Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 3439–3463 | Cite as

Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey

  • Sinan Akkar
  • Özkan Kale
  • Ahmet Yakut
  • Ulubey Çeken
Original Research Paper

Abstract

This study describes the methodology implemented to establish the ground-motion logic-tree for national probabilistic seismic hazard map of Turkey for shallow active crustal regions. The presented procedure provides quantitative information to guide the hazard experts while establishing the logic tree to capture the epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion characterization. It uses non-data-driven and data-driven testing methods to identify and rank candidate ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) under a specific ground-motion database. The candidate GMPEs are subjected to visual inspection and are classified into center, body and range (CBR) spectral estimates for a proper consideration of epistemic uncertainty. The GMPEs classified into CBR are then used in a suite of seismic hazard sensitivity analysis to establish the most suitable GMPE logic-tree whose spectral estimates are not biased by any one of the GMPEs in the logic-tree structure. The sensitivity analysis considers normalized spectral ordinates and is not manipulated by the spectral amplitudes. The proposed procedure is inherited from the relevant studies of the Earthquake Model of the Middle East (EMME; www.efehr.org:8080/jetspeed/portal/emme.psml) regional seismic hazard project. This paper also highlights the similarities and differences in ground-motion characterization between EMME and our approach.

Keywords

Turkish seismic hazard map Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment Ground-motion characterization GMPE testing and ranking GMPE logic-tree 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this article has been developed during the course of UDAP-Ç-13-06 project funded by Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) and Turkish Natural Catastrophe and Insurance Pool (DASK). We thank Dr. Laurentiu for providing us the EMME hazard map presented in Fig. 13. We extend our thanks to Prof. Bommer and Dr. Slejko who provided constructive comments that lead to significant improvements in the paper.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva W (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24:67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Çağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey, and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2978–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Kale Ö (2014) Reply to “Comment on ‘A New Procedure for Selecting and Ranking Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs): The Euclidean Distance-Based Ranking (EDR) Method’ by Özkan Kale and Sinan Akkar” by Sum Mak, Robert Alan Clements and Danijel Schorlemmer. Bull Seismol Soc Am 6:3141–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Kale Ö, Ansari A, Durgaryan R, Askan Gündoğan A, Hamzehloo H, Harmandar E, Tsereteli N, Waseem M, Yazjeen T, Yılmaz MT (2014a) EMME strong-motion database serving for predictive model selection to EMME ground-motion logic-tree applications. In: Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, İstanbul, Turkey, Paper No. 3220Google Scholar
  5. Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014b) 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
  6. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Senyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BÖ (2014c) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akkar S, Azak T, Çan T, Çeken U, Demircioğlu MB, Duman T, Erdik M, Ergintav S, Kadirioğlu FT, Kalafat D, Kale Ö, Kartal RF, Kekovalı K, Kılıç T, Özalp S, Altuncu Poyraz S, Şeşetyan K, Tekin S, Yakut A, Yılmaz MT, Yücemen MS, Zülfikar Ö (2016) A brief review on seismic hazard maps in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng current issueGoogle Scholar
  8. Al Atik L, Youngs RR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthq Spectra 30:1301–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ancheta TD, Robert BD, Stewart PS, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West 2 database. Earthq Spectra 30:989–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arroyo D, Ordaz M (2011) On the forecasting of ground-motion parameters for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 27:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atkinson G, Adams J (2013) Ground motion prediction equations for application to the 2015 national seismic hazard maps of Canada. Can J Civil Eng 40:988–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical groundmotion relations for subduction zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Atkinson GM, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2014) Alternative approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 85:1141–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beauval C, Tasan H, Laurandeau A, Delavaud E, Cotton F, Guéguen P, Kuehn N (2012) On the testing of ground-motion prediction equations against small-magnitude data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:1994–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2014) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng 12:391–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bommer JJ (2012) The challenge of building logic trees for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 28:1723–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2006) Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1967–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Bungum H, Fäh D (2010) On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 81:794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bommer JJ, Coppersmith KJ, Coppersmith RT, Hanson KL, Mangongolo A, Neveling J, Rathje EM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ, Strasser FO (2015) A SSHAC level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra 2:661–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.1 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24:99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68:128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boore DM, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA (2006) Orientation-independent measures of ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1502–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Al Atik L, Ancheta TD, Atkinson GM, Baker JW, Baltay A, Boore DM, Campbell KW, Chiou BSJ et al (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthq Spectra 30:973–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68:154–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relationships for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:314–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 at periods ranging from 0.1 s to 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24:139–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E (2008) Broadband (0.05–20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on worldwide digital records. J Seismolog 12:453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24:173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 10:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Danciu L, Kale Ö, Akkar S (2016) The 2014 seismic hazard model of the Middle East: ground motion model. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9989-1
  31. Demircioğlu MB, Şeşetyan K, Duman TY, Can T, Tekin S, Ergintav S (2017) A source zonation model for the seismic hazard assessment of the Turkish territory: part II: fault source and background seismicity model. Bull Earthq Eng (This issue)Google Scholar
  32. Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra. ISET J Earthq Technol 477:71–99Google Scholar
  33. Erdik M, Biro Y, Onur T, Şeşetyan K, Birgören G (1999) Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Ann Geofis 42:1125–1138Google Scholar
  34. Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Durukal E (2006) Ulaştırma Bakanlığı Demiryolları, Limanlar ve Havameydanları İnşaatı Genel Müdürlüğü Kıyı Yapıları, Demiryolları ve Havameydanları İnşaatları Deprem Teknik Yönetmeliği İçin Deprem Tehlikesi Belirlemesi. Boğaziçi Univerity Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Engineering, İstanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  35. Faccioli E, Villani M, Vanini M, Cauzzi C (2010) Mapping seismic hazard for the needs of displacement-based design: the case of Italy. Adv Perform Based Earthq Eng 13(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foulser-Piggott R (2014) Quantifying the epistemic uncertainty in ground motion models and prediction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gülkan P, Koçyiğit A, Yücemen MS, Doyuran V, Başöz V (1993) En Son Verilere göre Hazırlanan Türkiye Deprem Bölgeleri Haritası. METU/EERC 93-01, Middle East Technical University Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 93-01, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  38. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2011–2038Google Scholar
  39. Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2016) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900–2012). Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-0064-8
  40. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Boore DM (2011) Estimating unknown input parameters when implementing the NGA ground-motion prediction equations in engineering practice. Earthq Spectra 27:1219–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kale Ö, Akkar S (2013) A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR) method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1069–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kale Ö, Akkar S (2015) An auxiliary tool to build ground-motion logic-tree framework for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. In: 3rd Turkish national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, DEÜ, İzmir, Paper No. 068Google Scholar
  43. Kale Ö, Akkar S (2017) A ground-motion logic-tree scheme for regional seismic hazard studies. Earthq Spectra (submitted)Google Scholar
  44. Kale Ö, Akkar S, Ansari A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV and 5%-damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:963–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalkan E, Gülkan P (2004) Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20:1111–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuehn N, Scherbaum F (2016) A partially non-ergodic ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9911-x Google Scholar
  47. Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, international association for earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan 1, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  48. Lin P-S, Lee C-T (2008) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes in northeastern Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Özbey C, Sari A, Manuel L, Erdik M, Fahjan Y (2004) An empirical attenuation relationship for northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 85:692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH,Wills CJ, Rukstales KS (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. USGS open-file report 2008–1128, US Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  53. Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T, Roblee C (2008) An overview of the NGA project. Earthq Spectra 24:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sadigh K, Chang CY, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3234–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Duman TY, Çan T, Tekin S, Eroğlu Azak T, Zülfikar Fercan Ö (2016) A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory—part I: the area source model. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-0005-6
  58. TEFER (2000) A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Turkey, report prepared in connection with the improvement of natural hazard insurance and disaster funding strategy (TEFER) project, Başbakanlık Hazine ve Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı—Sigortacılık Genel MüdürlüğüGoogle Scholar
  59. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2012) Practical implementation guidelines for SSHAC level 3 and 4 hazard studies, NUREG 2117, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Youngs RR, Chiou BS-J, Silva WJ, Humphrey JR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 classifications based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earthquake Engineering Department, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityÇengelköy, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityÇankaya, AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management AuthorityKızılırmak Mah. Ufuk Üniversitesi Cad. No: 12Çankaya, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations