A Basis for Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia M. Al-Haddad, M.EERI, G. H. Siddiqi, R. Al-Zaid, A. Arafah, A. Necioglu, and N. Turkelli ‘This paper presents the fundamental issues and policy decisions that formed the basis of the hazard and design aspects of a comprehensive research project conducted for development of the preliminary seismic design criteria for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study represents the first regionally consistent and systematic collection and critical treatment of the limited historical and instrumental data on earthquakes and seismotectonics of the region, and development of seismic design criteria. The development of the seismic design criteria followed somewhat conservative course, rather than a strict scientific approach, in estimation of the seismic hazard. One of the significant outcome of the study was the preparation of an upto-date and refined earthquake catalog of the region. The catalog contains both , the historical data available in Arabian and English literature, and the data recorded by international and local seismic monitoring agencies. ‘The data were critically treated and superimposed upon the available tectonic information of the Arabian peninsula to obtain a preliminary seismotectonic map of the region. The results of the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment indicate that the highest relative predicted ground-motion occurs near the northwestern border neighboring the Gulf of Aqaba and also near the southwestern border, neighboring Yemen. Based on iso-acceleration map for 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, for the seismic design purposes the Kingdom was delineated into four seismic zones. Following UBC format the seismic zones are assigned numbers 0, 1, 2A and 2B. Widely used codes, SEAOC and UBC were selected as the model for development of seismic design recommendations. Selection of the structural system is based on structural performance category which is determined by seismic zone number and the intended occupancy category. Ry-factors for different types of structural system were assigned lower values in consonance with the design and construction practices prevalent in the country. The significance of this study is in its implementation of a global scheme in development of seismic design criteria of a region beset with limited seismic data. (MH, GHS, RZ, AA) Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia. (AN, NT) Seismological Observatory, King Saud University. 231 ‘©Farthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994232 M. Al-Haddad et al. INTRODUCTION The findings reported in this paper are derived from the research project AR-9- 03lentitled "A Study Leading to Preliminary Seismic Design Criteria in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" [1], sponsored by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, conducted over a period of four years in the Department of Civil Engineering at King Saud University and now concluded. The study represents the first regionally consistent and systematic compilation and treatment of the limited data, instrumental and historical (both from the Arabian and English sources) and development of the seismic design criteria reflecting the prevalent design and the construction practices in the Kingdom. On the seismic hazard side, the study utilized the data sources, available nationally and internationally, in compiling an earthquake data file, treated the file in various ways to render it "complete", employed available tectonic maps to understand the seismotectonics of the region, delineated seismic sources, evaluated recurrence relationships of these sources, formulated a forecasting model for future earthquakes and evaluated the seismic hazard and seismic loading in the Kingdom. On the design criteria side, the study adopted ATC [2], SEAOC [3] and UBC [4] line of thought, developed seismic zonation, evaluated various parameters required for finding seismic base shear, considered the structural systems in vogue in the country and evaluated limiting values for these systems. The development, on the whole, has scientific basis, follows current state-of-the-knowledge in the field and can be calibrated and modified when more data on strong motion attenuation, ductility of the structural systems in use and the other topics are available in future. At different stages of development, expert opinion of reputed consultant was sought and pertinent suggestions were incorporated in the study. Besides this Kingdom-wide survey was conducted to ascertain the trend in material use and construction practice, The study showed that cast-in-place reinforced conerete and frames thereof were overwhelmingly used in building construction In the following are described only the fundamental issues and policy decisions involved in this development. SEISMICITY AND SEISMOTECTONICS DATA FILE Prior to 1984 no permanent seismic stations existed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Absence of local seismological network was the reason of apparent low seismic activity in KSA, Also there were hardly any concerted studies conducted on the seismicity and seismic hazard in the region, Dhamar earthquake (5.7 on Richter scale), 1982, in Yemen which caused 3000 casualties, showed an urgent need for such a study in KSA, A nationalEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 233 seismological observatory was established by King Saud University in 1985, and by 1991 a network of 20 telemetered seismic remote stations was commissioned to monitor the national and the regional activity. ‘National and well recognized and readily available international sources of earthquake data, listed in Table 1, were utilized in compilation of a “Saudi Arabian Earthquake Data File (SAEDF)" by extraction of events in the geographic region bounded by 10° N to 35° N and 30° E to 60° E. These data, along with historic events, covered a time span from 2150 BC to March 1990 AD. An interactive shell was implemented on VAX/750 to search and display the data pertaining to a region specified by its latitudinal and longitudinal borders. The significant events of recent seismicity in KSA, along with the references, are produced in Table 2. Several earthquakes occurred in the Kingdom and the surrounding region in the historical times. ‘These events are reported by various studies and presented in Table 3. Of these Ambraseys (25] is the most comprehensive work. The SAEDF is split over time span into three subfiles as under: a) Subfile-1 which contains historic events up to and including 1899 AD. b) Subfile-2 which contains instrumentally and macroseismically recorded events between 1900 AD and 1960 AD. °) Subfile-3 which contains instrumentally recorded events beginning with 1961 AD, the year marking start of WWSSN record, to March 1990 AD. This data, of course, is more reliable than that in subfile-2. DUPLICATE EVENTS The records of the same events reported by different compilation sources resulted in duplication of these events in subfiles-2 and -3. The events, for the purpose of this study, were considered duplicate if they had time-origin difference of 20 seconds or less, and space-origin difference of 150 km or less. In a thus isolated set of duplicate events, an event which had a magnitude and “preliminary determination of epicenter (PDE)" information was retained, while in case of the events which were without magnitude or intensity record, the event with a PDE-record was retained and the rest deleted. SEISMOTECTONICS Kingdom of Saudi Arabia forms the largest part of the Arabian plate which is delimited by the five tectonic boundaries shown in Fig. 1. In the north-northwest continental collision between the Arabian, and the Persian and the Turkish plates along Zagros and Tauras mountains, in the east subducting of the Arabian plate beneath Makran region of Pakistan and Iran; in the south-east relatively active Owen fracture zone; in the south and southwest active spreadingM. Al-Haddad et al. 234 [ee] OP-aS “ON UOdey, [z€] LZ-AS “ON HOdey (on 29103 PIE PHON 0) [sz] seary qwaselpy pue eiqray ipneg yo Aurstustag au, @) [ge] sazuunod aseq e1ppiW Jo SopewD eyenbyueg w Ize] oyenbyueg weoyruitg Jo Sojee> 0 saquag [eoIdojoussiag jeuoHeUIAYY ©) ailg Beg eyenbyueg iuesylUsig ® (vsn) ead ereq jearskydoan jeuoneN © (ySn) uonensiumpy sueydsouny pue s1Ue299 euONEN, @ ade, oneusey wo VVVSS : - : : O : : Sova 1188 LyodTa e a - - (waa - - (oda aporas : : : : (9/489 - - (90M oplt-as : 2 : sio8 1 : (SI (pln IN : 2 2 8 1 : VVON “qpaaas (Q99N 6 i ’ LIS 6rIz u iseczes | ® (VVON (pL wssmy | adomg, a) aaa seaanog swoag, uy samt, rio], fouady somnog wayeL, SWAAT pure UIEN aT aid Beg ayENbyLeY werquay Ipneg Jo saunog “| IqeL,Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 235 Table 2. Significant Events of the Recent Seismicity KSA Region Number of | Magnitude Tectonic Ref - Events Feature Southwest Tihamat-Asir 4 14-25 | 6 events on Ro Ad-Darb Fault West Jeddah Large microquakes | on Ad-Damm Ry Fault Yanbu Many microquakes | some below (22) lava fields Northwest Gulf of Aqaba 500 upto 4.8 - 123) Gan 21 - ‘Apr 20, 83) 800 15-46 - 24 (Oct, 86 - Mar, 90) Al Hagl 1 49 - (24) Tabuk} | (Dec 31, 85) Al Wajh 1 5.0 Najd Fs(!) [24] (Apr 23, 88) Atitr 2, (1990) - Najd FS Central Rowdah 1, (1986) : Najd FS 2a Qasim Region | 2, (1987) Arabian Shield or Najd Fault Southwest Abha 2, (1988) 45 - Al Dhamar 1 5.7 - (Dec 13, 82) [25, 26,27] Sizan-Nejran (1941) 6.2 Volcanies to Al-Mallala (1) FS = Fault System236 ‘Table 3. Hist M. Al-Haddad et al. ‘ic Seismic Events Region Time Activity/Effect/Deduced Magnitude | Ref | Tayama, Khaybar, 1068 AD Fissuring and cracking of ground 125, 26] Yanbu tat 1270 AD : 1, 26) Makkah 1481 AD. : 125, 26) Madinah, 112AD - 125, 26] 1256AD volcanic eruption 1281 Yemen over past 12 centuries | moderate events v7 Iraq : moderate to large events 9} Jordan & Palestine : significant number of events 30) Syria, Lebanon, 1759, 1822, 1837 AD | 30,000 casualties (combined effect) By | Palestine Dead Sea Region: 2150 BC 7-13 BH Bab-a-Dara 33N, 35.5E 759 BC 8.0 By Sep?2, 31 BC 70 Jan 18, 746 AD 70 Bn Jan 14,1546 AD 70Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 237 : : PERSIAN N 1 AZ, : PLATEAU e Wau MAKRAN ARRAS ULE og % ogi Oman res we ° 206 & Whe fu x e Sa 7 ny / & FRICAN < wu PLATE Wg | AS 10 o °, 30 40 50 £ 60" Fig. 1 Tectonic Boundary of Arabian Peninsula238 M. Al-Haddad et al. of the sea floor along the axial troughs in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, and in the northwest the predominantly left-lateral transform fault define these boundaries. Due to proximity of these boundaries to KSA, the seismotectonics of the Gulf of Aqaba and Dead Sea (in the northwest), Red Sea (in the southwest) and western Iran and northeastern Iraq (in the northeast) were given special attention in this study. Information from Refs. [5, 6 and 7] was employed to compile a tectonic map of the KSA. ‘The seismotectonic map of Fig. 2 is developed by combining the compiled tectonic map with the most recent seismicity map developed during the course of this study [1]. There is a good correlation of the epicenter distribution with the major tectonic features, except in some regions. The lack of correlation may be due to inadequate seismic and geological data, and due to deep faults without surface traces, unknown active faults or inaccuracy involved in the determination of the epicenters. The low seismic activity in Red Sea northern region as compared to the southern is possibly due to lack of seismic monitoring and inactiveness of the inferred transform faults. The historical event of 1121 AD of magnitude of 6.8 M,, , reported by Amberseys [25], which may be related to one of the transform faults in the region (see Fig. 2), offers a significant indication of the future potential for seismic hazard in the region. ‘The recent events in Al Wajh, Rowdah, Abha, Makkah and Afiff (see Table 2) point, contrary to the belief, to activeness of the Najd fault system. The events of Qasim region (see Table 2), in central part of KSA, were indicated to lie on the edge of Arabian Shield which is not producing any other activity in the area. In case the location of these events, due to lack of data, is in error then they as well may be attributed to the Najd fault system. SEISMIC SOURCE REGIONALIZATION ‘This aspect of study involves identification and regionalization of the seismic sources. A seismic source is defined as a region in the earth crust where the recurrence of future earthquake is assumed to be homogeneous. Seismic regionalization is defined as the subdivision into zones of relatively similar earthquake activity based on the geological (geomorphic and stratigraphic) and historic criteria. ‘The delineation of seismic sources and related regionalization are made on the basis of seismotectonic maps. The seismotectonic map of Fig. 2 distinguishes the clustering of epicenters and associates them with the main tectonic features. All the events, consistent with the data sources, are assumed to have surface foci. This information was employed to delineate Arabian peninsula into fourteen seismic regions shown in Fig. 3 and whose corner coordinates are listed in Table 4. As the correlation between individual tectonic features and the earthquake events could not be confidently speculated, the tectonic features were considered at global level in delineation of the regions. Spatial distribution of the seismicity was employed to group the data in such a way that inside each group (or region) the earthquake process displays a reasonable statistical homogeneity.Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 239 Fig. 2 Preliminary Seismotectonic Map of Arabian Peninsula240 M. Al-Haddad et al © Historical Events (Pre -1900) (generally destructive) 30% 35€ Fig. 3 Note: aa 2. 3. Seismic Source Regionalization Map of Arabian Peninsula And Its Vicinity The seismic source regions are numbered 1 thru 14 See Table 4 for a region name and its corner coordinates ‘The region corners are designated A, B, C, ... in clockwise order in Table 4 with A being in the north-west corner of the regionEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 241 Table 4, Seismic Source Regions and Their Maximum Credible Magntinde Source Corners Source Source Name No | ae crate ton Coons 1 Dead Sea and Gulf AL 35.0 N, 34.8 E Or Aca Region a 350N, 22E cL 29.0N, 35.5 E bt 2a, MOE (7.5) El 28.2.N, ae 2. Sinai Triple Junction AQ 218N, 32.86 Dt man, 35.0 c 26.8.N, 35.6 E (1.2) D2 26.5.N, 345 E 3. Gulf of Suez, AR 30.8.N, 32E ‘B3 31.2N, 23E ft 22 N, MOE oo ” aN, ae 4 | Red Sea Nonthern D2 265N, MSE Region c2 26.8.N, 35.6E c+ 21.4N, 39.1 E (7.0) D4 20.7 N, 37.8 E 5. Red Sea Southern AS 20.5.N, 375E Region BS 21.3.N, 38.9E cs 139N, Ble (7.0) DS 13.0 N, 414E 6. Yemen Region AG 18.0.N, 40.8 E B6 19.0N, 42.8E C6 I3.S.N, 45.8 E D6 12.5.N, 44.0E (7.0) cs 13.9 N, a2E 7. | Alar Region Ds TON, MAE cs 13.9N, 43.2E D6 ae 44.0E By 10ON, HOE (7.0) c7 10.0.N, oe 8. Gulf of Aden: D6 12.5 N, 44.0E Region a 63N SS3E us IS2N SE a 19, MOE (7.5)242 M. Al-Haddad et al. Table 4. Seismic Source Regions and ‘Their Maximum Credible Magnitudes (continued) Source Corners Source Source Name No. (Max. Credible : Magnitude) Designation Coordinates 9. Continental Western Aa a. Arabian Zone co 29.0 N, 37.0E E9 25.9'N, 40.1 E cl 29.0N, 35.5E Bo 33.0N, 39.0E bg 29.0N, 375E 7.0) F9 24.4.N, 39.1E 10. Northeast traq-West Ato 35.0.N, HIE San BIO 35.0N, 493 E cio 28.7N, 53.8 E 2.9) Dio 28.7N, 48.7E mn South Iran All 28.7 N, 50.3 E BI 28.7 N, S73E cit 26.4N, 58.9 E (5) pil 26.4N, S21E 12, Central Saudi lz 210, 425E Arabia BR 27.3N, B.6E ci2 25.7N, SE 6.3) biz 25.4.N, BIE 13. East Africa Region AG 172N, 37.8E BB 17N, 38.9 E bs 13.0N, 415 E c7 10.0N, 415 E cB 10.0 N, 39.0E 7.9 DIB 13.0.N, 39.0 14, Owen Zone Region Ag 16.5, 55.3E Bit 14.0N, 59.08 Dia 10.0 N, 56.2 EB D8 14.2, SS.2E Ala 16.9 N, S8.1E cid 10.0 N, SI8E 2.9) El 33N, 56.4 EEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 243 SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS DATA TREATMENT It is seldom possible to have seismic data which are complete in all respects. This is specially so in the regions like KSA, which lack in historical data and seismographic network. The incomplete data requires to be treated before it can be utilized for seismic hazard analysis. SAEDF was given following treatment to rectify its incompleteness. Clusters It is amply demonstrated by Merz [8] in 1973 that the contributions made by clusters or aftershocks (the secondary events that follow the major ones) to seismic hazard estimates is small enough to be neglected for the engineering purposes. Moreover, their presence violates the assumption of memorylessness made in forecasting process by Poisson distribution which is discussed later. In this study clusters were identified and eliminated by inspection. The Window Algorithm due to Gardener and Knopoff [9] which creates a time and space window around a main shock with the window size being commensurate with the magnitude of the main shock was used as a conceptual guide. Missing Magnitudes ‘Some historical events in SAEDF were without magnitude record. These events were assigned magnitudes which were uniformly distributed over the ranges produced in Table 5. The rationale for uniform distribution may be justified by the low frequency of large earthquakes and high probability of detecting and reporting larger magnitudes. ‘The ranges are fixed depending upon the possibility of an event being felt and reported, in historic time, by the people, historical growth of the population and presence of the seismographic networks. Incompleteness The historical record, in time-span, is incomplete in the sense that there may be events, besides the few reported, which were neither noticed nor reported. Also a major earthquake towards the end of a record time-span when averaged over it may produce an overestimate of the rates of such events. On the other hand this process when applied to moderate events may underestimate their rates. Such an incompleteness introduces bias in the recurrence analysis when it is performed over the entire time-period of the historical data. ‘Treatment of the incompleteness is addressed to by several studies [10, 11, 12]. The common approach for rectification of the situation employs earthquake detection and reporting probabilities (10, 13, 14]. These probabilities are allowed to vary in time-span and with the size of the earthquake. ‘The number of events for a specific magnitude-range are adjusted to244 M. Al-Haddad et al. ‘Table 5. Magnitude Ranges for Assignment to Events without Magnitude Period Seismographic Population | Limiting Value/ Network Growth Range 2150 BC - not available sparse 6.0 1000 AD (the maximum reported) 1001 AD - not available more dense 55 1900 AD (the maximum reported) 1901 AD - available in far- - 4-6 1960 AD off countries 1961 AD - available in the - Less than 4 1990 AD region and KSAEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 245 reflect the probability of detection and reporting. ‘The rate of occurrence of the magnitude is then evaluated based on the time-span over which it is observed to occur. SEISMIC SOURCE MODELING Based on geologic evidence, geotectonic province and historic seismicity along with subjective input, the seismic sources in this study were modeled as area sources. Modeling of a source as an area source can be made with confidence only after better understanding of the seismotectonics of the concerned region. However, the area sources on the west coast, which include far-off seismic activity, warranted conservative prediction of seismic hazard at the coast. Existence of moderately high (long period) buildings on the west coast of KSA justified such a conservatism, as these buildings may be affected by a distant carthquake of long period ground motion. MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE ‘One of the most essential and controversial parameter in representing source seismicity is the maximum magnitude that may be employed as the upper cut-off point in the seismicity analysis. However, the available methodology of active fault and historical earthquake approaches for determination of the maximum value, pose interpretive problems [15]. For short return periods, the ground motions are dominated by low-to-moderate magnitude events. In such a situation the choice for upper bound is not a critical factor in determination of the ground motion levels. In this study, the maximum value is taken to be the maximum magnitude generated by a source plus one quarter. The maximum. values of various sources are listed in Table 4, SOURCE SEISMICITY The seismic activity on each of the modeled sources is determined from the past data. ‘The recurrence relationship relating the size of the past events with the number of occurrences is assumed to follow Gutenberg-Richter log-linear relation [16]. The regression analysis for evaluation of recurrence parameters, which reflect the number of events above zero magnitude in a source and its seimsic severity, is performed employing the maximum magnitude as the upper cut-off. Earthquakes of magnitude less than 4, which are of no engineering interest, are not considered in the analysis. RECURRENCE FORECASTING A model for forecasting of future events is required to perform seismic hazard analysis for the Kingdom. Well accepted and widely used statistical models viz., Poisson and Markov, are usually employed for the forecasting purposes. ‘The former assumes that the major seismic events are spatially and temporally independent while the latter assumes memory246 M. Al-Haddad et al. between successive events. In this study Poisson model is employed for its simplicity, wide acceptance and accuracy. Besides the assumptions made above, the model implies that the probability of two events occurring at the same point, in time and space, approaches zero. ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIP Information on the attenuation of ground motion from a source is required for prediction of potential ground shaking at a given site. Many attenuation relations or transfer functions are available in literature. These relationships express a variable of the strong ground motion (usually the peak ground acceleration, A) in terms of parameters which characterize the earthquake source, its size, propagation medium and the local site geology. Presently, with the worldwide availability of region-specific strong motion data (for regions other than KSA), a relation of the following type is suggested for evaluation of A [17, 19], In A = by + by M + by In [R + by exp (bs M)] qd) where, R = _ the distance between the source and the site, M = _ the earthquake magnitude, and by thru bs = constants that jointly depend upon type of source, transmission path and soil conditions at the site. Due to scarcity of strong motion data in KSA, not much information is available on the attenuation of acceleration. However, Eq. (1) was utilized by this study with the constant employed by Thenhaus et al. [18] for western region of KSA, who made region-specific adjustments to their values suggested in [17], which are, by = - 3.303, by = 0.85, b3 = -1.25, bg = 0.087 and bs = 0.678. A value of 0.5 was used for the standard deviation in the attenuation relation throughout the analysis. It may be pointed out that the installation of strong ground motion instruments, in future, will help in calibration of the attenuation relationship employed in the study. When that is done, the results presented here, can readily be modified and updated. ISO-ACCELERATION MAPPING Employing the attenuation relationship, the probability distribution of peak ground acceleration (PGA) at a site, was developed by using the step-by-step numerical procedure suggested in Ref [15]. This procedure was implemented by the Stanford Seismic Hazard Analysis (STASHA) [19] expert system. The expert system was employed to construct hazard curves of specific sites and plot iso-acceleration maps for 10% probability of being exceeded in 100, 50 and 20 years. ‘The 50-year iso-acceleration map is produced in Fig. 4.247 Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia savak og uy papavoxg Suraq Jo Aungeqorg %OT 20) depy uoNesajasoe-osy 09 6S BS ZG 9S GS +5 CS ZG IG OS Br Bb Ly OP Sr bh Cr ZH Lb Ob OF BE LE OE GE HE el vt cL OL a aL 6h oz Ww ew 8 vz sz 9% le Be a sewn, ion 2 DIezAY as (rp mpm Ww Teeay “ON soafowd Sean Lt 09 6S BS LS 9G SG PS LS ZG IG OS Br Bb Le OF Gb br Cb Zh Ib OF BF AC LE OC GE HEdepy uoyeuoz onusiag s Bu oo 9s) 9S oS (Oe M. Al-Haddad et al.Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 249 ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA OVERALL OBJECTIVE The first line of thought in preparing preliminary version of the design criteria for KSA was to develop them in a fashion that will, a) _assist researchers and regulatory bodies in reduction of seismic hazard in new and existing buildings at present or at a point in time in future; b) _ provide engineer-experts with relevant seismic parameters for the Kingdom as an input to recognized standards and codes; and ©) __ provide professional engineers with ready to use formulation for evaluation of seismic loads and the related effects, and furnish basic information for analysis and design of the building structures in situations where the code provisions are not applicable. The other line of thought was to develop the design criteria within a framework of a seismic code that is well recognized and accepted internationally and nationally. Based on ctitical screening and evaluation of world wide earthquake resistant design codes the most widely used U.S. model codes, SEAOC [3] and UBC [4], were selected as the models for development of the seismic design recommendations suitable for and consistent with the type of buildings and construction practices in vogue in KSA. The SEAOC 1988, a total rewrite of earlier editions, is prepared in keeping with the most current information and practice of the present state-of-the-art of engineering design. UBC-1991 follows the SEAOC-Code for seismic design and incorporates "Tentative Provisions" of ATC [2], after due evaluation of the "new concepts" and the parameters involved in these provisions to meet the various aspects of the overall objective. The manuscript of the Preliminary Design Criteria [1] follows the SEAOC-format in general and is written in descriptive text rather than in a formal code type format. Along with the proposed design criteria, it presents the background and the basis which led to their selection or adoption. In this paper, only the crucial issues and the parameters from SEAOC or UBC are discussed to show how they were evaluated, modified and adopted. PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN CRITERIA Life safety in the event of severe earthquake is the underlying philosophy and a matter of paramount consideration in the development of design criteria for building design. It is also envisaged that the design criteria should be developed to provide seismic protection to all the areas of the Kingdom, include requirements for structural analysis, design, and detailing which provide adequate earthquake resistance for typical buildings, and provide explanation250 M. Al-Haddad et al in the form of worked out example to assist the user in understanding the intent of the provisions. SCOPE AND APPLICATION The criteria developed here apply to new structures only and exclude special structures. However, the seismic load parameters required for design of special structures by professional engineers and code promulgating authorities, are provided by the study. The low hazard structures are covered in this study by the minimal requirements on construction. SEISMIC ZONATION AND FACTOR The 50-year PGA contours given in Fig. 4 are used to zone the Kingdom for seismic design purposes. The Kingdom is divided into four seismic area zones, shown in Fig. 5, which are based on PGA levels produced in Table 6. The seismic zone factor, Z, consistent with the philosophy of SEAOC and UBC is calculated according to recommendations of ATC [2]. The Z-value represents the effective peak acceleration (EPA) as a decimal fraction of the acceleration due to gravity, g. As shown in Fig. 6 the EPA is calculated as a proportional acceleration ordinate of an appropriate elastic response spectrum constructed for the area for which the Z-value is available. The constant of proportionality of five percent damping spectrum is taken as 2.5 [2]. The Z-values for the four seismic zones in the Kingdom are presented in Table 7. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORY (SPC) Seismic performance is a measure of the degree of protection provided to public and building occupants against the potential seismic hazard. The seismic performance category (SPC) concept was first introduced in the ATC recommendations and the seismicity index and seismic hazard exposure group were employed to determine the SPC of a building. The recent NEHRP provisions [34] use effective peak velocity related acceleration in place of seismicity index. For the Kingdom three performance categories A to C are employed as shown in Table 8. These categories are determined by the zone number which is considered to reflect the effective peak acceleration and the occupancy category. MINIMUM DESIGN LATERAL FORCES AND RELATED EFFECTS The provisions for static and dynamic lateral force evaluation closely follow the SEAOC-format except for the parameter, R,,, which is modified to reflect the effects of the building-type and the structural-systems employed in KSA.Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 251 = E 3 S w g = << ea rq oO a a wn or 05 1 5 10 50 PERIOD (SECONDS) Fig. 6 Schematic representation showing how EPA is obtained from a response spectrum252 M. Al-Haddad et al. Table 6. Basis of Seismic Zone Number (SZN) Assignment r SZN PGA in g’s 0 less than 0.05* 1 0.05 to 0.10 2A 0.10 t0 0.15 2B 0.15 and above** 1 * PGA for 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years ** the highest value of the PGA is about 0.2g. Table 7. Seismic Zone Number (SZN) and Seismic Zone Factor, Z SZN 0 1 2A 2B Zz 0.05 0.075 0.15 02 J Table 8. Seismic Performance Category oc SZN ES SP st 2B Cc c B 2A B B A 1 B A A 0 No seismic requirement on the structures in this zone Notes: OC Occupancy Category SZN Seismic Zone Number ES Essential OC SP Special OC ST Standard OC ABC Seismic Performance Category DesignationsEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 253 Structure Types and Height Limits The design criteria employ SPC as a control in prohibiting use of certain structural types and limiting the heights of buildings as shown in Table 9. This table is an adoption of Table G of SEAOC and UBC where these limits are based on seismic zone factor regardless of the occupancy type. System Performance Factor, Ry No solid basis is available in SEAOC [3] or UBC [4] to justify the values specified for the factor, Ry. As a matter of fact these values form the most controversial part in the development of seismic design provisions. The code development authorities have employed consensus of engineering judgement and structural performance observed during earthquake, of the buildings designed according to the earlier versions of the codes, in arriving at the stipulated values. However, the experts at the present point in time consider the specified values to be high. The values specified in Table 9 are lower than those specified by SEAOC and UBC. The following considerations led to selection of the values: 1) adoption of ACI-1989 [35] provisions for design and detailing requirements which employ lower values of load factors than those specified by SEAOC and UBC, 2) the prevalent information of lesser ductility of Saudi reinforcing steel as compared to ASTM Grade-60 steel, specially under cyclic loading, 3) the prevailing understanding that the quality control in KSA, specially in private construction sector, is not up to the mark, and 4) the lack of knowledge of response to an earthquake of the buildings and structural systems employed in the Kingdom. CONCLUSION All the issues in the evaluation of seismic hazard, in a region of low to moderate earthquake activity having limited information on its seismotectonics and past seismic activity, are developed on scientific and regionally consistent manner. The issues and policy decisions involved in the development of seismic resistant design criteria for the region are discussed at length. The development conforms with the current state-of-the knowledge and is capable of calibrating itself with availability of more data. An equally important aspect of the study254 M. Al-Haddad et al. Table 9, Structural System, R,, and Height Li ss) Lateral Load Resisting System RO | HO a} Description meters A. Moment Resisting | 1- Special Moment Resisting Space Frame Space Frames (SMRSF) Steel 8 NL. Reinforced Concrete 8 NLL. 2- Conerete Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames (IMRSF)(9) 5 3-Ordinary Moment Resisting Space Frames Steel 6 Reinforced Concrete @) 2 B, Building Frame | -Steel Eccentric Braced Frame 8 75 System (EBF) 2-Shear Walls Reinforced Concrete 6 5 Reinforced Masonry 4 50 3-Steel Concentric Braced Frames 6 50 C. Dual System 1I-Shear Walls Concrete with SMRSF 8 ie Concrete with Concrete 5 160 IrsF) 2-Steel EBF with Steel SMRSF 8 NL. 3-Conerete Braced Frames Steel with Steel SMRSF 8 NL. Steel with Concrete SMRSF 6 50 D. Bearing Wall |- Shear Walls System Reinforced Concrete 4 50 Reinforced Masonry 3 30 E. Undefined System | Inverted Pendulum Structures Tanks, 3 Vessels, Trussed Towers 3 Notes: (1) BSS = Basic Structural System Q) HW = Height applicable to Seismic Performance Category C @) Prohibited in Seismic Performance Category C and B (4) NLL. = No Limit (5) Ref [1] for combination of Structural Systems (6) Prohibited in Seismic Performance Category C (7) Ref [1] for height limitations in Seismic Performance Category BEvaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 255 is identification of the areas where research is needed for improvement of the quality of data and the parameters involved in the analysis. The most obvious issues that need to be addressed to are the ground motion attenuation characteristics in the region, maximum magnitude that may be assigned to regional seismic sources, and seismotectonic correlation. There is a strong justification for research in the field of seismicity and tectonics and urgent need for installation of strong motion instrumentation. In the present day state of awareness, around the world, this study affords to be a guideline for understanding seismicity behavior of low to moderate activity regions and development of seismic resistant criteria for them. The significant results obtained from the study are, the Saudi Arabian Earthquake Data File (treated for overlapping, incompleteness and bias), seismotectonic, iso-acceleration and seismic zonation maps of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Preliminary Design Criteria. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology who funded the research project AR-09-031 entitled “A Study Leading to Preliminary Design Criteria for the Kingdom", on the findings of which the paper is based. Authors also wish to acknowledge consultative participation of Prof. Mustafa Erdik, Bogaci University, Istanbul; Prof. Haresh C. Shah, John A. Blume Professor and Chairman Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford; Dr. Weimen Dong, John A. Blume Earthquake Research Center, Stanford University; and Prof. James Wight, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Authors also wish to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr. Ozal Yuzugullu and Dr. Yehia Sinno, formlerly both of King Saud University, during the early stages of this project.256 M. Al-Haddad et al. REFERENCES Al-Haddad, M., Siddiqi, G.H., Al-Zaid, R., Arafah, A., Necioglu, A., Turekeli, N; (1992) "A Study Leading to Preliminary Seismic Design Criteria in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", Final Report, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh, KSA, March 1992. ATC (1984), ATC-3-06: "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings", (Amended, April 1984, Second Printing), Applied ‘Technology Council, Palo Alto, California, 1984. SEAOC 1(1988), "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Tentative Commentary", Seismological Committee of Structural Engineering Association of California, San Francisco, California, 1988. UBC (1991), "Uniform Building Code", International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, 1991. Brown, G.F. (1972), Tectonic Map of the Arabian Peninsula, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Director General Mineral Resources, Arabian Peninsula Map AP-2, Scale 1:4,000,000, 1972. El-Isa, Z.H. and Al-Shanti, A. (1989), Seismicity and Tectonics of the Red Sea and Wester Arabia, Geophysical Journal, V. 97, pp. 449-457, 1989. Rowaihy, M.N. (1985), Set of the Geologic Maps of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Director General Mineral Resources, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Scale 1:250,000, 1985. Merz, H.A. (1973), Aftershocks in Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973. Gardner, J.K., and Knopoff, L. (1974), Is the Sequence of Earthquake in Southern California, with Aftershocks Removed, Poissonian? Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 64, pp. 1363-1367, 1974. Stepp, J.C., Rinehart, W.A., and Algermissen, S.T. (1965), Earthquakes in the United States 1963-64 and An Evaluation of the Detection Capability of the United States Seismograph Stations, Technical Report 620, U.S. Department of Commerce Research Projects Agency, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Seismology Division, Boulder, Colorado, 1965. Stepp, J.C. (1972), Analysis of Completeness of the Earthquake Sample in the Puget Sound Area and Its Effect on Statistical Estimates of Earthquake Hazards, Proceedings of the International Conference on Microzonation, Vol. 2, pp. 897-91, 1972. Kijko, A., and Dessokey, M. (1987), Applications of the Extreme Magnitude Distributions to Incomplete Earthquake Fields, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 77(4), pp. 1429-1436, 1987. Kelly, E.J., and Lacoss, R.T. (1969), Estimation of Seismicity and Network Detection Capability, Technical Report 1969-41, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969.Evaluation of Seismic Hazard and Design Criteria for Saudi Arabia 287 20. al. 22. ve 24. — 26, a 28. 29. Lamarre, M. (1988), Seismic Hazard Evaluation for Sites in California: Development of An Expert System, Report No. 85, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1988. Shah, H.C. Earthquake Engineering and Seismic Risk Analysis (CE282B), The John Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1965), Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena, Hafner Publishing Co., New York, pp. 310, 1965. Campbell, W.K. (1985), Strong Motion Attenuation Relations: A Ten-Year Perspective, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 1(4), pp. 739-804, August 1985. Thenhaus, P.C., Algermissen, S.T., Perkins, D.M., Hanson, S.I., and Diment, W.H. (1986), Probabilistic Estimates of the Seismic Ground Motion Hazard in Western Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Open File Report, U.S.G.S.-OF-06-b, 64 pp, 1986. STASHA (1989), "Stanford Seismic Hazard Analysis Computer Program", Technical Report No. 36, (Modified Version). The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1989. Merghelani, M.M., and Gallathine, S.K. (1980), Microearthquake in the Thimat-Asir Region of Saudi Arabia, Bull, Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 70, pp. 2291-2293, 1980. Meghelani, H.M., A.R. Kinkar, and As-Sawwaf, M.W. (1981), Seismicity Studies in Saudi Arabia: Microearthquakes in Jeddah Area, Open-File Report DGMR-OF-01- 08, Director General Mineral Resources, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 33 pp, 1981. Merghelani, H.M., (1981), Seismicity of the Yanbu Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, U.S. Geol. Surv., Saudi Arabian Mission, Technical Record 16, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 32 pp, 1981. Elsa, Z.H., H. Merghelani, and Bazari, M. (1984), The Gulf of Aqaba Earthquake Swarm of 1983, Geophysical Jounal, V. 78, pp. 711-722, 1984. Bulletins of Seismological Geophysical Observatory, King Saud University, Riyadh. Ambraseys, N. (1988), The Seismicity of Saudi Arabia and Adjacent Areas, ESEE Research Report, Engineering Seismology No. 88/11, 218 pp. (submitted to KACST as a final report of a funded project), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1988. Poirier, J.P. and Taher, M.A. (1980), Historical Seismicity in the Near and Middle East, North Africa and Spain from Arabic Documents (VIIIth-XVIIth Century), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. , V. 70, pp. 2185-2201, 1980. Ambraseys, N.N. and Melville, C.P. (1983), Seismicity of Yemen, Nature, V. 303, pp. 321-323, 1983. Barazangi, M. (1981), Evaluation of Seismic Risk Along the Western Part of the Arabian Plate: Discussion and Recommendations, Bull. Fac. Earth Sci. K.A.U., V. 4, pp. 77-87, 1981. Alsinawi, S.A. and Ghalib, A.A. (1975), Historical Seismicity of Iraq, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., V. 65, pp. 541-547, 1975.258 30. ce cee 33, 35. M. Al-Haddad et al. Adams, R.D. and Barzangi, M. (1984), Seismotectonics and Seismology in the Arab Region: a Brief Summary and Future Plans, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., V. 74, pp. 1011-1030, 1984. Kovach, R.L. (1987), Seismic Risk in Jordan, Open File Report U.S.G.S.-87-358, Menlo Park, California, 1987. Ganse, R.A. and Nelson, J.B. (1981), Catalogue of Significant Earthquakes 2000 B.C. - 1979, Report SE-27, World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, 1981. Riad, S. and Meyers, H. (1985), Earthquake Catalogue for the Middle East Countries 1900-1983, Report SE-40, World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, 1985. BSSC (1988), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, FEMA 95, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., 1988. ACI 318-89 (1989), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1989.