Pure Appl. Geophys.

169 (2012), 3754

2011 Springer Basel AG
DOI 10.1007/s00024-011-0317-z

Pure and Applied Geophysics

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis for Surat City, Gujarat,
India: Deterministic and Probabilistic Approach
T. P. THAKER,1 GANESH W. RATHOD,1 K. S. RAO,1 and K. K. GUPTA1
AbstractSurat, the financial capital of Gujarat, India, is a
mega city with a population exceeding five millions. The city falls
under Zone III of the Seismic Zoning Map of India. After the
devastating 2001 Bhuj earthquake of Mw 7.7, much attention is
paid towards the seismic microzonation activity in the state of
Gujarat. In this work, an attempt has been made to evaluate the
seismic hazard for Surat City (21.170 N, 72.830 E) based on the
probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analysis. After collecting a catalogue of historical earthquakes in a 350 km radius
around the city and after analyzing a database statistically, deterministic analysis has been carried out considering known tectonic
sources; a further recurrence relationship for the control region is
found out. Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses were then carried
out for the Surat region considering five seismotectonic sources
selected from a deterministic approach. The final results of the
present investigations are presented in the form of peak ground
acceleration and response spectra at bed rock level considering the
local site conditions. Rock level Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
and spectral acceleration values at 0.01 s and 1.0 s corresponding
to 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years have been
calculated. Further Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum (UHRS) at
rock level for 5% damping, and 10% and 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years, were also developed for the city considering all site classes. These results can be directly used by
engineers as basic inputs in earthquake-resistant design of structures in and around the city.
Key words: Seismotectonics, PSHAs,
Response spectrum, Earthquakes, Gujarat.

DSHAs,

PGA,

1. Introduction
Peninsular India (PI) has been considered to be a
stable continental region (SCR), which has, nevertheless, experienced many strong to moderate
earthquakes since the 18th century (RAO and RAO,

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of

Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. E-mail:
tej_p_thaker@yahoo.co.in; ganeshrathod@gmail.com; raoks@civil.
iitd.ac.in; kkg@civil.iitd.ac.in

1984; RAO, 2000). Some of the major earthquakes

reported in PI include, the Mahabaleshwar (1764),
Kutch (1819), Dammoh (near Jabalpur, 1846), Mount
Abu (1848), Coimbatore (1900), Son-valley (1927),
Satpura (1938), Anjar (1956), Koyna (1967), Broach
(1970), Killari (1993), Jabalpur (1997), and recently,
Bhuj (2001) earthquakes. MANDAL et al. (2000)
highlighted that during the last four decades, PI has
experienced moderate seismic activity.
The city of Surat is located in Peninsular India on
the banks of the River Tapi. As of 2007, Surat and its
metropolitan area have a population of more than five
million people. In recent times, the city has emerged
as a hub for chemicals, minerals, textiles, engineering, oil and port based industries. Surat has
infrastructure and a conducive environment for
industrial growth making it one of the most industrialized cities of India. Even for moderate
earthquakes, Surat is vulnerable due to the presence
of varied kinds of structures found on soft soils of
varying thicknesses. The seismic zoning map of India
(BIS: 18932002) marks the region in zone III, which
shows basic peak ground acceleration (PGA) of
0.16 g. Such a broad zoning is too simplistic because
seismic hazard is known to have considerable spatial
variability even at shorter wave lengths. Engineering
approaches to earthquake resistant structural design
will be successful when the forces due to future
shocks are accurately estimated at the location of a
given structure. Moreover, in an historic city like
Surat, it is not just new construction that has to be
designed safe, it is equally important to protect the
existing monuments, industrial and infrastructural
facilities. Considering all aspects, seismic studies
have become very vital for the region.
In this study, an attempt has been made to estimate seismic hazard at bedrock level in terms of PGA

38

T. P. Thaker et al.

and spectral acceleration (Sa) using state of the art

probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). A new
seismotectonic map of the study area considering
350 km radius around Surat city has been prepared
for this purpose, which consists of the past earthquake data (collected from various sources and
available literature) and earthquakes associated with
these tectonic sources. Available earthquake data is
analysed statistically and a recurrence relationship
has been obtained using G-R (GUTENBERG and RICHTER, 1944) method. Bed rock level PGA and Sa
values at 0.01 and 1.0 s corresponding to 10% and
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years; have been
calculated for Surat city. Further, Uniform Hazard
Response Spectra (UHRS) at rock level for 5%
damping and 10 and 2% probability of exceedance in
50 years were also developed for the city considering
all site classes as per the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program (NEHRP) (BSSC, 2001). These
spectral accelerations and uniform hazard spectra can
be used to assess the design forces and also to
develop the design spectra for important structures.

2. Study Area
The seismic zonation studies started in 1959 by
TANDON (1956) and KRISHNA (1959) demarcate areas
of potential earthquake damage in the Indian subcontinent. The intensity-based mapping of the Indian
Subcontinent was presented by GUHA (1962) and
GUBIN (1968). The probabilistic seismic hazard
studies for this area were done by several researchers
including BASU and NIGAM (1977), KAILA and RAO
(1979), KHATRI et al. (1984), JAISWAL and SINHA
(2006, 2007) and VIPIN et al. (2009). The study area
considered for the present investigation covers an
area of 350 km radius around the city as per regulatory guide 1.167 (1997). Other details such as
regional geology and seismological details for the
study area have been collected from an extensive
literature review.
The study area consists of the centre point at Surat
city with latitude 21.17 N and longitude 72.83 E,
with a radius of 350 km around. This area covers the
latitude from 18.00 N to 24.32 N and longitude of
69.45 E to 76.20 E and covers a major part of

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Gujarat state, southern part of Rajasthan, westerncentral part of Madhya Pradesh and part of Maharashtra state including Mumbai city. According to the
seismic zoning map of India, the whole study area
falls into zones II to V. The major area of Kutch
district falls in zone V, the other part of Kutch district
and some part of Surashtra falls in zone IV, and the
rest of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
falls in zone III; some areas of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh fall in the zone II of BIS
1893:2002. The study area marked in the seismic
zoning map of India is shown in Fig. 1.

3. Seismic Characteristics of the Region

Surat city, which lies along the west coast of
India, is in the stable continental region of PI.
Cambay, Rann of Kutch and Narmada-Tapti regions
are recognised as one of the most active regions of PI.
In the recent past, many researchers have addressed
the seismicity of PI (KAILA et al. 1972; CHANDRA,
1977; RAO and RAO, 1984; KHATTRI, 1992; IYENGAR
and RAGHUKANTH, 2004; SITHARAM and ANBAZHAGAN,
2007; VIPIN et al. 2009). GUHA and BASU (1993) have
compiled a catalogue of PI earthquakes of magnitude
C3. RAO and RAO (1984) fitted the frequency magnitude relationship for PI. They demonstrated that the
interval 18701920 had been the period of quiescence, whereas prior to and after this time window, PI
showed higher levels of seismic activity. JAISWAL and
SINHA (2008) reported that most of the historical
earthquakes in PI have been concentrated near the
weak rifting zones (Rann of Kutch, Narmada lineament) or in the passive continental margins (both
eastern and western), whereas the cratonic zones
(northern and eastern) and inactive grabens are generally free from large earthquake activity and thus
form stable shields within the Indian plate.
The earthquake catalogue for this area was prepared by combining and consolidating the available
information from different sources covering the time
period 18182008. The earthquake data were collected from different sources, i.e., Geological Survey
of India (GSI), Indian Meteorological Department
(IMD), International Seismological Centre (ISC),
National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI),

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

39

Figure 1
Study area and seismic zonation map of India (Modified from BIS 1893:2002)

Gujarat Engineering Research Institute (GERI),

Institute of Seismological Research (ISR), and United
States Geological Survey (USGS). In addition to that,
a few more data were collected from the catalogues
published by different researchers like CHANDRA
(1977); OLDHAM (1883); MALIK (1999) and JAISWAL
and SINHA (2005).
The data collected were carefully analyzed to
remove the repetitions. In some cases the magnitudes
of the same event reported by different agencies were
slightly different and in those cases, a higher magnitude event has been selected for the analysis. The
data obtained were in different magnitude scales and
some of the literature only report the intensity value
for historical earthquakes. Estimation of seismic

hazard values in any region requires complete details

of past earthquakes with a uniform magnitude scale
and hence these data were converted to a common
scale of moment magnitude (Mw) as per KANAMORI
(1983) and HEATON et al. (1986), maximum value has
been adopted. In addition to that the intensity values
are converted using the empirical relation (M = (2/3)
I ? 1) by GUTENBERG and RICHTER (1956), where I is
the earthquake intensity value. Hence, in the present
context, the term magnitude refers to moment magnitude (Mw) in the text here after.
About 464 earthquake events were collected with
minimum magnitude of 3.0 and maximum of 7.7.
After removing the dependent events, the data set
contains 150 events between magnitude 3 and 3.9, 111

40

T. P. Thaker et al.

Figure 2
Histogram of earthquakes in study area

Figure 3
Seismotectonic map of study area

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

events between 4 and 4.9, 36 events between 5 and 5.9

and 4 and 2 events of between magnitudes 66.9 and
more than 7.0 respectively. The number of earthquakes reported in each decade is shown in Fig. 2.

4. Generation of a Seismotectonic Map

The seismic sources in the study area were identified from the Seismotectonic Atlas (SEISAT, 2000),
published by the Geological Survey of India (GSI).
The base map of the area has been collected from the
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake
data and seismic sources, like major faults and lineament are superimposed on it. The seismotectonic
map of 350 km radius around Surat city along with the
details of earthquakes is shown in Fig. 3. A total of 17
sources identified in the study area out of which 12 are
major faults and five are major lineaments. The
lengths of seismic sources vary from 105 to 550 km.

41

will affect the site. The MCE is the largest earthquake

that can be reasonably expected to occur in the region
(KRINITZSKY, 2002). It can be obtained by the deterministic method (KRINITZSKY, 2002). In the present
study, vulnerable sources refer to the sources that are
capable enough to produce significant magnitude of
earthquake. Hence, those sources produce the earthquake magnitude of 4.0 and above have been
considered in the analysis, are listed in Table 1.
Maximum magnitude has been assigned to each
source based on maximum reported earthquake in the
past and the proximity to each seismic source. Also, it
is very important to determine the focal depth of
earthquake in the region. Considering the distribution
of epicenters, focal depth of 10 km is adopted as
shown in Fig. 4. The attenuation relationship developed by IYENGAR and RAGHUKANTH (2004) is
considered for the analysis.

6. Regional Recurrence
5. Deterministic Estimation of Peak Ground
Acceleration
Deterministic seismic hazard assessments seek to
identify maximum credible earthquake (MCE) that

Usually, the seismic activity of the region is

characterized by recurrence relationships. Various
recurrence relationships are reported in the literature
(GUTENBERG and RICHTER, 1944; MERZ and CORNELL,
1973; SHAH et al. 1975). In the present investigations,

Table 1
Estimation of peak ground acceleration: deterministic approach
Major faults/lineaments

Notation

Length
(km)

Epicentral
distance (km)

Hypocentral distance
(h = 10 km), R (km)

Max. magnitude
(Mw)

PGA (g)

Kutch Mainland Fault (KMF)

Island Belt Fault (IBF)
Cambay West Fault (CWF)
North Katiawar Fault (NKP)
Son Narmada Fault (SNF)
Tapi North Fault (TNF)
Barwani Sukta Fault (BSF)
Upper Godawari Fault (UGF)
West Coast Fault (WCF)
Chiplun Fault (CF)
Kim Fault (KF)
Cambay East Fault (ECF)
Lathi-Rajkot Lineament
Chambal-Jamnagar Lineament
Kishangarh-Chipri Lineament
Rakhabodev Lineament

F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
L1
L2
L3
L5

140
130
200
135
550
395
180
240
308
105
180
290
205
175
210
325

339.00
350.00
120.00
343.00
42.42
6.43
220.00
110.00
35.47
251.00
123.00
105.00
295.00
300.00
169.00
213.00

339.15
350.14
120.42
343.15
43.58
11.89
220.23
110.45
36.85
251.20
123.41
105.48
295.17
300.17
169.30
213.23

7.7
5.6
5.7
5.7
6.3
5.0
6.3
4.3
5.7
4.2
5.0
5.7
5.7
5.8
4.6
5.2

0.008
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.128
0.158
0.008
0.004
0.090
0.001
0.007
0.020
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003

Bold values represent faults considered for the probabilistic analysis

42

T. P. Thaker et al.

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 4
Latitude and longitude with depth of earthquake occurrences

a simple and widely used GUTENBERG and RICHTER

(1944) relationship has been adopted to evaluate the
seismic hazard parameter b.
log10 N a  bM

where, N stands for the cumulative number of

earthquakes greater than or equal to a particular
magnitude M per year, parameters a and b describe
the seismic activity of the region. The simplest way
to obtain a and b is through least square regression,
but due to incompleteness of the database, such an
approach leads to erroneous results. Historical
earthquake records are usually more complete for
larger earthquakes than for smaller ones. Small
earthquakes can go undetected for a variety of
physical and demographical reasons. Fitting a straight
line, such as that implied by the G-R law, through
recurrence data, in which the mean rate of exceedance of small earthquakes is underestimated, will
tend to flatten the line. As a result, the actual mean
rate of small earthquakes will be underestimated and
the mean rate of large earthquakes will be overestimated (MENON et al. 2010). Two different methods,
namely, the visual cumulative (CUVI) method (TINTI
and MULARGIA, 1985) and the method by STEPP (1973)
were used to calculate the completeness periods for
different magnitude classes as shown in Fig. 5 and
Fig. 6. Table 2 summarizes completeness periods
estimated with these two methods. Recently, the
study by EPRI (2006) indicates that the parameter a
and b are sensitive to the selection of the threshold
magnitude (m0). In the present study m0 has been

found from the frequency magnitude distribution, as

the value from where the data depart from a straight
line as suggested by WIEMER and Wyss (2000). In
addition, the effects of very small earthquakes are of
little interest as they are not capable of causing significant damage and hence earthquakes above,
m0 = 4.0 is set as threshold value for the present
analysis.
The completeness periods from both the analyses
(Table 2) have been used to compute the G-R magnitude-frequency relationship as shown in Fig. 7. The
recurrence relations obtained from both the methods
is,
LogN 0:87Mw  3:8; R2
0:985 From Stepp 1973 method 2a
LogN 0:91Mw 4:0; R2
0:985 From CUVI method

2b

However, comparison of both the methods from

Table 2 and Fig. 7 suggests that the results are in
good agreement; hence, the average value has been
adopted in the present study as given below.
LogN 0:89  0:02Mw 3:9  0:1

From Figs. 2, 8 and Table 2 it can be concluded

that the catalogue for the period since 1958 is complete from magnitude 3.0 as better recording of data
has been observed in the last 50 years. Hence, the
whole catalogue from 18182008 has been divided in
two parts; 18181958 historical data (as the extreme
part of catalogue) and from 19582008 instrumental

Vol. 169, (2012)

(a)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

(e)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(f)

(g)

(h)

Figure 5
CUVI method

43

44

T. P. Thaker et al.

Pure Appl. Geophys.

values published by different authors for PI along

with the values obtained in the present study.

data (complete part of catalogue) as shown in Fig. 8.

It has been noted that the effect of Bhuj (2001) and
Kutch (1819) earthquakes are also considered in the
analysis as the Bhuj (2001) event produced significant damages in the Surat and surrounding areas
although the epicenter of this earthquake is just
outside the limit of 350 km radius around the city.
The b value obtained in this study matches well
with the previous studies RAO and RAO (1984), SEEBER et al. (1999), RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006),
JAISWAL and SINHA (2006), ANBAZHAGAN et al. (2008)
and VIPIN et al. (2009) in PI. However, LAI et al.
(2009) and MENON et al. (2010) reported higher b
values for Kancheepuram and Tamil Nadu respectively, this may imply that the study area is prone to
higher magnitude earthquakes in comparison to these
regions of Tamil Nadu. Table 3 presents the b

From the deterministic seismic hazard analysis

carried out on 16 sources in the study area (Table 1),
five sources gave PGA above 0.01 g, have been
selected for the probabilistic seismic hazard estimation. These sources are namely Cambay East Fault
(CEF), Son Narmada Fault (SNF), Tapi North Fault
(TNF), West Coast Fault (WCF) and West Cambay
Fault (CWF). The detail of five sources with reported
numbers of earthquake data close to each source are
shown in Table 4. In Table 4, the shortest and longest

Figure 6
Stepp method

Figure 7
Regional frequency-magnitude relationships

7. Deaggregation and Selection of Sources

for Probabilistic Hazard Analysis

Table 2
Completeness period for different magnitude classes
STEPP (1973) method

CUVI method
Magnitude class
(Mw)

Completeness
period

Completeness
interval (years)

Magnitude
class (Mw)

Completeness
period

Completeness
interval (years)

3.03.4
3.53.9
4.04.4
4.54.9
5.05.4
5.55.9
6.06.4
C6.5

19582008
19582008
19582008
19522008
19382008
19032008
18452008
18182008

50
50
50
56
70
105
163
190

3.03.4
3.53.9
4.04.4
4.54.9
5.05.4
5.55.9
C6.0
***

19582008
19582008
19582008
19482008
19382008
19082008
18382008
***

50
50
50
60
70
100
170
***

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

Figure 8
Distribution of earthquake magnitude with years

Table 3
Comparison of b values with values reported in the literature
for PI
Author

b Value

Region

RAM and RATHOR (1970)

KAILA et al. (1972)
RAO and RAO (1984)
SEEBER et al. (1999)
RAGHUKANTH and
IYENGAR (2006)
JAISWAL and SINHA (2006)
ANBAZHAGAN et al. (2008)
VIPIN et al. (2009)
LAI et al. (2009)

0.81
0.70
0.85
0.89
0.86

PI
PI
PI
Maharashtra State
Mumbai city

0.91
0.87 0.03
0.891 0.07
1.26

MENON et al. (2010)

Present analysis

1.13
0.89 0.02

PI
Bangalore city
PI
Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Surat city

distances from the point of interest (Surat city) are

presented.
The recurrence relation in Eq. 2 derived in the
present study is for the entire region and not necessarily applicable to any particular fault. Fault level
recurrence is necessary to differentiate activity rates
among the seismic sources. The most reliable way is
to plot a frequency magnitude relation for individual
sources. Because of the paucity of sufficient number
of earthquake data around the individual sources, it
is very difficult to compute reliable seismic parameters and, therefore, this approach may lead to
erroneous results. An alternative is to empirically fix

45

the b value by measuring the slip rate of a fault.

For the faults under consideration, no slip values are
available. Moreover, PI earthquakes are associated
with poor surface expressions of faults and hence
reliable estimation of slip rates has not yet been
possible (RAJENDRAN and RAJENDRAN, 1999; IYENGAR
and RAGHUKANTH, 2004), hence an approach given
by RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006) based on heuristic basis invoking the principle of conservation of
seismic activity is adopted, This method has also
been followed by IYENGAR and GHOSH (2004), RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006), ANBAZHAGAN et al.
(2008) and VIPIN et al. (2009) for PSHA of Delhi,
Mumbai, Bangalore and PI respectively. According
to RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006), the regional
seismicity measured in terms of the number of
earthquakes per year with m C m0, should be equal
to the sum of such events occurring on individual
faults.
X
Hence; Nm0
Ni m0 i 1; 2. . .; 5
3
However, in finding Ni(m0), some assumptions are
necessary. First, a longer fault can produce more
small events of magnitude m0 than a shorter fault.
Hence, Ni (m0) may be taken as being proportional to
the length of the fault, leading to a simple weight
factor for source i,
Li
ai P
Li

where Li is the length of the fault i.

On the other hand, one may also consider that
future activity will continue, at least in the short run,
similar to past activity. Hence, irrespective of its
length, the seismic activity should relate to the
number of past events associated with it in the catalogue. This way one can arrive another weight factor
vi as;
vi

Ni
NR

where Ni = number of earthquakes close to the

source and NR = total number of earthquakes in the
region.
The recurrence relation for source i is obtained by
averaging both weighting factor and multiplying the
regional relation as given below;

46

T. P. Thaker et al.

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 4
Vulnerable sources considered for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
Faults/lineaments

Notation

Magnitude
(Mw)

Shortest hypocentral
distance (km)

Longest hypocentral
distance (km)

No. of earthquakes
close to the source

Cambay East Fault (ECF)

Son Narmada Fault (SNF)
Tapi North Fault (TNF)
West Coast Fault (WCF)
Cambay West Fault (CWF)

F12
F5
F6
F9
F3

5.7
6.3
5.0
5.7
5.7

108.67
43.58
11.89
36.86
139.65

340.66
393.67
370.85
348.05
334.28

08
23
19
22
24

Table 5
Source recurrence relation weighing factors
Faults/
lineaments

Surat
city

Magnitude
(Mw)

Length
(Lf)

No. of earthquakes
close to the source

ai

vi

Average weighing
factor

ECF
SNF
TNF
WCF
CWF

F12
F5
F6
F9
F3

5.7
6.3
5.0
5.7
5.7

290
550
395
308
200

8
23
19
22
24

0.166
0.316
0.227
0.177
0.115

0.026
0.076
0.063
0.073
0.079

0.096
0.196
0.145
0.125
0.097

and an annual rate of event of magnitude CMw (km)

is given by following expression;
km m

expbm  mo   expbmmax  mo 
1  expbmmax  mo 
7

Figure 9
Deaggregation of regional hazard in terms of fault recurrence

m Ni m0 0:5ai vi Nm0

The weighting factors calculated for each source

are shown in Table 5. The maximum magnitude
(mmax) for each source was estimated based on the
maximum reported magnitude at the source plus 0.5
(KIJKO and GRAHAM, 1998; RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR,
2006; ANBAZHAGAN et al. 2008). The recurrence
relation for each fault capable of producing earthquake magnitude in the range of m0 to mmax was
calculated using the truncated exponential recurrence
model developed by MCGUIRE and ARABASZ (1990)

for mo B m B mmax
where, mo is the threshold magnitude, b = 2.303
b and Ni (m0) or m is the weightage factor for a particular source based on deaggregation. The
deaggregation of regional hazard in terms of fault
recurrence is shown in Fig. 9. Finally probability
density function fM(m) is calculated for each fault
based on the following expression.
fM m PM\m=m0  m  mmax 
b expbm  mo

1  expbmmax  mo 

8. Predictive Relationship
Magnitude, distance and site conditions are the
principal variables used in predicting future ground
motions. A large number of predictive relationships
derived from regression analysis of strong motion

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

data are available for peak ground acceleration. Since

the study area is located in PI, the attenuation relation
developed by IYENGAR and RAGHUKANTH (2004)
through a statistically simulated seismological model
for rock a site is used for this study. The attenuation
relation suggested for the study area is given in Eq. 9.
ln Y C1 C2 M  6 C3 M  62  ln R  C4 R
ln e
9
where Y, M, R and e refer to the PGA/Spectral
acceleration (g) at the bedrock level, Moment magnitude, hypocentral distance, and error associated
with the regression respectively. The coefficients C1,
C2, C3 and C4, derived for the western-central region
of India by IYENGAR and RAGHUKANTH (2004) is considered for the hazard analysis. These coefficients in
Eq. 9 have been obtained from the extensive seismological modeling and simulation by RAGHUKANTH
and IYENGAR (2007). This relation is valid for bedrock
sites with a shear wave velocity of 3.6 km/s. The
normal cumulative function has a value which is
more efficient in terms of the standard normal variables (z) which can be computed for any random
variable using a transformation as given below;
z

ln Y   ln Y
rln e

10

Where Y* is the various targeted PGA/Sa levels

which will be exceeded, ln Y is the value calculated
using predictive relationship and ln e is the uncertainty in the predictive relation expressed by the
standard deviation.
PETERSEN et al. (2004) compared Kutch ground
motion data from the 2001 Bhuj earthquake for sites
located 230 km and 950 km from hypocenter in Ahmadabad and Delhi respectively (University of
Roorkee, CRAMER and WHEELER, 2001) with published
ground motion equations. This comparison suggests
that the crustal intraplate relation of FRANKEL et al.
(1996) yields ground motion similar to the strong
ground motion data recorded from 2001 Bhuj earthquake at large distances. A comparison of various
attenuation relationships have been made by JAISWAL
and SINHA (2007), and they gave 50% weightage to the
relationship developed by IYENGAR and RAGHUKANTH
(2004) and rest to other attenuation relationships.

47

9. Local Site Effects

Considerable variation in the ground motion is
observed due to local site conditions, and hence, surface level spectral acceleration values can be different
from bed rock values. Several approaches were used
to include site effect into PSHA (e.g. SUZUKU and
KIREMIDJAN, 1998; BERNREUTER et al. 1986; TOKI et al.
1991; BORCHERDT, 1994; MARITINI et al. 1994; ERDIK,
1995; etc.) most of them use site coefficients which
modify the basic PGA, spectral shape or intensity based
on the site classification, depending on the geotechnical
properties like shear wave velocity (BORCHERDT, 1994)
or geological condition (TOKI et al., 1991). The widely
adopted method for classifying a site is the average
shear wave velocity in the top 30 m of the site commonly known as Vs30. This parameter has been adopted
by many building codes for classifying a site for the
purpose of incorporating local site conditions in the
estimation of the design ground motion. The results of
Eq. 9 are modified for local site condition (RAGHUKANTH
and IYENGAR, 2007) used for the present analysis.
ys YFs

11

and; ln Fs a1 Y a2 ln ds

12

where Fs is amplification coefficient, ys is spectral

acceleration at the ground surface for a given site
class, a1 and a2 are regression coefficients and ds is
the error term corresponding to site classification,
s = A, B, C, D. These coefficients along with the
standard deviation of error r(ln ds) as reported by
RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2007) are considered for
the analysis. The variation from the mean is characterized by standard deviation expressed as:
q
rln es rln e2 rln ds 2
13

10. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was
initially developed by CORNELL (1968) and incorporates the influence of all potential sources of
earthquakes and the activity rate assigned to them.
Thereafter, many researchers have adopted this methodology for evaluating hazard and recently this method

48

T. P. Thaker et al.

has been adopted by IYENGAR and GHOSH (2004),

RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006), ANBAZHAGAN et al.
(2008), and VIPIN et al. (2009) for the probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis of Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore
and PI respectively. The procedure for carrying out
PSHA has been demonstrated by KRAMER (1996) and is
adopted for the present analysis. A common approach
involves the development of seismic hazard curves,
which indicates the annual probability of exceedance
of different values of a selected ground motion
parameter. The seismic hazard curves can be used to
compute the probability of exceeding the selected
ground motion parameter in a specified period of time.
Seismic hazard curves can be obtained for individual
source zones and are combined to express aggregate
hazards at a particular site. For a given earthquake
occurrence, the probability that a ground motion
parameter Y will exceed a particular value y* can be
computed using total probability theorem; that is:

P Y [ y   P
Z Y [ y =X P X 

PY [ y =X fx Xdx

Pure Appl. Geophys.

analytically. Numerical integration, which can be

performed by a variety of different techniques, is
therefore required. One approach used for simplicity
to divide the possible ranges of magnitude and distance into NM and NR segments respectively. The
average exceedance rate can be estimated by,
k y

NM X
NR
Ns X
X

mi PY [y =mj ;rk fMi mj fRi rk DmDr

i1 j1 k1

17
where mj = mo ? (j - 0.5)(mmax - mo)/NM, rk =
rmin ? (k - 0.5)(rmax - rmin)/NR, Dm = (mmax mo)/Nm and Dr = (rmax - rmin)/NR. This is equivalent to assuming that each source is capable of
generating only NM different earthquakes of different
magnitude mj, at only NR different source to site
distances, rk, and hence, Eq. 17 equivalent to,
ky 

NM X
NR
Ns X
X

mi PY [ y =mj ; rk PM mj PR rk 

i1 j1 k1

18

14

where X is a vector of random variables that influences Y. In most cases, the quantities in X are limited
to magnitude M, and distance R. Assuming that M
and R are independent, the probability of exceedance
can be written as:
ZZ
PY [ y 
PY [ y =m; rfM mfR rdmdr

Assuming that the number of earthquakes occurring on a fault follows a stationary Poissons process,
the probability that the control variable Y exceeds
level y*, in terms of a finite time interval T years is
given by:
PYT [ y  1  exp ky  T

15
where P[Y [ y*/m,r] is obtained from the predictive
relationship and fM(m) and fR(r) are the probability
density functions for magnitude and distance,
respectively. If the site of interest is a region of Ns
potential earthquake sources, each of which has an
average rate of threshold magnitude exceedances,
m expai  bi mo ; the total average exceedance
rate the region will be given by
ZZ
Ns
X
k y
PY [ y =m; rfMi mfRi rdmdr
mi
i1

16
The individual components of Eq. 16 are, quite
complicated that the integrals cannot be evaluated

Figure 10
Seismic hazard at rock level for Surat, Gujarat, India

19

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

49

Even in absence of this, the design response spectrum

can be standardized for the sites of A, B, C, and D.
Seismic hazard curves for PGA computed separately
for these sites in Surat is shown in Fig. 11, for E- and
F-type sites, rigorous nonlinear site response analysis
would be needed, with specific parameters and is
outside the scope of the present study.

11. Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum

Figure 11
Effect of local site condition on seismic hazard in Surat, Gujarat

The seismic hazard curves can be obtained by

computing the mean annual rate of exceedance ky, for
different specified ground motion values y*. These
curves are first obtained individually for all the five
faults and combined to estimate the aggregate hazard
at the site. The seismic hazard curve for PGA at bed
rock obtained by the above method is shown in Fig. 10
along with the individual contribution from all five
faults. It is observed that the seismic hazard at Surat is
mainly contributed by three faults namely, Tapi North
Fault (TNF), Son Narmada Fault (SNF) and West
Coast Fault (WCF). The site condition in Surat city
may vary A-type to F-type based on the NEHRP
classification. Ideally, with the help of detailed shear
wave velocity profiles, covering all parts of city, precise estimation of site specific hazard will be possible.

The current approach in engineering practice is to

use design response spectra with equal probability of
exceedance over the entire frequency range of interest. Such design spectra are known as Uniform
Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS). In the present
study, uniform hazard response spectra is developed
from probabilistic ground motion analysis that has
equal probability being exceeded at each period of
vibration. For finding UHRS, seismic hazard curves,
response spectra at specified probability of exceedance over the entire frequency range of interest are
evaluated using Eq. 9 and site coefficients suggested
by RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR, 2007. The International
Code IBC (2000) prescribed design forces based on
spectral acceleration (Sa) corresponding to 10 and 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. These correspond to 475 and 2,475 years return periods
respectively. Figure 12 shows the UHRS (with
damping of 5%) at bed rock level for Surat city
corresponding to the above two standard return
periods. Spectral acceleration (Sa) corresponding to
1 s natural period, is known as long period seismic
period. It is observed that, for the same return period,
spectral acceleration is high on soft soil sites.
Figure 13 shows the hazard curves corresponding to
1 s natural period for different site classes (A, B, C and
D). Uniform hazard response spectrum (with damping
of 5%) for different site in Surat city according to
NEHRP site classification for 10 and 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years presented in Fig. 14.

12. Results and Discussions

Figure 12
UHRS (with damping of 5%) at bed rock level for Surat city
corresponds to 10 and 2% of probability of exceedance in 50 years

In the present study, the seismic hazard analysis is

carried out for the establishment of PGA at bed rock

50

T. P. Thaker et al.

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Site A

Site B

Site C

Site D

Bedrock

Figure 13
Hazard curves for 1 s for different sites (Class A, B, C, D, and bedrock)

level for Surat city based on the deterministic

approach. An attempt has also been made to evaluate
the seismic hazard in terms of PGA and Sa at rock
level and PGA at ground level, based on different site
classes for Surat city based on probabilistic hazard
analysis. The seismic hazard curves and UHRS for 2
and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years are
calculated using newly developed Microsoft Excel
program. There are no previous engineering studies

in open literature on probabilistic seismic hazard

analysis covering Surat region. Hence, the results of
the present study are compared with the studies
reported in the literature on PI (SEEBER et al. 1999;
IYENGAR and RAGHUKANTH, 2004; ANBAZHAGAN et al.
2008; BOOMINATHAN et al. 2008; JAISWAL and SINHA,
2008, VIPIN et al. 2009). The results are also compared with the Indian Standard Code (BIS 1893:
2002).

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

(a)

(b)

Figure 14
Uniform hazard response spectrum for different sites according to
NEHRP classifications a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years
b 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years

As stated earlier, b value obtained in the present

study matches well with the most studies reported in
the literature for PI.
In the present investigation, the peak ground
accelerations (PGA) 0.100 and 0.138 g are obtained
for 10 and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years,
respectively. As the time unit is not taken into
consideration in the deterministic approach, the
probabilistic and deterministic values should not
compare. However, in the present study, they have
been compared considering NEHRP (BSSC 2001)
clause 4.1.3.1. According to this, when site specific
procedure are utilized, maximum considered earthquake ground motion shall be taken as that motion
represented by a 5% damped acceleration response
spectrum having a 2% probability of exceedance in a
50 years. Deterministic approach is also considered
for maximum credible earthquake. Hence considering
the MCE is likened to ground motion with 2475 yr
return period, while the DBE is likened to the 475 yr
return period (MENON et al., 2010), the deterministic

51

results are compared with 2% probability of

exceedance in 50 years (2,475 R.P.) results. The
value of PGA at 2% of probability of exceedance in
50 years is comparable with PGA value of 0.158 g
obtained from deterministic analysis. The study
illustrates that the probabilistic and deterministic
approaches may lead to comparable answers and
complementing each other and provides additional
insights to the seismic hazard assessment.
The PGA value for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for Surat city, considering different
sites varies from 0.100 to 0.210 g, with a maximum
value of 0.210 for Site D (BSSC, 2001). However,
these PGA values at bedrock obtained from the current investigation are comparable with GSHAP maps
of BHATIA et al. (1999) for the same region. However,
BHATIA et al. (1999) have not given any information
regarding the influence of local Soil.
In recent years, the building codes are revised to
consider the 2% probability of exceedance in
50 years (VIPIN et al., 2009) which corresponds to a
return period of 2,475 years. Peak ground acceleration value for the above return period varies from
0.138 to 0.335 g considering the various site condition (BSSC, 2001) with maximum value of 0.335 g
for Site D. The PGA value of 0.335 g corresponds to
zone V as per the current seismic hazard map of India
(BIS 1893:2002). Similarly for return period of
475 years the maximum PGA value of 0.210 g is
obtained for Site D, which corresponds to zone IV
as per the current seismic hazard map of India.
However, Surat region is placed in the zone III corresponds to maximum PGA value of 0.16 g.
Uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) with 10
and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years were
developed for bedrock and A, B, C and D type soil
classes (BSSC, 2001) for Surat city (Fig. 14). The
results of these curves show the variation of predominant frequency with change in soil types. The
period of oscillation corresponding to maximum
spectral acceleration varies from 0.04 s at bedrock
level to 0.1 s at ground surface for site class D which
shows low rise buildings are most vulnerable to
earthquake damage. VIPIN et al. (2009) and RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2004) found that the period of
oscillation for Bangalore and Mumbai city respectively in PI, the values ranges from 0.05 s for bedrock

52

T. P. Thaker et al.

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 6
Comparison of ground motion parameters reported in literature
Ground motion parameters

Value

Region

Author

PGA (475 R.P.) in g

0.100
0.090
0.121
0.138
0.180
0.151
0.210
0.180
0.310
0.370

Surat city
Mumbai city
Bangalore
Surat city
Mumbai city
Bangalore
Surat city
Mumbai city
Surat city
Mumbai city

Present study
RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006)
ANBAZHAGAN et al. (2008)
Present study
RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006)
ANBAZHAGAN et al. (2008)
Present study
RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006)
Present study
RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006)

PGA (2475 R.P.) in g

Sa (0.01 s and 475 R.P) in g

Sa (0.01 s and 2475 R.P) in g
R.P. return period

to 0.2 s for site class D. The results of present

investigations are compared with various studies in
the literature for PI (Table 6). The values obtained
from the present study shows some degree of similarity with the studies reported in the literature.
In this article, Surat city has been represented as a
single point. This is not a major limitation in
estimating seismic hazard. Previous work on microzonation of Delhi (IYENGAR and GHOSH, 2004; RAO
and NEELIMA, 2005) shows that surface level spatial
variation of hazard, on a city size region, depends
more on local soil conditions rather than on the
disposition of seismic sources. Hence at bedrock
condition, spatial variation within city limits is
expected to be minimal. However, different sites in a
city will have different Vs30 values and belong to one
of A, B, C and D types. With this in view, in the
present study, design response spectra have been
derived for these four types of sites. Also, the current
study highlights the influence of local site effect on
the ground motion characteristics and shows the need
for the revision of the current code (IS 1893:2002) of
practice in India.
However, the above process has several limitations as cited by RAGHUKANTH and IYENGAR (2006). In
addition, all the sources are assumed to be a line
source. It is important to note that for large portions
of peninsular India (i.e., the quiet zones of cratons);
the historical catalog includes no information about
the previous earthquake activity due to its relatively
short time span (JAISWAL and SINHA, 2008). It is
possible that many smaller magnitude earthquakes in
these quiet zones have not been recorded due to a

sparse instrumental network even during the last

several decades. A seismic source incorporating
background seismicity was not included in the present study. Apart from the above limitations, this
procedure may lead to the best possible results under
the present seismic scenario as stated by RAGHUKANTH
and IYENGAR (2006).

REFERENCES
ANBAZHAGAN, P., VINOD, J.S., and SITHARAM, T. G. (2008). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore. Nat. Hazards. 8,
145166.
BASU, S., and NIGAM, N.C. (1977). Seismic risk analysis of Indian
Peninsula. Proc. 6th World Conf. Earthquake Engg. New Delhi.
1, 782788.
BIS-1893:2002. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures, Part 1 General provisions and buildings.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BERNREUTER, D.L., CHEN, J.C., and SAVY, J.B. (1986). A methodology to correct for the effect of the local site characteristics in
seismic hazard analyses. Proc. 3rd U.S. National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering California, 245255.
BHATIA, S.C., KUMAR, M.R., and GUPTA, H.K. (1999). A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Annali
di geofisica, 42(6):11531164.
BOOMINATHAN, A., DODAGOUDAR, G.R., SUGANTHI, A. and MAHESWARI R.U., (2008), Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city
considering local site effects, J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, S2,
853863.
BORCHERDT, R.D. (1994). Estimates of site dependent response
spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq.
Spectra. 10(4), 617653.
BSSC:2001 NEHRP recommended provision for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structure 2000 edition, part 1:
Provision Report no. FEMA 368, Building seismic safety council
for the federal emergency management agency, Washington, DC,
USA.

Vol. 169, (2012)

Use of Seismotectonic Information for the Seismic Hazard Analysis

CHANDRA, U. (1977). Earthquakes of PI- A seismotectonic study

Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 67(5), 13871413.
CORNELL, C.A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 15831606.
CRAMER, C.H. and WHEELER, R.L. (2001), The 2001 Gujarat, India
earthquake and seismic hazard in central and Eastern North
America. Abstract in Seismological Letters, 72, 396.
EPRI (2006). Program on technology innovation: Truncation of the
lognormal distribution and value of the standard deviation for
ground motion models in the Central and Eastern United States,
MD: 2006.1014381, Department of Energy, Germantown, Palo
Alto, CA.
ERDIK, M. (1995) Developments on empirical assessment of the
effect of surface geology on strong ground motion. In Proc. 10th
European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 25932598.
FRANKEL, A., MUELLER, C. BARNHARD, T. PERKINS, D., LEYENDECKER,
E.V., DICKMAN, N., HANSON, S., and HOPPER, M. (1996). National
Seismic Hazard Maps, Open File Report (USGS) 96-552, 41.
Available at http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/hazmapsdoc/junedoc.
pdf.
GUBIN, I. E. (1968). Seismic zoning of Indian Peninsula Bull.
Intern. Inst. Seism. Earthq. Eng. 5, 109139.
GUHA, S.K. (1962). Seismic regionalization of India. 2nd Sym.
Earthquake Engg., Roorkee, 191207.
GUHA, S.K., and BASU, P.C. (1993). Catalogue of earthquakes
(M C 3.0) in Peninsular India, Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board, Tech. Document No. TD/CSE-1, 170.
GUTENBERG, B. and RICHTER, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, 185188.
GUTENBERG, B. and RICHTER, C.F. (1956). Earthquake magnitude,
intensity, energy and acceleration. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 46,
105145.
HEATON, T.H., TAJIMA, F., and MORI, A.W. (1986). Estimating
ground motions using recorded Accelerograms. Surv. Geophys.
8(1), 2583.
IBC (2000): International Code Council, International Building
Code, Falls Church, VA.
IYENGAR, R.N. and RAGHUKANTH, S.T.G. (2004). Attenuation of
strong ground motion in Peninsular India Seismol. Res. Lett. 75,
530540.
IYENGAR, R.N. and GHOSH, S. (2004). Microzonation of earthquake
hazard in greater Delhi area Curr. Sci. 87, 11931202.
JAISWAL, K., and SINHA, R. (2005). EarthquakeInfo.org: Webportal
on earthquake disaster awareness in India. http://www.
earthquakeinfo.org. Last Accessed May 2009.
JAISWAL, K., and SINHA, R. (2006). Probabilistic modeling of
earthquake hazard in stable continental shield of the Indian
Peninsula. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 43(3), 4964.
JAISWAL, K. and SINHA, R. (2007). Probabilistic seismic-hazard
estimation for Peninsular India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97(1B),
318330.
JAISWAL, K., and SINHA, R. (2008), Spatial-temporal variability of
seismic hazard in Peninsular India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, S2,
707718.
KANAMORI, H. (1983). Magnitude scale and quantification of
earthquakes. Tectonophysics. 93, 185199.
KAILA, K.L., GAUR, V.K., and NARAIN, H. (1972). Quantitative
seismicity maps of India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 62,
11191131.
KAILA, K.L., and RAO, N.M. (1979). Seismic zoning maps of the
Indian subcontinent. Geophys. Res. Bull. 17, 293301.

53

KHATRI, K.N., ROGERS, A.M., and ALGERMISSEN, S.T. (1984). A

seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas Tectonophysics,
108, 93134.
KHATTRI, K.N. (1992). Seismic hazard in Indian region. Curr. Sci.
62 (1-2), 109116.
KIJKO, A., and GRAHAM, G. (1998). Parametric-historic procedure
for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Part I: Estimation of
maximum regional magnitude Mmax. Pure Appl. Geophy. 152,
413442.
KRAMER, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, Washington, 106129.
KRINITZSKY, E.L. (2002). How to obtain earthquake ground motions
for engineering design. Eng. Geol. , 116.
KRISHNA, J. (1959). Seismic zoning of India. In Earthquake Engg.,
Seminar, Roorkee University, India, 3238.
LAI, C.G., MENON, A., CORIGLIANO, M., ORNTHAMARRATH, T.,
SANCHEZ, H.L., and DODAGOUDAR, G.R. (2009). Probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment and stochastic site response analysis
at the archaeological site of Kancheepuram in southern India.
Research Report EUCENTRE 2009/01, IUSS Press, Pavia, isbn
978-88-6198-037-2, 250.
MALIK, J.N., SOHONI, P.S., KARANTH, R.V., MERH, S.S. (1999).
Modern and historic seismicity of Kachchh Peninsula, western
India. J. Geol. Soc. India 54, 545550.
MANDAL, P., RASTOGI, B.K., and GUPTA, H.K. (2000). Recent Indian
earthquakes. Cur. Sci. 79(9), 13341346.
MARITINI, G., ROMEO, R., SABETTA, F., SODDI, P., DAMINELLI, R.,
MARCELLINI, A., MIRENNA, S., PAGANI, M., RIVA., F. and MANELLI,
G. (1994). SMCP-Seismic microzoning computer program, In
Proc. XXIV General Assemby of ESC, Unversity of Athens,
Greece, 16191627.
MCGUIRE, R.K., and ARABASZ, W.J. (1990). An Introduction to
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, ed. by Ward, S.H. Society of Exploration
Geophysicist, 1, 333353.
MENON, A., ORNTHAMMARATH, T., CORIGLIANO, M., and LAI, C.G.
(2010). Probabilistic seismic hazard macrozonation of Tamil
Nadu in Southern India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100(3),
13201341.
MERZ, H.A., and CORNELL, C.A. (1973). Aftershocks in engineering
seismic risk analysis. Report, Department of Civil Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 73125.
OLDHAM, T.A. (1883). Catalogue of Indian earthquakes. Mem.
Geol. Surv. India, 19, 163215.
PETERSEN, M.D., RASTOGI, B.K., SCHWEIG, E.S., HARMSEN, S., and
GOMBERG, J.S. (2004). Sensitivity analysis of seismic hazard for
the northwestern portion of the state of Gujarat, India. Tectonophysics, 390, 105115.
RAGHUKANTH, S.T.G., and IYENGAR, R.N. (2006). Seismic hazard
estimation for Mumbai city Curr. Sci. 91(11), 14861494.
RAGHUKANTH, S.T.G., and IYENGAR, R.N. (2007). Estimation of
seismic spectral acceleration in Peninsular India J. Earth Sys.
Sci. 116(3), 199214.
RAJENDRAN, K., RAJENDRAN, C.P. (1999). Seismogenesis in the stable continental interiors: an appraisal based on two examples
from India. Tectonophysics. 305, 355370.
RAM, A., and RATHOR, H.S. (1970). On frequency magnitude and
energy of significant Indian earthquakes Pure Appl. Geophys. 79,
2632.

54

T. P. Thaker et al.

RAO, K.S., and NEELIMA, S. (2005), Seismic microzonation studies

for Delhi region. Symposium on Seismic Hazard Analysis and
Microzonation, September 2324, Roorkee, 213234.
RAO, R.B. (2000). Historical Seismicity and deformation rates in
the Indian Peninsular Shield. J. Seismol. 4, 247258.
RAO, R.B., and RAO, S.P. (1984). Historical Seismicity of Peninsular India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 25192533.
Regulatory Guide 1.167 (1997). Identification and characterization
of seismic sources and determination of safe shutdown earthquake ground motion. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
SEEBER, L., ARMBRUSTER, J.G., and JACOB, K H. (1999). Probabilistic
assessment of seismic hazard for Maharashtra, Govt. of Maharashtra, Unpublished Report.
SHAH, H.C., MORGAT, C.P., KIREMIDJIAN, A.S., and ZSUTTY, T.C.
(1975). Study of seismic risk for Nicaragua, Part I, Report II, The
John a Blum Earthquake Engineering Centre, Stanford, California.
SEISAT (2000). Seismotectonic Atlas of India, Geological Survey
of India.
SITHARAM, T.G., and ANBAZHAGAN, P. (2007). Seismic hazard
analysis for the Bangalore region. Nat. Hazards. 40, 261278.
STEPP, J.C. (1973). Analysis of completeness of the earthquake
sample in the Puget Sound area, ed. by in Seismic Zoning,

Pure Appl. Geophys.

Harding S.T. NOAA Tech. Report ERL 267-ESL30, Boulder,
Colorado.
SUZUKU, S., and KIREMIDJAN, A.S. (1998). Consideration of soil
parameters uncertainties in the time dependent seismic hazard
models. In Struct. and Strchast. Methods (Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering), Amsterdam, 45, 427438.
TANDON, A.N. (1956). Zoning of India liable to earthquake damage.
Indian J. Meteorol. Geophys. 10, 137146.
TINTI, S., and MULARGIA, F. (1985). Completeness analysis of a
seismic catalog Ann. Geophys. 3, 407414.
TOKI, K., SATO, T. and KIYONO, J. (1991). Estimation of peak
acceleration for seismic microzonation taking into account the
fault extent. In Proc. 4th International Conf. Seismic Zonation,
Stanford, California, 731738.
VIPIN, K.S., ANBAZHAGAN, P. and SITHARAM, T.G. (2009). Estimation
of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for South
India. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 865878.
WIEMER, S., and WYSS, M. (2000). Minimum magnitude of complete
reporting in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the
Western United States, and Japan. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90,
859869.

(Received April 11, 2010, revised February 4, 2011, accepted March 3, 2011, Published online June 9, 2011)