Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects

Chennai city suffered moderate tremors during the 2001 Bhuj and Pondicherry earthquakes and the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. After the Bhuj earthquake, Indian Standard IS: 1893 was revised and Chennai city was upgraded from zone II to zone III which leads to a substantial increase of the design ground motion parameters. Therefore, a comprehensive study is carried out to assess the seismic hazard of Chennai city based on a deterministic approach. The seismicity and seismotectonic details within a 100 km radius of the study area have been considered. The one-dimensional ground response analysis was carried out for 38 representative sites by the equivalent linear method using the SHAKE91 program to estimate the ground motion parameters considering the local site effects. The shear wave velocity profile was inferred from the corrected blow counts and it was verified with the Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) test performed for a representative site. The seismic hazard is represented in terms of characteristic site period and Spectral Acceleration Ratio (SAR) contours for the entire city. It is found that structures with low natural period undergo significant amplification mostly in the central and southern parts of Chennai city due to the presence of deep soil sites with clayey or sandy deposits and the remaining parts undergo marginal amplification.

[1]  Andrzej Kijko,et al.  Parametric-historic Procedure for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Part I: Estimation of Maximum Regional Magnitude mmax , 1998 .

[2]  A. Ansal,et al.  Local Site Effects and Microzonation , 2008 .

[3]  B. Rao,et al.  Historical seismicity of Peninsular India , 1984 .

[4]  S. Kramer Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[5]  S. Raghukanth,et al.  Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion in Peninsular India , 2004 .

[6]  Carlos Sousa Oliveira,et al.  Assessing and Managing Earthquake Risk , 2006 .

[7]  H. Seed Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses , 1970 .

[8]  S. K. Arora,et al.  Seismicity of the Indian Peninsular Shield from Regional Earthquake Data , 2000 .

[9]  T. Sitharam,et al.  Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore , 2006 .

[10]  Alec Westley Skempton,et al.  Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation , 1986 .

[11]  Chin-Hsiung Loh,et al.  Empirical Models for Site- and Region-Dependent Ground-Motion Parameters in the Taipei Area: A Unified Approach , 2001 .

[12]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Geotechnical Aspects of Seismic Hazards , 2004 .

[13]  U. Chandra Earthquakes of peninsular India—a seismotectonic study , 1977 .

[14]  H B Seed,et al.  Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes , 1969 .

[15]  R. Mark Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes , 1977 .

[16]  Jianghai Xia,et al.  Quantitative estimation of minimum offset for multichannel surface-wave survey with actively exciting source , 2006 .