Journal of Seismology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1223–1252 | Cite as

Ground motion simulations for İzmir, Turkey: parameter uncertainty

  • Louise W. Bjerrum
  • Mathilde B. Sørensen
  • Lars Ottemöller
  • Kuvvet Atakan
Original Article

Abstract

In ground motion simulation studies based on earthquake rupture scenarios, the absolute ground motion level, frequency content, signal duration and distribution of simulated ground motion is highly dependent on the input parameters used in the calculations. We conduct a predictive study assessing the potential ground motions for İzmir, Turkey based on earthquake scenarios. We calculate ground motions from a reference scenario (Mw6.8) and compare it to 25 test scenarios for the İzmir fault in order to investigate the effect of input parameter uncertainty on the simulated ground motion. In this study, we use a hybrid broadband frequency (0.1–10 Hz) ground motion simulation technique. We find average ground motion levels in the central area of İzmir of more than 600 cm/s2 and 60 cm/s for peak ground acceleration and velocity, respectively, while the standard deviation is found to exceed 200 cm/s2 and 20 cm/s, respectively. The tested parameters identified to have the largest influence on the absolute ground motion level are seismic moment, average stress-drop, rise time and rupture velocity. Parameters identified to have the least effect on ground motion level are rake and ratio of stress-drop on asperities to background stress-drop. The low-frequency ground motion, critical in terms of damage to the building stock in İzmir, is mostly affected by the location of nucleation point, seismic moment, depth of the rupture area, rise time and the velocity model. It is, therefore, highly recommended that future studies focus on reducing the uncertainties in these input parameters.

Keywords

Strong motion simulation Earthquake scenarios Seismic hazard assessment Western Anatolia Ground motion variability Hybrid broadband simulation technique Parameter uncertainty Seismic design code 

Supplementary material

10950_2013_9389_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1(docx 19.6 kb)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM2_ESM.ai (7.2 mb)
Fig. ES1Acceleration waveforms of the reference scenario at five selected stations. The stations are selected to have approximately a quarter of a fault length distance to the surface rupture of the fault, in addition to a station from the city centre of İzmir. Notice the different scales on the vertical axis of the seismograms. In the upper left corner a map with station locations is shown. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as black rectangles, the surface trace is marked with a thick stippled line. The nucleation point is shown as a white star and stations are shown as white inverted triangles (ai 7.22 MB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM3_ESM.ai (7.2 mb)
Fig. ES2Velocity waveforms of the reference scenario at five selected stations. The stations are selected to have approximately a quarter of a fault length distance to the surface rupture of the fault, in addition to a station from the city centre of İzmir. Notice the different scales on the vertical axiFig. ES1 (ai 7.21 MB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM4_ESM.ai (633 kb)
Fig. ES35% damped spectral acceleration (left) and velocity (right) for the 5 stations shown in the upper corner of Figures ES1 and ES2. The spectra from the station in the central part of İzmir (262) are shown in thick black lines, see legend in upper left plot for other station identifications (ai 632 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM5_ESM.ai (522 kb)
Fig. ES4Ground motion distribution of the reference scenario, PGA (left column) and PGV (right column) from filtered synthetic seismograms in three frequency bands: f < 1 Hz, 1 Hz < f < 5 Hz and f > 5 Hz. The values are shown as the geometric mean of the two maximum horizontal components. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as white rectangles, the surface trace is marked with a thick stippled line. The nucleation point is shown as a white star (ai 521 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM6_ESM.ai (433 kb)
Fig. ES5Simulation results for scenarios 3a-b, where the effect of rake angle is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as black rectangles, the surface trace is marked with a thick stippled line. The nucleation point is shown as a white star. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Figs. 5-12 (ai 432 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM7_ESM.ai (507 kb)
Fig. ES6Simulation results for scenarios 4a-c, where the effect of the location of the nucleation point is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as black rectangles, the surface trace is marked with a thick stippled line. The nucleation point used in the reference scenarios and in the test scenario are shown with a black and a white star, respectively. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Fig. 7 (ai 506 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM8_ESM.ai (618 kb)
Fig. ES7Peak ground motion distribution for test scenarios 4a-c, where the effect of the location of the nucleation point is investigated. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as white rectangles, the surface trace is marked with a thick stippled line. The nucleation points of the reference scenario and the test scenario are marked by a black and a white star, respectively (ai 618 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM9_ESM.ai (434 kb)
Fig. ES8Simulation results for scenarios 6a-b, where the effect of average stress-drop is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. For details see Fig. ES5. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Fig. 9 (ai 433 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM10_ESM.ai (371 kb)
Fig. ES9Simulation results for scenarios 7a-b, where the effect of stress-drop ratio is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. For details see Fig. ES5. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Figs. 5-12 (ai 370 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM11_ESM.ai (377 kb)
Fig. ES10Simulation results for scenarios 8a-b, where the effect of rise time is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. For details see Fig. ES5. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Fig. 10 (ai 376 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM12_ESM.ai (455 kb)
Fig. ES11Simulation results for scenarios 10a-c, where the effect of change in frequency dependent attenuation is investigated. The plots show the absolute difference in the ground motion values compared to the reference scenario. For details see Fig. ES5. Notice the scale is different from the scale used in Figs. 5-12 (ai 454 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM13_ESM.ai (418 kb)
Fig. ES12Differential ground motion of scenario 11a, where the velocity model for Western Turkey by Kalafat et al. (1987) is used. The difference of PGA (left column) and PGV (right column) from the reference scenario of filtered synthetic seismograms in three frequency bands: f < 1 Hz, 1 Hz < f < 5 Hz and f > 5 Hz is shown. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as black rectangles, the fault dips to the NNW, and the nucleation point is shown as a white star (ai 418 KB)
10950_2013_9389_MOESM14_ESM.ai (412 kb)
Fig. ES13Differential ground motion of scenario 11b, where the velocity model for the Gulf of Corinth by Rigo et al. (1996) is used. The difference of PGA (left column) and PGV (right column) from the reference scenario of filtered synthetic seismograms in three frequency bands: f < 1 Hz, 1 Hz < f < 5 Hz and f > 5 Hz is shown. The surface projection of the ruptured fault plane and asperity are shown as black rectangles, the fault dips to the NNW, and the nucleation point is shown as a white star (ai 412 KB)

References

  1. Aagaard BT, Graves RW, Schwartz DP, Ponce DA, Graymer RW (2010a) Ground-motion modeling of Hayward fault scenario earthquakes, Part I: Construction of the suite of scenarios. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2927–2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aagaard BT, Graves RW, Rodgers A, Brocher TM, Simpson RW, Dreger D, Petersson NA, Larsen SC, Ma S, Jachens RC (2010b) Ground-motion modeling of Hayward fault scenario earthquakes, Part II: Simulation of long-period and broadband ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2945–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akıncı A, Ibanez JM, del Pezzo E, Morales J (1995) Geometrical spreading and attenuation of Lg waves: a comparison between western Anatolia (Turkey) and southern Spain. Tectonophysics 250(1):47–60Google Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2007) Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Europe and the Middle East. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(10):1275–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Aktuğ B, Kılıçoğlu A (2006) Recent crustal deformation of İzmir, western Anatolia and surrounding regions as deduced from repeated GPS measurements and strain field. J Geodyn 41(5):471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akyol N, Zhu L, Mitchell BJ, Sözbilir H, Kekovali K (2006) Crustal structure and local seismicity in western Anatolia. Geophys J Int 166:1259–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Altun S, Sezer A, Göktepe AB (2012) A preliminary microzonation study on Northern Coasts of Izmir: Investigation of the local soil conditions. Soil Dyn Eq Eng 39:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1995) The seismicity of Turkey and adjacent areas, a historical review, 1500–1800. Muhittin Salih EREN, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  10. Ameri G, Pacor F, Cultrera G, Franceschina G (2008) Deterministic ground-motion scenarios for engineering applications: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1298–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ameri G, Emolo A, Pacor F, Gallovič F (2011) Ground-motion simulations for the 1980 M 6.9 Irpinia earthquake (southern Italy) and scenario events. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(3):1136–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aochi H, Douglas J (2006) Testing the validity of simulated strong ground motion from the dynamic rupture of a finite fault, by using empirical equations. Bull Earthq Eng 4:211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Atkinson GM, Beresnev IA (2002) Ground motions at Memphis and St. Louis from M 7.5-8.0 earthquakes in the New Madrid seismic zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(3):1015–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bjerrum LW, Sørensen MB, Atakan K (2010) Strong ground-motion simulation of the 12 May 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, using various slip models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5b):2396–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(6):1865–1894Google Scholar
  16. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spec 24(1):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bouchon M (1981) A simple method to calculate Green’s functions for elastic layered media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(4):959–971Google Scholar
  19. Causse M, Cotton F, Cornou C, Bard P-Y (2008) Calibrating median and uncertainty estimates for a practical use of empirical Green’s functions technique. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cultrera G, Cirella A, Spagnuolo E, Herrero A, Tinti E, Pacor F (2010) Variability of kinematic source parameters and its implication on the choice of the design scenario. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(3):941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deniz A, Korkman KA, Irfanoglu A (2010) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for İzmir Turkey. Pure Appl Geophys 167(12):1475–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekström G, Dziewonski A, Nettles M (2008) Global CMT Catalogue. www.globalcmt.org. Accessed May 2010
  23. Emre Ö, Özalp S, Dogan A, Özaksoy V, Yildirim C, Göktas F (2005) Active faults in the vicinity of İzmir and their earthquake potential (in Turkish). Report No. 10754, Geological Studies Department, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  24. Graves RW, Aagaard BT, Hudnut KW, Star LM, Stewart JP, Jordan TH (2008) Broadband simulations for Mw 7.8 southern San Andreas earthquakes: Ground motion sensitivity to rupture speed. Geophys Res Lett 35:(L22302). doi:10.1029/2008GL035750
  25. Hartzell S, Liu P, Mendoza C (1996) The 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake: Investigation of rupture velocity, rise time and high-frequency radiation. J Geophys Res 101:20,091–20,108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Imperatori W, Mai PM (2012) Sensitivity of broad-band ground-motion simulations to earthquake source and Earth structure variations: an application to the Messina Straits (Italy). Geophys J Int 188:1103–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irikura K (1986) Semi-empirical estimation of strong ground motions during large earthquakes. Bull Disaster Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ 33:63–104Google Scholar
  28. Kalafat D, Gürbüz C, Üçer S-B (1987) Batı Türkiye’deki kabuk ve üst manto yapısının araştırılması (in Turkish). Turk Bull Earthq Res 59:43–64Google Scholar
  29. Kanamori H, Anderson DL (1975) Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(5):1073–1095Google Scholar
  30. Madariaga R (1977) High-frequency radiation from crack (stress drop) models of earthquake faulting. Geophys J Roy Astron Soc 51:625–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Madariaga R (1983) High-frequency radiation from dynamic earthquake fault models. Ann Geophys 1:17–23Google Scholar
  32. Mai M, Spudich P, Boatwright J (2005) Hypocenter locations in finite source rupture models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):965–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metropolitan Municipality of İzmir (MMI) (2000) İzmir earthquake masterplan (in Turkish). Metropolitan Municipality of İzmir publication, İzmir, Turkey. http://www.izmir.bel.tr/izmirdeprem/izmirrapor.htm. Accessed August 2011
  34. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (2007) Specification for structures to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and. Government of Republic of Turkey, SettlementGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsen KB, Day SM, Dalguer LA, Mayhew J, Cui Y, Zhu J, Cruz-Atienza VM, Roten D, Maechling P, Jordan TH, Okaya D, Chourasia A (2009) ShakeOut-D: Ground motion estimates using an ensemble of large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas fault with spontaneous rupture propagation. Geophys Res Lett 36(L04303). doi: 10.1026/2008GL036832
  36. Papazachos B, Papazachou C (1997) The earthquakes of Greece. Technical books Edition, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  37. Papazachos BC, Papaioannou CA, Papazachos CB, Savvaidis AS (1997) Atlas of isoseismal maps for strong shallow earthquakes in Greece and surrounding area (426BC-1995). Technical books Edition, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  38. Pulido N, Kubo T (2004) Near-fault strong motion complexity of the 2000 Tottori earthquake (Japan) from a broadband source asperity model. Tectonophysics 390:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 391:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rigo A, Lyon-Caen H, Armijo R, Deschamps A, Hatzfeld D, Makropoulos K, Papadimitriou P, Kassaras I (1996) A microseismic study in the eastern part of the Gulf of Corinth (Greece): implications for large-scale normal faulting mechanisms. Geophys J Int 126:663–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ripperger J, Mai PM, Ampuero J-P (2008) Variability of near-field ground motion from dynamic earthquake rupture simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1207–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schön JH (1996) Physical properties of rock, fundamentals and principles of petrophysics, Book series: Handbook of geophysical exploration, seismic exploration, vol 18. Editors Helbig K, Treiter S. Pergamon Press 1996Google Scholar
  43. Somerville P, Kojiro I, Graves R, Sawada S, Wald D, Abrahamson N, Iwasaki Y, Kagawa T, Smith N, Kowada A (1999) Characterizing crustal earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seismol Res Lett 70(1):59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spudich P, Chiou BSJ (2008) Directivity in NGA earthquake ground motions: Analysis using isochrones theory. Earthq Spectr 24(1):279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sørensen MB, Pulido N, Atakan K (2007a) Sensitivity of ground motion simulations to earthquake source parameters: a case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(3):881–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sørensen MB, Atakan K, Pulido N (2007b) Simulated strong ground motions for the great M 9.3 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(1A):S139–S151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang H, Igel H, Gallovič F, Cochard A, Ewald M (2008) Source-related variations of ground motions in 3-D media: application to the Newport-Inglewood fault, Los Angeles Basin. Geophys J I 175e:202–214Google Scholar
  48. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise W. Bjerrum
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mathilde B. Sørensen
    • 1
  • Lars Ottemöller
    • 1
  • Kuvvet Atakan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.OCTIOBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations