Effects of seismic declustering on seismic hazard assessment: a sensitivity study using the Turkish earthquake catalogue

Azak, Tuba Eroğlu; Kalafat, Doğan; Şeşetyan, Karin; Demircioğlu, M. B.

doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0174-y

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of clusters found using the Reasenberg [2] and Gardner-Knopoff [1] approaches differs significantly. The Gardner-Knopoff [1] approach and the Zaliapin [7] method both produced results that were pretty close [6]The present study attempted to compare the declustering approach, which has the same principle as the windows method, as this is the simplest method for figuring out mainshock and foreshocks/aftershocks. The largest earthquakes in a specific window of time and space are known as the main earthquakes or main shocks, whereas the earthquakes that precede the main earthquake are known as foreshocks [8]The aftershocks are earthquakes that follow the main earthquake.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Furthermore, Stiphout [5] also suggested that estimations become redundant at close distances; the Gardner-Knopoff technique [1] only eliminates occurrences that are close in space and time and is not possible long-distance estimation. Using earthquake catalogue data from Turkey, Azak [6] attempted to compare the approaches of Gardner-Knopoff [1], Reasenberg [2], and Zaliapin [7]. This study indicated that none of the used approaches accurately identified events from the catalogue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer Earthquake Declustering Methods in Aceh, Indonesia

Juellyan,

Setiawan,

Hasan

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sudden release of energy from inside the earth, which generates seismic waves, causes earthquakes on the earth’s surface. Foreshock, mainshock, and aftershock are terms commonly used in this subject. These phrases refer to the three stages of an earthquake event—before the main event, the primary event, and after the main event. The earthquake data catalogue, however, typically does not distinguish between mainshock data and foreshocks/aftershocks. For seismic-related studies, justifying the mainshock is very crucial. There are several methods for separating the mainshock of earthquake data from the foreshocks/aftershocks. This study employs three declustering techniques, including Gardner-Knopoff (1974), Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer (1986). The present study collected and analyzed 3543 earthquake events from 1971 to 2021 for Aceh region. In order to determine which method provides the highest a-value and b-value outcomes for Aceh’s seismicity conditions, this study compares the aforementioned three approaches. The Uhrhammer method (1986) has an a-value of 5.82, a b-value of 1.05, 1893 main shock events, 305 clusters, and 3.3 percent of the total seismic moment generated at that location are the findings from this study. According to the Gruenthal method, the results had an a-value of 4.53, a b-value of 0.823, 776 mainshock events, 304 clusters, and released 1.3 percent of the total seismic moment at that location. a-value of 5.1, b-value of 0.929, 1097 main shock events, 319 clusters, and a release of 1.08 percent of the total seismic moment at that location were the results of the Gardner-Knopoff method (1974). For seismic hazard evaluation with the highest level of risk, the Uhrhammer (1986) technique is appropriate. The Gruenthal approach is suggested for more conservative cases.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer Earthquake Declustering Methods in Aceh, Indonesia

Juellyan,

Setiawan,

Hasan

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The details on the seismic source and ground-motion characterization of the project can be found in Duman et al (2016), Emre et al (2016), ), Eroglu Azak et al (2017, Demircioglu et al (2017Demircioglu et al ( ), Ş eşetyan et al (2016 and Akkar et al (2017). The following paragraphs only highlight the major procedures followed in these studies and their principal outcomes.…”

Section: T-shm Project: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different magnitude scales in the unified instrumental catalog (M s , m b , M l , M d and M w ) are homogenized for moment magnitude (M w ) from magnitude conversion relations developed in . The method by Gardner and Knopoff (1974) are used to decluster the M w homogenized catalog after examining several declustering techniques (Eroglu Azak et al 2017). The spatial and temporal windows in the Gardner and Knopoff (1974) method are magnitude dependent and its automatic implementation may lead to the identification of some distant events within the aftershock sequence of large earthquakes.…”

Section: Seismic-source Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey

Akkar

Azak

Çan

et al. 2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harirchian et al [25] aimed to bridge the gap between rapid visual screening (RVS) and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods by using the codes from India, Türkiye and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in their study. Eroglu et al [26] measured the sensitivity of seismic hazard assessments using different declustering techniques. Accordingly, the recently compiled earthquake catalogue of Türkiye was declustered using three declustering algorithms in their study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes in Diyarbakır

Karasin

2023

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Türkiye is prone to earthquakes due to its location on various tectonic plates, which can lead to a loss of lives and property. Recently, on 6 February 2023, two major earthquakes hit Pazarcık and Elbistan in Türkiye, causing widespread destruction on the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) zone. Even Diyarbakır, a distant province from the epicentre, was severely affected, highlighting the need to evaluate Turkish earthquake codes. As part of this evaluation, a structural analysis was conducted on earthquake-damaged and collapsed buildings in Diyarbakır. The study analysed three buildings with different levels of damage and six collapsed buildings as case studies. The seismic parameters of the earthquakes were compared to the values in the two recent earthquake hazard maps used in Türkiye’s codes, as well as the Eurocode 8 damage limit values obtained from pushover analysis. The results revealed significant differences between the current seismic values of earthquakes and the current peak ground acceleration (PGA) values specified in the Turkish Earthquake Design Regulations. Additionally, the selected buildings showed inadequate structural behaviours, with significant differences between the expected and actual seismic performances with respect to the PGA values as one of the most important earthquake characteristics.

show abstract

Effects of seismic declustering on seismic hazard assessment: a sensitivity study using the Turkish earthquake catalogue

Cited by 22 publications

References 35 publications

Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer Earthquake Declustering Methods in Aceh, Indonesia

Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer Earthquake Declustering Methods in Aceh, Indonesia

Evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey

Comparative Analysis of the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes in Diyarbakır

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About