Journal of Structural Engineering
36-T9
Vol. 36, No. 6, February - March 2010 pp. 456–460
A critique on the use of quality factors for developing attenuation relations
for the regions in India
J. Daniel Ronald Joseph *, ∗ , K. Balaji Rao∗ , M.B. Anoop∗ and Nagesh R. Iyer∗
∗
Structural Engineering Research Centre, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, India.
Received 26 June 2009; Accepted 07 July 2009
The development of seismic attenuation relationships is an
important step in seismic hazard analysis. The attenuation of
the seismic waves from source to site is due to the Geometric
spreading, Scattering, Multipathing and anelasticity 1 . The at-
tenuation of the seismic waves depends on the distance of
the site from the earthquake focus i or hypocenter (Hypocen-
tral distance) and the characteristics of the medium through
which the waves travel. The characteristics of the medium
through which the waves travel depend upon the type of the
rock/soil that lies beneath the earth surface and stratificati-
on. Hence, these waves will propagate differently in diffe-
rent regions due to the variation in the type of the underly-
ing rock/soil materials and layering. The property that defi-
nes how efficiently the underlying medium can transmit the
seismic waves is the Quality factor, Q(f ) and hence the Qua-
lity factor is one of the factors that determine the attenuation
characteristics of a region. Quality factor is a measure of how
much damping the underlying medium can offer to the wave
propagation, which will differ from region to region and also
is dependent on the frequencies of the seismic waves. Va-
rious researchers have carried out investigations to determine
the quality factor for different regions in India. The quality
factor can be determined using the Coda waves [Q c (f )] or
Shear waves [Qs (f )]. Coda waves are the tail portion of the
seismogram recorded at certain distances from the epicenter
(after the arrival of major wave types such as P, S and surface
waves)2 and are considered to be produced by the scattering
processes caused by the heterogeneities of underlying medi-
um acting on the seismic waves 3 . Coda waves are sensitive to
changes in the subsurface because the strong scattering that
generates these waves causes coda waves to repeatedly sam-
ple a limited region of space 4 . Though the quality factor is
unique for specific region, the quality factor determined de-
pends on the part of the seismogram that is considered in its
estimation. If the seismogram data that is used in the esti-
mation of the Quality factor has the effect of the source in
it (seismogram corresponding to the shear wave), the quality
factor thus estimated may not purely represent the damping
of the medium through which the seismic waves travel. The
seismogram corresponding to the coda wave portion is not
affected by the source and hence can be used to represent
the damping characteristic of the medium. As mentioned in
the reference 5, in the constant stress drop model, source ef-
fect will be less in the higher frequency range which corre-
sponds to the lower magnitude earthquakes. In order to deter-
mine the ground acceleration/velocity/displacement, Quality
* E-mail:daniel@sercm.org; i please see end note
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before May 31, 2010)
456 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 36, NO. 6, FEBRUARY - MARCH 2010
No.
factor that purely quantify the damping characteristics of the
medium is to be used rather than the one in which the sour-
ce effect is incorporated. Thus, Q c (f ) which is based on the
coda waves, characterizing the damping of the medium, shall
be used in developing the attenuation relationships.
As seen from the Table 1, various authors report Q c (f )
and Qs (f ) for different regions in India. Both the Q(f )s are
not reported for all the regions in India. This study is pertai-
ned to develop the relationships between Q c (f ) and Qs (f )
using regression analysis from which either one can be deter-
mined.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
As Qc (f ) quantifies the damping of the medium more relia-
bly than Qs (f ), it is needed that rather than Q s (f ), Qc (f )
be used in the determination of the attenuation relationships
for the regions in India. The scope of this study is to find the
relationships between Q c (f ) and Qs (f ) for different regions
in India so that these relationships can be used in determining
Qc (f ) for the regions for which Q c (f ) has not been reported.
4
3
Qs/Qc
2
Other regions
Koyna Warna region
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency,f
Fig. 1 Variation of Trend of (Qs /Qc ) vs ’f’ for Koyna-Warna region
with other regions
Relation between Qs (f ) and Qc (f ) using Regression
analysis
The data shown in the Table 1 is used for the regression ana-
lysis to obtain the relation between Q s (f ) and Qc (f ). All
the possible combinations of Q s /Qc are arrived at for the
respective regions and are given in Table 2. From these and
 TABLE 1
QUALITY FACTORS REPORTED FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS OF INDIA
Region Quality factor Reference Method
Qc = 96f 1.09 Gupta et al 1998 Coda
Qp = (59 ± 1)f (1.04±.04)
Koyna Qs = (71 ± 1)f (1.32±0.08) Sharma et al 2007 Shear and Coda
Qc = (117 ± 2)f 0.97±0.07
Qc = 169f 0.77 Mandal and Rastogi 1998 Coda
Qc = (97 ± 7.18)f (1.09±0.036) Gupta et al 2002 Coda
Qc = 126f 0.95 Gupta et al 1995 Coda
Garwhal Himalaya Qc = 158f 1.05 Kumar et al 2005 Coda
Qs = 253f 0.8 Singh et al 2004 Shear
Qc = (92 ± 4.73)f (1.07±0.02) Paul et al 2003 Coda
Qs = 790f 0.22
0 <FocDep <25 km
Qs = 790f 0.35 Bodin et al 2004 Shear
Kutch region 20 <FocDep< 40 km
Qc = (102 ± 0.80)f (0.98±0.02) Mandal et al 2004 Coda
Qc = 82f 1.17 Gupta et al 2006 Coda
Qs = (100 ± 4)f (0.86±0.04)
Qc = (148 ± 3)f 1.01±0.02 Sharma et al 2008 Shear and Coda
Indian Shield Qs = 508f 0.48 Singh et al 1999 Shear
(Including South Qs = 800f 0.42 Singh et al 2004 Shear
India) Qs = (665 ± 10)f 0.67±0.03 Mitra et al 2006 Lg
Dharwar:
Qc = (730.62 ± 0.09)f (0.54±0.01)
Cuddapah:
South India Qc = (535.06 ± 0.13)f (0.59±0.01) Kumar et al 2007 Coda
Kothagudem:
Qc = (150.56 ± 0.08)f (0.91±0.01)
Q−1
c = 0.014f
−1.2 (Dharwar) Tripathi et al 2004 Coda
Andaman Islands QC = 119f 0.80 Parvez et al 2008 Coda
Qc = (52.315 ± 1.07)f (1.32±0.036) Hazarika et al 2008 Coda
Indo-Burmese arc
Qs = (431 ± 9)f (0.73±0.01)
Bengal basin-Shillong plateau Raghukanth and Somala 2009 Shear
Qs = (224 ± 10)f (0.93±0.01)
Qc = (86 ± 4.04)f (1.02±0.026) Gupta et al 2002 Coda
Indo-Burmese arc
Qs = (282 ± 18)f (0.7±0.15)
North east India Bengal basin
Qs = (272 ± 28)f (0.74±0.09)
Indo-Burmese arc Shear
Qs = (452 ± 82)f (0.85±0.05) Nath et al 2008 (Guwahati data
Sikkim Himalaya only)
Qs = (733 ± 133)f (0.35±0.05)
Eastern Himalaya
Qs = (180 ± 15)f (0.86±0.06)
also from Fig. 1, it is noted that the trend of the variation of of data for that region. The bounds of one and two standard
Qs /Qc with frequency for the Koyna-Warna region is diffe- deviation for the trend line are indicated in the Figs. 2 - 4
rent from that for the other regions. This is due to the fact shown.
that the seismicity associated with the Koyna-Warna region
is reservoir induced. Hence, this trend is expected. Therefore 3 In(Qs/Qc) = -0.428 Ln(f) + 1.368
it is decided to consider Koyna-Warna region separately from +2σ
σ = ± 0.631018
the other regions of India in the further investigation. Figure 2 +1σ Correlation coefficient = - 0.478
2 shows the variation of Q s /Qc with frequency for different
regions of India except the Koyna-Warna region. From the 1 -1σ
ln(Qs/Qc)

Fig. 2, it is noted that the data shows large dispersion, espe-

cially at higher frequency range. In order to get a meaningful 0 -2σ
relation between Q s /Qc versus frequency, the extreme data 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
points (beyond ±2σ line) are removed and the same is shown -1
in Fig. 3. These data points are considered for the regression
analysis. The correlation coefficients are less (Figs. 2 and 3) -2
for the data of all the regions (except Koyna- Warna because
of the wide dispersion of the data. This dispersion is common
in studies dealing with seismology (viz., Fig. 5 of Ref.(5)). -3
Fig. 4 shows the variation of Q s /Qc with the frequency for ln(f)
the Koyna-Warna region. The correlation coefficient for the Fig. 2 Variation of Qs /Qc with frequency (Entire data-Koyna-Warna
Koyna - Warna region is better because of the lesser number data not included)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 36, NO. 6, FEBRUARY - MARCH 2010 457
 3 TABLE 2
ln (Qs/Qc) = -0.387Ln(f) + 1.315
2.5 +2σ σ = ± 0.553784 Qs (f )/Qc (f ) FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS OF INDIA
2 Correlation coefficient = -0.541 QS and QC collected QS / QC considered
+1σ
Koyna Warna
1.5
Qc = 96f 1.09 0.75f 0.31
1 -1σ QS = 72f 1.4 Qc = 119f 1.04 0.605f 0.36
ln(Qs/Qc)

0.5 Qc = 169f 0.77 0.426f 0.63

-2σ Qc = 104.18f 1.126 0.691f 0.274
0 Garwhal Himalaya
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-0.5 Qc = 126f 0.95 2.07f −0.15
Qs = 253f 0.8 Qc = 158f 1.05 1.601f −0.25
-1
Qc = 96.73f 1.09 2.616f −0.29
-1.5 Kutch
-2 Qc = 102.8f 1.0 7.68f −0.78
ln(f) QS = 790f 0.22 Qc = 82f 1.17 9.63f −0.95
Qc = 151f 1.03 5.23f −0.81
Fig. 3 Variation of Qs /Qc with frequency (Sorted data-Koyna-Warna Qc = 102.8f 1.0 7.68f −0.65
data not included) QS = 790f 0.35 Qc = 82f 1.17 9.63f −0.82
Qc = 151f 1.03 5.23f −0.68
Qc = 102.8f 1.0 1.01f −0.1
ln (Qs/Qc) = 03935 ln(f) - 0.5033 QS = 104f 0.90 Qc = 82f 1.17 1.26f −0.27
Qc = 151f 1.03 0.68f −0.13
North East
Qs = 440f 0.74 8.24f −0.616
Qs = 234f 0.94 4.38f −0.416
ln (Qs/Qc)

Qs = 300f 0.85 5.61f −0.506

Qc = 53.385f 1.356 Qs = 300f 0.83 5.61f −0.526
Qs = 534f 0.90 10.00f −0.456
Qs = 866f 0.40 16.22f −0.956
Qs = 195f 0.92 3.65f −0.436
Qs = 440f 0.74 5.11f −0.28
Qs = 234f 0.94 2.72f −0.08
Qs = 300f 0.85 3.48f −0.17
Qc = 86f 1.02 Qs = 300f 0.83 3.48f −0.19
Qs = 534f 0.90 6.20f −0.12
Fig. 4 Variation of Qs /Qc with frequency for Koyna-Warna region Qs = 866f 0.40 10.06f −0.62
Qs = 195f 0.92 2.26f −0.1
The obtained relations between the Q s and Qc are:
1.E+01
For all the regions (Excluding Koyna-Warna region)


Fourier Amplitude Spectrum, cm/s

1.E+00
Qs
ln = −0.387ln(f ) + 1.315 with
Qc
FAS using Qc (Kumar et al 2007)
standard deviation σ = 0.55378 (1) 1.E-01
FAS using Qs (From equation)

For Koyna-Warna region

1.E-02

 
Qs
ln = 0.3935ln(f ) − 0.5033 with
Qc 1.E-03
0.01 0.1 1 Frequency, Hz 10
standard deviation σ = 0.33254 (2)
Fig. 5 Fourier Amplitude Spectrum for Dharwar region

FOURIER AMPLITUDE SPECTRUM (FAS) 1.E+01

FAS is used by the seismologists to characterize the ground

1.E+00
motion. It describes the energy content of the earthquake.
Fourier Amplitude Spectrum, cm/s

Figs. 5 and 6 show the variation of the FAS (for an earthquake

FAS using Qc (Gupta et al 2006)
of magnitude 6.0 and epicentral distance of 100km) calcula- 1.E-01

ted using the quality factors Q c (f ) and Qs (f ) for Dharwar FAS using Qs (From equation)

and Kutch regions, respectively. As seen from the Fig. 5 the 1.E-02
difference in the maximum values of the Fourier Amplitu-
de is minimal for Dharwar region, which is a stable region.
1.E-03
But there is a significant difference in the maximum values
of Fourier Amplitude Spectrum for the Kutch region (Fig. 6)
which is an active region. Hence it is obvious that the use 1.E-04
of Quality factor calculated using the shear wave, ie.,Q s (f ), 0.01 0.1 1 Frequency, Hz 10

over-estimates the seismic forces than predicted by Q c (f ). Fig. 6 Fourier Amplitude Spectrum for Kutch region

458 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 36, NO. 6, FEBRUARY - MARCH 2010
PERFORMANCE OF EQUATION-1
It is proposed to study the performance of the proposed Eq.
(1) with respect to its predictiveness. It is known that, only
limited number of studies report both Q s and Qc together.
Keeping this in view, the data from the ref.32 is used in the
performance prediction of the Eq. (1). It may be noted that
the reported quality factors in the ref.32 have not been used
in the regression analysis. The comparison of values reported
in ref.32 with the proposed equation is shown in the Fig. 7. In
this figure, the coda wave and shear wave quality factors are
calculated using the Eq. (1) using the reported shear wave and
coda wave quality factors respectively. The calculated quali-
ty factors are plotted against the frequency, together with the
reported quality factors. It can be seen from this figure that
the calculated quality factors are falling within ±σ values of
proposed equation showing that the Eq. (1) is performing sa-
tisfactorily.
In(Qs/Qc)
Fig. 7 Variation of Qs /Qc with frequency (Koyna-Warna not included)
- Checking
CONCLUDING REMARKS
An attempt has been made to obtain the relationships bet-
ween the Coda and Shear wave Quality factors obtained
using the information obtained from literature (Table 1). The-
se relationships may be used to determine Q c (f ) or Qs (f )
required. The performance of the equation.1 with respect to
predictiveness has been found to be satisfactory. This may
facilitate to obtain the attenuation relation using the Q c (f )
(for the regions where Q c (f ) has not been reported and vice-
versa) which reflect the true damping of the portion of the
earth and same can be used in determining the attenuation
relationships for regions for which Q c (f ) is representative
of.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Prof. Narayana Iyengar, Director,
Centre for Advanced Research and Development, SBM Jain
College of Engineering, Bangalore, who is the expert consul-
tant for SERC-NDMA Grant-in-Aid Project, for his valuable
guidance and continuous discussions. The authors are also
thankful to Dr. S T G Raghukanth, Indian Institute of Tech-
nology Madras, for providing some of the necessary data to-
gether with fruitful discussions during the study. This forms
a part of the project “Development of probabilistic seismic
hazard map of India” and the authors are thankful to NDMA
for partial funding of the project. In particular, the authors
thank Dr. Bhattacharjee, Honorable Member, NDMA for ha-
ving enlightening discussions.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 36, NO. 6, FEBRUARY - MARCH 2010
This paper is being published with the kind permission of
the Director, SERC(CSIR)
REFERENCE
1. Seth Stein, Michael Wysession, “An introduction to Seis-
mology, Earthquake and Earthstructure”, Blackwell pu-
blishers, 2003.
2. Nick Barton, “Rock Quality, Seismic Velocity, Attenuati-
on and Anisotropy” paperback publishers, 2007.
3. Herraiz, M. Espinosa, A.F. “Coda waves: A review”, Pu-
re and Applied Geophysics, Vol.125, No. 4, 1987, pp
499–577.
4. Roel sneider, “The theory of coda wave interferometry”,
CWP-503P.
5. David M Boore “Simulation of Ground Motion Using
the Stochastic Method”, Pure and Applied Geophysics
vol.160, 2003, pp 635–676.
6. Michael Fehler, Haruo Sato, “Coda”, Pure and Applied
Geophysics vol.160, 2003, pp 541–554.
7. S.C. Gupta, S.S. Teotia, S.S. Rai Navneet Gautam, “Co-
da Q Estimates in the Koyna Region, India” Pure and
Applied Geophysics vol.153, 1998, pp 713–731.
8. Babita Sharma, S.S Teotia, Dinesh Kumar., “Attenuation
of P, S, and coda waves in Koyna region, India” Jl. of
Seismology, vol.11, 2007, pp 327–344.
9. Prantik Mandal and B.K Rastogi., “A Frequency-
dependent Relation of Coda Q c for Koyna-Warna Regi-
on, India”, Pure and Applied Geophysics vol.153, 1998,
pp 163–177.
10. S.C Gupta, Ashwani Kumar, “Seismic wave attenua-
tion characteristics of three Indian regions: A compa-
rative study”, Current Science, vol.82, No. 4, 2002,
pp 407–413.
11. S.C Gupta et al, “Attenuation of coda waves in the Gar-
hwal Himalaya, India”, Physics of the Earth and Plane-
tary Interiors, vol.87, 1995, pp 247–253.
12. Dinesh Kumar, Irene Sarkar, V Sriram, K. N Khattri.,
“Estimation of the source parameters of the Himalaya
earthquake of October 19, 1991, average effective she-
ar wave attenuation parameter and local site effects from
accelerograms” Tectonophysics, vol.407, 2005, pp 1–24.
13. Naresh Kumar, Imtiyaz A Parvez, H.S Virk., “Estimati-
on of coda wave attenuation for NW Himalayan region
using local earthquakes”, Physics of the Earth and Pla-
netary Interiors vol.151, 2005, pp 243–258.
14. S.K. Singh D Garc, J.F Pacheco, R Valenzuela, B.K Ban-
sal, R.S Dattatrayam., “Q of the Indian Shield”, Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, vol.94; No.4,
2004, pp 1564–1570.
15. A Paul, S.C Gupta, Charu C Pant, “CODA Q estimates
for Kumaun Himalaya”, Proc. of the Indian Academy of
Sciences. Earth and planetary sciences, vol. 112, No. 4,
2003, pp 569–576.
459
16. Dinesh kumar, V Sri ram, K.N Khattri, “A Study of Sour-
ce Parameters, Site Amplification Functions and Average
Effective Shear Wave Quality Factor Qseff from Analy-
sis of Accelerograms of the 1999 Chamoli Earthquake,
Himalaya”, Pure and Applied Geophysics vol.163, 2006,
pp 1369–1398.
17. Bodin P et al., “Ground motion scaling in the Kachchh
basin, India, deduced from aftershocks of the 2001 Mw
7.6 Bhuj earthquake” Bull. of the Seismological Society
of America, vol.94, No.5, 2004, pp 1658–1669.
18. P Mandal, Jainendra, S. Joshi, Sudesh Kumar, Ra-
jendra Bhunia, B.K Rastogi, “Low Coda Q c in the
Epicentral Region of the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake of
Mw 7.7”, Pure and Applied Geophysics vol.161, 2004,
pp 1635–1654.
19. S.C Gupta, Ashwani Kumar, A.K Shukla, G. Suresh, P.R
Baidya, “Coda Q in the Kachchh Basin, Western India
Using Aftershocks of the Bhuj Earthquake of January 26,
2001”, Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol.163, 2006, pp
1583–1595.
20. Babita Sharma, Arun K Gupta, and D. Kameswari
Devi., “Attenuation of High-Frequency Seismic Wa-
ves in Kachchh Region, Gujarat, India”, Bull. of the
Seismological Society of America, vol.98, No.5, 2008,
pp 2325–2340.
21. Singh, S.K., M. Ordaz, R.S. Dattatrayam, and H.K.
Gupta, “A spectral analysis of the May 21, 1997, Jabal-
pur, India earthquake (M w5.8) and estimation of ground
motion from future earthquakes in the Indian shield re-
gion”, Bull. of the Seismological Society of America,
vol.89, No.6, 1999, pp 1620–1630.
22. S.K Singh, D. Garcia, J.F Pacheco, R. Valenzuela, B.K
Bansal, and R.S Dattatrayam, “Q of the Indian shield”,
Bull. of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 94,
No. 4, 2004, pp 1564–1570.
23. S. Mitra, K Priestley, V.K Gaur, and S.S Rai, “Frequency-
Dependent Lg Attenuation in the Indian Platform”, Bull.
of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 96, No. 6,
2006, pp 2449–2456.
i The focus is the point inside the earth where the earthquake energy is actually released
460 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 36, NO. 6, FEBRUARY - MARCH 2010
24. C.H Patanjali Kumar, C.S.P Sarma, M. Shekar, R.K
Chadha., “Attenuation studies based on local earthqua-
ke Coda waves in the southern Indian peninsular shield”,
Natural Hazards. Vol.40, 2007, pp 527–536.
25. Jayant Nath Tripathi, Arantza Ugalde, “Regional esti-
mation of Q from seismic coda observations by the
Gauribidanur seismic array (southern India)” Physics
of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, vol.145, 2004,
pp 115–126.
26. Saurabh Barauh, Devajit Hazarika, Naba K Gogoi, P. So-
lomon Raju., “The effects of attenuation and site on the
spectra of microearthquakes in the Jubilee Hills region of
Hyderabad, India”, Jl of Earth System Science, Vol.116,
No.1, 2007, pp 37–47.
27. Imtiyaz A. Parvez, Anup K. Sutar, M. Mridula, S.K
Mishra, S.S Rai, “Coda Q Estimates in the Andaman Is-
lands Using Local Earthquakes”, Pure and Applied Geo-
physics, vol.165, 2008, pp 1861–1878.
28. Devajit Hazarika, Saurabh Baruah and Naba Kumar Go-
goi, “Attenuation of coda waves in the Northeastern Re-
gion of India”, Jl. of Seismology, vol.13, No. 1, 2008, pp
141–160.
29. Raghu Kanth STG, Somala S.N, ”Modeling of strong
motion data in Northeastern India: Q, stress drop and si-
te amplification”, Bull. of the Seismological Society of
America, vol.99, No.2A, 2009, pp 705–725.
30. Sankar Kumar Nath, Kiran Kumar Singh, Thingbaijam,
Abhishek Raj., “Earthquake hazard in Northeast India
- A seismic microzonation approach with typical ca-
se studies from Sikkim Himalaya and Guwahati city”
Jl. of Earth System Science, vol.117, No. S2, 2008,
pp 809–831.
31. Ang A.H.S, Tang W.H, “Probability concepts in Engi-
neering planning and design: Basic principles” vol.1,
John wiley and Sons.
32. S. Mukhopadhyay, C Tyagi and S. S Rai, “The attenuati-
on mechanism of seismic waves in northwestern Himala-
yas”, Geophysical Jl. Int., vol.167, 2006, pp 354–360.