bhuj earthquake 2001 case study

Bhuj Earthquake India 2001 – A Complete Study

Bhuj earthquake india.

Gujarat : Disaster on a day of celebration : 51st Republic Day on January 26, 2001

• 7.9 on the Richter scale.
• 8.46 AM January 26th 2001
• 20,800 dead

Basic Facts

• Earthquake: 8:46am on January 26, 2001
• Epicenter: Near Bhuj in Gujarat, India
• Magnitude: 7.9 on the Richter Scale

Geologic Setting

• Indian Plate Sub ducting beneath Eurasian Plate
• Continental Drift
• Convergent Boundary

Specifics of 2001 Quake

Compression Stress between region’s faults

Depth: 16km

Probable Fault: Kachchh Mainland

Fault Type: Reverse Dip-Slip (Thrust Fault)

The earthquake’s epicentre was 20km from Bhuj. A city with a population of 140,000 in 2001. The city is in the region known as the Kutch region. The effects of the earthquake were also felt on the north side of the Pakistan border, in Pakistan 18 people were killed.

Tectonic systems

The earthquake was caused at the convergent plate boundary between the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate boundary. These pushed together and caused the earthquake. However as Bhuj is in an intraplate zone, the earthquake was not expected, this is one of the reasons so many buildings were destroyed – because people did not build to earthquake resistant standards in an area earthquakes were not thought to occur. In addition the Gujarat earthquake is an excellent example of liquefaction, causing buildings to ‘sink’ into the ground which gains a consistency of a liquid due to the frequency of the earthquake.

India : Vulnerability to earthquakes

• 56% of the total area of the Indian Republic is vulnerable to seismic activity .
• 12% of the area comes under Zone V (A&N Islands, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, N.E.States, Uttaranchal)
• 18% area in Zone IV (Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
• 26% area in Zone III (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
• Gujarat: an advanced state on the west coast of India.
• On 26 January 2001, an earthquake struck the Kutch district of Gujarat at 8.46 am.
• Epicentre 20 km North East of Bhuj, the headquarter of Kutch.
• The Indian Meteorological Department estimated the intensity of the earthquake at 6.9 Richter. According to the US Geological Survey, the intensity of the quake was 7.7 Richter.
• The quake was the worst in India in the last 180 years.

What earthquakes do

• Casualties: loss of life and injury.
• Loss of housing.
• Damage to infrastructure.
• Disruption of transport and communications.
• Breakdown of social order.
• Loss of industrial output.
• Loss of business.
• Disruption of marketing systems.
• The earthquake devastated Kutch. Practically all buildings and structures of Kutch were brought down.
• Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Surendaranagar and Patan were heavily damaged.
• Nearly 19,000 people died. Kutch alone reported more than 17,000 deaths.
• 1.66 lakh people were injured. Most were handicapped for the rest of their lives.
• The dead included 7,065 children (0-14 years) and 9,110 women.
• There were 348 orphans and 826 widows.

Loss classification

Deaths and injuries: demographics and labour markets

Effects on assets and GDP

Effects on fiscal accounts

Financial markets

Disaster loss

• Initial estimate Rs. 200 billion.
• Came down to Rs. 144 billion.
• No inventory of buildings
• Non-engineered buildings
• Land and buildings
• Stocks and flows
• Reconstruction costs (Rs. 106 billion) and loss estimates (Rs. 99 billion) are different
• Public good considerations

Human Impact: Tertiary effects

• Affected 15.9 million people out of 37.8 in the region (in areas such as Bhuj, Bhachau, Anjar, Ganhidham, Rapar)
• High demand for food, water, and medical care for survivors
• Humanitarian intervention by groups such as Oxfam: focused on Immediate response and then rehabilitation
• Of survivors, many require persistent medical attention
• Region continues to require assistance long after quake has subsided
• International aid vital to recovery

Social Impacts

• 80% of water and food sources were destroyed.
• The obvious social impacts are that around 20,000 people were killed and near 200,000 were injured.
• However at the same time, looting and violence occurred following the quake, and this affected many people too.
• On the other hand, the earthquake resulted in millions of USD in aid, which has since allowed the Bhuj region to rebuild itself and then grow in a way it wouldn’t have done otherwise.
• The final major social effect was that around 400,000 Indian homes were destroyed resulting in around 2 million people being made homeless immediately following the quake.

Social security and insurance

• Ex gratia payment: death relief and monetary benefits to the injured
• Major and minor injuries
•  Cash doles
• Government insurance fund
• Group insurance schemes
• Claim ratio

Demographics and labour market

• Geographic pattern of ground motion, spatial array of population and properties at risk, and their risk vulnerabilities.
• Low population density was a saving grace.
• Extra fatalities among women
• Effect on dependency ratio
• Farming and textiles

Economic  Impacts

• Total damage estimated at around $7 billion. However $18 billion of aid was invested in the Bhuj area.
• Over 15km of tarmac road networks were completely destroyed.
• In the economic capital of the Gujarat region, Ahmedabad, 58 multi storey buildings were destroyed, these buildings contained many of the businesses which were generating the wealth of the region.
• Many schools were destroyed and the literacy rate of the Gujarat region is now the lowest outside southern India.

Impact on GDP

• Applying ICOR
• Rs. 99 billion – deduct a third as loss of current value added.
• Get GDP loss as Rs. 23 billion
• Adjust for heterogeneous capital, excess capacity, loss Rs. 20 billion.
• Reconstruction efforts.
• Likely to have been Rs. 15 billion.

Fiscal accounts

• Differentiate among different taxes: sales tax, stamp duties and registration fees, motor vehicle tax, electricity duty, entertainment tax, profession tax, state excise and other taxes. Shortfall of Rs. 9 billion of which about Rs. 6 billion unconnected with earthquake.
• Earthquake related other flows.
• Expenditure:Rs. 8 billion on relief. Rs. 87 billion on rehabilitation.

Impact on Revenue Continue Reading

Comments are closed.

Privacy Overview

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What are the oldest known civilizations of India?
• What are the major holidays and festivals of India?
• Why is an earthquake dangerous?
• What are earthquake waves?
• How is earthquake magnitude measured?

Bhuj earthquake of 2001

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur - Effects of Local Geology on damage severity during Bhuj, India Earthquake
• World Institute of Disaster Risk Management Library - The Bhuj Earthquake
• CORE - 2001 Bhuj-Kachchh earthquake: surface faulting and its relation with neotectonics and regional structures, Gujarat, Western India
• NASA - Earth Observatory - Liquefaction Effects from the Bhuj Earthquake
• Indian Academy of Sciences - An eyewitness account of the Bhuj earthquake
• Academia - The 2001 Kutch (Bhuj) earthquake: Coseismic surface features and their significance

Bhuj earthquake of 2001 , massive earthquake that occurred on Jan. 26, 2001, in the Indian state of Gujarat , on the Pakistani border.

The earthquake struck near the town of Bhuj on the morning of India ’s annual Republic Day (celebrating the creation of the Republic of India in 1950), and it was felt throughout much of northwestern India and parts of Pakistan . The moment magnitude of the quake was 7.7 (6.9 on the Richter scale ). In addition to killing more than 20,000 people and injuring more than 150,000 others, the quake left hundreds of thousands homeless and destroyed or damaged more than a million buildings. A large majority of the local crops were ruined as well. Many people were still living in makeshift shelters a year later.

Gujarat Earthquake 2001: Case Study

Introduction

Gujarat is a state in the north western part of India. Beneath India, the Indo-Australian and the Eurasian Plate are moving towards each other at about 2cm per year. Both plates are continental, so this is a compressional boundary where both the plates are pushed up to form fold mountains The Himalayas are the most obvious result of this collision. Along with the creation of fold mountains, the movement of the plates creates stress within the rocks. When the stress is suddenly released by rocks slipping past each other, we experience an earthquake.

The epicentre of the Gujarat earthquake was a small town called Bhuj. At 08:46 local time, on Friday 26th January 2001 it was struck by an earthquake that measured 7.9 on the Richter Scale It turned out to be one of the two most deadly earthquakes in the recorded history of India, with almost 20,000 people confirmed as dead, and another 166,000 injured. Add to that a further 600,000 left homeless, almost 350,000 homes destroyed and another 844,000 damaged and it becomes obvious that this was a major humanitarian disaster. The Indian government has calculated that in one way or another, the ‘quake had an effect on 15.9 million people – nearly half the population of India!

The cost of the damage varies depending upon who’s figures you use, but it was between 1.3 billion and 5 billion US dollars. In built up areas modern buildings were shaken but mostly survived. Others, however, including several multistory concrete buildings collapsed. Because only some of the new buildings collapsed, the government suspected that dodgy building methods may have been the cause. Investigations led to a number of builders, architects and engineers being charged with culpable murder and criminal conspiracy.

Before the quake this was a rather dry area often affected by drought. After the quake there were many reports of the water table rising, sometimes to surface level. In a number of places new springs appeared, some with fresh water and others, more surprisingly, with salt water. Some desert rivers, that had been dry for over a century, began to flow again, and there was evidence of liquefaction in many places.

Transport and Communications

Access to the sites of earthquakes is always likely to be restricted by the damage caused by the quake, because ground movements damage roads and railways. Damage to roads affected the transportation of goods to the 40 or so ports along the Gujarat coastline.

Bhuj was no exception and suffered from very limited transport after the earthquake. Even days after the quake, the rescue services had not managed to gain access to all the remote villages that suffered during the earthquake. Roads were cracked, lifted and warped, but most obstructions in built up areas were caused by debris that fell onto roads. Where there was a possibility of survivors under the debris, it was out of the question to just bulldoze the rubble out of the way; it had to be carefully and slowly removed, leaving roads blocked until there was no hope of finding survivors.

Telephone lines were broken, exchanges damaged and power lost to the telephone system. In many remote areas mobile telephones don’t work, so all forms of communication with ‘difficult to reach’ places were out of order. Repairing phone lines took time, and the process wasn’t helped by blocked roads, damaged buildings and the loss of workers killed or injured in the event.

Gujarat was the second most industrialised state in India, with well developed diamond, pharmaceutical, chemical, textile and steel industries. Although most survived the quake with little or no major structural damage, they were disrupted by the destruction of communications, transportation and electricity / gas supplies. Immediately after the quake, industry was losing about 200 million dollars every day.

The huge loss of life also had an impact on industry because many of the dead were workers in local businesses.

” The lives lost would impact the (businesses) as many employees would have been a victim of the tragedy,” the Confederation of Indian Industry said in a statement.

General Services

As with many large earthquakes, services like water, gas, electricity and sewerage provided through a network of underground pipes and cables were damaged when the ground flexed and moved. Broken pipes and cables led to loss of fresh water, sewerage discharges and no power in many areas. At the epicentre, in Bhuj, 95 percent of the town was left uninhabitable, with no water, electricity or shelter.

• Physical Sciences

The Bhuj Earthquake of 2001

• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

• Santa Clara University

• University of Washington Seattle
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• G C Kandpal

• Gopi Baysal

• C. H. Lawson

• David M. Boore
• Keishi Shiono
• E. O. Brigham

• E.O. Brigham
• References Abrams
• D P Shinozuka
• D Benedetti
• J M Nichols
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

2001 Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat: Aftermath & Epicentre

Quick Summary

• The Bhuj Earthquake struck Gujarat on January 26, 2001, killing around 20,000 people, injuring 167,000, and destroying 340,000 buildings.
• The Earthquake severely impacted Gujarat’s Kutch district, damaging infrastructure and buildings, and affecting urban and rural regions, including Pakistan.
• The Bhuj Earthquake 2001 was caused by stress buildup at the convergent boundary between the Indian Plate and the Eurasian Plate.

Table of Contents

The Bhuj Earthquake, or the Gujarat Earthquake, hit the land of Gujarat and surrounding regions on the morning of 26 January 2001 at 8:46 IST. Regarded as one of the most devastating earthquakes in the History of India, the Bhuj earthquake magnitude was 7.7 and claimed around 13,805 to 20,023 lives, leaving another 167,000 injured and destroying nearly 340,000 buildings.

The epicentre (23.6°N latitude and 69.8°E longitude) was located around 9 km southwest of the village of Chobari in Bhachau Taluka of Kutch (Kachchh) District or 20 km from Bhuj. The duration of the earthquake was 90 seconds, but the tremendous shocks for 90 seconds were enough to claim thousands of lives and cause property loss of around $1.3 billion . This event led to significant changes in India’s approach to disaster management, emphasizing the importance of earthquake-resistant construction and early warning systems.

Seismic Zone of Bhuj Earthquake

The Indian subcontinent is prone to earthquakes due to the movement of the Indian plate into Asia. As per reports, nearly 58% of India’s land is vulnerable to earthquakes.

• India’s seismic zoning map categorizes the country into four zones: Zone 2, 3, 4, and 5.
• Zone 2 is designated as the Low Damage Risk Zone with the least seismic activity.
• Zone 5, including regions like Bhuj, Kashmir, Western and Central Himalayas, and the Andaman and Nicobar islands, faces the highest seismic activity and is classified as a High Damage Risk Zone.
• Areas with trap or basaltic rock formations are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes.

Moreover, Gujarat lies around 300-400 km from the plate boundary between the Indian and Eurasian plates.

However, the effects of continuing continental collision along this boundary still govern the current tectonics. The region experienced rifting with a roughly west-east trend during the break of the Gondwana in the Jurassic period.

During the collision with Eurasia, the area underwent shortening involving both reactivation of the original rift faults and the development of new low-angle thrust faults. The related folding caused the formation of ranges in the Central Kutch.

Bhuj Earthquake 2001 Case Study

The Bhuj earthquake of 2001 was one of the most devastating natural disasters in India’s history. The case study on Bhuj earthquake aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the event, its causes, and its impact on the region.

On January 26, 2001, the Indian state of Gujarat was struck by a catastrophic earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.7. The epicenter was near the town of Bhuj, hence the name Bhuj earthquake. The earthquake resulted in the death of more than 20,000 people, injured another 167,000, and caused extensive property damage.

Affected Areas and the Impact of the Bhuj Earthquake

• The epicenter was near Bhuj in the Kutch district, Gujarat, India.
• Tremors were felt throughout Gujarat, impacting both urban and rural regions.
• High-rise buildings in cities like Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar suffered severe damage, with some collapsing entirely.
• Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and utilities, was significantly affected.
• Villages near the earthquake’s epicenter experienced widespread destruction.
• Many rural areas were largely wiped out due to the intensity of the quake.
• Bhuj, Anjar, and Bhachau, all within the Kutch district, were among the most severely impacted.
• Additionally, the southeastern region of Pakistan also felt the effects of the earthquake.

Causes of the Bhuj Earthquake

• The earthquake occurred at the convergent plate boundary between the Indian Plate and the Eurasian Plate .
• The Indian Plate is moving northwards at a rate of about 5 cm per year and is being subducted beneath the Eurasian Plate.
• This subduction process leads to a build-up of stress along fault lines.
• The stress accumulated along the fault was eventually released in the form of the Bhuj earthquake.

Effects of the Bhuj Earthquake

The 2001 Bhuj earthquake wasn’t just a tremor – it was a catastrophe that left a lasting scar on the region. Beyond the immediate collapse of buildings, the earthquake triggered a devastating chain reaction impacting lives, infrastructure, and the very spirit of the affected communities.

Widespread Infrastructure Damage:

• Essential services disrupted: Schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure like roads and bridges were severely damaged or destroyed, hindering access to basic necessities and stalling recovery efforts.
• Loss of utilities: Water supply and electricity lines were heavily compromised, leaving survivors struggling with sanitation and hampered communication.

Environmental Destruction:

• Land transformed: The earthquake caused soil liquefaction and landslides, altering the landscape and rendering some areas uninhabitable.

Socioeconomic Turmoil:

• Livelihoods lost: With businesses and farmlands destroyed, unemployment surged, pushing communities into financial hardship.
• Displacement and resettlement: Many became homeless, living in temporary shelters and facing challenges in rebuilding permanent residences.
• Economic burden: The earthquake inflicted an estimated $7.5 billion in property damage, impacting both the regional and national economies.
• Health crisis: Lack of clean water and proper sanitation in temporary settlements led to a rise in diseases, straining healthcare resources.

Shattered Lives:

• Education disrupted: Schools were forced to shut down, hindering children’s access to education and creating long-term setbacks.
• Mental health impact: Survivors grappled with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), experiencing anxiety and depression for extended periods.
• Cultural loss: Historical sites and monuments were not spared, damaging the cultural heritage of the region.

Rescue and Relief Efforts

The 2001 Bhuj earthquake, measuring 7.7 in magnitude, caused more than 13,805 fatalities and damaged approximately 340,000 buildings . In response:

• Immediate Aid: The Indian army then moved in and, with the help of the International Federation of the Red Cross, built a temporary hospital at Bhuj.
• Assistance from Organizations: American Red Cross, CARE International, HelpAge India, Oxfam, WHO, Technisches Hilfswerk, and the Department of International Development provided the necessary relief funds in the time of need.
• Reconstruction: Gujarat’s government developed policies that targeted reconstructing homes, restoring public buildings and revamping the economy. This approach took a communal form of relocating individuals or providing for in-situ reconstruction.
• International Support: Numerous countries, like Australia, the USA, Israel, Japan, and China contributed to relief and rescue aid.

Memorial Sites of Bhuj Earthquake

Remembrance of the tragedy is important in acknowledging those who lost their lives and celebrating survivors’ strengths. Various memorials and museums have been built to remember the tragic natural disaster and all the lives lost. Below is a table describing some of these memorial sites:

Trauma Of 2001 Gujarat Earthquake That Lasts To This Day

• Survivors continue to grapple with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression.
• The event shattered the sense of security for entire communities, leaving emotional scars that are difficult to heal.
• Around 40% of its homes were demolished.
• Eight schools and two hospitals were severely affected.
• Approximately 4 km of roads were damaged.
• Swaminarayan temple, a revered site in Bhuj, suffered significant damage.
• Historic forts, Prag Mahal and Aina Mahal, were also impacted.
• Across the region, nearly 340,000 buildings were either destroyed or damaged.
• The earthquake obliterated about 60% of food and water supplies.
• Approximately 258,000 houses (90% of the district’s housing stock) were affected
• Even two decades later, areas in Gujarat, including Kutch, Surat, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, and Rajkot, are still recovering.
• Ruined buildings serve as constant reminders of the disaster.
• The earthquake disrupted local economies and led to declining quality of life.

Gujarat Earthquake 2001 Facts

Here are some key Gujarat earthquake 2001 facts:

• Magnitude and Duration: The earthquake had a moment magnitude of 7.7, equivalent to 6.9 on the Richter scale. The shaking lasted for over two minutes.
• Aftershocks: There were thousands of aftershocks recorded in the months following the main quake, some of which were of significant magnitude.
• Damage: The earthquake caused extensive property damage. Over 400,000 homes were destroyed, leaving about 600,000 people homeless.
• Response: The response to the earthquake involved massive rescue and rehabilitation efforts from the Indian government, international agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
• Long-term Impact: The earthquake had a significant long-term impact on the region. It led to changes in policies related to disaster management and prompted improvements in building codes and practices.

Earthquake Update & Resources

There haven’t been any reports of major earthquakes in Bhuj, Gujarat, India. Fortunately, reliable sources like the Government of India’s Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) haven’t indicated any significant seismic activity in the region.

How to Stay Informed:

• Government Websites: You can visit the official website of the Institute of Seismological Research (ISR), Gujarat: https://isr.gujarat.gov.in/ for the latest earthquake reports specific to Gujarat.
• USGS Earthquake Hazards Program: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program website provides real-time earthquake information globally: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/earthquakes

It’s always a good practice to be prepared for earthquakes, even if there are no immediate threats. Here are some resources that can help:

• Disaster Management Authority of India: https://ndma.gov.in/
• Ready.gov – Earthquake Preparedness: https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/ready_earthquake-information-sheet.pdf

The Bhuj earthquake serves as a sad and serious reminder of the devastating power of natural disasters. Architects design earthquake-resistant structures to minimize damage during seismic events. While no building can be fully earthquake-proof, modern engineering aims to enhance resilience. Today, engineers employ advanced techniques such as base isolation and structural vibration control to reduce earthquake-induced forces and deformations while also strengthening structures. Such innovations ensure that buildings not only withstand quakes but also sustain minimal damage.

Also Read:-

Earthquake in India: An Overview

Nepal Earthquake 2015: An Overview

The Worst Earthquake in History: A Terrifying Look Back

Along with the Bhuj Earthquake , read the related articles by visiting the above links.

To learn more about the geological causes of the earthquake, you can refer to the bhuj earthquake pdf . Additionally, a news video from 26 january 2001 bhuj earthquake video , showcasing the aftermath of the earthquake.

Frequently Asked Questions:

How many died in the bhuj earthquake.

The Bhuj earthquake, which occurred in 2001, resulted in the deaths of more than 20,000 people.

How strong was the Bhuj earthquake?

The Bhuj earthquake had a moment magnitude of 7.7, which is equivalent to 6.9 on the Richter scale.

What is the cause of Bhuj earthquake?

The Bhuj earthquake was a natural disaster caused by tectonic activities. It occurred at the convergent plate boundary between the Indian Plate and the Eurasian Plate.

How long did the earthquake last in Gujarat 2001?

The Gujarat earthquake of 2001 lasted for over two minutes. However, there are also sources that mention the earthquake lasted for around 90 seconds or 110 seconds.

What was the strongest earthquake in India?

The Bhuj earthquake, often called the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, struck on 26 January 2001. Bhuj earthquake magnitude was 7.7, it affected parts of Gujarat, especially Bhuj. The earthquake resulted in approximately 20,000 deaths and left over 167,000 injured.

What is the biggest earthquake in the world?

The world’s strongest earthquake ever recorded occurred in Chile on May 22, 1960, with a magnitude of 9.5 (Mw).

Skip the Interview

Got a question on this topic?

• Privacy Policy
• Chegg Study
• Learn a language
• Writing Support
• Expert Hiring and Payment Dashboard
• ज्ञानकोश Earn Online
• Career Guidance
• General Knowledge
• Web Stories

Chegg India does not ask for money to offer any opportunity with the company. We request you to be vigilant before sharing your personal and financial information with any third party. Beware of fraudulent activities claiming affiliation with our company and promising monetary rewards or benefits. Chegg India shall not be responsible for any losses resulting from such activities.

• Chegg Inc. Compliance

© 2024 Chegg Inc. All rights reserved.

ADB is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific, while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty.

Established in 1966, it is owned by 68 members—49 from the region..

• Annual Reports
• Policies and Strategies

ORGANIZATION

• Board of Governors
• Board of Directors
• Departments and Country Offices

ACCOUNTABILITY

• Access to Information
• Accountability Mechanism
• ADB and Civil Society
• Anticorruption and Integrity
• Development Effectiveness
• Independent Evaluation
• Administrative Tribunal
• Ethics and Conduct
• Ombudsperson

Strategy 2030: Operational Priorities

Annual meetings, adb supports projects in developing member countries that create economic and development impact, delivered through both public and private sector operations, advisory services, and knowledge support..

ABOUT ADB PROJECTS

• Projects & Tenders
• Project Results and Case Studies

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

• Public Sector Financing
• Private Sector Financing
• Financing Partnerships
• Funds and Resources
• Economic Forecasts
• Publications and Documents
• Data and Statistics
• Asia Pacific Tax Hub
• Development Asia
• ADB Data Library
• Agriculture and Food Security
• Climate Change
• Digital Technology
• Environment
• Finance Sector
• Fragility and Vulnerability
• Gender Equality
• Markets Development and Public-Private Partnerships
• Regional Cooperation
• Social Development
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Urban Development

REGIONAL OFFICES

• European Representative Office
• Japanese Representative Office | 日本語
• North America Representative Office

LIAISON OFFICES

• Pacific Liaison and Coordination Office
• Pacific Subregional Office
• Singapore Office

SUBREGIONAL PROGRAMS

• Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA)
• Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Program
• Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Program
• Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT)
• South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC)

With employees from more than 60 countries, ADB is a place of real diversity.

Work with us to find fulfillment in sharing your knowledge and skills, and be a part of our vision in achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable asia and the pacific., careers and scholarships.

• What We Look For
• Career Opportunities
• Young Professionals Program
• Visiting Fellow Program
• Internship Program
• Scholarship Program

FOR INVESTORS

• Investor Relations | 日本語
• ADB Green and Blue Bonds
• ADB Theme Bonds

INFORMATION ON WORKING WITH ADB FOR...

• Consultants
• Contractors and Suppliers
• Governments
• Executing and Implementing Agencies
• Development Institutions
• Private Sector Partners
• Civil Society/Non-government Organizations

PROCUREMENT AND OUTREACH

• Operational Procurement
• Institutional Procurement
• Business Opportunities Outreach

Rising from the Rubble: Reconstruction and Rehabilitation After the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake

Share this page.

26 January 2001, India’s 51st Republic Day, took on a different significance as a massive earthquake struck the state of Gujarat. The 6.9-magnitude earthquake was  the worst to hit the state in the last half century.

• In January 2001, the state of Gujarat in India experienced the worst earthquake to hit the state in the last 50 years. Destruction was massive and widespread.
• Knowing that post-disaster assistance must come swiftly, focused on restoring facilities and services, and should be matched by equally quick action by the affected government, ADB formulated and approved the Gujarat Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project in less than 2 months. The project harnessed the energies of 19 Gujarat agencies.
• Establishing a consultative system for defining priorities and focusing on the results it yields will ensure that the most urgent and requisite actions take place as needed

Additional Details

• Gujarat Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project
• India and ADB

Also in this Series

• Information and Communication Technology for Peace and Partnership
• Information and Communication Technology for Prosperity
• Information and Communication Technology for People
• ADB funds and products
• Agriculture and natural resources
• Capacity development
• Climate change
• Finance sector development
• Gender equality
• Governance and public sector management
• Industry and trade
• Information and Communications Technology
• Private sector development
• Regional cooperation and integration
• Social development and protection
• Urban development
• Central and West Asia
• Southeast Asia
• The Pacific
• China, People's Republic of
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• Learning materials Guidelines, toolkits, and other "how-to" development resources
• Books Substantial publications assigned ISBNs
• Papers and Briefs ADB-researched working papers
• Conference Proceedings Papers or presentations at ADB and development events
• Policies, Strategies, and Plans Rules and strategies for ADB operations
• Board Documents Documents produced by, or submitted to, the ADB Board of Directors
• Financing Documents Describes funds and financing arrangements
• Reports Highlights of ADB's sector or thematic work
• Serials Magazines and journals exploring development issues
• Brochures and Flyers Brief topical policy issues, Country Fact sheets and statistics
• Statutory Reports and Official Records ADB records and annual reports
• Country Planning Documents Describes country operations or strategies in ADB members
• Contracts and Agreements Memoranda between ADB and other organizations

Subscribe to our monthly digest of latest ADB publications.

Follow adb publications on social media..

• No category

Case Study: Bhuj, India 2001

Related documents.

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

• Entertainment
• Life & Style

To enjoy additional benefits

CONNECT WITH US

Review of The Rumbling Earth — The Story of Indian Earthquakes : Ground beneath India’s feet Premium

A new book attempts to demystify earthquakes and explains why it’s so difficult to predict the next tremor.

Updated - August 06, 2024 10:44 am IST

Published - August 02, 2024 09:01 am IST

The earthquake of 2001 in Bhuj, Gujarat. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

It isn’t every day that one is in the middle of an earthquake and grateful for it. Arch Johnston, a seismologist with the University of Memphis, and a team of other specialists were in the Rann of Kutch, studying the aftermath of the 2001 earthquake in Bhuj, Gujarat, when another quake struck. “We saw Arch struggling to balance his tall frame, yet clapping his hands and laughing aloud and shouting ‘thank you’,” recount the scientists C.P. Rajendran and Kusala Rajendran in their book, The Rumbling Earth: The Story of Indian Earthquakes . Such anecdotes pepper this accessible, concise history of earthquakes, which is exceptional in that it comes from an Indian vantage.

A homeless family at a makeshift tent in Bhuj, Gujarat. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Combining their decades-long scholarship, the book attempts to demystify earthquakes: What makes them hard to predict? Why are some regions more likely to be jolted than others? Is the loss of life and property inevitable in the wake of a tremblor? Can knowing the history of earthquakes in a region make forecasts of future ones more accurate? What are aftershocks, foreshocks, plate tectonics, P-waves and S-waves?

Students in Amritsar light candles to pray for Turkey following the 2023 earthquake. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Mysterious ways

Answers to these questions are the meat of the book, dispelling some of the intrigue surrounding earthquakes. The basic principles of astronomy, biology, chemistry can be comprehended as their dramatis personae — the sun, moon, stars, plants animals, metals — are visible. The earth sciences are relatively mysterious because the action is underground and invisible and involves gargantuan bodies moving incrementally over aeons and prodding cataclysmic changes.

A woman collecting water from a tap near a collapsed wall of an apartment building in Guwahati, after a strong earthquake hit Assam in 2021. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

The unexpected jolt that can strike anytime, accompanied sometimes by death and devastation, is linked to the same forces that slowly nudged a large independent island near Antarctica, that we know today as the Indian subcontinent, to eventually ram into Eurasia and create the Himalayas.

Indian sand artist Sudarshan Pattnaik’s sand sculpture on Puri beach, Bhubaneswar, following the earthquake in Turkey in 2023. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Only in the decade that men landed on the moon did earth scientists conclusively establish the theory explaining these links. Continents and the oceans weren’t immobile and rested on ‘plates’ which were in constant motion and floating on a layer of molten rock. Plate tectonics, as this theory is called, also explains the formation of continents, volcanic activity, tsunamis and the intensity and timing of earthquakes. It is due to plate tectonics that India expects, with a sense of dread, a massive, Himalayan earthquake (or a couple of them) but whose exact timing and location unfortunately cannot be predicted. This was after a 2001 paper in the journal ‘Science’ by scientists Roger Bilham, Vinod Gaur and Peter Molnar calculated that there is a long 700 km segment along the Himalayan plate boundary that hasn’t produced a major earthquake in the last 500 years. Therefore, all the strain accumulated over the centuries will inevitably result in a displacement that will wreak “unparalleled damage” in several parts of north India, particularly the Gangetic plains. The Rajendrans describe their own excursions into the Himalayas to decipher evidence of past earthquakes.

A survivor searches for belongings amid the ruins of her damaged house following an earthquake in Nepal in 2023. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Archaeoseismology, as this endeavour is called, involves studying ancient structures such as old temples or land formations that may reveal signs of past earthquakes and help estimate the probability of future ones.

The earthquake at Killari, Maharashtra, in 1993. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Damage control

While the overwhelming number of earthquakes globally occur along the zones where the plates meet, there are other kinds too. For instance, the 1993 Killari earthquake in Maharashtra, or the Koyna earthquake in 1967, which has been linked to the filling up and emptying of a reservoir, are examples of significant earthquakes that are not linked to plate-boundary dynamics. While predicting major quakes remains a mystery globally, what’s better known is ways to minimise the scale of the damage.

Signs in Dichato, Chile, direct residents to tsunami evacuation routes. | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Chile, the book notes, is a country that is frequently rocked by massive earthquakes but reports minimal damage, thanks to the strict enforcement of building codes — a lesson that is by and large ignored in India’s construction ethos. India’s varied geography, geology and history suggests that many mysteries remain. Dr. Johnston, the Rajendrans say, probably jumped for joy because he got to experience a quake at the Rann of Kutch, a place significant in geological history. Not only was this great desert once a sprawling sea but in 1861 it was the site of an unusual earthquake that created a 2-4 km high bund, called the Allah bund, that till date stretches all the way to Pakistan.

Charles Lyell, the 19th century founding father of geology, described the discovery that a land surface could be deformed by earthquakes a “watershed moment in the history of geology.” Earth science practitioners must take up the task of sensitising the community about new developments in the field, the Rajendrans point out.

The Rumbling Earth: The Story of Indian Earthquakes ; C.P. Rajendran, Kusala Rajendran, Vintage/Penguin, ₹699.

[email protected]

Related Topics

The Hindu Sunday Magazine / Literary Review / earthquake / Environmental disasters / natural disasters / disaster management / disaster (general) / disaster and accident / India / India / nature / natural resources / natural resources (general) / environment and design / environmental politics / environmental issues

Top News Today

• Access 10 free stories every month
• Save stories to read later
• Access to comment on every story
• Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
• Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products

Terms & conditions   |   Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

Gujarat Earthquake in 2001

Introduction

We value your ideas and suggestions. Please contact the maintainer of this site. This site can be found at: http://www.geography-site.co.uk Last Modified on: March 17, 2011 © Geography Site

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake: Observed and predicted ground motions

• More information: Publisher Index Page (via DOI)
• Open Access Version: External Repository
• Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

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

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 = 508f 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, Δσ. 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 Δσ 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 Δσ 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 Δσ values for the two Himalayan arc events are 75 and 150 bars (sfact = 1.0 and 1.4). (2) The Δσ 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 Δσ = 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.

Citation Information

Related Content

Susan e. hough, geophysicist.

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the Coimbatore region, Tamil Nadu using a logic-tree approach

• Published: 06 August 2024
• Volume 133 , article number  156 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Manoharan Sambath 1 ,
• Sembulichampalayam Sennimalai Chandrasekaran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-3365 2 ,
• Sandeep Maithani 3 &
• Ganapathy Pattukandan Ganapathy 2  

36 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The Coimbatore corporation area is comprised of very densely occupied residential and commercial buildings which are prone to future earthquakes. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was carried out for the study region using the Classical Cornell approach and the logic-tree approach. A combination of 45 linear/fault sources and an areal source with a 500 km radius has been considered for the study. An updated earthquake catalogue has been compiled from various works of literature and authorized organizations. The collected earthquake catalogue of various magnitude scales has been homogenized into a uniform moment magnitude scale \(\left({M}_{w}\right)\) . Fore-shocks and after-shocks have been removed from independent events using one of the declustering algorithms. The seismicity parameters have been evaluated using the Guttenberg–Richter recurrence law. A hybrid GMPE composed of three attenuation relationships was used to obtain the ground motion parameters for the study region. The contour maps of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Peak Spectral Acceleration (PSA) for the bed-rock condition have been presented in terms of 10 and 2% Probability of Exceedance (PoE) for the return period of 475 and 2475 yr, respectively. The Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS) for Coimbatore city has been compared with (IS 1893-I-(2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: General provisions and buildings; Bureau of Indian Standards). As a result of deaggregation, the predominant hazard has been found within a 100 km distance and no hazards have been observed from a long distance as a controlling scenario from the analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Seismic Hazard Assessment of Kashmir Region Using Logic Tree Approach: Focus on Sensitivity of PSHA Results Towards Declustering Procedures and GMPEs

Updated probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Pakistan

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Singapore

Abolghasemi H, Radfar M H, Khatami M, Nia M S, Amid A and Briggs S M 2006 International medical response to a natural disaster: Lessons learned from the Bam earthquake experience; Prehosp. Disaster Med. 21 141–147.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anbazhagan P, Vinod J S and Sitharam T G 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bangalore; Nat. Hazards 48 145–166, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-008-9253-3 .

Anbazhagan P, Kumar A and Sitharam T G 2013 Ground motion prediction equation considering combined dataset of recorded and simulated ground motions; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 53 92–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.003 .

Anbazhagan P, Smitha C V and Kumar A 2014 Representative seismic hazard map of Coimbatore, India; Eng. Geol. 171 81–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGGEO.2013.12.013 .

Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Moustafa S S and Al-Arifi N S 2015 Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture characteristics; J. Seismol. 19(3) 695–719, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-015-9488-x .

Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Matharu K, Moustafa S S and Al-Arifi N S 2019 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using the logic tree approach-Patna district (India); Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 19 2097–2115, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2097-2019 .

Ashish, Lindholm C, Parvez I A and Kühn D 2016 Probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment for Peninsular India; J. Seismol. 20 629–653, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-015-9548-2 .

Bansal B K and Gupta S 1998 A glance through the seismicity of Peninsular India GMPEs from recorded acceleration time histories for Peninsular India view project site selection of additional nuclear power plants view project: A glance through the seismicity of Peninsular India; J. Geol. Soc. India 52 67–80.

Google Scholar  

Basu K L 1964 A note on the Coimbatore earthquake of 8 February 1900; Mausam 15 281–286, https://doi.org/10.54302/mausam.v15i2.5544 .

Basu S and Nigam N C 1977 Seismic risk analysis of Indian Peninsula; 6 th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. 782–790.

Bilim F 2019 The correlation of b -value in the earthquake frequency-magnitude distribution, heat flow and gravity data in the Sivas Basin, Central Eastern Turkey; Bitlis Eren University; J. Sci. Technol. 9 11–15, https://doi.org/10.17678/beuscitech.467269 .

Borah N and Kumar A 2023 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the North-East India towards identification of contributing seismic sources; Geomat.   Nat. Haz. Risk 14 1–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2160662 .

Chapin E, Daniels A, Elias R, Aspilcueta D and Doocy S 2009 Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health service provision in Southern Peru; Prehosp. Disaster Med. 24 326–332.

Charles S 1977 A fault-rupture model for seismic risk analysis; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 7 541–559.

Cheng J, Liu J, Gan W and Li G 2009 Influence of coseismic deformation of the Wenchuan earthquake on the occurrence of earthquakes on active faults in Sichuan-Yunnan region; Earthq. Sci. 31 477–490.

Cisternas A 2009 Montessus de ballore, a pioneer of seismology: The man and his work; Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 175(1–2) 3–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2007.09.006 .

Cornell C A 1968 Engineering seismic risk analysis; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58 1583–1606.

Dal Zilio L and Ampuero J P 2023 Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria; Commun. Earth Environ. 4 2–5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00747-z .

Dattatrayam R S and Suresh G 2004 A source study of the Bhuj, India, earthquake of 26 January 2001 (M w 7.6); Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94 1195–1206.

DesRoches R, Comerio M, Eberhard M, Mooney W and Rix G J 2011 Overview of the 2010 Haiti earthquake; Earthq. Spectra 27 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3630129 .

Douglas J 2003 Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: A review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates; Earth-Sci. Rev. 61 43–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00112-5 .

Dujardin A, Courboulex F, Causse M and Traversa P 2016 Influence of source, path, and site effects on the magnitude dependence of ground-motion decay with distance; Seismol. Res. Lett. 87 138–148, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150185 .

Dunbar P, McCullough H, Mungov G, Varner J and Stroker K 2011 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami data available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Geophysical Data Center; Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2 305–323, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2011.632443 .

Elayaraja S, Chandrasekaran S S and Ganapathy G P 2015 Evaluation of seismic hazard and potential of earthquake-induced landslides of the Nilgiris, India; Nat. Hazards 78 1997–2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-015-1816-5 .

Eurocode I 2005 Irish Standard Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1.

Ganapathy G P 2011 First level seismic microzonation map of Chennai city – A GIS approach; Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 549–559, https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-11-549-2011 .

Gardner J K and Knopoff L 1974 Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64 1363–1367, https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0640051363 .

Gupta H K 2002 A review of recent studies of triggered earthquakes by artificial water reservoirs with special emphasis on earthquakes in Koyna, India; Earth-Sci. Rev. 58 279–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00063-6 .

Gupta H K 1993 The deadly Latur earthquake; Science 262(5140) 1666–1667, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8259511 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gutenberg B and Richter C F 1956 Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration: (Second paper); Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 46(2) 105–145, https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0460020105 .

Motamedi M H, Sagafinia M, Ebrahimi A, Shams E and Motamedi M K 2012 Major earthquakes of the past decade (2000–2010): A comparative review of various aspects of management; Trauma Mon. 17(1) 219–229, https://doi.org/10.5812/traumamon.4519 .

Hough S E, Martin S, Bilham R and Atkinson G M 2002 The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake: Observed and predicted ground motions; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 2061–2079, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010260 .

Huded P M and Dash S R 2022 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment at bedrock level using a logic tree approach: A case study for Odisha, an Eastern State of India; Pure Appl. Geophys. 179 527–549, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02929-2 .

Hussain A, Yeats R S and Lisa Mona 2009 Geological setting of the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake; J. Seismol. 13 315–325, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9101-7 .

IS 1893 (Part 1) 2016 Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: General provisions and buildings; Bureau of Indian Standards.

Iyengar R N and Ghosh S 2004 Microzonation of earthquake hazard in Greater Delhi area; Curr. Sci. 87 1193–1202.

Jaiswal K and Sinha R 2007 Probabilistic seismic-hazard estimation for peninsular India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97 318–330, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050127 .

Jaiswal K and Sinha R 2006 Probabilistic modeling of earthquake hazard in stable continental shield of the Indian Peninsula; ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 43 49–64.

Joshi G C and Sharma M L 2008 Uncertainties in the estimation of M max ; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117 671–682, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0063-5 .

Keshri C K, Mohanty W K and Ranjan P 2020 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for some parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India; Nat. Hazards 103 815–843, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04014-8 .

Khan M M and Kumar G K 2018 Statistical completeness analysis of seismic data; J. Geol. Soc. India 91 749–753, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-018-0934-6 .

Khan M M, Munaga T, Kiran D N and Kumar G K 2020 Seismic hazard curves for Warangal city in Peninsular India; Asian J. Civ. Eng. 21 543–554, https://doi.org/10.1007/S42107-019-00210-5 .

Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical earthquake engineering; In: Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics , Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Kulkarni R B, Youngs R R and Coppersmith K J 1984 Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis; 8th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. , pp. 263–270.

Lizundia B, Davidson R A, Hashash Y M and Olshansky R 2017 Overview of the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and the earthquake spectra special issue; Earthq. Spectra 33(1_suppl) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1193/120817EQS252M .

Mandal P, Rastogi B K and Gupta H K 2000 Recent Indian earthquakes; Seismology 79 1334–1346.

McGuire R K and Arabasz W J 1985 An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; In: Geotechnical an Environmental Geophysics: Volume I: Review and Tutorial , pp. 333–354.

Menon A, Ornthammarath T, Corigliano M and Lai C G 2010 Probabilistic seismic hazard macrozonation of Tamil Nadu in Southern India; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100 1320–1341, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090071 .

Mohanty W K, Mohapatra A K and Verma A K 2015 A probabilistic approach toward earthquake hazard assessment using two first-order Markov models in Northeastern India; Nat. Hazards 75 2399–2419, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1438-3 .

Mohanty W K and Verma A K 2013 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Kakrapar atomic power station, Gujarat, India; Nat. Hazards 69 919–952, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0744-5 .

Mohindra R, Nair A K, Gupta S, Sur U and Sokolov V 2012 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Yemen; Int. J. Geophys. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/304235 .

Musson R M 2000 The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment in the UK; Ann. Geofis 43 1–9.

Nath S K and Thingbaijam K K 2012 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India; Seismol. Res. Lett. 83 135–149, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135 .

NDMA 2010 Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India; Technical report by national disaster management authority, Government of India.

Ordaz M and Arroyo D 2016 On uncertainties in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Earthq. Spectra 32 1405–1418, https://doi.org/10.1193/052015EQS075M .

Ornthammarath T, Lai C G, Menon A, Corigliano M, Dodagoudar G R and Gonavaram K 2008 Seismic hazard at the historical site of Kancheepuram in Southern India; 14th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. , pp. 1–8.

Pailoplee S, Sugiyama Y and Charusiri P 2009 Deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses in Thailand and adjacent areas using active fault data; Earth Planet. Sp. 61 1313–1325, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352984 .

Panza G F, Irikura K, Kouteva-Guentcheva M, Peresan A, Wang Z and Saragoni R 2011 Advanced seismic hazard assessment; Pure Appl. Geophys. 168 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0179-9 .

Patil S G, Menon A and Dodagoudar G R 2018 Probabilistic seismic hazard at the archaeological site of Gol Gumbaz in Vijayapura, South India; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 127 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-0917-4 .

Peláez Montilla J A, López Casado C and Henares Romero J 2002 Deaggregation in magnitude, distance, and azimuth in the south and west of the Iberian Peninsula; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 2177–2185, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010295 .

Raghu Kanth S T G and Iyengar R N 2006 Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city; Curr. Sci. 91 1486–1494.

Raghu Kanth S T G and Iyengar R N 2007 Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in Peninsular India; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 116 199–214, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-007-0020-8 .

Rajendran K and Rajendran C P 2003 Seismogenesis in the stable continental regions and implications for hazard assessment: Two recent examples from India; Curr. Sci. 85 896–903.

Ramkrishnan R, Kolathayar S and Sitharam T G 2019 Seismic hazard assessment and land use analysis of Mangalore city, Karnataka, India; J. Earthq. Eng. 25(12) 2349–2270, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1608333 .

Roshan A D and Basu P C 2010 Application of PSHA in low seismic region: A case study on NPP site in peninsular India; Nucl. Eng. Des. 240(10) 3443–3454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.04.037 .

Sabetta F, Lucantoni A, Bungum H and Bommer J J 2005 Sensitivity of PSHA results to ground motion prediction relations and logic-tree weights; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 25 317–329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.002 .

Scordilis E M 2006 Empirical global relations converting M S and m b to moment magnitude; J. Seismol. 10 225–236, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10950-006-9012-4 .

SEISAT 2000 Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs ; Published by Geological Survey of India.

Shukla J and Choudhury D 2012 Estimation of seismic ground motions using deterministic approach for major cities of Gujarat; Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 2019–2037, https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-12-2019-2012 .

Singh N N, Deviprasad B S, Krishna P H and Kumar G K 2015 Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Warangal considering single seismogenic zoning; In: 50th Indian Geotechnical Conference .

Sitharam T G and Kolathayar S 2018 Earthquake hazard assessment: India and adjacent areas; CRC Press.

Sitharam T G, James N, Vipin K S and Raj K G 2012 A study on seismicity and seismic hazard for Karnataka State; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121 475–490, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0171-0 .

Sitharam T G, Kolathayar S and James N 2015 Probabilistic assessment of surface level seismic hazard in India using topographic gradient as a proxy for site condition; Geosci. Front. 6 847–859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.06.002 .

Smriti Mallapaty 2022 Deadly Afghanistan; Nature 607 433.

Sreejaya K P, Raghu Kanth S T G, Gupta I D, Murty C V and Srinagesh D 2022 Seismic hazard map of India and neighbouring regions; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 163 107505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107505 .

Stepp J C 1974 Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the puget sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard; In: 1st International conference microzonation Seattle .

Sulastri S, Sunardi B, Gunawan M T and Gunawan T 2021 Application of the hybrid GMPE for seismic hazard analysis at Banjar City, West Java; Inter. J. Dyn. Eng. Sci. (IJDES) 6(2) 67–73.

Surve G, Kanaujia J and Sharma N 2021 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment studies for Mumbai region; Nat. Hazards 107 575–600, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04596-x .

Thaker T P, Rathod G W, Rao K S and Gupta K K 2012 Use of seismotectonic information for the seismic hazard analysis for Surat city, Gujarat, India: Deterministic and probabilistic approach; Pure Appl. Geophys. 169 37–54, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-011-0317-z .

Tinti S and Mulargia F 1985 Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75 1681–1697, https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0750061681 .

Tsapanos T M 1990 b -Values of two tectonic parts in the circum-pacific belt; Pure Appl. Geophys. 134 229–242, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876999 .

Uhrhammer R A 1991 Northern California seismicity; Neotectonics North Am. 99–106, https://doi.org/10.1130/DNAG-CSMS-NEO.99 .

Vigny C, Simons W J, Abu S, Bamphenyu R, Satirapod C, Choosakul N, Subarya C, Socquet A, Omar K, Abidin H Z and Ambrosius B A 2005 Insight into the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from GPS measurements in southeast Asia; Nature 436(7048) 201–206, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03937 .

Vipin K S, Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2009 Estimation of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for South India with local site effects: Probabilistic approach; Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 865–878, https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-9-865-2009 .

Vipin K S and Sitharam T G 2013 Delineation of seismic source zones based on seismicity parameters and probabilistic evaluation of seismic hazard using logic tree approach; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 122 661–676, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0300-4 .

Walter T R, Wang R, Luehr B G, Wassermann J, Behr Y, Parolai S, Anggraini A, Günther E, Sobiesiak M, Grosser H and Wetzel H U 2008 The 26 May 2006 magnitude 6.4 Yogyakarta earthquake south of Mt. Merapi volcano: Did lahar deposits amplify ground shaking and thus lead to the disaster?; Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9(5) , https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001810 .

Wiemer S 2001 A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP; Seismol. Res. Lett. 72 373–382, https://doi.org/10.1785/GSSRL.72.3.373 .

Wiemer S, Giardini D, Fäh D, Deichmann N and Sellami S 2009 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Switzerland: Best estimates and uncertainties; J. Seismol. 13 449–478, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9138-7 .

Williams J N, Werner M J, Goda K, Wedmore L N, De Risi R, Biggs J, Mdala H, Dulanya Z, Fagereng Å, Mphepo F and Chindandali P 2023 Fault-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in regions with low strain rates and a thick seismogenic layer: A case study from Malawi; Geophys. J. Int. 233 2172–2206, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad060 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Government of India, for sponsoring this work through the RESPOND project titled ‘Urban Seismic Risk Assessment’ (Project Sanction Order ISRO/RES/4/672/19-20 dated September 11th 2019). The authors wish to thank Geological Survey of India (GSI), Bhukosh ( https://bhukosh.gsi.gov.in ), India Meteorological Department (IMD), National Earthquake Information Centre (NEIC), Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and International Seismological Centre (ISC) for supplying the seismicity data. The authors would like to thank the developers of the R-CRISIS team ( http://www.r-crisis.com ) for providing the R-CRISIS open-source application version 20.3, which has been used in the present study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632 014, India

Manoharan Sambath

Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management (CDMM), Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632 014, India

Sembulichampalayam Sennimalai Chandrasekaran & Ganapathy Pattukandan Ganapathy

Urban and Regional Studies Department (URSD), Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248 001, India

Sandeep Maithani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Manoharan Sambath. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Manoharan Sambath and all authors (Sennimalai Sembulichampalayam Chandrasekaran , Sandeep Maithani , Ganapathy Pattukandan Ganapathy) commented on previous versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sembulichampalayam Sennimalai Chandrasekaran .

Additional information

Communicated by W K Mohanty

Supplementary material pertaining to this article is available on the Journal of Earth System   Science website ( http://www.ias.ac.in/Journals/Journal_of_Earth_System_Science ).

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sambath, M., Chandrasekaran, S.S., Maithani, S. et al. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the Coimbatore region, Tamil Nadu using a logic-tree approach. J Earth Syst Sci 133 , 156 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-024-02356-6

Download citation

Received : 14 March 2023

Revised : 27 February 2024

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 06 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-024-02356-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peak ground acceleration
• uniform hazard response spectrum
• deaggregation analysis
• probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
• logic tree approach
• Coimbatore corporation area
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research