the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Site Characterization vis-à-vis Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Disaster Potential Modelling in the Himalayan and Sub-Himalayan Tectonic Ensemble from Kashmir Himalaya to Northeast India at the backdrop of the updated Seismic Hazard of the Indian Subcontinent
Abstract. The Indian landmass comprising of three broad morphotectonic provinces, namely the Himalaya and Tertiary mobile belts, Indo-Gangetic Foredeep and Peninsular shield have been jolted time and again by catastrophic earthquakes. The Socio-economic Risk Map of India generated by integrating vulnerable exposures with the IBC-compliant surface-consistent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard through an Analytic Hierarchy Process and expert judgement places the entire Himalayan stretch comprising of Kashmir Himalaya, Northwest India, Nepal together with Indo-Gangetic Foredeep, Bengal Basin, Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, Northeast India and Bhutan in ‘High’ to ‘Severe’ Risk regime thus presenting this Tectonic Ensemble a typical case for site-specific study. Combined surface and downhole Geophysical and Geotechnical measurements classify this Tectonic Ensemble into site classes F/E, D4, D3, D2, D1, C4, C3, C2, C1, B and A with spectral site amplifications of 6.2, 4.8, 4.2, 3.9, 3.3, 2.58, 2.2, 1.87, 1.81, 1.4 and 1.2 respectively at 0.73–8.5 Hz frequency range thus facilitating surface-consistent probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in this Tectonic Ensemble exhibiting a PGA variation of 0.06 to 1.99 g whose structural impact is exhibited through SELENA-based building damage modelling using capacity spectrum method on the prevalent building types as ‘none’, ‘slight’, ‘moderate’, ‘extensive’ and ‘complete’ for all cities in the Ensemble.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(10170 KB)
-
Supplement
(1070 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(10170 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1070 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-66', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jun 2022
The authors present several case studies on site characterization and PSHA of Indian cities. The paper is within the scope of the journal; however, the scientific qunatity should be greatly improved in order to consider for publication. Considering the merits of the papers, I encourage the authors to consider the following comments so as to improve the manuscript:
- Abstract should be rewritten since the entire paragraph is superfluous.
- Please use modest language instead of overly romanticized phrases such as ‘huge threats,’ ‘jolted time and again,’ ‘wreaked havoc’, and many more.
- I think Indo-Eurasian subduction region is seismically highly active than peninsular India. Please check.
- Please check manuscript language thoroughly and write sentences in objective way, instead of long and curvaceous sentences.
- Line no. 39 requires a reference.
- The paper is excessively long and lacks justification for such a long discussion. I request the authors to focus straight on the objectives and related works.
- Authors note that they would like to use the results for India, Nepal, and Bhutan; however, they do miss some major contributions related to earthquake hazard and vulnerability especially from Nepal and Bhutan. Some references are:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631071317300718
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13632469.2020.1868362?src=&journalCode=ueqe20
For fatality/injury functions: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128210871000144
among others. There are hundreds of published literatures in the same field, at least for each section, from the same region, please try to synthesize some to juxtapose your work with the existing ones.
- Why would the authors mention many cities in the manuscript? Does that really make a sense?
- Although the work is interesting, how do the authors justify the novelty of the work?
- Please construct a methodological flowchart to summarize the work.
- Some of the illustrations do not have adequate quality, please consider replotting.
- Please flesh up your conclusions once your revise the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-66-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2022-66/nhess-2022-66-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-66', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2022
General introduction: The novelty of your work is not completely clear from introduction. What is the additional value of your work to the existing literature? It should appear that this is not only an application, otherwise I don’t see it suitable for this journal. Then, I recommend to update the novelty section of the work.
General introduction: The introduction should be more direct to the focus of the work. A specific section on the collected data could be added. I suggest to shorten it, by moving the data to ther sections.
General introduction: The literature is quite incomplete with respect to the fact that the ground shaking levels recorded at adjacent buildings are going to reveal significant spatial correlation..
Goda K, Hong HP (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):354–365
Sokolov V, Wenzel F (2011) Influence of spatial correlation of strong ground motion on uncertainty in earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(9):993–1009.
Park J, Bazzurro P, Baker JW (2007) Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion intensity measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation. Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 1–8
Miano, A., Jalayer, F., Forte, G., & Santo, A. (2020). Empirical fragility assessment using conditional GMPE-based ground shaking fields: Application to damage data for 2016 Amatrice Earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(15), 6629-6659.
The section of damage analysis is quite incomplete since there is no specific discussion on the type of buildings present in the area and on their seismic and structural characteristics.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-66-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2022-66/nhess-2022-66-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-66', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jun 2022
The authors present several case studies on site characterization and PSHA of Indian cities. The paper is within the scope of the journal; however, the scientific qunatity should be greatly improved in order to consider for publication. Considering the merits of the papers, I encourage the authors to consider the following comments so as to improve the manuscript:
- Abstract should be rewritten since the entire paragraph is superfluous.
- Please use modest language instead of overly romanticized phrases such as ‘huge threats,’ ‘jolted time and again,’ ‘wreaked havoc’, and many more.
- I think Indo-Eurasian subduction region is seismically highly active than peninsular India. Please check.
- Please check manuscript language thoroughly and write sentences in objective way, instead of long and curvaceous sentences.
- Line no. 39 requires a reference.
- The paper is excessively long and lacks justification for such a long discussion. I request the authors to focus straight on the objectives and related works.
- Authors note that they would like to use the results for India, Nepal, and Bhutan; however, they do miss some major contributions related to earthquake hazard and vulnerability especially from Nepal and Bhutan. Some references are:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631071317300718
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13632469.2020.1868362?src=&journalCode=ueqe20
For fatality/injury functions: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128210871000144
among others. There are hundreds of published literatures in the same field, at least for each section, from the same region, please try to synthesize some to juxtapose your work with the existing ones.
- Why would the authors mention many cities in the manuscript? Does that really make a sense?
- Although the work is interesting, how do the authors justify the novelty of the work?
- Please construct a methodological flowchart to summarize the work.
- Some of the illustrations do not have adequate quality, please consider replotting.
- Please flesh up your conclusions once your revise the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-66-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2022-66/nhess-2022-66-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-66', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2022
General introduction: The novelty of your work is not completely clear from introduction. What is the additional value of your work to the existing literature? It should appear that this is not only an application, otherwise I don’t see it suitable for this journal. Then, I recommend to update the novelty section of the work.
General introduction: The introduction should be more direct to the focus of the work. A specific section on the collected data could be added. I suggest to shorten it, by moving the data to ther sections.
General introduction: The literature is quite incomplete with respect to the fact that the ground shaking levels recorded at adjacent buildings are going to reveal significant spatial correlation..
Goda K, Hong HP (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):354–365
Sokolov V, Wenzel F (2011) Influence of spatial correlation of strong ground motion on uncertainty in earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(9):993–1009.
Park J, Bazzurro P, Baker JW (2007) Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion intensity measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation. Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 1–8
Miano, A., Jalayer, F., Forte, G., & Santo, A. (2020). Empirical fragility assessment using conditional GMPE-based ground shaking fields: Application to damage data for 2016 Amatrice Earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(15), 6629-6659.
The section of damage analysis is quite incomplete since there is no specific discussion on the type of buildings present in the area and on their seismic and structural characteristics.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-66-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2022-66/nhess-2022-66-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sankar Kumar Nath, 30 Jul 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
648 | 282 | 44 | 974 | 89 | 38 | 45 |
- HTML: 648
- PDF: 282
- XML: 44
- Total: 974
- Supplement: 89
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 45
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Sankar Kumar Nath
Anand Srivastava
Arpita Biswas
Jyothula Madan
Chitralekha Ghatak
Arnab Sengupta
Pritam Singh
Siddhartha Bhaumick
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(10170 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1070 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote