54th Annual Convention of

Indian Geophysical Union (IGU)-2017

“Recent Advances in Geophysics with Special Reference to Earthquake Seismology”
CSIR-NGRI, Hyderabad
3-7 December, 2017.
Seismic Hazard Evaluation in Central Indo-Gangetic Plains
(CIGP)

Authors:
M.C. Raghucharan, Ph.D. Student, IIT Hyderabad
Dr. D. Srinagesh, Chief Scientist, CSIR-NGRI and
Dr. Surendra Nadh Somala, Asst. Professor, IIT Hyderabad
Contents
 Motivation

 Goals

o Selecting Suitable GMPE for CIGP

o Introducing GMPE in OpenQuake Engine

o Conducting PSHA for CIGP

 Results

 Scope for further work

 Motivation

 Hazard analysis was not carried out for CIGP region.

 CIGP region is critical due to its thick sediments

nearly 4km at foothills of Himalayas with a maximum
amplification of PGA by a factor of 2-4.

 Uniform Hazard Spectrum is essential for earthquake

resistant design of structures.
Goals
 To select best suitable GMPE for CIGP.

 Introduce that GMPE in OpenQuake platform for conducting

PSHA.

 Develop Hazard curves and Uniform Hazard Spectrum for CIGP.

 Selecting Suitable GMPE for CIGP
 Ground motions recorded by CIGN stations during 25th April 2015
Nepal earthquake.
GMPEs Analysed
Recorded
Sl.No Station Name Longitude Latitude PGA R.P NDMA Sharma SK
Sharma Nath et al
cm/s2 Singh Report- et al Singh et
2000 2005
1996 2008 2009 al 2017
1 AMETHI 81.7 26.2 12.6 98.0 92.3 178.4 4.5 19.0 18.4
2 BALARAMPUR 82.1 27.5 26.3 119.1 119.8 122.6 14.0 27.6 27.6
3 BISALPUR 79.8 28.2 7.2 84.2 74.1 286.8 1.5 14.8 9.8
4 CHANDIGARH 76.8 30.8 2.2 60.8 44.6 1725.2 0.1 8.4 2.2
5 FAIZABAD 82.1 26.7 26.2 111.9 110.5 134.9 10.0 24.1 25.6
6 GONDA 82.2 27.1 34.8 119.1 119.9 122.5 14.0 27.3 28.8
7 HARIDWAR 78.1 30.0 3.4 68.4 53.9 778.1 0.2 10.3 4.0
8 HISSAR 75.6 29.4 2.0 57.5 40.7 2714.6 0.0 7.6 1.6
9 KANPUR 80.5 26.3 13.1 85.5 75.8 271.4 1.7 15.1 11.5
10 MEERUT 77.6 29.2 3.7 66.9 52.1 888.5 0.2 9.9 3.7
11 NARORA 78.4 28.2 6.4 72.4 58.9 566.8 0.4 11.4 5.4
12 PIHANI 80.2 27.7 8.4 87.5 78.5 250.0 2.0 15.9 11.4
13 TAKURDWAR 78.9 29.1 4.3 75.1 62.3 470.7 0.5 12.1 6.1
14 VARANASI 82.9 25.6 16.4 102.7 98.5 159.7 6.0 19.9 23.4

Comparison of recorded PGA with several GMPEs available for Himalayan and Northern India.
 Introducing GMPE in OpenQuake Engine

 Other GMPEs for Indian region that are available in OpenQuake

Hazard library.

Sl.No. GMPE Name Applicable Region

1 Gupta 2010 Indo-Burmese

2 Nath et al 2012 Shillong Plateau

Raghukanth and
3 Peninsular India
Iyenger 2007
4 Sharma et al 2009 Indian Himalayas

 OpenQuake Engine supports GMPE coding in “python” only.

 SK Singh et al 2017 GMPE

𝑬𝟏 𝜶𝟒 𝑹𝒓𝒖𝒑 − 𝑬𝟏 𝜶𝟒 𝑹𝟐𝒓𝒖𝒑 +𝒓𝟐𝒐

𝒚 = 𝜶𝟏 + 𝜶𝟐 𝑴𝒘 + 𝜶𝟑 𝒍𝒏
𝒓𝟐𝒐

where 𝑟𝑜2 = 1.4447 × 10−5 𝑒 2.3026 𝑀𝑤

y is natural logarithm of the geometric mean of the two horizontal
seismic intensities.
∞ 𝑒 −𝑡
𝐸1 𝑥 = Exponential integral function defined as ‫𝑥׬‬ 𝑑𝑡
𝑡

 This GMPE is scripted in “Python” and introduced in OpenQuake

Hazard library.
 Coding in Python
 Special functions required for python

 Scipy.special for “expi”

 mpmath for ‘e1’

 Program run time is 8 hrs in an 8GB, intel i7 Processor

 Approximate formula – run time reduced to 1 hr.

Courtesy: Kijko and Graham 1998

 Conducting PSHA for CIGP

 OpenQuake Platform

 Free software developed by GEM

 Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis tools

 Available for Linux, MacOS, Windows

 Reproducibility, testing and community driven

 Conducting PSHA for CIGP
 Hazard Analysis work flow Define Source
Geometry
Define Study region and
Define a source model
Grid Spacing Select a Magnitude-
Scaling Relationship

Select a Magnitude-
Frequency
Distribution

Select a Nodal
plane and
Select intensity measure Hypocentral depth
Select desired output
type and levels
Select a suitable
GMPE
 Conducting PSHA for CIGP
 Input files for OpenQuake Engine

 Configuration file

 Source model logic tree file

 Source model file

 GMPE logic tree file

 Natural hazards’ Risk Markup Language (NRML)

 Conducting PSHA for CIGP
 Study region: Covering CIGP with Lat Lon coordinates
Longitude: 80.0-85.0 & Latitude: 25.0-30.0

 Grid spacing = 10km

 Total hazard sites analyzed = 2685

 Tectonic region type:

Active Shallow Crust
Courtesy: www.iitk.ac.in
 Conducting PSHA for CIGP
 Intensity measure types considered:
 PGA

 Sa at 14 periods

[ 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60, 0.70, 0.80, 0.90, 1.00, 2.00]

 Maximum distance considered in the analysis = 600 km.

 Outputs
 Hazard curves
 Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)
 Results
 PGA Hazard Curve Sa(0.1) Hazard Curve
 Results
 Sa(0.5) Hazard Curves Sa(1.0) Hazard Curves
 Results
 Uniform Hazard Spectrum(UHS) Mean UHS with curve fitting
 Scope for further work
 Hazard curves generated in this work can be utilized for developing
Drift Hazard curves for accessing the probability of collapse of
buildings in CIGP

 Uniform Hazard Spectrum obtained can be utilized for “aseismic”

design of buildings in CIGP

 Hazard output can be further utilized for RISK assessment of

building in CIGP, with in OpenQuake platform
 Key References
• Singh, S. K., Srinagesh, D., Srinivas, D., Arroyo, D., Pérez‐Campos,
X., Chadha, R. K., & Suresh, G. (2017). Strong Ground Motion in the
Indo‐Gangetic Plains during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake
Sequence and Its Prediction during Future Earthquakes. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America.
• Srinagesh, D., Singh, S. K., Chadha, R. K., Paul, A., Suresh, G.,
Ordaz, M., & Dattatrayam, R. S. (2011). Amplification of seismic
waves in the central Indo-Gangetic basin, India. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 101(5), 2231-2242.
• Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of
the seismological society of America, 58(5), 1583-1606.
• McGuire, R. K. (1976). FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk
analysis (No. 76-67). US Geological Survey.
• Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Weatherill, G., Danciu, L., Crowley, H.,
Silva, V., ... & Simionato, M. (2014). OpenQuake engine: an open
hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake
model. Seismological Research Letters, 85(3), 692-702.
 Key References contd…
• Van Rossum, G. (2007, June). Python Programming Language.
In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (Vol. 41, p. 36).
• Chadha, R. K., Srinagesh, D., Srinivas, D., Suresh, G., Sateesh, A.,
Singh, S. K., ... & Ito, T. (2016). CIGN, a strong‐motion seismic
network in central Indo‐Gangetic plains, foothills of Himalayas:
First results. Seismological Research Letters, 87(1), 37-46.
• NDMA (2011) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of
India. National Disaster Management Authority, New Delhi, India
• Sharma, M. L., Douglas, J., Bungum, H., & Kotadia, J. (2009).
Ground-motion prediction equations based on data from the
Himalayan and Zagros regions. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 13(8), 1191-1210.
• Nath, S. K., Vyas, M., Pal, I., & Sengupta, P. (2005). A seismic
hazard scenario in the Sikkim Himalaya from seismotectonics,
spectral amplification, source parameterization, and spectral
attenuation laws using strong motion seismometry. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B1).
 Backup slides

 Several GMPEs Analyzed for suitability to Indo-Gangetic region

Sl.No. GMPE Name Applicable Region

1 RP Singh 1996 Himalayan Region

2 Sharma 2000 Himalayan Region

3 Nath et al 2005 Sikkim Himalayas

4 NDMA Report Indo-Gangetic region

5 Sharma et al 2009 Indian Himalayas

6 SK Singh et al Indo-Gangetic plains

 Backup slides

 RP Singh 1996

Sharma 2000

Nath et al 2005

NDMA

Sharma et al 2009
 Backup slides

 Sample Drift Hazard curve

 Backup slides

 Vertical Irregularities in buildings

 Backup slides

 Source model Logic tree

• ACTIVE_SHALLOW_CRUST (Sharma 2009 GMPE)

• STABLE_CONTINENTAL (Raghukanth 2007)
• SUBDUCTION_INTERFACE (Nath 2012)
 Backup slides
 Source model file
 Backup slides
 GMPE logic tree file