Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 67, Issue 6, pp 1483–1513 | Cite as

New macroseismic intensity predictive models for Turkey

  • Erdem BayrakEmail author
  • Murat Nas
  • Yusuf Bayrak
Research Article - Solid Earth Sciences
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we propose new attenuation relations for use in possible future macroseismicity-based analyses for Turkey. The most significant difference of the new relationships is that they are specifically designed for use in the full extent of Turkey. Besides, this paper supplies an extensive macroseismic database larger than ever collected for Turkey. To this end, a modifiable MATLAB program, which is fully presented in the electronic supplement to this paper, was written to analyze the collected isoseismal maps that were first geo-rectified and then gridded by dividing them into 0.02° arrays. The epicentral distances belonging to each point intersected with the pertinent isoseism were compiled in an event-based log. Then, all subsets were merged into a single dataset, which is presented in the electronic supplement. Required strong ground motion parameters were taken from an improved earthquake catalog recently given by Kadirioğlu et al. (B Earthq Eng 1:2, 2016). For modeling the relations, the early relations were mostly selected as patterns for our candidate attenuation models. Of all candidate models, the statistically significant ones were individually tested whether or not they were able to detect the best fitting model to our database. The predicted error margins of the proposed models were compared to those of early models using data-driven statistical tests. In conclusion, considering the usability limits, the estimation capabilities of proposed relationships were found to be useful to some extent than those of the early models developed for Turkey.

Keywords

Macroseismicity Macroseismic intensity Earthquake hazard Earthquake early warning Attenuation relations Seismicity of Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. They would also like to thank the handling Editor (Prof. Dr. Aybige Akinci) for her generous comments and support during the all review process.

Supplementary material

11600_2019_357_MOESM1_ESM.docx (988 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 988 kb)

References

  1. Ambraseys N (1985) Intensity- attenuation and magnitude- intensity relationships for northwest European earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct D 13:733–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambraseys NN (1988) Engineering seismology. Earthq Eng Struct D 17(1):1–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1987a) The Saros Marmara earthquake of 9 August 1912. Earthq Eng Struct D 15(2):189–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1987b) Seismicity of Turkey and neighboring regions, 1899–1915. Ann Geophys Ser B-Terr Planet Phys 5(6):701–725Google Scholar
  5. Arioglu E, Arioglu B, Girgin C (2001) Assessment of the Eastern Marmara earthquake in terms of acceleration values. Beton Prefabrikasyon 57–58:5–15 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  6. Arpat E (1977) 1975 Lice Depremi (in Turkish). Yeryuvarı ve İnsan 2:15–28Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson GM, Kaka SI (2007) Relationships between felt intensity and instrumental ground motion in the central United States and California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson GM, Wald DJ (2007) “Did You Feel It?” intensity data: a surprisingly good measure of earthquake ground motion. Seismol Res Lett 78:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakun WH (2005) Magnitude and location of historical earthquakes in Japan and implications for the 1855 Ansei Edo earthquake. J Geophys Res Solid Earth.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bakun WH (2006) MMI attenuation and historical earthquakes in the Basin and Range province of western North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2206–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bakun WH, Scotti O (2006) Regional intensity attenuation models for France and the estimation of magnitude and location of historical earthquakes. Geophys J Int 164:596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bakun WH, Wentworth CM (1997) Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:1502–1521Google Scholar
  13. Bakun WH, Johnston AC, Hopper MG (2003) Estimating locations and magnitudes of earthquakes in eastern North America from modified Mercalli intensities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:190–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilal M, Askan A (2014) Relationships between felt intensity and recorded ground-motion parameters for Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:484–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bindi D, Parolai S, Oth A, Abdrakhmatov K, Muraliev A, Zschau J (2011) Intensity prediction equations for Central Asia. Geophys J Int 187:327–337.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05142.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bindi D, Parolai S, Gómez-Capera A, Locati M, Kalmetyeva Z, Mikhailova N (2014) Locations and magnitudes of earthquakes in Central Asia from seismic intensity data. J Seismol 18:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-013-9392-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blumenthal M, Pamir HN, Akyol HI (1943) Şimal Anadolu Zelzele Sahasının Jeoloji ve 1942 Yılı Sonunda Buralarda Yapılan Makrosismik Müşahadeler (Osmancık-Erbaa). MTA Mecmuası 8(1–29):33–58 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  18. Böse M (2006) Earthquake early warning for Istanbul using artificial neural networks. PhD. Thesis, Fakultät für Physik der Universität HamburgGoogle Scholar
  19. Böse M, Erdik M, Wenzel F (2007) A new approach to earthquake early warning. In: Earthquake early warning systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 65–83Google Scholar
  20. Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkey—a synthesis. Geodin Acta 14:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cecic I, Musson R, Stucchi M (1996) Do seismologists agree upon epicentre determination from macroseismic data? A survey of ESC Working Group ‘Macroseismology’. Ann Geophys 39, 5Google Scholar
  22. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS (2015) Weighted least squares. In: Regression analysis by example. 5th edition, Wiley, pp 179–196.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0470055464.ch7
  23. Demirtas R, İravul Y, Erkmen C, Baran B, Yaman M, Kılıç T (2000) Orta (Çankırı) earthquake of June 6, 2000, Bull. Geology 1–2, 6–15 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  24. Demirtas R, İravul Y, Erkmen C, Yaman M, Kartal R, Baran B (2004) 25 ve 28 Mart 2004 Aşkale-Kandilli-Erzurum Depremleri (in Turkish), Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü Deprem Araştırma Dairesi BaşkanlığıGoogle Scholar
  25. Doser DI (2009) Estimating magnitude and location of Alaskan earthquakes using intensity data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3430–3453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douglas J (2011) Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2010. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Dowrick D, Rhoades D (2005) Revised models for attenuation of modified Mercalli intensity in New Zealand earthquakes. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 38:185–214Google Scholar
  28. Erberik MA (2008a) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Erberik MA (2008b) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30:1360–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Erdik M, Eren K (1983) Attenuation of intensities for earthquake associated with the North Anatolian Fault, Middle East Technical University Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Ankara.Google Scholar
  31. Erdik M, Öner S (1982) A rational approach for the probabilistic assessment of the seismic risk associated with the North Anatolian Fault. In: Işikara AM, Vogel A (eds) Multidisciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction. Progress in Earthquake Prediction Research, vol 2. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 115–127Google Scholar
  32. Erdik M, Doyuran V, Akkaş N, Gülkan P (1985) A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics 117:295–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ergin K (1969) Observed intensity-epicentral distance relations in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 59:1227–1238Google Scholar
  34. Ergin K, Güçlü U, Uz Z (1967) Türkiye ve Civarının Deprem Katoloğu (in Turkish), İTÜ. Maden Fak. Arz Fiziği Enstitüsü Yayınları 24:1–169Google Scholar
  35. Ergin K, Güçlü U, Aksay G (1971) Türkiye ve Dolaylarının Deprem Kataloğu (in Turkish), İ.T.Ü. Maden Fak. Arz Fiziği Enst. Yayınları, 28Google Scholar
  36. Eyidoğan H, Güçlü U, Utku Z, Değirmenci E (1991) Türkiye Büyük Depremleri Makro-Sismik Rehberi (1900–1988) (in Turkish). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Maden Fakültesi, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  37. Fırat O (2005) 12 Kasım 1999 Düzce Depreminin Makrosismik Araştırması (in Turkish), Master Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Jeofizik Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  38. Güçlü U, Uz Z (1967) Türkiye ve civarının deprem katalogu. İ.T.Ü. Maden Fak. Arz Fiziği Enst. Yayl., no. 24, 169 sGoogle Scholar
  39. Güçlü U, Altınbaş G, Eyidoğan H (1986) Türkiye ve Çevresi Deprem Kataloğu (1971–1975, in Turkish), İTÜ, YBYK-UYG-AR Merkezi, Sismoloji ve Sismotektonik Alt Birimi, No:30Google Scholar
  40. Gurpinar A, Erdik M, Oner M, Yusemen S (1979) Seismic risk analysis of Northern Anatolia based on Intensity attenuation. In: Proceedings of 2nd US national conference on: earthquake engineering, Stanford-CA, pp 72–81Google Scholar
  41. Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M (2010) ELER software-a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 10:2677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Azak TE, Ozalp S, Emre Ö (2016) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900–2012). B Earthq Eng 1:2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0064-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kalafat D, Güneş Y, Arpat E, Ölmez Y, Öz G, Horasan G, Kekovalı K, Öğütçü Z, Püskülcü S, Yılmazer M (2003) Mayıs 2003 Bingöl Depremi Ön Raporu (in Turkish), Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü Sismoloji Servisi, 58Google Scholar
  45. Kanamori H (2007) Real-time earthquake damage mitigation measures. ​In: Gasparini P, Manfredi G, Zschau J (eds) Earthquake early warning systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  46. Ketin I, Abdülselamoğlu Ş (1966) 19 Ağustos 1966 Varto Depreminin Makrosismik İncelemesi Hakkında Rapor (in Turkish). İTÜ YBYK UYG. AR, Merkezi Sismoloji ve Sismotektonik Alt Birimi ArşiviGoogle Scholar
  47. Ketin I, Roesli F (1953) Makroseismische Untersuchungen über das nordwest-anatolische Beben vom 18 März 1953. Eclogae Geol Helv 46:187–208Google Scholar
  48. Kolçak D, Sipahioğlu S (1979) Batı Anadolu için geliştirilmiş deprem büyüklük—Şiddet-Uzaklık iliskisi (in Turkish), Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü Bülteni 25, 28–47Google Scholar
  49. Levret A, Backe JC, Cushing M (1994) Atlas of macroseismic maps for French earthquakes with their principal characteristics. Nat Hazards 10:19–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00643439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Makridakis S, Wheelwright SC, Hyndman RJ (2008) Forecasting methods and applications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  51. Minson SE, Meier M-A, Baltay AS, Hanks TC, Cochran ES (2018) The limits of earthquake early warning: timeliness of ground motion estimates. Sci Adv.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Musson R (2005) Intensity attenuation in the UK. J Seismol 9:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Musson RMW, Cecić I (2002) 49—Macroseismology. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International geophysics, vol 81. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 807–822.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-6142(02)80256-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nemati M (2016) Relationships between modified mercalli intensity and engineering ground-motion of the earthquakes in Persia. J Earthq Eng 20:795–808.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1104751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Öcal N (1958a) 16 Temmuz 1955 Söke-Balat Zelzelesi (in Turkish), Maarif BasımeviGoogle Scholar
  56. Öcal N (1958b) Söke-Balat Zelzelesi (Söke-Balat earthquake), İstanbul Kandili Rasathanesi Sismoloji Yay, 2Google Scholar
  57. Öcal N (1959) 20 Şubat 1956 Eskişehir Zelzelesinin Makro- ve Mikrosismik Etüdü (in Turkish), İTÜGoogle Scholar
  58. Özmen B (2000) İzmit Körfezi Depremi’nin Hasar Durumu: (Rakamsal Verilerle) (in Turkish). Türkiye Deprem Vakfı, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  59. Özmen B (2002) 3 Şubat 2002 Çay (Afyon) Depreminin Eşşiddet Haritası ve Hasar Durumu (Rakamsal Verilerle) (in Turkish). Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü Deprem Araştırma Daire 4083:1Google Scholar
  60. Pamir HN, Ketin I (1941) Das anatolische Erdbeben Ende 1939. Geol Rundsch 32(3):279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pınar N (1953) Preliminary Note on the Earthquake of Yenice-Gönen, Turkey, March 18, 1953. Bull Seismol Soc Am 43(4):307–310Google Scholar
  62. Pınar N, Lahn E (1952) Türkiye Depremleri İzahli Kataloğu (in Turkish), Akın Matbaacilik Limited OrtaklığıGoogle Scholar
  63. Salomon-Calvi W, Kleinsorge H (1940) 19 Nisan 1938 Tarihli Kırşehir Zelzelesi ve Zelzele Mıntakalarında İnşaat ile İskan Hususunda Jeolojik Teklifler (in Turkish), Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enst. Seri B 5:5–28Google Scholar
  64. Seymen İ, Aydın A (1972) Bingöl Deprem Fayı ve Bunun Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonu ile İlişkisi (in Turkish), Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, 79Google Scholar
  65. Sørensen M, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2009) Attenuation of macroseismic intensity: a new relation for the Marmara Sea region, northwest Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:538–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sørensen M, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2010a) Intensity attenuation in the Campania region, Southern Italy. J Seismol 14:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sørensen MB, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2010b) A macroseismic intensity prediction equation for intermediate depth earthquakes in the Vrancea region, Romania. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1268–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sponheuer W (1960) Methoden zur Herdtiefenbestimmung in der Makroseismik. Freiberger Forschungshefte, vol C88. Akademie-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  69. Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2009) Attenuation relationship of macroseismic intensities in Central Europe. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tselentis G-A, Danciu L (2008) Empirical relationships between modified mercalli intensity and engineering ground-motion parameters in Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1863–1875.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Văcăreanu R, Iancovici M, Neagu C, Pavel F (2015) Macroseismic intensity prediction equations for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source. Nat Hazards 79:2005–2031.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1944-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Varazanashvili O et al (2018) GeoInt: the first macroseismic intensity database for the Republic of Georgia. J Seismol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9726-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S (2013) Analysis of applicability of seismic intensity estimation using fourier spectrum of ground motions for Iranian earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 170:597–606.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0535-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S (2018) Macroseismic intensity attenuation in Iran. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17:139–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-018-0430-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S, Tsang H-H, Lam NTK (2011) Conversion between peak ground motion parameters and modified mercalli intensity values. J Earthq Eng 15:1138–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.565861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yalçın D, Eravcı YFB, Yanık K, Baykal M, Yenilmez G, Çetin C (2017) Afad-red rapid earthquake damage and loss estimation software: example of Adıyaman Samsat earthquake. In: 9th congress of the balkan geophysical societyGoogle Scholar
  77. Yarar R, Ergünay O, Erdik M, Eren K (1984) Attenuation of intensities in Turkey In: Proceedings of eighth world conference on earthquake engineering San Francisco, CA, vol 343–350Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological Engineering, Oltu Earth Sciences FacultyAtaturk UniversityOltu-ErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Geophysical EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations