Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00210-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Seismic hazard curves for Warangal city in Peninsular India

Mohammad Muzzaffar Khan1   · Teja Munaga1 · D. Nishanth Kiran2 · Gonavaram Kalyan Kumar1

Received: 12 December 2018 / Accepted: 13 November 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has been carried out for the heritage city Warangal in Telangana
state of Peninsular India. The Cornell–McGuire approach of PSHA has been considered to estimate the hazard. The area of
influence is taken as 500 km radius. A homogeneous and updated earthquake catalogue was compiled for the considered area
which was later categorized into four seismic sources (zones) considering the earthquake epicentre and geology. The seismic
parameters a and b were estimated and the b value of the for the four seismic zones ranges from 0.72 to 0.97, whereas the
a value ranges from 2.45 to 3.20. The results obtained are shown as uniform hazard curves and hazard maps showing the
spatial variation peak ground acceleration (PGA) considering 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The PGA
and PSA values were compared with NDMA (Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India, technical report
of the Working Committee of Experts (WCE), National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Govt. of India, New
Delhi, 2010) and IS 1893-1 (Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings,
6th edition, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2016). The study focussed on understanding the possibility of seismic
hazard at the heritage city Warangal in Peninsular India.

Keywords  Uniform hazard spectrum · Peak ground acceleration · Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis · Warangal

Introduction by evaluating the seismic hazard at the area of interest and

designing the buildings accordingly. Some of the seismic
Earthquakes are the natural geophysical hazards that have an hazard studies in India have considered entire India as the
adverse effect on humans and the environment. Earthquakes study region (NDMA 2010; Sitharam et al. 2015) encom-
were initially assumed to occur only at the tectonic plate passed broad seismic zones and coarse grid size; hence the
boundaries, but some of the earthquakes at Koyna (10th hazard values may not be suggestive for local site-specific
December 1967), Jabalpur (21st May 1997), Latur (29th hazard assessment. Site-specific seismic hazard assessment
September 1993), Ongole (3rd December 1987) and Bhad- has also been performed at micro level for some important
rachalam (13th April 1969) emphasized that the intra-plate places within Peninsular India region, such as Bangalore
region is also prone to deadly earthquakes. The devastating (Anbazhagan et al. 2009), Tamil Nadu (Menon et al. 2010),
effect of any seismic event can be decreased considerably Kancheepuram (Corigliano et al. 2012), Visakhapatnam
(Kumar et al. 2012), Chennai (Ramanna and Dodagoudar
2012), Mumbai (Desai and Choudhury 2014), Koyna (Dev
* Mohammad Muzzaffar Khan
muzzaffar27@gmail.com and Nagarajan 2017) and Vijayapura (Patil et al. 2018). It is
noteworthy that the Peninsular India (PI) region is vulner-
Teja Munaga
teja.smartyy@gmail.com able to moderate magnitude earthquakes and it is suggested
that there be the site-specific hazard studies considering the
D. Nishanth Kiran
nishanthkiran555@gmail.com local seismicity. Though Peninsular India has witnessed
some of the catastrophic earthquakes, understanding of
Gonavaram Kalyan Kumar
kalyan@nitw.ac.in seismic hazard seems limited.
The objective of this paper was to perform a probabilis-
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute tic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) to evaluate the ground
of Technology Warangal, Warangal 506004, India shaking elements and produce the hazard curves for the
2
Aarvee Associates, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

heritage city of Warangal. It is an ancient city which was buildings, heritage structures from earthquake hazard and to
ruled by the Kakatiya rulers from 1163 AD. The Kakatiyas build new structures including earthquake resistant design.
have constructed many historical structures like Thousand
Pillar Temple, Warangal Fort and Ramalingeswara tem- Tectonic setting
ple. The presence of such historical structures in Warangal
favoured its inclusion in “National Heritage City Develop- Peninsular India (PI) was anticipated as a stable continental
ment and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY)” scheme by the region (SCR) with low seismicity; however, Johnston and
Govt. of India with the aim of bringing together the eco- Kanter (1990) have expressed that potentially damaging earth-
nomic growth, urban planning and heritage conservation. quakes are possible in SCRs with maximum damage to life
Warangal was also selected for the Smart Cities Mission and property since the earthquake resistance design is reluc-
(2016) program by Government of India to make it a citizen- tantly followed in SCRs. The Kutch, Bhuj, Koyna and Latur
friendly and sustainable city. It is the second-most populous earthquakes are some of the examples of the earthquakes in
city after the capital city, Hyderabad, which is at a distance SCRs. These earthquakes occurred because of the stresses
of about 130  km from Warangal, Telangana. IS 1893-1 generated in the intraplate region of PI due to the collision of
(2016) divided the country into four zones (zones II–V) Indian plate and the Eurasian plate (Kumar et al. 2007). Bil-
based on the earthquake intensity. Warangal falls within ham et al. (2003) illustrated that the striking of the Indian plate
zone III, which is a moderate seismic region with a PGA with Tibet plate developed flexure in the Indian plate that pro-
value of 0.08 g. Peninsular India comprises many active duces sufficient stresses to trigger earthquakes. The 2001 Bhuj
faults and lineaments. Some important faults and lineaments earthquake is an example of a high-stress concentrated region
featured in the influence region are Kinnerasani–Godavari earthquake (Singh and Singh 2005). Vita-Finzi (2004) stated
fault, Kaddam fault and Musi lineament. Conservation of that the spatial distribution of earthquakes in PI is due to the
the ancient historical structures from earthquake hazard is buckling of the lithosphere. A number of sedimentary basins
essential for the future generation to understand the culture are present in Peninsular India. The sedimentary basins present
and the history of the region. Any seismic activity in such a in the study area are the Godavari Graben, Cuddapah basin and
historical and populous city will have an adverse impact on some parts of Eastern Ghats. These areas are well known and
the tourism industry, employment and rapid development are classified as moderate seismic regions from past seismic-
of the area. These aspects have made the author realize the ity history (Gupta 2006). The earthquakes are comparatively
importance and the need for seismic exposure studies of fewer in Peninsular India due to the intraplate setting than at
Warangal district. near-plate boundaries of the Himalayan region, but there is
The probabilistic approach of seismic hazard assessment a possibility of earthquakes due to the stresses developed by
is preferable than the deterministic method for places with the impact of the Indian plate and the presence of geological
moderate seismicity (Patil and Tande 2018). In this article, faults and lineaments. The sources for earthquakes are mostly
PSHA has been performed to estimate the earthquake hazard the rupture of geological faults where the strain energy is built
at Warangal region due to subsequent earthquakes in a par- up over time and released along the fault plane.
ticular time frame at a grid interval of 0.05° by the classical The study region in this investigation is taken as 500 km
Cornell–McGuire (Cornell 1968; McGuire 1976) approach. radius with NITW as centre. The lineaments and faults
The circular study region of 500 km radius with National that existed in the considered region were recognized from
Institute of Technology Warangal (NITW) as the centrer was the Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its environs. These
divided into four seismic sources considering the geology and faults and lineaments were digitized as layers in the ArcGIS
earthquake epicentre. The Gutenberg and Richter recurrence software for seismic source characterization. It is observed
relationship has been evaluated after the completeness analysis from the seismotectonic map that the WNW–ESE trending
of the compiled homogeneous earthquake catalogue. The max- Kinnerasani–Godavari neo-tectonic fault is just 45 km away
imum magnitude was calculated from Kijko method (Kijko from Warangal city. The Musi lineament, Kolleru Lake Fault
2004). The ground motion prediction equation provided exclu- and the Godavari valley fault are propagated at 69 km, 74 km
sively for Peninsular India by NDMA (2010) was selected to and 115 km, respectively, from the Warangal city.
determine the ground motion parameters. The earthquake
hazard values were computed for a return period of 475 years
and 2475 years. Furthermore, the uniform hazard spectrum Earthquake catalogue
has also been developed for the considered return periods.
The obtained values were compared with NDMA (2010) An earthquake catalogue of a particular area features past
and Indian Standard, IS 1893-1 (2016). The seismic hazard earthquake details such as the location, depth and magni-
assessment for Warangal region helps in safeguarding existing tude, which helps in identifying the seismic activity of that
region. The earthquake catalogue compiled for the current

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

research covers instrumental as well as historical seismic detailed seismotectonic map of the study area comprising
events that occurred in an area of 500 km radius, with the faults, lineaments and declustered earthquake events.
NITW as centre. The co-ordinates of NITW are 17.98 N
latitude and 79.53 E longitude. Many researchers have
attempted to compile an earthquake catalogue of Penin- Completeness analysis of the earthquake
sular India. Chandra (1977) compiled for Peninsular India catalogue
for the period 1594–1975, Rao and Rao (1984) for the
period 1340–1983, Srivastava and Ramachandran (1985) The estimation of recurrence parameters using incomplete
for the time span 1839–1900. Guha and Basu (1993) col- data leads to erroneous results. Therefore, the completeness
lected earthquake data of magnitude greater than 3.0 for range of earthquake catalogue must be evaluated ahead of
Peninsular India. Recently, Nath et al. (2017) published an the earthquake hazard rate calculation. Historical records
earthquake catalogue for the period 1900–2014 for South of high-magnitude earthquakes have larger completeness
Asia which includes Peninsular India. The above sources period than low-magnitude earthquakes owing to fewer
have been used in the compilation of earthquake catalogue. instrumentation (Khan and Kumar 2018). The installation of
Along with this, internationally recognized databases of sensitive seismograph network assisted in reporting smaller
earthquakes have also been used. Among this, the India earthquakes thereby ensuring the completeness period of
Meteorological Dept. (IMD), International Seismologi- lower- to intermediate-magnitude earthquakes attained in the
cal Centre (ISC), and National Earthquake Info. Center instrumental era. Several techniques have been suggested to
(NEIC) have been accessed to complete the earthquake analyse the completeness period of an earthquake catalogue
catalogue. (Albarello et al. 2001; Rotondi et al. 1994; Mulargia and
Using the available historical and instrumental data from Tinti 1985; Stepp 1972). In the present study, Cumulative
the above sources, a comprehensive catalogue of 325 events Visual Inspection (CUVI) method was used to detect the
has been compiled for the period 1800–2016. The homoge- completeness period of the earthquake catalogue for con-
neity of the catalogue magnitude was ensured by converting sidered magnitude classes and seismic zones. The CUVI
all earthquake events into the moment magnitude scale (Mw). method is a graphical approach proposed by Mulargia and
The body wave magnitude (mb) and surface wave magnitude Tinti (1985). This method is simple and extensively used by
(Ms) are changed by using the Scordilis (2006) empirical several researchers (Nath et al. 2017; Desai and Choudhury
equations. The scale of local magnitude is changed to Mw 2014; Kalyan Kumar et al. 2009). In this method, the varia-
by adopting the equation given by Heaton et al. (1986). The tion between the earthquakes cumulative number and time
Gutenberg and Richter (1956) equation was considered for duration is plotted. The earthquake catalogue was divided
the conversion of intensity scale (I) to moment magnitude. into magnitude intervals starting from a magnitude of 3.0
There are chances of reporting the same earthquake data with an increment of 0.5 magnitude. The catalogue is treated
twice or more when the earthquake catalogue was compiled to be complete for a time period in which the occurrence rate
from different sources like IMD, ISC and NEIC. Such events of earthquake events is constant. This method is based on
were discarded by comparing the magnitude, location and constant average slope. The completeness result obtained
time. In PSHA, the earthquakes are considered to comply using the CUVI method for zone 3 is shown in Fig. 2. The
Poisson’s distribution (Gardner and Knopoff 1974). The completeness period for different seismic zones is tabulated
comparatively smaller magnitude aftershocks and foreshocks in Table 1.
depend on the higher magnitude earthquake event which
follows a different probability distribution. In order to attain
Poisson’s distribution, declustering of earthquake catalogue
was performed by adopting the modified windowing tech-
Evaluation of seismicity parameters
nique proposed by Uhrhammer (1986). After declustering,
The fundamental element in the analysis of the seismic haz-
288 main earthquake events were identified with Mw ≥ 3.0
ard of a particular area is the evaluation of the recurrence
for the period 1800–2016 (217 years). The declustered earth-
interval for earthquakes of various magnitudes. The recur-
quake events were digitized as a separate layer. The previ-
rence relationship reported by Gutenberg and Richter (1944)
ously developed faults and lineaments layer were then com-
was adopted to predict the annual earthquake occurrence rate
bined with the earthquake event layer in ArcGIS software to
and the relationship is given in Eq. (1):
obtain the comprehensive seismotectonic map that helps in
understanding area-wise seismic tectonics. The considered (1)
( )
log10 𝜆M = a − b M,
area of study was divided into four different zones consid-
ering the distribution of earthquakes, local geology and the where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are the characteristic constants of the
location of faults and lineaments. Figure 1 represents the seismic zone; λM = the mean annual rate of exceedance of

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 1  Seismotectonic map of the study region

magnitude M. The constants ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be evaluated as well as the incomplete part of the earthquake catalogue to
using the least square regression analysis. The ‘b’ value is estimate the mmax value. A MATLAB code (mmax) written by
sometimes thought of as a measure of the brittle–ductile Kijko was used to determine the mmax value. The mmax values
transition of the crust (Amitrano 2003). The regression anal- obtained from K–S–B approach for different zones are listed
ysis estimates the ‘a’ and ‘b’ values from the cumulative in Table 1. Rout et al. (2015) used the similar method to esti-
annual rate of earthquake occurrence and the mean of the mate the maximum magnitude for NW central Himalayas.
magnitude range. Table 1 lists the obtained G–R recurrence
relationship seismicity values for all zones and Fig. 3 shows
relationship for zone 1. Ground motion prediction equation

Ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) is the basic

Maximum magnitude component in PSHA. The GMPE predicts the ground motion
parameter at a particular site by relating it to the distance
The maximum magnitude (mmax) is an important parameter between the site and the source, magnitude of the earth-
for the disaster management agencies, insurance industry quake, and other variables like local soil condition. Gener-
and seismologists. The mmax is described as the upper limit ally, Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Spectral Accel-
of earthquake magnitude in the considered zone. The selec- eration (SA) at different structural periods are considered
tion of maximum magnitude (mmax) in Peninsular India is as the parameters to define the strong ground motion. It is
highly uncertain owing to the short time span of earthquake preferable to choose a region-specific GMPEs in seismic
catalogue in contrast to the recurrence interval of high-mag- hazard analysis (Muthuganeisan and Raghukanth 2016). In
nitude earthquakes. The Kijko–Sellevoll–Bayes (K–S–B) the absence of such GMPEs, other region GMPEs with simi-
approach given by Kijko (2004) considers the complete part lar seismotectonic feature can be used. The effectiveness of

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 2  Completeness analysis using the CUVI method for zone 3

Table 1  Completeness period, Zones 3.0 ≤ Mw < 3.5 3.5 ≤ Mw < 4.0 4.0 ≤ Mw < 5.0 Mw ≥ 5.0 b a mmax

G–R parameters and maximum
magnitude for different zones Z1 1995 1975 1968 1862 0.73 2.55 6.65 ± 0.46
Z2 1972 1939 1936 1876 0.82 2.68 5.50 ± 0.34
Z3 1968 1948 1946 1843 0.72 2.45 6.02 ± 0.40
Z4 1967 1959 1927 1850 0.97 3.20 5.18 ± 0.27

Fig. 3  G–R recurrence relation-

ship for zone 1

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

is error associated with the regression. C1, C2, C3… C8

are region specific coefficients that can be obtained from
NDMA (2010).

Seismic hazard computation

The seismic zones, recurrence parameters, maximum mag-

nitude and GMPE that have been discussed previously are
incorporated in the analysis of seismic hazard computation
by adopting the probabilistic approach. The Probability of
Exceedance (PoE) of ground acceleration in a given interval
of 50 years is evaluated for Warangal province. The classi-
cal Cornell–McGuire approach which was first introduced
by Cornell (1968) and later enhanced by McGuire (1976)
was used in the hazard analysis. The classical approach in
PSHA considers various seismic zones based on the seis-
micity of the site and is widely used in the evaluation of
seismic hazard (Shreyasvi et al. 2019; Ramkrishnan et al.
2019; Waseem et al. 2019; Gaber et al. 2018). This method
is suited for regions with medium to high seismic activ-
ity and well-defined seismic source zones. The advantages
of Cornell–McGuire approach are reduction in epistemic
uncertainties and the parameterisation of seismicity (Molina
et al. 2001). Alternatively, a zone-less approach for seis-
mic hazard analysis has been proposed by Frankel (1995)
and Woo (1996). This technique is effective for low seismic
regions where the differentiation of seismic-zone boundaries
Fig. 4  Fundamental steps of the PSHA is problematic. The disadvantage of zone-less approach is
that it ignores the existing seismic boundaries. The drawback
of this approach is its extreme dependence on quality of
GMPE depends on the earthquake data and the procedure the earthquake catalogue (e.g. earthquake magnitude and
adopted to develop it. Anbazhagan et al. (2017) performed its location) and the smoothing parameters.
the efficacy test on 27 different GMPEs and suggested that The five main steps involved PSHA are (1) to character-
the only suitable GMPE is NDMA (2010) for hypocentral ize the seismic zone based on seismicity, (2) to calculate the
distance of more than 300 km. In this study, the GMPE sug- seismicity parameter for each seismic zone, (3) selection and
gested by NDMA (2010) was considered since the model utilizing appropriate GMPE based on regional seismicity, (4)
was generated from the strong ground-motion records of determining the hazard values for different return periods
Peninsular India. NDMA (2010) has developed GMPE con- and (5) development of PGA maps. The basic steps required
sidering the stochastic seismological model of Boore (2009) for conducting PSHA are shown in Fig. 4.
for A-type site conditions (VS30 > 1500 m/s) by dividing The numerical calculations were performed by consid-
entire India into seven regions based on the geology and ering the area source model in the CRISIS2015 (Aguilar-
quality factor. The GMPE gives PGA and response spectra Meléndez et al. 2017) software. NDMA (2011) defined three
(5% damped pseudo acceleration) for the structural period levels of zonations, i.e., Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3 which
ranging from 0 to 4 s, which is favourable for most of the were modified from TC4-ISSMGE4 (1999) in which Grade
engineering structures. The GMPE given by NDMA (2010) 1 suggest a grid size of 2 km × 2 km to 5 km × 5 km for Geo-
is of the following form: logical and Geomorphological maps. In the present study,
a grid interval of 0.05° was adopted which corresponds
ln YF = C1 + C2 M + C3 M 2 + C4 r + C5 ln r + C6 eC7 M
( )
to 5 km × 5 km area. A similar gird size was adopted by
+ C8 log (r)f0 + ln (𝜀), Sitharam et al. (2012) and Desai and Choudhury (2014)
(2) for PSHA of Karnataka and Mumbai regions, respectively.
where M = the moment magnitude; Y = spectral acceleration; The considered region was subdivided into a grid of size
r = the hypocentral distance; f0 = max (ln (r/100), 0) and ε 0.05° × 0.05° with 80 grid points such that all the important

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 5  Spatial variation of PGA

at bedrock level for 475 years’
return period

and historical structures in Warangal urban district featured map for the area of study has been generated between lati-
within the considered grid. The centre of each grid was tudes 17.95–18.30 and longitudes 79.50–79.95 by dividing
considered for evaluating the seismic hazard. Most of the into 80 grids of size 0.05° × 0.05° and PGA was calculated
earthquakes in PI have a focal depth of 10–20 km (Ashish at the centre of the grid. The spatial variation of PGA at hard
et al. 2016). The focal depth for the present study is con- stratum for 475 and 2475 years’ return period for Waran-
sidered as 15 km from the median value of focal depths for gal region are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. For the
earthquakes that occurred in the study region. A total of 13 designing of structures, 10% probability of exceedance is
spectral ordinates were considered for the structural period considered to be ideal and appropriate. Figure 7 represents
varying from 0 to 2 s. The seismic hazard was calculated for the seismic hazard curves at various time periods in the
a return period of 475 and 2475 years. The output generated range of 0–1 s at bedrock level and the values are listed in
in CRISIS2015 software was in the hazard map with exceed- Table 2.
ance rate of a particular intensity estimated at the centre of
every four grid points. Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)

The UHS is generally employed in the response spectrum

Results and discussion analysis of structures. The UHS is used to analyse the behav-
iour of structures subjected to earthquake loading. The UHS
Seismic hazard maps for 2% and 10% PoE in 50 years has been generated for hard
stratum at NIT Warangal, bearing coordinates 17.98 N and
The hazard maps and hazard curves (PGA or PSA vs. λM) 79.53 E, with structural period ranging from 0 to 2 s. The
were obtained from PSHA. The seismicity parameters (a UHS is shown in Fig. 8 and the intensity values are listed
and b) calculated for considered zones were tabulated in in Table 3. The PSA and PGA values for 475 and 2475-
Table 1. The seismic hazard curves and maps obtained are year return period for the study region are compared with
cumulative hazard from the four zones. The seismic hazard the values obtained by NDMA (2010) and IS: 1893 Part

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 6  Spatial variation of PGA

at bedrock level for 2475 years’
return period

Fig. 7  Seismic hazard curve for

NIT Warangal corresponding
to PGA, PSA at 0.05, 0.1, 0.5
and 1 s

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 2  The intensity (g) for the probability of exceedance in Table 3  The intensities at different structural period for 475 and 2475 
50 years at different structural periods years’ return period
PoE in 50 years T = 0 s T = 0.05 s T = 0.1 s T = 0.5 s T = 1 s Structural period Return period

0.010 0.9760 1.0000 1.0000 0.4500 0.0721 T 475 years 2475 years

0.017 0.8070 0.9980 0.9770 0.1740 0.0172 0 0.069 0.131
0.028 0.4920 0.9340 0.7930 0.0550 0.0034 0.01 0.069 0.131
0.046 0.2230 0.6800 0.4540 0.0149 0.0005 0.05 0.149 0.276
0.077 0.0787 0.3540 0.1940 0.0030 0.0000 0.075 0.126 0.235
0.129 0.0211 0.1390 0.0657 0.0004 0.0000 0.1 0.106 0.202
0.215 0.0037 0.0422 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.059 0.115
0.359 0.0003 0.0091 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.3 0.038 0.075
0.599 0.0000 0.0012 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.4 0.028 0.054
1.000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5 0.021 0.041
0.75 0.013 0.024
1 0.009 0.016
1 (2016) in Table 4. It is noticed that the obtained PGA 1.5 0.005 0.008
and PSA values were well matched with NDMA (2010) for 2 0.004 0.006
return periods of 475 and 2475 years. The PGA values were
in accordance with the IS: 1893 Part 1 (2016), but for higher
structural periods (PSA = 0.05, 0.1, 0.5 and 1 s) the code Conclusions
suggests higher values for both return periods. The main rea-
son for the underestimation of PSA values compared to IS: The main focus of the work presented in the paper was to
1893 Part 1 (2016) may be due to the probabilistic approach estimate the seismic hazard for Warangal province by adopt-
considered in this article. The hazard curves proposed by ing the probabilistic approach. An updated and homogene-
IS code is based on past seismicity, not on a probabilistic ous earthquake catalogue of magnitude 3.0 and above has
approach which makes it difficult to analyse the earthquake been compiled from the year 1800 to 2016. A seismotectonic
probability occurrence. map was generated for the seismic study region of 500 km

Fig. 8  Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for different return periods

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 4  Comparison of PGA Present study NDMA (2011) IS 1893-1 (2016)

and PSA values with NDMA
(2011) and IS 1893 code PGA PSA PSA PSA PGA PSA PSA PSA PGA PSA PSA PSA

Return period T = 0 0.2 0.5 1 T = 0 0.2 0.5 1 T = 0 0.2 0.5 1
475 0.069 0.059 0.021 0.009 0.06 – 0.025 – 0.08 0.2 0.16 0.08
2475 0.131 0.115 0.041 0.016 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.16 0.4 0.32 0.16

that includes homogenized and declustered earthquake Appendix

data in addition to faults and lineaments. The study area
was subdivided into four seismic source sources by con-
sidering the geology and the earthquake distribution. The Earthquake catalogue for events ≥ 4.5 magnitude
maximum magnitude was determined using Kijko’s method.
The attenuation relationship given by NDMA for Peninsular LAT LONG Year Month Day Hours Min- Sec Depth Mw Refer-
India region was chosen to evaluate the rock level spectral ute ences

hazard curve. The seismic hazard at the considered region 76.9 15.2 1843 3 31 0 0 0 0 5.67 Rao
was evaluated by utilizing CRISIS2015 software. 80 18.8 1872 11 22 0 0 0 0 4.7 NDMA
The seismic hazard has been assessed and maps have 78.45 17.45 1876 10 1 0 0 0 0 5 Rao
been developed for the study region corresponding to 475 80 22 1957 8 25 21 4 50 0 5.5 ISC
and 2475 years’ return period, showing the PGA values 80 16 1959 10 12 19 26 0 0 5.43 IMD

across Warangal region for rock site conditions. The PGA 80 14.7 1966 4 10 0 0 0 0 5 Rao
80.16 15.62 1967 3 27 8 9 45.7 15 5.13 IMD
values attained from the hazard analysis at NIT Warangal for
80.8 17.6 1968 7 27 0 0 0 0 4.5 Rao
475 and 2475 years’ return period are 0.069 g and 0.131 g,
80.67 17.81 1969 4 13 15 24 54.7 25 5.23 IMD
respectively. The hazard results obtained for the study 76 15 1975 5 12 0 0 0 0 4.6 Sacat
region are in agreement with hazard estimated by NDMA 78.54 17.93 1983 6 30 6 59 31.1 33 4.83 IMD
(2010), but marginally lower compared to IS code 1893-1 79.25 22.34 1987 4 18 16 59 48 33 5.2 USGS
(2016). A uniform hazard spectrum has also been generated 75.3 20 1991 4 30 0 0 0 0 4.7 Sacat
for Warangal region for 475 years’ and 2475 years’ return 76.62 18.07 1993 9 29 22 25 47.5 12 6.23 IMD
period, respectively, to analyse the behaviour of structures 76.52 18.11 1995 12 14 4 9 32 10 4.53 ISC
subjected to earthquake loading. The study is region spe- 76.69 17.14 1997 1 23 2 34 50 33 5.03 ISC

cific and detailed, which can be used in safeguarding and 78.34 16.54 1998 4 9 6 22 18.4 0 5.43 IMD
76.53 18.01 2000 6 19 8 22 5.3 15 4.53 IMD
accessing the vulnerability of the heritage structures, and for
79.67 21.32 2001 7 26 10 5 23 10 5.28 ISC
the new constructions. The hazard values computed in the
78.16 20.37 2016 2 12 10 11 14 10 5.6 ISC
article are at bedrock site condition (VS30 > 1500 m/s). These
values may vary substantially depending on site-specific soil Rao Rao and Rao (1984), NDMA National Disaster Management
properties. The estimated PGA values at rock condition are Authority (2011), Sacat http://www.earth​qhaz.net/sacat​/, Nath Nath
useful in site response analysis and liquefaction assessment et al. (2017), IMD India Meteorological Department, ISC Interna-
tional Seismological Centre, USGS United States Geological Survey
of Warangal in future. The seismic hazard analysis and maps
need to be updated periodically with the development of new
methodology and addition of some recent seismotectonic
data of a region to obtain an updated hazard map. References

Acknowledgements  The authors are grateful to IMD, ISC, NEIC and Aguilar-Meléndez, A., Ordaz Schroeder, M. G., De la Puente, J.,
USGS for providing the required earthquake data. The author is thank- González-Rocha, S. N., Rodriguez-Lozoya, H. E., Córdova-Cebal-
ful to Andrzej Kijko and Mario Ordaz for sharing the MATLAB code los, A., et al. (2017). Development and validation of software
‘mmax’ and CRISIS2015 program, respectively, which were used in CRISIS to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment with
the work presented. Finally the author would like to thank M. Raja emphasis on the recent CRISIS2015. Computación y Sistemas,
Vishwanathan for improving English grammar in the manuscript. Fund- 21(1), 67–90. https​://doi.org/10.13053​/cys-21-1-2578.
ing provided to the first author by MHRD (Grant no. 715008), Govt. of Albarello, D., Camassi, R., & Rebez, A. (2001). Detection of space
India for doctoral fellowship is gratefully acknowledged. and time heterogeneity in the completeness of a seismic cat-
alog by a statistical approach: An application to the Italian
area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91(6),
Compliance with ethical standards  1694–1703. https​://doi.org/10.1785/01200​00058​.
Amitrano, D. (2003). Brittle–ductile transition and associated seis-
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author micity: Experimental and numerical studies and relationship
states that there is no conflict of interest.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

with the b value. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. Johnston, A. C., & Kanter, L. R. (1990). Earthquakes in stable conti-
https​://doi.org/10.1029/2001J​B0006​80. nental crust. Scientific American, 262(3), 68–75.
Anbazhagan, P., Bajaj, K., Dutta, N., Moustafa, S. S., & Al-Arifi, N. Kalyan Kumar, G., Sreedhar, U., & Dodagoudar, G. R. (2009). Proba-
S. (2017). Region-specific deterministic and probabilistic seis- bilistic seismic hazard analysis for low seismicity region. Indian
mic hazard analysis of Kanpur city. Journal of Earth System Sci- Geotechnical Journal, 39, 288–316.
ence, 126(1), 12. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1204​0-016-0779-6. Khan, M. M., & Kumar, G. K. (2018). Statistical completeness analysis
Anbazhagan, P., Vinod, J. S., & Sitharam, T. G. (2009). Probabilistic of seismic data. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 91(6),
seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore. Natural Hazards, 48(2), 749–753. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1259​4-018-0934-6.
145–166. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1106​9-008-9253-3. Kijko, A. (2004). Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude,
Ashish, Lindholm, C., Parvez, I. A., & Kühn, D. (2016). Probabilis- ­mmax. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 161(8), 1655–1681. https​://
tic earthquake hazard assessment for Peninsular India. Journal doi.org/10.1007/s0002​4-004-2531-4.
of Seismology, 20(2), 629–653. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1095​ Kumar, B. L., Rao, G. R., & Rao, K. S. (2012). Seismic hazard analysis
0-015-9548-2. of low seismic regions, Visakhapatnam: Probabilistic approach.
Bilham, R., Bendick, R., & Wallace, K. (2003). Flexure of the Indian The Journal of Indian Geophysical Union, 16(1), 11–20.
plate and intraplate earthquakes. Journal of Earth System Sci- Kumar, P., Yuan, X., Kumar, M. R., Kind, R., Li, X., & Chadha, R.
ence, 112(3), 315–329. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF027​09259​. K. (2007). The rapid drift of the Indian tectonic plate. Nature,
Boore, D. M. (2009). Comparing stochastic point-source and finite- 449(7164), 894. https​://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e0621​4.
source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bulle- McGuire, R. K. (1976). FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk
tin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(6), 3202–3216. analysis (no 76-67). Reston: US Geological Survey.
https​://doi.org/10.1785/01200​90056​. Menon, A., Ornthammarath, T., Corigliano, M., & Lai, C. G. (2010).
Chandra, U. (1977). Earthquakes of peninsular India: A seismotectonic Probabilistic seismic hazard macrozonation of Tamil Nadu in
study. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 67(5), Southern India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
1387–1413. 100(3), 1320–1341. https​://doi.org/10.1785/01200​90071​.
Corigliano, M., Lai, C. G., Menon, A., & Ornthammarath, T. (2012). Molina, S., Lindholm, C. D., & Bungum, H. (2001). Probabilistic
Seismic input at the archaeological site of Kancheepuram in seismic hazard analysis: Zoning free versus zoning methodology.
Southern India. Natural Hazards, 63(2), 845–866. https​://doi. Bollettino di Geofisica, 42, 19–39.
org/10.1007/s1106​9-012-0195-4. Mulargia, F., & Tinti, S. (1985). Seismic sample areas defined from
Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the incomplete catalogues: An application to the Italian territory.
Seismological Society of America, 58(5), 1583–1606. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 40(4), 273–300.
Desai, S. S., & Choudhury, D. (2014). Spatial variation of probabil- https​://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(85)90038​-X.
istic seismic hazard for Mumbai and surrounding region. Natu- Muthuganeisan, P., & Raghukanth, S. T. G. (2016). Site-specific proba-
ral Hazards, 71(3), 1873–1898. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1106​ bilistic seismic hazard map of Himachal Pradesh, India. Part I.
9-013-0984-4. Site-specific ground motion relations. Acta Geophysica, 64(2),
Dev, S. M. S. P., & Nagarajan, R. (2017). Seismic hazard assessment 336–361. https​://doi.org/10.1515/acgeo​-2016-0010.
of Koyna region, Peninsular India: Using geospatial approach. Nath, S. K., Mandal, S., Adhikari, M. D., & Maiti, S. K. (2017). A
Geoenvironmental Disasters, 4(1), 27. https​://doi.org/10.1186/ unified earthquake catalogue for South Asia covering the period
s4067​7-017-0092-y. 1900–2014. Natural Hazards, 85(3), 1787–1810. https​://doi.
Frankel, A. (1995). Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern org/10.1007/s1106​9-016-2665-6.
United States. Seismological Research Letters, 66(4), 8–21. https​ NDMA. (2010). Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map
://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl​.66.4.8. of India, technical report of the Working Committee of Experts
Gaber, H., El-Hadidy, M., & Badawy, A. (2018). Up-to-date proba- (WCE), National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). New
bilistic earthquake hazard maps for Egypt. Pure and Applied Delhi: Govt. of India.
Geophysics, 175(8), 2693–2720. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0002​ NDMA. (2011). Geotechnical/geophysical investigations for seismic
4-018-1854-5. microzonation studies of urban centres in India, Technical Report,
Gardner, J. K., & Knopoff, L. (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes in National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). New Delhi:
Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bul- Govt. of India.
letin of the Seismological Society of America, 64(5), 1363–1367. Patil, S. G., Menon, A., & Dodagoudar, G. R. (2018). Probabilis-
Guha, S. K., & Basu, P. C. (1993). Catalogue of earthquakes (=> M tic seismic hazard at the archaeological site of Gol Gumbaz in
3.0) in Peninsular India (No. AERB-TD-CSE–1). Atomic Energy Vijayapura, South India. Journal of Earth System Science, 127(2),
Regulatory Board. 16. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1204​0-018-0917-4.
Gupta, I. D. (2006). Delineation of probable seismic sources in India and Patil, V. S., & Tande, S. N. (2018). Probabilistic verses determinis-
neighbourhood by a comprehensive analysis of seismotectonic char- tic method of seismic performance evaluation. Asian Journal of
acteristics of the region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineer- Civil Engineering, 19(2), 165–176. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4210​
ing, 26(8), 766–790. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.soild​yn.2005.12.007. 7-018-0015-6.
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes Ramanna, C. K., & Dodagoudar, G. R. (2012). Probabilistic seismic
in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, hazard analysis using kernel density estimation technique for
34(4), 185–188. Chennai, India. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1956). Earthquake magnitude, inten- for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 6(1), 1–15. https​://doi.
sity, energy, and acceleration: (Second paper). Bulletin of the Seis- org/10.1080/17499​518.2010.49607​3.
mological Society of America, 46(2), 105–145. Ramkrishnan, R., Kolathayar, S., & Sitharam, T. G. (2019). Seismic
Heaton, T. H., Tajima, F., & Mori, A. W. (1986). Estimating ground hazard assessment and land use analysis of Mangalore City, Kar-
motions using recorded accelerograms. Surveys in Geophysics, nataka, India. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. https​://doi.
8(1), 25–83. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF019​04051​. org/10.1080/13632​469.2019.16083​33.
IS 1893-1. (2016). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of struc- Rao, B. R., & Rao, P. S. (1984). Historical seismicity of peninsular
tures, part 1: general provisions and buildings (6th ed.). New India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(6),
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. 2519–2533.

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Rotondi, R., Meroni, F., & Zonno, G. (1994). A different intensity Smart City Mission. (2016). Ministry of Urban Development, Govern-
recording for reducing the uncertainty in its assessment: An appli- ment of India (2015).
cation to the completeness analysis of earthquake catalogues. Srivastava, H. N., & Ramachandran, K. (1985). New catalogue of
Natural Hazards, 10(1–2), 47–58. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF006​ earthquakes for peninsular India during 1839–1900. Mausam,
43440​. 36(3), 351–358.
Rout, M. M., Das, J., & Das, R. (2015). Probabilistic seismic haz- Stepp, J. C. (1972). Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample
ard assessment of NW and central Himalayas and the adjoining in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of
region. Journal of Earth System Science, 124(3), 577–586. https​ earthquake hazard. In Proceedings of the 1st international confer-
://doi.org/10.1007/s1204​0-015-0565-x. ence on microzonazion, Seattle (Vol. 2, pp. 897–910).
Scordilis, E. M. (2006). Empirical global relations converting MS and TC4-ISSMGE. (1999). Manual for zonation on seismic geotechnical
mb to moment magnitude. Journal of Seismology, 10(2), 225–236. hazards, technical committee for earthquake geotechnical engi-
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1095​0-006-9012-4. neering of the international society of soil mechanics and geo-
Shreyasvi, C., Venkataramana, K., Chopra, S., & Rout, M. M. (2019). technical engineering (ISSMGE).
Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Mangalore and its Uhrhammer, R. A. (1986). Characteristics of northern and central Cali-
adjoining regions, a part of Indian Peninsular: An intraplate fornia seismicity. Earthquake Notes, 57(1), 21.
region. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(6), 2263–2297. https​ Vita-Finzi, C. (2004). Buckle-controlled seismogenic faulting in Penin-
://doi.org/10.1007/s0002​4-019-02110​-w. sular India. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23(23–24), 2405–2412.
Singh, V. P., & Singh, R. P. (2005). Changes in stress pattern around https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.quasc​irev.2004.01.008.
epicentral region of Bhuj earthquake of 26 January 2001. Geo- Waseem, M., Lateef, A., Ahmad, I., Khan, S., & Ahmed, W. (2019).
physical Research Letters. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2005G​L0239​ Seismic hazard assessment of Afghanistan. Journal of Seismol-
12. ogy, 23(2), 217–242. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10950​ -018-9802-5.
Sitharam, T. G., James, N., Vipin, K. S., & Raj, K. G. (2012). A study Woo, G. (1996). Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area
on seismicity and seismic hazard for Karnataka State. Journal of source modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer-
Earth System Science, 121(2), 475–490. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ ica, 86(2), 353–362.
s1204​0-012-0171-0.
Sitharam, T. G., Kolathayar, S., & James, N. (2015). Probabilistic Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
assessment of surface level seismic hazard in India using topo- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
graphic gradient as a proxy for site condition. Geoscience Fron-
tiers, 6(6), 847–859. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.06.002.

13