Earthquake Hazard Analysis of Ankara Province and Its Surroundings with Gumbel Extreme Values Method

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 391 - 407, 31.12.2023

Bülent Özmen

https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.1393858

Öz

The aim of the study is to examine Ankara, the capital of Türkiye, in terms of seismicity and earthquake hazard, and to determine earthquake hazard parameters, by using earthquake data with Mw ≥ 4.0 that occurred between 1900 and 2020 and using the Gumbel Extreme Value Method. The earthquake hazard analysis of Ankara province was made by using earthquakes falling in eight source regions within the area limited by the coordinates of 380 – 420 N latitude and 300 – 350 E longitude. Recurrence intervals of earthquakes large enough to cause damage in each source region, possible maximum earthquake magnitudes and probabilities of earthquakes of different magnitudes have been determined. It has been found that the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude of Mw ≥ 7.0 occurring in Ankara province and its immediate surroundings in the next 100 years is highest (90%) in the source region of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Zone 1) and its return period is 43 years.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ankara, Earthquake, Earthquake hazard, Gumbel method

Gumbel Uç Değerler Yöntemi ile Ankara İli ve Yakın Civarının Deprem Tehlike Analizi

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, 1900 – 2020 yılları arasında meydana gelmiş Mw ≥ 4.0 olan deprem verilerinden yararlanarak ve Gumbel Uç Değerler Yöntemi’ni kullanarak Türkiye’nin başkenti olan Ankara ilini depremsellik ve deprem tehlikesi açısından incelemek ve deprem tehlike parametrelerini belirlemektir. Ankara ilinin deprem tehlike analizi 380 – 420 K enlem ve 300 – 350 D boylam koordinatları ile sınırlandırılmış alan içinde yer alan sekiz kaynak bölge içine düşen depremlerden yararlanarak yapılmıştır. Her kaynak bölgede hasara neden olabilecek büyüklükteki depremlerin yinelenme aralıkları, olası maksimum deprem büyüklükleri ve farklı büyüklükteki depremlerin oluşma olasılıkları saptanmıştır. Ankara ili ve yakın civarı içinde gelecek 100 yıl içinde Mw ≥ 7.0 büyüklüğündeki bir depremin meydana gelme ihtimalinin Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonu kaynak bölgesinde (Bölge 1) en yüksek olduğu (%90) ve bunun dönüş periyodunun 43 yıl olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ankara, Deprem, Deprem tehlikesi, Gumbel yöntemi

Kaynakça

• Ahmed, N. Ahmed, Z. ve Akhtar, G. (2010). Investigation of seismic hazard in NW-Himalayas, Pakistan using Gumbel’s first asymptotic distribution of extreme values. Pakistan Journal of Meteorology, 6(12), 31-39.
• Aktuğ, B. Parmaksız, E. Kurt, M. Lenk, O. Kılıçoğlu, A. Gürdal, M.A. ve Özdemir, S. (2013). Deformation of central Anatolia: GPS implications. Journal of Geodynamics, 67, 78-96.
• Alsan, E. Tezuçan, L. Bath, M. (1975). An Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey fort he Interval 1913-1970. Kandilli Observatory Seismological Department and Sweden Seismological Institute, İstanbul.
• Ameer, A.S. Sharma, M.L. Wason, H.R. ve Alsinawi, S.A. (2004, August). Seismic Hazard Characterization and Risk Evaluation Using Gumbel’s Method of Extremes (G1 and G3) and G-R Formula for Iraq. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
• Bayrak, Y. Öztürk, S. Koravos, G.C. Leventakis, G.A. ve Tsapanos T.M. (2007, October). A Quantitative Seismicity Analysis for Different Regions in Turkey and its Surroundings from Gumbel First Asymptotic Distribution and Gutenberg-Richter Relationship Using Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue. International Earthquake Symposium, Kocaeli-Türkiye.
• Bayrak, Y. Öztürk, S. Koravos, G.C. Leventakis, G.A. ve Tsapanos T.M. (2008). Seismicity assessment for the different regions in and around Turkey based on instrumental data: Gumbel first asymptotic distribution and Gutenberg-Richter cumulative frequency law. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 109-122.
• Bayrak, Y. Atmış, A.N. Temelli, F. Mohammad, H. Bayrak, E. Yılmaz, Ş. ve Türker, T. (2015). An evaluation of earthquake hazard parameters in and around Ağrı, Eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Eastern Anatolian Journal of Science, 1(1), 01-09.
• Bayrak, E. Yılmaz, Ş. Softa, M. Türker, T. ve Bayrak, Y. (2015). Earthquake hazard analysis for East Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Nat Hazards, 76. 1063-1077.
• Burton, P.W. (1990). Pathways to seismic hazard evaluation: extreme and characteristic earthquakes in areas of low and high seismicity. Natural Hazards, 3, 275-291.
• Chen, K. Tsai, Y. Chang, W. ve Cheng, C. (2012). Short note probability for simulating future earthquakes with Mw ≥ 6.0 in Taiwan for seismic hazard for the earthquake catalog from 1900 to 2008. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(5), 2252-2256.
• Çemen, İ. Göncüoğlu, M.C. ve Dirik, K. (1999). Structural evolution of the Tuzgölü basin in central Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Geology, 107, 693-706.
• Çetinkaya, N.N. (1993, March). Earthquake Risk Analysis for Black Sea Region. 2. National Earthquake Engineering Conference, İstanbul.
• Çetinkaya, N.N. Durgunoğlu, H.T. Kulaç, H.F. ve Karadayılar, T. (1993, March). Comparison of Earthquake Risk Analyses for Ankara, İstanbul ve İzmir Regions. 22. National Earthquake Engineering Conference, İstanbul.
• Çobanoğlu, İ. Bozdağ, Ş. Dinçer, İ. ve Erol, H. (2006). Statistical approaches to estimating the recurrence of earthquakes in the eastern Mediterranean region. İstanbul Univ. Eng. Fac. Earth Sciences Journal, 19(1), 91-100.
• Çobanoğlu, İ. ve Alkaya, D. (2011). Seismic risk analysis of Denizli (Southwest Turkey) region using different statistical models. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(11), 2662-2670.
• Dirik, K. ve Göncüoğlu, M.C. (1996). Neotectonic charecteristics of central Anatolia. Int. Geology Review, 38, 807-817.
• Dirik, K. (2001). Neotectonic evolution of the Northwestward arched segment of the central Anatolian fault zone, central Anatolia, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta, 14, 147-158. Emre, Ö. Duman, T.Y. Özalp, S. Elmacı, H. Olgun, Ş. ve Şaroğlu, F. (2013). Active Fault Map of Turkey with an Explanatory text 1:1,250,000 scale [Özel sayı]. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Series 30.
• Emre, Ö. Duman, T.Y. Özalp, S. Şaroğlu, F. Olgun, Ş. Elmacı, H. ve Çan, T. (2018). Active fault database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng, 16, 3229-3275.
• Epstein, V. ve Lomnitz, C. (1966). A model for the occurrence of large earthquakes. Nature, 211(5052), 954-956. Ergin, K. Güçlü, U. Uz, Z. (1967). Türkiye ve Civarının Deprem Kataloğu (Milattan Sonra 11 yılından 1964 sonuna kadar). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Erguvanlı, A. Özaydın, K. (1978, October). The seismicity of North Anatolian fault zone. Turkey Civil Engineering 7. Technical Congress, Ankara.
• Erturaç, M.K. Tüysüz, O. (2009, April). The Neogene stratigraphy and neotectonic evolution of the Amasya region: Middle section of the convex arc of the North Anatolian fault system. 62. Turkey Geological Congress, Ankara.
• Esat, K. Seyitoğlu, G. Aktuğ, B. Kaypak, B. ve Ecevitoğlu, B. (2021). The northwest central Anatolian contractional area: A neotectonic deformation zone bounded by major strike-slip fault zones in the Anatolian plate. Tectonophysics, 805.
• Firuzan, E. (2008). Statistical earthquake frequency analysis for western Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 17, 741-762.
• Gencoğlu, S. İnan, E. Güler, H. (1990). Türkiye’nin Deprem Tehlikesi. TMMOB Jeofizik Mühendisleri Odası, Ankara.
• Gökten, E. ve Varol, B. (2010). General geology of the region and seismic sources. Başokur, A (Ed.), Geological-Geophysical-Geotechnical Properties of Soil West of the City of Ankara and Dynamic Behavior (s. 12-32). Ankara University.
• Gumbel, L.J. (1935). Les valeurs extremes des distribution statistiques. Ann Inst H Poincare, 5, 815-826.
• Gumbel, L.J. (1958). Statistics of extremes, Columbia University Press, New York, America.
• Hiçyılmaz, M. ve Sezer, S. (2020). Earthquake hazard analysis with Poisson and Gumbel Distribution models for Afyonkarahisar province. Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1).
• Kalafat, D. Güneş, Y. Kekovalı, K. Kara, M. Deniz, P ve Yılmazer, M. (2011). A revised and extended earthquake catalogue for Turkey since 1900 (1900-2010; M ≥ 4.0). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Publication.
• Kalafat, D. Güneş, Y. Kekovalı, K. Kara, M. Deniz, P ve Yılmazer, M. (2021). A revised and extended earthquake catalogue for Turkey since 1900 (1900-2010; M ≥ 4.0). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Publication (unpublished).
• Karnik, V. ve Hübnerova, Z. (1968). The probability of occurrence of largest earthquakes in the European area. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 70(1), 61-73.
• Koçyiğit, A. (1991). Changing stress orientation in progressive intracontinental deformation as indicated by the neotectonics of the Ankara region (NW Central Anatolia). TPJD Bülteni, 3(1), 43-55.
• Koçyiğit, A. (2000). General neotectonic characteristics and seismicity of central Anatolia, Haymana-Tuzgölü-Ulukışla basins. Appl study (Workshop), Turk Pet Geol Spec Publ, 5, 1-26.
• Koçyiğit, A. Rojay, B. Cihan, M. ve Özacar, A. (2001). The June 6, 2000 Orta (Çankırı, Turkey) earthquake: sourced from a new antithetic sinistral strike-slip structure of the North Anatolian fault sytem, the Dodurga fault zone. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 10, 69-82. Koçyiğit, A. ve Özacar, A.A. (2003). Extensional neotectonic regime through the NE edge of the outer Isparta angle, SW Turkey: New field and seismic data. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 12, 67-90.
• Koçyiğit, A. (2008). Earthquake sources in Ankara and its surrounding. Pampal, S. ve Özmen, B. (Yay. Haz.) Workshop for Earthquake Hazard and Risk of Ankara, Ankara: Gazi Universitesi.
• Kürçer, A. (2012). Neotectonic Characteristics and Paleoseismology of Tuz Gölü Fault Zone, Central Anatolia, Turkey (Doktora tezi). Erişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
• Kürçer, A. ve Gökten, E. (2014a). Paleoseismological three dimensional virtual photography method, case study: Duru-2012 trench, Tuz gölü fault zone, central Anatolia, Turkey. Geological Bulletin of Turkey, 57(1), 45-71.
• Kürçer, A. ve Gökten, E. (2014b). Neotectonic-period characteristics, seismicity, geometry and segmentation of the Tuz gölü fault zone. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 149, 19-68.
• Mittal, A. Dharmaraju, R. ve Deviel, G. (2008, October). Estimation of probable occurrence of earthquake in Chandigarh region, India. The 12th International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), India.
• Mohammadi, H. ve Bayrak, Y. (2016). An evaluation of earthquake hazard parameters in the Iranian plateau based on the Gumbell III distribution. J Seismol, 20, 615-628.
• Öcal, N. (1968). Türkiye’nin Sismisitesi ve Zelzele Coğrafyası 1850-1960 Yılları İçin Türkiye Zelzele Kataloğu. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı İstanbul Kandilli Rasathanesi, İstanbul.
• Özmen, B. (2015). Assessment of the statistical earthquake hazard parameters for the central Anatolia region, Turkey. Arab J Geosci, 8, 6341-6351. DOI 10.10007/s12517-014-1591-8.
• Özsayın, E. ve Dirik, K. (2007). Quaternery activity of the Cihanbeyli and Yeniceoba fault zones: İnönü-Eskişehir fault system, central Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 16, 471-492.
• Öztürk, S. Bayrak, Y. Çınar, H. Koravos, G.C.ve Tsapanos, T.M. (2008). A quantitative appraisal of earthquake hazard parameters computed from Gumbel I method for different regions in and around Turkey. Nat Hazards, 47, 471-495.
• Pampal, S. ve Kozlu, B. (2000). Seismicity of Ankara. Turkey Engineering News Magazine, 409, 25-31.
• Pınar, N. Lahn, E. (2001). Türkiye Depremleri İzahlı Kataloğu. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Rehman, K. ve Burton, P.W. (2020). Seismicity and seismic hazard parameters in and around Pakistan. J Seismol, 24, 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-020-09917-4.
• Seyitoğlu, G. (2007). Neotectonics Structures Around Ankara: Eldivan-Elmadağ Tectonic Junction and Kırıkkale-Erbaa Fault. TMMOB Chamber Geology Engineering Technical Series-4, Ankara.
• Seyitoğlu, G. Aktuğ, B. Karadenizli, L. Kaypak, B. Şen, Ş. Kazancı, N. Işık, V. Esat, K. Parlak, O. ve Varol, B. (2009). A late Pliocene-Quaternary pinched crustal wedge in NW central Anatolia, Turkey: a neotectonic structure accommodating the internal deformation of the Anatolian plate. Geol Bull Turkey, 52, 121-154.
• Seyitoğlu, G. Ecevitoğlu, B. Kaypak, B. Güney, Y. Tün, M. Esat, K. Avdan, U. Temel, A. Çabuk, A. Telsiz, S. ve Aldaş, G.G.U. (2015). Determining the main strand of the the Eskişehir strike-slip fault zone using subsidiary structures and seismicity: a hypothesis tested by seismic reflection studies. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 24, 1-20. doi:10.3906/yer-1406-5.
• Shakal, A.F. ve Willis, D.E. (1972). Estimated earthquake probabilities in the North Circum-Pasific area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 62(6), 1397-1410.
• Shanker, D. Yadav, R.B.S. ve Singh, H.N. (2007). On the seismic risk in the Hindukush-Pamir-Himalaya and their vicinity. Curr Sci, 92(11), 1625-1630.
• Erturaç, M.K. Tüysüz, O. (2009, April). The Neogene stratigraphy and neotectonic evolution of the Amasya region: Middle section of the convex arc of the North Anatolian fault system. 62. Turkey Geological Congress, Ankara.
• Step, J.C. (1972, March). Analysis of the completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimate of earthquake hazard. Proc. Inter. Conf. Seattle, USA.
• Şaroğlu, F. Emre, Ö. ve Kuşçu, İ. (1992). Active Fault Map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration.
• Şaroğlu, F. Emre, Ö. Doğan, A. ve Yıldırım, C. (2005, January). Eskişehir Fault Zone ve Earthquake Potential. Eskişehir Fault Zone and Seismicity Workshop, Expanded Abstract Book, Eskişehir.
• Tezcan, S. (1988). Marmara region peak ground acceleration forecasts. Earthquake Research Bulletin, 62, 45-60.
• Tezcan, S. Acar, Y. ve Çivi, A. (1991, May). Seismic Risk Analysis for İstanbul, TMMOB Civil Engineering Chamber İstanbul and Earthquake Symposium, İstanbul.
• Theodoros, M.T. Yadav, R.B.S. Olasoglou, E.M. ve Singh, M. (2016). Assessment of the relative largest earthquake hazard level in the NW Himalaya and its adjacent region. Acta Geophysica, 64(2), 362-378. DOI: 10.1515/acgeo-2016-0008.
• Vyas, M. Nath, S.K. Pal, I. Sengupta, P. ve Mohanty, W.K. (2005). GSHAP revisited for the prediction of maximum credible earthquake in the Sikkim region, India. Acta Geophysica Polonica, 53(2), 143-152.
• Yadav, R.B.S. Tripathi, J.N. Shanker, D. Rastogi, B.K. Das, M.C. ve Kumar, V. (2011). Probabilities for the occurrences of medium to large earthquakes in Northeast India and adjoining region. Nat Hazards, 56, 145-167.
• Yüksel, F.A. (1985). Earthquake activity and earthquake risk analyses of Southwest of Turkey. İstanbul Univ. Eng. Fac. Earth Science Journal, 5(1-2), 169-184.