Analysis of Source and Subsurface Structure Effects on Simulated Long Period Ground Motions in the Kahramanmaraş–Hatay Region

Öz

The 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence demonstrated the importance of physics-based ground-motion modeling in southeastern Türkiye, where sedimentary basin structures and soil-layer velocity contrasts significantly affect seismic wave propagation. This study presents the first regional-scale three-dimensional (3D) physics-based earthquake simulation framework developed for the Southeastern Anatolia region using the 2023 aftershock sequence. In the initial stage, a high-resolution 3D structural model covering an 80 × 80 km domain beneath the Kahramanmaraş Basin was constructed to explicitly represent shallow sedimentary layers and inclined deep structural interfaces. To evaluate the influence of structural complexity on seismic wave propagation, moderate-magnitude aftershocks were simulated using a horizontally layered model that integrates shallow sedimentary layers with inclined deep interfaces. Subsequently, moderate-magnitude aftershocks (Mw 4.5, 4.6, and Mw 4.9) were simulated from different source locations to investigate spatial variability in basin wavefield evolution. The modeling framework was then expanded to a regional three-dimensional domain covering approximately 200 km × 150 km and extending to the Moho depth (~30 km), incorporating the Hatay region and multiple AFAD strong-motion stations for model validation. The simulations demonstrate that shallow low-velocity sediments and inclined basin geometry significantly modify seismic wave propagation by enhancing late-arriving phases, prolonging shaking duration, and amplifying long-period ground motions (T ≥ 2 s). Comparisons between synthetic and observed ground motions demonstrate that the developed model successfully reproduces the primary characteristics of the recorded waveforms. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating three-dimensional basin structures in regional ground-motion simulations and provide an advanced framework for improving ground-motion prediction, supporting earthquake-resilient urban planning strategies and physics-based seismic hazard assessments in southeastern Türkiye.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Earthquake simulation
• Long period ground motions
• Seismic wave propagation
• Kahramanmaraş earthquakes
• Finite difference method

Destekleyen Kurum

TUBITAK 2219, Institute of Science Tokyo (formerly Tokyo Institute of Technology)

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because of there was no study on animals or humans.

Teşekkür

This study was carried out during the author’s postdoctoral research period at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) through the 2219 International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program. The author sincerely thanks the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority of Türkiye (AFAD) for providing the strong-motion records used in this study. All maps and spatial visualizations were generated using the Generic Mapping Tools (GMT). The three-dimensional regional velocity model and the numerical ground-motion simulations were developed and implemented by the author as part of the postdoctoral research conducted at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Kaynakça

1. Agrawal, H., & McCloskey, J. (2024). Estimating ground motion intensities using simulation-based methods in layered 3D models containing sedimentary basins. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 24(10), 3519–3537. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3519-2024
2. Aki, K., & Larner, K. (1970). Surface motion of a layered medium having an irregular interface due to incident plane SH waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(5), 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB075i005p00933
3. Anderson, J. G. (2004). Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismograms. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Paper No. 243). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
4. Antonietti, P. F., Mazzieri, I., Melas, L., Paolucci, R., Quarteroni, A., Smerzini, C., & Stupazzini, M. (2021). Three-dimensional physics-based earthquake ground motion simulations for seismic risk assessment. Mathematics in Engineering, 3(2), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.3934/mine.2021012
5. Aytekin, B., Haşal, M. E., Özaslan, B., & İyisan, R. (2021). The effect of input ground motion location on design spectrum in a seismic ground response analysis performed for an alluvial site. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 710(1), Article 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/710/1/012013
6. Bard, P. Y., & Bouchon, M. (1980). The seismic response of sediment-filled valleys. Part 1: The case of incident SH waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 70(4), 1263–1286. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0700041263
7. Bizzarri, A. (2014). On the point-source approximation of earthquake dynamics. Annals of Geophysics, 57(3), Article S0326. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6426
8. Buckreis, T. E., Pretell, R., Sandikkaya, M. A., Kale, Ö., Askan, A., Brandenberg, S. J., & Stewart, J. P. (2024). Engineering attributes of ground motions from February 2023 Türkiye earthquake sequence. Earthquake Spectra, 40(4), 2268–2284. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241249767

9. Campbell, K. W. (2009). Estimates of shear-wave Q and κ0 for unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sediments in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(4), 2365–2392. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080216
10. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. (2023). February 6, 2023 Pazarcık–Elbistan Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7–Mw 7.6) report. AFAD. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/
11. Duman, T. Y., Çan, T., Emre, Ö., Kadirioğlu, F. T., Başarır Baştürk, N., Kılıç, T., Şahin, S. Y., & Akbaş, B. (2018). Seismotectonic database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3277–3316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0346-4
12. Graves, R. W. (1996). Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(4), 1091–1106. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860041091
13. Graves, R. W., & Pitarka, A. (2015). Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method. Seismological Research Letters, 86(1), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101
14. Graves, R., & Pitarka, A. (2016). Kinematic ground-motion simulations on rough faults including effects of 3D stochastic velocity perturbations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106(5), 2136–2153. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160088
15. Graves, R. W., Pitarka, A., & Somerville, P. G. (1998). Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: Effects of shallow basin-edge structure. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88(5), 1224–1242. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0880051224
16. Irikura, K., & Miyake, H. (2011). Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9
17. Kawase, H. (1996). The cause of the damage belt in Kobe: The basin-edge effect, constructive interference of the direct S wave with the basin-induced diffracted and Rayleigh waves. Seismological Research Letters, 67(5), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.67.5.25
18. Khanbabazadeh, H., Iyisan, R., & Özaslan, B. (2022). Seismic behavior of the shallow clayey basins subjected to obliquely incident wave. Geomechanics and Engineering, 31(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.31.2.183
19. King, J. L., & Tucker, B. E. (1984). Observed variations of earthquake motion across a sediment-filled basin. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0740010137
20. Maggi, A., & Priestley, K. (2005). Surface waveform tomography of the Turkish–Iranian plateau. Geophysical Journal International, 160(3), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02505.x
21. Makra, K., & Chávez-García, F. J. (2016). Site effects in 3D basins using 1D and 2D models: An evaluation of the differences based on simulations of the seismic response of Euroseistest. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9883-9
22. McCallen, D., Tang, H., Wu, S., Eckert, E., Huang, J., & Petersson, N. A. (2022). Coupling of regional geophysics and local soil-structure models in the EQSIM fault-to-structure earthquake simulation framework. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 36(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/10943420211029272
23. Medved, I., Polat, G., & Koulakov, I. (2021). Crustal structure of the Eastern Anatolia region (Turkey) based on seismic tomography. Geosciences, 11(2), Article 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020091
24. Moczo, P., Kristek, J., Bard, P. Y., Riepl, J., & Chaljub, E. (2018). Key structural parameters affecting earthquake ground motion in 2D and 3D sedimentary structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(6), 2421–2450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0345-5
25. Moczo, P., Robertsson, J. O. A., & Eisner, L. (2007). The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling seismic wave propagation. Advances in Geophysics, 48, 421–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2687(06)48008-0
26. Moschetti, M. P., Thompson, E. M., & Withers, K. (2024). Basin effects from 3D simulated ground motions in the Greater Los Angeles region for use in seismic hazard analyses. Earthquake Spectra, 40(3), 1850–1878. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241232372
27. Özaslan, B., Haşal, M. E., Subaşı, O., İyisan, R., Yamanaka, H., & Chimoto, K. (2017). Determination of local site soil conditions by microtremor measurements for sustainable buildings. In E. Tascioglu, M. Yilmaz, & E. Özer (Eds.), International Sustainable Buildings Symposium (pp. 763–775). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63709-9_58
28. Özaslan, B., Haşal, M. E., Khanbabazadeh, H., Akbaş, M., & İyisan, R. (2020). Dynamic response analysis of trapezoidal basins on numerical models. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 960(4), Article 042048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/960/4/042048
29. Özaslan, B., Akbaş, M., & İyisan, R. (2022a). 2D site response in alluvial basins by finite difference-based numerical method. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2574(1), Article 020001. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0106512
30. Özaslan, B., Iyisan, R., Haşal, M. E., Khanbabazadeh, H., & Yamanaka, H. (2022b). Assessment of the design spectrum with aggravation factors by 2D nonlinear numerical analyses: A case study in Gemlik Basin, Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 20(3), 1371–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01296-6
31. Özaslan, B., Yamanaka, H., & Yamada, N. (2024a). Simulation of seismic ground motion for aftershocks of the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes. In Proceedings of the 150th SEGJ Conference (pp. 40–42). Society of Exploration Geophysicists of Japan.
32. Özaslan, B., Yamanaka, H., & Yamada, N. (2024b). Modeling long-period ground motion for aftershocks of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence in the southeast of Turkey. In Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) Annual Meeting. Architectural Institute of Japan.
33. Özaslan, B., & Önal, M. M. (2026). Assessment of nonlinear site response using eHVSRs during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Applied Sciences, 16(17), Article 8394. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16178394
34. Özaslan, B., Yamanaka, H., Tsuno, S., & Yamada, N. (2026). Physics-based simulations of the foreshock and aftershock of the February 6, 2023 Turkiye earthquakes and ground motion validation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-025-02360-1
35. Özer, C., Ozyazicioglu, M., Gök, E., & Polat, O. (2019). Imaging the crustal structure throughout the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey, by local earthquake tomography. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(6), 2235–2261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-2076-6
36. Özmen, Ö. T., Yamanaka, H., Alkan, M. A., Çeken, U., Öztürk, T., & Sezen, A. (2017). Microtremor array measurements for shallow S-wave profiles at strong-motion stations in Hatay and Kahramanmaraş provinces, southern Turkey. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(1), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160218
37. 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. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 111(5), 2527–2545. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210088
38. Papageorgiou, A. S., & Kim, J. (1991). Study of the propagation and amplification of seismic waves in Caracas Valley with reference to the 29 July 1967 earthquake: SH waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 81(6), 2214–2233. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0810062214
39. Pitarka, A. (1999). 3D elastic finite-difference modeling of seismic motion using staggered grids with nonuniform spacing. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0890010054
40. Semblat, J. F., Kham, M., Parara, E., Bard, P. Y., Pitilakis, K., Makra, K., & Raptakis, D. (2005). Seismic wave amplification: Basin geometry versus soil layering. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(7–10), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.003
41. Subaşı, O., Haşal, M. E., Özaslan, B., & İyisan, R. (2019). Seismic microzonation of Bursa/Güzelyalı in Turkey: A study on the compatibility of 1D dynamic analysis and microtremor measurements. In F. Silvestri & S. d'Onofrio (Eds.), Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions (pp. 5120–5127). CRC Press.
42. Tezel, T., Erduran, M., & Alptekin, Ö. (2007). Crustal shear wave velocity structure of Turkey by surface wave dispersion analysis. Annals of Geophysics, 50(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3088
43. Yamanaka, H., Özmen, Ö. T., Chimoto, K., Alkan, M. A., Tün, M., Pekkan, E., Özel, O., Ceken, U., Ozturk, T., & Nurlu, M. (2018). Exploration of S-wave velocity profiles at strong motion stations in Eskisehir, Turkey, using microtremor phase velocity and S-wave amplification. Journal of Seismology, 22(5), 1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9757-0
44. Zhu, C., Thambiratnam, D., & Gallage, C. (2018). Statistical analysis of the additional amplification in deep basins relative to the 1D approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 104, 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.09.027
45. Zor, E., Sandvol, E., Gürbüz, C., Türkelli, N., Seber, D., & Barazangi, M. (2003). The crustal structure of the East Anatolian plateau (Turkey) from receiver functions. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(24), Article 8019. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018192