Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 167, Issue 12, pp 1475–1484 | Cite as

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Izmir, Turkey

  • Aykut Deniz
  • Kasim Armagan KorkmazEmail author
  • Ayhan Irfanoglu


Izmir, the third largest city and one of the major economic centers in Turkey, has more than three million residents and one-half million buildings. The city, located in a seismically active region in western Anatolia, was a subject of the 1997 RADIUS (Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic Disaster) project. In this paper, the seismic hazard of Izmir is investigated through probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. First, the seismic setting of Izmir is presented. Considering the statistics of earthquakes that took place in the region during the period 1900–2005, a simple seismic hazard model is used to facilitate the assessment. To account for modeling uncertainties associated with the values of seismicity parameters, a logic tree procedure is employed in carrying out the seismic hazard computations. The resulting weighted average seismic hazard, presented in terms of peak ground acceleration and associated probability of exceedence, could be considered the “best estimate” of seismic hazard for Izmir. Accordingly, for a return period of 475 years, for rock sites, a PGA value of 0.34 g is calculated. This PGA hazard estimate is close to the current code-recommended design acceleration level for Izmir.


Seismic hazard assessment seismic hazard analysis earthquake Izmir 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Sinan Akkar at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey for his help and suggestions to improve the article.


  1. Akinci, A., Eyidogan, H., Gokturkler, G., Akyol, N. and Ankaya, O. (2000), Investigation of the seismic activity and seismic hazard of Izmir city and its vicinity. In Proceedings of the Earthquake Risk Assessment of West Anatolia Symposium 231 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bender, B. and Perkins, D. M. (1987). Seisrisk III: A computer program for seismic hazard estimation, U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1772, Washington.Google Scholar
  3. Bommer, J., Spence, R., Erdik, M., Tabuchi, S., Aydinoglu, N., Booth, E., del Re, D. and Peterken, O. (2002), Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance, J. Seismol. 6, 431–446.Google Scholar
  4. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B. and Fumal, T. E. (1997), Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seismol. Res. Lett. 68(1), 128–153.Google Scholar
  5. Cornell, A. C. (1968), Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  6. Deniz, A. (2006), Estimation of earthquake insurance premium rates for Turkey, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. Deniz, A. and Yucemen, M. S., (2010), Magnitude conversion problem for the Turkish earthquake data, Nat. Hazards (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  8. Emre, O., Ozalp, S., Dogan, A., Ozaksoy, V., Yildirim, C. and Goktas, F. (2005), Active faults in the vicinity of Izmir and their earthquake potentials (in Turkish), Report No: 10754, Geological Studies Department, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  9. Erdik, M., Biro, Y., Onur, T., Şeşetyan, K. and Birgören, G. (1999), Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions, Ann. Geofis. 42(6), 1125–1138.Google Scholar
  10. Erdik, M., Demircioglu, M., Sesetyan, K., Durukal, E. and Siyahi, B. (2004), Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 24, 605–631.Google Scholar
  11. Freund, J. E., Mathematical statistics (Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1992), 658 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Gulkan, P. and Kalkan, E. (2002), Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey, J. Seismol. 6, 397–409.Google Scholar
  13. Gulkan, P., Kocyigit, A., Yucemen, M. S., Doyuran, V. and Basoz, N. (1993), Seismic zoning map for Turkey based on the most recent data (in Turkish), Middle East Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. 93-01, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  14. Gupta, I. D. (2002), The state of the art in seismic hazard analysis, ISET J. Earthq. Technol., Paper No. 428, 39(4), 311–346.Google Scholar
  15. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C. F., Seismicity of the earth (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1956), 273 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Ilhan, T., Utku, M., Ozyal, N. and Utku, Z., Earthquake risk of Izmir region (Dokuz Eylul University Marine Science Institute Press, Izmir, Turkey 2004).Google Scholar
  17. Kalkan, E. and Gulkan, P. (2004), Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey, Earthq. Spectra 20(4), 1111–1138.Google Scholar
  18. Kocyigit, A. (2005), Personal Communication: Subjective Expert Opinion in the Delineation of Seismic Source Zones, Tectonic Research Unit, Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  19. Korkmaz, K. A., Irfanoglu A. and Kayhan A. H. (2009), Seismic risk assessment of buildings in Izmir, Turkey, Nat. Hazards (available online).Google Scholar
  20. Metropolitan Municipality of Izmir [MMI], Izmir Earthquake Master Plan. (Metropolitan Municipality of Izmir publication, Izmir, Turkey 2000).
  21. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (MPWS) (2007), Specifications for structures to be built in disaster areas, the 2007 Earthquake Code (in Turkish) (Ankara, Turkey).Google Scholar
  22. Naeim, F. and Kelly, J. M. (eds.), Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice (John Wiley and Sons, New York 1999), 289 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Ordaz, M., Aguilar, A. and Arboleda, J. (2003), CRISIS2003, Ver. 1.2.100, Program for computing seismic hazard, Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, Mexico.Google Scholar
  24. RADIUS (1997), Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disaster Izmir earthquake master program, Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  25. Ozbey C., Sari, A., Manuel, L., Erdik, M. and Fahjan, Y. (2004), An empirical attenuation relationship for Northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 24(2), 115–125.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, P. and Schauer, B. (2005), An earthquake risk assessment tool for Turkey, HAZTURK Strategies for earthquake loss estimation program for Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  27. Stepp, J. C. (1973), Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area. In Contributions to Seismic Zoning (ed. Handing S. T.) NOAA Tech. Rep. ERL 267-ESL 30, U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  28. Ulusay, R., Tuncay, E., Sonmez, H. and Gokceoglu, C. (2004), An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey, Eng. Geol. 74, 265–291.Google Scholar
  29. Wells, D. L. and Coppersmith, K. J. (1994), New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84(4), 974–1002.Google Scholar
  30. Yucemen, M. S. and Gulkan, P. (1994), Seismic hazard analysis with randomly located sources, Nat. Hazards 9, 215–233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser / Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aykut Deniz
    • 1
  • Kasim Armagan Korkmaz
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ayhan Irfanoglu
    • 3
  1. 1.Technological Engineering Services Co. LtdAntalyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSuleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey
  3. 3.School of Civil EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations