Abstract
A dataset of simulated ground motions is created for seven recorded and previously validated, along with three hypothetical earthquakes in Turkey. This dataset has potential uses in engineering practice and research by both seismological and engineering communities. The simulated ground motion dataset with extensive information on the simulations and ground motion intensity parameters for each simulated motion is presented in an open-access online repository. A two-level randomization scheme is proposed to account for the uncertainties in input parameters and source-to-site geometries. An investigation of the magnitude-distance ranges in the simulated dataset, as well as the distribution of ground motion intensity measures, showed that the created dataset fills the gaps observed in recorded ground motion datasets. Pulse-like motions in the dataset are identified, and the relationship between pulse periods and earthquake magnitude is shown to agree with other relationships in the literature which are derived from recorded ground motions. The effects of source-to-site geometry and uncertainties in the following four input parameters are investigated: magnitude (\(Mw)\), stress drop, (\(\Delta \tau\)), time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m (\({V}_{S30}\)), and high-frequency attenuation parameter (\({\kappa }_{0}\)). The dataset is validated by investigating the variability and inter-period correlation of normalized residual spectral acceleration values (\(\epsilon )\), calculated using a ground motion model (GMM). The variability of \(\epsilon\) is found to be consistent with the variability of GMMs. However, inter-period correlations of \(\epsilon\) are shown to be larger than predictions of empirical models based on recorded earthquakes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aki K (1967) Scaling law of seismic spectrum. J Geophys Res 1896–1977(72):1217–1231. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ072i004p01217
Akinci A, Malagnini L, Herrmann RB et al (2006) Ground motion scaling in the Marmara region, Turkey. Geophys J Int 166:635–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02971.x
Akinci A, D’Amico S, Malagnini L, Mercuri A (2013) Scaling earthquake ground motions in western Anatolia, Turkey. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 63:124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2013.04.013
Akkar S, Yazgan U, Gülkan P (2005) Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions. J Struct Eng 131:1014–1024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:7(1014)
Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:687–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.369
Allmann BP, Shearer PM (2009) Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 114. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005821
Altindal A, Askan A (2022a) SIGMOID-TR: a simulated ground motion dataset for Turkey (1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7007918
Altindal, A, Askan A (2022b) Predictive kappa (κ) models for Turkey: regional effects and uncertainty analysis. Earthq Spectra 38(4):2479–2499. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221116651
Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP et al (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30:989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS197M
Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74:1969–1993. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0740051969
Ansal A, Akinci A, Cultrera G et al (2009) Loss estimation in Istanbul based on deterministic earthquake scenarios of the Marmara Sea region (Turkey). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.07.006
Askan A, Sisman FN, Ugurhan B (2013) Stochastic strong ground motion simulations in sparsely-monitored regions: a validation and sensitivity study on the 13 March 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.014
Assatourians K, Atkinson G (2012) EXSIM12: a stochastic finite‐fault computer program in FORTRAN. Available at: http://www.seismotoolbox.ca. Accessed Nov 2023
Atkinson GM, Assatourians K (2015) Implementation and validation of EXSIM (a stochastic finite-fault ground-motion simulation algorithm) on the SCEC broadband platform. Seismol Res Lett 86:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140097
Baker JW (2007a) Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling. Pac Conf Earthq Eng 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
Baker JW (2007b) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1486–1501. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255
Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137:322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24:299–317. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857544
Baker JW, Rezaeian S, Goulet CA et al (2021) A subset of CyberShake ground-motion time series for response-history analysis. Earthq Spectra 37:1162–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020981970
Beresnev IA, Atkinson GM (1997) Modeling finite-fault radiation from the ωn spectrum. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:67–84. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0870010067
Bijelić N, Lin T, Deierlein GG (2018) Validation of the SCEC Broadband Platform simulations for tall building risk assessments considering spectral shape and duration of the ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47:2233–2251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3066
Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA07306A1865
Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553
Boore DM (2009) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3202–3216. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090056
Boore DM (2016) Determining generic velocity and density models for crustal amplification calculations, with an update of the Boore and Joyner (1997) generic site amplification for Vs(Z) = m/s. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:316–320. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150229
Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0870020327
Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M
Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 26:211–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x
Bradley BA, Pettinga D, Baker JW, Fraser J (2017) Guidance on the utilization of earthquake- induced ground motion simulations in engineering practice. Earthq Spectra 33:809–835. https://doi.org/10.1193/120216EQS219EP
Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:815–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.001
Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 1896–1977(75):4997–5009. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB075i026p04997
Burks LS, Baker JW (2014) Validation of ground-motion simulations through simple proxies for the response of engineered systems. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:1930–1946. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130276
Cotton F, Archuleta R, Causse M (2013) What is sigma of the stress drop? Seismol Res Lett 84:42–48. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120087
Dreger DS, Beroza GC, Day SM et al (2015) Validation of the SCEC broadband platform v14.3 simulation methods using pseudospectral acceleration data. Seismol Res Lett 86:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140118
Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S et al (2018) Active fault database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3229–3275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2
Fayaz J, Dabaghi M, Zareian F (2020) Utilization of site-based simulated ground motions for hazard-targeted seismic demand estimation: application for ordinary bridges in Southern California. J Bridg Eng 25:04020097. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001634
Fayaz J, Rezaeian S, Zareian F (2021) Evaluation of simulated ground motions using probabilistic seismic demand analysis: CyberShake (ver. 15. 12) simulations for ordinary standard bridges. Soil Dynamics Earthq Eng 141:106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106533
Galasso C, Zareian F, Iervolino I, Graves RW (2012) Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using SDoF systems. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:2727–2740. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120018
Galasso C, Zhong P, Zareian F et al (2013) Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using MDoF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1395–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2278
Goulet CA, Abrahamson NA, Somerville PG, Wooddell KE (2015) The SCEC broadband platform validation exercise: methodology for code validation in the context of seismic-hazard analyses. Seismol Res Lett 86:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140104
Graves R, Pitarka A (2010) Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2095–2123. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100057
Graves R, Pitarka A (2015) Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method. Seismol Res Lett 86:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101
Graves R, Jordan TH, Callaghan S et al (2011) CyberShake: a physics-based seismic hazard model for Southern California. Pure Appl Geophys 168:367–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0161-6
Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW, Wald DJ (1995) Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq Spectra 11:569–605. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585828
Hanks TC, McGuire RK (1981) The character of high-frequency strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2071–2095. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0710062071
Howard JK, Tracy CA, Burns RG (2005) Comparing observed and predicted directivity in near-source ground motion. Earthq Spectra 21:1063–1092. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2044827
Kane DL, Prieto GA, Vernon FL, Shearer PM (2011) Quantifying seismic source parameter uncertainties. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:535–543. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100166
Karimzadeh S, Askan A, Yakut A (2017) Assessment of simulated ground motions in earthquake engineering practice: a case study for Duzce (Turkey). Pure Appl Geophys 174:3589–3607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1602-2
Karimzadeh S, Ozsarac V, Askan A, Erberik MA (2019) Use of simulated ground motions for the evaluation of energy response of simple structural systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 123:525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.024
Konca AO, Guvercin SE, Ozarpaci S et al (2019) Slip distribution of the 2017 Mw6.6 Bodrum-Kos earthquake: resolving the ambiguity of fault geometry. Geophys J Int 219:911–923. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz332
Liu P, Archuleta RJ, Hartzell SH (2006) Prediction of broadband ground-motion time histories: hybrid low/high-frequency method with correlated random source parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2118–2130. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060036
Luco N, Bazzurro P (2007) Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1813–1835. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.695
Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23:357–392. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2723158
Luzi L, Lanzano G, Felicetta C et al (2020) Engineering strong motion database (ESM), version 2.0. 72300-waveforms. https://doi.org/10.13127/ESM.2
Maechling PJ, Silva F, Callaghan S, Jordan TH (2014) SCEC broadband platform: system architecture and software implementation. Seismol Res Lett 86:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140125
Mavroeidis GP, Dong G, Papageorgiou AS (2004) Near-fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:1023–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.391
Mazzieri I, Stupazzini M, Guidotti R, Smerzini C (2013) SPEED: spectral elements in elastodynamics with discontinuous Galerkin: a non-conforming approach for 3D multi-scale problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 95:991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4532
Melgar D, Taymaz T, Ganas A et al (2023) Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica 2. https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387
Mohammadioun B, Serva L (2001) Stress drop, slip type, earthquake magnitude, and seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:694–707. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000067
Moss RES (2003) CPT-based probabilistic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction initiation. University of California, Berkeley
Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207
Paolucci R, Smerzini C, Vanini M (2021) BB-SPEEDset: a validated dataset of broadband near-source earthquake ground motions from 3D physics-based numerical simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 111:2527–2545. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210089
Petrone F, Abrahamson N, McCallen D, Miah M (2021) Validation of (not-historical) large-event near-fault ground-motion simulations for use in civil engineering applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 50:116–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3366
Prieto GA, Thomson DJ, Vernon FL et al (2007) Confidence intervals for earthquake source parameters. Geophys J Int 168:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03257.x
Sertçelik F (2012) Estimation of coda wave attenuation in the East Anatolia Fault zone, Turkey. Pure Appl Geophys 169:1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-011-0368-1
Seyhan E, Stewart JP, Graves RW (2013) Calibration of a semi-stochastic procedure for simulating high-frequency ground motions. Earthq Spectra 29:1495–1519. https://doi.org/10.1193/122211EQS312M
Shahi SK, Baker JW (2011) An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects of near-fault directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:742–755. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100090
Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:2456–2466. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130191
Somerville PG (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys Earth Planet Inter 137:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00015-3
Tanırcan G, Yelkenci-Necmioğlu S (2020) Simulation of the strong ground motion for the 20 July 2017 (Mw. 6.6) Bodrum-Kos earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 18:5807–5825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00892-2
Tezel T, Erduran M, Alptekin O (2007) Crustal shear wave velocity structure of Turkey by surface wave dispersion analysis. Ann Geophys 50:177–190.
U.S. Geological Survey (2023) Finite faults. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/finite-fault. Accessed 13 Apr 2023
Ugurhan B, Askan A (2010) Stochastic strong ground motion simulation of the 12 November 1999 Düzce (Turkey) earthquake using a dynamic corner frequency approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1498–1512. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090358
Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974
Yalcinkaya E, Pinar A, Uskuloglu O et al (2012) Selecting the most suitable rupture model for the stochastic simulation of the 1999 Izmit earthquake and prediction of peak ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 42:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.018
Zor E, Özalaybey S, Gürbüz C (2006) The crustal structure of the eastern Marmara region, Turkey by teleseismic receiver functions. Geophys J Int 167:213–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03042.x
Acknowledgements
Figure 1 is prepared with The Generic Map** Tools (GMT) Version 6.3.0. The rest of the figures are plotted with the Python package matplotlib (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.592536).
Funding
This study has been performed with partial funds from a project funded by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey (AFAD) with the grant number UDAP-C-21-59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Abdullah Altindal performed the analyses and wrote the main manuscript text. Aysegul Askan supervised the analyses and edited the manuscript text.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Research data
The created dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7007918. A Python library is created within the scope of this work to automate running EXSIM12 simulations, which is publicly available at https://github.com/abdullahaltindal/pyexsim12 (last accessed April 2023). EXSIM12 code can be found at http://www.seismotoolbox.ca (last accessed April 2023).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Altindal, A., Askan, A. Construction and validation of a simulated ground motion dataset for Turkey. J Seismol 27, 1047–1065 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-023-10179-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-023-10179-z