Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of seismicity and seismic hazard parameters in Turkey and surrounding area using a new approach to the Gutenberg–Richter relation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Seismology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the spatial distributions of seismicity and seismic hazard were assessed for Turkey and its surrounding area. For this purpose, earthquakes that occurred between 1964 and 2004 with magnitudes of M ≥ 4 were used in the region (30–42°N and 20–45°E). For the estimation of seismicity parameters and its mapping, Turkey and surrounding area are divided into 1,275 circular subregions. The b-value from the Gutenberg–Richter frequency–magnitude distributions is calculated by the classic way and the new alternative method both using the least-squares approach. The a-value in the Gutenberg–Richter frequency–magnitude distributions is taken as a constant value in the new alternative method. The b-values calculated by the new method were mapped. These results obtained from both methods are compared. The b-value shows different distributions along Turkey for both techniques. The b-values map prepared with new technique presents a better consistency with regional tectonics, earthquake activities, and epicenter distributions. Finally, the return period and occurrence hazard probability of M ≥ 6.5 earthquakes in 75 years were calculated by using the Poisson model for both techniques. The return period and occurrence hazard probability maps determined from both techniques showed a better consistency with each other. Moreover, maps of the occurrence hazard probability and return period showed better consistency with the b-parameter seismicity maps calculated from the new method. The occurrence hazard probability and return period of M ≥ 6.5 earthquakes were calculated as 90–99% and 5–10 years, respectively, from the Poisson model in the western part of the studying region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abe K (1995) Magnitudes and moments of earthquakes. In: Ahrens TJ (ed) Global earth physics: a handbook of physical constant. AGU, Washington, pp 206–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula \( {\text{log}}\,N = a - bM \) and its confidence limits. Bull Seism Earthquake Res Inst Univ Tokyo 43:237–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen CR, Amand P, Richter CF, Nordquist JM (1965) Relation between seismicity and geological structure in the Southern California region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 55:752–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostol A, Arsene G, Marza VI (1985) Precursory seismicity of intermediate depth earthquakes in Vrancea region, Romania. Proc. ESC Symposium on earthquake prediction research. Earthq Predic Res 3:105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Barka AA (1992) The north Anatolian fault zone. Ann Tecton 6:164–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Bath M (1983) Earthquake magnitude – recent research and current trends. Earth Sci Rev 17:315–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b-values from magnitude grouped data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:831–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkey – a synthesis. Geodin Acta 14:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton PW (1979) Seismic risk in southern Europe through India examined Gumbel’s third distribution of extreme values. Geophys J R Astr Soc 59:249–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan LS, Chandler AM (2001) Spatial bias in b-value of the frequency–magnitude relation for the Hong Kong region. J Asian Earth Sci 20:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong FS (1983) Time–space–magnitude interdependence of upper crustal earthquakes in the main seismic region of New Zealand. N Z J Geol Geophys 26:7–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey JF, Hempton MR, Kidd WSF, Şaroğlu F, Şengör AMC (1986) Shortening of continental lithosphere: the neotectonics of eastern Anatolia a young collision zone. In: Coward MO, Ries AC (eds) Collisional tectonics, geological society special pub no. 19. Geological Society, pp 3–36

  • Evernden JF (1970) Study of regional seismicity and associated problems. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:393–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler BG (1974) Local b-values related to seismicity. Tectonophysics 23:277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich C, Davis S (1993) Teleseismic b-values: or, much about 1.0. J Geophys Res 98:631–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guha SK (1979) Premonitory crustal deformations, strains and seismotectonic features (b-values) preceding Koyna earthquakes. Tectonophysics 52:549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzidimitriou PM, Papadimitriou EE, Mountrakis DM, Papazachos BC (1985) The seismic parameter b of the frequency–magnitude relation and its association with the geological zones in the area of Greece. Tectonophysics 120:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Turcotte R (1988) Fractal distributions of stress and strength and variations of b-value. Earth Planet Lett 91:223–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imoto M (1991) Changes in the magnitude–frequency b-value prior to large (M ≥ 6.0) earthquakes in Japan. Tectonophysics 193:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishimoto M, Lida K (1939) Observations of earthquakes registered with the microseismograph constructed recently. Bull Earthquake Res Inst 17:443–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Kebede F, Kulhanek O (1994) Spatial and temporal variations of b-values along the East African Rift System and the Southern Red Sea. Phys Earth Planet Int 83:249–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A (1988) Maximum likelihood estimation of Gutenberg–Richter b parameter for uncertain magnitudes values. Pure Appl Geophys 127:573–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A, Sellevol MA (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:645–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A, Sellevol MA (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:120–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapenna V, Macchiato M, Telesca L (1998) Fluctuations and self similarity in earthquake dynamics; observational evidences in southern Italy. Phys Earth Planet Int 106:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main IG, Meredith PG, Sammonds PR (1992) Temporal variations in seismic event rate and b-values from stress corrosion constitutive laws. Tectonophysics 211:233–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manakou MV, Tsapanos TM (2000) Seismicity and seismic hazard parameters evaluation in the island of Crete and surrounding area inferred from mixed data files. Tectonophysics 321:157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie DP (1970) Plate tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Nature 220:239–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamura S (1962) Magnitude–Frequency relations and its bearing to geotectonics. Proc Jpn Acad 38:27–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogi K (1967) Earthquakes and fractures. Tectonophysics 5:35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molchan GM, Dimitrieva O (1990) Dynamics of the magnitude–frequency relation for foreshocks. Phys Earth Planet Int 61:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molchan GM, Kronrod TL, Nekrasova AK (1999) Immediate foreshocks; time variation of the b-value. Phys Earth Planet Int 111:229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mori J, Abercrombie RE (1997) Depth dependence of earthquake frequency–magnitude distributions in California: implications for the rupture initiation. J Geophys Res 102:15081–15090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanjo K, Nagahama H, Satomura M (1998) Rates of aftershock decay and the fractal structure of active fault systems. Tectonophysics 287:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson R (1999) An estimation of maximum b-value in the Gutenberg–Richter relation. J Geodyn 27:547–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncel AO, Main I, Alptekin O, Cowie P (1996) Spatial variations of the fractal properties of seismicity in the Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics 257:189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco JF, Scholz CH, Sykes LR (1992) Changes in frequency–size relationship from small to large earthquakes. Nature 355:71–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papazachos BC (1974) Dependence of the seismic parameter b on the magnitude range. Pure Appl Geophys 112:1059–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papazachos BC (1999) An alternative method for a reliable estimation of seismicity with an application in Greece and the surrounding area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazachos BC, Papazachou CB (1997) The Earthquakes of Greece, Ziti Publication, Thessolanaki, Greece

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotwain I, Keilis BV, Botwina L (1997) Premonitory transformation of steel fracturing and seismicity. Phys Earth Planet Int 101:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahu OP, Saikia MM (1994) The b-value before the 6th August, 1988 India–Myanmar border region earthquake – a case study. Tectonophysics 234:349–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz CH (1968) The frequency–magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:399–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber D, Vallve M, Sandvol E, Steer D, Barazangi M (1997) Middle East tectonics: applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GSA Today 7:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Bolt BA (1982) The standard error of the magnitude–frequency b-value. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1677–1687

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WD (1981) The b-value as an earthquake precursor. Nature 289:136–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WD (1986) Evidence for precursory changes in the frequency–magnitude b-value. Geophys J R Astr Soc 86:815–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein RS, Hanks TC (1998) M ≥ 6 earthquakes in Southern California during the 20th century; no evidence for a seismicity or moment deficit. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:635–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985) Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape; Turkey a case study. In: Biddle KT, Christie-Blick N (eds) Strike-slip Faulting and Basin Formation. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral Spec Pub 37:227–264

  • Şengör AMC, Yılmaz Y (1981) Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75:181–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsapanos TM (1990) b-Values of two tectonic parts in the circum-Pacific belt. Pure Appl Geophys 134:229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsapanos TM, Galanopoulos DG, Burton PW (1994) Seismicity in the Hellenic Volcanic Arc: relation between seismic parameters and the geophysical fields in the region. Geophys J Int 117:677–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte DL (1986) A fractal model of crustal deformation. Tectonophysics 132:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1965) A Method for determining the value of b in a formula \(\log \,N = a - bM\) showing the magnitude–frequency relation for earthquakes. Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:99–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JH (1994) On the correlation of observed Gutenberg–Richter’s b-value and Omori’s p-value for aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:2008–2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JH (1998) b-Values of shallow earthquakes in Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:1243–1254

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JH, Diao S (1994) The time and space dynamic evolution of three seismicity parameters before and after the Heze m = 5.9 earthquake. North China Earthquake Sci 12:54–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Westaway R (1994) Present-day kinematics of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. J Geophys Res 99:12071–12090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Baer M (2000) Mapping and removing quarry blast events from seismicity catalogs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:525–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Mcnutt SR, Wyss M (1998) Temporal and three-dimensional spatial analysis of the frequency–magnitude distributions near Long Valley Caldera California. Geophys J Int 134:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency–magnitude distributions in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times. J Geophys Res 102:15115–15128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyss M, Schorlemmer D, Wiemer S (2000) Mapping asperities by minima of local recurrence time: San Jacinto–Elsinore Fault Zones. J Geophys Res 105:7829–7844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamashita T (1998) Simulation of seismicity due to fluid migration in a fault zones. Geophys. J Int 132:674–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geophysics, Süleyman Demirel University, 32260, Isparta, Turkey

    U. Yalçın Kalyoncuoglu

  2. Earthquake and Geotechnical Research Center, Süleyman Demirel University, 32260, Isparta, Turkey

    U. Yalçın Kalyoncuoglu

Authors
  1. U. Yalçın Kalyoncuoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Yalçın Kalyoncuoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kalyoncuoglu, U.Y. Evaluation of seismicity and seismic hazard parameters in Turkey and surrounding area using a new approach to the Gutenberg–Richter relation. J Seismol 11, 131–148 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9041-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9041-z

Key words

Search

Navigation