Advertisement

Development of declustered processed earthquake accelerogram database for the Iranian Plateau: including near-field record categorization

  • Ali KhansefidEmail author
  • Ali Bakhshi
  • Anooshiravan Ansari
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a comprehensive accelerogram database of the Iranian plateau containing 3585 data with all three components is gathered. The raw data are processed by the wavelet-based denoising method, and results are compared with the contaminated data. All the data are classified into mainshock and aftershock categories using the time and spatial window method. Afterward, the data are categorized into the pulse-like and non-pulse-like events based on the detection of velocity pulse in any of horizontal and/or vertical directions. Eventually, among 3585 data, the ones with an average shear wave velocity of top 30 m of subsurface soil profile are selected and their important ground motion parameters such as peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement, Arias intensity, ground motion duration, and acceleration response spectra are studied. It is observed that the intensity of vertical component of the accelerograms is almost at the same level as the strong horizontal direction or even more, in some cases. Near-field events cause more severe responses than far-field earthquakes. Generally, the mainshocks responses are slightly tougher than the aftershocks. By comparing the acceleration response spectra of the accelerograms with the ones obtained from the building design codes, the necessity of revising the existing standard spectra is revealed for considering the effects of mainshocks, aftershocks, near-field effects, as well as separate vertical component of the ground motions directly. Finally, the presented database, as a powerful tool, will give an interesting opportunity to the scientists and engineers who are enthusiastic to work on the Iranian plateau accelerograms.

Keywords

Accelerogram Aftershock Database Accelerogram processing Mainshock Pulse-like record 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors express sincere gratitude from the Building and Housing Research Center of Iran as well as the Research and Technology Deputy of the Sharif University of Technology for their support.

Supplementary material

10950_2019_9839_MOESM1_ESM.mat (19.4 mb)
(MAT 19.3 MB)

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1964) Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Kale Ö, Ansari A, Durgaryan R, Gündoğan AA, Hamzehloo H, Harmandar E, Tsereteli N, Waseem M, Yazjeen T, Yilmaz MT (2014) EMME strong-motion database serving for predictive model selection to EMME ground motion logic tree application, 2nd edn. European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansari A, Noorzad A, Zare M (2007) Application of wavelet multi-resolution analysis for correction of seismic acceleration records. J Geophys Eng 4(4):362–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansari A, Noorzad A, Zafarani H, Vahidifard H (2010) Correction of highly noisy strong motion records using a modified wavelet de-noising method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1168–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baiesi M, Paczuski M (2004) Scale free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Phys Rev E 69(6):066106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N (2011) PEER 11/03: new ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore DM (2001) Effect of baseline corrections on displacements and response spectra for several recordings of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(5):1199–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(2):93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW (2016) Ground motion model for the vertical-to-horizontal (V/H) ratios of PGA, PGV, and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 32(2):951–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Building, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC) (1997) Basic accelerograms data of the Iranian Accelerographs Network. BHRC, TehranGoogle Scholar
  12. Building, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC) (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of building. BHRC, TehranGoogle Scholar
  13. Building, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC) (2017) Iran Strong Motion Network, http://smd.bhrc.ac.ir/Portal/en/Search/Stations. accessed 14 December 2017
  14. Donoho DL (1995) Denoising by soft-thresholding. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 41(3):613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donoho DL, Johnstone IM (1994) Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81(3):425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donoho DL, Johnstone IM (1995) Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage. J Am Stat Assoc 90(432):1200–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donoho DL, Johnstone IM, Kerkyacharian G, Picard D (1995) Wavelet shrinkage: asymptopia. J R Stat Soc 57(2):301–369Google Scholar
  18. European Committee for Standardization (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  19. Fu Q, Menun C (2004) Seismic-environment-based simulation of near-fault ground motions. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Galiana-Merino JJ, Rosa-Herranz J, Giner J, Molina S, Botella F (2003) De-noising of short-period seismograms by wavelet packet transform. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(6):2554–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367Google Scholar
  22. Ghasemi H, Zare M, Fukushima Y, Koketsu K (2009) An empirical spectral ground-motion model for Iran. J Seismol 13(4):499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghodrati Amiri G, Khorasani M, Mirza-Hessabi R, Razavian-Amrei SA (2009) Ground-motion prediction equations of spectral ordinates and arias intensity for Iran. J Earthq Eng 14(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grünthal G (1985) The up-dated earthquake catalogue for the German Democratic Republic and adjacent areas-statistical data characteristics and conclusions for hazard assessment. 3rd International symposium on the analysis of seismicity and seismic risk, Liblice Castle, CzechoslovakiaGoogle Scholar
  25. Gülerce Z, Kamai R, Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (2017) Ground motion prediction equations for the vertical ground motion component based on the nga-w2 database. Earthquake Spectra 33(2):499–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haji-Soltani A, Pezeshk SH, Malekmohammadi M, Zandieh A (2017) A study of vertical-to-horizontal ratio of earthquake components in the gulf coast region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2055–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu S, Gardoni P, Xu L (2018) Stochastic procedure for the simulation of synthetic main shock-aftershock ground motion sequences. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(11):2275–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iwan WD, Moser MA, Peng CY (1985) Some observations on strong-motion earthquake measurement using a digital accelerograph. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(5):1225–1246Google Scholar
  29. Karimiparidari S, Zare M, Memarian H, Kijko A (2013) Iranian earthquakes, a uniform catalog with moment magnitude. J Seismol 17(3):897–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khansefid A, Bakhshi A (2017) Strengthening an existing industrial building by optimally designed passive dampers under seismic and service loads. 4th International conference on smart monitoring, assessment and rehabilitation of civil structures (SMAR 2017), Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Khansefid A, Bakhshi A (2018) Statistical evaluation and probabilistic modeling of aftershock sequences of Iranian plateau. J Seismol 22(5):1249–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khansefid A, Bakhshi A (2019) Advanced two-step integrated optimization of actively controlled nonlinear structure under mainshock–aftershock sequences. J Vib Control 25(4):748–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Khansefid A, Bakhshi A, Ansari A (2019) Empirical predictive model for generating synthetic non-stationary stochastic accelerogram of the Iranian plateau: including far- and near-field effects as well as mainshock and aftershock categorization. Bull Earthq Eng,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00624-1
  34. Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1099–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molchan GM, Dmitrieva OE (1992) Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches. Geophys J Int 109(3):501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Motaghi K, Ghods A (2012) Attenuation of ground-motion spectral amplitudes and its variations across the central Alborz mountains. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(4):1417–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nowroozi A (2005) Attenuation relations for peak horizontal and vertical accelerations of earthquake ground motion in Iran: a preliminary analysis. J Seismol Earthquake Eng 7(2):109–128Google Scholar
  38. Office of Deputy for Strategic Supervision (2014) No.626: guideline for seismic hazard analysis. Islamic Republic of Iran Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision, TehranGoogle Scholar
  39. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-1982. J Geophys Res 90(B7):5479–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rezaeian S, Kiureghian AD (2012) Simulation of orthogonal horizontal ground motion components for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(2):335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruiz-Garcia J (2012) Mainshock-aftershock ground motion features and their influence in building's seismic response. J Earthq Eng 16(5):719–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saffari H, Kuwata Y, Takada S, Mahdavian A (2012) Updated PGA, PGV, and spectral acceleration attenuation relationship for Iran. Earthquake Spectra 28(1):257–276Google Scholar
  43. Soghrat MR, Ziyaeifar M (2017) Ground motion prediction equations for horizontal and vertical components of acceleration in Northern Iran. J Seismol 201(1):99–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Somerville PG (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near-fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys Earth Planet Inter 137(1–4):201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Structural Engineering Institute (2013) ASCE 41-13: seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Structural Engineering Institute (2016) ASCE 7-16: minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  47. Trifunac MD, Brady AD (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3):581–626Google Scholar
  48. Wang GQ, Boore DM, Igel H, Zhou XY (2004) Comparisons of ground motions from five aftershocks of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake with empirical predictions largely based on data from California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6):2198–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yazdani A, Kowsari M (2013) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for northern Iran. Nat Hazards 69(3):1877–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zafarani H, Soghrat MR (2017) A selected dataset of the Iranian strong motion records. Nat Hazards 86(3):1307–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaliapin I, Gebrielov A, Keilis-Borok V, Wong H (2008) Aftershock identification. Phys Rev Lett 101(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zare M, Hamzehloo H (2005) Strong ground-motion measurements during the 2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 21(S1):165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zare M, Sinaiean F (2014) Site effects and classification of Iran accelerographic stations. Geodyn Res Int Bull 1(2):15–23Google Scholar
  54. Zhai C, Chang Z, Li S, Chen Z, Xie L (2013) Quantitative identification of near-fault pulse-like ground motions based on energy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(5):2591–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations