Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PSHA in Israel by using the synthetic ground motions from simulated seismicity: the modified SvE procedure

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Seismology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we updated and modified the SvE approach of Shapira and van Eck (Nat Hazards 8:201–215, 1993) which may be applied as an alternative to the conventional probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) in Israel and other regions of low and moderate seismicity where measurements of strong ground motions are scarce. The new computational code SvE overcomes difficulties associated with the description of the earthquake source model and regional ground-motion scaling. In the modified SvE procedure, generating suites of regional ground motion is based on the extended two-dimensional source model of Motazedian and Atkinson (Bull Seism Soc Amer 95:995–1010, 2005a) and updated regional ground-motion scaling (Meirova and Hofstteter, Bull Earth Eng 15:3417–3436, 2017). The analytical approach of Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou (Bull Seism Soc Amer 93:1099–1131, 2003) is used to simulate the near-fault acceleration with the near-fault effects. The comparison of hazard estimates obtained by using the conventional method implemented in the National Building Code for Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures and the modified SvE procedure for rock-site conditions indicates a general agreement with some perceptible differences at the periods of 0.2 and 0.5 s. For the periods above 0.5 s, the SvE estimates are systematically greater and can increase by a factor of 1.6. For the soft-soil sites, the SvE hazard estimates at the period of 0.2 s are greater than those based on the CB2008 ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) by a factor of 1.3–1.6. We suggest that the hazard estimates for the sites with soft-soil conditions calculated by the modified SvE procedure are more reliable than those which can be found by means of the conventional PSHA. This result agrees with the opinion that the use of a standard GMPE applying the NEHRP soil classification based on the Vs, 30 parameter may be inappropriate for PSHA at many sites in Israel.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abercrombie RE, Rice JR (2005) Can observations of earthquakes scaling constrain slip weakening? Geophys J Int 162:406–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmann BP, Shearer PM (2009) Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes. J Geophys Res 114:B01310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assatourians K, Atkinson GM (2007) Modeling variable-stress distribution with the stochastic finite-fault technique. Bull Seism Soc Amer 97:1935–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Assatourians K (2010) Attenuation and source characteristics of the 23 June 2010 M 5.0 Val-des-Bois, Quebec, earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 81(5):849–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seism Soc Amer 96:2181–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(2):255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Assatourians G, Boore DM, Campbell K, Motazedian D (2009) a guide to differences between stochastic point-source and stochastic finite-fault simulations. Bull Seism Soc Amer 99:3192–3201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avirav V (2011) Software for estimating earthquake damage. GII Report No. 500/635/11in Hebrew

  • Baltay AS, Hanks TS, Beroza GC (2013) Stable stress-drop measurements and their variability: implications for ground-motion prediction. Bull Seism Soc Amer 103(1):211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground-motion based on seismological models of radiated spectra. Bull Seism Soc Amer 73:1865–1894

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2010) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seism Soc Amer 99:3202–3216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24:139–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro R, Pacor F, Franceschina G, Bindi D, Zonno C, Luzi L (2008) Stochastic strong-motion simulation of the Mw 6 Umbria-Marche earthquake of September 1997: comparison of different approaches. Bull Seism Soc Amer 98:662–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT, Chang SC, Wen KL (2017) Stochastic ground motion simulation of the 2016 Meinong, Taiwan earthquake. Earth Planets Space 69(62). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0645-z

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seism SocAmer 54:1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppelbaum LV, Katz YI (2015) Newly developed Paleomagnetic map of the easternmost Mediterranean unmasks geodynamic history of this region. Central European Jour of Geosciences (Open Geosciences) 7:95–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Estevao JMC, Oliveira CS (2012) Point and fault rupture stochastic methods for generating simulated accelerograms considering soil effects for structural analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamiel Y, Amit R, Begin ZB, Marco S, Katz O, Salamon A, Zilberman E, Porat N (2009) The seismicity along the Dead Sea Fault during the last 60,000 years. Bull Seism Soc Amer 99(3):2020–2026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner WB (1977) NONLI3: a Fortran program for calculating nonlinear ground response open file report 77–761, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California

  • Klar A, Meirova T, Zaslavsky Y and Shapira A. (2011) Spectral acceleration maps for use in SI413 amendment No. 5. GII Report No.522/599/11 and NBRI Report No. 2012/938-1 in Hebrew

  • Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seism Soc Amer 93:1099–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meirova T, Hofstetter A (2017) Source parameters of regional earthquakes recorded by Israel seismic network: implications for earthquake scaling. Bull Earth Eng 15:3417–3436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0111-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meirova T, Pinsky V and Perelman N (2011) Application of 2D source in SEEH procedure. GII Report No. 536/619/11

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005b) Earthquake magnitude measurements for Puerto Rico. Bull Seism Soc Amer 95:725–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath SK, Thingbaijam K, Maiti S, Nayak A (2012) Ground motion predictions in Shillong region, Northeast India. J Seismol 16:475–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2010) Earthquakes scaling characteristics and the scale-(in) dependence of seismic energy-to-moment ratio: insights from KiK-net data in Japan. Geophys Res Lett 37:L19304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman N (2011) Synthetic Catalogues of Earthquakes in and Around Israel. GII Report No. 500/622/11

  • Shamir G, Bartov Y, Sneh A, Fleisher L, Arad V and Rosensaft M (2001) Preliminary seismic zonation in Israel. GSI Report No. GSI/12/2001

  • Shapira A and Hofstetter A (2002) Seismicity parameters of seismogenic zones. http://www.seis.mni.gov.il/heb/Teken/seismicity-rprt.htm

  • Shapira A, van Eck T (1993) Synthetic uniform-hazard site specific response spectrum. Nat Hazards 8:201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A, Hofstetter R, Abdallah AF, Dabbeek J and Hays W (2007) Earthquake hazard assessments for building codes. http://www.lloydthomas.org/5-SpecialStudies/ IsraelEarthquakeReport.pdf

  • Standards Institute (SI) (1995) SI-413: design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, amendment 5, 2015. The Standards Institution of Israel in Hebrew

  • Ugurhan B, Askan A, Akinci A, Malagnini L (2012) Strong ground-motion simulation of the 6 April 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Amer 102:1429–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcinkaya E, Pinar A, Uskuloglu O, Tekebas S, Firat B (2012) Selecting the most suitable rupture model for the stochastic simulation of the 1999 Izmit earthquake and prediction of peak ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 42:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) Analysis of empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seism Soc Amer 84:974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A, Gorstein M, Kalmanovich M, Giller V, Perelman N, Livshits I, Giller D, Dan I (2005) Site response from ambient vibrations in the towns Lod and Ramle (Israel) and earthquake hazard assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 3:355–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky Y, Ataev G, Gorstein M, Kalmanovich M, Perelman N, Shapira A (2008a) Assessment of site specific earthquake hazard in urban areas—case study: the town of Afula, Israel, and neighboring settlements. Bollettino di Geofisica, Teorica and Applicate 49:93–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky Y, Ataev G, Gorstein M, Kalmanovich M, Hofstetter A, Perelman N, Aksinenko T, Giller V, Dan H, Giller D, Livshits I, Shvartsburg A, Shapira A (2008b) Microzoning of site response parameters in the towns of Dimona and Bet Shean (Israel). Bollettino di Geofisica, Teorica and Applicate 49:109–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A, Gorstein M, Perelman N, Ataev G, Aksinenko T (2012) Questioning the applicability of soil amplification factors as defined by NEHRP (USA) in the Israel building standards. Natural Science, Special Issue 4:631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Xu H (2012) Magnitude-scaling rate in ground-motion prediction equations for response spectra from large subduction interface earthquakes in Japan. Bull Seism Soc Amer 102:222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editorial and reviewing staff for their comments and suggestions.

Funding

The financial support of the Earth Science Research Administration of the Israel Ministry of Energy and National Infrastructures and the Inter-ministerial Steering Committee for Earthquakes Preparedness is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    T. Meirova & L. Eppelbaum

  2. Institute for Regulation of Emergency and Disasters, College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan, Israel

    A. Shapira

Authors
  1. T. Meirova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Eppelbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Meirova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meirova, T., Shapira, A. & Eppelbaum, L. PSHA in Israel by using the synthetic ground motions from simulated seismicity: the modified SvE procedure. J Seismol 22, 1095–1111 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9752-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9752-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation