This study proposes a framework to evaluate probabilistic seismic risk of buildings in regions exposed to both crustal and subduction earthquakes. Ground motions from subduction earthquakes are typically longer in duration, causing higher damage to structure due to increased inelastic demand as compared to ground motions from crustal earthquakes having the same peak intensity. The increased vulnerability to structural damage from subduction earthquake ground motions needs to be accounted for in seismic loss assessment studies. This study investigates the same for India. The north and northeast of India are exposed to both crustal and continental subduction seismic sources, and Peninsular India is exposed to crustal seismic sources. Nonlinear analytical models are developed for a set of modern Indian code-compliant reinforced concrete special moment frame buildings located at 20 different sites in India. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of building models using spectrally equivalent ground motions from crustal and subduction earthquakes is used for developing tectonic-region-type-specific (crustal and subduction) building vulnerability functions. The cumulative damage index is used as the engineering demand parameter to capture the increased inelastic demand from subduction earthquakes on buildings. For seismic risk assessment, the total seismic hazard at a site is separated into its contribution from crustal and subduction sources and combined with respective building vulnerability functions. The seismic risk of buildings is quantified by average annual loss ratio (AALR) through event-based probabilistic seismic risk analysis. For buildings located in high seismic zones of India, this study finds that AALR can be up to 40% higher on average as compared to studies not accounting for increased building vulnerability from subduction earthquakes.
AderTAvouacJPLiu-ZengJLyon-CaenHBollingerLGaletzkaJGenrichJThomasMChanardKSapkotaSNRajaureS (2012) Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the Main Himalayan Thrust: Implications for seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth117(B4): JB009071.
3.
AgrawalNGuptaLDixitJDashSK (2023) Seismic risk assessment for the North Eastern Region of India by integrating seismic hazard and social vulnerability. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure8(Suppl. 1): 102–132.
4.
AsimakiDThompsonEMRajaureSHoughSEAmpueroPMartinS (2017) January. Source, basin, and site effects in strong motion records of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January.
5.
BalİECrowleyHPinhoRGülayFG (2008) Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering28(10–11): 914–932.
6.
BazaezRDusickaP (2016) Cyclic loading for RC bridge columns considering subduction megathrust earthquakes. Journal of Bridge Engineering21(5): 04016009.
7.
BelejoABarbosaARBentoR (2017) Influence of ground motion duration on damage index-based fragility assessment of a plan-asymmetric non-ductile reinforced concrete building. Engineering Structures151: 682–703.
8.
BhatiaSCKumarMRGuptaHK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Annali di Geofisica42(6): 1153–1164.
9.
BilhamR (2019) Himalayan earthquakes: A review of historical seismicity and early 21st century slip potential. Geological Society483(1): 423–482.
10.
BIS (1987a) IS: 875 (Part 1)-1987—Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 1: Dead Loads—unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials (Second Revision). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
11.
BIS (1987b) IS: 875 (Part 2)-1987—Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 2: Imposed Loads (Second Revision). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
12.
BIS (2000) IS 456: 2000—Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete—code of Practice (Fourth Revision). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
13.
BIS (2016a) IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016—Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
14.
BIS (2016b) IS 13920: 2016—Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces—Code of Practice. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
15.
BMTPC (2019) Vulnerability Atlas of India: Earthquake. Wind, Flood, Landslide, Thunderstorm Maps and Damage Risk to Housing. New Delhi, India: Building Material & Technology Promotion Council, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India.
16.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1057–1085.
17.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra32(2): 927–950.
18.
CornellCA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58(5): 1583–1606.
19.
CosenzaEManfrediG (2000) Damage indices and damage measures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials2(1): 50–59.
20.
CosenzaEManfrediGRamascoR (1993) The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: A comparison between different methods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics22(10): 855–868.
21.
Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) (2023) Strong-motion virtual data center. Available at: https://www.strongmotioncenter.org/vdc (accessed 29 June 2023).
22.
DunbarPKBilhamRGLaituriMJ (2003) Earthquake loss estimation for India based on macroeconomic indicators. In: Ismail-ZadehABeerT (eds) Risk Science and Sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 163–180.
FEMA (2018) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings: Volume 1 - Methodology (FEMA P-58-1). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
26.
GEM (2021) The OpenQuake-Engine User Manual (Version 3.11.2). Pavia: Global Earthquake Model (GEM).
27.
GrünthalG (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Potsdam: GFZ.
28.
GuptaID (2006) Delineation of probable seismic sources in India and neighbourhood by a comprehensive analysis of seismotectonic characteristics of the region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26(8): 766–790.
29.
HammadAMoustafaMA (2019) Shake table tests of special concentric braced frames under short and long-duration earthquakes. Engineering Structures200: 109695.
30.
HancockJBommerJJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong motion duration on structural damage. Earthquake Spectra22: 827–845.
31.
HancockJBommerJJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering27(4): 291–299.
32.
HaseltonCBLielABDeierleinGGDeanBSChouJH (2011) Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering137(3): 481–491.
33.
HaseltonCBLielABLangeSTDeierleinGG (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. PEER 2007/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
34.
HwangSHMangalathuSJeonJS (2021) Quantifying the effects of long-duration earthquake ground motions on the financial losses of steel moment resisting frame buildings of varying design risk category. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics50(5): 1451–1468.
35.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(12): 1489–1511.
36.
Iyengar PaulDKBhandariRKSinhaRChadhaRKPandePMurthyCVRShuklaAKRaoKBRaghu KanthSTG (2010) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India. Technical Report of the Working Committee of Experts (WCE) Constituted by the National Disater Management Authority Govt. of India, New Delhi. New Delhi, India: WCE.
37.
JoynerWBBooreDM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71(6): 2011–2038.
38.
KapposAJPanagopoulosGPanagiotopoulosCPenelisG (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering4: 391–413.
39.
KhattriKNRogersAMPerkinsDMAlgermissenST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics108(1–2): 93–134.
40.
LagomarsinoSGiovinazziS (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering4: 415–443.
41.
LindleyDV (1965) Introduction to Probability and Statistics from a Bayesian Viewpoint, vol. 1, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
LopezADusickaPBazaezR (2020) Performance of seismically substandard bridge reinforced concrete columns subjected to subduction and crustal earthquakes. Engineering Structures207: 110216.
43.
MalleyJODierleinGKrawinklerHMaffeiJPourzanjaniMWallaceJHeintzJ (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council.
44.
MartinsLSilvaV (2021) Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(15): 6719–6745.
45.
MartinsLSilvaVMarquesMCrowleyHDelgadoR (2016) Development and assessment of damage-to-loss models for moment-frame reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45(5): 797–817.
46.
McKennaFFenvesGLScottMH (2000) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu (accessed 6 February 2025).
47.
NathSKThingbaijamKKS (2011) Peak ground motion predictions in India: An appraisal for rock sites. Journal of Seismology15(2): 295–315.
48.
NathSKThingbaijamKKS (2012) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India. Seismological Research Letters83(1): 135–149.
49.
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) (2013) Catalogue of Building Typologies in India. New Delhi, India: National Disaster Management Authority.
50.
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (2019) NIED K-NET, KiK-net, national research institute for earth science and disaster resilience. DOI: 10.17598/NIED.0004 (accessed 29 June 2023).
51.
OuYCSongJWangPHAdidharmaLChangKCLeeGC (2014) Ground motion duration effects on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering140(3): 04013065.
52.
PaganiMMonelliDWeatherillGDanciuLCrowleyHSilvaVHenshawPButlerLNastasiMPanzeriLSimionatoM (2014) OpenQuake engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters85(3): 692–702.
53.
PanagiotakosTBFardisMN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. Structural Journal98(2): 135–148
54.
ParkYJAngAHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering111(4): 722–739.
55.
ParkYJAngAHSWenYK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering111(4): 740–757.
56.
PatilRTRaghunandanM (2021) Seismic collapse risk of reinforced concrete hillside buildings in Indian Himalayan belt. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(13): 5665–5689.
57.
PEER NGA-West2 (2023) PEER ground motion database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Available at: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu (accessed 29 June 2023).
58.
RaghunandanMLielAB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Structural Safety41: 119–133.
59.
RaghunandanMLielABLucoN (2015) Collapse risk of buildings in the Pacific northwest region due to subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra31(4): 2087–2115.
60.
RajendranKParameswaranRMRajendranCP (2017) Seismotectonic perspectives on the Himalayan arc and contiguous areas: Inferences from past and recent earthquakes. Earth-science Reviews173: 1–30.
61.
RamkrishnanRSreevalsaKSitharamTG (2021) Development of new ground motion prediction equation for the North and Central Himalayas using recorded strong motion data. Journal of Earthquake Engineering25(10): 1903–1926.
62.
RaoADuttaDKalitaPAckerleyNSilvaVRaghunandanMGhoshJGhoshSBrzevSDasguptaK (2020) Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of India. Earthquake Spectra36(Suppl. 1): 345–371.
63.
SeeberLArmbrusterJG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long-term forecasting. Earthquake Prediction: An International Review4: 259–277.
64.
SeeberLArmbrusterJGQuittmeyerRC (1981) Seismicity and continental subduction in the Himalayan arc. Zagros Hindu Kush Himalaya Geodynamic Evolution3: 215–242.
65.
SharmaMLDouglasJBungumHKotadiaJ (2009) Ground-motion prediction equations based on data from the Himalayan and Zagros regions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering13(8): 1191–1210.
66.
ShedlockKMGiardiniDGrunthalGZhangP (2000) The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Seismological Research Letters71(6): 679–686.
67.
SilvaVCrowleyHPaganiMMonelliDPinhoR (2014) Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Natural Hazards72: 1409–1427.
68.
SitharamTGKolathayarS (2013) Seismic hazard analysis of India using areal sources. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences62: 647–653.
69.
SreejayaKPRaghukanthSTGGuptaIDMurtyCVRSrinageshD (2022) Seismic hazard map of India and neighbouring regions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering163: 107505.
70.
StevensVLAvouacJP (2016) Millenary Mw> 9.0 earthquakes required by geodetic strain in the Himalaya. Geophysical Research Letters43(3): 1118–1123.
71.
SubediJGhimireRMNeupaneRPAmatyaS (2016) Cost difference of buildings in Kathmandu constructed with and without earthquake safer features. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment7(5): 444–459.
72.
Teran-GilmoreAJirsaJO (2005) A damage model for practical seismic design that accounts for low cycle fatigue. Earthquake Spectra21(3): 803–832.
73.
TrifunacMDBradyAG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65(3): 581–626.
VallesREReinhornAMKunnathSKLiCMadanA (1996) IDARC 2D version 4.0: A program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings. Report no. NCEER 96, 10. New Delhi, India: NCEER.
Yepes-EstradaCCalderonACostaCCrowleyHDabbeekJHoyosMMartinsLPaulNRaoASilvaV (2023) Global Building exposure model for earthquake risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra39: 2212–2235.
78.
YoungsRRChiouSJSilvaWJHumphreyJR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters68(1): 58–73.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
