Main Page Publications and Reports

 

 

 

SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION

FROM STRONG MOTION RECORDS IN ISRAEL

 

 

 

March, 1999                           Report No. 570/88/98

 

 

 

by

Dr. Yefim Gitterman

Seismology Division

 

 

 

 

Prepared for:

The Ministry of National Infrastructures

Earth Science Research Administration

 

 



TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                        Page No.

 

ABSTRACT

1.       Introduction                                                                                                    1

2.       Method of Seismic Response Estimation                                                          1

3.       Data Used in this Study                                                                                   2

4.       The Gulf of Aqaba Earthquake                                                                        3

          4.1     Eilat Station (EIL)                                                                                  3

          4.2     Other Stations                                                                                       4

          4.3     Comparison with Weak Motion Estimates at Eilat Station                       4

5.       The Cyprus Earthquake                                                                                   5

6.             Results of Site Response Estimations for Previous (1984-1993)                       6

          and Recent (1997) Earthquakes

7.       Conclusions                                                                                                    7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX (Tables 1-8)

 


LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 1     List of Triggered Accelerograph Stations Used in the Study

Table 2     Parameters of Earthquakes Recorded by Israel Accelerograph Stations

Table 2a   Parameters of Weak Earthquakes Used in the Study

Table 3     Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) for the Nuweiba Main Shock and Aftershocks

Table 4     Model of Subsurface Structure near the Eilat Station

Table 5     Results of Evaluation Site Response Parameters at the Eilat Station by the H/V Spectral Ratio Method for Different Recordings and Analytical Procedures

Table 6     Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) for the 9.10.96 Cyprus Earthquake

Table 7     Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) for 1979-1993 and 1997 Earthquakes

Table 8     Results of Site Response Evaluation at all Triggered Stations by the H/V Spectral Ratio Method.


LIST OF Figures

 

Figure 1       Earthquake epicenters and location of accelerograph stations.

Figure 2       Comparison of PGA values measured at different distances with known attenuation relationships.

Figure 3       Estimation of the directivity effect for the Nuweiba main shock 22.11.95 (from Gitterman et al., 1996a).

Figure 4       Accelerograms at the EIL station of the Nuweiba mainshock and two aftershocks to the same scale (a) and to different scales (b). Similar waveforms were observed for the mainshock and nearby aftershock 26.12.95, as against the aftershock of 23.11.95 located on the eastern bank of the Gulf.

Figure 5       Pseudo-acceleration response spectra of the mainshock EW component for different damping values (a) and the average estimation over both horizontal components of the mainshock and the aftershock-1 (b). Variation ±s is shown by dotted lines. Building code 413 curve for S2 soil conditions is also presented.

Figure 6       Spectra (a), spectral H/V ratios (b) and the average ratio (c) at the EIL station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (window t = 20 sec is shown by arrows).

Figure 7       Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) at the EIL station for the aftershock 23.11.95 (t = 20 sec).

Figure 8       Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) at the EIL station for the aftershock 26.12.95 (t = 20 sec).

Figure 9       Spectral H/V ratios at the EIL station for the Nuweiba mainshock and two aftershocks (a) and an average ratio over the mainshock and the aftershock2 (b).

Figure 10     Computer simulation (by SHAKE, Su=10) of ground motions at the outcropped granite basement underlying soft sediment layers (b), when EW recording of the mainshock (on the surface) was used as input (a).

Figure 11     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the SVT (Shivta) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=30 sec). If exchange NS and V components, the ratios become more reasonable (d). 

Figure 12     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the GMK station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=40 sec). (The raw data record was presented by two files which were concatenated).

Figure 13     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the GMK station for the aftershock-1 23.11.95 (t=40 sec).


Figure 14     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the MIZ (Mizpe Shalem) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=13 sec).

Figure 15     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the ASQ (Ashquelon) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=20 sec).

Figure 16     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the ALM (Almog) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=30 sec).

Figure 17     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the HAD (Hadera) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=30 sec).

Figure 18     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the ALN (Alonim) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=30 sec).

Figure 19     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the HAC (Haifa) station for the mainshock 22.11.95 (t=30 sec).

Figure 20     Accelerograms at the GOS (Hagoshrim) station for the mainshock 22.11.95.

Figure 21     Site response estimation at the Eilat station by microtremor measurements (from Gitterman et al., 1996): a - map of the area, b - average H/V spectral ratio.

Figure 22     Time windows on accelerograms of the mainshock and aftershock-2 selected for spectral analysis.

Figure 23     H/V spectral ratios for different windows on accelerograms of the Nuweiba mainshock (a) and aftershock-2 (b).

Figure 24     Seismograms of two weak earthquakes recorded at the Eilat accelerograph station.

Figure 25     Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) for the weak earthquake2 recorded at the Eilat accelerograph station.

Figure 26     Analytical estimation of site response at the Eilat station by the Rayleigh spectral ratio (ellipticity) based on the subsurface model of the site.

Figure 27     Shift of the spectra dominant frequency for several successive recording windows, demonstrating an anomaly change for the Nuweiba mainshock (a) and a normal change for aftershock-2 (b) and weak earthquake2 (c).

Figure 28     Non-linear transfer functions (b) calculated by the Joyner program using accelerograms of the mainshock and the aftershock as input for the program (a).

Figure 29     Accelerograms at stations TMR, RDG and LAV for the Cyprus earthquake 9.10.96 (spectral analysis windows are shown by arrows).

Figure 30     Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) at the RDG station for the Cyprus earthquake.


Figure 31     Pseudo-acceleration response spectra of the Cyprus earthquake, station RDG, EW component, for different damping values. Building code 413 curve for S2 soil conditions is also shown.

Figure 32     Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) at the LAV station for the Cyprus earthquake.

Figure 33     Spectra (a) and spectral H/V ratios (b) at the TMR station for the Cyprus earthquake.

Figure 34.    Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the GMK station for the Cyprus earthquake.

Figure 35     Spectral H/V ratios at the GMK station for the Nuweiba mainshock and aftershock-1, and the Cyprus earthquake (a) and an average ratio over all three events and both horizontal components.

Figure 36     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the IZR station for the 24.08.84 earthquake (Galilee) (t = 7 sec).

Figure 37     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the HAT station for the 24.08.84 earthquake (t = 4 sec).

Figure 38     Accelerograms at the DA2 station for the 27.04.87 earthquake. Low signal amplitudes and poor waveforms make unreliable any spectral ratio estimates.

Figure 39     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the TUG station for the 23.10.87 earthquake (t = 8 sec).

Figure 40     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the DA1 station for the 23.10.87 earthquake (t = 7 sec).

Figure 41     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the DA2 station for the 23.10.87 earthquake (t = 10 sec). It should be noted that weaker spectra smoothing increases   amplification factors (d).

Figure 42     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the DA3 station for the 23.10.87 earthquake (t = 23 sec).

Figure 43     Accelerograms at the BET station for 3.01.89 and 6.01.89 earthquakes.

Figure 44     Spectra (a), spectral H/V ratios (b) and an average ratio (c) at the BET station for 3.01.89 and 6.01.89 earthquakes (t = 7 sec).

Figure 45     Accelerograms at the NET and MIF stations (a), and spectral H/V ratios at the NET (t = 7 sec) and MIF (t = 10 sec) stations (b) for the 28.09.91 earthquake.

Figure 46     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the ALM station for the 2.08.93 earthquake (t = 8 sec).

Figure 47     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the JER station for the 2.08.93 earthquake (t = 7 sec).

Figure 48     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the KIT station for the 26.03.97 earthquake (t = 10 sec).

Figure 49     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the GOS station for the 26.03.97 earthquake (t = 10 sec).

Figure 50     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the ZEF station for the 26.03.97 (Beirut) earthquake (t = 8 sec).

Figure 51     Horizontal pseudo-acceleration response spectra of the Beirut earthquake at station ZEF, EW (a) and NS (b) component, for different damping values. The building code 413 curve for S2 soil conditions is also presented.

Figure 52     Accelerograms (a), spectra (b) and spectral H/V ratios (c) at the KIT station for the 4.8.97 earthquake (t = 3 sec).


Abstract

          This report summarizes a number of individual studies related to the analysis of strong motion data obtained over the years by the Israel Accelerograph Network. Most of the results are preliminary only and a far more detailed analysis is required in order to explain many of the observations reported here. In general, the observation emphasizes two important facts:

 

1.    The empirical response spectra are different from the response spectrum of Israeli Building Code 413.

2.    Observed Peak Ground Accelerations are often higher than the values expected when using attenuation functions obtained from data in other regions of the world.

 

          These observations suggest that the earthquake hazard map for the Israel Building Code should be reviewed and the sooner the better.

 


1.     Introduction

          The study presented in this report was conducted after the occurrence of strong earthquakes in the region: November 1995, The Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba (Mw=7.1) and October 1996, Cyprus (Mw=6.8), which were felt throughout Israel and triggered the Israel strong motion network. Most of the results were obtained during 1996 and presented at the Annual Conference of the Israel Geological Society (Gitterman et al., 1996a; Gitterman and Shapira, 1997a), the XXV ESC Assembly in Iceland (Gitterman et al., 1996b) and the 29th IASPEI Assembly in Greece (Gitterman and Shapira, 1997b).

          The main reason for initiating this study was the enhanced Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values (as compared with previously known attenuation relationships) observed. During the Gulf of Aqaba earthquake, almost all nine stations of the Israel Accelerograph Network, from Eilat to Haifa, that were triggered by the main shock show enhanced PGA values. We suspect that this phenomenon is associated with the amplification caused by sediment layers under the stations. In order to verify this hypothesis we attempted to evaluate local site effects using the three-component strong motion records.

 

2.     Method of Seismic Response Estimation

          In order to estimate the spectral seismic response function for a specific site, we calculated and analyzed spectral ratios of horizontal to vertical components (H/V ratio) of the most intense part of the strong motion records (i.e. S-wave and S-coda). In actual fact this is a modification or application to earthquake data of the Nakamura method for microtremors (Nakamura, 1989) first applied by Lermo and Chavez-Garcia (1993) to weak and strong motion records of earthquakes.

          The empirical single station spectral ratio method was applied to accelerograms of strong earthquakes under the same assumption, which is common in microtremor investigations:

-         reliable estimation of the fundamental resonance frequency fres;

-         approximate evaluation of amplification levels

The results obtained were verified, wherever possible, by comparison with:

a)             The average site response H/V ratio estimations using weak motion observations of microtremor and small events (Nakamura technique).


b)             An analytical transfer function computed by using:

*               a linear 1-D SH model

*               a non-linear model (Joyner, 1997)

*               Rayleigh wave spectral ratio (ellipticity) (Gitterman et al., 1996c)

The calculation procedure includes:

i)          Selection of a processing time window (usually the most intense part of S and S-coda waves on an accelerogram) denoted by arrows on the accelerograms presented in the attached figures.

ii)         Calculation of amplitude spectra followed by H/V spectral ratios and their smoothing in a frequency window, usually 0.7-1.0 Hz.

iii)       Calculation of the average H/V ratio (over both horizontal components and all available recordings of several earthquakes at a station).

 

3.     Data Used in the Study

          All available digital strong motion records were used. Initially, we processed the data of the two recent earthquakes and then included in the analysis accelerograms of several previous events which occurred during 1984-1993 and two recent felt earthquakes from 1997. A list of the triggered accelerograph stations is presented in Table 1. Parameters of recorded earthquakes are presented in Table 2. Digital accelerographs A-700 and A-800 (Teledyne Geotech) were used. The instrument trigger threshold in all cases was 0.006g. Note that all accelerograms may be divided roughly into two groups:

c)             Records of the strongest (ML>6) and farthest (r>100 km) earthquakes (Gulf of Aqaba 22.11.95 and Cyprus 9.10.96).

d)             All other records obtained from weaker (ML<5.5) and closer (r<100 km) events.

In order to verify the estimation method we used seismograms of two weak events near Eilat (see Table 2a) and microtremors recorded by the Eilat accelerograph station (data obtained by Dr. Y. Zaslavsky). Fig. 1 shows earthquake epicenters and locations of the stations.

 


4.     The Gulf of Aqaba Earthquake

          The Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba earthquake (22.11.95, ML=6.2, Mw=7.1), which caused minor damage in the town of Eilat, is the strongest event ever instrumentally recorded in Israel. Ground fractures and cracking of road surfaces were noted; liquefaction and sand boils were observed close to the coast (Osman and Ghobarah, 1996). The main shock was followed by many aftershocks, two of which were also recorded by accelerographs (see Table 2). PGA values measured at various distances were compared with known attenuation relationships (Joyner and Boore, 1988; Shapira et al., 1994) and showed anomalous high acceleration values at almost all recording sites (see Table 3 and Fig. 2).

          It should be noted that the enhanced amplitudes may also be associated with the rupture directivity phenomenon (Gitterman and Shamir, 1994). The directivity effect is expected because of the 35-40 km rupture of the fault in a direction approximately 15° from the north. A rough estimation of the effect is shown on Fig. 3 (Gitterman et al., 1996a).

 

4.1     Eilat Station (EIL)

          Fig. 4 shows accelerograms of the Eilat station from the main shock and two aftershocks on the same scale (Fig. 41) for amplitude comparison and at different scales (Fig. 4b) for waveform comparison. The accelerograms were found to be similar for the main shock and the closer aftershock-2 of 26.12.95. Aftershock-1 of 23.11.95, located on the eastern bank of the Gulf (see Fig. 1) demonstrated very weak P-waves at all components. For the main shock and aftershock-2, maximum amplitudes in the S-wave windows are significantly larger at the EW and NS components than at the vertical component, indicating a possible site effect.

          The acceleration response spectra, calculated by the SMA program, from the horizontal EW component of the main shock (at different damping values) and an average (±s) obtained from both horizontal components of the main shock and aftershock-1 (for the 5% damping) are presented in Fig. 5. A comparison with Building Code 413 response spectrum for S2 soil conditions (bold line on Fig. 5b) shows a clear enhancement in the range of 0.2-0.5 sec. For this station, located on an alluvial fan (about 50cm thick) overlying granite, the ratios for the Gulf events demonstrated a strong, clear amplification factor of about 6 at a frequency of around 2.2 Hz for the main shock (Fig. 6). (It is possible that owing to a trough at this frequency in the vertical component spectrum on Fig. 6a, the real amplification factor in this case is smaller). A factor of about 3-4 in the frequency range 2.0-3.2 Hz was obtained for the aftershocks (Figs. 7 and 8). All spectral ratios are plotted on Fig. 9. The ratios for aftershock-2 show some differences from the main shock and aftershock-1 caused by the different waveforms mentioned above. Averaging over three events gives an amplification of about 4 at 2.2-2.3 Hz.

          Using a subsurface structure model (Table 4) inferred from observed microtremors using the Aki spatial correlation method (Gitterman et al., 1996c) and the EW main shock accelerogram as input for the SHAKE program (Schnabel et al., 1972), we generated ground motions at the outcropped rock basement and calculated the non-linear site response and the PGA on rock (Fig. 10). The estimated PGA on hardrock is lower by a factor of 2 as compared to the observed surface PGA and corresponds better to the attenuation curves. This result agrees with the observations of the horizontal PGA at two Jordanian stations founded on sandy soil (0.10g) and on hardrock (0.045g) in Aqaba when the difference was explained by the effect of local site conditions (Osman and Ghobarah, 1996).

 

4.2     OTHER STATIONS

          Site response estimates for other stations are presented on Figs. 11-20. They all more or less demonstrate a site amplification factor of 3-7 at various frequencies from 0.5 to 6 Hz. GMK station shows a strong amplification, which is consistent for the horizontal components and for both recorded events (main shock and aftershock-1, Figs. 12 and 13). H/V ratios for the most remote station GOS (r=502 km) are not calculated because the vertical component signal is very weak and close to the noise level (Fig. 20). Nevertheless, relatively large horizontal component signals provide evidence of a site effect at the station.

 

4.3         comparison with weak motion estimates at Eilat station

          Correlation was obtained with evaluations based on microtremor measurements taken a year before the earthquake at the same site (compare Figs. 6 and 21) (Gitterman et al., 1996). PGA of about 0.1g were observed at the Eilat station (located on alluvium, Vs»300 m/s), the strongest ever recorded in Israel. The ratios for both horizontal components, obtained from a 15 sec window W1 (Fig. 22) of dominant S-waves from the main shock, demonstrated a distinct amplification of factor A=5.8 at the frequency of f0=2.24 Hz, whereas estimated based on lower amplitudes (about 0.01g) from S-coda window W2 (Fig. 23a) and aftershock‑2 (Fig. 23b) (same length window as W1) showed a clear shift of f0 to 2.6 Hz and A»4. The latest frequency estimate agrees with evaluations obtained from microtremors (f0~2.8 Hz) (Fig. 21) and weak earthquakes recorded at the same site (f0=2.7) (Figs. 24 and 25) as well as with the analytical evaluations (f0=2.6) based on the subsurface model (Table 4): 1-D SH transfer function (Fig. 28b) and Rayleigh spectral ratio (ellipticity) (Fig. 26).

          A non-linearity effect could explain the fundamental frequency shift. A discrepancy in amplification factors (increased values, contradictory to the non-linear theory) could refer to the known inaccuracy of the H/V ratio method in estimating amplification factors.

          An additional observation which could be related to evidence of non-linear behavior, is provided by the anomaly shift of the dominant frequency to the right (higher values) for later phases in spectra of short windows (~6-7 sec) of S-waves from the main shock: 17-23 sec, 23-29 sec and 26-43 sec for the EW component and 18-24.5 sec, 24.5-32 sec and 38-45 sec for the NS component (Fig. 27a). This type of shift is not observed for the main shock vertical component or for the horizontal components of aftershock-2 (Fig. 27b). Usually, in the linear case, the opposite effect is observed on recordings when late arrivals have lower frequencies due to longer pathways and high frequency energy attenuation. This is confirmed by analysis of aftershock-2 and weak earthquake spectra (Fig. 26c) demonstrating a normal shift of the dominant frequency for several successive windows.

          The proposed hypothesis is supported by calculation of non-linear transfer functions (Joyner, 1997) using accelerograms of the main shock and aftershock as input for the Joyner program (Fig. 28a): the same shift of f0 from 2.3 to 2.6 Hz was obtained (Fig. 28b). According to expert opinion, an acceleration level of ~0.1g is large enough to cause a detectable non-linear effect (Dr. I. Beresnev, personal communication). All available estimations of site response at the Eilat station obtained using different methods are presented in Table 5.

 

5.     The Cyprus Earthquake

          During the Cyprus earthquake (9.10.96, MW=6.8), four A-800 accelerograph stations, Reading (RDG), Lahav (LAV), Tamar (TMR) and GMK, were triggered (see accelerograms on Figs. 29 and 34). The response spectrum from the EW component at RDG station is presented in Fig. 51 and shows a clear ground motion enhancement in the period range 0.3-0.6 sec as compared with the Code 413 curve for S2 soil conditions. Similar results are observed for response spectra at other stations.

          We suggest site amplification effects at these stations caused by resonance in the subsurface sediments. The closest Israeli accelerograph station to the hypocenter (320 km) at the Haifa Technion (HAT), located on hardrock, was not triggered. The PGA values are presented in Table 6 (see also Fig. 2). Confirmation of the site effect is provided by spectral ratios of horizontal to vertical spectra using four available accelerograms. The results show amplification factors of about 6, 5, 4.5 and 4-6 at frequencies 2.2-3.2, 1.2-2.4, 0.8-1.0 and 1-2 Hz for stations LAV, RDG, TMR and GMK respectively (Figs. 30-34). Reliability of the results is confirmed by the high consistency of spectral ratio curves for both horizontal components.

          As previously mentioned strong motion recordings of the southern Gulf of Aqaba earthquake with a similar magnitude of ML=6.2 and aftershock-1 (23.11.95, ML=5.4) at the GMK station, also showed enhanced ground motion as compared to different PGA attenuation curves (Table 3 and Fig. 12). Spectral H/V ratios for all three events recorded at this station, showing a high similarity, were averaged (Fig. 35). The average ratio shows an amplification factor of 5 at a frequency of about 1.2 Hz.

 

6.            Results of Site Response Estimations for Previous (1984-1993) and Recent (1997) Earthquakes

          Here we analyze much weaker events (ML<5.5) than the Gulf of Aqaba and Cyprus earthquakes. However these events occurred at closer distances (r<100 km) and, therefore, some stations located on hardrock were triggered although, as may be expected, no site effect was observed at these stations (see Table 8). The measured PGA values are presented in Table 7 (these data were published in part in Arieh et al., 1982 and Gitterman et al., 1994). In most cases one or both horizontal values are significantly larger than the vertical, indicating possible site amplification. Spectral H/V ratio estimates are shown on Figs. 36-52. The 1979 earthquake was not used for estimation since the data were analog recordings and due to the absence of a vertical component. In some cases the ratios were not calculated owing to unreliable weak signals (such as for station DA2 for the 27.04.87 earthquake, Fig. 38).

          All stations located on sediments show a more of less noticeable site effect. Most stations installed at hardrock sites, such as the Haifa Technion (HAT), Jerusalem (JER), Mifal (MIF) and Tunnel Gate (TUG), Dead Sea do not show any stable amplification. There are several stations, located on consolidated rocks (per available data presented in Table 1) such as Alonim (ALN), Ashqelon (ASQ), Hadera (HAD), Izreel Valley (ISR), Mizpe Shalem (MIZ), Reading IRDG) and Zefat (ZEF), which do nevertheless show an enhancement in a specific frequency range. Some stations, such as Bet Shean (BET), demonstrate a very stable site effect and similar ratios for two earthquakes with similar magnitudes and locations (Figs. 43-44). In other cases, stations Almog (ALM) (Figs. 16 and 46) and Qiryat Shemone (KIT) (Figs. 48 and 52) show different ratios for two different events and horizontal components. In both cases, the two recorded earthquakes were of very different magnitudes, distances and azimuth. The EW component at station ALM showed a remarkable spectral amplification corresponding well with the enhanced amplitudes on EW accelerograms as compared with the vertical component. Nevertheless, this fact can hardly be related to the site effect because it was observed at different frequencies for the two earthquakes.

          An interesting example of different site responses at two neighboring stations MIF and NET for the Moav earthquake of 28.09.91 is presented on Fig. 45. Station MIF with hardrock conditions did not show any significant spectral amplification (corresponding to almost equal amplitudes at all three components of the accelerogram), whereas an enhancement was obtained for the NET station installed on soft sediments though in a broad frequency range (large amplitudes at horizontal accelerograms can be observed as compared with the vertical component).

          Response spectra for both horizontal components of the Beirut earthquake recorded in Zefat (ZEF) are presented in Fig. 51. Comparison with the response spectrum of Code 413 for S2 soil conditions demonstrates a clear ground motion enhancement at the ranges 0.2-0.4 and 0.06-0.8 sec.

 

7.     Conclusions

          Principal parameters of the site response (amplification factors and fundamental frequency or frequency range) of all triggered stations are presented in Table 8 (stations with clear, stable and remarkable site amplifications are marked in bold; stations which did not display any noticeable site effect are marked in italics). We suggest that, due to local site effects, the earthquake ground motions exceeded the instrument triggering threshold (0.006G) and, therefore, several Israeli accelerographs were probably triggered. If this is indeed the case, then it has major consequences on the evaluation of earthquake hazard.

          The H/V spectral ratio estimates of site response based on strong motion records are consistent with those obtained from weak motion seismograms of microtremor and small events with analytic functions. An observed reduction of 15-20% in the resonance frequency for PGA»0.1g compared to all numerous weak motion estimates, suggests a possible non-linearity of site response at the Eilat station. If so, this is one of the few cases for non-linear effect associated with PGA<0.2g. Nevertheless, for engineering applications, the differences in resonance frequency and amplification factor estimates obtained from strong and weak motions are not significant and, hence, the estimates can be averaged.

          Reliable confirmation of site amplification effects should be carried out using detailed microtremor and weak earthquake motion measurements and analytical estimates, based on detailed local geotechnical and geological information followed by a detailed comparative analysis of different methods of site effect evaluation as realized for the Eilat accelerograph station.

 

Acknowledgments

          Thanks are due to Dr. Avi Shapira for his review of the manuscript and numerous valuable comments. Uri Peled assisted by supplementing strong motion data and station geology conditions. This study was supported by the Center of Absorption in Science of the Ministry of Absorption and the Earth Sciences Research Administration of the Ministry of National Infrastructures.

 

REFERENCES

Arieh, E., Rotstein, Y. and Peled, U., 1982. The Dead Sea Earthquake of 23 April 1979, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 1982, 72:1627-1634.

Gitterman, Y., Zaslavsky, Y. and Shapira, A., 1994. Analysis of strong ground records in Israel, in Earthquake Engineering, A. Rutenberg (Ed.), Balkema Publ., Rotterdam, 109-118.

Gitterman, Y. and Shamir, G., 1994. Application of the stochastic model of rupture directivity to some felt events along the Dead Sea plate boundary, XXIV ESC General Assembly, Athens, Greece, Abstracts.

Gitterman, Y., Shapira, A. and Peled, U., 1996a. Analysis of strong motion records of the 22.11.95 Nuweiba earthquake and its aftershocks, Israel Geological Society Annual Meeting, Eilat, Abstracts, p.33.

Gitterman, Y., Shapira, A., Zaslavsky, Y. and Peled, U., 1996b. Preliminary analysis of strong motion records of the Nuweiba (Egypt) 22.11.95 earthquake and the site-effects in Eilat, Israel XXV ESC General Assembly, Reykjavik, Iceland, Abstracts, p.96.


Gitterman, Y., Zaslavsky, Y., Shapira, A. and Shtivelman, V., 1996c. Empirical site response evaluations: case studies in Israel, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15:447-463.

Gitterman, Y. and Shapira, A. 1997a. Evaluation of site-response from Israeli strong motion records, Israel Geological Society Annual Meeting, Kefar Giladi, Abstracts, p.36.

Gitterman, Y. and Shapira, A., 1997b. A study of Site-Response from Strong motion records, 29th General Assembly of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Thessaloniki, Greece, Abstracts, p.319.

Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1988. Measurement, characterization and prediction of strong ground motion, in: Proc. Conf. on Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dynamics II, GT Div/ASCE, Park City, Utah, 43-102.

Joyner, W.B., 1997. A Fortran program for calculating nonlinear seismic response, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report No. 77-671.

Lermo, J. and Chavez-Garcia, F.J. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 1993, 83:1574-1594.

Osman, A. and Ghobarah, A., 1996. The Aqaba earthquake of November 22, 1995, EERI Special Earthquake Report.

Nakamura, Y., 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface, QR of RTRI, 30, No.1;25-33.

Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H.B., 1972. SHAKE - a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rep. EERC-72--12, Berkeley, California.

Shapira, A., Gitterman, Y. and Zaslavsky, Y., 1994. Semi-empirical attenuation functions for seismic ground motions in Israel, Israel Geological Society Annual Meeting, Nof Ginosar, Abstracts, p.33.

 

 


Table 1 - List of Triggered Accelerograph Stations Used in the Study

 

STATION CODE

TYPE

LOCATION

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY

COORDINATES

X, km

Y, km

Lat.

Long.

1. ALM

A-700

Almog

Non-consolidated conglomerate

193.8