Journal of Seismology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 35–46 | Cite as

Local magnitude scale for earthquakes in Turkey

  • T. Kılıç
  • L. Ottemöller
  • J. Havskov
  • K. Yanık
  • Ö. Kılıçarslan
  • F. Alver
  • M. Özyazıcıoğlu


Based on the earthquake event data accumulated by the Turkish National Seismic Network between 2007 and 2013, the local magnitude (Richter, Ml) scale is calibrated for Turkey and the close neighborhood. A total of 137 earthquakes (Mw > 3.5) are used for the Ml inversion for the whole country. Three Ml scales, whole country, East, and West Turkey, are developed, and the scales also include the station correction terms. Since the scales for the two parts of the country are very similar, it is concluded that a single Ml scale is suitable for the whole country. Available data indicate the new scale to suffer from saturation beyond magnitude 6.5. For this data set, the horizontal amplitudes are on average larger than vertical amplitudes by a factor of 1.8. The recommendation made is to measure Ml amplitudes on the vertical channels and then add the logarithm scale factor to have a measure of maximum amplitude on the horizontal. The new Ml is compared to Mw from EMSC, and there is almost a 1:1 relationship, indicating that the new scale gives reliable magnitudes for Turkey.


Local (Richter) magnitude scale Magnitude calibration Wood-Anderson seismogram Horizontal vs vertical amplitude Geometrical spreading Seismic attenuation 



This research has been conducted as part of the project UDAP-Ç-12-15 titled “Calibration and Implementation of Earthquake Magnitude Scales for Turkish National Seismic Network,” National Earthquake Research Program, AFAD, Turkey, 2013.


  1. Alsaker A, Kvamme LB, Hansen RA, Dahle A, Bungum H (1991) The ML scale in Norway. Bull Seism Soc Am 81(2):379–398Google Scholar
  2. Bakun WH, Joyner WB (1984) The Ml scale in central California. Bull Seism Soc Am 74:1827–1843Google Scholar
  3. Baumbach M, Bindi D, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Parolai S, Wang R, Karakisa S, Zunbul S, Zschau J (2003) Calibration of an ML scale in Northwestern Turkey from 1999 Izmit aftershocks. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(5):2289–2295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bindi D, Parolai S, Görgün E, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Bohnhoff M, Durukal E (2007) ML scale in Northwestern Turkey from 1999 Izmit aftershocks: updates. Bull Seism Soc Am 97(1B):331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobbio A, Vassallo M, Festa G (2009) A local magnitude scale for southern Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4):2461–2470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkey – a synthesis. Geodin Acta 14:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bragato PL, Tento A (2005) Local magnitude in northeastern Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gasperini P (2002) Local magnitude revaluation for recent Italian earthquakes (1981–1996). J Seismol 6(4):503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geofon-Gitews Development Group (2009). Seiscomp 3 Manual, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Giardini D, di Donato M, Boschi E (1997) Calibration of magnitude scales for earthquakes of the Mediterranean. J Seism 1(2):161–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Havskov J, Ottemöller L (2010) Routine data processing in earthquake seismology. Springer, The Netherlands, p 347Google Scholar
  12. Herrmann RB (1975) The use of duration as a measure of seismic moment and magnitude. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(4):899–913Google Scholar
  13. Hutton LK, Boore DM (1987) The Ml scale in Southern California. Bull Seism Soc Am 77:2074–2094Google Scholar
  14. Kadirioğlu, FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2014) An Improved Earthquake Catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) For Turkey And Near Surrounding (1900–2012). Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, İstanbul Aug. 25–29 2014, Page:411–422Google Scholar
  15. Keir D, Stuart G, Jackson A, Ayele A (2006) Local earthquake magnitude scale and seismicity rate for the Ethiopian Rift. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):2221–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim W-Y (1998) The ML scale in Eastern North America. Bull Seism Soc Am 88:935–951Google Scholar
  17. Kiratzi AA, Papazachos BC (1984) Magnitude scales for earthquakes in Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(3):969–985Google Scholar
  18. LahrJ (1999) HYPOELLIPSE: A Computer Program for Determining Local Earthquake Hypocentral Parameters, Magnitude, and First-Motion Pattern, Version1.0,, last accessed, Novenber 16 2015.
  19. Lienert BR, Havskov J (1995) A computer program for locating earthquakes both locally and globally. Seism Res Lett 66:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menke W (1989) Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory. Academic Press, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ottemöller L, Voss P, Havskov J (2013) Seisan Earthquake Analysis Software For Windows, Solaris, Linux And Macosx, Software Manual V.9.0Google Scholar
  22. Ottemöller L, Sargeant S (2013) Local magnitude scale Ml for the United Kingdom. Bull Seism Soc Am 103(5):2883–2893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polat O, Gök E, Yılmaz D (2008) Earthquake Hazard of the Aegean Extension Region (West Turkey), Turkish J. Earth Sci 17:593.614Google Scholar
  24. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1986) Numerical Receips in Fortran. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Richter CF (1935) An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bull Seism Soc Am 25:1–32Google Scholar
  26. Ristau J, Roggers GC, Cassidy JF (2005) Moment magnitude – local magnitude calibration for earthquakes in western Canada. Bull Seism Soc Am 95(5):1994–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saunders I, Ottemöller L, Brandt MBC, Fourie CFS (2012) Calibration of an ML scale for South Africa using tectonic earthquake data recorded by the South African National Seismograph Network: 2006 to 2009. J Seismol 17(2):437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soysal H, Sipahioğlu S, Kolçak D, Altınok Y (1981) Historical Earthquake Catalogue of Turkey and Surrounding Area (2100 B.C. – 1900 A.D.). Technical Report, TUBITAK, No. TBAG-341Google Scholar
  29. Şengör AMC, Kidd WSF (1979) Post-collisional tectonics of the Turkish-Iranian plateau and a comparison with Tibet. Tectonophysics 55:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tezel T, Yanık K (2013) Improvement in Mwp Magnitude Determinations and Applications to Earthquakes in Turkey. SRL 84(6):991–996Google Scholar
  31. Utsu T (2002) Relationships between Magnitude Scales. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology Part A., Ch.44. Academic Press, London, pp 733–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Kılıç
    • 1
  • L. Ottemöller
    • 2
  • J. Havskov
    • 2
  • K. Yanık
    • 1
  • Ö. Kılıçarslan
    • 1
  • F. Alver
    • 1
  • M. Özyazıcıoğlu
    • 3
  1. 1.AFADAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of GeodynamicsUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Atatürk UniversityAtatürkTurkey

Personalised recommendations