Natural Hazards

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 445–462 | Cite as

Relationships Between Fundamental Seismic Hazard Parameters for the Different Source Regions in Turkey

Article

Abstract

Turkey has been divided into eight different seismic regions taking into consideration the tectonic environments and epicenters of the earthquakes to examine relationships of the modal values (a/b), the expected maximum magnitudes (Mmax) and the maximum intensities (Imax). For this purpose, the earthquakes for the time period 1900–1992 from the Global Hypocenter Data Base CD-ROM prepared by USGS, and for the time period 1993–2001 from the PDE data and IRIS data are used. Concerning the relationships developed between different magnitude scales and between surface wave magnitudes (M S ) and intensity for different source regions in Turkey, we have constructed a uniform catalog of M S . We have estimated the values of Mmax and Imax using the Gumbel III asymptotic distribution. Highest a-values are observed in the Aegean region and the lowest b-values are estimated for the North Anatolian Fault. Maximum values of a/b, Mmax and Imax are related to the eastern and western part of the North Anatolian Fault and the Aegean Arc. The lowest values of all parameters are observed near the Mid Anatolian Fault system. Linear relationships have been calculated between a/b, Mmax and Imax using orthogonal regression. If one of the three parameters is computed, two other parameters can be calculated empirically using these linear relationships. Hazard maps of Mmax and Imax values are produced using these relationships for a grid of equally spaced points at 1°. It is observed that the maps produced empirically may be used as a measure of seismic hazard in Turkey.

Key words

Gutenberg–Richter relationship intensity magnitude modal values seismic hazard 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Båth, M. 1981Earthquake recurrence of a particular typePAGEOPH11910631076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayrak, Y., Yılmaztürk, A., Öztürk, S. 2002Lateral variations of the modal (a/b) values for the different regions of the worldJ. Geodynamics34653666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bender, B. 1983Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped dataBull. Seism. Soc. Am.73831851Google Scholar
  4. Burton, P. W. 1979Seismic risk in southern Europe through to India examined using Gumbel’s third distribution of extreme valuesGeophys. J. R. Astr. Soc.59249280Google Scholar
  5. Burton, W. P., McGonigle, R., Makropoulos, K. C., Üçer, S. B. 1984Seismic Risk in Turkey, the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean: The occurrence of large magnitude earthquakesGeophys. J. R. Astr. Soc.78475506Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. F. 1976Seismicity of Northern AnatoliaBull. Seism. Soc. Am.66843868Google Scholar
  7. Erdik, M., Doyuran, V., Akkaş, N., Gülkan, P. 1985A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in TurkeyTectonophysics117295344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erdik, M., Alpay B. Y., Onur, T., Sesetyan, K., and Birgoren, G.: 1999, Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions, Annali di Geofisica, GSHAP Summary Volume.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, B., Lomnitz, C. 1966A model for the occurrence of large earthquakesNature211954956Google Scholar
  10. Gumbel, E 1958Statistics of extremesClombia University PressNew York375Google Scholar
  11. Gutenberg, B., Richter, C. F. 1944Frequency of earthquakes in CaliforniaBull. Seism. Soc. Am.34185188Google Scholar
  12. Harajli, M., Sadek, S., Asbahan, R. 2002Evaluation of seismic hazard of LebanonJ. Seismol.6257277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kasapoğlu, K. E., Toksöz, M. N. 1983Tectonic consequences of the collision of the Arabian and Eurasian plates: Finite element modelsTectonophysics1007195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lilwall, R. C.: 1976, Seismicity and seismic hazard in Britain, Inst. Geol. Sci. Seism. Bull. No. 4, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  15. Makropoulos, K. C., Burton, P. W. 1986Hazan: A FORTAN program to evaluate seismic-hazard parameters using Gumbel’s theory of extreme value statisticsComp. Geosci.122946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKenzie, D. P. 1970Plate tectonics of the Mediterranean regionNature226239243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miyamura, S. 1962Magnitude-frequency relations and its bearing on geotectonicsProc. Jap. Acad.382730Google Scholar
  18. Nordquist, J. M. 1945Theory of largest values applied to earthquakes magnitudesTrans. Am. Geophys. Un.262931Google Scholar
  19. Olsson, R. 1999An estimation of the maximum b-value in the Gutenberg–Richter relationGeodynamics27547552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papazachos, B., Kiratzi, A., Papadimitriou, E. 1991Regional focal mechanism for earthquakes in the Aegean areaPAGEOPH136405420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tsapanos, T. M., Papazachos, B. C. 1998Geographical and vertical variation of the earth’s seismicityJ. Seismol.2183192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yarar, R., Ergünay, O., Erdik, M., and Gülkan, P.: 1980, A preliminary probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey, Proc. 7th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Istanbul, 309–316.Google Scholar
  23. Yegulalp, T. M., Kuo, J. T. 1974Statistical prediction of the occurrence of maximum magnitude earthquakesBull. Seism. Soc. Am.64393414Google Scholar
  24. Yılmaztürk, A., Bayrak, Y., and Çakır, Ö.: 1999, Crustal seismicity in and around Turkey. Nat. Hazards, 18, 253–267.Google Scholar
  25. Yı ılmaztürk, A., Burton, P. W. 1999An evaluation of seismic hazard parameters in southern TurkeyJ. Seismol.36181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yusuf Bayrak
    • 1
  • Ahmet Yilmaztürk
    • 1
  • Serkan Öztürk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeophysicsKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations