Advertisement

The development of attenuation relationship for Northwest Anatolia region

  • Ayfer Erken
  • Gülçin Şengül Nomaler
  • Zeki Gündüz
Original Paper

Abstract

Ground-motion attenuation relationships using the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake data were developed for the Northwest Anatolia region. This region is seismically active due to its location on Northwest Anatolia Fault Zone and was affected by the 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce earthquakes. Properties of the investigated stations and strong ground-motion data were taken from the Strong Ground Motion Database of Turkey (2017) (TR-NSMN) and Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center-Enhancement of Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for Western US (PEER-NGA-West2) database. SeismoSignal software was used in the evaluation of the acceleration records measured in the stations. A generated database for this study contains 369 mainshock and aftershock records, which occurred in the region of 39.39 to 41.03 North (N)/26.04 to 31.73 East (E) coordinates between the years of 1999 (Kocaeli earthquake) and 2006. In this research, peak ground acceleration is greater than 1 gal, and moment magnitude (M W ) is greater than 4.0 and Joyner-Boore distance (R JB ) is 1–344 km. These records were taken from 76 stations located in the investigation area. In addition to these data, 33 mainshock records worldwide were used for recovery of regression coefficients. Therefore, total of 402 data were used in this research. Attenuation relationships obtained from different types of ground were derived from the model generated by Boore et al. (Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153, 1997) for shallow earthquakes in North America. In this study, attenuation relation equations were developed by applying nonlinear regression analysis, with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics 20.0 software for B-C and D class soil according to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) classification system.

Keywords

Attenuation relationships Nonlinearity Peak ground acceleration Soil Rock Liquefaction 

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):94–127.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Çağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2013) Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):359–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(4):371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1):1–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amiri GG, Mahdavian A, Dana FM (2007) Attenuation relationships for Iran. J Earthq Eng 11(4):469–492.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601034049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aydan Ö (2004) A reconnaisance report on Niigata-Ken Chuetsu earthquake of October 23, 2004. Tokai University, Department of Marine Civil Engineering, Shizuoka, Japan. http://www.scc.u-tokai.ac.jp/jishin/chuetu/chuetsu_earthquake_report.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017
  8. Bhattacharya S, Hyodo M, Goda K, Tazoh T, Taylor CA (2011) Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(11):1618–1628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 0.02 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):99–138.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boore DM, Joyner BW, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley BA, Hughes M (2012) Conditional peak ground accelerations in the Canterbury earthquakes for conventional liquefaction assessment. Technical Report prepared for the Department of Building and Housing, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272831749_Conditional_Peak_Ground_Accelerations_in_the_Canterbury_Earthquakes_for_Conventional_Liquefaction_Assessment__Part_1_Technical_Report_Prepared_for_the_Ministry_of_Business_Innovation_and_Employment. Accessed 31 June 2017
  12. Bray JD, O’Rourke TD, Cubrinovski M, Zupan JD, Jeon S-S, Taylor M, Toprak S, Hughes M, Ballegooy S, Bouzoiou D (2013) Liquefaction impact on critical infrastructure in Christchurch. Final Technical Report, G12AP20034, U.S.G.S https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277344291_Liquefaction_impact_on_critical_infrastructure_in_Christchurch. Accessed 31 June 2017
  13. Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-bsolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):154–179.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0,01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):139–171.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox BR, Boulanger RW, Tokimatsu K, Wood CM, Abe A, Ashford S, Donahue J, Ishihara K, Kayen R, Katsumata K, Kishida T, Kokusho T, Mason HB, Moss R, Stewart JP, Tohyama K, Zekkos D (2013) Liquefaction at strong motion stations and in Urayasu City during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 29(S1):S55–S80.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, Taylor M, Giorgini S, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Zupan J (2011) Soil liquefaction effects in the central business district during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):893–904.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engineering geological database for TSMIP (EGDT) (2017) http://egdt.ncree.org.tw/news_eng.htm. Accessed 31 June
  18. FEMA 450 (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington D.C. http://nehrp.gov/pdf/fema450provisions.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017
  19. Fukushima Y, Tanaka T (1990) A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong eathquake ground motion in Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80(4):757–783 http://www.bssaonline.org/content/80/4/757.full.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017Google Scholar
  20. Geological hazard information for New Zealand (2017) ftp://ftp.geonet.org.nz/strong/processed/Proc. Accessed 31 June
  21. GeoNet database project (2017) DELTA (Data Equipment pLanning Tracking Access). https://magma.geonet.org.nz/delta/app. Accessed 31 June
  22. Google Earth (2017) Google Earth (Online). http://earth.google.com. Accessed 31 June 2017
  23. Gülkan P, Kalkan E (2002) Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey. J Seismol 6(3):397–409.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020087426440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamada M, Isoyama R, Wakamatsu K (1996) Liquefaction-induced ground displacement and its related damage to lifeline facilities. Soils Found 36(S):81–97. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sandf1995/36/Special/36_81/_article. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Idriss IM (2008) An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):217–242.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishihara K, Yasuda S, Nagase H (1996) Soil characteristics and ground damage. Soils Found 36(S):109–118. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sandf1995/36/Special/36_109/_article. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6):2011–2038 http://www.bssaonline.org/content/71/6/2011.full.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017Google Scholar
  28. Juang CH, Tuan H, Lee D-H, Ku C-S (2002) Accessing CPT-based methods for liquefaction evaluation with emphasis on the cases from the Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(3):241–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00013-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalkan E, Gülkan P (2004) Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 20(4):1111–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1812555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khoshnevisan S, Juang H, Zhou Y-G, Gong W (2015) Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using CPT—focusing on the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Eng Geol 192:113–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee VW, Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI, Novikova EI (1995) Empirical equations describing attenuation of peaks of strong ground motion, in terms of magnitude, distance, path effects and site conditions. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sothern California, Los Angeles California USA, CE 95-02. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273710197_Empirical_Equations_Describing_Attenuation_of_the_Peaks_of_Strong_Ground_Motion_in_terms_of_Magnitude_Distance_Path_Effects_and_Site_Conditions. Accessed 31 June 2017
  32. National Research Institute for Earth Sciences and Disaster Resilience (NIED) (2017) http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp. Accessed 31 June
  33. New Zealand Geotechnical Database (2017) https://www.nzgd.org.nz/Registration/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f. Accessed 31 June
  34. Özbey C, Sarı 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(2):115–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. PEER-NGA-West2 database (2017) http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest2/databases/. Accessed 31 June
  36. Sadigh K, Chang C-Y, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):180–189.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sato K, Kokusho T, Matsumoto M, Yamada E (1996) Nonlinear seismic response and soil property during strong motion. Soils Found 36(S):41–52. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sandf1995/36/Special/36_41/_article. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SeismoSoft-SeismoSignal (2017) Earthquake engineering software solutions. http://www.seismosoft.com/downloads. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1158754
  39. SPSS Statistics for Windows (2017) Version 20.0 Chicago:SPSS Inc. https://www.ibm.com/us-en/. Accessed 31 June 2017
  40. Strong Ground Motion Database of Turkey (2017) http://kyhdata.deprem.gov.tr/2K/kyhdata_v4.php. Accessed 31 June 2017
  41. Sugito M, Oka B, Yashima A, Furumoto Y, Yamada K (2000) Time-dependent ground motion amplification characteristics at reclaimed land after the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu earthquake. Eng Geol 56(1–2):137–150. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795299001398. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00139-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tokimatsu K, Mizuno H, Kakurai M (1996) Building damage associated with geotechnical problems. Soils Found 36(S):219–234. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sandf1995/36/Special/36_219/_article. Accessed 31 June 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (2012) Canterbury earthquakes 2010 and 2011 land report as at 29 February 2012. https://www.canterbury.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/main-report.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017
  44. U.S. Geological Survey earthquake database (2017) https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Accessed 31 June 2017
  45. Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sönmez H, Gökçeoğlu 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Unjoh S, Kaneko M, Kataoka S, Nagaya K, Matsuoka K (2012) Effect of earthquake ground motions on soil liquefaction. Soils Found 52(5):830–841.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wotherspoon L, Orense R, Bradley B, Cox B, Wood C, Green R (2013) Geotechnical characterisation of Christchurch strong motion stations. Earthquake Commission Report, 12/629. https://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/3783-Geotech-characterisation-Chch-strong-motion-stations.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2017

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayfer Erken
    • 1
  • Gülçin Şengül Nomaler
    • 2
  • Zeki Gündüz
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil Engineering Faculty, Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Management InstituteIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations