emme project_oqrelease
TRANSCRIPT
Hazard Modelers: Laurentiu DANCIU, Karin SESETYAN and Mine B. DEMIRCIOGLU,
Project Coordinators: Domenico GIARDINI and Mustafa ERDIK EMME Consortium Condtributing to hazard components:
METU, SAU (TR), IIEES (IR), AUB (LB), YU (JO), Upesh (PK), IJSU (GE), SCI (ARM), ANAS (AZ)
EMME-HAZ-2014: SEISMIC HAZARD MODEL and RESULTS for THE MIDDLE EAST REGION
SEISMIC HAZARD COMPONENTS
OUR MAJOR AIM WAS TO BUILD
A regional consensus model
Homogenized across national boundaries
Target
All steps of the seismic hazard assessment have to be:
– Validated
– Benchmarked
– Reproducible
– Standardized
– Inter-Comparable
– Testable
EQ CatalogHarmonized in terms of MwTotal: 27174 Events
Historical part (-1900) Early and modern instrumental (~2006)Declustering Method:Grunthal (1985)After Declustering10524 Events18 Completeness Super-Zones
Mw>=6.00
EMME14 Catalogue
Completeness Super-Zones
Two fully independent source zonation models:
– Area source model• Active shallow and stable continental areal sources
• Subduction interface modeled as complex fault
• Deep areal sources
– All activity computed from seismicity
– Fault source and background seismicity model• Fault sources in 3D
• Background seismicity
• Subduction interface modeled as complex fault
• Deep seismicity
– Fault activity computed from slip rates
Maximum Magnitude
Upper-bound magnitude to the earthquake recurrence (frequency-magnitude) curve. Maximum Magnitude assessment (Super-Zones)
– Historical seismicity record
– Location uncertainties
– Analogies to tectonic regions
– Added increment (0.30)
Source Model Logic Tree
Area Source Model
Classical area source zones based on the tectonic findings and their correlation and up-to-day seismicity
Derived from seismicity patterns
Ensure the zonation adequately reflect this pattern
Surface projection of identified active faults (capable of generating earthquakes)
Subduction Interface
Deep Seismicity
Shallow Seismicity
Area SourceModel
Three Source Layers224 shallow10 Deep6 Interface
Area Source Model
EMCA source model integration and harmonization
New tectonic regionalization: stable continental regions (yellow)
Source Characterization
Homogeneous, declustered catalogue
Completeness defined for 18 super zones
Maximum likelihood approach (Weichert 1984)
– Truncated Guttenberg-Richter Magnitude Frequency Distribution• 10a – annual number of events of magnitude greater or equal to zero
• b-GR value
Truncated at each assigned maximum magnitude
For each source three magnitude-frequency-distributions were derived
A Matlab* toolbox was developed
• Shallow Sources: Activity
aGR Values
bGR Values
Deep Seismicity - Activity
aGR Values
bGR Values
Depth Distribution (three values and the corresponding weights):
– Active shallow crust
– Nested Deep Seismicity
– Subduction Inslab
Focal Mechanisms
– Rake Angle values (Aki’s definition)
– Percentage weights
Ruptures Orientation
– Strike Angle (Azimuth)
– Dip Angle
Rupture Properties
– Upper and Lower Seismogenic Depth
Area Source [Single Rupture]
Source Parameterization
PGA [g]RP=475yrs
Source Model Logic Tree
Fault source model derived from the faults database collected within WP2
– Total number: 3397 fault segments, total Km: 91551km
EMME Faults Dataset
Fault Sources
Criteria to select “capable” or active faults to be used for hazard assessment:
– Identified active faults [capable of earthquakes]: Northern Anatolian Faults, Marmara Faults, Zagros Transform Faults
– At least 0.10mm/year (1m in 1000years - Neocene)
– Maximum magnitude equal to 6.00
– Fully parameterized:• Geometry
• Slip-rates
– Confidence Classes:• Class A: complete information provided by the compiler
• Class B: partial information provided by compiler
• Class C: limited information provided
• Class D: only top trace available
Deep Seismicity
Active Faults
Subduction Interface
Four SourceLayersFaults
10 Deep
9 Interface
Background Seismicity
Fault SourceModel
Fault Source Model
• 15 km buffer zone around the surface projection of the fault sources
• M>=6.0 in the buffer zones assigned to fault sources
• M<6.0 in the buffer zones from smoothed seismicity
• Smoothed background seismicity outside the buffer zones
Fault Source ModelSlip rate
Fault length / aspect ratio
Maximum Magnitude
Anderson & Luco (1983) Recurrence Model 2
b-value from the completeness super zones
Subduction Interface
Subduction interface Earthquake Recurrence
– From seismicity (area source model)
– From slip rates (fault source model)
Source Parameterization
Depth Distribution
Focal Mechanisms
– Rake Angle values (Aki’s definition)
– Percentage weights
Ruptures Orientation: Strike and Dip Angles
Rupture Properties
– Upper and Lower Seismogenic Depth
Point Source [Single Rupture]
Fault Top Trace
Focal Mechanisms
– Rake Angle values (Aki’s definition)
Ruptures Orientation: Strike and Dip Angles
Rupture Properties
– Upper and Lower Seismogenic Depth
Simple Fault
PGA [g]RP=475yrs
Logic Tree
AS Model only 475 years
AS Model only 2475 years
FS Model only 475 years
FS Model only 2475 years
LOGIC TREE COMBINATION
COMBINED MODEL
AS MODEL
FS MODEL
AS: 60%, FS: 40%, 475 years
AS: 60%, FS: 40%, 2475 years
Hazard Computed for Spectral ordinates
• PGA
• SA (T=0.1 s)
• SA (T=0.15 s)
• SA (T=0.2 s)
• SA (T=0.25 s)
• SA (T=0.3 s)
• SA (T=0.5 s)
• SA (T=0.75 s)
• SA (T=1.0 s)
• SA (T=2.0 s)
Summary
• Building a regional seismic hazard model is a collective effort
• Aim at generating the up-to-date , flexible and scalable database that will permit continuous update, refinement, and analysis.
• Data will be parameterized and input into the database with a specific format.
Thank you!
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Please attribute to the GEM Foundation with a link to -www.globalquakemodel.org