23 Kasım 2022 Düzce Depreminin (Mw 6,0) Bölgesel Sismisite ve Kuvvetli Yer Hareketleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2024, , 795 - 807, 30.09.2024

Erdem Bayrak , Kaan Hakan Çoban

https://doi.org/10.35234/fumbd.1430199

Abstract

Düzce ili Gölyaka ilçesinde 23 Kasım 2022 tarihinde TSİ 04:08’de moment büyüklüğü (Mw) 6,0 olan orta büyüklükte bir deprem meydana gelmiştir. Deprem başta Düzce ili olmak üzere Karadeniz, Marmara ve İç Anadolu bölgelerinde de şiddetli bir şekilde hissedilmiştir. Orta büyüklükte meydana gelen bu deprem sonucunda en büyük yer ivmesi yaklaşık 14 km uzaklıktaki 8105 istasyonunun Doğu-Batı bileşeninde 592 gal olarak kaydedilmiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında ilk olarak 2022 Düzce depremi öncesi bölgede meydana gelen depremlerin zamansal ve mekânsal değişimi incelenmiştir. Anaşok sonrası meydana gelen artçı şoklar ise Gutenberg-Richter ilişkisi yardımı ile incelenerek bölgenin depremselliği ortaya konulmuştur. Daha sonra, yer hareketi tahmin denklemleri ile hesaplanan en büyük yer ivmeleri ile kuvvetli yer hareketi istasyonlarında kaydedilen en büyük yer ivmeleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Ayrıca ivme kayıtlarından elde edilen tepki spektrumları ile Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliğine göre elde edilen tasarım tepki spektrumları karşılaştırılmıştır. Bazı istasyonlarda elde edilen en büyük ivme değerlerinin yer hareketi tahmin denklemi ile hesaplanan ivme değerlerini aştığı gözlenmiştir. İvme kayıtlarından elde edilen tepki spektrumlarının da Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği’ne göre hesaplanan tasarım spektrum seviyelerini aştığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

Düzce Depremi, Kuvvetli Yer Hareketi, Tepki Spektrumu, Yer Hareketi Tahmin Denklemleri, Gutenberg-Richter ilişkisi

Evaluation of 23 November 2022 Düzce Earthquake in terms of Regional Seismicity and Strong Ground Motions

Abstract

The earthquake with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.0 occurred in Gölyaka district of Düzce province at 04:08 on November 23, 2022. The earthquake was strongly felt mainly in Düzce province, but also in the Black Sea, Marmara and Central Anatolia regions. As a result of this moderate magnitude earthquake, the peak ground acceleration was recorded as 592 gal at the East-West component of station 8105, about 14 km away. Firstly, the temporal and spatial variation of earthquakes occurring in the region before the 2022 Düzce earthquake was analyzed. Aftershocks occurring after the mainshock were analyzed with the help of the Gutenberg-Richter relationship and the seismicity of the region was revealed. The peak ground accelerations obtained from ground motion prediction equations are compared with the peak ground accelerations recorded at strong ground motion stations. In addition, the response spectra obtained from the acceleration records are compared with the design response spectra obtained according to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code. It was observed that the maximum acceleration values obtained at some stations exceeded the acceleration values calculated with the ground motion prediction equation. It was also observed that the response spectra obtained from the acceleration records exceeded the design spectrum levels calculated according to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code.

Keywords

Düzce earthquake, strong ground motion, response spectrum, ground motion prediction equation, gutenberg-richter relation.

References

• Erdik M, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B. Earthquake hazard in Marmara region, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2004; 24(8): 605-631.
• Polat O, Gök E, Yılmaz D. (2008). Earthquake hazard of Aegean Extension Region, Turkey. Turk J Earth Sci 2008; 17: 593–614.
• Kinscher J, Krüger F, Woith H, Lühr BG, Hintersberger E, Irmak TS, Barış S. Seismotectonics of the Armutlu peninsula (Marmara Sea, NW Turkey) from geological field observation and regional moment tensor inversion. Tectonophysics 2013; 608: 980-995.
• Bayrak Y, Bayrak E. Regional variations and correlations of Gutenberg–Richter parameters and fractal dimension for the different seismogenic zones in Western Anatolia. J Asian Earth Sci 2012; 58: 98-107.
• Sayil N. Evaluation of the seismicity for the Marmara region with statistical approaches. Acta Geod Geophys 2014; 49(3): 265-281.
• Özmen B, Bayrak E, Bayrak Y. An investigation of seismicity for the Central Anatolia region, Turkey. J Seismolog 2014; 18: 345-356.
• Bayrak E, Yılmaz Ş, Softa M, Türker T, Bayrak Y. Earthquake hazard analysis for East Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Nat Hazard 2015; 76: 1063-1077.
• Çoban KH, Sayıl N. Investigation of the seismicity of East Anatolian fault zone (EAFZ) according to Poisson and Exponential distribution models. Düzce University Journal of Science & Technology 2018; 6(2): 491-500.
• Çoban KH, Sayıl N. Evaluation of earthquake recurrences with different distribution models in western Anatolia. J Seismol 2019; 23: 1405–1422.
• Çoban KH, Sayıl N. Different probabilistic models for earthquake occurrences along the North and East Anatolian fault zones. Arabian J Geosci 2020; 13: 971.
• Bayrak E, Çoban KH. Evaluation of 08 August 2019 Bozkurt (Denizli-Turkey, Mw 6.0) earthquake in terms of strong ground-motion parameters and Coulomb stress changes. Environ Earth Sci 2023; 82(20): 470.
• Özmen B. Gumbel Uç Değerler Yöntemi ile Ankara İli ve Yakın Civarının Deprem Tehlike Analizi. Resilience 2023; 7(2): 391-407.
• Özmen B. 2000. Düzce-Bolu Bölgesi’nin Jeolojisi, Diri Fayları ve Hasar Yapan Depremleri s:1-14, 12 Kasım 1999 Düzce Depremi Raporu (Editör: Bülent ÖZMEN ve Günruh BAĞCI). Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Deprem Araştırma Dairesi, Ankara.
• Şengör AMC, Yılmaz Y. Tethyan evolution of Turkey: A plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 1981; 75: 181-241.
• Şengör AC, Canıtez N. The North Anatolian Fault. Alpine‐Mediterranean Geodynamics, 1982; 7: 205-216.
• Barka AA, Akyüz HS, Sunal G. vd. The surface rupture and slip distribution of the August 17, 1999 İzmit earthquake, M= 7.4, North Anatolian Fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am America 2002; 92: 43–60.
• Emre Ö, Awata Y, Duman TY. (eds) Surface Rupture Associated with the 17 August 1999 İzmit Earthquake. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) Special Publications 2003; 1.
• Duman TY, Awata Y, Yoshioka T, Emre Ö, Dogan A, Ozalp S. Detailed maps and inventories of the 1999 Izmit surface rupture. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) of Turkey, Special Publication Series 2003; 1: 23-28.
• Dikbaş A, Akyüz HS. Paleoseismological investigations on the Karadere segment, North Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Turk J Earth Sci 2011; 20(4): 395-410.
• Okuyan Akcan S, Tekin S, Yeşilyurt A, Zülfikar AC. Güncel Avrupa Sismik Tehlike ve Risk Modeliyle 23 Kasım 2022 Düzce Depreminin Değerlendirilmesi. Afet Ve Risk Dergisi, 2023; 6(4): 1218-1233.
• Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF. The new empirical magnitude conversion relations using an improved earthquake catalogue for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900-2012). Turk J Earth Sci 2016; 25(4): 300-310.
• Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş, Şaroğlu F. 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, 2013.
• Gutenberg B, Richter CF. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1944; 34:185–188.
• Mogi K. Magnitude-Frequency Relationship for Elastic Shocks Accompanying Fractures of Various Materials and Some Related Problems in Earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 1962; 40:831-853.
• Scholz CH. The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1968; 58:399–415.
• Wyss M. Towards a physical understanding of the earthquake frequency distribution. Geophys J R Astron Soc 1973; 31:341–359.
• Warren NW, Latham GV. An experimental study of thermally induced microfracturing and its relation to volcanic seismicity. J Geophys Res 1970; 75:4455–4464.
• Suyehiro S, Asada T, Ohtake M. Foreshocks and aftershocks accompanying a perceptible earthquake in central Japan. Pap Met Geophys 1964; 15: 71-88.
• Wiemer S A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 2001; 72(3): 373-382.
• Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra, 2014; 30(3), 1025-1055.
• Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 2014; 30(3), 1057-1085.
• Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 2014; 30(3), 1087-1115.
• Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 2014; 30(3), 1117-1153.
• Idriss IM. Summary of the IMI14 GMPE. Earthquake Spectra, 2014; 30.
• TBDY. (2018). Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Ankara.
• Martínez-Garzón P, Becker D, Jara J, Chen X, Kwiatek G, Bohnhoff M. The 2022 MW 6.0 Gölyaka–Düzce earthquake: an example of a medium-sized earthquake in a fault zone early in its seismic cycle. Solid Earth 2023; 14(10): 1103-1121.