PROJECT AZURE I

ABSTRACT
The object of this project is to be enabled with a detailed training in the field of data
elaboration and handling of ground motion to come up with realistic and site specific
design spectra. The target area of study for this project is Orissa, but due unavailability
of ground motion data, I chose Chamoli Region in Uttarakhand state, India with the data
collected the same station, which is one among the chain of stations maintained by IIT,
Roorkee. The data from this station was processed with Matlab for obtaining time history
and design spectral accelerations. This project involves with the comparison of spectral
acceleration values not only between Indian Standard code and Euro code, and also with
the spectral accelerations obtained from GMPE models, to determine the efficiency of
GMPE models in the estimation of earthquake parameters.

PROJECT AZURE I

LIST OF CONTENTS

Contents
1. Introduction: ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Seismic Networks in India: ............................................................................... 1
2. Identification of Input Parameters: .................................................................... 3
2.1 Region of Study & Earthquake: ........................................................................ 3
2.2 Seismic station information: ............................................................................ 3
2.3 Risk Analysis: .................................................................................................... 4
2.4Topography and Geology: ................................................................................. 4
3. Strong motion data interpretation: .................................................................... 7
3.1 Time histories: ................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Design Spectral Accelerations: ......................................................................... 9
4. Comparison between code spectra and Design spectra ................................... 11
4.1 Indian Standard Code Spectrum (IS 1893-2002) ............................................. 11
4.2 Euro code 8 (prEN 1998-1): ............................................................................ 13
4.3 Comparison of Horizontal Design Spectral acceleration with IS and Euro codes
(5% Damping) ...................................................................................................... 16
5. Ground Motion Prediction Equations............................................................... 18
5.1 GMPE-Schwarz et al Model ............................................................................ 18
5.2 GMPE-Sharma et al Model ............................................................................. 19
6. Conclusions: ..................................................................................................... 21
7. References ....................................................................................................... 22

PROJECT AZURE I

LIST OF FIGURES
S.No Figures

Page
No

1.

Seismic Zones of India

2.

Earthquake location & Station Map

3.

Topography Of Uttarakhand

4.

Geology Of Uttarakhand

5.

Time history Of Longitudinal Component

6.

Time history Of Transverse Component

7.

Time history Of Vertical Component

8.

Time history Of All 3 Components

9.

Design Spectral Acceleration of All 3 Components

10.

Design Horizontal (Longitudinal) Spectral Acceleration with different

% of Damping

11.

Design Horizontal (Transverse) Spectral Acceleration with different

% of Damping

10

PROJECT AZURE I

12.

Design Vertical Spectral Acceleration with different % of Damping

10

13.

Design Horizontal Elastic Spectrum IS Code (1893-2002)

12

14.

Design Vertical Elastic Spectrum IS Code (1893-2002)

12

15.

Design Horizontal Elastic Spectrum Euro Code 8 (prEN 1998-

14

1:2003)

16.

Design Vertical Elastic Spectrum Euro Code 8 (prEN 1998-1:2003) 15

17.

Horizontal (Longitudinal) component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro

16

Code

18.

Horizontal (Transverse) component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro

16

Code

19.

Vertical Component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro Code

17

20.

Schwarz GMPE models Spectrum Comparison with SGM Spectrum

19

21.

Sharma GMPE models Spectrum Comparison with SGM Spectrum

20

PROJECT AZURE I

1. Introduction:
Seismic hazard analysis involves with the estimation of ground shaking hazards at a
particular site without consideration of the consequences. Seismic hazards may be
analyzed deterministically, as when a particular earthquake scenario is assumed, or
probabilistically, in which uncertainties in earthquake size, location and time of occurrence
are explicitly considered. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is the key method for the
establishment of zoning maps over the large regions, which helps with the seismic risk
studies for the sites that deserve special attention.

1.1 Seismic Networks in India:

According to geographical statistics of India shows that almost 54% of the land is
vulnerable earthquakes due to seismic gaps along the Himalayan belt and the collision of
Indian plate with the Asian plate. Since more than half of the area of India is susceptible
to strong ground motions; therefore there is a need to know about the probable
characteristics of future earthquakes in this region. Bureau of Indian standards grouped
the country into 4 seismic zones II, III, IV and V, zone V (Intensity IX and above) being
the most seismically prone region, while zone II (Intensity VI or less) is the least according
to Modified Mercalli scale.
IIT Roorkee with the cooperation of Indian Meteorological department is operating a
network of 300 strong motion accelerographs throughout the India.

P a g e 1 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.1 Map showing Seismic Zones of India

P a g e 2 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

2. Identification of Input Parameters:

2.1 Region of Study & Earthquake:
The target region of study for this project is Orissa, but due unavailability of ground motion
data, I chose Chamoli in the state of Uttarakhand and the ground motion data related to
the earthquake on 14th Dec 2005 from Chamoli (CHM) station. The epicenter is 54.3Km
away from the station.
The other details of earthquake 14th Dec, 2005 are listed in the following table.
Place of Earthquake

Chamoli-Uttarakhand

Latitude

30.9 N

Longitude

79.3 E

Depth (Km)

25.7

Magnitude (Mw )

5.2

Region

Chamoli

Type Of Earthquake

II (Mw < 5.5)

Origin Time

14/12/2005 07:09:48

Source

Pesmos, IIT Roorkee

2.2 Seismic station information:

Station

Chamoli, Uttarakhand

Station Code

CHM

Latitude

30.412 N

Longitude

79.320 E

Height

1578 m

Epicentral Distance

54.3 Km

Site Class

A Vs 30 between 700m/s to 1400m/s.

Record Time

14/12/2005 07:09:26

Sampling Rate

200 Hz

Record Duration

44.610 Sec

P a g e 3 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.2 Map showing the location of earthquake and station

2.3 Risk Analysis:

Due to moderate magnitude it caused very minor damage to the life and structures in
some parts of Uttarakhand. Considering the damage to the life, one person died and 3
other are injured. One building collapsed and some developed cracks in various parts of
Uttarakhand.

2.4Topography and Geology:

According to geographical survey of India, 86% of Uttarakhand geographical area is
covered by greater Himalayan ranges and 65% is covered by forest. Uttarakhand lies on
the south slope of the Himalayan range and the highest elevations are covered ice and
bare rock. Mount Nanda Devi is the highest peak of Uttarakhand with the altitude of
7816m above the sea level.
Uttarakhand faced many earthquakes of Mw = 5.5 or more since 1900. The state have
many active faults formed in the highly folded strata of Himalayan mountain range. Of
P a g e 4 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

these, main boundary thrust (MBT) and main frontal thrust (MFT) are primarily the active
ones in the state. This region of Himalayan range believed to have high potential danger
is known as central seismic gap, and lies between Uttarakhand and western Nepal. It has
some active small faults like Yamuna fault near Haridwar and Alaknanda fault near
Rudraprayag.
Most of the Uttarakhand state is covered by Pre-Cambrian rocks and cretaceous
sedimentary rocks. The rocks of pre-Cambrian age consists of highly folded mica-schists,
slates, phyllites etc. whereas sedimentary rocks consists of blackish phyllitic slates and
white sericite quartzite. These types are highly susceptible to landslides with the
combination of heavy rainfalls and extensive soil erosion.

Fig.3 Topography Map - Uttarakhand

P a g e 5 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.4 Geology Map - Uttarakhand

P a g e 6 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

3. Strong motion data interpretation:

3.1 Time histories:

Fig.5 Time history Of Longitudinal Component

Fig.6 Time history Of Transverse Component

P a g e 7 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.7 Time history Of Vertical Component

Fig.8 Time history Of All 3 Components

P a g e 8 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Time history graphs shows the variation of spectral acceleration with respect to the time
and these are plotted using Matlab program with the strong ground motion data obtained
from Chamoli station. The peak ground acceleration in longitudinal direction is 63.48cm/s2 where as it is -53.08 cm/s2 in transverse direction and -41.13 cm/s2 in vertical
direction.

3.2 Design Spectral Accelerations:

Fig.9 Design Spectral Acceleration of All 3 Components

Fig.10 Design Horizontal (Longitudinal) Spectral Acceleration with different % of Damping

P a g e 9 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.11 Design Horizontal (Transverse) Spectral Acceleration with different % of Damping

Fig.12 Design Vertical Spectral Acceleration with different % of Damping

P a g e 10 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

4. Comparison between code spectra and Design spectra

4.1 Indian Standard Code Spectrum (IS 1893-2002)
According to Indian Standard Code (IS 1893-2002), the design spectral acceleration for
horizontal motion will be determined by the Natural time period, soil conditions in the site
and peak ground accelerations(say 5% damping) where as for the vertical motion the
design spectral acceleration is taken as two-thirds of the horizontal design spectral
acceleration.
Empirical relation to plot design spectra:
For rock or hard soil sites:
Sa/g = 1+15T 0.0 < T < 0.10
Sa/g = 2.5 0.10 < T < 0.40
Sa/g = 1.00/T 0.40 < T < 4.00
For Medium soil
Sa/g = 1+15T 0.0 < T < 0.10
Sa/g = 2.5 0.10 < T < 0.55
Sa/g = 1.36/T 0.55 < T < 4.00
For Soft Soil
Sa/g = 1+15T 0.0 < T < 0.10
Sa/g = 2.5 0.10 < T < 0.67
Sa/g = 1.67/T 0.67 < T < 4.00

P a g e 11 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.13 Design Horizontal Elastic Spectrum IS Code (1893-2002)

Fig.14 Design Vertical Elastic Spectrum IS Code (1893-2002)

P a g e 12 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

4.2 Euro code 8 (prEN 1998-1):

Empirical relation to plot design spectra:
0 T TB : Se (T) = ag.S. [1+ (T/TB)(.2.5-1)]
TB T TC : Se (T) = ag.S..2.5
TC T TD : Se (T) = ag.S..2.5 (TC /T)
TD T 4s : Se (T) = ag.S..2.5 (TC TD /T2)
Where
Se (T) = Elastic response spectrum
T = Vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system
ag = Design ground acceleration on type A ground
TB = the lower limit of the constant spectral acceleration
TC = the Upper limit of the constant spectral acceleration
TD = the value defining the beginning of the constant displacement response range
spectrum.
S = Soil Factor
= Damping Correction Factor with a reference value of =1 for 5% viscous damping.
Ground Type

TB(s)

TC(s)

TD(s)

1.0

0.05

0.25

1.2

1.35

0.05

0.25

1.2

1.5

0.10

0.25

1.2

1.8

0.10

0.30

1.2

1.6

0.05

0.25

1.2

P a g e 13 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Vertical elastic response spectrum

0 T TB : Sve (T) = avg.S. [1+ (T/TB)(.3.0-1)]
TB T TC : Sve (T) = avg.S..3.0
TC T TD : Sve (T) = avg.S..3.0 (TC /T)
TD T 4s : Sve (T) = avg.S..3.0 (TC TD /T2)
Spectrum

avg/ ag

TB(s)

TC(s)

TD(s)

Type 1

0.90

0.05

0.15

0.10

Type 2

0.45

0.05

0.15

0.10

Fig.15 Design Horizontal Elastic Spectrum Euro Code 8 (prEN 1998-1:2003)

P a g e 14 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.16 Design Vertical Elastic Spectrum Euro Code 8 (prEN 1998-1:2003)

P a g e 15 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

4.3 Comparison of Horizontal Design Spectral acceleration with IS and

Euro codes (5% Damping)

Fig.17 Horizontal (Longitudinal) component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro Code

Fig.18 Horizontal (Transverse) component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro Code

P a g e 16 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.19 Vertical component Comparison IS Code Vs Euro Code

As discussed above the design elastic spectrums are plotted based on the soil condition
of the site and natural time periods according to both Indian Standard Code and Euro
Code for 5% damping consideration. From the above plots it is evident that for both IS
code and Euro code the elastic spectrum is same in longitudinal and transverse directions
with a maximum value of 2.5g.
In case of vertical spectrum, the parameters considered for the elastic design spectrum
are different, so both the codes differs vastly from the other. The Eurocode design
spectrum for vertical component is designed mainly based on the earthquake magnitude
(Type I or II) and on the natural time periods, whereas in case of IS code it is taken as
two-thirds of horizontal spectrum (maximum of longitudinal or transverse component).
The maximum value of vertical component for Euro code is 1.35g and 1.668g for IS Code.

P a g e 17 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

5. Ground Motion Prediction Equations

Attenuation relationship referred as ground motion prediction equations. Ground motion
prediction equation transforms the earthquake parameters like location and magnitude to
site parameters like PGA and spectral acceleration characterizing the seismic hazard.
There are several equations available for the prediction of earthquake design parameters
like spectral acceleration, but for an effective seismic hazard analysis it is recommended
to use a set of prediction equations that are appropriate for the target area to check the
variability. Schwarz et al and sharma et al equations are used for the analysis of this
project.

5.1 GMPE-Schwarz et al Model

To predict the ground motion parameters for our site class A the following prediction
equation is used which is provided by Ambraseys for type II & Soil class A.
Log (y) = C1 + C2*M + C3*log(r) +P
Where
y = Ground motion parameter in g (PGA or Sa)
M = Earthquake magnitude (Mw)
r = Function of the distance (r = (d2+h02))
d = Epicentral Distance
h0 = A coefficient to be determined by iteration
P = Uncertainty in the prediction
= Standard Deviation

P a g e 18 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.20 Schwarz GMPE models Spectrum Comparison with SGM Spectrum

From the above graph we can understand that the GMPE model is not effective because
the spectral acceleration obtained from the ground motion data are vastly differs from the
obtained spectral acceleration using GMPE model for various time periods.

5.2 GMPE-Sharma et al Model

Sharma provided a ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal response spectral
accelerations (5% damping) for the northern part of India. This equation takes into
consideration of soil category and faulting type (strike slip or reverse).
Log A = b1 + b2*Mw-b3*log (Rjb2+b42) +b5*S+b6*H
Where
b1, b2, b3, b4, b5 and b6 are the regression coefficients.
A is the spectral acceleration in terms of m/s2
S = 1 for a rock site and 0 otherwise
H = 1 for strike-slip fault and 0 for reverse fault.
P a g e 19 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

Fig.21 Sharma GMPE models Spectrum Comparison with SGM Spectrum

From the above graph we can understand that this GMPE model also is not effective
because the spectral acceleration obtained from the ground motion data are vastly differs
from the obtained for various time periods. But sharma et al equation was formulated from
the data obtained from the events of Himalayan range (Northern India), so it is preferable
to use for the prediction of ground motion parameters.

P a g e 20 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

6. Conclusions:
1. From the code comparison we can conclude that the spectral accelerations
obtained from the ground motion data are almost less than that are obtained from
both IS code and Euro code for longitudinal and horizontal direction.
2. In case of vertical component the spectral accelerations from the ground motion
data are more than that are obtained from IS and Euro code.
3. The spectral accelerations from the Schwarz et al & Sharma et al are differs vastly
from the spectral accelerations that are obtained from the ground motion data for
various time periods.
4. Sharma et al equation is preferable to use for the prediction of ground motion
parameters because it was formulated from the data obtained from the events of
Himalayan range (Northern India).

P a g e 21 | 28

PROJECT AZURE I

7. References
www.pesoms.com
IS 1893 (Part 1-General Provisions and buildings):2002 Criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structures (fifth revision).
prEN 1998-1:2003 (E) Euro code 8: Design of Earthquake resistance structures
Part 1: General rules, Seismic actions rules for buildings.
Uttarakhand: land and people by Sharad Singh Negi.
www.asc-india.org
www.earthquake.usgs.gov
www.gadm.org
www.lta.cr.usgs.gov/GTOPO30
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering by Steven L Kramer
www.nptel.ac.in
www.wikipedia.org

P a g e 22 | 28