Earthquake Science 37 (2024) 107–121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earthquake Science
Journal homepage: https://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/earthquake-science/

Article

Fractal analysis of major faults and fractal dimension of

lineaments in the Indo-Gangetic Plain on a regional scale
Vipin Chauhan and Jagabandhu Dixit*

Disaster Management Laboratory, Shiv Nadar University, Delhi NCR, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201314, India

Key points:
• Geospatial seismic characterization of the Indo-Gangetic Plain on a regional scale is derived based on the degree of
deformation and fractal dimension.
• Certain zones are highly deformed and represent zones with high strain.
• Identified zones have a large distribution of faults and strong seismicity, resulting in the potential for large earthquakes.
• The most seismically vulnerable zones are identified displaying higher fault frequency-length density values, degrees of
deformation, and fractal dimensions.

A B S T R A C T

The Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) is one of the most seismically vulnerable areas due to its proximity to the Himalayas. Geographic
information system (GIS)-based seismic characterization of the IGP was performed based on the degree of deformation and
fractal dimension. The zone between the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and the Main Central Thrust (MCT) in the Himalayan
Mountain Range (HMR) experienced large variations in earthquake magnitude, which were identified by Number-Size (NS)
fractal modeling. The central IGP zone experienced only moderate to low mainshock levels. Fractal analysis of earthquake
epicenters reveals a large scattering of earthquake epicenters in the HMR and central IGP zones. Similarly, the fault fractal
analysis identifies the HMR, central IGP, and south-western IGP zones as having more faults. Overall, the seismicity of the
study region is strong in the central IGP, south-western IGP, and HMR zones, moderate in the western and southern IGP, and
low in the northern, eastern, and south-eastern IGP zones.

Keywords: geospatial analysis; fractal modeling; seismicity pattern; fractal dimension

Citation: Chauhan V and Dixit J (2024). Fractal analysis of major faults and fractal dimension of lineaments in the Indo-Gangetic Plain
on a regional scale. Earthq Sci 37(2): 107–121, doi: 10.1016/j.eqs.2024.01.015.

* Corresponding author. Dixit J, email: [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]

Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAI Article history:

Received 4 May 2023
© 2024 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf Received in revised form 11 August 2023
Accepted 30 August 2023
of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access Available online 10 October 2023
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqs.2024.01.015
108 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

1. Introduction Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP). Many rivers and their complex

network systems in the IGP, along with the continuous
subduction of the Indian Plate under the Eurasian Plate,
Fractal analysis, such as fractal dimension, box
make this region one of the most seismoactive regions in
counting, and multifractal analysis, is a mathematical and
the world (Bajaj and Anbazhagan, 2019). Therefore, the
computational technique used to analyze complex systems
IGP has experienced several significant earthquakes in
that exhibit self-similarity. An irregular shape or structure
recent years. The IGP is prone to multiple hazards due to
has a fractal dimension that measures its complexity and
the Himalayan mountain range (HMR), which is in close
self-similarity. The fractal dimension differs from the
to the IGP. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the
classical Euclidean dimension in that an integer describing
seismicity pattern of the IGP using advanced geographic
the number of coordinates is required to locate a point in
information system (GIS) tools and to delineate seismic
space. It is a noninteger value that reflects the fractional
zones based on the frequency of seismic events. In
nature of fractal patterns with irregular and self-repeating
addition, this study provides maps displaying the major
features visible at different spatial levels. During our
seismotectonic features, FD distributions for faults, and
analysis, specific properties of the fractal object, such as its
earthquake epicenters in the study region.
dimension, were measured to better understand its underly-
ing mechanism, to observe the pattern, and to obtain
information about the underlying structure and dynamics. 2. Materials and methodology
These factors included connectivity, sensitivity to scale
changes, and resilience to perturbations. This information
2.1. Study region
has applications in the study of phenomena such as
earthquakes, geological formations, turbulence, fluid flow, Approximately 769,841 km2, bounded by latitudes
diffusion, and surface roughness. Topography, active 24.0°N–32.5°N and longitudes 72.5°E–81.5°E (Figure 1),
tectonics, geological settings, and geomorphological of the IGP was included in the present study. The study
factors contribute to earthquakes and earthquake-induced region included Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab,
landslides (Agrawal and Dixit, 2022, 2023; Agrawal et al., Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and some parts
2022; Gupta et al., 2022). Hydrogeological and hydrometeo- of Madhya Pradesh. The Himalayan foredeep depression
rological conditions also affect landslide susceptibility emerged as a result of a post-collision between the Indian
(Gupta and Dixit, 2022a, b). and Eurasian plates (Bajaj and Anbazhagan, 2019).
Fractal analysis helps model the essential features of Approximately 300,000 km2 of northern India is covered
these systems without modeling every detail. Mandelbrot by the IGP, which is 150–500 km wide and 125 m above
(1983) proposed fractal modeling, which can be used for the mean sea level. It is considered to be one of the most
seismotectonic features and may provide crucial infor- prominent sedimentary basins in the world (Valdiya, 2016;
mation on regional seismicity. In addition, fractal analysis Naresh et al., 2021).
allows the regional clustering of features (from high to low From the northwest to the east in the IGP region near
levels of clusters) through a dimensionless parameter the Southern Peninsula, the crustal thickness varies
referred to as the fractal dimension (FD), which is between 35 km and 37 km, whereas in the HMR foothills,
influenced by the size, density, and spatial distribution of it varies between 70 km and 72 km. Rivers such as the
the features. Numerous researchers have used fractal Ganga, Yamuna, Indus, and Brahmaputra, as well as their
modeling to identify the clustering of faults and tributaries, contribute to sediment filling in the basin
earthquakes (Hirata, 1989; Bodri, 1993; Barton, 1995; (varying from 15,000 feet to 30,000 feet), with large
Thingbaijam et al., 2008; Sengupta et al., 2011; Aggarwal alluvial deposits at the foothills of the HMR. Older and
et al., 2017; Afzal et al., 2018). Studies have been younger alluvium are the two main categories of sediment
conducted to delineate seismic zones and correlate seismic in the IGP. Sediment alluvium in the basin ranges from
parameters (such as the b-value) with the FD of earthquake sandy to clay, calcareous to non-calcareous, and acidic to
epicenters (Pal et al., 2008; Thingbaijam et al., 2009). The alkaline (Tandon et al., 2008; Kumar et al., 2012; Sharma
delineation of seismic zones helps researchers study et al., 2018). This region is prone to multiple natural
seismic hazards in a region (Raghukanth et al., 2011; Dixit hazards, such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes.
et al., 2011, 2012a, 2016). Liquefaction occurs because of Indian-plate region (IPR) and Himalayan plate
the shaking caused by earthquakes (Dixit et al., 2012b, c). boundary region (HPR) are two seismotectonic features of
This study covers most of the North Indian states in the the IGP (Gupta et al., 2021a). The IPR has seismotectonic
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 109

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

N
32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°
0 100 200 km

24°
Fault Ridge Thrust Gravity fault
Lineament Subsurface fault Study area

Figure 1. Tectonic map of the study region representing the tectonic features, such as faults, thrusts, ridges, gravity faults,
fault lineaments, and subsurface faults. The major active tectonic features, such as the Main Central Thrust (MCT), Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT), Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), Mahendragarh-Dehradun Fault (MDF), Great Boundary Fault (GBF),
Delhi-Haridwar Ridge (DHR), Sohna Fault, Mathura Fault, Moradabad Fault, Bharatpur-Mount Abu Fault, Chappoli Fault,
Delhi-Sargodha Ridge, Lucknow Fault, Kalu Fault, and Sardar-Shahar Fault, are highlighted. This map was prepared using
seismotectonic data from the Bhukosh and Geological Survey of India (GSI) maps with scales of 1:250,000 and 1:1,000,000.

features such as the Delhi Fold Belt (DFB) and Aravalli tectonic zone contains the seismically active Main Frontal
Fold Belt (AFB), known as the Delhi-Aravalli Fold Belt Thrust (MFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), and Main
(DAFB), and represents the most seismically active region Central Thrust (MCT). The high Himalayan zone contains
of the IPR, which has experienced a large number of seismotectonic features, such as the Indus Tsangpo Suture
intraplate seismic events (Figure 2) due to built-up stresses to the north of the MCT and the Karakoram Fault to the
within the plate resulting from the continuous subduction northeast of the MCT. Other faults in the HPR run
of the Indian plate under the Eurasian plate (Yadav et al., obliquely and transversely to the Himalayan trend.
2022). The Mahendragarh-Dehradun Fault (MDF) and Moreover, the HPR represents the boundary region of the
Rajasthan Great Boundary Fault (GBF) are strike-slip Indian and Eurasian plates and the most seismically active
faults trending NNE-SSW, and represent the limit of the region in the current study that experienced the highest
DFB. The DAFB includes the NE-SW trending Delhi- number of seismic events (Figure 2) due to ongoing
Haridwar Ridge (DHR), which extends across the IGP to orogeny along with the continuous movement of the Indian
the lower Himalayas, the north-south trending Sohna Fault, plate beneath the Eurasian plate in the HPR. Additionally,
Mathura Fault, and the NE-SW trending Moradabad Fault epicenters with some of the most severe earthquakes are
(Gupta et al., 2021a). The major tectonic features of the located in this region (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2016),
AFB, located southwest of the DFB, are the Bharatpur- and one or more large earthquakes are expected to occur in
Mount Abu and Chappoli faults. The NW-SE trending the Himalayan region (Bilham et al., 2001; Bilham, 2004).
Delhi-Sargodha Ridge is another tectonic structural
2.2. Data and data processing
feature, comprising the NE-SW trending Lucknow Fault,
Kalu Fault, N-S trending Sardar-Shahar Fault, and several The tectonic features of the IGP were explored using
other lineaments. Bhukosh (https://bhukosh.gsi.gov.cn/) and Geological
The Central Himalayas and high Himalayas are the two Survey of India (GSI) maps with scales of 1∶250,000 and
zones of the HPR (Pudi et al., 2021). The main Himalayan 1∶1,000,000. Approximately 262 structural tectonic fea-
110 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°

0 100 200 km

24°
Elevation (m)
7 795 mb<2 2≤mb<3.5 3.5≤mb<4.5
75 4.5≤mb<5.5 mb≥5.5

Figure 2. Seismicity map displaying the epicenter distribution of past earthquakes, which is overlaid on a digital elevation
model, occurring in and around the study region between October 14, 1911, and March 18, 2022. The map was prepared using
earthquake data from the International Seismological Center (ISC) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
earthquake catalogs. Earthquake events were divided into five groups (mb < 2, 2 ≤ mb < 3.5, 3.5 ≤ mb < 4.5, 4.5 ≤ mb < 5.5,
and mb ≥ 5.5), and are indicated by different colored circles (green, blue, yellow, orange, and red, respectively).

tures, such as faults, thrusts, ridges, lineaments, etc., were earthquake data is due to the numerous wave types and
carefully derived and ranged from 4.2 km to 851.4 km. recording sensors (Thingbaijam et al., 2008).
Earthquake data in the present study were obtained from To remove heterogeneity from the data, all earthquake
the International Seismological Center (ISC) and the magnitudes were converted into a single-magnitude scale
United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake (mb) to construct a more meaningful and valuable
catalogs, which both contain seismic events from different homogeneous catalog. Homogeneity was achieved using
sources, such as the National Earthquake Information region-specific correlations developed through a general
Center (NEIC), International Data Center (IDC), and orthogonal regression for different magnitude ranges and
National Center for Seismology (NDI). The prepared scales, source types, and depth ranges, as listed in Table 1
catalog contains 3,638 seismic events from October 14, (Kumar et al., 2020).
1911, to March 18, 2022, as shown in Figure 2. The The catalog was analyzed to remove the aftershocks
majority of the documented events had magnitude ranges through declustering. Of the various approaches to
of 2–3, 3–4, and 4–5, as shown in Figure 3a. The decluster earthquake catalogs, Gardner and Knopoff (1974)
earthquake magnitudes present in the catalog are method was adopted using ZMAP version 7, which is an
represented according to several scales, such as body-wave open-source program built in MATLAB. This approach is
magnitude (mb), local magnitude (ML), surface wave classical and centered on a time-space window analysis, as
magnitude (MS), duration magnitude (MD), and moment seismic events display a Poisson distribution. After
magnitude (MW), resulting in the heterogeneity of the declustering, 2,562 events were identified as independent
documented earthquake data (Thingbaijam et al., 2009; events, with 46.1% having magnitudes between 3 and 4,
Agrawal et al., 2023). The heterogeneity in the reported 37.1% between 2 and 3, 11.4% between 4 and 5, 2.6%
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 111

Pre-declustered earthquakes Declustered earthquakes

(a) 3.4% 0.3% 1.9% 0.3% (b)
2.6% 2.5%
11.4%
14.4%
32.3%
37.1%

Magnitude (mb)
1–2
2–3
3–4
47.7% 46.1% 4–5
5–6
6–7
Total earthquake events=3,638 Total earthquake events=2,562

Figure 3. Pie charts representing the percentage distribution (based on the magnitude ranges: 1–2, 2–3, 3–4, 4–5, 5–6, and
6–7) of (a) pre-declustered and (b) declustered earthquakes between 1911 and 2022 in the study region.

Table 1. Correlation between various magnitudes (mb: Body-wave magnitude; ML: Local magnitude; MD: Duration magnitude) of
different sources (ISC: International Seismological Center; NEIC: National Earthquake Information Center; IDC: Interna-
tional Data Center; NDI: National Center for Seismology) (Kumar et al., 2020).
Correlations Range Earthquake depth

mbISC= 0.94 mbNEIC + 0.19 3.0 ≤ mbNEIC ≤ 6.9 ≤ 400 km

mbISC = 1.20 mbIDC – 0.68 2.8 ≤ mbIDC ≤ 6.0 ≤ 260 km

mbISC = 0.76 MLIDC – 1.02 2.1 ≤ MLIDC ≤ 5.8 ≤ 260 km

mbISC = 0.85 MLNDI – 0.68 2.3 ≤ MLNDI ≤ 5.8 ≤ 200 km

MLNDI = 0.94 MDNDI – 0.22 1.0 ≤ MDNDI ≤ 5.1 ≤ 130 km

between 5 and 6, 2.5% between 1 and 2, and 0.3% between determining the degree of deformation is discussed in
6 and 7, as shown in Figure 3b. The spatial distribution of section 3.1.
the pre-declustered and declustered earthquakes between 2.3.2 Fractal modeling
1911 and 2022 is presented in Figure 4. Mandelbrot (1983) proposed fractal modeling by
defining a parameter referred to as FD, which is a valuable
2.3. Methodology
means of describing geometric patterns with a self-similar
2.3.1 Degree of deformation structure. The FD can help quantify the degree of fractal
The degree of deformation was estimated in arbitrary clustering of seismic features (such as seismic event
units per square kilometer (a.u/km2) using the approach epicenters and faults) in space. Numerous researchers have
described by Lobatskaya and Strelchenko (2016). This addressed earthquake epicenters and faults as self-similar
method uses fault ranks based on fault lengths as well as structures in their studies on FD (Turcotte, 1986; Pal et al.,
mega and micro blocks based on fault geometry, which 2008; Roy and Mondal, 2009; Thingbaijam et al., 2009;
split the study region into distinct zones or blocks to Kumar et al., 2010; Chingtham et al., 2014). Box counting
estimate the degree of deformation. In this study, eight can also be employed to quantify the fractal geometry of
large blocks or mega blocks (A1 to A8 ) were selected, any self-similar system (Ge ML and Lin QZ, 2009; Jiang
covering the entire study area, based on previous studies SG and Liu DS, 2012). The FD, which is denoted by D,
(Chingtham et al., 2014; Keshri et al., 2020; Gupta et al., can be determined by defining an area of square geometry
2021b; Agrawal et al., 2021, 2022 ) and fault frequency- with side length R that completely contains the system and
length density. In addition, all of the small blocks within then splitting that square geometry into a regular square
the mega blocks were categorized as micro blocks. These grid of boxes of length r. If the system exhibits self-simi-
blocks were then classified into six micro blocks (B, C, D, larity, the FD and number of boxes that contain the self-si-
E, F, and G) using the equal interval classification method. milar system follow a power law, as indicated in Equation 1,
On the map, these blocks have various shapes, such as
triangular, quadrangular, and pentangular, and are N(r) ∼ r−D (1)
generated by polycurved fault lines. The methodology for where N(r ) represents the number of boxes at scale r
112 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

N
32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

0 50 100 km 26°

Pre-declustered
25°
Declustered
Study area
24°

Figure 4. Map displaying the epicenter distribution of declustered earthquakes in the study region and pre-declustered
earthquakes in and around the study region between 1911 and 2022. Red circles and green points represent the pre-declustered
and declustered earthquakes, respectively.

containing at least one earthquake. The power-law relation- area of more than 61×103 km2 , as shown in Table 2,
ship is valid to the extent of the r value within which the containing various micro blocks (B to G ), as shown in
self-similarity of the structure appears. D is calculated as Figure 6; the number of micro blocks within the mega
the slope of the linear fit of the plot between log10N(r) and blocks is specified in Table 3.
log10r. The results drawn from D provide significant To systematize the micro blocks, the equal interval
information regarding the spatial distribution of the classification method was applied. Class B was allotted to
features of the system. The D value may range from 0 to 2, the largest blocks, with sizes greater than 2,300 km2,
depending on the dimensions of the embedding space. The whereas the remaining size classes were (C) 1,801–2,300 km2,
D value of 0 indicates that all features are clustered at a (D) 1,301–1,800 km2 , (E) 801–1,300 km2 , and (F)
single point, and a D value approaching 2 indicates that the 301–800 km2, and the smallest block (G) had sizes of less
features are randomly or homogeneously distributed over a than 300 km2. Approximately 77 blocks in class B were
two-dimensional space (Kumar et al., 2011). Hence, the D formed by relatively extensive faults. Classes C, D, and E
value is inversely proportional to the degree of clustering consisted of 23, 30, and 46 blocks, respectively, with the
(Roy and Mondal, 2009). fewest blocks among all of the classes. Class F comprised
99 blocks, built mainly by smaller faults or those emerging
3. Results and discussion at the junctions of larger faults. Similar to class F , the
smallest class (G) consisted of 163 blocks. In terms of
geometry, the F and G block classes were the most
3.1. Degree of deformation
abundant and diverse. Similarly, the equal interval method,
Faults were classified into nine ranks, and the research along with Sturges’ formula, was employed to categorize
area was split into 446 blocks (438 micro blocks and eight the faults in terms of rank (k). The faults were ranked from
mega blocks). Mega blocks A1 to A8, displayed in Figure 5, one to nine. Rank I was allotted to the smallest faults with
represent the northern IGP (N-IGP), western IGP (W-IGP), lengths shorter than or equal to 47.3 km, and the other
central IGP zone (C-IGP), south-western IGP (SW-IGP), rankings are as follows: rank II (47.4–94.7 km), rank III
southern IGP (S-IGP), south-eastern IGP (SE-IGP), (94.8–142.1 km), rank IV (142.2–189.5 km), rank V
eastern IGP (E-IGP), and Himalayan Mountain range (189.6–236.9 km), rank VI (237–284.3 km), rank VII
(HMR) zones, respectively. Individual mega blocks had an (284.4–331.7 km), rank VIII (331.8–379.1 km), and rank
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 113

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°
A8

30°

A1
A3 29°

28°
A2
A7
27°

26°
A6
A4
25°
A5
0 100 200
km
24°
Fault Gravit fault Ridge Lineament
Thrust Subsurface fault Mege blocks (A1–A8)

Figure 5. Map displaying the significant tectonic features in the study area and delineating the eight mega blocks (A1 to A8)
covering the entire study area. A1 : northern IGP zone (N-IGP), A2 : western IGP zone (W-IGP), A3 : central IGP zone (C-IGP),
A4: south-western IGP zone (SW-IGP), A5: southern IGP zone (S-IGP), A6: south-eastern IGP zone (SE-IGP), A7: eastern IGP
zone (E-IGP), and A8: Himalayan Mountain range (HMR) zone.

IX (>379.1 km). with Quaternary sand and dunes, which exhibit poor
The data were mathematically analyzed using standard geological engineering characteristics, as shown in Figure 7.
GIS tools, and the relevant parameters were calculated A1 was primarily cross-cut by rank I and II faults, such as
using the built-in ArcGIS calculator. The degree of the Ropar fault, and was bounded by deformities such as
deformation in terms of fault density was calculated using faults (MDF), lineaments, and thrust (MFT). In contrast,
parameters, such as fault rank, fault position (crossing or faults (GBF) and lineaments defined the boundaries of A6,
bounding), and block class. The fault density was and mainly consisted of Precambrian rock and Quaternary
calculated as the ratio of the total fault rank L (shown in sediments, as shown in Figure 7.
Equation 2) and the surface area (S) of the mega block, Blocks A2 and A7 occupied more than 62,000 km2 each
depending on the number of faults n(k; Bd ) and n(k; Cr) and were notably more deformed (approximately 0.002
that form the boundary (Bd) of the block and the faults that a.u./km2 each) than the other blocks. A2 and A7 covered
cross-cut (Cr) the block at rank k, respectively. Rajasthan in the west with Quaternary sand and dune soil
∑9 and Uttar Pradesh in the east with Quaternary sediment
L= k [n (k; Bd ) + 2n (k;Cr )] (2) soil, respectively.
k=1 These blocks were also cross-cut by significant
Table 2 lists the features of the faults and blocks. deformations, such as the Sardar-Shahar fault, Tonk
Among the eight mega blocks, blocks A1 and A6 were lineament, Kalu fault (A2), and the Lucknow fault (A7).
found to be the least deformed (approximately 0.001 The A7 boundaries were delineated by MFT in the
a.u./km2 each) due to their large size (>125,000 km2 each) northeast and GBF in the northwest of the block. In
and relatively low fault area ratio values. A1 and A6 contrast, A5 , the smallest block in the southern region of
occupied the NNW and SSE regions of the study area, the study area, appeared to be moderately deformed
respectively. A1 covered Punjab, Haryana, and some parts (approximately 0.003 a.u./km2) and covered small portions
of Rajasthan, whereas A6 covered Madhya Pradesh, some of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. A5 mainly comprised
areas of Uttar Pradesh, and a small portion of Rajasthan. Precambrian rocks and Paleocene Cretaceous extrusive
A1 was composed of thick Quaternary sediments along rocks, with a small portion covering Quaternary sediments.
114 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

Table 2. Faults and blocks characteristics.

Mega block area (km2)

Fault ranks (k) and relation to mega blocks A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

129,053 62,016 94,988 70,675 61,986 125,664 75,737 97,584

I Bd 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 4

Cr 14 8 19 21 1 11 1 40

II Bd 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 1

Cr 6 9 12 15 11 3 2 23

III Bd 5 2 2 1 2 3 3 3

Cr 2 3 17 14 10 9 9 6

IV Bd 2 0 2 0 1 2 1 0

Cr 2 1 4 5 3 2 2 2

V Bd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cr 2 0 4 3 1 0 1 2

VI Bd 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Cr 2 1 1 3 1 0 0 2

VII Bd 0 0 3 2 1 2 1 0

Cr 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

VIII Bd 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Cr 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

IX Bd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total fault rank (L) 167 122 335 353 185 151 119 351

Fault density (×10−3) 1.29 1.97 3.53 4.99 2.98 1.20 1.57 3.60

A3 and A8 (approximately 0.004 a.u./km2 each) were the Jwala Mukhi Thrust, Alaknanda Fault, MBT, and
relatively heavily deformed and covered areas greater than MCT. Block A4 appeared to be highly deformed, almost as
94,000 km2 each. The A8 block represents the HMR, which deformed as A3 and A8 (approximately 0.005 a.u./km2),
is separated from the IGP by the MFT and contains the due to its high fault area ratio. Abundant rank II and III
Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. A8 faults were observed in A4. A4 was identified southwest of
comprised a variety of different rocks, but Neogene the study region, covered a portion of Rajasthan (covers an
sedimentary and Precambrian rocks covered a significant area > 70,000 km2 ), and comprised Precambrian rocks and
portion. A3 is a plain land area mostly covered by thick Quaternary sediments.
Quaternary sediments and Precambrian rock.
These blocks covered Delhi and some regions of Uttar 3.2. Fractal modeling for earthquakes
Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Both blocks primarily
In this study, 121 mainshock earthquakes that occurred
contained faults with lengths greater than 100 km and were
heavily cross-cut due to large deformations. A3 was cross- between 2000 and 2020 (magnitude, mb ranging from 1.9
cut by Sohna, Mathura, Moradabad, Kantli Faults, Mendna to 6) were selected for NS fractal modeling after declus-
Stepped and Graben, Jaipur Depression, and bounded by tering using the Gardner and Knopoff (1974) technique in
the MDF, MFT, Chahapoli Fault, Tonk Lineament, and ZMAP. Logarithmic values of N(S ) and mb were plotted
GBF. against each other, as shown in Figure 8. The blue dashed
Similarly, the major deformations that crosscut A8 were lines on the NS log-log plot and the corresponding mb
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 115

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°

0 100 200 km

24°
Mega blocks Micro blocks Fault
A1 A5 B E Gravity fault
A2 A6 C D Lineament
A3 A7 D G Subsurface fault
A4 A8 Thrust

Figure 6. Map displaying the spatial distribution of significant tectonic features in the study region; mega blocks (named A1
to A8 , based on the literature review and fault frequency-length density indicated by the color boundaries of hollow blocks)
and micro blocks. Micro blocks are classified from B to F using the equal interval classification method and are represented
by solid color blocks.

Table 3. Number of micro blocks within the mega blocks.

Mega blocks
S.No. Micro blocks
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

1 B 10 8 11 5 9 14 10 10

2 C 2 1 5 4 1 3 3 4

3 D 2 1 6 7 2 3 1 8

4 E 0 5 7 12 6 3 0 13

5 F 4 4 20 18 12 5 4 32

6 G 1 7 30 46 12 4 3 60

values were used as thresholds to distinguish various zones with magnitudes greater than mb4.7 occurred near or on the
of geophysical seismic events (Afzal et al., 2012, 2016, MBT of the HMR, whereas earthquakes with magnitudes
2018; Adib et al., 2017). less than 3.2 were spatially clustered in the central part of
Using the mb threshold values, three sets of magnitude the study area. Most earthquakes in the north-eastern
populations (mb < 3.2; 3.2 ≤ mb ≤ 4.7; and mb > 4.7) were region had magnitudes of 3.2 and 4.7.
identified on the NS log-log plot (Afzal et al., 2018). These The FDs for the earthquake epicenters (Dc) from the
populations display the spatial clustering of earthquakes in declustered catalog in the study region were evaluated
the study region, as shown in Figure 9. Larger earthquakes using the box counting method. Initially, the region was
116 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°

0 100 200 km
24°
Geology
Cretaceous sedimentary rocks Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks
Jurassic metamorphic and sedimentary rocks Tertiary igneous rocks
Lower Paleozoic rocks Tertiary sedimentary rocks
Mesozoic and Paleozoic intrusive and metamorphic rocks Triassic metamorphic and sedimentary rocks
Neogene sedimentary rocks Undivided Carboniferious to Ordovician rocks
Paleocene Cretaceous extrusive rocks
Undivided Devonian rocks
Paleogene sedimentary rock
Quaternary sand and dunes Undivided Paleozoic rocks
Quaternary sediments Undivided Precambrian rocks
Paleogene sedimentary rock Water
Tertiary and Cretaceous igneous and metamorphic rocks

Figure 7. Geology map displaying the dominance of undivided Precambrian rocks and Quaternary sediments in the study
region. The Himalayan zone consists of complex geology, containing rocks (sedimentary rocks, igneous rocks, and
metamorphic rocks) of different time periods, such as Precambrian, Tertiary, Mesozoic (Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic),
Paleozoic (Carboniferious, Ordovician, and Devonian), and Cenozoic (Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary) with river
sediments. The IGP along the foothills of the Himalayas is mostly covered by the river sediments of the Neogene and
Quaternary periods.

2.5 75°E 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

R2=0.946
2.0 R2=0.9728 N 32°N

1.5
log10 mb

31°
R2=0.9766
1.0

0.5 30°
log10 (mb=3.2) log10 (mb=4.7)
0 29°
0.33 0.43 0.53 0.63 0.73 0.83 Magnitude (mb)
log10 mb <3.2
3.2–4.7 28°
Figure 8. The log-log graph of Number-Size (NS) of seismic >4.7
events between 2000 and 2020 in the study region depicts three 0 50 100 km 27°
power-law relationships, represented by black solid straight
line segments, and divides the magnitude population into three Figure 9. Map displaying mainshock events between 2000
sets (mb < 3.2, 3.2 ≤ mb ≤ 4.7, and mb > 4.7), which are and 2020 in the study region indicates 121 earthquake events,
indicated by the blue dashed lines at log10(mb = 3.2) and with magnitudes ranging from mb 1.9 to mb 6. Circles of large,
log10(mb = 4.7). The calculated log10N(S) values for each moderate and small sizes indicate mainshock events of mb <
log10mb are indicated by dark orange dots. 3.2, 3.2–4.7 and mb > 4.7, respectively.
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 117

divided into 100 symmetrical squares using ArcGIS Pro by region containing the fault layer, as determined using
layering a 100 km × 100 km grid (side length of the ArcGIS Pro, was divided into 25 symmetrical squares (side
square, R = 100 km). The Dc in each 100 km × 100 km length of the square, R = 200 km) by building a 5 × 5 mesh
square was evaluated by considering r = R/2i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3, using GIS tools. Th Dc value in each 200 km × 200 km
4) and counting N(r) for each value of r. The Dc values for square was evaluated by considering r = R/2i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3,
each square, as shown in Figure 10, were calculated using 4, and 5) and counting the N(r) for each value of r.
the least squares method. The results indicated that the The D values for every 25 squares were calculated
value of Dc ranged from 0.71 to 1.71 and was correlated
using the least squares method applied to the graphs of
with the FD values observed in previous studies in this
log10N(r) and log10 r, as shown in Figure 11. The D values
region (Chingtham et al., 2014). Approximately 27 out of
ranged from 0.96 to 1.83, which correlates with the FD
100 squares were selected for fractal analysis, as the other
73 squares contained very few epicenters and displayed values observed in previous studies in this region
insignificant statistical results, as shown in Figure 10. (Sengupta et al., 2011). Figure 12 represents the calculated
Zone (A3), which lies between the AMR and GBF around D values corresponding to each segment. The zone
the Delhi-NCR and the HMR (A8), was found to have between the MDF and GBF, along with the AMR from
higher Dc values, indicating a wide spread of earthquakes Delhi to Rajasthan (covered in blocks A3 and A4 ), and the
and representing strong seismicity. Moderate to low values zone of the Himalayan thrusts in block A8 , had D values
of Dc were observed in the IGP region from north to east, above 1.66.
indicating clustering. A moderate D value of 1.31–1.65 was observed in
almost all parts of the mega blocks. A low D value ranging
3.3. Fractal modeling for faults
from 0.96–1.3 was observed in the northern region of
A fractal analysis of the fault systems in the IGP was block A1 and the east-southern region of block A6. Figure 13
performed using the box counting method. The study shows the calculated standard deviation, δD , correspon-
73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°
0 100 200 km

24°
Fractal dimension (Dc)
0.71–0.90 0.91–1.10 1.11–1.30 1.31–1.50
1.51–1.71 Faults Earthquakes Study area

Figure 10. Map displaying the spatial distribution of faults (solid dark red lines), 2,562 earthquake epicenters (orange dots),
and fractal dimension, Dc , for declustered seismic events between 2000 and 2020 in the study region. The Dc in selected grid
cells sized 100 km × 100 km was estimated by considering r = R/2i (i = 0,1,2,3,4; R = 100 km) and employing the least
squares method. Dc ranged from 0.71 to 1.71 and is indicated by solid colored blocks (light green: 0.71–0.90; moderate green:
0.91–1.10; light blue: 1.11–1.30; blue: 1.31–1.50; and dark blue: 1.51–1.71).
118 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

3.0
ding to each segment. The calculated FD values of the
2.5
segments had relatively small standard deviations,
2.0
suggesting that the FD values were closely clustered
log10 N (r)

1.5
around their mean, which indicates low variations in the
1.0
0.5 log10 N (r)=1.65 log10 (r)−1.09 FD values and represents no statistical significance.
R2=0.98
0
0.5 1.0 1.5
log10 (r)
2.0 2.5
4. Conclusions
Figure 11. The log10N(r) vs log10(r) graph represents the The presence of thick sediment fills, a high density of
estimation of the fractal dimension (D =1.65) for fault
inhabitants and infrastructure, and its proximity to the
segments in a grid cell size of 200 km × 200 km with the
centroid at longitude 78.8° E and latitude 26.7° N using the great Himalayas make the IGP one of the most seismic-
least squares method. The log10N(r) values for each log10r (r = sensitive regions. Seismic characterization of the IGP was
R/2i; i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; R = 200 km) were calculated by performed based on the degree of deformation and fractal
employing the box counting method and are indicated by dark dimension using a GIS platform. Based on NS fractal
orange dots.
modeling, the HMR was found to be highly vulnerable
73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°

0 100 200 km
24°
Fractal dimension (D)
0.96–1.30 1.31–1.50 1.51–1.65 1.66–1.83
Faults Study area

Figure 12. Map displaying the spatial distribution of faults (solid dark red lines) and fractal dimension, D for the fault
segments in the study region. D in the grid cells (200 km × 200 km) was estimated by considering r = R/2i (i = 0,1,2,3,4,5; R =
200 km) and using the least squares method. D ranged from 0.96 to 1.83 and is indicated by the solid colored blocks (light
grey: 0.96–1.30; grey: 1.31–1.50; dark grey: 1.51–1.65; and black: 1.66–1.83).

because it experiences large earthquakes (greater than of seismic events over all of the zones. The FDs for the
mb4.7). In addition, the FDs for earthquake epicenters fault segments varied from 0.96 to 1.83. The D values
ranged from 0.71 to 1.71 and indicated the zone between approaching 2 observed in zones A3, A4 , and A8 indicate
the AMR and GBF around Delhi-NCR. Furthermore, the that these zones are highly deformed and represent zones
HMR contained higher Dc values, which suggests that of high strain, as faults are randomly distributed all over
these zones are under high stress, leading to the occurrence the zones in the study region.
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 119

73°E 74° 75° 76° 77° 78° 79° 80° 81°

32°N

31°

30°

29°

28°

27°

26°

25°
0 100 200 km

24°
Standard deviation (δD)
0.04–0.05 0.06–0.08 0.09–0.10 Faults
Study area

Figure 13. Map displaying the spatial distribution of faults (solid dark red lines) and standard deviation of D values (δD) in
the study region. The δD ranged from 0.04 to 0.10 and is indicated by the solid colored blocks (light grey: 0.04–0.05; grey:
0.06–0.08; and dark grey: 0.09–0.10). The δD values suggest a small variation in D and signify no statistical significance.

Data availability statement Afzal P, Tehrani ME, Ghaderi M and Hosseini MR (2016).
Delineation of supergene enrichment, hypogene and oxida-
tion zones utilizing staged factor analysis and fractal
The derived data supporting the findings of this study modeling in Takht-e-Gonbad porphyry deposit, SE Iran. J
are available upon reasonable request. Geochem Explor 161: 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gexplo.2015.12.001.
Conflict of interest Afzal P, Adib A and Ebadati N (2018). Delineation of seismic
zonation using fractal modeling in West Yazd province,
Central Iran. J Seismol 22(6): 1 377–1 393. https://doi.org/10.
The authors affirm that they have no financial and
1007/s10950-018-9770-9.
personal relationships with any individuals or organiza- Aggarwal SK, Pastén D and Khan PK (2017). Multifractal
tions that could have potentially influenced the work analysis of 2001 Mw7.7 Bhuj earthquake sequence in Gujarat,
presented in this paper. Western India. Phys A:Stat Mech Appl 488: 177–186. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.06.022.
References Agrawal N, Gupta L and Dixit J (2021). Assessment of the
socioeconomic vulnerability to seismic hazards in the
Adib A, Afzal P, Ilani SM and Aliyari F (2017). Determination of national capital region of India using factor analysis.
the relationship between major fault and zinc mineralization Sustainability 13(17): 9 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1317
using fractal modeling in the Behabad fault zone, central Iran. 9652.
J Afr Earth Sci 134: 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Agrawal N and Dixit J (2022). Topographic classification of
jafrearsci.2017.06.025. North Eastern Region of India using geospatial technique and
Afzal P, Alghalandis YF, Moarefvand P, Omran NR and Haroni following seismic code provisions. Environ Earth Sci 81(18):
HA (2012). Application of power-spectrum–volume fractal 436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10556-w.
method for detecting hypogene, supergene enrichment, Agrawal N, Gupta L and Dixit J (2022). Geospatial assessment of
leached and barren zones in Kahang Cu porphyry deposit, active tectonics using SRTM DEM-based morphometric
Central Iran. J Geochem Explor 112: 131–138. https://doi. approach for Meghalaya, India. All Earth 34(1): 39–54. https:
org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2011.08.002. //doi.org/10.1080/27669645.2022.2081112.
120 Chauhan V and Dixit J Earthquake Science 37 (2024)

Agrawal N and Dixit J (2023). GIS-based landslide susceptibility nian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5): 1 363–1 367. https://doi.
mapping of the Meghalaya-Shillong Plateau region using org/10.1785/BSSA0640051363.
machine learning algorithms. Bull Eng Geol Environ 82(5): Ge ML and Lin QZ (2009). Realizing the box-counting method
170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-023-03188-2. for calculating fractal dimension of urban form based on
Agrawal N, Gupta L, Dixit J and Dash SK (2023). Seismic risk remote sensing image. Geo- spat Inf Sci 12(4): 265–270.
assessment for the North Eastern Region of India by https://doi.org/10.1007/s11806-009-0096-1.
integrating seismic hazard and social vulnerability. Sustain Gupta A, Gupta ID and Gupta VK (2021a). Probabilistic seismic
Resilient Infrastruct 8(Sup1): 102–132. https://doi.org/10. hazard mapping of National Capital Region of India using a
1080/23789689.2022.2133764. modified gridded seismicity model. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
Bajaj K and Anbazhagan P (2019). Seismic site classification and 144: 106 632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106632.
correlation between VS and SPT-N for deep soil sites in Indo- Gupta L, Agrawal N and Dixit J (2021b). Spatial distribution of
Gangetic Basin. J Appl Geophys 163: 55–72. https://doi.org/ bedrock level peak ground acceleration in the National
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.02.011. Capital Region of India using geographic information system.
Barton CC (1995). Fractal analysis of scaling and spatial Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 12: 3 287–3 316. https://doi.org/10.
clustering of fractures. In: Barton CC, and Pointe PR eds. 1080/19475705.2021.2008022.
Fractals in the Earth Sciences. Springer, New York, pp Gupta L, Agrawal N, Dixit J and Dutta S (2022). A GIS-based
141–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1397-5_8. assessment of active tectonics from morphometric parameters
Bilham R, Gaur VK and Molnar P (2001). Himalayan seismic and geomorphic indices of Assam Region, India. J Asian
hazard. Science 293(5534): 1 442–1 444. https://doi.org/10. Earth Sci:X 8: 100 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaesx.2022.
1126/science.1062584. 100115.
Bilham R (2004). Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: Tecto- Gupta L and Dixit J (2022a). Estimation of rainfall-induced
nics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 47(2/3): 839–858. surface runoff for the Assam region, India, using the GIS-
https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3338. based NRCS-CN method. J Maps 18(2): 428–440. https://doi.
Bodri B (1993). A fractal model for seismicity at Izu-Tokai org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2076624.
region, Central Japan. Fractals 1(3): 539–546. https://doi.org/ Gupta L and Dixit J (2022b). A GIS-based flood risk mapping of
10.1142/S0218348X93000563. Assam, India, using the MCDA-AHP approach at the
Bureau of Indian Standards (2016). IS-1893: Criteria for regional and administrative level. Geocarto Int 37(26):
Earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: General 11 867–11 899. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.206
Provisions and buildings. New Delhi. 0329.
Chingtham P, Chopra S, Baskoutas I and Bansal BK (2014). An Hirata T (1989). Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan:
assessment of seismicity parameters in northwest Himalaya Fractal structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales.
and adjoining regions. Nat Hazards 71(3): 1 599–1 616. https: In: Scholz CH, and Mandelbrot BB eds. Fractals in
//doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0967-5. Geophysics. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 157–170. https://doi.org/
Dixit J, Dewaikar DM and Jangid RS (2011). Spatial distribution 10.1007/978-3-0348-6389-6_9.
of surface level free field motion at Mumbai city. Electron J Jiang SG and Liu DS (2012). Box-counting dimension of fractal
Geotech Eng 16: 661–677. urban form: stability issues and measurement design. Int J
Dixit J, Dewaikar DM and Jangid RS (2012a). Free field surface Artif Life Res 3(3): 41–63. https://doi.org/10.4018/jalr.
motion at different site types due to near-fault ground 2012070104.
motions. Int Sch Res Notices 2012: 821 051. https://doi.org/ Keshri CK, Mohanty WK and Ranjan P (2020). Probabilistic
10.5402/2012/821051. seismic hazard assessment for some parts of the Indo-
Dixit J, Dewaikar DM and Jangid RS (2012b). Assessment of Gangetic plains, India. Nat Hazards 103(1): 815–843. https://
liquefaction potential index for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04014-8.
Earth Syst Sci 12(9): 2 759–2 768. https://doi.org/10.5194/ Kumar A, Mittal H, Sachdeva R and Kumar A (2012). Indian
nhess-12-2759-2012. strong motion instrumentation network. Seismol Res Lett
Dixit J, Dewaikar DM and Jangid RS (2012c). Soil liquefaction 83(1): 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.59.
studies at Mumbai city. Nat Hazards 63(2): 375–390. https:// Kumar R, Yadav RBS and Castellaro S (2020). Regional
doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0154-0. earthquake magnitude conversion relations for the Himalayan
Dixit J, Raghukanth STG and Dash SK (2016). Spatial distri- seismic belt. Seismol Res Lett 91(6): 3 195–3 207. https://doi.
bution of seismic site coefficients for Guwahati city. In: org/10.1785/0220200204.
Geostatistical and Geospatial Approaches for the Characte- Kumar S, Sushil R and Joshi D (2011). Fractal dimension and b-
rization of Natural Resources in the Environment: Chall- VALUE Mapping in the NW Himalaya and Adjoining
enges, Processes and Strategies. Springer, Cham, pp 533– Regions, India. In Advances in Geosciences, Solid Earth 26:
537. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18663-4_80. 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814355391_0008.
Gardner JK and Knopoff L (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes Lobatskaya RM and Strelchenko IP (2016). GIS- based analysis
in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poisso- of fault patterns in urban areas: A case study of Irkutsk city,
Earthquake Science 37 (2024) Chauhan V and Dixit J 121

Russia. Geosci Front 7(2): 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scale. J Geol Soc India 78(3): 226–232. https://doi.org/10.
gsf.2015.07.004. 1007/s12594-011-0086-4.
Mandelbrot BB (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Sharma B, Sandhu M, Kumar D and Teotia SS (2018). Site
Freeman, San Francisco, https://users.math.yale.edu/~bbm3/ characteristics of Indo-Gangetic Plain area using strong
web_pdfs/encyclopediaBritannica.pdf.. motion data of Nepal earthquake (MW7.9) of 25th April 2015.
Naresh B, Venkatesh K and Mishra LK (2021). The seismotec- J Indian Soc Earthq Sci 5: 46–56.
tonic setting of indo-gangetic plain and its importance. In: Tandon SK, Sinha R, Gibling MR, Dasgupta AS and Ghazanfari
Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S, and Lal Sharma M eds. Seismic P (2008). Late Quaternary evolution of the Ganga Plains:
Hazards and Risk. Springer, Singapore, pp. 187–195. https:// myths and misconceptions, recent developments and future
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9976-7_18. directions. Golden Jubil Mem Geol Soc India (66): 259–299..
Pal I, Nath SK, Shukla K, Pal DK, Raj A, Thingbaijam KKS and Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Yadav A, Raj A, Walling MY and
Bansal BK (2008). Earthquake hazard zonation of Sikkim Mohanty WK (2008). Recent seismicity in Northeast India
Himalaya using a GIS platform. Nat Hazards 45(3): 333–377. and its adjoining region. J Seismol 12(1): 107–123. https://
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9173-7. doi.org/10.1007/s10950-007-9074-y.
Pudi R, Martha TR, Roy P, Kumar KV and Rao PR Thingbaijam KKS, Chingtham P and Nath SK (2009). Seismicity
(2021). Mesoscale seismic hazard zonation in the Central in the north-west frontier province at the Indian-Eurasian
Seismic Gap of the Himalaya by GIS-based analysis of plate convergence. Seismol Res Lett 80(4): 599–608. https://
ground motion, site and earthquake-induced effects. Environ doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.4.599.
Earth Sci 80(18): 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021- Turcotte DL (1986). A fractal model for crustal deformation.
09907-w. Tectonophysics 132(1-3): 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Raghukanth S, Dixit J and Dash S (2011). Ground motion for 0040-1951(86)90036-3.
scenario earthquakes at Guwahati city. Acta Geod Geophys Valdiya KS (2016). Indo-Gangetic plains: Evolution and later
Hu 46(3): 326–346. https://doi.org/10.1556/AGeod.46.2011. developments. In: Valdiya KS ed. The Making of India. 2nd
3.5. ed. Springer, Cham, pp. 723–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Roy PNS and Mondal SK (2009). Fractal nature of earthquake 978-3-319-25029-8_22.
occurrence in northwest Himalayan region. J Ind Geophys Yadav RK, Martin SS and Gahalaut VK (2022). Intraplate
Union 13(2): 63–68. seismicity and earthquake hazard in the Aravalli–Delhi Fold
Sengupta P, Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS and Mistri S Belt, India. J Earth Syst Sci 131(4): 204. https://doi.org/10.
(2011). Fractal analysis of major faults in India on a regional 1007/s12040-022-01957-3.