Você está na página 1de 23

SEISMICITY

IN
NORTH-EAST INDIA
Dr. Sandip Das

Assistant Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering
IIT Guwahati
Content
• Seismic environment of Northeast India
• Major faults and seismotectonic zones
• Magnitude-recurrence relationship
• G-R relationship
• Return period
• Seismic hazard analysis
• PSHA
• Local site effects
• Seismic demand for design
• Design spectrum
• Spectrum compatible ground motion
2
SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT OF NORTH-EAST INDIA
Tectonic Map with Major Faults

3
SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT OF NORTH-EAST INDIA

Zone-2

Zone-3

4
SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT OF NORTH-EAST INDIA
Major Earthquakes in Different Seismotectonic Zones
Seismotectonic Magnitude
Year
Zones (Mw)
1934 8.3 Seismotectonic Magnitude
Year
Zone-01 1787 7.8 Zones (Mw)
1885 7.0 1950 8.5
1908 7.5 1905 7.1
Zone-07 1950 7
1954 7.3
1950 7
1938 7.2 1918 7.6
1957 7.2 Zone-08 1762 7.5
Zone-02 1906 7 1869 7.5
1932 7 1897 8.1
1950 7 825 8
1988 7 1990 8
Zone-09 1943 7.2
1947 7.7
Zone-03 1697 7.2
1923 7.1
1930 7.1
Zone-04 1950 7 1912 8
1839 7.8
Zone-05 1806 7.7
Zone-10 1946 7.8
1951 8 1931 7.6
1411 7.7 1946 7.5
Zone-06
1952 7.5

1915 7.1 5
SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT OF NORTH-EAST INDIA

Seismogenic Zones with Maximum Credible Earthquakes


Zone Mmax (ISC) Mupper (CRISIS)
1 7.7 7.7
2 7.1 7.6
3 7.2 7.7
4 6.9 7.4
5 4.7 6.3
6 7.5 8
7 7.9 8.5
8 6.1 7.6
9 7.2 8.9
10 7.5 8

ISC – International Seismological Centre


CRISIS – Software package for computation of seismic hazard 6
MAGNITUDE-RECURRENCE RELATIONSHIP
Gutenberg-Richter Recurrence Law
• G-R relationship: linear relation between earthquake magnitude 𝑚𝑚 and the Mean
Annual Rate of Exceedance 𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚 of earthquakes of magnitude 𝑚𝑚

𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎 = 𝒂𝒂 − 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃


𝑎𝑎 and 𝑏𝑏: constants obtained by linear regression analysis

• 𝑏𝑏: relative likelihood between small and large earthquakes


• G-R relation in exponential form
𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎 = 𝒆𝒆𝜶𝜶−𝜷𝜷𝜷𝜷
𝛼𝛼 = 2.303𝑎𝑎 and 𝛽𝛽 = 2.303𝑏𝑏

7
MAGNITUDE-RECURRENCE RELATIONSHIP

𝒂𝒂 and 𝒃𝒃 for Northeast India (using ZMAP software)

Zones 𝒂𝒂 𝒃𝒃
1 1.770 0.443
2 1.607 0.406
3 3.796 1.020
4 3.805 0.965
5 3.053 0.827
6 2.053 0.493
7 5.711 1.740
8 1.956 0.477
9 2.594 0.646
10 3.494 0.955
8
MAGNITUDE-RECURRENCE RELATIONSHIP

Occurrence Model
• Poisson process (memory-less): suitable for smaller earthquakes
Probability that the number of occurrences of an event (𝑿𝑿𝒕𝒕 ) in a time interval 𝑡𝑡 be
equal to 𝑥𝑥 is given by
𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎 𝒕𝒕 𝒙𝒙
𝒙𝒙 = 𝟎𝟎, 𝟏𝟏, 𝟐𝟐, … … .
𝑷𝑷 𝑿𝑿𝒕𝒕 = 𝒙𝒙 = 𝒆𝒆−𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎 𝒕𝒕
𝒙𝒙!
𝜆𝜆m : average number of occurrences of the event per unit time or mean occurrence rate
1
= 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 : Mean return period (from G-R relationship)
𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚

Return Period
The probability that an event, greater than a specified magnitude, occurs at least
once in a time interval t
For Poisson occurrence model
𝑃𝑃 𝑋𝑋𝑡𝑡 ≥ 1 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃 𝑋𝑋𝑡𝑡 = 0 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡

Characteristic Earthquake: periodic maximum earthquake magnitude (fault-wise)


• mean return period not following G-R relationship
• uniform distribution of return period 9
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
Probabilistic SHA
Seismic hazard: Probability of exceedance of a given level of ground intensity
measure (hazard parameter) in a specific time interval

Components
• Probability distribution of source-to-site distance
• From fault geometry and site location
𝑟𝑟
• 𝑓𝑓𝑅𝑅 𝑟𝑟 =
2
𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑟 2 −𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

• Probability distribution of Earthquake Magnitude


• From G-R relationship
• 𝑓𝑓𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚 = 𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒 −𝛽𝛽(𝑚𝑚−𝑚𝑚0) 𝑚𝑚0 is the lower threshold magnitude
• Probability of exceeding specified value of ground motion parameter
• From attenuation model
2
𝑠𝑠 2
1 𝑧𝑧 −2 1 −𝑧𝑧 −𝑠𝑠
• 𝑃𝑃 𝑌𝑌 > 𝑦𝑦|𝑚𝑚, 𝑟𝑟 = 1 − 𝐹𝐹𝑌𝑌 𝑦𝑦 = 1 − ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫ 𝑒𝑒 2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
2𝜋𝜋 −∞ 2𝜋𝜋 −∞
• Annual probability of exceedance due to the seismic sources
𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠
• 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚0 𝑃𝑃[𝑌𝑌 > 𝑦𝑦] 𝜆𝜆𝑦𝑦 = ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
• Mean value of return period
• 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑌𝑌 > 𝑦𝑦 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑋𝑋𝑡𝑡 ≥ 1 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃 𝑋𝑋𝑡𝑡 = 0 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 𝜆𝜆𝑦𝑦 𝑡𝑡 10
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Probabilistic SHA
Example :
The site shown in Figure is located in western
United States and two active faults are near the
site.

Fault 1 Fault 2
Closest distance to site (km) 10 20
Maximum distance to site (km) 18 31
Length of fault (km) 30 65
Max. Magnitude of earthquake 7.5 8.5
a & b values a=2.25, b=0.75 a=3.3, b=0.88
Find the probabiltiy of exceeding a PGA of 0.3g at the site in 100 years considering a lower
threshold magnitude of 5.0 for both faults.
Assume an avg. shear wave velocity of 1396 m/s for the soil deposits at site.
Assume also that the closest distances to the faults correspond to their geometric centers.
11
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Probabilistic SHA
Solution :

Mean annual frequency of earthquakes of magnitude >= 𝑚𝑚0 , 𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚0 = exp(𝛼𝛼 − 𝛽𝛽𝑚𝑚0 )

𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚0 = exp 2.303 2.25 − 2.303 0.75 5.0 = 0.032 events/year for Fault-1

𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚0 = exp 2.303 3.30 − 2.303 0.88 5.0 = 0.079 events/year for Fault-2

Attenuation equation proposed by Boore, Joyner and Fumal for PGA,


𝐸𝐸[ln 𝐴𝐴𝐻𝐻 ] = −0.242 + 0.527(𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤 − 6) − 0.778 ln 𝑅𝑅2 + 5.572
𝜎𝜎ln 𝐴𝐴𝐻𝐻 = 0.520

ln 𝐴𝐴𝐻𝐻 − [−0.242 + 0.527(𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤 − 6) − 0.778 ln 𝑅𝑅2 + 5.572 ]


𝑧𝑧 =
0.520
12
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Probabilistic SHA
Solution :

𝑧𝑧 = −1.1850 − 1.013 𝑚𝑚 − 6 + 1.496 ln 𝑟𝑟 2 + 31.025


𝑠𝑠2

2(1.727) 18 7.5 −𝑧𝑧 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 2 +1.727(𝑚𝑚−5)
Fault-1 : 𝑃𝑃 𝑌𝑌 > 0.30𝑔𝑔 = ∫ ∫ ∫ d𝑠𝑠d𝑚𝑚d𝑟𝑟 = 0.01539
2𝜋𝜋(30) 𝑟𝑟=10 𝑚𝑚=5 𝑠𝑠=−∞ 𝑟𝑟 2 −102

𝑠𝑠2

2(2.027) 31 8.5 −𝑧𝑧 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 2 +2.027(𝑚𝑚−5)
Fault-2 : 𝑃𝑃 𝑌𝑌 > 0.30𝑔𝑔 = ∫ ∫ ∫ d𝑠𝑠d𝑚𝑚d𝑟𝑟 = 0.00182
2𝜋𝜋(65) 𝑟𝑟=20 𝑚𝑚=5 𝑠𝑠=−∞ 𝑟𝑟 2 −202

Fault-1 : 𝜆𝜆1𝑦𝑦 = 0.032 0.01539 = 4.925x10−4 events/year


Fault-2 : 𝜆𝜆2𝑦𝑦 = 0.079 0.00182 = 1.438x10−4 events/year
𝜆𝜆𝑦𝑦 = 4.925x10−4 + 1.438x10−4 = 6.363x10−4 events/year

𝑃𝑃100 𝐴𝐴𝐻𝐻 > 0.30𝑔𝑔 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑋𝑋100 ≥ 1 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 − 6.363 x10−4 100 = 0.062


13
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Uniform Hazard Spectrum (P = 0.5 in 100 Yrs)

Uniform hazard PSA spectra


horizontal for four different sites Hazard map for horizontal PSA in g at T=0.17 s
in Northeast India.
14
LOCAL SITE EFFECTS
Effect of Site Conditions on Ground Motions

Schematic representation of a
building on different topographic,
geological and soil conditions

Frequency response functions for


hypothetical soft (Site A) and stiff
(Site B) soil deposits

15
LOCAL SITE EFFECTS
Effect of Site Conditions on Ground Motions

Ground motion recorded at


hill site in Mexico City during
the 1985 Michoacan
earthquake

Ground motion recorded at


soft-soil in Mexico City during
the 1985 Michoacan
earthquake

16
LOCAL SITE EFFECTS
Evaluation of Site Effects using Analytical Techniques
One-Dimensional Continuous Model

Profile of horizontal deposit of homogeneous soil Shear-beam model

17
SEISMIC DEMAND FOR DESIGN

Elastic Design Spectrum


1. Specified by some regulatory body to characterize hazard
2. Hazard level and soil specific

Design spectrum for different soil types specified in IS-1893 (Part 1) : 2002 18
SEISMIC DEMAND FOR DESIGN

Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion

19
LITERATURE
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Steven L. Kramer, 1996, Prentice Hall International Series
1 in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics.

Fundamental Concepts of Earthquake Engineering, Roberto Villaverde, 2009, CRC Press,Taylor &
2 Francis Group.

Earthquake Catalogue in and around North Eastern Region of India (including Historical
3 Earthquakes) First Interim Report (Medieval Period to 1999), Geoscience Division NEIST Jorhat,
2013.
Earthquake Catalogue in and around North Eastern Region of India (2000-2013), Geoscience
4 Division NEIST Jorhat, 2013.

Temporal and Spatial Variations in the Magnitude of Completeness for Homogenized Moment
5 Magnitude Catalogue for North East India, Ranjit Das, H.R Wason, M L Sharma,2012

Seismotectonics in Northeast India: a stress analysis of focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes


6 and its kinematic implications, Jacques Angelier, Saurabh Baruah,2009

Ground motion parameters in Shillong and Mikir Plateau supplemented by mapping of


7 amplification factors in Guwahati City, Northeastern India, Saurabh Baruah, Santanu Baruah,
Aditya Kalita, J. R. Kayal,2011
A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Northeast India, Das S, Ishwer D. Gupta I.D and Gupta
8 V.K, 2006, Earthquake Spectra, 22, 1-27.

20
LITERATURE
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of India, Nath S.K and Thingbaijam K.K.S, 2012,
9 Seismological Research Letters, 83.

Estimation of Maximum Earthquakes in Northeast India, Thingbaijam K.K.S and Nath S.K, 2008,
10 Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165, 889-901.

Himalayan tectonic model and the great earthquakes: an appraisal, Kayal J.R, 2010, Geomatics,
11 Natural Hazards and Risk, 1, 51-67.

Probabilities for the occurrences of medium to large earthquakes in northeast India and adjoining
12 region, Yadav R.B.S, Tripathi J.N, Shanker D, Rastogi B.K, Das M.C and Kumar V, 2011, Nat Hazards,
56, 145-167.
Return Period Analysis of Earthquakes of Northeast India and its Adjoining Region, Devi A and
13 Kalita S, 2013, International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, 2, 15-28.

The Dauki Fault at the Shillong Plateau-Bengal Basin Boundary in Northeastern India: 2D Finite
14 Element Modeling, Md Shofiqul Islam and Shinjo R, 2012,Journal of Earth Science, 23, 854-864.

A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP, Wiemer S, 2001,Seismological Research Letters,


15 72, 374-383.

Aftershock Statistics, Shcherbakov R, Turcotte D.L and Rundle J.B, 2005,Spure and Applied
16 Geophysics, 162, 1051-1076.

21
LITERATURE
Assessing the Quality of Earthquake Catalogues: Estimating the Magnitude of Completeness and
17 its Uncertainty, Woessner J and Wiemer S, 2005, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
95, 684-698.
Earthquake Hazard After a Mainshock in California, Reasenberg P.A and Jones L.M,1988,
18 REPORTS, 1173-1176.

Long-term earthquake clustering, Kagan Y.Y and Jackson D.D, 1991, Geophysical Journal
19 International, 104, 117-133.

A GIS based tectonic map of northeastern India, Baruah S and Hazarika D, 2008, Current Science,
20 95, 176-177.

Seismotectonics in Northeast India: a stress analysis of focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes


21 and its kinematic implications, Angelier J and Baruah S, 2009, Geophysical Journal International.

Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the


22 Western United States and Japan, Wiemer S and Wyss M, 2000, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 90, 859-869.
Temporal and spatial variations in the magnitude of completeness for homogenized moment
23 magnitude catalogue for northeast India, Das R, Wason H.R and Sharma M.L, 2012, Journal of
Earth System, 121, 19-28.
The 2009 Bhutan and Assam felt earthquakes (Mw 6.3 and 5.1) at the Kopili fault in the northeast
24 Himalayan region, Kayal J.R, Arefiev S.S, Baruah S, Tatevossian R, Gogoi N, Sanoujam M, Gautam
J.L, Hazarika, D and Borah D, 2010, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 1, 273-281.
22
23