Advertisement

Synthetic Catalogue Simulation in Low-Seismicity Regions and Few Instrumental Records in Central Iran Based on Monte Carlo Method

  • Farzad MoradpouriEmail author
  • Nader Fathianpour
  • Reza Ghaedrahmati
  • Mehdi Zare
Research Paper

Abstract

The region of Naein seismic gap zone in central Iran includes several active faults with high seismicity potential. This shows the necessity of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in spite of the earthquake records leakage. The aim of this study is to conduct PSHA by generating a synthetic earthquake catalogue based on a small number of real earthquake records in Naein zone. The catalogue was generated by means of Monte Carlo method using the limited real records for the period of 1900 to 2009 AD and their statistical parameters. Afterwards, using aforementioned synthetic data we calculated Guttenberg–Richter relationships (for each active fault as linear seismic sources) and peak ground acceleration (PGA-m/s2) using appropriate attenuation relationships. Then the hazard curves for each of the seismic sources and the total hazard curve were presented. Moreover, annual probability of exceedance and return period of the earthquakes were calculated for the region. Finally, hazard map was presented for return period of 75 and 475 years which show a high level of ground acceleration in the disputed region .

Keywords

Central Iran Seismic gap Synthetic catalogue Monte Carlo method PSHA 

References

  1. Ambraseys NN, Melville CP (1982) A history of Persian earthquakes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauval C, Hainzl S, Scherbaum F (2006) Probabilistic seismic hazard estimation in low-seismicity regions considering non-Poissonian seismic occurrence. Geophys J Int 164:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell KW (1981a) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71:2039–2070Google Scholar
  4. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93:1012–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  6. Crowley H (2005) An investigating study on the modelling of earthquake hazard for loss assessment. Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Ph.D. thesis, April 2005Google Scholar
  7. Diggle PJ (1983) Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebel JE, Kafka AL (1999) A Monte Carlo approach to seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(4):854–866Google Scholar
  9. Engdahl ER, van der Hilst R, Buland R (1998) Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:722–743Google Scholar
  10. Eugster S, Rüttener E, Liechti D (1999) The risk premium distribution (annual average loss) with respect to earthquake magnitude. XXIV European Geophysical Society General Assembly, The Hague, The Netherlands, 19–23 April, 1999Google Scholar
  11. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  12. Liechti D, Rüttener E, Zbinden A (2000) Disaggregation of average annual loss. XXV European Geophysical Society General Assembly, Nice, France, 25–29 April, 2000Google Scholar
  13. McGuire RK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. USGS Open File Report 76-67Google Scholar
  14. McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284Google Scholar
  15. Moradpouri F, Mojarab M (2012) Determination of horizontal and vertical design spectra based on ground motion records at Lali tunnel, Iran. Earthq Science 25(4):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Musson RMW (1998) On the use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment. In: Proceedings of 6th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  17. Musson RMW (1999a) Determination of design earthquakes in seismic hazard analysis through Monte Carlo simulation. J Earthq Eng 3(4):463–474Google Scholar
  18. Musson RMW (1999b) Probabilistic seismic hazard maps for the North Balkan region. Ann Geofis 42(6):1109–1124Google Scholar
  19. Musson RMW (2000a) Intensity-based seismic risk assessment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Musson RMW (2000b) The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment in the UK. Ann Geofis 2000(43):1–9Google Scholar
  21. Musson RMW (2004) Comment on “Communicating with uncertainty: a critical issue with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis”. Eos Trans AGU 85(24):235–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Musson RMW, Winter PW (2003) Application of formal testing methods to models for site specific seismic hazard studies in the UK: the case of Sellafield. BGS Technical Report No. CR/02/207, 2003Google Scholar
  23. Sólnes J, Sigbjörnsson R, Halldórsson B (1994) Assessment of earthquake hazard and seismic risk based on synthetic and upgraded earthquake catalogues of Iceland. In: Proceedings on 9th international seminar on earthquake prognostics, San José, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  24. Weatherill GA, Burton PW (2006) The application of multiple random earthquake simulation to probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in the Aegean region. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 September 2006, pp 583–595Google Scholar
  25. Windeler, D., Morrow, G., Williams, C.R., Rahnama, M., Molas, G., Peña, A. & Bryngelson, J. (2004). Earthquake risk estimates for residential construction in the western United States. In: Proceedings of 13 th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 1–6, 2004Google Scholar
  26. Campbell, K.W. (1981) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am., 71(2),039-2,070Google Scholar
  27. Zare M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Bard PY (1999) Attenuation law for the strong motions in Iran. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering, vol 1, pp 345–354Google Scholar
  28. Zhou S (2008) Seismicity simulation in western Sichuan of China based on the fault interaction and its implication on the estimation of the regional earthquake risk. Chin J Geophys 51(1):132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zolfaghari MR (2000) Earthquake loss estimation model for southern Europe. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on seismic zonationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farzad Moradpouri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nader Fathianpour
    • 2
  • Reza Ghaedrahmati
    • 1
  • Mehdi Zare
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mining EngineeringLorestan UniversityLorestanIran
  2. 2.Department of Mining EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  3. 3.International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations