Probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment

for Peninsular India

Ashish ᅟ, C. Lindholm, I. A. Parvez &

D. Kühn

Journal of Seismology

ISSN 1383-4649
Volume 20
Number 2

J Seismol (2016) 20:629-653

DOI 10.1007/s10950-015-9548-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
DOI 10.1007/s10950-015-9548-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment
for Peninsular India
Ashish · C. Lindholm · I. A. Parvez · D. Kühn
Received: 7 September 2015 / Accepted: 15 December 2015 / Published online: 13 January 2016
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract In this paper, a new probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment (PSHA) is presented for Peninsular
India. The PSHA has been performed using three dif-
ferent recurrence models: a classical seismic zonation
model, a fault model, and a grid model. The develop-
ment of a grid model based on a non-parameterized
recurrence model using an adaptation of the Kernel-
based method that has not been applied to this region
before. The results obtained from the three mod-
els have been combined in a logic tree structure in
order to investigate the impact of different weights
of the models. Three suitable attenuation relations
have been considered in terms of spectral accelera-
tion for the stable continental crust as well as for the
active crust within the Gujarat region. While Peninsu-
lar India has experienced large earthquakes, e.g., Latur
and Jabalpur, it represents in general a stable conti-
nental region with little earthquake activity, as also
confirmed in our hazard results. On the other hand,
our study demonstrates that both the Gujarat and the
Koyna regions are exposed to a high seismic hazard.
The peak ground acceleration for 10 % exceedance
Ashish () · I. A. Parvez
CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer
Simulation (CMMACS), NAL Belur Campus,
Bangalore, India
e-mail: ashish@cmmacs.ernet.in
C. Lindholm · D. Kühn
NORSAR, Kjeller, Norway
in 50 years observed in Koyna is 0.4 g and in the
Kutch region of Gujarat up to 0.3 g. With respect to
spectral acceleration at 1 Hz, estimated ground motion
amplitudes are higher in Gujarat than in the Koyna
region due to the higher frequency of occurrence of
larger earthquakes. We discuss the higher PGA levels
for Koyna compared Gujarat and do not accept them
uncritically.
Keywords Hazard · Peninsular India · KERGRID ·
PSHA
1 Introduction
Peninsular India, usually considered as a stable conti-
nental part of the Indian subcontinent, has experienced
damaging earthquakes of magnitude ∼6 and more
in the last couple of decades. Earthquakes occurred
in various places in Peninsular India: Latur (1993,
Mw 6.1), Jabalpur (1997, Mw 5.8), and most recently
Bhuj (2001, Mw 7.6), claiming thousands of lives and
causing huge economic losses due to the damage to
infrastructure. Although the frequency of occurrence
of large earthquakes is low, their impact on society
is high. Thus, it becomes important to quantify the
seismic hazard for Peninsular India for future events
in terms of potential ground shaking, while at the
same time acknowledging difficulties and the inher-
ent uncertainties. The seismicity and major geological
features are illustrated in Fig. 1.
 Author's personal copy
630
Fig. 1 Geology of
Peninsular India derived
from the Geological Map of
India (GSI 2000), and
locations of historical
earthquakes (circles). Color
and diameter of circles
indicate depth and
magnitude, respectively.
Major events that occurred
during the past 50 years are
indicated by red stars
Early work on seismic hazard in India by Tondon
(1956) and Krishna (1959) is limited to the identi-
fication of potential earthquake areas. These studies
demarcate the Himalayas, the Chaman fault region,
and the Indo-Burmese arc as exhibiting a higher haz-
ard, the Indian shield to feature a lower hazard and the
enclosed regions to pose a moderate damage poten-
tial. Other hazard studies carried out by Guha (1962)
and Gubin (1968) are based on microseismic inten-
sity. Subsequent studies include probabilistic hazard
by Basu and Nigam (1977), Kaila and Rao (1979) and
Khatri et al. (1984). Khatri et al. (1984) provide a
detailed peak ground acceleration (PGA) hazard map
describing a 10 % annual probability of exceedance
within 50 years. Recent efforts include a probabilis-
tic map developed by Bhatia et al. (1999) under the
Global Seismic Hazard Programme (GSHAP). Since
the aim of GSHAP was to produce hazard maps on a
global scale, the GSHAP project includes only a few
sources for Peninsular India focusing on the inter-plate
region along the Himalayan belt. Parvez et al. (2003)
carried out the first neo-deterministic seismic hazard
assessment for the Indian subcontinent on the basis of
simulation and computation of synthetic seismograms.
Due to the rare occurrence of larger earthquakes
and the resulting scarcity of catalogue data, only
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
few earthquake hazard studies were carried out for
Peninsular India and most studies concentrate on
small sub-regions, e.g., Seeber et al. (1999) provide
a detailed hazard map for the state of Maharash-
tra; Menon et al. (2010) provides for Tamilnadu and
Vipin et al. (2009) provides for South India. Jaiswal
and Sinha (2007) estimate probabilistic seismic hazard
for Peninsular India applying the zonefree approach
proposed by Frankel (1995) including multiple mod-
els with appropriate weight. In another study, Nath
and Thingbaijam (2012) estimated probabilistic seis-
mic hazard for Indian subcontinent, applicable to B-C
soil types (VS30 ∼ 760 m/s), using similar zone-free
approach used by Jaiswal and Sinha (2007) along with
areal zones in a logic tree. A detail review of seis-
mic hazard has been published by Yanger Walling
and Mohanty (2009) and Verma and Bansal (2013).
Verma and Bansal (2013) review is largely focussed
on microzonation studies conducted in various Indian
cities.
Recently, the National Disaster Management
Authority of India (NDMA) published a report on
the comprehensive probabilistic seismic hazard for the
Indian Subcontinent (NDMA 2011). In this report,
India has been subdivided into 32 seismic zones with
Peninsular India comprising 9 zones applying a classical
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
zonation approach (Cornell 1968) and not allowing
for gaps between zones. The study also provides and
applies ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs)
newly developed for seven of those regions based on
strong motion data recorded on the Indian subconti-
nent. A similar study also carried out by Sitharam and
Kolathayar (2013) using a similar approach except the
use of 104 seismic source zones which is much higher
than (NDMA 2011).
The present study expands the classical methods
used largely by NDMA (2011) and Sitharam and
Kolathayar (2013) to generate probabilistic seismic
hazard maps for Peninsular India using a logic tree
approach that includes both the classical approach
(area and line sources) and the zone free Kernel
method that applies the gridded seismicity model by
Woo (1996).
2 Geology and tectonics of Peninsular India
The Indian Peninsula is one of the oldest landmasses
on earth and consists of a Precambrian craton as well
as mobile belts disrupted by recent episodes of vol-
canism and rifting (Fig. 1). Most of Peninsular India
is built up of Precambrian crystalline rocks and sed-
imentary formations and a third region is covered by
the Deccan trap basaltic flows, which were extruded in
the Cretaceous-Eocene interval (Valdiya 1973; Naqvi
et al. 1974). Archean rocks, high grade metamorphic
rocks, cover the southern part of the Indian penin-
sula, the Southern Granulite Province (SGP). To the
north of the SGP, the Dharwar craton exposes 2.5
Ga old Clospet granite, a N-S lineament, dividing the
Dharwar craton in two parts: the eastern and west-
ern Dharwar craton, the eastern Dharwar craton being
younger than western Dharwar. North of the west-
ern Dharwar craton, the Indian Peninsula is covered
by the Deccan basalts. The eastern side of the Indian
Peninsula is segregated by the Godavari and Mahanadi
rift basins resulting from the breakup of Gondwana.
The Godavari rift separates the Dharwar craton from
the archaean rocks of the Baster and Singbhum cra-
tons, which are divided by the Mahanadi rift. Further
to the east, archaean rocks are covered by quaternary
alluvium deposits of Bengal basin. To the northwest,
the Aravali craton and the minor Bundelkhand craton
are located, which are separated from the Deccan vol-
canic region by the Narmada Son Lineament (NSL).
631
The NSL has undergone several periods of reactiva-
tion since its evolution in the Archean (Choubey 1971;
Verma and Banerjee 1992) and remains seismically
active. Most of the earthquakes throughout Peninsular
India occur at shallow depths (0–20 km); earthquakes
with depths between 10 and 20 km are mostly located
in a belt crossing northern Peninsular India from west
to east.
3 Preparation of earthquake catalogues
A comprehensive earthquake database including the
locations, origin times, and magnitudes of past earth-
quakes is required in order to reliably model the
seismicity to be used in a probabilistic seismic haz-
ard analysis (PSHA). Thus, a common catalogue is
constructed for the Peninsular region (5◦ N to 26◦
N and 67◦ E to 90◦ E) with priorities according to
the list of catalogues based on the expected catalogue
reliability, completeness, catalogue homogeneity, and
the size of seismic network constituting the basis for
the catalogue. No double reporting was also ensured.
The same priorities were applied to all information
extracted from the catalogues (magnitude, location,
and depth). The list of priorities is as follows:
1. The ISC reviewed bulletin since 1960 (www.isc.
ac.uk),
2. The PDE catalogue since 1973 (USGS National
Earthquake Information Center http://earthquake.
usgs.gov/∼regional/neic/)
3. The IMD (India Meteorological Department) cat-
alogue since 1898 (http://www.imd.gov.in),
4. The catalogue prepared by the NDMA from var-
ious sources for their report (between −2474 to
2008) (http://www.ndma.gov.in),
5. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) catalogue (www.noaa.gov)
6. Events listed by Oldham (1883), Tondon and
Chaudhury (1968), and Guha et al. (1970). For
historic events, Ramalingeswara Rao and Sitap-
athi Rao (1984) provide a magnitude scale based
on intensities.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between various
earthquake catalogues. In general, the geographical
pattern exhibits a low level of seismic activity over
the last 50 years, but with activity concentrated in the
Bhuj, Latur, Koyna, and Bay of Bengal regions as
 Author's personal copy
632
Fig. 2 Comparison of earthquake catalogues: a Indian cata-
logue compiled in this study from various sources (see sym-
bol colors); b similar to (a), but excluding events introduced
by Ramalingeswara Rao and Sitapathi Rao (1984); c PDE
well as along the Narmada Son structural lineament.
Whereas the PDE (Fig. 2c) and ISC (Fig. 2d) cata-
logues agree in geographical distribution of the earth-
quakes, the distribution of events in Fig. 2a including
the events listed by Ramalingeswara Rao and Sitap-
athi Rao (1984) is more regular and earthquakes are
more numerous. Thus, we decided to quantitatively
derive seismic parameters from the common catalogue
starting with the year 1960, when the establishment
of a larger worldwide seismic network guarantees a
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
catalogue since 1973; d ISC catalogue since 1960; background:
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) elevation map
(USGS 2014); size of the triangles corresponds to magnitude
more uniform earthquake catalogue. We will, how-
ever, calibrate our recurrence model parameters by the
recurrence of larger historic events and qualitatively
by the earthquake distribution in earlier catalogues.
Another special occurrence was the December 10,
1967, MW 6.3 Koyna earthquake that was proba-
bly triggered by water reservoir impoundment (Gupta
1992) of the Shivajisagar Lake reservoir confined
by the Koyna dam (just north of Koyna earthquake
epicentre) constructed in 1964. Until today, the occur-
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 633

rence of small and moderate magnitude earthquakes
in this region is high. Seeber et al. (1999) notice a
threefold increase in seismic activity for Peninsular
India since 1960 and Rastogi (1992) states that more
than 50 % of the seismic activity within Peninsu-
lar India occurs within the region around the Koyna
reservoir. Recent studies, though, indicate that the
increase of seismic activity in the vicinity of the Koyna
reservoir is not solely triggered by water reservoir
impoundment (Gahalaut et al. 2004), but possibly also
includes a tectonic component. However, including
reservoir-induced seismicity into the seismic hazard
analysis may lead to an overestimation of seismic haz-
ard within this region (see more detailed discussion in
Section 8).
In order to homogenize magnitudes to a com-
mon magnitude scale (i.e., moment magnitude
MW ), we established regression relations using an
orthogonal regression method (Das et al. 2013)
employing data from the Harvard CMT catalogue
(www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html) recorded
within the region of interest. The conversion relations
are summarized in Table 1. For regression between
ML and MW , only 17 data points are used which is
fairly less data point to estimate a robust regression.
Therefore, conversion from ML and MW has been
carried out in two steps using ML to mb and mb to
MW relations
Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment relies on
the assumption of earthquakes following a stationary
Poisson process, i.e., being independent from each
other. To this end, the catalogue has to be declus-
tered, i.e., separating main shocks from fore- and
aftershocks. However, since all declustering methods
(deterministic and stochastic) rely on a conceptual
model of how to define a mainshock, there is no pre-
ferred method as such (Van Stiphout et al. 2012). In
addition, as the overestimation of the number of fore-
and aftershocks may lead to the underestimation of
seismic hazard, we applied a semi-automatic approach
considering the magnitude of the main event, the inter-
event distance, the difference in magnitude between
main shock and fore-/aftershocks as well as the differ-
ence in origin time. The spatial window for occurrence
of aftershocks is determined according to Christo-
phersen and Smith (2000) and, assuming a circular
area, converted to a radius as a measure for the maxi-
mum inter-event distance. The time window for occur-
rence of aftershocks is set to 0.5 years and the min-
imum magnitude difference between main and after-
shock is chosen as 1.2 following Båth’s law (Richter
1958; Bȧth 1965) leading to a relatively soft filter.
All events that were removed from the catalogue were
controlled manually. Due to the laborious process,
the catalogue was declustered removing only after-
shocks for events with magnitude 6 or above (no fore-
shocks could be identified). Totally 170 events were
noticed as dependent and removed, which accounts for
15 % of the total events. The maximum magnitude
removed was 6.1 as an aftershock related to 2001 Bhuj
earthquake. The final catalogue used as basis for the
analysis of seismicity is displayed in Fig. 1.
4 Seismicity models
The seismic catalogue needs to be transformed into
source models that can be used as input for the seismic
hazard assessment, providing essentially a recurrence
model for the number of expected events at differ-
ent magnitude levels and for different source regions.
Three models have been generated for the computa-
tion of the hazard map: classical seismic zones, a grid
model, and a fault model. The grid model is based on

Table 1 Magnitude conversion relations estimated from the Harvard CMT catalogue for the Indian peninsula

Conversion Relation Data points

mb ↔ ML ML = 0.9930(±0.023)mb + 0.0550(±0.097) 441

mb ↔ MW MW = 1.3488(±0.051)mb − 1.6520(±0.274) 194
ML ↔ MW MW = 0.6044(±0.337)ML + 2.5938(±1.615) 17
M0 ↔ MW MW = 0.7570(±0.011)M0 + 1.4299(±0.066) 98
MS ↔ MW MW = 0.5667(±0.006)MS + 2.6046(±0.034) 125

mb body wave magnitude, ML local magnitude, MS surface wave magnitude, MW moment magnitude, M0 other magnitude
 Author's personal copy
634
a non-parameterized recurrence model with the use of
kernel methods (Woo 1996) using a power-law decay
of the kernel proposed by Vere-Jones (1992). This
methodology has not been applied previously for com-
putation of hazard maps for the Indian subcontinent.
4.1 Seismic zonation
The zonation has the purpose of dividing the seismic-
ity into distinct source zones reflecting the tectonic
conditions in order to subsequently evaluate the seis-
mic potential of each zone. The main principle applied
in the zonation process is to represent the seismicity
and tectonics as balanced as possible. Seismic activity
within each zone is modeled as homogeneous, and this
should be justifiable as a reasonable approximation
Fig. 3 Map of Peninsular India displaying the eleven seismic source zones. The background illustrates the faults digitized from the
seismotectonic atlas (GSI 2000)
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
of the physical potential. This clearly is a simplifi-
cation with respect to a more continuous seismicity
distribution, but on the other hand, the method avoids
over-interpretation of an earthquake catalogue only
covering a short time window compared to return peri-
ods of larger events. To this end, the seismicity should
be reasonably uniform within each area zone and the
zonation should be broadly consistent with regional
geology and tectonics. Based on the above general
principles, we subdivided Peninsular India into 11
seismogenic zones (Fig. 3):
– Zone 1 corresponds to the Gujarat region, which
is tectonically different from the remaining part
of the peninsula. The Allahbund earthquake of
1819 and the January 26, 2001 Bhuj intra-plate
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 635

earthquake (MW 7.6) occurred within this zone, – Zone 11 comprises the Koyna-Warna zone (see
the focal mechanism given by Harvard CMT indi- Fig. 3).
cates reverse faulting with a strike-slip compo-
In order to assess the magnitude of completeness,
nent.
time-magnitude plots of the final catalogue have been
– Zone 2 represents largely the Narmada Son Linea-
generated for three different time periods (i.e., 1340–
ment (NSL) including the Son-Narmada and Tapti
2010, 1800–2010, and 1960–2010) as shown in Fig. 4.
North faults but portion of NSL continues into
Very few events have been reported before the year
zone 4 also.
1800 and a significant increase in the number of events
– Zones 3 and 6 contain the Bundelkhand and Bas-
is recognized after 1960, the advent of instrumentally
tar cratons, respectively, both exhibiting very low
recorded data. Thus, a completeness value is derived
seismicity; zone 6 might even be described as
as M > 4.5 for the time period 1960 to the present.
aseismic.
The seismic activity of a region is characterized
– Zone 4 comprises the Singhbhum craton as well
by the Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) recurrence relation
as the Bengal basin.
(Gutenberg and Richter 1944):
– Zones 5, 8, and 10 are coastal zones and corre-
spond to the eastern, north-western, and south- log10 N(m) = a − bm, (1)
western passive margins, respectively.
– Zone 7 represents the Godavari graben. where N(m) is the number of earthquakes greater than
– Zone 9 covers the Dharwar craton. or equal to magnitude m, a denotes the seismicity

Fig. 4 Time-magnitude
distribution of earthquakes
within the final catalogue
for three different time
periods; top: 1340–2011,
middle: 1800–2011, bottom:
1960–2011
 Author's personal copy
636
Table 2 Comparison between a and b values gained from the Gutenberg-Richter regression for the time period 1960–2011 for the
entire catalogue, zone 1 (Gujarat) and a megazone constructed from zones 2–10. N(4.8) represents the annual number of earthquakes
of magnitude 4.8 or greater
Region 960–2011
b a
Entire catalogue 1.02
Zone 1 (Gujarat) 0.80
Zone 2-10 0.85
Zone 11 (Koyna) 1.11
rate computed by the logarithm of the average num-
ber of earthquakes of magnitude Mmin or larger, and b
characterizes the proportion of large earthquakes rel-
ative to small earthquakes. For tectonic earthquakes,
the b value is expected to be confined within the range
0.8 < b < 1.2.
Zone 1, representing the Gujarat region, is consid-
ered to be tectonically different from the remaining
zones. The seismic events occurring within zone 11,
representing the Koyna region, differ in so far as to
include not only tectonic, but also triggered events
leading to a higher seismicity rate as well as a higher
b-value (Table 2, Fig. 5). The number of earthquakes
with M > 4.5 in the remaining zones is rather low,
impeding the regression analysis by rendering the b
values unstable. Thus, the catalogue has been sepa-
rated into zone 1 (Gujarat), zone 11 (Koyna), and a
‘megazone’ consisting of the remaining source zones
(2–10) exhibiting consistent tectonic features, result-
ing in a b value of 0.85 for the composite zone,
1.11 for the Koyna, and 0.80 for the Gujarat region
(see Table 2 for regression results, and Fig. 5a, b
for the G-R plot of the full catalogue and the Koyna
region, respectively). The regression has been per-
formed using the maximum likelihood method as
implemented in the ZMAP software (Wiemer 2001).
In order to obtain stable seismicity rates for zones
2–10 despite the low number of earthquakes having
occurred in most of them, the percentage of earth-
quakes with M ≥ 4.8 within each zone compared
to the total number of earthquakes has been used to
compute the a value of these zones (Table 3).
In this study, Mmax has been estimated using con-
ventional increment of 0.3 and 0.5 in maximum
observed magnitude (Mmax obs ). The base value of Mmax
has been fixed to 6.8 for stable continental region. We
estimate the maximum magnitude Mmax as 8.0 ± 0.3
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
N(4.8)
5.3 2.5351
3.64 0.6309
4.11 1.0954
5.22 0.7798
for zone 1 (Gujarat), 7.0 ± 0.4 for zone 2 (NSL),
7.5 ± 0.4 for zone 4, and 6.8 ± 0.4 for the remaining
zones based on historical observations (see Table 4).
4.2 Grid model
The aim of using a kernel-based grid model is to
obtain seismic activity parameters smoothly varying
over the grid based on the historic catalogue data
while avoiding extensive use of expert judgement. In
the zonation model, size and boundaries of zones are
adjusted manually, in addition, the zonation model
assumes a uniform distribution of seismicity in each
zone. In reality, the geographical distribution of seis-
micity within Peninsular India is rather inhomoge-
neous. The grid model, on the contrary, consists of
a non-parametric activity distribution on an equally
spaced grid of 0.25◦ × 0.25◦ .
The zone free method proposed by Woo (1996)
has until now not been widely used with exception
of Bommer et al. (1998) and Molina et al. (2001),
but has gained interest recently (Beauval et al. 2006;
Ornthammarath et al. 2008; Crespo Álvarez et al.
2014). Beauval et al. (2006) compared probabilistic
seismic hazard estimation from zoning and smoothing
approach and demonstrate a similar hazard estimates
from both approach in low seismicity region. The
fundamental principle consists of a direct use of the
earthquake catalogue rather than applying simplified
recurrence parameters. Each earthquake is treated as
the center of a seismic source and a Kernel probabil-
ity function of occurrence rate is constructed around it
(see kernel example in Fig. 6). Furthermore, the nor-
mal completeness estimate of a catalogue (which most
often excludes older data from being quantitatively
used) is substituted with a magnitude probability for
the reporting function such that a matrix is constructed
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
Fig. 5 G-R regression a for
the entire catalogue of
Peninsular India and b for
the Koyna region
for different time windows and the time intervals
indicate the probability of detectability. With this
approach, an effective cumulative observability can be
established, and the full catalogue is used to the max-
imum of its information value. The original approach
of Woo (1996) was later adapted in the KERGRID
software and recently, an interface to the CRISIS soft-
ware (Ordaz et al. 2014) was established: A distinct set
637
of gridded activity rates is computed with the kernel-
based method for a discrete set of magnitudes suitable
for the general formulation of gridded seismicity in
CRISIS. The result is a highly flexible combination
of the two approaches, gridded activity rates provided
in a mesh and based on the zone free kernel method
that can be entered into a logic tree together with other
(more conventional) approaches.
 Author's personal copy
638 J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653

Table 3 A values obtained for zones 2–10: n ≥ 4.8 is a count of the number of earthquakes with M ≥ 4.8 within each zone and
N(4.8) is the annual occurrence of earthquakes with M ≥ 4.8

Zones b (megazone) n ≥ 4.8 Per. (%) a N(4.8)

2 0.85 8 11.76 3.18 0.1289

3 0.85 3 4.41 2.75 0.0483
4 0.85 25 36.76 3.68 0.4027
5 0.85 8 11.76 3.18 0.1289
6 0.85 1 1.47 2.28 0.0161
7 0.85 3 4.41 2.75 0.0483
8 0.85 1 1.47 2.28 0.0161
9 0.85 18 26.47 3.53 0.2900
10 0.85 1 1.47 2.28 0.0161

Sum 68 100

For each grid point, a kernel-based probability dis-
tribution of occurrence is computed following the
approach by Woo (1996) employing discrete mag-
nitude steps from 4.5 to 7.5 with a step width of
0.25 and a spatial kernel width of 25 to 200 km.
The frequency of occurrence of events in the histor-
ical catalogue contributes to the activity rate, which
depends on the event’s effective period of observabil-
ity. A 50-year time window is used, and the percentage
of events computed for different time interval and
the obtained numbers were used as detectability esti-
mates by assuming that in last 50 year (after the
advent of instrumental seismology), the probability of
detectability of events greater than M 5.0 is 100 %.
For the large earthquake (M > 6.5), which has a long
recurrence period, an expert opinion is considered to
give a reasonable estimate. With this approach the
effective observability period is derived for different
magnitudes (Table 5).
A zonefree method proposed by Frankel (1995)
also used grid method where the ‘a’ value is calculated
based on the number of earthquakes above a certain
threshold magnitude and smoothed over a region and
then assigned to each grid center along with a region-
ally determined b value. The kernel method (Woo
1996) is different on two accounts: (1) the construc-
tion of the spatial probability density function (the
kernel) around each grid point and (2) the use of effec-
tive observability period not only for one threshold
magnitude but for the full magnitude range. In the

Table 4 Seismic activity parameters used for the classical zonation model for each zone (β = log10 (b) and λ = N). λnorm is
normalized to a 100 x 100 km2 area

Zones λ β Mmax Mmax (obs.) λnorm

1 0.631 1.842 8.0±0.3 7.7 0.0228

2 0.129 1.953 7.0±0.4 6.5 0.0069
3 0.048 1.953 6.8±0.4 6.0 0.0019
4 0.403 1.953 7.5±0.3 7.0 0.0077
5 0.129 1.953 6.8±0.4 6.0 0.0031
6 0.016 1.953 6.8±0.4 3.9 0.0008
7 0.048 1.953 6.8±0.4 5.9 0.0041
8 0.016 1.953 6.8±0.4 5.9 0.0033
9 0.290 1.953 6.8±0.4 6.2 0.0054
10 0.016 1.953 6.8±0.4 5.0 0.0009
11 0.735 2.556 6.8±0.4 6.3 0.1576
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 639

Fig. 6 Example of a typical

kernel adapted after
(Molina et al. 2001)

kernel-based approach, a generalized model is used
rather than a simplified Gutenberg-Richter distribu-
tion as used by Frankel (1995) in his computations.
4.3 Fault model
Unfortunately, there is not much information avail-
able on faults within Peninsular India (apart from the
Gujarat region) and even less on the potential seismic
activity of the mapped structures. Based on the fault
model displayed (GSI 2000) and the geographic distri-
bution of earthquakes within the catalogue, 11 major
fault zones have been defined (Table 6). In order to
account for irregular fault geometry, fault’s dip with
angles lower than 90◦ and unseen (fractal) branches
of the fault, a buffer zone is created around the fault
lines with a width of 0.2◦ (Fig. 3). Three major faults
are located within zone 1, namely the Allahbund fault
(ABF), the Kutch Mainland fault (KMF), and the
Marginal faults (MF) of the Cambay basin. The 1819
earthquake occurred on the ABF, resulting in uplift
and formation of 4–6-m high fault scarps (Bilham
et al. 1999). The KMF with a length of 125 km is a
reverse fault and exhibits a total structural displace-
ment of 2–3 km. The 2001 Bhuj earthquake occurred
along a hidden fault situated about 25 km north of
the KMF (Rastogi 2001). The ABF (F01) and KMF
(F02) are E-W trending major active faults, whereas
the Marginal fault (F03) is N-NW trending and less
active.
Another major feature is the Narmada Son Linea-
ment (NSL), one of the most prominent geological
features of India apart from the Himalaya. It passes
through broach on the west coast of Peninsular India in
NNE-SSW direction cutting across the whole of Cen-
tral India and has been periodically reactivated since
Precambrian times (Choubey 1971). The NSL (F04)
stays mostly in zone 2, although it cuts across and
extend a bit in zone 4 as well.
The Gundlakamma fault (F07) is located at a crustal
junction between a ridge in the north and a depres-
sion in the south. Seismicity is reported mainly along

Table 5 Effective observability period (in percent) for each period of the earthquake catalogue compiled in this study to be applied in
the kernel based grid computation

Century of observation 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

1900–2011 0.55 0.76 0.85 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00

1800–1900 0.10 0.21 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
1700–1800 0.03 0.07 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.90
1600–1700 0.01 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.80
1500–1600 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50
1400–1500 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.25
1300–1400 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.10
1200–1300 0.01 0.01 0.05
1100–1200 0.01 0.02
1000–1100 0.01
900–1000 0.01
800–900 0.01

Effective cumulative observation period 68 105 206 222 259 317 455
 Author's personal copy
640 J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653

Table 6 Faults included in the model and their seismic activity parameters employed in the hazard computations

Zone No Fault λ β Mmax

F01 Allahbund fault 0.076 1.842 8.0 ± 0.3

1 F02 Kutch Mainland fault 0.101 1.842 8.0 ± 0.3
F03 Marginal fault 0.076 1.842 8.0 ± 0.3

2 F04 Narmada Son Lineament 0.103 1.953 7.0 ± 0.4

4 F05 Eocene Hinge Zone 0.161 1.953 6.8 ± 0.4

5 F07 Gundlakamma fault 0.052 1.953 6.8 ± 0.4

7 F06 Kaddam fault 0.019 1.953 6.8 ± 0.4

8 F08 West Coast fault 0.006 1.953 6.8 ± 0.4

9 F11 Cauvery fault 0.116 1.953 6.8 ± 0.4

10
F09 Chiplun fault 0.156 2.556 6.8 ± 0.4
11
F10 Warna fault 0.156 2.556 6.8 ± 0.4

the NW-SE trending Gundlakamma river fault, which
runs for nearly 100 km from inland to the east
coast. Focal mechanisms indicate strike-slip faulting
(Murthy et al. 2010).
The Koyna-Warna fault zone is associated with two
NNW-SSE left-lateral strike-slip faults (F09) and a
normal fault (F08). The West Coast fault (F08) is also
NNW striking and controlling the seismic hazard at
the west coast around Mumbai city.
Since for most of the faults, no information is
available on style of faulting, fault depth, and annual
slip, the seismic activity parameters (a, b) have been
assigned to each fault buffer zone based on the seis-
micity of the corresponding zone of the zonation
model (Table 3). Many researchers have the view
that individual major active geological faults do not
exhibit seismicity patterns that is conformed to a G-
R type magnitude-frequency distribution (e.g., Youngs
and Coppersmith 1985); however, it is assumed in
general that for the fault sources, the maximum mag-
nitude is well estimated based on the fault dimensions
(length and area), and Wells and Coppersmith (1994)
developed a series of empirical relationships between
moment magnitude and rupture length. Contrasting to
the characteristic rupture model, Wesnousky (1994)
examined the shape of the magnitude-frequency dis-
tribution along the major strike-slip faults of southern
California, and found that the frequency distribution
along the San Jacinto fault satisfies the Gutenberg-
Richter relationship which may reflect the superpo-
sition of seismicity along a number of distinct fault
segments, each of which displays a characteristic
earthquake distribution. In order to derive reasonable
a- and thus λ values, 40 % of the total seismic activ-
ity of the corresponding zone has been assigned to
the fault located within the zone. In case more than
one fault is situated within a zone, the seismic activ-
ity has been attributed to the faults based on the
length of each fault. The NSL is an exception, since
its buffer zone covers more than 50 % of the total
area of zone 2 and in addition, 80 % of the seis-
micity of this zone occurs within the NSL buffer
zone. Thus, 80 % of the seismicity rate of zone 2
is assigned to the NSL fault. However, it has to be
noted that the hazard away from the faults will be
relatively damped by this approach. Table 6 gives an
overview of activity parameters employed for the fault
model.
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 641

5 Ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs)
For the estimation of physical ground motion param-
eters at a specific site, local and regional properties of
the subsurface conditions play a major role. Whereas
local site amplification will not be taken into account,
selection of appropriate GMPEs is applied within a
logic tree computational framework in order to reflect
regional conditions.
Since only little strong motion data are available
for the Indian shield, only a few regional GMPEs
are available. Exceptions are the Koyna-Warna region
(Gupta et al. 1992; Baumbach et al. 1994), the 1997
Jabalpur earthquake (Singh et al. 1999), and the 2001
Kutch earthquake (Singh et al. 2003). Semi-empirical
attenuation relations have been estimated, e.g., by
Parvez et al. (2001) for the Himalaya as well as
Iyengar and Raghukant (2004) and Raghukant and
Iyengar (2007) for Peninsular India. Parvez et al.
(2001) use strong motion acceleration (SMA) data
for the eastern section of India known to be
part of the Indian shield and demonstrate three
times higher amplitudes compared to the west-
ern Himalaya. Unfortunately, these relations are
available only for peak ground acceleration (PGA)
and no information is provided in terms of spec-
tral accelerations except in Raghukant and Iyen-
gar (2007) which extended the work of Iyengar
and Raghukant (2004) and provide spectral accel-
eration using the stochastic seismological model of

Fig. 7 Comparison
between GMPEs for stable
continental regions. All
GMPE are displayed for
magnitude M 7: a peak
ground acceleration vs.
focal distance, b response
spectrum. Spectral
acceleration is not given in
Parvez et al. (2001) and
Iyengar and Raghukant
(2004)
 Author's personal copy
642 J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653

Boore (1983). However, it is noted that attenua-
tion in Peninsular India is comparatively low. In the
recent hazard study carried out by NDMA (NDMA
2011), attenuation relations are constructed in terms
of PGA and spectral acceleration for different tectonic
regimes, in-contrast to the previous work (Iyengar and
Raghukant 2004; Raghukant and Iyengar 2007) which
provide single attenuation relation for the Peninsular
India, at least partly developed from local data. There-
fore, we employ their relations for Peninsular India
(zones 5, 8, 9, 10, 11), Central India (zones 2, 3, 4, 6,
7), and the Gujarat region (zone 1).
GMPEs should be chosen to be tectonically appro-
priate in order to cover both the center body and the
full range of possibilities (Atkinson et al. 2014). Since
our choices are limited and we consider the local data
to be insufficient in quality and quantity to constrain
attenuation, we tried to overcome this obstacle by
comparing the GMPE relations developed explicitly
for Indian regions with GMPE relations recommended
for different geotectonic regions on a global scale.
The most recent GMPEs have been examined and
compared within the Global Earthquake Model pro-
gram (GEM 2014). For stable continental regions
(zones 2–11), their recommendations comprise the
Atkinson and Boore (2006), Pezeshk et al. (2011)
and Toro (1997) relations (Fig. 7). For active
crustal regions—appropriate for zone 1 representing

Fig. 8 Comparison
between GMPEs for regions
comprising active crust. All
GMPEs are displayed for a
magnitude M 7: a peak
ground acceleration vs.
focal distance, b response
spectrum. Spectral
acceleration is not given in
Parvez et al. (2001) and
Iyengar and Raghukant
(2004)
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 643

Fig. 9 Graphic representation of the logic tree structure

 Author's personal copy
644
Gujarat—GEM (2014) recommends the Akkar and
Bommer (2010), Chiou and Youngs (2008) and Zhao
et al. (2006) relations.
A comparison of GMPE’s for stable continental
and active crustal regions is shown in Figs. 7 and
8, respectively. For comparison of different GMPE’s,
Rrup and J&B distances are converted to epicentral
distances (point source for smaller earthquake); CRI-
Fig. 10 Hazard maps of peak ground acceleration com-
puted for 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years
(return period 475 years) for different seismicity models;
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
SIS 2014 in the computation uses circular extended
sources with a radius ‘r’ in a plane defined by the
source geometry: Radius (r) depending on magnitude
of earthquake in the form [A = K1 .exp(K2 .M)].
K1 and K2 are constants given by Brune (1970)
(K1 = 0.003809 and K2 = 1.1513). For hazard com-
putations of stable continental regions (zone 2–11), we
include NDMA (2011), Atkinson and Boore (2006),
a seismic zonation model, b fault model, and c grid model for
peak ground acceleration (PGA); see color bar for values
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653 645

and Pezeshk et al. (2011) in our study. We discard
Toro (1997), since this relation results in signifi-
cantly higher amplitudes (Fig. 7). For the active crustal
region (zone 1), NDMA (2011), Akkar and Bommer
(2010), and Chiou and Youngs (2008) GMPE’s are
employed and Zhao et al. (2006) is discarded due to
the significantly lower response spectrum amplitudes
than other GMPE’s. Since the Raghukant and Iyengar
(2007) attenuation relation is already incorporated in
NDMA (2011), it is not included again to avoid dupli-
cation of GMPEs. Please note that for the grid model,
due to the derivation of a single model for Peninsu-
lar India, no differentiation into stable continental and
active crustal regions could be applied. This limitation
could effect hazard levels in the Gujarat region (zone
1) which is considered as an active crustal region.

Fig. 11 Hazard maps at spectral acceleration of 1 Hz computed for 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period
475 years) for different seismicity models; a seismic zonation model, b fault model, and c grid model; see color bar for values
 Author's personal copy
646
Fig. 12 Hazard maps computed for 10 % probability of
exceedance in 50 years (return period 475 years), using a
logic tree approach with equal weights for all three seismicity
6 Logic tree computations
Logic trees were first introduced by Kulkarni et al.
(1984) and since then have been applied frequently
in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to capture
and quantify epistemic uncertainties associated with
Fig. 13 Hazard maps computed for 2 % probability of
exceedance in 50 years (return period 2475 years), using a logic
tree approach with equal weights for all three seismicity models;
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
models; displayed at a PGA and b a spectral acceleration of
1 Hz; see color bar for values
various input parameters, e.g., the description of seis-
mic sources and choice of ground motion prediction
model. Figure 9 shows the structure of the logic tree
used in this analysis reflecting three different recur-
rence models used to describe the seismic sources as
well as the different GMPE models. The recurrence
displayed at a PGA and b a spectral acceleration of 1 Hz; see
color bar for values
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
Fig. 14 Hazard maps computed for 10 % probability of
exceedance in 50 years (return period 475 years), using a
logic tree approach with weights of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.4 for the
models are the seismic zonation described in Section
4.1, the grid model specified in Section 4.2, and the
fault model described in Section 4.3. The GMPE
models arise from the permutations of the models
selected for the stable continental and the active crust
(Section 5). Two different combinations of weights are
Fig. 15 Hazard maps computed for 2 % probability of
exceedance in 50 years (return period 2475 years), using a logic
tree approach with weights of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.4 for the zonation,
647
zonation, fault, and grid model, respectively; displayed at a
PGA and b a spectral acceleration of 1 Hz; see color bar for
values
being used for the branches. In both weight schemes,
equal weights have been used for all GMPE’s incor-
porated in the logic tree. For the first scheme, equal
weighs have been applied to the all seismic models.
In the second scheme, different weights have been
applied to the seismic source models: 0.4, 0.2, and
fault, and grid model, respectively; displayed at a PGA and b a
spectral acceleration of 1 Hz; see color bar for values
 Author's personal copy
648 J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653

0.4 for zonation model, fault model, and grid model,
respectively, due to the insufficient information avail-
able on faults.
7 Results
Across Peninsular India, ground motion values are
estimated for PGA and spectral acceleration by using
the most recent knowledge on seismic activity in the
region and the uncertainties associated with differ-
ent modelling parameters addressed by the formu-
lation of a logic tree (Fig. 9) consisting of three
branches of seismicity models and three branches of
GMPE’s for two tectonic settings (stable continental
and active crust) giving rise to nine different combi-
nations. Results are valid for hard-rock sites (VS30 ≥
1100 m/s). Figures are presented as contour plots for
10 and 2 % probability of exceedance in 50 years cor-
responding to return periods of 475 and 2475 years,
respectively. Individual results from each seismicity
model (zonation, fault, and grid model) are presented
in Figs. 10 and 11 for PGA and 1 Hz, respectively.
Weighted combined results are shown in Figs. 12 and
13 for equal weights between seismicity branches and
Figs. 14 and 15 for the unequal weight scheme both
for PGA and 1 Hz estimated for return period of 475
and 2475, respectively.
In Figs. 10 and 11, the hazard maps correspond-
ing to the three seismicity models show significantly

Table 7 Estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA) for 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years at the sites of selected major cities
and comparison of values to listings of the Bureau of India Standard (BIS 2002), GSHAP (Bhatia et al. 1999), (NDMA 2011) and
other studies

City Peak ground acceleration (g)

(Latitude, Longitude) BIS GSHAP NDMA (2011) Our Study# Others

Bangalore (12.98◦ N, 77.58◦ E) 0.05 (II) 0.05 0.02 0.057 0.11 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.10 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.15 (Anbazhagan et al. 2009),
0.06 (Sitharam and Kolathayar 2013)
Bhuj (23.25◦ N, 69.66◦ E) 0.18 (V) 0.20 0.12 0.212 0.42 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.25 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.2-0.7 (Petersen et al. 2004)
Chennai (13.00◦ N, 80.18◦ E) 0.08 (III) 0.05 0.03 0.032 0.12 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.10 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.08 (Sitharam and Kolathayar 2013)
Hyderabad (17.45◦ N, 78.46◦ E) 0.05 (II) 0.05 0.02 0.045 0.09 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.15 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.03 (Sitharam and Kolathayar 2013)
Jabalpur (23.20◦ N, 79.95◦ E) 0.08 (III) 0.10 0.08 0.080 0.19 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.15 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007)
Kolkata (22.60◦ N, 88.45◦ E) 0.08 (III) 0.10 0.09 0.129 0.15 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.10 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.08 (Sitharam and Kolathayar 2013)
Koyna (17.40◦ N, 73.75◦ E) 0.12 (IV) 0.25 0.12 0.402* 0.47 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.25 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007)
Mumbai (19.11◦ N, 72.85◦ E) 0.08 (III) 0.10 0.09 0.067 0.16 (Nath and Thingbaijam 2012),
0.15 (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007),
0.08 (Sitharam and Kolathayar 2013)

∗ See Section 8 for detailed discussion

# Values extracted from Fig. 14a
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
different patterns reflecting model characteristics. A
common feature is the presence of the highest haz-
ard levels in the Koyna and Gujarat regions, though.
The hazard map for the seismic zonation model
(Fig. 10a) shows uniform hazard inside the zones and
sharp changes in hazard values at their edges. The map
indicates high PGA values in Koyna (0.36 g) followed
by Gujarat (0.16 g). It does not reflect main geological
structures and shows a smooth and simplified hazard
over Peninsular India. The hazard map corresponding
to the fault model (Fig. 10b) clearly reflects the under-
lying fault model, therefore ground motion values
are minimized away from structures. Parameteriza-
tion was difficult to conduct for the fault systems;
the degree of fault activity was assigned based on
expert judgement and is thus mirrored in the hazard
map. This model shows higher hazard in the Gujarat
region (0.25 g) and ground motion values compara-
ble to the ones from the seismic zonation model in
the Koyna region (0.36 g). The hazard map resulting
from the grid model (Fig. 10c) shows smoothly vary-
ing hazard levels reflecting the historical distribution
of earthquakes occurrence. However, the PGA levels
computed for Koyna (0.43 g) and Gujarat (0.37 g) are
significantly higher than for both other models.
In general, the hazard maps generated at 1 Hz
(Fig. 11) show the highest hazard within the Gujarat
region and a lower hazard level at Koyna, since despite
Fig. 16 Plot showing uncertainties associated with estimation of peak ground acceleration along with mean (blue circle) and median
(orange circle) values. Uncertainties are only plotted for the locations described in Table 7
649
the numerous occurrence of earthquakes in the Koyna
region, their magnitudes are moderate with less poten-
tial for large magnitude earthquakes compared to
Gujarat. In addition, the higher ground motion values
visible in southern India for the grid model are lower
at 1 Hz than at PGA as well.
In Figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15, we display our final
hazard maps employing two different weight schemes
(discussed in Section 6). Although the fault model was
integrated in the logic tree with the lowermost weight,
the traces of the Narmada Son lineament and the
Kaddam fault are discernible in the combined haz-
ard map, probably illustrating the fact that seismicity
within the historical catalogue—constituting the foun-
dation of the grid model—is also concentrating along
these fault lines. Furthermore, we observe a slight
dominance of the hazard pattern resulting from the
grid model because of the higher resulting values of
ground motion.
In both maps (Figs. 12 and 14), the highest ground
motion value (at PGA and for 10 % of exceedance
in 50 years) is observed in the Koyna region (0.28 to
0.39 g) followed by the Gujarat region (0.15 to 0.29 g).
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for the
most populated cities in seismically active regions are
reported in Table 7 along with PGA values reported
by previous studies in the Peninsular Indian region.
Uncertainties of PGA values are also estimated using
 Author's personal copy
650
the values obtained from different branches of the
logic tree and presented in Fig. 16. The recurrence
period of large earthquakes in the stable continental
region is very high. Therefore, in Figs. 13 and 15,
results are presented for 2 % of exceedance in 50 years
for a return period of 2475 years as well. In both
maps, for 2 % of exceedance in 50 years, PGA val-
ues in Gujarat (0.7 to 1.07 g) and Koyna (0.81 to
1.09 g) region show high and comparable hazard lev-
els. The results are broadly consistent with previous
studies in terms of spatial variation. In the subsequent
section, the results obtained for 10 % of exceedance
in 50 years will be largely used for discussion and
comparison with other hazard studies in the region.
8 Discussion and conclusions
In this study, four hazard maps corresponding to two
different weight schemes are presented (discussed
in Section 6), for 10 and 2 % of exceedance, as
examples for discussion. It is understood that there
exist several more weight schemes that are equally
defensible and may result in different ground motion
values.
In all maps, the Koyna region is prominently dis-
playing high levels of ground motion due to the pres-
ence of reservoir induced seismicity except the map
for 2 % g in 50 years. Therefore, the G-R relationship
derived from an earthquake catalogue of lower mag-
nitude may not hold true for larger magnitude events.
After Koyna, the Gujarat region shows the highest
hazard level focussed around the area of Kutch. This
region has lower seismic activity compared to Koyna,
but a higher potential for larger earthquakes. The max-
imum PGA value for this region is 0.29 g computed
with the unequal weight scheme, which is considered
to be reasonable with regard to the historical earth-
quake catalogue. Latur indicates around 10 % g (0.09
g) and this does not contradict the tragic experience of
the Latur earthquake (1993; MW 6.1)
A number of studies have been carried out pre-
viously for Peninsular India by various authors and
agencies (see Table 7 for a direct comparison of val-
ues). In general, it is noted how strong variations
between different studies may be; for example, PGA
for Bhuj is given as 0.12 g by NDMA (2011), 0.2 g by
Bhatia et al. (1999), 0.42 g by Nath and Thingbaijam
(2012) and as high as 0.7 by Petersen et al. (2004).
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
Our study shows higher hazard levels than sev-
eral earlier works (Bhatia et al. 1999; NDMA 2011)
particularly in regions with high earthquake potential
(Table 7). The National Disaster Management Author-
ity (NDMA 2011) conducted a PSHA analysis for
the whole Indian subcontinent. They applied a classi-
cal seismic zonation approach and divided the Indian
subcontinent into 32 seismic zones. Furthermore, they
estimated GMPE relations for seven tectonic regimes,
three of which were adopted by the present study.
A potential reason for the discrepancy in results
is that their attenuation relations scale quite differ-
ently with magnitude. Our findings seem to be more
in agreement with the results of the GSHAP study
(Bhatia et al. 1999) except for the Gujarat and Koyna
regions. Here, the GSHAP study employs the Joyner
and Boore (1981) attenuation relation without giving
any explanation.
One notable recent PSHA study has been per-
formed by Jaiswal and Sinha (2007) using a zonefree
approach and incorporating ground motion prediction
equations by Toro (1997), Atkinson and Boore (1995)
and Iyengar and Raghukant (2004) in a logic tree
structure. A recent work by Nath and Thingbaijam
(2012) provides a probabilistic seismic hazard map
for the Indian subcontinent adapting the seismic zona-
tion approach as well, but differentiating for various
source depths along with a zonefree approach simi-
lar to Jaiswal and Sinha (2007) and applied in a logic
tree structure. They implemented the zonefree method
using the grid model in CRISIS and used 4 GMPEs for
stable continent region (Toro 2002; Campbell 2003;
Atkinson and Boore 2006; Raghukant and Iyengar
2007). Both studies deliver consistently higher hazard
levels over Peninsular India, (Nath and Thingbaijam
2012) showing even higher ground motion values than
(Jaiswal and Sinha 2007), potentially due to use of
B-C soil types.
Seeber et al. (1999) prepared a PSHA map for the
State of Maharashtra including Mumbai City applica-
ble to B-C type sites recognised by NEHRP (BSSC
2001). Raghukant and Iyengar (2007) carried out a
PSHA study for Mumbai city, resulting in similar haz-
ard levels as computed by Seeber et al. (1999). Except
for the GSHAP report (Bhatia et al. 1999), most stud-
ies deliver higher PGA values for Mumbai city than
the present study. Most likely, those values represent
an overestimation due to the inclusion of the Koyna
region in the same zone as Mumbai.
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
The Koyna region has attracted nationwide and
international attention since the 1967 earthquake.
Thereafter, the region has been carefully monitored
leading to an extensive earthquake catalogue. While
there is little doubt that tectonic earthquakes are gen-
erated close to the Koyna reservoir, it is generally
agreed that reservoir-induced seismicity is the main
cause of activities (Rastogi 1992; Gahalaut et al.
2004). So far, there is no consensus in the scien-
tific community on how to deal with triggered and
induced seismicity within a seismic hazard study.
In addition, the proof that seismicity is either trig-
gered or induced is still under discussion (see Dahm
et al. 2013 for a more detailed discussion on the dis-
crimination of seismicity). Thus, we have not tried
to exclude events that were triggered or induced in
this study, but instead chose an additional seismic
zone around the Koyna region in order to limit the
influence of these earthquakes on the ground motion
values in surrounding areas. Nevertheless, this leads
to values of peak ground acceleration that are high
compared to the Gujarat region and the reasons for
this behavior should be kept in mind as discussed
above.
In conclusion, the work described in this study adds
value to the hazard maps from previous studies. A
set of GMPEs have been used to describe the atten-
uation of different regions within Peninsular India
unlike most earlier studies employing only a single
attenuation relation (Bhatia et al. 1999; Menon et al.
2010). Multiple seismicity models used in the logic
tree approach including area, grid, and fault models
were not considered in previous studies except for
(Nath and Thingbaijam 2012).
For future studies, it should be considered to
include also offshore faults in a seismic hazard anal-
ysis. Unfortunately, there is little knowledge available
on potentially active fault systems and their recurrence
parameters. Once the geometry of the faults, stress
field, and kinematics is known, the stress variations
caused by expected earthquakes on a particular fault
can be better included into the PSHA scenarios.
Acknowledgments A number of colleagues have helped to
improve our work. Particularly, we would like to thank Mario
Ordaz for helping us in exploring the new capabilities of
CRISIS2014 and Gordon Woo for providing the KERGRID
code and helping with implementing the grid model into CRI-
SIS2014. We gratefully appreciated three anonymous reviews
and the detailed review of Julian Bommer, which caused us
651
more work, but certainly improved the manuscript. Finally, we
thank the Royal Norwegian Embassy in India, New Delhi for
funding the Indo-Norwegian (EQRisk) research project, R-1-
165. Ashish and I. A. Parvez also acknowledge ARiEES, project
of CSIR.
References
Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the predic-
tion of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the
Mediterranean Region, and the Middle East. Seismol Res
Lett 81(2):10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195
Anbazhagan P, Vinod JS, Sitharam TG (2009) Probabilis-
tic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore. Nat Hazards
48:145–166
Atkinson G, Boore D (1995) New ground motion relations for
eastern North America. Bull Seism Soc Am 85:17–30
Atkinson G, Boore DM. (2006) Earthquake ground-motion pre-
diction equations for Eastern North America. Bull Seism
Soc Am 96:2181–2205. doi:10.1785/0120050245
Atkinson GM, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2014) Alternative
approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground
motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismol
Res Lett 85(6):1141–1144. doi:10.1785/0220140120
Basu S, Nigam NC (1977) Seismic risk analysis of Indian
Peninsula. In: Proceedings 6th World Conf. on Earth Eng.,
pages 782–788, New Delhi India
Bȧth M (1965) Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle.
Tectonophysics 2:483–514
Baumbach M, Grosser H, Schmidt HG, Paulat A, Rietbrock A,
Ramakrishna Rao CV, Solomon Raju P, Sarkar D, Mohan I
(1994) Study of foreshocks and aftershocks of the intraplate
Latur earthquake of September 30, 1993, India. In: Gupta
HK (ed) Latur Earthquake, pp 33–63. New Delhi India,
Geol Soc India Mem
Beauval C, Scotti O, Bonilla F (2006) The role of seismicity
models in probabilistic seismic hazard estimation: compar-
ison of a zoning and a smoothing approach. Geophys J Int
162(2):584–595
Bhatia SC, Kumar MR, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seis-
mic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofis
42:1153–1166
Bilham R, Stewart IS, Vitafinzi C (1999) Slip parameters for
the Rann of Kachchh, India, 16 June 1819 earthquake
quantified from contemporary accounts Coastal Tectonics,
pp 295–319. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ.
Bommer J, McQueen C, Salazar W, Scott S, Woo G (1998) A
case study of the spatial distribution of seismic hazard (El
Salvador). Nat Hazards 18:147–168
Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency
ground motion based on seismological models of the radi-
ated spectra. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:1865–1894
Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear
waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009
BSSC (2001) NEHRP Recommendations, Part 1: Provisions;
prepared by the Building Seismic Safty Council for the Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency, Report No FEMA
(368), Washington, D. C., USA.
 Author's personal copy
652
Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using
the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development
of ground-motion (attenuation) relation in eastern North
America. Bull Seism Soc Am 93:1012–1033
Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average
horizontal component of peak ground motion and response
spectra. Earthq Spectr 24:173–215. doi:10.1193/1.2894832
Choubey VD (1971) Narmada-son lineament. Nature Phys Sci
232:38–40
Christophersen A, Smith EGC (2000) A global model for after-
shock behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 12th World confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,
2000. 30th January–4th
Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull
Seism Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606
Crespo Álvarez MJ, Martinez Cutillas FJ, Marti Rodriguez J
(2014) Seismic hazard of the Iberian Peninsula: evaluation
with kernel functions. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:1309–
1323
Dahm T, Becker D, Bischoff M, Cesca S, Dost B, Fritschen
R, Hainzl S, Klose CD, Kühn D, Lasocki S, Meier
Th, Ohrnberger M, Rivalta E, Wegler U, Husen S
(2013) Recommendation for the discrimination of human-
related and natural seismicity. J Seismol 17(1):197–202.
doi:10.1007/s10950–012–9295–6
Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2013) General orthog-
onal regression relations between body-wave and
moment magnitudes. Seismol Res Lett 84(2):219–224.
doi:10.1785/0220120125
Frankel A (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the Central and
Eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 66(4):4–8
Gahalaut VK, Kalpna VK, Singh SK (2004) Fault interaction
and earthquake triggering in the Koyna-Warna region. India
Geophys Res Lett 31(1–4)
GEM (2014) Global Earthquake Model, 2014. http://www.
globalearthquakemodel.org. Last accessed 22
GSI (2000) Seismotectonics Atlas of India and its Environs,
Geological Survey of India
Gubin IE (1968) Seismic zoning of Indian Peninsula. Bull
Seism Soc Am 5:109–139
Guha SK, Gosavi PD, Varma MM, Agarwal SP, Padale JG,
Marwadi SC (1970) Recent seismic distribution in the
Shivajisagar Lake area of the Koyna hydroelectric project,
Maharastra, India, comprehensive report up to June 1969.
Technical report, Khadakwasla, Poona-24, India
Guha SK (1962) Seismic regionalization of India, Sec. Symp.
Earthquake Eng. pp 191–207, University of Roorkee
Gupta HK (1992) Reservoir-Induced Earthquakes. Elsevier Sci-
entific Publishing, Amsterdam, p 335
Gupta ID, Joshi RG, Rambabu V (1992) Analysis of Some Sig-
nificant Accelerograms of Koyna Dam Earthquakes Using
Improved Data Processing Techniques. Technical memo-
randum,Ministry of Water Resources, Central Water and
Power Research Station
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in
California. Bull Seism Soc Am 34:185–188
Iyengar RN, Raghukant STG (2004) Attenuation of strong
ground motion in peninsular India. Seismol Res Lett
75(4):530–540
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
Jaiswal K, Sinha R (2007) Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation
for peninsular India. Bull Seism Soc Am 91(1B):318–330
Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration
and velocity from strong-motion records including records
from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull
Seism Soc Am 71:2011–2038
Kaila KL, Rao NM (1979) Seismic zoning map of the Indian
subcontinent. Geophys Res Bull 17:293–301
Khatri KN, Rogers AM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic
hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics
108:93–134
Krishna J (1959) Seismic zoning of India Earthquake Eng
Seminar. Roorkee University, India, pp 32–38
Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment
of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard anal-
ysis. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, volume 1, pages 263–270, San
Francisco
Menon AT, Corigliano Ornthammarath M, Lai CG (2010) Prob-
abilistic seismic hazard macrozonation of Tamil Nadu in
Southern India. Bull Seism Soc Am 100(3):1320–1341.
doi:10.1785/0120090071
Molina S, Lindholm CD, Bungum H (2001) Probabilistic seis-
mic hazard analysis: zoning free versus zoning methodol-
ogy. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 42:19–
39
Murthy KSR, Subramanyam V, Subramanyam AS, Murty GPS,
Sarma KVLNS (2010) Landocean tectonics (LOTs) and
the associated seismic hazard over the Eastern Continental
Margin of India (ECMI). Earthquake Hazards 55(2):167–
175
Naqvi SM, Divakara Rao V, Narain H (1974) The protocon-
tinental growth of Indian shield and antiquity of its rift
valleys. Precambrian Res 1:345–398
Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2012) Probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment of India. Seismol Res Lett 83(1).
doi:10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135
NDMA (2011) Development of probabilistic hazard map
of India. http://ndma.gov.in/ndma/disaster/earthquake/
PSHATechReportMarch%202011.pdf. Report
Oldham T (1883) A catalogue of Indian earthquakes from the
earliest times to the end of 1869 A.D. MGSi, XIX: Part. 3
Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arbdeda J (2014) Program for com-
puting seismic hazard. Instituto de Ingenieria, Instituto de
Ingenieria, UNAM, Mexico, Ver. 1.1.
Ornthammarath T, Lai CG, Menon A, Corigliano M,
Dodagoudar GR, Gonavaram K (2008) Seismic hazard at
the historical site of Kancheepuram in Southern India. In:
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, p
1–8, Beijing, October 12-17
Parvez IA, Gusev AA, Panza GF, Anatoly GP (2001) Prelim-
inary determination of the interdependence among strong-
motion amplitude, earthquake magnitude and hypocentral
distance for the Himalayan region. Geophys J Int 144:577–
596
Parvez IA, Vaccari F, Giuliano FP (2003) A deterministic seis-
mic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int
155:489–508
 Author's personal copy
J Seismol (2016) 20:629–653
Petersen MD, Rastogi BK, Echweig ES, Harmsen SC, Homberg
JS (2004) Sensitivity analysis of seismic hazard for the
northwestern portion of the state of Gujarat. India Tectono-
physics 390(1-4):105–115
Pezeshk S, Zandieh A, Tavakoli B (2011) Hybrid empiri-
cal ground-motion prediction equations for Eastern North
America using NGA models and updated seismologi-
cal parameters. Bull Seism Soc Am 101(4):1859–1870.
doi:10.1785/0120100144
Raghukant STG, Iyengar RN (2007) Estimation of seismic
spectral acceleration in Peninsular India. J Earth Syst Sci
116(3):199–214
Ramalingeswara Rao B, Sitapathi Rao P (1984) Historical seis-
micity of Peninsular India. Bull Seism Soc Am 74(6):2519–
2533
Rastogi BK (2001) Ground deformation study of mw 7.7 bhuj
earthquake of 2001. Episodes 24(3):160–165
Rastogi BK (1992) Seismotectonics inferred from earthquakes
and earthquake sequences in India during the 1980s. Curr
Sci India 62(1–2):101–108
Richter CF (1958) Elementary Seismology. WH Freeman & Co,
San Francisco, USA
Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Jacob KH (1999) Probabilistic assess-
ment of earthquake hazard for the state of Maharashtra.
Unpublished Report, Government of Maharashtra, Earth-
quake Rehabilitation Cell Mumbai
Singh SK, Bansal BK, Bhattacharya SN, Pacheco JF,
Dattatrayam RS, Ordaz M, Suresh G, Kamal, Hough SE
(2003) Estimation of ground motion for Bhuj (26th January
2001. Mw = 7.6) and for future earthquakes in India. Bull
Seism Soc Am 93(1):353–370
Singh SK, Ordaz M, Dattatrayam RS, Gupta HK (1999) A
spectral analysis of the May 21, 1997, Jabalpur, India earth-
quake (Mw 5.8) and estimation of ground motion from
future earthquakes in the Indian shield region. Bull Seism
Soc Am 86(6):1620–1630
Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Seismic hazard analysis of
India using areal sources. J Asia Earth Sci 62:647–653
Tondon AN (1956) Zoning of India liable to earthquake dam-
age. Ind J Meteorol Geophys 10:137–146
Tondon AN, Chaudhury HM (1968) Koyna earthquake of De-
cember Scientific report no. 59, India Meteorol. Dept., 1968
Toro GN (2002) Modification of the Toro et al. (1997) atten-
uation equations for large magnitudes and short distances.
Risk Engineering, http://www.riskeng.com/PDF/atten toro
extended.pdf
Toro GN (1997) Model of strong ground motion in eastern and
central North America: best estimates and uncertainties.
Seismol Res Lett 68:41–57
653
USGS (2014) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM).
Available at http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Last accessed 11
March 2014
Valdiya KS (1973) Tectonic framework of India: a review
and interpretation of recent structural and tectonic studies.
Geophys Res Bull 11:79–114
Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity
declustering, Community Online Resource for Statistical
Seismicity Analysis. Available at http://www.corssa.org.
doi:10.5078/corssa-52382934
Vere-Jones D (1992) Staticle methods for the description and
display of earthquake catalogues. In: Walden AT, Guttorp
P (eds) Statistics in the Environmental and Earth Sciences,
pp 220–246. Edward Arnold, London
Verma M, Bansal BK (2013) Seismic hazard assessment and
mitigation in India: an overview. Int J Earth Sci 102:1203–
1218
Verma RK, Banerjee P (1992) Nature of continental crust along
the Narmada-Son Lineament inferred from gravity and deep
seismic sounding data. Tectonophysics 202(2):375–397.
doi:10.1016/0040–1951(92)90121–L
Vipin KS, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2009) Estimation of
peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for south
India with local site effects: probabilistic approach. Nat
Hazards 9:865–878
Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relation-
ships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width,
rupture area and surface displacement. Bull Seism Soc Am
84(4):974–1002
Wesnousky SG (1994) The Gutenberg-Richter or characteris-
tic earthquake distribution, which is it Bull Seism Soc Am
86(6):1940–1959
Wiemer S (2001) software package to analyze seismic-
ity:ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72(2):374–383
Woo G (1996) Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard
area source modelling. Bull Seism Soc Am 86(2):353–362
Yanger Walling M, Mohanty WK (2009) An overview on the
seismic zonation and microzonation studies in India. Earth-
sci Rev 96:67–91
Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1985) Implication of fault slip
rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic
seismic hazard estimates. Bull Seism Soc Am 75(4):939–
964
Zhao XJ, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T,
Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima
Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong
ground motion in Japan using site classification based
on predominant period. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:898–913.
doi:10.1785/0120050122