Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666 DOI 10.

1007/s10950-012-9344-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Site response and source spectra of S waves in the Zagros region, Iran
H. Zafarani & B. Hassani

Received: 27 February 2012 / Accepted: 4 November 2012 / Published online: 20 November 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract S wave amplitude spectra from shallow earthquakes with magnitudes ranging between 4.2 and 6.2 in the Zagros region of Iran that occurred between 1998 and 2008 are used to examine source parameters and site response of S waves. A generalized inversion scheme has been used to separate the source, propagation path, and local site effects from S wave spectra. For removing the trade-off between source and site terms and propagation effects (including geometric and anelastic attenuation), the spectral amplitudes of the records used were corrected for attenuation and geometrical spreading function using a path model proposed by Zafarani and Soghrat (Bull Seism Soc Am 102:20312045, 2012) for the region. We assume a Brunes point source model to retrieve source parameters like corner frequency, moment magnitude, and high-frequency fall off coefficient, for each event. When the source spectra are interpreted in terms of Brunes model, the average stress drops

obtained are about 7.1 and 5.9 MPa (71 and 59 bars), respectively for the eastern and western Zagros regions. Stress drops range from 1.4 to 35.0 MPa (14 to 350 bars), with no clear dependence on magnitude. The results in terms of stress drop and S wave seismic energy indicate that the Zagros events are more similar to interplate earthquakes of western North America than to intraplate events of eastern North America. The method also provides us with site responses for all 40 stations individually and is an interesting alternative to other methods, such as the H/V method. A new empirical relationship between body-wave magnitudes and moment magnitude has been proposed for the Iranian plateau using derived seismic moment from the inversion. Keywords Brunes model . Stress drop . Site response . Interplate earthquake . Zagros

1 Introduction
H. Zafarani (*) International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), No. 26, Arghavan St., North Dibajee, Farmanieh, PO Box 19395/3913, Tehran, Iran e-mail: h.zafarani@iiees.ac.ir B. Hassani Department of Earth Sciences, Western University, Biology & Geological Sciences Bldg., London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7 e-mail: bhassan7@uwo.ca

The factors influencing earthquake ground motions have been separated into source, path, and site effects. This separation has proven to be useful for understanding the physical process of strong-motion generation and predicting future seismic motions (see, e.g., Boore 2003). An accurate and reliable quantitative prediction of earthquake strong motions cannot be achieved without understanding the source, site, and path effects. Obtaining source parameters (e.g., stress drop and corner frequency) is challenging because

646

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

they require analysis of the higher-frequency parts of the spectrum, where attenuation, scattering, and other path effects have a significant effect. Also, ground motions in the frequency range of 0.515 Hz, which are of most engineering interest, are strongly affected by local site conditions, such as complex surface geology and irregular topography. Therefore, the practical way of estimating site effect and source parameters in this frequency range is an empirical approach (Shoji and Kamiyama 2002). In recent years, ground-motion prediction equations for the Iranian plateau have been successfully developed (Zafarani et al. 2008; Soghrat et al. 2012; Zafarani and Soghrat 2012) based on the stochastic modeling approach of Boore (2003), but yet there are limited number of studies which have focused on the region-specific seismic source and wave propagation parameters of major seismotectonic provinces of Iran (e.g., Nowroozi 2010; Zafarani et al. 2008, 2009, 2012; Hassani et al. 2011; Mousavi et al. 2007; Motazedian 2006). Here, the Zagros region, one of the most seismically active regions in Iran has been selected for investigating the source and site terms. The Zagros Mountains in southwestern Iran are a linear intracontinental seismically active fold-andthrust belt, accommodating nearly one third of the present-day convergence rate between Arabia and Eurasia (Berberian 1995; Vernant et al. 2004). The belt extends for about 1,800 km from northern Iraq, through south-western Iran, to the Strait of Hormuz (Fig. 1). Seismic activity is widely distributed in the region (see Fig. 1), with many destructive earthquakes. However, fault rapture at depth usually does not propagate to the Earths surface in the Zagros, apparently due to the presence of a thick salt layer above the basement, preventing ruptures reaching the surface (e.g., Berberian 1995). The Zagros range can be subdivided into two main subregions that are distinct in their topography, geomorphology, exposed stratigraphy, and seismicity. The elevation of the mountains in the 100-km-wide north-eastern zone, called the High Zagros (Fig. 1) range from 1,500 to 2,000 m, the tallest mountains reaching up to an elevation of over 4,000 m and exposing stratigraphic levels in the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic. The 100- to 200-km-wide south-western zone, called the Simply Folded Belt (SFB), rises from sea level in the SW to 1.5 km in the NE (Fig. 1) and exposes Palaeozoic strata only rarely (except for the Hormuz salt plugs). The SFB is

Fig. 1 Seismicity of the Zagros region (M >5.0), 19642010. Major active faults are also shown with solid lines. The boxed regions are the areas shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Hexagram in box 1 denotes the location of the Silakhor earthquake of 22 January 1909 (M =7.4). The Ghir earthquake of 10 April 1972 (M =6.7), and the Khorgu earthquake of 21 March 1977 (M =6.7), are also shown by two pentagrams in box 2. HZ High Zagros zone, SFB simple fold belt

dominated by the large, open, linear folds for which the range is famous (e.g., Berberian 1995; Ramsey et al. 2008). The southern margin of the High Zagros lies along the High Zagros fault (Figs. 2 and 3), which is usually the southern limit of exposure of Palaeozoic rocks (Berberian 1995). Most of the present-day deformation determined by GPS (e.g., Vernant et al. 2004) and seismicity occurs in the SFB (Fig. 1), in which shortening within young sedimentary rocks is accommodated as folding along anticlines (e.g., Berberian 1995; Ramsey et al. 2008). The Zagros region frequently experiences small to moderate earthquakes. However, though the historical catalog of the region contains events as large as M7.4 (the Silakhor earthquake of 1909; see Ambraseys and Melville 1982), there are few strong-motion records of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than M6 that would allow to take an empirical approach for determination of ground-motion characteristics. The largest earthquakes (shown in Fig. 1) occurred in the region during the instrumental era (i.e., the M7.4 Silakhor earthquake of 22 January 1909, the M6.7 Ghir earthquake of 10 April 1972, and the M 6.7 Khorgu earthquake of

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666 Fig. 2 Epicenter location of the earthquakes analyzed for the present study (circles), strong-motion stations (triangles), and paths (solid line) in subregion 1 (area outlined in solid box in Fig. 1). Major active faults are also shown with solid lines
35oN

647

Ljb Snr
40

Ann

Sahneh F.

Hamedan

Btn
20

Shh

Arn

Markazi

Kermanshah
Nahavand F. NAd
34oN

Asr High Zagros F.


40

Bod TAd Dsh Cai CCn DAa Main Zagros Reverse F. Drd Dhr

M 5
20

Km1

Lorestan

4~5
Sld

1
33oN o 47 E
30

48 E

30

o 49 E

30

21 March 1977). Unfortunately, there is no strongmotion record from these three large events.
Fig. 3 Epicenter location of the earthquakes analyzed for the present study (circles), strong-motion stations (triangles), and paths (solid line) in subregion 2 (area outlined in solid box in Fig. 1). Major active faults are also shown with solid lines. MFF mountain front fault, ZFF Zagros foredeep fault, HZF High Zagros fault
30oN

Therefore, the appropriate method of predicting ground motions for future earthquakes in the Zagros

Gmh

Gom Ken Rci Kes Rgn Bah Karebas F. HZF.

Ken Ner
29 N
o

Kerman
Sabz Pushan F. Bakhtegan F. Sarvestan F. Zdr HZF. Main Zagros Reverse F.

Borazjan F.

MFF. Qir F. ZFF.


28oN

Jhm

Dbn HAd

Fars
Zagros Mountain Front F.

Jum Beriz F. Lar F. MFF.

High Zagros F.

Hormozgan
Be2 Be1

M
27 N
o

Mountain Frontal F. Ber

Krn

5 4~5
Pe rsi an
Zagros foredeep F.

Qsm Tal Tmn Sua

Gu

2
26oN o 51 E
52oE
o 53 E

lf

54oE

55 E

o 56 E

648

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

region should be based on an assumed seismological model of source and propagation processes, taking into account that physical models calibrated to the data of limited magnitude and distance ranges can be used with reasonable confidence in predicting motions beyond those distance and magnitude ranges. To the extent of our knowledge, this study is the first effort to address this problem with strong-motion data for the Zagros region. In this paper, the generalized inversion (GI) of the S wave amplitude spectra from the strong-motion network data in this region is used to estimate source and site effects. This technique was first presented by Andrews (1986) by recasting the method of spectral ratios into a generalized inverse problem and simultaneously solving of the data of multiple-recorded events. Since after, the approach has been used and developed by numerous authors (e.g., Iwata and Irikura 1988; Castro et al. 1990; Boatwright et al. 1991; Hartzell 1992; Harmsen 1997; Dutta et al. 2001, 2003; Salazar et al. 2007; Drouet et al. 2008; Tramelli et al. 2010). Here, a large number of significant earthquakes in the region were analyzed, considering the events that occurred from 1998 to the end of 2008. Furthermore, this is the first systematic study on the determination of moment magnitude from strong-motion records for the region.

2 Data We collected three-component waveforms recorded at 40 stations of the Iranian strong-motion network, which have been installed and maintained by the Building and House Research Center (BHRC; Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. 1998, 2007). All of the stations are equipped with a digital accelerometer (Kinemetrics model SSA-2). We analyzed 148 waveforms from 35 events which occurred from August 1998 to December 2008 and ranged in magnitude from 4.2 to 6.2 with a focal depth of less than 30 km. The epicentral distances ranged from 10 to 100 km. The list of earthquakes used in this study is given in Appendix A, along with the event number, seismic characteristics, and recording stations for each event. Also, the name, geographic coordinates, and a three-letter abbreviation, for strongmotion stations is provided in Appendix B. The region under study consists of two subregions as depicted in Fig. 1. As it is clear, subregion 1

completely belongs to the High Zagros and subregion 2 is completely located in the SFB. Figures 2 and 3 show a distribution of stations and events used here, and also a visual concept of different paths and linked records is provided using line between stations and corresponding earthquakes. To obtain the final database, following steps were performed: (1) earthquakes with reported seismic characteristics, since 1998 installation up to the end of 2008, were selected in the Zagros region of Iran. (2) Threecomponent records with only one correctable horizontal component were excluded from the database. (3) Earthquakes with at least three, stations with at least two records, which are linked to the reference sites, compose the final database. As mentioned in similar studies (e.g., Harmsen 1997), a key factor to achieve reliable results using the GI method is the availability of adequate number of recorded ground motions for each event which are distributed in various directions in order to reduce the directivity effects and also sufficient number of recorded events for each site. Both of the abovementioned constraints were applied to the selected dataset. The magnitude-distance distribution of the dataset used for this study is shown in Fig. 4. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that here, we try to determine the source spectra of each event separately (see Table 1 below), and therefore the lack or scarcity of data at some magnitude-distance bins is not a serious/crucial obstacle. We should keep in mind that the path effect (Q factor) has been adopted from an independent study (Zafarani and Soghrat 2012). In other words, since we try to investigate source spectrum of each event individually, we do not need to have a rich catalog in all magnitudes and since we have taken the Q factor from a separate study, we believe that the scarcity/lack of data in some distances is not a great deal. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the GI formulation is based on the linear assumption and site amplification (site effects) have been assumed to be independent of strong-motion level. The uncorrected acceleration time series recorded by a given station were corrected for the instrument response and baseline, following a standard algorithm (Trifunac and Lee 1973). Multiresolution wavelet analysis (Ansari et al. 2010) has been conducted in order to remove undesirable noise from the recorded signals. The data were processed to obtain the Fourier spectra

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666 Fig. 4 Magnitude-distance distribution of records used in this study
7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 1 10

649
Eastern Zagros Western Zagros

Mw

10

Distance (R

hypo

, Km)

of the S wave windows which contain the strongest part of the shaking (Soghrat et al. 2012). We first determined the onset times of S waves on the records using the Husid plot of energy buildup (Husid 1967). Also, to estimate the time of the last arrival of the direct S wave, cumulative root mean square function (McCann and Shah 1979) has been used. We then extracted the S wave trains with a cosine-tapered window applied at the beginning and the end of each window. The length of each of these tapers will be 5 % of the total trace length. The spectrum was smoothed using a 5-point moving average filter and interpolated at 20 points, which are equally spaced on the logarithmic scale, between 0.4 and 15 Hz. The Fourier amplitude spectrum (FAS) of horizontal ground motion was computed as the resultant geometric mean of the orthogonal components of motion. Figure 5 shows an example of the algorithm used here for determination of S wave window (see Soghrat et al. 2012 for more details).

spectrum of the ith event recorded at the jth site Yij () can be written in the frequency domain as a product of a source term Ei(), a path term Pij(,R), and a site-effect term Gj(): Yij f Ei f Pij f ; R Gj f 1

This factorization implicitly accepts the validity of the principle of superposition, which in turn makes it possible to treat each of these terms as an independent filter (Salazar et al. 2007). This general representation of the problem also assumes that directional effects in the source are averaged out by observations at different azimuths (Hartzell 1992). Here, the path term is represented by geometrical spreading (Z(Rij)) and anelastic attenuation (Q()):   p f R ij Pij f ; R Z Rij : exp 2 Q s f : b s where Rij is the hypocentral distance between the ith event and the jth station, Qs() and s are S wave frequency-dependent quality factor and velocity, respectively. Because of the trade-off between path attenuation and the high-frequency falloff of the spectrum, no attempt was made in the current study to independently determine Q() (Hartzell 1992). Instead, a propagation term (including geometric and anelastic attenuation), has been adopted from Zafarani and Soghrat (2012), which is represented as follow:  Z Rij /

3 Method of analysis We use the GI technique of Andrews (1986), implementing the singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm. Here, we provide a method outline. For further details and a complete description of the method, we refer the reader to the works of Andrews (1986), Harzell (1992), Salazar et al. (2007), and Hassani et al. (2011). Suppose the database contains J stations over which I earthquakes have been recorded, then following Andrews (1986), the shear-wave

; Rij < 40 km Rij 1 Rij 0:5 Rij  40 km

650

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

Table 1 List of source parametersseismic moment (Mo), moment magnitude (Mw), stress drop (), corner frequency ( fc), radius (r), and radiated energy (Es) estimated from the inversion of S wave spectra Event No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Mo (Nm) 2.51E+16 1.58E+18 2.82E+17 4.31E+15 1.21E+16 4.80E+15 7.63E+15 5.01E+16 1.52E+16 4.52E+15 2.00E+17 2.13E+16 8.50E+15 1.32E+16 5.01E+16 3.65E+15 7.76E+17 5.62E+17 5.01E+16 7.66E+17 9.24E+15 4.50E+16 1.12E+18 1.19E+16 3.55E+16 8.13E+14 2.87E+15 6.26E+17 1.00E+17 2.24E+18 5.01E+16 7.00E+16 2.00E+17 6.59E+16 2.63E+16 Mw 4.9 6.1 5.6 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.6 5.1 4.8 4.4 5.5 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.1 4.3 5.9 5.8 5.1 5.9 4.6 5.1 6.0 4.7 5.0 3.9 4.3 5.8 5.3 6.2 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.2 4.9 (MPa) 3.2 4.5 1.4 4.4 7.1 6.5 12 4 22.4 6.4 2.4 1.7 4.1 6.8 1.7 2.6 13.4 12.8 15.6 3.7 15.4 9.6 14.5 6.4 9.3 35 8.9 3 11.7 8.9 12.5 8.9 6.4 5.4 6.1 fc (Hz) 0.86 0.24 0.29 1.73 1.43 1.90 1.99 0.74 1.95 1.93 0.39 0.74 1.35 1.37 0.56 1.53 0.44 0.49 1.16 0.29 2.03 1.02 0.40 1.40 1.10 6.01 2.50 0.29 0.84 0.27 1.08 0.86 0.54 0.74 1.05 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Es (J) 2.52E+11 1.10E+13 8.07E+11 7.94E+10 2.52E+11 9.66E+10 2.78E+11 6.15E+11 9.23E+11 1.14E+11 1.38E+12 1.17E+11 1.34E+11 2.63E+11 2.52E+11 3.86E+10 3.41E+13 3.83E+13 3.94E+12 7.92E+12 4.34E+11 1.34E+12 3.69E+13 2.72E+11 1.05E+12 6.60E+10 8.03E+10 5.17E+12 3.73E+12 6.15E+13 2.15E+12 3.09E+12 4.60E+12 1.65E+12 5.71E+11 r (km) 1.5 5.4 4.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.7 3.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 2.3 0.9 2.9 2.7 1.1 4.5 0.6 1.3 3.2 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.5 4.5 1.6 4.8 1.2 1.5 2.4 1.7 1.2

Qf 153f 0:83

A site effect Gj() representing combination of site amplification and the diminution function (path-independent loss of energy) terms was also considered as: Gj f Aj f exppk 0 f 5

where Aj()is the jth station amplification function and 0 represents the diminution parameter or zerodistance kappa factor (Anderson and Hough 1984). We first determined for all accelerometric stations through the conventional technique based on the estimate of the spectral decay of the Fourier amplitude spectra at higher frequencies, generally more than

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


Event No.30, Station No.37, Comb1 100 0 100 5 0 5 0 10 t1 20 30 t2 acceleration spectrum(cm/s) 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10
2

651

x(cm/s )

Event No.30, Station No.37, Comb1

x(cm/s2) Corrected

2 N(cm/s )

100 0 100 1 0 10

20 t1

30

40

50

60

70

80

E/E

0.5 0.05 0 10

10

e(cm/s2)

100 50 0 20 10 0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

20

30 t
2

40

50

60

70

80

c(cm/s2)

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 1 10

10

10 f(Hz)

10

Swave (cm/s2)

0 100 0 10 20 30 40 t(sec) 50 60 70 80

Fig. 5 An example of selecting the direct shear-wave window for an event that occurred on 10 Sep. 2008 recorded in the Lenj Ab station. Symbols t1 and t2 denote the estimated arrival and end times of the direct S wave, respectively. Left (from top to bottom), the uncorrected acceleration record, extracted noise

identified by the wavelet de-noising method, the wavelet denoised signal, and its Husid plot, acceleration envelope function, cumulative RMS function, the S wave portion of the corrected signal; right, the acceleration Fourier amplitude spectrum of S wave window

5 Hz, in a log-linear plot (Anderson and Hough 1984). An average for each station is obtained from the geometric mean of the Fourier spectra (see Fig. 6). Then, the zero-distance kappa factor was determined from the best-fitted line ( = rR + 0) through the distribution of kappa factors as a function of distances (Anderson and Hough 1984). The best-fit regression line is =0.0002R +0.043, which suggests a value of 0.043 for 0. The kappa factor of 0.024 for the vertical component is estimated based on the same procedure (Fig. 7). The high dispersion here, which is also common in almost all kappa determination studies (see, e.g., Motazedian 2006) is due to the fact that such a simple factor could not explain/represent the complex phenomena of wave propagation in the earths crust and near-surface soil-sedimentary layers. Also, the statistical uncertainty is estimated as the 1 standard deviation range of the linear regression. Substituting Eqs. 2, 4, and 5 into Eq. 1, the model is then linearized by taking the natural logarithms. If we consider a total number of recordings (N), corresponding to a number of earthquakes (I) recorded at a total number

of stations (J), then a compact matrix formulation for Eq. 6 can be represented as follows:  Y A path

 source site 1; ::::::i; I 1; ::::::j; J

where [ Y ] represents a vector containing the ground-motion amplitude corrected by the geometrical spreading and the diminution functions; in addition, the last seven rows stand for predefined values for seven reference sites (see below), and each of its member represents a vector with n rows, when n is the number of selected points in desired frequency range; [A] denotes a sparse matrix containing only three nonzero elements in each row (from rows 1 to n). The first column contains a nonzero vector with n rows while other columns represent an n n diagonal matrix. [X] represents a matrix holding I + J + 1 terms, namely, the vector solution containing the path term Q f , source effect In(Ei()) and the site amplification term In(Aj()) when each of its members represents

652
10
1

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


Event No.5, Station No.23 10 =0.040
2

Event No.4, Station No.31 =0.064

10

Event No.9, Station No.28 =0.032

FAS(cm/s)

10

10

0 0

10 10
1

10

10

0
1

10

20

30

40

10

0
1

10

20

30

40

10

10

20

30

40

Event No.10, Station No.8 =0.051

Event No.12, Station No.3 =0.046

10

10

10

Event No.14, Station No.4 =0.041

FAS(cm/s)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

20

30

40

10

10

20

30

40

10

0
2

10

20

30

40

10

Event No.15, Station No.2 10 =0.068


2

Event No.22, Station No.16 =0.058

Event No.32, Station No.30 =0.044

10

FAS(cm/s)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

20 Frequency(Hz)

30

40

10

10 0 10 20 Frequency(Hz) 30 40

10

20 Frequency(Hz)

30

40

Fig. 6 Determination of kappa factor for average of horizontal components. The straight lines show the regression fits to logarithm of spectral amplitude versus frequency

a vector with n rows. Equation 6 is solved for (X) in the frequency range of interest, using a SVD

algorithm (Andrews 1986) which provides a numerically robust solution to the problem.

Horizental Components
0.1 0.08 0.06

0.04 0.02 0 0 20 40 60 80 = (0.00020.00003)R +(0.0430.0014)

100

120

140

160

180

200

Vertical Components
0.1

0.05

= (0.00030.00003)R +(0.0240.0016) 0 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

R(km)

Fig. 7 The distribution of kappa factor versus distance for horizontal (top) and vertical (bottom) components. Gray lines denote the 1 standard deviation range

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

653

Andrews (1986) pointed out the presence of one undetermined degree of freedom in this system of equations which can be removed by specifying the amplification at selected reference sites to approximately be a constant value or by assuming predefined shapes for source spectra (e.g., 2 model). In the current study, the database contains five separate groups of data (see Figs. 2 and 3); therefore, we need to select at least five reference sites (i.e., one for each group). The inversion analysis has been done for each network/subsets of data (no for the whole set of data). This is due to the fact that the formulation of the GI method (see Eq. 6) needs the connectivity of data for each network. This requirement is fulfilled by considering five separate subsets of data (see Figs. 2 and 3). The main assumption about reference site, is surmising a frequency independent site response (see Hassani et al. 2011 for more details). Here, a preliminary inversion has been done to investigate relative site responses, assuming that the mean of the whole set of stations is free of site effect at each frequency (Drouet et al. 2008). The shear-wave velocity values in the uppermost 30 m ( 30 ) values were available at 31 strong-motion stations of the studied area. These stations with their corresponding shear-wave velocity are tabulated in Appendix B. Taking into account the 30 values, surface geological conditions, if available, the H/V ratios and the resulting responses of this inversion, stations with the lowest relative values of response have been considered as reference stations and those showing amplification peaks or troughs compared with the mean have been removed from the set of reference stations. Chen and Atkinson (2002), Siddiqqi and Atkinson (2002), and Sokolov et al. (2005) showed that the H/V ratios for rock sites, when averaged over many recordings, are correlated with the general geological conditions and may be used as a simple and useful estimate of an amplification effect. Here, the H/V ratios at the reference sites with necessary modifications have been used as a constraint to remove the abovementioned undetermined degree of freedom and a second inversion was performed using this reference condition. Following Drouet et al. (2008), we finally checked on the final results that the stations used in the reference still have a flat transfer function not too far from a

theoretical rock-site response (i.e., a flat amplitude response in the frequencies of engineering interest).

4 Inversion results Applying the inversion method to the selected database, the source spectra, site responses, and S wave quality factors were obtained simultaneously. The results are presented and discussed in the following sections. 4.1 Source model The source term Ei() of ith event derived from the inversion can be written as Ei f C 4p 2 f 2M 0i 7 and C R VF =4p s b s 3 R0 8

where R =0.55 is the average shear-wave radiation patp tern, F = 2 is the free surface amplification, V 1= 2 is introduced to account for the partition of total shear-wave energy into two horizontal components, s =2.8 g/cm3 and s =3.5 km/s are the mass density and the shear-wave velocity in the vicinity of the earthquake source, R0 = 1 km is a reference distance, and M 0i() is the moment rate spectrum that can be expressed in the form M 0i f M0i 1 f =fci g i 9

where M0i(), 0i, and i respectively are the scalar moment, corner-, and the high-frequency spectral falloff coefficient associated with the ith earthquake. The most commonly used model of the earthquake source spectrum is the theoretical 2 model introduced by Aki (1967) using Brune (1970, 1971) source scaling. Since for small to moderate events, the source is small, and likely to be simple, it is valid to ignore finite-source effects and assume a single-cornerfrequency point source to model the spectral amplitudes of S waves. Here, we assume that the source spectra for all events are approximated by an 2 source model (i.e., i =2). In the second stage of inversion, we visually estimated the initial corner

654

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

frequency (0in) from resultant source spectra, and used low- and high-frequency level of the source spectra to estimate the initial guess of the scalar moment ( M 0in ( ), consequently M Win ). A grid search analysis was carried out to estimate the optimal values of abovementioned parameters for () values of Eq. 9, each event computed from M 0in so that residuals between estimated and observed spectral amplitudes become minimum. The following ranges of parameters have been considered: M Wi n 0.1 M Wi M Wi n + 0.1 for events with reported moment magnitude and M(b, L, S) 0.5 M M(b, L, S) +0.5 for events without reported moment magnitude, and 0.2< i <35.0 MPa for accounting stress drop variation in a practical range as a replacement for corner frequency in analysis. Figure 8 shows an example of resultant source parameters. The complete results are shown in Table 1. Assuming a circular fault, the source radius ri and the stress drop i for the ith event can be estimated from the corner frequency 0i of the source spectrum and the seismic moment M0i() using the following relations (Madariaga 1976):
10
17

ri

2:34bS 2p fci 7M 0 i f 1015 16ri3

10

11

where r i , s , M 0 i , and i are in kilometers, kilometers per second, Newtons per meter, and megapascals, respectively. The scaling of the spectra from one magnitude to another is determined by defining the dependence of the corner frequency c on seismic moment M 0 (Boore 2003). Figure 9 shows the relationship between the M0 and c, of S waves. From the regression analysis, we get log M0 16:54 0:050 2:54 0:15 log fc 12 This relation indicates that decreasing in corner frequency by increasing in seismic moment has a rate of 2.54 in logarithmic scale, which is near to the results of similar studies (e.g., 2.53 in Dutta et al.
10
17

Moment rate spectrum (N.m)

Mw=4.6 (Evt.No.21) 10
16 16

Mw=5.1 (Evt.No.22) 10 Source Parameters

Source Parameters 10
15

M =9.24x 1015 N.m o f =2.03 Hz


c

Mo=4.50x 10 10
15

16

N.m

f =1.02 Hz
c

= 15.4 MPa =2 10
14

= 9.6 MPa =2 10
0 14

10

10 f(HZ)

10

10

10

10

10 f(HZ)

10

10

17

10 Mw=4.7

18

Moment rate spectrum (N.m)

Mw=5.8 10
17

10

16

(Evt.No.24) Source Parameters

(Evt.No.28) Source Parameters

10

15

Mo=1.19x 10 fc=1.4 Hz

16

N.m

10

16

Mo=6.26x 10 f =0.29 Hz c

17

N.m

10

14

= 6.4 MPa =2

10

15

= 3.0 MPa =2

10

13

10

10

10

10

10

14

10

10

10

10

f (Hz)

f (Hz)

Fig. 8 The computed (thick line) and the best-fit (thin line) moment rate spectra for four different events. Shading denotes the 1 standard deviation range. The source parameter values obtained from the inversion analysis are also labeled in the respective plots

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


10
20

655

Seismic moment(N.m)

10

18

Mf

2.54 o c

= 3.47x10 N.m/s

16

10

16

10

14

10

12

10

10

10

10

fc(Hz)
Fig. 9 Plot of seismic moment versus corner frequency obtained from S wave spectral analysis. The regression line (solid) is shown with the 1 standard deviation range (shaded)

2003, Eq. 12). The value of i in general does not depend on earthquake size, and this led to the scaling of earthquakes in terms of source dimensions and average slip. Aki (1967) has shown that for constant stress drop M0c3 is a constant, and this dependence of the corner frequency c on the moment M0 controls the scaling of the spectral shapes. Repeating the regression analysis with the slope fixed at 3, corresponding to similarity in the earthquake source and constant stress drop, we get logM0 16:52 0:056 3 log fc 13

The plot of the relation in Eq. 13 is shown by a thick solid line in Fig. 10, and the shaded area in the same
10
20

Seismic moment(N.m)

10

18

Mofc3 = 3.31x 10 16 N.m/s3 = 6.6 MPa

10

16

figure shows 1 standard deviation of the mean value. Equation 13 can be rewritten as M0c3 =3.311016 N m1 s3 corresponding to a constant stress drop of 6.6 MPa. The results (comparison of Figs. 7 and 8) show that there is no significant difference and strong deviation from similarity assumption. This fact is of utmost important in the point-source stochastic simulations which will be performing to predict ground motions from the future large earthquakes in the region. Hassani et al. (2011) obtained a relation M0c3 =2.481016 Nm1 s3 for small to moderate earthquakes in the CentralEastern region of Iran. Also, Zafarani et al. (2012) have found a relationship M0c3 = 6.81 1016 N m 1 s 3 for events in the Alborz region, Northern Iran. Taking to account the estimated stress drops of the two subregions (areas 1 and 2) separately, Eq. 13 can be rewritten as M0c3 = 2.97 1016 N m1 s3 corresponding to a constant stress drop of 5.9 MPa for the western Zagros (area 1 in Fig. 1 belongs to the High Zagros region) and M0c3 = 3.561016 Nm1 s3 corresponding to a constant stress drop of 7.1 MPa for the eastern Zagros (area 2 in Fig. 1 belongs to the SFB region). The plot of both relations are shown by a thick solid line in Fig. 11, and the shaded area in the same figure shows 1 standard deviation of the mean value. As it is clear, there is no significant difference between source characteristics of two the subregions. This was expected because both subregions belong to the Zagros seismotectonic zone, having an interplate regime (Zafarani and Soghrat 2012). After correction for all known path and site effects, including geometrical spreading, attenuation, and site amplifications (including kappa), the radiated S wave energy ESi for the ith event was calculated using the following relation (Vassiliou and Kanamori 1982)
1 Z 2

= 16.1 Mpa

10

14

= 3.5 MPa
10
12

ESi A
1
10
1 2

j2p f M oi f j df
1 1

14

10

10

10

fc(Hz)

Fig. 10 Plot of seismic moment versus corner frequency obtained from S wave spectral analysis by fixing the slope in Eq. 12 at 3. The regression line (solid) is shown with the 1 standard deviation range (shaded)

and is the P where A 15p a5 10p b5 S wave velocity near the source region. The obtained values of E Si may be underestimated to some extent because the frequency band limited of the spectral data was used to evaluate Eq. 14. The

656 Fig. 11 Plot of seismic moment versus corner frequency obtained from S wave spectral analysis by fixing the slope in Eq. 12 at 3 obtained for the Western (Fig. 2) and Eastern (Fig. 3) Zagros regions. The regression line (solid) is shown with the 1 standard deviation range (shaded)
10
20

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


Western Zagros Mofc = 2.97x 10 Seismic moment(N.m)
10
18

10
3 16

20

Eastern Zagros M f 3 = 3.56x 10 16 N.m/s3


o c

N.m/s

= 5.9 MPa

10

18

= 7.1 Mpa

10

16

10

16

10

14

10

14

10

12

10

10

10

10

12

10

10

10

fc(Hz)

fc(Hz)

relation between Es and M0 obtained in this study can be expressed as logEs 4:68 0:061 log M0 15

A comparison between this study and similar studies is depicted in Fig. 12. The dashed line is taken from Hassani et al. (2011) obtained for the Central-Eastern region of Iran, and the solid line is the result of Zafarani et al. (2012) for the Alborz region, Northern Iran. The results show that earthquakes in the Northern part of Iran have higher energy and higher stress drops than Zagros
10
15

10

14

Es/Mo = 8.2x 10 5 (Northern part of Iran) Es/Mo = 2.5x 10 5 (CentralEast part of Iran)

Energy(Es), N.m

10

13

10

12

10

11

Es/Mo = 2.11x 10 5 (Zagros region)

10

10

10

10

14

10

15

10

16

10

17

10

18

10

19

10

20

Seismic Moment(M0), N.m

Fig. 12 Plot of seismic energy versus moment. The regression line (solid) corresponds to a constant stress drop is shown along with the 1 standard deviation range (shaded). The result of Zafarani et al. (2012) for the Alborz region, Northern part of Iran is also shown. The broken line is taken from Hassani et al. (2011) obtained for the Central-Eastern part of Iran

and Central-Eastern parts of Iran. According to Scholz et al. (1986), an earthquake that occurs on a well-defined plate boundary such as, say, the San Andreas fault, is clearly an interplate earthquake, and one that occurs in a midplate region far from any known plate boundary is clearly intraplate. The Zagros region is situated on the deformed northern margin of the Arabian continental plate, near the boundary of Arabian and southern Eurasian plate (Talebian and Jackson 2004), and therefore the characteristics of these events are more like interplate earthquakes of western North America (see also Silva et al. 1997). The results of this study also show the similarity of the Zagros earthquakes with the western USA than eastern North America from the view point of source characteristics like spectral amplitudes and local stress drops. In contrary, Northern Iran is far more away from the plate boundary and its earthquakes clearly can be described as intraplate/midplate events (Zafarani and Soghrat 2012). Already, Shoja-Taheri and Niazi (1981) have shown that the seismicity pattern of intraplate subregions of Alborz and Central-Eastern Iran is diffuse, and the cumulative strain release is about one order of magnitude below the two interplate boundaries representing Zagros and Hindukush. Finally, using derived seismic moment from the second-stage inversion in the current study and the previous studies by Hassani et al. (2011) and Zafarani et al. (2012), the body-wave magnitudes (mb), for 46 events in the Iranian plateau which were reported by

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

657

NEIC, has been used to obtain a relationship between mb and Mw. The relation can be expressed as follow and is shown in Fig. 13. Mw 0:81 0:11mb 0:86 0:50 16

An empirical global relationship converting mb to Mw proposed by Scordilis (2006) has also been shown for comparison. Using data from Central-Eastern Iran (i.e., 13 events taken from Hassani et al. 2011), leads to very similar results Mw 0:79 0:08mb 0:87 0:35 4.2 Site response The next outcome of this study is the site amplification, Aj f for 40 stations which was obtained in the defined frequency range of 0.4 to 15 Hz. Thick and thin solid lines in Fig. 14 represent the mean site amplification factors estimated from the GI at each station and 1 standard deviation, respectively. Figure 14 also shows comparisons of amplification spectra at each site between the GI method and the earthquake H/V method of Lermo and Chvez-Garca (1993). The method assumes that the local site conditions do not significantly influence the vertical component of the ground motion and the H/V spectral ratios may be used as an indicator of site effects. Here, similar to what 17

5.5

Mw = (0.85 0.11) mb + (1.03 0.23) 3.5 mb 6.5 (Scordilis, 2006)

4.5

3.5

Mw = (0.81 0.11) mb + (0.86 0.50) (This study)


3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Fig. 13 The results of regression analysis between Mw and mb. The solid lines show the results of regression and 1 standard deviation

has been done in Chen and Atkinson (2002) and Motazedian (2006), a combination of amplification through the crustal profile and near-surface attenuation, kappa, was applied in order to model the H/V ratios. In order to clarify the differences in the estimates of site amplifications, site amplification factors for both methods at each station were averaged over ten frequency bins with central values equally spaced on the logarithmic scale (f =1.13, 2.59, 4.05, 5.51, 6.97, 8.43, 9.89, 11.35, 12.81, and 14.27 Hz). The averaged amplification factors at each frequency bands were plotted for the respective methods (Fig. 15). As it is clear, comparison of site response values of inversion and those of H/V shows that the results are more scattered in higher frequencies (f > 5 Hz). A similar trend can be found in other studies (e.g., Shojia and Kamiyama 2002). Also, comparison of the H/V results with the inversion technique reveals that both methods practically represent the same shape of site response. Figure 16 shows the obtained amplification values which have been averaged over the entire frequency band (0.415 Hz) in comparison with the results of H/V method. For comparison, the average amplification over all frequencies obtained for Central-Eastern (Hassani et al. 2011) and Northern Iran regions (Zafarani et al. 2012) are also shown. In conclusion, it can be said that in an average sense over all frequencies, there is a good agreement in not only dominant period but also amplification factor between the GI scheme and the H/ V method. In order to examine the result of the inversion method, against the site condition, sites were classified in two categories as rock and soil. Sites with 30 < 500 m/s, are categorized as soil and sites with 30 > 500 m/s are categorized as rock (Zare et al. 1999). The average of site response obtained by inversion is shown in Fig. 17, for both categories. A band width of 0.6 Hz was used for the lowfrequency band = 0.4 1.0 Hz, and 3.5 Hz for the high-frequency band = 2.5 6.0 Hz. The solid line shows the best-fitted line between the results of the current study. Dashed and dotted lines show the similar quantities for EastCentral Iran and the Alborz region, Northern Iran, respectively. It can be concluded that site

Mw

658
AMPLIFICATION
1Asr 2Arn 3Ann

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


4Bah

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

5Be1

10

6Be2

10

7Ber

10

8Btn

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

9Bod

10

10Cai

10

11CCn

10

12Dsh

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10
1

10

10

10
1

10

10

10
1

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

13Dhr

14DAa

15Dbn

16Drd

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

17Gmh

10

18Gom

10

19HAd

10

20Jhm

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

21Jum

10

22Krn

10

23Kes

10

24Ken

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Fig. 14 Site-amplification spectra at 40 stations obtained from performed inversion (solid), arrived from H/V method (dashed), and 1 standard deviation range (shaded)

amplification at low frequencies have a stronger correlation with the 30, compared with the amplification at higher frequencies. A similar trend has been seen for East-Central Iran by Hassani et

al. (2011). It is clear also that site response in the Alborz region, Northern Iran, has a weak correlation with the 30, compared with the two other regions.

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


AMPLIFICATION
10
1

659
10
1

25Ken

26Km1

10

27Ljb

10

28Ner

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

29NAd

10

30Qsm

10

31Rci

10

32Rgn

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

33Shh

10

34Sld

10

35Snr

10

36Sua

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

AMPLIFICATION

10

37Tal

10

38Tmn

10

39TAd

10

40Zdr

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Frequency(Hz)

Fig. 14 (continued)

Already, Dutta et al. (2003) have reported a similar trend for S wave site response in Anchorage, Alaska, from weak-motion data using the GI method. The results of Fig. 17 show that the transition from soil to rock category (dashed line along the ordinate) corresponds to amplification factor of 2.2 and 3, respectively at low and high frequencies. 4.3 Residuals If a prediction model is not biased at any fixed point (i.e., at a specific frequency, distance, or magnitude), the residuals between the observed and predicted values should be distributed normally with a mathematical expectation of zero and with different variances. Here, we examined the computed residuals, defined as the natural log of

observed FAS minus the natural log of predicted FAS, as a function of distance and magnitude, to be sure that the results are not biased. Table 2 summarizes the model parameters which are either chosen or obtained in the inversion. Residuals for frequencies from 0.4 to 15 Hz over all records are calculated using the model parameters as listed in Table 2. The distribution of residuals was plotted against distance and magnitude to explore possible trends in the results. Figure 18a shows the histogram of the residuals which show a normal distribution with a small variance of about 0.26. Figure 18b, c shows the same residuals but as a function of hypocentral distance and magnitude, respectively. As it can be concluded from Figs. 18 and 19, there is no apparent bias and trend in the residuals; all the residual plots examined show no obvious dependence of the scatter on distance or

660
10
1

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


1.13 Hz
10
1

2.59 Hz

Generalized inversion

10

4.05 Hz

10

5.51 Hz

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 10
1

10

10

10

10 10
1

10

10

10

10 10
1

10

10

Generalized inversion

10

6.97 Hz

8.43 Hz

9.89 Hz

11.35 Hz

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 10
1

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Generalized inversion

10

12.81 Hz

14.27 Hz

H/V method

H/V method

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

H/V method

H/V method

Fig. 15 Comparisons of amplification spectra between the GI and direct spectral ratio that were averaged over ten frequency bands

magnitude and in conclusion, the model is fitting the data rather well.
10
1

5 Summary and conclusions S wave spectra of earthquakes recorded by the BHRC strong-motion stations at regional scale are modeled as the product of source, propagation (including geometric and anelastic attenuation), and site effects. SVD algorithm is employed to solve the inverse problem and retrieve these different terms, because it provides a numerically robust solution to the least squares problem. In this study, 148 three-component records were used which contain 35 earthquakes of magnitude M4.2 to M6.2. These earthquakes were recorded at 40 stations in the hypocentral distance range from 10 to 100 km. We constrained the inversion using the H/V ratio at seven reference sites which have a relatively flat response. In the moment (M0) range of 1015 N m M0 18 10 Nm, accepting the similarity assumption, the present study of source parameters yielded the relation M 0c3 = 3.31 1016 N m 1 s 3, where f c is corner frequency. The Brune stress drop ( )

Average site response by GI method

Zagros

CentralEeast Northern Iran 10


0

1:2 1:1
1

2:1
1

10

10

10

10

Average site response by H/V method

Fig. 16 The comparison of average site response calculated by inversion versus that obtained from the H/V method. The dashed lines in the figure indicate 1:2 and 2:1 correspondence. White circles the Zagros stations used in the current study, crosses Northern Iranian stations obtained from Zafarani et al. (2012), and triangles the site effects estimated for the stations in the Central-Eastern Iran by Hassani et al. (2011)

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666


Low frequency band High frequency band

661

10

10

Amplification

10

10

ln(Amp)=(0.480.18)ln( )+(4.051.20)
s

ln(Amp)=(0.410.18)ln( )+(4.211.23)
s

Soil

Rock

Soil

Rock

10

10

(m/s)
s

10

10

10

s(m/s)

10

Fig. 17 The site response values at low (left) and high (right) frequency bands are plotted with respect to the average S wave velocity of the uppermost 30 m (circles); solid line current study, dashed line East-Central Iran (Hassani et al. 2011), dotted line

the Alborz region, Northern Iran (Zafarani et al. 2012). The dotted vertical line marks the transition from soil to rock site condition as defined by Zare et al. (1999)

estimates for individual earthquakes range from about 1.4 to 35.0 MPa and the average value is around 6.6 MPa for the magnitude range of events considered in this study. The 1 standard deviation of the stress drop parameter corresponds to 16.1 and 3.5 MPa, respectively. Using data from western and eastern parts of the Zagros region, the stress drop has been estimated as 7.1 and 5.9 MPa for these regions, respectively. There is no significant difference between source characteristics of two subregions. This was expected because both subregions belong to the Zagros seismotectonic zone, having an Interplate regime. The relation between Es and Mo can be expressed as log(Es)=(4.680.061)+ log M 0 . To reduce the trade-off effects, the distance-dependent kappa factors were independently determined from the slope of the amplitude

of Fourier acceleration spectrum at higher frequencies of generally more than 5 Hz. The kappa for horizontal and vertical components was found to be 0.043 and 0.024, respectively. Also, no attempt was made to estimate the path effects in the current study; instead, a path model was adopted from previous studies. The site spectrum resulted in the current study was compared with the H/V method. Due to the shortcomings of the H/V ratio technique, we do not expect the H/V site response estimates to perfectly match the general inversion results in amplitude, although a better match in shape was obtained and generally, comparison of results reveals that the H / V ratios successfully match the shapes of the transfer functions obtained by the inversion technique. A comparison of site amplification values obtained by the inversion

Table 2 Seismological parameters as obtained from its calibration in this study or adopted from previous studies

Parameter Crustal shear-wave velocity Crustal density (g/cm ) Q f Geometric spreading Site amplification Source spectrum Kappa (parameter of high-cut filter (s))
3

Parameter value 3.5 (km/s) 2.8 Q f =153 f R


1 0.83

(R 40 km), (R =0.40)1/2, and (R >40 km)

Generalized inversion results (this study) Generalized inversion results (this study) 0.043

662
800 2

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

residual

700

600

number of values

500 2 1 10 400 2 300 10


2

hypocentral distance (Km)

200

residual
1 0 1 2

100

0 2

2 3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

residual

Mw

Fig. 18 Histogram of the residuals of the logarithms of Fourier amplitude spectra (left). Residuals as a function of hypocentral distance and magnitude (right top and bottom), respectively

method shows that both methods practically represent a same shape for site response spectra, but, amplification values obtained from H/V ratios for some of the sites are different from those obtained from the general inversion, and also there is a weak correlation between two methods in higher frequencies. Finally, for two frequency bands, the average of site

response spectra were computed and related to the shear-wave velocity in logarithmic scale. It can be concluded that site amplification at low frequencies have a stronger correlation with the 30, compared with the amplification at higher frequencies. A similar trend has been seen for East-Central Iran by Hassani et al. (2011). It was also concluded that site response in the Alborz

2 f=1.0 Hz f=1.0 Hz 0

ln(Obs/Sim)

2 1 10 2

10

2 2

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

ln(Obs/Sim)

f=7.0 Hz 0 0

f=7.0 Hz

2 1 10 2

10

2 2

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

ln(Obs/Sim)

f=12.4 Hz 0 0

f=12.4.0 Hz

2 1 10

10

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

rhypo(Km)

Mw

Fig. 19 Residuals of FAS at frequencies of 1.0, 7.0, and 12.4 Hz, plotted as a function of log10(hypocentral distance; left) and magnitude (right)

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

663 Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the Building and Housing Research Centre of Iran for providing them with the accelerograms and shear-wave velocities used in the current study.

region, Northern Iran, has a weak correlation with the 30, compared with the East-Central Iran and Zagros regions.

Appendix A
Table 3 List of earthquakes used in this study E. No. yyyy/mm/dd hh:min Latitude Longitude Depth Number Magnitude Stations (deg) (deg) (km) of records (distance in km) m b Ms Mw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1998/08/21 1999/05/06 1999/05/06 1999/05/21 1999/05/30 1999/05/31 1999/06/11 1999/10/31 1999/12/05 2002/04/24 2002/04/24 2002/04/24 2002/04/24 2002/05/17 2002/12/24 2002/12/24 2003/07/10 2003/07/10 2003/11/28 2005/11/27 2006/03/30 2006/03/30 05:13 23:00 23:13 19:17 00:15 19:11 03:05 15:09 00:06 19:43 19:48 20:10 20:11 15:52 17:03 22:17 17:06 17:40 23:19 10:22 16:17 19:36 34.22 29.54 29.43 29.37 29.46 29.32 29.37 29.37 29.52 34.53 34.60 34.49 34.53 29.48 34.56 34.49 28.31 28.25 28.33 26.77 33.55 33.65 48.18 51.93 51.93 51.99 51.95 52.05 51.99 51.85 51.77 47.36 47.40 47.35 47.16 51.96 47.48 47.40 54.17 54.08 54.05 55.90 48.71 48.78 25 7 10 15 25 15 25 15 15 25 25 25 25 25 20 28 10 15 25 12 10 20 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 6 4 3 3 6 3 4 4 3 6 3 8 4.9 4.5 5 NAd(36) Bod(69) Asr(47) References

E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 E2006 HRVD NEIC HRVD

5.7 6.3 6.2 Gmh(48) Ken(28) Bah(29) Gom(56) Ken(26) 5.2 5.7 5.7 Bah(18) Gom(64) Ken(36) 4.2 3.3 4.2 Kes(25) Bah(18) Rgn(22) Rci(28) 4.5 4.2 4.5 Rgn(34) Rci(34) Kes(33) Ken(39) 4.3 3.8 4.3 Rgn(19) Rci(28) Kes(24) Bah(19) 4.4 3.9 4.4 Rgn(30) Rci(34) Ken(45) Kes(32) 4.9 4.9 5.2 Gmh(60) Rgn(34) Ken(36) Bah(19) 4.6 4.4 4.6 Ner(21) Bah(34) Rgn(44) 4.8 4.6 4.8 Ann(26) Shh(39) Snr(43) Btn(31) Ljb(46) 5.3 5.1 5.4 Ljb(40) Btn(35) Snr(37) Shh(39) Ann(25) Arn(58) 4.8 4.3 4.8 Ann(28) Arn(58) Shh(39) Snr(47) 4.5 0 4.5 Snr(55) Shh(54) Ann(32) 4.8 4.2 4.8 Ken(37) Bah(33) Ner(26) 5.1 4.6 5.2 Ann(24) Arn(48) Btn(28) Shh(29) Snr(34) Ljb(44) 4.6 0 4.6 Snr(46) Shh(38) Ann(31) 5.8 5.5 5.8 Zdr(60) Jum(21) Jhm(64) HAd(27) 5.7 5.4 5.7 HAd(38) Jhm(61) Jum(18) Zdr(63) 5.2 4.3 5 HAd(44) Jum(27) Dbn(30) 6.1 5.8 5.9 Be2(62) Qsm(45) Krn(61) Ber(39) Be1(62) Sua(21) 4.8 4.8 CCn(25) Cai(22) Bod(39 5.2 5.1 CCn(24) Bod(34) Drd(37) Km1(47) Cai(29) Sld(67) TAd(31) Dhr(40) 6.1 CCn(13) Cai(35) Km1(54) Drd(23) Sld(56) Dhr(26) TAd(38) NAd(101) Asr(67) 4.7

23

2006/03/31

01:17

33.62

48.91

12

5.7 6

HRVD

24

2006/03/31

01:31

33.71

48.65

10

4.7

NEIC

664 Table 3 (continued)

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666

E. No. yyyy/mm/dd hh:min Latitude Longitude Depth Number Magnitude Stations (deg) (deg) (km) of records (distance in km) m b Ms Mw CCn(27) Bod(24) Km1(38) Cai(14) 4.9 4.3 5.1 Km1(52) Sld(78) TAd(31) Drd(47) Bod(32) Cai(33) 4.2 4.2 DAa(22) Dsh(18) CCn(19) 4.6 4.6 DAa(21) CCn(17) Dsh(11) 5.8 5.8 5.8 Tmn(13) Ber(33) Qsm(52) Be2(68) 5.4 5.2 Dbn(33) Jum(14) Zdr(65) 6.1 6.1 6.1 Ber(38) Tmn(23) Sua(40) Tal(17) Krn(66) 5.2 5.2 Tmn(30) Sua(47) Tal(22) 5.3 5 5.2 Be1(60) Sua(17) Qsm(41) 5.7 5.4 5.4 Ber(25) Be1(70) Sua(35) Tal(14) 5.5 5.3 5.1 Be1(68) Sua(33) Tal(15) Qsm(54) Be1(68) Tal(15) 5.2 5 5 Sua(30) Qsm(55) Tal(16)

References

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

2006/03/31 2006/04/02 2006/04/12 2006/06/28 2008/05/05 2008/09/10 2008/09/11 2008/09/17 2008/12/07 2008/12/08 2008/12/09

11:54 01:59 11:47 21:02 21:57 11:00 02:16 17:43 13:36 14:41 15:09

33.73 33.76 33.72 26.77 28.19 26.65 26.93 26.75 26.82 26.83 26.75

48.75 48.91 48.79 55.81 53.99 55.72 55.63 55.96 55.74 55.76 55.80

26 15 11 12 12 12 7 12 12 12 14

6 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 4 6 3

HRVD NEIC NEIC HRVD HRVD HRVD HRVD HRVD HRVD HRVD HRVD

Mw moment magnitude, E2006 Engdahl et al. (2006), HRVD Harvard Seismology, NEIC National Earthquake Information Centre

Appendix B
Table 4 Tabulations of stations with their corresponding shear-wave velocity St. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Station name Aleshtar Aran Armanijan Balaadeh Bandar-e-Abbas 1 Bandar-e-Abbas 2 Bandar-e-Khamir Bistoon Boroojerd Chaghalvandi Chalan Choolan Darbastaneh Darreh-Asbar Deh Azna Doobaran Dorood Ghaemiyeh Gooyom Haji Abad Jahrom Latitude (deg) 33.871 34.41 34.61 29.291 27.193 27.19 26.952 34.38 33.891 33.664 33.659 33.701 33.45 33.611 28.411 33.491 29.846 29.829 28.35 28.503 Longitude (deg) 48.259 47.92 47.35 51.935 56.293 56.298 55.582 47.43 48.754 48.553 48.913 48.817 49.06 48.929 54.182 49.059 51.59 52.4 54.42 53.554 Number of records 2 3 6 7 5 2 4 3 5 5 6 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 V30 (m/s) 621 390 1,380 337 679 579 616 428 1,103 935 450 1,363 771 617 598 561 Abbreviation Asr Arn Ann Bah Be1 Be2 Ber Btn Bod Cai CCn Dsh Dhr DAa Dbn Drd Gmh Gom HAd Jhm

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666 Table 4 (continued) St. No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Station name Jouyom Kahoorestan KarehBas Kazeroon Khan zeynioun Khoram Abad1 Lenj Ab Narges Zar Noor Abad Qeshm Richi Romghan Sahneh Shool Abad Sonqor Suza Tabl Tomban Tooshk-e-Ab-e-Sard Zahedshahr Latitude (deg) 28.259 27.216 29.45 29.62 29.671 33.491 34.87 29.447 34.072 26.962 29.5 29.371 34.47 33.184 34.78 26.782 26.758 26.766 33.773 28.742 Longitude (deg) 53.982 55.564 52.17 51.67 52.147 48.359 47.28 51.891 47.972 56.275 52.18 52.162 47.68 49.192 47.6 56.07 55.725 55.863 48.569 53.805 Number of records 4 2 4 2 5 4 3 2 2 5 4 6 6 3 6 7 6 3 3 3 V30 (m/s) 1,244 807 773 983 758 757 1,050 1,362 1,084 1,477 1,334 931 778 891 390

665

Abbreviation Jum Krn Kes Ken Ken Km1 Ljb Ner NAd Qsm Rci Rgn Shh Sld Snr Sua Tal Tmn TAd Zdr

Stations set in italics are the selected reference sites Brune J (1971) Correction to Brune (1970). J Geophys Res 76:5002 Buiding and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Available from http://www.bhrc.ac.ir/portal/. Accessed May 2011 Castro R, Anderson JG, Singh SK (1990) Site response, attenuation, and source spectra of S waves along the Guerrero, Mexico subduction zone. Bull Seism Soc Am 80:14811503 Chen SZ, Atkinson GM (2002) Global comparisons of earthquake source spectra. Bull Seism Soc Am 92:88595 Drouet S, Chevrot S, Cotton F, Souriau A (2008) Simultaneous inversion of source spectra, attenuation parameters, and site responses: application to the data of the French accelerometric network. Bull Seism Soc Am 98:198219 Dutta U, Martirosyan A, Biswas N, Papageorgiou A, Combellick R (2001) Estimation of S-wave site response in Anchorage, Alaska, from weak-motion data using generalized inversion method. Bull Seism Soc Am 91:335346 Dutta U, Biswas N, Martirosyan A, Papageorgiou A, Kinoshita S (2003) Estimation of earthquake source parameters and site response in Anchorage, Alaska from strong-motion network data using generalized inversion method. Phys Earth Planet Inter 137:1329 Engdahl ER, Jackson JA, Myers SC, Bergman EA, Priestley K (2006) Relocation and assessment of seismicity in the Iran region. Geophys J Int 167:76178 Harmsen SC (1997) Determination of site amplification in the Los Angeles Urban Area from inversion of strong-motion records. Bull Seism Soc Am 87:86687

References
Aki K (1967) Scaling law of seismic spectrum. J Geophys Res 72:12171231 Ambraseys NN, Melville CP (1982) A history of Persian earthquakes. Cambridge University Press, London, p 219 pp Anderson J, Hough S (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seism Soc Am 74:19691993 Andrews DJ (1986) Objective determination of source parameters and similarity of earthquakes of different size, earthquake source mechanics. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 25967 Ansari A, Noorzad A, Zafarani H, Vahidifard H (2010) Correction of highly noisy strong motion records using modified wavelet de-noising method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1168181 Berberian M (1995) Master blind thrust faults hidden under the Zagros folds: active basement tectonics and surface morphotectonics. Tectonophysics 241:193224 Boatwright J, Fletcher J, Fumal T (1991) A general inversion scheme for source, site, and propagation characteristics using multiply recorded sets of moderate-sized earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 81:17541782 Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635675 Brune J (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:49975009

666 Hartzell S (1992) Site response estimation from earthquake data. Bull Seism Soc Am 82:230827 Harvard Seismology (2011) Centroid Moment Tensor (CMT) catalog search. www.seismology.harvard.edu/. Accessed May 2011 Hassani B, Zafarani H, Farjoodi J, Ansari A (2011) Estimation of site amplification, attenuation and source spectra of S-waves in the East-Central Iran. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:13971413 Husid P (1967). Gravity effects on the earthquake response of yielding structures. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California Iwata T, Irikura K (1988) Source parameters of the 1983 Japan Sea earthquake sequence. J Phys Earth 36:15584 Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia F (1993) Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull Seism Soc Am 83:157494 Madariaga R (1976) Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull Seism Soc Am 66:639666 McCann MWJ, Shah HC (1979) Determining strong motion duration of earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 69:12531265 Mirzaei Alavijeh, H. & Farzanegan, E., 1998. Specifications of the Iranian Accelerograph Network Stations Building and Housing, Research Center, Publication No. B-280. Mirzaei Alavijeh H, Sinaiean F, Farzanegan E, Sadeghi Alavijeh ME (2007). Iran Strong Motion Network (ISMN) prospects and achievements. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering, Tehran Motazedian D (2006) Region-specific key seismic parameters for earthquakes in Northern Iran. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:138395 Mousavi M, Zafarani H, Noorzad A, Ansari A, Bargi KH (2007) Analysis of Iranian strong motion data using the specific barrier model. J Geophys Eng 4:114 National Earthquake Information Centre (NEIC). Available from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/neic/. Accessed May 2011 Nowroozi A (2010) Probability of peak ground horizontal and peak ground vertical accelerations at Tehran and surrounding areas. Pure Appl Geophys 167:14591474 Ramsey LA, Walker RT, Jackson J (2008) Fold evolution and drainage development in the Zagros Mountains of Fars province, SE Iran. Basin Research 20:2348 Salazar W, Sardina V, Cortina JD (2007) A hybrid inversion technique for the evaluation of source, path, and site effects employing S-wave spectra for subduction and upper-crustal earthquakes in El Salvador. Bull Seism Soc Am 97:208221 Scholz CH, Aviles CA, Wesnousky SG (1986) Scaling differences between large interplate and intraplate earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 76:6570 Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude. J Seismology 10:225236 Shoja-Taheri J, Niazi M (1981) Seismicity of Iranian plateau and bordering regions. Bull Seism Soc Am 71:477489

J Seismol (2013) 17:645666 Shoji Y, Kamiyama M (2002) Estimation of local site effects by a generalized inversion scheme using observed records of Small-Titan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:855864 Siddiqqi J, Atkinson GM (2002) Ground-motion amplification at rock sites across Canada as determined from the horizontal-to-vertical component ratio. Bull Seism Soc Am 92:877884 Silva WJ, Abrahamson N, Toro G, Costantino C (1997). Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model. Final report. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York Sokolov VY, Bonjer KP, Oncescu M, Rizescu M (2005) Hard rock spectral models for intermediate-depth Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:17491765 Soghrat MR, Khaji N, Zafarani H (2012) Simulation of strong ground motion in northern Iran using the specific barrier model. Geophys J Int 188:645679 Talebian M, Jackson J (2004) A reappraisal of earthquake focal mechanisms and active shortening in the Zagros mountains of Iran. Geophys J Int 156:121 Trifunac MD, Lee VW (1973). EERL 73-03, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, 1973-10 (370/T72/1973). 360 pp Tramelli A, Galluzzo D, Del Pezzo E, Di Vito MA (2010) A detailed study of the site effects in the volcanic area of Campi Flegrei using empirical approaches. Geophys J Int 182:10731086 Vassiliou MS, Kanamori H (1982) The energy release in earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 72:371387 Vernant F, Nilforoushan F, Hatzfeld D, Abbassi MR, Vigny C, Masson F, Bayer R, Nankali H, Martinod J, Ashtiani A, Tavakoli RF, Chery J (2004) Present-day crustal deformation and plate kinematics in the Middle East constrained by GPS measurements in Iran and northern Oman. Geophys J Int 157:381398 Zafarani H, Mousavi M, Noorzad A, Ansari A (2008) Calibration of the specific barrier model to Iranian plateau earthquakes and development of physically based attenuation relationships for Iran. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:55076 Zafarani H, Noorzad A, Ansari A, Bargi K (2009) Stochastic modeling of Iranian earthquakes and estimation of ground motion for future earthquakes in Greater Tehran. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:72241 Zafarani H, Hassani B, Ansari A (2012) Estimation of earthquake parameters in the Alborz seismic zone, Iran using generalized inversion method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 42:197218 Zafarani H, Soghrat MR (2012) Simulation of ground motion in the Zagros, Iran using the specific barrier model and stochastic method. Bull Seism Soc Am 102:20312045 Zare M, Bard PY, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (1999) Site characterizations for the Iranian strong motion network. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18:10123

S-ar putea să vă placă și