# Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain
## 5 Selected Ground-Motion Attenuation Models  
The selection of the ground-motion attenuation model is mainly dependent on the prevailing seismotectonic setting of the region, and on the availability of strong motion data. The strong motion data are very limited in the studied countries. In fact, there is not enough strong motion data to derive a region-specific attenuation model, nor for the calibration of some selected attenuation equations. All the previously mentioned seismic hazard assessments (Table 1) were performed by applying worldwide or regionally adopted ground-motion attenuation model(s) developed for other regions/countries. Taking into account the prevailing seismotectonic environment, the global ground-motion attenuation models are broadly falling into one of the following categories: (a) active tectonic regions dominant by shallow crustal seismicity, (b) active tectonic regions with subduction zones, and (c) stable continental regions. In the current assessment, and considering the proposed seismic source models and following the global tectonic regionalization model by [PERSON] et al. (2017), the delimited potential seismic sources fall into the first two groups: the active shallow crustal and subduction sources. Since most of the potential seismicity that could contribute to the seismic hazard in the considered countries are located mainly on Iran (the Zagros region and the Makran subduction zone), worldwide as well as region-specific ground-motion attenuation models were preferred to be applied in this assessment. [PERSON] et al. (2017) assessed the applicability of several ground-motion attenuation models against the local recorded strong-motion data for assessing the seismic hazard in Iran. They initially selected several ground-motion models that developed for different geographic regions (Iran, Turkey, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & **Depth (km)** & **\(\lambda\) (\(\geq\)4.0)** & **\(b\) Value** & **M\({}_{\text{max}}\)** \\ \hline Z-01 & 24.0 & 1.822 \(\pm\) 0.371 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 8.40 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\ \hline Z-02 & 24.0 & 0.860 \(\pm\) 0.198 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 7.80 \(\pm\) 0.30 \\ \hline Z-03 & 32.0 & 0.680 \(\pm\) 0.167 & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 6.20 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ \hline Z-04 & 42.0 & 0.423 \(\pm\) 0.131 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.82 \\ \hline Z-05 & 34.0 & 0.465 \(\pm\) 0.133 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 6.30 \(\pm\) 0.22 \\ \hline Z-06 & 28.0 & 1.268 \(\pm\) 0.271 & 0.74 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 0.14 \\ \hline Z-07 & 31.0 & 2.157 \(\pm\) 0.411 & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ \hline Z-08 & 17.0 & 1.602 \(\pm\) 0.299 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 7.50 \(\pm\) 0.34 \\ \hline Z-09 & 17.0 & 1.821 \(\pm\) 0.368 & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 6.20 \(\pm\) 0.26 \\ \hline Z-10 & 19.0 & 3.359 \(\pm\) 0.520 & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline Z-11 & 21.0 & 8.820 \(\pm\) 1.160 & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 6.90 \(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline Z-12 & 22.0 & 3.094 \(\pm\) 0.468 & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 7.60 \(\pm\) 0.24 \\ \hline Z-13 & 20.0 & 0.686 \(\pm\) 0.184 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 6.30 \(\pm\) 0.34 \\ \hline Z-14 & 20.0 & 0.314 \(\pm\) 0.104 & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 5.80 \(\pm\) 0.46 \\ \hline Z-15 & 20.0 & 1.621 \(\pm\) 0.417 & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline Z-16 & 17.7 & 0.989 \(\pm\) 0.281 & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 5.80 \(\pm\) 0.22 \\ \hline Z-17 & 25.0 & 5.340 \(\pm\) 0.817 & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ \hline Z-18 & 27.0 & 1.670 \(\pm\) 0.263 & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 6.50 \(\pm\) 0.30 \\ \hline Z-54 & 16.9 & 0.594 \(\pm\) 0.160 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.24 \\ \hline Z-55 & 16.9 & 0.559 \(\pm\) 0.193 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 6.10 \(\pm\) 0.25 \\ \hline Z-56 & 15.1 & 0.243 \(\pm\) 0.080 & 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 6.20 \(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline Z-57 & 15.0 & 2.000 \(\pm\) 0.342 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 6.60 \(\pm\) 0.31 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Seismicity parameters (seismogenic depth, annual rate of earthquakes above Mw 4.0, \(b\)-value, maximum expected magnitude) for the model by [PERSON] et al. (2017).