Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Ranking of Attenuation Relationships for Seismic Hazard Analysis in the Alborz-Azerbaijan Seismotectonic Province

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Amir Hossein Rostami 1
Hamid Saffari 2
1 M.Sc., Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assosciate Professor, Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
10.22065/jsce.2025.501766.3636
Abstract
Seismic hazard analysis is crucial for designing earthquake-resistant structures. Inaccuracies in its estimation can have significant consequences: underestimating the hazard may lead to structural failures, while overestimating it can result in unnecessary costs. A key step in seismic hazard analysis is the selection of attenuation relations. These relations describe the attenuation of seismic waves’ energy as it propagates from the source to the site, and provide estimates of ground-motion at the site. The selection process must be based on scientific criteria and regional compatibility to ensure realistic results. In this study, 10 attenuation relations, categorized as global, regional, and local, were evaluated using two statistical approaches: residuals distribution and the log-likelihood (LLH). The evaluation utilized strong ground-motion data from the Alborz-Azerbaijan seismotectonic province. The dataset included 405 records with moment magnitudes ≥ 4.5, source-to-site distances up to 200 km, and known shear-wave velocities, compiled as of 5 December 2024. The results showed that the relations proposed by Farajpour et al. (2019), Kale et al. (2015), and Sadeghati and Pezeshk (2017) provided the best agreement with the regional ground-motion data. Overall, local relations outperformed global ones in northern and northwestern Iran. These findings support the use of local attenuation relations for improved seismic hazard analysis, thereby aiding engineers in achieving safer and more cost-effective structural designs.
Keywords
Seismic Hazard Analysis
Attenuation Relationship
PGA
Alborz-Azerbaijan Seismotectonic Province
Residual Distribution Test
LLH Test

Subjects

[1] Motaghed, S., A. Yazdani, A. Nicknam, and M. Khanzadi (2018). Sobol sensitivity generalization for engineering and science applications. J. Modeling in Eng. 16(54), 217-226.
[2] Douglas, J. (2024). GMPE compendium. [online] Available at: http://www.gmpe.org.uk/ [Accessed 23 Jun. 2024].
[3] Akkar, S., Ö. Kale, A. Yakut, and U. Ceken (2018). Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16(8), 3439-3463.
[4] Lanzano, G., M. D'Amico, C. Felicetta, R. Puglia, L. Luzi, F. Pacor, and D. Bindi (2016). Ground‐motion prediction equations for region specific probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106(1), 73-92.
[5] Shoja–Taheri, J., S. Naserieh, and G. Hadi (2010). A test of the applicability of NGA models to the strong ground-motion data in the Iranian plateau, J. Earthq. Eng. 14(2), 278–292.
[6] Scherbaum, F., E. Delavaud, and C. Riggelsen (2009). Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: An information-theoretic perspective, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99(6), 3234–3247.
[7] Delavaud, E., F. Scherbaum, N. Kuehn, and C. Riggelsen (2009). Information–theoretic selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis: An applicability study using Californian data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99(6), 3248–3263.
[8] Mabrouk, A. H. A. S. H. (2024). Performance of Alternative Ground Motion Models with Strong Motion Data from Moderate to Large Events in Different Seismotectonic Regions in Türki̇ye. Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey).
[9] Lee, H., B. Kim, and D. Kwak (2024). Evaluation of the applicability of ground motion models (GMMs) for South Korea. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 22(9), 4303–4333.
[10] Farhadi, A., S. Pezeshk, and N. Khoshnevis (2018). Assessing the applicability of ground‐motion models for induced seismicity application in central and eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108(4), 2265–2277.
[11] Sheikhi-Mehrabadi, F., and H. Saffari (2024). Statistical Ranking of Peak Ground Acceleration Attenuation Relationships in the Zagros Seismotectonic Province. In: 9th Inter. Conf. on Seismol. and Earthq. Eng. (SEE9).
[12] Sayyadpour, H., N. Eftekhari, and M. Kowsari (2020). Comparing different data-driven ranking methods and selecting appropriate GMPEs for performing PSHA in Zagros zone, Asas 58(22), 35–46.
[13] Farajpour, Z., M. Kowsari, S. Pezeshk, and B. Halldorsson (2021). Ranking of Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for Use in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Iran Based on an Independent Data Set, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 111(1), 242–257.
[14] Nowroozi, A. (1976). Seismotectonic Provinces of Iran, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 66(4), 1249–1276.
[15] Tavakoli, B. (1996). Major Seismotectonic Provinces of Iran, Unpublished Map, IIEES, international document.
[16] Mirzaei, N., G. Mengtan, and C. Yuntai (1998). Seismic Source Regionalization for Seismic Zoning of Iran: Major Seismotectonic Provinces, J. Earthq. Prediction Research 7, 465–495.
[17] Ghorbani, M. (2021). The Geology of Iran: Tectonic, Magmatism and Metamorphism. Ch. 3: Faults and Tectonic Phases of Iran. Springer Cham. 81-149. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-71109-2_3
[18] Maleki, M. and Z. Riazi Rad (2022). Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the North and Northwest Iranian Plate Considering the Bayesian Perspective, Shock and Vibration 3, 1-9.
[19] Iran Strong Motion Network. (2024). Data bank. [online] Available at: http://ismn.bhrc.ac.ir/ [Accessed 5 Dec. 2024].
[20] Shahvar, M. P., M. Zare, and S. Castellaro (2013). A Unified Seismic Catalog for the Iranian Plateau (1900–2011), Seismol. Research Letters 84(2), 233–249.
[21] Kowsari, M., B. Halldorsson, B. Hrafnkelsson and S. Jónsson (2019). Selection of earthquake ground motion models using the deviance information criterion. Soil Dynamics and Earthq. Eng. 117, 288–299.
[22] Management and Planning Organization of Iran (2014). Practical Guide to Conducting Seismic Hazard Analysis (Publication No. 626). Tehran: Nezamfanni, 17-36.
[23] Abrahamson, N. A., W. J. Silva, and R. Kamai (2014). Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq. Spectra 30(3), 1025–1055.
[24] Boore, D. M., J. P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, and G. M. Atkinson (2014). NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq. Spectra 30(3), 1057–1085.
[25] Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2014). NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq. Spectra 30(3), 1087–1115.
[26] Chiou, B. S.-J., and R. R. Youngs (2014). Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq. Spectra 30(3), 1117–1153.
[27] Idriss, I. M. (2014). An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq. Spectra 30(3), 1155–1177.
[28] Akkar, S., M. A. Sandıkkaya, and J. J. Bommer (2014). Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle-East. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12, 359–387.
[29] Kale, Ö., S. Akkar, A. Ansari, and H. Hamzehloo (2015). A groundmotion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105(2A), 963–980.
[30] Saffari, H., Y. Kuwata, S. Takada, and A. Mahdavian (2012). Updated PGA, PGV, and Spectral Acceleration Attenuation Relations for Iran. Earthq. Spectra 28(1), 257–276.
[31] Sedaghati, F., and S. Pezeshk (2017). Partially nonergodic empirical ground-motion models for predicting horizontal and vertical PGV, PGA, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra using data from the Iranian plateau. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 107(2), 934–948.
[32] Farajpour, Z., S. Pezeshk, and M. Zare (2019). A new empirical ground-motion model for Iran, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 109(2), 732–744.
[33] Zafarani, H., and M. R. Soghrat (2024). An Empirical Spectral Ground-Motion Model for Iran Using Truncated Iranian Strong-Motion Database Enriched by Near-Field Records, J. Earthq. Eng. 28(4), 922–945.
[34] Saffari, H., Y. Kuwata, and A. Mahdavian (2018). Site Amplification of Iran's Major Seismic Zones Using Attenuation Relationship. J. Earthq. Eng. 22(10), 1918–1935.
[35] Scherbaum, F., F. Cotton, and P. Smit (2004). On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: The case of rock motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94(6), 2164–2185.
[36] Kale, Ö., and S. Akkar (2013). A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): The Euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR) method. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103(2A), 1069–1084.

  • Receive Date 06 February 2025
  • Revise Date 08 June 2025
  • Accept Date 09 June 2025