USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70025916

Estimation of ground motion for Bhuj (26 January 2001; Mw 7.6) and for future earthquakes in India

Abstract

Only five moderate and large earthquakes ( M w ≥5.7) in India—three in the Indian shield region and two in the Himalayan arc region—have given rise to multiple strong ground-motion recordings. Near-source data are available for only two of these events. The Bhuj earthquake ( M w 7.6), which occurred in the shield region, gave rise to useful recordings at distances exceeding 550 km. Because of the scarcity of the data, we use the stochastic method to estimate ground motions. We assume that (1) S waves dominate at R < 100 km and Lg waves at R ≥ 100 km, (2) Q = 508 f 0.48 is valid for the Indian shield as well as the Himalayan arc region, (3) the effective duration is given by fc -1 + 0.05R, where fc is the corner frequency, and R is the hypocentral distance in kilometer, and (4) the acceleration spectra are sharply cut off beyond 35 Hz. We use two finite-source stochastic models. One is an approximate model that reduces to the ω 2 -source model at distances greater that about twice the source dimension. This model has the advantage that the ground motion is controlled by the familiar stress parameter, Δ σ . In the other finite-source model, which is more reliable for near-source ground-motion estimation, the high-frequency radiation is controlled by the strength factor, sfact , a quantity that is physically related to the maximum slip rate on the fault. We estimate Δ σ needed to fit the observed Amax and Vmax data of each earthquake (which are mostly in the far field). The corresponding sfact is obtained by requiring that the predicted curves from the two models match each other in the far field up to a distance of about 500 km. The results show: (1) The Δ σ that explains Amax data for shield events may be a function of depth, increasing from ∼50 bars at 10 km to ∼400 bars at 36 km. The corresponding sfact values range from 1.0-2.0. The Δ σ values for the two Himalayan arc events are 75 and 150 bars ( sfact = 1.0 and 1.4). (2) The Δ σ required to explain Vmax data is, roughly, half the corresponding value for Amax, while the same sfact explains both sets of data. (3) The available far-field Amax and Vmax data for the Bhuj mainshock are well explained by Δ σ = 200 and 100 bars, respectively, or, equivalently, by sfact = 1.4. The predicted Amax and Vmax in the epicentral region of this earthquake are 0.80 to 0.95 g and 40 to 55 cm/sec, respectively.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 7.96553° to 35.49401° latitude; 68.17665° to 97.40256° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S.K. Singh, B.K. Bansal, S.N. Bhattacharya, J.F. Pacheco, R.S. Dattatrayam, M. Ordaz, G. Suresh, Kamal, S. E. Hough. 2003. Estimation of ground motion for Bhuj (26 January 2001; Mw 7.6) and for future earthquakes in India. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020102

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗