C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R.

Kumar 479

PRELIMINARY SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF

PENINSULAR INDIA
C. Rajaram,1 B. Narender,1 Neelima D. Satyam2 and Pradeep R. Kumar3

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the preliminary seismic hazard assessment of the peninsular India (lat. 10-26N
and long. 68-90E) which is considered to be seismically most stable landmasses of the Indian
plate. Past major seismic events in this region (Koyna, 10th Dec 1967; Bhadrachalam, 13th Apr
1969; Broach, 23rd Mar 1970; Hyderabad, 30th Jun 1983; Latur, 30th Sep 1993; Jabalpur, 22nd May
1997; Bhuj, 26th Jan 2001) clearly shows that the seismicity of the area is highly varying. There
were five damaging earthquakes with magnitudes Mw 6.0 have occurred in this region, stressing
the importance of detailed seismic hazard assessment for the region. For India, Bhatia1 published a
probabilistic seismic hazard map based on several well identified and prominent source zones in the
country. An attempt has been made in this paper to study the present seismic status of this region
incorporating the detailed seismicity, tectonic and geological characteristics. Around 110 major
faults are considered in this present research study for estimating the Peak Ground Acceleration at
the bedrock level using the attenuation relation developed by Atkinson and Boore2. The considered
area under Peninsular Region has been divided in grid pattern with 10x10 and around 280 site specific
locations are considered for the detailed analysis. From this study, it is observed that 30% of PI
is overestimated and 12% is underestimated when compared with PGA values for various regions
provided in Indian seismic code IS: 1893:20023. The results show that, there is a great need for
carrying out the detailed microzonation of an area within the peninsular region.

INTRODUCTION

India has experienced several major earthquakes in the past few decades and according to IS 1893:
20023 and around 60% (Zone V= 12%, Zone IV=18%, Zone III = 26% and Zone II 44%) of its
landmass is seismically vulnerable. Especially, in the last two decades, the country has witnessed
several moderate earthquakes (Bihar-Nepal border (MW 6.4) in 1988, Uttarkashi, Uttaranchal (MW
6.6) in 1991, Latur, Maharashtra (MW 6.3) in 1993, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh (MW 6.0) in 1997,
Chamoli, Uttaranchal (MW 6.8) in 1999, Bhuj, Gujarat (MW 6.9) in 2001 and Muzafarrabad, Kashmir
1
Graduate Student, International Institute of Information Technology, rajaram.chenna@research.iiit.ac.in
2
Assistant Prof., Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, International Institute of Information Technology,
neelima.satyam@iiit.ac.in
3
Associate Prof., Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, International Institute of Information Technology,
ramancharla@iiit.ac.in
480 14th SEE-2010

(MW 7.6) in 2005) causing more than one lakh casualties due to collapse of structures. However the
Peninsular region of the country (lat. 10-26N and long. 68-90E) was predominantly considered
to be seismically stable. Figure 1 shows the seismic activity of the peninsular India for the past
16 decades (1819 to 2009). From this, it is apparent that there is a noticeable increment in the
number of earthquakes over a period of time, especially after 1950. To reduce the damage due to
an earthquake, complete understanding of the seismic hazard of the region is very important. The
study of destructive earthquake effects in India was started by Geological Survey of India4. Later, the
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) which is the official agency for publishing seismic hazard maps
and codes in our country, prepared seismic hazard map consisting of six zones in 1962. This division
was based upon the Maximum Mercalli Intensities (MMI). In this map, peninsular India is shown
as stable and aseismic region. The third map was published in 1966 dividing India into 7 seismic
zones from zone 0 to zone VI. This map also used geological information of earthquake activity and
tectonic maps that delineated fault system. Some portion of peninsular India was upgraded from zone
0 to zone I. The next revision of the seismic hazard map was in 1970 after Koyna earthquake (M
6.5). This map divided India into 5 seismic zones from zone I to zone V based upon Comprehensive
Intensity Scale (CIS64) historically observed or expected in those zones. Concept of zone 0 was
abolished in support to the fact that there is no region in India with probability of an earthquake
equal to zero. For the first time a seismic hazard map was based upon Comprehensive Intensity Scale
(CIS-64). Again in 1984 major revision took place with 5 seismic zones. In this revision, irrational
shape is assigned to some higher zones because attenuation cannot be so small.
After Latur earthquake in 1993 and Jabalpur earthquake in 1997, the researchers showed interest
towards comprehensive study on the seismic hazard map of the country. Fifth revision of IS
1893:2002 took place immediately after the devastating Bhuj earthquake in 2001. In this revision,
only 4 zones were adopted viz., zone II, III, IV and V (Fig: 2d). Zone II being low damage risk zone
and Zone V being high damage risk zone. Also, most of peninsular region is upgraded to zone II and
III. Zone I is completely discarded in this revision. In this regard, large portion of Peninsular India
was upgraded. In addition to this, Khattri5 produced a probabilistic seismic hazard map in units of
g, for 10 per cent probability of exceedence over the next 50 yr period. The study of Bhatia1 under
the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) is based on a probabilistic approach.
The computational schemes involved in both the studies are delineation of seismic source zones and
their characterizations; selection of an appropriate ground motion attenuation relation with source
site distance and a predictive model of seismic hazard. In the above studies, the attenuation relation
produced for the United States has been applied6&7. A comparison of the attenuation relationships for
many different areas shows that the attenuation laws may differ very significantly from one region
to another due to the tectonic, seismic, geological and geotechnical differences. A study done by
Khatri4 and Bhatia1 provides only a macroscopic picture of seismic hazard without incorporating
the earthquake recurrence data.
A regional seismic hazard assessment in terms of earthquake magnitude and annual exceedence
probability has been presented by Kishore and Ravi Sinha8. The main aim of this research study
is to estimate the actual seismic hazard associated with the entire Peninsular region which is very
useful for attempting detailed regional seismic microzonation studies. Because underestimation
of the seismic hazard leads to the questionable safely and overestimate leads to uneconomical
design. A detailed study was carried out using the data of several earthquakes occurred within the
Indian peninsular region for estimating the Peak Ground Acceleration using Atkinson and Boore2
attenuation relationship and the estimated PGA values were compared with the values given in IS
1893-20023.
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 481

EARTHQUAKE HISTORY IN PENINSULAR INDIA FROM 1850 TO 2009

120

100

No.of Earthquakes (Mw > 3.5)

80

60

40

20

0
1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Years

Fig. 1: Seismic activity in PI from past 16 decades

GEOLOGICAL AND TECTONIC DETAILS OF INDIAN PENINSULA

The Peninsular India consists of gneiss and schists which are very old rock formations. The
Precambrian rocks of India have been classified into two systems, the Dharwar system and the
Archaean system. The rocks of the Dharwar system are mainly sedimentary in origin, and occur in
narrow elongated synclines resting on the gneisses found in Mysore and the Aravalis of Rajputana.
These rocks highly enriched with mineral deposits.The Peninsular Shield of India is made up of
three main regions the Aravalli, the Dharwar and the Singhbhum which are separated by Proterozoic
rifts and mobile belts. The major prominent rifts that separate the southern and northern blocks of
the shield are the Narmada Son Lineament (NSL) and the Tapti Lineament (TL), together called the
Son-Narmada Tapti lineament. The other rift basins are the Kutch, Cambay, Godavari, Cuddapah etc.9
Rifting zones like Narmada and Rann of Kutch in this Seeber10 proposed nine seismic zones based
on geology, tectonic features and observed seismicity. Naqvi and Rogers11 classified them broadly
into cratonic and paleorifting zones. Cratons are highly stable interior portion of the Peninsular
shield like Northern, Eastern and Southern cartons. Paleorifting regions containing large faults and
has experienced deformations in their most active phase, which are narmada, Cambay and Mahanadi
grabens. The detailed geology and the tectonics of the region were presented by Valdiya12 , Naqvi
and Rogers11 and many others. Figure 2a and 2b shows the detailed geological and tectonic map of
the Peninsular India.

SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PENINSULAR INDIA

The entire Indian subcontinent is composed of three major plates viz., Indian plate, Eurasian plate
and Australian plate and many minor plates like Burma plate, Sunda plate etc. Distinct physical and
kinematic properties of these plates lead to a diversified seismicity from one region to another in
Indian subcontinent. On the basis of historic seismic trend, Indian shield can be easily classified as
seismically active at the Himalayan, Karakoram, and Tibetan plateau belt stretching approximately
2500 km line and somewhat seismically moderate in the peninsular shield.
Various regions were identified and classified on the basis of their seismic activity. Since these
seismic activities are random in nature, classification merely on the basis of major seismic activities
482 14th SEE-2010

is always been a topic of debate among the researchers. Seismicity trend of India classifies it as a
highly varied country in terms of seismic activities. It is very clear that there is a broad variation in
seismic hazard levels in terms of the intensity of ground motion and the frequency of occurrence.
These variations divided India into different zones with respect to the severity of expected ground
motion. Figure 2c shows the observed seismicity of the peninsular region. In this paper an attempt
is made to prepare the preliminary seismic hazard assessment of the peninsular India which can be
further used for doing detailed site specific vulnerability studies.

PRELIMINARY SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF PI

Seismic databases and earthquake catalogues are very crucial and important parameter in any seismic
hazard analysis and microzonation studies. For the considered range of latitudes and longitudes,
earthquake data was collected for peninsular region (PI) region from Seismotectonic Atlas of India
and its environs13 and a working data table has been prepared as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Details of the seismic sources considered in the present study

Long.(start), L.att. (start) Length

S.No Fault details Zone Mw
Long. (end), L.att. (end) (kM)
1 West patna fault (84.38, 25.57); (85.92, 26.72) 170.94 V 4.4
2 East patna fault (85.27, 25.45); (86.46, 26.54) 132.09 V 4.0
3 Munger-saharsa ridge fault (85.67, 25.19); (86.99, 26.50) 146.52 V 4.0
4 Munger-saharsa ridge marginal fault (87.00, 26.23); (87.34, 24.99) 137.64 IV 4.0
5 Malda kishan ganj fault (88.08, 26.23); (88.02, 25.00) 136.53 IV 4.0
6 Katihar nailphamari fault (87.96, 25.81); (89.11, 26.03) 127.65 IV 4.0
7 Dhubri fault (89.89, 25.00); (90.00, 26.34) 148.74 V 4.0
8 Narmada south fault (78.00, 22.66); (75.60, 21.73) 266.40 III 5.8
9 Son narmada north fault (78.08, 22.84); (78.84, 23.09) 84.36 III 4.0
10 Son narmada south fault (78.00, 22.66); (79.89, 23.14) 209.79 III 5.8
11 Bamhni-chilpa fault (81.91, 23.58); (82.60, 23.76) 76.59 III 3.3
12 Tatapani fault (82.53, 23.81); (83.06, 23.88) 58.83 III 4.0
13 Brahmani fault (84.87, 22.00); (85.15, 21.24) 84.36 II 4.4
14 Sainthia-bahmani fault (87.33, 24.99); (87.60, 24.07) 102.12 III 4.0
15 Rajmahal falut (87.78, 25.00); (87.88, 24.14) 95.46 III 4.0
16 Jangipur fault (88.32, 24.68); (87.95, 24.31) 41.07 III 4.0
17 Debagram-bogra fault (89.84, 24.92); (88.46, 23.80) 153.18 III 4.0
18 Garhmaynakhanda ghosh fault (87.90, 24.13); (87.87, 22.16) 218.67 III 4.0
19 Pingla fault (87.74, 23.80); (87.62, 22.26) 170.94 III 4.0
20 Malda kishan ganj fault (88.13, 24.64); (88.02, 25.00) 39.96 III 4.0
21 Marginal fault (72.15, 24.99); (72.04, 24.68) 34.41 III 5.5
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 483

22 Nathdwara fault (74.01, 25.00); (73.52, 24.88) 54.39 II 4.0

23 Thargon fault (74.02, 22.11); (73.76, 22.04) 28.86 III 4.0
24 Dudhpur fault (73.60, 22.11); (73.39, 22.14) 23.31 III 4.0
25 Paldi fault (72.69, 21.95); (72.72, 21.82) 14.43 III 5.3
26 Manpiya fault-ramgarh fault (71.23, 27.70); (71.01, 26.52) 130.98 III 4.0
27 Fatehgarh fault (70.91, 26.49); (71.33, 26.57) 46.62 II 4.0
28 Konoi fault (70.39, 27.12); (70.82, 26.22) 99.90 III 4.0
29 Manshuriyan fault (70.24, 26.81); (70.59, 26.59) 57.72 III 4.0
30 Ghotaro fault (69.93, 27.46); (70.45, 26.79) 74.37 III 4.0
31 Allah bund fault (70.00, 24.13); (71.35, 24.43) 149.63 V 4.0
32 Uppergodvari fault (75.00, 19.71); (75.56, 19.03) 75.48 II 4.0
33 Chikmagalur fault (75.96, 13.03); (75.54, 13.61) 64.38 II 4.0
34 Chitradurga fault (76.77, 13.57); (76.59, 14.29) 79.92 II 4.0
35 Gudekota rampur fault (76.57, 14.92); (77.00, 15.03) 48.84 II 5.3
36 Dharma thungabadhra fault (75.18, 14.85); (76.48, 15.33) 144.30 II 4.6
37 Tekkadi-kodaivaninelur fault (77.24, 09.52); (77.27, 09.07) 49.95 III 4.0
38 Kkanetreri- fault (76.84, 10.60 ); (76.53,10.45) 34.41 III 5.7
39 Pattikkad-kollengol fault (76.63, 10.75); (76.27, 10.66) 39.96 III 5.0
40 Kim fault (70.33, 20.27); (71.86, 20.60) 169.83 III 4.7
41 North-kathiawari fault (70.32, 22.82); (71.09, 22.99) 85.47 IV 5.7
42 Katrot-bhuj fault (69.48, 23.19); (69.92, 23.15) 48.84 V 7.7
43 Kutch main land fault (69.00, 23.82); (70.88, 23.36) 208.68 V 7.7
44 Island belt fault (69.57, 23.97); (71.39, 23.99) 202.00 V 6.3
45 Chiplun fault (72.90, 18.89); (73.69, 16.99) 210.90 IV 6.3
46 Warna fault (74.48, 17.80); (74.87, 17.43) 43.29 III 3.3
47 Malaprabha fault (74.06, 15.40); (74.88, 15.70) 91.24 III 4.0
48 Tapti North fault (78.00, 22.06); (76.15, 21.37) 205.00 III 6.3
49 Son-Narmada fault (73.23, 21.76); (74.75, 22.09) 167.00 III 4.0
50 Barwani-sukta fault (76.36, 21.72); (74.99, 21.85) 152.00 III 4.0
51 Son-Narmada South fault (78.00, 22.66); (75.60, 21.73) 267.00 III 4.0
52 Gavilgarh fault (77.48, 21.26); (76.03, 21.03) 161.00 III 6.3
53 Upper godavari fault (73.39, 20.24); (74.99, 19.71) 178.00 III 4.0
54 Purna fault (76.28, 20.96); (77.81, 20.86) 171.00 II 6.3
55 Kaddam fault (76.61, 20.67); (79.32, 18.82) 301.00 II 4.2
56 Kinnerasani Godavari fault (79.30, 18.71); (80.99, 17.35) 188.00 III 5.8
484 14th SEE-2010

57 Godavari valley fault (79.65, 19.74); (80.97, 17.84) 211.00 III 5.8
58 Kolleru lake fault (80.86, 17.02); (80.48, 17.67) 72.00 III 4.0
59 Parvatipuram-Bobbili fault (83.16, 19.91); (83.64, 18.12) 200.00 II 4.0
60 Vamshadhara fault (83.73, 19.06); (83.97, 18.65) 46.00 II 4.0
61 Nagavali fault (83.71, 18.64); (83.93, 18.26) 43.00 II 4.0
62 Kanada kumili fault (83.39, 18.31); (83.56, 18.05) 28.86 II 4.5
63 Krishna river fault (75.26, 15.83); (76.99, 16.59) 193.00 II 4.7
64 Raichur -Nagar karnool fault (77.35, 16.36); (78.97, 16.57) 181.00 II 4.0
65 Dharma-Tungabadra lineament (75.18, 14.85); (76.47, 15.33) 144.00 II 4.7
66 Gudekota-Rampura fault (77.65, 15.19); (76.57, 14.92) 120.00 II 4.0
67 Bukkapatnam fault (77.07, 14.16); (77.96,14.33) 99.00 II 4.0
68 Gani-kalva fault (77.59, 15.50); (78.40, 15.75) 91.00 II 4.0
69 Chitradurga boundary fault (76.77, 13.56); (76.53, 14.33) 85.47 II 4.0
70 Kumadavati-Narihalla fault (75.54, 14.49); (76.63, 15.20) 121.00 II 4.7
71 Tintini fault (76.60, 16.35); (76.00, 16.54) 66.60 II 4.7
72 Chikmangalur fault (75.96, 13.04); (75.55, 13.61) 65.00 II 4.0
73 Wajrakarur fault (77.03, 15.10); (77.38, 15.21) 38.85 II 4.0
74 Pyapalli fault (77.71, 15.31); (77.94, 15.23) 25.50 II 4.0
75 Yagachi fault (75.90, 13.01); (75.75, 13.21) 22.20 II 4.0
76 Karkambadi-Swarnamukhi fault (79.28, 13.65); (80.11 ,14.10) 93.00 III 4.2
77 Bhavanasi river fault (78.09, 16.18); (78.83, 15.94) 82.14 II 4.0
78 Tirumala fault (79.31, 13.65); (79.41, 13.86) 24.00 III 4.0
79 Gundla kamma fault (79.51, 16.47); (80.06, 15.78) 76.00 III 5.2
80 Addanki-Nujividu fault (80.06, 15.74); (80.35, 16.15) 45.51 III 5.2
81 Badvel fault (79.34, 14.65); (78.94, 14.92) 44.40 II 4.0
82 Nallavagu fault (78.61, 16.37); (78.98, 16.29) 41.00 II 4.0
83 Papaghani fault (78.61, 14.43); (78.95, 14.76) 39.00 II 4.0
84 Kadiri fault (78.00, 14.03); (78.32, 14.32) 35.52 II 4.0
85 Armakur fault (78.47, 15.87); (78.75, 15.76) 32.00 II 4.0
86 Rudravagu fault (78.81, 16.05); (79.04, 16.05) 26.00 III 4.0
87 Nekkantivagu fault (78.59, 16.28); (78.78, 16.23) 22.00 II 4.0
88 Gulcheru fault (78.49, 14.25); (78.66, 14.33) 20.00 II 4.0
89 Nizampatnam Nagayalanka fault (80.56, 15.93); (80.80, 16.00) 27.00 III 4.0
90 Vasishta-Godavari fault (81.43, 16.40); (81.96, 16.63) 59.00 III 4.0
91 Cauveri fault (76.79, 11.18); (79.74, 10.74) 328.00 II 4.7
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 485

92 Ottapalam_kuttampuzna fault (76.34, 10.86); (76.81, 10.10) 84.36 III 4.0

93 Arkavati fault (76.85, 12.97); (77.73, 12.28) 98.00 II 4.5
94 Bhavali fault (75.69, 11.98); (76.38, 11.60) 76.60 III 4.0
95 Tiruppur fault (77.04, 11.55); (77.69, 11.11) 72.15 II 4.8
96 Mettur East fault (77.69, 11.45); (77.99, 12.09) 71.00 III 4.5
97 Sakleshpur-Bettadpur fault (75.68, 12.99); (76.07, 12.39) 67.00 II 4.0
98 Bhavani-Kanumudi fault (77.66, 11.49); (77.99, 11.04) 50.00 II 4.7
99 Periyar fault (76.54, 10.25); (77.20, 09.84) 73.00 III 4.0
100 Kottagudi-kokkal palani fault (77.48, 10.63); (77.12, 10.23) 45.00 III 4.0
101 Peltikkad-kollengor fault (76.34, 10.86); (76.81, 10.10) 85.00 III 4.0
102 Malayattur Vada Kkanetreri fault (76.53,10.29); (76.509,10.61) 35.52 III 4.0
103 Main fault (77.99, 11.84); (78.50, 12.26) 57.00 III 4.5
104 Vaigai riverm fault (77.75, 10.18); (78.00, 10.06) 27.75 II 4.0
105 Ayakkudi-Virupaksha fault (77.72, 10.61); (77.48, 10.48) 26.64 III 4.0
106 Valparai -Anaimudu fault (76.89, 10.57); (77.12, 10.23) 25.53 III 4.0
107 Polar river fault (78.68, 12.66); (80.02, 12.45) 148.74 III 5.6
108 Pambar river fault (78.59, 12.66); (78.61, 11.84) 91.00 III 4.2
109 Attur fault (78.07, 11.00); (79.02, 12.06) 118.00 II 4.7
110 Javadi hills fault (78.92, 12.63); (78.63, 12.02) 69.00 III 4.2
111 Amirdi fault (78.95, 12.35); (78.37, 11.72) 71.00 III 4.2

Data was collected from a uniform source in order to maintain the uniformity in computation.
Generally, The Peak ground acceleration (PGA) at any location can be estimated using empirical
attenuation relationships proposed for different seismic regions (Interplate, Intraplate, and
Subduction). Every attenuation relationship is different from another in terms of applicability that
is limited depending upon certain factors like the type of soil (Hard/rock, medium or soft), type
of region, type of fault and so on. Since the actual values of all these parameters were not present,
empirical relationships and few logical assumptions were made in the computation of PGA.
In the present analysis, the considered peninsular region has been divided into grids of 10x10 and
grid points of around 280 with latitude and longitudes are considered for the analysis. Each fault is
divided into sub-faults of 10 kms and distances between each subfault to all the 280 locations were
calculated. This is carried out for all the seismic sources and minimum distance is considered for the
estimation of peak ground acceleration at bedrock using Atkinson and Boore2 attenuation relationship
which is derived using a stochastic model for rock sites as shown below (Eq. (1)):

ln( y ) = 1.841 + 0.686( M 6) 0.123( M 6) 2 ln(rhyp ) 0.0031rhyp (1)

Where y is PGA in g, M is moment magnitude and rhyp is the source to site distance. This equation
is proposed to use for epicenter distance less than 400 km. .
486 14th SEE-2010

(a)

(b)
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 487

(c)

(d)
Fig. 2: (a) Geological details of Peninsular India; (b) tectonic features of Indian Peninsula;
(c) Seismicity details of PI and (d) Seismic zonation map of India (IS 1893: 2002)
488 14th SEE-2010

A computer code has been developed to estimate the PGA(y) for different values of Mw and R
corresponding to earthquakes belonging to different classifications within Peninsular region. The
code was developed in such a manner that by reading the latitude and longitude values between
the site and source, it calculates the distance between them and using the Mw and R values PGA
at bedrock can be estimated. At 280 site specific locations, from 110 major faults Peak Ground
Acceleration values are calculated and preliminary seismic hazard map of the Peninsular Region
was developed. Iyengar and Raghukanth14 (Eq. (2)) attenuation relationship shown below is also
used for comparison study.
ln( y br ) = c1 + c 2 ( M 6) + c 3 ( M 6) 2 ln(r ) c 4 r + ln( br ) (2)
where, ybr=(Sa/g) stands for the ratio of spectral acceleration at bedrock level to acceleration
due to gravity. M and r refers to moment magnitude and hypo-central distance respectively. The
coefficients of the above equation are obtained from the simulated database of Sa by a two step
stratified regression following Joyner and Boore7. It is observed that, a low values are observed and
the coefficients of the equation are invalid when the period is greater than 4.0 sec.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study the major concern was to estimate the actual earthquake hazard associated with the
Peninsular India which is considered to be more stable landmass in the Indian plate. This region
which is an intraplate region experienced several devastating earthquakes in the past. The seismic
data was collected for PI region from a uniform source i.e., Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its
environs13 to estimate the Peak ground acceleration (PGA) using empirical attenuation relationships
proposed by Atkinson and Boore2 and the PGA values were calculated at the bedrock level as
shown in Table 2. From the analysis, it is observed that 12% of PI is underestimated and 30% is
overestimated with reference to IS: 1893-20023. In zone II, the site near Bellary with latitude 15.2
N and longitude 76.9 E is underestimated because the area is in a linear belt bound on either side by
Dharma Tungabhadra and Kumudavati-Narihalla faults. The estimated PGA value at bedrock level
from this analysis is 0.3 g where as the PGA value given in IS code is 0.1 g which is underestimated.
It means that the estimated PGA value from attenuation relationship is more than the seismic codal
value.
Table 2: Site Specific PGA values estimated in the present study for the Peninsular Region

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)
(Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (Deg)
22.00 69.00 0.008 21.00 76.00 0.742 14.00 80.00 0.017
24.00 69.00 0.667 21.00 76.00 0.003 16.00 80.00 0.313
20.00 70.00 0.038 22.00 76.00 0.002 17.00 80.00 0.035
23.00 70.00 0.534 23.00 76.00 0.016 17.00 80.00 0.006
24.00 71.00 0.326 10.00 77.00 0.04 18.00 80.00 0.063
20.00 71.00 0.04 10.00 77.00 0.18 18.00 80.00 0.372
22.00 71.00 0.002 12.00 77.00 0.018 19.00 80.00 0.128
23.00 71.00 0.492 12.00 77.00 0.016 20.00 80.00 0.018
24.00 72.00 0.326 13.00 77.00 0.132 16.00 81.00 0.035
25.00 71.00 0.248 13.00 77.00 0.033 17.00 81.00 0.052
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 489

26.00 71.00 0.003 14.00 77.00 0.044 17.00 81.00 0.006

22.00 72.00 0.038 14.00 77.00 0.024 18.00 81.00 0.425
23.00 72.00 0.024 15.00 77.00 0.095 18.00 81.00 0.368
25.00 72.00 0.119 15.00 77.00 0.356 23.00 81.00 0.01
18.00 73.00 0.014 16.00 77.00 0.095 24.00 81.00 0.03
18.00 73.00 0.237 16.00 77.00 0.052 17.00 82.00 0.018
19.00 73.00 0.263 17.00 77.00 0.019 17.00 82.00 0.001
20.00 73.00 0.047 18.00 77.00 0.049 23.00 82.00 0.023
21.00 73.00 0.017 18.00 77.00 0.181 24.00 83.00 0.014
22.00 73.00 0.089 20.00 77.00 0.023 18.00 83.00 0.026
23.00 73.00 0.01 20.00 77.00 0.003 19.00 83.00 0.018
24.00 73.00 0.42 21.00 77.00 0.011 18.00 84.00 0.023
25.00 73.00 0.183 21.00 77.00 0.017 21.00 85.00 0.031
26.00 73.00 0.203 22.00 77.00 0.016 22.00 85.00 0.065
16.00 74.00 0.03 10.00 78.00 0.072 25.00 85.00 0.018
21.00 74.00 0.013 10.00 78.00 0.032 26.00 85.00 0.119
22.00 74.00 0.002 11.00 78.00 0.203 17.00 86.00 0.001
23.00 74.00 0.094 12.00 78.00 0.02 21.00 86.00 0.047
25.00 74.00 0.027 12.00 78.00 0.095 26.00 86.00 0.108
14.00 75.00 0.001 13.00 78.00 0.009 17.00 87.00 0.001
15.00 75.00 0.011 14.00 78.00 0.095 23.00 87.00 0.008
16.00 75.00 0.013 14.00 78.00 0.018 25.00 87.00 0.046
19.00 75.00 0.013 15.00 78.00 0.029 26.00 87.00 0.161
20.00 75.00 0.094 15.00 78.00 0.03 17.00 88.00 0.001
20.00 75.00 0.005 16.00 78.00 0.041 22.00 88.00 0.05
21.00 75.00 0.037 16.00 78.00 0.122 24.00 88.00 0.033
21.00 75.00 0.001 17.00 78.00 0.016 25.00 88.00 0.087
22.00 75.00 0.001 19.00 78.00 0.012 26.00 88.00 0.14
23.00 75.00 0.048 20.00 78.00 0.046 24.00 89.00 0.001
25.00 75.00 0.02 20.00 78.00 0.017 25.00 89.00 0.107
12.00 76.00 0.012 22.00 78.00 0.106 26.00 89.00 0.288
12.00 76.00 0.228 23.00 78.00 0.046 16.00 79.00 0.095
13.00 76.00 0.005 11.00 79.00 0.128 17.00 79.00 0.017
14.00 76.00 0.021 12.00 79.00 0.057 19.00 79.00 0.106
14.00 76.00 0.006 13.00 79.00 0.025 23.00 79.00 0.063
15.00 76.00 0.143 14.00 79.00 0.022 13.00 80.00 0.017
15.00 76.00 0.156 15.00 79.00 0.092 16.00 76.00 0.203
16.00 76.00 0.095 19.00 76.00 0.158 19.00 76.00 0.515
17.00 76.00 0.016
Similarly, in zone III, Bhadrachalam site with latitude 17.81 N and longitude 80.67 is
underestimated as there are three major faults i.e., Kinnerasani Godavari fault, Kolleru-Lake fault and
Godavari valley fault are present around the region. The estimated PGA value at bedrock is around
0.4 g at this site location, where as the PGA value given in Indian seismic code for zone III is 0.16
g which is highly underestimated. Also, the Ongole region is also highly underestimated without
considering Addanki-Nujividu fault and Gundlakamma fault which are active.The estimated value
490 14th SEE-2010

Fig. 3: Preliminary seismic hazard map of the peninsular India

from the analysis is 0.32 g and from the Indian code of practice, the PGA value is 0.16 g. The Latur
region (18.1N, 76.5 E) had experienced one of the most lethal earthquake in the stable continental
region Latur earthquake (1993) of magnitude 6.2 is underestimated. From the study, the estimated
PGA value is at bedrock is 0.4 g and the PGA value from Indian seismic code of practice is 0.16 g
which is underestimated. Similarly, the Satpura region is also highly underestimated near Khandwa
within Son-Narmada-Tapti (SONATA) zone. Though a few more small earthquakes occurred within
the zone, the area is significant due to the occurrence of Intermittent earthquake. The major faults
which are present in this area are Barwani Sukta fault, Gavilgarh fault and Tapti North fault.Also, the
Mount-Abu (24.76N, 72.54E) region and Coimbatore (10.8N, 76.8E) region is also underestimated.
The estimated PGA value is 0.2 g and from code of practice is 0.16 g which is underestimated.
Koyna (17.54N, 73.84E) region had experienced major earthquake in 1963 with a magnitude of 6.3.
Since then, the Koyna-Warna region has experienced reservoir induced seismicity, resulting Koyna
earthquake. From the study, the estimated PGA value is 0.23 g and from code of practice is 0.24 g
which is overestimated. In this regard, it is strongly recommended that serious attention is required
for understanding macro seismotectonics of Indian plate for arriving at the macro hazard map. For
attempting the detailed seismic microzonation of any area within the Penisular India this research
can provide an important basis.

REFERENCES

1. Atkinson, G., and D. Boore (1997), Stochastic point-source modeling of ground motions in the Cascadia
region, Seism. Res. Lett., 68, 7485
2. Algermissen, S.T. and Perkins, D.M (1976), A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock
in the contiguous United States, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-file Report, 45, 76416.
C. Rajaram, B. Narender, Neelima D. Satyam and Pradeep R. Kumar 491

3. Bhatia, S.C.,Kumar, R. and Gupta, H.K. (1999), A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining
regions, Ann. Geofis., 42, 11531164.
4. Iyenger, R.N. and Raghukanth (2004), Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion in Peninsular India,
Seismological Research Letters, 75, 530-540.
5. IS 1893:2002: Criteria for earthquake resistant design, Code of practice, Bureau of India Standards, New
Delhi
6. Joyner,W.B.and Boore,D.M.(1981), Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records
including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, Earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 71,
20112038.
7. Khattri, K.N. (1987), Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake disaster along the
Himalaya plate boundary, Tectono physics, 138, 7992.
8. Kishore J and Ravi Sinha. (2008), Spatial temporal variability of seismic hazard in Peninsular India,
J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 707718
9. Naqvi, S.M. and Rogers, J.J.W.(1987), Precambrian Geology of India, Oxford Monogr. Geol. Geophys.,
Oxford University Press, 6, 223.
10. neelima satyam d, ranjeet joshi and ramancharla pradeep kumar. A Study on Earthquake Hazard
Assessment In Peninsular India, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Vol 2, No: 4,
pp. 277-286.
11. Oldham, R.D.(1899), Report on the great earthquake of June 12, 1897, Mem.Geol. Surv. India, 29,
1379.
12. Seeber, L., G. Ekstrom, S. K. Jain, C. V. R. Murty, N. Chandak and J. G. Armbruster.(1996), The 1993
Killari earthquake in central India: A new fault in Mesozoic basalt flows, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 8643hh-
8560.
13. Seismo tectonic Atlas of India and its environs, Geological Survey of India, 2001.
14. Yedekar, D.B., Jain., S.C., Nair, K.K.K. and Dutta, K.K.(1990), The Central Indian Collision structure.
Special Publication, Geological Survey of India, 28, 1-43.
15. Valdiya, K.S.(1973), Tectonic framework of India: a review and interpretation of recent structural and
tectonic studies, Geophys. Res. Bull., 11, 79114.