Advertisement

Development of an aftershock occurrence model calibrated for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods

  • 6 Accesses

Abstract

This paper presents the calibration of Omori’s aftershock occurrence rate model for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods. Aftershock occurrence rate models are used for estimating the probability of an aftershock that exceeds a specific magnitude threshold within a time interval after the mainshock. Critical decisions on the post-earthquake safety of structures directly depend on the aftershock hazard estimated using the occurrence model. It is customary to calibrate models in a region-specific manner. These models depend on rate parameters (a, b, c and p) related to the seismicity characteristics of the investigated region. In this study, the available well-recorded aftershock sequences for a set of Mw ≥ 5.9 mainshock events that were observed in Turkey until 2012 are considered to develop the aftershock occurrence model. Mean estimates of the model parameters identified for Turkey are a = -1.90, b = 1.11, c = 0.05 and p = 1.20. Based on the developed model, aftershock likelihoods are computed for a range of diff erent time intervals and mainshock magnitudes. Also, the sensitivity of aftershock probabilities to the model parameters is investigated. Aftershock occurrence probabilities estimated using the model are expected to be useful for post-earthquake safety evaluations in Turkey.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

References

  1. Aki K (1965), “Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula log N = a-bM and its Confidence Limits,” Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst, 43: 237–239.

  2. Akkar S, Azak TE, Can T, Ceken U, Demircioglu MB, Duman T, Ergintav S, Kadirioglu FT, Kalafat D, Kale O, Kartal RF, Kilic T, Ozalp S, Sesetyan K, Teki S, Yakut A, Yilmaz MT and Zulfikar O (2014), Turkiye Sismik Tehlike Haritasinin Guncellenmesi, Ulusal Deprem Arastirma Programı, UDAP-C13-06. (In Turkish)

  3. Davidsen J, Gu C and Baiesi M (2015), “Generalized Omori–Utsu Law for Aftershock Sequences in Southern California,” Geophys. 1. Int., 201: 965–978.

  4. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Şaroğlu F, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H and Çan T (2016), “Active Fault Database of Turkey,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., 16: 3229–3275.

  5. Frohlich C and Davis SD (1990), “Single-Link Cluster Analysis as a Method to Evaluate Spatial and Temporal Properties of Earthquake Catalogues,” Geophys. 1. Int., 100: 19–32.

  6. Galanopolulos AG (1965), “On Quantitative Determination of Earthquake Risk,” Ann. Geofis., 21: 193–206.

  7. Gardner JK and Knopoff L (1974), “Is the Sequence of Earthquakes in Southern California,with Aftershocks Removed,Poissonian?” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 64(5): 1363–1367.

  8. Görgün E, Zang A, Bohnhoff M, Milkereit C and Dresen G (2009), “Analysis of Izmit Aftershocks 25 Days Before the November 12th Duzce Earthquake, Turkey,” Tectonophysics, 474(3-4): 507–515.

  9. Görgün E (2013), “Analysis of the b-values Before and After the 23 October 2011 Mw7.2 Van-Erciş, Turkey Earthquake,” Tectonophysics, 603: 213–221.

  10. Gutenberg B and Richter CF (1954), Seismicity of the Earth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

  11. Helmstetter A (2003), “Is Earthquake Triggering Driven by Small Earthquakes?” Phys. Rev. Lett, 91(5): 058501.

  12. Kadirioğlu FT and Kartal RF (2016), “The New Emprical Magnitude Conversion Relations Using an Improved Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey and its Near Vicinity (1900-2012),” Turkish J. Earth Sci., 25: 300–310.

  13. KOERI (2007), “Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Regional Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center”, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo.

  14. Mogi K (1962), “On the Time Distribution of Aftershocks Accompanying the Recent Major Earthquakes in and near Japan,” Bull. Earthq. Res. Ins., 40: 107–124.

  15. Molchan GM and Dmitrieva OE (1992), “Aftershock Identification: Methods and New Approaches,” Geophys. J. Int., 109(6,9,11): 501–516.

  16. Ogata Y (1983), “Estimation of the Parameters in the Modified Omori Formula for Aftershock Frequencies by the Maximum Likelihood Procedure,” J. Phys. Earth., 31: 115–124.

  17. Omi T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y and Aihara K (2013), “Forecasting Large Aftershocks within One Day after the Mainshock,” Sci. Rep., 3: 2218.

  18. Omori F (1894a), “On After-shocks,” Rep. Imp. Earthq. Inv. Com., 2: 103–138.

  19. Omori F (1894b), “On After-shocks,” J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo, 7: 111–200.

  20. Reasenberg P and Jones ML (1989), “Earthquake Hazard After a Mainshock in California,” Science, 243: 1173–1175.

  21. Reasenberg P (1985), “Second-Order Moment of Central California Seismicity, 196938-201982,” J. Geophy. Res., 90(B7): 5479–5495.

  22. Scordilis EM (2006), “Emprical Global Relations Converting M and mb to Moment Magnitude,” J. Seismol. Res., 10(2): 225–226.

  23. Savage WU (1972), “Microearthquake Clustering Near Fairview Peak Nevada, and in the Nevada Seismic Zone,” J. Geophys. Res., 77(35): 7049–7056.

  24. Sun Baitao and Yan Peilei (2015), “Damage Characteristics and Seismic Capacity of Buildings During Nepal M 8.1 Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 14: 571–578.

  25. Uhrhammer R (1986), “Characteristics of Nouthern and Southern California Seismicity,” Earthquake Notes, 57(1): 21.

  26. Utsu T (1961), “A Statistical Study on the Occurrence of Aftershocks,” Geophys. Mag., 30: 521–605.

  27. Utsu T (1969), “Aftershock and Earthquake Statistics(1): Some Parameters which Characterize an Aftershock Sequence and their Interrelations,” Journal of Faculty of Science, 3(3): 617–653.

  28. Utsu T, Ogata Y and Matsu’ura RS (1995), “The Centenary of the Omori Formula for a Decay Law of Aftershock Activity,” J. Phys. Earth, 43: 1–33.

  29. Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J and Marsan D (2012), Seismicity Declustering, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis.

  30. Wang JH (1994), “On the Correlation of Observed Gutenberg-Richter’s b Value and Omori’s p value for Aftershocks,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84: 2008–2011.

  31. Wiemer S (2001), “A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP,” Seismol. Res. Lett, 72: 373–382.

  32. Wiemer S and Wyss M (1997), “Mapping the Frequency-Magnitude Distribution in Asperities: An Improved Technique to Calculate Recurrence Times,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(B7): 15115–15128.

  33. Yazgan U, Oyguç R, Ergüven ME and Celep Z (2016), “Seismic Performance of Buildings During 2011 Van Earthquakes and Rebuilding Eff orts,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15: 591–606.

  34. Zare EA, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Khan AM and Tseretelli N (2014), “Recent Developments of the Middle East Catalog,” J. Seismol, 18(4): 749–772.

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study is supported and funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for the project “Risk of Collapse Based Rating of Damaged Low Rise Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings Subjected to Aftershock Hazard” with Grant No. 213M454. This support is greatly appreciated.

Author information

Correspondence to Ufuk Yazgan.

Additional information

Supported by: Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) with Grant No. 213M454

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muderrisoglu, Z., Yazgan, U. Development of an aftershock occurrence model calibrated for Turkey and the resulting likelihoods. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 19, 149–160 (2020) doi:10.1007/s11803-020-0553-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • aftershock occurrence model
  • aftershock likelihoods
  • rate parameters
  • aftershock hazard