Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 2023 - 2035, 31.10.2021

Hakan Karaca

https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.719224

Öz

Yer hareketi tahmin denklemlerinin sayılarının günden güne artması (YHTD), geliştirme aşamasında kullanılan verilerin artması ve buna paralel olarak denklemlerin daha karmaşık hale gelmesi, kullanıcılar açısından kolaylık değil daha çok külfet getirmiştir. Sismik tehlike analizi (STA) için hangi denklemin daha uygun olduğu ve daha kesin sonuçlar verebileceği konusu bir süredir kullanıcıları meşgul etmekte, denklem geliştiricileri ise denklemlerin geçerlilik koşulları konusunda zorlamaktadır. Denklemlerin uzaklık, deprem büyüklüğü ve diğer parametrelere bağlı değişken performansları ve özellikle belirsizlikleri, denklemlerin seçimi konusunda kullanıcıları mantık ağacı gibi yöntemleri geliştirmeye sevk etmiştir. Ancak bu yöntemle, belirli sayıda YHTD seçimi ile sadece tek YHTD seçilmesinin oluşturabileceği belirsizlik ve yanlış tercih olasılığı en aza indirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Ancak, şurası bir gerçek ki bu yönteminde yaklaşık yöntem olduğu ve en gerçekçi sonucu değil ancak en yakın sonucu verdiği bilinerek, yeni çözümler sunma amacı ile çalışmalar devam etmektedir. Bu çalışmada da, böyle bir bakış açısı ile tamamıyla yeni bir yöntem olan eşivme eğrileri ile uyumluluk yöntemi kullanarak, hâlihazırda geliştirilmiş denklemler değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca denklemlerin performansı diğer denklemlerle karşılaştırılarak yerel etkilere de vurgu yapılmıştır. Bu yöntemle, depremlerin yıkıcı etkilerinin daha yüksek olduğu alanlarda ki performansının önemi ön plana çıkartılarak yapılan değerlendirmenin, en doğru denklemin seçimi açısından önemi vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yer hareketi tahmin denklemi Eşivme eğrileri Harita benzeşim katsayısı Artık

Kaynakça

  • [1] J. Douglas, (2019, 26 Haziran). Ground motion prediction equations [Çevirimiçi]. Erişim: http://www.gmpe.org.uk.
  • [2] J. Douglas and D. M. Boore, “Peak ground accelerations from large (M > 7.2) shallow crustal earthquakes: a comparison with predictions from eight recent ground-motion models,” Bulleting of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no.1, pp-1-21, 2018.
  • [3] J. Douglas and B. Edwards, “Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation,” Earth Science Reviews, vol.160, pp. 203-219, 2016.
  • [4] J. P.Stewart, J. Douglas, M. Javanbarg, N.A. Abrahamson, Y. Bozorgnia, D.M. Boore, K.W. Campbell, E. Delavaud, M. Erdik and P.J. Stafford, “Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the Global Earthquake Model,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 19–45, 2015.
  • [5] D.M. Boore and G. Atkinson, “Ground motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and %5-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99-138, 2010. [6] AFAD, (2019, 20 Haziran). Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı [Çevirimiçi]. Erişim: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/
  • [7] S. Akkar, Z. Cagnan, E. Yenier, Ö. Erdoğan, A. Sandıkkaya and P. Gulkan, “The recently compiled Turkish strong motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters, ” journal of Seismology, vol.14, no.3, pp. 457-479, 2010.
  • [8] M. A. Sandıkkaya, M.T. Yılmaz, B. S. Bakır and Ö. Yılmaz, “Site Classification of Turkish Natioanl Strong-Motion Stations,” Journal of Seismology, vol. 4, pp. 543-563, 2010.
  • [9] P.Y. Bard, S.S. Bora, F. Hollender, A. Laurendeau and P. Traversa. “Are the standard Vs30 -kappa host-to-target adjustments the best way to get consistent hard- rock ground motion prediction?. Best Practices in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations: issues and challenges towards full Seismic Risk Analysis,” CEA - AIEA, Cadarache France, 2018.
  • [10] O. Kale, S. Akkar, A. Ansari and H. Hamzehloo, “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 Seismological Society of America, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 963-980, 2015.
  • [11] N.M. Kuehn and F. Scherbaum, “A partially non-ergodic ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.14, no.10, pp. 2629–2642, 2016.
  • [12] O.J. Ktenidou, Z. Roumelioti, N. Abrahamson, F. Cotton, K. Pitilakis and F. Hollender, “Understanding single-station ground motion variability and uncertainty (sigma): lessons learnt from EUROSEISTEST,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.16, no. 6, pp. 2311–2336, 2017.
  • [13] S.R. Kotha, D. Bindi and F. Cotton, “Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1245–1263, 2016.
  • [14] D. Bindi, D. Spallarossa and F. Pacor, “Between‐event and between‐station variability observed in the Fourier and response spectra domains: comparison with seismological models,” Geophysical Journal International, vol. 210, no. 2, pp. 1092-1104, 2017.
  • [15] Z. Gülerce, B. Kargıoglu and N.A. Abrahamson, “Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 horizontal ground motion prediction models,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 32, pp. 75-100, 2015.
  • [16] E. Yenier, “Regionally-adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada, 2015.
  • [17] H. Karaca, “Güncel veriler ve olasılıksal sismik tehlike analizi kullanarak eskişehir için sismik tehlike haritası ve ivme eğrileri elde edilmesi,” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, c. 32, s.1, ss. 243-251, 2017.
  • [18] E. Kalkan and P. Gülkan, “Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1111–1138, 2004.
  • [19] C. Özbey, A. Sari, L. Manuel, M. Erdik and Y. Fahjan, “An empirical attenuation relationship for northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2004.
  • [20] S. Akkar and Z. Cağnan, “A local ground motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 100, pp. 2978-2995, 2010.
  • [21] S. Akkar and J. J. Bommer, “Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East”, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 195–206, 2010.
  • [22] S. Akkar, M.A. Sand kaya and J. J. Bommer, “Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no.1, pp. 359–387, 2014.
  • [23] S. Akkar, Ö. Kale, A. Yakut and U. Çeken, “Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3439–3463, 2017.
  • [24] Ö. Kale, “Some discussions on data-driven testing of ground-motion prediction equations under the turkish ground-motion database,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–22, 2017.
  • [25] D. Bindi, S. Parolai, H. Grosser, C. Milereit and E. Durukal, “Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for the northwestern turkey using the aftershocks of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol.34, no. L08305, 2007.
  • [26] P. Gulkan, “Expecting the expected: 1 g peak motions in the automated damage detection,” Presented in 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 2012.
  • [27] A. Akıncı, “Strong ground Motion Characteristics from the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake,” Bollettino Di Geofisica Teorica Ed Applicata, vol. 43, no.2, pp. 37-52, 2002.
  • [28] E. Durukal, “Critical evaluation of strong motion in Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 589 – 609, 2002.
  • [29] F. Scherbaum, E. Delavaud and C. Riggelsen, “Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-theoretic Perspective,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 99, pp. 3234-3247, 2009.
  • [30] Ö. Kale and S. Akkar, “A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean-distance based ranking (EDR) method,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.103, pp. 1069-1084, 2013.
  • [31] B. Özmen, “17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Depremi Eş-Şiddet Haritası, 17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Deprem Raporu,” Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü Deprem Araştırma Dairesi Başkanlığı, Ankara, Türkiye, 2000.

A New Method for the Evaluation of GMPEs

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 2023 - 2035, 31.10.2021

Hakan Karaca

https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.719224

Öz

Ever-increasing number of Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs), the databases used to develop GMPEs and the associated complexity of the functional forms, brought more burden over the shoulders of the users. The issues in the selection of the most appropriate GMPE for a seismic hazard analysis (SHA) gives the users hard time and forces the developers about the validity requirements of their GMPEs. Varying performances of GMPEs with respect to distance, magnitude and other parameters and especially different levels of uncertainties, urged users to find ways such as logic tree to reduce uncertainties. Only through the introduction of such methods, the uncertainty and the outright errors caused by choosing a single equation is minimized by the selection of a number of equations. However, knowing that the introduction of such a method is also an approximation and it doesn’t yield the exact answer but only the approximation, studies are being conducted to find out better solutions. In this study, looking from the same angle to the problem, a new method is proposed which rely on the comparison of iso-acceleration maps developed by the measurements and the predicted values by GMPEs. In addition, the performance of each GMPE is compared and the locality of the GMPEs are stressed. By the introduction of the new method, the importance of the evaluation of GMPEs in their prediction performances of ground motion parameters closer to the earthquake epicenters in the overall evaluation of GMPEs for their appropriateness for the considered area.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ground motion prediction equation Isoseismal contours Map similarity index Residuals

Kaynakça

  • [1] J. Douglas, (2019, 26 Haziran). Ground motion prediction equations [Çevirimiçi]. Erişim: http://www.gmpe.org.uk.
  • [2] J. Douglas and D. M. Boore, “Peak ground accelerations from large (M > 7.2) shallow crustal earthquakes: a comparison with predictions from eight recent ground-motion models,” Bulleting of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no.1, pp-1-21, 2018.
  • [3] J. Douglas and B. Edwards, “Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation,” Earth Science Reviews, vol.160, pp. 203-219, 2016.
  • [4] J. P.Stewart, J. Douglas, M. Javanbarg, N.A. Abrahamson, Y. Bozorgnia, D.M. Boore, K.W. Campbell, E. Delavaud, M. Erdik and P.J. Stafford, “Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the Global Earthquake Model,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 19–45, 2015.
  • [5] D.M. Boore and G. Atkinson, “Ground motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and %5-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99-138, 2010. [6] AFAD, (2019, 20 Haziran). Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı [Çevirimiçi]. Erişim: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/
  • [7] S. Akkar, Z. Cagnan, E. Yenier, Ö. Erdoğan, A. Sandıkkaya and P. Gulkan, “The recently compiled Turkish strong motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters, ” journal of Seismology, vol.14, no.3, pp. 457-479, 2010.
  • [8] M. A. Sandıkkaya, M.T. Yılmaz, B. S. Bakır and Ö. Yılmaz, “Site Classification of Turkish Natioanl Strong-Motion Stations,” Journal of Seismology, vol. 4, pp. 543-563, 2010.
  • [9] P.Y. Bard, S.S. Bora, F. Hollender, A. Laurendeau and P. Traversa. “Are the standard Vs30 -kappa host-to-target adjustments the best way to get consistent hard- rock ground motion prediction?. Best Practices in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations: issues and challenges towards full Seismic Risk Analysis,” CEA - AIEA, Cadarache France, 2018.
  • [10] O. Kale, S. Akkar, A. Ansari and H. Hamzehloo, “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 Seismological Society of America, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 963-980, 2015.
  • [11] N.M. Kuehn and F. Scherbaum, “A partially non-ergodic ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.14, no.10, pp. 2629–2642, 2016.
  • [12] O.J. Ktenidou, Z. Roumelioti, N. Abrahamson, F. Cotton, K. Pitilakis and F. Hollender, “Understanding single-station ground motion variability and uncertainty (sigma): lessons learnt from EUROSEISTEST,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.16, no. 6, pp. 2311–2336, 2017.
  • [13] S.R. Kotha, D. Bindi and F. Cotton, “Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1245–1263, 2016.
  • [14] D. Bindi, D. Spallarossa and F. Pacor, “Between‐event and between‐station variability observed in the Fourier and response spectra domains: comparison with seismological models,” Geophysical Journal International, vol. 210, no. 2, pp. 1092-1104, 2017.
  • [15] Z. Gülerce, B. Kargıoglu and N.A. Abrahamson, “Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 horizontal ground motion prediction models,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 32, pp. 75-100, 2015.
  • [16] E. Yenier, “Regionally-adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada, 2015.
  • [17] H. Karaca, “Güncel veriler ve olasılıksal sismik tehlike analizi kullanarak eskişehir için sismik tehlike haritası ve ivme eğrileri elde edilmesi,” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, c. 32, s.1, ss. 243-251, 2017.
  • [18] E. Kalkan and P. Gülkan, “Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1111–1138, 2004.
  • [19] C. Özbey, A. Sari, L. Manuel, M. Erdik and Y. Fahjan, “An empirical attenuation relationship for northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2004.
  • [20] S. Akkar and Z. Cağnan, “A local ground motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, vol. 100, pp. 2978-2995, 2010.
  • [21] S. Akkar and J. J. Bommer, “Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East”, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 195–206, 2010.
  • [22] S. Akkar, M.A. Sand kaya and J. J. Bommer, “Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no.1, pp. 359–387, 2014.
  • [23] S. Akkar, Ö. Kale, A. Yakut and U. Çeken, “Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3439–3463, 2017.
  • [24] Ö. Kale, “Some discussions on data-driven testing of ground-motion prediction equations under the turkish ground-motion database,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–22, 2017.
  • [25] D. Bindi, S. Parolai, H. Grosser, C. Milereit and E. Durukal, “Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for the northwestern turkey using the aftershocks of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol.34, no. L08305, 2007.
  • [26] P. Gulkan, “Expecting the expected: 1 g peak motions in the automated damage detection,” Presented in 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 2012.
  • [27] A. Akıncı, “Strong ground Motion Characteristics from the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake,” Bollettino Di Geofisica Teorica Ed Applicata, vol. 43, no.2, pp. 37-52, 2002.
  • [28] E. Durukal, “Critical evaluation of strong motion in Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 589 – 609, 2002.
  • [29] F. Scherbaum, E. Delavaud and C. Riggelsen, “Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-theoretic Perspective,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 99, pp. 3234-3247, 2009.
  • [30] Ö. Kale and S. Akkar, “A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean-distance based ranking (EDR) method,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol.103, pp. 1069-1084, 2013.
  • [31] B. Özmen, “17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Depremi Eş-Şiddet Haritası, 17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Deprem Raporu,” Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü Deprem Araştırma Dairesi Başkanlığı, Ankara, Türkiye, 2000.
Toplam 30 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Mühendislik
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Hakan Karaca 0000-0003-3291-5822

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ekim 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5

Kaynak Göster

APA Karaca, H. (2021). YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 9(5), 2023-2035. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.719224
AMA Karaca H. YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem. DÜBİTED. Ekim 2021;9(5):2023-2035. doi:10.29130/dubited.719224
Chicago Karaca, Hakan. “YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem”. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi 9, sy. 5 (Ekim 2021): 2023-35. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.719224.
EndNote Karaca H (01 Ekim 2021) YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 9 5 2023–2035.
IEEE H. Karaca, “YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem”, DÜBİTED, c. 9, sy. 5, ss. 2023–2035, 2021, doi: 10.29130/dubited.719224.
ISNAD Karaca, Hakan. “YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem”. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 9/5 (Ekim 2021), 2023-2035. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.719224.
JAMA Karaca H. YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem. DÜBİTED. 2021;9:2023–2035.
MLA Karaca, Hakan. “YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem”. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi, c. 9, sy. 5, 2021, ss. 2023-35, doi:10.29130/dubited.719224.
Vancouver Karaca H. YHTD’lerin Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yöntem. DÜBİTED. 2021;9(5):2023-35.
 Kapak Resmi İndir