Development of an aftershock occurrence model calibrated for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods
- 7 Downloads
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.
Keywordsaftershock occurrence model aftershock likelihoods rate parameters aftershock hazard
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
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.
- 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
- 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
- Galanopolulos AG (1965), “On Quantitative Determination of Earthquake Risk,” Ann. Geofis., 21: 193–206.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gutenberg B and Richter CF (1954), Seismicity of the Earth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- 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
- Omori F (1894a), “On After-shocks,” Rep. Imp. Earthq. Inv. Com., 2: 103–138.Google Scholar
- Omori F (1894b), “On After-shocks,” J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo, 7: 111–200.Google Scholar
- Uhrhammer R (1986), “Characteristics of Nouthern and Southern California Seismicity,” Earthquake Notes, 57(1): 21.Google Scholar
- Utsu T (1961), “A Statistical Study on the Occurrence of Aftershocks,” Geophys. Mag., 30: 521–605.Google Scholar
- 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
- Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J and Marsan D (2012), Seismicity Declustering, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis.Google Scholar
- 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