Investigation of Local Site Responses at the Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

Bodrum Peninsula is situated on the southwest coast of Turkey, near the Aegean Sea coast. The Peninsula extends ~42 km in the E-W direction and ~15 km in the N-S direction between the Gulfs of Güllük and Gökova. The Bodrum peninsula with a population over a million in summer season is one the touristic centers of Turkey. The region is also surrounded by numerous active seismic entities such as Ula-Ören Fault Zone, Gökova Graben, eastern part of the Volcanic Arc and Hellenic Arc-Trench System etc. These systems demonstrate high seismic hazard and pose a great threat to settlements in and around the region. Considering the high seismic risk and high population of the peninsula, a strong ground motion monitoring system, consists of five accelerometric stations, was deployed in June 2015 by Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Earthquake Engineering Department. Three out of five stations (B1, B2 and B3) are on alluvium sediments. The rests are on Limestone (B4) and Volcanic rock (B5). Up to now the network has recorded more than 100 earthquakes. Among the dataset, 25 events with magnitudes (Ml) from 3.0 to 5.5 occurred within 200 km epicentral distances were selected for site effect calculation. Predominant frequencies and amplification values of shallow soil layers under the stations were estimated through Horizontal to Vertical Spectral Ratio and Standard Spectral Ratios. The results indicate that (1) predominant frequencies change between 2.1 and 3.5 Hz for soft soils, where it is 5.8 Hz for the reference site, (2) relative amplifications are in the range of 2.3–6.8, and (3) empirically estimated sediments thickness beneath the B1, B2 and B3 stations vary between 35.6 and 64.2 m.

Keywords

Earthquakes Seismic hazard Predominant frequencies Site effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Boğaziçi University Scientific Research Project Funds (Project #10260/15TP2).

References

  1. Alcik H, Tanırcan G, Korkmaz A (2015) Bodrum strong motion network, Muğla, Turkey. In: American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. Available via https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper62410.html. Accessed on 04 Sep 2017
  2. AFAD (2017) Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Authority. http://www.deprem.gov.tr/en/Category/earthquake-zoning-map-96531. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  3. Birgören G, Ozel O, Siyahi B (2009) Bedrock depth mapping of the coast south of Istanbul: comparison of analytical and experimental analyses. Turkish J Earth Sci 18:315–329Google Scholar
  4. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seism Soc Am 60(1):29–61Google Scholar
  5. Demircioglu BM (2010) Earthquake hazard and risk assessment for Turkey. PhD Dissertation, Boğaziçi UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Dikmen U, Arısoy MO, Akkaya I, Demirci I, Hasancebi N (2013) Yer tepkisinin belirlenmesinde kullanılan yöntemlerin ivme kaydı üzerinde değerlendirilmesi. In: 2nd Turkish earthquake engineering and seismology conference. Available via http://www.tdmd.org.tr/TR/Genel/pdf/TDMSK071.pdf
  7. Dirik K (2007) Neotectonic characteristics and seismicity of the Reşadiye peninsula and surrounding area, Southwest Anatolia. Geol Bull Turkey 50(3):130–149Google Scholar
  8. Flores H, Malischewsky P, Jentzsch G (2013) H/V spectral ratio analysis and Rayleigh modelization in Eastern Thuringia, Germany. Geofisica Internacional 52(4):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gök E, Kececioglu M, Ceken U, Polat O (2012) IZMIRNET istasyonlarında standart spektral oran yöntemi kullanılarak zemin transfer fonksiyonlarının hesaplanması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 14(41):1–11Google Scholar
  10. Gök E, Polat O (2012) Microtremor HVSR study of site effects in Bursa city (Northern Marmara Region, Turkey). In: D’Amico S (ed) Earthquake research and analysis-new frontiers in seismologyGoogle Scholar
  11. Iscan Y, Tur H, Gökasan E (2013) Morphologic and seismic features of the Gulf of Gökova, SW Anatolia: evidence of strike-slip faulting with compression in the Aegean extensional regime. Geo-Mar Lett 33:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalafat D, Horasan G (2012) A seismological view to Gökova region at southwestern Turkey. Int J Phys Sci 7(30):5143–5153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1993) Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull Seism Soc Am 83:1574–1594Google Scholar
  14. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1994) Are microtremors useful in the site Response evaluation? Bull Seism Soc Am 84:1350–1364Google Scholar
  15. Mittal H, Kamal Kumar A, Singh SK (2013) Estimation of site effects in Delhi using standard spectral ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 50:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MTA (2012) Maden Tetkik Arama/General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, http://yerbilimleri.mta.gov.tr/anasayfa.aspx. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  17. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristic estimations of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. RTRI 30(1):25–33Google Scholar
  18. Papadopoulos GA, Daskalaki E, Fokaefs A, Giraleas N (2007) Tsunami hazard in the Eastern Mediterranean: strong earthquakes and tsunamis in the east Hellenic Arc and Trench system. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parolai S, Bormann P, Milkereit C (2002) New relationships between Vs, thickness of sediments, and resonance frequency calculated by the H/V ratio of seismic noise for the Cologne area (Germany). Bull Seism Soc Am 92(6):2521–2527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Safak E (1997) Models and methods to characterize site amplification from a pair of records. Earthq Spectra 13(1):97–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sakkas V, Novali F, Lagios E, Bellotti F, Vassilopoulou S, Damiat BN, Allievi J (2014) Ground deformation study of Kos Island (SE Greece) based on Squee-SARTM interferometric technique. In: International geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS 2014) and 35th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing (35th CSRS), Québec, Canada, 13–18 July 2014Google Scholar
  22. SHEEC (2017) SHARE European earthquake catalogue, http://www.emidius.eu/SHEEC/catalogue/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  23. TenVeen JH, Boulton SJ, Alcicek MC (2009) From palaeotectonics to neotectonics in the Neotethys realm: the importance of kinematic decoupling and inherited structural grain in SW Anatolia (Turkey). Tectonophysics 473:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ulusoy I, Cubukcu E, Aydar E, Labazuy P, Gourgaud A, Vincent PM (2004) Volcanic and deformation history of the Bodrum resurgent caldera system (southwestern Turkey). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 136:71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yalcinkaya E, Alptekin O (2003) Dinar’da zemin büyütmesi ve 1 Ekim 1995 depreminde gözlenen hasarla ilişkisi (Site amplification in Dinar and relationship with damage observed on the October 1, 1995 Earthquake). Bull Earth Sciences Application and Research Centre of Hacettepe University 27:1–13Google Scholar
  26. Yalcinkaya E, Alptekin O (2005) Site effect and its relationship to the intensity and damage observed in the June 27, 1998 Adana-Ceyhan earthquake. Pure appl Geophys 162:913–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yolsal S, Taymaz T (2010) Gökova Körfezi depremlerinin kaynak parametreleri ve Rodos-Dalaman bölgesinde tsunami riski. İTÜ dergisi/dmühendislik 9(3):53–65Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earthquake Engineering DepartmentBoğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations