SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE, ANALYSIS AND

CHARACTERIZATION OF MAJOR CITIES IN U.A.E.

A THESIS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Presented to the faculty of the American University of Sharjah

College of Engineering

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

by

MUHAMMAD IRFAN

B.S. 2009

Sharjah, UAE

June 2011

© 2011

Mohammad Irfan

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

We approve the thesis of Muhammad Irfan Date of Signature

Dr. Magdi El-Emam

Assistant Professor

Civil Engineering

Graduate Committee

Dr. Zahid Khan

Assistant Professor

Civil Engineering

Graduate Committee

Dr. Jamal Abdalla

Head

Civil Engineering

Graduate Comittee

Dr. Aman Mwafy

Assistant Professor

Civil Engineering

Graduate Committee

Dr. Hany El-Kadi

Associate Dean

College of Engineering

Dr. Yousef Al-Assaf

Dean

College of Engineering

Dr. Gautem Sen

Vice Provost

Research and Graduate Studies

iii

SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE, ANALYSIS AND

CHARACTERIZATION OF MAJOR CITIES IN U.A.E.

Muhammad Irfan, Candidate for the Masters of Science Degree

American University of Sharjah, 2011

ABSTRACT

United Arab Emirates (UAE) has experienced significant economic growth in

recent years. The accelerated schedule driven projects are compelling designers to use

values of seismic hazard (ground motion) that are either significantly conservative or

unreliable. Moreover, not all estimates of a seismic hazard analysis such as mapped

spectral accelerations, representative hazard spectra, and deaggregation covering all

parts of UAE are available. Studies that have attempted to define the seismic hazard

in UAE in the past are not in agreement and they either focused on few cities or did

not provide all the necessary information. The variations in their results could be

attributed to the use of questionable source zonation, activity parameters, and

superseded prediction equations. Consequently, designers in UAE have to rely on

inaccurate estimate of seismic hazard for the region. Considering substantial

development in United Arab Emirates (UAE) and considerable ambiguity faced by

the designers in choosing the seismic hazard from disagreeing studies, a new seismic

hazard analysis is urgently required.

This study is based on the use of homogenized catalogue of various degrees of

completeness for temporal distribution of events (Surface magnitudes, Ms), activity

parameters based on doubly bounded magnitude-frequency relationships, modified

zonation of area sources, and new generation prediction equations. The study aims to

provide a comprehensive seismic hazard assessment for all parts of UAE that will

provide designers with Hazard curves, values of peak ground accelerations (PGA),

mapped spectral accelerations at 0.2s and 1s (S0.2 and S1), Uniform Hazard Spectra

(UHS), and deaggregation of seismic hazard.

iv

In addition to the estimation of seismic hazard, this study provides estimates

of the site amplification for three major cities of UAE (Sharjah, Dubai, and Abu

Dhabi). Effect of local site conditions in modifying the seismic waves is well

documented in many studies. Site amplification factors as a guideline for typical UAE

building sites are not available. As a result, designers in UAE have to rely on factors

developed for other regions. These factors are typically obtained by performing

equivalent-linear or non-linear site response analysis of sites of known dynamic

properties. Site response analyses were performed for different representative

subsurface soil models obtained from various sources. Sites were grouped as per the

provisions of International Building Code (IBC 2009). The results of this part of the

study will provide structural engineers with region specific amplification factors for

the development of design spectra instead of relying on factors developed for other

regions.

The results are generally provided for a return period of 2475 years (2 %

probability of excedance in 50 years) in conformance to the provisions given in

American codes. The results mapped seismic hazard presented in this study

corresponds to rock sites classified as Site Class B according to International Building

Code (IBC 2009). The results indicate slightly larger values of seismic hazard

compared to some recently published studies. The effect of west coast fault is

significant especially at larger return periods and should be taken into account if

future studies confirm the presence of a fault along the west coast of UAE and

prevalent building codes adopts lower probability of exeedance. The activity in

Arabian Craton (background seismicity) contributes mostly to the hazard in most

southern part of UAE. The contribution of other sources such as Zargos (Iran) and

Oman mountains increases as one move towards the North. The west of the country is

dominated by seismicity from Zargos whereas the east by seismicity from Oman

mountains.

The results of site response analyses (site classes C and D) suggest more

amplification in Sharjah than in Dubai and Abu Dhabi because of deep engineering

bedrocks in Sharjah. The response spectra of Abu Dhabi and Dubai are scattered as

compared to Sharjah because of the variance in soil column depths in Dubai and Abu

Dhabi. The amplification factors for Sharjah are in the range of 4 to 6 and for Dubai

it is estimated to be around 3 to 4; whereas, the amplification factors for Abu Dhabi

ranged from 4 to 8.

v

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION 1

General Introduction 1

Problem Definition 2

Objectives of Study 3

Available Data and Collection 4

Organization of Thesis 6

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

Background 7

Review of Regional Studies 19

3 STUDY AREA - GEOLOGY, TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY 30

Study Area 30

Geology 31

Regional Tectonic Setting 32

Regional Seismicity 34

4 METHODOLOGY 35

Seismic Hazard Analysis 35

Spectral Matching 40

Site Response Analysis 42

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49

Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis 49

Spectral Matching 63

Site Response Analysis 70

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79

Conclusions 79

Recommendations 81

vi

REFERENCE LIST 82

Appendix

A SOIL COLUMNS 92

B SOFTWARE INTERFACE 128

C MANUAL INTEGRATION FOR PSHA 132

VITA 136

vii

FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Typical Seismic Hazard Curve 10

2.2 Typical Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) 10

2.3 Typical Seismic Hazard Map (NEHRP 2003) 11

2.4 Typical Deaggregation Plot 12

2.5 Typical plots to calculate site amplification factors 16

2.6 NEHRP Design Spectrum 17

2.7 Seismic source model of Al-Haddad et al. (1994) 19

2.8 Seismic source model of Abdalla and Al Homoud 2004 20

2.9 Cluster of Earthquake Records in the Iranian Region (Source: USGS NEIC) 21

2.10 Seismic Source Model of Peiris et al (2006) 22

2.11 Seismic Source Model of Musson et al. (2006) 23

2.12 Seismic source model of Aldama et al. (2009) 24

2.13 UHS from past studies for a return period of 2475 years 26

3.1 Location of U.A.E in the Arabian Gulf. (Source: Google Earth) 30

3.2 Spatial distribution of the Emirates of U.A.E. (Source: Wikipedia) 31

3.3 Tectonic Setting around U.A.E. 33

3.4 Seismicity Catalogue 34

4.1 Seismic source model for this study 36

4.2 Grid of nodes used in Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis 39

4.3 Modulus reduction curves 43

4.4 Damping ratio curves 43

viii

4.5 Plot of shear wave velocity versus depth 45

4.6 Response spectra on surface and half space using LSM2270 47

5.1 Seismic curves of the eight cities of U.A.E. 50

5.2 Comparison of seismic curves for Abu Dhabi (PGA) 52

5.3 Comparison of seismic curves for Ras Al Khaimah (PGA) 53

5.4 Comparison of seismic curves for Dubai (PGA) 53

5.5 UHS for the eight cities of U.A.E. 54

5.6 Comparison of UHS for Dubai (return period - 2475 years) 54

5.7 Comparison of UHS for Dubai (return period - 475 years) 55

5.8 Contour map for 2475 year return period Peak Ground Acceleration 56

5.9 Contour map for 2475 year return period spectral acceleration at 0.2s. 56

5.10 Contour map for 2475 year return period spectral acceleration at 1s. 57

5.11 Proposed zonation of UAE based on equal increments of mapped hazard 58

5.12 UHS representing the proposed zonation of UAE 58

5.13 Deaggregation of hazard for Abu Dhabi 59

5.14 Deaggregation of hazard for Ras Al Khaimah 60

5.15 Effect of west coast fault on hazard curves 62

5.16 Matching ANG-090 response on Abu Dhabi Target Response Spectrum 64

5.17 Matching LSM2270 response on Abu Dhabi Target Response Spectrum 64

5.18 Matching GIL337 response on Dubai Target Response Spectrum 65

5.19 Matching TCU129-E response on Dubai Target Response Spectrum 65

5.20 Matching ANG000 response on Sharjah Target Response Spectrum 66

ix

5.21 Matching LSM2000 response on Sharjah Target Response Spectrum 66

5.22 Comparing ANG090 Original to Matched Time History 67

5.23 Comparing LSM 2270 Original to Matched Time History 67

5.24 Comparing GILL337 Original to Matched Time History 68

5.25 Comparing TCU129E Original to Matched Time History 68

5.26 Comparing ANG000 Original to Matched Time History 69

5.27 Comparing LSM2000 Original to Matched Time History 69

5.28 Response Spectra for Sharjah for Site Class C 71

5.29 Response spectra for Sharjah for Site Class D 71

5.3 Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class C 72

5.31 Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class D 73

5.32 Response Spectra for Dubai for Site Class C 73

5.33 Response Spectra for Dubai for Site Class D 74

5.34 Amplification factors for Dubai for Site Classes C and D with two input motions 75

5.35 Response Spectra for Abu Dhabi for Site Class C 75

5.36 Response Spectra for Abu Dhabi for Site Class D 76

5.37 Amplification factors for Abu Dhabi for Site Class C 77

5.38 Amplification factors for Abu Dhabi for Site Class D 77

x

TABLES

Table Page

2.1 NEHRP Site Classification 18

2.2 Recurrence Parameters used by Abdallah and Al Homoud (2004) 20

2.3 Recurrence Parameters used by Musson et al. (2006) 23

2.4 Recurrence Parameters used by Aldama et al. (2009) 25

2.5 Comparison of PGAs 25

2.6 Results after using three attenuation equations on one source model 27

2.7 Results after using one attenuation equations on three source models 27

4.1 Verification Results 35

4.2 Activity parameters used in this study 37

4.3 Criteria for selecting time histories 41

4.4 Time histories selected for spectral matching 41

5.1 Spectral Accelerations at 2475 years for the eight cities of U.A.E. 50

5.2 Spectral Accelerations at 475 years for the eight cities of U.A.E. 51

5.3 Spectral Accelerations at 10000 years for the eight cities of U.A.E. 51

5.4 Comparing PGAs of this study with some of the previous hazard studies 52

5.5 Contribution of different sources to the hazard in selected cities 61

5.6 No. of boreholes for each city 70

5.7 Site amplification factors 78

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost thanks and praises are to Almighty who blessed me with the

strength, capability, and knowledge to undertake and complete the research.

First of all, I express my gratitude to the Department of Civil Engineering of

the American University of Sharjah for accepting me as a Research Assistant for this

study.

The greatest credit of this work goes to my esteemed supervisors Dr. Magdi

El-Emam and Dr. Zahid Khan who have given bulk of their precious time and

experience during this study to assist me in achieving the goals of this study. Their

continuous supervision and valuable suggestions have been instrumental in

completing this research.

Special thanks to Dr. Jamal Abdalla and Dr. Mousa Attom for their occasional

valuable suggestions on my research work.

I also appreciate the help of Dr. Tarig Ali for help with ArcGIS for plotting the

contour maps in from results of the Gridded Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis.

I am extremely thankful to the Geotechnical Department of Sharjah

Municipality for their support in providing me the borehole logs of sites in Sharjah.

Without their generous help, site response analysis phase of this study wouldn’t have

been possible.

For Dubai, I would like to appreciate the help of some private companies for

providing the borehole logs of sites in Dubai.

I would also like to thank Dr. Ali Shaaban Ahmed Megahed from Abu Dhabi

Municipality for providing the borehole logs for various sites in Abu Dhabi.

Lastly, I would like to appreciate the support of my family during this long

and sometimes difficult journey. By family, I mean my wife and my lovely children

Ali and Amna. Special thanks to my parents for their love and support, and for

instilling in me the value of learning and hard work, and providing me with the

opportunities to advance my life. My sisters have also been a great source of

motivation for me during this study.

xii

DEDICATION

To my family:

My Parents, Wife, Sisters and two lovely Children Ali and Amna

1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

General Introduction

Earthquakes are one of the most devastating natural hazards faced by various

countries around the world. Recently, many governments have begun to realize the

importance of managing the risk posed by the earthquakes. As part of the risk

management strategies, developing countries such as U.A.E, Saudi Arabia, and Iran

are beginning to develop building codes which will incorporate seismic loads

consideration for the design of structures. The seismic design of structures is

primarily based on Seismic Hazard Analysis and Site Response Analysis of the area.

Numerous studies have been performed to assess the seismic hazard for a

particular area [1], [2]. Seismic Hazard Analyses are usually performed for rock

conditions ignoring the effects of local site conditions. Hence, the results of Seismic

Hazard Analysis only give a preliminary view of the seismic loads expected on the

structure. Depending on what type of structure and where the structure is, the

designers extract the relevant results. The analysis which would complete the seismic

design prerequisites is called ‘Site Response Analysis’. Site Response analysis is the

process of quantifying the effects the local site conditions have on the seismic waves

which originate from bedrock.

Site Response Analysis is one of the most critical steps in geotechnical

earthquake engineering. The amplification of seismic waves due to the geological

structure of a particular site has been found to be considerable by many researchers.

Some of the examples are the 1994 Northridge earthquake [3], the disastrous 1985

Mexico earthquake in which the amplification of seismic waves was five times the

ground motion from the rock [4], and the 2003 Bam earthquake [5]. The degree of the

amplification caused by site conditions depends on the dynamic characteristics of the

soil, the characteristics of the base rock motions, the impedance contrast between the

soil profile and the base rock and the depth of semi-infinite half space [6].

Designing the structures according to the building codes applicable to the area

where the structures are built is extremely important. Due to the lack of availability,

some designers around the world are forced to design the structures using the

procedures developed by developed countries such as U.S. and U.K. This can lead to

extreme consequences because the design of structures using inapplicable studies

2

would be unreliable. Moreover, the intensity of the effects of earthquakes largely

depends on the types and strength of structures present in the area of shaking. The

recent earthquakes in Chile and Haiti suggest that although the earthquakes were of

similar intensities, the casualties in Haiti were much greater than those in Chile.

Many studies have attempted to perform Seismic Hazard Analysis for UAE [7,

8]. But significant variations exist amongst the results of those studies. Two of the

studies in the past have attempted to perform site response analysis for Dubai and

Sharjah [9, 10]. But the results of these cannot be reliable due to various shortcomings

discussed in the literature review section. Considering the substantial development in

cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi and the ambiguity faced by the designers in

U.A.E. in choosing the seismic hazard, a comprehensive study of seismic hazard

analysis is needed. Moreover, the lack of studies on site response analysis for U.A.E.

also justifies a study on site response analysis. Considering the time driven nature of

projects in U.A.E., not every project performs site specific response analysis. Hence

this study aims at performing a comprehensive Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

for U.A.E. to assess the hazard posed by the earthquake activity around U.A.E.

Moreover, numerous site response analyses would be performed for different parts of

U.A.E. to provide the designers with guidelines to incorporate site effects without

performing site response analysis for the project. The results and conclusions of this

study would contribute significantly towards developing the regional building codes

for different cities of U.A.E.

Problem Definition

In the last 20 years, U.A.E. has undergone tremendous development in terms

of its infrastructure, including mega projects like the Palm Island, Dubai metro, and

Burj Khalifa. Although historically U.A.E. has not been hit by a major earthquake, the

frequent seismicity in the surrounding areas such as Iran and Oman can pose a

significant threat to the infrastructure of U.A.E. Recent earthquakes of considerable

magnitudes in U.A.E. and Oman have also enhanced the need for risk management

plans for major cities of U.A.E. [11, 12]. The advancement in seismic networks of

U.A.E. has enabled the recording of seismic activities which were previously

unknown and underestimated.

Tall buildings have high natural periods. The seismic waves coming from long

distances also vibrate at long periods. If the natural periods of the structures match the

3

predominant periods of the long distance seismic waves (i.e. resonance), the results

could be catastrophic. Therefore, even though the seismic activity in Iran is at a

considerable distance, the long period and high intensity waves are a concern for

integrity of the sky scrapers in U.A.E.

Moreover, the seismic waves are subject to amplification due to the different

types of soils underlying the surface. The amplification due to site effects causes the

waves to increase the ground motion.

Several studies have attempted to evaluate the risk of U.A.E. in general and

major cities in particular. These studies presented significant variations in their results

and emphasized on calculating general seismicity of the area or for particular cities

only. The discrepancies in their findings are attributed to several shortcomings as

discussed in the Literature Review chapter. Considering substantial development in

the region especially in Dubai and Abu Dhabi and considerable ambiguity faced by

the designers in choosing the seismic hazard, some municipalities in UAE are at

different stages of developing building codes. In light of the above challenges, a

comprehensive seismic hazard analysis based on systematic approach is urgently

required.

Objectives of Study

• To prepare a homogenized seismicity catalogue for U.A.E.

• To develop a representative seismic source model for U.A.E.

• To select the appropriate Ground Motion Prediction Equations, suitable for

regional geology. In case the needed equations are not available, use the

widely accepted equations and the recently developed equations for world

wide applications.

• To perform Gridded Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis to develop Seismic

Curves and Uniform Hazard Spectra for different areas of U.A.E.

• Develop contour maps for PGA and Spectral Accelerations at 0.2s and 1s for

return period of 2475 years (2% of exceedence in 50 years)

• To create a suite of spectrally matched ground motion time histories.

• To develop site amplification factors using the site classifications provisions

of NEHRP (2003) specifically for use in U.A.E.

4

Available Data and Collection

Seismic Hazard Analysis

The first set of data required to perform seismic hazard analysis was the

seismicity in and around the study area. The seismicity records were retrieved from

various databases and catalogues available online or in the literature [13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 18]. Some of these resources contained historic seismicity along with the

instrumental seismicity. In this study, only the instrumental seismicity was used. The

final collection of seismicity records was cleaned up to avoid repetition of any seismic

events. Along with seismicity, plate tectonics and geology studies were also consulted

[19, 20, 21]. These were required to develop the recurrence parameters for the

Gutternberg-Richter relationship and for developing the seismic source model to be

used in seismic hazard analysis. Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE’s) were

needed to be assigned to the seismic sources. These were acquired from the Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center studies along with other studies such

as [22, 23]. The commercially available software, EZFRISK was purchased from Risk

Engineering Inc. for performing the Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis. Another

computer program called ArcGIS was obtained to plot the seismic hazard contour

maps of UAE

Spectral Matching

Several strong ground motion time histories were obtained from Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) database. PEER database has the option of

using criteria such as magnitude, distance or PGA to select the time histories. So, the

time histories were selected based on the deaggregation results from seismic hazard

analysis of Dubai, Sharjah and Abu Dhabi. A computer program of ‘SeismoSignal’,

available for free from SeismoSoft Ltd. for research purposes on the web, was used to

obtain various strong motion parameters of time histories for comparing the original

and matched time histories. Moreover, ‘RSP Match EDT’, commercially available

software, was procured and used to perform spectral matching on ground motion time

histories.

5

Site Response Analysis

To correlate the dynamic properties of soils at different site selected in UAE

major cities, reports of soil investigation conducted at these sites are required.

Numerous boreholes reports are available with the municipalities of the emirates of

U.A.E. However, due to complications in formal procedures and lack of cooperation

from some municipalities, it was not easy to acquire many boreholes from Emirates

such as Umm Al Quwain, Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah. Around 100 boreholes from

Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi and Ajman were collected. Most of the boreholes from

Dubai and Abu Dhabi varied from 15 to 30 m depth. However, some boreholes from

Sharjah are extended to 50m depth. Several studies of correlations between SPT-N

values and shear wave velocities are available in literatures [24, 25, 26, 27]. These

correlations were used to correlate the data from the boreholes to the soil dynamic

properties required for site response analysis phase. To estimate the shear wave

velocities for the bedrock, three studies were used to correlate the Unconfined

Compression Strength (UCS- MPa) [28, 29, 30]. The computer program ‘SHAKE

2000’ is used extensively for performing 1-D site response analysis in this study.

6

Organization of Thesis

This thesis is prepared for two major phases of this study. First phase was the

Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis and the second was Site Response Analyses.

Chapter 2 presents the general background and review of some of the subjects of this

thesis such as Source Zonation, Ground Motion Prediction Equation and Recurrence

Parameters. Chapter 2 also reviews the regional seismic hazard and site response

studies performed. Moreover, the results of previous studies are compared and

reasons for discrepancies in the results are discussed.

Chapter 3 describes the tectonic setting, geology and seismicity of the study

area along with the geographic setting of UAE.

Chapter 4 presents the methodology used for Gridded Seismic Hazard

Analysis and Site Response Analyses. The computer programs used for the two

phases are also described. Format of results from Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis

and Site Response Analyses have been presented.

Chapter 5 presents the results of Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis in the form

of Uniform Hazard Spectra, seismic hazard curves and contour maps. Deaggregation

graphs for cities of Abu Dhabi and Ras Al Khaimah have been plotted. Comparison of

results between this study and past studies has been made. Matched time histories

along with their response spectra have been plotted to compare the results before and

after matching. Response spectra and amplification factors for Sharjah, Dubai and

Abu Dhabi have been plotted to show the results of site response analyses performed

for 100 boreholes.

Chapter 6 summarized most important conclusions made in this research as

well as suggestions for further research.

7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

The time, size and location of occurrence of earthquakes in future cannot be

predicted with certainty. The concept of probability is incorporated in Seismic Hazard

Analysis to analyze factors of time, size and location with the uncertainty involved.

Cornell 1968 [31] developed ‘Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis’ for the

estimation of ground motion. The probabilistic approach considers all possible

magnitude earthquakes, at all possible distances from all possible source zones with

consideration given to likelihood of each combination. The ground motion obtained

from this approach has a specified probability of exceedence. Uncertainty in the

events of earthquake occurrence and the associated hazards of damaging ground

motion is inherent. The reliability of results from this approach depends on factors

described in the following. These factors are required for performing the Probabilistic

seismic hazard analysis [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. They include identification of

sources, establishment of recurrence relationships, magnitude distribution and average

rate of occurrence for each source, selecting attenuation relationship and computing

the Uniform Hazard Spectrum and site hazard curve.

Identification of seismic sources

The identification of seismic source zones is based on the interpretation of

tectonic, geological and seismological data. Describing the whole process of

developing the seismic model is a broad topic; therefore, the identification process is

briefly described in this section.

Seismicity around a region of interest is grouped into many seismic sources.

These sources are identified based on the spatial distribution of earthquakes. Seismic

sources can be faults, areas and points. Area sources are widely preferred where the

accurate knowledge of line and point sources is not conclusive. Once the sources

close to the site of interest are identified, uniform probability distributions within the

sources are assigned to each source i.e. earthquakes can occur at any point within the

source zone.

8

Recurrence parameters for seismic sources

Determining recurrence parameters is a major difference between the

deterministic and probabilistic approaches of Seismic Hazard Analysis. The

uncertainty in size and time of occurrence of future earthquakes is characterized

through a ‘recurrence relationship’ assigned to each source. A ‘recurrence

relationship’ specifies the average rate at which an earthquake of some size will be

exceeded. A linear relationship was observed by Gutenberg and Richter (1944) when

the logarithm of annual rate of exceedence was plotted against earthquake magnitude

(Equation 2.1).

Log N = a – bM [2.1]

Where M is the earthquake magnitude and N is the number of earthquakes

having magnitude greater than or equal to M. ‘a’ and ‘b’ are constants where ‘a’

indicates the number of earthquakes greater than magnitude zero, and it depends on

the number of events, the size of source region and the number of years of seismic

date. ‘b’ is the relative number of small magnitude to large magnitude earthquakes

[7].

Selection of Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs)

Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs or attenuation equations) are

used to predict the ground motion produced by an earthquake at a certain distance

from epicenter or hypocenter. The GMPE’s are constrained by many factors such as

the distance from epicenter, distance from hypocenter, type of fault rupture

mechanism, damping of transmitting media, and characteristic of the soil of the site if

included [38, 39]. These ground motion prediction equations are developed from the

regression of accelerations recorded at different distances. The uncertainty in the

regression is quantified by the standard deviation of the peak ground acceleration.

Majority of the attenuation relations relate the peak ground acceleration to the

magnitude of an earthquake (M), and the distance (R) from epicenter/hypocenter.

Some attenuation relations also include other parameters which are used to

characterize the earthquake source, wave propagation and local site conditions.

Typical form of the GMPE relationships is given by

ln Y = C� +CM +C�M� +C� ln�R + C� exp�C�M�� + C�R + f�source� + f�site� [2.2]

9

The values of coefficients (C1, C2, C3 etc) vary depending on which ground

motion parameter (Y) is being predicted. These coefficients are computed by

performing the regression analysis on the particular ground motion parameter.

Typically, these coefficients represent the relationship between the ground motion

parameter, spectral period, and the variable (magnitude or distance). The relationship

between the variable and ground motion parameter is also determined using the

regression analysis. These relationships could be linear, parabolic or exponential.

GMPEs are then assigned to different seismic sources. More than one equation can be

assigned to a seismic source.

Results of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Main result of PSHA is seismic hazard curve that relates the annual rate of

exceedence (or return period) to any spectral acceleration (such as PGA). Figure 2.1

presents a typical seismic curve for Peak Ground Acceleration which is the spectral

acceleration at spectral period of zero (0) second. In addition to seismic curves, a plot

which shows different spectral accelerations for different spectral periods at a

common rate of exceedence is called Uniform Hazard Spectrum (Figure 2.2). Results

of PSHA are also plotted as ground motion hazard maps such as the one produced by

the USGS for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Figure 2.3).

Typically, PGA and Spectral acceleration for 0.2s and 1s are plotted on these maps to

facilitate designers in choosing ground motion amplitudes for a particular return

period i.e. a particular probability of exceedence.

10

Figure 2.1 – Typical Seismic Hazard Curve

Figure 2.2 – Typical Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Mea

n A

nn

ua

l R

ate

of

Ex

ceed

an

ce o

f P

HA

,

λP

HA

Peak Horizontal Acceleration PHA (g)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Spectral Period (s)

11

Figure 2.3 – Typical Seismic Hazard Map (NEHRP 2003)

PSHA deaggregation

The dynamic analysis of a structures, engineering models and computer codes

require an earthquake acceleration time history representative of local conditions from

the results of PSHA. A procedure called ‘Deaggregation’ is used to determine the

dominant distance and magnitude from the results of PSHA. Many studies have

described the process of Deaggregation [34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. Figure 2.4 shows a

typical deaggregation plot. For different spectral accelerations at different spectral

periods, the peaks of histogram will change. The magnitude and distance range that

represents the peak in histogram is used to select the earthquake time history for

structure specific dynamic analysis.

In deterministic hazard analysis, selecting a representative earthquake for

dynamic analysis could be difficult because deterministic approach considers the

effect of a single scenario earthquake at a site. On the other hand, the probabilistic

approach considers all possible combinations of earthquake magnitudes and distances

in order to determine which one contributes the greatest to a particular hazard level.

12

Figure 2.4 – Typical Deaggregation Plot

Description of EZFRISK

EZFRISK is commercially available software by Risk Engineering Ltd which

implements the Cornell-McGuire approach. Seismic Hazard calculations of EZFRISK

represent an application of the total probability theorem. The process of entering the

input data is extremely user friendly. Constructing a seismic zone model and

assigning the recurrence parameters on the seismic zones are relatively simple steps.

The program has a big database of predefined Ground Motion Prediction Equations

which is frequently updated. EZFRISK is capable of delivering various results such as

seismic curves for different spectral periods, uniform hazard spectra for numerous

return periods and deaggregation for several combinations of magnitude and distance.

Time consumed for a single site seismic hazard analysis performed by EZFRISK was

small which enabled the Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis to be performed within

reasonable amount of time.

13

Time Histories for Site Response Analysis

Designing of strong motion time histories is an essential part of soil structure

interaction done by geotechnical earthquake engineers, and nonlinear dynamic

analysis of critical structures done by structural engineers. The earthquake time

histories are selected and adjusted to match the target response spectrum of a

particular site. The target response spectrum is part of the results produced by

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). There are two methods for designing

the strong ground motion time histories: scaling ground motion and spectral matching

[44]. Both methods involve the use of past natural or synthetic time histories.

Scaling ground motions is conducted by multiplying the natural or synthetic

acceleration values at all-time intervals by certain factor. Though the natural phasing

of the recorded ground motion and peaks and troughs in the spectral shape are

maintained, getting the average response spectrum shape to match the target response

spectrum would be a major challenge using this method.

In the second method (i.e. spectral matching method) the frequency content of

an earthquake time history (natural or synthetic) could be modified to match the

response spectrum of that target time history (i.e. target response spectrum). Various

methods of spectral matching have been described by Preumont (1984) [45].

Generally, there are two approaches of spectral matching: frequency domain and time

domain. The first approach involves replacing the Fourier amplitude spectrum of the

initial time history with a Fourier spectrum which is consistent with the target

spectrum based on random vibration theory. However, the later involves adding

wavelets to the initial time history. Time domain approach is a better option because

of good convergence properties and preserving the non-stationary character of the

original time histories. Several popular computer programs such as RSP Match EDT

and SeismoMatch use the time domain approach for computing the modified time

histories. Spectral matching is a preferred option over the scaling of ground motions

because lesser hassle is involved in achieving a satisfactory comparison of the

response spectra of both original and target time histories.

14

RSP Match EDT

RSP match EDT is a Windows based program that uses a time domain

approach to modify the original time histories to make them compatible with a target

response spectrum. This program was developed by Abrahamson (1992) [46] and

applies the methodology of Lilhanand and Tseng (1987, 1988) [47, 48]. Different

modification models are used to perform the modification of time histories. This helps

in preserving the non-stationary phasing of the original time history as mentioned

above. Different sources are used to get the recorded strong ground motion time

histories for spectral matching. This program has its own specific format in which the

original acceleration-time history could be input into it. Hence, the ground motion

time histories from any database are converted to a RSP Match EDT compatible

format before being used scaled. The formatting process is done within the program

option that is available in RSP Match EDT.

Site Response Analysis

Site response analysis is the process of analyzing the seismic hazard at a micro

level. Soil conditions are considered to quantify the alterations caused by the soil on

seismic waves propagating from the bed rock. The results of site response analysis

primarily depend upon the type of soils, and the soil profile configuration. Hence,

differences would be encountered in the results of site response analysis from one site

to another. Therefore, a site specific response analysis is highly recommended for

every structure that intended to be built. However, site response analysis is expensive

to perform making it impractical to be done for each individual structure site. To help

the designers save the cost of performing site specific response analysis, building

codes include ‘site amplification factors’ which are used to quantify the amplification

or deamplification of the seismic waves due to the soil conditions. For example, the

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program [49] has site amplification factors

estimated for the North American region.

The local site affects the important characteristics of the surface ground

motion such as amplitude and frequency content. The intensity depends on the

properties of the subsurface materials, site geometry, and distance of earthquake [50,

51] and on the characteristics of the bedrock ground motion itself [39]. Site Specific

Response Analysis is generally divided into three main tasks [52].

15

Characterization of soil properties in the site is the first, major, and most

expensive task. Geophysical or geotechnical investigation is used to determine the

dynamic properties of the soil by laboratory or field methods such as Resonant

Column Test, Cyclic Triaxial test, Seismic Refraction or Spectral Analysis of Surface

Waves (SASW). The other two tasks are: the selection of bedrock acceleration-time

Histories, and conducting the ground Response Analysis.

The ground response analysis (usually one dimensional) is performed for the

specified site using the bedrock time histories selected in the second task to compute

the time histories propagated to the ground surface. The ratio of response spectra of

the time histories measured at the ground surface to the input motion response spectra

is used to quantify the local site effects (Figure 2.5).

The use of one dimensional ground response analysis is most suitable for

modern seismic analysis for many reasons. Software packages for conducting one

dimensional site response analysis are available in abundance in personal computers

and have been tried tested and verified. They are believed to produce conservative

results, because majority of the design projects in the past which were designed using

this methodology have survived strong earthquakes. The two major assumptions in

one dimensional analysis are: (1) soil layers are horizontal and extend to infinity, and

(2) the ground surface is level and the shear waves propagate vertically upwards.

These assumptions can be justified for various reasons such as the horizontal ground

motions are more important than vertical ground motions, soil properties generally

vary more in the vertical direction than in the horizontal directions and many more

reasons which make the use of one dimensional analysis viable for use in the site

response analysis [52]. One dimensional site response analysis is typically performed

as either equivalent linear or non linear analysis.

16

Figure 2.5 - Typical plots to calculate site amplification factors

Estimating Site Amplification Factors

Performing a Site Specific Response Analysis for every structure is not

practical. Therefore, typical buildings and other structures often employ the site

amplification factors to develop a site specific design response spectrum (Figure 2.6).

These factors are provided in modern building codes as short and long period

acceleration amplification factors.

The development of site amplification factors involves Site Response

Analyses on a large scale. For a particular region, the site amplification factors are

determined by using the soil profiles of various sites in that region. The use of the

average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m of the soil profile (Vs30) is commonly

used to classify the soil profiles [53, 54, 55, 56]. This type of soil classification is used

for its simplicity and making the soil classification uniform (Table 2.1).

17

Figure 2.6 – NEHRP Design Spectrum

18

Table 2.1 – NEHRP Site Classifications

Site Class Description

A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, vS > 5000 ft/sec (1500 m/s)

B Rock with 2,500 ft/sec < vs ≤ 5000 ft/sec (760 m/s < vs ≤ 1500m/s

C Very dense soil and soft rock with 1,200 ft/sec < vs ≤ 2,500 ft/sec (360 m/s

< vs ≤ 760 m/s) or with either N > 50 or su > 2,000 psf (100 kPa)

D Stiff soil with 600 ft/sec ≤ vs ≤ 1,200 ft/sec (180 m/s ≤ vs ≤ 360 m/s) or

with either 15 ≤ N ≤ 50 or 1,000 psf ≤ su ≤ 2,000 psf (50 kPa ≤ su ≤ 100

kPa)

E A soil profile with vs < 600 ft/sec (180 m/s) or with either N < 15, su <

1,000 psf, or any profile with more than 10 ft (3 m) of soft clay defined as

soil with

PI > 20, w ≥ 40 percent, and su < 500 psf (25 kPa)

F Soils requiring site-specific evaluations:

1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic

loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays,

collapsible weakly cemented soils. Exception: For structures

having fundamental periods of vibration less than or equal to 0.5

second, site-specific evaluations are not required to determine

spectral accelerations for liquefiable soils. Rather, the Site Class

may be determined in accordance with Sec. 3.5.2, assuming

liquefaction does not occur, and the corresponding values of Fa

and Fv determined from Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2.

2. Peat and/or highly organic clays (H > 10 ft [3 m] of peat and/or

highly organic clay, where H= thickness of soil)

3. Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 ft [8 m] with PI > 75)

4. Very thick, soft/medium stiff clays (H > 120 ft [36 m]) with su <

1,000 psf (50 kPa)

19

Review of regional studies

Seismic Hazard Analysis

Many studies have attempted to estimate the seismic hazard for the Arabian

Peninsula region in the past. These studies have several shortcomings and

generalizations which will be discussed in this section. Due to the generalizations, the

results of these studies have significant variations, and all of them draw different

conclusions on the regional seismic hazard.

The earliest study was performed by Al-Haddad et al. (1994) [57]. Although

the study’s focus was on Saudi Arabia, the results were mapped over the whole

Arabian Peninsula. The study used a ground motion prediction equation which was

derived for Western North America [58] but the coefficients for that equation were

taken from Thenhaus et al. (1986) [59]. The seismic source model of this study is

presented in Figure 2.7. The figure shows partial seismic model relevant for the area

covered in this study. The large source which combines the Zagros region with

Makran region is not justified because two different regions have been combined into

one seismic source. The results of this study indicated that the PGA values

corresponding to a return period of 475 years for the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai

are less than 0.05g. Hazard for U.A.E. was estimated by mapping the hazard of Saudi

Arabia which could produce unreliable results for U.A.E.

Figure 2.7 – Seismic source model of Al-Haddad et al. (1994)

20

A Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Project was completed in 1999 for

generating the PGA maps (return period of 475 years) for Europe, Africa and Middle

East [60] The results of this study suggested over conservative values of PGA of

0.32g and 0.24g for Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively. The results were deduced

from the calculated hazard at Dead Sea and Zargos area without performing actual

seismic hazard analysis for sites in UAE.

Abdallah and Al Homoud (2004) [7] performed the pioneering seismic hazard

assessment specifically for United Arab Emirates and its surroundings. The seismic

zones considered in this study are shown in Figure 2.8 and the recurrence parameters

are given in Table 2.2. This study used one attenuation equation for all the seismic

sources adopted from Zare (2002) [61]. The estimated PGA from this study for Dubai

and Abu Dhabi for a return periods of 475 years are 0.15g and 0.10g respectively.

Figure 2.8 – Seismic source model of Abdalla and Al Homoud 2004 [7]

Table 2.2 - Recurrence Parameters used by Abdallah and Al Homoud (2004) [7]

Seismic Source

Fault

Mechanism Mmin Mmax λ at Mmin β - beta

Main Zagros Thrust Region Area 4 7 194984 2.81

North East Arabian Gulf Region Area 4 6 1698 2.16

Northern Emirates Region Area 4 6 104.71 1.842

Lut Region Area 4 6.8 37154 2.56

Central Iran Region Area 4 7.2 6026 2.05

Makran Region Area 4 6.7 0.347 1.842

South East Arabian Gulf Region Area 4 7.5 47.86 1.842

Central Iran Region

Lut Region

Makran Region

South East Arabian Gulf Region

Northern Emirates Region

North East Arabian Gulf Region

Main Zagros Thrust Region

21

This study indicated larger seismic hazard in comparison to most recent

studies. The difference in the results are attributed to a source zone (region III –

Northern Emirates Region) with very high activity parameter of α (12.02 at Mmin = 4).

In addition to that, this seismic source seems to inflate the seismicity in U.A.E.

because this seismic source combines the Southern Zagros region with the northern

region of U.A.E. As a result, the probability of a high magnitude earthquake occurring

in the northern emirates region is similar to that of Southern Zagros region. This is

contrary to the cluster of earthquakes records shown in Figure 2.9 where it clearly

shows that barely any major earthquake has occurred close to the northern emirates

region. In addition, the high standard deviation of the attenuation equation used in this

study also contributes to larger seismic hazard [62].

Figure 2.9 – Cluster of Earthquake Records in the Iranian Region (Source: USGS

NEIC)

Sigbjornsson and elnashai 2006 [74] performed the seismic hazard for Dubai

only. They adopted the seismic source zonation of Tavakoli and Ghafory (1999) [1] in

addition to the inclusion of Dibba and West Coast Faults. They used attenuation

equations by Ambraseys et al. 1996 [63] and Simpson 1996 [64] for all the sources in

22

the seismic source model. The results were presented in the form of hazard curves for

PGA and Uniform Hazard Spectra for return periods of 975 and 2475 years for Dubai.

The PGA values of this study for Dubai were 0.16g and 0.22g for return periods of

475 and 2475 years respectively. In comparison, the PGA at 475 years is slightly

higher than that of Abdalla and Al-Homoud 2004 [7] and significantly higher than

some of the other studies. The larger values of hazard are possibly because of the

inclusion of west coast fault as a very active source.

Peiris et al 2006 [8] performed the seismic hazard study for Dubai and Abu

Dhabi beside other Arabian cities by using five different ground motion prediction

equations. Equations by Atkinson and Boore 1997 [65] and Dahle et al. 1990 [66]

were used for the Arabian Stable Craton whereas equations by Ambraseys et al. 1996

[63] and Sadigh et al. 1997 [67] were used for Zagros and Makran regions. The

seismic source zonation of this study is similar to that of Al Haddad et al. 1994 [57]

(Figure 2.10) in addition to regional faults like Dibba and West coast. The results in

this study were presented in the form of seismic curves for some cities and UHS for

two return periods for Dubai only. The PGA values estimated for Dubai and Abu

Dhabi for a return period of 475 years were 0.06g and 0.05g respectively.

Figure 2.10 – Seismic Source Model of Peiris et al 2006 [8]

23

The study by Musson et al. 2006 [68] presented the results of seismic hazard

assessment of UAE that was performed by British Geological Survey on behalf of the

Government of Dubai. Although significantly different tectonic nature of different

source zones were appreciated, only two attenuation equations were used for all the

seismic sources in their model (Figure 2.11). Table 2.3 presents the recurrent

parameters used in that study. Ambraseys et al 1996 [63] was used for the

computation of spectral accelerations, whereas Ambraseys 1995 [69] was used for

predicting Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA). The results were presented in the form

of PGA maps and Uniform Hazard Spectra for the seven emirates for return periods of

475, 1000 and 10000 years. The results indicated a PGA of 0.05g for Dubai for a

return period of 475 years. These results are similar to those of Peiris et al. 2006 [8]

and Al Haddad et al. 1994 [57].

Figure 2.11 - Seismic Source Model of Musson et al. 2006 [68]

Table 2.3 - Seismicity Parameters used by Musson et al. 2006 [68]

Seismic Source Fault Mechanism Mmin Mmax λ at Mmin β - beta

DIBB Strike slip 4 5 0.0139 1.428

EHOS Strike slip 4 5.1 0.0832 1.7731

FORE Reverse 4 5.8 0.525 2.464

MUSP Strike slip 4 4.9 0.007 2.602

OMOB Strike slip 4 5.5 0.0139 1.428

QESH Reverse 4 6.4 0.851 1.704

ZEMI Strike slip 4 5.8 0.0794 1.658

ZMFF Reverse 4 6.5 1.023 1.59

24

Husein Malkawi et al. 2007 [70] presented seismic hazard assessment for

major cities of UAE. The seismic source model of this study consists of a single

source which includes the Makran Region, Zagros Region and parts of the Arabian

Craton. A single ground motion prediction equation of Atkinson and Boore 1997 [65]

was used. The results of this study are considered highly unreliable considering the

uncertain zone model and superseded ground motion prediction equation.

The latest study for U.A.E. was presented by Aldama et al. 2009 [71]. The

study focused on three cities: Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Ras al Khaimah. A total of 20

seismic source zones were considered (Figure 2.12), and seven attenuation equations

including a New Generation Attenuation (NGA) equation were used for different

seismic source zones. The recurrence parameters used for various source zones are

given in Table 2.4. The results were presented in the form of uniform hazard spectra

and hazard curves for the three cities for different return periods. The results are in

agreement with the findings of Peiris et al 2006 [8] and Musson et al. 2006 [68]. This

study did not provide seismic hazard assessment for other parts of UAE.

Shama 2011 [72] presented a seismic hazard assessment for a site in Dubai.

This study used many attenuation models for different seismic sources. Many local

faults such as West coast and Dibba were considerd as very active and hence included

in this study. The study presented significantly higher values of hazard in Dubai with

PGA values of 0.17g and 0.33g for a return period of 475 and 2475 years respectively.

The seismic catalogue used in the study was based on the database of IRIS [73] which

includes many events that are dislocated and are not present in the original database

cross referenced by IRIS 2008 [73].

Figure 2.12 – Seismic source model of Aldama et al. 2009 [71]

25

Table 2.4 – Seismicity parameters used by Aldama et al. 2009 [71]

Seismic Source Fault Mechanism Mmin Mmax λ at Mmin β – beta

High Zagros Reverse 4 7.3 9.56 1.91

South Zagros Reverse 4 6.9 2.65 1.59

Oman Mountains Strike Slip 5 6.8 0.1478 2.5158

Makran Top Intraslab 4 6.8 1.07 1.63

Makran Bottom Right Interface 4 8.5 2 1.796

Makran Bottom Interface 4 8.5 2 1.796

Zagros Makran Transition Strike slip 5 7 0.1892 2.4946

The review of all the studies presented in the preceding section indicates that

their results have significant variations. Table 2.5 shows the comparison of PGA for a

return period of 475 years of some of the above mentioned studies for Dubai. Figure

2.13 shows the Uniform Hazard Spectra for a return period of 2475 years from three

of the previous studies. These two sets of data clearly show variations in the results

presented by previous studies. The reasons for these contradictions can be attributed

to the use of different seismic source zones, different activity parameters assigned to

those source zones and the use of different attenuation equations. In the following

section, a parametric study is performed to elaborate the reasons behind variations in

the previous studies.

Table 2.5 - Comparison of PGA’s

Study PGA-return period of 475 years for Dubai

Al-Haddad et al. 1994 [57] < 0.05g

Abdallah and Al Homoud 2004 [7] 0.15g

Sigbjornsson and elnashai 2006 [74] 0.16g

Peiris et al 2006 [8] 0.06g

Musson et al. 2006 [68] 0.05g

Aldama et al. 2009 [71] < 0.05g

Shama 2011[73] 0.17g

26

Figure 2.13 – UHS from past studies for a return period of 2475 years

Reasons for contradictions in past studies

The contradictions in the results of the previous studies can be attributed to the

three main steps of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis i.e. seismic source model,

activity parameters assigned to the source model and attenuation equations. In this

section, the results of a parametric study are presented to illustrate the effect of using

different zones, activity rates and attenuation equations. EZFRISK by Risk

Engineering is used to perform the seismic hazard calculations for two scenarios. In

the first scenario, the seismic source zones and activity rates are kept constant and

three different equations are used. In the second scenario, single attenuation equation

will be used for three different seismic source models and activity parameters

Same Seismic model, but different attenuation equations

The seismic source model from Aldama et al. 2009 [71] presented in Figure

2.12 was used with three different equations. Not all the seismic sources were

extracted from the study because these have been found to be most critical for the

hazard contribution. The hazard analysis was performed for Dubai.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Aldama et al. 2009

Sigbjornsson and elnashai

(2006)

Peiris et al (2006)

27

The Attenuation equations that were used for this analysis are as follows:

� Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22]

� Ambraseys et al. 1996 [63]

� Sadigh et al. 1997 [67]

The results of this analysis are given in Table 2.6 for the Peak Ground

Acceleration for the return period of 2475 years.

Table 2.6 – Results after using three attenuation equations on one source model

Attenuation Equation PGA

Ambraseyes et al. 1996 [63] 0.08272g

Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22] 0.1091g

Sadigh et al.1997 [67] 0.0715g

Although the functional forms of these equations are similar, the table

indicates that using different attenuation equations can produce different results.

These results could vary significantly if other equations are also considered without

considering their applicability and constraints

Same attenuation equation but different seismic models and activity parameters

Three different seismic source models of Abdallah and Al Homoud 2004 [7],

Musson et al. 2006 [68] and Aldama et al. 2009 [71] are used in this step. These

seismic source models are presented in Figures 2.8, 2.11 and 2.12 respectively. Their

seismicity parameters are given in Tables 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 respectively. The

attenuation equation used for this iteration was Abramson and Silva 1997 [22] for

rock sites and the results with different source models are presented in Table 2.7. It is

evident from Table 2.7 that variations in the results of past studies are due to the

source models and activity rates

Table 2.7 - Results after using one attenuation equations on three source models

Attenuation Equation Seismic Source Model PGA

Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22] Aldama et al. 2009 [71] 0.114g

Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22] Musson et al. 2009 [68] 0.062g

Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22] Abdallah and Al Homoud 2004 [7] 0.2g

28

Other emirates of U.A.E. are developing at a fast pace and many major

infrastructures are being built in other cities such as Abu Dhabi, Ajman and Sharjah

and even in small towns. The designers in these emirates do not have proper guidance

on calculating seismic loads. Therefore, there is a need for a new comprehensive

Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis for U.A.E.

Spectral Matching

The spectral matching is the process of matching historical ground motion

time histories to the Uniform Hazard Spectra of a particular area resulting from

Seismic Hazard Analysis for that area. Sigbjornsson and Elnashai 2006 [74] have

presented synthetic time histories in their study for dynamic analysis for Dubai only.

Moreover, no spectral matching was performed. This study will aim to create a suite

of spectrally matched time histories for the major cities of U.A.E. such as Dubai,

Sharjah and Abu Dhabi by performing spectral matching on UHS of Dubai, Sharjah

and Abu Dhabi

Site Response Analysis

Two studies have been performed on the consideration of local site effects for

U.A.E. None of these studies present the site amplification factors, similar to that of

NEHRP provisions, which can be used as a general guideline for the development of

design spectrum (Figure 2.6). Balwan 2008 [10] performed site response analyses for

various sites of Sharjah using a total of 140 boreholes logs selected at various sites in

Sharjah. The study of Al Bodour 2005 [75] was used to obtain the PGA map for

United Arab Emirates. Single acceleration time history was used for all the sites. The

amplification potential of Sharjah was given in the form of zonation maps for PGA.

Spectral acceleration at different periods was not considered in assessing the

amplification. The time history was selected because the PGA of this recording was

within the range of PGA given by Al Bodour 2005 [75] for Sharjah. No Spectral

matching was performed for any Uniform Hazard Spectrum.

In another study, Ansal et al. 2008 [9] developed microzonation maps for site

conditions of Dubai. This study presents amplification factors of different areas of

Dubai after performing site response analyses using different borehole logs. The input

ground motions were based on the results of the seismic hazard assessment for return

periods of 475 and 2475 years. A total of 1094 borings from the city of Dubai were

29

used to determine the variation of shear wave velocities. Correlations between shear

wave velocity and the number of blows from SPT tests were adopted. The scaling of

time histories was simply based on the Peak Ground Acceleration of the time

histories, and not on the spectral matching. Consequently, the time histories did not

exactly represented the hazard spectra for the sites. Moreover, this study used

unreliable damping ratio and shear modulus reduction curves which can produce

significant offset in the results [76]. This study presents larger degradation in dynamic

properties for rock than for clays which is in disagreement with the findings of [6, 39,

77].

Despite the influence of soil conditions being very critical in earthquake

design, not much effort has been made on site characterization of the major cities of

U.A.E to account for the seismic wave amplification. None of the two studies

described above can be relied on due to their shortcomings. Therefore, there is scope

for a new site response analysis study for major cities of U.A.E. This study aims at

characterizing the major cities of U.A.E. according to the amplification intensity of

the soils in respective cities by performing site response analysis on numerous

boreholes. The results in the format of site amplification factors for major cities of

U.A.E. would be easier to apply by the practical designers in U.A.E.

30

CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA: GEOLOGY, TECTONICS AND

SEISMICITY OF U.A.E.

Study Area

U.A.E. is a small country located in the southeast of Arabian Peninsula in

Southwest Asia on the Persian Gulf covering an area of approximately 83,600 km2

(Figure 3.1). The country comprises of seven emirates with Abu Dhabi being the

capital. The spatial distribution of the seven emirates is shown in Figure 3.2. Although

Abu Dhabi has a large area, majority of the infrastructure is located in the northern

region of Abu Dhabi. Even in other major cities such as Sharjah, Dubai and Ajman,

the developed area is relatively small, and covers the western side of these emirates

bordering the Persian Gulf.

The Arabian Peninsula is not considered as active seismically. However,

recent shakings of the neighboring areas such as Oman and areas such as Dibba have

raised the awareness of a potential hazard to UAE [11, 12]

Figure 3.1 – Location of U.A.E in the Arabian Gulf (Source: Google Earth)

31

Figure 3.2– Spatial distribution of the Emirates of U.A.E. (Source: Wikipedia)

Geology

The geology of the United Arab Emirates, and the Arabian Gulf area, has been

substantially influenced by the deposition of marine sediments associated with

numerous sea level changes during relatively recent geological time. With the

exception of mountainous regions shared with Oman in the north-east, the country is

relatively low lying; with near-surface geology dominated by Quaternary to late

Pleistocene age, mobile Aeolian dune sands, and sabkha/evaporate deposits.

Conditions in Dubai area essentially consist of a linear coastline dissected by

channels or creeks. Superficial deposits consist of beach dune sands together with

marine sands and silts. In addition, wind erosion, capillary action and evaporation has

led to extensive sabkha deposits in certain areas, notably around the creeks. These

superficial deposits are underlain by alternating beds of calcarenite, carbonate

sandstone, sands and cemented sands.

32

Regional Tectonic Setting

U.A.E. is located on the Arabian plate which is regarded as stable seismically

[19, 20]. The tectonic setting on regional scale is depicted in Figure 3.3. Significant

crustal deformations and recorded seismic events are rare within the Arabian

Peninsula [78]. Although the Arabian plate is bounded by many active tectonic

boundaries, major contribution to the seismic hazard in UAE is from Zagros and the

Makran region. The separation of the Arabian plate from the African plate creates a

subduction zone with the Eurasian plate. The Arabian plate is moving north at a rate

of approximately 21 mm/year [79] and slight rotational movement also creates

subduction zone at the boundary of Makran [80]. Movement of Arabian plate is also

associated with the formation of Zagros fold and thrust belt in Iran that extends to the

edge of the Persian Gulf [81]. In addition to Zagros and Makran regions, the active

tectonic structures present in the Oman Mountains (Dibba fault) can also contribute

significantly to the seismic hazard in UAE especially in the north and east of the

country [82].

The possibility of existence of fault on the west coast of UAE is supported by

little and unclear information [82, 83]. A comprehensive assessment of this feature

including geomorphic and paleoseismological studies is required. Since some

instrumentally recorded earthquakes can be associated with the west coast fault

(Figure 3.4), any seismic hazard assessment of the region shall include optional

hazard values with west coast fault included.

Most of the earthquakes in Zagros region are shallow earthquakes at an

average depth of 15 km associated with blind thrust faults in the Precambrian

metamorphic rocks [21, 84]. The region has the potential to generate earthquakes with

magnitude (Ms) larger than 7. The depths of earthquake foci tend to get deeper (40

km) towards the transition between zagros and makran regions. This transition creates

complex faulting systems known as Zindan-Minab zone [85]. The Makran region

itself is subducting at an estimated rate of approximately 25 mm/yr [79].

Oman Mountains towards the northeast of UAE exhibit active seismicity.

Kusky et al 2005 [86] also reports historical seismicity associated with this

Cretaceous Ophiolite Obsduction. Instrumented earthquake with magnitude greater

than 5 has been recorded with association to this faulting mechanism. Recent studies

associate this fault system (Dibba fault, Wadi Shimal, and Wadi Ham fault) as an

33

extension of Zindab-Minab line. Since the seismic activity is not well documented for

this source, rates of uplift and deformation rates shall be used to characterize the

source.

Figure 3.3 – Tectonic Setting around U.A.E.

Plate Movement Thrust fault Transform fault

Strike slip fault Plate boundary

34

Regional Seismicity

Different databases from sources such as United States Geological Survey

(USGS) and National Geosceinces of Iran were used to develop a seismic catalogue

for the sources around UAE. The earthquake database from National Geoscience uses

various references such as National Earthquake Information Center [13], International

Seismological Center [14], Ambraseys and Melville 1982 [15], Nowroozi 1987 [16],

Nabavi 1978 [17], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [18] among

many others. Events with magnitude greater than four and between 1900 and 2010

were selected as the basis of catalogue to identify the sources. The catalogue was

cleaned using standard protocols of removing duplicated events and aftershocks and

for completeness using methods suggested by Reasenberg 1985 [87] and Knopoff

2000 [88]. Historical records of earthquakes in the region were especially considered

for Arabian Craton, Oman Mountains, and Makran region. Sources like Zargos and

Zindam Minab were characterized by instrumentally recorded data since 1910. The

abundance of instrumented events was considered sufficient for defining the slope of

Gutenberg Richter relationship which has significant effect on the outcome of Hazard.

Historical events were given due consideration in selecting the upper bound

magnitudes. Figure 3.4 presents the homogenized (Ms) seismicity catalogue of

instrumentally recorded events from National Geoseisnces of Iran.

Figure 3.4 – Seismicity Catalogue

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

45 50 55 60 65 70

Lati

tud

e

Longitude

35

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

Seismic Hazard Analysis

In this study, a computer program of ‘EZFRISK’ was used to perform the

seismic hazard analysis. EZFRISK is an implementation of the Cornell 1968 [31]

PSHA framework. The accuracy of this software was evaluated by performing a

sensitivity analysis. A simple verification example of PSHA was performed for a site

in UAE using three different seismic zone models in CRISIS [89], EZFRISK and

using manual calculations. Manual calculations were done by following the procedure

described in Kramer 1996 [39]. To make the manual calculations short and simple,

only one seismic source was used along with one attenuation relationship assigned to

the seismic source. The PGA values for a return period of 2475 years were computed.

The results of this analysis are given in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 – Verification Results

Source Attenuation Relation Manual

Calculations EZFRISK CRISIS

Oman Mountains Abramson-Silva 1997 [22] 0.046g 0.0413 0.0530

South Zagros Fold Belt Spudich et al. 1999 [110] 0.048g 0.0546g 0.0515g

Oman Peninsula Spudich et al. 1999 [110] 0.090g 0.1035g 0.1075g

For South Zagros fold belt and Oman Peninsula, the variation in the results of

CRISIS and EZFRISK is very small. Whereas, the variation for South Zagros fold

belt and Oman Peninsula is 0.003 and 0.004 respectively. The difference between the

results of CRISIS and EZFRISK increases to 0.0117 with Oman Mountains. This

increase in difference might be attributed to the use of a different attenuation

equation. However, the difference in the results between EZFRISK and manual

calculations is around 10% to 12% for all the three analyses. The increase in variation

for manual calculations might be due to manual integration. The overall results

indicate good agreement between the results of EZFRISK and CRISIS

36

Seismic Zones

The development of seismic source model is primarily based on the work of

Berberian 1995 [21], Engdahl et al. 2006 [90] and Aldama et al. 2009 [71]. The

seismic source model adopted for this study is shown in Figure 4.1. The seismic

source model comprises of seven distinct seismic sources. The southern boundary of

South Zargros has been extended into the Persian Gulf instead of being along the

Iranian coast due to uncertainty associated with constraining of the boundary.

Moving the boundary of South Zargros northward can increase the seismicity of

stable Arabian Craton with potentially higher hazard levels in the southern and central

cities such as Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

The proposed boundary of South Zargros although may slightly increase the

level of hazard in northern cities but is not expected to cause significant increase in

hazard in other distant cities. Dividing the South Zargos into another small zone in the

south based on the presence of Zargos foredeep [21] will push the seismicity

associated with Zargos region northwards and will result in under estimation of

seismic hazard. Although further subdivision of South Zargos can be justified by

geological evidence, it is not in agreement with the spatial or temporal distribution of

seismic events; therefore, a single zone of South Zargos was adopted.

Figure 4.1 – Seismic source model for this study

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

45 50 55 60 65 70

Lat

itu

de

Longitude

Makran

Makran

Bottom

Arabian Craton

Oman Mountains

Transition

37

Recurrence parameters

The parameters for all the source zones were calculated using the doubly

bounded exponential distribution [91]. The activity parameters (λ at Mmin and β) for

Oman mountains (includes all faults), west coast fault (when included) and Makran

bottom (Inerplate fault) were computed by using the method proposed by Youngs and

Coppersmith 1985 [92]. The slip rates and shape of the fault was used to estimate the

seismic moments and then the magnitude-recurrence relationship to determine the

activity parameters.

For Arabian Craton, the β parameter was obtained from seismicity of the

source. Previous studies [19, 20] indicate a larger value of this parameter. The value

of 1.16 was selected because subsequent analysis of hazard for the region indicated

insignificant effect on the total hazard due to major contribution of other dominant

sources.

The upper bound magnitudes (Mmax) were selected as the maximum of

historical seismicity, instrumented seismicity, and computation using relationships by

Wells and Coppersmith 1994 [93] for known geometry of faults. The parameters for

doubly bounded Gutenberg-Richter relationships for all source zones are presented in

Table 4.2.

Table 4.2– Activity parameters used in this study.

Seismic Source Fault Mechanism Mmin Mmax λ at Mmin β - beta

High Zagros Reverse 4 7.1 16.27 2.2529

South Zagros Reverse 4 7.1 2.056 1.96

Oman Mountains Strike Slip 4 7.0 0.625 2.5

Makran Top Intraslab 4 6.8 1.07 1.63

Makran Bottom Interface 4 8.0 2 1.796

Zagros Makran Transition Strike slip 4 7 5.045 1.998

Arabian Craton Reverse 4 6.5 0.116 1.1555

Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE)

Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE) are used to estimate the ground

motion parameter at certain location from a magnitude-distance scenario. The

equations derived from the statistical analysis of recorded ground motion data for the

area of interest are preferred. There were no established seismograph networks in

38

UAE until recently established by the governments of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Consequently ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) specific to UAE are not

available. All seismic hazard analysis performed for the region use GMPEs developed

for other geographical areas. The choice of these equations often is based on

guidelines proposed by Cotton et al 2006 [94]. Alternatively equations (New

Generation Equations) that were developed after the analysis of worldwide seismicity

are increasingly being used.

A total of seven different GMPEs were used in this study including new

generation equations. Different seismic sources were assigned at least two GMPEs

except for the Arabian Craton along with conversion to geometric mean wherever

applicable. Three New Generation Equations of Boore and Atkinson 2008 [95],

Abrahamson and Silva 2008 [96], Campbell and Borzognia 2008 [97] along with

Abrahamson and Silva 1997 [22] were assigned to sources of Zagros and the Oman

Mountains. For the Makran region, Atkinson and Boore 2003 [98] and Youngs et al.

1997 [23] were used due to their suitability for earthquakes generated in subduction

zones. The equation by Atkinson and Boore 2006 [99] was assigned to the Arabian

Craton.

Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis

The computer application used in this study facilitates the option of

performing single site and multi-site seismic hazard analysis. Hence, the shape of

U.A.E. was defined in EZFRISK and a grid of nodes was plotted on the U.A.E. map.

Latitudes and Longitudes of all the nodes were recorded. EZFRISK already has a

predefined seismic source model for the Middle East. But for this study, a separate

seismic source model was defined in EZFRISK along with recurrence parameters for

each source. The attenuation equations obtained from EZFRISK’s database were

assigned to the seismic source zones. The input data was validated and gridded

seismic hazard analysis was performed. Figure 4.2 shows the gridded map of U.A.E.

developed in EZFRISK.

39

Figure 4.2 – Grid of nodes used in Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis.

Presentation of results for Seismic Hazard Analysis

For each of the nodes in the grid in Figure 4.2, EZFRISK produced a seismic

curve and a uniform hazard spectrum (UHS). Seismic curves corresponding to

spectral acceleration of 0.2s, 1s and 3s are also produced. Preferences for Uniform

Hazard Spectra (UHS) can also be predefined in EZFRISK depending on the need.

UHS can be plotted for any return period.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis combines all the seismic source zones

to determine the hazard at a particular site. However, designers and researchers

usually are also interested in the contribution of the sources to the hazard. The process

of determining the contribution from the seismic sources to the hazard at site is called

‘Deaggregation’. EZFRISK has the option of performing deaggregtation for any

spectral acceleration. The results are presented in the form of 2D and 3D graphs

showing the contribution of each combination magnitude and distance has to the

hazard. Since our aim is to find the combination of magnitude and distance which

contributed greatest to the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on the site of interest, the

PGA should be known before performing deaggregation. Therefore, the seismic

hazard analysis was performed first without the deaggregation option. Once the PGA

was known, the seismic hazard analysis was repeated with the deaggregation option

activated. Using the distance and magnitude combination that contributed greatest to

22

22.5

23

23.5

24

24.5

25

25.5

26

26.5

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

La

titu

de

Longitude

40

the hazard, ground motion time histories were selected for spectral matching and site

response analysis for Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Deaggregation was performed

for all the seven emirates of U.A.E.

Spectral Matching

Constructing an accurate representative time history for a target spectrum is

integral in the outcome of any site response analysis. This will rely on the results of

deaggregation from gridded seismic hazard analysis. In this study, a commercial

computer software called RSP Match EDT was used to match time histories results to

the target spectra.

This application required two major inputs for matching:

• Target response spectrum – is a result of Seismic Hazard Analysis. For Dubai,

Sharjah and Abu Dhabi, these were obtained from the results of Gridded

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (GPSHA) of U.A.E. This is called ‘Target’

because the response spectrum of a time history is customized to be matched to

this response spectrum.

• Time histories to be matched – two time histories each for Dubai, Sharjah and

Abu Dhabi were chosen according to the criteria described by Bommer and

Avecedo 2004 [100] for selection of time histories. Bommer and Avecedo 2004

[100] mention some conditions for selecting the ground motion time histories such

as the spectral shape and similarity in magnitude and distance. Therefore, each

response spectrum of the chosen time history was compared to the target spectrum

to choose the time history which gives the closest response spectrum in terms of

the shape along with the closeness in deaggregation results (Table 4.3). An

alternative to obtain the input ground motion was to create an artificial time

histories to match regional mechanisms for the Arabian Peninsula region.

However, selecting the time histories based on parameters such as magnitude,

source to site distance and Peak Ground Acceleration is more important than

based on the local mechanism [100].

Other input values such as the maximum waves, maximum wavelets and

interpolation values were required by RSP Match EDT. The values used for those

inputs are given in Figure 21 which shows the screen shot of the main menu of RSP

Match EDT. Defaults values for some of the parameters were used because, according

41

to the manual of RSP Match EDT, they were not known to affect the matching

process significantly.

The ground motion time histories selected were in PEER (Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research) format. Therefore, the time histories had been converted to the

compatible format before matching was done. Once the suit of time histories was

ready, target response spectrum was defined and RSP Match EDT was run. The

details of time histories used for matching are given in Table 4.4.

Table 4.3 – Criteria for selecting time histories

Cities PGA Range (g) Magnitude Range Distance Range (km)

Dubai 0.10-0.12 5.5-6.5 20-40

Abu Dhabi 0.07-0.1 5.5-6 35-45

Sharjah 0.12-0.13 5.5-6 25-35

Table 4.4 – Time histories selected for spectral matching

City Earthquake Station Component PGA

(g)

Distance

(km) Magnitude

Dubai

Chi-Chi,

Taiwan-02

1757, 09/19/79

CWB 9999936

TCU129

TCU-129-

E 0.1173 27 5.9

Dubai

Morgan Hill

1984-04-24

21:15

CDMG 47006

Gilroy - Gavilan

Coll.

GIL 337 0.1014 25 6.19

Abu

Dhabi

Whittier

Narrows-01

1987-10-01

14:42

USC 90062 Mill

Creek, Angeles

Nat For

A-ANG090 0.071

38 5.99

Abu

Dhabi

Little Skull

Mtn,NV 1992-

06-29

USGS 99999

Station #2-NTS

Control Pt. 1

LSM-2270 0.091 30 5.9

Sharjah

Whittier

Narrows-01

1987-10-01

14:42

USC 90062 Mill

Creek, Angeles

Nat For

A-ANG000 0.089 38 5.99

Sharjah

Little Skull

Mtn,NV 1992-

06-29

USGS 99999

Station #2-NTS

Control Pt. 1

LSM-2000 0.119 30 5.19

42

Site Response Analysis

Amplification of seismic waves has been witnessed in the past in earthquakes

such as the Mexico City in 1985, Los Angeles in 1995 and San Francisco in 1989

[101, 102]. The soil amplification is sometimes known to be the sole reason behind

the disastrous consequences of an earthquake. Although the Mexico City earthquake

originated from a distance of 400kms, the seismic waves in Mexico were amplified by

five times the original intensity. Hence, the intensity of site amplification on seismic

waves is an important factor in designing structures to mitigate earthquake damage.

To predict site amplification, the knowledge of variation of shear wave

velocities laterally and in depth for different points in a region is essential. Other

required information is the unit weights and both damping ratio and shear modulus

curves for different soil in the site profile. While the static properties of soil profiles

can be retrieved from the geotechnical investigations done for majority of private and

government projects, few projects attempt to perform geophysical investigations to

determine the dynamic properties. Therefore, the geophysical data available for site

response analysis is limited.

In this study, 1D equivalent linear site response analysis was performed for

around 100 boreholes from different parts of U.A.E. Borehole logs were selected

based on the spatial distribution for cities of Dubai, Sharjah and Abu Dhabi. These

borehole logs represented typical sand and rock composition in U.A.E. The

commercial program SHAKE 2000 was used to perform site response analyses on

these 100 boreholes.

SHAKE 2000 is a FORTRAN program used for performing one dimensional,

equivalent nonlinear site response analysis. It is one of the oldest geotechnical

earthquake engineering programs developed for mainframe environments in 1970’s

by Schnabel et al. 1972 [77]. Since then it has gone through many modifications to

make it more user friendly and compatible for today’s advanced computer features.

Inputs for SHAKE 2000

• Thickness and material type for Layers - will depend on the geology and

composition of underground soils. The borehole logs were used to define the

material type and thickness values to be input to SHAKE 2000.

43

• Shear modulus and Damping ratio curves - depending on the type of soil in the

borhole profile, shear modulus and damping curves were assigned to those

layers. Several damping and modulus curves have been proposed in the past

such as Schnabel 1973 [103], Seed et al. 1986 [104], and Sun et al. 1988

[105]. These studies have been derived for specific soil types such as sand,

clay and gravel. In UAE, majority of the top composition of soils are sandy.

Hence, two widely accepted shear modulus and damping curves (Seed and

Idriss 1970 [106] for sandy soils, and Schnabel 1973 [103] for rocks) were

used in this study. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the plots of modulus reduction

and damping ratio curves used for both sandy soil and bedrock.

Figure 4.3 – Modulus reduction curves

Figure 4.4 – Damping ratio curves

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Mo

du

lus

Red

uct

ion

(G

/Gm

ax

)

Strain (%)

Seed and Idriss

(1970)

Schnabel (1973)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Dam

pin

g r

ati

o (

%)

Strain (%)

Seed and Idriss

(1970)

Schnabel (1973)

44

• Shear Wave Velocity - is the dynamic property that used to characterize the

strength of soil. Stiff soils are known to have greater shear wave velocities

than soft soils. Various geophysical methods such as seismic refraction

surveys, seismic crosshole and downhole tests and seismic cone penetration

test (SCPT) have been developed over the years to measure shear wave

velocity of soils. However, since the geophysical tests are usually expensive to

perform, many researchers have developed correlations which can be used to

predict shear wave velocity using in site tests such as Standard Penetration

Test Number (SPT-N). In this study, the correlations proposed by Hasancebi

and Ulusay 2006 [24], Shibata (1970) [25], Seed and Idriss (1981) [26] and

Athanasopoulos (1995) [27] were used to estimate average shear wave

velocities of different soil layers from the soils’ SPT-N values (Equations 4.1,

4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 respectively).

V# = 90.82 × N+.��, [4.1]

V# = 31.7 × N+.�0 [4.2]

V# = 61.4 × N+.� [4.3]

V# = 107.6 × N+.�� [4.4]

Where Vs – shear wave velocity in m/s

N – Standard Penetration Test Number (SPT-N)

The variation of the shear velocity predicted using the four abovementioned

equations for one borehole loge is shown in Figure 4.5. Despite the similarity in the

trend of shear wave velocity predicted with the four equations with depth, some

discrepancies are clear from the figure. For example; the shear wave velocity values

predicted by Shibata (1970) [4.2] and Hasancebi and Ulusay (2006) [4.1] are closer to

each other and located in the lower side of the shear wave velocity axis. However,

values predicted by Seed and Idriss (1981) [4.3] and Athanasopoulos (1995) [4.4] are

in good agreement and located in the larger side of shear wave velocity axis. To

remove these discrepancies, it is decided to use the average shear wave velocity

predicted by the four proposed equations.

45

Figure 4.5 – Plot of shear wave velocity versus depth

For each of the boreholes, the average value of the shear wave velocities

predicted from the four proposed correlation equations was used. In some cases where

there were more than one SPT-N value given in a layer, the group of SPT-N values

were averaged to estimate a representative shear wave velocity for the layer.

For rocks, Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) was used to predict the

shear wave velocity. The values of UCS were obtained from the borehole logs

collected in this study. The correlations proposed by Gotkan (1988) [28], Khandelwal

and singh (2009) [29] and Chary et al. (2006) [30] were used to predict the shear

wave velocity (Equations 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 respectively).

25

20

15

10

5

00 200 400 600 800

Depth

(m

)

Shear wave velocity (m/s)

Seed and Idriss (1981)

Athanasopoulos (1995)

Shibata (1970) Hasancebi and Ulusay (2006)

Average

46

V3 = 4�#5��.��+.+�� [4.5]

V3 = 4�#5�.�,+.���� [4.6]

V3 = 4�#50.���+.+�00 [4.7]

Where VP is compressional wave velocity and UCS is Unconfined Compression

Strength (MPa).

These correlations predicted the compressional wave velocity of the bedrock

from its Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS). Therefore, with an assumption of

the value of Poisson’s ratio, shear wave velocity was computed using Equation [4.8].

VS=VP

62-2µ

1-2µ

[4.8]

Where VP = compressional wave velocity (m/s), VS = shear wave velocity (m/s) and µ

= Poisson’s ratio

As in the case of SPT-N, the layers for which more than one UCS value were

measured; an average value of shear wave velocity corresponding to an average UCS

for that layer was used for representing the layer in site response analysis.

• Unit Weight - is a static property of soils measuring the degree of compaction of the

soils. The study of Koloski et al. 1989 [107] was used to determine the unit weights

for different types of soils. The values given in this study are in the form of ranges.

Hence, average values were selected because a small variation in unit weight does not

affect the results of site response analysis drastically. To verify this conclusion, a

selected ground motion was propagated beneath two identical soil profiles with

different unite weight, using SHAKE 2000. Figure 4.6 shows the results in the form

of response spectra of top layers. In both cases, good agreement between the response

spectra is clear (i.e. the red and green plots).

• Input Ground Motion Time Histories - are required to be propagated through soil

profiles defined in SHAKE 2000 in order to find the response of soils. After RSP

spectral matching for Dubai, Sharjah and Abu Dhabi was performed, the matched

time histories shown in Table 4.4 were input in SHAKE 2000. The input motion time

47

histories have to be defined in a SHAKE 2000 compatible form in order to run.

Hence, the time histories were converted in SHAKE 2000 compatible form using the

option available in SHAKE2000.

Figures 4.6 – Response spectra on surface and half space using LSM2270

Input Motion Assigned to a Layer

The purpose of performing site response analysis is to measure the response of

a soil profile on a time history when the time history is propagated through it. The

time history has to be assigned on top of a particular layer. That layer is called the half

space or the engineering bedrock (Vs = 760 m/s).

Results obtained

Once all the input data was entered, SHAKE 2000 was made to run and

process the results. Numerous results such as the response spectra, amplitude spectra,

Fourier spectra and resulting time histories were obtained from SHAKE 2000

processed files. Depending on the need of the user, the options for output data can be

customized. In this study, the only outputs required from the site response analysis

were the response spectra on the surface layer and the half space. The response

spectrum represents the maximum response of a single degree of freedom (SDOF)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.03 0.3 3

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

LSM2270

one profile

second

profile

48

system as a function of the natural frequency of the system and used to model the

response of structures [39].

Site Classification

Average Shear Wave Velocity is used to represent a soil profile. Weighted

average shear wave velocity for the top 30m of a soil profile was computed for each

soil profile because the top 30m is largely responsible for site amplification [108].

This method of site classification is also adopted by National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program [49] also. Therefore, it will be used in this study. However, in

some cases, the engineering bedrock (VS ≥ 760m/s) was encountered before 30m, so

the average shear wave velocity was calculated for the depth above the engineering

bedrock. While in other instances, where the engineering bedrock was deeper than

30m, the 30m average shear wave velocity was used because if little or no

information is available for larger depths, the 30m assumption may be adequate to

estimate site response [109].

The average shear wave velocities for the top 30m (VS30) of all soil profiles

were computed in order to determine site classes of soil profiles according to the soil

classification of NEHRP [49]. All the 100 boreholes used in this study were either site

class C (VS is 360m/s to 760m/s) or D (VS is 180m/s to 360m/s). The input ground

motion was propagated from half space layer (below 30m) and the response was

recorded at the top of surface layer by SHAKE 2000. In some cases, half space was

less than 30m because the engineering bedrock velocity (760 m/s – Site class B) was

encountered at a depth before 30 m.

Computing Site Factors

Using the response spectra on the surface layer and half space, site

amplification factors were calculated at 0.2 and 1s periods. An example is shown in

Figure 2.5. The red color response spectrum is at the half space and the blue color is

at the surface layer. Using the values from the two response spectra, FA and FV were

calculated for all sites used in this study. Statistical analysis was performed on

response spectra on surface of all the boreholes.

49

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Gridded Seismic Hazard Analysis

A comprehensive probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was performed for

UAE using modified source model, updated catalogue of seismic events, and new

generation attenuation equations. The main results of the study are presented in this

section. All results correspond to 2 % probability of excedence in 50 years on rock

sites unless stated otherwise. This level of probability corresponds to the ground

motion at the site and not of the events that generate ground motions. The results

include contour maps of PGA and spectral accelerations, seismic hazard curves,

Uniform Hazard Spectra, and PGA and spectral accelerations for main cities with and

without the effect of west coast fault.

The hazard curves for selected cities are presented in Figure 5.1. The peak

ground accelerations corresponding to different return periods can be determined from

the plot. Five out of eight cities which are on the western side of U.A.E. follow a

similar pattern because of dominant effect from seismicity in Zagros region.

However, Fujairah has a slightly different trend because of larger contribution from

Oman Mountains. At larger return periods, the seismicity of Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman

and Ras Al Khaimah overcomes the seismicity of Fujairah because of larger

contribution from near sources such as Arabian stable craton.

The annual rate of exceedence (λ (1/yr)) for a return period of 2475 years is

calculated using Equation [5.1]. Using the value of λ1/yr and seismic curves in Figure

5.1, Peak Ground Accelerations for eight cities of U.A.E. were estimated. PGAs

corresponding to other return periods (475 and 10000 years) were also calculated in

order to compare the results of this study and previous studies.

7� 89:� = �;< [5.1]

Tables 5.1 to 5.3 show the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and spectral

accelerations for major cities in U.A.E. for return periods of 2475, 475 and 10000

years. The PGA for Ras Al Khaimah is the largest amongst the emirates lying on the

North Western boundary of U.A.E. This was expected because Ras Al Khaimah is

located closest to the Zagros region as well as to Oman Mountains. The Zagros region

was expected to be the potential hazard for cities. However, PGA for Fujairah is the

50

greatest. This is not unexpected because even though Ras Al Khaimah is closer to the

Zagros region, the effect of Oman Mountains would have contributed to the hazard

for Fujairah in addition to Zagros region.

Figure 5.1 – Seismic curves of the eight cities of U.A.E.

Table 5.1 – Spectral Accelerations for the eight cities of U.A.E.

Return Period 2475 years

Emirate Latitude Longitude PGA

(g)

0.2s

(g)

1s

(g)

2s

(g)

3s

(g)

4s

(g)

Abu Dhabi 24.5 54.35 0.073 0.178 0.075 0.045 0.025 0.017

Ajman 25.42 55.5 0.122 0.300 0.113 0.070 0.039 0.026

Sharjah 25.38 55.43 0.120 0.285 0.109 0.068 0.037 0.025

Fujairah 25.12 56.3 0.250 0.565 0.131 0.073 0.040 0.028

Dubai 25.3 55.33 0.118 0.202 0.087 0.055 0.030 0.020

Ras Al Khaimah 25.83 56 0.150 0.356 0.126 0.074 0.041 0.028

Umm al Quwain 25.46 55.6 0.144 0.314 0.118 0.071 0.040 0.027

Al Ain 24.23 55.75 0.097 0.225 0.082 0.048 0.027 0.018

1E-08

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

An

nu

al

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ex

ceed

ence

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA, g)

Ajman

Sharjah

Fujairah

Ras Al

KhaimahUmm Al

QuwainAl Ain

Dubai

Abu Dhabi

51

Table 5.2 - Spectral Accelerations for the eight cities of U.A.E.

Return Period 475 years

Emirate Latitude Longitude PGA

(g)

0.2s

(g)

1s

(g)

2s

(g)

3s

(g)

4s

(g)

Abu Dhabi 24.5 54.35 0.035 0.071 0.040 0.033 0.016 0.009

Ajman 25.42 55.5 0.055 0.140 0.058 0.033 0.020 0.012

Sharjah 25.38 55.43 0.052 0.141 0.058 0.032 0.018 0.014

Fujairah 25.12 56.3 0.113 0.249 0.057 0.032 0.018 0.012

Dubai 25.3 55.33 0.047 0.121 0.052 0.031 0.017 0.011

Ras Al Khaimah 25.83 56 0.070 0.175 0.063 0.036 0.021 0.014

Umm al Quwain 25.46 55.6 0.060 0.152 0.059 0.034 0.020 0.013

Al Ain 24.23 55.75 0.038 0.088 0.045 0.030 0.021 0.012

Table 5.3 - Spectral Accelerations for the eight cities of U.A.E.

Return Period 10000 years

Emirate Latitude Longitude PGA

(g) 0.2s (g) 1s (g) 2s (g) 3s (g) 4s (g)

Abu Dhabi 24.5 54.35 0.105 0.220 0.098 0.072 0.042 0.031

Ajman 25.42 55.5 0.162 0.380 0.151 0.088 0.053 0.033

Sharjah 25.38 55.43 0.167 0.350 0.142 0.084 0.048 0.041

Fujairah 25.12 56.3 0.337 0.813 0.178 0.094 0.053 0.036

Dubai 25.3 55.33 0.139 0.318 0.128 0.084 0.047 0.031

Ras Al Khaimah 25.83 56 0.201 0.474 0.169 0.098 0.055 0.037

Umm al Quwain 25.46 55.6 0.018 0.400 0.156 0.090 0.052 0.034

Al Ain 24.23 55.75 0.134 0.371 0.203 0.083 0.061 0.048

Comparison of the results from this study with important previous studies is

presented in Table 5.4. For the comparison it is assumed that all the authors reported

the hazard at rock sites and that the geometric mean of the horizontal component was

used in prediction equations. Except for Abdallah and Al Hamoud 2004 [7] all studies

practically gives similar results for the cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. For Ras Al

Khaimah however, the estimate of most recent study [71] is under estimated. As noted

earlier in the section of seismic zonations, the extension of southern boundary of

South Zargos will slightly elevate the seismic hazard in northern cities of UAE. This

small increase is justifiable because the inclusion of events along the coast of Iran in

the activity of Arabian Craton will unnecessarily increase the hazard in central and

southern UAE. Creation of new smaller zone at the south of South Zargos is also not

supported by spatial distribution of events. This new zone will result in the

52

underestimation of Zargos region as a source capable of generating strong ground

motions in UAE.

Figures 5.2-5.4 show the comparison of seismic curves for Peak Ground

Acceleration of this study with Aldama et al. 2009 [71] and Peiris et al. 2006 [8] for

Abu Dhabi, Ras Al Khaimah and Dubai. These figures also indicate the closeness of

results amongst these studies for PGA. Abdallah and Al Homoud (2004) only

presented the contour maps of Peak Ground Acceleration for U.A.E. Therefore, the

seismic curves of their seismic hazard analysis could not be presented here.

Table 5.4 – Comparing PGAs of this study with some of the previous hazard studies

Peiris et al (2006)

Aldama et al.

(2009)

Abdalla and Al

Homoud (2004) This study

City 475 yr 2475 yr 475 yr 2475 yr 475 yr 2475 yr 475 yr 2475 yr

Dubai 0.060 0.120 0.047 0.090 0.153 0.194 0.047 0.117

Abu Dhabi 0.050 0.100 0.035 0.080 0.122 0.143 0.035 0.072

Ras Al

Khaimah - - 0.060 0.110 0.163 0.224 0.07 0.149

Figure 5.2 – Comparison of seismic curves for Abu Dhabi (PGA)

1E-08

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0.027 0.27 2.7

An

nu

al

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ex

ceed

ence

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA, g)

This study

Aldama et al.

2009

Peiris et al.

2006

53

Figure 5.3 – Comparison of seismic curves for Ras Al Khaimah (PGA)

Figure 5.4 – Comparison of seismic curves for Dubai (PGA)

Figure 5.5 presents the Uniform Hazard Curves for selected cities for a return

period of 2475 years. This figure also signifies the difference between the hazard of

Fujairah and other emirates. The spectral acceleration at 0.2s for Fujairah is almost

twice that of Ras Al Khaimah. The Uniform Hazard Spectra of Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman

and Umm Al Quwain are very close to each other due to the fact that they are

spatially very close.

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ex

ceed

ence

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA, g)

This study

Aldama et al. 2009

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0.027 0.27

An

nu

al

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ex

ceed

ence

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA, g)

This study

Aldama et al.

2009

Peiris et al.

2006

54

Figure 5.6 compares the Uniform Hazard Spectra for a return period of 2475

years for Dubai of this study with that of Sigbjornsson and Elnashai 2006 [74], Peiris

et al 2006 [8] and Aldama et al. 2009 [71]. Clearly the UHS of Sigbjornsson and

Elnashai 2006 [74] is very different from the other three studies. Although the seismic

zoning used by Sigbjornsson and Elnashai 2006 [74] is different from Abdallah and

Al Homoud 2004 [7], the results of these studies have similarities. But, as discussed

in the Literature Review, there were few shortcomings which could have made their

results conservative.

Figure 5.5 – UHS for the eight cities of U.A.E.

Figure 5.6 – Comparison of UHS for Dubai (return period - 2475 years)

0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.02 0.2 2

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tion

(g

)

Spectral Period (s)

Umm Al

QuwainRas al

khaimahDubai

Fujairah

Sharjah

Ajman

Abu Dhabi

AL Ain

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1 2 3

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erati

on

(g

)

Spectral Period (s)

Aldama et al. 2009

Sigbjornsson and elnashai

(2006)

Peiris et al (2006)

This study

55

Figure 5.7 shows the Uniform Hazard Spectra for Dubai for a return period of

475 years of this study, Aldama et al. 2009 [71], Peiris et al. 2009 [8] and Musson et

al. 2006 [68]. Musson et al. 2006 [68] is another study which has given similar

results. The UHS of this study is more in line with that of Musson et al. 2006 [68].

Figure 5.7 – Comparison of UHS for Dubai (return period - 475 years)

Contours for PGA and spectral accelerations at 0.2s and 1s

The advantage of performing the Gridded PSHA for this study was that

generalized results of PSHA could be presented to the designers which could be

interpreted easily. Hence, using the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and spectral

accelerations at 0.2s and 1s for all the nodes in the grid (Figure 4.2), a computer code

of ArcGIS was employed to plot the contour maps of the accelerations over the map

of U.A.E. Figures 5.8-5.10 present the contours of peak ground accelerations (PGA)

and spectral accelerations (S0.2 and S1) for UAE. The results indicate higher seismicity

levels towards the east and northeast of the country with relatively little difference in

seismicity level with in the southern part (emirate of Abu Dhabi) of UAE. These

results are in line with the general expectation of hazard distribution in UAE due to

the presence of active sources towards the North and East. The seismic hazard in the

cities along the western coast is generally dominated by the Zargos; whereas Oman

Mountains contribute largely to the hazard on the eastern side. PGA contour maps can

be used to retrieve the PGA for any structure. The PGA values are then used for other

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Spectral Period (s)

Aldama et al. 2009

Musson et al.

(2006)

Peiris et al. (2006)

This study

56

earthquake mitigation methods such as liquefaction assessment and seismic

displacement of retaining walls.

Figure 5.8 – Contour map for 2475 year return period Peak Ground Acceleration.

The design response spectrum for a particular structure is plotted by extracting

the data from the contour maps of spectral accelerations at 0.2 and 1s (Figure 2.6).

The values of SS and S1 are taken from the contour maps shown below according to

the approximate location of the structure. The site amplification factors FA and FV are

retrieved from a site specific response analysis performed for a particular project.

Figure 5.9 – Contour map for 2475 year return period spectral acceleration at 0.2s.

57

Figure 5.10 – Contour map for 2475 year return period spectral acceleration at 1s.

Macrozonation

Based on the Uniform Hazard Spectra and the contour maps presented above,

another map is presented in Figure 5.11. The map of U.A.E. has been divided into

zones that represent a range of Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Accelerations

at 0.2s and 1s. Based on the location of their sites, designers can obtain UHS

representative of that zone for dynamic or response analysis. The UHS representing

proposed zones (Figure 5.11) are presented in Figure 5.12. The UHS representing

major cities are presented and discussed separately (Figure 5.5). Typically the UHS

representing a specific city should be reasonably similar to UHS of the corresponding

zone presented in Figure 5.12. The development in UAE is expected to continue and

more projects are being contemplated and constructed well outside the limits of the

cities. In fact smaller cities of UAE are also growing at a considerable pace and

Figure 5.12 is an attempt to address the requirements of these areas. These spectral

accelerations would be applicable for rock site classifications only. This form of maps

has not been presented in any of the earlier hazard studies. In Figure 5.11, the legend

colors descend from the North East region of U.A.E., which includes Fujairah, to the

Southern region which includes Abu Dhabi and Al Ain.

58

Figure 5.11 – Proposed zonation of UAE based on equal increments of mapped

hazard

Figure 5.12 - UHS representing the proposed zonation of UAE

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 0.5 1 1.5

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Spectral Period

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 5

Zone 4

Zone 2

Zone 1

59

Deaggregation

The seismic hazard at a site represents the total effect of different

combinations of earthquake magnitudes and distances. Consequently, different parts

of the UHS should be matched by time histories of small and close earthquakes for

short periods and large and distant earthquakes for long periods. The choice of

magnitude and distance is aided by a technique (deaggregation) that presents (Figure

5.13) earthquake–distance combinations that make the largest contribution to the total

hazard [34, 42, and 43]. Deaggregations help the designers in choosing time histories

wisely.

The deaggregation of hazard (PGA and spectral acceleration at 1s for return

period of 475 years) for Abu Dhabi indicates that most of the hazard coming from

magnitude 6.5 earthquakes at a distance of 80–100 km contributes to the PGA or very

short period acceleration (Figure 5.13). The deaggregation of hazard for acceleration

at 1s however indicates that a mean magnitude-distance combination of 7.25 and 300

km will have the largest contribution to the hazard. As expected, contributions from

larger earthquakes occurring at longer distances tend to contribute more with the

increase in spectral period. For Abu Dhabi especially this contribution is from

earthquakes occurring in Zargos and Oman Mountains.

Figure 5.13: Deaggregation of hazard for Abu Dhabi – (a) PGA and (b) 1s

(a) (b) 4

.25

4.7

5

5.2

5

5.7

5

6.2

5

6.7

5

7.2

50

10

20

30

12

.5

62

.5

11

2.5

16

2.5

21

2.5

26

2.5

31

2.5

36

2.5

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n [

%]

4.2

5

4.7

5

5.2

5

5.7

5

6.2

5

6.7

5

7.2

5

0

5

10

12

.5

62

.5

11

2.5

16

2.5

21

2.5

26

2.5

31

2.5

36

2.5

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n [

%]

60

Figure 5.14: Deaggregation of hazard for Ras Al Khaimah – (a) PGA and (b) 1s

Figure 5.14 presents the degaggregation of PGA and S1 (return period = 2475

years) for Ras Al Khaimah. The deaggregation of PGA suggests a dominant

magnitude-distance scenario of 5 and 40 km. The deaggregation of S1 suggests two

probable scenarios. One scenario is for magnitude of 6 and distance of 40 km and the

other with a magnitude of 6.75 and distance of 200 km. The time history analysis

shall therefore consider both scenarios.

These deaggregations suggest that sites located in the south of UAE are

affected by distant earthquakes and this distance increases with increase in spectral

period. On the other hand the sites located in the North are influenced by earthquakes

that are generated in nearby active zones and also by large earthquakes in distant

zones such as Makran. The deaggregation for spectral period of 0.2s is not

significantly different than the deaggregation for PGA at this return period (2475

years) and is therefore not included.

4.2

5

4.7

5

5.2

5

5.7

5

6.2

5

6.7

5

7.2

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

.5

62

.5

11

2.5

16

2.5

21

2.5

26

2.5

31

2.5

36

2.5

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n [

%]

4.2

5

4.7

5

5.2

5

5.7

5

6.2

5

6.7

5

7.2

5

0

5

10

15

12

.5

62

.5

11

2.5

16

2.5

21

2.5

26

2.5

31

2.5

36

2.5

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n [

%]

(b)

(a)

61

Source Contribution

Along with the deaggregation performed by EZFRISK, another form of

deaggregation was performed in this study. Seismic Hazard Analysis was performed

seven times each for the cities of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Al Ain, Ras Al Khaimah and

Fujairah with each seismic source individually. This was termed as ‘Source

Contribution’.

The contributions from all the seismic sources to the seismic hazard in

selected cities are presented in Table 5.5. The table presents the values of PGA (return

period 2475) inferred from the hazard curves corresponding to individual sources for

the selected cities. The last column presents the total hazard from all sources using

the hazard curve of total seismicity.

Table 5.5: Contribution of different sources to the hazard in selected cities

As expected the effect is directly related to the proximity of a city to the

source. The total seismic hazard in Abu Dhabi is governed by seismicity from

Arabian Craton and South Zargos; whereas, the hazard in Dubai is dominated by

South Zargos. On the other hand, Oman Mountains has significant effect on the

hazard computed in Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah with later affected equally by

South Zargos.

Source

City

Arabian

Craton

High

Zagros

Oman

mountains

South

Zagros Z-M

Makran

bottom

Makran

top

TOTAL

HAZARD

Fujairah 0.019 0.025 0.203 0.035 0.034 0.036 0.011 0.244

Ras Al

Khaymah 0.024 0.036 0.093 0.092 0.043 0.032 0.013 0.149

Dubai 0.034 0.029 0.035 0.074 0.026 0.019 0.007 0.117

Al Ain 0.037 0.021 0.058 0.026 0.021 0.018 0.005 0.094

Abu Dhabi 0.040 0.023 0.017 0.037 0.019 0.010 0.003 0.072

62

PSHA with West Coast

West coast fault is reported by some studies [82] as a potential seismic source

close to the major cities of Ras Al Khaimah, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. The effect of

west coast on the PSHA was also studied. The slip rate for the fault (assumed to be

0.5 mm/yr) was used to estimate the activity parameters following the methodology

presented in earlier section. The slip rates were inferred from the study by Vernant et

al. 2004 [79] that presents the rotational movement of Arabian Peninsula from GPS

measurements. The rotational movements can be used infer the relative slip of faults

in the UAE.

Figure 5.15 presents the comparison of hazard curves for Abu Dhabi and

Dubai with and without west coast fault. The curves are very similar up to a return

period of 2475 years but tend to deviate significantly at larger return periods. The

PGA values for Abu Dhabi corresponding to return period of 2475 increases from

0.072g to 0.091g and from 0.12g to 0.23g for a return period of 10000 years.

Similarly for Dubai the PGA values corresponding to return period of 2475 increases

from 0.11g to 0.112g and from 0.22g to 0.4g for a return period of 10000 years. At

return periods of 10000 and larger the seismic hazard for Abu Dhabi and Dubai is

significantly influenced by west coast fault.

Figure 5.15: Effect of west coast fault on hazard curves

63

Spectral Matching

Ground motion time histories for site response analysis were prepared by

performing spectral matching on RSP Match EDT. Firstly, the ground motion time

histories which matched the magnitude-distance combinations resulting from

deaggregation were obtained from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

database (Table 4.4). The ground motion earthquake scenarios were for a return

period of 2475 years (2% in 50 years). Target Response Spectra for cities of Abu

Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah which represented the deaggregation scenarios were used

(Table 4.3). The objective was to match the response spectrum of the selected time

history to a target response spectrum. The resulting time history of the matched

response spectrum was used in site response analysis, as bedrock input motion.

Satisfactory spectral matching was achieved with the six ground motion time

histories for the three cities. Figures 5.16-5.21 show the matching results in the form

of response spectra of original and matched time histories along with the response

spectra of the three cities. While, the matched and the target response spectra are in

perfect agreement, the original response spectra (before spectral matching) also have

relatively closer trends to the target response spectra.

Acceleration and time plots were plotted for the original and matched time

histories to compare the changes that spectral matching might have caused. Figure

5.22-5.27 show the comparison between the original and modified time histories. The

trends of both time histories in all the figures shows similar path. No drastic changes

in the time histories can be observed.

64

Figure 5.16 - Matching ANG-090 response on Abu Dhabi Target Response Spectrum

Figure 5.17 - Matching LSM2270 response on Abu Dhabi Target Response Spectrum

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Abu Dhabi Target

spectrum

MATCHED

ORIGINAL

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erati

on

(g

)

Period (s)

Abu Dhabi Target

spectrum

Matched

Original

65

Figure 5.18 - Matching GIL337 response on Dubai Target Response Spectrum

Figure 5.19 - Matching TCU129-E response on Dubai Target Response Spectrum

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Dubai Target

Response Spectrum

Matched

Original

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Dubai Target

Response Spectrum

Matched

Original

66

Figure 5.20 - Matching ANG000 response on Sharjah Target Response Spectrum

Figure 5.21 - Matching LSM2000 response on Sharjah Target Response Spectrum

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Sharjah Target

Response Spectrum

Matched

Original

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

era

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Sharjah Target

Response Spectrum

Matched

Original

67

Figure 5.22 - Comparing ANG090 Original to Matched Time History

Figure 5.23 - Comparing LSM 2270 Original to Matched Time History

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0 5 10 15 20

Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

Time (s)

Matched

Original

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

20 25 30 35 40Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

Time (s)

Matched

Original

68

Figure 5.24 - Comparing GILL337 Original to Matched Time History

Figure 5.25 - Comparing TCU129E Original to Matched Time History

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

Time (s)

Matched

Original

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

Time (s)

Matched

Original

69

Figure 5.26 - Comparing ANG000 Original to Matched Time History

Figure 5.27 - Comparing LSM2000 Original to Matched Time History

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0 5 10 15 20

Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

Time (s)

Matched

Original

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Acc

eler

ati

on

(g

)

t

Matched

Original

70

Site Response Analysis

Once the input time histories were prepared after spectral matching, site

response analysis was performed on 100 boreholes representing different site classes

in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah. All the boreholes were categorized to be either Site

Class C or D according to site classification given in Table 2.1 [49]. Table 5.6 shows

the division of boreholes according the site class and city.

Table 5.6 – No. of boreholes for each city

City Site class C Site class D Total sites No. of Motions

Dubai 30 6 36 2

Sharjah 19 17 36 2

Abu Dhabi 25 5 30 2

Typical results of site response analysis are the Response Spectra of the half

space and at the top of surface layers. The amplification factors are computed by

dividing the response spectra at the surface by the response spectra at half space.

Since numerous site response analyses were performed in this study, some statistical

methods were adopted to compute the average response spectra and amplification for

Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The results presented here were segregated for site

class C and D for each of Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Figures 5.28 and 5.29 show the response spectra at surface for Sharjah for site

classes C and D, respectively. The response spectrum of the input time history has

also been plotted for comparison. The hatched area in these figures is the predominant

period range depending upon the site classes and depth of a soil column. Equation 5.2

was used to calculate this range for low strain zones.

TS= 4H

VS [5.2]

Where; VS is the average shear wave velocity of a soil column with a height H.

Average height of 30m was used for Dubai and Sharjah and 25m for Abu Dhabi

because majority of the boreholes obtained had depths close to 25m or 30m.

Figure 5.28 – Response Spectra for Sharjah for Site Class C

Figure 5.29 – Response spectra for Sharjah for Site Class D

71

Response Spectra for Sharjah for Site Class C

Response spectra for Sharjah for Site Class D

According to Equation

depends on the average shear

Theoretically, the peaks of the response spectra of the various boreholes should be

within the range of predominant periods of the respective site class. However, in the

case of site class C for Sharjah, most of

natural period than the theoretical one (out of predominant period range). This could

be because the depths of several soil columns found in Sharjah were greater than 30m.

The response spectra peak in the case of

right because of the low average shear wave velocities of site class D boreholes.

Therefore, the natural periods of the sites are within the theoretical natural period of a

site class D. This can also be observed in

amplification factors for site class C and D.

The amplification factors were computed after dividing the surface response

spectra by the input motion response spectra for all the boreholes of Sharjah for Site

classes C and D. The greatest amplification factors of 4

the range of 0.4-0.6s. At 0.2s and 1s, the amplification factors vary from 1.2 to 2.8

and 1 to 1.5 respectively. It can be appreciated from the figures that the ranges of

amplification factors are within one standard deviation.

Figure 5.30 – Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class C

72

quation [5.1], the predominant period (site class natural period)

depends on the average shear wave velocity and height of the soil column.

Theoretically, the peaks of the response spectra of the various boreholes should be

within the range of predominant periods of the respective site class. However, in the

case of site class C for Sharjah, most of the response spectra peaks have a greater

natural period than the theoretical one (out of predominant period range). This could

be because the depths of several soil columns found in Sharjah were greater than 30m.

The response spectra peak in the case of site class D (Figure 5.29) shift to the

right because of the low average shear wave velocities of site class D boreholes.

Therefore, the natural periods of the sites are within the theoretical natural period of a

site class D. This can also be observed in the Figures 5.30 and 5.31 which show the

amplification factors for site class C and D.

The amplification factors were computed after dividing the surface response

spectra by the input motion response spectra for all the boreholes of Sharjah for Site

sses C and D. The greatest amplification factors of 4 – 6 can be observed within

0.6s. At 0.2s and 1s, the amplification factors vary from 1.2 to 2.8

and 1 to 1.5 respectively. It can be appreciated from the figures that the ranges of

ification factors are within one standard deviation.

Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class C

, the predominant period (site class natural period)

wave velocity and height of the soil column.

Theoretically, the peaks of the response spectra of the various boreholes should be

within the range of predominant periods of the respective site class. However, in the

the response spectra peaks have a greater

natural period than the theoretical one (out of predominant period range). This could

be because the depths of several soil columns found in Sharjah were greater than 30m.

site class D (Figure 5.29) shift to the

right because of the low average shear wave velocities of site class D boreholes.

Therefore, the natural periods of the sites are within the theoretical natural period of a

the Figures 5.30 and 5.31 which show the

The amplification factors were computed after dividing the surface response

spectra by the input motion response spectra for all the boreholes of Sharjah for Site

6 can be observed within

0.6s. At 0.2s and 1s, the amplification factors vary from 1.2 to 2.8

and 1 to 1.5 respectively. It can be appreciated from the figures that the ranges of

Figure 5.31 – Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class D

Figure 5.32 – Response Spectra for Dubai for Site Class C

0 . 0 10 . 0

0 . 2

0 . 4

0 . 6

0 . 8

1 . 0

1 . 2

in p u t m o t io n

R a n g e o f p r e d o m in a n t pe r io d sfo r S ite _ C ( W h i tm an 1 9 9 0 )

a ) R e s p o n s e a c c e le ra ti o n fo r s it e c la s s _ C (D u b a i )

Resp

onse

acce

lera

tion

, S

a (

g)

73

Amplification factors for Sharjah for Site Class D

Response Spectra for Dubai for Site Class C

0 . 1 1

in p u t m o t io n

R a n g e o f p r e d o m in a n t pe r io d sfo r S ite _ C ( W h i tm an 1 9 9 0 )

a ) R e s p o n s e a c c e le ra ti o n fo r s it e c la s s _ C (D u b a i )

S p e c tr a l p e rio d ( s )

4

74

Figure 5.33– Response Spectra for Dubai for Site Class D

Figures 5.32 and 5.33 present the response spectra of soil columns in Dubai.

The peaks of the spectra are scattered relative to Sharjah because the soil columns of

Dubai analyzed in this study had various depths. The depths varied from 20 to 45m.

Moreover, the nature of the soil columns was also observed to be very inconsistent.

While the engineering bedrock for some soil columns was very deep, other soil

columns had the engineering bedrock located at a depth low as 10m below ground

surface. In general, however, the soil columns of Dubai were found to be stiffer than

of Sharjah. This is the reason for the amplification factors for Dubai to be lower than

that for Sharjah. Figure 5.34 shows the peak amplification factors to be around 3-4 in

the range of 0.2 to 0.4s time period.

0 .0 1 0 . 1 1 40 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

in p u t m o tio n

P r e d o m in a n t p e r i o d r a n g efo r S ite _ D ( W h itm a n 1 9 9 0 )

a ) R e s p o n s e a c c e l e r a t io n fo r s ite c la s s _ D ( D u b a i )

S p e c t r a l p e rio d (s )

Respo

nse a

ccele

ration

, S

a (

g)

75

Figure 5.34 – Amplification factors for Dubai for Site Classes C and D with two input

motions

.

Figure 5.35 – Response Spectra for Abu Dhabi for Site Class C

0 . 0 1 0 .1 1 20

1

2

3

4

5

b ) S it e c l a s s _ D

( o u tc r o p a c c e l e ra t io n _ 1 )

0 . 0 1 0 .1 1 20

1

2

3

4

5

S p e c t r a l p e r i o d ( s )

d ) S it e c la s s _ D

( o u t c r o p a c c e l e r a t io n _ 2 )

0 .01 0 .1 1 40.0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

1 .4

1 .6

1 .8

2 .0

Av e ra g e Sa

inp u t m o tion

R an g e o f p re do m i na n t p e r io d s

fo r S i te _C (W h itm a n 1 99 0 )

a ) R e s p o n s e a c c e le ra tio n fo r s i te c las s _C ( Ab u D h ab i)

S pecra l pe r io d (s)

Resp

onse a

cce

lera

tion, S

a (

g)

76

Figure 5.36 – Response Spectra for Abu Dhabi for Site Class D

Figure 5.35 and 5.36 present the response spectra for all the soil columns of

Abu Dhabi. These are similar to those of Dubai. The peaks of the response spectra are

scattered and away from the natural period of the respective sites because majority of

the boreholes used from Abu Dhabi varied of 15 to 25m depth. Response spectra in

site class C seem to be closer to the predominant period range because the natural

period of the input motion is relatively close to predominant period range causing

what is expected to be premature resonance of the sites.

The soil column composition of boreholes of Abu Dhabi was very similar to

that of Dubai. Most of the boreholes had very shallow engineering bedrock. But the

amplification factors for Abu Dhabi are greater than those of Dubai (Figure 5.37 and

5.38). One reason for high amplification could be the difference in shear wave

velocities between the engineering bedrock and the surface [39, 109]. Many boreholes

in Abu Dhabi were found to have a very weak top layer as compared to the bedrock.

The amplification factors ranged from 4 to 8 in the time period range of 0.1 to 0.2s for

both site class C and D.

0 .0 1 0 .1 1 40 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

1 .4

1 .6

1 .8

2 .0

A v e ra g e Sain p u t m o tio n

P re d o m in a n t p e r io d ra n g e

fo r S ite _ D (W h itm a n 1 9 9 0 )

a ) R e s p o n s e a c c e le ra t io n fo r s ite c la s s _ D (A b u D h a b i)

S p e c tra l p e r io d (s )

Re

spo

nse a

cce

lera

tio

n, S

a (

g)

77

Figure 5.37– Amplification factors for Abu Dhabi for Site Class C

Figure 5.38 - Amplification factors for Abu Dhabi for Site Class D

0 .01 0 .1 1 20

2

4

6

8

10

A ve rage

+ /- St . D ev ia tion

Predom inant pe riod range

fo r S i te_C (W hi tm an 1990 )

a) Am pl ifi ca tion factor for si te cl as s_C (Abu D hab i )

Am

plifi

catio

n f

act

or,

AF

0.0 1 0 .1 1 20 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

Spe

ctr

al a

ccele

ratio

n, S

a (g

)

Sp ec tra l Pe riod (s )

b) Inpu t r ock m ot io n

0 .0 1 0 .1 1 20

2

4

6

8

1 0

A ve rage

+ /- St . De v iat ion

P re d om in a nt p er io d

fo r S ite _D (W hi tm a n 1 9 90 )

a) A m p li f ica tio n fa c to r fo r s i te c l ass _D (A b u D h ab i)

Am

plif

ica

tio

n f

acto

r, A

F

0.0 1 0 .1 1 20.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Spe

ctra

l accele

ration,

Sa (

g)

S |p ec tral P erio d (s )

b) In put rock m ot io n

78

The amplification factors at 0.2s (short period) and 1s (long period) have been

summarized in for Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The amplification factors were

compared to NEHRP 2009 amplification factors. Factors at 0.2s for U.A.E cities are

greater than those of NEHRP 2009. In addition to the factors at 0.2 and 1s, the

amplification for Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is also presented. According to the

table, the PGA is expected to amplify by 2 to 3 times at the surface from the bed rock.

Table 5.7 – Site amplification factors

City

Site Class

PGA

0.2 sec

1.0 sec

Current Study Code* Current Study Code*

Sharjah

C 2.18 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.7

D 2.18 2 1.6 1.5 2.4

Dubai

C 3.6 2.7 1.2 1.3 1.7

D 3.4 3.6 1.6 1.25 2.4

Abu Dhabi

C 3.6 2.6 1.2 1 1.7

D 3.4 3.2 1.6 1.1 2.4

*NEHRP 2009

79

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Seismic hazard maps for U.A.E., seismic hazard curves, and Uniform Hazard

Spectra (UHS) for selected cities have been developed in the scope of this study using

commercial software of EZ-Frisk by Risk Engineering. Modified seismic source

model was developed for U.A.E. and its surroundings based on the updated

homogenized seismicity catalogue and recurrence parameters. Seven Ground Motion

Prediction Equations (GMPEs) including the New Generation Attenuation (NGA)

equations were assigned on the seismic sources. PSHA was performed at each node of

grid representing U.A.E. to construct the seismic hazard contour maps. Moreover, the

effect of the west coast fault on PSHA has been discussed and results with and

without west coast fault have been compared.

Six time histories (two each for Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah) were selected

based on the deaggregation results from PSHA. The time histories were matched to

the response spectra of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah obtained from PSHA results.

Commercially available software of RSP Match EDT from Geo Motions was used for

spectral matching. A comparison between the original and matched time histories is

presented in the form of acceleration time graphs and response spectra. 1-D

equivalent linear Site response analysis was performed on a total of 100 soil columns

using SHAKE 2000, a windows based computer program for 1-D analysis. There

were several inputs required by SHAKE 2000 such as the shear wave velocities, input

ground motion time histories and shear modulus and damping ratio curves. The

results were presented in the form of response spectra on the surface along with

amplification factors for Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah.

The Uniform Hazard Spectra and seismic curves for PGA indicate largest

hazard ground motion in Fujairah because of the contribution from both Zagros region

and Oman Mountains. However, at longer return periods, seismicity of Northern

Emirates becomes more than Fujairah because of dominance of local seismicity.

Deaggregations results suggest that the activity in Arabian Craton contributes

mostly to the hazard in most southern part of UAE. The contribution of other sources

such as Zargos and Oman mountains increases as one move towards the North.

Western region of U.A.E. is dominated by seismicity from Zargos whereas Oman

80

Mountains has the greatest effect on the east. The hazard in the most northerly city of

Ras Al Khaimah is influenced equally by seismicity in Zargos and Oman Mountains.

The effect of west coast fault is significant especially at larger return periods

and should be taken into account if future studies indicate the presence of a fault

along the west coast of UAE and prevalent building codes adopts lower probability of

exceedance. The activity parameters assumed for this study are conservative as very

rare, if any events can be associated with this fault.

The results of this study indicate slightly larger values of seismic hazard

compared to some recently published studies. The results of previous studies that

suggest higher values are considered as overestimated based on many short comings

such as inappropriate source models, mislocated events in the seismic catalogue, and

inappropriate choice of prediction equations.

Site response analysis results suggest more amplification in Sharjah than in

Dubai and Abu Dhabi because of deep engineering bedrocks in Sharjah. The response

spectra of Abu Dhabi and Dubai are scattered as compared to Sharjah because of the

variance in soil column depths in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The greatest amplification factors for Sharjah are in the range of 4 – 6 within

the range of 0.4-0.6s. At 0.2s and 1s, the amplification factors vary from 1.2 to 2.8

and 1 to 1.5 respectively.

The soil columns of Dubai cause lesser amplification than of Sharjah. The

peak amplification factors were estimated to be around 3-4 in the range of 0.2 to 0.4s

time period.

The amplification factors for Abu Dhabi ranged from 4-8 in the time period

range of 0.1 to 0.2s for both site class C and D.

The results clearly show that the soil deposits can amplify the seismic shaking

multiple times. The large magnitude, distant earthquakes from Zagros region and

Oman Mountains are a warning for the sky scrapers in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. With

the long natural periods of the tall structures, the seismic shaking can easily become a

threat due to the soil deposits.

81

Recommendations

Seismic hazard analysis results of this study are in good agreement with some

of the recent seismic hazard study few cities. Therefore, these results could be used as

a bench mark for the earthquake resistant design code. The format of the results

presented in this study is easily comprehensible for the designers and it covers all

parts of development of U.A.E.

Prior to the start of the site response analysis phase of this study, the

expectation was to get at least 500 boreholes from cities of U.A.E. However, due to

technical difficulties, only 100 boreholes from Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah were

obtained. Due to the unified nature of sub surface soil deposits in most of the cities of

U.A.E., the results of this study (with 100 boreholes) is a good indication of potential

amplification caused by soil deposits. But there is definitely room for improvement in

terms of the estimation of dynamic properties, no. of soil columns and type of site

response analysis used. Further research is being conducted at the Department of Civil

Engineering of the American University of Sharjah to improve on these three aspects.

Moreover, shear modulus and damping ratio curves applicable for UAE soil

columns should be developed by performing resonant column tests. Advanced

methods such as downhole and crosshole tests should be used for estimating the

dynamic properties of soil columns of UAE.

Seismic networks should be developed throughout the UAE to record ground

motion time histories which can be used for developing Ground Motion Attenuation

Relationships applicable for UAE

82

REFERENCE LIST

[1] F. Tavakoli and M. Ghafory-Ashtiany, “Seismic hazard assessment of Iran,”

Annali di geofisica, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1013-1021, Dec. 1999.

[2] L. Chouinard, P. Rosset, A. De La Puente, R. Madriz, D. Mitchell, and J. Adams,

“Seismic Hazard Analysis for Montreal,” Proceedings of the 13th

World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Aug. 1-6 2004, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

[3] A. Pitarka and K. Irikura, “Basin structure effects on long-period strong motions

in the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles Basin from the 1994 Northridge

earthquake and an aftershock,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 86,

pp. S126-S137, Feb. 1996.

[4] M. Celebi, C. Dietel, J. Prince, M. Onate, and G. Chavez, “Site amplification in

Mexico City determined from 19th

September strong-motion records and from

recordings of weak motions,” in Ground Motion and Engineering Seismology, A.S.

Cakmak, California: Elsevier, 1987, pp. 141-152.

[5] M. H. T. Rayhani, M. H. El Naggar, and S. H. Tabatabaei, “Nonlinear analysis of

local site effects on seismic ground response in the bam earthquake,” Geotechnical

and Geological Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91-100, Feb. 2008.

[6] R.W. Day, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 2002,

pp. 700.

[7] J.A Abdalla and A.S. Al Homoud, “Seismic hazard assessment of United Arab

Emirates and its surroundings,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 8, no. 6, pp.

817-837, May 2004.

[8] N. Peiris, M. Free, Z. Lubkowski, and A.T. Hussein, “Seismic hazard and seismic

design requirements for Arabian Gulf region,” Proceedings of the first European

Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Sept. 3-8, 2006, Geneva,

Switzerland.

[9] A. Ansal, A. Kurtulus, and G. Tonuk, “Assessment of Seismic Hazard and Risk in

Dubai, United Arab Emirates,” Final Project Report Part C, Microzonation for Site

Conditions, June 2008, pp. 1-33.

[10] M. Balwan, “Influence of Local Soil Conditions on Ground Response – Site

Amplification,” M.S. Thesis, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE, 2008.

83

[11] A. Rodgers, A. Fowler, A. Al-Amri, and A. Al-Enezi, “The March 11, 2002

Masafi, United Arab Emirates earthquake: insights into the seismotectonics of the

northern Oman Mountains,” Technophysics, vol. 415, no. 1-4, pp. 57–64, March

2006.

[12] Y. Al Marzooqi, K.M. Abou Elenean, A.S. Megahed, I. El-Hussain, A.J.

Rodgers, and E. Al Khatibi, “Source parameters of March 10 and September 13,

2007, United Arab Emirates earthquakes,” Tectonophysics, vol. 460, no. 1-4, pp. 237-

247, Nov. 2008.

[13] NEIC. National Earthquake Information Center, US Department of the Interior,

US Geological Survey.

[14] ISC. International Seismological Center

[15] N.N. Ambraseys and C.P. Melville, A History of Persian Earthquakes, London:

Cambridge University Press, 1982.

[16] A.A. Nowroozi, “Tectonics and earthquake risk of Iran,” Developments in

Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 44, pp. 59-75.

[17] M.S. Nabavi, “Historical earthquakes in Iran c. 300 B.C. – 1900 A.D.,” Journal

of the Earth and Space Physics (Institute of Geophysics, Tehran University Press),

vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 70-117, 1978.

[18] NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

http://www.noaa.gov.

[19] C. H. Fenton, J. Adams, and S. Halchuk, “Seismic hazard assessments for

radioactive waste disposal sites in regions of low seismic activity,” Geotechnical and

Geological Engineering, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 579-592, June 2006.

[20] A.C. Johnson, K.J. Coppersmith, L.R. Kanter, C.A. and Cornell, “The

earthquakes of stable continental regions,” In Assessment of Large Earthquake

Potential, Editor, A.C. Johnston, vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research

Institute, 1994.

[21] M. Berberian, “Master 'blind' thrust faults hidden under the Zagros folds: active

basement tectonics and surface morphotectonics,” Tectonophysics, vol. 241, no. 3-4,

pp. 193-224, Jan. 1995.

[22] N. A. Abrahamson and W.J. Silva, “Empirical response spectra attenuation

relations for shallow crustal earthquakes,” Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68,

no. 1, pp. 94-127, Feb. 1997.

84

[23] R.R. Youngs S.J. Chiou, W.J. Silva, and J.R. Humphrey, “Strong ground motion

attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes,” Seismological Research

Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 58-73. Feb 1997.

[24] N. Hasancebi and R. Ulusay, “Empirical correlations between shear wave

velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments,” Bulletin of

Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 203-213, Nov. 2007.

[25] T. Shibata, “Analysis of liquefaction of saturated sand during cyclic loading,” in

Disaster Prevention Research Institute Bulletin, vol. 13, pp. 563-570.

[26] H.B. Seed and I.M. Idriss, “Evaluation of liquefaction potential sand deposits

based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes,” ASCE National

Convention (MO) Preprint no. 81544, 1981.

[27] G.A. Athanasopoulos, “Empirical correlations Vs – NSPT for soils of Greece: a

comparative study of reliability,” Proceedings of the 7th

International Conference on

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1995, Chania, Greece, Editors. A. S.

Cakmak and C.A. Brebbia, pp 19-26.

[28] R.M. Gotkan, “Theoretical and practical analysis of rock rippability,” PhD thesis,

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 1988.

[29] M. Khandelwal and T.N. Singh, “Correlating static properties of coal measure

rocks with P-wave velocity,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 79, no. 1-2,

pp. 55-60. July 2009.

[30] K.B. Chary, L.P. Sarma, K.J. Prasanna Lakshmi, N.A. Vijayakumar, V. Naga

Lakshmi, and M.V.M.S Rao, “Evaluation of Engineering Properties of Rock Using

Ultrasoni Pulse Velocity and Uniaxial Compressive Strength,” Proceedings in

National Seminar on Non-Destructive Evaluation Dec. 7-9, 2006, Hyderabad.

[31] C.A. Cornell, “Engineering seismic risk analysis,” Bulletin of Seismological

Society of America, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1583-1606, Oct. 1968.

[32] H.C. Shah, M. Manoutchehr and T. Zsutty, “Seismic risk analysis for California

State Water Project Reach C," The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,

Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Report No. 22, 1976

[33] R. McGuire, The Practice of Earthquake Hazard Assessment, Denver:

International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior, 1993.

[34] R.K. McGuire, “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes:

closing the loop,” Bulleting of the Seismological Society of America, vo. 85, no. 5, pp.

1275-128, Oct. 1995

85

[35] L. Reiter, Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, New York:

Columbia University Press, 1990.

[36] EERI Committee on Seismic Risk, “The Basics of Seismic Risk Analysis,”

Earthquake Spectra, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 675-701, Nov. 1989.

[37] B. Gutenberg and C.F.Richter, “Frequency of earthquakes in California,”

Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 185, 1944

[38] L. Esteva, “Geology and probability in the assessment of seismic risk,”

Proceedings of the second International Congress of the International Association of

Engineering Geologists, Sao Paolo, 1974.

[39] S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

1996, pp 653.

[40] J.C. Stepp, W.J. Silva, R.K. McGuire, and R.W. Sewell, “Determination of

Earthquake Design Loads for a High Level Nuclear Waste Repository Facility,”

Proceedings of the Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Conference, Oct. 19-22,

Atlanta, GA, pp. 651-657.

[41] M.C. Chapman, “A Probabilistic approach to ground motion selection for

engineering design,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 85, no. 3, pp.

937-942, June 1995

[42] P. Bazzuro and C.A. Cornell, “Disaggregation of Seismic Hazard,” Bulletin of

Seismological Society of America, vol. 89, no. 2 , pp. 501-520, April 1999.

[43] S. Harmsen, D. Perkins, and A. Frankel, “Disaggregation of Probabilistic Ground

Motions in the Central and Eastern United States,” Bulletin of Seismological Society

of America, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 1-13, Feb. 1999.

[44] W.H.K. Lee, International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology,

Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press, 2002.

[45] A. Preumont, “The generation of spectrum compatible accelerograms for the

design of nuclear power plants,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

vol. 12, no. 4, pp.481-497, 1984

[46] N.A. Abrahamson, “Non-Stationary Spectral Matching,” Seismological research

letters, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 30, 1992

[47] K. Lihanand and W.S. Tseng, “Generation of synthetic time histories compatible

with multiple design response spectra,” Transactions of the 9th

International

Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Lausanne, K1, 105-110.

86

[48] K. Lihanand and W.S. Tseng, “Development and application of realistic

earthquake time histories compatible with multiple-damping design spectra,”

Proceedings of the 9th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2-9,

1988, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. II, 819-824.

[49] NEHRP 2009. Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New

Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750).

[50] V. Graizer, “Low-velocity zone and topography as a source of site amplification

effect on Tarzana hill, California,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol.

29, no. 2, pp. 324-332, Feb. 2009.

[51] L.D. Lawrence and R.W. Lewis, “Observed effects of topography on ground

motion”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 283-298,

Feb. 1973.

[52] L. GovindaRaju, G.V. Ramana, C. HanumanthaRao, and T.G. Sitharam, “Site-

specific ground response analysis,” Current Science, vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 1354-1362,

Nov. 2004

[53] R.D. Borchedt, “Empirical Evidence for Acceleration-Dependent Amplification

Factors,” Bulleting of Seismological Society of America, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 761-782,

March 2002.

[54] Y. Choi and J.P. Stewart, “Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear

wave velocity,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-30, Feb 2005.

[55] J. P. Stewart, A. H. Liu and Y. Choi, “Amplification factors for Spectral

Acceleration in Tectonically active Regions,” Bulleting of Seismological Society of

America, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 332-352. Feb. 2003.

[56] R. Dobry, R.D. Borcherdt, C.B. Crouse, I.M. Idriss, W.B. Joyner, G.R. Martin,

M.S. Power, E.E. Rinne, and R.B. Seed, “New site coefficients and site classification

system used in recent building code provisions,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 16, no. 1,

pp. 41–68, Feb. 2000.

[57] M. Al-Haddad, G.H. Siddiqi, R. Al-Zaid, A. Arafah, A. Necioglu, and N.

Turkelli, “A Basis for Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi

Arabia,” Earthquake Spectra vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 231-258, May 1994.

[58] W.K. Campbell, “Strong Motion Attenuation Relations: A Ten-Year

Perspective,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 739-804, Aug. 1985.

87

[59] P.C. Thenhaus, S.T. Algermissen, D.M. Perkins, S.I. Hanson, and W.H. Diment,

“Probabilistic Estimates of the Seismic Ground Motion Hazards in Western Saudi

Arabia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Open File Report, U.S.G.S, 1986.

[60] G. Grunthal, C. Bosse, S. Sellami, D. Mayer-Rosa, and D. Giardini,

“Compilation of the GSHAP regional seismic hazard map for Europe, Africa and the

Middle East,” Annali di geofisica, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1215-1223, 1999.

[61] M. Zare, “Attenuation Relation and Coefficients of Movement in Iran,” Tehran,

Iran: International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 2002.

[62] J.J. Bommer and N.A. Abrahamson, “Why do modern probabilistic seismic

hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?,” Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1967-1977, Dec. 2006.

[63] N.N. Ambraseys, K.A. Simpson, and J.J. Bommer, “Prediction of horizontal

response spectra in Europe,” Earthquake engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol. 25, no.

4, pp. 371-400, April 1996.

[64] K.A. Simpson, “Attenuation of Strong-Ground motion incorporating near surface

foundation conditions”. PhD thesis, University of London, London, UK, 1996.

[65] G.M. Atkinson and D.M. Boore, “Some comparisons between recent ground

motion relations,” Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 24-40, Feb.

1997.

[66] A. Dahle, H. Bungum, and L.B. Kvamme, “Attenuation models inferred from

intraplate earthquake recordings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1125-1141, Nov. 1990

[67] K., Sadigh, C.Y., Chang, J.A. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R.R. Youngs, “Attenuation

relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data,”

Seismological Research Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 180-189, Feb. 1997.

[68] R. Musson, K. Northmore, S. Sargeant, E. Phillips, D. Boon, and D. Long, “The

geology and geophysics of the United Arab Emirates,”, vol 4: Geological Hazards.

British Geological Survey, Keyworth, pp. 237, 2006.

[69] N.N. Ambraseys, “The prediction of earthquake peak ground acceleration in

Europe,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 467-

490, April 1995.

88

[70] A.I.H Malkawai, S. Barakat, A. Shanableh, W. Al Bdour, M. Omar, and S.

Altoubat, “Seismic hazard assessment and mitigation of earthquake risk in United

Arab Emirates,” Technical Report UOS-3, University of Sharjah, United Arab

Emirates, 2007.

[71] G. Aldama-Bustos, J.J. Bommer, C.H. Fenton, and P. Stafford, “Probabilistic

seismic hazard analysis for rock sites in the cities of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras Al

Khaimah, United Arab Emirates,” Georisk, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-29, Jan. 2009

[72] A.A. Shama, “Site specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at Dubai Creek

on the west coast of U.A.E.,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,

vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 143-152, March 2011.

[73] IRIS. Incorporated Research Institute for Seismology.

[74] R. Sigbjornsson, and A.S. Elnashai, “Hazard assessment of Dubai, United Arab

Emirates, for close and distant earthquakes,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol.

10, no. 5, pp. 749-773, Sep. 2006.

[75] Al Bodour, “Seismic Hazard Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk in

United Arab Emirates,” PhD Thesis, University of Science and Technology, Amman,

Jordan.

[76] H.H.M. Huang and C.S. Lee, “Parametric study of site response analysis,” Soil

dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 282-290, Aug. 1991.

[77] P.B. Schnabel, J. Lysmer, and H.B. Seed, “SHAKE. A Computer Program for

Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,” Report no.

UCB/EERC-72/12, University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1972, pp. 102.

[78] C. Vita-Finzi, “Neotectonics at the Arabian plate margins,” Journal of Structural

Geology, vol. 23, no. 2-3, pp. 521-530, Feb. 2001

[79] Ph. Vernant, F. Nilforoushan, D. Hatzfeld, M.R. Abbassi, C. Vigny, F. Masson,

H. Nankali, J. Marinod, A. Ashtiani, R. Bayer, F. Tavakoli, J. and Chery, “Present-

day crustal deformation and plate kinematics in the Middle East constrained by GPS

measurements in Iran and northern Oman,” Geophysical Journal International, vol.

157, no. 1, pp. 381-398, April 2004.

[80] G. Farhoudi and D.E. Karig, “Makran of Iran and Pakistan as an active arc

system,” Geology, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 664-668, Nov. 1977.

89

[81] J.A. Jackson and D. McKenzie, “Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan belt

between Turkey and Pakistan,” Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical

Society, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 185-264, April 1984.

[82] P.R. Johnson, “Tectonic map of Saudi Arabia and adjacent areas,” Technical

Report USGS-TR-98-3 (IR 948), US Geological Survey, 1998, pp. 2.

[83] G.G. Brown, “Tectonic map of the Arabian Peninsula”, Saudi Arabian

directoriate general of mineral resources. Arabian Peninsula Map AP-2, scale

1:4000000., Saudi Arabian Directoriate General of Mineral Resources, 1972.

[84] J.A. Jackson and T. Fitch, “Basement faulting and the focal depths of the larger

earthquakes in the Zagros Mountains (Iran),” Geophysical Journal of the Royal

Astronomical Society, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 561-586, March 1981.

[85] R.T. Walker, J. Jackson, and C. Baker, “Active Faulting and seismicity of the

Dasht-e-Bayaz region, eastern Iran,” Geophysical Journal International, vol. 157, no.

1, pp. 265-282, April 2004.

[86] T. Kusky, C. Robinson and F. El-Baz, “Tertiary-Quaternary faulting and uplift in

the northern Oman Hajar Mountains,” Journal of the Geological Society, vol. 162, no.

5, pp. 871-888, Sept. 2005.

[87] P.A. Reasenberg, “Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-

1982,”Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 90, no. B7, pp. 5479-5495, 1985.

[88] L. Knopoff, “The magnitude distribution of declustered earthquakes in Southern

California,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, no. 22, Oct.

24, 2000, pp. 11880-11884.

[89] M. Ordaz, A. Aguilar, and J. Arboleda, “CRISIS v5.1. Program for Computing

Seismic Hazard,” Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Mexico, 2007.

[90] E.R. Engdahl, J.A. Jackson, S.C. Myers, E.A. Bergman, K. and Priestley,

“Relocation and assessment of seismicity in the Iran region,” Geophysical Journal

International, vol. 167, no. 2 pp. 761–778, Nov. 2006

[91] R.K. McGuire and W.J. Arabasz, “An introduction to probabilistic seismic

hazard analysis,” in Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, S.H. Ward, vol. 1,

1990, Society of Exploration Geophysicist, pp. 333-353,

[92] R.R. Youngs and K.J. Coppersmith, “Implications of fault slip rates and

earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates,” Bulletin of

the seismological society of America, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 939-964, Aug. 1985.

90

[93] D.L. Wells and K.J. Coppersmith, “New empirical relationships among

magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement,”

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 974-1002, Aug.

1994.

[94] F. Cotton, F. Scherbaum, J.J. Bommer, and H. Bungum, “Criteria for selecting

and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target applications: applications to

Central Europe and rock sites,” Journal of Seismology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137-156,

April 2006

[95] D.M. Boore and G.M. Atkinson, “Ground-motion prediction equations for the

average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods

between 0.01 s and 10.0 s,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99-138, Feb. 2008.

[96] N.A. Abrahamson and W.J. Silva, “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA

ground motion relations,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 67–97, Feb 2008.

[97] K.W. Campbell and Y. Bozorgnia, “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,

vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 139-171, Feb. 2008.

[98] G.M. Atkinson and D.M. Boore, “Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for

Subduction-Zone Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions,”

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 1703-1729, Aug.

2003.

[99] G.M. Atkinson and D.M. Boore, “Earthquake ground-motions prediction

equations for Eastern North America,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of

America, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 2181-2205, June 2007.

[100] J.J. Bommer and A.B. Avecedo, “The use of real earthquake accelerograms as

input to dynamic analysis,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 43-

91, 2004.

[101] J. Boatwright, L.C. Seekins, T.E. Fumal, H.P. Liu, and C.S. Mueller,“Ground

motion amplification in the Marina District,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of

America, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 1980-1997, Oct. 1991.

[102] J.G. Anderson, P. Bodin, J. Prince, S.K. Singh, R. Quass, and M. Onate,

“Strong ground motion from the Michoacan, Mexico, earthquake,” Science, vol. 233,

no. 4768, pp. 1043-1049, Sept. 2006.

91

[103] P.B. Schnabel, “Effects of local geology and distance from source on

earthquake ground motions,” PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley,

California, USA, 1973.

[104] H.B. Seed, R.T. Wong, I.M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, “Moduli and damping

factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils,” Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering. ASCE, vol. 112, no. 11, pp. 1016-1032, Nov. 1986.

[105] J.I. Sun, R. Golesorkhi, and H.B. Seed, "Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios

for Cohesive soils,” Report UBC/EERC- 88/15. Berkeley: University of California,

Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 1988, pp. 48.

[106] H.B. Seed and I.M. Idriss, “Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic

response analyses,” Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley,

California, 1970.

[107] J.W. Koloski, S.D. Schwarz, and D.W. Tubbs, “Geotechnical Properties of

Geologic Materials,” Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin

78, 1989.

[108] R.D. Borcherdt, “Estimates of Site-Dependent Response Spectra for Design

(Methodology and Justification),” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 617-653,

Nov. 1994.

[109] M.S. Romero and G.J. Rix, “Ground Motion Amplification of Soils in the

Upper Mississippi Embayment,” GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1, Georgia Institute of

Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2001, pp. 493.

[110] P. Spudich, W.B. Joyner, A.G. Lindh, D.M. Boore, B.M. Margaris and J.B.

Fletcher, “SEA99: A Revised Ground Motion Prediction Relation for Use in

Extensional Tectonic Regimes,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 89,

no. 5, pp. 1156-1170, Oct. 1999.

92

Appendix A

SOIL COLUMNS

93

Abu Dhabi

Table A1

Table A2

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0001Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0001

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 18 2172 1 1 .05 18.5 2463 1 3.4 .05 18.5 4404 1 .9 .05 18.5 4705 1 2.7 .05 18.5 5006 1 2 .05 18.5 5217 1 1 .05 18.5 5438 2 1.5 .02 21 7049 2 1.4 .02 21 713

10 2 .4 .02 21 72111 2 1.7 .02 21 72912 2 3 .02 21 73813 2 3 .02 21 74614 2 1.4 .02 21 75515 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0002Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0002

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1.8 .05 18 342.822 1 2.7 .02 21 7043 1 1.8 .02 21 7134 1 2.1 .02 21 7215 1 4.5 .02 21 7306 1 3.9 .02 21 7387 1 6 .05 21 7468 2 2.2 .02 21 7559 2 .02 21 760

94

Table A3

Table A4

Table A5

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0003Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0003

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 18 2472 1 .5 .05 18.5 3573 2 1.7 .02 18.5 7044 2 .3 .02 18.5 7215 2 1.7 .02 18.5 7256 2 1.8 .02 18.5 7307 2 1 .02 18.5 7408 2 .5 .02 21 7419 2 .8 .02 21 74710 2 1.2 .02 21 74911 2 5 .02 21 75212 2 1 .02 21 75513 2 3.3 .02 21 75614 2 .7 .02 21 76015 2 .02 21 763

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0004Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0004

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1.5 .05 18 199.462 1 3.3 .05 18.5 251.83 2 .2 .02 18.5 696.44 2 1 .02 18.5 7005 2 1 .02 18.5 7056 2 1.3 .02 18.5 7087 2 2 .02 18.5 713.168 2 1.2 .02 21 7179 2 4 .02 21 720

10 2 .5 .02 21 72111 2 .8 .02 21 73012 2 3.7 .02 21 73813 2 1.5 .02 21 74714 2 3 .02 21 74715 2 .02 21 763

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0005Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0005

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1 .05 18 3002 1 .5 .05 18.5 3503 2 2.7 .02 18.5 7044 2 .7 .02 18.5 7135 2 1.1 .02 18.5 7236 2 .5 .02 18.5 7277 2 .8 .02 18.5 7288 2 4.7 .02 21 7309 2 3.9 .02 21 73810 2 .5 .02 21 74711 2 4.6 .02 21 75512 2 .02 21 772

95

Table A6

Table A7

Table A8

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 701B0006Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0006

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 .5 .05 18 3502 2 3.5 .02 21 6933 2 1.1 .02 21 6964 2 3.2 .02 21 7005 2 1 .02 21 7036 2 1.3 .02 21 7067 2 .5 .02 21 7108 2 3.1 .02 21 713.29 2 1.3 .02 21 721

10 2 2.8 .02 21 72411 2 1.7 .02 21 728.2512 2 2.7 .02 21 731.613 2 .02 21 755

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 950b0020Soil Deposit No.: 1 - b0020

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 .6 .02 17 7032 2 4.4 .02 21 7213 2 3.2 .02 21 7314 2 1.4 .02 22 7005 2 3.4 .02 22 7696 2 12 .02 22 7717 2 .02 22 800

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 950b0021Soil Deposit No.: 1 - b0021

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1 .05 17 3742 1 3.3 .05 17 4553 1 3.2 .05 18.5 4844 1 10.5 .05 18.5 5655 2 7 .02 21 7556 2 .02 21 760

96

Table A9

Table A10

Table A11

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - 950b0023Soil Deposit No.: 1 - b0023

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6.5 .05 17 3632 1 4.5 .05 18.5 392.53 1 1.8 .05 18.5 4194 1 2.9 .05 18.5 4445 1 .8 .05 18.5 5656 2 8.5 .02 21 7387 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - A09B0001Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0001

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 .5 .05 17 3632 1 8.5 .05 18.5 488.613 2 1 .02 21 704.774 2 2.3 .02 21 709.85 2 1.2 .02 21 719.866 2 1.8 .02 21 724.97 2 2.2 .02 21 729.938 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - A09B0002Soil Deposit No.: 1 - B0002

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4.3 .05 18 3632 1 2.1 .05 18.5 443.9113 2 1.8 .02 21 696.384 2 4.6 .02 21 713.165 2 2 .02 21 731.60256 2 1.4 .02 21 7357 2 2.6 .02 21 741.6648 2 .02 21 765

97

Table A12

Table A13

Table A14

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh1Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh1

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 2172 1 1 .05 18.5 2923 1 2 .05 18.5 3704 1 4 .05 18.5 4405 2 3 .02 21 7136 2 5 .02 21 7407 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh2Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh2

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 2922 1 1 .05 18.5 3503 1 2 .05 18.5 3124 1 6 .05 18.5 2925 1 2.6 .05 18.5 4006 2 3.4 .02 21 7217 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh5Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh5

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 2272 1 2 .05 18.5 3163 1 9 .05 18.5 4064 2 6 .02 18.5 7385 2 .02 18.5 760

98

Table A15

Table A16

Table A17

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh6Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh6

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17 3322 1 2 .05 18.5 3213 1 7 .05 18.5 4404 2 3 .02 18.5 7385 2 .02 18.5 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh10Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh10

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 18 2472 1 2 .05 18.5 4403 1 6 .05 18.5 4704 2 5 .02 18.5 7555 2 .02 18.5 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh11Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh11

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 4402 1 3 .05 18.5 4553 1 1 .05 18.5 4404 2 6 .05 18.5 4705 2 5.5 .02 22 7556 2 .02 22 760

99

Table A18

Table A19

Table A20

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh13Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh13

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17 2802 1 7 .05 18.5 4883 2 5 .02 22 7404 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh16Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh16

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 246.732 1 4 .05 18.5 363.153 1 6 .05 18.5 378.24 2 3.2 .02 22 7225 2 1.8 .02 22 7406 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - abualabayadbh5dh17Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh5dh17

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 18 3872 1 2 .05 18.5 4243 1 3 .05 18.5 4404 2 5 .02 22 7385 2 1.5 .02 22 7706 2 .02 22 780

100

Table A21

Table A22

Table A23

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH1Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH1

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 3952 1 1 .05 17 3753 1 4 .05 17 4024 1 .5 .05 17 4885 1 2 .05 17 4026 1 1.5 .05 17 4557 2 1.5 .02 21 725.738 2 2.2 .02 21 7219 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH2Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH2

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4.601 .05 17 3112 1 2.4 .05 17 488.63 1 3 .05 17 488.64 2 1.2 .02 21 7905 2 3.2 .02 21 7606 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH3Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH3

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 18 3952 1 5 .05 18.5 3663 1 2 .05 18.5 5094 1 2 .05 18.5 5205 1 2 .05 18.5 5306 1 1.24 .05 18.5 5407 2 3.8 .02 22 7388 2 .02 22 760

101

Table A24

Table A25

Table A26

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH4Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH4

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 18 3042 1 7 .05 18.5 3003 1 2 .05 18.5 2604 1 1 .05 18.5 488.615 2 3 .02 22 7226 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH5Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH5

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6.5 .05 18.5 3372 1 2.5 .05 18.5 3003 1 2 .05 18.5 3204 1 .7 .05 18.5 5645 2 3 .02 22 7656 2 .02 22 770

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH6Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh6

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 17 3862 1 4 .05 17 2503 1 7.5 .05 17 2554 1 2.4 .05 17 4405 2 3 .02 21 7046 2 .02 21 760

102

Table A27

Table A28

Table A29

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH7Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh7

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 17 2852 1 3 .05 17 2703 1 3 .05 17 2804 1 1.5 .05 17 4605 2 3 .02 21 7226 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH10Soil Deposit No.: 1 - bh10

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 4062 1 7 .05 17 3663 1 1 .05 17 3834 1 2.25 .05 17 5655 2 4.2 .02 21 7226 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - taweelahbh1Soil Deposit No.: 1 - tawbh1

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6.5 .05 17 4002 2 5.7 .02 21 7203 2 3 .02 21 7604 2 2.3 .02 22 7305 2 7 .02 22 7706 2 1.5 .02 22 7807 2 .02 21 800

103

Table A30

Dubai

Table A31

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - taweelahbh2Soil Deposit No.: 1 - tawbh2

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 2 6.71 .02 21 7032 2 3.3 .02 21 7213 2 2 .02 21 7314 2 4.2 .02 22 7005 2 1 .02 22 7696 2 10.2 .02 22 7717 2 .02 22 800

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - ducabSoil Deposit No.: 1 - ducab

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.35 .05 17 367.672 2 1.75 .02 21 702.423 2 3.15 .02 21 706.364 2 2.8 .02 21 712.995 2 7.2 .02 21 695.976 2 2.7 .02 21 725.577 2 1.3 .02 21 739.4848 2 1.5 .02 21 719.79 2 1.45 .02 21 730.43

10 2 .02 21 830.04

104

Table A32

Table A33

Table A34

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - oman insuranceSoil Deposit No.: 1 - oman insurance

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 17 370.432 1 4 .05 18 263.21923 1 4 .05 18 406.0264 2 5 .02 21 7055 2 10 .02 21 7226 2 10 .02 21 7557 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - palm jumairahSoil Deposit No.: 1 - palm jumairah

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 18 2632 1 9.5 .05 18 2273 1 1.5 .05 18 3664 1 2 .05 18 2465 1 7 .05 18 4066 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - blue moonSoil Deposit No.: 1 - blue moon

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4.5 .05 18 3162 1 4.1 .05 18 2633 2 11.4 .02 21 7084 2 .02 21 760

105

Table A35

Table A36

Table A37

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - AUDSoil Deposit No.: 1 - AUD

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 18 3162 1 6.5 .05 18 3163 1 7 .05 18 4404 2 3 .02 21 7005 2 .05 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - burjumanSoil Deposit No.: 1 - hamriya

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 18 3832 1 5.5 .05 18 3333 1 2 .05 18 3874 1 3 .05 18 4405 1 3 .05 18 5656 2 5 .02 21 7557 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - samaSoil Deposit No.: 1 - sama

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 3882 1 15 .05 18.5 5653 2 .02 21 760

106

Table A38

Table A39

Table A40

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - nbd deiraSoil Deposit No.: 1 - nbd deira

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 18 2852 1 2 .05 18 2053 1 6 .05 18 2854 1 3 .05 18 3165 1 4.5 .05 18 4066 2 4 .02 21 7387 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - dream baySoil Deposit No.: 1 - dream bay

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3.9 .05 18 2852 1 3 .05 18 4243 2 10 .02 21 7084 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - quran bldgSoil Deposit No.: 1 - quran bldg

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 18 2552 1 1 .05 18 3663 1 3 .05 18 4244 2 15.5 .02 21 7155 2 .02 21 760

107

Table A41

Table A42

Table A43

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - murqabat buildingSoil Deposit No.: 1 - muraqabat

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 17 3822 1 .5 .05 17 3183 1 1 .05 17 2764 1 2.5 .05 17 3455 1 6.5 .05 18.5 4126 1 1 .05 18.5 3647 1 5 .05 18.5 4018 1 4 .05 18.5 4839 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - murqabat buildingSoil Deposit No.: 1 - muraqabat

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 17 3822 1 .5 .05 17 3183 1 1 .05 17 2764 1 2.5 .05 17 3455 1 6.5 .05 18.5 4126 1 1 .05 18.5 3647 1 5 .05 18.5 4018 1 4 .05 18.5 4839 2 .05 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - dubalSoil Deposit No.: 1 - dubal

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 7 .05 17 255.12 1 4 .05 18.5 361.643 2 6 .02 22 721.544 2 9 .02 22 755.085 2 .02 22 760

108

Table A44

Table A45

Table A46

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - business baySoil Deposit No.: 1 - business bay

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17 316.36112 1 4 .05 17 366.07993 2 17 .02 22 7004 2 20 .02 22 7385 2 .02 22 770

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - al rigga dmSoil Deposit No.: 1 - rigga dm

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 17 316.36112 1 3 .05 17 377.483 1 4 .05 17 515.03264 2 12 .02 21 7135 2 23 .02 21 7506 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - cultural villageSoil Deposit No.: 1 - cultural village

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4.5 .05 18 3632 1 3 .05 18 1853 1 1.5 .05 18 1054 1 2.5 .05 18 2135 1 2.5 .05 18 2056 1 2.5 .05 18 2467 1 1.5 .05 18 4068 2 3 .02 21 7069 2 5 .02 21 713

10 2 .02 21 760

109

Table A47

Table A48

Table A49

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - meydanSoil Deposit No.: 1 - meydan

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5.2 .05 17 3422 1 6 .05 17 4063 1 3 .05 17 5654 2 4 .02 21 7055 2 5 .02 21 7136 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Al Sowah BH1Soil Deposit No.: 1 - BH1

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 3952 1 1 .05 17 3753 1 4 .05 17 4024 1 .5 .05 17 4885 1 2 .05 17 4026 1 1.5 .05 17 4557 2 1.5 .02 21 725.738 2 2.2 .02 21 7219 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - souq al kabeerSoil Deposit No.: 1 - souq al kabeer

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 18.5 3872 1 2 .05 18.5 4243 1 2 .05 18.5 3954 1 3 .05 18.5 4405 1 2 .05 18.5 4066 1 8 .05 18.5 4307 2 5 .02 21 5008 2 5 .02 21 5509 2 5 .02 21 60010 2 .02 21 760

110

Table A50

Table A51

Table A52

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - belyoahahSoil Deposit No.: 1 - belyoahah

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 18.5 3162 1 5 .05 18.5 2783 1 6 .05 18.5 3054 1 4 .05 18.5 4405 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - mazayaSoil Deposit No.: 1 - mazaya

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4.5 .05 17 2922 1 6 .05 18.5 4243 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4704 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - dxb media citySoil Deposit No.: 1 - dxb media

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3.5 .05 17 3162 1 5 .05 18.5 3663 1 5 .05 18.5 4064 1 5 .05 18.5 4405 2 5 .02 21 5006 2 5 .02 21 5507 2 .02 211 760

111

Table A53

Table A54

Table A55

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - al jadafSoil Deposit No.: 1 - al jadaf

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 7 .05 18 2852 1 8 .05 18.5 3663 1 5 .05 18.5 4244 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - dxbmaritimeSoil Deposit No.: 1 - dxb maritime

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17 2632 1 10 .05 18.5 2853 1 5 .05 18.5 3164 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - mankool ghurairSoil Deposit No.: 1 - mankool

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 304.592 1 12 .05 17 386.973 1 3 .05 18 4404 2 10 .02 21 713.15635 2 23 .02 21 746.696 2 .02 21 760

112

Table A56

Table A57

Table A58

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - majanmazinSoil Deposit No.: 1 - majan

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1.25 .05 17 407.712 2 20.05 .02 21 7243 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - bin sogatSoil Deposit No.: 1 - bin sogat

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17 266.732 1 1.25 .05 17 564.73 2 3.75 .02 21 7004 2 8.05 .02 21 7055 2 1.95 .02 21 7106 2 5.55 .02 21 7207 2 4.45 .02 21 7308 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - sky palacesSoil Deposit No.: 1 - sky palaces

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 211.78212 1 6 .05 18.5 237.62533 1 1 .02 18.5 319.60614 1 10 .02 18.5 368.58225 1 1.5 .02 18.5 488.60826 2 .05 21 760

113

Table A59

Table A60

Table A61

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - dubai waterfrontSoil Deposit No.: 1 - dubaiWF

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 .5 .05 17 246.7322 1 .35 .05 18.5 488.60823 2 1.75 .02 22 702.424 2 1.61 .02 22 706.365 2 2.8 .02 22 7136 2 7.2 .02 22 705.8337 2 4 .02 22 739.4848 2 1.5 .02 22 719.69639 2 1.45 .02 22 730.429

10 2 1.55 .02 22 74011 2 .02 22 795.2838

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - saba towerSoil Deposit No.: 1 - saba

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 3002 1 1 .05 17 471.783 1 4 .05 18.5 564.74 1 3 .05 18.5 5705 2 7 .02 21 721.546 2 7 .02 21 7307 2 1.5 .02 21 7408 2 2.5 .02 21 7509 2 2 .02 21 75510 2 2 .02 21 75511 2 4 .02 22 75512 2 .02 21 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - rtaterminalSoil Deposit No.: 1 - rta

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 96.082 1 1.8 .05 18.5 2873 1 1.2 .05 18.5 159.714 1 .8 .05 18.5 2005 1 5.2 .05 18.5 266.66 1 2.5 .05 18.5 275.447 1 1.3 .05 18.5 3008 1 3.2 .05 18.5 433.489 2 1.85 .02 22 722.6310 2 2.15 .02 22 702.611 2 .02 22 746.86

114

Table A62

Table A63

Table A64

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - burjdubai island parkSoil Deposit No.: 1 - db island park

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 18.5 190.16992 1 .5 .05 18.5 488.60823 2 7 .02 22 7004 2 11 .02 22 7255 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - CHospitalSoil Deposit No.: 1 - CH

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 270.91432 1 .5 .05 17 255.10193 1 3.5 .05 17 442.35334 1 1 .05 17 564.75 1 1 .05 18.5 564.76 1 1 .05 18.5 564.77 1 1 .05 18.5 402.348 1 1 .05 18.5 564.79 2 3.12 .02 22 695.21

10 2 1.5 .02 22 704.811 2 4.23 .02 22 706.4512 2 6.6 .02 22 703.613 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - botanica towerSoil Deposit No.: 1 - botanica

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1 .05 18.5 263.21922 1 1 .05 18.5 255.10193 1 3 .05 18.5 378.864 1 1.5 .05 18.5 406.0265 1 1.5 .05 18.5 564.76 1 .5 .05 18.5 564.77 2 9 .02 22 708.168 2 3.2 .02 22 879.129 2 5.1 .02 22 747.74

10 2 2.25 .02 22 728.1111 2 3.65 .02 22 714.0512 2 .02 22 760

115

Table A65

Sharjah

Table A66

Table A67

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - Arena MallSoil Deposit No.: 1 - Arena Mall

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 1.54 .05 17 564.72 2 8.46 .02 21 708.963 2 10 .02 21 715.54 2 10 .02 21 716.515 2 5 .02 22 721.546 2 .02 22 760

Option 2 - Set No. 58Option 2 - plot 11 qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 58 - plot 11

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 18 141.87632 1 2 .05 18.5 320.09373 1 18.5 .05 18.5 391.23764 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4265 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 8Option 2 - plot 11A al majazSoil Deposit No.: 8 - plot 11a

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17 135.15062 1 2 .05 18.5 256.71933 1 13 .05 18.5 342.06584 1 3 .05 18.5 389.1865 1 5.5 .05 18.5 387.56936 1 2.5 .05 18.5 4267 2 .05 21 1130

116

Table A68

Table A69

Table A70

Option 2 - Set No. 81Option 2 - plot 15, 17+19 al nahdaSoil Deposit No.: 81 - plot 15, 17+19

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 17.5 283.53022 1 4.5 .05 18.5 245.05483 1 2.5 .05 18.5 361.02854 1 7.5 .05 18.5 394.31315 1 11.5 .05 18.5 453.09956 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 64Option 2 - plot 24 al qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 64 - plot 24

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 7 .05 18 134.90792 1 9 .05 18.5 308.09743 1 14 .05 18.5 429.54324 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 40Option 2 - plot 51 industrial area 4Soil Deposit No.: 40 - plot 51

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 18 276.2432 1 3.5 .05 18.5 269.88243 1 17.5 .05 18.5 279.2784 1 6.5 .05 18.5 488.60825 2 .05 21 1130

117

Table A71

Table A72

Table A73

Option 2 - Set No. 3Option 2 - plot 105 al majazSoil Deposit No.: 3 - new plot 105

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17 231.00252 1 3 .05 18.5 413.60573 1 13 .05 18.5 368.18294 1 3.5 .05 18.5 483.74885 1 5.5 .05 18.5 4896 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 2Option 2 - plot 105A al majazSoil Deposit No.: 2 - new plot105A

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17 230.13172 1 15 .05 18.5 446.84073 1 5.5 .05 18.5 488.60824 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4895 2 .05 18.5 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 11Option 2 - plot 134 al gulayyahSoil Deposit No.: 11 - plot 134

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 221.13592 1 4 .05 18.5 222.20853 1 3 .05 18.5 442.21964 1 15.5 .05 18.5 397.67275 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4266 2 .05 21 1130

118

Table A74

Table A75

Table A76

Option 2 - Set No. 35Option 2 - plot 135 butinaSoil Deposit No.: 35 - plot 135

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 279.64662 1 1 .05 18.5 230.53973 1 3 .05 18.5 286.2824 1 2 .05 18.5 359.64925 1 4 .05 18.5 285.34226 1 4 .05 18.5 329.99827 1 8.5 .05 18.5 406.18948 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4269 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 54Option 2 - plot 138 al majazSoil Deposit No.: 54 - plot 138

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 18 196.86982 1 10 .05 18.5 321.7573 1 9.5 .05 18.5 457.85954 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4895 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 74Option 2 - plot 141-696 muwailahSoil Deposit No.: 74 - plot 141 696

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 287.27072 1 .5 .05 18.5 177.10393 1 4.5 .05 18.5 228.97724 1 4.5 .05 18.5 365.25385 1 13 .05 18.5 464.75116 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4897 2 .05 21 1130

119

Table A77

Table A78

Table A79

Option 2 - Set No. 24Option 2 - plot 141B al qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 24 - plot 141B

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17 176.55312 1 4 .05 18.5 355.43773 1 17.5 .05 18.5 347.80974 1 3.5 .05 18.5 461.11945 1 4.5 .05 18.5 488.60826 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 56Option 2 - plot 170 naeemia ajmanSoil Deposit No.: 56 - plot 170

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17.5 188.17872 1 4 .05 18.5 214.51983 1 14 .05 18.5 356.14724 1 8 .05 18.5 361.15335 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 20Option 2 - plot 172 al qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 20 - plot 172 qassimiya

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 17.5 171.08232 1 2 .05 18.5 260.1243 1 20 .05 18.5 386.84224 1 1.5 .05 18.5 488.60825 1 1.5 .05 18.5 4896 2 .05 21 1130

120

Table A80

Table A81

Table A82

Option 2 - Set No. 10Option 2 - plot 178 al qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 10 - plot 178

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 17 147.1232 1 12 .05 18.5 274.42883 1 5.5 .05 18.5 477.91914 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4895 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 41Option 2 - plot 180 al musallaSoil Deposit No.: 41 - plot 180

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 18 141.42 1 17 .05 18.5 381.98143 1 2.5 .05 18.5 462.00594 1 2.5 .05 18.5 4895 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 22Option 2 - plot 216 al khanSoil Deposit No.: 22 - plot 216

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6.5 .05 18 226.86522 1 6.5 .05 18.5 469.21893 1 9 .05 18.5 337.99714 1 3.5 .05 18.5 356.19695 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4266 2 .05 21 1130

121

Table A83

Table A84

Table A85

Option 2 - Set No. 29Option 2 - plot 224 al majazSoil Deposit No.: 29 - plot 224

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 4 .05 17.5 211.36922 1 4 .05 18.5 255.28213 1 13 .05 18.5 334.03194 1 16 .05 18.5 418.88425 1 13.5 .05 18.5 488.60826 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 60Option 2 - plot 297 abu shagaraSoil Deposit No.: 60 - plot 297

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 18 276.39662 1 6 .05 18.5 379.3523 1 12 .05 18.5 461.86624 1 6 .05 18.5 488.60825 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 25Option 2 - plot 352 al mujarrahSoil Deposit No.: 25 - plot 352

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 7 .05 18 215.8872 1 4 .05 18.5 114.45713 1 5 .05 18.5 309.64184 1 5 .05 18.5 344.07955 1 4.5 .05 18.5 447.35926 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4897 2 .05 21 1130

122

Table A86

Table A87

Table A88

Option 2 - Set No. 18Option 2 - plot 424 al nabaaSoil Deposit No.: 18 - plot 424

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6.5 .05 17.5 143.07482 1 6 .05 18.5 219.79283 1 9 .05 18.5 404.48414 1 4 .05 18.5 479.2555 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4896 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 51Option 2 - plot 470 musallaSoil Deposit No.: 51 - plot 470

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 187.45012 1 8 .05 18.5 363.82243 1 15.5 .05 18.5 369.88344 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4265 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 61Option 2 - plot 483 abu shagaraSoil Deposit No.: 61 - plot 483

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 18 346.03922 1 12 .05 18.5 454.40773 1 7.5 .05 18.5 488.60824 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4895 2 .05 21 1130

123

Table A89

Table A90

Table A91

Option 2 - Set No. 76Option 2 - plot 527 shuwaheenSoil Deposit No.: 76 - plot 527

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2 .05 17 211.86142 1 2 .05 18.5 280.23323 1 6 .05 18.5 364.55254 1 4 .05 18.5 237.29595 1 11.5 .05 18.5 405.01396 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4267 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 77Option 2 - plot 554 al nabbaSoil Deposit No.: 77 - plot 554

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 268.65972 1 7 .05 18.5 144.41213 1 3 .05 18.5 163.22464 1 7 .05 18.5 335.49885 1 10 .05 18.5 389.73476 2 0 .05 21 11307 2 0 0

Option 2 - Set No. 55Option 2 - plot 561 al nabaaSoil Deposit No.: 55 - plot 561

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 18 221.72672 1 10 .05 18.5 146.88613 1 12 .05 18.5 389.53694 1 11.5 .05 18.5 467.9315 2 .05 21 1130

124

Table A92

Table A93

Table A94

Option 2 - Set No. 73Option 2 - plot 644 al musallaSoil Deposit No.: 73 - plot 644

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 11 .05 18 299.9622 1 2 .05 18.5 262.82033 1 12.5 .05 18.5 420.94524 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4265 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 62Option 2 - plot 742 abu shagaraSoil Deposit No.: 62 - plot 742

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 18 291.75572 1 9 .05 18.5 344.21983 1 5 .05 18.5 488.60824 1 5.5 .05 18.5 488.60825 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4896 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 1Option 2 - plot 790 al khanSoil Deposit No.: 1 - plot 790

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 8 .05 17 182.48642 1 8 .05 18.5 314.75913 1 9 .05 18.5 406.15374 1 2 .05 18.5 381.05115 1 8.5 .05 18.5 473.25956 2 .05 21 1130

125

Table A95

Table A96

Table A97

Option 2 - Set No. 69Option 2 - plot 817 al khanSoil Deposit No.: 69 - plot 817

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 2.5 .05 17 210.03952 1 2.5 .05 18.5 156.19913 1 4 .05 18.5 200.32514 1 21 .05 18.5 433.635 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 33Option 2 - plot 831 al majazSoil Deposit No.: 33 - plot 831

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 17 215.12232 1 3 .05 18.5 253.1053 1 16 .05 18.5 360.33694 1 5 .05 18.5 469.52125 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 63Option 2 - plot 894 qassimiyaSoil Deposit No.: 63 - plot 894

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 5 .05 18 129.70442 1 4 .05 18.5 292.82963 1 6 .05 18.5 342.02574 1 10.5 .05 18.5 459.89455 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4896 2 .05 21 1130

126

Table A98

Table A99

Table A100

Option 2 - Set No. 45Option 2 - plot 950 al ghuwairSoil Deposit No.: 45 - plot 950

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 11 .05 18 323.4572 1 13 .05 18.5 368.22093 1 6 .05 18.5 465.75534 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 9Option 2 - plot 1118 al majazSoil Deposit No.: 9 - plot 1118

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 3 .05 17 264.81922 1 11 .05 18.5 188.87113 1 4 .05 18.5 470.94194 1 4 .05 18.5 439.1645 1 8 .05 18.5 485.51376 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 28Option 2 - plot 1243N al khanSoil Deposit No.: 28 - plot 1243

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 6 .05 17.5 245.58042 1 3 .05 18.5 374.99263 1 16.5 .05 18.5 360.23594 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4265 2 .05 21 1130

127

Table A101

Table A102

Option 2 - Set No. 5Option 2 - dubai madam road nizwaSoil Deposit No.: 5 - dubai madam road

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 17 .05 18.5 309.40052 1 8.5 .05 18.5 488.60823 1 4.5 .05 18.5 4894 2 .05 21 1130

Option 2 - Set No. 38Option 2 - plot 597 abu shagarahSoil Deposit No.: 38 - plot 597

Layer Soil Type Thickness ShearModulus

Damping Unit Weight Shear WaveVelocity

(m) (kN/m^2) (kN/m^3) (m/s)1 1 7 .05 18.5 387.68892 1 11 .05 18.5 396.1283 1 12 .05 18.5 478.95784 2 .05 21 1130

128

Appendix B

SOFTWARE INTERFACES

129

Rsp MatchEDT

Figure B1

130

SHAKE 2000

Figure B2

131

Figure B3

Figure B3

Figure B4

Figure B5

132

Appendix C

MANUAL INTEGRATION FOR PSHA

133

Figure C1

134

Figure C2

135

Figure C3

136

VITA

Muhammad Irfan was born on January 14, 1988 in Karachi, Pakistan. Until

grade 5, he studied in a local private school. He moved to UAE with his family in

1997 to continue his schooling from The Westminster School in Dubai, UAE. He

completed his O levels from The Westminster School and A levels from English

Medium School (now known as ‘English Language School’) in Dubai UAE. His A

levels grades were for which he received top achievers certificate. He completed his

Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering from the American University of Sharjah in

Sharjah, UAE in 2009. Mr. Irfan was awarded Dean’s list recognition for four

semesters and once in Chancellor’s list.

Mr. Irfan started Master’s of Science in Civil Engineering immediately after

graduation, and was awarded Graduate Teaching/Research Assistantship for three

semesters. He completed his Master’s degree in Spring 2011.