International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Earthquake Hazard Assessment for Dudhawa Dam of State ()

Ashish Kumar Parashar 1, Sohanlal Atmapoojya2 1Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology,GGV (Central University) Bilaspur, India E-mail: [email protected] 2Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K.I.T.S. Ramtek, Maharashtra, India,

Abstract Earthquakes are caused by the sudden release of strain that has accumulated over time and are the most vicious natural hazards in the world, which manifest themselves in the form of vibrations of the earth. Recent years have witnessed an augment in awareness about earthquake and their sources and mitigations. Seismic Hazard analysis is a method of quantifying the area in terms of topographical and seismological data. The completeness of the data should be checked before carrying out the hazard analysis. For the present study a detailed catalogue of historical and recent seismicity within 300 km radius has been referred and liner sources were identified in and around the dam site. Earthquake data was analyzed statistically and the seismicity parameters, ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the region around Dudhawa Dam site of Chhattisgarh, India, has been evaluated. The outcomes are presented in the form of PGA using both deterministic seismic hazard analysis and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with the estimation of % probability, for the probability of exceedance as 0.005g,0.01g &0.02g for a life span of 100 years.

Keywords: Seismic inputs, Seismic hazard, DSHA, Peak Ground Acceleration, PSHA, Return Period.

1. Introduction

Earthquakes, through their devastating effects - due to ground motion, earth faulting, tectonic deformation, soil liquefaction, landslides - are grave problem as faced by the modern society. Seismic hazard problem becomes more severe in recent years due to the fact that vulnerability is increasing, by the increase in urbanization and industrialization. The impact of the strong earthquakes occurred recently in different regions of the globe, draws attention to the necessity of taking urgent measures to reduce casualties and economic damages. An important tool to increase preparedness for earthquakes and to improve disaster prevention policies in densely populated areas is the seismic damage scenarios approach, including loss estimation. The occurrence of earthquakes in India is mainly observed, in the plate boundary of the Himalayan region as well as in the intra plate region of Peninsular India (P I). Devastating events have occurred in P I in the recent past, which must be considered as a severe warning about the possibility of such earthquakes in the near future. Particularly, in the case of dam sites, earthquake analysis is most important because, these are sensitive structures and any failure due to earthquake may cause havoc. Engineers design earthquake resistant structures, to mitigate the consequences of earthquake disasters, and educate new generations of experts in earthquake engineering by combining different physical, geophysical, and engineering sciences to serve our society. To evaluate the seismic hazards for a particular site or region, all possible sources of seismic activity must be identified and their potential for generating future strong ground motion needs to be evaluated. Identification of seismic sources require some detective work, nature’s clues, some of which are obvious and others quite obscure, that must be observed and interpreted. Seismic Hazard Analysis involves the quantitative estimation of ground-shaking hazards at a particular site. In the present study Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA) has been used to asses Peak Ground Acceleration for a major dam site of the state of Chhattisgarh, i.e. Dudhawa Dam Site (20 ° 19 ′ 23 ″ N - 81 ° 45 ′32 ″ E).

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1924 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Dudhawa dam is located in of Chhattisgarh in India. The construction of the dam began in 1953 and finished in 1964. It is built across the River in the village of Dudhawa, 21 km from Sihawa and 29 km from Kanker. The height of the dam is 24.53 m and the length 2,906.43 m. The reservoir has a catchment area of 625.27 km2 and it comes under Seismic Zone II.

2. Earthquake History of Study Area Chhattisgarh has very low rates of seismic activity but in the recent years, tremors from earthquakes in neighbouring states have been felt. Minor seismic activity has been recorded in the vicinity of Chiraikund and Muirpur along the border with . A few faults which form the eastern section of the Narmada-Son Fault Zone have shown movement during the Holocene epoch. Another active fault is the Tatapani Fault which trends in an east-west direction in the vicinity of Manpura in Sarguja district. In the south, the Godavari fault, which forms the northern flank of the Godavari Graben, run through the southern part of the state and is also active. The following list briefly outlines known earthquakes in this region which either had observed intensities of V or higher (historical events) or had known magnitudes of M 4.5.

3.3 5.7 24 6.5 4.5 5.0 4.7 6.7 4.0 4.6 3.7 6.7

Narmada R. 23 6.5 4.8 4.8 ;Amarkantak 3.1 3.5 Mandla 4.3 4.3 4.9 Nainpur Maniari 6.0 F 4.8 F4 Chilpi Bilaspur

F F3 5.8 Piparia F F5 22 Raigarh 4.0 4.8 Balaghat Katgi F F6 F2 4.6 5.3 R i Sambalpur d a F8 n Khair agarh a F F h a F9 M F F 3.9 F Raipur Dongargarh Bhandara Durg Bundeli Nagpur F Rajnandgaon F1 Binka

F10 Baudh 21 F7 Mahanadi R. 4.4 Sagara 3.7 Phulbani

4.3 4.7

4.8 DUDHAWA DAM Doha R. Chanda F Latitude 20 3.9 R us h i Sorada ku l y a R

P r an h ita R . Adaba

3.0 F11 Indravati R. 5.5

Jagdalpur F16 F F

Sompeta

V a m s a d Koraput h a 19 r F14 a G Parakimidi o F d a a u v N . a lt 3.0 a R 5.0 r g i a v a

a r l l a 3.3 V R a . l h le d y F a s Tekkali

F m a 3.3 a u V l t

N a g 3.1 P a a v r a 4.7 v li a F t i a p u u l t F r a 3.2 m F15 - 3.0 F F12 B o K b K 4.3 a b u n i 3.7 l 3.2 m a i d il F i a a

3.0 F F u a a l u u t l 3.4 6.0 3.0 F13 t lt 3.0 3.0 Vizianagaram 4.0 . 3.4 6.0 R 5.8 u 4.8 r il e 5.3 3.3 S 18 3.2 5.0 4.5 4.3 3.0

. R i r 4.5 a b 3.7 a 5.5 3.2 S 4.3 4.5 5.8 4.4 3.7 4.7 4.5 3.7 4.5 3.1 3.1 3.4 4.3 3.2 3.7 4.8 17 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Longitude

Fig. 1 Seismotectonic Map of Dudhawa Dam Site and Surroundings

In the present study Dudhawa Dam Site was selected as the target. The fault map was structured from Seismotectonics Atlas of India. A control region of radius 300 km around the Dam Site, having centre at 20 ° 19 ′ 23 ″ N - 81 ° 45 ′32 ″ E, was considered for further investigation. The fault map of this circular region Fig. 2 reflects that in recent years, seismic activity appears to be concentrated along Godavari Valley Fault (130 km). A total of fifteen major faults, are seen to influence seismic hazard at Dudhawa Dam Site. Fault details are tabulated in Table 1. After going through various available literatures and sources such as (USGS, NIC), 96 Nos. of earthquakes in the magnitude ranges 3< Mw <6.7 for Dudhawa Dam Site, occurring over the period from 1827 to 2012 were identified for the present study.

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1925 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 1 Dudhawa Dam Site Faults Considered for Hazard Analysis Min. Map Hypo Central Weightage Fault no. Length, L i Focal Depth Distance Distance, R Wi=Li/ ∑Li (km) (km) (km) (km) F1 26 289.756 10 289.929 0.0220 F2 75 271.966 10 272.150 0.0634 F3 38 297.007 10 297.176 0.0321 F4 91 271.613 10 271.798 0.0769 F5 70 240.306 10 240.514 0.0592 F6 58 127.985 10 128.376 0.0490 F7 25 166.533 10 166.833 0.0211 F8 45 180.596 10 180.873 0.0380 F9 70 237.523 10 237.734 0.0592 F10 125 220.980 10 221.207 0.1057 F11 180 237.443 10 237.654 0.1522 F12 130 236.667 10 236.879 0.1099 F13 32 287.825 10 287.999 0.0270 F14 121 218.039 10 218.269 0.1023 F15 46 283.577 10 283.754 0.0389 F16 51 255.875 10 256.071 0.0431

2.1 Catalogue Completeness

In 1972, Steep proposed a method based on the length of the period , over which a particular magnitude is complete. In this method, catalogues are grouped into several magnitude ranges and each magnitude range is considered as a point process in time. The magnitude of completeness is the lowest magnitude above which the earthquake recording is assumed to be complete (Rydelek and Sacks 1989). As a first step for the evaluation of the completeness period, the number of earthquakes reported during each decade for the given magnitude ranges were evaluated. The plot showing the variation of σλ with time is given in Fig.3. The earthquake data is considered as complete as long as its variation is along the 1/√ T line.

1 10 1/Sqrt T N1(3.0-3.9) N2(4.0-4.9) 0 10 N3(5.0-5.9) N4(6.0-6.9)

1/Sqrt T -1 10

40 Years 80 Years

-2 10 120 Years

Sigma(Standard Deviation) Sigma(Standard 140 Years -3 10

-4

10 1 2 3 10 10 10 Time ( Years) Fig. 2 Catalogue Completeness Analysis using Steep (1972)

The plotted points are assumed to have a straight line following a slope as long as the data becomes complete. From Fig.3, it is clear that the magnitude range 3.0–3.9 is complete for 40 years, 4.0–4.9 is complete for 60 years, 5.0–5.9 is complete for 90 years and 6.0–6.9 is complete for 120 years. The completeness period based on Stee p’s (1972) method was presented in tabular form (Table 2).

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1926 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 2 Activity Rate and Interval of Completeness for Dudhawa Dam Site Complete Magnitude No of No. of Events per in interval Mw Events ≥ M w year ≥ M w (year) 3 107 40 2.675 4 64 80 0.800 5 21 120 0.175 6 7 140 0.050

2.2 Frequency-Magnitude Recurrence Relationship

Seismic activity of a region, is usually characterized in terms of the Gutenberg–Richter frequency– magnitude recurrence relationship log10 (N) = a – b*M, where N stands for the number of earthquakes greater than or equal to a particular magnitude M. Parameters (a, b) characterize the seismicity of the region. An important step in the processing of an earthquake catalogue, is the definition of the time window in which the catalogue is complete. Catalogue incompleteness exists because, for historical earthquakes the recorded seismicity differs from the “true” seismicity. Since the number of samples in a catalogue refers to the number of earthquakes in a given period of time T, completeness can be characterized in terms of a magnitude range and observation interval. The extreme part consists of a long time period, where information related to only large historical events is consistently available. The complete part further represents the data related to the recent decades during which information on both large and small magnitude earthquakes is available. As it is very clear that, in hazard analysis one would not be interested in events below a threshold level, say m 0 = 3. Again, there will be an upper limit on the potential of a fault, but it may be difficult to know the actual precision of the faults from the catalogues. Thus the above stated method, suited to engineering requirements, which can easily estimate such doubly truncated Gutenberg–Richter relationship with statistical errors in values of the magnitude that have occurred in the past. Dudhawa Dam Log 10 (N) = 4.750 – 0.8500Mw ………(1)

1 10 a= 4.7500 b= 0.8500 Log10 N=4.7500- 0.8500 Mw

0 10

-1 10

-2 10

Log N (N =Cumulative No. of events per year ) year per events of No. =Cumulative (N N Log -3 10 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Magnitude (Mw)

Fig. 3 Frequency-Magnitude Relationship

2.3 Estimation of Maximum Magnitude

In seismic hazard analysis, the knowledge of estimating the maximum magnitude is important and used as one of the key input parameters in the seismic design. It indicates the highest potential of accumulated strain energy to be released in the region or a seismic source/fault. Alternatively, the M max is an upper limit or the largest possible earthquake that may produce the highest seismic hazard scenarios of the region. However, in the study region, very limited amount of data is available for the last few decades (based on the instrumental recorded data, since 1964), which do not sufficiently reveal the full seismic potential characteristics of any seismic source/fault with confidence. Further, there is no well known or well defined methodology available for evaluation of maximum magnitude.

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1927 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Some of the methods have been proposed by various researchers such as Kijko and Sellevol (1989), Wells and Coppersmith (1994), Gupta (2002), and Mueller (2010). In the present work, M max is estimated considering three approaches. These are Kijko and Sellevol (1989) method, by adding incremental values (Gupta 2002) and using fault rupture relationship (Wells and Coppersmith 1994).

Method-A (Wells and Coppersmith-1994):To determine the maximum magnitude of a fault or source, Wells and Coppersmith (1994) proposed some empirical equations based on the subsurface fault rupture characteristics such as length, area and slip rate of the fault with the moment magnitude. These empirical equations were developed by standard statistical regression using a global database of the events. These relations are given based on tectonic regime characteristics such as strike-slip, reverse, and normal faulting and also the average relation for all slip types are developed to be appropriate for most application in general (if the fault type is unknown). In this work, the length of faults was estimated from the seismotectonic atlas (SEISAT-2000) of India published by GSI (Geological Survey of India) and some of the faults were extracted from the literature. All these faults/lineaments were digitized using Mapinfo software version10 and the length of the respective faults evaluated. The relation proposed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) , to estimate expected moment magnitude of a linear fault is given below:

Log (SRL) = 0.57Mw − 2.33------(2)

The relation between Mw and surface rupture length (SRL) was developed using reliable source parameters and this is applicable for all types of faults, shallow earthquakes, and interplate or intraplate earthquakes (Wells and Coppersmith 1994). Using this equation along with a parametric study, it is observed that the subsurface fault rupture length of about 3.8% of the total fault length provides moment magnitude values, closely matching those of the past earthquakes. The estimation procedure is presented in tabular form in Table 3.

Method-B (Gupta -2002): This method has been proposed by Gupta (2002) after adding an incremental unit. In this method to estimate Mmax , an increment of 0.5 is added to the observed maximum magnitude. This approach is simple and provides unarguable lower limit for Mmax (Wheeler 2009). This incremental technique has been used by various researchers to estimate the seismic hazard in India (Jaiswal and Sinha 2007a, b, 2008; Menon et al. 2010; NDMA 2010; Roshan and Basu 2010; Boominathan 2011; Sitharam and Vipin 2011; Kolathayar and Sitharam 2012).

Table 3 Activity Estimation of Maximum Magnitude for Faults/Lineaments for Dudhawa Dam Method A Mw Fault Length (Well and Coppersmith Method –B M Considered Observed max no. , L i 1994) M by for the present in the max (kM) SRL 3.8% of Total M Incremental study (M) Fault max Fault Length (km) Value F1 26 4.6 1.0 4.1 5.1 5.1 F2 75 4.6 2.9 4.9 5.1 5.1 F3 38 4.9 1.5 4.4 5.4 5.4 F4 91 5.8 3.5 5.1 6.3 6.3 F5 70 5.8 2.3 4.9 6.3 6.3 F6 58 5.8 1.0 4.8 6.3 6.3 F7 25 3.9 1.8 4.1 4.4 4.4 F8 45 3.9 2.7 4.6 4.4 4.6 F9 70 3.9 4.8 4.9 4.4 4.9 F10 125 3.9 6.9 5.3 4.4 5.3 F11 180 5.0 5.0 5.6 5.5 5.6 F12 130 6.0 1.3 5.4 6.5 6.5 F13 32 4.8 4.6 4.3 5.3 5.3 F14 121 4.8 1.8 5.3 5.3 5.3 F15 46 3.7 2.0 4.6 4.2 4.6 F16 51 4.3 1.0 4.7 4.8 4.8

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1928 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

2.5 Deaggregation of Regional Hazards

The Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DHSA) was carried out for Dudhawa Dam Site. The seismic events and seismotectonic sources (15 Faults) from the newly developed seismotectonic model for the region, 300 km around the Dudhawa Dam Site are taken into consideration. The maximum possible earthquake magnitude for each of the seismic sources within the area was then estimated. Shortest distance to each source and site of interest was evaluated and taken as major input for performing DHSA. In the present investigation truncated exponential recurrence model developed by Mcguire and Arabasz (1990) was used and is given by following expression;

------(1)

where (α-β*m0), α=2.303*a, β=2.303*b and w i = Li/∑Li is the weightage factor for a particular source. for a particular source based on recurrence. The threshold value having a magnitude is equal to 3.0 was adopted in the study.

2 10 Number in the Figure is Indicating Fault Number 0 10

-2 10 F15 F16 F3 F4 F9 F1 F11 -4 F7 F8 10 F13 F6 F16 F2 F10 F12 F5 F14

Annual Rate ofEvents Annual of Magnitude>=M -6 10 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 Magnitude (M) Fig. 4 Deaggregation of Seismic Sources near Dudhawa Dam

2.6 Ground Motion Attenuation and Estimation of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

For the present study attenuation relationship suggested by R N Iyengar & S T G Raghukant, (Applicable for peninsular India, under bed rock condition) has been used.

In (PGA/g) = C1+C2 (m-6) +C3 (m-6) 2-ln(R)-C4(R) +ln ε------(2)

Where, C1= 1.6858, C2= 0.9241, C3= 0.0760, C4= 0.0057, R= Hypo central distance, m= magnitude, ln ε = 0(for DSHA) 50 Percentile, ln ε = 0.4648(for DSHA) 84 Percentile

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1929 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 4 Deterministic PGA Values for Dudhawa Dam Hypo Reccurance Fault Length, Fault Central period is PGA Values (g) no. L i Name Distance 100 years (km) 50 84 R ( km) (M100 ) Percentile Percentile F1 26 --- 289.929 5.0182 0.00134 0.00213 F2 75 --- 272.150 5.0680 0.00166 0.00265 F3 38 --- 297.176 5.3020 0.00169 0.00269 F4 91 --- 271.798 6.0820 0.00455 0.00724 F5 70 --- 240.514 6.0360 0.00589 0.00937 F6 58 --- 128.376 5.9960 0.02015 0.03207 F7 25 --- 166.833 4.3790 0.00229 0.00364 F8 45 --- 180.873 4.5810 0.00246 0.00392 F9 70 --- 237.734 4.8790 0.00189 0.00301 F10 125 --- 221.207 5.2750 0.00340 0.00541 F11 180 --- 237.654 5.5660 0.00387 0.00616 Godavari F12 130 236.879 6.2830 0.00762 0.01213 Valley Fault F13 32 Kanada Fault 287.999 5.2060 0.00166 0.00264 Parvatipuram- F14 121 218.269 5.2720 0.00349 0.00556 Bobbili Fault Nagavali F15 46 283.754 4.5820 0.00087 0.00139 Fault Vamsadhara F16 51 256.071 4.7770 0.00141 0.00225 Fault

3. PSHA Methodology

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) incorporates uncertainty and the probability of earthquake occurrences delivering the hazard in probability of exceedance for a specified return period (Cornell, 1968; Reiter, 1990).

Fig. 5 Steps for PSHA (Reiter, 1990)

The conventionally followed steps in the PSHA are depicted in Fig. 5. Probability distributions are determined for the magnitude of each earthquake on each source and the location of the earthquake , in or along each source. The distributions are combined with the source geometry to obtain the probability distribution of source-to-site distance. Recurrence relationships are used to characterize the source seismicity. The ground motion at the site, along with its inherent uncertainty, due to earthquakes of possible magnitudes nucleating from each source is determined through ground motion prediction equations.

3.1 Seismic Hazard Curve

The uncertainties in earthquake location, size, and the ground motion are combined to obtain the probability that the value of the ground motion parameter will be exceeded in a particular time period. If the site of interest is subjected to shaking from more than one site (say Ns sites), then

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1930 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

N s λ= ν PY[ > y *|,] mr () m () rdmdr y*  i  fMi f Ri i=1

NS NM N R =PYy[ > *|,][ PM == ][ PR ] λy*    ν i m jrk m j r k i=1 j = 1 k = 1

Final PSHA Equation is given by

NS N M N R =PYy[ > *|,][ PM == ][ PR ] λy*    ν i m jrk m j r k i=1 j = 1 k = 1 0 10 Number in the 0 Figure is Indicating 10 F1 -1 Fault Number 10 -1 F2 10

-2 F3 -2 10 10

F4 Cumulative -3 -3 10 10 F5 -4 F11 10 -4 Cumulative 10 F7 -5 F9 F12 10 Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance of Rate Annual Mean -5 F6 Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance of Rate Annual Mean -6 10 F16 F14 F8 10 F10 F13 F15 -7 -6 10 10 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 PGA (g) PGA (g)

(a) Hazard Curve (b) Cumulative Hazard Curve Fig. 6 Hazard Curve and Cumulative Hazard Curve for Dudhawa Dam

3.1 Exceedance Probability for various Return Periods

The occurrence of earthquake is generally described by Pisson’s model which means that earthquake occur randomly with no memory of time, size or location of previous earthquakes. In Pisson’s model the number of occurrences (N) of an event during a given time interval is given as: P[N=n] = μne-μ /n! Where μ is the average rate of occurrence of the event in that time interval. For PSHA purpose, it is expressed as: P[N=n] = λtne-λt /n! Where λ is the mean rate of occurrence of the event and t is the time period of interest. On the basis of Pissons model for ground motion occurrences (McGuire, 2004), the probability of occurrence of an event P, is related to annual frequency of exceedence of ground motion (PGA) and the exposure time T has given by P[Y> y*] =1 - e-λT

λy* = - ln ( 1-([Y> y*]) / T Cumulative Hazard Curve for Dudhawa Dam was used to estimate , probability of exceedance in % for a given life span of 100 Years and it is tabulated below in Table 5.

Table 5. Probability of Exceedance for 100 Years of Return Period Mean Annual Rate of Probability in PGA(g) Exceedance (λ) % 0.005 [P(0.005> y*)] 0.003709 0 30.99 0.01 0 [P(0.01> y*)] 0.0006934 6.70 0.02 0 [P(0.02> y*)] 0.0001014 1.01

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1931 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

4. RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS

An attempt has also been made to evaluate the seismic hazard in terms of PGA at bed rock level. The Regional Recurrence Relationship obtained for Dudhawa Dam Site as depicted in Equation (1) shows the obtained “b” value as 0.8500. The Values of P.G.A. for M 100 Earthquakes have been shown in Table No.3., for different fault lengths. The Maximum value of Peak Ground Acceleration (P.G.A.) for recurrence period of 100 years for Dudhawa Dam Site was found to be due to the fault No. 5 (Fault length 58 km, Min. Map Distance 127.985 km) which came out to be equal to 0.02015g for 50 Percentile and 0.03207g for 84 Percentile. The PGA at dam site corresponding to the probability of exceedence for 0.005g in life span of 100 years is 30.99%. For the probability of exceedence for 0.010g & 0.020g for same life span is 6.70% and 1.01% respectively. The study results outlined in this paper can be directly implemented for designing of earthquake-resistant structures.

References

11.1. Journal Article [1] A. Fernandez, “Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for International Sites, Challenges and Guidelines”, European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, (2010) August 30 - September 3. [2] Alan HULL, Anthony AUGELLO, and Mustafa ERDIK, “Seismic hazard assessment for phase-i design, hakkari Dam”, Turkey, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, (2004) , August 1-6, pp. 10. [3] Anbazhagan P. and Sitharam T. G., “Seismic Microzonation of Bangalore, India”, Journal of Earth Systems Science vol.117 no. S2, (2008) , pp. 833–852. [4] A. Dogangun and H. Sezen, “Seismic vulnerability and preservation of historical masonry monumental structures”, Earthquakes and Structures, Vol. 3, no. 1 (2012), pp. 83-95. [5] Bulent Ozmen, B. Burçak Ba şbug Erkan, “Probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment for Ankara and its environs, Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences”, Turkish J. Earth Sci. vol. 23, (2014) , pp. 462-474. [6] Beauval, C., Tasan, H., Laurendeau, A., Delavaud, E., Cotton, F., Guéguen, Ph., and Kuehn N., “On the Testing of Ground- Motion Prediction Equations against Small-Magnitude Data”, Bulletin Seismological Society America, (2012) , pp. 1-45. [7] Bommer J.J., Douglas J., Scherbaum F., Cotton F., Bungum H. and Fäh D.; “On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis”, Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 81, (2010) , 783-793. [8] Bommer J.J., Papaspiliou M. and Price W.;”Earthquake response spectra for seismic design of nuclear power plants in the U.K.”, Nucl. Eng. Des. vol. 241, (2011), pp. 968-977. [9] Catalogue of Earthquakes in India and Neighborhood, (From Historical period up to 1979) Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Roorkee-1993.Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Part, General Provisions and Buildings, IS- 1893:2002. [10] Chouliaras, G. “Investigating the earthquake catalog of the National Observatory of Athens”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 9, (2009) , pp. 905-912. [11] Faisal, A., et al., “Influence of large dam on seismic hazard in low seismic region of Ulu Padas Area, Northern Borneo”, Natural Hazards, vol. 59, no. 1, ( 2011), pp. 237-269. [12] Garcia, J., et al., “Seismic hazard map for Cuba and adjacent areas using the spatially smoothed seismicity approach”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12 no. 2, (2008) , pp.173-196. [13] Iyenger, R N and Raghukant, S T G “Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion in Peninsular India”, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 75, no.4, (2004), pp 530-539. [14] Iyengar, R. N. and Raghu Kanth, S. T. G., Seismic Hazard Estimation for Mumbai city. Current Science vol. 91 no. 10, (2006) , pp. 1486-1494. [15] IS-1893, “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Fifth Revision, Part-1, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, 2002. [16] Iyenger R N and Ghose S, “Microzonation of Earthquake Hazard in Greater Delhi Area”, Current Science. vol. 87, no. 10, (2004 ), pp. 1193-1201. [17] Kumar, B.L., G.R. Rao, and K.S. Rao, “Seismic Hazard Analysis of Low Seismic Regions, Visakhapatnam: Probabilistic Approach”, J. Ind. Geophys. Union, vol. 161, (2012 ), p p. 11-20.

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1932 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

[18] M. Miller, J. Baker, “Ground-motion intensity and damage map selection for probabilistic infrastructure network risk assessment using optimization”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (2013) , pp.1–20 [19] M. Irsyam, D. T. Dangkua, Hendriyawan, R. B. Boediono, D. Kusumastuti, and E. K. Kertapati, Response “Seismic Hazard Maps of Sumatra and Java Islands and Microzonation Study of Jakarta City, Indonesia”, J. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 117, pp. 865- 878, November 2008 [20] R N Iyenger and S Ghose, “Microzonation of Earthquake Hazard in Greater Delhi Area”, Current Science. Vol. 87, No. 9, 10, November 2004, pp 1193-1201. [21] Steven L. Kramer, “Geotechanical Earthquake Engineering” (William J Hall, IS:Prentice-Hall -Pearson Eduction, (2004). [22] Samyog Shrestha, “Probabilistic Seismic hazard Analysis of Kathmandu City, Nepal”, International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science vol. 2, no. 1, (2014), pp. 24-33. [23] Shafiq ur Rehman, Conrad Lindholm, Najeeb Ahmed3, Zahid Rafi, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for the City of Quetta, Pakistan”, Acta Geophysica, vol. 62, no. 4, (2014), pp. 737-761. [24] Shukla J. and Choudhury D., “Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approachfor major cities of Gujarat”, Journal of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, (2012) , pp. 2019-2037. [25] S. K. Nath and K. K. S. Thingbaijam, “Seismic hazard assessment – a holistic microzonation approach”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 9, (2009) , pp. 1445–1459. [26] Steven L. Kramer, “Geotechanical Earthquake Engineering”, William J Hall, IS:Prentice-Hall, Pearson Eduction, (2004) . [27] S. Adi and Samsul H. Wiyono, “Frequency Analysis and Seismic Vulnerability Index by Using Nakamura Methods at a New Artery Way in Porong, Sidoarjo, Indonesia”, International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, vol. 2, no. 4, (2012), pp. 227-230.

Volume 7, Issue XI, November/2018 Page No:1933