Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2017) 10:540

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3325-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Seismic hazard assessment and rheological implications: a case study

selected for cities of Saudi Arabia along the eastern coast of Red Sea
Faisal Rehman 1 & Abdullah M. Alamri 2 & Sherif M. El-Hady 3,4 & Hussein M. Harbi 3 & Ali H. Atef 3

Received: 19 January 2017 / Accepted: 30 November 2017

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2017

Abstract
A probabilistic approach is used to evaluate the seismic hazard for 12 strategic cities in Saudi Arabia along the eastern
coast of Red Sea. The focal depth variations controlled by rheological characteristics are taken into account for hazard
calculations, and its creditability is tested through sensitivity analysis for hazard results. This study presents a neo-
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment methodology in which the focal depth distribution of earthquakes within
seismogenic layer is divided into three depth slices. These depth slices are based upon rheological characteristic of
seismogenic layer. The hazard results are obtained using this depth-slice methodology and conventional approach in
which uniform distribution of seismicity within seismogenic layer is assumed. The sensitivity analysis culminated in
underestimation of hazard values in higher frequencies for uniform distribution of seismicity within seismogenic layer.
Foregoing the observations recorded above, it can be concluded that the exploitation of depth-slices biased by the
rheology to calculate hazard is relatively preferable in the situations demanding safety measures.

Keywords Seismic hazard assessment . Rheological implications . Saudi Arabia

Introduction exceedance probability of ground motion from specified

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a quanti-
fied methodology which provides a relationship among
potential seismic sources, corresponding ground motion
parameters, and associated earthquake occurrence proba-
bilities (Lin and Baker, 2011). PSHA reckons the
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3325-1) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Faisal Rehman
mail.faisalrehman@gmail.com
1
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Sargodha,
Sargodha, Pakistan
2
Department of Geology & Geophysics, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3
Geophysics Department, Faculty of Earth Sciences, King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
4
Earthquake Department, National Research Institute of Astronomy
and Geophysics, Helwan, Egypt
level at the site of interest by integrating the probability
theory with prototype of seismological sources and
ground motion attributes (Anbazhagan et al., 2009;
Mihalić et al., 2011; Muço et al., 2012). For assessment
of ground motion, we must take into account the earth-
quake occurrence frequency for various magnitudes, the
ambiguity of the epicenter locations, and the attenuation
of ground motion together with its uncertainty (Wong, and
District, U.S.A.C.o.E.J., Corporation, U, 2004).
Rheology is the understanding of deformation processes in
the crust and upper mantle. Brittle processes control mainly
deformation in the shallow crust (Emmerson et al., 2006). The
deformation at greater depths is dominated by plastic process-
es as result of the higher temperatures (Handy and Brun,
2004). However, during the episodes of deformation, such
as associated with earthquakes, semi-plastic deformation be-
havior will penetrate deeper in the crust (Scholz, 2002). The
strength of continental lithosphere may likely to be contained
within the seismogenic layer (Maggi et al., 2000). These rhe-
ological changes control earthquake occurrence with respect
to depth in seismogenic layer (Albaric et al. 2009). A very
little attention has been given to the subject of seismic hazard
assessment and rheological implications.
540 Page 2 of 17
Throughout the human history, urban settlement hap-
pened in coastal areas, which are actually the link be-
tween shore and offshore. The coastal areas provide trans-
portation sources, defensible strategic positions, and tour-
ism places. In the situations demanding safety measures,
seismic hazard assessment for coastal cities is unavoid-
able. Previous studies related to PSHA in the western
coastal province of Saudi Arabia are limited (e.g., Al-
Amri et al., 2003, Al-Amri and Rodgers (2013), Al-Arifi
et al., (2013) Almadani et al., (2015) and Zahran et al.,
(2015 & 2016). These studies did not incorporate rheo-
logical constraints. The main aim of this research is to
identify the effect of rheology attribute on hazard estima-
tions besides uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. PSHA is
carried out for 12 cities of Saudi Arabia (Fig. 1). These
cities are rapidly growing major coastal settlements.
Fig. 1 Location map of selected
cities and town circled in red
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Regional geology and tectonic setting
The Arabian Plate is one of the youngest fragments of Earth
lithosphere (Sadek, 2004). It is bordered in all direction by
active plate margins. The drifting from NE Africa furnished
the origin of Arabian Plate ~ 25 Ma ago (Stern and Johnson,
2010). The Arabian Plate is subdivided into two major regions,
Arabian Platform (eastern part) and Arabian Shield (western
part). The Arabian Platform is characterized by sedimentary
cover thickening towards Arabian Gulf. Igneous and metamor-
phic rocks are mainly exposed in Arabian Shield area and are
devoid of sedimentary cover (Al-Amri and Rodgers, 2013).
The main tectonic provinces that affect our study area are
summarized in Fig. 2. The Arabian Shield separated from
Nubian Shield in early Tertiary age by the Red Sea Rifting.
The continental lithosphere rifting, beginning in Oligocene,
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 2 Major tectonic provinces
affecting the study area modified
after USGS (1998)
leads to break and generation of the sea floor by approximate-
ly 5 Ma in the southern part of the Red Sea (Cochran, 1981).
On the basis of geology and tectonics point of view, the
Arabian Shield can be divided into five major terrains (Fig. 2):
Assir Terrain, Hijaz Terrain, Madyan Terrain, Afif Continental
Terrain, and ArRayn Terrain (Al-Shanti, 2009). These terrains
are dissected and crossed by a group of different strike-slip
faults. Proterozoic age strike-slip faults are major structural
elements extending in the northeastern Arabian Peninsula
from the southeast having 120-km length and 300-km width
(Agar, 1987; Al-Shanti, 2009; Stern, 1985).
Red Sea is elongated and is somewhat twisting escarpment-
bound basin trending, having 250- to 450-km width,
surrounded by uplifted edges of the Arabian and African
Page 3 of 17 540
shields (Ghebreab, 1998). The Red Sea tectonics indicates that
initially rift-normal extension started which lately switched to
oblique rifting. The Red Sea continental rifting transformed
into oceanic rift having no connection to world mid-oceanic
ridge system (Bosworth et al., 2005).
Seismicity and Seismotectonics
The Arabian Shield and Red Sea are examples of active tec-
tonics regimes in the world experiencing continental rifting
and new oceanic lithosphere formation (Al Amri et al.,
2017). Youssef (2015) discussed the assumption that
Arabian Shield was relatively stable and has low seismic
540 Page 4 of 17
activity character of Saudi Arabia. However, ongoing tectonic
activity and occurrence of felt earthquakes changed the as-
sumption especially for western part of Arabian Shield. The
seismicity map of the Arabian Shield and its surrounding for
period from 1900 to 2016 for magnitude 4 and above is pre-
pared from various national and international available seis-
mological data sources (Fig. 3). The majority of seismic ac-
tivities are restricted along the divergent boundaries and the
spreading centers of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden and the
Dead Sea strike-slip fault zone in the northwest. The overall
paucity of seismic activity in the interior part of the Arabian
promontory indicates that presently a very little deformation
of the Arabian Plate is taking place.
The focal mechanism solution map is prepared using
Harvard Centroid Moment Tensor solution (Fig. 4). The
East African rift system indicates pure normal faulting.
The tension axis nearly oriented NNE-SSW direction.
The Gulf of Aden illustrates two types of faulting re-
gimes, strike-slip and normal faults. Strike-slip faults
Fig. 3 Instrumental seismicity
map of the Arabian shield and its
surrounding for the period from
1900 to 2016 for magnitude 4 and
above
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
associated with existing transform faulting and normal
faulting, which is a result of spreading. In Yemen, the
focal mechanism solution indicates pure normal faulting
associated with seismic activity. In the Red Sea southern
part towards central, the faulting trend changes from
strike-slip to normal. The normal faulting can be attribut-
ed to sea floor spreading or extension while at the south-
ern part the counter-clockwise movement Arabian Plate
produces strike-slip behavior. Gulf of Aqaba indicates
two styles of faulting; strike-slip and normal.
Seismic hazard assessment
The effective way to minimize the seismic disasters loss is
to evaluate the seismic hazard and publicize these pieces
of information to improve building construction style and
structural design (El-Hussain et al., 2012). The seismic
hazard assessment outputs the ground motion attributes
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 4 Harvard centroid moment
tensor solution for earthquakes
greater than 5 magnitudes
for earthquake resistant design, to be implemented for the
site of interest (Hashemi et al., 2013). Seismic hazard
assessment study involves utilization of seismological da-
ta mainly comprised of seismic activity, attenuation, and
site response studies (Dowrick, 2009).
In the current study, seismic hazard assessment followed
the generation of homogenized earthquake catalogue, selec-
tion of suitable and comprehensive seismotectonic model, cal-
culations of Mmax and recurrence parameters for seismogenic
source zones, and selection of appropriate ground motion pre-
dictions equation.
Earthquake catalog
Earthquake catalogue, which provide a broad data set, is
being used for various investigations related to earthquake
physics and geohazard analysis. The hazard parameters
Page 5 of 17 540
are well determined when the catalogue has longer cover-
age (Woessner and Wiemer, 2005).
All available seismicity data from national and internation-
al sources is gathered and compiled into one comprehensive
catalogue. The catalogue is built by merging historical and
instrumental records. The historical catalogue is assigned
three quality schemes: Qa, quality for references; Qb, quality
for location; and Qc, quality for magnitude.
On the basis of quality control for historical events, the
historical earthquake of 1121 AD is considered very low
in quality and is excluded in catalogue compilation
(Fig. 5). The priority given to consideration of magnitudes
is in the following succession respectively: the moment
magnitude (Mw), the surface wave magnitude (Ms), the
body-wave magnitude (mb), and the local magnitude
(ML), respectively. The earthquake catalogue is compiled
for a spatial region extending from 15° to 35° N and 29°
to 47° E and includes events from magnitude 3 and above.
540 Page 6 of 17
Fig. 5 Historical seismicity from
827 to 1899 AD site area and its
vicinity
The catalogue covers a period of time from 827 AD to
August 2016.
Earthquake magnitudes reported are not uniform, so
the different earthquake magnitudes are converted to mo-
ment magnitude. The conversation of different magnitude
into Mw is done by using formulae of Scordilis (2006) and
Al Kathery (2010) .
Subsequent to magnitude conversation, declustering is ap-
plied, to the catalogue to sort out main shocks, foreshocks. and
aftershocks. This methodology is used for seismic hazard as-
sessment and earthquake predictions models (Van Stiphout
et al., 2012). The statistical analyses for seismicity are ob-
scured by earthquake clusters, particularly in the case of back-
ground seismicity (Zhuang et al., 2002).
Several techniques have been proposed for catalogue
declustering, such as Knopoff (1964), Gardner and
Knopoff (1974), Öncel and Alptekin (1999),
Reasenberg (1985), Reasenberg and Jones (1989),
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Zhuang et al. (2002), Hainzl et al. (2006), and Barani
et al. (2007).
In this study, catalogue is declustered using the Gardner
and Knopoff (1974) technique. This technique is simple, ap-
plicable to both historical and instrumental catalogue and to
catalogue with fewer parameters, time, date, and magnitude
(Barani et al., 2007).
Seismotectonic source model
The delineation of seismic source plays an important role
in the evalution of hazard (Vipin and Sitharam, 2013).
The historical events, seismicity pattern, active faults,
and their seismogenic potential play dynamic role in
source characterization (Meletti et al., 2008). The
Rehman et al. (2016) seismogenic source model is utilized
in the current study (Fig. 6). The seismogenic source
model comprised of total 23 area sources.
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 6 Seismogenic source model
by Rehman et al. (2016)
Recurrence parameters and Mmax
The Gutenberg Richter (1944) equation describes the relation-
ship between the number of earthquakes of specific magnitude
(M) or larger per year and the activity rate (Gutenberg and
Richter, 1944). Kijko and Sellevoll (1989, 1992) expanded
the Gutenberg Richter (1944) relationship for heterogeneous
and varying quality seismicity data containing large historical
events and recent observation.
Beside recurrence parameters, the choice of Mmax has an
influence on seismic hazard especially for long return period
and short distance. Different techniques have been utilized for
estimation of Mmax in earlier hazard studies, e.g., global statis-
tical models (Kagan, 1990), regression strain based (DeMets
et al., 1990), and observed seismicity-based numerical ap-
proach (Kijko, 2004; Kijko and Graham, 1998; Kijko et al.,
2001). In the current study, recurrence parameters and Mmax
are calculated using Kikjo (2004) and presented in Table 1.
Page 7 of 17 540
Ground motion prediction equations
Ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) recounts the
attributes of ground motion as a function of magnitude of
the earthquake, distance from the source to the site, and local
site conditions (Atkinson and Boore, 1995; Peruš and Fajfar,
2009; Yazdani and Kowsari, 2013). The GMPE basically pre-
sents empirical relationships that are obtained from seismo-
logical data. GMPE model is obtained by stochastic tech-
niques when a fewer number of seismological data is avail-
able. The stochastic simulation method is applied by Boore
(1983, 2003), Toro et al. (1997), and Raoof et al. (1999).
Douglas (2007) suggested a better approach to utilize well-
develped models from alternative regions rather to use equa-
tions from local and often poorly constrained models.
Ground motion attenuation relationships in the current
study are selected under the guidance provided by Cotton
et al. (2006). Six different ground motions scaling
540 Page 8 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540

Table 1 Recurrence parameters and Mmax calculated for each seismogenic source zone

Sr. No Zone Name Mmin Mmax B values Beta Lembda

Kijko Error Obs Kijko Error Kijko Error Kijko Error

1 Gulf of Aden 3.6 6.62 0.50 6.60 0.94 0.02 2.16 0.05 12.01 0.60
2 Southern Red Sea 3.6 6.66 0.50 6.60 1.06 0.03 2.43 0.08 4.13 0.36
3 Afar Region 3.6 6.95 0.52 6.80 1.13 0.02 2.60 0.05 17.59 0 .73
4 Yemen Jezan Zone 3.6 6.45 0.50 6.40 0.99 0 .03 2.27 0.08 3.01 0.32
5 Central Southern Red Sea 3.6 6.79 0.22 6.70 0.75 0.03 1.74 0.06 10.17 0.63
6 Baha to Abha 3.6 6.00 0.54 5.50 0 .94 0.07 2.16 0.16 0.37 0.13
7 Central Red Sea 3.6 5.47 0.26 5.30 1.01 0.05 2.34 0.11 2.38 0.37
8 Western Coast Seismicity 3.6 6.30 0.54 5.80 0.85 0.07 1.96 0.16 0.49 0.13
9 Eastern Background Seismicity 3.6 5.30 0.54 4.80 0.98 0.07 2.27 0.16 0.10 0.05
10 Harrat Ad Damn Zone 3.6 5.53 0.50 5.00 0.99 0.07 2.28 0.15 0.87 0.19
11 Egypt 1 3.6 4.72 0.23 4.60 1.11 0.06 2.55 0.13 1.61 0.30
12 Egypt 2 3.6 5.35 0.32 5.10 0.97 0.05 2.24 0.11 1.62 0.21
13 Western Background Seismicity 3.6 4.99 0.53 4.90 0.99 0.07 2.29 0.16 0.66 0.20
14 Hijaz Zone 3.6 5.84 0.52 5.70 0.98 0.07 2.26 0.15 0 .37 0.11
15 Eastern Coast Seismicity 3.6 4.40 0.22 4.30 1.04 0.07 2.39 0.16 1.10 0.22
16 Egypt 3 3.6 4.86 0.26 4.70 1.13 0.06 2.60 0.13 1.72 0.27
17 Yanbu Suture Zone 3.6 6.20 0.54 5.70 1.00 0.06 2.31 0.15 3.36 0.49
18 Egypt 4 3.6 5.19 0.35 4.90 1.11 0.06 2.55 0.13 1.19 0.21
19 Northern Red Sea 3.6 5.87 0.26 5.70 1.27 0.03 2.92 0.08 8.42 0.50
20 Afif Terrain 3.6 5.52 0.50 5.00 1.06 0.07 2.45 0.15 0.93 0.20
21 Tabuk Zone 3.6 7.32 0.59 7.00 1.18 0.04 2.71 0.10 3.07 0.31
22 Gulf of Suez 3.6 6.69 0.51 6.60 1.19 0.03 2.73 0.07 4.91 0.30
23 Gulf of Aqba 3.6 7.33 0.50 7.20 1.13 0.03 2.61 0.07 8.02 0.45

relationships are chosen to meet the tectonic conditions of the
study area which include Abrahamson and Campbell and
Bozorgnia (2003), Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Sadigh
et al. (1997), Boore et al. (1997), Atkinson and Boore
(1995), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) (next-generation
attenuation equation).
Rheology and focal depth distribution
The crustal rheology describes the inter-relationship between
different lithologies, their mechanical properties, existence of
different fluids, and their temperature present in the crust. The
deformation style and strength of the lithosphere are largely
controlled by rhology (Searle and Escartin, 2004). Yield
Strength Envelope (YSE) curve is used to portray dispersal
of various stress regimes with respect to depth in crust. The
lithosphere’s mechanical strength estimation has been carried
out by utilizing this technique (Albaric et al., 2009;
Déverchère et al., 2001). YSE and vertical depth distribution
of earthquakes can be used to predicate wet or dry character of
the earth crust and mantle (Konstantinou, 2010).
The deviation in elastic characters and focal depth distribu-
tion of earthquakes has been used to portray the lithospheric
rheological character and its deformation (Zhang et al., 2013).
The direct interpretation for variation in rheological properties
with depth can be made over seismicity data gathered over
many years for a region (Bodri, 1996). The changes in the
geological framework are clearly illustrated by variation in
depth distribution in seismicity. Variety of earthquake cutoff
depths and seismicity peaks are direct an indication of signif-
icant changes in rheological behavior (Albaric et al., 2009).
The cutoff seismicity depth is a clear indicator of the
seismogenic layer thickness. Ito and Nakamura (1998) de-
scribed that the focal depth cumulative frequency distribution
curve could be used to estimate cutoff depth of seismogenic
layer, the 90% of the cumulative frequency curve of indicator
of lower cut off depth of seismogenic layer. This methodology
is used by many researchers (e.g., Ito 1999; Motohashi et al.
2004).
In the current study, an important parameter focal depth
distribution which effects the ground motion acceleration is
considered and its effect on hazard assessment is tested. Ito
and Nakamura (1998) methodology is used to estimate cutoff
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 7 Estimation of cutoff
seismicity and division of
seismogenic layer into three depth
slices. (SGB, base of the
seismogenic layer)
seismicity depth. A focal depth distribution curve (FDDC) is
constructed as a result of application of the Ito and Nakamura
(1998) technique. Depending upon average error in focal
depth, which less than 5 km, a bin size of 5 km is chosen for
FDDC. The base of the seismogenic layer is marked at the
observation of 90% of total seismicity. After that, on the basis
of percentage of seismicity observed the in the FDDC, the
seismogenic layer is divided into three different depth slices.
These three slices actually present vertical distribution of seis-
micity. Figure 7 displays some examples for seismogenic cut-
off depths estimated by technique mentioned above and gen-
eration of three depth slices for different seismic source zones.
Page 9 of 17 540
Hazard calculations
The hazard calculations generate ground motions curves for
selected return periods. The seismogenic source zones, re-
currence parameters, Mmax and GMPE, and effect of
rheology that have been discussed above are all included
into the hazard calculations. The incorporation of these
elements is carried out through formulation the of the
logic tree. Kulkarni et al. (1984) introduced the logic tree
as a tool to quantify and capture the uncertainties in PSHA.
In hazard calculation, uncertainties are a result of inade-
quate understanding of the complex process of earthquake
540 Page 10 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540

Seismotectonic
Magnitude Depth Attenuation Models
Source Model

0-200km

Abra.-Silva (1997) Rock =0.12

M1= D1=0.6 Boore-Joyner-Fumal (1997) = 0.12
M max Calc Campbell-Bozorgnia (2003) =0.32
Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA=0.32
0.5
Sadigh (1997) Rock =0.06
Atkinson-Boore (1995) =0.06

200-600km

Rehman et al., D2=0.2 Abra.-Silva (1997) Rock= 0.22

2016 Boore-Joyner-Fumal (1997) = 0.22
Campbell-Bozorgnia (2003) = 0.22
Atkinson-Boore (1995) = 0.34

> 600 km

M2 =
M maxObs Abra.-Silva (1997) Rock 0.25
Boore-Joyner-Fumal (1997) = 0.25,
0.50
Campbell-Bozorgnia (2003) = 0.25
D3=0.2 Atkinson-Boore (1995) = 0.25

Fig. 8 Systematic layout for logic tree generated

generation and seismic wave propagation (Lombardi et al.,
2005). It is essentially critical to differentiate between un-
certainty in knowledge (epistemic uncertainty) and random-
ness in the process (aleatory uncertainty) (McGuire and
Toro 1986, Atkinson 2004). Aleatory variability is basically
the natural randomness in any process which results by
simplified modeling of a complex process, parameterized
by probability density functions. The scientific uncertainty
present in simplified model is epistemic uncertainty
(Abrahamson, 2006).
for maximum observed seismicity part of the crust while the
equal probability of 20% is given for the rest of the remaining
two other depth zones (Fig. 7). The ground motion equations
are given weight according to the distance to the site. The
source to site distance is divided into three ranges (0–200,
200–600, 600–1000 km). The weight assigned to GMPE ac-
cording to distance followed by a scheme presented in Fig. 8.
Results and discussion

Logic tree Seismic hazard assessment is conducted for return periods of

The logic tree incorporates a succession of branches which
depicts the alternate models and parameter. The relative con-
fidence for each parameter or model is illustrated by weights
assigned to them (Abrahamson and Bommer, 2005; Bommer,
2002; Bommer and Scherbaum, 2008). In the current study,
logic tree incorporates one seismogenic source model, two
scenarios for Mmax, three depth distribution slices of seismic-
ity, and six ground motion prediction equations.
The magnitude is given for two different probabilities.
Mmax calculated is termed M1. The second probability M2 is
basically maximum observed magnitude in the source zone.
The three depths D1, D2, and D3 are assigned different
weights. The maximum weight is given to the depth range
where highest frequency of earthquakes is observed. In most
of the seismogenic model zones, a weight of 60% is adopted
475 and 2475 years which correspond to 10 and 2% probabil-
ity of exceedance in 50 years, respectively. The hazard curves
illustrate the variation of strong motions parameters with prob-
ability of exceedance for specific return period. Figure 9 illus-
trates the hazard curves for 12 cities in the western coast of
Saudi Arabia. These curves show ground motion acceleration
at various spectral periods.
Deaggregation analysis
Deaggregation technique is a significant and essential proce-
dure for understanding of seismic hazard results. This process
has become more basic practice for answering the question
related to sources, which significantly contribute to the hazard
(Jaradat 2008). It enables to identify the attributes of seismic-
ity accountable for seismic hazard in term of distance to site
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 9 Uniform hazard curves for
475- and 2475-year return periods
and earthquake magnitude (Fauzi and Fauzi 2013; Bazzurro
and Cornell 2004). Normally, seismic hazard is deaggregated
in provisions of two parameters, source to site distance and
magnitude (McGuire and Shedlock. 1981; Stepp et al. 1993).
The PSHA results are deaggregated for a 475-year return
Page 11 of 17 540
period in four cities (Jeddah, Yanbu, Jizan, and Tabuk) to
determine the contribution of sources to hazard level.
In Jeddah and Yanbu, the largest contribution to hazard
originates from very near sources at PGA, 0.1 s and 0.2 s
spectral periods (Fig. 10 and Supplementary material). Both
540 Page 12 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540

PGA

Fig. 10 Deaggregation results for Jeddah at PGA, 0.1 s, 0.2 s, 1 s, and 2 s spectral periods
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Fig. 11 Sensitivity analysis for
Jeddah at return periods of
475years (a) and 2475 years (b)
cities are surrounded by low seismicity. However, at 1 s and
2 s spectral periods for Jeddah, the hazard contribution origi-
nates from distant earthquakes (187–300 km) with magnitude
6.3–6.4 Mw. For Yanbu, the magnitude of earthquakes range
from 6 to 6.2 Mw and distance to site from 375 to 544 km at 1 s
and 2 s spectral periods possible linked with sources in
Page 13 of 17 540
northern part. The abovementioned scenarios for both cities
indicate that seismic sources very close to the two cities are of
low activity rates. The high ground-motion levels for short
distance events are not likely to occur. However, for distant
earthquakes, higher motions can be expected at lower
frequencies.
540 Page 14 of 17
The seismicity affecting Jizan and Tabuk is higher and very
close to both cities as compared to Jeddah and Yanbu
(Supplementary material). The major contribution for seismic
hazard to Jizan at PGA, 0.1 s, 0.2 s, 1 s, and 2 s spectral period
originates from Yemen Jizan Zone (4), Southern Red Sea (2),
and Central Southern Red Sea (5) (Fig. 6). The controlling
sources for Tabuk are Tabuk Zone (21), Northern Red Sea
(19), and Gulf of Aqaba (23) (Fig. 6). The hazard for both
cities is dominated by moderate to large earthquakes at smaller
and larger spectral periods (Supplementary material). This
means high ground motion levels can be expected for shorter
as well as larger distance event.
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis (SA) is an indispensable step in seis-
mic hazard analysis to determine the significance of input
parameters and uncertainty to the outcome (Beauval and
Scotti, 2004; Marin et al., 2004; Sabetta et al., 2005;
Sokolov et al., 2009). The SA points out the major contrib-
utors in the variability of seismic hazard (Hassaballa et al.,
2011; Lombardi et al., 2005). The basic goal of SA is to
recognize the input parameters that encompass the maxi-
mum impact on risk estimation and its uncertainty (Cramer
et al., 2002; Giner et al., 2002).
The creditability of depth bin distribution of seismicity
within seismogenic layer into three depth slices is evaluated
for its effect on hazard calculation. The hazard calculation is
carried out again by using a prototype of focal depth distribu-
tion. This approach divides seismicity in seismogenic layer
uniformly. The results indicate that uniform distribution of
focal depth in seismogenic layer leads to underestimation of
hazard at PGA and higher frequencies 0.1 and 0.2 s for the
return period of 475 and 2475 years (Fig. 11 and
Supplementary material). The lower frequency spectrum is
unaffected for both 475- and 2475-year return periods. The
underestimation for hazard calculation increases in weight as
ground acceleration values for that area increases.
Conclusions
The hazard analyses, conducted in this study, are based on
homogenized earthquake catalogue, updated source model,
and next-generation attenuation equations with rheological
constraints. The instrumental seismicity catalogue used is gen-
erated by cross-referencing other international seismological
centers data. The ground-motion prediction equations used in
this study include NGA model. The logic tree is built to take
consideration of uncertainties. The PGA and spectral acceler-
ation values for 475- and 2475-year return period are calcu-
lated for 12 cities. Furthermore, deaggregation of hazard and
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
sensitivity analysis are carried out for Jeddah, Yanbu, Jizan,
and Tabuk.
The deaggregation of hazard results for Jeddah and Yanbu
revealed that short distant earthquakes are not expected to
produce highest ground motions at PGA, 0.1 s, and 0.2 s spec-
tral periods. However, the earthquake events at large distances
can produce higher accelerations at higher spectral periods
like 1 and 2 s. Jizan and Tabuk are expected to have alarge
contribution to hazard by both near and far distance earth-
quakes at all spectral periods.
The main objective of the study is to find out the effect of
crust rheological characteristics on hazard estimation. This
effort leads us to divide the focal depth distribution into three
depth slices. The maximum weight is assigned to the depth
slice that had the highest frequency of earthquakes occur-
rence. The sensitivity analysis carried out for three depth slices
and for a uniform distribution for focal depths. The results
obtained from the uniform distribution of seismicity within
seismogenic layer are lower predicted than that of three depth
slices. This underestimation of hazard results is observed at
higher frequencies for return period 475 and 2475 years. The
effect of focal depth distribution is negligible at lower
frequencies.
The epistemic uncertainty and aleatory variability are
topics of great interest in the hazard analysis. The depth dis-
tribution is epistemic variability which directly comes from
stress field distribution and real tectonic conditions. There is
a clear observation that seismic hazard in a uniform distribu-
tion of seismicity leads to underestimation of the hazard. This
concludes that it is suitable to use depth slices for safety pur-
pose. Any future work for seismic hazard studies should take
the stress field distribution and rheological characteristics of
the crust into their consideration.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully appreciate the support by
Deanship of Graduate Studies and Department of Geophysics, Faculty
of Earth Sciences, King Abdulaziz University. The authors would like to
thank Earthquake Monitoring Center, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
who give us the permission to run EZ-FRISK software for academic
purposes and scientific cooperation.
References
Abrahamson N (2006) Seismic hazard assessment: problems with
current practice and future developments. First European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland, pp 3–8
Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ (2005) Probability and uncertainty in seis-
mic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra 21(2):603–607. https://doi.
org/10.1193/1.1899158
Abrahamson N A, Silva W J (1997) Empirical response spectral attenu-
ation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett
68(1):94–127
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
Agar R (1987) The Najd fault system revisited; a two-way strike-slip
orogen in the Saudi Arabian Shield. J Struct Geol 9(1):41–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(87)90042-3
Al Amri A, Abdelrahman K, Andreae MO, & Al-Dabbagh M (2017)
Crustal and upper mantle structures beneath the Arabian Shield
and Red Sea. In Lithosphere dynamics and sedimentary basins of
the Arabian Plate and surrounding areas (pp. 3-29). Springer
International Publishing
AlKathery AM (2010) Short-term and long-term seismic hazard assess-
ment, NW Arabian Peninsula. MSc thesis, Geology Department,
College of Science, King Saud University, p. 179
Al-Amri A M, Rodgers A J (2013) Improvement of seismicity parameters
in the Arabian shield and platform using earthquake location and
magnitude calibration. In: Lithosphere dynamics and sedimentary
basins: The Arabian plate and analogues. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 281–293
Al-Amri A, Punsalan BT, Khalil A, Uy EA (2003) Seismic hazard as-
sessment of western Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea region. IISEE,
Japan, pp 95–112
Al-Arifi NS, Fat-Helbary RE, Khalil AR, Lashin AA (2013) A new
evaluation of seismic hazard for the northwestern part of Saudi
Arabia. Nat Hazards 69(3):1435–1457
Albaric J, Déverchère J, Petit C, Perrot J, Le Gall B (2009) Crustal rhe-
ology and depth distribution of earthquakes: insights from the cen-
tral and southern East African Rift System. Tectonophysics 468(1-
4):28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.05.021
Almadani S, Al-Amri A, Fnais M, Abdelrahman K, Ibrahim E,
Abdelmoneim E (2015) Seismic hazard assessment for Yanbu met-
ropolitan area, western Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci 8(11):9945–
9958
Al-Shanti A (2009) Geology of Arabian Shield of Saudi Arabia. King
Abdulaziz Universiyt Press, Jeddah
Anbazhagan P, Vinod JS, Sitharam TG (2009) Probabilistic seismic haz-
ard analysis for Bangalore. Nat Hazards 48(2):145–166. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-008-9253-3
Atkinson GM (2004). An overview of developments in seismic hazard
analysis. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp.
1-6). Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004
Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern
North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:17–30
Barani S, Ferretti G, Massa M, Spallarossa D (2007) The waveform
similarity approach to identify dependent events in instrumental
seismic catalogues. Geophys J Int 168(1):100–108. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03207.x
Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004) Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabilistic
seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6):2110–2123
Beauval C, Scotti O (2004) Quantifying sensitivities of PSHA for France
to earthquake catalog uncertainties, truncation of ground-motion
variability, and magnitude limits. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(5):
1579–1594. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003246
Bodri B (1996) Thermal state, rheology and seismicity in the Pannonian
basin, Hungary. J Geodyn 21(4):309–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0264-3707(96)00002-6
Bommer JJ (2002) Deterministic vs. probabilistic seismic hazard assess-
ment: an exaggerated and obstructive dichotomy. J Earthq Eng
6(sup001):43–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460209350432
Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F (2008) The use and misuse of logic trees in
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra 24(4):
997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755
Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground mo-
tions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894
Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic
method. Pure Appl Geophys 160(3):635–676. https://doi.org/10.
1007/PL00012553
Page 15 of 17 540
Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating hor-
izontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North
American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett
68(1):128–153. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.128
Bosworth W, Huchon P, McClay K (2005) The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
basins. J Afr Earth Sci 43(1-3):334–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jafrearsci.2005.07.020
Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion
(attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of
peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 93(1):314–331. https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120020029
Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) 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 24(1):139–171. https://doi.org/10.1193/
1.2857546
Cochran JR (1981) The Gulf of Aden: structure and evolution of a young
ocean basin and continental margin. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth
(1978–2012) 86(B1):263–287. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JB086iB01p00263
Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H (2006) Criteria for
selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target
regions: application to central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol
10(2):137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-005-9006-7
Cramer CH, Wheeler RL, Mueller CS (2002) Uncertainty analysis for
seismic hazard in the southern Illinois basin. Seismol Res Lett 73(5):
792–805. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.73.5.792
DeMets C, Gordon RG, Argus DF, Stein S (1990) Current plate motions.
Geophys J Int 101(2):425–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
246X.1990.tb06579.x
Déverchère J, Petit C, Gileva N, Radziminovitch N, Melnikova V,
San'Kov V (2001) Depth distribution of earthquakes in the Baikal
rift system and its implications for the rheology of the lithosphere.
Geophys J Int 146(3):714–730. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-
540x.2001.1484.484.x
Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response
spectra. ISET J Earthq Technol 44:71–99
Dowrick D J (2009) Earthquake resistant design and risk reduction. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
El-Hussain I, Deif A, Al-Jabri K, Toksoz N, El-Hady S, Al-Hashmi S, Al-
Toubi K, Al-Shijbi Y, Al-Saifi M, Kuleli S (2012) Probabilistic
seismic hazard maps for the sultanate of Oman. Nat Hazards
64(1):173–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0232-3
Emmerson B, Jackson J, McKenzie D, Priestley K (2006) Seismicity,
structure and rheology of the lithosphere in the Lake Baikal region.
Geophys J Int 167(3):1233–1272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2006.03075.x
Fauzi A, Fauzi UJ (2013) Deaggregation of new national seismic hazard
maps for Indonesia. In proceedings of 10 International Conference
on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan
Gardner J, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern
California, with aftershocks removed. Poissonian Bull Seismol Soc
Am 64:1363–1367
Ghebreab W (1998) Tectonics of the Red Sea region reassessed. Earth Sci
Rev 45(1-2):1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(98)00036-1
Giner J, Molina S, Jauregui P (2002) Advantages of using sensitivity
analysis in seismic hazard assessment: a case study of sites in south-
ern and eastern Spain. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2):543–554. https://
doi.org/10.1785/0120000299
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188
Hainzl S, Kraft T, Wassermann J, Igel H, Schmedes E (2006) Evidence
for rainfall-triggered earthquake activity. Geophys Res Lett 33(19).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027642
540 Page 16 of 17
Handy MR, Brun J-P (2004) Seismicity, structure and strength of the
continental lithosphere. Earth Planet Sci Lett 223(3-4):427–441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2004.04.021
Hashemi M, Alesheikh AA, Zolfaghari MR (2013) A spatio-temporal
model for probabilistic seismic hazard zonation of Tehran. Comput
Geosci 58:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.04.005
Hassaballa A, Mohamed ARE, Sobaih M (2011) Sensitivity analysis of
parameters for probabilistic seismic hazard for Sudan. J Sci Technol
12:02
Ito K (1999) Seismogenic layer, reflective lower crust, surface heat flow
and large inland earthquakes. Tectonophysics 306(3-4):423–433
Ito K, Nakamura S (1998) Variation in thickness of the Seismogenic layer
in southwestern Japan and their relation to large inland earthquake.
Annuals Disas Prev Res Inst 41(B-1):27–35
Kagan Y (1990) Random stress and earthquake statistics: spatial depen-
dence. Geophys J Int 102(3):573–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-246X.1990.tb04584.x
Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, M
max. Pure Appl Geophys 161(8):1655–1681. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00024-004-2531-4
Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilis-
tic seismic hazard analysis part I: estimation of maximum regional
magnitude mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 152(3):413–442. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s000240050161
Kijko A, Sellevoll M (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters
from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and com-
plete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 79:645–654
Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parame-
ters from incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude
heterogeneity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:120–134
Kijko A, Lasocki S, Graham G (2001) Non-parametric seismic hazard in
mines. Pure Appl Geophys 158(9):1655–1675. https://doi.org/10.
1007/PL00001238
Knopoff L (1964) The statistics of earthquakes in Southern California.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 54:1871–1873
Konstantinou K (2010) Crustal rheology of the Santorini–Amorgos zone:
implications for the nucleation depth and rupture extent of the 9
July 1956 Amorgos earthquake, southern Aegean. J Geodyn
50(5):400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2010.05.002
Kulkarni R B, Youngs R R, Coppersmith K J (1984) Assessment of
confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In:
Proceedings of the eighth world conference on earthquake engineer-
ing, vol 1. pp. 263-270
Lin T, Baker J (2011) Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation of
ground motion prediction models. In: 5th international conference
on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Santiago, Chile. pp. 10-13
Lombardi AM, Akinci A, Malagnini L, Mueller CS (2005) Uncertainty
analysis for seismic hazard in Northern and Central Italy. Ann
Geophys
Maggi A, Jackson J, Mckenzie D, Priestley K (2000) Earthquake focal
depths, effective elastic thickness, and the strength of the continental
lithosphere. Geology 28(6):495–498. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-
7613(2000)28<495:EFDEET>2.0.CO;2
Marin S, Avouac J-P, Nicolas M, Schlupp A (2004) A probabilistic ap-
proach to seismic hazard in metropolitan France. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 94(6):2137–2163. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030232
McGuire RK, Shedlock KM (1981) Statistical uncertainties in seismic
hazard evaluations in the United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am
71(4):1287–1308
McGuire RK, Toro G (1986) Methods of earthquake ground motion
estimation for the eastern United States. Electric Power Research
Institute Research Project No. RP2556-16, prepared by Risk
Engineering, Inc., Acton
Meletti C, Galadini F, Valensise G, Stucchi M, Basili R, Barba S,
Vannucci G, Boschi E (2008) A seismic source zone model for the
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
seismic hazard assessment of the Italian territory. Tectonophysics
450(1-4):85–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.01.003
Mihali S, Maja O, Krka M (2011) Seismic microzonation: A review of
principles and practice. Geofizika 28(1):5-20
Motohashi S, Ebisawa K, Sakagami M (2004). Evaluation of the
Seismogenic Layer Depth in Japan Using the JMA Catalogue. In
proceedings of OECD/NEA CSNI Workshop, Tokyo, Japan
Muço B, Alexiev G, Aliaj S, Elezi Z, Grecu B, Mandrescu N, Milutinovic
Z, Radulian M, Ranguelov B, Shkupi D (2012) Geohazards assess-
ment and mapping of some Balkan countries. Nat Hazards 64(2):
943–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0185-6
Öncel A, Alptekin Ö (1999) Effect of aftershocks on earthquake hazard
estimation: an example from the North Anatolian fault zone. Nat
Hazards 19(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008139802609
Peruš I, Fajfar P (2009) How reliable are the ground motion prediction
equations. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on
structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 20), Espoo,
Paper, vol. 9
Raoof M, Herrmann R, Malagnini L (1999) Attenuation and excitation of
three-component ground motion in southern California. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 89:888–902
Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismic-
ity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth (1978–2012) 90(B7):
5479–5495. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479
Reasenberg PA, Jones LM (1989) Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in
California. Science 243(4895):1173–1176. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.243.4895.1173
Rehman F, El-Hady SM, Atef AH, Harbi HM (2016) Seismic hazard
assessment of western Coastal Province of Saudi Arabia: determin-
istic approach. Earthq Sci 29(5):299–309
Sabetta F, Lucantoni A, Bungum H, Bommer JJ (2005) Sensitivity of
PSHA results to ground motion prediction relations and logic-tree
weights. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(4):317–329. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.002
Sadek A (2004) Seismic map for the state of Kuwait. Emirates J Eng Res
9:53–58
Sadigh K, Chang C-Y, Egan J, Makdisi F, Youngs R (1997) Attenuation
relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California
strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):180–189. https://doi.
org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.180
Scholz CH (2002) The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, 2nd edn.
Cambridge University Press, UK, p 496. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511818516
Scordilis E (2006) Empirical global relations converting M S and m b to
moment magnitude. J Seismol 10(2):225–236. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10950-006-9012-4
Searle R, Escartin J (2004) The rheology and morphology of oceanic
lithosphere and mid-ocean ridges. Geophys Monogr Ser 148:63–93
Sokolov VY, Wenzel F, Mohindra R (2009) Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment for Romania and sensitivity analysis: a case of joint
consideration of intermediate-depth (Vrancea) and shallow
(crustal) seismicity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):364–381. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.04.004
Stepp JC, Silva WJ, McGuire RK, Sewell RW (1993) Determination of
earthquake design loads for a high level nuclear waste repository
facility (No. CONF-9310102–VOL. 2). In: Proceedings of the
Natural Phenomena hazards Mitigation Conference, Vol 2. pp 651-
657, Oct. 19-22, Atlanta GA
Stern RJ (1985) The Najd Fault System, Saudi Arabia and Egypt: a Late
Precambrian rift-related transform system? Tectonics 4(5):497–511.
https://doi.org/10.1029/TC004i005p00497
Stern RJ, Johnson P (2010) Continental lithosphere of the Arabian Plate:
a geologic, petrologic, and geophysical synthesis. Earth Sci Rev
101(1-2):29–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.01.002
Toro GR, Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF (1997) Model of strong ground
motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America:
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:540
best estimates and uncertainties. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.41
Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering,
community online resource for statistical seismicity analysis.
https://doi.org/10.5078/corssa-52382934
Vipin K, Sitharam T (2013) Delineation of seismic source zones based on
seismicity parameters and probabilistic evaluation of seismic hazard
using logic tree approach. J Earth Syst Sci 122(3):661–676. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0300-4
Woessner J, Wiemer S (2005) Assessing the quality of earthquake cata-
logues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertain-
ty. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):684–698. https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120040007
Wong IG, District, U.S.A.C.o.E.J, Corporation, U (2004) Deterministic
and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses: Portuguese dam. URS
Corporation, Puerto Rico
Yazdani A, Kowsari M (2013) Earthquake ground-motion prediction
equations for northern Iran. Nat Hazards 69(3):1877–1894. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0778-8
Page 17 of 17 540
Youssef SEH (2015) Seismicity and seismotectonic setting of the Red Sea
and adjacent areas. In: The Red Sea. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp
151–159
Zahran HM, Sokolov V, Youssef SEH, Alraddadi WW (2015)
Preliminary probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based on combined areal source model:
Monte Carlo approach and sensitivity analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 77:453–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.06.011
Zahran HM, Sokolov V, Roobol MJ, Stewart, IC, Youssef SEH, El-
Hadidy M (2016) On the development of a seismic source zonation
model for seismic hazard assessment in western Saudi Arabia. J
Seismol 20(3):747–769
Zhang Z, Deng Y, Chen L, Wu J, Teng J, Panza G (2013) Seismic struc-
ture and rheology of the crust under mainland China. Gondwana Res
23(4):1455–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2012.07.010
Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-
time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380.
https://doi.org/10.1198/016214502760046925