Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stochastic ground motion simulation of the 26 September 2019 Mw 5.8 Silivri (Istanbul) earthquake

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of using simulation techniques to provide generated ground motion data is to extend our knowledge on the effect of earthquakes and understanding their physical properties. High-frequency accelerations have incoherent behavior because of unpredictable irregularities and heterogeneities associated with faulting and wave propagation. Simulations of ground motions frequencies beyond > 1 Hz can be represented with stochastic methods using simplified model representations of source, path and site effects. In this paper, stochastic simulations are performed for the recordings of the 26 September 2019 Silivri, Istanbul earthquake, using a finite fault simulation approach with a dynamic corner frequency. The main target is to create a valid synthetic model database with consistent source, path, and site parameters in the region that can be implemented in future simulation efforts. In calibration, we have used the recordings at 59 widely distributed stations in Istanbul located on different site conditions with epicentral distances ranging from 23 to 101 km. Four different frequency-dependent Q models were tested to obtain the best fit with the observations. By comparing generated ground motions to the observed ones, optimum source parameters and crustal characteristics were estimated. The calibrated model parameters have been obtained from the set of best-fit data with observed ground motion in frequency domain. Synthetic PGAs have been compared with the NGA-West2 Ground Motion Models (GMMs). Furthermore, spatial distributions of the ground motion intensity parameters were obtained and compared with available damage observations in Istanbul due to this earthquake. In conclusion, the results of the simulation were in good agreement with the recorded ones, both in time and frequency domains. The results indicate that the proposed stochastic model can be used to simulate ground motion distributions in Istanbul and beyond from past and future events in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Aki K (1980) Attenuation of shear-waves in the lithosphere for frequencies from 0.05 to 25 Hz. Phys Earth Planet Interiors 21(1):50–60

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Akıncı A, Aochi H, Herrero A, Pischiutta M, Karanikas D (2017) Physics-based broadband ground-motion simulations for probable Mw ≥ 70 earthquakes in the Marmara Sea Region (Turkey) physics-based broadband ground-motion simulations for probable Mw ≥ 70 earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(3):1307–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akıncı A, Malagnini L, Herrmann RB, Gok R, Sørensen MB (2006) Ground motion scaling in the Marmara region, Turkey. Geophys J Int 166(2):635–651

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):359–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys N (2002) The seismic activity of the Marmara Sea region over the last 2000 years. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(5):1969–1993

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansal A, Akıncı A, Cultrera G, Erdik M, Pessina V, Tönük G, Ameri G (2009) Loss estimation in Istanbul based on deterministic earthquake scenarios of the Marmara Sea region (Turkey). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(4):699–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assatourians K, Atkinson G (2012). EXSIM12: a stochastic finite-fault computer program in FORTRAN, http://www.seismotoolbox.ca. Last accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  • Atkinson GM, Assatourians K (2015) Implementation and validation of EXSIM (a stochastic finite-fault ground-motion simulation algorithm) on the SCEC broadband platform. Seismol Res Lett 86(1):48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(1):17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):2181–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyaz Gazete (2020) Depremde Ağır Hasar Gördü, Mührü Kırıp Oturmaya Devam Ettiler. (Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://beyazgazete.com/haber/2020/1/29/depremde-agir-hasar-gordu-muhru-kirip-oturmaya-devam-ettiler-5421580.html).

  • Boore DM (1984) Use of seismoscope records to determine ML and peak velocities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(1):315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2009) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3202–3216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(2):327–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Thompson EM (2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2541–2552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büyükçekmece Municipality (2020) 17/11/2020 Press Release. (Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.bcekmece.bel.tr/haberdetay?id=186)

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNN Türk (2019). Son dakika... İstanbul Silivri'de deprem: Cami minaresi çöktü, yan yatan bina boşaltıldı. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/son-dakika-istanbul-silivride-deprem-avcilarda-hasara-neden-oldu-cami-minaresi-coktu

  • CNN Türk (2019b) Son dakika: İstanbul'da büyük deprem!. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/son-dakika-istanbulda-buyuk-deprem

  • DASK (2019) Natural Disaster Insurance Institution Annual Activity Report 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://dask.gov.tr/content/pdf/2019_dask_faaliyet_raporu.pdf

  • DASK (2019b) Natural Disaster Insurance Institution, 10/09/2019 Press Release. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://dask.gov.tr/content/pdf/0930IstanbulDepremBb_rev03.pdf

  • Durukal E (2002) Critical evaluation of strong motion in Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(7):589–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durukal E, Catalyurekli Y (2004) Spectral analysis of source parameters of the 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce earthquake aftershock sequences. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver BC, Canada, Paper (vol 421)

  • ELER v3.1 (2010) Earthquake loss estimation routine. In: Technical manual and users guide. Boğaziçi University, Department of Earthquake Engineering, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/ELER/ELER_v3_Manual.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2020

  • Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş, ve Şaroğlu F (2013) Açıklamalı Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası. Ölçek 1:1.250.000, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi-30, Ankara-Türkiye. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1

  • Evrensel (2019) İstanbul'da 5.8 büyüklüğünde deprem: Toplam 77 binada ağır hasar tespit edildi. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.evrensel.net/haber/387647/istanbulda-5-8-buyuklugunde-deprem-toplam-77-binada-agir-hasar-tespit-edildi

  • Evrensel (2019b) Silivri’de hasar gören okul mühürlendi; Avcılar’da 258 bina incelenecek. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.evrensel.net/haber/387722/silivride-hasar-goren-okul-muhurlendi-avcilarda-258-bina-incelenecek

  • Governorship of Istanbul (2019) Republic of Turkey Governorship of Istanbul, 29/09/2019 Press Release. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from http://istanbul.gov.tr/deprem-ile-ilgili-on-hasar-calismalarinda-son-durum

  • Haberler (2020) Silivri Depreminde Hasar Gören Cami Yıktırıldı. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.haberler.com/silivri-depremi-nde-hasar-goren-cami-yiktirildi-13566814-haberi/

  • Herrmann RB (1985) An extension of random vibration theory estimates of strong ground motion to large distances. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(5):1447–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horasan G, Kaşlılar ÖA, Boztepe GA, Türkelli N (1998) S wave attenuation in the Marmara region, northwestern Turkey. Geophys Res Lett 25:2733–2736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBB (2019) İBB Baskani Ekrem İmamoglu’nun Deprem Seferberlik Sunum Dosyasi. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://depremzemin.ibb.istanbul/deprem-seferberlik-plani/

  • IBB-OYO-KOERI (2009) İstanbul’un Olası Deprem Kayıpları Tahminlerinin Güncellenmesi İşi, Proje Çalışma Raporu, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Deprem Mühendisliği Bölümü, Istanbul

  • Karabulut H, Güvercin SE, Eskiköy F, Konca AÖ, Ergintav S (2020) The moderate size 2019 September Mw 5.8 Silivri earthquake unveils the complexity of the Main Marmara Fault shear zone. Geophys J Int 224(1):377–388

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • KOERI (2019) 26 Sept. 2019 (13:59) Istanbul-Off Silivri Earthquake, September 26, 2019. Report on Istanbul Earthquake Rapid Response System's preliminary estimations. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://eqe.boun.edu.tr/sites/eqe.boun.edu.tr/files/26-09-2019-silivri_depremi_eng.pdf

  • Malcıoğlu FS, Suleyman H, Çaktı E (2022) Seismological and engineering characteristics of strong motion data from 24 and 26 September 2019 Marmara Sea Earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 20:5567–5599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01422-y

  • Motazedian D, Atkinson G (2005) Stochastic finite fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MTA (2004) 1/500,000 scale geological maps of Turkey, https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/hizmetler/500cd

  • Pischiutta M, Akıncı A, Tinti E, Herrero A (2021) Broad-band ground-motion simulation of 2016 Amatrice earthquake, Central Italy. Geophys J Int 224(3):1753–1779

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pulido N, Ojeda A, Atakan K, Kubo T (2004) Strong ground motion estimation in the Sea of Marmara region (Turkey) based on a scenario earthquake. Tectonophysics 391(1–4):357–374

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Silivri Municipality (2020) 09/03/2020 Press Release. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://www.silivri.bel.tr/haber/news_1583753743_png/4697.

  • Sørensen MB, Pulido N, Atakan K (2007) Sensitivity of ground-motion simulations to earthquake source parameters: a case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(3):881–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suleyman H (2018) Estimation of the high-frequency decay parameter (κ) and anelastic attenuation factor (Q) for Istanbul. M.Sc. Thesis. Boğaziçi University, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Uğurhan B, Askan A (2010) Stochastic strong ground motion simulation of the 12 November 1999 Düzce (Turkey) earthquake using a dynamic corner frequency approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(4):1498–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zengin E, Çaktı E (2012) Scenario based ground motion simulations for Istanbul, Turkey. In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference on. Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 September 2012. Lisbon, Portugal, pp 24557–24566

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study is based on the data from the Istanbul Earthquake Rapid Response and Early Warning System operated by the Department of Earthquake Engineering of Boğaziçi University’s Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and helpful feedback.

Funding

This work has been partially supported by UKRI-GCRF in the framework of the project “Tomorrow’s Cities”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Boğaziçi University, 34684, Istanbul, Türkiye

    Nesrin Yenihayat, Eser Çaktı & Karin Şeşetyan

Authors
  1. Nesrin Yenihayat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eser Çaktı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karin Şeşetyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nesrin Yenihayat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 3599 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yenihayat, N., Çaktı, E. & Şeşetyan, K. Stochastic ground motion simulation of the 26 September 2019 Mw 5.8 Silivri (Istanbul) earthquake. Bull Earthquake Eng 22, 1605–1633 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01806-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01806-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation