Advertisement

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 149–160 | Cite as

Development of an aftershock occurrence model calibrated for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods

  • Ziya Muderrisoglu
  • Ufuk YazganEmail author
Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents the calibration of Omori’s aftershock occurrence rate model for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods. Aftershock occurrence rate models are used for estimating the probability of an aftershock that exceeds a specific magnitude threshold within a time interval after the mainshock. Critical decisions on the post-earthquake safety of structures directly depend on the aftershock hazard estimated using the occurrence model. It is customary to calibrate models in a region-specific manner. These models depend on rate parameters (a, b, c and p) related to the seismicity characteristics of the investigated region. In this study, the available well-recorded aftershock sequences for a set of Mw ≥ 5.9 mainshock events that were observed in Turkey until 2012 are considered to develop the aftershock occurrence model. Mean estimates of the model parameters identified for Turkey are a = -1.90, b = 1.11, c = 0.05 and p = 1.20. Based on the developed model, aftershock likelihoods are computed for a range of diff erent time intervals and mainshock magnitudes. Also, the sensitivity of aftershock probabilities to the model parameters is investigated. Aftershock occurrence probabilities estimated using the model are expected to be useful for post-earthquake safety evaluations in Turkey.

Keywords

aftershock occurrence model aftershock likelihoods rate parameters aftershock hazard 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study is supported and funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for the project “Risk of Collapse Based Rating of Damaged Low Rise Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings Subjected to Aftershock Hazard” with Grant No. 213M454. This support is greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Aki K (1965), “Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula log N = a-bM and its Confidence Limits,” Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst, 43: 237–239.Google Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Azak TE, Can T, Ceken U, Demircioglu MB, Duman T, Ergintav S, Kadirioglu FT, Kalafat D, Kale O, Kartal RF, Kilic T, Ozalp S, Sesetyan K, Teki S, Yakut A, Yilmaz MT and Zulfikar O (2014), Turkiye Sismik Tehlike Haritasinin Guncellenmesi, Ulusal Deprem Arastirma Programı, UDAP-C13-06. (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  3. Davidsen J, Gu C and Baiesi M (2015), “Generalized Omori–Utsu Law for Aftershock Sequences in Southern California,” Geophys. 1. Int., 201: 965–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Şaroğlu F, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H and Çan T (2016), “Active Fault Database of Turkey,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., 16: 3229–3275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frohlich C and Davis SD (1990), “Single-Link Cluster Analysis as a Method to Evaluate Spatial and Temporal Properties of Earthquake Catalogues,” Geophys. 1. Int., 100: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galanopolulos AG (1965), “On Quantitative Determination of Earthquake Risk,” Ann. Geofis., 21: 193–206.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner JK and Knopoff L (1974), “Is the Sequence of Earthquakes in Southern California,with Aftershocks Removed,Poissonian?” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 64(5): 1363–1367.Google Scholar
  8. Görgün E, Zang A, Bohnhoff M, Milkereit C and Dresen G (2009), “Analysis of Izmit Aftershocks 25 Days Before the November 12th Duzce Earthquake, Turkey,” Tectonophysics, 474(3-4): 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Görgün E (2013), “Analysis of the b-values Before and After the 23 October 2011 Mw7.2 Van-Erciş, Turkey Earthquake,” Tectonophysics, 603: 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gutenberg B and Richter CF (1954), Seismicity of the Earth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Helmstetter A (2003), “Is Earthquake Triggering Driven by Small Earthquakes?” Phys. Rev. Lett, 91(5): 058501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kadirioğlu FT and Kartal RF (2016), “The New Emprical Magnitude Conversion Relations Using an Improved Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey and its Near Vicinity (1900-2012),” Turkish J. Earth Sci., 25: 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. KOERI (2007), “Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Regional Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center”, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo.Google Scholar
  14. Mogi K (1962), “On the Time Distribution of Aftershocks Accompanying the Recent Major Earthquakes in and near Japan,” Bull. Earthq. Res. Ins., 40: 107–124.Google Scholar
  15. Molchan GM and Dmitrieva OE (1992), “Aftershock Identification: Methods and New Approaches,” Geophys. J. Int., 109(6,9,11): 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ogata Y (1983), “Estimation of the Parameters in the Modified Omori Formula for Aftershock Frequencies by the Maximum Likelihood Procedure,” J. Phys. Earth., 31: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Omi T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y and Aihara K (2013), “Forecasting Large Aftershocks within One Day after the Mainshock,” Sci. Rep., 3: 2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Omori F (1894a), “On After-shocks,” Rep. Imp. Earthq. Inv. Com., 2: 103–138.Google Scholar
  19. Omori F (1894b), “On After-shocks,” J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo, 7: 111–200.Google Scholar
  20. Reasenberg P and Jones ML (1989), “Earthquake Hazard After a Mainshock in California,” Science, 243: 1173–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reasenberg P (1985), “Second-Order Moment of Central California Seismicity, 196938-201982,” J. Geophy. Res., 90(B7): 5479–5495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scordilis EM (2006), “Emprical Global Relations Converting M and mb to Moment Magnitude,” J. Seismol. Res., 10(2): 225–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Savage WU (1972), “Microearthquake Clustering Near Fairview Peak Nevada, and in the Nevada Seismic Zone,” J. Geophys. Res., 77(35): 7049–7056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sun Baitao and Yan Peilei (2015), “Damage Characteristics and Seismic Capacity of Buildings During Nepal M 8.1 Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 14: 571–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uhrhammer R (1986), “Characteristics of Nouthern and Southern California Seismicity,” Earthquake Notes, 57(1): 21.Google Scholar
  26. Utsu T (1961), “A Statistical Study on the Occurrence of Aftershocks,” Geophys. Mag., 30: 521–605.Google Scholar
  27. Utsu T (1969), “Aftershock and Earthquake Statistics(1): Some Parameters which Characterize an Aftershock Sequence and their Interrelations,” Journal of Faculty of Science, 3(3): 617–653.Google Scholar
  28. Utsu T, Ogata Y and Matsu’ura RS (1995), “The Centenary of the Omori Formula for a Decay Law of Aftershock Activity,” J. Phys. Earth, 43: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J and Marsan D (2012), Seismicity Declustering, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis.Google Scholar
  30. Wang JH (1994), “On the Correlation of Observed Gutenberg-Richter’s b Value and Omori’s p value for Aftershocks,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84: 2008–2011.Google Scholar
  31. Wiemer S (2001), “A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP,” Seismol. Res. Lett, 72: 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiemer S and Wyss M (1997), “Mapping the Frequency-Magnitude Distribution in Asperities: An Improved Technique to Calculate Recurrence Times,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(B7): 15115–15128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yazgan U, Oyguç R, Ergüven ME and Celep Z (2016), “Seismic Performance of Buildings During 2011 Van Earthquakes and Rebuilding Eff orts,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15: 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zare EA, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Khan AM and Tseretelli N (2014), “Recent Developments of the Middle East Catalog,” J. Seismol, 18(4): 749–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBeykent UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Management InstituteIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations