An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey

Investigating strong ground-motion variability using analysis of variance and two-way-fit plots

“…The GMPEs derived using data from broad regions were used for all sequences whereas the local models were only used for the sequence corresponding to their region, i.e. : Zonno and Montaldo (2002) and Bindi et al (2006) are used only for the Umbria-Marche sequence; Kalkan and Gülkan (2004), Özbey et al (2004) and Ulusay et al (2004) are used only for the Kocaeli sequence; and Luzi et al (2006) is used only for the Molise sequence. Douglas (2007) argues that average ground motions for the same magnitude and source-to-site distance do not show clear evidence for regional variation.…”

“…In order to test the sensitivity of the results obtained on the selection of the ground-motion model used to compute the residuals, the analysis was repeated using the following regional models: Ulusay et al (2004), Kalkan andGülkan (2004) andÖzbey et al (2004). Although the values of σ 2 and F varied slightly when different models were used, overall the results were similar and the same significance levels were obtained (see Table 5).…”

“…The GMPE of Ulusay et al (2004) The numbers give the ratio of inter-event or inter-site σ 2 on the residual σ 2 . A bold number means the effect is significant at 5.0% or less, using the F test.…”

“…The Table 1: GMPEs selected for this study, the regions used as sources of accelerograms and the magnitude and distance ranges (R epi is epicentral distance, R jb is distance to surface projection of rupture (Joyner and Boore, 1981), R hypo is hypocentral distance, R rup is distance to rupture and R seis is distance to seismogenic rupture). Umbria-Marche 4.5 ≤ ML ≤ 5.9 2 ≤ Repi ≤ 100 Ulusay et al (2004) Mainly NW Turkey 4.1 ≤ ML ≤ 7.5 5.1 ≤ Repi ≤ 99.7 Broad regions Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Mainly California 4.4 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.4 0 ≤ Rrup ≤ 220 Ambraseys et al (2005) Europe & Middle East 5.0 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.6 0 ≤ R jb ≤ 99 Boore et al (1997) Mainly California 5.1 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.7 0 ≤ R jb ≤ 118 Campbell and Bozorgnia (2003) Mainly California 4.7 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.7 2 ≤ Rseis ≤ 60 Sadigh et al (1997) Mainly California 3.8 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.4 0 ≤ Rrup ≤ 305 Spudich et al (1999) Worldwide extensional regimes 5.1 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.2 0 ≤ R jb ≤ 99 The total sum of squares SS T is evaluated by adding the squares of all the elements and subtracting the correction factor (square of the sum of elements divided by the number of elements). SS E and SS S are calculated the same way, except the squares of elements are not added but the squares of columns or rows.…”

Fethi̇ye Yerleşi̇m Alanindaki̇ Zemi̇nleri̇n SPT Ve Kayma Dalga Hizi Veri̇leri̇yle Sivilaşma Potansi̇yeli̇ni̇n Değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇

“…Geçmişte maruz kaldığı en büyük deprem büyüklüğü 7,1 olan inceleme alanı için senaryo deprem büyüklüğü 7,0 seçilmiş ve maksimum ivme (α maks ) Ulusay ve diğ. [29] tarafından Türkiye'deki depremler için geliştirilen Eş. 8 ile 0,24g olarak belirlenmiştir.…”