Disaster Prevention and Management

Emerald Article: Assessment of seismic hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya Prabhat Kumar, Ashwini Kumar, Amita Sinvhal

Article information:
To cite this document: Prabhat Kumar, Ashwini Kumar, Amita Sinvhal, (2011),"Assessment of seismic hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 5 pp. 531 - 542 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653561111178961 Downloaded on: 29-03-2012 References: This document contains references to 18 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 215 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm

Assessment of seismic hazard in Uttarakhand Himalaya

Prabhat Kumar, Ashwini Kumar and Amita Sinvhal
Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Abstract
Purpose For a state like Uttarakhand, which is located in the seismically active Himalayan region and in the vicinity of plate boundaries, estimation of seismic hazards and the preparation of a zoning map are an urgent necessity. This paper aims to focus on this hazard. Design/methodology/approach In total, 32 potential seismo-tectonic source zones were identied in a very wide area in and around the state, on the basis of seismicity and tectonics, and the longer ones were segmented. The maximum magnitude that each seismo-tectonic source zone can support was then estimated. The seismic hazard due to each seismo-tectonic source zone was assessed at 180 sites, in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA). Findings The maximum PGA at each site varied between 0.06g and 0.50g. The seismic hazard was highest around the main central thrust and the main boundary thrust, and ve other thrusts between these two thrusts. This assessment was adapted to make a seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand, with ve distinct zones. Research limitations/implications If seismo-tectonic source zones from the contiguous regions of Nepal and Tibet were included as part of this assessment, then a higher hazard would be expected in Uttarakhand. Practical implications Threat perceptions of a potential earthquake disaster can be assessed in this zoning map. Disaster mitigation strategies will vary geographically, with priorities dened by the zoning map presented here. The methodology evolved has the potential to be extended to other vulnerable states in the Himalayan arc. Originality/value The seismic hazard assessed has been adapted to formulate a seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand. Keywords Himalayas, Seismicity, Tectonics, Uttarakhand, Hazards, Zoning map, Natural disasters, Earthquakes Paper type Research paper

Assessment of seismic hazard

531

Introduction The Indian subcontinent is a seismically active part of the world. Major seismic activity in India is concentrated along the geologically young and seismo-tectonically active Himalayan arc due to the ongoing continent-continent collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates. As part of the Alpine Himalayan seismic belt this arc has experienced four great earthquakes, i.e. earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 8, within 53 years. No great earthquake has occurred within the Himalayan arc since 1950, i.e. in the last 60 years, and such an earthquake could occur any time soon. The Himalayan state of Uttarakhand lies in the region between epicenters of two great earthquakes, namely the Kangra (1905) and Bihar Nepal earthquakes (1934). This seismic gap (Khattri, 1987) has not experienced a major earthquake during a time interval when most other segments of the gap have ruptured. Seismic gaps are supposed to have a high future earthquake potential. Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess seismic hazard and have a detailed zoning map of the state. Seismic hazard

Disaster Prevention and Management Vol. 20 No. 5, 2011 pp. 531-542 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0965-3562 DOI 10.1108/09653561111178961

DPM 20,5

involves a quantitative estimate of ground shaking at a particular site or within an area. Seismicity and seismic source zones To assess seismic hazard it is essential to rst identify seismic source zones. This requires a detailed examination of the seismicity pattern of the area in and around Uttarakhand. Initially, a very wide area, falling between the great Kangra earthquake of 1905 and the great Bihar Nepal earthquake of 1934 was selected. This area lies between latitude 258N to 378N and longitude 728E to 878E. A catalogue of earthquake data, as per the India Meteorological Department (IMD), revealed 2,097 epicenters of magnitude 4 and above for the period 1552 to 2007, as shown in Figure 1[1]. The spatial distribution of seismicity is non-uniform. A diffuse pattern was observed over a very large area, whereas several clusters of epicenters were aligned in an almost Northwest-Southeast trending belt, parallel to the Himalayan trend, between the epicenters of the two great earthquakes. This NW-SE trending seismic belt passes through Uttarakhand. Eleven earthquakes of a magnitude of more than 6.0 have originated within the state since AD 1552. The Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20, 1991 (magnitude Ms 7.0, Mw 6.8, mb 6.5, USGS), and the Chamoli earthquake of March 29, 1999 (magnitude Ms 6.6, mb 6.4, USGS) had the highest magnitude of all earthquakes to originate within the state. A region where seismicity is concentrated can be considered to indicate a preliminary seismic source zone. The observed pattern of seismicity can be taken to represent the expected future pattern of seismicity. Since epicentral data available for Uttarakhand and the region around it is available for a short span of time as compared to the average return period between large earthquakes, seismicity alone was not enough to identify seismic source zones. The inclusion of tectonics helped in circumventing this problem. Tectonic units The most commonly used tectonic units considered for assessing seismic hazard are faults and thrusts. Initially, the regional tectonic set-up of the area was examined (Narula et al., 2000), for the same area as for seismicity. Tectonic features such as faults, thrusts, suture zones and lineaments identied and digitized using a GIS software package, are shown in Figure 1. The vast study area for which seismicity was initially studied was narrowed down to a distance of about 300 km from every corner of Uttarakhand. Due to collision zone tectonics a complex network of mega faults, thrusts and suture zones exists in the area. North and South of the Indus Suture Zone (ISZ), which forms the tectonic boundary between the Indian and Eurasian plates, are the Tethys Himalayas and the Main Central Thrust (MCT), respectively. The two mega-thrusts, MCT and the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), separate three geologically distinct settings. The Greater Himalayas lie North of the MCT, between the MCT and ISZ; the Lesser Himalayas lie between MCT and MBT; and the Outer Himalaya lie South of the MBT. The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), also known as the Frontal Foothill Thrust, FFT, is South of the MBT, and is a neo-tectonic thrust. These form the foothills bordering the Indo Gangetic plains. The ISZ, MCT, MBT and FFT manifest

532

Assessment of seismic hazard

533

Figure 1. Seismicity and tectonics between latitudes 258N and 378N, and longitudes 728E and 878E. The outline of Uttarakhand is shown between longitudes 778E and 818E. The inset shows the area of study

DPM 20,5

534

throughout the Himalayan arc, between the Eastern and Western syntaxis, and have prominent surface manifestations at several places. The MCT terminates against the Kishtwar fault in Jammu and Kashmir in the Northwest. The MCT, MBT and FFT traverse prominently through Uttarakhand and are prone to frequent earthquakes and landslides. The genesis of the Kangra earthquake is associated with the MBT, and there is a concentration of epicenters on the MBT around the Kangra earthquake. Seismicity is concentrated North of (MBT), mainly between MBT and MCT, and in the vicinity and North of MCT. The MBT, also known as Krol Belt in Uttarakhand, shows neo-tectonic activity at several places. Besides these mega Himalayan thrusts, several other faults and thrusts exist in the study area. Karakoram Fault (KF) exhibits a huge offset and extends for more than 1,000 km from Central Pamir to North of Uttarakhand Himalayas. The region between the MBT and the MFT is traversed by several thrusts. Some of these, such as Jwalamukhi Thrust (JMT), Drang Thrust, (DT), and the Sundernagar Fault (SNF), also known as Manali Fault, can be traced over long distances. Neo-tectonic activity has been documented in Western parts of Jwalamukhi Thrust. In addition to the tectonic features mentioned here, several faults and lineaments are transverse to the Himalayan trend. Prominent among these are the Kaurik fault system, (KFS), the Mahendragarh Dehradun Fault (MDF), the Great Boundary Fault (GBF), and the Moradabad Fault (MF), which exists in the Delhi-Moradabad region. Several tectonic features are prominent in Uttarakhand. These include the Alaknanda Fault (AF), which is a conspicuous neo-tectonic feature in the area, North Almora Thrust (NAT), South Almora Thrust (SAT), Martoli Thrust (MT1 and MT2), Vaikrita Thrust (VT), Ramgarh Thrust (RT), and Munsiari Thrust. Besides these major thrusts, the region also has a large number of smaller thrusts, mostly within curves and loops, most of which are less than 50 km long. To proceed with hazard assessment those potential sources not named in the atlas were given a unique name. Eight of these were christened Thrust Zones 1 to 8, (TZ1, TZ2, TZ3, TZ4, TZ5, TZ6, TZ7, and TZ8). Faults involving basement and cover were named as Faults G1, G2 and G3, and Fault R1 is a neo-tectonic fault. All the 32 source zones identied are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Segmentation of seismo-tectonic source zones In certain regions there is a clear-cut relationship between faults and earthquakes (e.g. the San Andreas Fault in Southern California). However, in the Himalayas, any spatial association of tectonic features with seismicity is poorly understood. For such regions, assessing seismic hazard seismicity has to be considered in association with the tectonics of the region, i.e. seismo-tectonic source zones acquire an enhanced importance. A seismo-tectonic source is a geological structure that is capable of generating earthquakes. Discontinuity and intersection of mega-thrusts with neo-tectonic faults were important diagnostic features that were used as an aid for the segmentation of mega-thrusts. The very long and highly contorted MCT was divided into four segments for assessing seismic hazard. Segment MCT1 was in the Western portion of the study area. It was considered between two faults that are transverse to the Himalayan trend, i.e. the Kishtwar fault and a small neo-tectonic fault along which the MCT exhibits a pronounced discontinuity. Segment MCT2 was considered between

Assessment of seismic hazard

535

Figure 2. Seismo tectonics of Uttarakhand

this neo-tectonic fault discontinuity, which marked one extremity of MCT1 and the Sundernagar Fault (SNF), mainly because of the seismicity South of MCT. Segment MCT3 was marked between Sundernagar Fault (SNF) in the West and its abrupt termination in the East due to the unavailability of tectonic data east of Uttarakhand, at 818E longitude. This segment is mainly within Uttarakhand. MCT4 is East of the study area, between approximately 81.68 and 848 longitude, in the Nepalese Himalayas. MBT was considered as two segments, marked by a pronounced discontinuity across neo-tectonic fault R1. MBT1 is between 78.48 longitude and 818 longitude. This portion is mainly within Uttarakhand. MBT2 is the portion between 758 longitude and 818 longitude. Each fault, thrust and segment was used separately for estimating seismic hazard. Studies of fault rupture worldwide indicate that during an earthquake the entire length of a fault does not rupture, but individual segments rupture and this process appears to repeat through several seismic cycles (Coppersmith, 1991). Therefore, each segment aided in estimating the length of rupture likely to occur along that thrust. In the present study it was assumed that one third of the identied seismo-tectonic segment was involved in rupture for generating the maximum magnitude earthquake (Mark, 1977). All identied seismo-tectonic sources that were capable of producing signicant ground motion at a site were idealized as line sources. The rupture length estimated for various sources ranged from 7 km for fault G3 to 215 km for the segment of MCT that is within Uttarakhand.

DPM 20,5

536

Seismic hazard The next important step in assessment of seismic hazard was to assign maximum magnitude to an earthquake that can occur on an identied seismo tectonic source zone. The size of an earthquake is empirically related to the dimensions of rupture (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), and this correlation was used to compute the maximum magnitude that each seismo-tectonic source zone could support. This is also termed the maximum credible earthquake or maximum considered earthquake. These emerged in the range 6.1-7.8, a condition that cannot be ruled out within a seismic gap. A critical part of seismic hazard assessment is the quantitative estimation of strong ground shaking expected to occur at a site, and is determined as peak ground acceleration (PGA). This is estimated using a predictive model (Abrahamson and Lithehiser, 1989) that correlates acceleration to maximum magnitude and the distance between the zone of energy release and the site. This empirical formulation, based on four independent parameters i.e. magnitude, distance, fault type and tectonic environment is one of the very few attenuation formulations that introduces the concept of the tectonic environment and fault type in estimating peak ground acceleration for earthquakes that have focal depths less than 25 km, a condition prevalent in Uttarakhand. The study area was further narrowed down around Uttarakhand, and was encompassed by longitudes 778300 E to 818000 and latitudes 288450 to 318300 . As this area was divided into a closely spaced grid of 0.258 intervals, the center of each block of 180 grid points was considered to be a potential site. To assess the worst-case scenario it was assumed that the maximum magnitude earthquake in each identied seismo-tectonic source would occur at the closest possible distance from the site. An ensemble of PGAs was computed for every site, due to each seismo-tectonic source. The highest of these acceleration values was taken as a measure of the seismic hazard at the center of the grid point under consideration. In this way the highest acceleration value was determined for all sites. The PGA computed in the present study had a large variation, i.e. from 0.06g to 0.5g, and a wide geographical spread all over Uttarakhand and contiguous regions. Twelve seismo-tectonic sources spread over 47 sites generated the highest accelerations, in the range 0.4-0.5g. MBT and MCT emerge as the two most potent thrusts. Several thrusts in the Lesser Himalayas, i.e. between MBT and MCT, also emerge as high contributors. These are the North Almora Thrust, Ramgarh Thrust, and Thrust Zones TZ1, TZ2 and TZ7. The other high contributors FFT, Martoli Thrust MT1 and MT2, South Almora Thrust, and ISZ are parallel to the Himalayan trend. The other signicant contributors are Fault G3, Karakoram Fault, Great Boundary Fault, Mahendragarh Dehradun Fault, and Moradabad fault. Seismic hazards can occur in many forms, such as fault ruptures, ground failure, topographic changes, surface distortions, liquefaction, sand boils, mudows and ground ssures. Waterfalls, the damming and diversion of rivers, changes in drainage systems, the sloshing of water over stream banks and canals, and oods are some of the other water-related disastrous consequences of earthquakes. Other hazards include landslides in mountainous terrains, a phenomenon highly prevalent in Uttarakhand, even without a seismic trigger. These phenomena often result in adverse consequences such as damage to the built environment and loss of life and injuries.

Hazard zoning map The seismic hazard assessed here was used to prepare a hazard zoning map. Iso-acceleration contours, drawn at intervals of 0.1g, show a large variation of PGA in and around the entire state, as shown in Figure 3. The contours follow the trend of the MBT in the Southern part of the state. An abrupt increase in acceleration occurs all along the MBT, where the PGA increases from 0.2g to 0.5g. This indicates a sharp increase of hazard along and North of MBT. This situation is repeated along the MCT. The entire region between MBT and MCT, i.e. the Lesser Himalayas, is beset with high acceleration values, between 0.3g and 0.5g, over a short distance spanning 25 km to 40 km. This indicates high seismic hazard along the MBT and the MCT, and in the region in between, together with several other places in Uttarakhand and beyond. Of 13 districts in Uttarakhand, large parts of 11 districts have PGA values above 0.4g, which indicates a very high level of seismic hazard. This includes Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehra Dun, Nainital, Pauri, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag, Tehri and Uttarkashi districts. Only two districts, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar, South of the MBT, show accelerations below 0.3g. The entire state is prone to earthquake hazards, which are expected in the two highest seismic zones, IV and V, as per the seismic zoning map of India (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002). As such, parts of the state are prone to accelerations of 0.24g and 0.36g, respectively. Of the 180 sites considered in the present study, 86 were within Uttarakhand, and 53 of these exhibited PGA values above those for Zone V. This indicates that more than 60 percent of the area of the state is prone to PGA values

Assessment of seismic hazard

537

Figure 3. Map shows variation of peak ground acceleration in Uttarakhand and contiguous areas, and MBT and MCT

DPM 20,5

538

above that expected in the earthquake code. Clearly, the code needs an upward revision in view of these high values in a state like Uttarakhand, which is going through a phase of rapid techno-economic development. This reveals an increased threat perception. With this in mind, the hazard assessed here was adapted to yield a seismic zoning map of the state. Uttarakhand was divided into ve seismic zones, in contrast to the present two, (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002). The accelerations expected in each zone are given in Table I and Figure 4. Zones II, III, IV and V have the same connotations as in the seismic zoning map of India (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002), and an additional zone VI is added that depicts accelerations higher than those given in the code.
Seismic zone Acceleration (percentage g) ,0.10 0.10-0.16 0.16-0.24 0.24-0.36 .0.36 Damage implications Slight damage Moderate damage Heavy damage Destruction Catastrophic

Table I. Peak acceleration assigned to different seismic zones, and perceived damage implications

II III IV V VI

Figure 4. Seismic zoning map of Uttarakhand

Comparison with other studies The maximum peak ground acceleration observed for the Uttarkashi earthquake of October 20, 1991 (epicenter 30.758N, 78.868E; Ms 7.0, 6.6 mb, USGS), at a hypo central distance of 40 km, for the Uttarkashi recording station, was 0.31g (after Chandrasekaran and Das, 1992). Uttarkashi, Chamoli and Tehri districts suffered maximum damage in this earthquake. In contrast to this, the zoning map presented in Figure 3 indicates that an earthquake of a higher magnitude, 7.6 Mw, at a closer hypo central distance of 21 km, due to rupture of 128 km of North Almora Thrust, is expected to produce a higher PGA of 0.38g at the Uttarkashi recording station. Similarly, for the Chamoli earthquake of March 29, 1999 (epicenter 30.418N, 79.428E; Ms 6.6, USGS), the maximum acceleration recorded was 0.41g, at a hypo central distance of 22 km, for the Gopeshwar recording station (after Shrikhande et al., 2000). Chamoli and Rudraprayag Districts were the worst affected. However, for the same site, the zoning map reveals a PGA value of 0.48g at a hypo central distance of 17 km, for an earthquake of magnitude 7.1, produced by a 57 km long rupture of thrust TZ1. This means that a higher magnitude earthquake, at a closer hypo central distance, is yielding higher PGA (as given in Figure 3) when compared to recorded data. It is reasonable to expect this, and it indicates an increased threat perception in the area. In a seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions, Bhatia et al. (1999) computed PGA for 10 percent exceedence in 50 years in grids of 0.58 by 0.58. Since 86 large-sized seismic sources were used, and local tectonic features and sources were excluded, the values for Uttarakhand ranged between 0.05g and 0.35g, less than those obtained in the code and in the present study. Another hazard map of India and adjacent areas used seismograms (Parvez et al., 2003), which were synthesized up to 1 Hz frequency, i.e. for large epicentral distances, on the basis of structural models, seismogenic zones, focal mechanisms and earthquake catalogues. The PGA values obtained for Western Himalaya varied between 0.15g and 0.3g, which is much lower than those given in earthquake code BIS 1893-2002, and also in the present study. Joshi and Mohans (2009) method of estimating hazard involved the modeling of rupture planes along identied lineaments in Uttarakhand. As the Southward dipping North Almora Thrust was considered in its entirety, and not segmented, it gave PGA values much higher than anywhere else, of the order of 0.55g, and that too South and West of MFT, i.e. in the Ganga plains. It is pertinent to note that for the much longer MCT and MBT this trend is reected neither in the direction of their down dip nor in the geographical spread of these high accelerations. When the severest seismic micro zone that emerged when micro earthquake data and the tectonics of Tehri Garhwal region were subjected to a pattern recognition technique based on discriminant analysis (Sinvhal et al., 1990, 1991, Sinvhal, 2010) was subjected to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the MBT, at coordinates 308080 1000 N and 788200 3000 E, it revealed that 59 percent of the population of the Narendra Nagar administrative block was at risk, with damage associated with accelerations of 0.41g (Gupta et al., 2006, 2008; Gupta and Sinvhal, 2010). This PGA is in fair agreement with the present study, and brings out the efcacy of this study, which gives a corresponding value of 0.40g at the same site.

Assessment of seismic hazard

539

DPM 20,5

Limitations Since seismic hazard maps are strongly inuenced by the characteristics and size of seismo-tectonic source zones, non-inclusion of this data from contiguous regions of Nepal and Tibet has a strong bearing on the results of our hazard zoning. If extensions of MCT and MBT were considered in this area, then reasonably higher hazards would result in Uttarakhand. Results and discussion To assess the seismic hazard of Uttarakhand, of 32 potential seismo-tectonic sources considered, 12 made a maximum contribution towards hazard. These were MCT, MBT and thrusts and faults between these two Himalayan mega-thrusts. It is pertinent to note that the great Kangra earthquake of 1905 had its genesis in the vicinity of MBT, and the Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes originated in the vicinity of MCT. The zoning map presented in Figure 4, with ve zones, has several applications. Threat perceptions and disaster implications on housing stock, roads and infrastructure, which can be expected to be profound in an earthquake, can be reasonably assessed in any area within the map. Appropriate long-term, medium-term and short-term action plans can be formulated and implemented which will vary geographically, with priorities dened by the zoning map. Despite the known high seismic hazard in Uttarakhand more than 90 per cent of houses here do not incorporate any earthquake-resistant design, and are made of mud, adobe, burnt brick and stones. That these vulnerable homes become a risk to human life was amply demonstrated by the earthquakes of Uttarkashi in 1991 and Chamoli in 1999, which together claimed more than 1,000 human lives in Uttarakhand. A long-term action plan is required, which will include the formulation of earthquake mitigation strategies and preparedness plans for the entire state. This map also nds useful applications in the earthquake-resistant design of structures for which it is not possible to carry out detailed site-specic studies. In the medium-term action plan, seismic upgrading of the existing and vulnerable built environment can be taken up, phase-wise. Short-term, an action plan for rescue, relief and emergency management can be developed for the entire state. When applied, all this will have the added advantage that it will reduce the uncertainty of a potential disaster, and simultaneously post-earthquake recovery costs will be reduced tremendously. Conclusions We believe the seismic zoning map presented here gives a reasonably representative seismic hazard map of Uttarakhand. As the nascent state of Uttarakhand has immense hydro-electric potential and is going through a rapid phase of development, if the benets reaped by this are to remain sustainable, then this detailed seismic zoning map can be used to take urgent mitigation measures before the next earthquake takes its toll. The methodology evolved here has the potential to be extended to other vulnerable states in the Himalayan arc.
Note 1. The various tectonic elements in Figure 1 are labeled as: AF, Alaknanda Fault; AtF, Attock Fault; ATF, Altyn Tagh Fault; ASL, Ajmer Sandia Lineament; BF, Bhagu Fault; BMAL, Bharatpur Mount Abu Lineament; BNS, Bangong Nujiang Suture; CF, Chahapoli Fault; CF,

540

Chau Fault; CJL, Chambal Jamnagar Lineament; DF, Dhandu Fault; DL, Delwar Lineament; DT, Drang Thrust; EL, Everest Lineament; EPF, East Patna Fault; GBF, Great Boundary Fault; GL, Gouri Shankar; HF, Hathusar Fault; ISZ, Indus Suture Zone; JhF, Jhelum Fault; JF, Judi Fault; JMT, Jwala Mukhi Thrust; KaF, Kanti Fault; KaF, Kalu Fault; KCF, Kishanagar Chipri Fault; KCG, Kung Co graben; KF, Karakoram Fault; KFS, Kaurik Fault System; KISHF, Kishtwar Fault; KKF, Kallar Kabar Fault; KhF, Khatu Fault; LF, Lucknow Fault; LSL, Luni Sukri Lineament; MBT, Main Boundary Thrust; MCT, Main Central Thrust; MDF, Mahendragarh Dehra Dun Fault; MF, Moradabad Fault; MF, Mangla Fault; MFT, Main Frontal Thrust; MKT, Main Karakoram Thrust; MMT, Main Mantle Thrust; MSRF, Munger Saharsa Ridge Fault; MT, Martoli Thrust; NAT, North Almora Thrust; PF, Peshawar Fault; PVL, Pisanyau Vadnagar Lineament; RNL, Raisingh Nagar Fault; RT, Ramgarh Thrust; SaF, Sadassar fault; SoF, Soniasar Fault; SAT, South Almora Thrust; SF, Shinkiari Fault; SNF, Sundar Nagar Fault; SRT, Salt Range Thrust; SS, Shyok Fault; SSF, Sardar Shahar Fault; TF, Tarbela Fault; TG, Takhola Graben; TL, Tonk Lineament; TM, Tso Morari Fault; VT, Vaikrita Thrust; WPF West Patna Fault. References Abrahamson, N.A. and Lithehiser, J.J. (1989), Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 549-67. Bhatia, S.C., Kumar, M.R. and Gupta, H.K. (1999), A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions, Annals of Geophysics, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1153-64. Bureau of Indian Standards (2002), BIS-1893 (Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, 5th rev., Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Chandrasekaran, A.R. and Das, J.D. (1992), Analysis of strong motion accelerograms of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991, Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-55. Coppersmith, K.J. (1991), Seismic source characterization for seismic hazard analysis, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Vol. 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Stanford, CA, pp. 3-60. Gupta, I. and Sinvhal, A. (2010), Assessment of seismic risk in a micro zone, Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, December 17-19. Gupta, I., Shankar, R. and Sinvhal, A. (2008), Earthquake vulnerability assessment of house construction in Himalayas, Journal of Design and the Built Environment, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-14. Gupta, I., Sinvhal, A. and Shankar, R. (2006), Himalayan population at risk: strategies for preparedness, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 608-19. Joshi, I. and Mohan, K. (2009), Expected peak ground acceleration in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India region from a deterministic hazard model, Natural Hazards, Vol. 55 No. 2. Khattri, K.N. (1987), Great earthquake, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake disaster along the Himalaya plate boundary, Tectonophysics, Vol. 138, pp. 79-92. Mark, R.K. (1977), Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes, Geology, Vol. 5, pp. 464-6. Narula, P.L., Acharyya, S.K. and Banerjee, J. (2000), Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs, Geological Survey of India, New Delhi. Parvez, I.A., Vaccari, F. and Panza, G.F. (2003), A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas, Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 489-508.

Assessment of seismic hazard

541

DPM 20,5

542

Shrikhande, M., Basu, S., Mathur, B.C., Mathur, A.K., Das, J.D. and Bansal, M.K. (2000), Strong motion data. Report on Chamoli Earthquake of March 29,1999, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, pp. 27-43. Sinvhal, A. (2010), Understanding Earthquake Disasters, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Sinvhal, A., Joshi, G., Sinvhal, H. and Singh, V.N. (1990), A pattern recognition technique for micro zonation, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Roorkee, pp. 24-30. Sinvhal, A., Sinvhal, H., Joshi, G. and Singh, V.N. (1991), A valid pattern of micro zonation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, pp. 641-8. Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J. (1994), New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture area and surface displacement, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 974-1002. Corresponding author Amita Sinvhal can be contacted at: amitafeq@iitr.ernet.in amitafeq@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints