Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering

Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12

Assessment of Seismic Hazard for the District of Jalandhar (India) in view

of Smart City Mission
Research Paper
Gagan Deep1 and Nitish Puri2
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, LKCE, Jalandhar (Punjab), India
2*
Consultant, AECOM India Private Limited, Chennai (Tamil Nadu), India
*Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4936-3905
*

Manuscript ID: AEEIE-S-2-6-21; Submitted in June 2021; Revised in Oct 2021;Accepted on 24th Dec 2021; Published on 27th Dec 2021

ABSTRACT

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has been carried out for the district of Jalandhar. The earthquake
data has been collected from different seismological agencies, e.g. NDMA, IMD, ISC-UK and USGS, and a
comprehensive earthquake catalogue has been developed. Several ground motion prediction equations have been
reviewed to select a GMPE appropriate for carrying out PSHA. Earthquake hazard parameters have been
estimated for PGA and spectral acceleration. The seismic hazard maps of district have been developed for
different return periods at 10%, 2% and 1% probability of exceedance. The results show that the district can
experience strong shaking from earthquakes originating in north-west Himalayas. Nonlinear site response analysis
has also been carried out for limited number of sites in order to investigate the effect of local site conditions on
earthquake ground motions. It has been observed that the soils of district of Jalandhar are capable of amplifying
earthquake ground motions. Therefore, structures must be designed using the hazard parameters determined
considering the local tectonic setup of the region as well as the local soil conditions. The developed hazard maps
would help engineers and architects involved in planning and design of earthquake resistant structures and
retrofitting works.

Keywords: PSHA, Maximum magnitude potential, Peak ground acceleration, Spectral acceleration, Jalandhar

INTRODUCTION of Delhi and Chandigarh city in the Union Territory

Chandigarh. The Smart City Mission is a centrally
Smart cities keep track of the condition of critical sponsored scheme financed by the Government of
infrastructure facilities, which include water supply India with funds up to ₹480 billion in a duration of
network, rain water and waste water drainage five years. Retrofitting is the primary strategic
systems, fuel supply and storage systems, electricity component of area-based development in the Smart
supply units, communication systems, City Mission. Structures that need to be retrofitted
transportation systems and building services, to in a city would be identified to build intensive
better optimize resources, plan maintenance infrastructure facilities with smart applications
activities, arrange immediate rescue in case of both packed in a Smart City. Planning of an efficient
natural and man-made hazards, and monitor security retrofitting in a city requires good knowledge of
aspects while maximizing services to citizens. In various expected hazards, e.g. flood hazard, wind
India, a number of smart cities have been planned in hazard and earthquake hazard.
various states, e.g. Karnal and Faridabad in the State
of Haryana, Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Amritsar in the The present study focuses on the
State of Punjab, New Delhi in the Union Territory assessment of earthquake hazard for the district of

Corresponding Author’s Affiliation:

AECOM India Private Limited
ASV Ramana Towers, 3rd Floor,
T Nagar, CIT Nagar East, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600017
1
Jalandhar in State of Punjab (India) in view of The entire Jalandhar Division was awarded to India
planning for the proposed smart city ‘Jalandhar’. when Punjab was partitioned. Jalandhar District,
with population of about 2.19 million is the 4th most
The earthquake zoning map of the India populated district in the state of Punjab. The district
reported in IS 1893-Part1(2016), offers a broad of Jalandhar is the 9th biggest district in terms of area
zoning of the country for seismic hazard, and it gets in the state of Punjab with an approximate
updated only when new earthquakes occur. Hence, geographical area of about 2624 km2. The
it is necessary to obtain reliable estimates of seismic population density in the district is approximately
hazard parameters calculated by carrying out state- 836 people per km2.
of-the-art analysis on possible earthquake scenarios.
The results of such analyses are formulated The region has experienced some mild
generally in terms of peak ground acceleration seismic activity in the past in the range of M 4.0-5.0.
(PGA) and spectral acceleration (Sa) at various On 14th March 2010, the region experienced a mild
return periods. PGA is used to quantify earthquake earthquake of magnitude of 4.5, that occurred in
ground motions, horizontal forces and shear stresses northern Punjab along the Punjab-Himachal Pradesh
and strains in the earthquake resistant design border. It was felt over a wide area due to its shallow
procedures. Whereas, Sa is a crude representation of depth near Hiranagar (Punjab). In August 2013,
the response of a structure represented by the another mild intensity earthquake of magnitude 4.7
maximum acceleration experienced by single- on the Richter’s scale was felt at many places in
degree-of-freedom system undergoing damped Punjab. The epicenter of the quake was in the
vibrations. Hoshiarpur-Himachal Pradesh border region as per
India Metrological Department (IMD). However,
The local soil conditions in top 20 to 30 m some disastrous earthquakes have also occurred near
of soil profile play an important role in defining the the region in the last 200 years, which are 1934
characteristics of earthquake ground motions Bihar-Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.4), 1950 Assam
reaching at the surface of the earth. Site response earthquake (Mw 8.7), 1905 Kangra earthquake (Mw
analysis is often carried out to assess the effect of 7.8), 1991 Uttarkashi (Mw 6.8), 1993 Killari
local soil conditions on earthquake wave earthquake (Mw 6.2), 1999 Chamoli earthquake
propagation. The results of ground response analysis (Mw 6.8,), 2005 Kashmir earthquake (Mw 7.6) and
are expressed in terms of amplification factors for 2015 Gorkha earthquake (Mw 7.8). The havoc
PGA and Sa. The values of PGA and Sa for rock produced by these earthquakes has been a wakeup
sites, obtained from either deterministic or call for the government to take suitable mitigation
probabilistic seismic hazard assessments can be measures.
suitably modified using the amplification factors
obtained from site response analysis. An area of 300 km radius around Jalandhar
district has been selected as the seismic study region
In the present study, probabilistic seismic (28-34 Degree N to 72-78 Degree E). A tectonic
hazard analysis and nonlinear site response analysis map developed for the seismic study region by Puri
has been performed for the district of Jalandhar, and and Jain (2018) has been adopted for the study (Fig.
seismic hazard maps based on PGA and Sa have 1). The tectonic map was developed using SEISAT
been prepared at various return periods. The (Dasgupta et al., 2000). The potential earthquake
developed hazard maps along with the suggested hazard in the study area is governed by several
amplification factors would help engineers and tectonic features, which include Himalayan Frontal
architects involved in planning and design of Thrust on the north and north-eastern side, local
earthquake resistant structures and retrofitting lineaments on the south and Sargodha-Lahore-Delhi
works in the District. ridge on the north-western side.

STUDY AREA AND TECTONIC MAP

2
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
ESTIMATION OF GUTENBERG-RICHTER Management Authority of India (NDMA). The
PARAMETERS earthquake data for the instrumental period have
been collected from various international and
The development of a comprehensive catalogue of national earthquake monitoring agencies, e.g.
seismic events is a first step for any seismic hazard United States Geological Survey (USGS), India
assessment program. A reliable estimate of Meteorological Department (IMD) and National
earthquake hazard in a region strongly depends on Disaster Management Agency (NDMA), India
the accuracy and adequacy of the information on (NDMA, 2011), and International Seismological
earthquake events. Information on damaging Centre, UK (ISC-UK). An earthquake catalogue has
earthquakes that have occurred during pre- been developed, for 1800 AD to 2017 AD, by
instrumental period has been collected from the combining the pre-instrumental and instrumental
catalogue developed by National Disaster data.

Fig. 1. Tectonic setup of the seismic study region (after Puri and Jain, 2018)

Table 1. Completeness analysis of catalogue

Magnitude class Completeness

(Mw)
CUVI method Stepp method
Period Interval (Years) Period Interval (Years)
4.0-4.9 1962-2015 53 1963-2015 52
5.0-5.9 1926-2015 89 1925-2015 90
6.0-6.9 1901-1975 74 1900-1970 70
7.0-7.9 1905-1999 94 1904-1999 95

3
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 The events with earthquake magnitudes calculated Mmax values for study region are between
other than Mw have been converted using the moment magnitude of 5.5 to 8.5 (Table 3).
available empirical relationships between various
earthquake magnitude scales and moment The Gutenberg-Richter seismicity
magnitude (Mw). Pre-instrumental data is usually parameters a and b are the prime input parameters in
available on MMI scale and has been changed to PSHA and hence need to be calculated with
moment magnitude by Gutenberg-Richter equation, precision. For this, the study region was divided into
which is as follows: three sub-regions considering each sub-region as an
area source of earthquakes. The seismicity
Mw = 2/3 × MMI + 1 (1)
parameters were computed for each area source
The correlations developed by Scordilis (2008) through linear least squares regression method
between mb - Mw and Ms - Mw have been used. following an exponential distribution of magnitude
taking into account the complete part of the
The following correlation derived by Kolathayar et catalogue for all the magnitude classes. The
al. (2012) has been considered for the conversion of exponential distribution is given in equation (4)
local magnitude to moment magnitude. below:

Mw = 0.815 × ML + 0.767, for 3.3 ≤ ML ≤ (2) λm = 10a−bMw = exp⁡(α − βMw ) (4)

7.0
where, λm = mean yearly rate of exceedance, a =
The following correlation developed by Yenier et al.
coefficient such that ath power of 10 gives the mean
(2008) between Md - Mw has been used.
annual number of earthquakes of magnitude ≥ 0, α =
Mw = 0.764 × Md + 1.379, for 3.7 ≤ Md ≤ (3) 2.303a, b = coefficient that describes the possibility
6.0 of large and small earthquakes and β = 2.303b.
An epicentral map has been developed using the
prepared catalogue (Fig. 2). The catalogue has been The reciprocal of λm for a given magnitude
checked for completeness using CUVI (Tinti and is called return period (T R) of an earthquake
Mulargia, 1985) and Stepp method (Stepp, 1972) exceeding that magnitude and is very important for
and found to be complete for a sufficient period of earthquake resistant design. The seismicity of all
time. The completion periods have been reported in area sources considered in the study has been
the Table 1. The compiled catalogue contains 1256 calculated and reported in Table 4. The value of
earthquake events of moment magnitude (Mw) ≥ 4 return period calculated for different area sources
that have occurred up to December 2017 in the study demonstrates the capability of tectonic sources in
region. Himalayan Thrust System to generate frequent large
earthquakes.
For identifying potential seismogenic
sources, the epicenters from the compiled catalogue Assesement of Seismic Hazard
(Fig. 2) have been plotted over tectonic map (Fig.
1). A total of 10 tectonic features associated with The global ground motion prediction equation
earthquakes of Mw ≥ 4.0 have been identified as developed by Abrahamson et al. (2013) has been
active seismogenic sources, out of these, 8 sources used for the estimation of earthquake hazard. PSHA
are potential seismogenic sources as given in table has been done considering three sub-regions, viz.
below. Himalayan Thrust System, Sargodha-Lahore-Delhi
The earthquakes of Mw ≥ 5 have been
Ridge and Aravalli-Delhi Fold Belt as area sources
considered for Mmax estimation. The Mmax values for
of earthquakes and based on the developed
the major seismogenic sources in the study area have
been estimated by adding an increment 0.5 to the catalogue, average focal depths have been taken as
respective values of Mobs (Gupta, 2002). The 15 km, 17 km and 10 km for the selected three sub-
regions, respectively.
4
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 Fig. 2. Epicenter Map of Study Area

Table 2. Maximum Observed Magnitudes for Various Sources

S. No. Seismogenic Source Mobs
1. Jwala Mukhi Thrust (JMT) 5.5
2. Kaurik Fault System (KFS) 6.8
3. Lineament System of SLDR (LSLDR) 6
4. Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) 8
5. Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) 5
6. Main Crustral Thrust (MCT) 7.3
7. Sundar Nagar Fault (SNF) 7
8. Sargodha Lahore Delhi Ridge (SLDR) 6.5

Table 3. Mmax values for Various Sources

Seismogenic Source Total Length of Fault (in km) Mmax
Sargodha Lahore Delhi Ridge (SLDR) Area Source 7
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) 825 8.5
Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) 32 5.5
Jwala Mukhi Thrust (JMT) 290 6.0
Main Crustral Thrust (MCT) 769 7.8
Sundar Nagar Fault (SNF) 101 7.5
Kaurik Fault System (KFS) 137 7.3
Lineament System of SLDR (LSLDR) 97 6.5

5
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 Table 4. Seismicity parameters for different area sources
Area source b a Magnitude (Mw) class
Himalayan Thrust System 0.75 3.8 4.0-8.0
Aravalli-Delhi Fold Belt 0.69 2.61 4.0-7.0
Sargodha-Lahore-Delhi Ridge 0.85 3.27 4.0-6.5

The hazard has been calculated for 10%, hand.

2% and 1% probability of exceedance in time frame
as 50 years as per recommendations of Eurocode 8: 1D Site Response Analysis
BS-EN 1998-1 (2005). For ordinary structures, the
seismic hazard map for 10% probability of Site response analysis has been carried out for 5 sites
exceedance in 50 years is recommended. However, (Fig. 7) drilled up to refusal in District of Jalandhar.
for important facilities like Nuclear Power Plants For this, one dimensional nonlinear model has been
and other megastructures, the maps for 2% and 1% adopted to estimate the response using DEEPSOIL
probability are used. The PSHA software R-CRISIS software (Hashash et al., 2016). The methodology
v. 18.2 (Ordaz and Salgado-Gálvez, 2017) has been has been adopted from Puri and Jain (2018). Based
used for the purpose. R-CRISIS allows the on geotechnical data collected, sites are classified as
calculation of results for exceedance probability class D sites by calculating average SPT N-value of
plots, set of stochastic events etc. The parameters the profile as per the recommendations of NEHRP
such as a, b, Mmin, Mmax, λm and attenuation models (FEMA 368, 2000).
are the input parameters, and PGA and PSA are the
The stiffness and damping of soil layer
outputs.
play fundamental role in estimating wave
amplification parameters in seismic microzonation
The hazard maps have been prepared for
studies. The analysis requires characterization of the
return periods of 475 years, 2475 years and 4975
stiffness of an element of soil considering low strain
years at 10%, 2% and 1% probabilities of
shear modulus (Gmax), variation of modulus ratio
exceedance in 50 years respectively (Fig. 3 to Fig.
(G/Gmax) and Damping (D) with cyclic strain
4). The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges
amplitude (γ), and other parameters. Due to
from 0.08g - 0.13g, 0.15g - 0.26g and 0.23g - 0.34g
unavailability of in-situ Shear wave velocity (Vs) or
at 10%, 2% and 1% probabilities of exceedance
Shear Modulus (Gmax) recordings, a correlation
respectively. It has been observed that the IS code
between Gmax - N developed by Ohsaki and Iwasaki
underestimates the hazard at 2% and 1% probability
(1973) for sandy soils has been used and shear
of exceedance. The response spectra have been
modulus degradation (G/Gmax-γ) and damping ratio
constructed for various return periods corresponding
(D-γ) curves developed by Darendeli (2001) have
to maximum observed PGA and shown in Fig. 5
been used. The Darendeli curves require the value
along with those specified in IS 1893 Part-1 for
of coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko) for each
comparison. Hazard maps based on spectral
layer in order to fit G/Gmax - γ curves and D-γ curves
acceleration (g) at 0.1 sec, 0.2 sec, 1.0 sec and 2.0
for each layer. The Ko values have been calculated
sec at 10%, 2% and 1% probabilities of exceedance
using the following equation:
have been also developed (Fig. 6). It has been
observed that the IS code underestimates the 𝐾𝑜 = 1 − sin 𝜙 (5)
spectral acceleration at higher structural periods for where ϕ = angle of internal friction. The ϕ values
all return periods. Hence, high rise buildings in these have been estimated from SPT N-values using the
areas constructed as per current Indian Standards correlation developed by Puri et al. (2018). The
could receive damage during earthquakes. However, typical input parameters for site 4 have been
a detailed study on the effect of local site conditions reported in Table 5.
would provide a deeper insight into the problem at
6
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 Fig. 3. Seismic Hazard Map of Jalandhar at 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Seismic Hazard Map of Jalandhar at (a) 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years and (b) 1% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years

7
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 2.5
Zone II (IS 1893 Part 4: 2016)
Zone III (IS 1893 Part 4: 2016)
Zone IV (IS 1893 Part 4: 2016)
2
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Zone V (IS 1893 Part 4: 2016)

Response Spectrum for 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50
Years
Response Spectrum for 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50
1.5 Years
Response Spectrum for 1% Probability of Exceedance in 50
Years

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (Sec)

Fig. 5. Comparison of PSHA based response spectra with response spectra specified in IS 1893-Part 1:2016

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 6. Spectral acceleration maps for various return periods of (a) 475-year at 0.1 sec. (b) 475-year at 0.2 sec. (c) 475-year at 1.0 sec. (d)
475year at 2.0 sec. (e) 2475-year at 0.1 sec. (f) 2475-year at 0.2 sec

8
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 (g) (h) (i)

(j) (k) (l)

Fig. 6. Continued Spectral accelerations (g) for various return periods of (g) 2475-year at 1.0 sec. (h) 2475-year at 2.0 sec. (i) 4975-year at
0.1 sec. (j) 4975-year at 0.2 sec. (k) 4975-year at 1.0 sec. (l) 4975-year at 2.0 sec

Suitable acceleration time histories can be

selected based on magnitude of controlling
earthquake, PGA value, source to site distance and
site class. PGA values obtained from PSHA for rock
sites corresponding to a return period of 475 year
have been used for the selection of input motions at
each site. Acceleration time history of the 1991
Uttarkashi earthquake Mw 6.8 (focal depth = 10 km)
recorded at the Ghansiali station with PGA = 0.118g
is used for the analysis (Fig. 8).

Fig.7. Location of boreholes used for site response analysis

9
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 Table 5. Typical input parameters for Site no. 4

Depth Soil PI Unit SPT N vs Depth Gmax Gmax vs Depth Ko

Type weight 'N' (Mpa)
(kN/m3)
1.5 Sand NP 15.37 7 39.70 0 250 500 0.52
0 50 100
3 Sand NP 15.65 10 0 55.51 0 0.51
4.5 Sand NP 15.84 12 2 65.89 2 0.50
6 Sand NP 17.16 26 4 136.30 4 0.43
7.5 Sand NP 17.72 32 6
165.68 6 0.41
9 Sand NP 18.20 37 189.90 8
0.38

Depth (m)
8
10.5 Sand NP 21.90 61 303.83 0.29

Depth (m)
10 10
12 Sand NP 23.56 73 359.71 0.24
12 12
13.5 Sand NP 25.77 89 433.37 0.19
14
15 Sand NP 26.19 92 14 447.08 0.18
16.5 Sand NP 27.15 99 16 478.99 16 0.16
18 Sand NP 20.38 50 18 252.03 18 0.33
19.5 Sand NP 20.38 50 20 252.03 20 0.33
*NP = Non-plastic; Ko = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest

more detailed study specifically on site-response

analysis is required for the region. The amplification
factors for spectral acceleration (average of all sites)
have been shown in Fig. 10. It has been observed
that at all structural periods the spectral acceleration
has been amplified. This shows that the estimated
seismic scenario for the District of Jalandhar is
worse than that proposed by the Indian Seismic
Code. Hence, at higher structural periods, severe
dynamic loading could be inflicted to structures
Fig.8. Input acceleration time history of 1991 Uttarkashi designed using current structural design and
earthquake recorded at Ghansiali station construction bylaws of India. The average
amplification factors and the hazard maps presented
The results of the wave amplification analysis have
in this study can be used in design and retrofitting of
been reported in Table 6. Fig. 9 shows a comparison
structures in district.
of PGA (g) and shear strain (%) observed at
different sites. Due to limited borehole data (eight CONCLUSION
boreholes), interpretation cannot be made for the
amplification trend across the District. However, The assessment seismic hazard has been carried out
based on significant amplification observed at five using probabilistic approach for estimating hazard
sites, it can be concluded that the city may parameters for rock sites for district of Jalandhar.
experience high ground accelerations. Moreover, The district is always under the threat from
earthquakes due to its proximity to Himalayan
high strains are observed for all the five sites and
frontal fault. It has been observed that the district is
there is a possibility of substantial settlements
prone to high to severe earthquake ground motions
during an earthquake. The amplification factors for ranging from 0.152g to 0.247g. Hence, a
the analyzed sites range from 1.65 to 2.11 with an comprehensive estimation of earthquake hazard for
average value of 1.9. The maximum PGA of 0.249g the region is required. The results of this study
and minimum PGA of 0.195g are observed for would help and motivate engineers and investigators
Bulandpur and Wazir Singh Enclave sites, involved in seismic design and retrofitting of
respectively. Based on the average amplification structures and planning for mitigation measures.
factor observed for PGA, the region can experience
PGAs ranging from 0.152g to 0.247g. However, a
10
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 Table 6. Results of site response analysis

Site No. Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Surface PGA (g) Amplification Factor
1 31.38363 75.54201 0.205 1.74
2 31.28898 75.59628 0.244 2.07
3 31.34913 75.55048 0.23 1.95
4 31.37636 75.58831 0.249 2.11
5 31.32522 75.63357 0.195 1.65

Fig.9. Comparison of PGA (g) and Shear Strain (%) observed at different sites

Fig.10. Observed amplification factors for spectral acceleration (Sa)

REFERENCES

1. Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J. and Kamai, R. Earthquake Engineering Research Center

(2013). “Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Headquarters, University of California,
Prediction Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Berkeley.
Data Set”. PEER Report 2013/04 Pacific
11
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12
 2. Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a Document”. Technical Report, Mexico City,
new family of normalized modulus reduction Mexico.
and material damping curves”. Ph.D diss., 12. Puri, N. and Jain, A. (2018). “Possible Seismic
University of Texas. Hazards in Chandigarh City of North-western
3. Dasgupta, S., Pande, P., Ganguly, D., Iqbal, Z., India due to its proximity to Himalayan Frontal
Sanyal, K., Venkatraman, N.V., Dasgupta, S., Thrust”. J. Ind. Geophys. Union, Vol. 22, No. 5,
Sural, B., Harendranath, L., Mazumdar, K., pp. 485-506.
Sanyal, S., Roy, A., Das, L.K., Misra, P.S. and 13. Puri, N., Prasad H. D. and Jain, A. (2018).
Gupta, H. (2000). “Seismotectonic Atlas of “Prediction of Geotechnical Parameters Using
India and its Environs”. Geological Survey of Machine Learning Techniques”. Procedia
India, Calcutta. Computer Science, Vol. 125, pp. 509–517,
4. Eurocode 8: BS-EN 1998-1 (2005). “Design of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.066.
structures for earthquake resistance – part 1: 14. Scordilis, E. M. (2006). “Empirical global
General rules, seismic actions and rules for relations converting Ms and mb to moment
buildings”. European committee for magnitude”. J. Seismology, Vol. 10, pp. 225-
standardization, Brussels. 236, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9012-
5. FEMA 368 (2000). “National earthquake 4.
hazard reduction program (NEHRP) 15. Stepp, J. C. (1972). “Analysis of the
recommended provisions for seismic completeness of the earthquake sample in the
regulations for new buildings and other Puget Sound area and its effects on statistical
structures, part 1: Provisions”. Building Seismic estimates of earthquakes hazard”. In:
Safety Council (BSSC), USA. Proceedings of International Conference on
6. Gupta, I. D. (2002). “The State of the Art in Microzonation for Safer Construction Research
Seismic Hazard Analysis”. ISET Journal of and Application, Seattle, Washington.
Earthquake Technology, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 16. Tinti, S. and Mulargia, F. (1985).
311-346. “Completeness analysis of a seismic catalog”.
7. Hashash, Y.M.A., Park, D., Tsai, C.C., Philips, Annales Geophysicae, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 407-
C. and Groholski, D.R. (2016). “DEEPSOIL - 414.
1-D Wave Propagation Analysis Program, 17. Yenier, E., Erdoğan, Ö. and Akkar, S. (2008).
Version 6.1, Tutorial and User Manual”. “Empirical relationships for magnitude and
University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign. source-to-site distance conversions using
8. IS 1893 - Part1 (2002). “Indian Standard recently compiled Turkish strong-ground
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of motion database”. Proceedings of 14th World
Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
Building”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New China.
Delhi.
9. Kolathayar, S., Sitharam, T.G. and Vipin, K.S.
(2012). “Spatial variation of seismicity
parameters across India and adjoining areas”.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
Natural Hazards, Vol. 60, pp. 1365-1379, 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9898-1. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to
10. Ohsaki, Y. and Iwasaki, R. (1973). “Dynamic Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042,
shear moduli and Poisson’s ratio of soil USA.
deposits”. Soils and Foundations, Vol.13, No.4,
pp. 61-73.
11. Ordaz, M. and Salgado-Gálvez, M. A. (2017).
“R-CRISIS Validation and Verification

12
Annals of Earth, Environment, and Infrastructure Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1 (November-December 2021), pp. 1-12