Developing Ground Motion Shaking Map for Sarpol-e Zahab, Iran (2017) Earthquake

Document Type : Seismology and Engineering Seismology


International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES)


Providing appropriate near real time ground motion shaking map is a critical requirement to effectively manage the consequence of an earthquake. In the present study, the standard procedure adopted by USGS ShakeMap to develop the ground motion shaking map is calibrated to implement in Iran. Selecting appropriate ground motion predictions equation and properly modeling of the local site condition are two important parameters that should be properly modeled to provide an appropriate ground motion shaking map. Here, a set of local, regional and global GMPEs that show good performance in the previous studies are adopted. Besides, the approach developed by Borcherdt [1] is used to take into account the local site condition. The VS30 of the region exploited from the proxy approach proposed by Wald and Allen [2]. The study evaluates the potential applicability of this method by compiling a database of measured and estimated VS30. The results indicate that the method outperforms than random selection of the site class. The calibrated model implements to generate the ground motion shaking map of the Sarpol-e Zahab, Iran earthquake (2017). The result shows that the approach performs better than employing GMPEs alone. The calibrated model can be used to generate the database of ground motion shaking of past earthquakes in Iran, which is an important requirement to develop empirical fragility or vulnerability models.


  1. Borcherdt, R.D. (1994) Estimates of sitedependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthquake Spectra, 10, 617-654.
  2. Wald, D.J. and Allen, T.I. (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 97, 1379-1395.
  3. Erdik, M., Sesetyan, K., Demircioglu, M.B., Hancilar, U., and Zülfikar, C. (2011) Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(2), 247-266.
  4. Zülfikar, A.C., Fercan, N.O.Z., Tunç, S., and Erdik, M. (2017) Real-time earthquake shake, damage, and loss mapping for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earth, Planets and Space, 69(1), 9.
  5. Worden, C.B., Wald, D.J., Allen, T.I., Lin, K., Garcia, D., and Cua, G. (2010) A revised ground-motion and intensity interpolation scheme for ShakeMap. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 100(6), 3083-3096.
  6. Harmandar, E., Cakti, E., and Erdik, M. (2012) A method for spatial estimation of peak ground acceleration in dense arrays. Geophys J. Int., 191, 1272-1284, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05671.x.
  7. Cua, G. and Wald, D.J. (2008) Calibrating PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response) Ground Shaking and Human Impact Estimation Using Worldwide Earthquake Datasets: Collaborative Research with USGS and the Swiss Seismological Service. NEHRP Final Report Award number: 06HQGR0062).
  8. Michelini, A., Faenza, L., Lauciani, V., and Malagnini, L. (2008) ShakeMap implementation in Italy. Seismological Research Letters, 79(5), 688-697.
  9. Cauzzi, C., Fah, D., Wald, D.J., Clinton, J., Losey, S., and Wiemer, S. (2018) ShakeMap-based prediction of earthquake-induced mass movements in Switzerland calibrated on historical observations. Natural Hazards, 92(2), 1211-1235.
  10. Marreiros, C. and Carrilho, F. (2012) The shake map at the instituto de meteorologia. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, 1-8.
  11. Tafti, M.F., Hosseini, F., Firuzi, E., Mansouri, B., and Ansari, A. (2018) Ranking of GMPEs for seismic hazard analysis in Iran using LH, LLH and EDR approaches. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 19(2), 139-161.
  12. Silva, V. (2017) Critical issues on probabilistic earthquake loss assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 22(9), 1683-1709.
  13. Scherbaum, F., Cotton, F., and Smit, P. (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection of ground-motion models for seismic hazard analysis: the case of rock motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 94, 341-348.
  14. Scherbaum, F., Delavaud, E., and Riggelsen, C. (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information theoretic perspective. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 99, 3234-3247.
  15. Mousavi, M., Zafarani, H., Rahpeyma, S., and Azarbakht, A. (2014) Test of goodness of the NGA ground motion equations to predict the strong motions of the 2012 Ahar-Varzaghan dual earthquakes in northwestern Iran. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(5), 2512-2528.
  16. Zafarani, H. and Mousavi, M. (2014) Applicability of different ground-motion prediction models for northern Iran. Natural Hazards, 73, 1199-1228.
  17. Ghasemi, H., Zare, M., Fukushima, Y., and Koketsu, K. (2009) An empirical spectral ground-motion model for Iran. Journal of Seismology, 13, 499-515.
  18. Zafarani, H., Luzi, L., Lanzano, G., and Soghrat, M. (2018) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA and pseudo spectral accelerations using Iranian strong motion data. Journal of Seismology, 22(1), 263-28519.
  19. Kanno, T., Narita, A., Morikawa, N., Fujiwara, H., and Fukushima, Y. (2006) A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 96(3), 879-897.
  20. Kotha, S.R., Bindi, D., and Cotton, F. (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and middle-east. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 1245-1263.
  21. Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R. (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra , 30, 1025-1055.
  22. Crowley, H. and Bommer, J.J. (2006) Modelling seismic hazard in earthquake loss models with spatially distributed exposure. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(3), 249-273.
  23. Verros, S.A., Wald, D.J., Worden, C.B., Hearne, M., and Ganesh, M. (2017) Computing spatial correlation of ground motion intensities for ShakeMap. Computers and Geosciences, 99, 145-154.
  24. Jayaram, N. and Baker, J.W. (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38(15), 1687-1708.
  25. Goda, K., Hong, H.P. (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(1), 354-365.
  26. Yong, A., Hough, S.E., Iwahashi, J., and Braverman, A. (2012) A terrain-based siteconditions map of California with implications for the contiguous United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(1), 114-128.
  27. Allen, T.I. and Wald, D.J. (2009) On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (VS30). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 99(2A), 935-943, doi: 10.1785/0120080255.
  28. Wills, C.J., and Clahan, K.B. (2006) Developing a map of geologically defined site-conditions categories for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 96, 1483-1501.
  29. Wills, Ch., Gutierrez, C., Perez, A. and Branum, D. (2015) A next generation VS30 map for California based on geology and topography. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 105, 10.1785/0120150105.
  30. Gitterman, Y., Grostein, M., and Perelman, N. (2014) Real time evaluation of seismic intensities and peak ground motion in ShakeMap.
  31. Zare, M., Kamranzad, F., Parcharidis, I., and Tsironi, V. (2017) Preliminary Report of Mw7.3 Sarpol-e Zahab, Iran Earthquake on November 12, 2017. EMSC Report, 1-10.