Probabilistic Seismic Hazard

Analysis for Proposed Smart City,

Jalandhar, India

Sanjeev Naval
Associate Professor, DAV Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jalandhar,
India
e-mail: sanjeevnaval@gmail.com

Diksha Sharma
Post Graduate, Geotechnical Engineering, DAV Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Jalandhar, India
e-mail:dikshasharma2403@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Northern part of India is in a rapid phase of development. Three cities of Punjab namely Amritsar,
Ludhiana and Jalandhar have been proposed as smart cities. City Jalandhar is one of the urban
agglomerations with nearly one million population. Urban agglomerations are vital to the economic
growth of the country. The high concentration of the population and infrastructure in a confined area
increases the vulnerability of an area and leads to large loss potentials. The city forms a part of the
widespread Indo-Gangetic alluvial plain and falls under moderate to high seismic risk. In order to
reduce vulnerability, specific microzonation studies are required to be a part of the master plan for
construction activities of earthquake resistant structures in smart cities. For the designing of earthquake
resistant structures, it is necessary to carry out site specific seismic hazard analysis so that it can help
the town planners and engineers accordingly. A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) for
proposed smart city, Jalandhar is presented in this paper. Analyses were carried out using the
earthquake catalogue available upto 300 km around Jalandhar city. Earthquake data were analyzed
statistically and recurrence relationship has been obtained using Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) relationship.
PSHA were then carried out for Jalandhar region considering known seven seismogenic sources. To
assess the hazard in the study region, Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) for the Indo-
Gangetic region, developed by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) of India has
been used. Results of the present investigation are presented in the form of peak ground acceleration
(PGA) at bed rock level. From the present study, the PGA value estimated for the proposed smart city
is 0.329 g which is greater than the value given in the relevant IS code (IS 1893-2002). The hazard
curves of mean annual rate of exceedance for peak ground acceleration have been generated for all the
identified seismogenic sources Also the probability of exceedance of the PGA value of 0.329 g is
estimated to be equal to 0.0686 (6.86%) in 50 years. The PGA values for 2% and 10% probability of
exceedances in 50 years for 5% damping are also calculated and are estimated to be equal to 0.020 g
and 0.0997 g respectively. Thus the study is very significant keeping in view the earthquake resistant
design of structures for upcoming smart cities of India.
KEYWORDS: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis; Peak Ground Acceleration; Seismogenic
Source.

- 4559 -
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4560

INTRODUCTION
The Indian subcontinent has a history of devastating earthquakes.The Indian plate is driving
into Asia at a rate of approximately 47 mm/year and this is the major reason for the high frequency
and intensity of the earthquakes. According to the Geographical statistics, about 54% of the land in
India is vulnerable to earthquakes. According to the earthquake resistant design code of India [IS
1893 (Part 1) 2002], four levels of seismicity have been assigned for India in terms of zone
factors.The earthquake zoning map of India divides India into 4 seismic zones (Zone 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Zone 2 is associated with the lowest level of seismicity where as Zone 5 expects the highest level of
seismicity. As far as North India is concerned, the Himalayan Region is the most active seismic
region because it is at the edge or boundary of Indian plate which is colliding with thestationary
Eurasian plate. An analysis of earthquakes in the past 110 years shows that while average occurrence
of quakes in different seismic zones has not changed, there are seismically active periods lasting for
15 to 20 years during which the occurrence of large or great earthquakes increases.The first such
period was 1905-1920 during which several quakes of magnitude 8 and above occurred. The second
window was 1950-1965, which saw the worst-ever quake of 9.5 magnitude in Chile. During both
these windows the rate of smaller quakes also increased.
Punjab lies in a fore-deep, a downwarp of the Himalayan foreland, of variable depth, converted
into flat plains by long-vigorous sedimentation. This has shown considerable amounts of flexure and
dislocation at the northern end and is bounded on the north by the Himalayan Frontal Thrust. The
floor of the trough (if see without all the sediments) is not an even plain, but shows corrugated
inequalities and buried ridges (shelf faults). Much of Punjab lies in the Punjab Shelf, bounded on the
east by the Delhi-Haridwar Ridge and on the south by the Delhi-Lahore Ridge. Most earthquakes in
this region are shallow though a few earthquake of intermediate depth have been recorded in Punjab.
According to GSHAP data, the state of Punjab falls in a region of moderate to high seismic hazard.
Historically, parts of this state have experienced seismic activity in the M 4.0-5.0 range. On March
14th 2010 a light earthquake occurred in northern Punjab along the Punjab-Himachal Pradesh
border at 12:23 PM local time in India. It had a magnitude of 4.5 and was felt over a wide area due to
its shallow depth near Hiranagar (Punjab). A slight intensity earthquake measuring 4.7 on the Richter
scale shook many places of Punjab in August 2013.Theepicentre of the quake was in the Hoshiarpur-
Himachal Pradesh border region as per Indian Metrological Department (IMD). In a post-Nepal
disaster assessment, the MHA's National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) has warned of
enhanced risk around the "ring of fire garlanding the entire north India especially the mountains".
"The collision between the Himalayan plate in the north and the Indo-Burmese plate in the east and
the risk created as a result is the highest at this moment," according to NIDM experts. According to
the Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad believesNepal earthquake is just the tip of the
iceberg. “We know there is a huge amount of accumulated strain in this area. It is due for a
major earthquake, perhaps a series of earthquakes, bigger than 8 on the Richter scale.” There is
more energy stored in the region than was let out by the earthquake. In order to reduce
vulnerability, specific microzonation studies are required to be a part of the master plan for
construction activities of earthquake resistant structures in smart cities. Thus there is a need to make
the new buildings earthquake resistant by adopting new and effective methods of design and
construction process. The damage caused to life and property by earthquake in the last few years has
necessitated the evaluation of seismic hazard in advance.
Any physical phenomenon, such as ground shaking or ground failure, that is associated with an
earthquake is referred to as Seismic Hazard. It may produce adverse effects on human activities, life
and property. Seismic Hazard Analysis involves the estimation of ground shaking hazards at a
particular site. Seismic hazards may be analysed by two approaches:- (a) deterministically, as in
which a particular earthquake scenario is assumed & (b) probabilistically, in which uncertainties in
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4561

earthquake size, location and time of occurrence are explicitly considered. The most important factors
that affect seismic hazard at a location are:-
• Earthquake magnitude
• Source-to-site distance
• Duration of ground shaking
PSHA is the most widely used approach for determining the seismic design loads for engineering
structures. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the location, size & resulting shaking intensity of
future earthquakes. PSHA aims to quantify these uncertainties, and combine them to produce an
explicit description of the distribution of future shaking that may occur at a site. The hazard curves
showing the variation of selected ground-motion parameters, like PGA or SA, against the annual
frequency of exceedance (or return period) are the primary outputs of PSHA. In the present study,
PSHA has been carried out for the proposed smart city, Jalandhar. Jalandhar is one of the important &
fastest growing cities in India. The seismicity studies by geologists & seismologists highlight that city
of Jalandhar is seismically highly active. In this regard, Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(DSHA) has been carried out by Sanjeev Naval et al (2016) for the city of Jalandhar [23]. They have
reported a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) and identified seismogenic sources to Jalandhar city.
However, current investigation focuses on the PSHA for Jalandhar region. Analyses were carried out
using the earthquake catalogue, collected from IMD, Delhi, over some area around Jalandhar city.
The earthquake data available were analyzed& recurrence relationship has been obtained using G-R
relationship. PSHA were thencarried out for Jalandhar region considering known seven seismogenic
sources. Results of the present investigation are presented in the form of PGA & response spectra at
the bed rock level.For the state of Punjab, the districts of Firozpur, Faridkot, Patiala, Mansa, Sangrur
and Bhatinda lie in Zone III whereas the districts of Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar,
Kapurthala, Ludhiana and Roopnagar lie in zone IV. This state has experienced several earthquakes
of considerable magnitudes in the recent decades which led to a huge loss to life and property.
The main drawback of the seismic zonation code of India is that, it is based on the past seismic
activity and not based on a comprehensive scientific seismic hazard analysis. Several seismic hazard
studies, which were taken up in recent years, have shown that the hazard values given by BIS-1893
(2002) need to be revised Raghu Kanth and Iyengar, Mahajan et al, Vipin et al. These things
necessitate a comprehensive study for evaluating the seismic hazard of India and development of a
seismic-zonation map of India based on the peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) values.
Parvez et al (2003)made an attempt to evaluate the seismic hazard of Indian subcontinent based
on deterministic techniques. This study considered 40 seismogenic sources in India and was classified
based on seismicity, tectonics and geodynamics. The PHA values were reported for four locations in
south India and the maximum PHA value reported was 0.08 g.A number of researches have been
carried out on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Anbazhagan et al (2007) performed PSHA for
Bangalore city in which the PGA of 0.121g at bed rock level has been observed. Satyam and Rao
(2008) presented a paper on “Seismic Site Characterization in Delhi Region using Multi-Channel
Analysis of Shear Wave Velocity (MASW) testing”. It was found that the value of Vs ranged from
400 to 480 m/s in the rocky sites, 120 to 250 m/s in Trans Yamuna region and 250 to 370 m/s in
western side of the area. Visone and Bilotta (2010)in a paper on “Comparative Study on Frequency
and Time Domain Analysis for Seismic Site Response”. Bed rock elasticity, viscous and hysteretic
damping, stress-dependency of the stiffness and non-linear behavior of the soil were taken into
account for analysis. A series of comparisons between the results were obtained from different
computer programs. Sitharam (2011) performed the similar studies for Karnataka state using PSHA,
it was found that few places in the district Bidar have hazard values ranging above 0.14g for a return
period of 475 years and above 0.3g for a return period of 2500 years. The places between Bangalore
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4562

& Mysore also found to have significant value of PGA of above 0.1g and for critical case it can go
upto0.25g also. For Mangalore-Udupi regions, a hazard value upto0.08g at rock level for return
period of 475 years & can go upto0.2g for 2500 years return period above. Patil et al (2014)
performed PSHA of Himachal Pradesh and adjoining regions. For 10% probability of exceedance in
50 years, the PGA values vary from 0.096g to 0.15g and 0.09 to 0.26g, considering varying b-value
and constant b-value respectively. In case of 2% exceedance in 50 years, PGA varies between 0.07g
to 0.24g considering varying b-values and 0.14g to 0.37g considering constant b-values. Riahi et al
(2014) presented a study on “Earthquake Hazard Zonation of the Isfahan City, Iran”. The results of
this study include the distribution maps of average shear wave velocity of the soil, the maximum
horizontal acceleration on the ground surface and the amplification ratio. According to these maps,
the PGAs at ground surface and the amplification ratio range between 0.25 g to 0.5 g and 0.9 to 1.9
respectively. Pairojn and Wasinrat (2015) presented a study on “Earthquake Ground Motion
Prediction in Thailand by Multiple Linear Regression Model”. The majority of earthquakes measured
in Chiang Mai originated in seven areas which are: the regions around Sumatra, Nicobar Island, the
Andaman Sea, Myanmar, Laos, West Coast and South of China. A total of 66 earthquakes recorded
from 2006 to 2012 were used in the proposed model. It was observed that the average peak horizontal
acceleration by multiple linear regression models was attenuated by the distance from epicenters. The
MLR model has been used for Probabilistic Hazard Analysis and Risk Analysis. The maximum PGA
values from all these procedures are found to be 0.1941 g, 0.1941 g and 0.2847 g. Lalu Makrup et al
(2016) presented a study on “Design Accelerograms by Time and Frequency Domain Matching based
on Seismic Hazard in Sorowoko Field of Sulawesi Island, Indonesia”. The PGA value was found to
be 0.3832 g. The results of the study were seismic hazard maps with hazard level 10% and 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years which is approximate to 500 and 2500 years return period of
earthquake event. Acceleration time histories in the base rock as the results of spectral matching in
time domain and frequency domain areother results of this study. These seismic hazard maps, time
histories and response spectra can be used to assess and design the structural buildings in Sorowako
mine field. Makrup and Muntafi (2016) presented a paper on “Artificial Ground Motion for the
cities of Semarang and Solo, Indonesia Generated Based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
and Spectral Matching”. In this paper, earthquake ground motion as acceleration time history is
determined using the theory of spectral matching procedure, amplification of Ground Motion
Quantity and Seismic Hazard Analysis. The result is an artificial ground motion time histories for a
site at the ground surface in Semarang and Solo. The time history can be used as basis todesign
earthquake resistant building in these cities. Spectral matching in frequency domain gave the
acceleration time histories with frequency contain such as frequency contains of the target spectrum.
The response spectrum developed was appropriate to the site then the ATH result was also
appropriate to the site.Lu et al (2016) presented a study on “Selection of Accelerograms for Seismic
Analysis of the Venaus Cavern in Italy”. This paper aimed at selecting a group of seismic inputs for
the Venaus Cavern in Italy, on the basis of seismic characteristics of the site and the
recommendations of the existing codes such as NTC 2008 and Eurocode 8, which is intended to
provide data for the subsequent seismic analysis of the Cavern. Lalu Makrup (2016) presented a
paper on “Variations in Models and Parameters in PSHA”. In this study, conjunction with the
uncertainties, the alteration of model and parameter was studied to make out the transformation of
seismic hazard result in seismic hazard calculation. The study result proved that there are alterations
to seismic hazard outcomes caused by some models andparameter change. Probabilistic study
generated the spectral acceleration map which is an important component of building designs. anjeev
Naval et al (2016) carried out Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) for the same proposed
smart city of Jalandhar [24] and estimated PGA value as 0.34 amongst seven sites identified for the
study. Lalu Makrup (2017) presented a study on “Generating Design Ground Motion by
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Code”. The hazard calculation has been done by three
procedures in this paper. The first one is the combination of PSHA and hazard deaggregation analysis
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4563

and spectral matching theory to derive time history in the base rock. The second one is the PSHA in
the base rock to get PGA. The third one is the combination of PSHA, hazard deaggregation analysis
and spectral matching in the ground surface.
In this study, an effort has been made to carry out the PSHA of Jalandhar, Punjab. To estimate the
parameters, past earthquake data of a radius of 300 km around Jalandhar has been analyzed. Seven
tectonic features have been identified as potential seismogenic sources from the seismotectonic atlas
of India. A maximum magnitude has been assigned to each seismogenic source considering the
regional rupture character. To assess the hazard in the study region, Ground Motion Prediction
Equation (GMPE) for the Indo-Gangetic region, developed by the National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA) of India has been used. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values are
estimated by considering a grid of 0.025°x 0.025° covering the Jalandhar city and its adjoining areas.
Maximum PGA value of 0.329 g for the study region has been estimated from the study and is found
to be on the higher side as compared to the IS Code of practice (IS:1893 (2002). Thus the study is
very significant keeping in view the earthquake resistant design of structures for upcoming smart
cities of India.

STUDY AREA AND SEISMICITY OF THE REGION

The study region considered for the present study covers some area around the Jalandhar city.
Other details such as regional geology & seismological details for Jalandhar city have been collected
from the literature review, study of maps, etc. Jalandhar is a city located in the state of Punjab, which
is located in North India. It is situated at latitude of 31.326°N and longitude of 75.576°E. It lies in the
Zone IV of the seismic zoning map of India as per IS:1893 (2002) Part 1.

A single map has been prepared by scanning the maps on page no. 4 and 5 of Seismotectonic
Atlas of India and its Environs (Dasgupta et al. 2000). Its tectonic set up is shown in Figure 2.
Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4564

Figure 1: Study area shown in the map of India.

 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4565

Figure 2: Major tectonics features in seismic study area

Earthquake data have been collected from IMD, Delhi for a period of 525 years.The earthquake
magnitudes available in IMD catalogue are in terms of local magnitudes, surface magnitudes, body
magnitudes and duration magnitudes. These magnitudes are converted to moment magnitudes (MW)
in order to achieve the uniform magnitudes by using suitable magnitude relations and an earthquake
catalogue has been prepared for the study region. Using the prepared catalogue, epicentral map for the
study region has been developed and is shown in Figure 3.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4566

Figure 3:Epicentral map of the seismic study area

ESTIMATION OF MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE POTENTIAL

(MMAX)
The method developed by P. Anbazhagan et al (2015) has been used for the estimation of
maximum magnitude potential of various seismogenic sources considering the regional rupture
character [3]. In the present study, damaging earthquakes of magnitudes (MW) of 5& above have been
identified & sub-surface rupture length (RLD) have been estimated using the well-recognized relation
proposed by wells and Coppersmith (1994) which is:

Log (RLD) =0.59Mw – 2.44

TFL of various sources are taken from available literature. Percentage fault rupture (PFR) is
calculated for past earthquakes which is defined as the ratio of RLD to TFL& is expressed in
percentage. These PFR values have been plotted against TFL. A unique trend has been followed by
PFR& is known as the rupture character of the region. A plot between PFR&TFL is shown in the
Figure 4.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4567

Table 1:Earthquake catalogue of the study area for MW ≥ 5 and their corresponding Faults
S. No Year Month Day Origin Time Lat. Long. De Mw Cor-
(Deg (Deg pth respondi
N) E) (k ng Fault
Hr Min Sec m)
1 1827 09 00 00 00 0.0 32.50 76.00 - 5.5 MBT
2 1827 09 24 00 00 0.0 31.60 74.40 - 6.5 SLDR
3 1851 01 21 00 00 0.0 32.00 74.00 - 5.0 SLDR
4 1856 04 07 00 00 0.0 31.00 77.00 - 5.0 MBT
5 1875 12 12 00 00 0.0 31.60 74.40 - 5.5 SLDR
6 1905 04 04 00 50 0.0 32.30 76.25 - 8.0 MBT
7 1906 02 28 00 00 0.0 32.00 77.00 - 7.0 JMT
8 1930 05 11 11 30 36.0 31.70 77.00 - 5.5 MBT
9 1945 06 22 18 00 51.0 32.60 75.90 - 6.5 MBT
10 1947 07 10 10 19 20.0 32.60 75.90 - 6.2 MBT
11 1950 08 12 03 59 06.0 32.60 75.90 - 5.5 MBT
12 1952 12 27 18 45 37.0 31.20 74.80 - 5.5 SLDR
13 1962 09 15 12 35 8.0 31.90 76.20 - 5.5 JMT
14 1963 04 22 00 51 9.0 31.50 74.00 - 5.5 SLDR
15 1975 12 10 03 26 05.5 32.95 76.10 5 5.3 MBT
16 1975 12 11 10 09 50.2 33.00 76.17 42 5.0 MBT
17 1976 01 07 00 24 52.9 32.97 76.12 40 5.3 MBT
18 1978 06 14 16 12 04.8 32.24 76.61 6 5.0 MBT
19 1980 08 23 21 36 49.0 32.96 75.75 3 5.2 MBT
20 1980 08 23 21 50 01.2 32.90 75.80 12 5.2 MBT
21 1986 04 26 07 35 16.2 32.15 76.40 33 5.5 JMT
22 1999 04 22 05 22 04.8 32.99 75.77 6 5.07 MBT
23 2004 11 11 02 13 39.5 32.53 76.52 10 5.10 MBT
24 2005 02 28 18 01 58.5 32.46 76.43 3 5.27 MBT
25 2005 04 14 17 11 27.0 32.41 76.31 10 5.10 MBT
26 2009 07 17 11 07 48.5 32.49 76.21 33 5.02 MBT
27 2012 10 02 08 34 52.5 32.42 76.27 10 5.35 MBT
28 2013 06 04 17 34 47.4 32.65 76.56 9 5.10 MBT
29 2013 08 29 10 13 21.2 31.39 76.1 10 5.10 L2
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4568

Table 2: List of Active Seismogenic Sources.

S. Seismogenic Sources TFL (Km) MObs
No.
1 Sargodha Lahore Delhi Ridge (SLDR) 605 6.5
2 Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) 450 8
3 Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) 35 2.9
4 Jwala Mukhi Thrust (JMT) 277 5.5
5 Ropor Fault (RF) 35 3.6
6 Lineament 1 (L1) 87 2.6
7 Lineament 2 (L2) 159 3.0

80
Percentage Fault Rupture
70
Percentage Fault Rupture (PFR)

60 Power (Percentage Fault

Rupture)
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Total Fault Length, TFL (Km)

Figure 4: Regional rupture character

The average & worstcase PFR values have been estimated based on the trend. For Himalayan
Thrust System, PFR for Worstcase scenario has been taken as ten times the average PFR; where as
for rest of the seismogenic sources, it has been taken as five times the average PFR. RLD value for
worstcase PFR has been calculated for determining Maximum Magnitude Potential (Mmax) for each of
the seismogenic source. Table 3 shows the estimated Mmax values.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4569

Table 3:Values of Mmax corresponding to various Seismogenic Sources

Faults TFL (KM) Average PFR Worst case Worst case Mmax
(%) PFR (%) RLD (KM)

SLDR 605 1.82 9.1 55.06 7.1

MBT 450 1.62 16.2 72.90 7.3
MFT 35 0.59 5.9 2.06 4.7
JMT 277 1.33 6.65 18.42 6.3
RF 35 0.59 2.95 1.03 4.2
L1 87 0.84 4.2 3.65 5.1
L2 159 1.07 5.35 8.51 5.7

It has been observed that average PFR for the seismic study area ranges from 0.59 to 1.82%.
However, for the estimation of Mmax, worstcase scenario PFR has been used and it ranges from 4.2 to
16.2%. The Mmax value in terms of moment magnitude estimated for the seismic study area from 4.2
to 7.3.

REGIONAL RECURRENCE INTERVAL

There are many recurrence laws such as Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) relation, Mertz and Cornell
(1973), etc. which describe the uncertainty in the size of earthquakes produced by each source. [17].
G-R relation is simple one & widely used to evaluate the seismic hazard parameters ‘b’. This relation
is expressed as:
logN = a – bM
where ‘a’ & ‘b’ are positive, real constants. ‘a’ refers to the seismic activity (log number of events
with M = 0) and ‘b’ is a tectonic parameters which describes the relative abundance of large to
smaller shocks. ‘b’ is typically close to 1.In the present analysis, number of earthquakes per decade is
divided in magnitude ranges such as 2 <M<3; 3<M<4; 4<M<5; 5<M<6; 6<M<7; M ≥ 8. The
logarithm of the cumulative earthquakes per year for M, where M is the magnitude in particular
interval, is presented in Figure 5.
A straight line fits in least square sense for the complete set of each magnitude range which is as
follows:
log (N) = 4.079 – 0.564M
From the above equation: a = 4.079 and b = 0.564
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4570

2.5
Log (Cumulative Events per Year)
2
y = -0.5642x + 4.0794
R² = 0.8894
1.5

0.5

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Magntiude (Mw)
Figure 5:Frequency magnitude relationship for the study area

MAGNITUDE UNCERTAINTY
The frequency of seismic events of various sizes per year is specified by the magnitude
recurrence model. For Jalandhar region, seismic parameters ‘a’ & ‘b’ are determined using G-R
magnitude-frequency relationship.
The probability density function (PDF) of M can be expressed in the form:

𝑏𝑏 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(10)10−𝑏𝑏�𝑚𝑚−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 �
fM(m)=
1−10−𝑏𝑏�𝑚𝑚−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 �
The probability density function of each source has been evaluated. Typical plot of PDF versus
magnitude for L2is shown in Figure 6.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4571

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
fM (m)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Magnitude

Figure 6:Probability density functions of magnitude for L2

SPATIAL UNCERTAINTY
As the earthquake magnitude is affected by the rupture size of the earthquake rupture, thus the
probability distribution for distance from the site to earthquake rupture on the source is computed
conditionally on the earthquake magnitude. Thus the relative orientations of each source with respect
to Jalandhar become important. The study area has been divided into a grid of size 0.025° x 0.025°
with 121 grid points. The distance from each source to each grid point has been evaluated from the
seismotectonic map of Jalandhar using Movable Type Scripts. For this purpose, all the sources are
considered as line sources. The hypocentral distance has been evaluated at each grid point considering
the focal depth of 15 km from the ground. The conditional probability distribution function of the
hypocentral distance for an earthquake magnitude M = m, for a linear ruptured segment is given by
Kiureghian&Ang (1977) [2], which is shown in the Figure 7.

Figure 7:Representation of fault rupture model

The PDF of distance for source L2 is as shown in Figure 7.

 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4572

0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025
fR (r)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (km)

Figure 8: PDF for the source L2

ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD

In the present investigation, ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for Peak Ground
Acceleration for Indo-Gangetic region developed by the National Disaster Management Authority
(NDMA) of India [20] has been used:
Sa
ln ( ) =C1 + C2M + C3M2+ C4r + C5 ln (r + C6e c7M) + C8log (r) f0 +ln(ϵ)
g
where
fo = max [ln (r/100), 0]
Sa = Spectral Acceleration
M = Moment Magnitude
r = Hypocentral Distance
The value of PGAmax is found to be 0.329 g.
The seismic hazard map has been developed for the study area as shown in Figure 9.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4573

Figure 9: Seismic hazard map for Jalandhar

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis estimates the probability of exceedance of spectral
acceleration Sa at a site due to all possible future earthquakes as visualized by the previous hazard
scenario. Assuming that the number of earthquakes occurring on a fault follows a stationary Poisson
process, the probability that the control variable Y exceeds level y*, in a time window of T years is
given by
P(Y > y* in T years) = 1-exp(-μy*T) (1)
The rate of exceedance, μy* is computed from the expression
𝑘𝑘
.
µy ∗ = � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 (𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜 ) ∬𝑚𝑚 𝑟𝑟 𝑃𝑃 (𝑌𝑌 > 𝑦𝑦 ∗ |𝑚𝑚, 𝑟𝑟)𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅|𝑀𝑀 (𝑟𝑟|𝑚𝑚)𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀 (𝑚𝑚) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (2)
𝑖𝑖=1

Here, K is the total number of faults in the zone, PM(m) and PR\M(r|m) are the probability density
functions of magnitude and hypocentral distance respectively. P(Y>y*|m, r) is the conditional
probability of exceedance of the ground motion parameter Y [20]. This is found as a lognormal
random variable with mean value given by the attenuation equation conditioned on particular m and r
values. The standard deviation of this variable is given by the standard error of theequation. The
reciprocal of the annual probability of exceedance gives the return period for thecorresponding
ground motion value. There will be sites which get affected by events originating in different zones
and waves passing through regions with different quality factors. These variations have been handled
through a suitably written computer program which incorporates all faults and regions around a site.
A hazard curve showing the variation of a selected ground motion parameter (i.e., PGA or SA)
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4574

against the mean annual rate of exceedance is the primary output from a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (PSHA). The mean annual rate of exceedance has been calculated separately for all seven
seismogenic sources and submission of these is represented by the cumulative hazard curve. For the
purpose of analysis, predictive model proposed by Cornell et al (1979) for the mean of log peak
ground acceleration (in units of g). The variation of mean annual rate of exceedance with PGA for all
sources at the bed rock level is shown in the Figure 10.

10

SLDR
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance

1
RF
0.1 MFT
MBT
0.01
L2
0.001
L1
JMT
0.0001 Cumulative

0.00001

0.000001
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)

Figure 10: Hazard curves for different seismogenic sources

The maximum PGA value estimated is 0.329 g. From equation (1)
P(Y > 0.329 in 50 years) =0.0686
The probability of exceedance of this PGA is estimated to be equal to 0.0686 (6.86%) in 50 years.
The mean annual rate of exceedance foe an event (λ) is also given by the following equation
ln(1−P)
𝜆𝜆 = − (3)
T
Where P = Probability of exceedance and T = return period = 1/λ
Now, for 10% Probability of exceedance in 50 years for 5% damping, λ=0.0021 and T=475 years.
So PGA is found to be equal to 0.0997 g.
Also for 2% Probability of exceedance in 50 years for 5% damping, λ=0.000404 and T=2475
years. So PGA is found to be equal to 0.020 g.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4575

CONCLUSIONS
In this study, seven tectonic features have been identified as potential seismogenic sources from
the seismotectonic atlas of India. The maximum magnitude potential for all the identified seismogenic
sources ranges from 4.2 to 7.3. The seismic hazard parameters ‘a’ and ‘b’ were estimated to be 4.079
and 0.564 respectively from the G-R relationship. Seismic hazard map has been generated using the
PGA values for the study area. A maximum magnitude has been assigned to each seismogenic source
considering the regional rupture character. To assess the hazard in the study region, Ground Motion
Prediction Equation (GMPE) for the Indo-Gangetic region, developed by the National Disaster
Management Authority (NDMA) of India has been used. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
values are estimated by considering a grid of 0.025°x 0.025° covering the Jalandhar city and its
adjoining areas. Maximum PGA value of 0.329 g for the study region has been estimated from
the study and is found to be on the higher side as compared to the IS Code of practice (IS:1893
(2002)). The hazard curves of mean annual rate of exceedance for peak ground acceleration have
been generated for all the identified seismogenic sources. Also the probability of exceedance of the
PGA value of 0.329 g is estimated to be equal to 0.0686 (6.86%) in 50 years. The PGA values for 2%
and 10% probability of exceedances in 50 years for 5% damping are also calculated and are estimated
to be equal to 0.020 g and 0.0997 g respectively.
Thus, the study is very significant keeping in view the earthquake resistant design of structures
for upcoming smart cities of India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to Dr P. Anbazhagan, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, Mr Ketan Bajaj, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore & Gagan Deep, Research
Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering and DAV Institute of Engineering &Technology, Jalandhar
for their guidance and support during this research.

REFERENCES
[1] A Boominathan, G R Dodagoudar, A Suganthi, and R Uma Maheswari: “Seismic hazard
assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects” Journal of Earth System Science, 2008
(117.2), pp 583-863.

[2]A. Der Kiureghian and H. S. Ang: “A Fault-Rupture Model for Seismic Risk Analysis” Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 1977 (67.4), pp 1173-1194.

[3] Anbazhagan Panjamani, Ketan Bajaj, Sayed S. R. Moustafa, and Nassir S. N. Al-Arifi:
“Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character” Journal of Seismology,
2015 (19.3), pp 695-719.

[4] CiroVisone, Filippo Santucci de Magistris, and Emilio Bilotta: “Comparative Study on Frequency
and Time Domain Analyses for Seismic Site Response” Electronic journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2010 (15.A), pp 1-20.

[5] D Neelima Satyam, and K S Rao: “Seismic Site Characterization in Delhi Region using Multi
channel Analysis of Shear wave Velocity (MASW) Testing” Electronic journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2008 (13.L), pp 167-183.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4576

[6] Donald L. Wells, and Kevin J. Coppersmith: “New empirical relationships among magnitude,
rupture length, rupture area, and surface displacement” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 1994 (84.4), pp 974-1002.

[7] G P Ganpathy: “A deterministic seismic hazard analysis for the major cultural sites of Tamil
Naidu, India” International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences, 2010 (1.3), pp 529-543.

[8] Imtiyaz A. Parvez, Franco Vaccari and Giuliano F. Panza: “A deterministic seismic hazard map of
India and adjacent areas” Geophysical Journal International, 2003 (155.2), pp 489-508.

[9] IS 1893-Part 1: “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1:
General Provisions and Buildings” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

[10] Jaykumar Shukla, and Deepankar Choudhury: “Estimation of seismic ground motions using
deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat” Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 2012
(12.6), pp 2019-2037.

[11] LaluMakrup: “Generating Design Ground Motion by Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and
Code” Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017 (22.05), pp 1567-1586.

[12] LaluMakrup: “Variations in Models and Parameters in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis”
Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016 (21.25), pp 10105 -10120.

[13] LaluMakrup, BambangSunardi, and YunaliaMuntafi: “Design Accelerograms by Time and

Frequency Domain Matching Based on Seismic Hazard in Sorowako field of Sulawesi Island,
Indonesia” Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016 (21.21), pp 6629-6644.

[14] LaluMakrup, and YunaliaMuntafi: “Artifical Ground Motion for the cities of Semarang and Solo
Indonesia Generated Based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Spectral Matching”
Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016 (21.21), pp 6587-6602.

[15] NishaNaik, and Deepankar Choudhury: “Deterministic seismic hazard analysis considering
different seismicity levels for the state of Goa, India” Natural Hazards, 2015 (75.1), pp 557-580.

[16] NitishPuri, and Ashwani Jain: “Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis for the State of Haryana,
India” Indian Geotechnical Journal, 2016 (46.2), pp 164-174.

[17] P. Anbazhagan, J. S. Vinod and T. G. Sitharam: “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis with
Local Site Effects” A Workshop on Microzonation, Bangalore, pp 122-138.

[18] PithanPairojn, and SirithipWasinrat: “earthquake Ground Motions Prediction in Thailand by

Multiple Linear Regression Model” Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2015 (20.25), pp
12113-12124.

[19] Qing-rui Lu, Kai Zhao, Perino Andrea, and Barla Giovanni: “Selection of Accelerograms for
Seismic Analysis of the Venaus Cavern in Italy” Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2016 (21.10), pp 3965-3978.

[20] R N Iyengar: “Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India” National Disaster
Management Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, 2011
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4577

[21] R N Iyengar and S T G Raghunath: “Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion in Peninsular India”
Seismological Research Letters, 2004 (75.4), pp 530-540.

[22] R N Iyengar, and Susanta Ghosh: “Microzonation of earthquake hazard in greater Delhi area”
Current Science, 2004 (87.9), pp 1193-1202.

[23] Sanjeev Naval, Gagan Deep, and NitishPuri: “Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis for
proposed Smart city, Jalandhar” International Geotechnical Engineering Conference on
Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering Practices and Related Urban Issues,September24-26th
,2016 Powai,Mumbai, India,

[24] SreevalsaKolathayar, T G Sitharam, and K S Vipin: “Deterministic seismic hazard

macrozonation of India” Journal of Earth System Science, 2012 (121.5), pp 1351-1364.

[25] SujitDasgupta, PrabhasPande, DhrubaGanguly, and H K Gupta: “Seismotectonic Atlas of India

and Its Environs” Geological Survey of India, 2000.

[26] T G Sitharam, and AnbazhaganPanjamani: “Seismic Hazard for the Bangalore Region” Natural
Hazards, 2006 (40.2), pp 261-278.

[27] T G Sitharam, and AnbazhaganPanjamani: “Seismic Microzonation: Principles, Practices and

Experiments” Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2008 (08), pp 1-61.

[28] Zahra TajmirRiahi, RassoulAjalloeian, Mohammad Ali Rahgozar, and HomayonSafaei:

“Earthquake Hazard Zonation of the Isfahan City, Iran” Electronic journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2014 (19.X), pp 7141-7163.

© 2017 ejge

Editor’s note.
This paper may be referred to, in other articles, as:
Sanjeev Naval and Diksha Sharma: “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis for Proposed Smart City, Jalandhar, India” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2017 (22.12), pp 4559-4578. Available at
ejge.com.
 Vol.22 [2017], Bund. 12 4578

APPENDIX - LIST OF SYMBOLS

C1– C8 Site Coefficients

DSHA Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
GMPE Ground Motion Prediction Equation
IMD Indian Meteorological Department
JMT Jwala Mukhi Thrust
L1 Lineament 1
L2 Lineament 2
MBT Main Boundary Thrust
MFT Main Frontal Thrust
Mmax Maximum Magnitude Potential
Mobs Maximum Observed Magnitude
Mw Moment Magnitude
NDMA National Disaster Management Authority
PFR Percentage Fault Rupture
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PGAmax PGA at a grid point corresponding to controlling earthquake

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

r Hypocentral Distance
RF Ropor Fault
RLD Subsurface Rupture Length
S1 Suranussi
S2 Maqsudan
S3 Wariana
S4 Pushpa Gujral Science City
S5 DAVIET
S6 DLF Galleria
S7 Urban Estate
S8 Jalandhar Heights
S9 SuchiPind
S10 Rama Mandi
S11 Jalandhar Cantt
S12 Jamsher
S13 Dhak Darwesh Pind
SA Spectral Acceleration
SHA Seismic Hazard Analysis
SLDR Sargodha Lahore Delhi Ridge
TFL Total Fault Length