יישום של פרוצדורה משופרת של SEEH עבור תקן בניה של ישראל

Transcription

1 STATE OF ISRAEL THE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURES Office of the Chief Scientist מדינת ישראל משרד התשתיות הלאומיות המדען הראשי יישום של פרוצדורה משופרת של SEEH עבור תקן בניה של ישראל APPLICABILITY OF THE UPGRADED SEEH PROCEDURE FOR THE ISRAELI BUILDING CODE Prepared by: Principle Investigator: Abraham Hofstetter Investigators: Tatiana Meirova Geophysical Institute of Israel GII report: No 570/666/12 April, 2012 Contract No

2 ii STATE OF ISRAEL THE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURES Office of the Chief Scientist מדינת ישראל משרד התשתיות הלאומיות המדען הראשי יישום של פרוצדורה משופרת של SEEH עבור תקן בניה של ישראל APPLICABILITY OF THE UPGRADED SEEH PROCEDURE FOR THE ISRAELI BUILDING CODE Prepared by: Principle Investigator: Abraham Hofstetter Investigators: Tatiana Meirova Geophysical Institute of Israel GII report: No 570/666/12 April, 2012 Contract No

3 i Table of contents ABSTRACT...1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF STUDY COMPARISON OF 5% DAMPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION OBTAINED FROM MEASUREMENTS AND EMPIRICAL GROUND MOTION MODEL OF CAMPBELL AND BOZORGNIA (2008) COMPARISON OF 5 % DAMPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE RECORDS WITH SYNTHETIC ESTIMATES BY THE ATKINSON AND MOTAZEDIAN (2005) LINE-SOURCE MODEL COMPARISON OF 5 % DAMPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE RECORDS WITH SYNTHETIC ESTIMATES BY UPDATED SEEH PROCEDURE WITH LINE-SOURCE MODEL HAZARD ESTIMATES BY UPDATED SEEH PROCEDURE WITH THE LINE- SOURCE MODEL...30 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...32 REFERENCE...32 APPENDIX A....33

4 1 תקציר מחקר זה אנו בוחנים את ישימות של פרוצדורה SEEH מעודכן עבור הערכת סיכונים סיסמיים בישראל. מחקר זה הוא גם נוגע חלקית בשאלה האם NGA המודלים ניתן ליישם לאזור ישראל. Abstract In this study we examine an applicability of updated SEEH procedure for seismic hazard assessment in Israel. This study is also partially concerned to question whether the NGA models can be applied for Israel region. Background and objective of study A lack of ground motion records from large magnitude near-source records in Israel region makes it difficult to develop robust ground motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis based on local data alone. Therefore an alternative approaches for ground motion predictions could be taken in PSHA in Israel. The Stochastic Evaluation of Earthquake Hazard (SEEH) procedure is widely used for seismic hazard assessment in Israel. Recently, SEEH procedure was upgraded applying a new code with option for near-fault ground motion simulation from twodimensional seismic source. The updating of SEEH procedure was based on using of two-dimensional source model of Motazedian and Atkinson (2005 a, b) instead of point source model. Though, the lack of data from large regional events makes it difficult to calibrate the parametric model describing regional ground motion, the parametric model of seismic and source parameters for SEEH procedure was modificated (Meirova et al, 2011). In 2008 the NGA (Next Generation Attenuation) models for ground predictions based on the Euro-Mediterranean database were developed. As it was shown in analysis (Scherbaum et. al., 2004) these models can be applied for most engineering applications within Europe. The NGA approach of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) was recently implemented for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in Israel. New regional maps of the seismic hazard in terms of rock spectra s 1 and s2 and PGA values was computed by using the Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) relation by Klar et al, (2011). In this study we examine an applicability of updated SEEH procedure for seismic hazard assessment in Israel. This study is also partially concerned to question whether the NGA models can be applied for Israel region. A basic problem in the comparison between the hazard estimates provided by different techniques is that the input parameters of seismicity, seismic sources and attenuation models are inherently different and uncertain. This is especially true for the regions where past earthquakes are scarce. Therefore, we start our study from a comparison of predicted ground motion by some foreign attenuation models to Israel data in terms of 5% damped spectral acceleration. Figures in the second paragraph show a comparison of spectral acceleration obtained from measurements and empirical ground motion model of Campbell and

5 2 Bozorgnia (2008). In the third paragraph we show the comparison of predictions made by Atkinson and Motazedian (2008) approach and observed ground motion. In the next paragraph we compare predictions by updated SEEH procedure and observed ground motions. 1. Comparison of 5% damped spectral acceleration obtained from measurements and empirical ground motion model of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008). Figures below show a comparison between the spectral accelerations based on observed horizontal motion and predicted one by the NGA model of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008). The comparison is performed for the records from two regional moderate earthquakes occurred in 2004 in the Dead Sea area. Red and green lines represent 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for two horizontal components obtained from records at various Israeli accelerographs and broad band seismic stations. Three black lines represent estimates of spectral acceleration from Campbell and Bozorgnia, NGA, (2008) relationship for rock sites with ± sigma (sigma here is a total standard deviation; see Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008). Some important ground motion parameters were estimated at each site. In the text geographical coordinates for each site of record in terms of latitude and longitude is indicated consequently as lat and lon. A source-receiver distance is written as 'dist' in km. 1) Event: :15; Mw=5.2; lat=31.698; lon= A. Hard rock sites: 1. Accelerograph JER; lat= ; lon= ; dist= km Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 4.468cm/sec Maximum Displacement: cm Vmax / Amax: 0.154sec Acceleration RMS: 2.125cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 2.508cm/sec Displacement RMS: cm Arias Intensity: 0.003m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.180sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.305sec

6 3 2. Broad band seismic station AMZI, lat = 31.54; lon = d; dist=66.8km; az =255; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.747cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.294cm Vmax / Amax: 0.028sec Acceleration RMS: 0.939cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.049cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.177cm Arias Intensity: 0.009m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Predominant Period (Tp): 0.120sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.247sec

7 4

8 5 3. Accelerograph ARI:; lat = ; lon = ; dist=55.51 km ; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 1.220cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 6.024cm Vmax / Amax: 0.073sec Acceleration RMS: 1.853cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.285cm/sec Displacement RMS: 3.341cm Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 2.021cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.120sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.355sec

9 6 4. Broad band seismic station MMLI, lat = 32.44; lon = 35.42; dist=84.9 km; az = 351; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.574cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.075cm Vmax / Amax: 0.035sec Acceleration RMS: 1.220cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.072cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.011cm Arias Intensity: 0.002m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 0.333cm2/sec Velocity Spectrum Intensity (VSI): 2.830cm Effective Design Acceleration (EDA): cm/sec2

10 7 5. Accelerograph IZR, lat = ; lon = ; dist =98.34km; Maximum Acceleration: 8.658cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.808cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.173cm Vmax / Amax: 0.093sec Acceleration RMS: 1.680cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.144cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.097cm Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Specific Energy Density: 0.515cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.200sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.381sec

11 8 6. Accelerograph MEH; lat = ; lon= ; dist = km; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.894cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.990cm Vmax / Amax: 0.078sec Acceleration RMS: cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.144cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.418cm Predominant Period (Tp): 0.200sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.351sec

12 9 7. Broad band seismic station KSDI.; lat = 33.19; lon 35.66; dist = km ; az = 340; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.966cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.748cm Vmax / Amax: 0.065sec Acceleration RMS: 1.747cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.136cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.417cm Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 0.533cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.160sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.361sec

13 10 8. Broad band seismic station KZIT; lat = 30.91; lon = 34.4; dist =141.6 km; az = 232; Maximum Acceleration: 5.251cm/sec2 at time t= sec Maximum Velocity: 0.346cm/sec at time t= sec Maximum Displacement: 0.354cm at time t= sec Vmax / Amax: 0.066sec Acceleration RMS: 0.248cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.021cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.206cm Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 0.263cm2/sec Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV): cm/sec Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (ASI): 4.691cm/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.240sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.388sec

14 11 B. Sites with obvious site effect 1. Accelerograph BET; lat = ; lon = ; dist = Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.923cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.291cm Vmax / Amax: 0.060sec Acceleration RMS: 3.023cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.232cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.121cm Predominant Period (Tp): 0.220sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.373sec

15 12 2. Accelerograph ALN, NS; lat= , lon= ; dist = km; Maximum Acceleration: 7.425cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 3.302cm/sec Maximum Displacement: cm Vmax / Amax: 0.445sec Acceleration RMS: 1.666cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 1.678cm/sec Displacement RMS: cm Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Specific Energy Density: cm2/sec Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (ASI): 7.440cm/sec Velocity Spectrum Intensity (VSI): 3.189cm

16 13 3. Accelerograph LOD; NS; lat = ; lon = ; dist= km Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 1.192cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 1.235cm Vmax / Amax: 0.068sec Acceleration RMS: 3.554cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.280cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.574cm Arias Intensity: 0.005m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 1.952cm2/sec

17 14 4. Accelerograph RAM; lat = , lon = ; dist = km; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: cm/sec Maximum Displacement: cm Acceleration RMS: cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 1.085cm/sec Displacement RMS: cm Specific Energy Density: cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.140sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.184sec

18 15 5. Accelerograph BNR, lat = ; lon=34.872; dist = Maximum Acceleration: g Maximum Velocity: cm/sec Maximum Displacement: cm Vmax / Amax: 0.085sec Acceleration RMS: 2.592g Velocity RMS: cm/sec Displacement RMS: cm Arias Intensity: m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Predominant Period (Tp): 0.140sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.463sec \

19 16 6. Accelerograph EFR ; lat =32.069; lon= ; dist = 43.8 km Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 3.736cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 3.175cm Vmax / Amax: 0.078sec Acceleration RMS: 6.289cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.460cm/sec Displacement RMS: 1.800cm Arias Intensity: 0.016m/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.300sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.388sec

20 17 2) Event: :34:26.34; Mw= Accelerograph ARI, dist = 14.41; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.422cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.333cm Vmax / Amax: 0.039sec Acceleration RMS: 0.692cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.027cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.230cm Predominant Period (Tp): 0.140sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.192sec

21 18 2. Broad band seismic station MMLI, dist=82.97 km. In the :08:15 event at this station the obvious effect of directivity is noted. The records from this station of :14:34 are regular without any additional effect. Maximum Displacement: 0.293cm at time t=94.225sec Vmax / Amax: 0.035sec Acceleration RMS: 0.725cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.043cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.200cm Arias Intensity: 0.002m/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.120sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.285sec

22 19 3. Accelerograph MEH. dist = ; Maximum Acceleration: 6.690cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.188cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.063cm Acceleration RMS: 0.735cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.026cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.032cm Specific Energy Density: 0.033cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.120sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.185sec

23 20 3. Accelerograph BET; dist = km; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.442cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.149cm Vmax / Amax: 0.036sec Acceleration RMS: 1.055cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.045cm/sec Arias Intensity: 0.001m/sec Characteristic Intensity (Ic): Specific Energy Density: 0.100cm2/sec Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (ASI): cm/sec Velocity Spectrum Intensity (VSI): 1.421cm Predominant Period (Tp): 0.240sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.240sec

24 21 4. Broad band seismic station AMZI; dist = km Maximum Acceleration: 3.444cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.102cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.026cm Acceleration RMS: 0.509cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.016cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.014cm Specific Energy Density: 0.021cm2/sec Predominant Period (Tp): 0.160sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.178sec

25 22 5. Accelerograph YIT; lat = ; lon = ; dist = km Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: 0.900cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.098cm Vmax / Amax: 0.038sec Acceleration RMS: 1.741cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: 0.066cm/sec Displacement RMS: 0.025cm Predominant Period (Tp): 0.080sec Mean Period (Tm): 0.181sec

26 23 6. Accelerograph ALM; lat = ; lon= ; dist = 22.0; Maximum Acceleration: cm/sec2 Maximum Velocity: cm/sec Maximum Displacement: 0.145cm Vmax / Amax: 0.037sec Acceleration RMS: cm/sec2 Velocity RMS: cm/sec Displacement RMS: cm Arias Intensity: m/sec Predominant Period (Tp): sec Mean Period (Tm): sec

27 24 2. Comparison of 5 % damped spectral accelerations obtained from the records with synthetic estimates by the Atkinson and Motazedian (2005) line-source model Figures below show a comparison between spectral accelerations based on observed horizontal motions and predicted one by the Motazedian and Atkinson (2005 a,b) model. The comparison is performed for the records from two regional moderate earthquakes occurred in 2004 in the Dead Sea area. Red and green lines represent 5% damped linear elastic response spectra obtained from measurements. Three black lines represent estimates of spectral acceleration for hard sites from Campbell and Bozorgnia, NGA, (2008) relationship with ± sigma (total standard deviation; see Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008). 1. Accelerograph ALN;

28 25 2. Broad band seismic station AMZI; 3. Accelerograph ARI;

29 26 4. Accelerograph BET; 5. Accelerograph JER;

30 27 6. Broad band seismic station KZIT; 7. Accelerograph LOD;

31 28 8. Accelerograph MEH; 9. Broad band seismic station MMLI;

32 29 3. Comparison of 5 % damped spectral accelerations obtained from the records with synthetic estimates by updated SEEH procedure with line-source model In figures below red and green lines present 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for two horizontal components obtained from records, black lines show spectral acceleration obtained from simulations by SEEH procedure. The simulations are performed for two hard rock sites as response on regional earthquake of 2004, Mw=5.2 in the Dead Sea area. For SEEH simulations we used model of input parameters in accordance to one published in GII report of Meirova et al,.2011 (see Appendix A). For the comparison only the SEEH simulations for earthquakes with stress drop of bars were chosen. Accelerograph ARI;.

33 30 Accelerograph JER; 4. Hazard estimates by updated SEEH procedure with the linesource model Hazard estimates for 2 hard rock sites: ARI and JER by updated SEEH procedure with the line source model at return period of 475 and 2475 years have been performed.

34 31

35 32 Discussion and conclusion In seismic hazard analysis it is important to construct a proper model used for predicting the expected ground motion distribution for a possible earthquake scenario. The model should take into account the mechanisms and characteristics of the sources, the wave propagation paths, and the site conditions. The identification of the best model for prediction and judging the applicability of model to a particular region depends on goodness-of-fit of a given model to measured ground motion. In this work we've done the analysis of some predictable models (Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008); Motazedian and Atkinson (2005 a, b) and SEEH procedure with upgraded code) based on comparison of the theoretical models with measured ground motion acceleration recorded from two moderate regional earthquakes. It was found that the analyzed approaches show good fit to Israel data for hard rock sites and can provide good predictions of the local ground motion from moderate regional earthquakes. Overall, the results of this study indicate that NGA attenuation model of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) and Motazedian and Atkinson (2005 a, b) can be used for PSHA for hard rock sites. The applicability of chosen predictable models for site conditions considering generic site classes, which are generally based on geological criteria haven't been checked in framework of this project. The predicted ground motions have been calculated for hard rock sites (with Vs30 > 760 m/s) only. It should be taken in account that in order to calibrate the model of seismic parameters used for predictions by SEEH procedure the data from two regional moderate earthquakes were selected only. With the increasing of the regional strong-motion data in the near future the parametric model using for predictions can be improved. The analysis shows that for some regional sites the site conditions have significant effect on ground motion and must be taken into account. The SEEH procedure with option to take in account a site response can be used as for hard rock sites as for the sites with obvious site effect. Reference Campbell, K. W. and 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, Klar, A., Zaslavsky Y., Meirova T. and Shapira A., 2011, Spectral accelerations maps for use in SI 413, amendment No 5, GII Report No 522/599/11. Meirova, T, Pinsky, V. and Perelman, N. Application of 2D source in SEEH procedure, 2011.GII report No 536/619/11. Motazedian, D., and G. M. Atkinson (2005a). Ground motion relations for Puerto Rico, Geological Society of America bulletin, GSA, 385, Motazedian, D., and G. M. Atkinson (2005b). Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 95,

36 33 Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004), On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 94(6): Appendix A. Input control parameters used for SEEH simulations Fault strike, fault dip: 0; 90. A focal depth is simulated randomly in range of km. The indices of subfault that contains the hypocenter increase along strike and downdip, respectively, starting from 1 at origin. These are drawn randomly for each simulation. Fault dimensions estimeted in accordance to self-similar area scaling for crustal strike slip earthquakes (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). Crustal shear-wave velocity (km/sec): 3.5 Crustal density (g/cm**3): 2.8 Attenuation model Q(f)=Q0*f**eta: Q0 = 200; eta = 0.92; Qmin = 200; Geometric attenuation model; a trilinear form is used: Parameters of trilinear distance-dependent duration model: rmin = 10; rd1 = 30; rd2 = 100; dur min = 1; b1 = 0.16; b2 = -0.03; b3 = Kappa: 0.04 Low-cut filter corner: 0.03 Stress parameter (bars): varies normally from of 1-50 bars for earthquakes with magnitude less of 6.0, and from 50 to 250 bars for earthquakes with magnitude larger than 6.0. Percentage of pulsing area: Parameters for analytical near-fault approach: PapaGama = 1.0; PapaNu = 90.0; PapaT0 = 1.0; PapaPeak = Low frequency coefficient for Motazedian's taper: 0.8.

37 34 PUBLICATION DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Publication No ES Title and Subtitle יישום של פרוצדורה משופרת של SEEH עבור תקן בניה של ישראל Applicability of the upgraded SEEH procedure for the Israeli building code 7. Author (s) Meirova T. and Hofstetter. R.. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The Geophysical Institute of Israel P.O.Box 182, 71100, Lod 12.Sponsoring Organization (s) Name and Address (a)the Ministry Of National Infrastructures P.O. Box 13106, Jerusalem Recipient Accession No. 5.Publication Date Performing Organization. Code GII 8. Perfoming Organization. Rep.No 570/666/ Project/ Task / Work Unit No. 11. Contract No Type of report and period covered Final Report Sponsoring Organization Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In this study we examine an applicability of updated SEEH procedure for seismic hazard assessment in Israel. This study is also partially concerned to question whether the NGA models can be applied for Israel region. 17. Keywords: SEEH, line source, NGA models 18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Pages Security Class (This Page) 22. Price