Abstract
This study proposes an innovative Earthquake Risk Assessment (ERA) framework to calculate seismic hazard maps in regions where limited seismo-tectonic information exists. The tool calculates the seismic hazard using a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) based on a Monte-Carlo approach, which generates synthetic earthquake catalogues by randomizing key hazard parameters in a controlled manner. All the available data was transferred to GIS format and the results are evaluated to obtain a hazard maps that consider site amplification, liquefaction susceptibility and landslide hazard. The effectiveness of the PSHA methodology is demonstrated by carrying out the hazard analysis of Marmara region (Turkey), for which benchmark maps already exist. The results show that the hazard maps for Marmara region compare well with previous PSHA studies and with the National Building Code map. The proposed method is particularly suitable for generating hazard maps in developing countries, where data is not available or easily accessible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akkar S, Cheng Y (2016) Application of a Monte-Carlo simulation approach for the probabilistic assessment of seismic hazard for geographically distributed portfolio. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(4):525–541
Akkar S, Sandıkkaya M, Bommer J (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Off Publ Eur Assoc Earthq Eng 12(1):359–387
Alpar B, Yaltırak C (2002) Characteristic features of the North Anatolian Fault in the eastern Marmara region and its tectonic evolution. Mar Geol 190(1):329–350
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025
Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-Motion Prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138
Boore DM, Thompson EM, Cadet H (2011) Regional correlations of VS30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(6):3046–3059
Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606
Ellsworth WL, Matthews MV, Nadeau RM, Nishenko SP, Reasenberg PA, Simpson RW (1999) A physically-based earthquake recurrence model for estimation of long-term earthquake. Workshop on earthquake recurrence. State of the art and directions for the future, Istituto Nazionale de Geofisica, Rome, Italy, 22–25
Erdik M, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B (2004) Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(8):605–631
FEMA (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology technical manual
Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida KI (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):49–58
Kalkan E, Gülkan P, Öztürk NY, Çelebı M (2008) Seismic hazard in the Istanbul metropolitan area: a preliminary re-evaluation. J Earthq Eng 12:151–164
Khan SA (2011) An earthquake risk assessment framework for developing countries: Pakistan a case study. PhD thesis
Kythreoti S (2002) Earthquake risk assessment and management. Case study: Cyprus. PhD Thesis
Mouroux P, Bertrand E, Bour M, Brun Bl, Depinoise S, Masure P, RISK-UE (2004) The European Risk-Ue Project: an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Musson R (1999) Determination of design earthquakes in seismic hazard analysis through Monte Carlo simulation. J Earthq Eng 3(4):463–474
Musson R, Winter P (2012) Objective assessment of source models for seismic hazard studies: with a worked example from UK data. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):367–378
Okazaki K, Villacis C, Cardona C, Kaneko F, Shaw R, Sun J, Masure P, Mouroux P, Martin C, Davidson R, Tobin LT (2000) RADIUS, Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters, UN
Schwartz DP, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes—examples from the wasatch and San-Andreas Fault zones. J Geophys Res 89(NB7):5681–5698
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273
Straub C, Kahle HG, Schindler C (1997) GPS and geologic estimates of the tectonic activity in the Marmara Sea region, NW Anatolia. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 102(B12):27587–27601
WGCEP94 (1995) Seismic hazards in Southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:379–439
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the RCUK-TUBITAK Research Partnerships Newton Fund Awards under grant agreement EP/P010016/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sianko, I., Garcia, R., Ozdemir, Z., Hajirasouliha, I., Pilakoutas, K. (2019). Modelling of Earthquake Hazard and Secondary Effects for Loss Assessment in Marmara (Turkey). In: Durrani, T., Wang, W., Forbes, S. (eds) Geological Disaster Monitoring Based on Sensor Networks. Springer Natural Hazards. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0992-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0992-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0991-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0992-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)