Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 3197–3228 | Cite as

Evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey

  • S. Akkar
  • T. Azak
  • T. Çan
  • U. Çeken
  • M. B. Demircioğlu Tümsa
  • T. Y. Duman
  • M. Erdik
  • S. Ergintav
  • F. T. Kadirioğlu
  • D. Kalafat
  • Ö. Kale
  • R. F. Kartal
  • K. Kekovalı
  • T. Kılıç
  • S. Özalp
  • S. Altuncu Poyraz
  • K. Şeşetyan
  • S. Tekin
  • A. Yakut
  • M. T. Yılmaz
  • M. S. Yücemen
  • Ö. Zülfikar
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A review on the historical evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey is followed by summarizing the important aspects of the updated national probabilistic seismic hazard maps. Comparisons with the predecessor probabilistic seismic hazard maps as well as the implications on the national design codes conclude the paper.

Keywords

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment Seismic hazard maps of Turkey Seismic design codes of Turkey History of seismic hazard assessment and seismic design codes in Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

T-SHM project is granted by AFAD and financially supported by TCIP. The members of this project (the co-authors of this paper) express their sincere gratitude to the administrations of these two entities, in particular the currently acting and former presidents of AFAD Dr. Mehmet Güllüoğlu, Mr. Halis Bilden and Dr. Fuad Oktay; the acting and former directors of AFAD Earthquake Department Dr. Murat Nurlu and Mr. Ulubey Çeken; the AFAD project coordination team Mrs. Nazan Yılmaz Kılıç, Mrs. İlknur Dalyan and Mr. Cenk Erkmen; the deputy director general of TCIP Mr. İsmet Güngör and the general secretary of TCIP Mrs. Serpil Öztürk. The valuable comments of the project reviewers are also greatly appreciated by the project team. This paper is reviewed by Professor Julian J. Bommer at Imperial College and Professor Abdullah Sandıkkaya at Hacettepe University. Their comments improved some of the discussions and illustrations in the paper. Finally, the first author appreciates the help of Prof. Şeşetyan in the preparation of Table 1 as well as Professor Özkan Kale and Mrs. Senem Tekin for the preparation/improvement of many figures in the paper.

References

  1. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81:195–206CrossRefGoogle 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, Sandikkaya 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. Akkar S, Kale Ö, Yakut A, Çeken U (2017) Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0101-2
  5. Albini P, Musson RMW, Rovida A, Locati M, Gomez Capera AA, Viganò D (2014) The global earthquake history. Earthq Spectra 30(2):607–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(4):371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson JG, Luco JE (1983) Consequences of slip rate constants on earthquake recurrence relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:471–496Google Scholar
  8. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations in buildings, vol 510. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground motion relations for subduction zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ayhan E, Arslan E, Sancaklı N, Üçer SB (1984) Türkiye ve dolayları deprem kataloğu 1881–1980. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  12. Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2006) Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, Re D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6:431–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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(1):128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell KW (1981) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6):2039–2070Google Scholar
  17. 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(1):154–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1012–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E (2008) Broadband (0.05–20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on worldwide digital records. J Seismol 12:453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Demircioğlu MB, Şesetyan K, Durukal E, Erdik M (2007) Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  23. Demircioğlu MB, Şeşetyan K, Duman TY, Çan T, Tekin S, Ergintav S (2017) A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory: part II—fault source and background seismicity model. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0130-x Google Scholar
  24. Duman TY, Çan T, Emre Ö, Kadirioğlu FT, Başarır Baştürk N, Kılıç T, Arslan S, Özalp S, Kartal RF, Kalafat D, Karakaya F, Eroğlu Azak T, Özel NM, Ergintav S, Akkar S, Altınok Y, Tekin S, Cingöz A, Kurt Aİ (2016) Seismotectonics database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9965-9 Google Scholar
  25. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş, Şaroğlu 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, p 89Google Scholar
  26. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H, Şaroğlu F, Çan T (2016) Active fault database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2 Google Scholar
  27. Erdik M, Oner S (1982) A rational approach for the probabilistic assessment of the seismic risk associated with the North Anatolian Fault. In: Işıkara A, Vogel (eds) Multi-disciplinary approach to earthquake prediction. Vieweg, Brauschweig-Wiesbaden, p 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erdik M, Doyuran V, Gülkan P, Akçora G (1983) Probabilistic assessment of the seismic intensity in Turkey for the siting of nuclear power plants. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CSNI meeting on probabilistic methods in seismic risk assessment for nuclear power plants. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  29. Erdik M, Doyuran V, Akkaş N, Gülkan P (1985a) A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics 117:295–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Erdik M, Doyuran V, Akkas N, Gülkan P (1985b) A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics 117:195–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Erdik M, Biro Y, Onur T, Şesetyan K, Birgören G (1999) Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions—GSHAP. Ann Geofis 42(6):1125–1138Google Scholar
  32. Ergin K, Güçlü U, Uz Z (1967) Türkiye ve civarının deprem katalogu (Milattan Sonra 11 yılından 1964 sonuna kadar). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Maden Fakültesi Arz Fiziği Enstitüsü yayını, p 24 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  33. Ergin K, Güçlü U, Aksay G (1971) Türkiye ve dolaylarının deprem katalogu (1965–1970). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Maden Fakültesi Arz Fiziği Enstitüsü yayını, p 28Google Scholar
  34. Eroglu Azak T (2016) The ECAT software package to analyze earthquake catalogues. In: International science and technology conference, 13–15 July, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  35. Eroglu Azak T, Kalafat D, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu MB (2017) Effects of seismic declustering on seismic hazard assessment: a sensitivity study using the Turkish earthquake catalogue. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0174-y Google Scholar
  36. Eyidoğan H, Güçlü U (1993) Türkiye deprem bölgeleri haritasının evrimi ve yeni bir harita için öneri. Jeofizik 7:95–108 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Frankel A (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the Central and Eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 66:8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Garcia D, Singh SK, Harraiz M, Ordaz M, Pacheco JF (2005) Inslab earthquakes of Central Mexico: peak ground-motion parameters and response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(6):2272–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(15):1363–1367Google Scholar
  41. Giardini D (1999) The global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP)—1992/1999. Ann Geofis 42(6):957–974Google Scholar
  42. Gülkan P, Koçyiğit A, Yücemen MS, Doyuran V, Başöz N (1993) En son verilere göre hazırlanan Türkiye deprem bölgeleri haritası. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. 93-01, Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  43. Jimenez M, Giardini D, Grünthal G, Erdik M, Garcia-Fernandez M, Lapajne J, Makropoulos K, Musson R, Papaioannou Ch, Rebez A, Riad S, Sellami S, Shapira A, Slejko D, van Eck T, El Sayed A (2001) Unified seismic hazard modeling throughout the Mediterranean region. Bolletino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 42:3–18Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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 25:303–310Google Scholar
  46. Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Eroğlu Azak T, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2016) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900–2012). Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0064-8 Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Kale Ö, Akkar S (2017) A ground-motion logic-tree scheme for regional seismic hazard studies. Earthq Spectra 33(3):837–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Megawati K, Pan T-C (2010) Ground-motion attenuation relationship for the Sumatran megathrust earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(8):827–845Google Scholar
  51. Mulargia F, Tinti S (1987) A procedure to identify objectively active seismotectonic structures. Bollettino Di Geofisica Teorica Ed Applicata 24(114):147–164Google Scholar
  52. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Öcal N (1968a) Türkiye’nin sismisitesi ve zelzele coğrafyası (1850–1960) yılları için Türkiye zelzele katalogu. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı İstanbul Kandilli Rasathanesi Sismoloji Yayınları, vol 8, Sayfa 119 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  54. Öcal N (1968b) Beş yıllık zelzele katalogu (1960–1964) Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı İstanbul Kandilli Rasathanesi Sismoloji Yayınları, vol 9, Sayfa 24 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  55. Omote S, İpek M (1959) Türkiye’nin Sismisitesi. İTÜ Sismoloji Enstitüsü Yayını, p 19Google Scholar
  56. Onur T (1997) Earthquake hazard in Turkey based on spectral acceleration amplitudes. M.Sc. Thesis, Boğaziçi University, p 160Google Scholar
  57. Özmen B (2012) Türkiye deprem bölgeleri haritalarının tarihsel gelişimi. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni 55(1):43–55 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  58. Pamir HN (1948) Dinamik Jeoloji, vol 2. İstanbul University Publications, Istanbul, pp 348–404 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  59. Pınar N, Lahn E (1952) Türkiye depremleri izahlı kataloğu. Bayındırlık Bakanlığı Yapı ve İmar İşleri Reisliği Yayını, Seri no: 6, Sayı: 36, 153 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Schnabel PB, Seed HB (1973) Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63(2):501–516Google Scholar
  64. Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Duman T, Çan T, Tekin S, Eroğlu T, Zulfikar Fercan Ö (2016) A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory—part I: the area source model. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0005-6 Google Scholar
  65. Şeşetyan K, Danciu L, Demircioglu M, Giardini D, Erdik M, Akkar S, Gülen L, Zare M, Adamia S, Ansari A, Arakelian A, Gündoğan Askan A, Avanessian M, Babayan H, Chelidze T, Durgaryan R, Elias A, Hamzehloo H, Hessami K, Kalafat D, Kale Ö, Karakhanian A, Khan AM, Mamadli T, Al-Qaryouti M, Sayab M, Tsereteli N, Utkucu M, Yalçın H, Yılmaz MT (2018) The 2014 seismic hazard model of the Middle East: overview and results. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0346-4
  66. Sieberg A (1932) Erdbebengeographie, vol Band IV, Lieferung 3. Verlag von Gebrüder Borntraeger, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  67. Soyluk A, Harmankaya ZY (2012) Examination of earthquake resistant design in the education of architecture. Proc Soc Behav Sci 51:1080–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stepp JC (1972) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound 759 area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Microzonation, pp 897–910Google Scholar
  69. Stewart JP, Douglas J, Javanbarg M, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Boore DM, Campbell KW, Delavaud E, Erdik M, Stafford PJ (2015) Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model. Earthq Spectra 31(1):19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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, Živčić M, Albini P, Batllo J, Papaioannou C, Tatevossian R, Locati M, Meletti C, Viganò D, Giardini D (2013) The SHARE European earthquake catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. J Seismol 17(2):523–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tabban A (1970) Seismicity of Turkey. Bull Int Inst Seismol Earthq Eng 6:59–71Google Scholar
  72. Toro GR (2002) Modification of the Toro et al. (1997) attenuation equations for large magnitudes and short distances. Risk Eng Inc 4-1–4-10Google Scholar
  73. Toro GR, Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF (1997) Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties. Seismol Res Lettt 68:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weichert DH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1337–1346Google Scholar
  75. Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioğlu MB, Hiemer S, Meletti C, Musson RW, Rovida AN, Şesetyan K, Stucchi M, SHARE Consortium (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3553–3596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yarar R, Ergünay O, Erdik M, Gülkan P (1980) A preliminary probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Proc Seventh World Conf Earthq Eng Istanb 1:309–316Google Scholar
  77. Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1985) Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(4):939–964Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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 B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Akkar
    • 1
  • T. Azak
    • 2
  • T. Çan
    • 3
  • U. Çeken
    • 4
  • M. B. Demircioğlu Tümsa
    • 1
    • 5
  • T. Y. Duman
    • 6
  • M. Erdik
    • 1
  • S. Ergintav
    • 7
  • F. T. Kadirioğlu
    • 4
  • D. Kalafat
    • 8
  • Ö. Kale
    • 9
  • R. F. Kartal
    • 4
  • K. Kekovalı
    • 8
  • T. Kılıç
    • 4
  • S. Özalp
    • 10
  • S. Altuncu Poyraz
    • 8
  • K. Şeşetyan
    • 1
  • S. Tekin
    • 3
  • A. Yakut
    • 11
  • M. T. Yılmaz
    • 12
  • M. S. Yücemen
    • 11
  • Ö. Zülfikar
    • 13
  1. 1.Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of GeologyÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey
  4. 4.Earthquake DepartmentRepublic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management AuthorityAnkaraTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringGebze Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  6. 6.Fugro Sial Ltd.AnkaraTurkey
  7. 7.Department of Geodesy, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  8. 8.Regional Earthquake and Tsunami Monitoring Center, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  9. 9.Department of Civil EngineeringTED UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  10. 10.Department of Geological ResearchGeneral Directorate of Mineral Research and ExplorationAnkaraTurkey
  11. 11.Department of Civil EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  12. 12.Department of Engineering SciencesMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  13. 13.Department of Civil EngineeringÖzyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations