Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 3, pp 1371–1397 | Cite as

Seismic damage assessment based on regional synthetic ground motion dataset: a case study for Erzincan, Turkey

  • Shaghayegh Karimzadeh
  • Aysegul Askan
  • Murat Altug Erberik
  • Ahmet Yakut
Original Paper


Estimation of seismic losses is a fundamental step in risk mitigation in urban regions. Structural damage patterns depend on the regional seismic properties and the local building vulnerability. In this study, a framework for seismic damage estimation is proposed where the local building fragilities are modeled based on a set of simulated ground motions in the region of interest. For this purpose, first, ground motion records are simulated for a set of scenario events using stochastic finite-fault methodology. Then, existing building stock is classified into specific building types represented with equivalent single-degree-of-freedom models. The response statistics of these models are evaluated through nonlinear time history analysis with the simulated ground motions. Fragility curves for the classified structural types are derived and discussed. The study area is Erzincan (Turkey), which is located on a pull-apart basin underlain by soft sediments in the conjunction of three active faults as right-lateral North Anatolian Fault, left-lateral North East Anatolian Fault, and left-lateral Ovacik Fault. Erzincan city center experienced devastating earthquakes in the past including the December 27, 1939 (Ms = 8.0) and the March 13, 1992 (Mw = 6.6) events. The application of the proposed method is performed to estimate the spatial distribution of the damage after the 1992 event. The estimated results are compared against the corresponding observed damage levels yielding a reasonable match in between. After the validation exercise, a potential scenario event of Mw = 7.0 is simulated in the study region. The corresponding damage distribution indicates a significant risk within the urban area.


Erzincan Regional seismicity Stochastic finite-fault method Local buildings Fragility analysis Nonlinear time history analysis 



This study is partially funded by Turkish National Geodesy and Geophysics Union through the Project with Grant No. TUJJB-UDP-01-12.


  1. Akinci A, Malagnini L, Herrmann RB, Pino NA, Scognamiglio L, Eyidogan H (2001) High-frequency ground motion in the Erzincan region, Turkey: inferences from small earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(6):1446–1455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Sucuoğlu H, Yakut A (2005) Displacement-based fragility functions for low and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 21(4):901–927. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akyuz HS, Hartleb R, Barka A, Altunel E, Sunal G, Meyer B, Armijo R (2002) Surface rupture and slip distribution of the 12 November 1999 Düzce earthquake (M 7.1), North Anatolian fault, Bolu, Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):61–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(5):1969–1993Google Scholar
  5. Askan A, Yucemen MS (2010) Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf 32(4):262–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Askan A, Sisman FN, Ugurhan B (2013) Stochastic strong ground motion simulations in sparsely monitored regions: a validation and sensitivity study on the 13 March 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:170–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Askan A, Asten M, Erberik MA, Erkmen C, Karimzadeh S, Kilic N, Sisman FN, Yakut A (2015a) Seismic damage assessment of Erzincan, Turkish national union of geodesy and geophysics project. Project no: TUJJB-UDP-01-12, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  8. Askan A, Karimzadeh S, Asten M, Kiliç N, Sisman FN, Erkmen C (2015b) Assessment of seismic hazard in the Erzincan (Turkey) region: construction of local velocity models and evaluation of potential ground motions. Turk J Earth Sci 24(6):529–565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, 1Google Scholar
  10. Bal IE, Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2010) The influence of geographical resolution of urban exposure data in an earthquake loss model for Istanbul. Earthq Spectra 26(3):619–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beresnev I, Atkinson GM (1964) Modeling finite-fault radiation from the ω n spectrum. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(1):67–84Google Scholar
  12. Biggs JM (1964) Introduction to structural dynamics. McGraw Hill Company, New York, p 3Google Scholar
  13. Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(6A):1865–1894Google Scholar
  14. BSSC (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, developed by ATC for FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Clough R, Johnston SB (1966) Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. In: Proceedings, 2nd Japan national conference on earthquake engineering, pp 227–232Google Scholar
  16. Erberik MA (2008a) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30(5):1360–1374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erberik MA (2008b) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct D 37(3):387–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdik M, Yüzügüllü O, Karakoc Yilmaz C, Akkas N (1994) March 13, 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. In: Earthquake engineering 10th world conferenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1988) N2—a method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 5, pp 111–116Google Scholar
  20. Frankel A (1993) Three-dimensional simulations of the ground motions in the San Bernardino valley, California, for hypothetical earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83(4):1020–1041Google Scholar
  21. Gürpinar A, Abali M, Yücemen MS, Yesilcay Y (1978) Feasibility of obligatory earthquake insurance in Turkey. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 78-05 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  22. Hartzell SH (1978) Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s functions. Geophys Res Lett 5(1):1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsieh MH, Lee BJ, Lei TC, Lin JY (2013) Development of medium-and low-rise reinforced concrete building fragility curves based on Chi–Chi Earthquake data. Nat Hazards 69(1):695–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Rep. no. TB 152, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct D 34(12):1489–1511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamae K, Irikura K, Pitarka A (1998) A technique for simulating strong ground motion using Hybrid Green’s function. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(2):357–367Google Scholar
  27. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17(2):177–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karimzadeh S, Askan A, Erberik MA, Yakut A (2015) Multicomponent seismic loss estimation on the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey). Paper no.: NH13B-1920, American Geophysical Union, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Kircil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of R/C frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lang DH, Molina S, Lindholm CD (2008) Towards near-real-time damage estimation using a CSM-based tool for seismic risk assessment. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):199–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2010) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137(11):1291–1302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2012) Development and utilization of structural component databases for performance-based earthquake engineering. J Struct Eng 139(8):1382–1394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mai PM, Imperatori W, Olsen KB (2010) Hybrid broadband ground-motion simulations: Combining long-period deterministic synthetics with high-frequency multiple S-to-S back-scattering. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5A):2124–2142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohammadioun B, Serva L (2001) Stress drop, slip type, earthquake magnitude, and seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(4):694–707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(3):995–1010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olsen KB, Archuleta RJ, Matarese JR (1996) Three-dimensional simulation of a magnitude 7.75 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Science 270(5242):1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OpenSees 2.4.5, Computer Software, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 12 Dec 2014
  38. Pitarka A, Somerville P, Fukushima Y, Uetake T, Irikura K (2000) Simulation of near-fault strong ground motion using Hybrid Green’s functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(3):566–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qi X, Moehle JP (1991) Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering/University of California, 91:(2)Google Scholar
  40. Saiidi M, Sozen MA (1981) Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. J Struct Div 107(5):937–953Google Scholar
  41. Şengezer BS (1993) The damage distribution during March 13, 1992 Erzincan earthquake. In: Proceedings. 2nd national earthquake engineering conference, pp 404–415Google Scholar
  42. Sørensen MB, Lang DH (2014) Incorporating simulated ground motion in seismic risk assessment-application to the lower Indian himalayas. Earthq Spectra 31(1):71–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sucuoğlu H, Tokyay M (1992) 13 Mart 1992 Erzincan earthquake engineering report. Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, p 102Google Scholar
  44. Tesfamariam S, Goda K (2015) Loss estimation for non-ductile reinforced concrete building in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: effects of mega-thrust Mw9-class subduction earthquakes and aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct D 44(13):2303–2320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ucar T, Duzgun M (2013) Derivation of analytical fragility curves for RC buildings based on nonlinear pushover analysis. IMO Teknik Dergi 24(3):6421–6446 (In Turkish) Google Scholar
  46. Ugurhan B, Askan A (2010) Stochastic strong ground motion simulation of the 12 November 1999 Düzce (Turkey) earthquake using a dynamic corner frequency approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(4):1498–1512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ugurhan B, Askan A, Erberik MA (2011) A methodology for seismic loss estimation in urban regions based on ground-motion simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(2):710–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar
  49. Whitman RV, Anagnos T, Kircher CA, Lagorio HJ, Lawson RS, Schneider P (1997) Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthq Spectra 13(4):643–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yakut A, Ozcebe G, Yucemen MS (2006) Seismic vulnerability assessment using regional empirical data. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10):1187–1202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yong C, Ling C, Güendel F, Kulhánek O, Juan L (2002) Seismic hazard and loss estimation for Central America. Nat Hazards 25(2):161–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaghayegh Karimzadeh
    • 1
  • Aysegul Askan
    • 2
  • Murat Altug Erberik
    • 1
  • Ahmet Yakut
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Civil Engineering and Earthquake Studies DepartmentsMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations