Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collection of microseismic intensity data: a model for Turkey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among alternative descriptors of seismic effects, intensity is a significant measure. Along with the instrumental ground motion parameters, seismic intensity has been recently used extensively. Despite the subjectivity involved in their estimation, intensity values provide valuable information regarding the distribution of seismic effects. Correlations between felt intensity and instrumental peak ground motion derived with data from past earthquakes are employed recently all over the world. To derive such correlations, intensity values are collected systematically after damaging earthquakes and paired with nearby recordings. In Turkey, there is neither a systematic intensity database nor a framework for collecting such data. In this study, a review of current intensity data collection procedures is performed followed by a proposal of a 3-stage framework to be used in Turkey. The first stage is a very short term one, which is planned to be completed within a week after the earthquake. This stage involves the collection of online questionnaires and production of an initial intensity map. If the maximum reported MMI value in stage 1 for an earthquake exceeds VII, stage 2 is recommended where systematic field surveys by experts in addition to electronic data collected are used to obtain a calibrated intensity map. The last stage is optional consisting of advanced level calibrations of the MMI values obtained in the previous stages. Such efforts, in the long run, will lead to a comprehensively structured intensity database for Turkey and more accurate estimations of potential damage and intensity distributions of severe earthquakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AFAD (n.d.) web site: https://afad.gov.tr. Accessed 3 September 2020

  • AFAD-RED (n.d.): https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/icerik?id=13. Accessed 12 June 2019

  • Akkar S, Cagnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey, and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2978–2995. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arioglu E, Arioglu B, Girgin C (2001) Assessment of the Eastern Marmara earthquake in terms of acceleration values. BetonPrefabrikasyon 57–58:5–15 (in Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Kaka SL (2007) Relationships between felt intensity and instrumental ground motion in central United States and California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(2):497–510. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Wald DJ (2007) “Did You Feel It?” intensity data: a surprisingly good measure of earthquake ground motion. Seismol Res Lett 78(3):362–368. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.78.3.362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilal M, Askan A (2014) Relationships between felt intensity and recorded ground-motion parameters for Turkey. Seismol Res Lett 104(1):484–496. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahm T, Heimann S, Funke S, Wendt S, Rappsilber I, Bindi D, Cotton F (2018) Seismicity in the block mountains between Halle and Leipzig, Central Germany: centroid moment tensors, ground motion simulation, and felt intensities of two M≈ 3 earthquakes in 2015 and 2017. J Seismol 22(4):985–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9746-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle P, Guy M, Buckmaster R, Ostrum C, Horvath S, Vaughan A (2010) OMG earthquake! Can Twitter improve earthquake response? Seismol Res Lett 81(2):246–251. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdik M, Eren K (1983) Attenuation of intensities for earthquake associated with the North Anatolian Fault. Earthquake Engineering Research Center report, Ankaras

  • Faenza L, Michelini A (2010) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in ShakeMap. Geophys J Int 180:1138–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04467.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grünthal G (ed) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998, Cahiers du Centre Europèen de Gèodynamique et de Seismologie, 15. Conseil de l’Europe, Luxembourg, p 99

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulkan P, Kalkan E (2005) Discussion of the paper: an empirical attenuation relationship for Northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(11):889–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) (1996) Explanation Table of the JMA Seismic Intensity Scale (February 1996), pp 4

  • Kale Ö, Akkar S, Ansari A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):963–980. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagoz O, Chimoto K, Yamanaka H, Ozel O, Citak S (2017) Estimation of strong ground motions of the 9 August 1912 Murefte Earthquake (NW Turkey), 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (4ICEES). Eskişehir, Turkey, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimzadeh S, Askan A (2018) Modeling of a historical earthquake in Erzincan, Turkey (Ms similar to 7.8, in 1939) using regional seismological information obtained from a recent event. Acta Geophysica 66(3):293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-018-0147-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leousis D, Pnevmatikos N (2018) Earthquake losses assessment in the municipality of Kifissia (Athens - Greece) using the Earthquake Loss Estimation Routine (ELER). Int J Earth Eng Hazard Mitig (IREHM) 6(1):11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Lior I, Ziv A (2018) The relation between ground motion, earthquake source parameters, and attenuation: implications for source parameter inversion and ground motion prediction equations. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 123(7):5886–5901. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musson R M, Cecić I (2012) Intensity and Intensity Scales. - In: Bormann, P. (Ed.), New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice 2 (NMSOP-2), Potsdam: Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, pp 1-41

  • Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14:413–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-009-9172-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozbey C, Sari A, Manuel L, Erdik M, Fahjan Y (2004) An empirical attenuation relationship for Northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozmen B (2000) 17 August 1999 Izmit Bay Earthquake Report. Editor: Demirtaş Ramazan, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, pp 295 (in Turkish)

  • Ozmen B, Bagci G (2000) 12 November 1999 Düzce Earthquake Report, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara (in Turkish)

  • Pnevmatikos N, Konstandakopoulou F, Koumoutsos N (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment and loss estimation in Cephalonia and Ithaca islands, Greece, due to earthquake events. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol 136, No 106252.

  • Radziminovich YB, Khritova MA, Gileva NA (2014) Modern methods for acquisition of macroseismic data and their possible uses for eastern Siberia. J Volcanol Seismol 8(6):375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter CF (1958) Elementary seismology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco and London, viii + 768, pp 205

  • Sieberg A (1932) Geologie der Erdbeben. Handbuch der Geophysik, Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin 2(4):550-555

  • Stover CW, Coffman JL (1993) Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised). United States Government Printing Office, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi P, Sbarra P, De Rubeis V, Ferrari C (2015) Macroseismic intensity assessment method for web questionnaires. Seismol Res Lett 86(3):985–990. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tselentis G, Danciu L (2008) Empirical relationships between modified Mercalli intensity and engineering ground-motion parameters in Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(4):1863–1875. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2004) An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74(3-4):265–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulutaş E, Özer MF (2010) Empirical attenuation relationship of peak ground acceleration for Eastern Marmara region in Turkey. Arab J Sci Eng 35(1A):187–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulutaş E, Coruk Ö, Karakaş A (2011) A study of residuals for strong ground motions in Adapazarı Basin, NW Turkey, by ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Stud Geophys Geod 55(2):213–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-011-0013-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulutaş E, Tepeuğur E, Çeken U, Barış Ş (2015) A peak ground attenuation relationship based on the site conditions for whole Turkey, Kocaeli, 5th International Earthquake Symposium, June 10-12. Kocaeli, Turkey

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H (1999a) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15(3):557–564. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H, Scrivner CW, Worden BC (1999b) TriNet “ShakeMaps”: Rapid generation of peak ground-motion and intensity maps for earthquakes in southern California. Earthquake Spectra 15(3):537–556. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood HO, Neumann F (1931) Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931. Bull Seismol Soc Am 21:277–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Wu Z, Jiang C, Xia M (2011) Estimating intensities and/or strong motion parameters using civilian monitoring videos: The May 12, 2008, Wenchuan earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 168(5):753–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0168-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Shaghayegh Karimzadeh & Aysegul Askan

Authors
  1. Shaghayegh Karimzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aysegul Askan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaghayegh Karimzadeh.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Abdullah M. Al-Amri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karimzadeh, S., Askan, A. Collection of microseismic intensity data: a model for Turkey. Arab J Geosci 14, 396 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06812-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06812-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation