DRAFT Final Feasibility Report Vol06

FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
AND DETAILED
DESIGN OF BUDHI GANDAKI
GANDAKI HPP
2: DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

PHASE 2:
Volume 6.
6. Geotechnical, Geological and Seismic Analysis
Appendix 1: BRGM Final Report
Seismic Hazard Assessment
BG-
BG-FFR-
FFR-Vol6-
ol6-A1-
A1-DRAFT
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
AND DETAILED
DESIGN OF BUDHI GANDAKI
GANDAKI HPP
PHASE 2: DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Volume 6.
6. Geotechnical, Geological and Seismic Analysis
Appendix 1: BRGM Final Report
BG-
BG-FFR-
FFR-Vol6-
ol6-A1-
A1-DRAFT
0 01/11/14 First Submission BRGM S. Ianos P. Cazalis
Revision Date Description Written by Checked by Approved by
141101_BG_TE_R_DRAFT_Final Feasibility Report_Vol6_A1_BRGM.docx

for Budhi Gandaki Dam
project (Nepal)
Final Report
BRGM/RC-62794-FR
February 2014
for Budhi Gandaki Dam project
in Nepal
Final Report
BRGM/RC-62794-FR
February 2014
J. Rey, C. Allanic, J. Douglas, Th. Winter
Checked by: Approved by:

Name: M. BELVAUX Name: G. GRANDJEAN
Date : Date :
Signature : Signature :
If the present report has not been signed in its digital form, a signed original
of this document will be available at the information and documentation Unit (DSI).
BRGM’s quality management system is certified ISO 9001:2008 by AFAQ.
IM 003 ANG – April 05

Keywords: Earthquake catalogue, seismotectonic zoning, seismic hazard, dam, deterministic, Nepal.
In bibliography, this report should be cited as follows:

J. Rey, C. Allanic, J. Douglas, T. Winter. (2013) - Seismic Hazard Assessment for Budhi
Gandaki Dam project in Nepal. BRGM/RC-62794-FR, 93 p., 32 fig., 4 tab.
© BRGM, 2014. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior permission of BRGM
Seismic Hazard Assessment for Budhi Gandaki dam in Nepal
Contents
Synopsis and conclusions ............................................................................... 9
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 13
2. Seismotectonic models and characterization of faults .......................... 15
2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 15
2.2. GEODYNAMIC SETTING: AN ACTIVE COLLISIONAL OROGEN .................. 15
2.3. TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHY ........................................................................... 17
2.4. OVERVIEW ON HIMALAYAN TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY ...................... 19

2.4.1. Historical seismicity and great earthquakes ............................................ 19
2.4.2. Instrumental seismicity: macro- and microseismicity .............................. 29
2.4.3. Seismic and slip deficit ........................................................................... 33
2.4.4. Interseismic deformation and seismic cycle ............................................ 36
2.4.5. Synthesis ............................................................................................... 40
2.5. NEAR FIELD GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMOTECTONIC FRAMEWORK OF THE

BUDHI GANDAKI DAM ................................................................................... 41
2.5.1. Lithologies close to the Budhi Gandaki dam project ............................... 41
2.5.2. Major Structures and their kinematics in the Budhi Gandaki valley ......... 42
2.5.3. Kinematic and restoration of the thrust system ....................................... 45
2.6. SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN THE BUDHI GANDAKI DAM REGION:

SYNTHESIS .................................................................................................... 49
2.6.1. Near-field potential tectonic features ...................................................... 49
2.6.2. The ―Central Himalayan seismic gap‖ ..................................................... 50
3. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA) ................................ 53
3.1. METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT

(DSHA) ............................................................................................................ 53
3.1.1. Definition of reference earthquakes ........................................................ 53
3.1.2. Principle of determination of reference earthquakes ............................... 54
BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report 5

3.2. ASSESSMENT OF REFERENCE EARTHQUAKES ........................................ 54

3.2.1. Estimation of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) ........................ 54
3.2.2. Estimation of the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) .......................... 55
3.2.3. Estimation of the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) ............................. 55
3.3. DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR A ROCK SITE 55

3.3.1. Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) ....................................... 55
3.3.2. Elastic response spectra for OBE ........................................................... 58
3.3.3. Elastic response spectra for MDE (SEE) = MCE .................................... 60
4. Induced seismicity linked to the dam ....................................................... 67
4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 67
4.2. PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF RESERVOIR-TRIGGERED/INDUCED

SEISMICITY .................................................................................................... 68
5. Recommendations about the needs for a dedicated seismic monitoring

network ........................................................................................................ 73
5.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 73
5.2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING NETWORK ........................................ 73
5.3. EXISTING MONITORING CAPABILITIES ....................................................... 74
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL NETWORK ........................................... 75
6. References .................................................................................................. 79
List of Figures
Figure 1 - The Alpine-Himalayan belt (Argand 1924). ...................................................................... 15
Figure 2 - Indo-Eurasian collisional .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3 - Block diagram illustrating the structures of the Himalaya.. .............................................. 17
Figure 4 - Geological map of the Himalaya from Pakistan to the eastern part of Nepal.. ................ 18
Figure 5 - Geological section accross the western Himalaya, Baltoro Karakoram and
western Tibet (Searle 2013). ............................................................................................................ 19
Figure 6 - Synopsis of historical and paleoseismic history along the HFT (Kumar et al.
2010). ................................................................................................................................................ 21
6 BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report

Figure 7 - Map of the historical great earthquakes of the central Himalaya (Mugnier et
al. 2011). ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8 - A sketch of the geometry of the MHT at crustal scale (adapted from Berger et
al., (2004)). ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9 - (Left) Simplified structural map of the tectonic context for 1897 Shillong
Earthquake; (Right, top) Topographic section through the central Shillong Plateau
showing projected surface location of the Oldham fault.. ................................................................. 25
Figure 10 - Section through the inferred 1905 rupture showing intensities and geodetic
coverage (Wallace et al. 2008). ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 11 - 1934 surface break. Inferred co-seismic rupture (thick red line),
superimposed on SRTM topography. ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 12 - Major earthquakes along the Himalayan arc (Avouac et al. 2001). The star
indicates the location of the Budhi Gandaki dam project. ................................................................. 29
Figure 13 - a) Earthquakes (M>4.5) for the period of 1964 to 2010 (International
Seismological Centre, ISC, catalogue) superimposed over a smooth topographic map
the Himalaya and Tibetan region together with major faults (Larson et al. 2010, Mukul
et al. 2007, Wobus et al. 2005), rifts in the Tibetan plateau (Gansser 1964) and
subsurface ridges in the Indo-Gangetic plains (Armijo et al. 1986, Yin 2006).. ................................ 31
Figure 14 - Instrumental seismicity in the neighborood of the Budhi Gandaki dam
(yellow pinpoint) from the ISC earthquake catalogue (1964-2013) on a Google Earth
image................................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 15 - The slip rate estimated from seismic moment release since 1500 (Bilham
and Ambraseys, 2004) based on all known historical earthquakes (dark shading), with
an estimated increase to account for missing events (light grey shading- but see
Ambraseys and Sarma, 1999). ......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16 - Vertical interseismic uplift in central Nepal (Grandin et al. 2012). .................................. 37
Figure 17 - Geometry of the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT) (Grandin et al. 2012). ......................... 38
Figure 18 - Seismic cycle, topographic construction, and long-term evolution of the
Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT).. ........................................................................................................ 39
Figure 19 - Geological map of the Central Nepalese Himalaya along the Budhi Gandaki
section and dam location (Khanal, 2009). ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 20 - Balanced cross-section through the Central Nepal fold-thrust belt (Khanal
2009). ................................................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 21 - Satellite image (Google Earth) of the neighbouring area around the Budhi
Gandaki dam project compared to the corresponding geological map realised by
Khanal (2009). ................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 22 - Great earthquakes along the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT–MFT).. ............................. 50
Figure 23 - This view of the Indo-Asian collision zone shows the estimated slip potential
along the Himalaya and urban populations south of the Himalaya (United Nations
sources)............................................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 24 - Flowchart of considerations by ground-motion modelers in order to produce
predictive equations that will be routinely applicable to state-of-the-art seismic hazard
analyses.. .......................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 25 - 5% damping OBE horizontal elastic spectra for rock site with proposed
design spectrum (black curve) .......................................................................................................... 59
Figure 26 - Proposed design spectrum for OBE and for rock site with different damping ............... 60
Figure 27 - 5% damping MDE (option 1) horizontal elastic spectra for rock site with
proposed design spectrum (black curve) .......................................................................................... 62
Figure 28 - Proposed design spectrum for SEE=MDE (option 1) and for rock site with
different damping .............................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 29 - 5% damping SEE=MDE (option 2) horizontal elastic spectra for rock site
with proposed design spectrum (black curve) .................................................................................. 65
Figure 30 - Proposed design spectrum SEE=MDE (option 2) and for rock site with
different damping .............................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 31 - Map showing the location of the proposed dam (yellow triangle) and the
seismometers (red triangles) of the National Seismological Network of Nepal (according
to the International Registry of Seismograph Stations). ................................................................... 75
Figure 32 - Map showing the location of the proposed reservoir. .................................................... 76
List of Tables
Table 1 - Characteristics of GMPEs chosen for this study (see below for abbreviations). .............. 56
Table 2 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for OBE (rock site).
Acceleration, velocity and displacement values. .............................................................................. 58
Table 3 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for MDE (option 1, rock
site). Acceleration, velocity and displacement values. ..................................................................... 61
Table 4 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for SEE=MDE (option 2,
rock site). Acceleration, velocity and displacement values. ............................................................. 64

Synopsis and conclusions
ithin the framework of a project to build a dam at Budhi Gandaki (Nepal),

W TRACTEBEL Engineering France has asked the BRGM to assess the seismic
hazard for the site.
In a first step, the seismotectonic model is defined and then in a second step
deterministic hazard assessment is performed. Moreover induced seismicity is studied
in a third step and recommendations for seismic monitoring network are given in a last
step. For each step, the principal results are indicated above:
Seismotectonic models and characterization of faults
The great earthquakes along the Himalaya seismic zone, resulting from the collision
between India and Asia, occurred south of the seismicity belt of small and medium-
sized earthquakes. These earthquakes are associated with a subhorizontal
décollement plane along which thrusting takes place: the Main Himalayan Thrust
(MHT). Interseismic stress build-up by elastic straining of the upper crust is probably
the main process responsible for the observed belt of microseismicity that can be
traced along the front of the high range all along the Himalayas of Nepal. This is
consistent with the geodetic data that also suggest that the MHT is locked everywhere
and that motion along the MHT is probably stick-slip as a result of recurring large
earthquakes.
The Himalayan chain, and consequently the MHT, is segmented by transverse NE-SW
features. A 500 to 800 km long segment, the ―central Himalayan seismic gap‖, between
the epicentres of the great 1934 Nepal-Bihar (to the east) and the 1905 Kangra (to the
west) earthquakes has not experienced a major quake for more than 500 years. The
Budhi Gandaki dam project falls in this region of possible future great earthquakes.
Location of earthquake source region is pivotal to assess the seismic hazard potential
to any man-made structure. Seismicity data from these networks do not show any
definite pattern in the neighbourhood of the Budhi Gandaki dam. Further, we did not
find any seismic cluster or pattern near the dam site in the regional distribution of
earthquakes based on data from the International Seismological Centre.
Despite this present-day aseismic characteristic, the last major earthquake in the
―central Himalayan seismic gap‖ of Mw 8.2 occurred 508 years ago, in 1505, and
strongly damaged the region. Since, few intermittent earthquakes have rocked the
region and released limited parts of energy stored elastically due to the movement of
the Indian plate. Still a large amount of residual stress has to be released by an
earthquake of magnitude, possibly not less than 8.5, with a rupture likely located along
the MHT at ~16 km depth, ~20km to the north of the dam.
Geodetic observations in the region also suggests that aseismic slip at present is
negligible; hence the slip must occur seismically to release the long live recoverable
elastic strain stored in the upper crust of the outer Himalaya in this part of Himalaya.

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA)
The main results of the Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA) are the
following, for rock conditions:
 Only one reference earthquake is taken into account, a near-field source: the
1505 historical event (Mw=8.2 to 8.7) is displaced to under the site at a depth of
8 km.
 Accelerations are calculated for the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) from
this reference earthquake. For Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE), we use the
same Mw8.2-8.7 earthquake as for MCE (ie MDE=MCE). For Operating Basis
Earthquake (OBE), we use the same earthquake but with magnitude reduced
by 0.5 (Mw7.7).
 The horizontal elastic response spectrum (5% damping) proposed for OBE is:
Frequency (Hz) Acceleration (cm/s2) Velocity (cm/s) Displacement (cm)
100 600.84 0.956 0.00152
50 600.84 1.912 0.00609
10 1381.92 21.99 0.350
3 1381.92 73.29 3.888
0.5 230.32 73.29 23.328
0.2 50.28 40.00 31.831
0.1 12.57 20.00 31.831
For estimating horizontal elastic response spectrum for MDE, 2 options are taken into
account. Option 1: MDE is defined according to ICOLD 1989 and calculation are done
using 50%-exceedence probability accelerations (ie mean values). Option 2: MDE is
defined according to ICOLD 2010 (MDE=SEE, Safety Evaluation Earthquake) and
calculation are done using relations with a standard deviation (84%-exceedence
probability).
 The horizontal elastic response spectrum (5% damping) for MDE=MCE (option
1) is:


100 754.0 1.200 0.0019
50 754.0 2.399 0.0076
10 1885.0 29.99 0.477
3.3 1885.0 90.88 4.38
0.4 228.5 90.88 36.16
0.2 75.4 60.00 47.75
0.1 18.9 30.00 47.75
 The horizontal elastic response spectrum (5% damping) for MDE=SEE=MCE

(option 2) is:
100 1176.3 1.871 0.0030
50 1176.3 3.743 0.0119
10 2823.1 44.92 0.715
3 2823.1 149.72 7.94
0.5 470.5 149.72 47.66
0.2 113.1 90.00 71.62
0.1 28.3 45.00 71.62
Induced seismicity linked to the dam
It has long been known that the creation of reservoirs can lead to increased seismicity.
Also, a simple approach based on analogues to previous cases of induced seismicity
for similar reservoirs in tectonically-comparable regions is followed, based on recent
reviews of triggered/induced seismicity. The largest triggered/induced earthquake yet
recorded is the Koyna 1967 earthquake (Ms 6.3).
Then the seismicity connected with existing dams in the same region is studied. For
Tehri Dam (India) an increase in seismicity due to the reservoir loading and unloading
was noticed; an active fault beneath this dam has also been put in evidence.
Nevertheless specialists state that the size of the largest reservoir-trigger earthquake
has, up until now, always been lower than the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE).
Recommendations about the needs for a dedicated seismic monitoring network
Finally, we define the requirements for monitoring of seismicity close to the dam.
Following this a summary of the existing seismic monitoring capabilities in the vicinity of
the dam and their capabilities for monitoring potentially induced microseismicity is
provided. By comparing the requirements and the existing networks in the region we
provide recommendations on the instruments that should be installed to monitor the
microseismicity close to the dam.

1. Introduction
Within the framework of a project to build a dam in Nepal, Tractebel Engineering SA

has asked the BRGM to assess the seismic hazard for the site.
Budhi Gandaki Hydropower Project is a storage type project located in Gorkha and
Dhading districts in Central/Western Development region on the Gandaki River of
Nepal. The project site is at about a distance of 85 km west from Kathmandu. It is
located in the seismically active Himalayan thrust belt.
The goal of the present study is to carry out a deterministic assessment for seismic
hazard around the Budhi Gandaki dam project.
First step consist of a seismotectonic analysis based on the most recently published
papers and thesis for information up-to-date. After exposing the general geodynamic
and tectonostratigraphic context, the distribution and magnitudes of historical and
instrumental seismicity are presented and analysed in terms of fault model properties:
o Geometry (location, length, dip, down-dip extent)
o kinematics (strike slip, normal, reverse)
o Segmentation – rupture scenarios
o Maximum magnitude
o Recurrence model attempt
The observed seismicity is then compared to the need rate of earthquake activity
inferred from slip rate and simple fault model. Interseismic signals bring information as
well on recent/current deformation in the dam project area. Finally, detailed restored
structural cross-section of the Budhi Gandaki valley is examined to determine a likely
set of scenario earthquakes.
Second step consist of deterministic ground motions assessment (deterministic seismic

hazard assessment, DSHA). The determination of spectra taking into account the site
effect is not requested at this stage of the study and therefore, acceleration spectra
have to be provided for two reference earthquakes and for rock site conditions:
- The Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) is an earthquake that could reasonably be
expected to occur at the site during the operating life of the structure considering the
regional and local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local
subsurface material.
- The Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) will produce the maximum level of ground
motion for which the dam should be designed or analysed. The dam should stay ―fail
safe‖. For dams whose failure would present a great social hazard, the MDE will
normally be characterized by a level of motion equal to that induced by the most severe
combination of maximum magnitude and minimum distance to the site independent of
the return period.
BRGM/RC-62794-FR-Final report 13
Spectra from DSHA for MDE and OBE are presented in chapter 3. For MDE spectrum,
two options are presented according respectively to ICOLD 1989 (option 1) and ICOLD
2010 (option 2).
Induced seismicity linked to the dam is discussed in chapter 4.
Finally, recommendations about the needs for a dedicated seismic monitoring network
are done in chapter 5.
14 BRGM/RC-62794-FR-Final report
2. Seismotectonic models and

characterization of faults
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The Alpine-Himalayan belt is a young orogen suturing Gondwana-derived fragments with the
Eurasian continental crust. Its general structure, as a continuous belt of Mesozoic and Cenozoic
deformation from Spain to Southeast Asia, is described in the pioneering work of Argand
(1924). Further southeast, in the southwest Pacific, the orogenic belt is partly submerged but
probably stretched as far as New Zealand (Figure 1).
Nepal, located in the central part of the 2400 km long Himalayan arc, is 800 km in length and
approximately 200 km in width. At ~55 Ma (Najman et al. 2010), India and Asia began to collide
along the Indus suture zone (e.g. Harrison et al. 1992, Le Fort 1975, Parrish & Hodges 1996).
South of the suture zone lies the Himalayan thrust belt which consists of a series of south-
vergent, southward propagating thrust faults that developed in response to ongoing subduction
of Indian plate beneath the Asian plate (Coward & Butler 1985, Gansser 1964, Searle 2013,
Srivastava & Mitra 1994, Yin & Harrison 2000) (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - The Alpine-Himalayan belt (Argand 1924).
2.2. GEODYNAMIC SETTING: AN ACTIVE COLLISIONAL OROGEN
The Himalayan collision started about 50–55 Myr ago and has given rise to the highest
mountains on Earth (e.g. Avouac & Tapponnier 1993, Harrison et al. 1992, Molnar &
Tapponnier 1975). The rate of convergence subsequent to the collision between India and
stable Eurasia has continued at a rate of about 38–50 mm/yr (e.g. Banerjee & Burgmann 2002,
Bilham et al. 1997, Paul 2001) (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The convergence has been
accommodated primarily by thrust fault systems and a combination of lateral extrusion and
crustal thickening in the high Tibetan plateau to the north (Larson et al. 1999, Molnar &
Tapponnier 1975) with a dominance of strike-slip and thrusting along the western syntaxis in
contrast to thrusting and remnant subduction along the eastern syntaxis (Srivastava et al. 2013)
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Indo-Eurasian collisional deformation partitioned between crustal thickening and lateral
extrusion (left), confirmed by GPS measurements (over 10 years) (right) (Avouac 2003, Bettinelli 2007)
From north to south, the three thrust systems are the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT), and the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT) (Figure 4). It is generally
considered that the three thrust fault systems reflect a southward migration of the Himalayan
front through time (Gansser 1964, Le Fort 1975, Nakata 1972, 1989, Valdiya 1992, Yeats 1992)
and that each of the faults root into the same major mid-crustal décollement, the Main
Himalayan Thrust (MHT) (Pandey et al. 1995, Schelling & Arita 1991, Seeber & Armbruster
1981, Zhao et al. 1993). Of the three thrust fault systems, the southernmost and present-day
active deformation front is marked by the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT), also frequently
referred to as Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) (Nakata 1972, 1989).
The collision velocity between India and southern Tibet in the past decade observed by GPS is
16-18 mm/year (Banerjee & Burgmann 2002, Bilham et al. 1997, Larson et al. 1999, Wang et al.
2001), a rate that is assumed to have been constant for many thousands of years. Although this
is by no means certain, support for a near-constant rate of collision prevailing in at least the past
several thousand years comes from geological observations of slip-rate of the frontal thrusts of
the Himalaya that indicate convergence rates of 15-20 mm/yr (Avouac 2003, Molnar 1984). In
view of the apparent identity between decadal geodetic convergence and several millennia of
geological data, we assume that this convergence rate (≈1.8 m each century) currently
accumulates in the Himalaya as elastic strain that is subsequently released as seismic slip in
earthquakes and/or as aseismic slip between earthquakes (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Block diagram illustrating the structures of the Himalaya. STD is the South Detachment – the
low-angle normal fault that bounds the northern margin of the Greater Himalayan metamorphic rocks and
granites (magenta colour). MCT is the Main Central Thrust that places the metamorphic rocks south over
unmetamorphosed rocks of the Lesser Himalaya. MBT is the Main boundary Thrust, the active southern
margin of the Himalaya and the fault zone along which earthquakes are triggered (Searle 2013).
2.3. TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHY
The Himalaya orogen, extending over 2500 km from Kashmir in the northwest to Arunachal in
the northeast of India, is characterized by four lithotectonic as well as physiographic provinces
that are more or less coincident and run throughout its entire length (Figure 4):
 The southernmost unit, named the outer Himalaya, consists of the folded and faulted
Siwalik molasse sediments dating from late Tertiary to early quaternary. They form the
low hills (900-1500m) that rise in front of the plains of the Sindhu-Ganga basin.
 The lesser Himalaya is comprised of the mountain belt having an elevation of about
2000 m on average and composed of fossiliferous Riphean sediments overridden by
several thrust sheets that have travelled from north to south in response to the
geodynamic processes giving birth to Himalaya.
 The next province, called the great Himalaya, is made up of crystalline rocks that form a
tectonic slab. The highest mountain ranges are present in this province with an average
elevation of 6000 m.
 Further to the north lies the Tethyan Himalaya province where fossiliferous sediments
ranging in age from late Precambrian to Cretaceous are present. This is bordered further
north by an ophiolite and mélange suite associated with the suture of India and Eurasia
beyond which lies the Trans Himalaya geological province.
Figure 4 - Geological map of the Himalaya from Pakistan to the eastern part of Nepal. Major faults are
marked and abbreviations given in the upper right corner of the map (Hodges 2000).
The dividing surfaces are thrusts of regional dimensions and varying tectonic activity (Figure 5):
 the Indo-Gangetic Plains in the extreme south are separated by the Himalayan Frontal
Thrust (HFT) from the ruggedly youthful Siwalik Hills;
 the Siwalik are separated by the Main boundary thrust (MBT) from the Lesser Himalaya;
 the Lesser Himalaya are separated by the Main central thrust (MCT) from the greater
Himalayan zone; and
 the Great Himalaya is separated by the South Tibetan Detachment system (STDS) from
the Tethyan Himalaya.
Figure 5 - Geological section accross the western Himalaya, Baltoro Karakoram and western Tibet
(Searle 2013).
2.4. OVERVIEW ON HIMALAYAN TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY
On-going crustal shortening across the Himalaya is manifested by recurring large earthquakes
with magnitudes (Mw) above 8, such as the Bihar–Nepal earthquake of 1934 and the Kangra
earthquake of 1905. In the present overview, the following questions will be investigated in
order to better constrain the seismotectonic assumptions to be considered in the Budhi Gandaki
dam seismic hazard assessment:
 How is deformation distributed throughout the range, and where are the faults capable of
producing very large recurrent earthquakes?
 What can we learn about future large earthquakes from seismicity and deformation
monitored over a limited period of time?
 What proportion of crustal deformation is expressed in the seismicity?
 Starting with recent deformation, measured over a decade with geodetic techniques, can
we extrapolate backwards to explain the long-term history of the range as expressed in
its structural geology?
2.4.1. Historical seismicity and great earthquakes
Earthquakes prior to 1800 are only known from Persian, Sanskrit, Arabic, Tibetan and Turkish
writings, from documents in several Indian languages, and from the writings of travellers from
Europe (Iyengar & Sharma 1998). As a consequence, seismological characterization of these
earthquakes remains difficult. When corroboration exists in the form of independent accounts
from several areas it is possible to estimate the size of the rupture zone. Another estimate of
magnitude can be obtained from the duration of the mainshock in minutes, and from the
longevity of the period of aftershocks. For example, earthquakes in Kashmir in 1555 and in
Nepal in 1255 may have been great earthquakes based on these criteria (Bilham 2004).
However, it is possible that reporting is biased by the presence of literate population centers in
Srinigar and Kathmandu.
Overview from the Himalayan arc to central Nepal
The review of early earthquakes and case histories of some of the larger earthquakes (Bilham
2004, Kumar et al. 2010) form a patchy history that may be complete for the past 200 years, but
which is certainly missing many large earthquakes before then (Figure 6). Historical
earthquakes attributed to slip on the MHT are the 1505 central Himalayan earthquake (Mw ~
8.2), the 1555 Kashmir earthquake (Mw ~ 7.6), the 1803 Kumaon‐Garhwal earthquake (Mw ~
7.5), the 1833 Nepal earthquake (Mw ~ 7.3), the 1905 Kangra earthquake (Mw ~ 7.8), the 1934
Bihar‐Nepal earthquake (Mw ~ 8.1), and the 1950 Assam earthquake (Mw ~ 8.4) (Ambraseys &
Bilham 2000, Ambraseys & Douglas 2004, Ambraseys & Jackson 2003, Bilham 1995, 2004,
Chander 1989, Martin & Szeliga 2010, Molnar & Pandey 1989, Pandey & Molnar 1988, Szeliga
et al. 2010, Wallace et al. 2005).
As far as paleoseismological investigations are concerned, the problem of detrital charcoal

leading to a wide scatter in ages, the thin to absent nature of colluvial deposits associated with
the young displacements, and the lack of deposits capping faulted units within the trenches
generally have not allowed assessments of upper age limits to the timing of the last
earthquakes at most sites (Kumar et al. 2010). Nonetheless, it seems that the data define a
boundary in western Nepal between two large earthquakes that occurred in A.D. 1505 and A.D.
1100. And though constraints on the ages of surface ruptures at sites to the east and west of
this boundary are not conclusive, the large offsets recorded at sites on both sides of the
boundary and the tectonic context of offsets argue for the likelihood of rupture extents reaching
upwards of 700 to 800 km along the arc. The prior work of Kumar et al. (2006b) suggests that
such large earthquakes as these can be expected to repeat on the order of every 1000 to 3000
years.
Most of the great earthquakes occur along the MHT (Figure 7) (Larson 1999, Seeber &
Armbruster 1981). Some of them reach the surface along the MFT (see trench location on
Figure 7) and some along out-of-sequence thrusts (Mugnier et al. 2005, Mugnier et al. 2004),
like the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (Kaneda et al. 2008). However, not all earthquakes reach the
surface, like the 1991 (M~7) Uttarkashi event (Cotton et al. 1996, Rastogi & Chadha 1995).
The ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes nucleate close to the brittle–ductile transition
(location on Figure 7) and propagate towards the Indian plain along the MHT. The lateral extent
of the great earthquake ruptures is probably controlled by structural complexities that trend
obliquely to the Himalayan chain. Molnar (1987a) showed that lateral ramps caused the
segmentation of the 1905 earthquake into several ruptures, whereas the lateral ramps inferred
at the crustal scale (Berger et al. 2004, Robert et al. 2011) could affect the great ruptures of the
Himalaya. Heavy damage occurs in the external part of the belt above this rupture (Avouac,
2003).
Figure 6 - Synopsis of historical and paleoseismic history along the HFT (Kumar et al. 2010).
(top) Shaded areas with bold outline or dotted line in map view correspond to areas of strong ground
shaking associated with historical earthquakes. Each is labeled with the corresponding date and
magnitude of the earthquake. Solid circles with numbers and letters are the locations of trench studies
described here for sites A through C in the northeast Himalaya, along with those previously reported at
sites 1–6 in the northwest Himalaya and sites X through Z in Nepal (Kumar et al., 2001; Kumar et al.,
2006; Lavé et al., 2005; Nakata et al., 1998; Upreti et al., 2000; Yule et al., 2006).
(bottom) Space‐time diagram showing radiocarbon constraints on timing of surface rupture earthquakes
documented at each site. Vertical axis is time in calendar years A.D.; horizontal axis is kilometers. The
location of each site is also labeled by a solid circle below the horizontal axis with lines connecting to the
respective site on the overlying map. The horizontal scales of overlying digital topographic map and
space‐time diagram are the same. The vertical bars and upward pointing arrows at each study site reflect
radiocarbon ages that bracket the age of surface in calendar years A.D. or B.C. (2 standard deviations
of the 14C calendar ages). The vertically pointing arrows above some sites indicate the brackets
encompassing only the uncertainty of the youngest radiocarbon age in displaced deposits and thus the
upper bound of the age of the last earthquake displacement may be younger. The coseismic slip (cs),
vertical separation (vs), and horizontal shortening (hs) of the corresponding earthquake are also shown in
meters. The rupture extents of known large to great earthquakes within the study area are provided as a
long box with the year of the rupture annotated within. Inferred rupture length is based on revised and
expanded Medvedev‐Sponheuer‐Karnik (MSK) intensity (Ambraseys and Bilham, 2000; Ambraseys and
Jackson, 2003; Ambraseys and Douglas, 2004; Bilham, 1995; Bilham, 2004; Bilham and Ambraseys,
2005; Chander, 1989; Molnar and Pandey, 1989; Pandey and Molnar, 1988; Wallace et al., 2005). Long
bold and solid horizontal lines without ages annotated are speculated rupture lengths of earthquakes in
~A.D. 1100 and ~A.D. 1500 resulting from interpretation of timing and size of surface displacements
observed in trench exposures (dotted where inferred in absence of paleoseismic data). Details and
possible correlation of the event (bar) at ~A.D. 1500 with the historically documented 1505 event of
Ambraseys and Douglas (2004) are further discussed in Kumar et al (2010).
Figure 7 - Map of the historical great earthquakes of the central Himalaya (Mugnier et al. 2011).
Kat, Jum and Nep respectively for Kathmandu, Jumla and Nepalgunj. 1934 epicentre from Chen and
Molnar (1977), 1505 and 1803 epicentres from Ambraseys and Douglas (2004), 1991 epicentre from
Rastogi and Shadha (1995) and IMD, 1833 event from Thapa (1997), 1866 event from Szeliga et al
(2010) . MKS isoseismal contours for Intensity=VII from Ambraseys and Douglas (2004) for the 1934,
1803 and 1833 events and inferred from Ambraseys and Jackson (2003) for 1505 event, no MKS
isoseismal contours documented for 1866 event. MMI intensity from Rastogi and Chadha (1995) for 1991
event. Location of the trenches associated to the following events: (1) ~1300≪1050 AD (Nakata et al.
1998), (2) ~1100 AD (Lavé et al. 2005), (3) 1442≪1224 AD (Mugnier et al. 2005, Mugnier et al. 2011), (4)
1470≪1410 AD (Kumar et al. 2010), (5) 1433≪1278 AD (Kumar et al. 2006b); (6) 1614≪1282 (Kumar et
al. 2006b). The focal mechanisms are from Larson (1999, CMT Harvard catalog) and from Molnar (1990)
for those between 1965 and 1976. Dislocation line (~brittle–ductile transition along the MHT) adapted
from Banerjee and Burgmann (2002), Berger et al. (2004) and Bettinelli et al. (2006). B) Structural cross-
section of Kumaon (location on Fig. A) adapted from Srivastava and Mitra (1994). TT: Tons Thrust. C)
Structural cross-section in eastern Nepal (location on Fig. A) adapted from Berger et al. (2004) and
Schelling and Arita (1991). The red star indicates the location of the Budhi Gandaki dam project.
The seismic cycle in the Himalaya is presumably due to a growth of the ruptures impeded by the
presence of along-arc asperities (Feldl & Bilham 2006). Every rupture does not necessarily
release all displacement stored elastically by southern Tibet and the great earthquake slip is
mainly related to the length between along-arc asperities.
Mugnier et al. (2011) suggest that an along-arc asperity is located close to Kathmandu. This
asperity might be related to one of the transfer zones along the MHT inferred by Berger et al.
(2004) and Robert et al. (2011) (Figure 8). This transfer zone would be located beneath the
Trisouli River and induces:
 a greater uplift of the Lesser Himalayan rocks in its western side that causes the
dramatic cartographic bend of the MCT in this area (Mugnier et al. 2011);
 a singularity with respect to the usual N 10°E to N 20°E shortening direction that is here
deviated towards the N 150°E direction (Jouanne et al. 2004); and
 a north–south boundary for the zones of MMI>VIII during the 1833 and 1934 events.
At the scale of the Central Himalaya, the distribution of great earthquakes outlines the role of
another transfer zone: the ―Nepalgunj-Jumla Transfer Zone‖ (Mugnier et al. 1999b). Between
the two transfer zones, the 1255 great earthquake occurred and caused the destruction of
Kathmandu: this area, where the Budhi Gandaki dam project is located, is a seismic gap since
1505 (Ambraseys & Jackson 2003). To the west of this Nepalgunj-Jumla transfer zone,
numerous medium scale instrumental earthquakes are recorded and a megathrust occurred in
1408 (Figure 8).
Figure 8 - A sketch of the geometry of the MHT at crustal scale (adapted from Berger et al., (2004)) with
the epicentres of the great historical earthquakes (blue stars) and frontal rupture (red lines) adapted from
Kumar et al.(2010) and Mugnier et al. (2011). The ―Nepalgunj-Jumla Transfer Zone‖ and ―Trisouli
Transfer Zone‖ are crustal lateral ramps inferred from mechanical modeling (Berger et al. 2004), thermal
modeling (Robert et al. 2011) and cartographic pattern of the structures (Mugnier et al. 2011, Mugnier et
al. 1999a, Mugnier et al. 1999b).
Great earthquakes
 The 1255 A.D. Central Nepal earthquake
The 1255 A.D. event badly damaged Kathmandu and is one of the most catastrophic events
recorded in the Nepalese historic archives: one third of the Kathmandu population (several
thousand people), including King Abhaya Malla, was killed (e.g. Shava 1992). Localization of its
epicentre from historical archives is not possible because information is restricted to the
Kathmandu area. The associated intensity reached at least X (Rana et al. 2007).
Based on abandoned terraces studies, Mugnier et al. (2005) suggest that ~8 m slip occurred
along the MFT in relation with the 1255 A.D. seismic event and caused ~6 m uplift of the
hanging-wall. Even in the case of successive events (which is not the hypothesis supported by
Mugnier et al (2005)), the 1255 A.D. event delivers slip to the surface in western Nepal.
 The Mw 8.2 (1505) Central Nepal earthquake
Some researchers propose that the 1505 earthquake ruptured the current ―Central Gap‖
(Ambraseys & Jackson 2003, Bilham & Ambraseys 2004, Kumar et al. 2010). They report that it
was strongly felt and created damage along a distance of about 700 km (from Guge in the
northwest to Lo Mustang and Kyirong in the southeast). Based on determined intensities, they
propose a magnitude of about Mw= 8.2 for this event. The approximate epicentral region is
located at Lo Mustang (N29.5°; E83°) (Figure 7). Bilham and Ambraseys (2004) suggests that
its rupture area was large, probably filling the entire "central seismic gap". A rupture length of
600 km with a down-dip width of 70-90 km given normal scaling laws should be associated with
7-15 m of slip. This would result in a moment magnitude of around 8.6< Mw<8.8. Thus, the
1505 earthquake could have released 8-16 times more slip than implied by its intensity-derived
magnitude of Mw=8.2.
Nevertheless, recently, one study in the area (Rajendran & Rajendran 2011), including several
7th to 12th century AD temples and monuments older than AD 1500 in the Central Himalaya and
Delhi, did not identify any significant shaking effects that could be attributed to a great Central
Himalaya earthquake during medieval times. Considering the likelihood that the reported
destruction to monasteries separated 700 km apart could also be due to site effects and the
possibility for amplification of slip on blind thrusts. They conclude that the 1505 earthquake
remains questionable and consequently infer that the pre-1803 large earthquake in the Central
Himalaya must have occurred ~900 years ago. Hence the gap between the 1905 and 1934
ruptures may be real.
 The Mw ~ 7.7 (1833) Central Nepal earthquake
Estimates of moment magnitude based on reported intensities (MMI IX–X damages) indicate
that the earthquake was 7.5<Mw<7.9 with a mean moment magnitude of Mw=7.7 ± 0.2 using the
methods of Johnston‘s (1996) relating isoseismal areas with moment magnitudes (Bilham
1995). The location of the epicentre was probably 50 km east or north east of Kathmandu, close
to the rupture area of the great 1934 Bihar/Nepal earthquake (Bilham 1995) (Figure 7).
The inferred M<8 magnitude and consequent relatively small rupture area of the 1833
earthquake indicates that it contributed insignificantly to reducing potential slip in the Central
Himalayan Seismic Gap between the Kangra 1905 and Bihar 1934 rupture zones. Bilham
(1995) estimate that the slip associated with the event may have been 1-2 m, an amount
consistent with a renewal time of 100 years (based on 1.5-2 m of Indian/Tibetan plate
convergence per century (Molnar, 1990)). This and its proximity to the inferred rupture zone of
the Bihar 1934 earthquake suggests that if the 1833 event occurred on a thrust fault it may have
ruptured a region adjoining or overlapping the 1934 rupture. However, although remarkable
similarities between the 1934 and 1833 isoseismal areas exist, the mechanism of the 1833
event is unknown (Bilham 1995).
 The Mw ~ 7.6 (1866) Central Nepal earthquake
A moderate earthquake occurred on 23 May 1866 near Kathmandu, which is mentioned by

several authors (Khattri 1987, Khattri & Tyagi 1983, Oldham 1899, Rajendran & Rajendran
2005), with an assessed magnitude of M 7.6, based on rupture length–magnitude scaling
relationships. Szeliga et al. (2010) suggest a location of the epicentre around 80 km south of
Kathmandu and a magnitude of 7.2 ± 0.2. Thus, according to intensity analysis (Wyss 1979),
the 1833 and 1866 earthquakes both appear to have ruptured similar locations in the Nepalese
Himalaya with similar magnitudes. In this case, the slip in the second 1866 event would not
have developed over the course of 33 years with a geodetic convergence rate of 18 mm/yr
(Szeliga et al. 2010).
 The Mw 8.1 Shillong (1897) earthquake
A recently re-evaluated instrumental seismic magnitude indicates that the 1897 earthquake was
Ms = 8.0 ± 0.1 (Jade et al. 2004), with a seismic moment magnitude of Mw = 8.1 ± 0.1 calculated
from geodetic data (Ambraseys 2000).
Geodetic and geological data provide strong constraints on rupture geometry of the 1897
Shillong earthquake. First, the rupture was considered to occur on a north-dipping Himalayan
thrust propagating south of Bhutan (Gahalaut & Chander 1992, Molnar 1987b, Molnar & Pandey
1989, Seeber & Armbruster 1981) but Bilham and England (2001) revisited more recently this
concept. They proposed that the northern edge of the Shillong Plateau rose violently more than
11 m during rupture of a buried, 110-km-long, ESE reverse fault, with a dip of 50 ± 5° SSW
dipping steeply away from the Himalaya. It is assumed that rupture propagated up-dip from 35
km to 9 km depth (Oldham 1899). The stress drop implied by the rupture geometry and the
prodigious fault slip of 18 ± 7m, explains observed epicentral accelerations exceeding 1 g
vertically, and surface velocities exceeding 3 m/s. This subsurface slip stressed the shallower
regions of the Shillong plateau resulting, for example, in 10 m of normal faulting on the NNW-
trending, W-dipping Chedrang fault at the western termination of the Oldham fault (Bilham &
England 2001). Numerous aftershocks occurred as well, some of which did further damage.
Figure 9 - (Left) Simplified structural map of the tectonic context for 1897 Shillong Earthquake; (Right,
top) Topographic section through the central Shillong Plateau showing projected surface location of the
Oldham fault. A peneplation surface is evident at ~1.6 km, with isolated peaks rising to ~2 km; (Right,
bottom) N/S section from Tibet to the Bay of Bengal showing schematic geometry of Plateau pop-up.
Although the dip of the Dauki fault is conjectural, it would intersect the 1897 rupture were its dip less than
40°, resulting in a geometry that is incompatible with continued slip on both faults. Slip is inhibited on
reverse faults with dip greater than 50° (modified from Bilham & England 2001).
By their study, Bilham and England (2001) highlight the active deformation of a pop-up
structure, confirm that such structure can penetrate the whole crust and seems to be a specific
feature of this part of the Indian shield (Figure 9). Plateau uplift in the past 2-5 million years has
caused the Indian plate to contract locally by 4±2 mm/yr, reducing seismic hazard in Bhutan, but
increasing it to the large populations of northern Bangladesh.
 The Mw 7.8 Kangra (1905) earthquake
The Kangra earthquake had a prominent epicentral region of Rossi-Forel shaking of intensity
VIII to X near Kangra and Dharmsala and an island of VIII shaking almost 250 km to the SE
near Dehra Dun.
First estimates led several authors to assume that rupture may have extended more than 350
km along strike (280 km proposed by Seeber and Armbruster (1981)). Although geodetic
measurements existed along the probable southern edge of the rupture, no re-measurements
were made after the earthquake except near the remote region of high accelerations near
Dehra Dun. No horizontal or vertical deformations were detected in the Dehra Dun region,
suggesting that rupture did not approach within 50 km of Dehra Dun (78°E) (Bilham et al. 2001).
Hence there is little evidence supporting that its rupture exceeded 200 km.
Then, intensities and magnitudes of this event have been re-evaluated and decreased: Ms =
7.8 ± 0.05 (Ambraseys & Bilham 2000) and Mw = 7.8 (Ambraseys & Douglas 2004). Ambraseys
and Bilham (2000) estimated that the rupture area appropriate for a Mw=7.8 earthquake lies in
the range 100 × 120 km2 to 80 × 50 km2 with 3–8 m of average slip. The longest dimension
available for slip normal to the Himalayan arc, assuming rupture between the zone of moderate
earthquakes bordering the southern edge of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayan frontal
thrusts, is 80–100 km. Hence the greatest along-strike dimension for this event is of the order of
120 km.
Figure 10 - Section through the inferred 1905 rupture showing intensities and geodetic coverage
(Wallace et al. 2008).
A triangulation network samples the SW corner of the inferred 1905 rupture and provides weak
constraints for an inferred shallow-dipping thrust fault with 4 ± 1m of slip (Wallace et al. 2005).
The study of Wallace et al. (2005) suggests that rupture did not extend beneath the lesser
Himalaya and stopped close to the Jawalmuki thrust, near a hydrocarbon seep, flames from
which are alleged to have suddenly engulfed priests in the Hindu Temple in the minutes before
the earthquake (Baduwi 1905) (Figure 10). Based on a suggestion of directivity in the intensity
distribution Hough and Bilham (2008) assume that the rupture propagated from NW to SE,
although this is not well constrained.
 The Mw 8.1 Bihar (1934) earthquake
Rupture parameters of the 1934 Bihar–Nepal earthquake are less well-constrained, although a
reasonably precise instrumental magnitude is available for this event (Mw = 8.1 for Ambraseys
& Douglas 2004, Mw = 8.2 for Chen & Molnar 1977). The relocated epicentre lies approximately
10 km south of Mt. Everest at 27.55°N, 87.09°E (Chen & Molnar 1977) who calculate a seismic
moment of 1.1 × 1028 dyne cm and a slip of 5.4m assuming a 130 × 50 km 2 area rupture
corresponding to Mw = 8.0. Ambraseys and Douglas (2004) calculate Mw 8.1 for the event
corresponding to dimensions of 150 × 80 km2 and a slip of 5m.
Hough and Bilham (2008) inferred the location of the rupture zone from the distribution of
maximum intensities observed in Nepal and Bihar. Thus, they propose that the rupture
propagated from east to west instead of the direction west to east calculated by Singh and
Gupta (1980). Indeed, given the requirements of a 130 to 160 km-long rupture that includes the
relocated epicentre, since this would shift the eastern half of the rupture into Sikkim province,
where no coseismic deformation has been reported. Using this reasoning, Hough and Bilham
(2008) constrained the 1934 western edge of the Bihar-Nepal rupture at 85.5 ± 0.2°E and
eastern edge to 87.0 ± 0.2°E a distance of about 160 km with the caveat that its location may be
in error by ± 25 km to the east or west (Figure 11). They constrained the northern edge to be the
line of microseismicity (Bettinelli et al. 2006, Bollinger et al. 2007) identified with the transition
between the shallow-locked and downdip-creeping Indian plate at 15-19 km depth (the locking
line of Feldl and Bilham (2006)). They constrained the southern edge to a line 5-10 km north of
the frontal thrusts at a depth of 2-4 km since no surface slip was reported at that time.
Figure 11 - 1934 surface break. Inferred co-seismic rupture (thick red line), superimposed on SRTM
topography. Red and white stars are instrumental and macroseismic epicentres of 1934 (Chen and
Molnar, 1977) and 1833 (Sapkota, 2012) events, respectively. Thin continuous and dashed coloured lines
with roman numbers are 1934 macroseismic isoseismals (MSK64), respectively (Ambraseys and
Douglas, 2004 ; Sapkota, 2012). Dotted black lines are borders. Red arrows with question marks point to
the maximum rupture extent. (Delcailleau 1992, Pandey & Molnar 1988)
Sapkota et al. (2012) use geomorphological mapping of fluvial deposits, palaeo-seismological

logging of river-cut cliffs and trench walls, and modelling of calibrated 14C ages, to show that the
Mw 8.1 Bihar–Nepal earthquake did break the surface: traces of the rupture are clear along at
least 150 km of the MFT fault in Nepal, between 85°50‘ and 87°20‘ E. Furthermore, they date
collapse wedges in the Sir Valley and find that the 7 June 1255 earthquake, an event that
devastated Kathmandu and mortally wounded the Nepalese King Abhaya Malla, also ruptured
the surface along this stretch of the mega-thrust. Thus, in the past 1,000 years, two great
earthquakes, 679 years apart, rather than one giant eleventh-century AD event, contributed to
the frontal uplift of young river terraces in eastern Nepal (Sapkota et al. 2012). This study clearly
highlights that surface ruptures of other reputedly blind great Himalayan events might exist.
 The Mw 8.5 Assam (1950) earthquake
The northeastern region of India has generated two great earthquakes (1897 and 1950, both
M>8). The 1897 earthquake occurred on the Shillong Plateau, and the 1950 earthquake
occurred on the Assam syntaxis, the northeastern part of the Indian plate. A conspicuous
feature of the northeast India seismicity is the ~250 km-long-spatial gap between the ruptures of
1897 and 1950, designated as the ―Assam Gap‖, (Khattri and Wyss, 1978; Khattri et al., 1983).
This earthquake is a rare historical earthquake that has also been instrumentally recorded. The
earthquake was located at Rima, near the Indo-China border (Tandon, 1954); it has been
assigned a magnitude of 8.6–8.7 (Richter, 1958). It was most damaging in the Upper Assam
and produced remarkable changes in the topography of the Upper Brahmaputra valley. The
riverbeds were heavily silted, leading to floods and shifts in the course of rivers. The estimated
acceleration on alluvium was 0.5 g (Ben-Menahem et al., 1974).
The aftershocks originally located by Tandon (1954) and relocated by Chen and Molnar (1977)
were distributed over a wide zone that suggest a complex pattern of rupture, which was
interpreted as a consequence of activation of subsidiary faults (Ben-Menahem et al., 1974). The
focal mechanism of the main event obtained by the same authors suggested a mechanism
dominated by strike–slip faulting. The two suggested planes were in the NNW–SSE and ESE–
WSW directions, the former supported by the regional structural trend (Mishmi and Lohit
Thrusts) as well as distribution of initial aftershocks. Chen and Molnar (1977) suggested thrust
faulting on an easterly striking, northward dipping fault at the eastern end of the Himalayan plate
boundary and strike–slip motion along the adjacent NNW striking plate boundary in Burma.
Focal mechanisms of more recent earthquakes reported by Chen and Molnar (1977) also show
a large component of thrust faulting along and near the eastern end of the Himalaya plate
boundary, suggesting that a combination of strike slip and thrust mechanisms is possible for the
1950 earthquake.
Conclusions
Although evidence for large earthquake along the Himalaya range remains likely incomplete for
older periods, from updated seismic compilations, some statements can be advanced.
The abbreviated rupture dimensions of the 1905 earthquake imply that less than 10–13% of the
1000 km region of the Himalaya west of the 1833 and 1934 Nepal–Bihar earthquakes has
ruptured in a great earthquake in the past 200 years, and several additional great earthquakes
appear to be necessary to rupture the remaining region of the western Himalaya (Ambraseys &
Bilham 2000, Molnar & Pandey 1989).
2.4.2. Instrumental seismicity: macro- and microseismicity
Along the 2500 km long Himalayan arc, given the dominance of thrust-type focal mechanism
(Figure 12), earthquake occurrence processes along the Himalayan arc are explained by the
under-thrusting of the Indian plate beneath the overriding wedge of the Himalaya (e.g., Seeber
and Armbruster, 1981; Molnar, 1990). The model is analogue to the other plate boundaries
where seismicity is a product of subduction tectonics (Bilek 2010 and reference therein).
Measurements of crustal deformation across the Himalaya reveal that about 2 cm/year of the
India-Eurasia convergence (Bilham et al. 1997, Molnar 1990) is accommodated in the Himalaya
through stick and slip manner on seismically active detachment under the Outer and Lesser
Himalaya (Molnar 1990, Seeber & Armbruster 1981).
Earthquakes distribution
In the widely accepted seismotectonic models for the Himalaya (Ni & Barazangi 1984, Seeber et
al. 1981), referred to as steady state and evolutionary models, the great and major earthquakes
in the Himalaya occur on the northward gently dipping (with a dip of about 5-10º) seismically
active detachment under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya (Figure 13c). The presence of this part
of the detachment, viewed as the contact surface between the underthrusting Indian plate and
the overriding Himalayan wedge, is mainly inferred from the great earthquake source models
(Molnar 1990, Ni & Barazangi 1984, Seeber et al. 1981), balanced geological cross sections
(Powers et al. 1998, Schelling & Arita 1991, Srivastava & Mitra 1994) and studies based on
active seismic experiments (Rajendra Prasad et al. 2011). Further north, under the Higher and
Tethys Himalaya, the detachment slips aseismically (Figure 13c). This part of the aseismically
dipping detachment has been mapped extensively using various techniques, e.g., seismic
reflection (Zhao et al. 1993), receiver function (Nábělek et al. 2009, Kumar et al. 2006a, Oreshin
et al. 2008, Rai et al. 2006, Singh et al. 2010, Zhao et al. 2010) and magnetotelluric studies
(Arora et al. 2007, Lemmonier et al. 1999, Unsworth 2010, Unsworth et al. 2005).
Figure 12 - Major earthquakes along the Himalayan arc (Avouac et al. 2001). The star indicates the
location of the Budhi Gandaki dam project.
Another notable feature of the Himalayan seismicity is that small and moderate magnitude
earthquakes tend to concentrate in a narrow and dense belt following the Himalaya tectonic
zone close to the downdip edge of the seismically active detachment (Molnar 1990, Ni &
Barazangi 1984, Seeber et al. 1981) or more specifically in the transition zone between the
seismically active detachment to the south and the aseismically slipping detachment to the
north (Figure 13a and c). This zone of concentrated earthquakes, in the Central crystalline rock,
which is at about 20 km depth and in surface only 20-30 km wide, criss-crosses the Main
Central Thrust (MCT) and is referred to as the Himalayan Seismic Belt (HSB).
In a few balanced geological cross sections, the transition zone that connects the subhorizontal
detachment on either side (Gahalaut & Kalpna 2001, Yin 2006) is marked with the mid-crustal
ramp that dips at 20-30°. The role of the mid-crustal ramp in producing the more frequent
occurrence of small and moderate earthquakes in the narrow HSB is widely accepted, although
its precise geometry as well the mechanism that causes these earthquakes are not fully
understood. The ramp has not directly been mapped and is only inferred from the methods
listed above. In many cross-sections and interpretations the two flats (the seismically active
detachment under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya and the aseismically slipping detachment
under the Higher and Tethys Himalaya) in the transition zone have been connected through
detachment with a gentle fault without any ramp with a steeper dip. So the presence of the mid-
crustal ramp remains conceptual and its location coincides with the HSB (Pandey et al. 1995).
In addition to the seismicity band parallel to the axis of the Himalaya, there exist transverse
features that are characterized by shallower clusters of seismicity in the depth range of 6 km
that may display extensive or strike-slip dislocation (Gahalaut & Arora 2011). These clusters
demarcate the plate boundary into subsections with variable space–time clustering of
epicentres (Figure 13a). Figure 13b shows the variation of Himalayan seismicity along the
curved Himalayan arc in terms of occurrence frequency of earthquakes of magnitude M>4.5,
calculated using running 50 km wide windows (sliding with a step of 1 km) for the period
between 1964 and 2010 (e.g. Gaur et al. 1985, Khattri & Tyagi 1983). Therefore, the Budhi
Gandaki dam project is located ~20 km south of the HSB, between the Faizabad and Munger-
Saharsa ridges (Figure 13b), in a zone where the seismicity is relatively low and fairly scattered
(between 82°E and 86.5°E) (Gahalaut & Arora 2011). Yet, the b-values estimated using the
earthquake data for the period 1963-2006 for central Nepal Himalaya region is 1.15, which
suggests that the region is highly compressed (Chandra 1978, Verma & Kumar 1987).
Moderate earthquake (4.5>M>6) can sometimes also occur in the Great Himalayan zone due to
thrusts reactivation. Out-of-sequence thrusts cannot represent a steady-state condition for
Himalayan slip since they would not explain the geological observation of occasional slip on the
basal thrust systems and MFTs. However, it is possible that excessive recent erosion of the
Himalayan foothills may have upset the uniform taper of the Himalayan accretionary wedge
such that adjustments are now underway that result in a predominance of high-level thrusting
interspersed with infrequent basal thrusts (Paudyal 2012).
Figure 13 - a) Earthquakes (M>4.5) for the period of 1964 to 2010 (International Seismological Centre,
ISC, catalogue) superimposed over a smooth topographic map the Himalaya and Tibetan region together
with major faults (Larson et al. 2010, Mukul et al. 2007, Wobus et al. 2005), rifts in the Tibetan plateau
(Gansser 1964) and subsurface ridges in the Indo-Gangetic plains (Armijo et al. 1986, Yin 2006). The
ruptures of earthquakes of M>7.2 of past 200 years in the Himalayan arc are shown by red rounded
rectangles and ellipses and their year of occurrence and magnitudes are marked in (b). Ruptures of 1905
Kangra earthquake is after Wallace et al.,2005; 1803 after Rajendran and Rajendran (2005); 1833
Kathmandu and 1934 Nepal Bihar after Hough and Bilham (2005); and 1950 Assam earthquake after
Molnar (2008). The 1897 Shillong Plateau (SP) earthquake (Bilham and England, 2001) is also shown for
reference. The motion of India plate in a global reference frame and with respect to Eurasia is shown by
the arrows. (b) Variation of Himalayan seismicity (M>4.5) in an overlapping and sliding 50 km wide
windows (sliding with a step of 1 km) for the period between 1964 and 2010 along the curved Himalayan
arc. The mean and 1σ standard deviation of the seismicity in each window are marked with dashed line.
Ruptures of great and major earthquakes (rounded red rectangles) and the subsurface ridges are also
shown. (c) A general north-south vertical cross section across the Himalayan arc showing the seismically
active and aseismically slipping detachment. The location of the high seismicity belt (HSB) is also shown
which is coincidental with the transition zone between the two detachments with contrasting nature that
either connected through a flat or a mid-crustal ramp. DHR- Delhi- Hardwar ridge; FR- Faizabad ridge;
MSR- Munger-Saharsa ridge; MFT- Main Frontal Thrust, MBT- Main Boundary Thrust; MCT- Main
Central Thrust (Bilham & England 2001).
The microseismic activity patterns have been evaluated in the neighbourhood of the Budhi
Gandaki dam to assess if spatial relation exists between lineament and recent seismicity (Figure
14). The ISC earthquake catalogue (1964-2013) was processed and the space and time
distribution of the seismic activity in the study area were examined. No seismic clustering has
been distinguished in the 50 km area around the dam. Most of the earthquake occurred 20 km
north of the dam in the ―microseismic belt‖ with no specific alignment. The closest M>4 recorded
seismic events are located:
 16 km to the west with M≈4.5;
 22 km to the east-southeast with M≈4.2; and
 13 km to the north with M≈4.8.
Figure 14 - Instrumental seismicity in the neighborood of the Budhi Gandaki dam (yellow pinpoint) from
the ISC earthquake catalogue (1964-2013) on a Google Earth image.
Seismicity variations along the arc and possible origins
Although GPS measurements do not show any significant variation in the rate of convergence
along the arc (Banerjee et al. 2008), seismicity, as mentioned above, shows strong evidence of
along-strike heterogeneity (Figure 13), both in terms of spatial segmentation and diversity in
source mechanisms (Kayal 2001, 2003, Khattri & Tyagi 1983).
The variation in rheology and structural complexity may cause redistribution of strains which in
turn may be responsible for the variation of the seismicity along the Himalayan arc. Such
structural variations may be intricately related to the change in the geometry of the
underthrusting Indian plate or more simply variation in the sediment flux going down with the
underthrusting plate (Sahoo et al., 1998).
In addition, some of the Indian shield structures are shown to extend as sub-surface ridges into
the Himalaya (Valdiya, 1976; Singh and Singh, 1997; Raval, 2000). Further, there are various
other transverse features, e.g., faults, rifts and nappe, on the overriding wedge of the Himalaya
and Tibet that can affect locations, seismic moments, rupture and slip histories of earthquakes
(Scholz and Small, 1997; Cahill and Isacks, 1992; Ruff, 1989; Robinson et al., 2006; Bilek,
2007; Das and Watts, 2009; Watts et al., 2010).
These along-strike variations in seismicity have two possible seismogenic implications (Bollinger
et al. 2004):
 that fault remains fully locked during the interseismic period and coseismic slip
distributions during successive events would sum up to a uniform cumulative slip
distribution; or
 that strain over a significant fraction of the interseismic period is heterogeneous due to
persistent asperities, possibly with a structural origin and may account for the varied
earthquake mechanisms in different parts of the Himalaya.
In recent articles, Gahalaut and Kundu (2012) and Gahalaut and Arora (2011) analysed the
cause of seismicity variation in the entire Himalayan region and Arora et al. (2012) analysed
how the seismicity of the Himalayan arc is influenced by the continuation of subsurface ridges
from the Indo-Gangetic Plains, by the presence of the mid-crustal ramp under the southern
Higher Himalaya, rift and nappe structures in the overriding wedge in the northwest part of
Himalaya.
Spatial clustering of large earthquakes is observed on the eastern boundary of the Central Gap.
The earthquakes originating on the basal detachment may follow episodic behaviour
corresponding to plate convergence. The out-of-sequence events may be more random as they
follow the wedge deformation (Rajendran & Rajendran 2011).
2.4.3. Seismic and slip deficit
Re-evaluated estimates of the magnitudes of Himalayan earthquakes since 1500 (Ambraseys &
Douglas 2004) permit an estimation of the convergence rate between India and Tibet during the
past five centuries.
Figure 15 illustrates a plot of the past 250 years of velocity vs. time estimated by Bilham and
Ambraseys (2004). Large earthquakes instantaneously raise the apparent Himalayan
convergence rate; in the absence of (all) earthquakes, the apparent convergence rate decays to
zero. To account for missing slip represented by the numerous small earthquakes not
documented in the historical earthquake record the authors increase the numerical estimate by
30% (Ambraseys and Sarma, 1999). Despite this precaution, the convergence rate estimated
from the cumulative seismic moment in the Himalaya (4 mm/year to the western and central
Himalaya and 7 mm/year to the eastern chain) falls far below the rates inferred from GPS
measurements across the arc (~18 mm/year). The calculated rate (≈5 mm/yr) is less than one
third of the convergence rate observed from GPS measurements in the past decade (16-18
mm/yr). The missing slip is equivalent to four 8.2<Mw<8.6 earthquakes (Figure 15), events that
are unlikely to have escaped note in the historical written record (Bilham and Ambraseys, 2004).
Figure 15 - The slip rate estimated from seismic moment release since 1500 (Bilham and Ambraseys,
2004) based on all known historical earthquakes (dark shading), with an estimated increase to account
for missing events (light grey shading- but see Ambraseys and Sarma, 1999). The top dashed line is the
convergence rate inferred from geodetic (14-18 mm/year) and geological data (20 mm/year, Avouac,
2003). The slip deficit is equivalent to two, or possibly as many as four, M=8.6 earthquakes. Alternative
explanations proposed by Bilham and Ambraseys (2004) for the apparent slip deficit are summarized in
the text.
The most obvious explanation for the discrepancy (assuming that no substantial earthquakes
are missing in the 500 year record), is that 500 years is insufficient time to record a complete
earthquake cycle in the Himalaya. Yet this conclusion brings with it the unwelcome inference
that several Mw>8 earthquakes are overdue, especially in the western and central segments of
the Himalaya (Bilham & Ambraseys 2004).
Other (less probable) explanations have been considered by Bilham and Ambraseys (2004),
however, to permit plate boundary slip to have occurred without causing widespread
devastation:
1. Creep processes may prevail at the plate boundary?

 Geodetic measurements indicate that creep on the décollement between the
Himalaya and the Indian plate occurs only north of the Greater Himalaya, but
detailed measurements of this process exist only in the Nepal Himalaya at
present (Bilham & Ambraseys 2004). Geodetic measurements suggest that
during the interseismic period, the Siwalik, Lesser Himalaya, and central ranges
are transported bodily northward, effectively locked to the Indian plate. However,
two examples of creep have been described - one on the Nahan thrust in the
Dehra Dun region (Sinvhal et al. 1973), and the other associated with uplift
recorded in the lesser Himalaya of Nepal (Molnar 1984). The second of these
accounts for less than 3% of the convergence signal, since it appears to be
driven by the strain field developed in the Greater Himalaya, rather than by creep
propagating southward on the décollement.
2. Moderate earthquakes may release a substantial amount of plate boundary slip?

 Although seismic moment release on some plate boundaries can be significant
(Ambraseys & Sarma 1999), the case for moderate earthquakes making a
substantial contribution to moment release in the Himalaya is weak. The reason

for this is that moderate earthquakes in the past century are confined largely to
the transition zone between the locked and creeping Indian plate. They are too
far north to contribute to slip on the plate boundary, where the long-term
geological rate is observed to equal the present-day geodetic rate (Bilham &
Ambraseys 2004).
3. Slow earthquakes may release large amounts of slip without radiating seismic
energy?
 If slow earthquakes occur, or if a substantial component of an historical great
earthquake is caused by slip that does not radiate seismic energy, this would
result in the seismic moment of historic earthquakes being underestimated.
 Slow earthquakes imply reduced frictional sliding, and some investigators have
suggested that gently-dipping ruptures may be accompanied by modes of failure
that do not permit seismic radiation to escape into the body of the Earth. Brune et
al. (1993) argues for low friction during southward propagation of Himalayan
ruptures through processes of ripple detachment of the fault surfaces. Avouac
(2003) argues that the décollement may have low friction as suggested by an
electrical resistivity anomaly suggestive of high fluid pressures on the plate
boundary. The recent Chi-Chi earthquake was associated with large slip on a
shallow dipping fault (Bilham & Ambraseys 2004).
4. The magnitudes of Himalayan earthquakes are systematically underestimated by

observed intensities?
 The relationship between Ms and Mw established by Ambraseys and Douglas
(2004) is assumed to be linear for Mw>8.2, however, only one earthquake larger
than 8.2 has occurred in the instrumental catalogue (earthquake of Assam in
1950). This would have the effect of the Ms/Mw scale saturating at large Mw
(Bilham & Ambraseys 2004).
 The Mw of other Himalayan earthquakes would thus need to be increased to
bring the apparent release rate closer to the observe convergence rate.
 However, shaking from long ruptures, or multiple ruptures, is likely to increase
the duration of shaking, causing damage to some structures that would otherwise
stand, and increasing the severity of liquefaction in some lowland areas (Bilham
& Ambraseys 2004).
Another important conclusion derived from the evolving time-space diagram of Himalayan
earthquakes (Figure 6) is that nowhere do we see the repeat of a great earthquake in
Himalayan history. This suggests that the recurrence interval for great Himalayan earthquakes
is possibly 500-900 years. Given a geodetic convergence rate in the Himalaya of 14-19
mm/year, this implies that when such earthquakes occur they release at least 8 m and possibly
as much as 16 m of slip on the frontal faults. That none of the earthquakes of the past two
centuries have produced slip on the frontal faults can suggest three hypotheses:
 earthquakes may have been abnormally small events;
 ruptures are blind or have not been discovered yet; or
 strain is accumulating until the next earthquake.
2.4.4. Interseismic deformation and seismic cycle
Active thrusting of India under the Tibetan Plateau gives rise to great earthquakes that rupture
the interseismically locked superficial portion of the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT) system.
Long-term uplift in the Nepalese Himalaya
In sub-Himalayan Nepal, uplifted abandoned Holocene terraces on the hanging wall of the Main
Frontal Thrust (MFT), the southernmost branch of the MHT system, have recorded active
folding with uplift rates up to 1.5 cm/yr. This indicates that as much as 21.5 ± 1.5 mm/yr of
horizontal shortening (nearly the whole convergence rate across the Himalaya) is localized slip
along the ramp-and-flat geometry of the MFT (Lavé & Avouac 2001). Yet, the most prominent
topographic step associated with the continental collision, often called the physiographic
transition 2 (PT2), is located ~100 km north of the MFT, at the front of the High Himalaya
(Figure 16). There, steep topographic slopes coincide with a secondary local maximum in the
bimodal long-term uplift profile (Figure 17). These features have been explained by the flat-
ramp-flat geometry of the MHT, with the localized zone of uplift in the hinterland marking the
presence of an underlying mid-crustal ramp (e.g. Cattin & Avouac 2000). Another interpretation
for locally enhanced exhumation rates ~100 km north of the MFT relies on out-of-sequence
activation of a new fault partly coinciding with the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the northernmost
branch of the MHT system, with the possible additional contribution of intense rainfall along the
orographic barrier (e.g. Hodges et al. 2004, Wobus et al. 2005).
During the interseismic period, the shallowest portion of the MHT is fully locked from the sub-
Himalaya to beneath the Higher Himalaya. Constraining the location of the locking boundary
within the MHT should permit pinpointing which up-dip portion of the MHT contributes most to
long-term uplift in the Himalaya: a steep fault emerging near the MCT or the ramp-flat
connection to the MFT. The question is still under debate.
Current uplift in the Nepal Himalaya
In their InSAR stack, Grandin et al. (2012) observe a band of uplifting terrain aligned with the
trend of the Himalaya, ~25 km south of the highest peaks (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The
location (~100 km north of the MFT), amplitude (5–7 mm/yr), and spatial wavelength (50 km) of
the peak uplift measured by InSAR are consistent with previous levelling measurements in the
Kathmandu area (east-central Nepal) (Bilham et al. 1997). The microseismicity along the MHT
is in agreement with the position of the uplifted band in the zone of increasing Coulomb stress
(Pandey et al. 1995). Finally, the maximum gradient of interseismic horizontal shortening
measured by GPS in central Nepal is co-located with the peak uplift detected by InSAR (Figure
17).
Figure 16 - Vertical interseismic uplift in central Nepal (Grandin et al. 2012).
MCT - Main Central Thrust; MBT - Main Boundary Thrust; MFT - Main Frontal Thrust. Interferometric
synthetic apertur radar (InSAR) and leveling (Jackson and Bilham, 1994) measurements of the vertical
velocity are color coded from blue (subsidence) to red (uplift). Profiles A–A’ and B–B’ are shown in Figure
18. White circles represent the microseismic activity between 2000 and 2008 recorded by the National
Seismological Centre of Nepal. Small and large white triangles indicate the locations of the peaks with
elevation above 7200 m and 8000 m, respectively (A— Annapurna; D—Dhaulagiri M—Manaslu; X—
Xishapangma). PT2—physiographic transition 2 (Wobus et al. 2005).
The simplest hypothesis on the cause of interseismic strain in Nepal is continuous aseismic
creep on the deep portion of the MHT, while its shallow portion from the latitude of the High
Himalaya to the MFT is locked (Figure 17) (Vergne et al. 2001). Based on inversions of geodetic
data, Grandin et al. (2012) suggest that lateral variations of the properties of the MHT (fault
geometry and slip rate) between West-central Nepal and East-central Nepal are small and
proposed an alternative model for interseismic deformation with a fault dipping at 3°-7°, buried
at a depth of 20-24 km, with a slip rate of 18–21 mm/yr. The inferred deep creeping portion of
the MHT appears to correspond to a seismically-imaged low-velocity zone under southern Tibet
(Nábělek et al. 2009).
Figure 17 - Geometry of the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT) (Grandin et al. 2012).
Upper panel: Profiles perpendicular to the mountain range in west-central (left) and east-central Nepal
(right) showing the horizontal velocities derived from GPS and the vertical velocities derived from
interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) and leveling. Geodetic data have been projected along
the profiles indicated in Figure 16. Error bars denote 1uncertainties on GPS velocities. Uncertainties on
leveling and InSAR are 0.2–2.8 mm/yr and 0.7–3.1 mm/yr, respectively. Colored curves correspond to
modeled interseismic deformation using a buried-fault model. West-central Nepal (red): dip = 6.5°, depth
= 24.1 km, slip rate = 20.6 mm/yr. East-central Nepal (green): dip = 7.4°, depth = 24.2 km, slip rate = 19.6
mm/yr. The modeled deformation in west-central Nepal has been duplicated on the right panel for
comparison (dashed red line).
Middle panel: Stack of six denudation profiles determined from a study of river incision (black line; Lavé
and Avouac, 2001). Note that the same vertical scale is used to represent interseismic uplift and
denudation rates. The average topographic profi le is indicated in gray, with envelope showing minimum
and maximum elevations in an ~100-km-wide box centered on the main profiles.
Lower panel: Geometry of the two inverted dislocations (red and green lines) represented on typical cross
sections, showing main faults at depth (STD— South Tibetan Detachment; ITSZ—Indus Tsangpo Suture
Zone) (Lavé and Avouac, 2001). Blue histogram shows distribution of seismic activity along the profile.
Vertical exaggeration in lower panel is two times.
Comparison of long-term and current uplift and implications for seismic cycle
Current deformation measured by geodesy indicates that deep aseismic creep terminates at the
bottom of the mid-crustal ramp, which is consistent with full locking of the ramp and frontal flat
during the interseismic period. Great historical earthquakes are believed to be caused by
rupture of this locked portion of the fault system, thereby compensating for the deformation
accumulated during the interseismic period.
However, due to the nonplanar geometry of the MHT, permanent deformation is expected to
remain after each seismic cycle, which should be manifested by a net uplift centred above the
mid-crustal ramp. Indeed, accretion likely proceeds by discontinuous ramp jumps toward the
foreland, leading to the formation of a crustal-scale duplex (Schelling 1992). Migration of the
ramp is expected to produce a gradual southward migration of the topographic front that would
tend to be lessened by erosion. Therefore, in the case of rapid erosion processes, a steady-
state situation should emerge, where the peak of long-term uplift, corresponding roughly to the
location of the ramp, should be at any time located ~20 km south of the peak of transient
interseismic uplift (Figure 18 case A) (Cattin & Avouac 2000).
Figure 18 - Seismic cycle, topographic construction, and long-term evolution of the Main Himalayan
Thrust (MHT). Three models showing possible spatial relationship between interseismic uplift profile
(green curve at top), long-term uplift profile (black curve at top), and microseismicity (blue histogram at
top) as a function of the underlying processes taking place within the seismogenic crust (Cattin & Avouac
2000).
On the other hand, the study of trans-Himalayan river profiles indicates that the locus of
maximum long-term uplift is actually situated at the same latitude as the interseismic uplift peak
measured by geodesy from InSAR and levelling (Figure 16).
This spatial correspondence conflicts with the prediction. Grandin et al. (2012) discussed two
possible scenarios to account for this correspondence (Figure 18):
1. Out-of-sequence thrusting at the south of the MCT?

 To explain a co-located long-term and interseismic uplift, Wobus et al. (2005)
recently proposed a mechanism of out-of-sequence activation of a new thrust
fault intersecting the surface 0–35 km to the south of the mapped trace of the
MCT, and outcropping near the break in topographic slope identified as a
physiographic transition (PT2) (Figure 18 case B). However, the geodetic
inversions of Grandin et al. (2012) show that the base of the locked portion of the
MHT is located at a depth of ~20 km, between 0 km and 20 km to the north of
PT2 (Figure 17). This implies an extremely high dip angle for this hypothesized
fault (45°-90°), incompatible with theoretical constraints on reverse fault
geometry provided rock mechanics (Grandin et al. 2012).
2. Ramp migration and delayed erosion?

 The observed coincidence between the peak of interseismic uplift (marking the
surface projection of the locked-to-unlocked transition on the MHT, above the
base of the ramp) and the peak of long-term uplift (marking the average position
of the ramp over a period of time greatly exceeding the duration of a seismic
cycle) indicate a system out-of-equilibrium. The co-located peaks could be
compatible with delayed erosional response to a recent southward migration of
the ramp (Grandin et al. 2012). Considering a fixed geometry for the MHT (Cattin
& Avouac 2000) and erosion operating on timescales of 0.1-1 Myr (Lavé &
Avouac 2001), the preservation of a coincidence between the two peaks requires
an apparent ramp migration velocity of 20-200 mm/yr. This rate largely exceeds
the average overthrusting rate of 5 mm/yr inferred from the thermal structure of
the Nepal Himalaya for the past 10 Myr (Bollinger et al. 2006, Herman et al.
2010). Therefore, the observations of Grandin et al. (2012) indicate that a
southward jump of the mid-crustal ramp has taken place recently in central Nepal
(83°E–86°E), adding support to the idea that underplating, which is capable of
maintaining the steep topography of the High Himalaya in the long term, is a
discontinuous process in time.
2.4.5. Synthesis
Quantitative estimates of the moment-magnitudes of numerous Himalayan earthquakes permit

comparison of the observed geodetic convergence rate with that inferred from the release of
seismic moment in the past 500 years. Earthquakes have apparently released less than one-
third of the geodetic convergence (Bilham & Ambraseys 2004).
Recurrence intervals might have been underestimated because surface ruptures were not
investigated in details (Sapkota et al. 2012).
Out-of-sequence reactivation of thrust could occur (Mukul et al. 2007, Wobus et al. 2005).
The repartition of great historical earthquakes along the chain and their presumed associated
surface rupture and the seismic gaps of comparable dimensions suggest that a portion of the
faults are currently locked, potential slip accumulating almost entirely as elastic strain.
The Budhi Gandaki dam project is thus located in an area of a current seismic gap, immediately
to the west of the 1934 Bihar rupture zone and to the east of the 1905 Kangra earthquake. This
region has been termed the ―Central Himalayan seismic gap‖ by Khattri and Tyagi (1983) and
Khattri (1987), since no major event has occurred in the area since 1505. The study of Katthri
(1987) suggests that this great earthquake was preceded as well as followed by long periods (>
19 years) of decreased activity in the epicentral regions. They observe that a remarkable
decrease in the seismicity following 1970 has been observed in the western half of the Central
gap, suggesting the existence of an asperity.
Considering that the current convergence rate of 16-18 mm/yr has prevailed since 1505, the so-
called Central gap may have accumulated as much as 9 m of slip, sufficient to drive an Mw 8.2
earthquake (Bilham et al. 2002). Assuming a renewal time of ~500 years, the Central Himalaya
is considered to be ready for the next great earthquake.
2.5. NEAR FIELD GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMOTECTONIC FRAMEWORK OF

THE BUDHI GANDAKI DAM
The Lesser Himalayan rock, where the Budhi Gandaki dam project is located, is bounded by the
Main Boundary thrust (MBT) to the south and Main Central thrust (MCT) to the north and
consists of unmetamorphosed and greenschist facies rock with a stratigraphic thickness of ~10
km (Upreti, 1999). In the study area, the Lesser Himalayan rock mainly consists of a hinterland
dipping duplex north of the Kathmandu klippe (Figure 19). The width of the belt containing
Lesser Himalayan rocks depends on how much of the synformal klippe is eroded. West of 85°E
longitude, the Lesser Himalayan rocks are exposed in a 70 km wide belt, and east of 85°E
longitude where most of the fold-thrust-fold belt is composed of the Kathmandu klippe, the rocks
are exposed in a 10 km belt (Khanal, 2009).
2.5.1. Lithologies close to the Budhi Gandaki dam project
The Budhi Gandaki dam project is located in the Upper Lesser Himalayan rocks consisting of
both siliclastic and carbonate rocks with carbonates dominating the top of section. From bottom
to top, the upper Lesser Himalaya consists of the Fagfog, Dandagaon, Norpul, Dhading,
Benighat, and Malekhu. This nomenclature for the formation is only valid in central Nepal
(Khanal, 2009). In the following part, we will only detail the lithology immediately neighbouring
the dam project, i.e. the Dhading (close to the south of the dam) and the Norpul (basement of
the dam) formations according to Khanal (2009) (Figure 19).
Dhading formation
The Dhading Formation is ~500 m thick, and contains thin-to-massive bedded (0.15-3.0 m)
bluish-gray-white, fine-grained dolostone. Thin (10-20 mm) bands of chert are intercalated with
the dolostone that give a banded appearance to the rock near Trishuli River north of the
Malekhu. In upper part of the formation, finely laminated stromatolites are present. The
dolostone is highly fractured in the lower part of the formation and contains bands of light grey
argillaceous slate. The stratigraphic contact with the overlying Benighat Formation is sharp
(Khanal, 2009).
Norpul formation
The Norpul formation is ~600 m thick and contains phyllite, quartzite and carbonate. Overlying
the Dandagaon formation is a purple quartzite that contains cross stratifications and planar
laminations. Thin (2-5 mm) laminations of green and purple phyllitic slate intercalated with the
quartzite contain mud cracks and ripple marks. The middle part of the formation contains
predominantly dark green, to blue-gray, to red phyllite with variable amount of quartzite and
carbonate. The quartzite is impure, micaceous and is intercalated with phyllite. The carbonate
on top of the middle part has 5-20 cm thick beds of white, green, and pink colour intercalated
with thin bands (10-20 cm) of green phyllite. The carbonate is usually dolomitic and extremely
fine-grained.
The upper part of the formation contains dolomite and dolomitic quartzite intercalated with green
phyllite dominates. Pink-green bands of dolomite and phyllite are present on a fresh outcrop in
Thopal Khola. The contact with the overlying dolomite of the Dhading Formation is transitional
(Khanal, 2009).
2.5.2. Major Structures and their kinematics in the Budhi Gandaki valley
The central Nepal Himalaya consists of six major structural elements, from south to north: the
Main Frontal thrust (MFT), the Main Boundary thrust (MBT), the Lesser Himalayan duplex
including the Trishuli thrust (TT), the Ramgarh thrust (RT), the Main Central thrust (MCT) and
the South Tibetan Detachment system (STDS) (Figure 19). These structures outcrop in the
Budhi Gandaki valley either side of the dam. Their geometry and activity are detailed in the
following parts.
Subhimalayan Thrust system (MFT and MDT)
The thrust system in the Budhi Gandaki area consists of two thrust sheets (Figure 19 and Figure
20).
The southern thrust sheet is bounded by active Main Front Thrust (MFT) to the south and Main
Dun thrust (MDT) to the north. The MFT is the southernmost boundary of the Himalaya and
places sandstone of the middle Siwalik unit over modern alluvial sediments. Although the MFT
is not exposed at the surface, it is mapped at the topographic front of the Siwalik Hills (Schelling
& Arita 1991). Beds dip at 20-25° northward between the MFT and MDT (Shrestha et al. 1984).
The northern thrust sheet is bounded by MDT to the south and the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT)
to the north. The MDT places older lower Siwalik unit over the younger upper Siwalik unit.
Because the MDT carries the lower Siwalik unit in its hanging wall, the thrust must originate at
the base of the Siwalik Group. In the Budhi Gandaki area, the MDT is inferred because of the
repetition of stratigraphy (Khanal 2009) but it is buried beneath sediments of the Rapti River
(Figure 19).
However, the MDT is well exposed 40 km SE of the Budhi Gandaki valley (Pearson 2002). Rock
in the northern thrust sheet has a 65-87° northward dip, and has a monoclinal structure except
some small 5-10 m folds in the lower Siwalik unit. Pearson (2002) suggested a listric shape for
the MFT. The balanced cross-section also shows the listric geometry (Figure 20). Some
researchers propose blind thrusts beneath the Indo-Gangetic plain (e.g. Bashyal 1998, Seeber
& Armbruster 1981); however, Lavé and Avouac (2001) excluded that possibility based on
geomorphic evidence of recent crustal deformation in central Nepal. The MFT and MDT merge
into a single décollement (Mugnier et al. 1992). The décollement lies above the Indian
basement and is 5-6 km under the Siwalik Group (Avouac 2003). This depth to the décollement
is consistent with the drill log data in Raxaul (Sastri et al. 1971), the balanced cross-sections in
Hetaunda-Amlekhgaung (Pearson 2002) and in the Budhi Gandaki valley (Khanal 2009).
Northwards the décollement extends beneath the Lesser Himalaya and roots into a mid-crustal
sub-horizontal shear zone beneath the Higher Himalaya and southern Tibet that could be
imaged from INDEPTH seismic experiments in southern Tibet (Unsworth et al. 2005, Zhao et al.
1993).
The MFT was active from Mid Pliocene-Holocene times (~2 Ma-present day) (Lavé & Avouac
2000).
Main boundary thrust (MBT)
The Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) thrust Lesser Himalyan rocks in the hanging wall over Sub
Himalayan rocks in the footwall (Figure 20). In the Budhi Gandaki area, the MBT is exposed
~300 m NW from a large bend in Manahari Khola (Figure 19) where the Benighat Formation of
the Lesser Himalaya is placed over steeply-dipping younger upper Siwalik unit conglomerate.
Pearson (2002) found that the Lesser Himalayan unit in contact with MBT is the Dandagaon
formation ~40 km east of the valley. In this study area, the unit in the hanging wall of the MBT is
the Benighat Formation as described by Stöcklin (1980). The unit consists of graphitic slate
which is characteristic of the Benighat formation. Shrestha et al. (1984) also show the unit as
Benighat formation. South of the Kathmandu klippe, the MBT has Benighat, Malekhu, and
Robang formations in the hanging wall; however, as shown in Figure 20, the older Lesser
Himalayan units are buried at depth.
Lesser Himalayan Duplex and Trishuli thrust
The majority of the Lesser Himalayan rocks that crop out in the central Nepal Himalaya lies
north of the Kathmandu klippe in a broad anticlinorium defined as the Gorkha-Pokhara
anticlinorium (Pêcher 1977).
The anticlinorium is a hinterland-dipping duplex interpreted from the structure of the Lesser
Himalayan rock, the MCT, the RT, and earthquake seismology. The duplex has four broad
culminations at the surface which consist of asymmetrical and overturned folds (Figure 20).
These types of culminations are common in the Greater and Lesser Himalayan rock in the
Himalayan orogen (Johnson 1994). These culminations indicate the presence of duplex at
depth in the fold-thrust belt (Boyer & Elliott 1982). Four horses (thrust slices) each containing
the entire Lesser Himalayan sequence, are present in central Nepal and each horse has a
thickness of ~7 km.
The northern boundary of the duplex begins in the footwall of the RT, and the southern
boundary is just north of the Kathmandu klippe at the contact between the Kunchha and Fagfog
formations (see point 8 and 12 in Figure 20). The southern boundary displays overturned rocks
that are result of tilting of the Trishuli thrust sheet due to emplacement of the horses during the
duplex formation.
In the anticlinorium, no faults cut across the Kunchha formation at the surface. The roof thrust,
the Trishuli thrust, carries all formations in the Lesser Himalayan rock. At the base of the thrust
sheet within the Kunchha formation, there are 1-15 m folds and crenulation cleavage. Existence
of the Trishuli thrust in the central Nepal is described in Pearson (2002). However, Pearson
(2002) suggested the Trishuli thrust sheet as well as the Lesser Himalayan duplex is composed
solely of duplexed Kunchha formation rocks. Kohn et al. (2004) also suggested upper Lesser
Himalayan rocks under the RT in Langtang area, ~50 km east of the Budhi Gandaki study area.
In addition, at the southern boundary of the Lesser Himalayan duplex, the southern limb of the
Trishuli thrust sheet, an entire sequence of the Lesser Himalayan rock is present. Based on field
observations and stratigraphic constraints (Khanal 2009), the entire upper Lesser Himalayan
rock is used in the Trishuli thrust and in the Lesser Himalayan duplex. DeCelles et al. (2001)
and Robinson et al. (2008, 2003, 2001) suggested the existence of the Lesser Himalayan
duplex in the western Nepalese Himalaya.
Ramgarh Thrust (RT)
The Ramgarh thrust (RT) is an intra-Lesser Himalayan thrust system that emplaces lower
Lesser Himalayan rock over upper Lesser Himalayan rock in central Nepal. This thrust is
described in the Kumaon region of India (Srivastava & Mitra 1994, Valdiya 1980), western
Nepal (DeCelles et al. 2001, Robinson 2008, Robinson et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2003,
Robinson et al. 2001) and central Nepal (Kohn 2008, Kohn et al. 2004, Martin et al. 2005,
Pearson 2002, Pearson & DeCelles 2005). The thrust sheet is parallel to the MCT with the
hanging wall lying flat on top of the footwall, which is composed of the underlying Malekhu
formation in the Budhi Gandaki study area.
In the northern part of the study valley, the RT carries a thick band (0.5- 3 km) of white quartzite
with interbands of green phyllite thrust over the undifferentiated upper Lesser Himalayan rock
(point 11 in Figure 20 (Khanal, 2009)). The footwall of the RT is highly sheared and contains
flow structures. Abundant garnets (>1 cm) with a few kyanite crystals (4-6 cm) are present ~100
m and 500 m, respectively, above the RT (Khanal 2009).
In the Malekhu area near the southern boundary of the Lesser Himalayan duplex, the RT is
thrust on top of the Malekhu Formation. The dominant lithology in the RT sheet in the Malekhu
area is phyllite with ~30 m white Dunga quartzite beds at the base of the section. The top of the
section has Dunga quartzite intercalated with 10-15 cm green phyllite layers and ~20 m thick
amphibolite intrusions. A 1.5 m band of sheared amphibolite is observed ~20 m into the footwall
of the RT in the Malekhu area. The dominant lithology and thickness of the RT sheet gradually
changes from more quartzitic to more phyllitic from north to south along the Budhi-Gandaki
River (Khanal 2009).
In central Nepal, the Trishuli thrust is the roof thrust for the Lesser Himalayan duplex whereas in
western Nepal and Kumaon, India, the RT is the roof thrust for the Lesser Himalayan duplex
(DeCelles et al., 2001; Robinson, et al., 2001; 2003; 2006; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994). The
Trishuli thrust is only identified in central Nepal so the fault might merge with the RT in western
Nepal and Kumaon, India (Khanal 2009).
Main Central Thrust (MCT)
The Main Central Thrust (MCT), in addition to the RT and Lesser Himalayan duplex,
accommodates much of the shortening in the Himalaya. The thrust juxtaposes high-grade
Greater Himalayan rocks over the lower Lesser Himalayan rocks in a flat-on-flat geometry. The
~58° northward dip of the fault is due to tilting and uplifting of the MCT during the development
of the Lesser Himalayan duplex (DeCelles et al. 2001, Robinson et al. 2003).
Many researchers describe the MCT as a broad shear zone with structural and metamorphic
discontinuities. Hashimoto et al. (1973) and Arita (1983) suggested two parallel thrusts, the
Upper Main Central thrust and Lower Main Central thrust, which is equivalent to the Munsiari
and Vaikrita Thrust in India (Valdiya 1980) and equivalent to the MCT and RT in the study of
Khanal (2009). Le Fort (1975) and Colchen et al. (1986) have only one MCT equivalent to the
Upper Main Central thrust. Heim and Gansser (1939); Robinson et al. (2008, 2006, 2001);
Pearson (2002) and Martin et al. (2005) define the thrust as a tectonostratigraphic boundary
that separates Lesser and Greater Himalayan rock. Ambiguity as to the location of the MCT is
an issue because rocks on either side of the MCT are deformed for several kilometres (Arita
1983, Catlos et al. 2001, Hodges et al. 1996, Inger & Harris 1992, Macfarlane et al. 1992);
however, through isotopic and detrital zircon studies (Ahmad et al. 2000, Martin et al. 2005,
Pearson 2002, Robinson et al. 2001) one can unequivocally determine if the unit is Greater
Himalayan or Lesser Himalayan and therefore, determine the location of the MCT.
Le Fort (1975) and Pêcher (1977) describe the MCT in this study area as a ductile shear zone
where a significant break in metamorphism is absent. However, the MCT places Unit I of the
Greater Himalayan rock over the Robang formation of the lower Lesser Himalaya north of the
Gorkha-Pokhara anticlinorium (see Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Foliations in the rock on either side of the MCT are parallel and have a dip of ~60º northward. A
hanging wall flat of the Greater Himalayan rock rests in fault contact on a parallel footwall flat of
the Lesser Himalayan rock. Rocks to the north and south of the MCT show a mylonitic fabric
with top to the south sense of shear (Khanal 2009). The MCT may carry Greater Himalayan
rock into the Kathmandu klippe (Khanal 2009). In Malekhu Khola and the Kakanda areas, the
MCT on the northern part of the Kathmandu klippe, locally called the Mahabharat thrust,
juxtaposes rock of the Raduwa formation of the Greater Himalayan zone over the Robang
formation of the lower Lesser Himalayan rock.
South Tibetan Detachement (STDS)
The South Tibetan Detachment system (STDS) is a low angle top-to-the-north fault system
structurally above Greater Himalayan rock. The fault is a plastic-brittle normal fault juxtaposing
the metasedimentary rocks of the Tibetan Himalayan zone in the hanging wall with
kyanite/sillimanite grade metamorphosed Greater Himalayan rock in the footwall. In the Budhi
Gandaki area, the Annapurna Sanctuary Formation of the Tethyan sequence is in the hanging
wall and the Unit III of the Greater Himalayan rock on footwall. The bottom of the Annapurna
Sanctuary formation is metamorphosed due to movement on the STDS.
In kinematic models, movement on the STDS is defined as a gravitational driven extension,

occurring subparallel to the transport direction of the dominant compressional faults during
convergence (Burchfiel et al. 1992, Grujic et al. 1996, Hodges et al. 1993). In dynamic models,
the STDS is described as an upper boundary of a midcrustal low velocity channel which is
exhumed to the surface due to focused erosion on the topographical front (Beaumont et al.
2001).
2.5.3. Kinematic and restoration of the thrust system
The Himalayan fold-thrust belt propagated from north to south in a forward propagating
sequence as is expected in a conventional wedge model (Davis et al. 1983).
The forward model proposed by Khanal (2009) also shows forward propagation of the
Himalayan thrust belt to gain present day architecture. Khanal (2009) estimated the
displacement for each major thrust, thanks to a balanced cross-section (structurally validated by
forward modelling via 2D Move software):
 the Main Central thrust accommodates 115 km of shortening;

 the Ramgarh thrust accommodates 120 km of shortening;
 the Trishuli thrust accommodates 94 km of shortening;
 the Lesser Himalayan duplex accommodates 62 km of shortening;
 the Main Boundary Thrust accommodates 10 km;
 the Main Dun Thrust accommodates 12 km; and
 the Main Frontal Thrust accommodates 7 km.
In total, the Budhi-Gandaki cross-section accommodates a minimum of 76% or 420 km of

shortening in the Himalayan fold-thrust belt between the South Tibetan Detachment system and
the Main Frontal thrust (Khanal, 2009).
Figure 19 - Geological map of the Central Nepalese Himalaya along the Budhi Gandaki section and dam
location (Khanal, 2009).
Figure 20 - Balanced cross-section through the Central Nepal fold-thrust belt (Khanal 2009). Location of
cross-section line (NE-SW) is shown in Figure 19 (Top). Restored cross-section NE-SW (Bottom). No
vertical exageration.(Khanal, 2009)
2.6. SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN THE BUDHI GANDAKI DAM REGION:

SYNTHESIS
Location of the earthquake source region is pivotal to assess the seismic hazard potential to
any man-made structure. Seismicity data from seismic networks do not show any definite
pattern in the neighbourhood of the Budhi Gandaki dam. Further, we did not find any seismic
clusters or patterns near the dam site in the regional distribution of earthquakes based on data
from the International Seismological Centre. Thus, we will consider potential tectonic features
and historical seismicity for the seismic hazard assessment.
2.6.1. Near-field potential tectonic features
Lineaments on satellite imagery
In the immediate vicinity of the Budhi Gandaki dam project (300 m to the south), satellite images
from Google Earth display a clear E-W lineament (red arrow, Figure 20), whose origin has to be
determined.
Considering a geological map realised by Khanal (2009), this morphological lineament seems to
correspond to a lithological contrast between the Dhading and the Norpul formations (Figure
21).
Figure 21 - Satellite image (Google Earth) of the neighbouring area around the Budhi Gandaki dam
project compared to the corresponding geological map realised by Khanal (2009).
Nevertheless, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that the contact between the two
formations could be tectonic, even if Khanal (2009) did not mention it. Indeed, secondary
thrusting similar kinematically to the Ramgarh Thrust or to the Main Central Thrust could have
occurred at the weak interface between the Norpul and the Dhading formations. Due to the
folding of the Kathmandu klippe, and therefore of the thrust, current kinematic on this structure
should display apparent extensive movements between the two formations.
Hence, in the two hypotheses stated above, this lineament should not be considered as crucial
in the estimation of the seismic hazard assessment around the Budhi Gandaki dam project.
Given that the thrust might not be deeply rooted at depth because of erosion, seismic rupture on
this structure appears unlikely. Yet, these hypotheses need to be confirmed by further
geomorphological and field studies of the potential tectonic features.
Ramgarh Thrust and Main Central Thrust flanking the Kathmandu klippe
The closest faults to the Budhi Gandaki dam project, identified in the literature (Figure 19), are:
 the Ramgarh Thrust segment bordering the northern side of the Kathmandu klippe (~4
km south of the dam)
 the Main Central Thrust bordering the northern side of the Kathmandu klippe (~5 km
south of the dam)
 the Main Central Thrust bordering the southern side of the Kathmandu klippe (~12 km
south of the dam)
 the Ramgarh Thrust segment bordering the southern side of the Kathmandu klippe (~13
km south of the dam)
Given that these segments of thrust are not deeply rooted below the Great Himalaya because of
erosion (Figure 19), these segments of thrust, in the vicinity of the dam, could be considered as
inactive.
2.6.2. The “Central Himalayan seismic gap”
Other faults detailed in section 2.5.2 have to be considered for seismic hazard assessment, i.e.:
 The Main Boundary Thrust, located at ~16 km to the south of the dam
 The Main Dun Thrust, located at ~20 km to the south of the dam
 The Main Frontal Thrust, located at ~30 km to the south of the dam
 The Physiographic Transition 2, located at ~24 km to the north of the dam
 The Main Central Thrust, located at ~28 km to the north of the dam
According to the literature, all these segments of faults are likely to generate fault rupture,
mostly of thrust type (Figure 22).
Figure 22 - Great earthquakes along the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT–MFT). Coloured lines (section dd’)
show fault rupture scenarios and source sizes proposed for different events (Bilham et al. 2001, Feldl &
Bilham 2006, Kayal 2010), mostly of the thrust type. Small red circles: 1<ML <5 earthquakes, mostly in
mid-crustal ramp swarms (Cattin & Avouac 2000) (Sapkota et al, 2012).
Along the Himalaya, the source sizes and recurrence times of large seismic events are
particularly uncertain, since very little seismic surface rupturing were observed on the
Himalayan front during M~8 nineteenth and twentieth century events (Sapkota et al. 2012). The
rare surface expression of these earthquakes implies that surface ruptures of other reputedly
blind great Himalayan events might exist.
Yet, several authors propose that the Central gap is a region of high seismic potential from the
point of view of future great earthquakes (e.g., Khattri 1987; Bilham et al., 2001; Feldl & Bilham
2006, Kayal 2010), and potentially the most dangerous zone in the chain (Figure 23) (Bilham
and Wallace, 2005).
Indeed, the "central Gap", where the Budhi Gandaki dam project is located, is inferred to have
developed 9 m of slip, comparable to the slip thought to have occurred in 1505. We cannot
exclude the possibility that an elapsed period of 500 years may represent all, or a substantial
portion, of the earthquake cycle in central Nepal. A longer recurrence interval would increase
the amount of slip in the central gap to more than 9 m, raising the estimated Mw for a repeat of
the 1505 earthquake to more than Mw=8.7 (> 9m of slip on a 600 km x 80 km rupture) (Bilham
& Ambraseys 2004). Given that geodetic data suggest that aseismic slip at present is negligible,
the slip must occur seismically.
Figure 23 - This view of the Indo-Asian collision zone shows the estimated slip potential along the
Himalaya and urban populations south of the Himalaya (United Nations sources). Shaded areas with
dates next to them surround epicentres and zones of rupture of major earthquakes in the Himalaya and
the Kachchh region. Yellow segments along the bars show the slip potential on a scale of 1 to 10 meters,
that is, the potential slip that has accumulated since the last recorded great earthquake, or since 1800.
The grey portions show possible additional slip permitted by ignorance of the preceding historic record.
Great earthquakes may have occurred in the Kashmir region in the mid-16th century and in Nepal in the
13th century. The bars are not intended to indicate the locus of specific future great earthquakes but are
simply spaced at equal 220-km intervals, the approximate rupture length of the 1934 and 1950
earthquakes. Black circles show population centers in the region; in the Ganges Plain, the region
extending ~300 km south and southeast of the Himalaya, the urban population alone exceeds 40 million.
(Inset) This simplified cross section through the Himalaya indicates the transition between the locked,
shallow portions of the fault that rupture in great earthquakes and the deeper zone where India slides
beneath southern Tibet without earthquakes. Between them, vertical movement, horizontal contraction,
and microearthquake seismicity are currently concentrated (Bilham et al. 2001).
3. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment

(DSHA)
3.1. METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD

ASSESSMENT (DSHA)
3.1.1. Definition of reference earthquakes
From a deterministic point of view, the reference design earthquakes used in the
present study are defined as the following:
- OBE: The Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) is an earthquake that could

reasonably be expected to occur at the structure site during the operating life of
the structure considering the regional and local geology and seismology and
specific characteristics of local subsurface material. For a given site, the OBE is
expressed in terms of the magnitude of the worst earthquake that has occurred
in the 300 km radius from the structure. OBE level of earthquake is expected to
occur at the site on average once in 475 years.
- MDE: The Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) will produce the maximum
level of ground motion for which the dam should be designed or analysed. The
dam should stay ―fail safe‖. For dams whose failure would present a great social
hazard, the MDE will normally be characterized by a level of motion equal to
that induced by the most severe combination of maximum magnitude and
minimum distance to the site independent of the return period. Should the
failure of the dam present no hazard to life, a lower level of ground motion may
be acceptable, based on economic considerations. It is commonly accepted
that the probability of occurrence of the MDE should be about 10% during the
service life (about 100 years). The mean return period of earthquakes
associated to a 10%-risk (MDE) of occurrence during a service life of 100 years
is 950 years (ICOLD, 1989). In the revision of 2010 of ICOLD bulletin (ICOLD,
2010), the SEE (Safety Evaluation Earthquake) replaces the terms MDE used
in the first edition of the bulletin (ie ICOLD, 1989).
- SEE: The Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) is the maximum level of

ground motion of which the dam should be designed or analyzed. It is precised
in ICOLD (2010) that ―for dams whose failure would present a great social
hazard the SEE will normally be characterized by a level of motion equal to that
expected at the dam site from the occurrence of a deterministically-evaluated
maximum credible earthquake or of the probabilistically-evaluated earthquake
ground motion with a very long return period, for example 10,000 years.
Deterministically-evaluated earthquakes may be more appropriate in locations
with relatively frequent earthquakes that occur on well identified sources, for
example near plate boundaries.
These design earthquakes can also be defined from two reference definitions:
- MCE: The Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) is the largest reasonably

conceivable earthquake that appears possible along a recognised fault or within
a geographically defined tectonic province, under the presently known or
presumed tectonic framework. The MCE is generally defined as an upper

bound of the expected magnitude.
- MHPE: The Maximum Historically Probable Earthquake (MHPE)

corresponds to the most penalizing historical earthquake for the site. In general,
we consider on one hand, the intensity induced by the reference earthquake of
the seismotectonic zone to which belongs the site (this earthquake is then
placed in the most unfavorable position, under the site) and on the other hand,
intensity induced by the reference earthquakes of the adjacent zones (similarly,
the earthquakes are placed at the border of the zones in the most unfavorable
position, i.e. nearest, for the studied site).
3.1.2. Principle of determination of reference earthquakes
When no fault is identified, one may use a deterministic approach based on historical
seismicity. Since no active fault has been detected, either near-field and far-field
hazard for the site will also be derived based on historical seismicity.
Also, the principle of determination of reference earthquakes is as follows:
- The studied area is divided into homogeneous seismotectonic zones;
- To each of these seismotectonic zones is attached a reference earthquake from

knowledge about historical and instrumental seismicity;
- For each specific site throughout the studied area the Maximum Historically
Probable Earthquake (MHPE) is determined;
- Thus, two MHPE can be defined corresponding to a near-field (epicentral

distance up to 10 km) and to a far-field source;
- The MCE, the MDE and the OBE are defined using these two sources.
Generally, the Maximum Design Earthquake, MDE (MDE for ICOLD 1989 or SEE for
ICOLD 2010) is chosen to be the MCE for the site. This hypothesis is penalizing for
the site and allows a maximum level of the deterministic hazard to be defined.
Generally we consider on one hand, the intensity inferred by the reference earthquake
of the seismotectonic zone to which one the site belongs (this earthquake is then
placed in the most unfavourable position, under the site) and on the other hand, the
intensity inferred by the reference earthquake of surrounding zones (even there, the
earthquake is placed on the border of zones in the most unfavourable position, i.e.
closer to the site). So, two MCE (or in this case two MDE) can be defined
corresponding respectively to an earthquake in the near field and to an earthquake in
the far field.
3.2. ASSESSMENT OF REFERENCE EARTHQUAKES
3.2.1. Estimation of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)

The MCE is taken to be at least equivalent to the MHPE for the dam area. This MHPE
of the local area is the earthquake of 1505 placed under the site. The depth of the 1505
event is unknown. In a general way, the top of the decollement could be estimated
about 10 km depth (Nábělek et al. 2009). It has been decided to consider, in a
conservative way, a 8 km depth for the MCE. The MCE chosen in this study is,
therefore, a Mw=8.2-8.7 earthquake that occurred under the site, at 8 km depth. In a

conservative way again, we can consider the upper bound of the MHPE magnitude
estimation as MCE. Therefore a magnitude of 8.7 is considered for the MCE.
No earthquake with a magnitude higher than M8.2-8.7 is identified far away from the
site. Therefore only a near-field source (focal distance < 10km) MCE is defined in this
study and no far-field source (distance > 10km) is taken into consideration in the
present study.
A reverse mechanism is considered because of the stress regime in the region (see
§2.4).
3.2.2. Estimation of the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)

Conventionally the mean return period of the MDE is about 950 years. However, it is
quite difficult to estimate the return period of the selected MHPE because it depends on
the completeness of the seismicity catalogue. Nevertheless we can assume that the
return period of such a MHPE is about 500-1000 years (cf. above).
Therefore, it has been decided, in a conservative way, to consider that the maximum
earthquake in the zone (MCE or MHPE) is equivalent to the MDE. Consequently the
MDE is determined here as being the same earthquake as those defined in the
previous part for MCE. If the SEE (as defined in ICOLD, 2010) is considered, it would
be also equivalent to the MCE.
The MDE chosen in this study is, therefore, a Mw=8.2-8.7 earthquake that occurred
under the site, at 8 km depth. A reverse mechanism is also considered because of the
state of stress in the region (see §2.4).
The magnitude is chosen as Mw=8.2 (lower estimation of 1505 earthquake). The lower
estimation of magnitude is chosen here because using for the calculation mean values
plus one standard-deviation is already very conservative (see §3.3.3).
3.2.3. Estimation of the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
In the deterministic approach, it is usual to consider a difference of 0.5 in magnitude (it

is roughly equivalent to a difference of one unit in intensity) between a design
earthquake (the MDE for instance) and an OBE. Consequently the OBE is determined
here as being the same earthquake as those defined in the previous section for MDE
but with magnitudes reduced by 0.5.
Therefore, the OBE chosen in this study is a Mw=7.7 earthquake that occurred under
the site, at 8 km depth. A reverse mechanism is also considered because of the state
of stress in the region (see §2.4).
3.3. DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR A ROCK

SITE
3.3.1. Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs)
Strong motions induced at the Budhi Gandaki dam rock site by the reference
earthquakes (OBE, MDE, MCE) are estimated by means of the most suitable Ground
Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs). This method is statistically more representative
than calculation of a reference ground motion from a single accelerogram.
Bommer et al. (2010) recently proposed a set of exclusion criteria to help in the
selection of ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for seismic hazard
assessments. They propose to start with a complete list of available GMPEs and then
apply their criteria to obtain a set of the most appropriate models for a given project.
These criteria are summarized in Figure 24 (flow chart from Figure 5 of Bommer et al.,
2010). In addition, Bommer et al. (2010) list eight GMPEs that pass all their criteria: six
models are for active regions (e.g. California) and two are for stable regions.
Owing to the seismotectonic context of the studied area, we will use the 6 relations
selected by Bommer et al. (2010) for active regions. They are used for the calculation
of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and elastic response spectra, when allowed by
their validity domains in magnitude and distance: Akkar and Bommer (2010),
Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2008), Chiou and Youngs (2008) and Zhao (2006).
The six selected GMPEs chosen are listed in Table 1 along with their associated
parameters and the characteristics of the data used in their derivation.
R range
Model Abbreviation Area records M range M scale R metric
(km)
Akkar &
Bommer ab10 EMME 532 5.0-7.6 Mw 0-100 RJB
(2010)
Abrahamson
California
& Silva as08
+worldwide 2754 5.0-8.5 Mw 0-200 Rrup
(2008)
Boore &
California
Atkinson ba08 1574 4.0-8.5 Mw 0-400 RJB
+worldwide
(2008)
Campbell &
California
Bozorgnia cb08
(2008)
Chiou &
California
Youngs cy08
(2008)
Zhao et al. Japan
zetal06
(2006) +worldwide 4726 5.0-8.3 Mw 0-300 Rrup
Table 1 - Characteristics of GMPEs chosen for this study (see below for abbreviations).
Where Area is the area for which the model was derived (EMME is Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle
East), R is number of records, M range is magnitude range, M is magnitude scale, R range is distance range, R
metric is distance metric used ( RJB is distance to the surface projection of rupture (Joyner-Boore distance) and
Rrup is distance to rupture).
It must be noticed that to our knowledge, there are no strong-motion records available
from the epicentral zones of crustal earthquakes such as those considered in this study
with magnitudes larger than 8. For example, the very recent strong-motion database
compiled from worldwide data for the NGA West 2 project (Ancheta et al., 2014)
contains no records from events larger than Mw 7.9 (their figure 2). Consequently none
of the selected GMPEs are constrained by data for the largest earthquake scenarios
considered here (MCE=MDE, Mw 8.2-8.7) and they are poorly constrained for the other
scenario (OBE, Mw 7.7) where there are also very few records. However, the GMPEs
used here were selected because the developers adopted functional forms (e.g.
inclusion of quadratic-magnitude terms) that model the saturation of ground motions for
very large earthquakes, which has been observed in many past events. Consequently
even if the GMPEs are extrapolated beyond the range where data are available they
are unlikely to predict motions that are unrealistically large, which would have been the
case if GMPEs assuming linear scaling with magnitude had been used.
Figure 24 - Flowchart of considerations by ground-motion modelers in order to produce

predictive equations that will be routinely applicable to state-of-the-art seismic hazard analyses.
Those shown in bold text are considered indispensable; those in italics are the least important
(Bommer et al., 2010).
For each of these GMPEs, we used in a first stage the relations giving a 50%-
exceedence probability accelerations, rather than the relations with a standard
deviation (84%-exceedence probability). Indeed, the international commissions (as
ICOLD, in 1989 or USCOLD, in 1996 for dam structures) indicate that the relations in
50 % are sufficiently conservative considering the safety margins in the other phases of
the design and execution. Furthermore, the deterministic seismic hazard assessment
methodology adopted in the present study is rather conservative.
Nevertheless ICOLD (2010) recommend that for extreme or high consequence dams
the SEE ground motion parameters should be estimated at the 84th percentile level if
developed by a deterministic approach.
The near-field OBE horizontal elastic response spectra are estimated for a rock site
from the six GMPEs quoted previously. On the other hand, because of their domain of
validity in magnitudes, only five relations can be used for the near-field MCE=MDE:
Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2008), Chiou and Youngs (2008) and Zhao (2006). The one of Akkar and Bommer
GMPE (2010) is not appropriate for magnitudes higher than 7.7.
The 5% damping horizontal elastic response spectra for the Budhi Gandaki dam rock
site are drawn by following an increased average of five curves from the GMPEs
considered for the near-field MCE=MDE and from six curves for the near-field OBE.
3.3.2. Elastic response spectra for OBE
5% damping elastic spectra for OBE and for the six selected GMPEs are represented
on Figure 25. They are calculated using the mean values given by GMPEs (as
recommended by ICOLD 1989). From these curves, we propose a 5% damping OBE
design spectrum for the site as indicated on Figure 25 (black curve).
For the calculation, the moment magnitude is 7.7, the epicentral distance, as the
Joyner&Boore distance is 0 km, the rupture and focal distances are 8 km and the
mechanism is reverse.
The PGA of proposed design spectrum is 0.61 g for the OBE at Budhi Gandaki dam
site. It has been calculated as the mean plus half a standard deviation of the 6 PGA
estimated by selected GMPEs.
Corresponding values are specified on Table 2 for the 5% damping spectrum. We shall
interpolate linearly on the logarithmic diagrams for intermediate values.

100 600.84 0.956 0.00152
50 600.84 1.912 0.00609
10 1381.92 21.99 0.350
3 1381.92 73.29 3.888
0.5 230.32 73.29 23.328
0.2 50.28 40.00 31.831
0.1 12.57 20.00 31.831
Table 2 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for OBE (rock site). Acceleration,
velocity and displacement values.
100.0
D (cm)
Pseudo-velocity (cm/s)
10.0
cm
10
cm
1
g
1
Spectrum for rock conditions

Budhi-Gandaki Dam
0.
1.0
1
Near source - OBE 0.
g
(Mw=7.7, depth 8 km, distance 0 km) 6 1
g
Akkar & Bommer, 2010 A (g)
Abrahamson & Silva, 2008
Boore & Atkinson, 2008
Campbell & Bozorgnia, 2008
Chiou & Youngs, 2008
Zhao et al., 2006
0.1 Design spectrum
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 25 - 5% damping OBE horizontal elastic spectra for rock site with proposed design
spectrum (black curve)
100.0
D (cm)
10.0
cm
10
cm
1
g
1
0.
1.0
1
Spectrum for rock conditions 0.
g
6 1
Budhi-Gandaki Dam g
Near source - OBE
(Mw=7.7, depth 8 km, distance 0 km)
A (g)
Design spectrum with 2% damping

0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 26 - Proposed design spectrum for OBE and for rock site with different damping
3.3.3. Elastic response spectra for MDE (SEE) = MCE
As it has been noticed in the §3.1.1 and the § 3.3.1, according to ICOLD (1989), the
design spectrum is defined for the MDE, using 50%-exceedence probability
accelerations (ie mean values).
Nevertheless according to the revised version of the bulletin n°72 of 1989 (ICOLD,
2010) the design spectrum is defined for the SEE, using relations with a standard
deviation (84%-exceedence probability) for extreme or high consequence dams.
These two propositions are not coherent and therefore we considered the two options
for estimating the MDE: MDE as defined in ICOLD 1989 and SEE as defined in ICOLD
2010.
Option 1 : MDE using ICOLD 1989
5% damping elastic spectra for MDE (= MCE) and for the five selected GMPEs are
represented on Figure 27 (Akkar&Bommer GMPE (2010) is not use here because we
are out of range in magnitude). They are calculated using the mean values given by
GMPEs. From these curves, we propose a 5% damping MDE design spectrum for the
site as indicated on Figure 27 (black curve).
For the calculation, the epicentral distance, as the Joyner&Boore distance is 0 km, the
rupture and focal distances are 8 km. The magnitude is chosen as Mw=8.7 (upper
estimation of 1505 earthquake) and the mechanism is reverse.
With this first option, the PGA of proposed design spectrum is 0.77 g for the
MDE=MCE at Budhi Gandaki dam site. It has been calculated as the mean plus half a
standard deviation of the 5 PGA estimated by selected GMPEs.

100 754.0 1.200 0.0019
50 754.0 2.399 0.0076
10 1885.0 29.99 0.477
3.3 1885.0 90.88 4.38
0.4 228.5 90.88 36.16
0.2 75.4 60.00 47.75
0.1 18.9 30.00 47.75
Table 3 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for MDE (option 1, rock site).
Acceleration, velocity and displacement values.
100.0
D (cm)
10.0
cm
10
cm
1
1
g
Budhi-Gandaki Dam
Near source - MDE=MCE
0.
1.0
0.
77
g
g
Abrahamson & Silva, 2008
Boore & Atkinson, 2008 A (g)
Zhao et al., 2006
Design spectrum
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 27 - 5% damping MDE (option 1) horizontal elastic spectra for rock site with proposed
design spectrum (black curve)
100.0
Pseudo-velocity (cm/s) D (cm)
10.0
cm
10
cm
1
1
g
0.
1.0
0.
1
77
g
g
Budhi-Gandaki Dam
Near source - MDE=MCE A (g)

0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 28 - Proposed design spectrum for SEE=MDE (option 1) and for rock site with different
damping
Option 2 : SEE using ICOLD 2010
In the reviewed version of ICOLD (Bulletin Preprint-148: ―Selecting seismic parameters

for large dams - Guidelines (revision of Bulletin 72)‖) it is written that ―the ground
motion parameters of the MCE shall be taken as the 84 percentiles (mean plus one
standard deviation)‖.
Therefore, 5% damping elastic spectra for SEE (= MCE) and for the five selected
GMPEs are represented on Figure 29. They are calculated using the mean values
plus one standard-deviation given by GMPEs. From these curves, we propose a 5%
damping SEE design spectrum for the site as indicated on Figure 29 (black curve).
For the calculation, the epicentral distance, as the Joyner&Boore distance is 0 km, the
rupture and focal distances are 8 km. The magnitude is chosen as Mw=8.2 (lower
estimation of 1505 earthquake, see §3.2.2) and the mechanism is reverse.
With this second option, the PGA of proposed design spectrum is 1.20 g for the SEE
(Safety Evaluation Earthquake, as defined in ICOLD, 2010)=MDE=MCE at Budhi
Gandaki dam site. It has been calculated as the mean plus half a standard deviation of
the 6 PGA estimated by selected GMPEs.

100 1176.3 1.871 0.0030
50 1176.3 3.743 0.0119
10 2823.1 44.92 0.715
3 2823.1 149.72 7.94
0.5 470.5 149.72 47.66
0.2 113.1 90.00 71.62
0.1 28.3 45.00 71.62
Table 4 - Horizontal elastic response spectra (5% damping) for SEE=MDE (option 2, rock site).
Acceleration, velocity and displacement values.
100.0
D (cm)
1
g
10.0
cm
10
cm
1

Budhi-Gandaki Dam
1.
2
0
g
0.
1.0
1
Mean plus one standard deviation
g
Akkar & Bommer, 2010
Abrahamson & Silva, 2008 A (g)
Boore & Atkinson, 2008
Zhao et al., 2006
Design spectrum
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 29 - 5% damping SEE=MDE (option 2) horizontal elastic spectra for rock site with
proposed design spectrum (black curve)
100.0
D (cm)
10.0
cm
10
1
g
cm
1
1.
02
g
1.0 Spectrum for rock conditions
0.
Budhi-Gandaki Dam
1
g
Mean plus one standard deviation A (g)

0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 30 - Proposed design spectrum SEE=MDE (option 2) and for rock site with different
damping
4. Induced seismicity linked to the dam
4.1. INTRODUCTION
It has long been known that the creation of reservoirs (e.g. through the construction of
a dam) can lead to increased seismicity (ICOLD, 2011). This seismicity is caused by
over-loading of nearby faults and/or to lubrication of wetted faults in the surrounding
rock. The chance of such seismicity is linked to the height of the water column and its
variation and seismicity may occur immediately after the filling or some years later (e.g.
Simpson et al., 1988). These induced/triggered earthquakes can be large and
destructive. For example, reservoir impoundment at Koyna Dam (Maharashtra, India)
led to a significant increase in seismicity, with a damaging earthquake of Ms 6.3
occurring on 10th December 1967 (Gupta, 2002).
The assessment of the chance of triggered/induced seismicity and its characteristics is

highly uncertain and would require detailed information on, for example, the state of
stress in the region, status of nearby faults and information on the planned filling
programme of the reservoir. Wieland (2013) states that any large dam of height greater
than 100m (the Budhi Gandaki Dam has a planned height of 225m, according to
Devkota, 2013) has the potential of triggering/inducing seismicity. Wieland (2013)
states that the required information to make an assessment includes: tectonic
conditions and data on structural geology, supported by the study of aerial
photographs; macroseismic data; information on all active faults and details on recent
fault activity in region; assessment of seismic capability of all faults in region; and the
information on the underground water. Even if such information was available it would
require considerable time and resources to make a site-specific estimate and it would
still be prone to large uncertainties.
Therefore, in this chapter a simple approach based on analogues to previous cases of

induced seismicity for similar reservoirs in tectonically-comparable regions will be
followed. This work is based on recent reviews of triggered/induced seismicity by, for
example, Gupta (2002), the National Research Council (2012) and Klose (2013). It will
lead to rough estimates of the characteristics (e.g. magnitude) of the induced
earthquakes that could be expected. However, as stated above there is considerable
uncertainty in the assessment of triggered/induced seismicity and, therefore, other
earthquakes could be possible.
The following section lists previous examples of reservoir-triggered/induced seismicity

in tectonically-comparable areas to Nepal for similar-sized dams and volumes of water.
Based on these examples, the subsequent section presents the scenarios of induced
seismicity considered within the seismic hazard assessment. The chapter ends with a
comparison of the response spectra estimated for these scenarios to those assessed in
the previous chapter for non-induced events.
Reservoir-induced seismicity refers to earthquakes that are directly caused by the

reservoir and would not have occurred without its presence whereas reservoir-triggered
seismicity refers to earthquakes that would probably have occurred in the future without
the reservoir but their occurrence time is brought forward by its presence. Often these
two terms are used interchangeable and lists of reservoir-related earthquakes general
include both (ICOLD, 2011).
4.2. PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF RESERVOIR-TRIGGERED/INDUCED

SEISMICITY
The following examples of reservoir-triggered/induced seismicity that could be

considered analogues of the Budhi Gandaki Dam are taken from Appendix C of the
report of the National Research Council (2012), which appears to be strongly based on
the review by Gupta (2002), and Table 1 of Klose (2013). One key characteristic of the
reservoir that helps assessing the characteristics of the induced seismicity is the
reservoir‘s gross capacity (full supply level, FSL), which for the Budhi Gandaki Dam is
3.32 billion m3 leading to an additional mass of 3.32 billon tons
(3.32 × 1012 kg). This makes it one of the largest dam-created reservoirs in the world.
According to Devkota (2013) it is within the top 15 largest reservoirs worldwide.
Another key indicator for assessing the chance of triggering or inducing large
earthquakes is the tectonic regime, which generally for Nepal is compressional leading
to reverse-faulting events.
Searching the list of triggered/induced earthquakes by Klose (2013) for reverse-faulting

events with magnitudes over 5 (provided by Klose, 2013) associated with such large
reservoirs highlights these examples:
 Mw 7.9: 2008 Sichuan/Wenchuan (China) earthquake associated to the
Zipingpu Dam
3
(reservoir volume 1.1 billion m ) – this is the largest triggered/induced
earthquake listed by Klose (2013) in any tectonic regime or by any type of
human cause (e.g. injection, mining or extraction);
 Mw 6.1: 1993 Killari (India) earthquake associated to the nearby reservoir
(reservoir volume 125 million m3);
 ML 5.9: 1983 Srinagarind (Thailand) earthquake associated to the nearby dam
(reservoir volume 11.8 billion m3);
 ML 5.0: 1996 Thomson (Australia) earthquake associated to the nearby dam
(reservoir volume 1.1 billion m3).
For other faulting mechanisms (normal and strike-slip) Klose (2013) lists these large
earthquakes (again the magnitudes are provided by Klose, 2013):
 Ms 7.1: 1959 Lake Hebgen (USA) normal earthquake associated to the nearby
dam (reservoir volume 994 million m3);
 Ms 6.3: 1967 Koyna (India) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam
 Ms 6.1: 1962 Xinfengjiang (China) strike-slip earthquake associated to nearby
dam (reservoir volume 11.5 billion m3);
 mb 5.8: 1962 Kariba (Zambia) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam

(reservoir volume 175 billion m3);
 ML 5.8: 1975 Oroville (USA) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam
 Mw 5.7: 1981 Aswan (Egypt) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam
(reservoir volume 164 billion m3);
 Ms 5.6: 1966 Kremasta (Greece) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam
 ML 5.3: 1962 Monteynard (France) normal earthquake associated to nearby
dam (reservoir volume 275 million m3);
 ML 5.3: 1977 Charvak (Uzbekistan) normal earthquake associated to nearby
dam (reservoir volume 3 billion m3);
 ML 5.2: 1974 Shenwo (China) strike-slip earthquake associated to nearby dam
(reservoir volume 540 million m3);
 ML 5.0: 1966 Benmore (New Zealand) normal earthquake associated to nearby
dam (reservoir volume 2.04 billion m3);
 ML 5.0: 1939 Hoover (USA) normal earthquake associated to nearby dam
(reservoir volume 36 billion m3).
The list by the National Research Council (2012) includes these additional examples
(magnitude scales not given):
 M 5.7: 1938 Marathon (Greece)
 M 5.4: 1973 Varragamba (Australia)
 M 5.3: 1964 Akosombo (Ghana)
 M 5.3: 1969 Kinnersani (India)
 M 5.2: 1962 Coyote Valley (USA)
 M 5.1: 1974 Porto Colombia (Brazil)
 M 5.0: 1959 Eucumbene (Australia)
Klose (2013) suggests a positive correlation between the mass change (in the case of
reservoirs due to the water volume) and the size of the maximum triggered/induced
earthquake but this correlation is quite weak (e.g. his Figure 3).
Based on this list of previous earthquakes it could be suggested that the magnitude of
the scenario for the triggered/induced earthquake for the Budhi Gandaki Dam should
be at least Mw 7.9 based on the Sichuan/Wenchuan earthquake or Ms 7.1 based on the
Lake Hebgen earthquake (although this occurred in an extensional tectonic regime so it
may not be relevant for Nepal). However, whether these earthquakes were actually
triggered/induced by the presence of the nearby dams is not clear.
The 1959 Lake Hebgen (Montana) earthquake occurred, in a seismically-active region,

44 years after the reservoir began to be filled by the creation of Hebgen Dam. The
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America volume 52 (number 2, 1962) includes
five articles on this earthquake that remain the most comprehensive studies on this
event, which occurred in a sparsely-populated and poorly-instrumented area before the
advent of a worldwide (digital) seismographic network. Although the epicentral area of
this earthquake coincided with the dam and reservoir there seems to be little evidence
in the literature (e.g. none of the 1962 series of articles mention this possibility) that this
event was triggered by the presence of the dam. Lists of reservoir-related earthquakes
other than that by Klose (2013) do not include this event (e.g. Gupta, 2002).
In contrast to this 1959 earthquake the 2008 Sichuan/Wenchuan shock has been
extremely well studied in hundreds of published articles. The question of whether it was
triggered by the loading of the reservoir impounded by the Zipingpu Dam, which began
filling in 2006 (i.e. roughly two and half years before) has been studied by various
authors. Ge et al. (2009) model the static surface loading from the reservoir on the
nearby Beichuan thrust fault system, which ruptured during the 2008 earthquake and
which was within a few hundred metres of the reservoir. They conclude that this
loading ‗advanced the clock‘ on the occurrence of the mainshock by tens to hundreds
of years. Klose (2011) undertakes a similar analysis and reaches similar conclusions.
On the other hand Deng et al. (2010) undertake comparable analysis and conclude that
there is a very low probability that the mainshock, which propagated from a depth of
around 20km, was induced by the reservoir (although the shallower, at depths of less
than 5km, seismicity may have been induced). Similar conclusions were reached by
Gahalaut and Gahalaut (2010). In addition, many other articles on both sides of the
argument have been published to date.
If these two earthquakes are excluded from consideration then the largest
triggered/induced earthquake yet recorded is the Koyna 1967 earthquake (Ms 6.3).
Wieland (2013) and ICOLD (2011) state that the size of the largest reservoir-trigger
earthquake has, up until now, always been lower than the Safety Evaluation
Earthquake.
Another way of seeking to assess the chance of induced seismicity from the Budhi
Gandaki Dam is to look at the seismicity connected with existing dams in the same
region. Previous dams in the Himalaya with reservoirs of similar sizes to that planned
for the Budhi Gandaki Dam and for which information on the associated seismicity is
available are: Bhakra (India, 12.22 billion m3), Mangla (Pakistan, 7.25 billion m3),
Tarbela (Pakistan, 13.69 billion m3) and Tehri (India, 2.6 billion m3). Jacob et al. (1979)
study the seismicity following the filling of the Tarbela reservoir in 1974-1975 and find
no evidence for an increase in seismicity (if anything they find a decrease in the
earthquake rate). Gupta and Rajendran (1986) summarise the seismicity following the
construction of the Mangla Dam and conclude that seismicity also decreased after the
creation of this reservoir. They also summarises studies that found no increase in
seismicity near to Bhakra dam after its construction. Seismicity within 100km of the
Bhakra dam is also studied by Shukla et al. (2012), who find no firm correlation
between the water level and the seismicity near this dam. Tehri Dam is more recent
(reservoir filling started in October 2005) than these other large dams in the Himalaya
so there are fewer studies on the seismicity associated with its reservoir. Gupta et al.
(2012) present a study based on data from a temporary array installed between 2005
and 2008 close to this dam. They find an increase in seismicity due to the reservoir
loading and unloading and they also find evidence for an active fault beneath this dam.
Choudhury et al. (2013) examine seismicity from 2000 to 2010 and conclude that
increases in earthquake rate correspond to drawdown rather than high water levels.
Wieland (2013) states that, rather than reservoir-related seismicity, the most dangerous
hazards for large dams are mass movements (e.g. rock falls and landslides) into the
reservoir, causing overtopping of the dam or large forces onto the structure, or directly
onto the dam itself. Such mass movements could be triggered by earthquakes as well
as other causes, e.g. heavy rain fall. These hazards are outside the scope of this
analysis and are not discussed further here.
5. Recommendations about the needs for a

dedicated seismic monitoring network
5.1. INTRODUCTION
To monitor seismicity occurring close to the dam (either natural or induced) there
needs to be a sufficient number of seismographs within the local area as seismic
waves from small earthquakes decay rapidly and they cannot be detected far from the
source. This network, in conjunction with other existing seismic stations, should allow
the locations of earthquakes to be accurately determined and their sizes (e.g.
magnitudes) estimated. Because it is important to monitor possible movements along
faults in the local area, which could be associated with microseismicity, it is necessary
that the network is sufficiently sensitive to detect even very small earthquakes.
In this report we do not make any recommendations concerning the installation of a

network on, or very close to, the dam to monitor its possible movements. Such a
network is common for large dams as it allows the safety of the structure to be
monitored. However, it cannot be easily used to monitor local microseismicity because
of the effect of the dam‘s response on the recorded signals and also because of its
limited geographical extent.
This chapter begins by defining the requirements for monitoring of seismicity close to
the dam. Following this a summary of the existing seismic monitoring capabilities in the
vicinity of the dam and their capabilities for monitoring potentially induced
microseismicity is provided. By comparing the requirements and the existing networks
in the region we provide recommendations on the instruments that should be installed
to monitor the microseismicity close to the dam.
5.2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING NETWORK
There are generally two types of seismic instrument that could be of relevance for a
monitoring network: seismometers and accelerometers. Seismometers often record
ground motions in terms of velocity and they generally lead to records with higher
signal-to-noise ratios and consequently they are more sensitive and can detect very
small earthquakes (down to M 1 or even below). However, they would generally go off
scale (saturate) for ground motions from moderate or large earthquakes close to the
sensor. Hence, they cannot record true ‗strong motions‘. For this, accelerometers are
generally employed. These measure ground motions in terms of accelerations and can
record amplitudes up to the strongest shaking ever observed. However, they cannot
accurately measure ground motions from very small earthquakes. Hence it is useful to
install a mixed network of seismometers to detect and locate all earthquakes and
accelerometers to measure ground shaking of engineering significance.
The ability to detect and locate (to an precision of a few kilometres both horizontally
and vertically) earthquakes down to roughly magnitude 1 is recommended as a
capability to aim for this network since that should allow the imaging of active faults in
the region and the small events that could be triggered or induced by the reservoir. To
lower the detection threshold much lower is not considered necessary and would
require the installation of significantly more instruments. For refined analyses of
seismicity it could be useful to be able to calculate the focal mechanisms of the local
earthquakes.
5.3. EXISTING MONITORING CAPABILITIES
Currently installed seismometers are able to detect and locate earthquakes occurring
anywhere in the world down to about magnitude 5. Various global seismicity
catalogues are regularly published. For example, the US Geological Survey (through
the National Earthquake Information Center) publishes a global catalogue in almost
real-time, which is believed to be complete down to magnitude (all scales) about 4.5
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/neic/neic_bulletins.php). The International
Seismological Centre (ISC) publishes a global catalogue delayed by roughly one year,
which Woessner and Wiemer (2005) find is complete down to body-wave magnitude
4.3 for most onshore areas (including Nepal).
To obtain an earthquake catalogue with a lower magnitude of completeness, data from

regional and local seismic networks need to be used. In Nepal the first seismic station
was installed in 1978 and the Nepalese National Seismological Network currently
consists of 21 short-period vertical component seismometers that provide a magnitude
of completeness of around 2 (ML) according Pandey et al. (1999).
Because of the considerable research interest in the tectonics of the Himalayas and the
high seismic hazard in this region, various temporary dense seismic networks have
been installed in Nepal (e.g. Sheehan et al., 2008) but it is thought that none of these
are still operating. Therefore, no permanent seismographs are installed in Nepal except
for those comprising the National Seismological Network.
The map showing the locations of the stations in the neighbourhood of the proposed
dam is shown on Figure 31. This map uses the Google Earth KMZ file provided by the
International Registry of Seismograph Stations jointly maintained by the International
Seismological Centre (ISC) and the World Data Center for Seismology (NEIC/USGS):
http://www.isc.ac.uk/registries/, which is the official worldwide list of permanent
seismographs. This information could be updated using local knowledge on the
operational status of different stations but this was not attempted in this study.
It can be seen that the nearest seismic station (Gorkha) of the National Seismological
Network would be about 10km from the planned reservoir. This location could be used
as the site of one of the stations installed for the local network to reduce the expense of
instrument housing, power and so forth (see below). Including this site within the local
network could also be useful to calibrate the calculation of local magnitudes so that
they are consistent with those already computed by the national network.
Figure 31 - Map showing the location of the proposed dam (yellow triangle) and the
seismometers (red triangles) of the National Seismological Network of Nepal (according to the
International Registry of Seismograph Stations).
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL NETWORK
As noted above the capabilities of the existing seismic monitoring system in the area
are insufficient to detect and locate microseismicity close to the reservoir. Therefore, it
is necessary to install new stations to improve seismic monitoring in this area. In this
section we make recommendations as to the number of stations to install, their
locations and the type of seismometer required. Because of a lack of local knowledge
we do not recommend exact locations for the stations because this will depend on
accessibility, access to electrical power and local surface geology, for example.
Chapters 7 (Site selection, preparation and installation of seismic stations) and 8

(Seismic Networks) of the New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice
(NMSOP-2, Bormann, 2012) provide detailed guidance on installation of seismic
networks. In particular, Chapter 8 of NMSOP-2 provides some general guidance on the
number of required stations. They suggest that records from six stations are required to
provide a reasonably accurate location of an earthquake whereas records from ten to
fifteen stations would be required for more sophisticated studies (e.g. focal mechanism
determination). When using data from digital three-component instruments with a high-
dynamic range fewer stations are necessary.
The area that needs to be monitored is roughly 25 km (north-south) × 15 km (east-

west) (Figure 32)=375 km2.
Figure 32 - Map showing the location of the proposed reservoir.
The number of stations installed to monitor the seismicity near the dam and reservoir
should balance the requirement of detecting earthquakes down to a certain threshold
with the cost of installing instruments in a remote region, transferring the data to a
central location and processing the data. Sophisticated procedures to optimize and test
microseismic networks have been proposed that undertake cost-benefit analyses to
find the best layout of the network for the available resources. For example, Tramelli et
al. (2013) present such a technique and apply it to a network that monitors the Campi
Flegrei (southern Italy) volcanic area. These techniques are beyond the scope of this
report since they rely on information that is not currently available and require
considerable time and effort.
Piccinelli et al. (1995) report on the experience of the network installed to monitor
microseismicity associated with the Ridracoli Dam in northern Italy. The network
consisted of five vertical component seismometers and one three-component
seismometer with a density of around one station every 5km. They found that the
network had a detection level of around local magnitude (ML) 0.8.
Reyners (1988) presents analysis of the data recorded by a local network installed to
monitor the seismicity associated with the raising of the water level of Lake Pukaki
(New Zealand) through the construction of a dam. The network consisted of eight
vertical-component 1Hz seismometers and one three-component 1Hz seismometers
over an area of roughly 80 × 50=4 000km2. Reyners (1988) finds that the catalogue is
complete down to around ML 1.8.
The network installed to monitor the Tarbela reservoir (Pakistan) is discussed by Jacob
et al. (1979). The reservoir is about 80km long. This network consisted of ten
seismometers. They state that their network can detect earthquakes down to coda
magnitude -3, although they state that the magnitudes computed may be systematically
too low because of uncertainties in the calibration function used.
Castro and Delgado (1996) report on the network installed to monitor the seismicity
associated with the Aguamilpa Dam (Mexico). This network consisted of seven stations
(four vertical-component 1Hz seismographs and three three-component
accelerographs, one of which was installed on the dam) covering an area of about 10 ×
15=150km2. The smallest earthquake detected had a coda magnitude (Mc) of about 0.5
but the catalogue is complete above around Mc 1.
The network installed around the Tous New Dam (Spain), which has a reservoir of
980Ha (9.8km2), is discussed by Torcal et al. (2005). This network comprised a three-
component station in the dam and six vertical-component seismometers within 25km of
the dam. The smallest earthquake detected has a duration magnitude of 0.4 but only
24 local events were detected over a 16-month period.
For an area of about 10 × 10 =100km2 Doubre et al. (2007) present the abilities of
seven different local networks installed in the Asal-Ghoubbet (Djibouti) Rift to detect
and locate microseismicity. They show (their Table 1) that with the six stations installed
between 1996 and 1999 that the detection threshold is a local magnitude of 0.8-0.9 and
that the earthquake locations have an uncertainty of about 1km horizontally and about
2km vertically. This is roughly the capabilities that are required for the planned network
for the Budhi Gandaki reservoir.
Finally, an example of a modern network (installed in November 2007) in the Himalaya

to monitor the seismicity associated with the reservoir of a large dam (Tehri, India) is
provided by a presentation made by IIT Roorkee (2013). This twelve-station seismic
network covers an area of roughly 50 km × 75km=3750km2. These triaxial broadband
stations (CMG-40T) are linked to a central node through radio telemetry using Spread
Spectrum technology. From the frequency-magnitude distributions shown it appears
that the earthquake catalogue is roughly complete for ML>1.5.
Based on the station densities used in these previous seismic networks to monitor
seismicity associated with the proposed dam and reservoir it is recommended that
roughly 15 stations equipped with modern digital broadband seismometers are installed
close to the shoreline of the reservoir. This network should be sufficient to be able to
detect, locate (to a precision of roughly 1km) and characterise (e.g. compute focal
mechanisms) earthquakes happening anywhere within the 25 × 15 km2 area covered
by the reservoir. As noted above the existing station of the National Seismological
Network closest to the planned reservoir (Gorkha) could be incorporated into the local
network or an additional instrument could be installed at this location that would be

compatible with the others installed within the framework of the dam project.
Techniques have been developed (e.g. Schorlemmer and Woessner, 2008) to assess
the ability of existing (or proposed) seismic networks to detect and locate earthquakes
of different sizes. These procedures, however, rely on information on the ambient noise
levels in the area and other currently unavailable information. Therefore, we do not
apply them here. However, based on the case studies cited above we believe that the
proposed network would be able to detect and locate earthquakes down to about ML 1.
This should be sufficient for monitoring of induced microseismicity.
6. References
Abrahamson, N.A., and Silva, W.J. (2008) - Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA
ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, no. 1, pp. 67-97.
Ahmad, T., Harris, N., Bickle, M., Chapman, H., Bunbury, J. & Prince, C. (2000) -
Isotopic constraints on the structural relationships between the Lesser Himalayan Series
and the High Himalayan Crystalline Series, Garhwal Himalaya. Geological Society of
America. Bulletin 112(3), 467-477.
Akkar, S., and J. J. Bommer (2010) - Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA,
PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.
Seismological Research Letters. 81 (2), 195–206.
Ambraseys, N. (2000) - Reappraisal of north-Indian earthquakes at the turn of the 20th

Century. Current Science, 79, 1237-1250.
Ambraseys, N. N. & Bilham, R. (2000) - A note on the Kangra Ms= 7.8 earthquake of 4
April 1905. Current Science 79, 45-50.
Ambraseys, N. N. & Douglas, J. (2004) - Magnitude calibration of north Indian

earthquakes. Geophys. J. In., 159, 165-206.
Ambraseys, N. N. & Jackson, D. (2003) - A note on early earthquakes in northern India

and southern Tibet. Current Science, 84, 570-582.
Ambraseys, N. N. & Sarma, S. K. (1999) - The assessment of total seismic moment.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 3(4), 439-461.
Ancheta, T.D., R.B. Darragh, J.P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, W.J. Silva, B.S.J. Chiou, K.E.
Wooddell, R.W. Graves, A.R. Kottke, D.M. Boore, T. Kishida, and J.L. Donahue
(2014) - NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra, in press.
Argand, E. (1924) - La Tectonique de l'Asie. In: Compte-rendu du 13e congrès

Géologique International, Brussel, 171-372.
Arita, K. (1983) - Origin of the inverted metamorphism of the Lower Himalayas, central
Nepal. Tectonophysics, 95(1-2), 43-60.
Armijo, R., Tapponnier, P., Mercier, J. L. & Tong-Lin, H. (1986) - Quaternary

extension in south Tibet: field observations and tectonic implications. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 91, 13803-13872.
Arora, B. R., Unsworth, M. J. & Rawat, G. (2007) - Deep resistivity structure of the
northwest Indian Himalaya and its tectonic implications. Geophysics Research Letters,
34, L04307.
Arora B.R., V.K. Gahalaut and Naresh Kumaret (2012) - Structural control on along-
strike variation in the seismicity of the northwest Himalaya. Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences, 57, 15–24
Avouac, J.-P., Bollinger, L., Lave, J., Cattin, R. & Flouzat, M. (2001) - Le cycle
sismique en Himalaya. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 333, 513-529.
Avouac, J. P. (2003) - Mountain building, erosion, and the seismic cycle in the Nepal
Himalaya. Advances in Geophysics, 46, 1-80.
Avouac, J. P. & Tapponnier, P. (1993) - Kinematic model of active deformation in

central Asia. Geophysical Research Letters, 20(10).
Baduwi. (1905) - in Urdu. A translation is available at

http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Baduwi1905.html.
Banerjee, P. & Burgmann, R. (2002) - Convergence across the northwest Himalaya

from GPS measurement. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(13), 30.1-30.4.
Banerjee, P., Burgmann, R., Nagarajan, B. & Apel, E. (2008) - Intraplate deformation
of the Indian subcontinent. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L18301.
Bashyal, R. P. (1998) - Petroleum exploration in Nepal. Journal of Nepal Geological

Society, 18, 19-24.
Beaumont, C., Jamieson, R. A., Nguyen, M. & Lee, B. (2001) - Himalayan tectonics
explained by extrusion of a low viscosity channel coupled to focused surface denudation
Nature, 414, 738-742.
Ben-Menahem, A. ,Aboodi, E., Schild, R. (1974) - The source of the great Assam
earthquake—an interplate wedge motion. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 9, 265–289.
Berger, A., Jouanne, F., Hassani, R. & Mugnier, J. L. (2004) - Modelling the spatial
distribution of present-day deformation in Nepal: how cylindrical is the Main Himalayan
Thrust in Nepal? Geophys. J. Int., 156, 94-112.
Bettinelli, P. (2007) - Déformation intersismique de l'Himalaya du Népal à partir de

données GPS, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique.
Bettinelli, P., Avouac, J. P., Flouzat, M., Jouanne, F., Bollinger, L., Willis, P. &
Chitrakar, G. R. (2006) - Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the Nepal
Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements. J. Geod.
Bilek, S.L. (2007) - Influence of subducting topography on earthquake rupture. In: Dixon,
T., Moore, C. (Eds.), The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults. Columbia
University Press, pp. 123–146.
Bilek, S. L. (2010) - The role of subduction erosion on seismicity. Geology, 38, 479-480.
Bilham, R. (1995) - Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its
relation to the rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current
Science, 69, 155-187.
Bilham, R., Larson, K. & Freymueller, J. (1997) - GPS measurements of present-day

convergence across the Nepal Himalaya. Nature, 386, 61-64.
Bilham, R. & England, P. (2001) - Plateau pop-up during the great 1897 Assam
earthquake. Nature, 410, 806-809.
Bilham, R., Gaur, V. K. & Molnar, P. (2001) - Earthquakes-Himalayan seismic hazard.

Science, 293, 1442-1444.
Bilham, R., Gaur, V. & Molnar, P. (2002) - Himalayan seismic hazard.
Bilham, R. (2004) - Historical Studies of Earthquakes in India. Annals of Geophysics.
Bilham, R. & Ambraseys, N. (2004) - Apparent Himalayan slip deficit from the
summation of seismic moments for Himalayan earthquakes, 1500-2000. Current
Science.
Bollinger, L., Avouac, J. P., Cattin, R. & Pandey, M. R. (2004) - Stress buildup in the
Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109.
Bollinger, L., Henry, P. & Avouac, J. P. (2006) - Mountain building in the Nepal
Himalaya: Thermal and kinematic model. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 244, 58-
71.
Bollinger, L., Perrier, F., Avouac, J. P., Sapkota, S., Gautam, U. & Tiwari, D. R.
(2007) - Seasonal modulation of seismicity in the Himalaya of Nepal. Geophysical
Research Letters, 34, L08304, doi: 10.1029/2006GL029192.
Bommer, J. J., Douglas, J., Scherbaum, F., Cotton, F., Bungum, H., & Fäh, D.
(2010). On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard
analysis. Seismological Research Letters, 81(5), 783–793.
Boore, D. M. & Atkinson, G. M. (2008) - Ground-motion prediction equations for the

average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods
between 0.01s and 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99-138. DOI: 10.1193/1.2830434.
Bormann, P. (Ed.) (2012) - New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice

(NMSOP-2), IASPEI, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam;
http://nmsop.gfz-potsdam.de; DOI: 10.2312/GFZ.NMSOP-2.
Boyer, S. E. & Elliott, D. (1982) - Thrust systems. America Association of Petroleum

Geologists Bulletin, 66(9), 1196-1230.
Brune, J. N., Brown, S. & Johnson, P. A. (1993) - Rupture mechanism and interface
separation in foam rubber models of earthquakes: a possible solution to the heat flow
paradox and the paradox of large overthrusts. Tectonophysics, 218, 59-67.
Burchfiel, B. C., Chen, Z., Hodges, K., Liu, Y., Royden, L. H., Deng, C. & Xu, J.
(1992) - The South Tibetan Detachment System, Himalayan Orogen; Extension
contemporaneous with and parallel shortening in a collisional mountain belt. Geological
Society of America, Special Paper 269, 41.
Cahill, T., Isacks, B.L. (1992) - Seismicity and shape of the subducted Nazca Plate.
Journal Geophysical Research, 97 (B12), 17503–17529.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008) - NGA ground motion model for the
geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic
response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 139–
171.
Castro, C. J. and Delgado, E. L. (1996) - Seismic activity in the Aguamilpa Dam,

Mexico, Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper no. 533.
Catlos, E. J., Harrison, T. M., Kohn, M. J., Grove, M., Ryerson, F. J., Manning, C. &
Upreti, B. N. (2001) - Geochronologic and thermobarometric constraints on the evolution
of the Main Central thrust, central Nepal Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research,
106, 16,177-16,204.
Cattin, R. & Avouac, J. P. (2000) - Modeling of mountain building and the seismic cycle
in the Himalaya of Nepal. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 13,389-13,407.
Chander, R. (1989) - Southern limits of major earthquake ruptures along the Himalaya
between longitudes 75° and 90°E. Tectonophysics, 170, 115-123.
Chandra, U. (1978) - Seismicity, Earthquake Mechanisms and Tectonics along the

Himalayan Mountain Range and Vicinity. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
16, 109-131.
Chen, W. P. & Molnar, P. (1977) - Seismic moments of major earthquakes and the
average rate of slip in Central Asia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 82, 2945-2969.
Chiou, B. S.-J. & Youngs, R. R. (2008) - An NGA model for the average horizontal
component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 24, 173-
215.
Choudhury, S., Gautam, P. K. and Paul, A. (2013) - Seismicity and reservoir induced
crustal motion study around the Tehri Dam, India, Acta Geophysica, 61(4), 923-934.
Colchen, M., Le Fort, P. & Pêcher, A. (1986) - Recherches géologiques dans

l'Himalaya du Népal; Annapurna-Manaslu-Ganesh Himal. Editions du Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique, scale 1:200,000.
Cotton, F., Campillo, M., Deschamps, A. & Rastogi, B. (1996) - Rupture history and
seismotectonics of the 1991 Uttarkashi, Himalayas earthquake. Tectonophysics. 258,
35-51.
Coward, M. P. & Butler, R. H. W. (1985) - Thrust tectonics and the deep structure of the
Pakistan Himalaya. Geology 18, 417-420.
Das, S., Watts, A.B. (2009) - Effect of Subducting Seafloor Topography on the Rupture
Characteristics of Great Subduction Zone Earthquakes. In: Lallemand, S., Funiciello, F.
(Eds.), Subduction Zone Geodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 103–
118.
Davis, D., Suppe, J. & Dahlen, F. A. (1983) - Mechanics of fold-and-thrust belts and
accretionary wedges. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, 1153-1172.
DeCelles, P. G., Robinson, D. M., Quade, J., Ojha, T. P., Garzione, C. N., Copeland,
P. & Upreti, B. N. (2001) - Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic evolution of the
Himalayan fold-thrust belt in western Nepal. Tectonics, 20(4), 487-509.
Delcailleau, B. (1992) - Les Siwaliks du Népal oriental. Presses du CNRS (Editions du

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique).
Deng, K., Zhou, S., Wang, R., Robinson, R., Zhao, C. and Cheng, W. (2010) -
Evidence that the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake could not have been induced by
the Zipingpu Reservoir, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5B), 2805-
2814, DOI: 10.1785/0120090222.
Department of Mines and Geology (2006) - National Seismological Network, His

Majesty‘s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, Lainchour
Kathmandu, Nepal March 2006.
Devkota, L. (2013) - Budhigandaki Hydro-electric Project, Powerpoint presentation

available at: http://ddcgorkha.gov.np/uploaded/UserFolder1/BGHEP-Brief-Gorkha.pdf.
Doubre, C., Manighetti, I., Dorbath, L., Dorbath, C., Bertil, D. and Delmond, J. C.
(2007) - Crustal structure and magmato-tectonic processes in an active rift (Asal-
Ghoubett, Afar, east Africa): 2. Insights from the 23-year recording of seismicity since the
last rifting event, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112.
Feldl, N. & Bilham, R. (2006) - Great Himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan plateau.
Nature, 444, 165-170.
Gahalaut, V. K. & Arora, B. R. (2011) - Segmentation of Seismicity along the Himalayan

Arc due to structural heterogeneities in the underthrusting Indian plate and overriding
Himalayan wedge. Episodes 35(4).
Gahalaut, V. K. & Chander, R. (1992) - A rupture model for the great earthquake of
1897, northeast India. Tectonophysics, 204, 163-174.
Gahalaut, V. K. & Kalpna (2001) - Himalayan mid crustal ramp. Current Science, 81,
1641-1646.
Gahalaut, V. K. & Kundu, B. (2012) - Possible influence of subducting ridges on the

Himalayan arc and on the ruptures of great and major Himalayan earthquakes.
Gondwana Research, 21, 1080-1088.
Gansser, A. (1964) - Geology of the Himalaya, New York, NY.
Gaur, V. K., Chander, R., Sarkar, I., Khattri, K. N. & Sinhval, H. (1985) - Seismicity
and state of stress from investigations of local earthquakes in the Kumaon Himalaya.
Tectonophysics, 118, 243-251.
Gahalaut, K. and Gahalaut, V. K. (2010) - Effect of the Zipingpu reservoir impoundment

on the occurrence of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and local seismicity, Geophysical
Journal International, 183(1), 277-285.
Ge, S., Liu, M., Lu, N., Godt, J. W. and Luo, G. (2009) - Did the Zipingpu Reservoir
trigger the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake? Geophysical Research Letters, 36(20).
Grandin, R., Doin, M.-P., Bollinger, L., Pinel-Puysségur, B., Ducret, G., Jolivet, R. &
Sapkota, S. N. (2012) - Long-term growth of the Himalaya inferred from interseismic
InSAR measurement. Geology, 40, 1059-1062.
Grujic, D., Casey, M., Davidson, C., Hollister, L. S., Kündig, R., Pavlis, T. & Schmid,
S. (1996) - Ductile extrusion of the Higher Himalayan crystalline in Bhutan: Evidence
from quartz microfabrics. Tectonophysics, 260, 21-43.
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-Science
Reviews, 58(3–4), 279–310.
Gupta, H. K. and Rajendran, K. (1986) - Large artificial water reservoirs in the vicinity of
the Himalayan foothills and reservoir-induced seismicity, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 78(1), 205-215.
Gupta, S., Mahesh, P., Sivaram, K. and Rai, S. S. (2012) - Active fault beneath the
Tehri dam, Garhwal Himalaya – seismological evidence, Current Science, 103(11),
1343-1347.
Harrison, T. M., Copeland, P., Kidd, W. S. F. & Yin, A. (1992) - Raising Tibet. Science,
255, 1663-1670.
Hashimoto, S., Ohta, Y. & Akiba, C. (1973) - Geology of the Nepal Himalayas, Tokyo,
Saikon.
Heim, A. & Gansser, A. (1939) - Central Himalaya: Geological observations of the

Swiss expedition 1936. Mémoire de la Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles, 73,
245.
Herman, F., Copeland, P., Avouac, J.-P., Bollinger, L., G., M., P., L. F., Rai, S.,
Foster, D., Pêcher, A., Stüwe, K. & Henry, P. (2010) - Exhumation, crustal
deformation, and thermal structure of the Nepal Himalaya derived from the inversion of
thermochronological and thermobarometric data and modeling of the topography.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 115.
Hodges, K. V. (2000) - Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two
perspectives. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 112(3), 324-350.
Hodges, K. V., Burchfiel, B. C., Royden, L. H., Chen, Z. & Liu, Y. (1993) - The
metamorphic signature of contemporaneous extension and shortening in the central
Himalayan orogen: Data from the Nyalam transect, southern Tibet. Journal of
Metamorphic Geology, 11, 721-737.
Hodges, K. V., Parrish, R. R. & Searle, M. P. (1996) - Tectonic evolution of the central
Annapurna Range, Nepalese Himalayas. Tectonics, 15(6), 1264-1291.
Hodges, K. V., Wobus, C., Ruhl, K., Schildgen, T. & Whipple, K. (2004) - Quaternary
deformation, river steepening, and heavy precipitation at the front of the Higher
Himalayan ranges. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 220, 379-389.
Hough, S. E. & Bilham, R. (2008) - Site response of the Ganges basin inferred from re-
evaluated macroseismic observations from the 1897 Shillong, 1905 Kangra, and 1934
Nepal earthquakes. J. Earth Syst. Sci, 117, 773-782.
ICOLD (1989) - Selecting Seismic Parameters for large dams - Guidelines, Bulletin n°72.
ICOLD (2010) - Selecting Seismic Parameters for large dams - Guidelines, Revision of
Bulletin n°72. Bulletin ICOLD Preprint n°148.
ICOLD (2011) - Reservoirs and seismicity - State of knowledge, bulletin n°137
IIT Roorkee (2013) - Seismological network around Tehri region, online at:
http://pesmos.in/Presentations/MLS_Seismological%20Network%20Around%20Tehri%2
0Region.pdf
Inger, S. & Harris, N. B. W. (1992) - Tectonothermal evolution of the High Himalayan

crystalline sequence, Langtang Valley, northern Nepal. Journal of Metamorphic Geology,
10(3), 439-452.
Iyengar, R. N. & Sharma, D. (1998) - Earthquake History of India in Medieval Times,

Roorkee, India.
Jacob, K. H., Pennington, W. D., Armbruster, J., Seeber, L. and Farhatulla, S. (1979)
- Tarbela reservoir, Pakistan: A region of compressional tectonics with reduced
seismicity upon initial reservoir filling, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
69(4), 1175-1192.
Jade, S., Bhatt, B. C., Yang, Z., Bendick, R., Gaur, V. K., Molnar, P., Anand, M. B. &
Kumar, D. (2004) - GPS measurments form the Ladakh Himalaya, India: Preliminary
tests of plate-like or continuous deformation in Tibet. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 116(11/12),
1385-1391.
Johnson, M. R. W. (1994) - Volume balance of erosion loss and sediment deposition

related to Himalayan uplift. Journal of the Geological Society London, 151, 217- 220.
Johnston, A. C. (1996) - Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable

continental regions-II. Historical seismicity. Geophys. J. Int,. 125(3), 639-678.
Jouanne, F., Mugnier, J. L., Gamond, J. F., Fort, P. L., Pandey, M. R., Bollinger, L.,
Flouzat, M. & Avouac, J. P. (2004) - Current Shortening across the Himalayas of Nepal.
Geophys. J. Int., 157, 1-14.
Khattri, K. Wyss, M. (1978) - Precursory variations of seismicity in Assam area, India,

Geology, 6, 685- 688.
Khattri, K. Wyss, M. Gaur, V. K. Saha, S. N. Bansal, V. K. (1983) - Local seismic

activity in the region of the Assam Gap, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 73, 459- 469.
Kaneda, H., Nakata, T., Tsutsumi, H., Kondo, H., Sugito, N., Awata, Y., Akhtar, S. S.,
Majid, A., Khattak, W., Awan, A. A., Yeats, R. S., Hussain, A., Ashraf, M.,
Wesnousky, S. G. & Kausar, A. B. (2008) - Surface Rupture of the 2005 Kashmir,
Pakistan, earthquake and its active tectonic implications. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98,
521-557.
Kayal, J. R. (2001) - Microearthquake activity in some parts of the Himalaya and the
tectonic model. Tectonophysics, 339, 331-351.
Kayal, J. R. (2003) - Seismotectonic structures of the Western and Eastern Himalayas:

constraint from microearthquake data. Memoir Geological Society of India, 53, 279-311.
Kayal, J. R. (2010) - Himalayan tectonic model and great earthquakes: an appraisal.

Nature Hazards Risk, 1, 51-67.
Khanal, S. (2009) - Upper crustal shortening and forward modeling of the Himalayan
fold-thrust belt along the Budhi-Gandaki river, Central Nepal, Alabama.
Khattri, K. N. (1987) - Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake
disaster along the Himalaya Plate boundary. Tectonophysics, 138, 79-92.
Khattri, K. N. & Tyagi, A. K. (1983) - Seismicity patterns in the Himalayan plate

boundary and identification of the areas of high seismic potential. Tectonophysics, 96,
281-297.
Klose, C. D. (2011) - Evidence for anthropogenic surface loading as trigger mechanism

of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Environmental Earth Science, 66, 1439-1447.
Klose, C. D. (2013) - Mechanical and statistical evidence of the causality of human-

made mass shifts on the Earth‘s upper crust and the occurrence of earthquakes, Journal
of Seismology, 17(1), 109-135.
Kohn, M. J. (2008) - P-T-t data from central Nepal support critical taper and repudiate
large scale channel flow of the Greater Himalayan Sequence. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 120, 259-273.
Kohn, M. J., Wieland, M. S., Parkinson, C. D. & Upreti, B. N. (2004) - Miocene faulting
at plate tectonic velocity in the Himalaya of central Nepal. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 228, 299-310.
Kumar, P., Yuan, X., Kind, R. & Ni, J. (2006a) - Imaging the colliding Indian and Asian
lithospheric plates beneath Tibet. Journal Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029.
Kumar, S., Wesnousky, S., Rockwell, T. K., Briggs, R. W., Thakur, V. C. &
Jayangondaperumal, R. (2006b) - Paleoseismic evidence of great surface rupture
earthquakes along the Indian Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111.
Kumar, S. G., Wesnousky, S. G., Jayangondaperumal, R., Nakata, T., Kumahara, Y.

& Singh, V. (2010) - Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the
northeastern Himalayan front, India: Timing, size, and spatial extent of great
earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115.
Larson, E. (1999) - Global centroid moment tensor catalog.

http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html.
Larson, K. M., Bürgmann, R., Bilham, R. & Freymueller, J. T. (1999) - Kinematics of

the India-Eurasia collision zone from GPS measurement. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 104(B1), 1077-1093.
Larson, K. P., Godin, L., Davis, W. J. & Davis, D. W. (2010) - Out-of-sequence

deformation and expansion of the Himalayan orogenic wedge: insight from the Changgo
culmination, south central Tibet. Tectonics, 29.
Lavé, J. & Avouac, J. P. (2001) - Fluvial incision and tectonic uplift across the
Himalayas of Central Nepal. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 561-592.
Lavé, J. & Avouac, P. (2000) - Active folding of fluvial terraces across the Siwalik Hills
Himalaya of central Nepal. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 5735-5770.
Lavé, J., Yule, D., Sapkota, S., Bassant, K., Madden, C., Attal, M. & Pandey, R.
(2005) - Evidence for a great medieval earthquake (1100 AD) in the Central Himalayas
of Nepal. Science, 307, 1302-1305.
Le Fort, P. (1975) - Himalayas: the collided range. Present knowledge of the continental
arc. Am. J. Sci., 275, 1-44.
Lemmonier, C., Marquis, G., Perrier, F., Avouac, J. P., Chitrakar, G., Kafle, B.,
Sapkota, S., Gautam, U. & Tiwari, D. (1999) - Electrical structure of the Himlaya of
central Nepal: high conductivity around the mid-crustal ramp along the MHT. 21
Geophysical Research Letters, 3261-3264.
Macfarlane, A. M., Hodges, K. V. & Lux, D. (1992) - A structural analysis of the Main
Central Thrust zone, Langtang National Park, central Nepal Himalaya. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 104(11), 1889-1402.
Martin, A. J., DeCelles, P. G., Gehrels, G. E., Patchett, P. J. & Isachsen, C. (2005) -
Isotopic and structural constraints on the location of the Main Central thrust in the
Annapurna Range, central Nepal Himalaya. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 117,
926-944.
Martin, S. & Szeliga, W. (2010) - A catalog of felt intensity data for 589 earthquakes in
India, 1636-2008. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100(2), 562-569
Molnar, P. (1984) - Structure and tectonics of the Himalaya: Constraints and implications
of geophysical data. Ann. Rev. of Earth and Planetary Sci., 12, 489-518.
Molnar, P. (1987a) - The distribution of intensity associated with the 1905 Kangra
earthquake and bounds on the extent of rupture. Journal of Geological Society of India,
29, 221-229.
Molnar, P. (1987b) - The distribution of Intensity associated with the great 1897 Assam
Earthquake and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J. Geol. Soc. India, 30, 13-27.
Molnar, P. (1990) - A review of the seismicity and the rates of active underthrusting and
deformation at the Himalaya. Journal of Himalayan Geology, 1, 131-154.
Molnar, P. & Tapponnier, P. (1975) - Relation of the tectonics of eastern China to the
India-Eurasia collision: Application of slip-line field theory to large-scale continental
tectonics. Geology, 5, 212-216.
Molnar, P. M. & Pandey, R. (1989) - Rupture zones of great earthquakes in the

Himalayan region. Proc. Indian Academy of Sciences (Earth and Planetary Sciences),
98, 61-70.
Mugnier, J.-L., Huyghe, P., Gajurel, A. P. & Becel, D. (2005) - Frontal and piggy-back
seismic ruptures in the external thrust belt of Western Nepal. Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences, 25, 707-717.
Mugnier, J. L., Huyghe, P., Gajurel, A. P., Upreti, B. N. & Jouanne, F. (2011) -
Seismites in the Kathmandu basin and seismic hazard in central Himalaya.
Tectonophysics, 509(1-2), 33-49.
Mugnier, J. L., Huyghe, P., Leturmy, P. & Jouanne, F. (2004) - Episodicity and rates
of thrust sheet motion in Himalaya (Western Nepal). In: Thrust Tectonics and
Hydrocarbon System (edited by Mc, C.) 82. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memory, 91-114.
Mugnier, J. L., Leturmy, P., Huyghe, P. & Chalaron, E. (1999a) - The Siwaliks of
western Nepal II. Mechanics of the thrust wedge. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 17,
643-657.
Mugnier, J. L., Leturmy, P., Mascle, G., Huyghe, P., Chalaron, E., Vidal, G., Husson,
L. & Delcaillau, B. (1999b) - The Siwaliks of western Nepal I. Geometry and kinematics.
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 17, 629-642.
Mugnier, J. L., Mascle, G. & Faucher, T. (1992) - La structure des Siwalik de l‘Ouest
Népal: un prisme d‘accrétion intracontinental. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de
France, 163, 585-595.
Mukul, M., Jaiswal, M. & Singhvi, A. K. (2007) - Timing of recent out-of-sequence

active deformation in the frontal Himalayan wedge: Insights from the Darjiling sub-
Himalaya, India Geology, 35, 99-1002.
Nábělek, J., Hetenyi , G., Vergne, J., Sapkota, S., Kafle, B., Jiang, M., Su, H.P.,
Chen, J., Huang, B.S., and Team, H.-C. (2009) - Underplating in the Himalaya-Tibet
collision zone revealed by the Hi-CLIMB experiment. Science, 325, p. 1371–1374.
Najman, Y., Appel, E., Boudagher-Fadel, M., Bown, P., Carter, A., Garzanti, E.,
Godin, L., Han, J., Liebke, U., Oliver, G., Parrish, R. & Vezzoli, G. (2010) - Timing of
India-Asia collision: Geological, biostratigraphic, and palaeomagnetic constraints.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 115.
Nakata, T. (1972) - Geomorphic history and crustal movements of the foothills of the
Himalayas. Science Report Tohoku University, 7th Series 22, 39-177.
Nakata, T. (1989) - Active faults of the Himalaya of India and Nepal. Geological Society
of America special Paper, 232, 243-264.
Nakata, T., Kumura, K. & Rockwell, T. (1998) - First successful paleoseismic trench
study on active faults in the Himalayas. Proceedings of AGU 1998 Fall Meeting: Eos,
Transactions, AGU, 79, 45.
National Research Council (2012) - Induced seismicity potential in energy

technologies, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Ni, J. & Barazangi, M. (1984) - Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone:

geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. Journal Geophysical
Research Letters, 89, 1147-1163.
Oldham, R. D. (1899) - Report on the great earthquake of 12th June 1897 (incl. the
reports by P. Bose, G. Grimes, H. Hayden, T. LaTouche, and E. Vredenburg). Geol.
Surv. India Memoir, 29, 1379.
Oreshin, S., Kiselev, S., Vinnik, L., Surya Prakasam, K., Rai, S. S., Makeyeva, L. &
Savvin, Y. (2008) - Crust and mantle beneath western Himalaya, Ladakh and western
Tibet from integrated seismic data. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 75-87.
Pandey, M. R. & Molnar, P. (1988) - The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal

earthquake of 15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J. Nepal
Geol. Soc., 5, 22-44
Pandey, M. R., Tandukar, R. P., Avouac, J. P., Lavé, J. & Massot, J. P. (1995) -
Interseismic strain accumulation on the Himalaya crustal ramp in Nepal. Geophysical
Research Letters, 22, 751-754.
Pandey, M. R., Tandukar, R. P., Avouac, J. P., Vergne, J., Héritier, Th. (1999) -
Characteristics of seismicity of Nepal and their seismotectonic implications. J. Asian
Earth Sci. 17, 703–712.
Parrish, R. R. & Hodges, K. V. (1996) - Isotopic constraints on the age and provenance
of the Lesser and Greater Himalayan sequences, Nepalese Himalaya. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 108, 904-911.
Paudyal, H. (2012) - Himalayan Seismic Activity: A Concise Picture. The Himalayan

Physics, 3, 35-37.
Paul, J. (2001) - The motion and active de formation of India. Geophysical Research
Letters, 28, 647-650.
Pearson, O. N. (2002) - Structural evolution of the central Nepal fold-thrust belt and
regional tectonic and structural significance of the Ramgarh thrust.
Pearson, O. N. & DeCelles, P. G. (2005) - Structural geology and regional tectonic

significance of the Ramgarh thrust, Himalayan fold-thrust belt of Nepal. Tectonics, 24.
Pêcher, A. (1977) - Geology of the Nepal Himalaya; deformation and petrography in the
Main Central Thrust zone. In: Himalaya; Sciences de la terre (edited by Jest, C.). Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 301-318.
Piccinelli, F. G., Mucciarelli, M., Federici, P. and Albarello, D. (1995) - The

microseismic network of the Ridracoli Dam, north Italy: Data and interpretations, Pure
and Applied Geophysics, 145(1), 98-108.
Powers, P. M., Lillie, R. J. & Yeats, R. S. (1998) - Structure and shortening of the
Kangra and Dehra Dun reentrants, sub-Himalaya, India. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 110, 1010-1027.
Rai, S. S., Priestley, K., Gaur, V. K., Mitra, S., Singh, M. P. & Searle, M. (2006) -
Configuration of the Indian Moho beneath the NW Himalaya and Ladakh. Geophysical
Research Letters, 33(15).
Rajendra Prasad, B., Simon L. Klemperer, Vijaya Rao, V., Tewari, H. C. & Prakash
Khare. (2011) - Crustal structure beneath the Sub-Himalayan fold- thrust belt, Kangra
recess, northwest India, from seismic reflection profiling: Implications for Late
Paleoproterozoic orogenesis and modern earthquake hazard. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 308, 218- 228.
Rajendran, C. P. & Rajendran, K. (2005) - The status of central seismic gap: a

perspective based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan
earthquakes. Tectonophysics, 395, 19-39.
Rajendran, K. & Rajendran, C. P. (2011) - Revisiting the earthquake sources in the

Himalaya: Perspectives on past seismicity. Tectonophysics, 504, 75-88.
Rana, G., Murray, B., Maharjan, D. & Thaku, A. (2007) - Kathmandu Valley
Environment Outlook. http://www.rrcap.unep.org/reports/eo/kv/KVEO_0_cover.pdf. ,
Kathmandu.
Rastogi, B. & Chadha, R. (1995) - Intensity and isoseismals of Uttarkashi earthquake of

October, 1991. In: Uttarkashi Earthquake (edited by Gupta, H. K. & Gupta, G. D.) 30.
Geological Society of India, Memoir, 19-24.
Raval U. (2000) - Laterally heterogeneous seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan arc a

consequence of cratonic and mobil nature of underthrusting Indian crust. Current
Science, 78, pp. 546–549
Reyners, M. (1988) - Reservoir-induced seismicity at Lake Pukaki, New Zealand,

Geophysical Journal, 93, 127-135.
Richter, C. F. (1958) - Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Robert, X., van der Beek, P. A., Braun, J., Perry, C. M. & Mugnier, J.-L. (2011) -
Control of detachment geometry on lateral variations in exhumation rates in the
Himalaya: Insights from low-temperature thermochronology and numerical modeling.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, 22 pp.
Robinson, D.P., Das, S., Watts, A.R. (2006) - Earthquake rupture stalled by subducting
fracture zone. Science, 321, 1203.
Robinson, D. M., DeCelles, P. G., Patchett, P. J. & Garzione, C. N. (2001) - The

kinematic evolution of the Nepalese Himalaya interpreted from Nd isotopes. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 192(4), 507-521.
Robinson, D. M., DeCelles, P. G., Garzione, C. N., Pearson, O. N., Harrison, T. M. &
Catlos, E. J. (2003) - Kinematic model for the Main Central thrust in Nepal. Geology, 31,
359-362.
Robinson, D. M., DeCelles, P. G. & Copeland, P. (2006) - Tectonic evolution of the

Himalayan thrust belt in western Nepal: Implications for channel flow models. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 118(7-8), 865-885.
Robinson, D. M. (2008) - Forward modeling the kinematic sequence of the central

Himalayan thrust belt, western Nepal. Geosphere, 4(5), 785-801.
Ruff, L.J. (1989) - Do trench sediments affect great earthquake occurrence in

subduction zones? Pure and Applied Geophysics, 129, 263–282.
Sahoo, P.K., S. Kumar and R.P. Singh (1998) - Estimation of Stress using IRS-1B Data
of NW Himalaya, Current Science, 74, no. 9, p. 781-786
Sapkota, S. N., Bollinger, L., Klinger, Y., Tapponnier, P., Gaudemer, Y. & Tiwari, D.
(2012) - Primary surface ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes in 1934 and 1255.
Nature Geosciences, 6, 71-76.
Sastri, V. V., Bhandari, L. L., Raju, A. T. R. & Datta, A. K. (1971) - Tectonic framework
and subsurface stratigraphy of the Ganga Basin. Journal of the Geological Society of
India, 12(3), 222-233.
Schelling, D. (1992) - The tectonostratigraphy and structure of the eastern Nepal

Himalaya. Tectonics, 11, 925-943.
Schelling, D. & Arita, K. (1991) - Thrust tectonics, crustal shortening, and the structure
of the far-eastern Nepal Himalaya. Tectonics, 10, 851-862.
Scholz, C.H., Small, C. (1997) - Effect of seamount subduction on seismic coupling.

Geology, 25, 487–490.
Schorlemmer, D. and Woessner, J. (2008), Probability of Detecting an Earthquake,

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(5), 2103-2117.
Searle, M. (2013) - Colliding Continents: A geological exploration of the Himalaya,

Karakoram, and Tibet. OUP Oxford.
Seeber, L. & Armbruster, J. (1981) - Great detachment earthquakes along the

Himalayan Arc and long-term forecasting. Earthquake Prediction: An International
Review. Maurice Ewing Series (edited by Simpson, D. W. & Richards, P. G.) 4. American
Geophysical Union, 259-277.
Seeber, L., Armbruster, J. & Quittmeyer, R. (1981) - Seismicity and continental

subduction in the Himalayan arc. In: Zagros, Hindu Kush, Himalaya, Geodynamic
Evolution, Geodynamics. (edited by Gupta, H. K. & Delany, F. M.) DC. Ser. 3. AGU,
Washington, 215-242.
Shava, R. (1992) - Ancient and Medieval Nepal. Manohar Publication, New-Delhi.
Sheehan, A. F., de la Torre, T., Monsalve, G., Schulte-Pelkum, V., Bilham, R.,
Blume, F., Bendick, R., Wu, F., Pandey, M. R. and Rajaure, S. (2008) - Earthquakes
and crustal structure of the Himalaya from the Himalayan Nepal Tibet Seismic
Experiment (HIMNT), Journal of the Nepal Geological Society, 38.
Shrestha, S. B., Shrestha, J. N. & Sharma, S. R. (1984) - Geological map of central

Nepal. Department of Mines and Geology, Kathmandu, scale 1:250,000.
Shukla, H. P., Dattatrayam, R. S. and Bhatnagar, A. K. (2012) - Seismicity of region

around dams in north west India, Mausam, 63(2), 261-274.
Simpson, D. W., Leith, W. S. and Scholz, C. H. (1988) - Two types of reservoir-induced

seismicity, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 78(6), 2025–2040.
Singh, D. D. & Gupta, H. K. (1980) - Source dynamics of two great earthquakes of the
Indian subcontinent; the Bihar- Nepal earthquake of January 15, 1934 and the Quetta
earthquake of May 30, 1935. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 70(3), 757-773.
Singh, R.P., and U.K. Singh (1997) - Tectonic Settings of Indo-Gangetic Basin
Revealed from MT data, Current Science, v. 73, no. 3, p. 281-284.
Singh, A., Kumar, M. R. & Raju, P. S. (2010) - Seismic structure of the underthrusting
Indian crust in Sikkim Himalaya. Tectonics, 29(6).
Sinvhal, H., Agarwal, P. N., King, G. C. P. & Gaur, V. K. (1973) - Interpretation of

Measured Movements at a Himalayan (Nahan) Thrust. Geophysical Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 34(2), 203-210.
Srivastava, H. N., Bansal, B. K. & Verma, M. (2013) - Largest earthquake in Himalaya:

An appraisal. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 82(1), 15-22.
Srivastava, P. & Mitra, G. (1994) - Thrust geometries and deep structure of the outer
and lesser Himalayas, Kumaon of the Himalayan fold-and-thrust belt. Tectonics, 13, 89-
109.
Stöcklin, J. (1980) - Geology of Nepal and its regional frame. Geological Society of
London, 187, 1-34.
Szeliga, W., Hough, S., Martin, S. & Bilham, R. (2010) - Intensity, Magnitude, Location,
and Attenuation in India for Felt Earthquakes since 1762. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 100(2), 570-584.
Tandon, A.N. (1954) - Study of the Great Assam Earthquake of August, 1950 and its
After Shocks, Indian Journal Meteorology Geophysics, Vol. 10, pp. 137-146.
Thapa, G. S. (1997) - Microseismic epicenter map of Nepal Himalaya and adjoining

region, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Torcal, F., Serrano, I., Havskov, J., Utrillas, J. L. and Valero, J. (2005) - Induced
seismicity around the Tous New Dam (Spain), Geophysical Journal International, 160,
144-160.
Tramelli, A., Troise, C., De Natale, G. and Orazi, M. (2013) - A new method for
optimization and testing of microseismic networks: An application to Campi Flegrei
(southern Italy), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), 1679–1691.
United States Committee on Large Dams of the International Commission on Large

Dams (1996) - Guidelines for selecting seismic parameters for dam projects. USCOLD
Committee on Earthquake.
Unsworth, M. J. (2010) - Magnetotelluric Studies of Active Continent-Continent

Collisions. Surv Geophys, 31, 137-161.
Unsworth, M. J., Jones, A. G., Wei, W., Marquis, G., Gokarn, S. G., Spratt, J. E.,
Bedrosian, P., Booker, J., Leshou, C., Clarke, G., Shenghui, L., Chanhong, L., Ming,
D., Sheng, J., Solon, K., Handong, T., Ledo, J. & team, B. R. f. T. I.-M. (2005) -
Crustal rheology of the Himalaya and Southern Tibet inferred from magnetotelluric data.
Nature, 438, 78-81.
Upreti, B. N. (1999) - An overview of the stratigraphy and tectonics of the Nepal

Himalaya. J. Asian Earth Sciences, 17, 577-606
Valdiya K.S. (1976) - Himalayan transverse faults and folds and their parallelism with
sub-surface structures of North Indian Plains. Tectonophysics, 32, pp. 353–386
Valdiya, K. S. (1980) - Geology of the Kumaon Lesser Himalaya. Wadia Institute of

Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun, India.
Valdiya, K. S., (1992) - The Main Boundary Thrust zone of the Himalaya, India. Annales
Tectonicase, 6, 54-84.
Vergne, J., Cattin, R. & Avouac, J. P. (2001) - On the use of dislocations to model
interseismic strain and stress build-up at intracontinental thrust faults. Geophysical
Journal International, 147, 155-162.
Verma, R. K. & Kumar, K. (1987) - Seismicity and nature of the plate movement along
the Himalayan arc, North east India and Arakan Yoma: a review. Tectonophysics, 134,
157-175.
Wallace, K., Bilham, R., Blume, F., Gaur, V. K. & Gahalaut, V. (2005) - Surface
deformation in the region of the 1905 Kangra Mw = 7.8 earthquake in the period 1846-
2001. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(15).
Wallace, K., Gaur, V., Blume, F., Hough, S. & Bilham, R. (2008) - Geodetic Study of
the Kangra Earthquake 1905. In: 2008-2012 UNAVCO proposal: Geodesy Advancing
Earth Science Research, 3-79.
Wang, Q., Zhang, P., Freymueller, J. T., Bilham, R., Larson, K. M., Lai, X., You, X. Z.,
Niu, Z. J., Wu, J. C., Li, Y. X., Liu, J. N., Yang, Z. Q. & Chen, Q. Z. (2001) - Present-
day crustal deformation in China constrained by global positioning system
measurements. Science, 294(5542), 574-577.
Watts, A.B., Koppers, A.A.P., Robinson, D. (2010) - Seamount, subduction and

earthquakes. Oceanography, 23, 166–173.
Wieland, M. (2013) - Dam Safety Aspects of Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity,

Presentation at the workshop on ‗Seismic impacts to dams and reservoirs‘, Hanoi, March
17th – 19th.
Wobus, C., Heimsath, A., Whipple, K. & Hodges, K. (2005) - Active out-of-sequence
thrust faulting in the central Nepalese Himalaya. Nature, 434, 1008-1011.
Woessner, J. and Wiemer, S. (2005) - Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues:

Estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 95(2), 684–698.
Wyss, M. (1979) - Estimating maximum expectable magnitude of earthquakes from fault

dimensions. Geology, 7(7), 336-340.
Yeats, R. S. (1992) - The Himalayan frontal fault system. Annales Tectonicase, 6, 85-98.
Yin, A. (2006) - Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by

along-strike variation of structural geometry,exhumation history, and foreland
sedimentation. Earth-Science Reviews, 76, 1-131.
Yin, A. & Harrison, T. M. (2000) - Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogeny.

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 28, 211-280.
Zhao, J., Yuan, X., Liu, H., Kumar, P., Pei, S., Rainer, Kind, Zhang, Z., Teng, J.,
Ding, L., Gao, X., Xu, Q. & Wang, W. (2010) - The boundary between the Indian and
Asian tectonic plates below Tibet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
107(25), 11229.
Zhao, W., Nelson, K.D., and Project INDEPTH Team (1993) - Deep seismic reflection
evidence for continental underthrusting beneath southern Tibet. Nature, 366, pp. 557–
559.
Zhao J. X., Zhang J., Asano A., Ohno Y., Oouchi T., Takahashi T., Ogawa H.,
Irikura K., Thio H. K., Somerville P. G, Fukushima Y. and Fukushima Y. (2006) -
Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in Japan Using Site Classification Based
on Predominant Period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; v. 96; no. 3; p.
898-913.
Scientific and Technical Centre
Risks and Prevention Division
3, avenue Claude-Guillemin - BP 36009
45060 Orléans Cedex 2 – France – Tel.: +33 (0)2 38 64 34 34

DRAFT Final Feasibility Report Vol06

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DRAFT Final Feasibility Report Vol06

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FEASIBILITY STUDY AND

2: DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

PHASE 2: DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

0 01/11/14 First Submission BRGM S. Ianos P. Cazalis

Revision Date Description Written by Checked by Approved by

141101_BG_TE_R_DRAFT_Final Feasibility Report_Vol6_A1_BRGM.docx

J. Rey, C. Allanic, J. Douglas, Th. Winter

Checked by: Approved by:

IM 003 ANG – April 05

In bibliography, this report should be cited as follows:

Synopsis and conclusions ............................................................................... 9

2. Seismotectonic models and characterization of faults .......................... 15

2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 15

2.2. GEODYNAMIC SETTING: AN ACTIVE COLLISIONAL OROGEN .................. 15

2.3. TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHY ........................................................................... 17

2.4. OVERVIEW ON HIMALAYAN TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY ...................... 19

2.5. NEAR FIELD GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMOTECTONIC FRAMEWORK OF THE

2.6. SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN THE BUDHI GANDAKI DAM REGION:

3. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA) ................................ 53

3.1. METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT

BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report 5

3.2. ASSESSMENT OF REFERENCE EARTHQUAKES ........................................ 54

3.3. DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR A ROCK SITE 55

4. Induced seismicity linked to the dam ....................................................... 67

4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 67

4.2. PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF RESERVOIR-TRIGGERED/INDUCED

5. Recommendations about the needs for a dedicated seismic monitoring

5.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 73

5.2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING NETWORK ........................................ 73

5.3. EXISTING MONITORING CAPABILITIES ....................................................... 74

5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL NETWORK ........................................... 75

6 BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report

BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report 7

8 BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report

Synopsis and conclusions

ithin the framework of a project to build a dam at Budhi Gandaki (Nepal),

Seismotectonic models and characterization of faults

BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report 9

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA)

10 BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report

Frequency (Hz) Acceleration (cm/s2) Velocity (cm/s) Displacement (cm)

 The horizontal elastic response spectrum (5% damping) for MDE=SEE=MCE

Induced seismicity linked to the dam

Recommendations about the needs for a dedicated seismic monitoring network

BRGM/RC- 62794 -FR-Final report 11

Within the framework of a project to build a dam in Nepal, Tractebel Engineering SA

Second step consist of deterministic ground motions assessment (deterministic seismic

Induced seismicity linked to the dam is discussed in chapter 4.

2. Seismotectonic models and

Figure 1 - The Alpine-Himalayan belt (Argand 1924).

2.2. GEODYNAMIC SETTING: AN ACTIVE COLLISIONAL OROGEN

2.4. OVERVIEW ON HIMALAYAN TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY

2.4.1. Historical seismicity and great earthquakes

Overview from the Himalayan arc to central Nepal

As far as paleoseismological investigations are concerned, the problem of detrital charcoal

 The 1255 A.D. Central Nepal earthquake

 The Mw 8.2 (1505) Central Nepal earthquake

 The Mw ~ 7.7 (1833) Central Nepal earthquake

 The Mw ~ 7.6 (1866) Central Nepal earthquake

A moderate earthquake occurred on 23 May 1866 near Kathmandu, which is mentioned by

 The Mw 8.1 Shillong (1897) earthquake

 The Mw 7.8 Kangra (1905) earthquake

 The Mw 8.1 Bihar (1934) earthquake

Sapkota et al. (2012) use geomorphological mapping of fluvial deposits, palaeo-seismological