Docstoc

Estimation of Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration

Document Sample
Estimation of Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration Powered By Docstoc
					           Fourth International Conference of
           Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
           12-14 May 2003 Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran




        Estimation of Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak
                    Acceleration of Major Cities in Jordan

                                         Eid Al-Tarazi
      Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Hashemite University, P.O.Box
      150459, Zarqa, 13115, Jordan, Email: ealtarazi@yahoo.com




ABSTRACT
This was conducted to determine the maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) and horizontal
response spectra (HRS) for the major 18 cities in Jordan using both local and international
derived equations that take into consideration the site conditions represented by shear velocity.
For each considered city, the maximum nearest earthquake magnitude is determined and then
the maximum PGA and HRS were determined using the selected attenuation equations.

From this study, it’s concluded that the earthquake magnitude is the major factor determine the
dominant period that gives the highest HRS value. For the cities destructed by earthquake with
magnitude 7.5 the dominant period is ranged between 0.3 to 0.5 sec. For those shuttled by 6.5
earthquake magnitude the period was ranged between 0.2 to 0.3 sec only.

The maximum PGA and response spectra values are for the cities located in the Jordan Valley
and Dead Sea area (such as Safi and Deir Allaa). Since they are located near the Jordan-Dead
Sea Transform fault system. On the other hand, the lower values are for those cities located far
away from the Transform, i.e. eastern and northeastern part of Jordan as for Al-Ruweished.

1. INTRODUCTION

During the previous centuries, Jordan and adjacent areas have suffered from disasters and
causalities caused by some devastating earthquakes that effected the major cities of the country,
such as Amman, Irbid, Jarash, Aqaba, and Al-Karak. On the other hand, the occurrence of major
events in Jordan such as the earthquake of 1927 with magnitude 6.2 on the local scale, ML, and
the Gulf of Aqaba earthquake of 1995 with ML 6.5, strongly indicate that major destructive
earthquakes are more possible to affect the region in the future.

The design of any engineered structure is based on an estimate of ground motion, either
implicitly through the use of building codes or explicitly in the site-specific design of large or
particular critical structures. Sufficient numbers of ground-motion recordings near a site are
very rare and mostly absent to allow a direct empirical estimation of the motions expected for a
design earthquake. It is therefore necessary to develop and use relationships, expressed in the
form of equations or graphical curves, for estimating ground motions in terms of magnitude,
distance, site conditions, and other variables from the body of strong-motion data from a large
region or a particular tectonic setting. This is so far site-specific design as well as for regional
hazard mapping (Boore, et. al., 1997).

Some historical destructive earthquakes have occurred and affected the Jordanian cities during
the previous centuries. The major historical and instrumental earthquakes, with moment
magnitude (Mw ≥ 6.) occurred in Jordan and adjacent, during the last 20 decades and effected
on the Jordanian cities are shown in Figure (1).

                     34.5




                                               a
                                          Se
                      34               n
                                    ea
                                  an
                                rr
                              ite




                     33.5
                            ed
                            M




                      33


                     32.5                                      Umm Qeis
                                                              T. Fahel
                                                                 Q. Ajlun
                                                                  Jarash
                      32
                                                                    Amman
                                                                            Q. Amra
                     31.5


                      31                                      Q. Al-Karak
                                                                         an



                                                                                                         Historical site
                                                                       rd




                     30.5                                                                                5.9<Ms<6.9
                                                                  Jo




                                                          Petra                                              7<Ms<7.6
                      30


                     29.5                          Aqaba Castle
                                           aba
                                         Aq




                                                                                             0                1                2
                                          of




                      29
                                       G.




                                34.5           35      35.5       36    36.5    37    37.5       38   38.5        39    39.5       40



Figure 1. The Cities That Considered in this Study, See Also the Epicenters of the Main Historical
          Earthquakes that Affected these Cities During the Last 2000 Years.


Table (1) lists the date, location, epicentral intensity (Io) on Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
(MMI) and the magnitudes of the main historical earthquakes that occurred during the period
(19 A.D.-1995). The parameters of these earthquakes that are listed in Table (1) are taken from
the Jordanian earthquake catalogue compiled by Al-Tarazi and Fandi (2002). According to this
catalogue, the magnitudes of the historical earthquakes were assigned depending on the
maximum intensity values observed for each earthquake. The epicenters of the 47 historical
earthquakes are showing in Figure (1).

Previous peak ground acceleration estimations in Jordan were determined by using attenuation
equations derived depending on historical earthquakes (e.g. Al-Tarazi, 1992, and Malkawi, et
al., 1995). On the other hand, these studies did not take into consideration the site condition and
their effects on the ground intensities that calculated for the main Jordanian cities considered in
this study.

The aim of this paper is to determine the horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration, for
different periods, namely 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 sec for eighteen major cities in
Jordan namely, Amman, Zarqa, Irbid, Ajlun, Jarash, Es-Salt, Mafraq, Madaba, Al-Azraq, Al-Ruweished,
Al-Karak, Tafila, Ma’an, Aqaba, Safi, S. Shouna, Deir Allaa, and Al-Mashare. The locations of these
cities are shown in Figure (1).
Table 1. Major Historical and Instrumentally Recorded Earthquakes That Occurred in Jordan and Its
         Vicinity During the Period (19 A.D.-1995).

              No.        Date                 Epicenter       Intensity Magnitude
                    Year Mon. Day       Latitude Longitude        Io      (Mw)
                                         (Nº)           (Eº)   (MMI)
               1    19     00     00     33.0            35.5  VIII-IX     7.1
               2    33     00     00     32.0            35.5    IX        7.4
               3    48     00     00     30.1            35.2    IX        6.5
               4    306    00     00     33.0            34.8     X        7.5
               5    348    00     00     34.0            35.5     X        7.4
               6    362    05     24     31.3            35.6    IX        6.5
               7    419    00     00     33.0            35.5    VIII      6.2
               8    502    08     21     33.0            34.8     X        7.4
               9    634    00     00     32.0            35.5    IX        6.6
               10   748    00     00     32.0            35.5    XI        7.8
               11   756    00     00     33.0            35.5    IX        6.2
               12   847    11     25     33.0            36.0    IX        6.2
               13   853    00     00     33.0            35.5    IX        6.2
               14   972    00     00     31.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               15   991    04     05     34.0            36.0    IX        6.7
               16   1034   01     04     32.0            35.5   X-XI       6.7
               17   1047   00     00     31.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               18   1067   03     18     30.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               19   1070   00     00     28.7            34.6    IX        6.2
               20   1105   12     24     32.0            35.5    VIII      6.1
               21   1151   09     28     32.6            36.7    IX        6.5
               22   1152   02     03     32.6            36.0    IX        6.2
               23   1160   00     00     32.0            35.5    VIII      6.1
               24   1170   06     29     34.6            36.2   X-XI       7.6
               25   1182   00     00     32.6            36.7   IX-X       7.8
               26   1201   06     02    34.0            36.12    XI        7.8
               27   1202   05     02     34.1            36.1    XI        7.5
               28   1212   05     02     30.0            35.0    IX        6.5
               29   1260   03     00     32.5            35.5    IX        6.5
               30   1261   00     00     34.0            35.5    IX        7.3
               31   1261   00     00     30.0            35.0    IX        6.5
               32   1284   00     00     33.5            36.0     X        7.0
               33   1287   04     02     33.0           35.5   VIII-IX     6.5
               34   1293   00     00     31.0            35.5    VIII      6.0
               35   1339   00     00     34.5           36.0   VIII-IX     6.0
               36   1458   00     00     31.0            35.5    VIII      6.0
               37   1546   01     14     32.0            35.5   X-XI       7.4
               38   1588   01     05     30.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               39   1656   02     00     34.5            36.0     X        7.1
               40   1753   12     16     33.0            36.0    VIII      6.0
               41   1759   10     30     33.1            35.6   X-XI       6.6
               42   1802   00     00     34.0            36.0    IX        6.3
               43   1834   05     23     32.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               44   1837   01     01     33.0            35.5    IX        6.5
               45   1873   02     14     33.5           34.7   VIII-IX     6.3
               46   1927   07     11     32.0            35.5    IX        6.3
               47   1995   11     22    28.758        34.628     IX        6.2


2. GEOLOGIC AND TECTONIC SETTING
Jordan occupies a major portion of the Arabian plate in its northwestern part and is bordered in
the west by a major continental plate boundary, namely the Jordan-Dead sea transform fault
system (JDS) which extends from the Gulf of Aqaba, in the northern part of Red Sea to south
Turkey. The length of the JDS is about 1100 km. Many geological and geophysical evidences
have accumulated in the last few decades in support of the idea that the JDS is characterized by
a major left-lateral shear with a multi-stage occurrence and a total cumulative amount of 107 km
of displacement (Quennell, 1959, Quennell, 1984, El-Isa et. al. 1987). This transform is
considered as good example of recent active continental transforms of the world.

Other local structures are distributed in Jordan, such as Amman-Hallabat structure that is
composed of folds and faults. Its branch off the Jordan Valley towards northeast passing
through Amman and ends at the eastern part of Zarqa city (Mikbel and Zacher, 1986), and
located on the middle extension of Syrian Arc (Al-Malabeh, 1994). Al-Karak-Al-Fayha fault is
another local main structure that branching off from the Lisan-Dead Sea Peninsula and directed
towards southeast passing the Saudis boundaries (Abou-Karaki, 1987). Al-Sarhan depression is
another major tectonical feature of Jordan. Its composed of normal faults directed northwest-
southeast and covered by basalts (Al-Malabeh, 1994).

Geology of Jordan is characterized by covering large span of the geological column. The
Precambrian basement with its 570-780 M.Y’s age outcrops in southern part of Jordan, which
represents the northwestern rim of Arabian Nubian Shield (Bender, 1975). Aqaba city lays on
sands and gravels that resulted from the weathered granite of the basement (Rashdan, 1988).
The Ordovician sandstones that distributed in Wadi Rum and eastern rim of Wadi Araba
represent the Paleozoic outcrops. The Mesozoic rocks, namely the lower and Upper Cretaceous
rocks are covering large area of Jordan, namely in southern and central part of the country.
Ma’an, Al-Tafila, Al-Karak, Amman, Jarash, Ajlun, Madaba, and Al-Mafraq are all located in
upper Cretaceous outcrops of limestone (Bender, 1975, Powell, 1988, Abdelhamid, 1995). The
Tertiary rocks are distributed in both northwestern and northeastern part of Jordan, where Irbid,
Al-Azraq, and Al-Ruweished cities are located (Ibrahim, 1993, Nawasreh, 1994). Quaternary
sediments that composed of unconsolidated sediments of sand, gravel and salt rocks cover the
Jordan Valley. These deposits are near to the Deir Allaa, Safi, Al-Masahre, and S. Shuna cities.

3. CALCULATIONS OF MAXIMUM HRS AND PGA VALUES

In the previous studies, estimation of ground accelerations in Jordan was performed depending
on attenuation equations that derived depending mainly on historical earthquake data (such as
Al-Tarazi, 1999, Malkawi, et. al., 1995). The used equations were in the following form:

PGA (cm/sec2) = C1 eC2M (R+c4) –C3                                                              (1)

Where PGA is the maximum peak ground acceleration in (cm/sec2), c1, c2, c3, and c4 are
constants characterized the data used. Table (2) lists the constants of three equations used in this
study. The first two of them were derived depending on historical earthquakes that occurred
along the Jordan-Dead Sea transform; while the third one is derived from earthquakes occurred
along San Andreas Fault.

          Table 2. The Constants of Three Attenuation Equations of PGA Used in This Study
  No.      C1        C2     C3       C4              Region                      Reference
   2     0.645     1.514 1.036       25    Jordan-Dead Sea Transform Al-Tarazi and Qadan, 1997
   1     383.8      1.03  -1.73      25    Jordan-Dead Sea Transform Malkawi, and Fahmi, 1996
   3     5600       0.8    -2.0      40      San Andreas Transform             Esteva, 1974

Since the establishment of strong-motion stations was begin only in 1990 with five stations that
increased gradually to be recently 25 stations. Nevertheless, only very limited amount of data
are gathered for earthquakes occurred in Jordan and around. Al-Qaryouti (2002) has derived a
new attenuation equation depending on strong motion data of local earthquakes with magnitude
ranged between 3.5 to 6.2 on Mw scale, that occurred in Jordan. This equation is in the
following form:

log PGA (in g) = -3.45092+ 0.49802 Mw - 0.38004 log (R) – 0.00253 R (σ=0.313)                      (2)

Where the parameters are as defined above. The PGA values in this equation are in gals (1 gal =
980cm/sec2), and σ is the standard deviation of the PGA.

Boore et al. (1997) have developed new form of attenuation equation that taking into
consideration the site conditions, specifically the shear wave velocity of the first 30m of the
earth surface. This equation was derived depending on earthquakes occurred in western part of
North America. This equation was in the following form:

ln Y = b1ss+b2(Ms-6)+b3(Ms-6)2+b5ln r+ bv ln Vs/VA                                                    (3)

Where Y is the ground-motion parameter (peak horizontal acceleration or pseudoacceleration
response in g); the predictor variables are moment magnitude (Mw), hypocentral distance (rjb, in
km), r = √rjb2 +h2, h is a constant listed in Table (3). The average shear-wave velocity (Vs) is to
the first 30 m depth (m/sec). Coefficients to be determined are b1SS, b2 , b3 , b5, h, bv, and VA. Note
that b1SS is a constant characterized the strike-slip faults and listed in Table (3). The earthquakes
occurred along the JDS is considered to be of strike-slip mechanism type (Vered and Striem,
1977, and Girdler, 1990). Note that h is a fictitious depth that is determined by the regression.
The coefficients in the equations for predicting ground motion were determined using a
weighted, two-stage regression procedure. In the first stage, the distance and site-condition
dependence were determined along with a set of amplitude factors, one for each earthquake. In
the second stage, the amplitude factors were regressed against magnitude to determine the
magnitude dependence. These coefficients that selected from Boore et al. (1997) are listed in
Table (3). The Vs values used in this study were determined after comparing the values
proposed by Boore et al. study (1997) to other values determined from shallow seismic
refraction studies performed in Jordan by Al-Tarazi and Fandi (2002) for Aqaba city. The
recommended Vs values that are used in this study are listed in Table (4). The PGA values were
determined using Boore’s et al. equation by considering the period to be equal 0, while the HRS
values were calculated in this study for 7 periods namely 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 sec,
see Table (3).

        Table 3. Boore et. al., 1997 Attenuation Equation Parameters (Eq. 3) Used in this Study
   Period       B1SS         B2          B3          B5          Bv        VA       h (km)      σ1
    0.00       -0.313      0.527       0.000       -0.778     -0.371      1396       5.57     0.431
   0.100       1.006       0.753       -0.226      -0.934      -0.212     1112       6.27     0.440
   0.200       0.999       0.711       -0.207      -0.924      -0.292     2118       7.02     0.435
   0.300       0.598       0.769      -0.161       -0.893      -0.401     2133       5.94     0.440
   0.400       0.212       0.831       -0.120      -0.867      -0.487     1954       4.91     0.447
   0.500       -0.122      0.884       -0.090      -0.846      -0.553     1782       4.13     0.454
    1.00       -1.133      1.036       -0.032      -0.798      -0.698     1406       2.90     0.474
    2.00       -1.699      1.085       -0.085      -0.812      -0.655     1795       5.85     0.495

                          Table 4. Average Shear Wave Velocities Used in This Study
                                         Site                 Vs (m/sec)*
                                        Rock                      620
                                     Soil (firm)                  310
                                     Soil (loose)                 280
                              * Shear Velocity is Averaged over the Upper 30m.
Table 5. The Calculated Response Spectra with Different Periods and Peak Ground Acceleration for the
         Cities Effected with Earthquake with Mw 7.5.
      City         Date of     Vs          rjb               PGA using              Response spectra (cm/sec2) for periods
                     max      (m/se       (km)          1    2   3     4            0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0
                  earthquak    c)                            cm/sec2                              (sec)
                   e (A.D.)
  Deir Allaa          748       280       17.4      1135 1330 757       686         299   438   584   659   673 647    434 378
   S. Shuna           748       310       17.4      1135 1330 757       686         288   428   566   633    641 612   404 224
     Ajlun            748       310       33.3       701 691 365        388         179   241   327   367   374 359    243 138
    Amman             748       310       35.9      780 710 394         392         169   228   306   344   351 337    271 131
    Madaba            748       310       43.6      690 578 348         323         146   191   257   290    297 287    196 110
    Jarash            748       310       47        656 532 332         299         138   178   240   271   279 269    185 104
    El-Salt           748       310       47.9      647 521 328         292         135   175   236   267   274 265    182 102
    Mafraq           1182       310       56.6      576 428 293         242         119   150   203   230   238 230    159 090
     Zarqa           1182       620       87.1      415 247 208         140         066   087   112   119   117 109    070 040
   Al-Azraq          1182       620       87.1      415 247 208         140         066   087   112   119   117 109    070 040
 Al-Ruweished        1182       620       187       -     82 89          44         037   043   053   060   061 113    038 022
1 Al-Tarazi and Qadan (1997)
2 Al-Malkawi and Fahmi (1996)
3 Al-Qaryouti (2002)
4 Esteva (1974)


The above attenuations equations no’s 1, 2, and 3 are used to estimate the maximum ground
intensity for each City that considered in this study. The studied cities affected by earthquakes
with magnitude more or equal to 7.5 and the resulted values are listed in Table (5). The PGA
and HRS calculated values of the cities destructed by quake with magnitude equal to 6.5 on Mw
are listed in Table (6).

Table 6. The Calculated Response Spectra with Different Periods and Peak Ground Acceleration for the
         Cities Effected with Earthquake with Mw 6.5.
   City         Date of max       Vs              rjb           PGA using             Response spectra (cm/sec2) for periods
                earthquake      (m/sec)          (km)        1    2   3   4           0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0
                  (A.D.)                                         cm/sec2                              (sec)
Safi               1034         310          8.7            317 706 250 428           265 527 680 667 593 511 257 141
Al-                1260         280          11             296 630 226 390           240 462 607 595 530 459 233 131
Mashare
Al-Karak           362          310          20             235   428   171   282     154   283   377   362   318   271   137   079
Tafila             1034         310          22             225   397   163   264     144   260   348   334   292   250   127   075
Ma’an              1588         620          39.2           163   232   118   162     073   137   175   158   131   108   051   031
Irbid              1260         310          39.9           169   246   122   171     092   097   229   201   178   153   080   047
Aqaba              1261         280          78             100   102    73    73     057   084   116   118   105   092   050   030
1 Al-Tarazi and Qadan (1997)
2 Al-Malkawi and Fahmi (1996)
3 Al-Qaryouti (2002)
4 Esteva (1974)



4. DISCUSSION
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) values resulted from attenuation equations that derived
depending on historical earthquakes are always higher than those derived utilizing the
instrumentally derived equations. This is clear from the PGA values calculated for example for
Amman utilizing Al-Tarazi’s and Qadan’s equation (1997), and Al-Malkawi’s and Fahmi’s
equation (1996). Where the values calculated were equal to 780 and 710 cm/sec2, respectively.
These equations are classified as the first group equation. On the other hand, the PGA calculated
depending on the second group of equations namely Al-Qaryouti’s (2002), Boore’s et al.,
(1997), and Esteva’s (1974) given 394, 392 and 510 cm/sec2, respectively. This may be
explained depending on the fact that the equations of group one were derived depending only on
major historical earthquakes with magnitude range between 6.5 to 7.5 on Mw scale. On the
other side, the second group equations were derived depending on intermediate to major
earthquakes with magnitude range between 3.5 to 7.0 on Mw.
The calculated pseudo spectra values for the 18 cities performed in this study have been
classified into two groups depending on the maximum earthquake that destruct the cities. The
first one include the cities that effected with maximum earthquake with magnitude equal 7.5 in
Mw scale are listed in (Table 5), while the second group includes those cities effected with
maximum magnitude 6.5 in Mw scale are listed in Table (6). For group one (Table 5) the
maximum values range between 673 to 113 cm/sec2, were the dominant period was the 0.4 sec
for the cities with epicentral distance less than 60 km. For the far city namely Al-Ruweished
city the dominant period increases to 0.5 sec. The exceptions for this result were for Zarqa and
Al-Azraq cities this explained depending on the Vs value assigned for both cities since the both
cities lay on hard limestone of Upper Cretaceous. Therefore, the dominant period equal 0.3 sec
for these both cities. For Al-Ruweished city that is 187 km faraway from the maximum nearest
earthquakes, the dominant period was 0.5 sec with response spectra 113 cm /sec2 only.
For the second group of the cities that effected with maximum magnitude of 6.5 on Mw (Table
6). The maximum response spectra values were ranged between 680 to 118 cm/sec2. The
dominant period was 0.2sec for the all cities listed in the table but for Aqaba city the resulted
value was 0.3 sec. This can be explained depending on both the epicentral distance, that is 78
km from the maximum earthquake, and the Vs value determined for the city that is equal 280
m/sec, since the city located on soft unconsolidated sediments.

By comparison the resulted values for the two groups listed in Tables (5) and (6). It’s clear that
for Table (5) the epicentral distances were ranged between 17.4 to 187 km, the maximum
resulted response spectra values ranged between 673 to 113 cm/sec2 and different Vs values
were used for the cities listed in Table (5). For the second group (Table 6), the epicentral
distances ranged between 8.7 to 78 km, and the maximum spectral values were ranged between
680 to 118 cm/sec2 and the dominant periods ranged between 0.2 to 0.3 sec. This may lead to
the fact that the maximum response values decreases as the distances increase for Al-Ruweished
and Aqaba see Tables (5 and 6). On the other hand, the periods decrease by decreasing
earthquake magnitude as for Safi and Deir Allaa were they effected by maximum magnitude 6.5
and 7.5 while the dominant period were 0.2 and 0.4 sec, respectively.

The determined shear wave velocity Vs for each city is effected directly on the resulted spectral
values as for Deir Allaa and S. Shuna. Both cities have the same epicentral distances, 17.4 km,
but the Vs was 280 and 310 m/sec respectively, this lead to spectral values 673 and 641 cm/sec2,
respectively (Table 5).

5. CONCLUSION
The study has lead to the following conclusion:
1. The maximum response values are for the Jordanian cities that located in the Jordan Valley
   and Dead Sea, where the maximum value was for Safi city near the Dead Sea with 680
   cm/sec2 (Table 6), while the minimum area value was 113 cm/sec2 for Al-Ruweished that
   located in the north eastern part of Jordan.
2. The magnitude of the earthquake has great effluence on the dominant period of the
   Jordanian cities. The cities that effected with the maximum magnitude about 7.5 have
   period range between 0.3 to 0.5 sec, while the cities effected by magnitude 6.5 have period
   range between 0.2 to 0.3 sec.
3. The site conditions (represented here by Vs) have great effect on the maximum spectral
   values, especially for the cities located in the Jordan Valley namely Deir Allaa, S. Shuna
   and Aqaba cities.
4. The using of Al-Qaryouti’s attenuation equation (2002) to determine the PGA for
   Jordan give lower response values especially for earthquakes with magnitude less
   than 6.5 on Mw.
6. REFERENCES

1. G. Abdelhamid (1995). “The Geology of Jarash Area, Map sheet (3154-I)”, Natural
    Resources Authority, Amman, Jordan, 51pp.
2. M. Al-Qaryouti (2002). “Earthquake Strong Motion Data Analysis of the Gulf of Aqaba
    Activity for 1993-2001 and Engineering Seismology Implications in Aqaba Area”, Jordan,
    Jordan, Ph.D. Thesis, Jordan University Amman, 188 pp.
3. A. Al-Malabeh (1994). “Geochemistry of Two Selected Volcanic Cones from Harra al
    Jaban NE Jordan, Geochemical 54, Japan, 541-560.
4. E. Al-Tarazi, A. Fandi (2002). “Assessment of Earthquake Hazards in Jordan and
    Mitigation of Their Environmental Impacts”, A Report of a Project Funded by the Higher
    Council of Science and Technology”, Amman, Jordan, 120 pp.
5. E. Al-Tarazi (1999). “Regional Seismic Hazard Study for the Eastern Mediterranean
    (Trans-Jordan, Levant and Antakia) and Sinai Region”, J. African Earth Sciences, 28(3),
    743-750.
6. E. Al-Tarazi, H. Qadan (1997). “Seismic Hazard Potential Expected for Dams in Jordan”,
    J. Dirasat, 24, 313-325.
7. E. Al-Tarazi (1992). “Investigation and Assessment of Seismic Hazard in Jordan and its
    Vicinity”, Ph.D. Thesis, Ruhr-University, Germany, 194p.
8. F. Bender (1975). “Geology of the Arabian Peninsula”, Jordan, Geol. Surv. Professional
    paper 560-I, Washington, 136 pp.
9. D.M. Boore, W.B. Joyner, T.E. Fumal (1997). “Equations for Estimating Horizontal
    Response Spectral and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
    summary of Recent Work”, Seismological Research Letters 68, 1, 154-179.
10. Z.H. El-Isa, J. Mechie, C. Prodehl (1987). “Shear Velocity Structure of Jordan from
    Explosion Seismic Data. Geophysics J.R. Astr. Soc., 90, 265-281.
11. L. Esteva (1974). “Geology and Probability in the Assessment of Seismic Risk”, Proc. the
    2nd International Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geologists, 1-14,
    Sao Paolo.
12. R.W. Girdler (1990). “The Dead Sea Transform Fault System”, Tectonophysics, 180, 1-14.
13. K. Ibrahim (1993). “The Geological Framework for the Harrat As-Shaam Basaltic Super-
    Ground and Its Volcanic Tectonic Evolution”, Bulletin no. 25, Natural Resources Authority,
    Amman, Jordan, 33 pp.
14. A.M. Quennell (1984). “The Western Arabia Rift System”, Proc. Geological Evolution of
    the Eastern Mediterranean, Geol. Soc. London, England, 775-788.
15. A.M. Quennell (1959). “Tectonics of the Dead Sea Rift”, Proc.20th Int. Geol. Cong., Assoc.
    Geol. Africa, 385-405.
16. M. Rashdan (1988). “The Regional Geology of the Aqaba-Wadi Araba Area”, Map Sheets
    3049 III, 2949 II, Bulletin 7, Natural Resources Authority, Amman Jordan, 87 pp.
17. A.H. Malkawi, A. Al-Homoud, E. Al-Tarazi, O. Nusier (1995). “Probabilistic
    Seismogenic Ground Motion Hazard Assessment of Karak city in Jordan”, Environmental
    and Engineering Geosciences, I(2), 207-218.
18. S. Mikbel, W. Zacher (1986). “Fold Structures in Northern Jordan”, N. Jb., Stuttgart Geol.
    Palaeont. Monats, 4, 248-256.
19. Nawasreh, M. (1994). “The Geology of the Safawi (Mahattat El-Hafif) Area”, Map Sheet
    No. 3454 III, Natural Resources Authority, Amman, Jordan, 52 pp.
20. J. Powell (1988). “The Geology of the Karak Area”, Map sheet No. 3152 III, Natural
    Resources Authority, Amman, Jordan, 172 pp.
21. M. Vered, H.L. Striem (1977). “A Macroseismic Study and the Implications of Structural
    Damage of Two Recent Major Earthquakes in the Jordan Rift”, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., 67,
    1607-1613.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:12/2/2011
language:English
pages:8