Advertisement

Physically-Based Ground Motion Prediction and Validation: A Case Study of Mid-Sized Marmara Sea Earthquakes

  • Aydın MertEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)

Abstract

Computation of realistic time histories for different locations around Marmara region can be helpful for engineering design, retrofitting the existing structures, hazard and risk management studies and developing new seismic codes and standards. This paper had two main purposes. The first one was to simulate five moderate earthquakes (Mw ≈ 5.0) recorded in the Marmara region. We synthesized ground motion for the full wave train on three components, and applied a ‘physics based’ solution of earthquake rupture. For each earthquake, we synthesized seismograms using 500 different rupture scenarios that were generated by Monte Carlo selection of parameters within the range. The second purpose was to validate synthetic seismogram with real seismogram. To develop credibility of a synthetic seismogram in engineering point of view, we followed the methodology of Anderson (13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2003 [1]). Because this methodology produces source and site specific synthetic ground motion time histories and goodness-of-fit scores of obtained synthetics was between ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ range based on Anderson’s score. We concluded that it can be used to produce ground motion that has not previously been recorded during catastrophic earthquakes.

Keywords

Earthquake simulation Marmara region Empirical Green’s Functions Validate synthetic seismogram Physics based solution 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.G.: Quantitative measure of the goodness of fit of synthetic accelerograms. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1–6, 2004, Paper N.243 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hutchings, L., Ioannidou, E., Kalogeras, I., Voulgaris, N., Savy, J., Foxall, W., Scognamiglio, L., Stavrakakis, G.: A physically-based strong ground-motion prediction methodology; application to PSHA and the 1999 M = 6.0 Athens Earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 168, 569–680 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boatwright, J.L.: Quasi-dynamic models of simple earthquake: an application to an aftershock of the 1975 Oroville, California earthquake. Bull. seism. Soc. Am. 71, 69–94 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scognamiglio, L., Hutchings, L.: A test of physically based strong ground motion prediction methodology with the 26 September 1997, Mw = 6.0 Colfiorito (Umbria-Marche sequence), Italy earthquake. Tectonophysics 476, 145–158 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutchings, L.: Kinematic earthquake models and synthesized ground motion using empirical green’s functions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 1028–1050 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hutchings, L.: “Prediction” of strong ground motion for the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake using Empirical Green’s Functions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, 88–121 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutchings, L., Wu, F.: Empirical Green’s Functions from small earthquakes: a waveform study of locally recorded aftershocks of the San Fernando Earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 1187–1214 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations