Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: the case of Tehran Basin in Iran

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic hazard estimation relies on Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) giving the expected motion level as a function of several parameters characterizing the source and the sites of interest. However, in regions like Greater Tehran metropolitan area located in the Alborz seismotectonic province, northern Iran records of moderate to large earthquakes at short distances from the faults are still few and most local and regional GMPEs are poorly constrained at short ranges. In other words, data may only partially account for the rupture process, seismic wave propagation, and three-dimensional complex configurations (i.e., Tehran Basin in this case). Here, to investigate the capabilities of physics-based methods, two sets of 3-D numerical simulations of possible earthquakes scenarios in Tehran region along two predominate sources are carried out through the finite difference approach for low frequency motions. Then the stochastic finite fault method is used for quantifying ground motion values at higher frequencies. At last, the combined broadband simulation results are used in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The seismic hazard results show the combined effects of the site and basin, and give a high-resolution representation of the hazard in the near field of active earthquake faults in the Tehran Basin, particularly over long periods. This representation is anticipated to be more accurate than those based simply on empirical GMPEs. It should be noted that effects of other less important surrounding faults are not included in the hazard analysis due to lack of sufficient data and computational limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30:1025–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson N A (2000) State of practice of seismic hazard evaluation. In: Proceedings of GeoEng, 19–24 Nov. Melbourne, Australia

  • Aki K, Richards P G (2002) Quantitative seismology. (2nd Edn), Univ. Sci. Books, Sausalito, 700

  • Alikhanzadeh R et al (2023) Site effect estimation in the Tehran basin and its impact on simulation results. J Seismol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-023-10149-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alikhanzadeh et al (2023) Finite fault inversion and hybrid broadband simulation of strong-motion records from the May 28, 2004, Baladeh, Iran, earthquake (Mw = 6.2), Submitted to physics of the earth and planetary interiors

  • Ambraseys N, Melville C (1982) A history of Persian earthquakes. Cambridge Univ, Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ameri G, Gallovic F, Pacor F (2012) Complexity of the Mw 6.3 2009 L’Aquila (central Italy) earthquake: 2. Broadband strong motion modeling. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 117:B04308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashtari M, Hatzfeld D, Kamalian N (2005) Micro seismicity in the region of Tehran. Tectonophysics 395(3):193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assatourians K, Atkinson G (2012) EXSIM12: a stochastic finite-fault computer program in FORTRAN

  • Atkinson G (2006) Single-station sigma. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):446–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azad S et al (2011) Left-lateral active deformation along the Mosha-North Tehran fault system (Iran): morphotectonics and paleoseismological investigations, Tectonophysics, 497(1–4). ISSN 1–14:0040–1951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azad S (2023) Active seismogenic faulting in the tehran region, North of Iran; state-of-the-art and future seismic hazard assessment prospects. Tectonophysics 856:229843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2023.229843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berberian M (1976a) An explanatory note on the first seismotectonic map of Iran; a seismotectonic review of the country. Geol Surv Iran 39:7–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Berberian M (1976b) Contribution to the seismotectonics of Iran (part 2), Geological survey of Iran, Report 39

  • Berberian M (1981) Active faulting and tectonics of Iran. Zagros Hindu Kush Himal Geodyn Evol, 33–69

  • Berberian M, Ghorashi M, Arjangravesh B, Mohajer Ashjaie A (1993) Seismotectonic and earthquake-fault hazard investigations in the great Ghazvin Region [in Persian]. Geol. Surv. of Iran, Tehran, 61 pp

  • Beresnev I, Atkinson G (1997) Modelling finite-fault radiation from the n w spectrum. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:67–84. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0870010067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge-Thierry C, Hollender F, Guyonnet-Benaize C et al (2017) Challenges ahead for nuclear facility site-specific seismic hazard assessment in France: the alternative energies and the atomic energy commission (CEA) vision. Pure Appl Geophys 174:3609–3633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1582-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielak J, Graves RW, Olsen KB, Taborda R, Ramírez-Guzmán L, Day SM, Ely GP (2009) The shakeout earthquake scenario: verification of three simulation sets. Geophys J Int 180:375–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04417.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophysic 160:635–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2009) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3202–3216. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart J, Seyhan E, Atkinson G (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2005) SMSIM; fortran programs for simulating ground motions from earthquakes: version 2.3 a revision of OFR 96–80-A, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. (a modified version of OFR 00–509, describing the program as of 15 August 2005 [version 2.30])

  • Bray J, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward directivity ground motion in the near fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:815–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocher TM (2005) Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth’s crust. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:2081–2092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaljub E, Moczo P, Tsuno S, Kristek J, Bard P, Kaser M, Stupazzini M, Kristekova M (2010) Quantitative comparison of four numerical predictions of 3-D ground motion in the Grenoble Valley, France. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1427–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1117–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convertito V, Emolo A, Zollo A (2006) Seismic-hazard assessment for a characteristic earthquake scenario: an integrated probabilistic-deterministic method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):377–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day SM (1982) Three-dimensional simulation of spontaneous rupture: the effect of non uniform prestress. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1881–1902

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Gaudio S, Hok S, Festa G et al (2017) Near-fault broadband ground motion simulations using empirical green’s functions: application to the Upper Rhine Graben (France–Germany) case study. Pure Appl Geophys 174:3479–3501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1575-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMartini PM, Hessami K, Pantosti D, D’Addezio G, Alinaghi H, Ghafory-Ashtiani M (1998) A geologiccontribution to the evaluation of the seismic potential of the Kahrizak fault (Tehran, Iran). Tectonophysics 287:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallovič F, Brokešová J (2004) On strong ground motion synthesis with k−2 slip distributions. J Seismol 8:211–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOSE.0000021438.79877.58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallovič R et al (2010) CyberShake: a physics-based seismic hazard model for Southern California. Pure Appl Geophys 168(2011):367–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Gholipour Y et al (2008) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, phase I–greater Tehran regions. In: Final report; faculty of engineering. University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

  • Haghshenas E, Bard PY (2007) Strong motion simulation in tehran using empirical green function method. JSEE 9(3):137–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaton TH (1990) Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture. Phys Earth Planet Inter 64(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrero A, Bernard P (1994) A kinematic self-similar rupture process for earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840041216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessami K, Jamali F, Tabassi H (2003) Major active faults of Iran, scale 1: 2,500,000. Int Inst Earthq Eng Seismol

  • Hutchings L et al (2007) A physically based strong ground-motion prediction methodology; application to PSHA and the 1999 Mw = 6.0 Athens earthquake. Geophys J Int 168:659–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings L et al (2017) Physics-based hazard assessment for critical structures near large earthquake sources. Pure Appl Geophys 174:3635–3662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1572-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iranian Statistics Center (2016) General Census of Population and Housing of Tehran Province, Iran, 2016, 1

  • Jalalalhosseini SM, Zafarani H, Zare M (2018) Time-dependent seismic hazard analysis for the greater Tehran and surrounding areas. J Seismol 22:187–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9699-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimzadeh S, Askan A, Yakut A (2017) Assessment of simulated ground motions in earthquake engineering practice: a case study for Duzce (Turkey). Pure Appl Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1602-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khodaverdian A, Zafarani H, Rahimian M, Dehnamaki V (2016) Seismicity parameters and spatially smoothed seismicity model for Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(3):1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150178

  • Khoshnevis N, Taborda R, Azizzadeh-Roodpish S, Cramer CH (2017) Seismic hazard estimation of northern Iran using smoothed seismicity. J Seismol 21:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mai PM, Beroza G (2003) A hybrid method for calculating near-source, broadband seismograms: application to strong motion prediction. Phys Earth Planet Int 137:183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majidinejad et al (2017) Dynamic simulation of ground motions from scenario earthquakes on the North Tehran Fault. Geophys J Int 209(1):434–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx017

  • Matthews M, Ellsworth W, Reasenberg P (2002) A brownian model for recurrent earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(6):2233–2250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moschetti P, Hatrzell S, Ramirez-Guzman L, Frankel D, Angster SJ, Stephenson WJ (2017) 3D ground-motion simulations of Mw 7 earthquakes on the Salt Lake city segment of the wasatch fault zone: variability of long-period (T ≥ 1 s) ground motions and sensitivity to kinematic rupture parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D (2006) Region-specific key seismic parameters for earthquakes in northern Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4A):1383–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen KB, Day SM, Bradley CR (2003) Estimation of Q for long-period (>2 sec) waves in the Los Angeles. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:627–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen K, Akinci A, Rovelli A, Marra F, Malagnini L (2006) 3D ground-motion estimation in Rome, Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci et al. (2018) 3D physics-based numerical simulations: advantages and current limitations of a new frontier to earthquake ground motion prediction. the Istanbul case study. In: Pitilakis K (ed.) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. ECEE 2018. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_8

  • Petersson NA, Sjӧgreen B (2017) SW4 v2.0. Computational infrastructure of geodynamics, Davis, CA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1045297

  • Ritz JF et al (2012) Paleoearthquakes of the past 30,000 years along the North Tehran Fault (Iran). J Geophys Res Solid Earth (1978–2012) 117(B6)

  • Sgobba S, Lanzano G, Colavitti L et al (2023) Physics-based parametrization of a FAS nonergodic ground motion model for Central Italy. Bull Earthquake Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01691-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirzad T, Shomali Z (2014) Shallow crustal structures of the Tehran basin in Iran resolved by ambient noise tomography. Geophys J Int 196:1162–1176. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taborda R (2015) Physics-based ground-motion simulation. Encycl Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_240-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchalenko JS (1975) Seismotectonic framework of the North Tehran fault. Tectonophysics 29:411–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villani M et al (2014) High-resolution seismic hazard analysis in a complex geological configuration: the case of the Sulmona Basin in Central Italy. Earthq Spectra 30(4):1801–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells D, Coppersmith K (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002

  • 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(4):722–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafarani H, Vahidifard H, Ansari A (2013) Prediction of broadband ground-motion time histories: the case of Tehran. Iran Earthq Spectra 29:633–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafarani H, Hajimohammadi B, Jalalalhosseini SM (2017) Earthquake hazard in the Tehran region based on the characteristic earthquake model. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9699-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zolfaghari MR (2014) Development of a synthetically generated earthquake catalogue towards assessment of probabilistic seismic hazard for Tehran. Nat Hazards 76(1):497–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1500-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to sincerely thank Dr. Anooshiravan Ansari and Dr. Leila EtemadSaeed for their support. The authors would like to acknowledge Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) for its support. This work was supported by INSF under Grant No [4002707]. This study was supported by the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), and is a part of project: “Physics Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis by considering uncertainties, case study: Tehran region”.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), No. 26, Arghavan St., North Dibajee, Farmanieh, P.O. Box 19395-3913, Tehran, Iran

    Reza Alikhanzadeh & Hamid Zafarani

Authors
  1. Reza Alikhanzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamid Zafarani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RA: Material preparation, Data collection and analysis, Simulation, Writing the manuscript. HZ: Discussed the results, commented on the manuscript and supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Zafarani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no financial interests.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sensitivity of numerical simulations to hypocenter location, slip distribution and stress drop. Note that ratio maps are in natural logarithm

Section 1 North Tehran Fault.

See Figs.

Fig. 26
figure 26

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different hypocenters and GMPEs: simulation with hypocenter 1(up left) simulation with hypocenter 2(up right), simulation with hypocenter 3(down left), All simulation (down right)

Full size image

26,

Fig. 27
figure 27

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different slip distributions and GMPEs: simulation with slip distribution 1(up left) simulation with slip distribution 2(up right), simulation with slip distribution 3(middle left), simulation with slip distribution 4(middle right), simulation with slip distribution 5(down left), All simulation (down right)

Full size image

27,

Fig. 28
figure 28

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different stress drops and GMPEs: simulation with stress drop 1(up left) simulation with stress drop 2(up right), simulation with stress drop 3(down left), All simulation (down right)

Full size image

28.

Section 2 Kahrizak Fault.

See Figs.

Fig. 29
figure 29

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different hypocenters and GMPEs: simulation with hypocenter 1(up left) simulation with hypocenter 2(up right), simulation with hypocenter 3(down left), All simulation (down right)

Full size image

29,

Fig. 30
figure 30

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different slip distributions and GMPEs: simulation with slip distribution 1(up left) simulation with slip distribution 2(up right), simulation with slip distribution 3(middle left), simulation with slip distribution 4(middle right), simulation with slip distribution 5(down left), All

Full size image

30,

Fig. 31
figure 31

PGV ratio maps between numerical simulations for different stress drops and GMPEs: simulation with stress drop 1(up left) simulation with stress drop 2(up right), simulation with stress drop 3(down left), All simulation (down right)

Full size image

31.

Appendix 2: Statistical analysis of the numerical simulations

Section 1 North Tehran Fault.

See Figs.

Fig. 32
figure 32

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 5 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

32,

Fig. 33
figure 33

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 63 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

33,

Fig. 34
figure 34

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 97 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

34,

Fig. 35
figure 35

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 5 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

35,

Fig. 36
figure 36

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 63 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

36,

Fig. 37
figure 37

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 97 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

37 and Tables

Table 5 Results of the X 2 test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

5,

Table 6 Results of the Kolmogorov- Smirnoff test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

6,

Table 7 Results of the Anderson–Darling test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

7.

Section 2 Kahrizak Fault.

See Figs.

Fig. 38
figure 38

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 46 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

38,

Fig. 39
figure 39

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 113 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

39,

Fig. 40
figure 40

Comparison between the normalized residuals from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical normal distribution for receiver 135 at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s, in terms of probability density functions (top panels), cumulative density functions (central panels) and normal plots (bottom panels)

Full size image

40,

Fig. 41
figure 41

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 46 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

41,

Fig. 42
figure 42

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 113 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

42,

Fig. 43
figure 43

Comparison between the spectral displacement at 3 vibration periods T = 0.5 s, T = 1 s and T = 5 s from the 3D simulations (blue curves) and the theoretical gamma distribution for receiver 135 in terms of probability density functions (top panels) and cumulative density functions (bottom panels)

Full size image

43 and Tables

Table 8 Results of the X 2 test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

8,

Table 9 Results of the Kolmogorov- Smirnoff test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

9,

Table 10 Results of the Anderson–Darling test carried out for the three receivers and for two spectral ordinates (T = 1 s and T = 5 s)
Full size table

10.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alikhanzadeh, R., Zafarani, H. Physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: the case of Tehran Basin in Iran. Bull Earthquake Eng 21, 6171–6214 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01785-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01785-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation