This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jseaes

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Islamabad, Pakistan

Abdul Qadir Bhatti a,⇑, Syed Zamir Ul Hassan b, Zahid Rafi c, Zubeda Khatoon d, Qurban Ali d
a
Department of Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
National Institute of Transportation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
c
Pakistan Meteorological Department, Islamabad, Pakistan
d
Department of Physics, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pakistan is prone to seismic activity, and its capital, Islamabad, is located close to the Main Boundary
Received 11 July 2010 Thrust (MBT) fault. On October 8th, 2005 the disastrous Muzaffarabad earthquake shook Islamabad
Received in revised form 15 March 2011 and damaged many high-rise buildings. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis technique was used to
Accepted 14 May 2011
estimate strong ground motion parameters for a closely spaced 1 km grid. Traditionally, PGA is calcu-
Available online 16 June 2011
lated, which is then used in structural earthquake resistant design or seismic safety assessment. How-
ever, Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is not sufficient to design for seismic load or to account for the
Keywords:
modern building code’s emphasis on the use of spectral acceleration values. Therefore, a seismic hazard
Seismic hazard analysis
Islamabad
analysis was performed for Islamabad, and the design parameters that are required by codes to account
Short and one second spectral acceleration for seismic loading were derived.
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Tectonic of the surrounding region

Pakistan is located in one of the most seismically active regions of
the world. The devastating Quetta earthquake of magnitude 7.4 in
1935, the Makran coast earthquake of magnitude 8.0 in 1945, the
Pattan earthquake of magnitude 6.0 in 1974 and the recent Muzaff-
arabad earthquake of magnitude 7.5 in 2005 are all evidence of ac-
tive seismicity in Pakistan. The recent Muzaffarabad earthquake
raised awareness about the dangers of earthquakes, and a number
of steps are being taken at a national level to combat these hazards.
These include expanding the seismic network of the country, incor-
porating the latest seismic provisions in the Building Code of Paki-
stan (BCP) and conducting a seismic hazard analysis of various
structures and cities, which is currently underway. Most researchers
have concluded their seismic hazard analyses by reporting the PGA
value of Islamabad. This value will be very useful once the analysis
of structures becomes based on BCP or UBC 97 (Uniform Building
Code). However, the analysis of a structure based on International
Building Code (IBC) 2003 or IBC 2006 is not possible using PGA alone;
instead, spectral acceleration values are required for a return period
of 2500 years. Such values have not yet been reported for Islamabad
or any other city. In this study, we perform a seismic hazard analysis
of Islamabad and the surrounding areas and suggest spectral accel-
eration values in line with ASCE 7-05 (American Society for Civil
Engineers) and IBC 2006 (International Building Code of 2006).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 51 90854615; fax: +92 243 720066.
E-mail addresses: bhatti-nit@nust.edu.pk, draqbhatti@gmail.com (A.Q. Bhatti).
The earth’s crust is divided into 15 major tectonic plates, includ-
ing the African Plate, the Antarctic Plate, the North American Plate,
the South American Plate, the Australian Plate, the Pacific Plate, the
Philippine Plate, the Jaun de Fuca Plate, the Scotia Plate, the Nazca
Plate, the Arabian Plate, the Caribbean Plate, the Cocos Plate, the
Eurasian plate and the Indian plate. Fig. 1 shows that most earth-
quakes are concentrated near the plate boundaries and that earth-
quake epicenters within the plate are scarce. This theory is also
known as elastic rebound theory and successfully explains the for-
mation of large geological features, mountain ranges and faults
resulting from plate movement. Pakistan is located on north-west
region of the Indian plate that pushes into the Eurasian plate. The
boundary of these two plates is a convergent boundary where the
lithosphere is thickened and sinking into the mantle. The Indian
subcontinent has been colliding with the Eurasian subcontinent
over the last 30–40 million years (Aitchison et al., 2007). During
this period, the continental lithosphere, which was longer than
2000 km, shortened into massive mountain ranges, which explains
the formation of mountain ranges in northern Pakistan (GSB,
1988). Some of the important mountain structures resulting from
the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates include the Himala-
yas in the central area, the Arakan-Yoma mountains of Burma, the
Naga hills of Asam towards the east, the Kirthar and Suleman
ranges in Balochistan, the Tien-Shan mountains in Central Asia,
the Karakoram Mountains, the Pamir ranges and the Hindukush
Mountains (NORSAR and PMD, 2006).

1367-9120/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2011.05.006
 Author's personal copy

A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478 469

Fig. 1. Faults map of Islamabad and surrounding.

The movement between portions of the earth’s crust occurs at
new or pre-existing discontinuities in the geological structures of
bedrock, which are known as faults and are associated with the rel-
ative displacement of two large blocks of rock mass. Faults can be
as short as a few hundred meters or as long as a few kilometers. It
is a geological anomaly that faults are caused by earthquakes or
that earthquakes are caused by faults. Large magnitude earth-
quakes are related to the larger rupture length of a fault. Fig. 1
shows some of the faults located in the study area. These include
the Main Mantle Thrust (MMT) in the north, which extends in
the east–west direction, the Main Boundry Thrust (MBT), which
runs parallel to the MMT, the Pattan Fault, the Panjal Fault, the
Margalla Fault, the Jhelum Fault and the Salt Range Fault.
3. Seismic hazard analysis
There are two approaches for the seismic hazard analysis of an
area that are briefly mentioned below. In a Deterministic Seismic
Hazard Analysis (DSHA), faults and other tectonic features in the
vicinity of a site are identified. A suitable attenuation equation is
used to determine the ground motion at the site.
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is the most widely
used technique for the seismic hazard assessment of an area. In a
PSHA, the seismic activity of the source is specified by the recur-
rence relationship defining the cumulative number of events-per-
year versus their magnitude (Mona Lisa, 2005). Some of its
important aspects include historical seismicity, the identification
 Author's personal copy

470 A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478

of earthquake source geometry, the establishment of recurrence 3.2. Seismic source zones
law, ground motion parameters, a temporal model and the local
site conditions. To determine the hazard in Islamabad, we studied an area of
The Building Code of Pakistan, UBC 97 and IBC 2006, each de- approximately 100–150 km around the city. Earthquakes beyond
fines the design for structures under ground motion in terms of a this area were not considered because it is believed that distant
certain percentage probability of exceedance over a given period earthquakes have only an insignificant value to this study. The
of time. Therefore, PSHA is used in this study. The procedure used earthquake catalogue for the study area was plotted using Arc
is explained in the following paragraphs. GIS Version 9.0, which is a widely used geographical information
system program. Earthquake sources can be modeled as point
source, line source or area source; volcanoes are point sources.
3.1. Earthquake catalogue
Faults are line sources and were not considered due to the uncer-
tainty in plotting the epicenters of different earthquakes and
In Pakistan, a number of agencies record earthquakes, including
assigning these to a particular fault. Therefore, only area source
the Micro Seismic Zonation Program (MSSP) of Kahuta Research
zones were considered, and line sources were not modeled. The
Laboratories (KRL), the seismological division of WAPDA and the
area was divided into seven zones as shown in Fig. 2. The division
Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD). The PMD network is
of the study area into these zones was based on seismicity and the
the largest in the country. At present, it operates a network of 20
fault system. The basic principle followed was that seismicity
stations in Pakistan, and another 10 stations are in the installation
within a single source remains uniform and homogenous. The se-
phase. Moreover, it also receives teleseismic data from 60 stations
ven seismic source zones all have the geometric shape of a polygon
around the world, including the US, Japan, Europe and Africa.
and the coordinates of their corners are listed below. The zones are
In this study, we used a PMD catalogue that included historical
numbered from 1 to 7 arbitrarily.
events from 25 AD until 1905 and instrumental recordings from
1906 until 2009. Table 1 shows some historical earthquakes
3.2.1. Zone 1
around the area of study. The catalogue contained different types
Zone 1 covers most of Islamabad and a large portion of the
of magnitudes of the earthquakes, including local magnitude ML,
Rawalpindi districts. The twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi
moment magnitude Mw, and body wave magnitude Mb. Uniform
are included in this region. The coordinates of corners of the zone
magnitude was required to complete the calculations using the
are as follows: (33.736N, 73.029E), (33.049N, 73.210E), (33.155N,
SEISAN software. The following formulas were used to convert
73.740E), (33.740N, 73.523E) and (34.022N, 73.198E).
the magnitudes reported in the catalogue to Mw:
The locations of various faults in each zone are shown in Fig. 1.
Scordilis (2006) The Margalla Fault, which is 0.37 km long, runs from NE to SW in
upper portion of this zone, whereas the Jhelum Fault, which is
M w ¼ 0:85M b þ 1:03ð3:0 6 Mb 6 6:1Þ 2.3 km long, runs from north to south. A total of 25 earthquakes
Idriss (1985) were reported in PMD catalogue, out of which 10 has a magnitude
(Mw) greater than 4.5. The maximum recorded earthquake was 5.1
Mw ¼ ML ðM L 6 5:7Þ in 1966; this magnitude occurred again in November 2007. Almost
all of the earthquakes recorded were shallow, with a focal depth
Kaviris et al. (2008)
ranging from 20 to 40 km.
M w ¼ M D þ 0:5 ðM D < 3:0Þ
3.2.2. Zone 2
Kaviris et al. (2008) Zone 2 covers the western portions of the Islamabad and
Rawalpindi districts. The coordinates of the zone are as follows:
M w ¼ M D þ 0:6 ðM D P 3:0Þ
(33.584N, 72.661E), (33.736N, 73.029E), (33.049N, 73.210E) and
(33.029N, 72.704E). No significant faults are located in this zone.
Table 1 Only six events were reported in the PMD catalogue, all of which
Historical seismicity around Islamabad, Pakistan. had a magnitude less than 4.0. The maximum recorded earthquake
Date Lat °N Long °E Intensity Remarks had a magnitude 3.9 on 28 April 1999.
1/1 /0025 33.7 72.9 X Taxila EQ
3/1/1519 34.8 71.8 VI–VII Jandol Valley EQ 3.2.3. Zone 3
4/6/1669 33.4 73.2 VI–XI Mandra EQ This zone mainly covers the district of Haripur and some por-
23/6/1669 33.87 72.25 VII–IX Attock EQ tions of the Abbotabad, Islamabad and Attock districts. The coordi-
6/6/1828 34.1 74.8 X Kashmir EQ
nates are as follows: (33.689N, 72.613E), (33.584N, 72.661E),
1/1/1831 31.75 70.35 VII–IX Darban EQ
1/1/1831 33.5 72 IV–VI Hindukush EQ
(33.736N, 73.029 E), (34.022N, 73.198E), (34.148N, 72.893E) and
17/1/1851 32 74 VI–VIII Punjab Plain EQ (34.251N, 72.642E). The southern end of the Tarbella fault, which
24/1/1852 34 73.5 VIII Murree Hills EQ is 0.354 km long, and a central portion of the MBT, which is
10/7/1863 34.08 74.82 VI–VII Srinagar EQ 0.59 km long, are located in this zone. A total of 22 earthquakes
22/1/1865 34 71.55 V–VII Peshawar
were reported in the PMD catalogue, of which, 10 had magnitude
10/11/1868 32.5 71.3 VIII Bannu EQ
11/8/1868 34 71.6 VII–VIII Peshawar EQ greater than 4.5. The maximum recorded earthquake was 5.1 on
24/3/1869 32.92 73.72 V–VII Jhelum EQ 27 September 1972. Almost all of the earthquakes recorded were
1/4/1869 34 71.55 VII–VIII Peshawar EQ shallow, with a focal depth ranging from 15 to 45 km.
20/12/1869 33.6 73.1 VII–VIII Rawalpindi EQ
12/12/1875 34 71.55 VII–VIII Lahore–Peshawar EQ
2/5/1878 33.58 71.4 VII–VIII Kohat–Peshawar EQ
3.2.4. Zone 4
1/4/1883 34 71.55 VI–VII Peshawar EQ This zone covers the southwestern portion of the Mansehra dis-
15/1/1885 34.08 74.82 VI–VII Srinagar EQ trict and a part of Buner. Its coordinates are as follows: (34.579N,
30/5/1885 34.1 74.8 IX–X Kashmir EQ 72.602E) (34.251N, 72.642E) (34.148N, 72.893E) and (34.507N,
6/6/1885 34.2 75 IX–X Kashmir EQ
72.926E). No important faults are located in this zone. Only six
25/11/1893 34 71.55 VI–VII Peshawar–Nowshera EQ
events were reported in the PMD catalogue, of which, two were
 Author's personal copy

A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478 471

Fig. 2. Seismic zones under the study area.

of a magnitude greater than 4.5. The maximum recorded earth-
quake was 4.9 on 27 October 2005.
3.2.5. Zone 5
This zone includes the Batgram district and the north eastern
portion of the Mansehra district. Its coordinates are (35.019N,
72.870E), (34.507N, 72.926E), (34.418N, 73.398E), (34.702N,
73.641E) and (35.021N, 73.452E). A number of thrust faults are lo-
cated within this zone. The MMT, which is 0.632 km long, is
located in the north; the MBT, which is 0.33 km long, and the Pan-
jal thrust, which is 0.59 km long, are located in the south. A syntax
is formed by crossing of the faults, which is referred to as the Haz-
ara syntax, is a weak area for the release of stored energy. A total of
627 earthquakes were reported in the PMD catalogue, of which,
131 had a magnitude greater than 4.5. The maximum recorded
earthquake was 6.0 on 8 October 2005. More than 90% of the earth-
quakes in this region were shallow, with a focal depth less than
40 km. This is the most seismically active region surrounding
Islamabad.
3.2.6. Zone 6
This zone covers most of the Abbotabad district, the western
portion of the Bagh district, the northern portion of the Rawalpindi
district and the southern portion of the Mansehra district. Its coor-
dinates are as follows: (34.148N, 72.893E), (34.022N, 73.198E),
(33.740N, 73.523E), (33.974N, 73.798E), (34.354N, 73.365E),
(34.418N, 73.398E) and (34.507N, 72.926E). Three important faults
are present in this zone, including the Jhelum Fault, which is
 Author's personal copy

472 A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478

Fig. 3. Seismicity of Zone-1.

0.63 km long and runs from north to south, whereas the Tarbella
fault, which is 0.42 km long, and the MBT, which is 0.33 km long,
run parallel to each other from NE to SW. A total of 66 earthquakes
were reported in the PMD catalogue, of which, none had a magni-
tude greater than 4.5. But, 14 events had a magnitude greater than
4.0. The maximum recorded earthquake was 4.4 on 19 September
1986. More than 90% of the earthquakes in this region were shal-
low, with a focal depth less than 40 km. This area is seismically ac-
tive, but its potential appears to be low earthquakes.
3.2.7. Zone 7
This zone mainly contains the Muzaffarabad district and some
portions of the Neelum district and occupied Kashmir. Its coordi-
nates are as follows: (34.354N, 73.365E), (33.974N, 73.798E),
(34.187N, 74.178E), (34.702N, 73.641E) and (34.418N, 73.398E).
The Panjal fault, which is 0.68 km long, and the MBT, which is
0.68 km long and runs from NW to SE, cross this zone in its center.
A total of 164 earthquakes were reported in the PMD catalogue, of
which, 28 had a magnitude greater than 4.5. The maximum
Fig. 5. Seismicity of Zone-3.
recorded earthquake was 7.5 on 8 October 2005. This earthquake
was reported to be 7.6 by the USGS. It had a very shallow depth
of 7.9 km. The event is considered to be most disastrous in the his-
tory of Pakistan. Like all of the other zones, most of the earth-
quakes in this region were shallow, with a focal depth less than
40 km. This area is seismically active and has the potential for large
earthquakes.
3.3. Evaluation of seismicity
After establishing the source zones, the next step was to learn
the size of the earthquakes that the area of study is likely to expe-
rience. The Guttenberg–Richter Law (1954) is traditionally used in
PSHA to establish the frequency magnitude relationship. In fact,
these scientists were pioneers who described the pattern of

Fig. 4. Seismicity of Zone-2.

 Author's personal copy
A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478
Fig. 6. Seismicity of Zone-4.
Fig. 7. Seismicity of Zone-5.
magnitudes of earthquakes and their occurrence. An empirical
relationship between magnitude and frequency was proposed as
follows:
log NðMÞ ¼ a  bM
Exponentially, Eq. (1) can be expressed as:
kM ¼ 10ðabMÞ ¼ eðabMÞ
On the left-hand side of the equation is the number of events
per year for which an earthquake of magnitude M will be exceeded,
a and b are seismic constants, ‘a’ is a is standard deviation values in
Ambraseys Model which has been used for hazard computation by
CRISIS software, and b is b  ln 10. The term ‘‘a’’ denotes the seis-
micity of a zone and varies from region to region, and ‘‘b’’ denotes
the relative likelihood of small or large earthquakes. A decrease in
value of ‘‘b’’ implies an increase in the likelihood of large earth-
quakes. To calculate the ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ values, regression models were
applied to the seismic data of each zone. The SEISAN software was
used to calculate ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ values in all seven zones. Calculations
were also performed for Zone 0, which includes all seven zones in
the study area. The values of ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ along with the regression
473
Fig. 8. Seismicity of Zone-6.
Fig. 9. Seismicity of Zone-7.
ð1Þ analysis graphs are shown in Figs. 3–10 representing the Zone 1–7
and Zone 0 respectively. A complete seismicity model of the area is
presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows that Zones 2 and 4 have no
seismicity, which is also supported by the absence of any fault,
ð2Þ
as shown in Fig. 8. The two lowest values of ‘a’ were also found
in Zones 2 and 4, which is an indicator of low seismicity. Zone 5
had the highest value of k, and there is a syntax present as shown
in Fig. 8. A large number of earthquakes were also reported in the
catalogue for this zone. Zone 6 had the highest value of ‘b’, which
indicates a lower number of large earthquakes. This trend is also
evident from the catalogue data, which show that all events in
Zone 6 were less than Mw 4.8. Looking at the parameters calculated
for Zone 0, it appears that the area surrounding Islamabad is seis-
mically active, and the structures constructed in Islamabad should
be retrofitted for the appropriate seismic loading. The high ‘b’ value
found indicates a lower likelihood of large earthquakes.
CRISIS 2007 software was used for the PSHA. CRISIS computes a
seismic hazard using a probabilistic model that considers the rates
 Author's personal copy

474 A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478

Table 3
Computed hazards for different return periods.

Sector PGA PGA Ss S1

Return period years 500 2500 2500 2500
F-6 2.3 3.44 7.71 0.45
F-7 2.46 3.66 8.15 0.46
F-8 2.5 3.7 8.24 0.47
F-9 2.5 3.7 8.24 0.47
F-10 2.47 3.64 8.14 0.47
F-11* 2.54 3.72 8.31 0.47
G-6 1.88 2.85 6.49 0.41
G-7 1.87 2.85 6.49 0.41
G-8 2.02 3.04 6.89 0.42
G-9 2.06 3.09 7.00 0.43
G-10 2.05 3.08 6.97 0.43
G-11 2.12 3.17 7.16 0.43
I-8 1.35 2.2 5.08 0.36
I-9 1.40 2.25 5.18 0.36
I-10 1.45 2.32 5.31 0.37
I-11 1.52 2.41 5.50 0.37
Diplomatic enclave 1.59 2.44 5.64 0.38
*
Italic values show that maximum PGA is estimated for sector F-11.

Fig. 10. Seismicity of Zone-0. coefficient of variation for b was set to 0.4. The untruncated ex-
pected value of Mu was set between M1 and M2.

of occurrence, attenuation characteristics and the geographical dis-
tribution of earthquakes. CRISIS has the option to model earth-
quake recurrence as a Poissonian process or a Characteristic
process. We used a Poissonian model following the work of Cornell
(1968), who first introduced it as a mathematical model for PSHA.
Since then, all contemporary PSHAs have been based on Poisson’s
model. The most important reason for this is that the Poissonian
model is the simplest model that captures the basic elements of
the entire concept. Its predictions have also been successfully com-
pared with empirical observations (Sen, 2009). Eq. (1) covers an
infinite range of magnitude; therefore, an upper bound of earth-
quake M2 was assigned to each source. This value was kept higher
than M1. Bearing in mind the faults and the area’s past seismicity,
an appropriate value ranging from 0.3 to 1 was added to M1 and M2
and was assigned as shown in Table 2. The catalogues are generally
not complete for earthquakes of lower magnitudes, and earth-
quakes with magnitudes less than Mw = 4 are of less engineering
significance because they do not cause major damage. Because
shallow earthquakes cause more damage and most of the earth-
quakes in our area of study had a focal depth of less than 30 km,
the threshold magnitude was set at 3.3. This threshold value re-
sulted in a negative k in Zone 2 and Zone 4. Because the software
does not accept a negative value for k, the threshold value was low-
ered to get a nominal value of k in Zones 2 and 4.The maximum va-
lue to be calculated for each source Mu is unknown, and there are
uncertainties present in its probabilistic calculation. To account for
these uncertainties, a standard deviation of 0.5 was set for all
sources. Similarly, to account for uncertainties in the database, a
3.4. Ground motion parameters
The recurrence law establishes the likelihood that an earth-
quake of a certain magnitude will occur, but in our engineering cal-
culations, we use certain parameters for earthquakes such as PGA
or spectral acceleration values at different periods. One of the key
purposes of any seismic hazard analysis is to predict ground mo-
tion parameters of a certain magnitude of earthquake, which is
done using attenuation equations. Ground motions attenuate as
we move away from the source where the energy was released.
A number of parameters, including magnitude of earthquake, dis-
tance from the source, travel path, and the depth of earthquake, af-
fect the attenuation relationship. Attenuation relationships are
mostly derived empirically from a mathematical process known
as the data fitting technique. In its most basic form, an attenuation
relation can be described as:
ln y ¼ c1 þ c2 M  c3 ln R  c4 R þ c5 F þ c6 S þ e ð3Þ
In above equation, y is strong motion parameter of interest such
as PGA, etc., M is the magnitude of the earthquake, F is faulting
mechanism of earthquake, S describes local site conditions, e is
the random error term and R is the distance term. Many of the
mathematical expressions in the above equation are rooted in
earthquake seismology. Although a number of attenuation rela-
tionships have been proposed by different scientists like Ambra-
seys et al. (2005) and others, none are based on the local data of
Pakistan. Another complication in the present study was that we
needed an attenuation relationship that addressed spectral

Table 2
Seismicity model of the study area.

Events Age in years ‘N’ Min in zone M1 M2 a b anormal Expected b Mthresh k per year
Zone 1 25 41 2.7 5.5 6.5 3.21 0.48 1.597 1.11 3.3 0.01
Zone 2 6 9 3 5.2 5.7 1.69 0.36 0.736 0.83 2.0 0.02
Zone 3 22 37 2.8 5.4 6.4 7.68 1.4 6.112 3.22 3.3 1.49
Zone 4 6 15 3.3 5.2 5.6 2.37 0.44 1.194 1.01 2.3 0.18
Zone 5 625 73 2.8 6.1 7.1 7.46 1.12 5.597 2.58 3.3 1.90
Zone 6 66 26 2.8 4.8 5.8 9.5 1.91 8.085 4.40 3.3 1.78
Zone 7 162 38 2.3 7.5 7.8 5.65 0.87 4.070 2.00 3.3 1.20
Zone 0 912 73 2.3 7.5 7.8 7.97 1.19 6.107 2.74 3.3 2.18
 Author's personal copy

A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478 475

Fig. 11. Mapped spectral acceleration parameter Ss.

acceleration at various time periods. Building further on the expe-
rience gained from PMD and the Norwegian firm NORSAR, the
model suggested by Ambraseys et al. (2005) is used in this study
for the following reasons: (a) the data used came from Europe
and the Middle East, which, like in our area of study, have shallow
earthquakes; (b) the tectonic conditions of the Mediterranean are
the most similar to those of our region (Ambraseys also used data
from the Himalayan region, which comprised 3% of their database
(Mona Lisa et al., 2005)); and (c) the attenuation relationship for
spectral accelerations of different structural periods was included
in Ambraseys Model. This was a key requirement for this study.
3.5. Spectral ordinates
Most of the researchers have only reported PGA values for
Islamabad. Traditionally, PGA has been used as a parameter for
 Author's personal copy

476 A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478

Fig. 12. Mapped spectral acceleration parameter S1.

seismic hazards because it was easily read from analog accelero-
grams. However, PGA does not correlate well with the damage
potential of an earthquake (NORSAR and PMD, 2006). Therefore,
modern building codes also base their measurements of seismic
hazards on spectral values. For example, spectral acceleration val-
ues are required at a structural period of 0.2 s and 1 s by ASCE 7-
05 and IBC-2006. Only PGA values are required by BCP 2007 and
UBC-97. In this study, eight spectral ordinates were set for which
hazard intensity was calculated; these are 0.001, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0,
1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The minimum intensity to be considered was
0.001 m/s2 and the maximum limit was set to 12 m/s2 (1.2 g).
These limits are reasonable because various the PGA values re-
ported for Islamabad by several researchers were all less than
0.5. Ambraseys used a period of 0.001 for PGA calculations;
0.2 s and 1.0 s periods are required by IBC 2006. The remaining
periods are required to create a uniform hazard spectrum. The de-
fault unit of this model is m/s2. We considered 15 points to be
sufficient to draw hazard curve.
 Author's personal copy
A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478
3.6. Return period
One of the purposes of this study was to evaluate seismic haz-
ards at various annual exceedance probability levels. In modern
building codes, risk level is often defined as a certain% of exceed-
ance in the lifetime of a structure. BCP 2007 states that buildings
should be designed for a level of earthquake ground motion that
has 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. IBC 2006 sets this
parameter at 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The return
period is the time gap after which an earthquake of a given magni-
tude can occur again. If TR is the return period, T is useful life period
of a structure and P is annual probability of exceedance, then:
T
TR ¼
lnðT  PÞ
If, for example, T = 50 years (the assumed lifetime of a structure)
and P = 2% (i.e., 98% chance of non-exceedance of an earthquake),
then TR = 2475 years, which is rounded to 2500 years. The corre-
sponding annual exceedance rate is 1/2500 = 0.0004. According to
this formula, the BCP requires us to estimate the hazard for a return
period of 500 years, whereas the IBC requires spectral values to be
calculated for a return period of 2500 years. In this study, the haz-
ard was estimated for return periods of 50, 100, 500, 1000 and
2500 years. The corresponding annual exceedance rates were 0.02,
0.01, 0.002, 0.001 and 0.0004.
3.7. Spatial integration
In this study, the seismic hazard was integrated using all possi-
ble sources. A spatial integration process was performed to account
for all possible focal locations. Usually, it is assumed that within a
seismic source all points are equally to be an earthquake focus. In
this case, acceleration exceedance rates due to a single source, the
ith, are computed using the following expression:
X Z Mu  
dkðMÞ  
v iðaÞ ¼ wij  Pr A > ajM; Rij dM
j M0 dM
where M0 and Mu are the smallest and largest magnitudes consid-
ered in the analysis, respectively, and Pr (A > a|M, Rij)) is the proba-
bility that acceleration exceeds the value a at the site, given that at
distance Rij an earthquake of magnitude M originates. Rij are the dis-
tances between the site and the sub-elements into which the source
is divided. A weight wij is assigned to each sub-element, and the
P
expression above assumes that wij ¼ 1. Finally, the contributions
of all the sources, N, to the earthquake hazard at the site are added:
X
N estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using
v ðaÞ ¼ v iðaÞ
i¼1
First, the area source is subdivided into N-2 triangles. These trian-
gles are further subdivided until one of the following two condi-
tions is met: (a) the size of the triangle is smaller than the value
of the ‘‘minimum triangle size’’ given by the user. That is, the trian-
gle is subdivided if it remains large. The size of the triangle is simply
the square root of its area. The seismicity associated with each cen-
troid is proportional to the triangle’s area. The area of triangle was
set to 11 km for this hazard calculation. (b) The ratio between the
site-to-source distance and the triangle size is larger than the value
of the ‘‘minimum distance/triangle size ratio’’ given by the user. In
other words, the triangle is subdivided if the site is too close. The
site-to-source distance is measured from the present computation
site to the centroid of the triangle whose possible subdivision is
being examined. The ratio was chosen because other combinations
of area and ratio were also tested, but the difference was not signif-
icant. The maximum integration distance was chosen as 300 km
477
because the area of study is about 250 km in the NS direction and
180 km in the EW direction; therefore, the integration of all events
at a distance of 300 km was a conservative choice.
4. Results of PSHA
The computation grid was limited to the administrative bound-
aries of the Islamabad district and a portion of Abbotabad. Its four
corners are defined by following coordinates: (Long 72.8 and Lat
33.5), (Long 73.3 and Lat 33.5), (Long 73.3 and Lat 34.2) and (Long
72.8 and Lat 34.2). The area where the hazard was calculated was
divided into 59 longitudinal lines and 78 lateral lines, making 4602
squares spaced at 1.1 km in each direction. The hazard was calcu-
ð4Þ lated at all four corners of each square, and interpolation was done
for the intermediate locations. The seismic hazard of important
locations is presented in Table 3. The values given are for rock sites,
and these values will be suitably modified by a soil factor. The de-
tailed contours are given in Figs. 11 and 12.
5. Conclusion
The seismic hazard in Islamabad is not uniform, and it varies
from sector to sector with a PGA ranging from 1.35 m/s2 to
2.54 m/s2. The F series of the sector is the most prone to seismic
threat, and F-11 is seismically the most exposed sector in Islama-
bad. During deaggregation, we found that an earthquake of Mw
6.2 at a distance of 20–30 km is the earthquake that is most likely
to strike Islamabad. BCP 2007 placed Islamabad in seismic Zone 2B,
which indicates a 500 years return PGA of 0.16–0.25 g. Similarly,
NESPAK (2006) suggested a PGA of 0.3 g for a return period of
2500 years. The PGA calculated for this return period in this study
ranges from 0.24 g to 0.37 g. The PGA calculated in this study for
Islamabad generally falls in the same range. However, this study
presents PGA for a grid of 1 km by 1 km; therefore, microzonation
is built into the IBC 2006 criteria. Ss (spectral acceleration at 0.2 s at
ð5Þ a return period of 2500 years) and S1 (spectral acceleration at 1 s at
return period of 2500 years) will enable structural engineers to de-
fine seismic load in terms of the IBC 2006 and ASCE 7-05 criteria.
We were also able to establish that 90% of the earthquakes in the
area are caused by the thrust fault mechanism and are shallow
earthquakes, where even a small magnitude can be disastrous.
References
Aitchison, J.C., Ali, J.R., Davis, A.M., 2007. When and where did India and Asia.
Journal of Geophysics Research 112, B05423.
Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., Sarma, S.K., Smit, P.M., 2005. Equations for the
ð6Þ data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and
spectral acceleration. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3, 1–53.
ASCE, 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-
05. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Cornell, C.A., 1968. Engineering seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 59 (5), 1583–1606.
CRISIS, 2007. User Manual Crisis 2007 Version 7.2. In: Ordaz, M., Aguilar, A.,
Arbulida, J. (Eds.). A computer program for seismic hazard assessment. Institute
of Ingeneria, UNAM.
GSP, 1988. Seismic Risk Series Map Northern Pakistan Sheet No. 2. Geological
Survey of Pakistan. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F., 1954. Seismicity of the Earth and Associated
Phenomenon, second ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
IBC, 2006. International Building Code IBC 2006. International Code Council,
Washington, DC.
Idriss, 1985. Evaluating seismic risk in engineering practice. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, vol. 1. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 255–320.
Kaviris, G., Papadimitriou, P., Chamilothoris, L., Makropoulos, K., 2008. Moment
magnitudes for small and intermediate earthquakes. European Seismological
Commission ESC 2008, 31st General Assembly Crete, 7–12 September 2008.
Mona Lisa, 2005. Seismic Hazard Assessment of North Western Himalayan Fold and
Thrust Belt Pakistan. Chapter 6 of PhD Dissertation. Quid e Azam University,
Islamabad.
 Author's personal copy
478 A.Q. Bhatti et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (2011) 468–478
Mona Lisa, Khwaja, A.A., Javed, M., Ansari, Y.S., Jan, M.Q, 2005. Seismic hazard
assessment of NW Himalayan Fold and Thrust Belt, Pakistan, using probabilistic
approach. In: Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, vol. 42, no. 4,
December 2005.
NESPAK, 2006. Revision/updating of building code of pakistan, stage 1,
Recommendations for preliminary seismic design parameters and criteria for
seismic resistant design of buildings in Islamabad – Rawalpindi area – Ministry
of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan National Engineering Services
Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (NESPAK).
NORSAR and PMD, 2006. Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Cities of Islamabad and
Rawalpindi, produced for the PMD with support from NORSAR. 47pp.
Scordilis, E.M., 2006. Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment
magnitude. Journal of Seismology 10, 225–236.
Sen, Tapal K., 2009. Fundamental of Seismic Loading on Structures. John Willey and
Son Limited.
UBC, 1997. Uniform Building Code 1997. In: International Conference of Building
Officials. Whittier, California, USA.