Construction of Design Response Spectrum for Nepal: A Probabilistic Approach

Abstract

The Report has been submitted to University Grants Commission (UGC-Nepal)
Abstract:
Nepal lies in the zone of Himalayan belt formed due to collision of two continental plates and has the high probability of earthquake occurrence. Many destructive earthquakes have been reported in past causing the massive destruction of lives and property. For reducing the risks caused by seismic events, proper study should be carried out beforehand, one of which is seismic hazard analysis. In this study, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is carried out for Nepal and the available earthquake catalogue for Nepal is processed for magnitude homogeneity and removal of aftershocks. The seismicity parameters are obtained using the method available for multiple catalogs with different level of completeness.Hazard map is prepared in terms of Peak Horizontal Acceleration (PHA) for 500 years return period at bedrock level. The area source models are used for the analysis since the earthquake distribution is diffused and no particular information on faults is available. The attenuation relationship available for subduction zone earthquake is used for determining the PHA at a particular site. The software CRISIS 2007 is used for computing and preparing hazard map for Nepal. The map is divided into number of sites using grids of 0.1o by 0.1o and PHA value at each grid is computed, finally, obtaining the hazard map for Nepal. The hazard map shows that the PHA value varies from 0.09g to 0.5g for Nepal, with the maximum values at Eastern and Western part of Nepal. This high level of seismicity in the regions shows that the proper plans should be implemented for reducing the risks caused by seismic events, like earthquake resistant design of structures. The response spectrum curve for 5% damping was developed for Kathmandu valley using the method provided by NEHRP, which shows maximum spectral acceleration of 0.92g. Similarly, following the methods provided by NEHRP, the response spectrum curve for other sites can also be developed.

Full text

Report on
CONSTRUCTION OF DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR NEPAL: A
PROBABILISTIC APPROACH
Research Project Under
Small Research Development and Innovation Grant (SRDIG-73/74-Engg-01)
Submitted By:
Dr. Prachand Man Pradhan
Principal Investigator
Kathmandu University
Submitted To:
University Grants Commission (UGC-Nepal)
Research division
Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal
13thFebruary 2020

i
ABSTRACT
Nepal lies in the zone of Himalayan belt formed due to collision of two continental plates and
has the high probability of earthquake occurrence. Many destructive earthquakes have been
reported in past causing the massive destruction of lives and property. For reducing the risks
caused by seismic events, proper study should be carried out beforehand, one of which is
seismic hazard analysis. In this study, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is
carried out for Nepal and the available earthquake catalogue for Nepal is processed for
magnitude homogeneity and removal of aftershocks. The seismicity parameters are obtained
using the method available for multiple catalogs with different level of completeness.Hazard
map is prepared in terms of Peak Horizontal Acceleration (PHA) for 500 years return period
at bedrock level. The area source models are used for the analysis since the earthquake
distribution is diffused and no particular information on faults is available. The attenuation
relationship available for subduction zone earthquake is used for determining the PHA at a
particular site. The software CRISIS 2007 is used for computing and preparing hazard map
for Nepal. The map is divided into number of sites using grids of 0.1o by 0.1o and PHA value
at each grid is computed, finally, obtaining the hazard map for Nepal. The hazard map shows
that the PHA value varies from 0.09g to 0.5g for Nepal, with the maximum values at Eastern
and Western part of Nepal. This high level of seismicity in the regions shows that the proper
plans should be implemented for reducing the risks caused by seismic events, like earthquake
resistant design of structures. The response spectrum curve for 5% damping was developed
for Kathmandu valley using the method provided by NEHRP, which shows maximum
spectral acceleration of 0.92g. Similarly, following the methods provided by NEHRP, the
response spectrum curve for other sites can also be developed.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge University Grants Commission Nepal (UGC-Nepal), Sanothimi,
Bhaktapur, for providing Small RDI Grant for carrying out this research work.
Further, I would like to extend my thankfulness to Mr. Shiva Prasad Timalsina and Mr.
Mahesh Raj Bhatt for their cooperation in data collection and computational works. Without
their support, this project would not have taken this shape.
Finally, I am thankful to the Department of Civil Engineering, Kathmandu University as well
as all those who helped me directly or indirectly in the course of the research work.
Prachand Man Pradhan, PhD
Department of Civil Engineering
Kathmandu University
February, 2020

iii
PROJECT INFORMATION
Title: Construction of Design Response Spectrum for Nepal: A Probabilistic Approach
UGC Award Number: SRDIG-73/74-Engg-01
Grant Type: Small RDI
Year of Award: 2073/74
Subject Cluster: Engineering
Specialization: Structural/Earthquake Engineering
Principal Investigator:
Name: Prachand Man Pradhan, PhD
Institution: Kathmandu University, School of Engineering
Students Involved:
Name: Shiva Prasad Timalsina
Institution: Kathmandu University, School of Engineering
Level: Masters
Name: Mahesh Raj Bhatt
Institution: Kathmandu University, School of Engineering
Level: Masters

iv
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 RATIONALITY FOR CONDUCTING THE STUDY .......................................................... 3
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................................ 3
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ................................................................................... 4
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................... 5
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 6
2.2.1 EARTHQUAKE CATALOG AND PROCESSING ...................................................... 6
2.2.2 SEISMIC SOURCE ZONES .......................................................................................... 7
2.2.3 SEISMICITY PARAMETERS ....................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIP ............................................................................. 11
2.3 MODELING AND ANALYSIS IN SOFTWARE ............................................................... 12
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 17
3.1 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP FOR NEPAL ............................................................................. 17
3.2 COMPARISON OF OBTAINED VALUES ........................................................................ 19
3.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM ..................................................................................... 19
4. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 23
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 24
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 26

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Map of Nepal showing the seismic events from 16 Dec 2012 to 13 Jan 2013 ..................... 1
Figure 1.2: Design Response Spectrum .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2.1: Earthquake epicenter map for Nepal (for raw data) ............................................................. 7
Figure 2.2: Seismic Source Zones........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Magnitude of completeness using MAXC method (a) catalog from 1800-1963 (b) catalog
from 1964-2017 .................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.4: Map of Nepal loaded in software ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.5: Division of area into grids of size 0.1o X 0.1o .................................................................... 13
Figure 2.6: Modeling the area sources in the software ......................................................................... 14
Figure 2.7: Providing the seismicity values for each source zone ........................................................ 14
Figure 2.8: Defining Spectral Ordinate Parameters .............................................................................. 15
Figure 2.9: Defining Attenuation Relationship ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.10: Defining Return Periods ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.11: Running the Analysis ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.1: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for PHA for Rock Sites (for 500 yrs. Return Period) ........ 17
Figure 3.2: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for Spectral Acceleration for 0.2sec Time Period for Rock
Sites (for 500 yrs. Return Period) ......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for Spectral Acceleration for 1.0sec Time Period for Rock
Sites (for 500 yrs. Return Period) ......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.4: Horizontal Response Spectrum using Two-Point Method as per NEHRP, 1997 ............... 21
Figure 3.5: Horizontal Response Spectrum using Two-Point Method for Kathmandu Valley (5%
damping and 500 yrs. return period) ..................................................................................................... 22

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Window Algorithm for Aftershocks (Gardner & Knopoff, 1974) ......................................... 7
Table 2.2: Seismicity Parameters for Source Zones ............................................................................. 10
Table 2.3: Values of coefficients to be used in attenuation relationship............................................... 12
Table 3.1: Comparison of PHA value at Kathmandu ........................................................................... 19
Table 3.2: Site Correction Coefficients Fa (NEHRP, 1997) .................................................................. 19
Table 3.3: Site Correction Coefficients Fv (NEHRP, 1997) ................................................................. 20
Table 3.4: Damping Coefficients Ba and B1 (NEHRP, 1997) ............................................................... 20

1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Nepal lies in the zone of Himalayan belt formed due to collision of two continental plates and
has the high probability of earthquake occurrence. Many destructive earthquakes have been
reported in past causing the massive destruction of lives and property. One of the major
earthquakes that occurred was Nepal-Bihar earthquake on 1934 AD of magnitude 8.3. Two
moderate earthquakes with magnitude greater than 6 occurred in Eastern Nepal, 1988
Udayapur Earthquake and western Nepal, 1980 Bajhang Earthquake (Department of Mines &
Geology, 2006).The recent devastating earthquake was Nepal-Gorkha earthquake of
magnitude 7.8 occurred on April 2015 causing death of over 8,000 people. Many earthquakes
of various magnitudes are occurring monthly which can be seen as in (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Map of Nepal showing the seismic events from 16 Dec 2012 to 13 Jan 2013
Source:http://www.seismonepal.gov.np/
As Nepal is prone to high seismicity, the structures should be built accordingly so that life
safety is possible during the major earthquake. For the design of structures, it is first
necessary to determine all the possible parameters related to earthquake motion, so that the
structures can be designed for the predicted value of earthquake motion. A particular code of
design should be developed for uniformity on design in whole nation.

2
One of the parameters required for seismic analysis and design of any structure is response
spectrum. A response spectrum is a plot of the peak values of the response (displacement,
velocity, or acceleration) of a structure with different natural vibration periods subjected to
the same seismic input. Therefore, an acceleration response spectrum represents the peak
accelerations that a structure with a range of natural periods may exhibit when subjected to a
given ground motion component. Typical response spectrum curve is shown in Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2: Design Response Spectrum
Source: IS 1893 (Part 1):2002
In general, the acceleration response spectrum associated with a specific time-history
recorded at a given location has a jagged shape with significant peaks and valleys. The
response spectrum for another ground motion recorded at the same site during a different
earthquake will exhibit also an irregular shape, but the peaks and valleys will not necessarily
coincide with those in the previous one. Therefore, appropriately smoothened spectra are
usually defined for design and evaluation purposes. These spectra are termed design response
spectra. They do not represent the particular acceleration response from a single ground
motion time-history, but rather they are intended to be more representative of general
characteristics for a reasonable range of expected ground motions at a given site. There are
two basic approaches for the development of design response spectra: site specific or
standard procedures.
Site-specific response spectra are developed using source to site distances, appropriate
attenuation relationships, expected magnitudes, and actual local site conditions. Therefore, it
is typically assumed that site-specific studies will provide more accurate acceleration spectra
than using the codified standard acceleration spectra. Site-specific response spectra can be
generated by means of a deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) or a probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In the DSHA, the site ground motions are estimated for a
specific earthquake scenario, defined as a seismic event of a certain magnitude for a
particular seismic source occurring at a certain distance from the site. The representation of

3
the ground motions in terms of the corresponding site-specific response spectra is achieved
by using appropriate attenuation relationships. The PSHA is an approach that uses the
likelihood (probability) that a given level of ground motion will occur during a specific
exposure period. In the PSHA, the site ground motions are defined for selected values of the
probability of exceedance in a given time exposure period, or for selected values of annual
frequency or return period for ground motion exceedance.
On the other hand, standard response spectra are based on a general characteristic shape that
is defined in terms of estimates of selected ground motion parameters, which can be effective
peak ground accelerations or spectral accelerations. Method proposed by Newmark and Hall
(1982) is one way to develop design response spectra using peak ground motion parameters
(peak ground acceleration, velocity and displacement), multiplied by a series of appropriate
spectral amplification factors that depend on the damping level. However, there is other
method like Two Point Method (NEHRP, 1997) also available for it.
1.2 RATIONALITY FOR CONDUCTING THE STUDY
As Nepal lies in great earthquake potential region in the globe, there is always risk of great
disaster if we have deficient structures. The deficient structures imply the structures which
are considered to be incapable to resist the earthquake forces. Therefore, to build the
structures that can resist the earthquake forces, proper design code should be developed
which can be utilized throughout the country. Although Nepal has its own seismic design
code, we are still using the Indian standard code for the design of structure; this is due to the
lack of investigation in this field. Many researchers have worked in this field and many
researches are going on.
To develop such design codes, first it is necessary to study on the earthquakes that has
occurred on past, so that a critical situation can be determined which can be implemented in
the design of structures. This study helps us to identify the worst scenario related to
earthquake with reference to the past earthquakes for our country and by considering that
worst condition we can develop some improved design methods for the structures. Our study
is mainly focused on the main seismic design parameter i.e. response spectrum, which can be
developed for the country utilizing the knowledge of earthquake engineering.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objectives of the study are:
i. To conduct the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Nepal using the past
seismicity data and prepare the seismic hazard map for Nepal.
ii. To develop the site specific response spectra for various sites in Nepal using the data
obtained from PSHA.
In this study, the various geological and seismological data required are obtained from the
available literatures, i.e. no particular field investigation has been carried out. The choice of
appropriate methods for determining ground motion parameters is based on the availability of

4
data and software available to interpret the data. Seismic hazard analysis is carried out using
the software CRISIS 2007 (Ordaz et. al., 2007).
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1 of the report describes the general background on earthquake in Nepal and need of
study in the field of earthquake engineering. The rationality of this study along with the
research objectives and scope are also described in this chapter.
Chapter 2 of the report is about the methods adopted for carrying out the research work.
Literature review on past activities carried out in this field is described here. Various methods
adopted for data collection, analysis, determination of parameters and modeling in software
are explained in this chapter.
Chapter 3 of the report describes the results obtained from the analysis. The final hazard map
obtained for Nepal is explained and the comparison of obtained values are made for the
verification of result. This chapter also discusses the methods for constructing the design
response spectrum for a particular site from the results of hazard analysis.
Chapter 4 is the conclusion part of the report, which summarizes the main output of the study.
References and the Annexes are also provided sequentially.

5
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Seismic hazard analysis is the quantitative estimation of ground shaking hazards at a
particular site. At present day, this method is widely used for the determination of ground
motion parameters. Seismic hazard 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. PSHA in Nepal has been
gaining recognition since the decade of nineties of the last century. In 1993, UNDP/UNCHS
(Habitat) supported project was carried out to develop the seismic hazard map as a part of
building code development project for Nepal by BECA World International (New Zealand) in
association with SILT Consultants (P.) Ltd. (Nepal), TAEC Consult (P.) Ltd. (Nepal), Golder
Associates Ltd. and (Canada) and Urban Regional Research (USA). They conducted a PSHA
for whole Nepal and obtained the contour of PGA on medium soil for 500 yrs. return period
earthquake. Based on the result, the zoning of Nepal was done with zone factors ranging from
0.8 to 1.1 and the zoned map is used in building code of Nepal NBC 105:1994.
Later in 2002, an improved seismic hazard map for Nepal was developed using the software
CRISIS99 prepared by Institute de Ingenieria, UNAM, Mexico, by Pandey et al for GoN.
They have determined total 12 nos. of areal seismic source zones for whole Nepal and used
the attenuation relation of Youngs et al (1997) for conducting the PSHA. The final output
consists of the seismic hazard map for peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) at bedrock that has
10% probability of being exceeded over 50 years. The PHA value varies from 100 to 450
gals for whole Nepal.
Parajuli et al (2010) conducted the SHA for Nepal in which separate earthquake densities are
calculated based upon historical earthquakes and maximum magnitudes of faults using the
Kernel estimation method which accounts the significance of both the number of earthquakes
and size. Five attenuation laws developed for subduction zone are selected and used, giving
equal weight to all to minimize the uncertainties. They presented a hazard map of Nepal for
PGA at soft soil bedrock that has 10% probability of being exceeded over 50 years. They
found that there is higher concentration around Kathmandu than other part of the country
illustrating the highest risk. They have also presented the probabilistic spectra for return
periods of 100, 475 and 1000 years for Kathmandu city in this study. They suggest that there
is an urgent need to revise the existing hazard estimate and code provisions.
Thapa and Wang (2013) conducted the PSHA for Nepal by delineating 23 seismic source
zones and estimated the PGA at bedrock level with 63%, 10%, and 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. Morpho-Structural zoning (MSZ) and pattern recognition technique
(PRT) were used to determine the earthquake prone areas in Nepal Himalayas and
surrounding region, which in-turn were used to delineate the potential seismic source zones.
The ground motion attenuation relationship developed by CEA for western China was used in
this study. The resulting ground motion maps shows the high hazard in the far-western and
eastern sections, and low hazard in southern Nepal.

6
2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
2.2.1 EARTHQUAKE CATALOG AND PROCESSING
Earthquake magnitudes and epicenter list occurring in Nepal from 1255 to 2017 A.D is
collected from various data sources like National Seismological Centre (NSC), Disaster
Preparedness Network Nepal (DPNet Nepal) and United States Geological Survey (USGS).
The earthquake catalog consist of earthquakes in intensity (Io) and various magnitude scales
like local magnitude (ML), surface wave magnitude (Ms), body wave magnitude (Mb) and
moment magnitude (Mw). All the intensity value and magnitude scales are converted to Mw
scale for homogeneity. The various conversion relationships are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Conversion from Io to ML (Gutenberg & Richter, 1956):
= 0.67+ 1.0 (2.1)
Conversion from ML to Ms (Wang et. al., 2010):
= 0.98+ 0.03 (2.2)
Conversion from Mb to Ms (Liu et. al., 2007):
= 1.070.63 (2.3)
Conversion from Ms to seismic moment, Mo (Ambraseys & Douglas, 2004):
=16.03 + 1.5 > 5.94 (2.4)
and
=19.38 + 0.93 5.94 (2.5)
Conversion of Mo to Mw (Hanks & Kanamori, 1994):
=2
310.63 (2.6)
The earthquake catalog consists of mixture of aftershocks and main events. For the purpose
of SHA, only main events are required as aftershocks are non-Poissonian in nature. The
process of removal of aftershocks from earthquake catalog is called as declustering. The
dynamic window declustering method proposed by Gardner and Knopoff (Gardner &
Knopoff, 1974) is used to remove the aftershocks from the earthquake catalog. Table 2.1
provides the window algorithm for aftershocks. After occurrence of earthquake of magnitude
M, if another earthquake occurs within T days and epicenter is within L km for that particular
magnitude as specified in Table 2.1, then the earthquake is identified as an aftershock.

7
Table 2.1: Window Algorithm for Aftershocks (Gardner & Knopoff, 1974)
Magnitude,
M
Distance, L
(km)
Time, T
(days)
2.5
19.5
6
3
22.5
11.5
3.5
26
22
4
30
42
4.5
35
83
5
40
155
5.5
47
290
6
54
510
6.5
61
790
7
70
915
7.5
81
960
8
94
985
The raw earthquake catalog for Nepal and surrounding region consist of total no. of 2118
earthquake data from 1255 to 2017 A.D. which, after declustering, the number reduced to
965. The declustered data is provided in Annex A1 of the report. Figure 2.1, shows the
epicenter map for Nepal with raw data.
Figure 2.1: Earthquake epicenter map for Nepal (for raw data)
2.2.2 SEISMIC SOURCE ZONES
To conduct a PSHA for any site, the seismic sources are first to be identified. To
accommodate the uncertainty in fault location, area sources were invented and have common

8
application in PSHA (SSHAC, 1997). To determine the seismic source models, the diffused
seismicity is represented by area source models.
Seismic source delineation is generally premised on geoscience knowledge that relates
earthquakes to geologic structure. For this study, the seismic source zones developed by
Thapa &Wang (Thapa & Wang, 2013) are used for conducting the PSHA. Same source zone
models were used by Md Moklesur Rahman and Ling Bai in their study (Rahman & Bai,
2018). Total 23 numbers of areal seismic zones are used for computing the hazard for Nepal
as shown in Figure 2.2. More information on area sources are provided in Annex A2 of the
report.
For the PSHA purpose, the earthquake magnitude below some minimum value can be
neglected because its significance on the structures is less. Here, the minimum value of
earthquake magnitude is taken as 4, which is generally used in case of PSHA.
The assessment of maximum earthquake magnitudes for area sources is particularly difficult
because the physical constraint most important to the assessment, the dimensions of fault
rupture, is not known. As a result, the primary methods for assessing maximum earthquakes
for area sources usually include a consideration of the historical seismicity record and
analogies to other sources (SSHAC, 1997).
Figure 2.2: Seismic Source Zones
2.2.3 SEISMICITY PARAMETERS
Gutenberg-Richter a- and b-value are the main parameters that are required for PSHA. The
earthquake catalog consists of both historical and instrumental seismicity for a long duration
of time. Usually historical seismicity consists of large earthquake magnitudes only and they

9
are incomplete for small earthquakes. To determine the seismicity parameters using least
square regression analysis, the catalog must be complete for all the magnitudes. Another
method for estimating the seismic activity parameters is to reject the incomplete part of
catalog and use any standard method for the data from the other complete part of the catalog
(Kijko & Sellevoll, 1989). But, using this process neglects the large magnitude value which
leads to large error in obtained values (Knopoff & Kagan, 1977; Dong et al, 1984).
For this purpose, the β-value and activity rate are obtained using the method proposed by
Kijko and Smit (Kijko & Smit, 2012). This method is used for the incomplete catalogues.
Incomplete catalogues are defined as a catalogue that can be divided into sub-catalogues each
with different levels of completeness. The estimation of β-value is given as,
=1
1
+2
2
++
1
(2.7)
Where,
=1
 ,=
,=,= 1,2, 
ni = no. of earthquakes greater than the completeness magnitude (mmini) for a sub-catalog
= average magnitude
s = no. of sub-catalogs
Once the β-value is known, the mean seismic activity rate λ(mmin) is obtained as,
 =
   

=1
(2.8)
Where, ti= duration of the catalog and mmin = minimum magnitude considered
Magnitude of completeness (Mc) is defined as the lowest magnitude at which 100% of the
earthquakes in a space-time volume are detected (Rydelek & Sacks, 1989). A correct estimate
of Mc is crucial since a value too high leads to under-sampling, by discarding usable data,
while a value too low leads to erroneous seismicity parameter values and thus to a biased
analysis, by using incomplete data (Mignan & Woessner, 2012). Mc is often estimated by
fitting a Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) model to the observed Frequency-Magnitude Distribution
(FMD). The magnitude at which the lower end of the FMD departs from the G-R law is taken
as an estimate of Mc (Zuniga & Wyss, 1995).
One of the methods for assessing the magnitude of completeness, Mc, is the Maximum
Curvature (MAXC) technique (Wyss et al, 1999; Wiemer & Wyss, 2000). The point of
maximum curvature is obtained by computing the maximum value of the first derivative of
the frequency-magnitude curve. In practice, this matches the magnitude bin with the highest
frequency of events in the non-cumulative FMD.

10
For this purpose, the earthquake catalog can be divided into two parts; first part consists of
data from 1800 to 1963 A.D. and second part consists of data from 1964 to 2017 A.D. (Thapa
& Wang, 2013). The magnitude of completeness is obtained for two sub-catalogs, as can be
seen in Figure 2.3.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.3: Magnitude of completeness using MAXC method (a) catalog from 1800-1963 (b)
catalog from 1964-2017
Using Equations 2.7 &2.8, and determining the magnitude of completeness, the β-value and
activity rate, λ, are determined. From value of λ, a-value can be calculated using G-R
recurrence relationship, for a minimum magnitude value. The various seismicity parameters
obtained for sources are shown in Table 2.2. Additional details are provided in annex A3.
Table 2.2: Seismicity Parameters for Source Zones
Source
β
b
λ
a
Mmax
SZ1
1.98
0.86
0.034
1.97
6.4
SZ2
1.98
0.86
0.041
2.05
6.4
SZ3
1.98
0.86
0.047
2.11
6.4
SZ4
1.98
0.86
0.014
1.57
6.4
SZ5
1.98
0.86
0.014
1.57
6.4
SZ6
1.98
0.86
0.027
1.87
7.0
SZ7
1.98
0.86
0.155
2.63
8.4
SZ8
1.98
0.86
0.014
1.57
6.4
SZ9
1.98
0.86
0.189
2.72
8.0
SZ10
1.98
0.86
0.284
2.89
8.4
SZ11
1.98
0.86
0.392
3.03
8.4
SZ12
1.98
0.86
0.304
2.92
8.0
SZ13
1.98
0.86
0.088
2.38
7.5
SZ14
1.98
0.86
0.263
2.86
8.4
SZ15
1.98
0.86
0.149
2.61
8.4
SZ16
1.98
0.86
0.419
3.06
8.4
SZ17
1.98
0.86
0.480
3.12
8.4

11
Source
β
b
λ
a
Mmax
SZ18
1.98
0.86
0.270
2.87
8.0
SZ19
1.98
0.86
0.054
2.17
6.4
SZ20
1.98
0.86
0.108
2.47
6.4
SZ21
1.98
0.86
0.014
1.57
6.4
SZ22
1.98
0.86
0.345
2.98
6.4
SZ23
1.98
0.86
0.216
2.77
6.4
2.2.4 ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIP
Ground motion parameter at any site is estimated using the attenuation relationship, which is
a function of earthquake magnitude, distance and other geological and seismological
parameters. Till date, no attenuation relationship has been developed for Nepal. For the SHA
purpose, the available attenuation relationship which best match the tectonic characteristics of
Nepal are chosen. The attenuation relationship developed by Youngs et al (Youngs et al,
1997) for subduction zone earthquake is suitable in case of our country as Nepal also lies in
the subduction zone boundary. Youngs et al provides attenuation relationship for both rock
and soft soils, and the attenuation relationship is used for estimating both peak horizontal
acceleration (PHA) and spectral acceleration (SA) for 5% damping value. The attenuation
relationship for rock site is as described below.
Ln= 0.2418 + 1.414+1+2(10 )3+3ln + 1.7818e0.554
+ 0.00607+ 0.3846 (2.9)
=4+5
Where,
y = PHA or SA in g
M = moment magnitude
rrup = closest distance to rupture (km)
H = focal depth (km)
Zt = source type, 0 for interface, 1 for intraslab
σ = standard deviation; for magnitudes greater than M 8, the value of standard deviation is set
equal to value for M 8

12
Table 2.3: Values of coefficients to be used in attenuation relationship
Period (s)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
0 (PGA)
0.0
0.0
-2.552
1.45
-0.1
0.075
1.275
0.0
-2.707
1.45
-0.1
0.1
1.188
-0.0011
-2.655
1.45
-0.1
0.2
0.722
-0.0027
-2.528
1.45
-0.1
0.3
0.246
-0.0036
-2.454
1.45
-0.1
0.4
-0.115
-0.0043
-2.401
1.45
-0.1
0.5
-0.400
-0.0048
-2.360
1.45
-0.1
0.75
-1.149
-0.0057
-2.286
1.45
-0.1
1.0
-1.736
-0.0064
-2.234
1.45
-0.1
1.5
-2.634
-0.0073
-2.160
1.50
-0.1
2.0
-3.328
-0.0080
-2.107
1.55
-0.1
3.0
-4.511
-0.0089
-2.033
1.65
-0.1
The focal depth of about 10km is used by Thapa & Wang (2013) in their study.The majority
of the seismic events in the Himalayan thrust belt are shallow, about 13-37 km focal depth
(Shanker et al, 2011). For this study, focal depth of 10 km is used.
2.3 MODELING AND ANALYSIS IN SOFTWARE
To conduct the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), the above obtained
geometries and parameters are modeled in software CRISIS 2007.CRISIS 2007 is Windows
based software with the capability of performing Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(PSHA) using a fully probabilistic approach allowing the calculation of results in terms of
outputs with different characteristics (i.e., exceedance probability plots, set of stochastic
events). Allinformation that is required for conducting the hazard analysis is made input in
the software. Manual calculation is a tedious process, while for few source zones, simple
programs can be prepared also for the analysis. Since this research includes huge data of
earthquakes, the software CRISIS 2007 has been used.
Various steps in modeling and analysis are described below:
1) Input the map of Nepal in software.

13
Figure 2.4: Map of Nepal loaded in software
2) Divide the area into smaller grids of 0.1o X 0.1o, in which each grid represents a single site
where hazard is to be computed.
Figure 2.5: Division of area into grids of size 0.1o X 0.1o

14
3) Define and draw the 23 numbers of area sources in the model.
Figure 2.6: Modeling the area sources in the software
4) Define the source seismicity by making input the G-R a and b value, threshold magnitude,
maximum magnitude etc.
Figure 2.7: Providing the seismicity values for each source zone

15
5) Defining the spectral ordinates parameters to be determined. In this case spectral ordinates
are defined for time periods of 0 sec (i.e. PHA), 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec.
Figure 2.8: Defining Spectral Ordinate Parameters
6) Defining the attenuation relationship and assigning it to the respective source zones.
Figure 2.9: Defining Attenuation Relationship

16
7) Defining the return periods for calculating the seismic hazard.
Figure 2.10: Defining Return Periods
8) Running the analysis and viewing the outputs.
Figure 2.11: Running the Analysis

17
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP FOR NEPAL
The output from the CRISIS 2007 is the Seismic Hazard Map for PHA and Spectral
Acceleration for various return periods. For this study the hazard map for return period of 500
years. (i.e. 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) is only considered since the design
basis earthquake for Nepal is based on 500 years return period. The obtained hazard maps are
shown in Fig3.1, Fig 3.2 and Fig 3.3.
Figure 3.1: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for PHA for Rock Sites (for 500 yrs. Return
Period)

18
Figure 3.2: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for Spectral Acceleration for 0.2sec Time Period
for Rock Sites (for 500 yrs. Return Period)
Figure 3.3: Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal for Spectral Acceleration for 1.0sec Time Period
for Rock Sites (for 500 yrs. Return Period)

19
From Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 it can be concluded that the PHA value varies from 0.09 g to
0.50 g, Spectral acceleration value for 0.2 sec time period varies from 0.17 g to 0.82 g and
that for 1.0 sec time period varies from 0.05 g to 0.18 g. It can be seen that the eastern and
western part of country is more hazardous to earthquake.
3.2 COMPARISON OF OBTAINED VALUES
The obtained value of PHA is compared with the values from different studies. For this, we
compare the PHA value at Kathmandu only. The comparison table is presented Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Comparison of PHA value at Kathmandu
Researchers
PHA (g)
Pandey et al, 2002
0.25
Thapa and Wang, 2013
0.50
Rahman and Bai, 2018
0.53
NBC 105:2019 (Draft)
0.35
This Study
0.43
As can be seen from the table, the obtained value of PHA differs much from that of Pandey et
al, 2002 only; this is because of the earthquake data available till that time and methods used
for the analysis. At present, more number of data is available and new techniques are
available for carrying out the hazard analysis, which gives the more refined results.
3.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
The horizontal response spectrum for any site located in Nepal can be constructed using Two-
Point method as suggested by NEHRP (NEHRP, 1997). This method uses the spectral values
at 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec time period to construct the general design spectrum for the site. The
steps involved in construction of design response spectrum is explained below as per
NEHRP, 1997.
Let Ss and S1 be the spectral ordinates at 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec periods respectively. These
spectral ordinate values correspond to the firm rock condition, therefore, effect of site
conditions should be considered for the development of response spectrum. The effect of site
conditions is accounted using coefficients Fa and Fv, whose values are listed in Table 3.2 and
Table 3.3 respectively, for site class A-E.
Table 3.2: Site Correction Coefficients Fa(NEHRP, 1997)
Site Class
Coefficient Fa
Ss≤0.25
Ss=0.50
Ss=0.75
Ss=1.00
Ss=1.25
A
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
B
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
C
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
D
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
E
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.9
0.9

20
Table 3.3: Site Correction Coefficients Fv (NEHRP, 1997)
Site Class
Coefficient Fv
S1≤0.10
S1=0.20
S1=0.30
S1=0.40
S1=0.50
A
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
B
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
C
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
D
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.5
E
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.4
The corrected spectral values are then given as:
Sxs = FaSs and Sx1 = FvS1
Then, the spectral ordinates at various time periods can be obtained as:
= 
0.4 + 3 
0;  0 <   0.20
=1
1;  >0
Where,
0= 1
1
Here, Bs and B1 are the coefficients to account for the damping ratio as shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Damping Coefficients Ba and B1 (NEHRP, 1997)
Effective Damping β
(percentage of critical)1
Bs
B1
< 2
0.8
0.8
5
1.0
1.0
10
1.3
1.2
20
1.8
1.5
30
2.3
1.7
40
2.7
1.9
>50
3.0
2.0
1. The damping coefficient should be based on
linear interpolation for effective damping
values other than those given.
The Spectral Acceleration ordinates for various time periods using Two-point method is
shown in Figure 3.4.

21
Figure 3.4: Horizontal Response Spectrum using Two-Point Method as per NEHRP, 1997
The above method discussed is utilized for construction of response spectrum for Kathmandu
Valley. From Figures 3.2 and 3.3, for Kathmandu valley the spectral ordinates for 0.2 sec and
1.0 sec are obtained as:
Ss = 0.695 g and S1 = 0.15 g
The soil type in valley is clay, which belongs to Site Class E as per NEHRP provision.
Therefore, the site correction factors are obtained as:
Fa = 1.32 and Fv = 3.35
Now, the corrected spectral ordinates are:
Sxs = 0.917 g and Sx1 = 0.502 g
For 5% damping ratio, Bs = B1 = 1.0, therefore T0 = 0.547 sec.
After determining all the required parameters, the spectral ordinates are calculated for various
time periods and plotted to obtain the response spectrum curve Fig 3.5.

22
Figure 3.5: Horizontal Response Spectrum using Two-Point Method for Kathmandu Valley
(5% damping and 500 yrs. return period)

23
4. CONCLUSIONS
The seismic hazard map for Nepal in-terms of PHA and Spectral Accelerations (0.2 sec and
1.0 sec) are obtained performing the PSHA as shown in Figures 3.1 to 3.3. The hazard maps
are prepared for return period of 500 yrs. which is considered as design basis earthquake for
Nepal. The PHA value varies from 0.09 g to 0.50 g, (Fig 3.1) Spectral acceleration value for
0.2 sec time period varies from 0.17 g to 0.82 g ( Fig 3.2) and that for 1.0 sec time period
varies from 0.05 g to 0.18 g (Fig 3.3). It can be seen that the eastern and western part of
country is more hazardous to earthquake.
The hazard map for 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec spectral acceleration are used to design the response
spectrum for each site of interest by following the method of NEHRP, 1997. By knowing the
soil type on the site, the design response spectrum can be constructed for that site using
hazard map for spectral accelerations. As an example, the design response spectrum for
Kathmandu valley is provided in Figure 3.5, which is constructed using method proposed by
NEHRP, 1997.

24
REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N., & Douglas, J. (2004). Magnitude Calibration of North Indian Earthquakes.
Geophysical Journal International, 159(1), 165-206.
BECA World International (New Zealand) in association with SILT Consultants (P.) Ltd.
(Nepal), T. C. (1993). Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal.
Centre, N. S. (n.d.). National Seismological Centre. Retrieved 01 27, 2016, from National
Seismological Centre: http://www.seismonepal.gov.np
Department of Mines and Geology, N. S. (2006). National Seismological Network & its
Contribution in Seismological Research in Nepal Himalaya.
Dong, W. M., Bao, A. B., & Shah, H. C. (1984). Use of Maximum Entropy Principle in
Earthquake Recurrence Relationships. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 74, 726-737.
Gardner, J. K., & Knopoff, L. (1974). Is the Sequence of Earthquakes in Southern California,
with Aftershocks Removed, Poissonian? Bulletion of the Seismological Society of America,
64(5), 1363-1367.
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. R. (1956). Earthquake Magnitude, Intensity, Energy and
Acceleration. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 46, 105-145.
Hanks, T. C., & Kanamori, H. (1994). A Moment Magnitude Scale. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 84, 2348-2350.
Kijko, A., & Sellevoll, M. A. (1989). Estimation of Earthquake Hazard Parameters from
Incomplete Data Files, Part I. Utilization of Extreme and Complete Catalogs with Different
Threshold Magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79(3), 645-654.
Kijko, A., & Smit, A. (2012). Extension of the AkiUtsu bValue Estimator for Incomplete
Catalogs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(3), 1283-1287.
Knopoff, L., & Kagan, Y. (1977). Analysis of the Theory of Extremal Values as Applied to
Earthquake Problems. J. Geophys. Res., 82, 5647-5657.
Liu, R., Chen, Y., Ren, X., Xu, Z., Sun, L., Yang, H., et al. (2007). Comparison Between
Different Earthquake Magnitudes Determined by China Seismograph Networks. Acta
Seismologica Sinica, 29, 467-476.
Mignan, A., & Woessner, J. (2012). Estimating the magnitude of completeness for
earthquake catalogs. Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, doi:
10.5078/corssa-00180805.Available at http://www.corssa.org.
National Reconstruction Authority. (2019). NBC 105:2019 (Draft), Seismic Design of
Buildings in Nepal, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

25
NEHRP. (1997). Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-273.
Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council.
Newmark, N. M., & Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake Spectra and Design. Berkeley,
California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Ordaz, M., Aguilar, A., & Arboleda, J. (n.d.). CRISIS2007, Program for Computing Seismic
Hazard. UNAM.
Pandey et. al. (2002). Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: National
Seismological Centre.
Parajuli, H. R., Kiyono, J., Taniguchi, H., Toki, K., & Maskey, P. N. (2010). Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment for Nepal. WIT Transactions on Information and
Communication Technologies, 43, 405-416.
Rahman, M., & Bai, L. (2018). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Nepal using
multiple seismic source models. Earth and Planetary Physics, 2(4), 327-341.
Rydelek, P. A., & Sacks, I. S. (1989). Testing the Completeness of Earthquake Catalogs and
the Hypothesis of Self-Similarity. Nature, 337, 251-253.
Shanker, D., Paudyal, H., & Singh, H. N. (2011). Discourse on Seismotectonics of Nepal
Himalaya and Vicinity: Appraisal to Earthquake Hazard. Geosciences, 1(1), 1-15.
SSHAC. (1997). Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on
Uncertainty and Use of Experts. Washington: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thapa, D. R., & Wang, G. (2013). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis in Nepal.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12(4), pp 577-586.
Wang, S., Wang, J., Yu, Y., Wu, Q., Gao, A., & Gao, M. (2010). The Empirical Relationship
Between ML and Ms Based on Bulletin of Seismological Observations of Chinese Stations.
Earthquake Research in China, 26(1), 14-22.
Wiemer, S., & Wyss, M. (2000). Minimum magnitude of complete reporting in earthquake
catalogs: examples from alaska, the western united states, and japan. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
90, 859-869.
Wyss, M., Hasegawa, A., Wiemer, s., & Umino, N. (1999). Quantitative mapping of
precursory seismic quiescence before the 1989 m7.1 off-sanriku earthquake, japan. Annali Di
Geofisica, 42, 851-869.
Youngs, R. R., Chiou, S. J., Silva, W. J., & Humphrey, J. R. (1997). Strong ground motion
attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters,
68(1), 58-73.
Zuniga, F. R., & Wyss, M. (1995). Inadvertent changes in magnitude reported in earthquake
catalogs: Their evaluation through b-value estimates. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 85, 1858-1866.

26
ANNEXES
A1. DECLUSTERED EARTHQUAKE DATA FROM 1255 A.D. TO 2017 A.D.
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1255
6
7
85.3
27.7
7.7
1866
9
0
85.3
27.7
5.3
1260
0
0
86.8
27.1
7.0
1869
1
10
90
26
6.3
1344
0
0
87.5
27.5
7.8
1869
7
7
85.3
27.7
7.6
1408
8
0
86
27.9
8.1
1869
7
25
79.4
29.4
4.9
1505
6
6
83
29.5
8.3
1869
8
9
88.3
27
5.7
1681
1
0
87.1
27.6
7.9
1875
4
26
88.3
27
4.9
1767
7
0
85.5
28
7.8
1881
12
10
88.2
25.1
4.1
1803
9
1
78.8
30.3
6.9
1883
10
6
85.4
26.1
4.1
1809
0
0
78.5
30.7
6.2
1885
8
21
86.5
25.4
4.5
1810
0
0
85.3
27.7
7.0
1889
5
12
88.7
25.6
4.1
1816
5
26
79
30.9
6.3
1896
9
20
89.5
26.3
4.1
1816
9
12
89.4
25.8
5.3
1897
10
0
88.7
25.6
4.1
1819
8
3
85.5
26.5
4.9
1898
4
4
84.4
25.5
4.1
1826
10
29
85
28
5.8
1898
8
0
85.1
25.6
4.1
1832
7
2
79.6
29.4
5.3
1898
10
9
89.4
25.8
4.1
1833
4
10
85
27
7.0
1899
2
6
89.5
26.3
4.1
1833
5
30
79.6
29.4
5.3
1899
9
17
88.7
25.6
4.1
1833
8
26
85.5
27.9
8.0
1899
9
25
88.3
27
6.3
1833
10
18
84
27
6.3
1900
5
2
89.5
26.3
4.1
1834
7
8
89.4
25.8
6.2
1908
8
20
87.835
31.228
6.9
1835
1
14
79.6
29.4
5.8
1909
2
17
87
27
5.6
1842
1
16
83
26
5.3
1910
8
13
90
28
5.8
1843
6
3
88.5
26.5
4.5
1911
10
14
80.5
31
6.7
1843
8
10
88.3
27
5.7
1913
3
6
83
30
7.3
1844
0
0
80.9
26.9
4.9
1916
8
28
81
30
7.7
1849
2
27
88.3
27
6.3
1918
2
4
87.8
29.6
6.0
1849
2
28
88.5
26.5
5.3
1924
10
8
89.651
30.882
6.5
1851
2
14
79.4
29.4
4.9
1925
11
6
81.5
26.5
5.6
1852
5
0
88.3
27
7.0
1926
7
27
80.5
30.5
6.0
1859
10
0
85.9
26.2
4.1
1931
6
18
84
30.5
5.7
1863
3
29
88.3
27
5.7
1934
1
15
86.76
26.77
8.4
1864
8
30
85.2
25.6
4.9
1934
12
15
89.162
31.25
7.2
1864
8
30
80.9
26.8
4.9
1935
1
3
88.318
30.737
6.5
1864
8
30
88.3
27
4.5
1935
3
5
80.2
29.7
6.0
1864
9
0
82.2
26.8
4.1
1935
3
15
80.4
29.6
5.6
1865
12
16
88.3
27
5.3
1935
5
21
89.2
28.7
6.2
1865
12
20
88
26
4.5
1936
5
27
83.5
28.5
7.0
1866
5
23
87
25
6.3
1937
4
30
81.5
30
5.6
1866
5
23
85.3
27.7
6.2
1938
1
29
87
27.5
5.6

27
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1947
8
19
79.9
31.2
5.6
1967
3
16
85
29.9
4.4
1949
2
5
79.9
31.2
5.6
1967
7
16
82
28
5.1
1951
5
28
86.685
28.925
6.0
1967
8
14
80
28
5.4
1952
10
7
87.446
31.464
5.8
1967
9
13
87
27
5.4
1952
11
19
86.506
29.682
5.8
1967
11
21
79
28
5.2
1953
2
23
81.3
29.5
6.0
1967
12
18
81.9
29.1
5.3
1953
8
29
82.333
28.168
5.8
1968
1
5
79.1
30.4
5.4
1953
12
3
85.743
31.151
6.5
1968
2
7
80.3
30.9
5.1
1954
9
4
83.8
28.3
6.5
1968
5
31
80
29.9
5.2
1955
8
4
86.43
30.675
5.7
1968
10
28
86.03
27.57
5.1
1955
9
20
90
27.5
5.7
1969
2
11
82.7
28.1
6.2
1955
11
23
90
26.5
5.3
1969
2
13
81.8
28.2
5.5
1957
4
14
84.3
30.6
6.5
1969
2
24
85.6
27.9
5.4
1958
12
28
80
29.5
6.3
1969
3
3
79.9
30.2
5.3
1960
3
5
81.158
29.411
5.7
1969
3
5
81.1
29.2
5.3
1960
8
21
88.5
27
5.6
1969
3
7
83.8
28.1
5.2
1961
12
24
80.8
29.5
5.8
1969
6
22
79.4
30.6
5.4
1962
1
11
84.9
27.9
5.3
1969
8
9
88.3
27
5.8
1962
7
13
79.6
30.5
5.6
1969
12
5
80.8
29.7
5.1
1963
2
22
87.7
27.7
4.6
1970
2
12
81.6
29.2
5.3
1963
11
27
79.1
30.8
5.2
1970
2
26
85.7
27.62
5.3
1964
1
25
86.64
28.27
4.8
1970
7
21
84.8
27.9
4.9
1964
2
8
82.2
29
4.7
1970
7
25
88.5
25.7
5.3
1964
3
27
89.3
27.2
6.1
1971
1
30
79.1
30.5
4.9
1964
5
24
82.1
30.1
5.2
1971
5
3
84.3
30.8
5.3
1964
10
25
88.6
27.9
5.0
1971
6
6
85.6
28.1
5.1
1964
11
9
86.04
29.53
5.2
1971
6
25
83.6
28
4.7
1964
12
3
89.4
31.49
4.8
1971
10
24
87.16
28.25
5.2
1965
1
12
87.84
27.4
6.1
1971
12
4
87.87
27.9
5.1
1965
3
18
80.3
29.9
5.3
1972
2
4
84.6
30.4
5.3
1965
6
1
83.2
28.5
5.5
1972
4
8
89.42
29.67
5.0
1966
1
11
85.8
27.8
4.8
1972
4
28
84.9
31.3
5.2
1966
3
6
80.5
31.5
6.9
1972
8
21
88.02
27.23
5.2
1966
3
17
82.9
31.6
5.1
1972
11
6
88.71
26.96
5.0
1966
6
25
82.3
30.5
5.2
1973
1
2
88.088
31.241
5.3
1966
6
27
81
29.7
6.4
1973
2
10
80.3
30.5
4.9
1966
8
15
78.9
28.7
5.5
1973
3
22
87
28.1
5.3
1966
11
5
84
28.2
5.2
1973
4
4
83.7
30.5
5.0
1966
12
28
89
28
5.3
1973
8
1
89.17
29.59
5.1
1967
1
2
79.3
30.6
5.0
1973
10
16
82.9
28.2
5.3
1967
1
5
86
30
5.4
1974
3
3
86.29
30.83
5.3
1967
3
2
86.4
28.7
5.1
1974
3
13
81.6
29.3
4.8

28
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1974
3
24
86
27.7
5.8
1978
12
25
83.9
28.1
4.8
1974
7
7
78.692
30.638
5.1
1979
1
1
82.9
28.4
4.7
1974
9
27
85.5
28.6
5.5
1979
3
5
79.7
30.5
4.7
1974
10
31
85.33
31.24
4.9
1979
4
11
88.8
26
5.0
1974
11
10
86.359
31.501
4.8
1979
5
5
85.5
27.2
4.7
1974
12
23
81.4
29.4
5.3
1979
5
20
80.3
29.9
5.9
1975
1
23
88.3
27.3
5.0
1979
6
19
87.5
26.7
5.3
1975
1
31
84.7
28.1
5.4
1979
7
3
84.5
27.97
4.6
1975
2
6
87.8
27.9
4.9
1979
10
17
87.6
28
4.9
1975
4
9
84.89
30.41
5.1
1979
11
16
88.2
27.2
4.9
1975
4
24
86.9
27.2
5.2
1979
11
30
81.2
31.4
4.5
1975
4
30
78.9
28.2
4.8
1980
2
22
88.58
30.51
6.2
1975
6
24
87.3
27.5
5.3
1980
6
22
81.8
30.1
5.2
1975
8
23
79.453
30.614
4.5
1980
7
29
81.2
29.3
6.5
1975
9
6
82.2
29.3
5.2
1980
9
8
80.4
30
4.8
1975
9
8
84.9
31.5
5.1
1980
10
8
87.666
31.354
5.1
1975
9
27
85.6
30.4
4.7
1980
11
18
85.2
29.6
4.9
1975
11
21
86.5
27
5.1
1980
11
19
88.8
27.4
6.1
1975
11
26
87.6
28.3
5.2
1980
11
20
85.2
29.6
5.0
1976
5
10
81.5
29.3
5.9
1980
11
25
85.4
27.8
4.5
1976
7
23
83.9
31.7
5.0
1980
12
22
89.3
26.3
4.8
1976
9
12
85.8
27.7
5.0
1980
12
26
88.9
29.1
4.8
1976
9
14
89.57
29.81
5.4
1981
2
9
89.8
27
5.2
1976
9
29
81.4
29.8
5.1
1981
4
9
84.4
28
4.8
1976
10
23
86.2
28.7
5.2
1981
5
15
81.9
29.5
5.2
1977
1
6
88.052
31.048
5.3
1981
6
19
79.2
30.5
4.7
1977
3
16
89.411
31.261
5.0
1981
7
1
80.31
30.77
4.8
1977
4
20
79.4
30.5
5.0
1981
11
21
89.12
29.53
5.0
1977
6
5
88.3
26.2
5.0
1981
12
2
79.6
30.7
4.4
1977
6
20
83.6
31
4.7
1982
1
22
89.87
30.89
5.8
1977
9
20
81.1
29.5
5.1
1982
1
23
82.2
31.7
6.5
1978
1
1
81.14
30.02
4.7
1982
1
23
82.2
31.6
5.9
1978
1
7
79.4
30.6
4.9
1982
2
20
85.7
27.7
4.8
1978
2
10
85
27.9
4.7
1982
3
24
88.74
30.57
4.8
1978
2
10
84.6
28.1
5.3
1982
5
29
83.6
28.5
4.7
1978
2
19
85
29.3
4.9
1982
6
20
90
26.2
4.8
1978
2
28
80.7
29.3
4.9
1982
8
3
85.5
27.9
4.9
1978
8
13
85.2
28
4.7
1982
8
18
89.5
27.1
4.9
1978
8
15
84.6
31.3
5.0
1982
9
9
81.99
28.68
4.9
1978
10
4
86
27.8
5.3
1982
10
16
79.1
30.3
4.8
1978
10
14
87.3
27.7
5.0
1982
11
21
81.1
28.8
4.7
1978
10
23
86.8
28.8
4.7
1982
11
22
84.9
27.8
4.6

29
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1982
12
6
80.6
29.8
4.6
1986
1
7
88.3
26.9
5.1
1982
12
14
78.91
31.459
4.9
1986
1
10
86.5
28.6
5.6
1982
12
29
79.8
30.3
5.0
1986
2
2
86.45
27.92
5.1
1983
1
27
81.4
29.1
5.0
1986
2
10
87.86
28.15
4.9
1983
3
14
84.1
30.7
4.6
1986
2
28
81.9
29.1
4.9
1983
7
5
80.7
29.5
4.9
1986
3
13
80.6
28.6
4.2
1983
8
23
85
28
4.7
1986
3
28
79.166
30.801
4.6
1983
11
23
83.1
30.4
4.9
1986
4
4
88.26
30.86
4.8
1983
12
16
86.7
28.4
4.6
1986
4
29
88.331
31.4
4.9
1983
12
23
87.6
25.4
4.7
1986
6
20
86.847
31.24
6.1
1984
1
6
84.7
27.8
4.8
1986
9
5
85.1
29.1
4.5
1984
1
25
86.1
27.5
4.9
1986
12
22
83
28.9
4.6
1984
2
19
80.5
29.9
5.1
1987
1
19
83.7
28.4
5.4
1984
3
14
81.1
29.1
5.1
1987
2
24
81.9
29.1
4.7
1984
3
23
78.9
30
5.2
1987
4
23
87.1
28
4.9
1984
4
15
82.3
31.7
5.1
1987
4
30
85.8
28.4
4.8
1984
4
22
84.2
30.6
5.0
1987
5
10
86.7
28.2
4.9
1984
5
18
81.9
29.6
5.5
1987
6
6
79.2
30.5
5.1
1984
5
30
83.9
28.8
4.8
1987
6
22
87.2
28.6
4.5
1984
7
21
82.2
28.7
4.7
1987
7
23
80.9
29.9
4.5
1984
9
15
81.5
29.2
4.9
1987
8
9
83.7
29.5
5.5
1984
10
2
88.76
30.98
4.7
1987
8
21
80.2
31.7
4.9
1984
10
24
80.1
29.7
4.6
1987
10
22
89.1
27.1
4.6
1984
11
18
84.1
28.8
5.3
1987
11
25
85.9
28
4.9
1984
11
26
79.3
30.5
4.8
1988
1
19
88.8
27.8
4.7
1984
12
5
81.7
27.2
4.9
1988
1
23
81.6
29.5
4.9
1984
12
18
80.9
29.4
4.9
1988
2
12
82.9
30.5
4.9
1985
1
30
85.44
30.92
5.0
1988
3
13
81.4
28.9
4.7
1985
2
15
81.6
30.1
4.7
1988
4
9
86.9
29.8
4.8
1985
2
16
85.6
30.6
4.7
1988
4
11
85.9
27.5
5.1
1985
5
6
82.3
28.3
4.8
1988
4
20
86.7
27
5.4
1985
5
25
88.5
27.6
4.9
1988
5
2
84.4
27
4.4
1985
6
14
79.3
29.8
4.4
1988
5
15
80.5
29.9
5.0
1985
6
17
82.3
31.6
4.9
1988
6
9
79.2
30.7
5.0
1985
7
28
88.8
30.36
4.8
1988
6
12
82.4
28.5
5.0
1985
9
13
84.1
29.8
4.8
1988
6
25
83.4
28.6
4.5
1985
10
2
89.7
27.1
4.7
1988
8
20
86.6
26.8
6.8
1985
10
3
83.9
29.2
4.5
1988
8
29
87.5
26.4
4.9
1985
10
21
84
28.8
4.8
1988
9
21
85.6
28.7
4.9
1985
10
30
82.9
31.6
4.9
1988
9
27
88.3
27.2
5.3
1985
12
8
86.62
30.75
5.1
1988
10
29
85.6
27.9
5.4
1985
12
23
85.7
27.6
4.9
1988
11
14
82.1
30.2
4.8

30
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1988
12
2
81.2
29.6
4.8
1991
10
27
79
29.5
4.6
1988
12
7
83.1
31.6
4.9
1991
12
9
81.6
29.5
5.7
1988
12
15
81.6
29.1
4.8
1991
12
21
88.1
27.9
5.1
1988
12
27
87.8
27.9
4.9
1992
1
30
81.2
29.2
4.8
1989
1
27
78.655
30.988
4.3
1992
3
7
89.31
29.68
5.0
1989
2
3
89.94
30.19
5.6
1992
3
24
81.6
31.4
5.1
1989
3
1
84
28.2
4.6
1992
4
1
87.2
27.6
5.2
1989
3
8
84
28
4.8
1992
4
4
88
28.2
5.1
1989
5
22
87.9
27.2
5.1
1992
6
2
81.91
28.98
5.4
1989
7
14
84.685
31.184
4.7
1992
6
13
82.93
28.94
5.1
1989
8
28
80.8
29.2
4.4
1992
6
21
89.394
30.428
4.6
1989
10
10
87.5
28.7
4.9
1992
7
26
80.202
29.064
4.2
1989
11
19
89.7
29
4.7
1992
8
9
86.533
28.697
4.7
1990
1
9
88.2
28.2
5.5
1993
1
2
81.12
29.15
5.3
1990
1
10
86.7
26.6
4.9
1993
1
12
80.309
31.169
5.0
1990
1
30
85.7
28.6
4.8
1993
1
13
86.56
28.5
4.8
1990
2
9
80.7
29.9
4.9
1993
1
18
89.811
31.164
4.5
1990
2
18
89.95
29.39
4.8
1993
2
15
87.473
25.85
5.1
1990
2
21
82.4
28.1
5.0
1993
3
4
86.91
29.48
4.8
1990
2
27
86.87
31.357
4.5
1993
3
20
87.33
29.08
6.4
1990
3
1
88.6
28.5
4.7
1993
3
25
80.55
29.62
4.8
1990
5
6
89.98
29.99
4.8
1993
4
12
82.8
28.31
4.9
1990
5
20
83.16
28.35
5.1
1993
7
3
86.63
28.36
4.9
1990
7
13
86.93
28.25
4.8
1993
7
5
85.12
27.94
4.9
1990
9
15
85.5
30.4
4.7
1993
7
9
86.06
26.81
4.8
1990
9
21
79.8
29.7
5.2
1993
8
19
80.04
30.08
4.7
1990
10
14
86.39
30.82
5.1
1993
9
5
87.31
27.29
4.8
1990
10
14
81.951
28.762
4.7
1993
9
12
83.58
30.99
4.8
1990
10
28
81.6
30.7
4.8
1993
9
13
83.67
30.98
5.0
1990
12
20
82.9
28.1
5.0
1993
9
16
83.937
31.256
4.7
1991
2
15
84.24
29.43
4.8
1993
10
20
82.26
28.78
5.1
1991
3
15
87.7
28.3
4.9
1993
11
14
80.36
30.66
4.7
1991
4
22
79.7
30.1
4.9
1993
11
22
82.86
28.2
4.7
1991
5
18
80.1
31.7
5.1
1993
12
14
86.84
28.49
4.8
1991
5
20
86.77
30.99
4.8
1994
1
16
89.119
26.403
4.4
1991
5
23
86.755
31.411
4.7
1994
3
29
79.502
30.612
4.5
1991
5
27
80.3
29.3
4.9
1994
5
10
83.94
29.23
4.7
1991
6
1
81.7
28.7
4.7
1994
5
25
87.79
27.65
4.8
1991
8
7
88.8
25.1
5.1
1994
6
25
86.15
27.75
5.3
1991
8
20
79.8
30.6
4.6
1994
7
17
81.51
29.37
5.6
1991
9
14
80.92
30.7
4.9
1994
7
23
86.549
31.068
5.4
1991
10
19
78.774
30.78
6.6
1994
8
4
86.843
30.332
4.5

31
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1994
8
31
79.51
26.08
5.9
1996
7
23
87.788
31.368
4.5
1994
9
25
87.34
28.34
5.2
1996
7
24
87.608
31.322
4.6
1994
10
24
82
28.92
5.1
1996
9
13
88.23
27.03
4.8
1994
12
8
79.62
30.67
5.1
1996
9
25
88.55
27.43
5.1
1994
12
12
80.69
29.83
5.0
1996
10
3
87.49
28.21
4.8
1994
12
13
82.87
28.69
5.0
1996
10
16
79.95
28.77
4.9
1994
12
30
88.26
30.348
4.7
1996
12
3
86.84
27.39
5.5
1995
1
1
87.59
27.77
5.1
1996
12
22
81.72
29.01
4.9
1995
1
19
83.43
28.34
4.9
1996
12
29
81.82
29.75
5.4
1995
1
29
86.11
26.85
5.0
1997
1
1
86.56
27
5.0
1995
1
30
82.18
29.31
4.9
1997
1
5
80.58
29.78
5.6
1995
2
2
87.84
30.05
4.7
1997
1
31
85.3
28.01
5.3
1995
2
4
81.714
31.105
4.6
1997
1
31
85.28
28.07
5.8
1995
2
18
85.88
27.74
5.0
1997
3
3
86.08
27.24
4.9
1995
3
29
84.2
28.77
4.9
1997
4
5
86.06
30.09
4.8
1995
4
24
88.25
29.89
4.8
1997
4
7
87.74
27.5
5.0
1995
6
11
87.94
27.21
4.8
1997
5
21
80.47
23.71
5.9
1995
6
21
85.27
21.81
5.9
1997
7
5
86.86
28.8
4.7
1995
7
28
86.414
30.733
4.7
1997
8
10
89.492
29.161
4.1
1995
8
7
81.62
29.87
5.3
1997
8
16
86.22
30.02
4.7
1995
9
30
86.056
30.243
4.5
1997
9
17
83.7
29.74
4.7
1995
10
4
84.43
28.27
5.1
1997
9
18
88.15
28.87
4.8
1995
10
21
78.963
31.432
5.1
1997
10
11
86.41
27.65
5.2
1995
10
27
83.52
28.734
4.7
1997
10
24
82.54
28.66
5.4
1995
11
12
85.367
28.141
4.4
1997
10
30
89.73
29.54
5.4
1995
11
25
86.76
30.99
5.0
1997
11
3
85.38
29.08
5.5
1995
12
24
86.265
27.527
4.6
1997
11
27
87
27.74
5.6
1995
12
25
89.379
31.152
4.6
1997
12
8
86.85
27.19
5.3
1996
1
3
89.252
25.468
4.9
1998
1
16
86.027
30.006
4.5
1996
1
19
86.575
28.991
4.7
1998
2
12
88.19
27.59
5.0
1996
1
25
87.22
28.7
5.2
1998
2
22
85.52
28.72
5.6
1996
2
12
88.282
28.458
4.6
1998
2
28
87.86
27.15
5.3
1996
2
18
83.968
29.952
4.6
1998
3
15
86.89
28.55
4.7
1996
2
22
87.23
28.008
4.7
1998
3
16
89.684
26.916
4.4
1996
2
26
84.1
30.283
4.5
1998
3
18
88.334
27.368
4.5
1996
3
23
88.302
27.167
4.5
1998
3
27
81.644
30.043
4.3
1996
3
26
79.1
30.69
5.3
1998
5
10
82.38
29.41
5.1
1996
4
14
83.971
30.106
4.4
1998
5
16
84.81
26.76
5.2
1996
4
26
87.7
27.93
5.5
1998
6
6
89.36
30.39
5.2
1996
6
18
86.706
30.123
4.5
1998
6
27
85.81
27.86
5.3
1996
7
3
88.19
30.15
5.7
1998
7
15
81.24
29.55
5.3
1996
7
17
78.551
31.391
4.9
1998
7
31
87.73
28.01
4.5

32
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
1998
9
3
88.1
30.02
6.1
2001
4
8
88.087
27.341
4.4
1998
9
4
86.464
27.455
4.5
2001
4
12
88.11
29.94
4.8
1998
9
10
88.33
27.44
5.3
2001
4
28
87.16
28.87
5.3
1998
10
2
85.136
29.17
4.6
2001
5
28
85.718
29.725
4.2
1998
11
14
86.514
31.081
4.6
2001
6
13
85.756
31.379
4.8
1998
11
26
87.81
27.85
5.5
2001
7
2
86.54
30.55
4.8
1999
2
1
83.188
28.492
4.6
2001
7
16
84.68
27.97
5.8
1999
2
11
83.34
28.61
5.1
2001
7
16
84.27
28.29
5.2
1999
2
19
80.61
29.86
5.0
2001
7
25
79.959
29.883
4.4
1999
3
19
85.83
27.93
5.2
2001
8
6
87.43
27.66
4.7
1999
3
23
78.61
28.785
4.3
2001
8
9
79.167
30.486
4.7
1999
3
28
79.25
30.49
6.4
2001
9
13
80.64
29.82
5.3
1999
4
10
87.964
28.217
4.4
2001
9
27
87.78
26.98
5.3
1999
4
22
82.13
28.91
4.9
2001
11
7
85.452
30.106
4.5
1999
4
24
81.161
28.379
4.7
2001
11
23
87.414
31.286
4.5
1999
5
28
81.03
29.3
5.0
2001
11
27
81.81
29.53
5.8
1999
8
1
86.73
28.44
5.3
2001
12
3
86.288
31.422
4.5
1999
8
10
86.2
27.79
5.7
2001
12
19
89.88
23.83
5.2
1999
8
25
84.74
28.15
5.0
2002
1
31
87.899
29.901
4.7
1999
9
5
80.83
30.89
4.7
2002
2
3
86.37
27.72
4.7
1999
11
16
82.77
30.39
4.8
2002
2
6
88.065
31.309
4.6
1999
12
1
81.44
30.02
4.8
2002
3
7
84.42
29.62
4.8
1999
12
11
81.56
30.15
5.0
2002
3
9
80.11
30.11
4.8
1999
12
21
86.224
30.938
4.5
2002
3
23
87.93
29.86
4.9
1999
12
29
86.486
31.268
4.2
2002
4
2
87.01
29.29
4.8
2000
1
11
86.573
31.336
4.5
2002
4
9
86.17
27.46
4.7
2000
1
20
86.06
27.92
5.2
2002
4
15
86.31
26.87
4.7
2000
2
26
82.31
28.61
5.3
2002
5
2
86.67
27.67
5.4
2000
3
13
87.41
27.98
5.3
2002
5
3
86.387
30.876
4.5
2000
4
10
88.34
30.15
4.8
2002
5
8
86.584
28.659
4.5
2000
5
4
79.95
29.92
4.8
2002
5
27
85.421
31.505
4.7
2000
5
5
81.57
29.4
4.7
2002
6
2
83.518
28.137
4.4
2000
5
29
86.98
30.76
4.7
2002
6
4
81.34
30.71
5.9
2000
6
2
83.29
28.07
4.8
2002
6
7
81.12
28.77
4.7
2000
6
3
87.188
31.185
4.8
2002
6
20
88.38
25.63
5.6
2000
7
3
84.714
31.471
4.8
2002
7
2
84.82
27.17
4.7
2000
9
2
85.33
28.07
5.0
2002
7
9
87.87
29.89
4.9
2000
9
6
86.345
28.557
4.3
2002
7
16
87.36
27.75
4.9
2000
10
8
88.11
30.19
4.9
2002
7
18
87.525
28.19
4.4
2000
12
31
87.71
27.84
4.7
2002
8
11
86.4
26.97
4.7
2001
1
26
69.85
24.17
6.9
2002
8
22
85.96
29.82
4.8
2001
4
4
86.17
27.8
5.2
2002
8
31
89.82
29.87
5.1

33
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
2002
9
9
80.74
28.98
4.7
2004
2
18
87.8
27.61
5.1
2002
9
27
87.42
29.78
4.7
2004
2
18
80.96
27.36
4.9
2002
9
29
79.925
29.865
4.4
2004
2
22
81.53
29.32
4.7
2002
10
9
83.9
28.18
4.7
2004
2
27
88.03
28.13
5.0
2002
10
11
86.61
29.92
4.7
2004
3
1
81.12
30.37
5.0
2002
10
20
84.097
30.708
4.2
2004
3
11
82.631
30.467
4.5
2002
10
29
87.423
28.007
4.5
2004
3
31
87.63
27.18
5.0
2002
11
5
87.82
30.96
5.1
2004
4
3
89.62
29.85
4.8
2002
11
13
84.145
30.744
4.5
2004
5
21
85.116
30.623
4.6
2002
12
16
87.822
29.725
4.6
2004
5
27
89.521
26.301
4.8
2002
12
22
88.946
29.584
4.2
2004
5
29
82.96
28.55
5.2
2002
12
30
86.272
30.717
4.6
2004
5
29
89.97
28.58
4.9
2003
1
18
81.95
28.622
4.7
2004
7
11
83.77
30.69
6.0
2003
2
26
86.01
28.47
5.3
2004
7
23
88.09
30.17
5.0
2003
3
25
89.59
27.18
5.7
2004
7
28
88.03
30.71
5.2
2003
3
25
81.8
27.26
5.3
2004
8
10
83.316
30.288
4.5
2003
3
29
86.63
27.46
4.7
2004
8
22
85.24
28.03
4.7
2003
4
4
80.39
30.1
5.3
2004
8
25
86.57
30.21
4.7
2003
4
4
79.36
30.03
4.9
2004
9
9
87.78
29.47
4.7
2003
5
18
85.92
29.51
4.7
2004
9
12
81.84
29.51
4.9
2003
5
27
88.17
30.56
5.2
2004
9
12
84.41
29.5
4.8
2003
5
27
86.38
30.65
4.8
2004
9
28
79.671
29.97
4.3
2003
6
23
87.97
27.79
5.2
2004
10
5
86.55
26.83
4.7
2003
7
1
86.377
30.924
4.7
2004
10
26
81.154
31.024
5.6
2003
7
21
85.902
30.629
4.4
2004
11
5
86.565
30.764
4.3
2003
7
28
82.52
28.75
5.0
2004
11
10
87.778
27.929
4.6
2003
8
2
82.1
29.51
4.9
2004
12
5
81.24
30.481
4.6
2003
8
20
81.7
30.17
4.8
2004
12
26
81.63
29.9
4.9
2003
9
24
81.96
28.99
4.9
2005
1
15
84.28
29.44
4.8
2003
9
29
86.43
27.36
4.8
2005
1
16
81.14
29.68
5.3
2003
11
11
86.439
30.005
4.4
2005
1
16
87.93
29.65
5.0
2003
11
15
83.103
30.24
4.6
2005
2
8
86.07
27.76
5.3
2003
11
22
83.91
28.47
5.3
2005
2
8
84.7
27.74
5.1
2003
11
30
88.422
29.013
4.2
2005
3
19
84.39
28.25
5.5
2003
12
10
86.04
30.47
4.8
2005
3
26
83.63
28.26
5.1
2003
12
19
87.97
27.06
4.8
2005
4
4
83.18
28.56
4.7
2003
12
23
89.478
31.397
4.5
2005
4
6
86.346
30.439
4.2
2004
1
3
86.06
27.87
5.6
2005
4
7
83.23
30.49
6.1
2004
1
3
80.89
27.74
5.1
2005
4
15
85.71
27.92
4.7
2004
1
6
87.38
30.54
4.8
2005
5
5
87.7
27.69
4.7
2004
1
7
85
28.07
4.7
2005
5
9
84.894
30.292
4.2
2004
2
14
80.88
29.67
4.9
2005
5
11
87.92
30.6
4.8

34
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
2005
5
27
87.211
26.143
4.2
2006
9
26
88.23
29.76
4.9
2005
8
8
85.51
27.98
4.8
2006
10
27
80.545
29.854
4.5
2005
8
16
78.56
30.924
4.7
2006
10
27
80.035
29.875
4.6
2005
8
20
88.168
31.223
4.9
2006
10
28
87.981
31.145
4.2
2005
8
20
87.591
30.857
4.3
2006
12
31
83.732
30.082
4.3
2005
8
21
80.586
29.974
4.2
2006
12
31
88.232
28.216
4.5
2005
8
28
87.22
27.31
5.5
2007
1
20
82.92
31.18
4.8
2005
8
28
81.09
27.64
5.0
2007
1
29
80.096
31.31
4.4
2005
10
10
87.99
30.24
4.7
2007
2
5
81.05
30.1
4.8
2005
10
14
86.243
28.225
4.4
2007
2
6
83.43
28.35
4.7
2005
10
25
79.97
30.15
5.1
2007
2
6
83.43
28.36
4.8
2005
10
29
81.88
29.5
5.3
2006
2
12
80.94
29.283
4.2
2005
10
29
83.52
29.52
4.8
2007
4
6
86.462
28.442
4.3
2005
10
30
87.993
27.85
4.4
2007
4
17
87.759
28.262
4.5
2005
10
31
84.83
28.65
5.0
2007
5
16
88.08
27.5
5.0
2005
11
6
79.25
29.73
5.1
2007
5
25
82.751
31.183
4.3
2005
11
25
88.905
28.067
4.3
2007
6
4
83.98
27.44
4.8
2005
12
12
80.48
29.28
4.9
2007
6
9
88.209
30.053
4.2
2005
12
14
86.38
30.48
5.3
2007
6
17
84.91
27.83
4.9
2005
12
16
79.142
30.464
4.3
2007
6
20
80.601
30.613
4.4
2005
12
25
86.087
28.576
4.5
2007
6
24
88.109
29.932
4.4
2006
1
8
80.212
31.237
4.2
2007
8
3
87.03
27.24
5.0
2006
1
20
85.01
31.44
4.9
2007
8
3
87.97
27.21
4.9
2006
2
1
81.3
30.29
5.1
2007
8
9
80.15
31.34
4.8
2006
2
3
80.12
27.25
5.1
2007
8
11
87.9
27.28
5.4
2006
2
14
85.79
30.26
4.8
2007
8
15
85.346
31.284
4.5
2006
2
19
83.89
28.24
5.1
2007
8
26
89.21
30.03
5.0
2006
4
1
87.651
30.851
4.4
2007
9
1
87.873
27.853
4.5
2006
4
4
85.83
27.91
5.0
2007
9
7
86.26
27.72
4.7
2006
4
11
87.407
28.14
4.2
2007
10
29
85.45
27.9
5.3
2006
5
5
83.6
29.5
5.1
2007
11
5
84.45
28.2
5.0
2006
5
13
83.592
30.988
4.4
2007
11
7
87.036
28.021
4.3
2006
5
29
84.212
30.186
4.5
2007
11
13
83.267
30.084
4.6
2006
7
17
89.432
26.744
4.5
2008
1
15
86.53
27.37
4.7
2006
8
5
83.58
29.89
4.8
2008
2
12
86.708
31.493
4.3
2006
8
30
83.6
29.05
4.9
2008
2
13
86.358
31.408
4.2
2006
8
30
80.54
29.05
4.8
2008
2
14
88.15
27.8
4.7
2006
8
31
89.817
26.217
4.4
2008
2
16
86.25
26.8
4.8
2006
9
17
87.8
26.98
4.8
2008
2
24
83.677
28.232
4.3
2006
9
19
81.54
29.62
5.3
2008
3
2
81.76
29.69
4.9
2006
9
19
80.65
29.49
4.9
2008
3
6
87.847
28.471
4.4
2006
9
26
80.83
30.1
5.0
2008
3
17
81.53
29.76
5.0

35
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
2008
3
29
82.178
30.957
4.2
2009
10
3
79.82
30
4.8
2008
4
1
87.008
28.516
4.4
2009
10
29
83.11
28.73
4.7
2008
4
8
83.357
28.373
4.0
2009
10
30
84.58
29.64
4.7
2008
4
12
86.825
27.682
4.1
2009
11
1
81.81
30.1
5.0
2008
4
19
83.689
30.309
4.2
2009
11
7
86.04
29.53
5.5
2008
5
20
83.33
28.33
4.9
2009
11
22
82.15
29.02
5.0
2008
5
23
88.529
29.679
4.3
2009
12
15
84.4
28.28
4.7
2008
5
25
89
28.96
4.7
2010
1
18
83.97
28.37
4.7
2008
5
27
85.37
29.087
4.2
2010
2
17
86.08
26.79
4.7
2008
6
11
86.722
28.211
4.3
2010
2
26
86.77
28.5
5.4
2008
6
14
89.89
29.94
4.8
2010
2
28
81.52
28.4
4.7
2008
6
15
81.05
29.42
5.3
2010
3
15
81.95
30.64
5.1
2008
6
22
85.681
28.429
4.3
2010
4
14
83.09
28.31
4.8
2008
7
6
89.734
26.979
4.5
2010
4
30
86.36
27.75
4.7
2008
7
31
86.295
28.516
4.4
2010
5
13
84.51
28.3
4.8
2008
8
13
80.161
30.041
4.4
2010
6
2
80.251
31.406
4.5
2008
8
19
80.013
30.077
4.6
2010
6
13
81.65
29.6
5.2
2008
8
25
83.65
31.06
6.6
2010
6
13
86.77
28.01
4.7
2008
9
3
82.818
30.721
4.2
2010
7
5
80.54
31.06
5.0
2008
9
4
80.38
30.24
5.1
2010
7
10
79.61
30.08
4.8
2008
9
10
83.01
28.4
4.7
2010
7
10
86.98
29.32
4.8
2008
9
19
86.671
28.579
4.5
2010
10
17
85.71
28.64
5.3
2008
10
29
89.542
30
4.4
2010
11
7
84.509
30.909
4.5
2008
11
6
85.169
30.725
4.3
2010
11
25
83.17
28.44
5.1
2008
11
11
82.737
30.755
4.2
2010
11
25
82.32
28.38
5.0
2008
11
17
88.17
29.19
4.8
2010
11
30
85.79
26.93
4.9
2008
11
18
83.73
30.32
4.8
2010
12
18
84.79
28.18
4.7
2008
12
1
85.29
28.18
5.2
2010
12
29
86.51
30.94
5.3
2008
12
2
87.99
27.32
5.5
2011
1
18
81.97
30.03
4.7
2008
12
8
82.08
29.98
5.3
2011
1
18
85.94
27.8
4.9
2008
12
8
81.86
30.15
5.9
2011
2
13
87.01
27.47
5.1
2008
12
19
81.91
30.1
4.9
2011
3
10
85.24
28.02
4.9
2008
12
23
84.39
28.19
4.9
2011
3
11
83.8
28.31
4.9
2008
12
25
88.65
27.15
4.8
2011
3
22
82.74
28.11
4.8
2008
12
26
81.9
30.09
5.0
2011
4
4
80.54
29.92
5.7
2009
1
10
88.04
27.9
4.8
2011
4
24
89.29
29.662
4.5
2009
1
23
81.4
29.05
4.8
2011
5
24
85.39
30.04
4.8
2009
5
14
87.36
27.48
5.0
2011
6
11
82.66
28.41
4.8
2009
7
12
86.36
27.71
4.9
2011
6
11
82.55
28.4
4.7
2009
7
24
85.96
31.16
5.6
2011
6
13
86.82
27.1
4.9
2009
8
2
85.18
28.12
4.7
2011
6
20
79.34
30.61
5.1
2009
9
21
79.02
30.83
4.9
2011
7
12
83.727
30.342
4.6

36
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
2011
8
9
81.31
29.9
4.9
2013
8
2
87.823
29.924
4.6
2011
8
15
86.27
27.44
5.3
2013
8
4
87.135
28.270
4.7
2011
8
18
84.31
28.21
4.7
2013
9
12
87.34
26.96
5.0
2011
8
19
81.34
29.7
5.2
2013
9
15
83.220
30.920
4.7
2011
8
25
82.53
28.15
4.9
2013
10
3
88.51
27.14
5.7
2011
8
27
86.6
29.94
5.3
2013
10
28
87.37
27.36
4.9
2011
9
18
88.03
27.78
6.9
2013
12
4
89.562
26.588
4.9
2011
10
1
81.81
30.16
5.1
2014
3
30
86.462
31.396
5.3
2011
10
2
81.68
29.55
4.8
2014
3
31
81.93
30.11
4.9
2011
10
29
88.684
27.449
4.4
2014
4
11
81.26
29.29
4.8
2011
11
8
85.55
27.94
4.7
2014
4
23
87.62
27.3
4.7
2011
11
13
84.93
28.2
5.3
2014
6
7
81.603
30.264
4.8
2011
11
16
83.002
30.212
4.5
2014
6
13
86.251
29.362
4.5
2011
12
2
85.34
28.05
4.8
2014
7
3
80.338
30.245
4.5
2012
1
18
86.4
26.63
5.0
2014
7
4
87.91
27.83
5.0
2012
1
19
81.91
29.73
5.0
2014
7
7
80.93
29.73
4.8
2012
3
19
82.02
28.7
5.1
2014
7
11
86.394
30.942
4.5
2012
3
27
87.87
26.12
5.4
2014
7
22
89.703
26.003
4.7
2012
5
27
83.466
30.822
5.0
2014
8
3
85.64
29.45
5.8
2012
6
9
84.17
28.32
5.3
2014
8
24
79.959
30.038
4.7
2012
6
15
81.58
28.99
4.8
2014
8
29
87.874
29.838
4.6
2012
7
3
88.011
29.914
5.1
2014
10
1
82.111
30.428
4.6
2012
7
28
80.54
30.12
5.3
2014
12
6
80.026
30.668
4.5
2012
8
1
85.344
29.972
4.8
2014
12
26
87.354
28.527
5.1
2012
8
9
86.74
28.456
4.9
2015
1
6
81.51
29.07
5.0
2012
8
23
82.84
28.38
5.6
2015
1
22
81.03
29.36
4.9
2012
9
18
88.642
27.33
4.9
2015
1
31
83.73
28.29
5.6
2012
9
24
84.444
30.987
4.6
2015
2
14
87.01
27.42
5.0
2012
11
11
81.13
29.51
5.6
2015
4
1
79.510
30.352
5.1
2012
12
21
88.536
28.567
4.6
2015
4
2
86.330
28.700
4.9
2013
1
9
81.7
29.82
5.6
2015
4
21
82.18
28.85
5.3
2013
1
13
86.22
26.84
4.7
2015
4
22
81.92
28.8
5.0
2013
2
19
89.03
25.35
4.5
2015
4
25
84.75
28.24
7.8
2013
2
21
87.994
29.921
4.6
2015
5
10
86.67
26.94
4.7
2013
4
6
88.051
30.039
4.9
2015
5
12
86.12
27.82
7.3
2013
5
16
86.604
31.504
5.3
2015
5
22
81.47
30.31
5.2
2013
6
6
89.276
27.724
4.4
2015
5
22
85.93
28.78
4.7
2013
6
9
86.7
27.31
4.8
2015
6
2
81.75
30
5.1
2013
6
26
85.96
26.85
4.9
2015
6
20
82.76
28.65
5.5
2013
6
27
80.8
30.05
4.9
2015
6
25
83.21
27.66
4.7
2013
6
28
82.4
28.76
5.6
2015
7
7
81.74
29.69
5.0
2013
7
15
87.599
28.383
4.9
2015
7
7
83.13
28.48
4.8

37
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
Year
Mo
nth
Da
y
Long.
(deg.)
Lat.
(deg.)
Mw
2015
8
9
81.85
30.1
4.7
2017
12
6
79.160
30.633
5.2
2015
8
15
87.87
27.33
5.0
2017
12
28
80.76
29.82
5.0
2015
8
26
81.53
30.11
4.7
2015
9
29
80.6
29.83
5.0
2015
11
20
83.36
28.35
4.7
2015
11
27
87.95
27.11
5.0
2015
12
18
81.69
29.44
5.6
2016
1
13
88.005
29.704
4.7
2016
1
26
87.855
29.524
4.6
2016
1
27
86.27
26.68
4.8
2016
1
31
84.232
29.663
4.6
2016
2
9
86.284
30.831
4.9
2016
2
23
87.15
27.47
5.0
2016
3
7
81.7
30.22
4.9
2016
3
12
89.092
26.774
4.4
2016
3
24
88.04
27.75
4.7
2016
4
19
87.838
28.338
4.7
2016
5
3
87.934
29.637
4.5
2016
5
4
81.88
29.38
4.7
2016
5
22
87.532
28.453
5.4
2016
5
22
87.479
28.565
5.2
2016
6
29
81.28
29.63
5.3
2016
10
1
88.103
30.980
4.6
2016
12
1
80.632
29.979
5.3
2017
1
19
88.284
28.982
4.5
2017
2
1
83.367
30.687
5.2
2017
2
6
79.164
30.654
5.2
2017
3
7
89.114
26.916
4.5
2017
3
10
81.57
30.37
4.7
2017
3
26
88.553
27.141
4.8
2017
4
27
86.016
29.283
4.7
2017
5
16
88.171
27.326
4.6
2017
6
14
88.13
27.88
4.7
2017
7
15
81.75
28.94
4.7
2017
7
15
82.798
30.660
4.9
2017
8
22
81.1
29.41
5.2
2017
10
2
82.55
28.83
4.7
2017
10
6
86.767
30.018
4.7
2017
10
15
83.32
28.5
4.8
2017
11
6
81.28
29.78
5.0
2017
11
7
87.435
30.264
4.9
2017
12
2
88.080
27.285
4.6

38
A2. INFORMATION ON AREA SOURCES
Source
Name
Vertices (Longitude, Latitude)
No. of
Earthquakes
SZ1
(79.8, 28.99) (80.11, 29.47) (81.01, 29.11) (80.52, 28.56)
5
SZ2
(80.52, 28.56) (81.01, 29.11) (82.02, 28.49) (81.69, 27.95)
6
SZ3
(81.69, 27.95) (82.02, 28.49) (82.88, 28.16) (82.65, 27.55)
7
SZ4
(82.65, 27.55) (82.88, 28.16) (83.96, 27.75) (83.86, 27.12)
2
SZ5
(83.86, 27.12) (84, 28.03) (84.6, 27.88) (84.41, 26.95)
2
SZ6
(84.41, 26.95) (84.52, 27.5) (85.78, 27.16) (85.69, 26.56)
4
SZ7
(85.69, 26.56) (85.83, 27.51) (87.32, 27.02) (87.18, 26.41)
23
SZ8
(87.18, 26.41) (87.22, 26.58) (88.87, 26.67) (88.66, 26.3)
2
SZ9
(87.8, 26.62) (88.23, 27.99) (89.1, 27.94) (88.87, 26.67)
28
SZ10
(87.22, 26.58) (87.56, 28.03) (88.23, 27.99) (87.8, 26.62)
42
SZ11
(85.83, 27.51) (85.94, 28.27) (87.56, 28.03) (87.31, 27.02)
58
SZ12
(84.52, 27.5) (84.74, 28.56) (85.94, 28.27) (85.78, 27.16)
45
SZ13
(84, 28.03) (84.15, 28.85) (84.74, 28.56) (84.6, 27.88)
13
SZ14
(82.88, 28.16) (83.31, 29.39) (84.15, 28.85) (83.96, 27.75)
39
SZ15
(82.02, 28.49) (82.79, 29.73) (83.31, 29.39) (82.88, 28.16)
22
SZ16
(81.01, 29.11) (81.98, 30.21) (82.79, 29.73) (82.02, 28.49)
62
SZ17
(80.11, 29.47) (81.09, 30.81) (81.98, 30.21) (81.01, 29.11)
71
SZ18
(79.39, 29.8) (80.4, 31.31) (81.09, 30.81) (80.05, 29.36)
40
SZ19
(80.5, 31.25) (80.68, 31.5) (82.69, 30.45) (82.28, 30.05)
(81.98, 30.21) (81.09, 30.81)
8
SZ20
(82.28, 30.05) (82.69, 30.45) (84.41, 29.65) (84.15, 28.85)
(83.31, 29.39) (82.79, 29.73)
16
SZ21
(84.15, 28.85) (84.41, 29.65) (84.91, 29.49) (84.74, 28.56)
2
SZ22
(84.74, 28.56) (84.91, 29.49) (87.22, 29.28) (87.25, 28.09)
(85.94, 28.27)
51
SZ23
(87.25, 28.09) (87.22, 29.28) (89.03, 29.41) (89.1, 27.94)
(88.23, 27.99) (87.56, 28.03)
32

39
A3. DETERMINATION OF a- AND b- VALUE
The β-value and activity rate are obtained using the method proposed by Kijko and Smit
(Kijko & Smit, 2012).
The estimation of β-value is given as,
=1
1
+2
2
++
1
Where,
=1
 ,=
,=,= 1,2, 
ni = no. of earthquakes greater than the completeness magnitude (mmini) for a sub-catalog
= average magnitude
s = no. of sub-catalogs
Once the β-value is known, the mean seismic activity rate λ(mmin) is obtained as,
 =
   

=1
Where, ti= duration of the catalog and mmin = minimum magnitude considered
Here,
Minimum magnitude for PSHA (mmin) = 4
Total no. of earthquake events (n) = 782
No. of sub-catalogs (s) = 2
Now,
Catalogs
mmini

ni
ti (yrs.)

ri
1
4.1
5.67
95
164
0.64
0.12
2
4.7
5.06
687
54
2.80
0.88
Therefore, β = 1.99 and λ = 5.28
And, b = 0.86 and a = 4.16
The G-R recurrence relationship is obtained as:
Logλm = 4.16 – 0.86m