Modelling of Earthquake Hazard and Secondary Effects for Loss Assessment in Marmara (Turkey)

  • Ilya Sianko
  • Reyes GarciaEmail author
  • Zuhal Ozdemir
  • Iman Hajirasouliha
  • Kypros Pilakoutas
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


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.


Earthquake Seismic hazard Secondary hazard Liquefaction Marmara region 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the RCUK-TUBITAK Research Partnerships Newton Fund Awards under grant agreement EP/P010016/1.


  1. 1.
    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):525–541Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):359–387Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):329–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrus RD, Stokoe KH (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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):3046–3059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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, 22–25Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erdik M, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B (2004) Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(8):605–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    FEMA (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology technical manualGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida KI (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):49–58Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalkan E, Gülkan P, Öztürk NY, Çelebı M (2008) Seismic hazard in the Istanbul metropolitan area: a preliminary re-evaluation. J Earthq Eng 12:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan SA (2011) An earthquake risk assessment framework for developing countries: Pakistan a case study. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kythreoti S (2002) Earthquake risk assessment and management. Case study: Cyprus. PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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., CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Musson R (1999) Determination of design earthquakes in seismic hazard analysis through Monte Carlo simulation. J Earthq Eng 3(4):463–474Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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):367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, UNGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz DP, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes—examples from the wasatch and San-Andreas Fault zones. J Geophys Res 89(NB7):5681–5698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):27587–27601Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    WGCEP94 (1995) Seismic hazards in Southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:379–439Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilya Sianko
    • 1
  • Reyes Garcia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zuhal Ozdemir
    • 1
  • Iman Hajirasouliha
    • 1
  • Kypros Pilakoutas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Structural EngUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations