Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 39–57 | Cite as

Directional damage due to near-fault and site effects in the M6.4 Changureh–Avaj earthquake of 22 June 2002

  • M. R. Ghayamghamian
Original Article

Abstract

The Changureh–Avaj earthquake (M = 6.4) occurred 220 km northwest of Tehran on June 22, 2002. According to the official report, 226 people were killed, 1300 injured and 33,000 houses were seriously damaged or collapsed. Two villages located in the near-fault region with a population more than 200 people were completely destroyed. The damage survey was conducted within 30 km of the epicenter. During damage investigation, an observable pattern of damage in toppled masonry and concrete block fences was recognized. The data of damaged fences were documented and analyzed to study the effect of direction and distance from the epicenter. From the 109 fences, 85 fences were built within 15° of either north or east, providing an opportunity to study the effect of orientation. The results of analysis revealed that the east–west oriented fences toppled 2.6 times more than those oriented north–south. More than 70% of toppled fences were oriented in east–west direction, with more falling towards the north than to the south. This preferred direction of damage for toppled fences was observed in all four quadrants about the epicenter and at distance up to 15 km. In the northern quadrants almost all toppled fences were oriented east–west. Two possibilities, namely, near-fault effect and 2D or 3D site response, are examined to find an explanation for the observed damage pattern at the sites. Since the preferred direction of damage inferred from toppled fences within 15 km of epicenter was found to be parallel to the direction of rupture propagation, the near-fault forwarded rupture directivity was investigated as the most possible reason for the observed phenomenon at the sites. However, there were no records of strong motions available in near-fault zone. Thus, the near-fault ground motions were theoretically simulated by using developed local source parameters and heterogeneous slip model. Next, the principal axes were calculated by using eigenvector analysis of simulated horizontal motions. The preferred direction of damage in over 90% of the sites is well predicted by the directional dependence of near-fault ground motion. Nevertheless, the preferred direction of damage in Avaj station, where the main shock was recorded, demonstrates totally different result from the one predicted by the source. The shear-wave polarization is investigated as an alternative reason at the sites. The polarization of motion is found to be the greatest at frequencies with peaks in maximized and H/V spectra, suggesting that directional motion is associated with local site and geologic conditions. The dominant direction of motion due to source mechanism and local site conditions was identified and compared with the preferred direction of damage observed at the sites. It is found that the near-fault source effects can strongly control the motion directionality and even dictate its dominant direction to the one caused by local geologic or site conditions. Finally, the outcome provides field evidence of directional damage due to near-fault effects and local site conditions. This may aid in predicting the directions of damaging earthquake motions, and serve as an important factor in the design of critical facilities.

Key words

Changureh–Avaj earthquake of 22 June 2002 directional damage forward rupture directivity motion directionality near-fault ground motion simulation direction site resonance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology: Theory and methods. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonamassa O, Vidale J (1991) Directional site resonances observed from aftershocks of the 18 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(5):1945–1957Google Scholar
  3. Fallahi A, Alaghebandian R, Miyajima M (2003) Microtremor measurments and building damage during the Changureh–Avaj, Iran earthquake of June 2002. J Nat Disaster Sci 25(1):37–46Google Scholar
  4. Ghayamghamian MR (2003) Near-field ground motion simulation for heterogenous faulting. In: Proc. of 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  5. Ghayamghamian MR (2005a) Segmental cross-spectrum as a new technique in site response estimation using spectral ratio analysis. J Earthqu Eng 9(2):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghayamghamian MR (2005b) The effect of slip variability in near-fault ground motion prediction. In: Proc. of 73th Int. Conf. of ICOLD, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghayamghamian MR, Motosaka M (2003) The effects of torsion and motion coupling in site response estimation. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(5):691–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamzehloo H (2005) Determination of causative fault parameters for some recent Iranian earthquakes using near-field SH-wave data. J Asian Earth Sci 25:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kawase H, Aki K (1990) Topography effect at the critical SV-wave incidence: possible explanation of damage pattern by the Whittier Narrows, California, Earthquake of 1 October 1987. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80(1):1–22, 1990Google Scholar
  10. Kagami M, Motosaka M, Ghayamghamian MR (2002) Reconnaissance report of Changureh–Avaj earthquake: relation between structural type and damage distributions. In: 21st Symposium of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Sciences, Japan, 69–70 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Kikuchi M, Yamanaka Y (2002) http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index.html
  12. Konagai K, Azuma T, Goto H, Noorzad A, Hooshiar SK, Sadr A (2003) Seismic fault and soil-related damage in the June 22, 2002. Changhureh earthquake, Iran. ERS Bull 36:3–16Google Scholar
  13. Motosaka M, Somer A (2002) Ground motion directionality inferred from a survey of minaret damage during the 1999 Kacaeli and Duzce. Turkey earthquakes. J Seismol 6:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Motosaka M, Kagami M, Ghayamghamian MR (2002) Reconnaissance report of Changureh–Avaj earthquake: ground motion directionality inferred from using structural damage. In: 21st Symposium of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Sciences, Japan, 67–68 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  15. Paolucci R (1999) Numerical evaluation of the effect of cross-coupling of different components of ground motion in site response analyses. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(4):877–887Google Scholar
  16. Paolucci R, Facciioli E, Maggio F (1999) 3D response analysis of an instrumented hill at Matsuzaki, Japan, by a spectral method. J Seismol 3:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Penzine J, Watabe M (1975) Charachteristics of 3-dimentional earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Satoh T, Kawase H, Sato T, Pitarka A (2001) Three-dimensional finite difference waveform modelling of strong motions observed in Sendai Basin, Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(4):812–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shoja-Taheri J, Bolt BA (1977) A generalized strong motion accelerograms based on spectral maximization from two horizontal components. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:863–876Google Scholar
  20. Snyder DL, Borchardt G (2002) Preferred direction of damage to concrete block fences in the M6.7 Northridge earthquake of 17 January 1994. Earthq Spectra 1(2):369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Somerville PG (1996) Forwarded rupture directivity in the Kobe and Northridge earthquakes, and implications for structural ingineering. In: Proc. of 7th US–Japan Workshop on Improvement of Structural Design and Construction Practices, lessons learned from Kobe and Northridge, Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  22. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68:180–203Google Scholar
  23. Tatar M, Javan G, Farahbod A, Paul A, Hatzfeld D (2004) Aftershock seismicity of the Avaj earthquake. In Proc. of EGU meeting, Nice, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsuboi S, Saito M, Ishihara Y (2001) Verification of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio technique for estimation of site response using borehole seismographs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(3):499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tumarkin AG, Archuleta (1997) Recent advances in prediction and processing of strong ground motions. Nat Hazards 15:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tumarkin AG (1998) Site response analysis in 3D. In: Proc. of the Int. Symp. on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, Yokohama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  27. Vidale J, Bonamassa O, Houston H (1991) Directional site resonances observed from the 10 October 1987 Whittier Narrows, California, earthquake and the 4 October aftershock. Earthq Spectra 7(1):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walker RT, Bergman E, Jackson J, Ghorashi M, Talebian M (2005) The 2002 June 22 Changureh (Avaj) earthquake in Qazvin province, northwest Iran: epicentral relocation, source parameters, surface deformation and geomorphology. Geophys J Int 160:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yamazaki F, Ansary MA (1997) Horizontal-to-vertical spectrum ratio of earthquake ground motion for site characterization. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:671–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations