Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

GROUND MOTION PREDICTION IN

HIMALAYAS USING OBSERVED AND
SIMULATED DATASETS
M. L. Sharma1 and A. Harbindu2

ABSTRACT

In the present study, Fourier amplitudes and response spectra of more than 100 tri-axial records
from 16 Himalayan earthquakes of magnitude ranging from 3.1 to 6.8 have been analyzed. Due
to paucity of strong motion data sets, there are only a few empirically based Ground Motion
Predictive equations (GMPEs) available. To overcome this, this study applied Finite-Fault
stochastic simulation method to simulate more than 1000 acceleration time histories for
magnitudes from M3.0 to M7.0 and distances from 1 km to 200 km. Simulation is performed
using magnitude and distance increment of 0.5 units 5 km respectively. In order to avoid any
directivity effect in simulated dataset, all possible range of azimuths has been chosen for
simulation. The 5% damped response spectra of the simulated time series have been derived. As
most of recording stations in Himalaya region are located on rock sites (Vs30 500-760 m/s), the
study derived GMPEs for rock site condition using maximum likelihood method for frequency
range 0.2 to 20 Hz. The study both observed and simulated data for deriving the GMPEs in order
to produce more realistic empirically derived equation. The developed GMPEs for Himalaya
region are validated using available observed strong motion data, and compared to Next
Generation Attenuation (NGA) equations as well as few available regional equations.

1
Professor and Head, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, UA 247667
2
Senior Catastrophe Risk Analyst, Centre of Excellence, AIG, Bangalore, KA, 560048, INDIA

Sharma ML, Harbindu A. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Ground Motion Prediction in Himalayas using Observed and Simulated

Datasets

M. L. Sharma1 and A. Harbindu2

ABSTRACT

In the present study, Fourier amplitudes and response spectra of more than 100 tri-axial records
from 16 Himalayan earthquakes of magnitude ranging from 3.1 to 6.8 have been analyzed. Due to
paucity of strong motion data sets, there are only a few empirically based Ground Motion
Predictive equations (GMPEs) available. To overcome this, this study applied Finite-Fault
stochastic simulation method to simulate more than 1000 acceleration time histories for
magnitudes from M3.0 to M7.0 and distances from 1 km to 200 km. Simulation is performed
using magnitude and distance increment of 0.5 units 5 km respectively. In order to avoid any
directivity effect in simulated dataset, all possible range of azimuths has been chosen for
simulation. The 5% damped response spectra of the simulated time series have been derived. As
most of recording stations in Himalaya region are located on rock sites (Vs30 500-760 m/s), the
study derived GMPEs for rock site condition using maximum likelihood method for frequency
range 0.2 to 20 Hz. The study both observed and simulated data for deriving the GMPEs in order
to produce more realistic empirically derived equation. The developed GMPEs for Himalaya
region are validated using available observed strong motion data, and compared to Next
Generation Attenuation (NGA) equations as well as few available regional equations.

Introduction

Himalaya even being so highly earthquake prone zone, only few strong motion recordings
available due late startup of strong motion studies. Therefore, there are only a few empirically
based Ground Motion Predictive equations (GMPEs) available for the Himalayan belt. Most of
the seismic hazard studies for Himalaya use GMPEs derived from datasets from tectonically
similar regions such as Western North America (WNA) etc. Several alternative procedures are
available to compensate this scarcity of strong motion data. In such a situation, there is a strong
need of appropriate regional models for predicting ground motions for future earthquakes which
rely on regional earthquake source and propagation processes. Finite fault modeling has been an
important tool for the prediction of ground motion near the epicenters of large earthquakes ([1];
[2]; [3]). One of the most useful methods to simulate ground motion for a large earthquake is
based on the simulation of a number of small earthquakes as subfaults that comprise a big fault.
The stochastic method has also been used to derive ground-motion relations for many different
regions. [4] derived ground-motion relations for eastern North America, using a stochastic point-

1
Professor and Head, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, UA 247667
2
Senior Catastrophe Risk Analyst, Centre of Excellence, AIG, Bangalore, KA, 560048, INDIA

Sharma ML, Harbindu A. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
source model with an empirical two-corner source model. [5] developed similar relations for
eastern North America using a Brune’s point-source model. For California, where there is a good
empirical strong-motion database, it was shown that the stochastic relations agree well with
empirical regression equations (e.g. [6]; [7])
In this study, Fourier amplitudes and response spectra of more than 300 tri-axial records from 20
Himalayan earthquakes of magnitude ranging from 3.1 to 7.0 have been analyzed. Finite-Fault
stochastic simulation method used to simulate more than 1000 acceleration time histories for
magnitudes from M3.0 to M7.0 and distances from 1 km to 200 km. The 5% damped response
spectra of the simulated time series have been derived. GMPEs are derived for rock site
condition (Vs30 500-760 m/s) using maximum likelihood method for frequency range 0.2 to 20
Hz. We used both observed and simulated data for deriving the GMPEs in order to produce more
realistic empirically derived equation. The developed GMPEs for Himalaya region are validated
using available observed strong motion data, and compared to Next Generation Attenuation
(NGA) equations as well as few available regional equations.
.
Strong Motion Datasets

In India, strong motion seismology has started to develop very late with 1980s with the
deployment of strong ground motion instruments in the Himalaya. Therefore strong-motion data
available for Indian Himalaya is very limited. Under a project titled “National Strong Motion
Instrumentation Network”, about 300 state-of-the-art digital strong-motion accelerographs were
installed in north and northeastern India to record earthquake activities. The recording for all
instruments is in trigger mode at a sampling frequency of 200 samples per seconds. The
triggering threshold was initially set at 0.005 g for all the instruments. All the processed
accelerograms of this strong motion instrumentation network of IITR are available on strong-
motion data bank PESMOS (URL: http\:www.pesmos.in).The catalogue for study region
consists of 16 earthquakes recorded at 46 stations with 135 triaxial records. The moment
magnitude range varies from M 3.1-6.8 with hypocentral distance range varying from R 0-208
km. The details of all events used in this study are reported in Table 1.

Methodology

The stochastic method of ground motion simulation is one of widely-used tool to simulate
acceleration time series and develop ground-motion relations ([8], [5], [7]). In this method the
acceleration spectrum is modeled by a spectrum with an ω2 shape, where ω is angular frequency
([9], [10]) and acceleration spectrum of the shear wave, A(f), at hypocentral distance R from an
earthquake is given by:

A(f) = CM0 (2πf)2/{1+(f/f0)2}* exp(-πfR/Qβ)/R * exp(-π f κ) (1)

where M0 is seismic moment and f0 is corner frequency, which is given

by , where is stress drop in bars, M0 is in dyne-cm, and shear wave
velocity in km/s. The constant , where is radiation pattern (0.55 for
shear waves), F is free surface amplification (2.0), V is partition of energy between two
horizontal components (0.71), and R is hypocentral distance. The term ‘exp(-πfR/Qβ)/R’ is path
attenuation term where Q is quality factor. The term ‘exp(-π f κ)’ is a high cut filter to account
for near surface diminution of high frequency wave ([11]).
In this study, we used stochastic finite fault approach to simulate scenario ground motions. In
finite-fault modeling procedure, a large fault is divided into N subfaults and each subfault is
considered as a small point source ([1]). Ground motions from each subfault which is calculated
by the stochastic point source method can be summed up with a proper delay in time to obtain
the ground motion from the entire fault.

Table 1. Details of the earthquake occurred in the study area.

No. of
Event Distance
Date Magnitude Recording
Number Range (Km)
Stations
1 26/04/1986 5.6 8 9-26
2 20/10/1991 6.8 10 29-74
3 08/03/1999 6.4 4 15-104
4 14/12/2005 5.2 5 60-105
5 10/12/2006 3.5 1 31
6 04/10/2007 3.8 1 9
7 21/10/2008 4.5 2 44-48
8 31/01/2009 3.7 3 16-33
9 25/02/2009 3.7 1 23
10 15/05/2009 4.1 1 18
11 17/07/2009 3.7 3 23-30
12 01/05/2010 4.6 2 94-208
13 03/05/2010 3.5 2 9, 49
14 28/05/2010 4.8 1 25
15 13/8/2010 3.4 1 32
16 21/09/2011 3.1 1 17

Input Model Parameters

The key step in stochastic simulation method is specification of Fourier acceleration spectrum as
function of magnitude and distance. This requires appropriate modeling of earthquake source,
regional ground motion attenuation model and local site response. Previous studies by [12], [13]
have reported the earthquake source parameters such as stress drop, corner frequency and
seismic moment for each event listed in Table 2. Events used in this study lie in Central and NW
Himalaya, which one of seismically active sector in Himalayas with a few of historical
earthquake such as Uttarkashi Earthquake (M6.8, 1991), Chamoli Earthquake (M6.4, 1999) and
Dharmsala Earthquake (M5.4 1986). Bilinear model of geometrical spreading has been adopted
for this study is as follows:
1/ ≤ 100
( )= ⁄ (2)
1/(100 ) > 100

The coefficient of anelastic attenuation (Q values) taken as Q(f) = 140f 1.018 and 103f 0.66. The
input Q values are verified using observed data at distinct frequencies and comparable with the
other studies for Himalaya. Therefore the considered Q values represent the local ground motion
attenuation. The local site response has been estimated using Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral
Ratio (HVSR) technique at 46 recording stations used in this study. All recording stations are
located on rock sites (Vs30 500-760 m/s) of Himalaya and do not show significant amplification
except few stations ([12], [13]). Duration model is generally expressed as,T = T + , where
T is the source duration and bR represent the distance dependent term that account for
dispersion. For the source duration, we assume a source duration as 1/fc where fc is corner
frequency and b = 0.05 ([14]). A summary of all input parameters used for simulation of scenario
ground motion are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Source parameters of event used in this study

Q Value Site Kappa, κ

Event Mo
Magnitude ∆σ (bars) fc (Hz) Amplificatio
Number (dyne.cm)
n
1 5.6 35 ± 6 2.10E+24 0.400 103f 0.66
2 6.8 33 ± 4 1.99E+26 0.088 140f 1.018
3 6.4 105 ± 8 6.01E+25 0.194 140f 1.018
4 5.2 90 ± 6 7.94E+23 0.782 140f 1.018
5 3.5 121 ± 9 2.23E+21 6.113 103f 0.66
6 3.8 32 ± 4 6.30E+21 2.778 103f 0.66
7 4.5 10 ± 3 7.07E+22 0.842 103f 0.66
8 3.7 11 ± 5 4.46E+21 2.183 103f 0.66 0.005s
H/V ([12])
9 3.7 10 ± 3 4.46E+21 2.110 140f 1.018 ([13])
10 4.1 4±2 1.77E+22 0.983 140f 1.018
11 3.7 44 ± 8 4.46E+21 3.466 103f 0.66
12 4.6 75 ± 9 1.00E+23 1.469 140f 1.018
13 3.5 10 ± 4 2.23E+21 2.663 140f 1.018
14 4.8 40 ± 7 1.99E+23 0.946 103f 0.66
15 3.4 98 ± 9 1.58E+21 6.394 103f 0.66
16 3.1 43 ± 6 5.62E+20 6.863 140f 1.018

7
Magnitude ( Mw)

3
0 50 100 150
Stress Drop (bars)

Figure 1. Distribution of stress drop with respect to magnitude for Himalaya

Ground Motion Simulation

Acceleration Fourier response spectrum for earthquakes with magnitudes from M4.0 to M7.0
(where M is moment magnitude), and fault distances from 5 km to 250 km, are simulated. The
distance is defined as the closest distance from the fault to the observation point. For small
earthquakes, the fault distance is equivalent to the hypocentral distance. In Himalaya region,
Most of the earthquakes such as Uttarkashi, Chamoli earthquakes, are occurred by reverse
faulting with shallow dip angle (4-50).Therefore the dip has been considered 50. The length and
width of faults are calculated from the target moment magnitude based on the [14] empirical
formulas between magnitude and fault size. The sampling rate, near source shear-wave velocity
and density has been considered as 100 sample/sec, 3.6 km/sec and 2.8 g/cm3 respectively.
The input stress drop for each earthquake is calculated using observed datasets ([12], [13])
reported in Table 2 and Fig 1. A random slip distribution is assumed with maximum of 50% of
the fault actively pulsing at any moment in time.
We simulated acceleration time histories for each event at each recording stations reported in
Table 1. The response spectra (pseudoacceleration, PSA, 5% damped) of the simulated time
series have been calculated for frequencies from 0.1Hz to 20Hz. Response spectra show the
response of a simple oscillator to the time series, and are used in many engineering applications.
For sake of brevity, we have presented simulated PSA of few representative recording stations in
Fig. 2.

1000 1000 1000

Event 1, Stn: Dharm Event 2, Stn: Srin
Event 1, Stn: Kang
PSA (cm/sec.sec)

100

PSA (cm/sec.sec)
100
PSA (cm/s/s)

100

10 10
Sim Sim Obs
10 Obs Obs
1 Obs 1
Obs Sim
Obs
1 0.1
0.1
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10

1000 1000 1000

Event 2, Stn: Tehr Event 3, Stn: Chin Event 3, Stn: Ghan
100 100 100
PSA (cm/sec.sec)
PSA (cm/sec.sec)
PSA (cm/sec.sec)

10 10 10
Obs
Obs Obs
Obs Obs
1 Obs 1 1
Sim Sim
Sim
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2. Comparison of observed and simulated 5% damped acceleration response spectra at

few sample stations of Himalaya. (Dashed lines - observed two horizontal components of ground
motion: Solid line – simulated ground motion)

For strong ground motion predicted from numerical modeling to be accepted for use in
engineering design, it is necessary to demonstrate that the numerical modeling procedure can
accurately predict recorded ground motion. Thus it is important to calculate the variability in the
ground motion estimates derived from numerical modeling. The modeling uncertainty is derived
from the comparison of observed and predicted response spectra. Following [15], we have
estimated model bias and modeling uncertainty and presented in Fig. 3.The low values of model
bias at high frequencies represent stochastic simulation method predict well high frequency
motions, which is important as high frequencies causes excessive damage than low frequencies.
 2 2
(a) Modeling Uncertainty (b)
1 1.5

Uncertainty
Bias corrected
Model Bias

0 1 modeling uncertainty

-1 0.5

-2 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 (Hz)
Frequency 10
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3. (a) Model bias by solid line and dashed line represent 90% confidence limit and
(b) Modeling uncertainty

Ground Motion Prediction Equation

The stochastic ground motion model was used to calculate peak spectral amplitudes for a number
of magnitude, distance, and model parameters bins, covering the ranges of engineering interest.
Most of past Himalayan earthquakes are shallow depth earthquakes with low dip angle.
Therefore, for simulation of scenario ground motion, we assume depth as 10 km and dip as 50.
Ground motions have been simulated for many sites along lines radiating from the midpoint of
the surface projection of the upper edge of the fault at four azimuths ranging from -900 to +900.
We used 20 trials for each magnitude and distance combinations. One fit (i.e. one set of
coefficient from Table 3) is thus obtained for a combination of ground motion measure viz., size,
distance, azimuth, stress drop, site amplification and quality factor, kappa factor.

Table 3. Parameter variation for simulation of strong ground motion

Category Quantity Count Values

PGA, spectral acceleration 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
Dependent Ground-Motion
13
Variables Amplitude 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0
Independent Magnitude (M) 6 4.0 , 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5,7.0
Variables Distance (km) 8 10, 20, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250
Stress drop (bars) 7 5, 10, 20, 50, 75, 100,120
1/ ≤ 100
Input Geometrical Spreading 1 ( )= ⁄
1/(100 ) > 100
Parameters Quality factor, Q(f) 2 140 f 1.018, 103 f 0.66
Amplification function 1 H/V
Kappa, κ 1 0.005s

This resulted into a large set of simulated database. This simulated database combined with the
observed database is fitted into simplistic functional form of predictive equation which is as
follows:

log = + ( − 6) + ( − 6) − log − (3)

where PSA is the peak spectral acceleration (cm/s2) and c1 through c4 are constant to be
determined from modeling results. M is the moment magnitude and = ( + ℎ ) , d is the
closest distance to the fault in km and log ℎ = −0.5 + 0.15 , h is the equivalent point- source
depth which is a function of fault, and hence earthquake magnitude (Atkinson and Silva, 2000).
Regression analysis is performed on observed data (Table 1) and simulated data (Table 3) to
obtain simple functions of magnitude and distance. The maximum likelihood method has been
applied, for frequencies from 0.1 to 20Hz. The regression coefficients (c1 to c4) obtained from
fitting the equation (3) using observed and simulated Fourier response spectra at discrete
frequencies are reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Regression coefficients of GMPE and standard error for rock-sites of Himalaya

Period (sec)
PGA 3.3384 0.4468 -0.0634 0.0028 0.0784
0.1 3.5145 0.4248 -0.0448 0.003 0.0691
0.15 3.6155 0.4259 -0.047 0.003 0.0586
0.2 3.6471 0.4306 -0.0547 0.003 0.0549
0.3 3.7055 0.4488 -0.0698 0.0029 0.048
0.4 3.6701 0.4672 -0.0873 0.0028 0.0463
0.5 3.6334 0.4818 -0.1057 0.0027 0.0474
0.75 3.5270 0.5273 -0.1378 0.0018 0.463
1.0 3.3741 0.5682 -0.1551 0.0012 0.0434
1.5 3.0725 0.6363 -0.1698 0.0007 0.0436
2.0 2.8318 0.6948 -0.1661 0.0005 0.0511
3.0 2.4915 0.7934 -0.1428 0.0004 0.0666
4.0 2.2543 0.8687 -0.1181 0.0003 0.078

Results and Discussion

The PGAs estimated from GMPE for the study region are shown in Fig. 4. The 5% damped
response spectrum obtained for magnitude 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 at distances of 25 km and 100 km are
also computed and shown in Fig. 5 for study region. Because of the availability of a few strong-
motions recordings, there are only a few and relatively poorly constrained GMPEs available, out
of which only two, [16] and [17], could pass the GMPE criteria of [18], since others were not
published in international peer-reviewed journals. However, based on the relatively small data
set many studies have been carried out in past to develop semi empirical attenuation relationships
for Himalaya. [19] developed a GMPE for Himalaya by combining data set from Himalaya and
Zagros region, Iran.
 1000 600 100
(a) M 5.0 (b) M 5.0
(c) M 5.0
M 6.0

Spectral Acceleration
100 M 6.0

Spectral Acceleration
M 6.0 75
Peak Ground

(cm/sec.sec)
Accleration M 6.5 400 M 6.5

(cm/sec.sec)
M 7.0 M 6.5

(cm/sec.sec)
10 M 7.0 50 M 7.0
200
1 25

0.1 0 0
0 100 200 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Fault Rupture distance ( km) Period (sec) Period (sec)

Figure 4. (a) Comparison for PGA for different magnitudes at distance 25 km, (b) Comparison
for 5 % damped response spectra for different magnitudes at (a) distances 25 km, and (c)
distances 100 km.

Fig. 4 compare PGAs (assumed to be equal to the spectral acceleration at 0.04s) from regional
GMPEs usually in practice for seismic hazard studies for study region [[17], [19]; [16]; [6]; [20];
[21] with the proposed GMPE for the study region.
1000 1000
M5 (a) M6 (b)

Peak Ground

( cm/sec.sec)
Acceleration
100
Peak Ground

( cm/sec.sec)
Acceleration

100
MLS 2009
MLS 2009 10 B & A 2008
10 B & A 2008 MLS 1998
MLS 1998 A & L 1989
A & L 1989 1 A & S 1997
1 A & S 1997 Singh et al. 1996
Singh et al 1996 Present Study
0.1 0.1
10 100 10 100

1000 1000
M 6.5 (c) M7 (d)
Peak Ground Acceleration

100 100
Peak Ground

( cm/sec.sec)
Acceleration

MLS 2009
( cm/sec.sec)

MLS 2009
B & A 2008
10 B & A 2008 10 MLS 1998
MLS 1998
A & L 1989 A & L 1989
1 A & S 1997 1 A & S 1997
Singh et al. 1996 Singh et al. 1996
Present Study Present Study
0.1 0.1
10 Fault Rupture Distance (km) 100 10 100
Fault Rupture Distance (km)

Figure 5. Comparison of present GMPE for Himalaya with a few regional and global GMPEs
[MLS~ [19]; [17]; B&A~ [21]; A&L~ [20]; A&S~ [6]; [16]] for magnitudes (a) 5.0, (b) 6.0, (c)
6.5, (d) 7.0.

The comparison reveals that the predicted PGAs from proposed relationship are quite close to the
compared GMPEs, specifically with [19] and [6], for all representative magnitude range except
at magnitude 5.0 (Fig.5). This may be due to the compared GMPEs are derived from the
empirical dataset which is lacking datasets from magnitude as low as 5.0.
Furthermore NGA equation [21] is also in common practice for ground motion studies in
Himalaya region. In Fig. 6, we compared the response spectra from proposed GMPE [19] model
as a local relationship and [21] from NGA equations.
 100 100
M5R50 M5R100

(cm/sec.sec)

(cm/sec.sec)
10
PSA

PSA
Present Study 1 Present Study
1 Sharma et al. 2009 Sharma et al. 2009
Boore & Atkinson 2008 Boore & Atkinson 2008
0.1 0.01
0.04 0.4 4 0.04 0.4 4
1000 100

PSA (cm/sec.sec)
PSA (cm/sec.sec)

M6R50 M6R100
100
10 Present Study
10 Present Study
Sharma et al. 2009
Sharma et al. 2009
Boore & Atkinson 2008 Boore & Atkinson 2008
1 1
0.04 0.4 4 0.04 0.4 4
100 1000
PSA (cm/sec.sec)

M7R50

PSA (cm/sec.sec)
M6R200
10 100
Present Study Present Study
1 10
Sharma et al. 2009 Sharma et al. 2009
Boore & Atkinson 2008 Boore & Atkinson 2008
0.1 1
0.04 0.4 4 0.04 0.4 4
100 100
M7R100 PSA (cm/sec.sec) M7R200
(cm/sec.sec)

Present Study
PSA

10 10 Present Study
Sharma et al. 2009 Sharma et al. 2009
Boore & Atkinson 2008 Boore & Atkinson 2008
1 1
0.04 Period 0.4 4 0.04 Period (sec) 0.4 4

Figure 6. Comparison of simulated 5% damped response spectra from present study with [19]
and [21] for magnitudes 5, 6, and 7 at distances 50, 100, and 200 km.

The proposed GMPE shows a fair comparison for various magnitude-distance combinations
while at low representative magnitudes at farther distances or moderate magnitudes at closer
distances (M 5 at 100 km, M6 at 200 km, and M7 at 50 km) show deviations from [19]. The
deviations may be primarily attributed to the strong dependence of [19] on faulting mechanism
and site characteristic terms. However the average shape of the proposed response spectra quite
close to the PSA predicted by [21] especially in high frequency range for considered all
magnitude and distance. This provides confidence to the proposed GMPE for use in Himalaya
region.

Summary and Conclusions

GMPE has been developed for response spectra (pseudo-acceleration, 5% damped) and Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA) for rock sites of Himalaya as a function of moment magnitude and
the closest distance to fault rupture. The simulated ground motions are developed from a
seismological model of source, path and site parameters. The developed GMPE shows fair
comparison with the empirically developed GMPEs. The paper well presented the alternate
solution to the problem of scarcity of observed strong-motion data. The simulated data can be
used for various purposes of seismic hazard studies useful in earthquake resistant design of
structures. The simulated time histories may be used in nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures.
 References
1. Hartzell, SH. Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s functions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1978; 5(1), 1-4.
2. Irikura, K. Semi-empirical estimation of strong ground motions during large earthquakes. Bull. Disaster Res.
Inst. Kyoto University. 1983; 33, 63-104.
3. Beresnev, IA and Atkinson GM. FINSIM: A FORTRAN program for simulating stochastic acceleration time
histories from finite fault. Seismol. Res. Lett. 1998; 69, 27-32.
4. Atkinson, GM and Boore, DM Ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
1995; 85:17–30
5. Toro, GR, NA Abrahamson and Schneider, JF. Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in Central
and eastern North America: Best estimates and uncertainties. Seismol. Res. Lett. 1997; 68(1), 41-56
6. Abrahamson, NA and Silva, WJ. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal
earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett. 1997; 68(1), 94-127.
7. Atkinson, GM and Silva, WJ. Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2000;
90, 255-274.
8. Atkinson, GM and Boore, DM. Ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
1995; 85:17–30.
9. Brune, JN. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 1970;
75(26), 4997-5009.
10. Brune, JN. Corrections. J. Geophys. Res. 1971; 76(26), 6488.
11. Anderson, J. and Hough S. A model for the shape of the Fourier Amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high
frequencies. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1984; 74, 1969-1993.
12. Harbindu, A., ML Sharma, Kamal. Stochastic ground motion simulation of two Himalayan earthquakes: seismic
hazard perspective. J. Seismol. 2012a; 16, 345-365. doi: 10.1007/s10950-011-9247-6.
13. Harbindu, A., Kamal, Sharma ML. Site amplification and frequency dependent attenuation coefficient at rock
sites of Himachal region of Northwest Himalaya, India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2012b; 102(4), 1487-1504: doi:
10.1785/0120110218
14. Well DL and Coppersmith KJ. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width,
rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1994; 84, 972–1002.
15. Abrahamson, NA, PG. Somerville, Cornell CA. Uncertainty in numerical strong motion predictions. Proc. 4th
U.S. Nat. Conf. Earthq. Eng. Palm Spring, California. 1990; 1, 407-416.
16. Singh, RP, A. Aman and Prasad YJJ. Attenuation relations for strong seismic ground motion in Himalayan
region. Pure App. Geophys. 1996; 147, 161–180.
17. Sharma, ML. Attenuation relationship for estimation of peak ground horizontal acceleration using data from
strong motion arrays in India. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1998; 98, 1063–1069.
18. Cotton, F, F Scherbaum, JJ Bommer and Bungum H. Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models
for specific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites. J. Seismol. 2006; 10, 137-156.
19. Sharma, ML, J Douglas, H Bungum, Kotadia J. Ground motion predictions equations based on data from the
Himalayan and Zagros regions. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009; 13, 1191-1210.
20. Abrahamson, NA and Litehiser JJ. Attenuation of vertical peak accelerations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1989; 79,
549-580.
21. Boore, DM and Atkinson GM. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the average horizontal component of
PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra 2008;
24(1), 99-138.