Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using the logic tree approach – Patna district (India)

Anbazhagan, Panjamani; Bajaj, Ketan; Matharu, Karanpreet; Moustafa, Sayed S. R.; Al-Arifi, Nassir S. N.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2097-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2097-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2097-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

Research article

|

01 Oct 2019

Research article |

| 01 Oct 2019

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using the logic tree approach – Patna district (India)

Panjamani Anbazhagan, Ketan Bajaj, Karanpreet Matharu, Sayed S. R. Moustafa, and Nassir S. N. Al-Arifi

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Oct 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Jan 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Some comments and criticisms for an application of logic tree approach (Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using logic tree approach-Patna District, India)', Hamza Gullu, 03 Feb 2019
- AC2: 'Response To Reviewer 1', Panjamani Anbazhagan, 12 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2019
- AC1: 'Response To reviewer 2', Panjamani Anbazhagan, 12 Apr 2019
- AC3: 'Response to reviewer 3', Panjamani Anbazhagan, 12 Apr 2019
RC3: 'Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using logic tree approach – Patna District (India)', Anonymous Referee #3, 07 Feb 2019
- AC4: 'Response to Reviewer 3', Panjamani Anbazhagan, 12 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (16 Apr 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Panjamani Anbazhagan on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jun 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (24 Jun 2019)

RR by Sreevalsa Kolathayar (22 Jul 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper is well written with rich in technical analysis and content.

The authors are requested to add more literature on previous seismic hazard studies. Some of the DSHA and PSHA studies done for entire India in the past is missing.

Under the delineation of the seismic source model, authors missed the study ''Characterization of Regional Seismic Source Zones in and around India'' by Kolathayar and Sitharam (2012).

Below sentence needs grammatical correction ''178 seismic sources (shown in Figure 1 and given as Table ET1) have been used for determining the probability of
occurrence of a specific magnitude, probability of hypocentral distance and probability of ground motion exceeding a specific value have been estimatedas per Cornell (1968). ''

It is recommended to compare the GMPEs used: PGA for any constant magnitude with varying distance.

8.3 section heading may be renamed appropriately excluding Figure number in the bracket.

Please add a justification to use logic tree to integrate the hazard value obtained using different source models. Is it not advisable to take the maximum value than taking the average?

As the GMPE combination changes for different distance ranges, is it not advisable to take the maximum of PGA values than going for weights in logic tree, as for distance beyond 300km, only single GMPE is used.

Please do English language correction for the paper. For eg: ''Whereas it from
0.04 g to 0.18 g, 0.09 g to 0.16 g and 0.09 g to 0.16 g respectively considering 10 % probability of exceedence in 50 years in case of Cornel’s, Areal and Frankel’s approach.''

In Table 2 below GMPE is missing
Ramkrishnan, R., Sreevalsa, K., & Sitharam, T. G. (2019). Development of New Ground Motion Prediction Equation for the North and Central Himalayas Using Recorded Strong Motion Data. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-24.

The section Zoneless approach talks about 7 areal zones. Is it not contradictory?

Please make it clear whether Frankel approach was followed for different 7 zones separately or completely for the entire region? How both make a difference?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (29 Jul 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Panjamani Anbazhagan on behalf of the Authors (07 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (16 Aug 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Panjamani Anbazhagan on behalf of the Authors (27 Aug 2019) Manuscript

Download

Article (7401 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

In the present study, mapping of probability of exceedance of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for the Patna district is presented considering both classical and zoneless approaches through the logic tree framework to capture the epistemic uncertainty.