Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 3367–3397 | Cite as

A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory—part I: the area source model

  • Karin Sesetyan
  • Mine B. Demircioglu
  • Tamer Y. Duman
  • Tolga Çan
  • Senem Tekin
  • Tuba Eroğlu Azak
  • Özge Zülfikar Fercan
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The seismic zoning map of Turkey that is used in connection with the national seismic design code (versions issued both in 1997 and 2007) is based on a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment study conducted more than 20 years ago (Gülkan et al. in En son verilere göre hazırlanan Türkiye deprem bölgeleri haritası, Report No: METU/EERC 93-1, 1993). In line with the efforts for the update of the seismic design code, the need aroused for an updated seismic hazard map, incorporating recent data and state-of-the-art methodologies and providing ground motion parameters required for the construction of the design spectra stipulated by the new Turkish Earthquake Design Code. Supported by AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority of Turkey), a project has been conducted for the country scale assessment of the seismic hazard by probabilistic methods. The present paper describes the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment study conducted in connection with this project, incorporating in an area source model, all recently compiled data on seismicity and active faulting, and using a set of recently developed ground motion prediction equations, for both active shallow crustal and subduction regimes, evaluated as adequately representing the ground motion characteristics in the region. The area sources delineated in the model are fully parameterized in terms of maximum magnitude, depth distribution, predominant strike and dip angles and mechanism of possible ruptures. Resulting ground motion distributions are quantified and presented for PGA and 5 % damped spectral accelerations at T = 0.2 and 1.0 s, associated with return periods of 475 and 2475 years. The full set of seismic hazard curves was also made available for the hazard computation sites. The second part of the study, which is based on a fault source and smoothed seismicity model is covered in Demircioglu et al. in Bull Earthq Eng, (2016).

Keywords

Turkey Probabilistic seismic hazard Area source model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Sinan Akkar for having initiated this collaborative effort for the update of the seismic hazard maps of Turkey, to Mustafa Erdik for his invaluable suggestions and guidance throughout the study, and to the participants of the various work packages for their active contributions to the discussions during the course of the project. The study has been sponsored by AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority of Turkey) under Project Code UDAP-Ç-13-16. We would also like to thank Gabriele Ameri for his review and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10518_2016_5_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 24 kb)

References

  1. Akkar S, Çağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2978–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Kale Ö, Yakut A, Ceken U (2016) Ground-motion characterization for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng (in review) Google Scholar
  3. 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 12:359–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aktuğ B, Nocquet JM, Cingöz A, Parsons A, Erkan Y, England P, Lenk O, Gürdal MA, Kilicoglu A, Akdeniz H, Tekgül A (2009) Deformation Of western Turkey from a combination of permanent and campaign Gps data: limits to block-like behavior. J Geophys Res 114(B10404):2009. doi: 10.1029/2008jb006000 Google Scholar
  5. Aktuğ B, Meherremov E, Kurt M, Ozdemır S, Esedov N, Lenk O (2013) GPS constraints on the deformation of Azerbaijan and surrounding regions. J Geodyn 67(2013):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Albini P, Musson RMW, Rovida A, Locati M, Gomez Capera AA, Viganò D (2014) The global earthquake history. Earthquake Spectr 30(2):607–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angelier J, Lybéris N, Le Pichon X, Barrier E, Huchon P (1982) The tectonic development of the Hellenic arc and the sea of Crete a synthesis. Tectonophysics 86:159–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson GM, Boore GM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relationships for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azak TE (2016) The ECAT software package to analyze earthquake catalogues, International Science and Technology Conference, 13–15 July, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Barka AA, Kadinsky-Cade K (1988) Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on earthquake activity. Tectonics 7(3):663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barka A, Reilinger R (1997) Active tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean region: deduced from GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data. Ann Geofis 40:587–610Google Scholar
  12. Bohnhoff M, Martínez-Garzón P, Bulut F, Stierle E, Ben-Zion Y (2016) Maximum earthquake magnitudes along different sections of the North Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics 674:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkey—a synthesis. Geodin Acta 14:3–30. doi: 10.1016/S0985-3111(01)01066-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burchfiel BC, Kıng RW, Todosov A, Kotzev V, Durmurdzanov N, Serafimovski T, Nurce B (2006) GPS results for Macedonia and its importance for the tectonics of the Southern Balkan extensional regime. Tectonophysics 413:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caputo R, Chatzipetros A, Pavlides S, Sboras S (2012) The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS): state-of-the-art for northern Greece. Ann Geophys 55(5):859–894. doi: 10.4401/ag-5168 Google Scholar
  16. Caputo R, Sboras S, Pavlides S, Chatzipetros A (2015) Comparison between single-event effects and cumulative effects for the purpose of seismic hazard assessment. A review from Greece. Earth Sci Rev 148:94–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24(1):173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Danciu L, Sesetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Elias A, Gülen M, Zare M, Rovida A, Basili R, Stucchi M, Tsereteli N, Khan A, Kharakhanian A, Yalçın H, Erdik M, Giardini D (2016) The 2014 earthquake model of the Middle East: seismogenic sources. Bull Earthq EngGoogle Scholar
  19. Demircioğlu MB, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Erdik M (2007) Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, June 2007, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  20. Demircioğlu MB, Sesetyan K, Duman T, Çan T, Tekin S, Ergintav S (2016) Source zonation model for the seismic hazard assessment of The Turkish Territory: part II: fault source and background seismicity model. Bull Earthq EngGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey JF, Şengör AMC (1979) Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiple and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. Geol Soc Am Bull 90:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dewey JF, Hempton MR, Kidd WSF, Şaroğlu F, Şengör AMC (1986) Shortening of continental lithosphere: the neotectonics of eastern Anatolia—a young collision zone. In: Coward MO, Ries AC (eds) Collisional tectonics, geological society special publication no. 19. Geological Society, London, pp 3–36Google Scholar
  23. Duman TY, Çan T, Emre Ö, Kadirioğlu FT, Baştürk NB, Kılıç T, Arslan S, Özalp S, Kartal RF, Kalafat D, Karakaya F, Azak TE, Özel NM, Ergintav S, Akkar S, Altınok Y, Tekin S, Cingöz A, Kurt Aİ (2016) Seismotectonics database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9965-9 Google Scholar
  24. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun S, Sarolu F (2013) Active fault map of Turkey with an Explanatory Text 1:1,250,000 scale. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Special Publication Series 30, 89p.Google Scholar
  25. Erdik M, Doyuran V, Akkaş N, Gülkan P (1985) A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics 117:295–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Erdik M, Biro Y, Onur T, Sesetyan K, Birgören G (1999) Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Annali di Geofisicai 42:1125–1138Google Scholar
  27. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seism Soc Amer 64(5):1363–1367Google Scholar
  28. Garfunkel Z (2014) Lateral Motion and Deformation Along the Dead Sea Transform. In: Garfunkel Z, Ben-Avraham Z, Kagan E (eds) Dead sea transform fault system—reviews. Springer, Berlin, p 109–150Google Scholar
  29. Gudjabidze GE (2003) Geological map of Georgia 1:500 000. In: Gamkrelidze IP (ed) Georgian State Department of Geology and National Oil Company ‘Saknatobi’ Tbilisi.Google Scholar
  30. Gülkan P, Koçyiğit A, Yücemen MS, Doyuran V, Başöz N (1993) En son verilere göre hazırlanan Türkiye deprem bölgeleri haritası, Report No: METU/EERC 93-1Google Scholar
  31. Hessami K, Jamali F, Tabassi H (2003) Major active faults of Iran. Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson JA, McKenzie DP (1988) Rates of active deformation in the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Basin Res 1:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF (2016) The new empirical magnitude conversion relations using an improved earthquake catalogue for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900–2012). Turk J Earth Sci (in review)Google Scholar
  34. Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Azak TE, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2016) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity. Bull Earthq Eng (in review) Google Scholar
  35. Kijko A, Smit A (2012) Extension of the Aki-Utsu b-value estimator for incomplete catalogs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(3):1283–1287. doi: 10.1785/0120110226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin PS, Lee CT (2008) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for subduction-zone earthquakes in northeastern Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S, Georgiev I, Gurkan O, Hamburger M, Hurst K, Kahle H, Kastens K, Kekelidze G, King R, Kotzev V, Lenk O, Mahmoud S, Mishin A, Nadariya M, Ouzounis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksöz MN, Veis G (2013) Global Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 105(B3):5695–5719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKenzie DP (1970) Plate tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Nature 226:239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKenzie DP (1972) Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophys J R Astron Soc 30:109–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKenzie DP (1978) Active tectonism in the Alpine—Himalayan belt: the Aegean Sea and the surrounding regions (tectonics of the Aegean region). Geophys J R Astron Soc 55:217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulargia F, Gasperini P, Tinti S (1987) A procedure to identify objectively active seismotectonic structures. Bolletino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 29(114):147–164Google Scholar
  42. Nur A, Ben-Avraham Z (1978) The eastern Mediterranean and the Levant: tectonics of continental collision. Tectonophysics 46:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M, Vigano D (2014) OpenQuake engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Papazachos BC, Papaioannou CA (1999) Lithospheric boundaries and plate motions in the Cyprus area. Tectonophysics 308:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reilinger R, Mcclusky S, Vernant P, Lawrence S, Ergintav S, Çakmak R, Özener H, Kadirov F, Guliev I, Stepanyan R, Nadariya M, Hahubia G, Mahmoud S, Sakr K, Arrajehi A, Paradissis D, Al-Aydrus A, Prilepin M, Guseva T, Evren E, Dmitrotsa A, Filikov SV, Gomez F, Al-Ghazzi R, Karam G (2006) GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa–Arabia–Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J Geophys Res 111:B05411. doi: 10.1029/2005JB004051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson AHF, Grasso M (1995) Overview of the late Triassic-Recent tectonic and palaeo-environmental development of the Mediterranean region. Terra Nova 7:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Şengör AMC, ve Yılmaz Y (1981) Tethyan evolution ol Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75:181–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985) “Strike slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study”, in Strike-slip faulting and basin formation. Soc Sediment Geol 37:227–264Google Scholar
  49. Stepp JC (1972) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the puget sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In: Proceedings of the international conference on microzonation, Seattle, pp 897–910Google Scholar
  50. Stucchi M, Rovida A, Gomez Capera AA, Alexandre P, Camelbeeck T, Demircioglu MB, Gasperini P, Kouskouna V, Musson RMW, Radulian M, Sesetyan K, Vilanova S, Baumont D, Bungum H, Fäh D, Lenhardt W, Makropoulos K, Martinez Solares JM, Scotti O, Živcic M, Albini P, Batllo J, Papaioannou C, Tatevossian R, Locati M, Meletti C, Viganò D, Giardini D (2012) The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899 J Seismol 17:523–544. doi: 10.1007/s10950-012-9335-2
  51. Weichert DH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1337–1346Google Scholar
  52. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  53. Westaway RWC (2003) Kinematics of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean updated. Turk J Earth Sci 12:5–46Google Scholar
  54. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of complete reporting in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woessner J, Danciu L, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioglu MB, Hiemer S, Meletti C, Musson RW, Rovida A, Sesetyan K, Stucchi M (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3553–3596. doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wyss MA, Hasegawa S, Wiemer, Umino N (1999) Quantitative mapping of precursory seismic quiescence before the 1989, m7.1 off-Sanriku earthquake, Japan, Annali Di Geofisica, 42, 851–869. 6, 14, 29Google Scholar
  57. Youngs R, Chiou S, Silva W, Humphrey J (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zare M, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Khan MA, Tsereteli N (2014) Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. J Seismol 18(4):749–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(3):898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Geological ResearchGeneral Directorate of Mineral Research and ExplorationAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of GeologyÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringÖzyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations