0.05
0
0
163.54
250.13
152.716
174.364
185.187
196.011
206.835
217.659
228.482
239.306
4.625
4.875
5.125
5.375
5.625
5.875
6.125
6.375
6.625
6.875

of source-to-site of MSRMF source probability distributions of MSRMF source
0.3
0.12
0.1 0.25
0.08 0.2
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.06 0.15
0.04 0.1
0.02
0.05
0
277.21
353.22
324.716
286.711
296.212
305.714
315.215
334.217
343.718
362.721
0
4.625
4.875
5.125
5.375
5.625
5.875
6.125
6.375
6.625
6.875

of source-to-site of KNF source probability distributions of KNF source
62
0.35 0.25
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.2 0.15
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0
28.538
22.317
24.391
26.465
30.612
32.686
34.76
36.833
38.907
40.981
0
5.445
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of WPF-SS-1 source probability distributions of WPF-SS-1 source
0.14
0.25
0.12
0.2
0.1
0.08
P[R=r]
0.15
P[M=m]
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.02 0.05
0
87.364
47.058
52.816
58.574
64.332
75.848
81.606
93.122
41.3
70.09
0
4.61
4.83
5.05
5.27
5.49
5.71
5.93
6.15
6.37
6.59

of source-to-site of WPF-SS-2 source probability distributions of WPF-SS-2 source
63
0.11 0.25
0.105 0.2
0.1
0.15
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.095
0.1
0.09
0.05
0.085
110.361
115.619
120.877
126.136
131.394
136.653
141.911
147.169
152.428
157.686
0
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of WPF-SS-3 probability distributions of WPF-SS-3 source
source
0.1008 0.18
0.1006 0.16
0.1004
0.14
0.1002
0.1 0.12
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.0998 0.1
0.0996
0.08
0.0994
0.0992 0.06
0.099 0.04
0.0988 0.02
0.0986
176.103
177.225
178.347
179.469
180.591
181.713
182.835
183.957
185.079
186.201
0
4.565
4.695
4.825
4.955
5.085
5.215
5.345
5.475
5.605
5.735

distributions of source-to-site of BNF source. probability distributions of BNF source
64
0.14 0.2
0.18
0.12
0.16
0.1 0.14
0.12
P[M=m]
0.08
P[R=r]
0.1
0.06
0.08
0.04 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0 0
197.03
197.42
197.81
198.59
198.98
199.37
199.76
200.15
200.54
198.2
4.575
4.725
4.875
5.025
5.175
5.325
5.475
5.625
5.775
5.925

distributions of source-to-site of NF-1 source probability distributions of NF-1source
0.25
0.115
0.11
0.2
0.105
0.15
P[R=r]
0.1
P[M=m]
0.095
0.1
0.09
0.085 0.05
0.08
190.85
195.88
187.496
182.466
184.143
185.819
189.173
192.527
194.203
197.557
0
4.585
4.755
4.925
5.095
5.265
5.435
5.605
5.775
5.945
6.115

distributions of source-to-site of NF-2 source probability distributions of NF-2 source
65
0.25
0.14
0.2
0.12
0.1
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.08
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.02 0.05
268.51
245.611
199.813
207.446
215.079
222.712
230.345
237.978
253.244
260.877
0
5.1
6.3
6.06
6.54
4.62
4.86
5.34
5.58
5.82
6.78

distributions of source-to-site of SS-1 source probability distributions of SS-1source
0.25
0.11
0.2
0.105
0.15
P[M=m]
0.1
P[R=r]
0.095 0.1
0.09
0.05
0.085
167.739
177.948
188.157
198.366
208.575
218.785
228.994
239.203
249.412
259.621
0
5.1
6.3
4.62
4.86
5.34
5.58
5.82
6.06
6.54
6.78
Approximate probability distributions of Fig.5.36 Approximations to magnitude

source-to-site of SS-2 source probability distributions of SS-2 source
66
0.45 0.25
0.4
0.35 0.2
0.3
0.15
P[R=r]
0.25
P[M=m]
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
120.59
127.81
135.03
139.843
118.184
122.997
125.404
130.217
132.623
137.437
6.225
4.615
4.845
5.075
5.305
5.535
5.765
5.995
6.455
6.685

of source-to-site of SS-3 source probability distributions of SS-3 source
0.3
0.11
0.25
0.105
0.2
P[M=m]
0.1
P[R=r]
0.15
0.095
0.1
0.09
0.05
0.085
190.509
205.992
221.475
236.958
252.441
267.925
283.408
298.891
314.374
329.857
0
4.63
4.89
5.15
5.41
5.67
5.93
6.19
6.45
6.71
6.97

of source-to-site of SS-4 source probability distributions of SS-4 source
67
0.14 0.3
0.12
0.25
0.1
0.2
0.08
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.15
0.06
0.04 0.1
0.02
0.05
0
296.92
343.15
481.843
111.996
158.227
204.458
250.689
389.381
435.612
528.074
0
6.515
4.655
4.965
5.275
5.585
5.895
6.205
6.825
7.135
7.445

of source-to-site of MBT source probability distributions of MBT source
0.45 0.3
0.4
0.35 0.25
0.3
0.2
P[R=r]
0.25
P[M=m]
0.2 0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0
128.85
97.266
89.37
105.162
113.058
120.954
136.746
144.642
152.538
160.434
0
5.41
4.63
4.89
5.15
5.67
5.93
6.19
6.45
6.71
6.97

of source-to-site of G-1 source probability distributions of G-1 source
68
0.25
0.4
0.35
0.2
0.3
0.25 0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
28.948
30.977
33.005
35.034
37.063
39.091
43.149
45.177
47.206
41.12
6.285
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of SF source probability distributions of SF source
0.3 0.18
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.2 0.12
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.15
0.08
0.1 0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0
0
130.96
130.799
130.817
130.835
130.853
130.871
130.888
130.906
130.924
130.942
5.215
4.565
4.695
4.825
4.955
5.085
5.345
5.475
5.605
5.735

distributions of source-to-site of SS-6 source probability distributions of SS-6
69
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
233.18
254.51
222.516
179.857
190.522
201.186
211.851
243.845
265.174
275.839

of source-to-site of TZ-1 source probability distributions of TZ-1 source
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
P[M=m]
0.15
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
108.19
121.032
133.874
146.716
159.558
172.401
185.243
198.085
210.927
223.769
4.655
4.965
5.275
5.585
5.895
6.205
6.515
6.825
7.135
7.445

of source-to-site of MCT-1 source probability distributions of MCT-1 source
70
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
279.397
276.839
281.955
284.513
287.071
289.629
292.187
294.745
297.303
299.861
0
5.2
6.6
4.64
4.92
5.48
5.76
6.04
6.32
6.88
7.16

distributions of source-to-site of MCT-2 probability distributions of MCT-2 source
source
0.25
0.3
0.25 0.2
0.2
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0
0
277.12
277.85
277.364
277.607
278.094
278.337
278.581
278.824
279.067
279.311

distributions of source-to-site of MBT-1 probability distributions of MBT-1 source
source
71
0.18
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.2
0.12
P[M=m]
0.15 0.1
P[R=r]
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.05 0.04
0.02
0
196.63
196.626
196.634
196.638
196.642
196.647
196.651
196.655
196.659
196.663
0
4.555
5.435
4.665
4.775
4.885
4.995
5.105
5.215
5.325
5.545

0.16
0.25 0.14
0.12
0.2
0.1
P[M=m]
0.15
P[R=r]
0.08
0.1 0.06
0.05 0.04
0.02
0
200.21
200.198
200.201
200.204
200.207
200.212
200.215
200.218
200.221
200.224
0
5.05
4.55
4.65
4.75
4.85
4.95
5.15
5.25
5.35
5.45

72
0.16
0.25 0.14
0.12
0.2
0.1
P[M=m]
0.15
P[R=r]
0.08
0.1 0.06
0.05 0.04
0.02
0
182.034
182.021
182.023
182.024
182.026
182.028
182.029
182.031
182.032
182.036
0
4.7
5.1
4.54
4.62
4.78
4.86
4.94
5.02
5.18
5.26

0.18
0.16
0.3
0.14
0.25
0.12
P[M=m]
0.2
0.1
P[R=r]
0.15 0.08
0.1 0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0
0
183.28
183.355
183.289
183.299
183.308
183.317
183.327
183.336
183.345
183.364
4.955
4.565
4.695
4.825
5.085
5.215
5.345
5.475
5.605
5.735

73
0.2
0.18
0.1006
0.16
0.1004
0.14
0.1002 0.12
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1 0.1
0.0998 0.08
0.0996 0.06
0.04
0.0994
0.02
0.0992
0
187.67
176.363
178.247
180.132
182.016
183.901
185.785
189.554
191.439
193.323
4.725
5.925
4.575
4.875
5.025
5.175
5.325
5.475
5.625
5.775

0.25
0.108
0.106 0.2
0.104
0.102
0.15
P[M=m]
0.1
P[R=r]
0.098
0.096 0.1
0.094
0.092
0.05
0.09
0.088
204.92
201.698
196.865
198.476
200.087
203.309
206.531
208.142
209.753
211.364
0
4.585
4.755
4.925
5.095
5.265
5.435
5.605
5.775
5.945
6.115


74
0.25
0.106
0.2
0.104
0.102
0.15
P[M=m]
0.1
P[R=r]
0.098
0.1
0.096
0.094
0.05
0.092
0.09
272.575
306.469
277.417
282.259
287.101
291.943
296.785
301.627
311.311
316.153
0
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

0.25
0.106
0.2
0.104
0.102
0.15
P[M=m]
0.1
P[R=r]
0.098
0.1
0.096
0.094
0.05
0.092
0.09
283.747
287.923
292.099
296.275
300.451
304.627
308.803
312.979
317.155
321.331
0
4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4

75
0.25
0.104
0.103
0.2
0.102
0.101
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.099
0.1
0.098
0.097
0.05
0.096
0.095
0
317.797
322.737
327.676
332.616
337.555
342.495
347.434
352.374
357.313
362.253
4.59
4.77
4.95
5.13
5.31
5.49
5.67
5.85
6.03
6.21

of source-to-site of NF-11 source probability distributions of NF-11source
0.25
0.1003
0.1002
0.2
0.1001
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.0999
0.1
0.0998
0.0997 0.05
0.0996
331.23
294.875
300.934
306.993
313.052
319.111
325.171
337.289
343.348
349.407
0
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of NF-12 source probability distributions of NF-12 source
76
0.25
0.3
0.25 0.2
0.2
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0
278.005
278.041
278.077
278.113
278.149
278.185
278.221
278.257
278.293
278.329
0

of source-to-site of NF-13 source probability distributions of NF-13 source
0.25
0.14
0.12 0.2
0.1
0.15
P[M=m]
0.08
P[R=r]
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.02 0.05
0
281.703
302.191
322.678
343.166
363.653
384.141
404.628
425.116
445.603
466.091
0
4.61
4.83
5.05
5.27
5.49
5.71
5.93
6.15
6.37
6.59

of source-to-site of RMF source probability distributions of RMF source
77
0.25
0.106
0.104
0.2
0.102
0.1 0.15
P[R=r]
P[M=m]
0.098
0.1
0.096
0.094 0.05
0.092
307.76
359.393
269.036
281.944
294.852
320.668
333.577
346.485
372.301
385.209
0
5.1
6.3
4.62
4.86
5.34
5.58
5.82
6.06
6.54
6.78

distributions of source-to-site of SBF source probability distributions of SBF source
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.2
0.14
0.12
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0
0
273.61
274.396
275.182
275.968
276.754
277.539
278.325
279.111
279.897
280.683
4.975
4.595
4.785
5.165
5.355
5.545
5.735
5.925
6.115
6.305

78
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.2
0.14
0.12
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0
0
273.61
276.754
274.396
275.182
275.968
277.539
278.325
279.111
279.897
280.683
5.355
4.595
4.785
4.975
5.165
5.545
5.735
5.925
6.115
6.305

distributions of source-to-site of TZ-1 (A) probability distributions of TZ-1(A) source.
source
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.2
0.14
0.12
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0
0
273.61
274.396
275.182
275.968
276.754
277.539
278.325
279.111
279.897
280.683
4.975
6.305
4.595
4.785
5.165
5.355
5.545
5.735
5.925
6.115

distributions of source-to-site of TZ-1(B) probability distributions of TZ-1(B) source
source
79
0.25
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
28.538
22.317
24.391
26.465
30.612
32.686
34.76
36.833
38.907
40.981

distributions of source-to-site of MCT-1(A) probability distributions of MCT-1(A) source.
source.
0.25
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
6.495
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285

distributions of source-to-site of MCT-1(B) probability distributions of MCT-1(B) source.
source.
80
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
34.76
36.833
38.907
40.981
5.445
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT-1(C) probability distributions of MCT-1(C) source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76

distributions of source-to-site of MCT-1(D) probability distributions of MCT-1(D) source
source
81
0.25
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
24.391
22.317
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of MCT-1(E) source. probability distributions of MCT-1(E) source.
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495
30.612
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76

of source-to-site of MCT-1(F) source. probability distributions of MCT-1(F) source.
82
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
32.686
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of MCT-1(G) source. probability distributions of MCT-1(G) source.
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of MCT-1(H) source probability distributions of MCT-1(H) source
83
0.25
0.35
0.2
0.3
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (A) probability distributions of MCT (A)source
source
0.25
0.35
0.2
0.3
0.25 0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (B) probability distributions of MCT (B) source
source
84
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
5.235
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT(C) probability distributions of MCT(C) source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT(D) probability distributions of MCT(D) source
source
85
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
5.445
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of MCT (E) source probability distributions of MCT (E) source
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

of source-to-site of MCT (F) source probability distributions of MCT (F) source
86
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (G) probability distributions of MCT (G) source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
34.76
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT(H) probability distributions of MCT(H)source
source
87
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (I) probability distributions of MCT (I)source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
22.317
34.76
36.833
38.907
40.981
5.655
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT(J) probability distributions of MCT(J) source
source
88
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
24.391
32.686
40.981
22.317
26.465
28.538
30.612
34.76
36.833
38.907
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (K) probability distributions of MCT (K) source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
5.025
4.605
4.815
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (L) probability distributions of MCT (L) source
source
89
0.25
0.35
0.3 0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
P[R=r]
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
22.317
38.907
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
32.686
36.833
40.981
34.76
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.235
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (N) probability distributions of MCT (M) source
source
0.25
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
P[M=m]
0.2
P[R=r]
0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
32.686
22.317
24.391
26.465
28.538
30.612
36.833
38.907
40.981
34.76
5.235
4.605
4.815
5.025
5.445
5.655
5.865
6.075
6.285
6.495

distributions of source-to-site of MCT (N) probability distributions of MCT (N) source
source
90
Table 5.10 Mean annual rate of exceedance (λM) and return period (TR) for different target PGA
Sl. No. λ0.1g λ0.16g λ0.24g λ0.36g TR0.1g TR0.16g TR0.24g TR0.36g
1 0.000276836 2.03065E-05 1.40566E-06 6.48636E-08 3612.24331 49245.4029 711410.0094 15416956.36
2 0.001029854 0.00017436 2.68676E-05 2.90029E-06 971.0118729 5735.247662 37219.56118 344793.6252
3 0.002718299 0.000351736 4.08487E-05 3.21357E-06 367.8770519 2843.043811 24480.61098 311180.8794
4 0.000708858 6.69895E-05 5.79604E-06 3.34702E-07 1410.720458 14927.70905 172531.4545 2987729.397
5 0.000110898 7.10421E-06 4.34636E-07 1.76373E-08 9017.318144 140761.5416 2300773.207 56697989.28
6 3.38087E-06 1.06782E-07 3.44233E-09 7.20793E-11 295781.6148 9364872.759 290500823.2 13873614389
7 0.047537927 0.012001191 0.002660638 0.000422991 21.03583536 83.32506307 375.8497503 2364.11546
8 0.007388436 0.001201381 0.000176983 1.82688E-05 135.3466492 832.375216 5650.26563 54738.13904
9 0.000279786 1.56537E-05 1.21861E-06 5.18254E-08 3574.154544 63882.82521 820605.1914 19295552.73
10 3.71405E-06 8.88372E-08 2.22082E-09 3.56986E-11 269248.1727 11256549.75 450283444.7 28012271101
11 3.61378E-06 8.95883E-08 2.3116E-09 3.83581E-11 276718.293 11162176.17 432600758.6 26070115479
12 9.80698E-06 3.03133E-07 9.52028E-09 1.93116E-10 101968.2307 3298878.603 105038934.8 5178231538
13 2.61162E-05 1.17103E-06 5.15912E-08 1.48632E-09 38290.47726 853948.7874 19383158.18 672803691.7
14 5.38076E-05 2.88424E-06 1.50057E-07 5.1504E-09 18584.7506 346711.3263 6664119.945 194159606.8
15 0.000535106 4.24142E-05 3.10691E-06 1.50296E-07 1868.789858 23577.02833 321863.1943 6653539.543
16 3.49278E-05 1.86997E-06 9.74383E-08 3.35415E-09 28630.47286 534769.1459 10262902.29 298137766.1
17 0.000483311 6.49447E-05 7.9867E-06 6.75764E-07 2069.062753 15397.7239 125208.1856 1479807.445
18 0.002481519 0.000299725 3.28455E-05 2.44205E-06 402.9789016 3336.391606 30445.5881 409492.3909
19 0.03061396 0.006679358 0.001278016 0.000172038 32.66483705 149.7149931 782.4625406 5812.663583
20 3.35721E-05 1.17861E-06 4.13049E-08 9.3504E-10 29786.62309 848458.3178 24210229.37 1069472537
91
21 0.000236383 1.99844E-05 1.56691E-06 8.18475E-08 4230.428394 50039.09609 638200.7063 12217846.81
22 0.001379107 0.000186807 2.29926E-05 1.94276E-06 725.1070832 5353.1201 43492.34841 514731.1546
23 1.58021E-05 6.70034E-07 2.78498E-08 7.50754E-10 63282.55043 1492460.855 35906839.63 1331993781
24 2.86785E-06 7.86464E-08 2.21789E-09 4.02515E-11 348693.4379 12715133.34 450878961.6 24843797061
25 9.93166E-07 1.82903E-08 3.62623E-10 4.60285E-12 1006881.16 54673803.99 2757686757 2.17256E+11
26 5.96954E-07 9.93535E-09 1.80118E-10 2.08769E-12 1675169.961 100650753.7 5551921734 4.78998E+11
27 6.44964E-07 1.04083E-08 1.83212E-10 2.05836E-12 1550474.825 96077590.36 5458158114 4.85823E+11
28 3.43392E-06 8.07866E-08 1.98845E-09 3.14371E-11 291212.436 12378292.44 502904017.5 31809556021
29 6.28589E-06 1.72422E-07 4.87178E-09 8.87689E-11 159086.579 5799711.94 205263758.2 11265208459
30 5.82958E-06 1.64362E-07 4.75771E-09 8.88135E-11 171538.9728 6084129.131 210185108.6 11259544372
31 1.37145E-06 3.32853E-08 8.4624E-10 1.38747E-11 729154.2852 30043259.14 1181697939 72073557847
32 7.29117E-07 1.55785E-08 3.53663E-10 5.16573E-12 1371522.481 64191126.44 2827549973 1.93583E+11
33 1.11236E-07 1.71467E-09 2.92248E-11 3.19441E-13 8989882.965 583202298.8 34217467108 3.13047E+12
34 6.33877E-07 1.36545E-08 3.12805E-10 4.61811E-12 1577592.71 73235930.45 3196880305 2.16539E+11
35 4.71882E-07 8.73127E-09 1.74069E-10 2.22278E-12 2119172.745 114530855.6 5744850993 4.49886E+11
36 7.24357E-07 1.79335E-08 4.67437E-10 7.89961E-12 1380535.04 55761517.94 2139326046 1.26589E+11
37 2.45026E-06 7.40278E-08 2.30138E-09 4.65434E-11 408119.9349 13508439.06 434521208.7 21485320552
38 1.03383E-06 2.25826E-08 5.21245E-10 7.72348E-12 967276.0102 44281967.59 1918483766 1.29475E+11
39 2.11545E-05 1.00339E-06 4.68124E-08 1.43631E-09 47271.20631 996620.7265 21361854.33 696227860
40 0.012075495 0.001577927 0.00018774 1.53779E-05 82.81234351 633.7428271 5326.515498 65028.21455
41 0.010619979 0.001340748 0.000154849 1.22912E-05 94.16214445 745.8525533 6457.904886 81359.15307
SUM 0.118709826 0.024060718 0.004603748 0.000652857 8.423902504 41.56151978 217.2143322 1531.729782
92
1 MFT
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 EPT
MSRF
0.1 MSRMF
KNF
WPF-SS-1
0.01 WPF-SS-2
WPF-SS-3
BNF
0.001 NF-1
NF-2
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance of PGA
SS-1
0.0001 SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
0.00001 MBT
G-1
SF
0.000001 SS-6
MCT-2
MBT-1
0.0000001 NF-3
NF-4
NF-5
1E-08 NF-6
NF-7
NF-8
1E-09 NF-9
NF-10
NF-11
1E-10 NF-12
NF-13
RMF
1E-11
SBF
NF-14
TZ-1
1E-12
MCT
MCT-1
ALL SOURCES
1E-13
Peak Ground Acceleration(PGA)*g
Fig. 5.133 Seismic hazard curves for different sources and total seismic hazard curve for all
sources.
93
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS
We have done probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the given data of SITAMARHI
near BIHAR-NEPAL region using Jain et al. (2000) (for central Himalyan region)
predictive relationship. We have calculated the probability of exceedence of ground motion
acceleration of 0.1g, 0.16g, 0.24g and 0.36g for different sources.
 FOR GROUND MOTION ACCELERATION OF 0.1g
The calculation shows that the maximum annual rate of exceedance is 0.047537927 for
WPF-SS-1 and minimum annual rate of exceedance is 1.11236E-07 for NF-11. The
maximum return period is 8989882.965 year for NF-11 and minimum return period is
21.03583536 year for WPF-SS-1.
The calculation shows that the maximum annual rate of exceedance is 0.012001191for
maximum return period is 583202298.8 year for NF-11 and minimum return period is
The calculation shows that the maximum annual rate of exceedance is 0.002660638 for
maximum return period is 34217467108 year for NF-11 and minimum return period is
The calculation shows that the maximum annual rate of exceedance is 0.000422991for
maximum return period is 3.13047E+12 year for NF-11 and minimum return period is
2364.11546 years for WPF-SS-1.
94
REFERENCES
1) Abrahamson, N.A., Litehiser, J.J. (1989). “Attenuation of vertical peak
accelerations.”Bull Seism Soc Am 79:549–580.
2) Agrawal, R.K. (1977) “Structure and tectonics of Indo-Gangetic plains.” In:

Bhimsankarau, V.L.S., Gaur, V.K. (Eds.), Geophysical Case Histories of India.
AEG Seminar, Hyderabad, pp. 29–46
3) Anbazhagan, P., Bajaj, K., and Patel, S. (2015). “Seismic hazard maps and
spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters.”Nat
Hazards (2015) 78:1163–1195
4) Banghar, A.R., (1991).“Mechanism solution of Nepal–Bihar earthquake of August
20, 1988.”Journal of the Geological Society of India 37, 25– 30.
5) Boore, D. M and Joyner W. B., (1982).“The empirical prediction of ground
motion.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72(6):S43_S60.
6) Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M. (2014). “CPT and SPT based liquefaction
triggering procedures.”Center for Geotechnical Modelling, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA.
7) Campbell, K. W. (1985) “Strong motion attenuation relations: A ten-year
perspective. Earthquake Spectra.”1(4):759_804
8) Campbell K. W., (2003).“Strong-Motion Relations”. EQE International, 154
Seismological Research Letters,68-1.
9) Castro, G. (1995). ‘‘Empirical methods in liquefaction evaluation. ’’Primer Ciclo
d Conferencias Internationales, Leonardo Zeevaert, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.
10) Cetin, K.O, Seed, R.B, Kiureghian, A.D, Tokimatsu, K, Harder, L F., Kayen, R. E.
and Moss, R.E.S (2004).“Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and
Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 12.
11) Dasgupta, S., (1993). “Tectono-geologic framework of the eastern Gangetic
foredeep.”Special Publication-Geological Survey of India 31, 61– 69.
95
12) Dasgupta, S., Mukhopadyay, M., and Nandy, D.R. (1987).“Active transverse
features in the central portion of the Himalaya.”Tectono physics 136(1987):255–
264
13) Dunn, J.A., Auden, J.B., Ghosh, A.M. and Wadia, D.N., (1939).“The Bihar–Nepal
Earthquake of 1934”.Geol. Surv. India Mem.
14) EERI committee on seismic risk (1984).“Glossary of terms for probabilistic seismic
risk and hazard analysis.”Earthq Spectra 1:33–36.
15) Fukushima Y. and Tanaka T.(1990).“A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal
acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan.”Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 80(4):757_783, 1990.
16) Ghosh, T. and Mukhopadhyay, A. (2013).“Schematic Natural Hazard Zonation of
Bihar using Geoinformatics.”Working paper of IGC,International Growth Centre.
17) Gru¨nthal, G. (1998).“European macroseismic scale 1998.”Cahiers du Centre
EuropeéndeGeódynamiqueet de Seísmologie, vol 15, Luxembourg.
18) “Greater Vancouver Liquefaction Task Force Report”, (2007)
19) GSI (2000).“Eastern Nepal Himalaya and Indo-Gangetic Plains of Bihar.” In:
Narula, P.L., Acharyya, S.K., Banerjee, J.(eds) Seismotectonics Atlas of India and
its environs. Geological Survey of India, India, 26–27
20) Gupta, M.K. (1993). "Liquefaction during 1988 Earthquakes and a Case Study"
International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 7.
21) Hunter, J. A., Benjumea, B., Harris, J. B., Miller, R. D., Pullan, S. E., Burns, R. A.
and Good, R.L. (2002). “Surface and down hole shear wave seismic methods for
thick soil site investigations.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9-
12): 931-941.
22) “Indian Meteorological Department.”New Delhi
23) IS-1893 (Part1): (2002).”Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
of Structures”, Fifth Revision. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi
24) Jain S. K., Roshan A. D., Arlekar J. N., and Basu P. C. (2000). ”Empirical
attenuation relationships for the Himalayan earthquakes based on Indian strong
motion data.”In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Seismic
Zonation.
96
25) Joshi A., and Mohan K. (2011). “Expected peak ground acceleration in Uttarakhand
Himalaya, India region from a deterministic hazard model.”Natural Hazards 52,
299-317.
26) Kayal, J. R. (2014). “Seismotectonics of the great and large earthquakes in
Himalaya” Institute of Seismological Research, Gandhinagar, CURRENT
SCIENCE, VOL. 10 188 6, NO. 2, 25
27) Kramer, S.L. (2009), “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.” Prentice Hall
International Series, Pearson Education, Inc, Low Price Edition, Delhi.
28) Khattri, K.N. (1987). Great Earthquake, Seismicity Gaps and Potential for
Earthquake Disaster along the Himalaya Plate Boundary.”Elservier Science
Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam, Printed in The Netherlands, Tectono physics, 138, p
79-92.
29) Kumar, M., Wason, H.R., and Das, R. (2013).“Deterministic seismic hazard
assessment of Dehradun city.” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference
December 22-24,2013, Roorkee
30) Kumar, A, Jain, R and S.C. Gupta, S.C. (2004) “Seismic hazard estimation from
the isoseismals of three great Indian earthquakes”13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper
No.2362
31) Krisnaswamy, V.S., (1962) “Significance of the Moradabad fault in the Indo-
Gangetic Basin and other faults in the sub-Himalaya in relation to the Ramganga
River project.”Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Earthquake Engineering
University of Roorkee, Roorkee, pp. 411– 422.
32) Liao, S., and Whitman, R. V. (1986).‘‘Overburden correction factors for SPT in
sand.’’J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE, 112(3), 373–377.
33) Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F.Jr. (1990).‘‘SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore
pressure generation and undrained residual strength. ’’Proc., H. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symp. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Vancouver, 351– 376.
34) Mark, R.K. (1977) "Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake
Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum expectable
Earthquakes."Geology 5, 464-466
97
35) “Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the People's Republic of
China 2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings.” GB50011-2010 (Beijing:
China Architecture and Building Press) (in Chinese).
36) Mittal, R.S., Srivastava, L.S., (1962) “Seismicity of the area around Barauni,
Bihar.” Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, 10–12
November. University of Roorkee, India.
37) Nath, S.K., Raj, A. Thingbaijam, K.K.S. and Kumar A. (2009): “Ground Motion
Synthesis and Seismic Scenario in Guwahati City—A Stochastic Approach.”
Seismological Research Letters, 80(2), 233 – 242.
38) NIDM, National Disaster Risk Reduction Portal, Bihar
39) Paudyal, H. and Panthi, A. (2010).“Seismic Vulnerability in the Himalayan
Region.”The Himalayan Physics, Vol.1, No.1.
40) Rai D.C., Singhal, V., S. Bhushan.R. and Sagar S. L.(2016). “Reconnaissance of
the effects of the M7.8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015.”Geomatics,
Natural Hazards and Risk, 7:1, 1-17
41) Rajaram, C., Narender, B., Satyam, N.D. and Kumar, P.R. (2010). “Preliminary
seismic hazard map of Peninsular India” 14SEE conference
42) Sahoo, P.K., Kumar, S., Singh, R.P. (2000). “Neotectonic study of Ganga and
Yamuna tear faults, NW Himalaya, using remote sensing and GIS.”Int J Remote
Sensing. 21:499–518.
43) Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). ‘‘Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential.’’ J. Geotech. Engg. Div., ASCE, 97(9), 1249–1273.
44) Seed, H. B. (1979). ‘‘Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level
ground during earthquakes.’’ J. Geotech. Engg. Div., ASCE, 105(2), 201–255.
45) Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. (1982). “Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during
earthquakes.” EERI Monograph.
46) Sharma, M. L. (2000). “Attenuation Relationship for Estimation of Peak Ground
Vertical Acceleration Using Data from Strong Motion Arrays in
India.”Proceedings of Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 1964
98
47) Shyamal Mukarjee and Bhagwat V.K. Lavania, (1998) “Soil liquefaction in Nepal-
Bihar earthquake of August 21, 1988”International Conference on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 11
48) Singh,R. P.,Aman, A. & Prasad, Y. J. J. (1996) “Attenuation relations for strong
seismic ground motion in Himalayan Region” Pure and Applied Geophysics
PAGEOPH, Volume 147, Issue 1, pp.161-180.
49) Singh DD, Gupta HK., (1980) “Source dynamics of two great earthquakes of the
Indian subcontinent: the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of January 15, 1934 and the
Quetta earthquake of May 30, 1935.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America,
70: 757-773.
50) Sukhija, B. S., Rao, M. N., Reddy, D. V., Nagabhushanam, P., Kumar, D, Lakshmi,
B. V. and Sharma, P. (2002) “Palaeo liquefaction evidence of prehistoric large/great
earthquakes inNorth Bihar, India” CURRENT SCIENCE, 83, NO. 8, 25
51) Valdiya, K.S., (1976) Himalayan transverse faults and folds and their parallelism
with subsurface structures of north Indian Plains. Tectono physics 32, 353– 386.
52) Verma, M., Singh, R.J., & Bansal, B.K. (2014). “Soft sediments and damage
pattern: a few case studies from large Indian earthquakes vis-a-vis seismic risk
evaluation” Nat Hazards (2014) 74:1829–1851
53) Wells, D. L., Coppersmith, K.J. (1994) New Empirical Relationships Among
Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974-1002.
54) Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (1997). “Editors National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER),” Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-022.
55) Youd, T. L., et al. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils, summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils.”J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(10), 817–833.
99

Major Report Final 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

Major Report Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARDS ANALYSIS OF

MADHUBANI AND SITAMARHI DISTRICT

A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

Sanu Kumar Chaudhary (1603065)

Divyanshu Singh (1603066)

Department of Civil Engineering

National Institute of Technology

We wish to express our profound gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. AVIJIT

SANU KUMAR CHAUDHARY (1603065)

Date: 23/05/2020 Prof. Avijit Burman

Chapter 2: Literature Review 8

1. Table 5.1: Seismic data for the study area 39

Fig 3.4 Four steps of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis 22

Fig 3.5 Examples of different source zone geometries 23

Fig 3.7 Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law, showing meaning of a and b parameters 27

Fig 3.8 Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence laws curve 29

Fig 3.9 Schematic illustration of conditional probability of exceeding a particular value 31

Fig 4.1 Topographical map of Sitamarhi 34

Fig 5.1 Map of the study region situated in zone iv 36

Fig 5.7 Approximation to source to site probability distribution of MFT source 50

Fig 5.8 Approximation to magnitude probability distribution for MFT source 51

Fig 5.9 Probabilities of different magnitude for each source area 60

1.2 PGA AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Fig.1.2 Movement of Indian plates under the Eurasian Plate.

1.6 DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

1.7 IMPORTANCE OF THE PSHA STUDY

1.8 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT

Chapter 1: It describes about the analysis of natural disasters, Introduction of the

Where R is the hypo-central distance from the source and a h is in cm/sec2.

log10 ah  1.072  ( 0.3903M) 1.21* log10 (X  e( 0.5873*M) ) (2.3)

where ah is in g, for central Himalayan earthquakes b1  4.135 , b2  0.647 ,

b3  0.00142 , b4  0.753 and   0.59 and for non-subduction earthquakes in N.E.

India b1  3.443 , b2  0.706 , b3  0 , b4  0.828 and   0 .

log e ah  9.143  0.247 M  0.014 10  M   2.697 ln  rrup  32.9458e0.663M  (2.5)

3.2 DATA AND MATERIALS

3.3 DATA COLLECTION

 Classification and identification of 38 seismotectonic sources (faults).

3.6 STEPS OF DSHA

3.9 USING DETERMINISTIC APPROACH IN THE PRESENCE OF

3.10PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS CALCULATION

The end outcome of these calculations will be a complete distribution of ground

3.10.1 STEPS OF PSHA

3.11 EARTHQUAKE SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

For source zones with more complex geometries, it is easier to evaluate f R  r  by

center of each element.

3.13 BOUNDED GUTENBERG-RICHTER RECURRENCE LAW

The standard Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law of equation may also be expressed as

or the probability density function (PDF):

exp     m  mo    exp     mmax  mo  

For a specific collection of strong motion parameter information, predictive relationships

P[Y  y*| | m, r ]  1  FY ( y* ) (3.11)

probability distribution used to represent Y. In particular, ground movement parameters are

where b1  4.135 , b2  0.647 , b3  0.00142 , b4  0.735 and  ln y  0.59

3.15 PROBABILITY COMPUTATONS

PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATION:-

where, FY  z   is cumulative distribution function of z 

STANDARD NORMAL VARIABLE CALCULATION:-

3.16 ANNUAL RATE OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATION

0.1g  4.5  P[ PGA  0.1g | M , R]  P[M ]  P[ R] (3.15)

Fig.4.1Topographical map of Sitamarhi

4.5 DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL

4.6 POPULATION CENSUS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

P[Y  y| | m, r ]  1  FY ( y ) (3.11)