Effects of Ground Motion Prediction Models on the Performance of Earthquake Damage and Loss Estimation Systems: February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş Earthquake

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 123 - 144, 30.06.2024

Fatma İlknur Kara , Yasin Fahjan

https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1411559

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of ground motion prediction models (GMPE) on the performance of Earthquake Damage and Loss Estimation Systems (EDLES), which play a crucial role in disaster management. In the study, seismic hazard and risk analyses were performed using data of the February 6 Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık) earthquake, and the analysis results were updated with the data of strong ground motion stations. Four different globally accepted GMPEs, HAZUS classification systems and fragility curves, were preferred in the analyses. The results of the analyses are examined from two different perspectives: the impact of GMPE selection and the effects of using updated model. It was found that the choice of GMPE significantly influences the seismic hazard and risk assessments. In the comparison made by averaging the GMPE models, the updated model was found to more accurately predict the number of severely damaged and collapsed buildings defined as requiring emergency response by approximately 10% and 15%, respectively.

Keywords

Earthquake damage and loss estimation systems, Seismic hazard, Seismic risk, Disaster management, Ground motion Prediction models

Yer Hareketi Tahmin Modellerinin Deprem Ön Hasar Tahmin Sistemleri’nin Performansına Etkileri: 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yer hareketi tahmin modellerinin (GMPE), Deprem Ön Hasar Tahmin Sistemleri'nin (DÖHTS) performansına etkilerini incelemektedir. DÖHTS, afet yönetiminde kritik role sahip sistemlerdir. Çalışmada, 6 Şubat Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık) depreminin verileri kullanılarak sismik tehlike ve risk analizleri gerçekleştirilmiş, analiz sonuçları kuvvetli yer hareketi istasyonları verileri ile güncellenmiştir. Analizlerde küresel ölçekte kabul gören dört farklı GMPE ve HAZUS sınıflandırma sistemi ve hasargörebilirlik eğrileri tercih edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, GMPE’lerin seçimi ve güncellenmiş veri kullanımının sonuçlar üzerindeki etkileri olmak üzere iki farklı açıdan incelenmiştir. GMPE seçimi, sismik tehlike ve risk sonuçlarını doğrudan etkilemektedir. GMPE modellerinin ortalaması alınarak yapılan karşılaştırmada, güncellenmiş veri kullanımı ile acil müdahale gerektiren ağır hasarlı ve göçen bina sayılarının sırasıyla yaklaşık %10 ve %15 daha iyi tahmin edilebildiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Deprem ön hasar tahmin sistemleri, Sismik tehlike, Sismik risk, Afet yönetimi, Yer hareketi tahmin modelleri

References

• Abrahamson N.A., Silva W.J., Kamai R., 2014. Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation For Active Crustal Regions, Earthquake Spectra 30(3), 1025-1055.
• AFAD, 2024. AFAD ve Tarihçesi, Erişim adresi: https://www.afad.gov.tr/afad-hakkinda.
• AFAD, 2023a. 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık-Elbistan Kahramanmaraş (Mw: 7.7- Mw: 7.6) Depremleri Raporu, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD) Deprem ve Risk Azaltma Genel Müdürlüğü, Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı, 02 Haziran 2023. Erişim adresi: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/assets/pdf/Kahramanmara%C5%9F%20Depremi%20%20Raporu_02.06.2023.pdf.
• AFAD, 2023b. Ön Hasar ve Kayıp Tahmin Sistemi (AFAD-RED Sistemi), Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD), Erişim adresi: https://www.afad.gov.tr/on-hasar-ve-kayip-tahmin-sistemi.
• Akkar S., Sucuoǧlu H., Yakut A., 2005,. Displacement-Based Fragility Functions for Low- and Mid-rise Ordinary Concrete Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 21(4), 901-927.
• Akkar S., Eroğlu Azak T., Çan T., Çeken U., Demircioğlu M. B., Duman T.Y., Ergintav S., Kadirioğlu F.T., Kalafat D., Kale Ö., Kartal R.F., Kılıç T., Özalp S., Şeşetyan K., Tekin S., Yakut A., Yılmaz M.T., Zülfikar Ö., 2014. Türkiye Sismik Tehlike Haritasının Güncellenmesi Sonuç Raporu (UDAP-Ç-13-06), Ulusal Deprem Araştırma Programı, Ankara, Türkiye.
• Aktürk İ., Albeni M., 2002. Doğal Afetlerin Ekonomik Performans Üzerine Etkisi: 1999 Yılında Türkiye’de Meydana Gelen Depremler ve Etkileri (The Impact of Natural Disasters on Economic Performance: The Earthquakes in Turkey in 1999 and Their Effects), Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(1),1-18.
• Avcıl F., Işık E., İzol R., Büyüksaraç A., Arkan E., Arslan M.H., Aksoylu C., Eyisüren O., Harirchian E., 2023. Effects of the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake on structures in Kahramanmaraş City, Natural Hazards, 120(3):2953–2991.
• Bal I.E., Crowley H., Pinho R., 2008. Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment for an earthquake scenario in Istanbul. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(S2), 12-22.
• Bayrak E., 2019. Estimation of the Peak Ground Acceleration for Eastern Turkey, European Journal of Science and Technology (17), 676-681.
• Bilgin H., 2013. Fragility-based assessment of public buildings in Turkey. Engineering Structures, 56,1283-1294.
• Boore D.M., Stewart J.P., Seyhan E., Atkinson G.M., 2014. NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M 30(3), 1057-1085.
• B.U. KOERI, 2010. Earthquke Loss Estimation Routine ELER v3.0 Technical Manual and Users Guide, Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, 2010, Erişim adresi: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/ELER/ELER_v3_Manual.pdf.
• Büyüksaraç A., Işık E., Bektaş Ö., Avcil F., 2024. Achieving Intensity Distributions of 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes from Peak Ground Acceleration Records, Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020599, 16(2), 599.
• Campbell K.W., Bozorgnia Y., 2014. NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response, Earthquake Spectra, https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M 30(3), 1087-1114.
• CAPRA, 2023. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Platform (CAPRA), Erişim adresi: https://ecapra.org/.
• Chiou B.S.J., Youngs R.R., 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response, Earthquake Spectra, https://doi.org/10.1193/072813EQS219M 30(3), 1117-1153.
• Emre Ö., Duman T.Y., Özalp S., Elmacı H., Olgun Ş., Şaroğlu F., 2013. Açıklamalı Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası. Ölçek 1:1.250.000, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi-30, Ankara-Türkiye. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1.
• Erberik M.A., 2008. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey, Engineering Structures, 30(5),1360-1374.
• Erdik M., 2010. Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) Earthquakes, Bogazici University, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, 149–186, Erişim adresi: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/eqspecials/kocaeli/kocaelireport.pdf.
• Fahjan Y., Pakdamar F., Eryılmaz Y., Kara F.İ., 2015. Afet Planlamasında Deprem Riski Belirsizliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 1(1–2), 21-39.
• Gregor N., Abrahamson N.A., Atkinson G.M., Boore D.M., Bozorgnia Y., Campbell K.W., Chiou B.S.J., Idriss I.M., Kamai R., Seyhan E., Silva W., Stewart J.P., Youngs R., 2014. Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra, https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS186M 30(3), 1179-1197.
• Hancılar U., Çaktı E., 2015. Fragility functions for code complying RC frames via best correlated IM–EDP pairs, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(11), 3381-3400.
• Hancılar U., Çaktı E., Erdik M., Franco G.E., Deodatis G., 2014. Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: Probabilistic structural fragility analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 67, 169-178.
• Hancılar U., Tuzun C., Yenidogan C., Erdik M., 2010. ELER software - a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(12), 2677-2696.
• FEMA, 2022. Hazus Earthquake Model Technical Manual (Hazus 5.1), July 2022. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Erişim adresi: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tools-resources/flood-map-products/hazus/user-technical-manuals.
• GEM, 2023. The OpenQuake Platform, Global Earthquake Model Foundation (GEM). Erişim adresi: https://platform.openquake.org/.
• Giardini D., Woessner J., Danciu L., 2014. Share Project, Mapping Europe’s Seismic Hazard. EOS, 95(29): 261-262. Erişim adresi: http://www.share-eu.org/.
• HAZTURK, 2024. HAZTURK, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İnşaat Fakültesi HAZTURK, Erişim adresi: https://hazturk.itu.edu.tr/.
• Işık E., Sağır Ç., Tozlu Z., Ustaoğlu Ü.S., 2019. Determination of Urban Earthquake Risk for Kırşehir, Turkey. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 23(3), 237-247.
• İnce O., 2024. Structural damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman after Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes on 6 February 2023, Engineering Failure Analysis, 156, 107799.
• Kahramanmaraş Valiliği, 2020. İRAP İl Risk azaltma Planı (Kahramanmaraş), T.C. Kahramanmaraş Valiliği İl Afet ve Acil Durum Müdürlüğü, Erişim adresi: https://kahramanmaras.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/kahramanmaras.afad/e-kutuphane/IL-PLANLARI/KAHRAMANMARAS%CC%A7-IL-AFET-RISK-AZALTMA-PLANI2022.pdf.
• Kale Ö., Akkar S., Ansari A., Hamzehloo H., 2015. A Ground‐Motion Predictive Model for Iran and Turkey for Horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Response Spectrum: Investigation of Possible Regional Effects, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(2A), 963-980.
• Karaaslan A., Zor E., Alaybey S., Tarancioglu A., Ergin M., Okeler A., Cankurtaranlar A., Erkan B., Sevim F., Çıkgöz C., 2023. Gaziantep ili Sismik Tehlike ve Risk Değerlendirme Projesi, 5207A01, TÜBİTAK Dış Destekli Proje Sonuç Raporu, Gebze/Kocaeli.
• Kırçıl S., Polat Z., 2006. Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 28(9),1335-1345.
• Kürçer A., Elmacı H., Özdemir E., Güven C., Güler T., Avcu İ., Olgun Ş., Avcı H.O., Aydoğan H., Yüce A.A., Çetin F.E., Ayrancı A., Akyol Z., Soykasap Ö.A., Altuntaş G., Demirörs U., Karayazı O., Bayrak A., Özalp S., 2023. 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) Depremi (Mw 7.7) Saha Gözlemleri ve Değerlendirmeler. MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Rapor No: 14138, 187 s., Ankara
• Navarro C.M., Hampton S.D., Lee J.S., Tolbert N.L., McLaren T.M., Myers J.D., Spencer Jr. B. F., Elnashai A.S., 2008. MAEviz: Exploring Earthquake Risk Reduction Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2008 Fourth IEEE International Conference on eScience (ESCIENCE '08). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 457. https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience.2008.71
• NORSAR/ICG, 2023. The SELENA-RISe Open Risk Package, Erişim adresi: https://selena.sourceforge.net/.
• Ozkaynar G.K., 2023. A Study on the Implementation Process of Management Functions in the Disaster Period: The Case of Sivas Cumhuriyet University in the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi 5(2), 105-127, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1282726.
• Redact-Project, 2023. Redact- Project, Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment Consortium, Erişim adresi: https://www.redact-project.eu/.
• Sahin G., Ugural M.N., Sagbas M., Erdogan F.A., 2023. Prioritization of Post-Disaster Needs Using the Fuzzy AHP Method: Example of Pazarcik and Elbistan Earthquakes, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi 5(2), 314-330, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1371581.
• TADAS, 2023. Türkiye İvme Veritabanı ve Analiz Sistemi (TADAS), T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı - Afet ve Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı - Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı, Erişim adresi: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/event-detail/17966.
• T.C. Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı, 2023. 2023 Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay Depremleri Raporu, 17 Mart 2023 Ankara, Erişim adresi: https://www.hmb.gov.tr/haberler/2023-kahramanmaras-ve-hatay-depremleri-raporu.
• Tikhotsky S.A., Tatevosyan R.E., Rebetsky Y.L., Ovsyuchenko A.N., Larkov A.S., 2023. The 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in Turkey: Seismic Movements along Conjugated Faults, Doklady Earth Sciences, 511(2), 703-709.
• Tugsal Ü.M., 2016. Statistical Evaluation Of The Fragility Of Existing Rc Buildings In Turkey Under Seismic Loads, Phd, İstanbul: İstanbul Technical University, 211s.
• Tüzün C., Aydınoğlu N., 2007. Development of fragility relationships from nonlinear analysis of real buildings. Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering-COMPDYN 2007, 353.
• Uçar T., Düzgün M., 2013. Derivation of Analytical Fragility Curves for RC Buildings Based on Nonlinear Pushover Analysis, Teknik Dergi, 24(118), 402.
• UNDRR, 2023. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Homepage, Erişim adresi: https://www.undrr.org/.
• USGS, 2023. PAGER, Earthquake Hazard Program, USGS, Erişim adresi: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/.
• USGS, 2024. ShakeMap Scientific Background, Earthquake Hazard Program, USGS, Erişim Adresi: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/background.php.
• Wang Z., Zhang W., Taymaz T., He Z., Xu T., Zhang Z., 2023. Dynamic Rupture Process of the 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake (SE Türkiye): Variable Rupture Speed and Implications for Seismic Hazard, Geophysical Research Letters 50(15), e2023GL104787.
• Yön B., 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings according to the 2007 and 2018 Turkish seismic codes, Earthquakes and Structures, 18(6), 709-718.