Seismic Hazard and Risk in Central America

1

PROJECTS IN CENTRAL AMERICA

TOWARDS SEISMIC RISK

MITIGATION

COOPERATION OF THE

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID

M ª BELÉN BENITO





Cooperation with Central America and

Caribe

1999

2001

2006

2007

2010

2011

SEISMIC HAZARD IN

GUATEMALA

POST-EVENT MISION

RESIS II PROJECT

(NORAD)

WORKSHOP

SEISMIC HAZARD

Book Amenaza Sísmica en

América Central

COOPERATION Haití, República Dominicana, Puerto Rico

.

• 1999 Seismic Hazard in Guatemala (INSIVUMEH)

• 2001 – up date Studies in El Salvador

Analysis of Seismicity inf 2001

Iinteraction between subduction (13 January) and volvcanic chain events (13 february)

Identification and analysis of El Salvador zone fault (ESZF) with paleoseismic and geodetic data

Landslides seismic hazard

• 2008 Regional study of seismic Hazard in Central America

• 2010 Seismic risk preliminar studies in the capitals of CA



Summary of the cooperation activities

Strong motion analysis with data of

2001





Volcanic chain: zones 3, 4 y 5.

Chixoy-Polochic-Motagua: zones 6, 7 y 8

Shallow subduction: zone 1

intermediate-depth subduction: zonas 11 y 12

Petén: zonas 9 y 10

Honduras depresion: zona 2

MAPA DE SISMICIDAD Y ZONAS SISMOGENÉTICAS EN GUATEMALA

Seismogenic zones defined by Ligorría (1995) _{Contibution of Seismic}

scenarious

1. Seismic hazard in Guatemala city

Starting of cooperation in El Salvador

 Seismicity of El Salvador in 2001

• 13 JAnuary 2001: Subducción (M=7.8 Agencia SPDE)

• 13 February 2001: volcanic chain (M=6.5 Agencia SPDE)

• 17 February 2001: volcanic chain (M=5.1 Agencia WSAL)

EL SALVADOR 1. Analysis of the Seismic Crisis in 2001 _{Could be interaction between subduction and crustal events ?}

13 - Enero

M = 7.7





Study of the seismicity by windows of 1 week

13

1

13 Jnuary

To

12 February

13 -febrero

M = 6.6

28 – febrero

M = 5.6

17 - febrero

M = 5.1

Seismicity from 13 February-13 March

16 - marzo

M = 5.6

10 - abril

M = 4.9

10 - abril

M = 4.4

8 y 9 mayo

M = 4.6, 4.6 y 4.7



12 abril- 9 Mayo

1 ENERO - 15 M ARZO

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0

1-ene4-ene7-ene10-ene 13-ene16-ene19-ene22-ene25-ene 28-ene 31-ene3-f eb6-f eb9-f eb12-f eb15-f eb18-f eb21-f eb24-f eb27-f eb2-mar5-mar8-mar11-mar14-mar Fe cha

Nº Eve ntos

SubducciónCadena Volcánica

13 - Enero

13

-Febrero 28

-Febrero

Histograms of number events vs time

Temporal evolution of seismicity

16 M ARZO - 31 M AYO

0 50 1 00 1 50 2 00 2 50 3 00

16-mar 19-mar 22-mar 25-mar 28-mar 31-mar3-abr6-abr9-abr12-abr15-abr 18-abr21-abr24-abr 27-abr30-abr3-may6-may9-may 12-may 15-may 18-may 21-may 24-may 27-may 30-may Fe cha

Nº Eve ntos

2. Study of the Coulomb Failure Stress transfer after the 13 january event

Map 14 km depth Cross-section AA’

The focus of the 13 February is located in a loaded zone of 0.7 bar after the january event

REd:

Maximun stress concentration (Loaded

zones)

Blue

Unloaded zones The 13 february earthquake was located in a loaded zone after 13 january

event

Results of CFS modelization

. 

A. 1982 and 1986 events B. Joint model of 1982 and 2001 produced a loaded zone

which broke with the 13 February event . C. Modelo generado unicamente por el sismo

del 13 de febrero

Joint modelization of CFS in El Salvador.

Would produce a loaded zone at E Lempa river

A new rupture in the subduction zone (eastern

part)



A big fault zone is identified ZFES

SR was broken by the february 13 th and aftersocks

3. Seismotectonic regional interpretation

Source of important earthquakes of volcanic chain

4.STUDY OF STRONG GROUN MOTION

FROM RECORDS OF 2001

Figura 2.Historias temporales de aceleración, velocidad y desplazamiento derivadas del procesamiento de los registros para el sismo del 13 de Enero

de 2001, con indicación de los valores pico para cada uno de los parámetros 0 20 40 60 80

-800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800

Aceleración (cm/s2)

(13/01/2001) Mw = 7,7 COMP. NS

Tiempo (s) -800 -400 0 400 800

0 20 40 60 80 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40

0 20 40 60 80 -20 -10 0 10 20 20 10 0 -10 -20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 Velocidad (cm/s) Desplazamiento (cm)

BRLN USPN ULLB UPAN CSBR ESJO HSRF UTON UARM 449.7 568.8 1090.7 173.0 153.7 294.9 485.6 257.7 588.7 21.3 37.5 53.2 23.6 3.7 7.0 9.2 4.6 25.2 6.2 7.1 25.4 57.0 15.6 23.1 4.9 49.6 13.9 -800 -4000 400 800 -40 0 40 -20 -100 10 20 3.3 12.3 255.3 HSTR

Figura 2.Historias temporales de aceleración, velocidad y desplazamiento derivadas del procesamiento de los registros para el sismo del 13 de Enero

de 2001, con indicación de los valores pico para cada uno de los parámetros 0 20 40 60 80

-800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800 -800 -400 0 400 800

Aceleración (cm/s2)

(13/01/2001) Mw = 7,7 COMP. NS

Tiempo (s) -800 -400 0 400 800

0 20 40 60 80 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40 -40 0 40

0 20 40 60 80 -20 -10 0 10 20 20 10 0 -10 -20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 -20 -100 10 20 Velocidad (cm/s) Desplazamiento (cm)

BRLN USPN ULLB UPAN CSBR ESJO HSRF UTON UARM 449.7 568.8 1090.7 173.0 153.7 294.9 485.6 257.7 588.7 21.3 37.5 53.2 23.6 3.7 7.0 9.2 4.6 25.2 6.2 7.1 25.4 57.0 15.6 23.1 4.9 49.6 13.9 -800 -4000 400 800 -40 0 40 -20 -100 10 20 3.3 12.3 255.3 HSTR

PGA ma ≈1 g

GROUND MOTION MODELS FOR SUBDUCTION AND VOLCANIC CHAIN INDEPENDENTLY

PGA y SA (T) as a function of:

Magnitude M

Distance R

soil conditions S

From records of subduction and crustal events



( Cepeda et al, 2004)

Deevelopment of a methodology for estimation of landslide hazard based in logistid Regresion and neuronal networks ( SIG)

S

T

H

H HAZARD

S SUSCEPTIBILITY

T TRIGGERING

GENERATION OF A GELOGIC SIG

DIGITALIZATION AND GEORREFERENZATION OF THE GEOLOGIC MAP

(available only in analogic version)

LITOLOGIA PRECIPITACION

USOS DEL SUELO

EFECTO LOCAL

SUSCEPTIBILIDAD

(SRL)

DETONANTE (TD)

MAPA DETERMINISTA: ESCENARIO

13 ENERO DE 2001

PELIGROSIDAD

DETERMINISTA

(HD1)

ALTITUD

ORIENTACIÓN

RUGOSIDAD PENDIENTE

REGRESIÓN LOGÍSTICA (RL)

Y REDES NEURONALES

(RNA)

ACELERACIÓN Determinista (suelo firme)

DETONANTE (TP)

MAPA PROBABILISTA DE PERIODO DE RETORNO 475

AÑOS

PELIGROSIDAD

PROBABILISTA (HP1)

ACELERACIÓN Probabilista (suelo firme)

EFECTO LOCAL

SUSCEPTIBILIDAD

(SRNA)

PELIGROSIDAD

PROBABILISTA (HP2)

PELIGROSIDAD

DETERMINISTA

(HD2)

Scheme of the Method for estimation of susceptibility, triggering fator, and landeslide hazard

SUSCEPTIBILIDAD

DETONANTE

PELIGROSIDAD



Some results

Modelo de redes neuronales

Recently we started cooperation in Costa Rica

Paleoseismicity and GPS control in Central Valey faults

Seismic Hazard in Central

America

2007

PROJECT RESIS II

A new evaluation of Seismic Hazard for

the Central America Region

Mª Belén Benito,_{Wilfredo Rojas, Alvaro Climent}, _{Enrique Molina,}

Griselda Marroquin, EmilioTalavera, José Jorge Escobar, Eduardo Camacho, Conrad Lindholm



Remarkable Aspects

Regional study

Zonation for the three seismic scenarious: Crustal

events, subduction interplate and inslab.

Selection and calibration of strong motion models

with actual and l ocal data for each scenario.

First seismic hazard analysis developed for the whole

Central America region in the decade 2000

Participation of seismologist from all the CA Countries

Use of updata information of seismological and strong

motion Data Bank

Ejecution of the work

Aceleració n

Cálculo de la  Peligrosidad

Catálogo de  Proyecto

. .  .       

.      . ..       .       .

.      .  

H2

DISTRIBUCIÓN DE 

RESULTADOS

Definición de 

fuentes 

sísmicas

Sismicidad de  cada fuente

M



log

N

Distanci a



A

celer

ación

M1 M2 M3

M1 > M2 > M3

Modelo(‐s) de  atenuación



P

(a>A

)

  

  1      

2

 3 H1

H3

H 

total

ÁRBOL LÓGICO



 CRUSTAL+ 

INTERFACE+INSLAB [¼]

GROUND MOTION MODEL 

QUANTIFICATION OF

EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTY Method



Methodology PSHA

( Probabilistisc Seismic Hazard Assessment)

Logic tree with a node for consider ing the uncertainty

inherent to attenuation model

Deaggregation: Determinaction of

couple (M, R) with highest contribution to seismic hazard with a fixed return period.

0 75

150

225

300

4.5

55.5 66.5

77.5 80.0E+00

2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 %Prob

R (km)

Mw Guatemala. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8

Mw

a)

Definition of control earthquakes for RP= 500 , 1000 and 2500 years.

Node 1

Node 2

branches

Set of results

±

Zonification _Atenuación

Phases of the study

study of seismotectonic contex Preparation of inputs:

1. Confection of a Rgional seismic catalogue (standarizarizaed to Mw) .

2. Identification of seismogenizc Zones for thre tectonic regimens

3. Selection of ground motion models and calibration with local real data

Confection of a logic tree and hazard estimation

Representation of results: maps, spectra and deaggregation analysis

Subduction zone

Coco’s Caribe plates Earthquakes with high magnitude and epicenters

offshore

Local faults aligned with the volcanic chain Earthquakes with moderate magnitude, surface depth and epicenters near of population centers. More damaging earth.

Noth American Caribe system faults:

TECTONIC

Historical Seismicity

Matina Chimaltenan

go

Zona de Fractura Golfo Papaga yo

Limón

Focal Mechanism

Seismic Catalogue

Earthquakes since 1522 until Dec. 2007

Mw>= 3.5

Process carried out:

Depuration:

Standarization t to Mw

Filtering of fore and aftershocks

Complitness analysis

:

Mw>= 3.5

s

Regional Zonification (national detail)

•Crustal zones

• surface seismicity, h < 25 km

•Subduction interplate

Intermediate seismicity  

25 < h < 60 km

•Subduction inslab

•Depth seismicity, h > 60 km

Seismic parameters - Gutenberg-Richter models

Zonas Corticales Costa Rica

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5Mw

Log

(N

)

C10 C2 C3 C4-P 1 C5 C6 C7 C9

Zonas Corticales Honduras y Nicaragua

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 Mw

Lo

g

(N

)

N1 N12 N13-14 N2-C1 N3 N4 N6-N7 N8 N9-10 H2 H3-N11

Zonas Corticales Guatem ala

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5Mw

Log

(N

)

G1 G2-S2 G3 G4 G5-S5-H1 G6 G7 G8

Zonas Corticales Panam á y El Salvador

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5Mw

L

og(

N

)

P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8-C8 S1 S3 S4-N5

Zonas de Subducción Interfase

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5Mw

Lo

g(

N

)

Csi11

Csi12

Gsi9

Nsi15

Nsi16

Psi10

Psi9

Ssi5

Zonas de Subducción Intraplaca

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

3.5 44.5 55.5 66.5 77.5 Mw

Lo

g(

N

)

Csp14

Csp15

Csp16

Gsp10 Nsp17

Psp11

Ssp6



Crustal

Interface

Values b between 0.6 and

1 in interface

Distribution of b- values

•Values b between 1 and

1.3 pre‐arc zones,

tensional efforts

•values b between 0.7

and 0.9 in volcanic chain, distensive regime.

inslab, normal

ruptures, b between 0.6 and 1.

Attenuation

Identification of the suitable GM models

model Data Base Component   used (PGA, Sa) sources

Dist.  (km) Mw

Youngs et al.(1997) 

(YOUN97) Mundial Media 

geométrica Interplaca 

Intraplaca 500 5,0 ‐8.2 Atkinson y Boore 2003

(AYB03) Mundial Las dos 

horizontals 

(Aleatoria) Interplaca 

Intraplaca 10‐400 5,0 ‐8,3 Garcia et al.(2005) 

(GAR05) México Media 

cuadrática Intraplaca 4 ‐400 5,2 – 7,4 Cepeda et al.(2004) 

(CEP04) El Salvador   Aleatoria

Media 

geométrica

Intraplaca Corteza 

Superficial 10 – 400 0‐100

5,0 – 8,3 5,1 – 7,2 Climent et al.1994 

(CLI94)

América Central 

and México Mayor de las 

horizontales

Interplaca Corteza 

superficial 5 ‐400 4,0 ‐8,0 Zhao et al.(2006)

(ZH06) Japón Media 

geométrica Interplaca 

Intraplaca Corteza 

superficial

10‐300 5,0 – 8,2 Spudich et al.(1999) 

(SEA99) Mundial Media 

geométrica Corteza superficial 0 ‐100 5,1 – 7,2 Schmidt et al.(1997) 

(SCH97)

Mayor de las 

horizontales Corteza superficial 6 ‐200 3,7 – 7,6

Youngs et al., 1997

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

0 100 200 300 400 500

Distancia (km)

Re

s

id

uos

Atkinson y Boore, 2003

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

0 100 200 300 400 500

Distancia (km)

Re

s

id

uos

Climent et al., 1994

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

0 100 200 300 400 500

Distancia (km)

Re

s

idu

os

Zhao et al., 2006

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

0 100 200 300 400 500

Distancia (km) R e s iduo s

Calibration of models with local data Residual analysis (r = Ln GM* - Ln GM)

Selected attenuation models : Crustal, interface, inslab

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

1 10 100 1000

Distancia (km) PG A ( g )

Zhao et al., 2006

Climent et al., 1994

PGA

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 1000

Distancia (km) PG A ( g ) Youngs et al., 1997

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

10 100 1000

Distancia (km) PG A ( g )

Zhao et al., 2006

Youngs et al., 1997

PGA

Mw 7.0

Mw 6.0

Mw 5.0

Crustal: Climent et al (1994)

Zhao et al, (2006)

Subduction interface:

Youngs et al (1997 )

Subduction inslab:

Youngs et al

Zhao et al (2006)

Hazard Estimation

Software CRISIS 2007 (Ordaz et al, 2007)

Estimation in a network with points separated 0.1 º longitude and latitude in

terms of PGA and SA for T= 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 y 2 s

Logic tree with a node for attenuation models

Every branch is a combination of models:

crustal, + interface + inslab

Seismic Hazard maps for PR= 500, 1000 and 2500 years

In the capitals of the 6 CA countrires:

Hazard curves

UHS

Deaggregation for target motions given by PGA SA (0.2) and SA (1s)

---- control eartquakes

Hazard maps PR= 500 years

PGA max =600 gal Panama Fracture

500 gal in volcanic chain

SA (0.2) max =1300 gal South Guatemala

SA (1) max =300 gal Costal zones

Hazard Maps RP=1000 years

PGA max =700 gal Panama Fracture, South Guatemala and volcanic

chain



SA (0.2) max =1600 gal Panama Fracture, South Guatemala and volcanic

chain

SA (1) max =400 gal Panama Fracture, South Guatemala and volcanic

chain



HAZARD MAPS PR=2500 years

PGA max = 850 gal

South Guatemala SA (0.2) max = 2000 gal

South Guatemala

SA (1) max = 500 gal

South Guatemala

Seismic hazard curves in the capitals

GUATEM ALA 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Aceleración (gal) P ro b a b il ida d A n u a l E xced en ci a PGA SA(0.1s) SA(0.2s) SA(0.5s) SA(1.0s) SA(2.0s) SAN SALVADOR 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Aceleración (gal) P ro ba b il ida d A n ua l E x ced en c ia PGA SA(0.1s ) SA(0.2s ) SA(0.5s ) SA(1.0s ) SA(2.0s ) M ANAGUA 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Ace le ración (gal2)

P rob abi li da d A n ual E x c edenci a PGA SA(0.1s) SA(0.2s) SA(0.5s) SA(1.0s) SA(2.0s) SAN JOSÉ 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Ace leración (gal)

P ro b a b ilid a d A n u a l Exced e n ci a PGA SA(0.1s) SA(0.2s) SA(0.5s) SA(1.0s) SA(2.0s) TEGUCIGALPA 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Aceleración (gal) P ro b ab ilid ad A n u al E xced en ci a PGA SA(0.1s ) SA(0.2s ) SA(0.5s ) SA(1.0s ) SA(2.0s ) PANAMÁ 1,E-05 1,E-04 1,E-03 1,E-02 1,E-01 1,E+00 1,E+01 1,E+02

10 100 1000 10000

Ace leración (gal)

P ro b ab il id ad A n u al E xced en ci a PGA SA(0.1s) SA(0.2s) SA(0.5s) SA(1.0s) SA(2.0s)

Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS).

The results are beingn used for calibrating the spectra of the building codes

Comparación del espectro deducido en nuestro estudio para San José de Costa Rica ( en azul) con el propuesto para la misma localidad y suelo por el código sísmico ( en rojo)del país. el

espectro del codigo resulta conservador

Comparación de espectros: modificacion propuesta REP 2004 y UHS de RESIS II

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6

00,2 0,4 0,6 0,811,2 1,4 1,6 1,822,2 2,4 2,6 2,83

Periodo (s)

Sa

(g

) revision REP2004 UHS RESIS II

Comparación entre el espectro de amenaza uniforme generado en este trabajo (UHS) para periodo de retorno de 500 años y el propuesto para la futura revisión del Código Estructural

Panameño (REP2004).

Panamá

Costa Rica

Deaggregation : couple (m,R) with

highest contribution to the seismic

hazard

5 5 5.5 6 6.5

77.5

8 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 %Prob R (km) Mw Guatemala. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 Mw a) 0 75 150 225 300 4.

5 55.5

66.5 77.5

8 0.0E+00 1.0E-05 2.0E-05 3.0E-05 4.0E-05 5.0E-05 6.0E-05 7.0E-05 8.0E-05 9.0E-05 %Prob R (km) Mw San Salvador. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 Mw a) 0 75 150 225 300 4.

555.5 66.5

77.5

8 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.6E-04 %Prob R (km) Mw Managua. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 Mw a)

Desagregation

5 55.5 6 6.5

77.5

8 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 %Prob R (km) Mw San José. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 Mw a) 0 75 150 225 300 4.

5 5 5.5 6 6.5

77.5

8 0.0E+00 1.0E-05 2.0E-05 3.0E-05 4.0E-05 5.0E-05 6.0E-05 7.0E-05 %Prob R (km) Mw Tegucigalpa. PGA, PR 500 años

4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 Mw a) 0 75 150 225 300 4.

5 5 5.5 6 6.5

77.5

8 0.0E+00 1.0E-05 2.0E-05 3.0E-05 4.0E-05 5.0E-05 6.0E-05 %Prob R (km) Mw Panamá. PGA, PR 500 años

Results (I)

For all return periods the highest values of PGA are predicted in Panamá Fracture zone, South Guatemala and certain zones of volcanic chain.

Maximun PGA :

RP = 500 years, 500 gal RP=1000 years, 700 gal RP = 2500 years, 850 gal

Similar morphology for maps of SA (0.2 s) with maximun values RP = 500 años, 1300 gal

RP=1000 años, 1600 gal R P= 2500 años, 2000 gal

Maps of SA (1 s) with maximun in coastal zones, due to the highest

influence of the subduction events.

Specific results in the capitals:

Highest hazard in Guatemala City and San Salvador, followed by San José and Managua and minor hazard in Panamá and Tegucigalpa.

Desaggregation

Control earthquakes are identified in the capitals :

(Target motion given by PGA and RP= 500 y)

In general, a near shock is dominant (M 6-6.5; R 15 km) identified with a volcanic chain event. Exception of Tegucigalpa where a far event is dominant (M 6.7, R 210 km) and Panamá, where neither clear event is found .

In Guatemala City, San Salvador and Managua a second long-distance earthquake M ~ 7 is found with important contribution, identified with a subduction event.

Results (II)

Seismic Risk Studies in the capitals

Guatemala City, San Salvador,

Tegucigalpa, San José, Managua and

Panamá city



=

DAmage

+ economic loss

$

Risk

Seismic Risk Studies in the

6 capitals of CA

Hazard

Intensity

Edificios – Población -Economía Class A

Class B

Class C 100%

50%

0%

5 6 7 8 9

Mean Damage

Factor

Vulnerability

Class D

Classification of structures (e.g., EMS-1998; Grünthal, 1998)

Vulnerability assessment

Cuevas de Almanzora (AL) Obejo (CO)

Sevilla

Cálculo analítico de

probabilidad de daño

Representation of the quantification of damages

and definition of damage states according to the fragility curves (HAZUS, 1999).

Application of Fragility Curves

Tegucigalpa

The earthquake's epicenter is located on the fault in blue

Focal depth=6 km; Mw=6.5; Fault’s orientation = 60°from the north;

Dip angle=90º.

- Epicenter 1: located at CDNP (inslab), with an inverse focal mechanism

- Epicenter 2: located at the Pedro Miguel fault, with strike-slip focal mechanism

Panamá

Probabilities of damage for concrete block buildings (Cbri) with a height of 1 – 3

stores in one geounit. _{block buildings (Cbri) with a height of 1} Probabilities of damage for concrete

– 3 stores in one geounit.

Probabilities of damage for brick block buildings (CLu) with a height of 1 – 3

The earthquake epicenter is located at 13,67°N; 89,19°O, with a depht of 60 km, and a magnitude 5.4MS(USGS).

5.7MW, based on the earthquake of

October 1986, ocurred in San Salvador, with an intensity of VIII – IX.

TRAINING IN SEISMIC HAZARD AND SEISMIC RISK

1) SEISMIC HAZARD

(FEBRUARY 2008)

2 WORKSHOPS (1month) WITH PARTICIPATION OF SEISMOLOGIST AND ENGINEERING FROM THE 6 CA COUNTRIES

2) SEISMIC RISK

(FEBRUARY 2010)

Next workshop in November 2011

Transference and

dissemination of results

All the results have been transfered to local institutions

Main results were be published in books and scientific journals

Ongoing research

Now, we want to give a new step…..

We have adopted a zoning model

Now, we want to give a new step…..

Some “Top questions” to be solved:

1. How we can integrate the information of faults (GPS data and paleoseismic data) in PSHA ?

2. If the triggering process between different sources are confirmed

3. How we can take into account the zones with seismic gap or coupling zone ?

4. What can we do with the slow earthquakes?

More questions…..

Latest earthquakes evidence that the Ground motion near to the rupture fault increases strongly

Recorded values are much highest that the ones predicted by the GMPE’s

Impotant implications in seismic design, including the building codes

Should we considerd a “Source factor”

in a similar way to the “Soil coefficient”?

The case of Lorca, May 11 th 2011, M 5

PGA = 0.37 g, Rep= 3 km in a site where the Building code gives a value of 0.12 g

The GM decreases very quicly out of the rupture plane

Response spectra of the BC is exceedend by three times

Aquila main shock Mw=6.3

1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00

0 1 10 100 1000

Rjb dist (km)

P

G

A

- la

rg

e

r

h

o

riz

c

o

mp

(g

)

RAN 55 S.M. ITA-08 ITA-08 +sigma ITA08 -sigma Bommer et al '07 Sa-Pu '96 (Rjb)

The case of L’Aquila, 2009 earthquake, M 6.3

Valores registrados de PGA en función de la

distancia R jb comparados con los

predichos por algunos modelos de

predicción del movimiento

Las

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

T(sec)

SA

(g)

NTC-08 475 yrs Soil=A NTC-08 475 yrs Soil=B NTC-08 475 yrs Soil=C Norm. 1996 2a categ. (4 dutt 1.5 s.l.) AQg EW soil=A AQv EW soil=B AQk EW soil=B NTC-08 2475 yrs Soil=B

Comparación con Norma Italiana para TR= 475 (10 % prob excedencia en 50 años) y 2475 años (10 % prob excedencia en 250

años)

Then…

We need to implement new methods in order to optimize the latest researches with 3 types of data:

 Geodetic

 Paleoseismic

 Accelerometric



Important:

To know the contribution of different seismic scenarious in the hazard Influence in differnt frequency ranges and different return periods Iimplications in seismic regulation of different

typologies

SISMOCAES PROJECT:

SEISMIC HAZARD STUDIES INCLUDING FAULT MODELIZATIONS

Liderados por un grupo de Tectónica Activa y Paleosismicidad

del Departamento de Geodinámica de la Universidad

Complutense de Madrid y por el grupo de Ingeniería Sísmica de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

SISMOCAES

S1. GEOTACTICA

S2. ASPERIDES

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación Plan Nacional I+D+I (2008-2011)

TOWARDS THE FUTURE….

1. GLOBAL OBJETIVE

 IMPROVING THE SEISMIC HAZARD STUDIES INCLUDING

RESULTS OF PALEOSEISMIC AND GEODETIC DATA , AS WELL AS CFS MODELIZATIONS

Identification of the El Salvador

Fault Zone (ESFZ)

Antecedents: Previous results

Martínez‐Díaz, Álvarez‐Gómez, Benito (2004) Geology

Previous results

Paleoseismic analysis of ESFZ: 

characterization of pre‐

historical behaviour of the ESFZ

Study of the current 

deformation in ESFZ from GPS 

data Study of the seismic cycle of the ESFZ, a major tectonic structures in the region and possibly the structure which is accommodating most of the motion parallel to the subduction zone

To improve the evaluation of seismic hazard in this area

Benito et al, 2010

Previous results RESIS II

NEW GEODETIC AND PALEOSEISMIC DATA

PREVIOUS RESULTS

SENSIBILITY ANALYSIS IN THE

RESULTS

INFLUENCE OF FAULTS MODELIZATION IN SEISMIC HAZARD

HIBRID MODELS ZONES + FAULTS

METHOD AND WORK PLANNING

PRIORITY ZONES

MAP OF MAIN ACTIVE FAULTS IN CA

IDENTIFICATION OF LOADED ZONES WHERE THE PROBABILITY OF NEW EVENTS IS

INCREASING

CFS MAP AND GPS NO POISSON

MODELS MODELS OF SEISMIC HAZARD WITH FAULTS

CHARACTERISTIC MODEL (MEMORY IN

FAULTS)

QUANTIFICATION OF THE CFS LOAD IN THE HAZARD ?

METHOD AND WORK PLANNING



Application to southern Spain

ESTUDIOS DE RIESGO SISMICO A NIVEL MUNICIPAL

NUEVO ESTUDIO DE PELIGROSIDAD

IDENTIFICACIÓN DE ZONAS DE MAYOR INTERÉS

INTEGRACIÓN DE DATOS:

1. Gathering of information and actualization of Data Banks

2. Modelization of the main actives faults:

Motagua, Zona de Falla de El Salvador, Fallas del Valle Central de Costa Rica y Cinturón Deformado de Panamá

3. Re-evaluation of Seismic Hazard in CA, sensibility analysis in the Hazard results and quantification of uncertainties

4. Integration of results in a SIG e identification of more hazardous zones (confluence of hazard factors)

5. Develop of risk analysis in priority zones

Activities to be carried out:

INSIVUMEH (Guatemala)

SNET (EL Salvador)

INETER (Nicaragua)

Universidad de Costa Rica

Universidad de Panamá Universidad de Honduras

SEISMIC WORKING GROUP

Centro para la Prevención de Desastres de América Central 

ICE

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION !!!

