INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of Major Dams of State () Ashish Kumar Parashar and Sohanlal Atmapoojya

Abstract— The rapid tremor of the earth’s outer layer, as an outcome of breaking and shifting of rocks underneath, creates seismic waves, resulting in destructions and disasters to the manmade structures existing, commonly known as earthquake. The intensification of consciousness in this area has been monitored in the current years to a great extent. The present paper tries to describe the seismic hazard analyses of the Major Dams of Chhattisgarh state, using the Probabilistic method. In gradual progress of research on the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) in the earlier period, a framework has been developed, that could be used for assessment of probability of occurrences of earthquakes, at certain return periods on each site. The principal gain of the PSHA over alternative representations of the earthquake risk is that, PSHA incorporate over all probable tremors of occurrence and ground motions to compute a combined probability of exceedance that incorporates the relative frequencies of event of different tremors and ground-motion characteristics. Features of PSHA allow the ground-motion hazard to be articulated at many sites consistently in terms of the tremor sizes, frequencies of occurrence, attenuation, and associated ground motion in terms of topographical and seismological records. Likely seismic sources, seismicity models, Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE) and site effects are the mainly vital factors in seismic peril studies. An effort has also been made, to formulate a detailed catalogue of ancient and the recent seismicity, for generation of a new seismotectonic map for the major dam regions. The earthquake data is analyzed statistically and the seismicity of the regions around Major Dam sites (Ravishankar Sagar Dam, Sikaser Dam, Dudhawa Dam and Sondur Dam) of Chhattisgarh India, has been evaluated, by defining ‘b’ parameters of Gutenberg- Richter recurrence relationship. The Maximum value of Peak Ground Acceleration (P.G.A.) for recurrence period of 100 years, for Ravishankar Sagar Dam site was found as 0.02655g, for 50 percentile and 0.04226g, for 84 percentile. On the other hand the Maximum values of Peak Ground Accelerations (P.G.A.) for same recurrence period for Sikaser Dam site found to be 0.01235g for 50 percentile and 0.01966g for 84 percentile. The Maximum value of Peak Ground Acceleration (P.G.A.) for recurrence period of 1000 years, for Ravishankar Sagar Dam site, was found to be as 0.03507g, for 50 percentile and 0.05508g, for 84 percentile. The Maximum values of Peak Ground Accelerations (P.G.A.), for same recurrence period for Sikaser, Dam Sites was found to be equal to 0.01572g for 50 percentile and 0.02503g for 84 percentile. The PGA at Dam site corresponding to 2 %, probability of exceedence in the life span of 50 years, with a return period of 2475 years, for Ravishankar Sagar Dam is 0.0096g and for Sikaser Dam is 0.0075g. The outcome of the study is presented in terms of seismic design criteria and can be used for design of vital Civil Engineering structures.

Index Terms— Dams, Seismic Parameters, Seismic Sources, Peak Ground Acceleration, Probabilistic Approach, Recurrence Period, Probability of Exceedence. ——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION He potentially damaging phenomena associated with typically are ambiguous at best. The probabilistic T earthquakes, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and methodology quantifies the hazard at a site from all tsunami can be broadly described by a single term Seismic earthquakes of all possible magnitudes, at all significant hazard. To be more specific, seismic hazard can be described distances from the site of interest, as a probability by taking as the likelihood or probability, of experiencing a specified into account their frequency of occurrence. intensity of any damaging phenomenon at a particular site or The present paper therefore, is focused to estimate the a region, in the period of interest. The methodology for tremor ground motion hazard. In the study, Probabilistic assessing the probability of seismic perils grew out of an Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) has been used to assess Peak engineering need for better designs in the perspective of Ground Acceleration for major Dam sites of the state of structural reliability (Cornell 1968), since such evaluations are Chhattisgarh i.e. Ravishankar Sagar Dam, Sikaser Dam, frequently made, for the purpose of guiding decisions related Dudhawa Dam and Sondur Dam sites. Dams in Chhattisgarh to mitigating risk. However, the probabilistic method has also are constructed on various rivers which flow across the demonstrated the structured outline for the explicit different parts of state. These Dams are built in order to meet quantification of uncertainties involved, in the hazard the intake water requirements of nearby towns and also fulfill estimation process. Uncertainty is inherent in the evaluation of the irrigation purpose. Some of the Dams of Chhattisgarh are earthquake occurrence and the associated perils of destructive situated in the middle of a suitable and lush green natural ground motion, enduring ground displacements and in some setting, which attracts several tourists from different regions cases, seiche and tsunami. The probabilistic methodology of the country. reduces the need for such earthquake definitions, which 2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS [PSHA]  Ashish kumar Parashar,Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of IT, GGV, Central University, Bilaspur, C.G., India, PH-09425502572, E-mail: The PSHA process begins with the characterization of [email protected] earthquake occurrence, using historical sources of data as liner  Sohanlal Atmapoojya, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of faults and magnitudes. The occurrence information is

Engineering, K.I.T.S. Ramtek, Maharashtra, India, E-mail: combined with data on the communication of seismic shaking [email protected] 5590 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

(termed attenuation) to form the seismotectonic model. In Figure 1(b) Sikaser Dam Fault Map probabilistic seismic hazard analysis it is indispensable to identify the sources which produced hazard at sites and also 23 6.7 be acquainted with its characteristics. Objective of present 6.5 ;Amarkantak

4.8 Shear 3.5 Tan 4.3 Central 3.1 (C)LG

Shear Indian study is to find out peak ground accelerations of study area. Tan Shear 4.9 Maniari 6.0 Chilpi

Bilaspur Shear Piparia 4.8 This process involves collecting geological features of study 22 Raigrh 5.8 Balaghat 4.6 4.0 Tirodi Indian Katgi area such as faults lineaments and collection of previous F Sambalpur 5.3 Bhaili F F5Khairagarh F4 (B)GN Apt Central F7 F8 R F F F ;Raipur

Dongargarh F3 F Bhandara Durg Bundeli earthquake data from catalogue. In the present study, a F Nagpur Rajnandgaon F2 21 F6 Binka F9 Mahanadi R. 4.4 Sagara F1 catalogue of past earthquake was collected from United States Tulka

Kunjabangarh Geological Survey (USGS) web site and the previous 4.7

Chanda SONDUR DAM Latitude 20 earthquake sources were identified. Rushikulya R Sorada Gadapur

Pranhita R. Adaba

F-10 Indravati R. 5.5 2.1 Identification and Characterization of Sources Jagdalpur Sompeta

Vamsadhara Fault ; Koraput F-15 19 Parakimidi Nagavall R. 5.0 Godavari Valley F a u l t 3.0 F-13 Tekkali

Vamsadhara R.

Nagavali Fault 3.3 Parvatipuram- Bobbili Fault As elucidated in theoretical framework for probabilistic 4.7 3.1 3.2 3.0 F-12 Kanada Fault F-14 3.2 F-11 3.0 3.0 3.7 4.3 6.0 3.0 seismic hazard analysis the primary step is identification of all 3.4 6.0 4.0 3.0 Vizianagaram 5.3 3.3 Sileru R. 4.8 18 3.2 4.5 4.3 5.8 the earthquake sources that result in damaging ground Sabari R. motions at a site. In the present analyses, linear sources were Godavari R. 17 considered as major intraplate faults, which are describe in Seismotectonic Atlas of India known as SEISAT (2000), 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Longitude published by Geological Survey of India (GSI). For Ravishankar Sagar Dam 16 numbers, Sikaser Dam 17 Figure 1 (c) Dudhawa Dam Fault Map numbers, Dudhawa Dam15 numbers and Sondur Dam 15 numbers of linear faults have been identified within an area of

300 km radius, around the Dam site.

3.3 24 6.5 5.7 F2 4.5

F3 4.7 6.7 Fault Bamhni - Chilpa 4.0 4.6 Mahendragarh Jabalpur 3.7 6.7 23 Narmada R. 6.5 Amarkantak Shear Tan 4.8 4.8 Mandla (C)LG Central 3.5 Nainpur Shear Indian 4.3 3.1 Tan Shear Maniari 4.3 4.9 F 6.0 F6 Chilpi F7 Bilaspur 4.8 F4 Shear Piparia F 5.8 Raigrh

Balaghat 4.0 22 Gavilgarh Fault F Tirodi Indian 4.8 Katgi 5.3 F

F9 Sambalpur Bhaili F1 F Khairagarh (B)GN Apt Central Mahanadi R 4.6 F5 F8 F F Raipur

Dongargarh F Bhandara F12Durg Bundeli F Nagpur Rajnandgaon Binka

Baudh F10 F11 Mahanadi R. 4.4 21 Sagara Phulbani RAVISHANKAR SAGAR DAM 4.7

4.3 Dhormopur Latitude 4.8 Chanda

20 Gadapur Pranhita R. 5.5 3.0 Indravati R. F13 Jagdalpur

Vamsadhara Fault

Koraput Godavari Valley F a u l t 19 Nagavall R. 5.0 3.0 F16

Parvatipuram- Bobbili Fault 3.3 3.1 F15 3.2 F14 4.7 3.0 3.2 3.0 4.3 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.4 Sileru R. 3.4 6.0 4.0 3.0 5.3 4.8 5.0 3.3 4.5 18 4.3 5.8 3.2 Sabari R. 3.0 4.5 5.5 3.2 3.7 4.5 5.8 4.3 3.7 4.7 4.4 5.0 3.7 4.5 3.1 3.1 4.5 4.3 3.2 3.7 4.8 17 3.4 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Longitude Figure 1 (d) Sondur Dam Fault Map Figure 1(a) Ravishankar Sagar Dam Fault Map

5.7 24 6.5 3.3 The key faults are identified as Bamhni - Chilpa Fault (140 4.5 3.3 4.7 6.7 4.0 4.6 km), Gavilgarh Fault (182 km), Godavari Valley Fault (130km), 6.7 Ambikapur 23 F5 F 6.5 Parvatipuram- Bobbili Fault (121 km), Kanada Fault (32 km), Amarkantak 4.8 Shear Tan 3.1 3.5

(C)LG Central 4.3 F Konpura Shear Indian Tan Shear 4.9 Maniari 6.0 5.0 F 4.8 Nagavali Fault (46 km) and Vamsadhara Fault (51 km). Chilpi

Bilaspur Shear 5.8 Piparia F 22 Raigrh Bonaigrh 4.0 Balaghat F6 Tirodi Brahmani Fault Earthquake data collected from various agencies and available Katgi F F3 4.7 4.6 5.3 F Sambalpur F9 Bhaili F7 (B)GN Apt F Central F F11 Mahanadi R F2 F F F 3.9 Raipur Dongargarh Bhandara literature have been overlaied on the Auto-cad map along F Durg Nagpur Bundeli F4 4.1 Rajnandgaon

Binka F 4.3 21 Angul 4.4 Baudh F10 Mahanadi R. F8 Sagara Tulka Hindol F1 with all tectonic sources, which is shown in Figure 1(a), 1(b), 3.7

Phulbani

Kunjabangarh SIKASER DAM 4.7 Khandpara 1(c) & 1(d) respectively for major dams. The associated Dhormopur Latitude Chemeri

Doha R. 20 Chanda 3.0 Rushikulya R

Sorada

Gadapur

F12Pranhita R. moment magnitude for historical earthquake data were

Adaba

Chatrapur Berhampur 4.3 F 5.5 Indravati R. Iehohapuram Jagdalpur collected for major dams within the Latitude from 1700″ N - F15 Sompeta 19 Vamsadhara Fault Koraput F F Godavari Valley F a u l t F17Parakimidi 5.0 3.0 Nagavall R. Tekkali 2400″ E to Longitude from 7900″ N - 8500″E and are used 3.3 F16Nagavali Fault 3.1 Parvatipuram- Bobbili Fault Vamsadhara R. 3.2 4.3 F13 4.7 3.0 F F F Kanada Fault 3.2 3.0 3.0 Kumili Fault 3.7 6.0 3.0 3.4 6.0 4.0 3.0 F144.8 for completeness analysis. Once all likely sources are 5.3 3.3 Sileru R. 18 3.2 5.0 4.5 5.8 4.3 3.0 5.5 3.2 3.7 5.0 5.8 4.3 3.7 identified, the distribution of source-to-site distances and 4.4 5.0 4.5 3.1 4.5 3.1 4.3 3.2 4.8 17 3.4 magnitudes associated with tremors from each source can be

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 identified. The Appendix A and Appendix B indicates the Longitude 5591 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616 minimum map distances and weightage factor wi=Li/∑Li for all sources (Faults) for major Dam sites. The present study Figure 2 Recurrence Relationships for Major Dams of Chhattisgarh State confined to M ≥ 3 events, having a focal depth of 10 km (200 km or less, Rundle et al. 2018). The study does not require the Completeness can be described in terms of a magnitude removing of dependent events from the catalogue and range and study period, while the number of samples in a secondly, natural time statistics are independent of the catalogue, refers to the number of tremors in a specified background seismicity level, as long as the Gutenberg-Richter period of time T. The intense part consists of an extended time b value is approximately constant (Rundle et al. 2016). period where in order to relate only large historical events is consistently accessible. The entire part further represents the 2.2 Frequency-Magnitude Recurrence Relationship data, related to the current decades during which, information on both large and small size earthquakes is available. Seismic movement of an area, is typically characterized in terms of the Gutenberg–Richter frequency–magnitude TABLE 1 recurrence relationship, log (N) = a – b*M, where N stands for SEISMIC PARAMETER the number of tremors larger than or equal to a particular “B” VALUE FOR MAJOR DAMS SITES OF CHHATTISGARH STATE magnitude M and a & b are regional seismic parameters.

101 b Value From b Value a = 4.0131 b Value Log 10 (N) = 4.0131 – 0.7158 Mw b = 0.7158 Maximum Considered From Name of Dam Likelihood for the Stepp 0 Estimation, Utsu. Present 10 (1972) (1965) Study Ravishankar Sagar 0.3187 0.8500 0.8500 and Dudhawa 10-1 Sikaser 0.3168 0.7158 0.7158 Sondur 0.3388 0.8702 0.8702

-2 Log N (N =Cumulative (N of Log No. N events peryear ) 10 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 Thus the above stated methodology is suited to engineering Magnitude (Mw) requirements, as it can easily estimate such doubly truncated

Gutenberg–Richter relationship, with statistical errors in (a) Ravishankar Sagar Dam & Dudhawa Dam values of the magnitude that have occurred in the earlier period.

3 ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIPS Attenuation relationships are experimental descriptions, providing the median and standard deviation of different intensity measures of the strong ground motion, assumed to be log-normally distributed in terms of tremor size, distance, source mechanism and site conditions. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) at bedrock level is estimated using the attenuation equation of strong ground motion proposed by Iyengar and Raghu Kanth (2004) for Peninsular India. The attenuation equation is of the form: ln (PGA) = C1 + C2(M-6) + C3(M-6)2– ln(R) – C4R + ln є----- REGIONAL RECURRENCE(b) Sikaser RELATIONSHIP Dam FOR SONDUR DAM -----(1) where C1 = 1.6858; C2 = 0.9241; C3 = −0.0760; C4 = 0.0057 1 10 a= 4.8556 Log10( N)=4.8556– 0.8702Mw b= 0.8702 M, y, R and є refer to moment magnitude (obtained from 0 10 data collected) and the hypocentral distance in kM. The maximum magnitude (M) for each fault for all dams -1 10 (Appendix A & B) were evaluated by using methods of Well and Coppersmith (1994) and Gupta (2002). The hypocentral -2 10 distance R, may be evaluated as R = √ (D2+F2), where ‗D‘ is the F1 shortest distance from the site to the fault considered and ‗F‘ is -3 10 the focal depth and it is taken as 10 kM. The PGA values at bed rock level for key faults were calculated using attenuation -4 10 Log N (N =Cumulative (N of Log No. N events peryear) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 relationship given by Iyengar and Raghu Kanth, 2004 for Magnitude (Mw) Peninsular India and the Tables 2(i), (ii), (iii) depict PGA (c) Sondur Dam values for various recurrence periods (100Years, 500Years & 5592 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

1000Years respectively) for major dam sites of Chhattisgarh nucleating from each source, is determined through ground state. motion prediction equations. The uncertainties in tremor location, size, and the ground motion are combined to obtain the probability that, the value of the ground motion Peninsular Peninsular India India parameter will be exceeded in a particular time period. If the Hypocentral 100 years Name of Fault Fault Site Site site of interest is subjected to shaking from more than one site Distance Reccurance Dam No. Length PGA(g) PGA(g) (say Ns sites), then R in km M100 50 84 N S NNMR Percentile Percentile P[ Y  y *| , ] P [ M  ] P [ R  ] y*    i mm jrrkk j Ravishankar i1 j  1 k  1 F12 58 105.666 5.944 0.02655 0.04226 Sagar Sikaser F11 58 167.308 5.993 0.01235 0.01966 In the process of Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Dudhawa F6 58 128.376 6.003 0.02028 0.03228 (PSHA) the final outcome is represented as preparation of Sondur F5 58 162.469 5.996 0.01311 0.02087 seismic hazard curve for major dam sites. The Cumulative TABLE 2 (I) seismic hazard curve (Figure 3) for each Dam site was PGA VALUE FOR MAJOR DAMS OF CHHATTISGARH STATE FOR prepared taking into consideration, all the sources or faults RECURRENCE PERIOD OF 100 YEARS including the uncertainties of all distances and magnitudes. In the present study a MATLAB programme has been developed

to generate the above obtained curve for each Dam site, with Peninsular Peninsular their seismic parameters. India India Hypocentral 500 years Name of Fault Fault Site Site Distance Reccurance Dam No. Length PGA(g) PGA(g) R in km M500 50 84 Percentile Percentile Ravishankar F12 58 105.666 6.056 0.02944 0.04687 Sagar Sikaser F11 58 167.308 6.089 0.01349 0.02147 Dudhawa F6 58 128.376 6.095 0.02206 0.03512 Sondur F5 58 162.469 6.095 0.01436 0.02285 TABLE 2 (II) PGA VALUE FOR MAJOR DAMS OF CHHATTISGARH STATE FOR RECURRENCE PERIOD OF 500 YEARS

Peninsular Peninsular

India India Hypocentral 1000 years Name of Fault Fault Site Site Figure 3 Seismic Hazard Curve for Major Dams of Chhattisgarh State Distance Reccurance Dam No. Length PGA(g) PGA(g) R in km M1000 50 84 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Percentile Percentile In the present research, the seismic hazard analysis was Ravishankar carried out for the establishment of PGA values at substratum F12 58 105.666 6.250 0.03507 0.05582 Sagar level for Major Dam Sites. Table 3 shows the obtained ―b‖ Sikaser F11 58 167.308 6.260 0.01572 0.02503 values for Major Dam sites as 0.8500, 0.7158, 0.8500 & 0.8702 Dudhawa F6 58 128.376 6.260 0.02558 0.04072 respectively depicting the Regional Recurrence Relationship. Sondur F5 58 162.469 6.257 0.01661 0.02643 The Values of P.G.A. for M100, M500 & M1000 Earthquakes have TABLE 2 (III) been shown in Table 2(i), (ii), (iii). The Maximum value of PGA VALUE FOR MAJOR DAMS OF CHHATTISGARH STATE FOR Peak Ground Acceleration (P.G.A.) for recurrence period of RECURRENCE PERIOD OF 1000 100 years, for Ravishankar Sagar Dam site was found to be due to the fault No. 12 (Fault length 58 kM, Min. Map 4 SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE Distance 105.192 kM) which was found out as 0.02655g, for 50 The distributions are collective with the source geometry, percentile and 0.04226g, for 84 percentile. On the other hand to achieve the probability distribution of source-to-site the Maximum values of Peak Ground Accelerations (P.G.A.) distance. Recurrence relationships are used to characterize the for same recurrence period for Sikaser, Dudhawa and Sondur source seismicity. The ground motion at the site, along with its Dam Sites were found to be due to fault No. 11 (Fault length inherent uncertainty, due to tremors of possible magnitudes 58 kM, Min. Map Distance 167.008 kM) which came out to be equal to 0.01235g for 50 percentile and 0.01966g for 84 5593 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

percentile, for fault No. 6 (Fault length 58 kM, Min. Map American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett., 68, pp. Distance 127.985 kM) which came out to be equal to 0.02028g 128–153 for 50 percentile and 0.03228g for 84 percentile & for fault No. [8] Campbell, K W., (1997). Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for 5 (Fault length 58 kM, Min. Map Distance 162.160 kM) which horizontal and vertical c.omponents of peak ground acceleration, peak came out to be equal to 0.01311g for 50 percentile and ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol 0.02087g for 84 percentile respectively. The Maximum value Res Lett., 68, pp. 154–179 of Peak Ground Acceleration (P.G.A.) for recurrence period [9] Chandra, U., 1997. Earthquakes of peninsular India- A seismotectonic study. of 1000 years, for Ravishankar Sagar Dam site, was found to Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 67(5), pp. 1387-1413 be due to the fault No. 12, which was obtained as 0.03507g, [10] Cornell, C.A., 1968. Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis. Bulletin of the for 50 percentile and 0.05508g, for 84 percentile. On the other Seismological Society of America, 58(5), pp. 1583–1606 hand the Maximum values of Peak Ground Accelerations [11] Das, S., Gupta, I. D., Gupta, V. K., (2006). A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard (P.G.A.) for same recurrence period for Sikaser, Dudhawa Analysis of Northeast India. Earthquake Spectra, 22, pp. 1-27 and Sondur Dam Sites were found to be due to fault No. 11, [12] Gupta, I. D., (2002a). State of the art in seismic hazard analysis, ISET Jour. which came out to be equal to 0.01572g for 50 percentile and Earthq. Eng.,39(4), pp. 311-346. 0.02503g for 84 percentile, for fault No. 6, which came out to [13] Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F., (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in be equal to 0.02558g for 50 percentile and 0.04072g for 84 California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Volume 34, pp. 185-188.

percentile & for fault No. 5, which came out to be equal to [14] Holliday, J. R., Graves, W. R., Rundle, J. B., Turcotte, D.,( 2016). Computing earthquake probabilities on global scales. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173, 0.01661g for 50 percentile and 0.02643g for 84 percentile 739–748 respectively. Minimum Map Distances, length of fault and [15] Indian Standard 1893 (Part I) (2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design maximum magnitude, plays vital role in the estimation of of Structures Part-1: General Provisions and Buildings, Fifth revision, Bureau seismic hazard for Major Dam Sites. The PGA at Dam site of Indian Standards, New Delhi. corresponding to 2 %, probability of exceedence in life span [16] Iyenger, R. N., Raghukanth, S.T.G., (2004). Attenuation of strong ground of 50 years with a return period of 2475 years for Ravishankar motion in Peninsular India. Seismological Research Letters, 75, pp. 530-540 Sagar Dam is 0.0096g, for Dudhawa Dam is 0.0092g, for [17] Iyenger, R.N., Ghosh, S., (2004). Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Sikaser Dam is 0.0075g and for Sondur Dam is 0.0060g as greater Delhi area.Current Science, 87, pp. 1193-1202 estimated from the study. [18] Iyengar R. N., Raghu Kanth S. T. G., (2006). Seismic Hazard Estimation for Mumbai city. Current Science, 91 (10), pp. 1486-1494 6 CONCLUSIONS [19] Liang, W. T., Lee, J. C., Chen, K. H., Hsiao, N. C.,( 2017). Citizen earthquake The PGA values at bed rock level for major dams of science in Taiwan: from science to hazard mitigation. Journal of Disaster Chhattisgarh state were found to be very low, than the Advances, 12(6), pp. 1174–1181 recommended value 0.1g for Zone II by IS 1893 Part (I)-2016, [20] Luginbuhl, M., Rundle, J. B., Hawkins, A., Turcotte, D. L.,( 2018a). which indicates low seismicity for the region. So the present Nowcasting earthquakes: a comparison of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma study recommends that the major Dams of Chhattisgarh are and at the Geysers, California. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175, pp. 49–65 located in very low seismic region and the fault having the length [21] Kaila, K.L., Gaur, V.K. Narain Hari., (1972). Quantitative seismicity maps of 58 km is the key fault which governs the seismic activity around India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 62, pp.1119–1131 the dam sites. So the IS -1893-Part (I) -2016 Recommendation is [22] Khattri, K. N., (1992). Seismic Hazard in Indian Region. Current Science, 62, verified. pp. 109-116 [23] Kijko, A. and Sellevoll, M. A., (1989). Estimation of earthquake hazard REFERENCES parameters from incomplete data files Part I. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79, pp. 645–654 [1] Anbazhagan, P., Vinod, J. S., Sitharam, T. G., (2008). Probabilistic Seismic [24] Parashar, Ashish K., Atmapoojya S., Rathore S.S., (2015). Seismic Hazard Hazard Analysis for Bangalore. Nat. Hazards, 8, 145–166 Analysis of Sondur Dam Site of Chhattisgarh State. European Scientific [2] Anbazhagan, P., Sitharam T. G., (2008). Seismic Microzonation of Bangalore, Journal,11(6), pp. 128-130 India. Journal of Earth Systems Science, 117(S2), 833–852 [25] Peterson, M. D., Rastogi, B. K., Schweig, G.E.S., Harmsen, S.C. Gomberg J.S., [3] Abrahamson, N. A., Silva W J., (1999). Empirical response spectral (2004). Sensitivity analysis of seismic hazard for the north western portion of attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett. , 68, the state of Gujarat, India. Technophysics, 390, pp. 105-115 94–127 [26] Rao, B. R. and Rao, P. S. (1984). Historical seismicity of Peninsular India. [4] Anbazhagan, P., Bajaj, K. and Patel, S.,( 2015). Seismic hazard maps and Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74, PP. 2519–2533 spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters, [27] Raghu Kanth S T G, Iyengar R N., (2007). Estimation of seismic spectral Nat. Hazards.,78, 1163–1195 acceleration in peninsular India. Journal of Earth System Science, 3, pp. 199- [5] Akkar, S., Bommer J. J., (2010). Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, 214 PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the [28] Rundle, J. B., Turcotte, D. L., Donnellan, A., Grant-Ludwig, L., Luginbuhl, Middle East. Seismological Research Letters, 81, pp. 195–206 M.,Gong, G., (2016). Nowcasting earthquakes. Earth and Space Science, 3, pp. [6] Bilham, R., (2004). Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: Tectonics, 480–486 Geodesy and History. Annals of Geophysics, 47, pp. 839-858 [29] Rundle, J. B., Luginbuhl, M., Giguere, A., Turcotte, D. L., (2018). Natural time, [7] Boore D M, Joyner W B, Fumal T E. (1997). Equations from estimating now casting and the physics of earthquakes: estimation of seismic risk to horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North global megacities. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175, pp. 647–660 5594 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 03, MARCH 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

APPENDIX - B FAULTS CONSIDERED FOR HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR DUDHAWA DAM APPENDIX AND SONDUR DAM

M M Mmax from Mmax Mmax from Mmax Fault Min. Map Considered Fault Min. Map Considere Length Weightage Well and from Length Weightage Well and from no. Distance for the no. Distance d for the Li (kM) wi=Li/∑Li Coppersmith Gupta Li (kM) wi=Li/∑Li Coppersmith Gupta D (kM) present D(kM) present (1994) (2002) (1994) (2002) study study (i) Ravishankar Sagar Dam (i) Dudhawa Dam F1 75 278.906 0.0508 4.9 5.1 5.1 F1 26 289.756 0.0220 4.1 5.1 5.1 F2 140 299.408 0.0948 5.4 5.0 5.4 F2 75 271.966 0.0634 4.9 5.1 5.1 F3 76 283.687 0.0515 4.9 7.2 7.2 F3 38 297.007 0.0321 4.4 5.4 5.4 F4 38 274.201 0.0258 4.4 5.4 5.4 F4 91 271.613 0.0769 5.1 6.3 6.3 F5 182 279.291 0.1233 5.6 5.4 5.6 F5 70 240.306 0.0592 4.9 6.3 6.3 F6 91 248.882 0.0617 5.1 6.3 6.3 F6 58 127.985 0.0490 4.8 6.3 6.3 F7 70 204.673 0.0474 4.9 6.3 6.3 F7 25 166.533 0.0211 4.1 4.4 4.4 F8 70 215.324 0.0474 4.9 4.4 4.9 F8 45 180.596 0.0380 4.6 4.4 4.6 F9 45 158.914 0.0305 4.6 4.4 4.6 F9 70 237.523 0.0592 4.9 4.4 4.9 F10 125 198.782 0.0847 5.3 4.4 5.3 F10 125 220.980 0.1057 5.3 4.4 5.3 F11 25 144.519 0.0170 4.1 4.4 4.4 F11 180 237.443 0.1522 5.6 5.5 5.6 F12 58 105.192 0.0393 4.8 6.3 6.3 F12 130 236.667 0.1099 5.4 6.5 6.5 F13 180 229.955 0.1219 5.6 5.5 5.6 F13 32 287.825 0.0270 4.3 5.3 5.3 F14 130 237.646 0.0881 5.4 6.5 6.5 F14 121 218.039 0.1023 5.3 5.3 5.3 F15 121 240.748 0.0820 5.3 5.3 5.3 F15 46 283.577 0.0389 4.6 4.2 4.6 F16 51 278.520 0.0346 4.7 4.8 4.8 F16 51 255.875 0.0431 4.7 4.8 4.8 (ii) Sikaser Dam (ii) Sondur Dam F1 75 248.956 0.0595 4.9 4.9 4.9 F1 75 279.465 0.0656 4.9 4.8 4.9 F2 86 257.871 0.0682 5.0 4.6 5.0 F2 26 263.770 0.0228 4.1 5.1 5.1 F3 75 212.912 0.0595 4.9 5.1 5.1 F3 86 290.847 0.0752 5.0 4.6 5.0 F4 26 228.984 0.0207 4.1 5.1 5.1 F4 75 250.861 0.0656 4.9 5.1 5.1 F5 46 291.114 0.0365 4.6 4.8 4.8 F5 58 162.160 0.0507 4.8 6.3 6.3 F6 70 244.156 0.0556 4.9 6.3 6.3 F6 25 202.200 0.0219 4.1 4.4 4.4 F7 70 280.856 0.0556 4.9 4.4 4.9 F7 45 216.506 0.0394 4.6 4.4 4.6 F8 85 268.574 0.0992 5.3 4.4 5.3 F8 70 273.069 0.0612 4.9 4.4 4.9 F9 45 227.579 0.0357 4.6 4.4 4.6 F9 125 256.950 0.1092 5.3 4.4 5.3 F10 25 208.312 0.0199 4.1 4.4 4.4 F10 180 254.290 0.1573 5.6 5.5 5.6 F11 58 167.008 0.0460 4.8 6.3 6.3 F11 130 253.430 0.1136 5.4 6.5 6.5 F12 180 292.891 0.1428 5.6 5.5 5.6 F12 32 258.602 0.0280 4.3 5.3 5.3 F13 130 292.011 0.1031 5.4 6.5 6.5 F13 121 184.020 0.1057 5.3 5.3 5.3 F14 32 275.598 0.0254 4.3 5.3 5.3 F14 46 251.030 0.0402 4.6 4.2 4.6 F15 121 191.273 0.0960 5.3 5.3 5.3 F15 51 221.462 0.0446 4.7 4.8 4.8 F16 46 261.211 0.0365 4.6 4.2 4.6 F17 51 226.484 0.0405 4.7 4.8 4.8 APPENDIX - A FAULTS CONSIDERED FOR HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR RAVISHANKAR SAGAR AND SIKASER DAM

5595 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org