SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 18

Modeling of 3D seismic wave propagation and long-period ground motions for the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake aftershock

2023 Kahramanmaraş depremi artçısı için 3B sismik dalga yayılımının ve uzun-periyot yer hareketlerinin modellenmesi

Bilal Özaslan(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7951-1759
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results demonstrate that layer geometry and shallow sediments play a dominant role in amplifying long-period motions and increasing shaking duration, highlighting the necessity of realistic 3D regional representations for performance-based seismic design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:On 6 February 2023, the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in southeastern Türkiye produced severe ground shaking, widespread structural damage, and significant loss of life, underscoring the need for reliable ground-motion assessment in densely populated regions with complex geology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study presents physics-based three-dimensional (3D) simulations developed for southeastern Türkiye, taking advantage of recent advances in high-performance computing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results demonstrate that layer geometry and shallow sediments play a dominant role in amplifying long-period motions and increasing shaking duration, highlighting the necessity of realistic 3D regional representations for performance-based seismic design.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Üç boyutlu sismik dalga yayılımı · uzun periyot yer hareketleri · 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri

Abstract

On 6 February 2023, the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in southeastern Türkiye produced severe ground shaking, widespread structural damage, and significant loss of life, underscoring the need for reliable ground-motion assessment in densely populated regions with complex geology. The aftershock sequence provides a unique dataset to investigate long-period ground-motion characteristics in structurally complex sedimentary basins. This study presents physics-based three-dimensional (3D) simulations developed for southeastern Türkiye, taking advantage of recent advances in high-performance computing. Seismic wave propagation is modeled using a finite-difference framework to examine source-to-site wave evolution and the influence of deep and shallow structural features on long-period (T ≥ 2 s) ground motions. Simulations are conducted for a selected moderate-magnitude aftershock using three alternative structural models: (i) a flat layered model, (ii) an inclined deep-structure model, and (iii) an inclined deep-structure model including near-surface sedimentary layers. Results demonstrate that layer geometry and shallow sediments play a dominant role in amplifying long-period motions and increasing shaking duration, highlighting the necessity of realistic 3D regional representations for performance-based seismic design.

Özet

Güneydoğu Türkiye’de 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinde ölçülen yer hareketleri, meydana gelen hasarın büyüklüğü ve kaydedilen can kayıpları, karmaşık jeolojiye sahip yoğun nüfuslu bölgelerde güvenilir yer hareketi değerlendirmesine duyulan gereksinimi hatırlatmıştır. Deprem dizisi, Güneydoğu Türkiye’deki yapısal olarak karmaşık sedimanter havzalarda uzun periyot yer hareketi özelliklerini inceleme imkanı sağlayan çok sayıda orta büyüklükte artçı üretmiştir. Bu çalışmada, fizik tabanlı üç boyutlu (3B) sonlu farklar yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen deprem simülasyonları ile kaynaktan istasyonlara dalga yayılımı modellenmiş ve uzun periyot (T ≥ 2 s) yer hareketlerinde derin ve sığ tabaka yapılarının etkileri araştırılmıştır. Aynı bölge için oluşturulan üç farklı derin yapı modeli; (i) düzenli tabakalı basit model, (ii) eğimli derin-yapı modeli ve (iii) yüzeyde sedimanter tabakaları içeren eğimli derin-yapı modeli karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar, tabaka geometrisi ve sığ sedimanter birimlerin uzun periyot genliklerini artırdığını, sarsıntı süresini uzattığını ve dalga biçimlerini karmaşıklaştırdığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, 3B bölgesel modellerin derin sedimanter sahalarda performansa dayalı sismik tasarım için kritik öneme sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özaslan, B. (2026). Modeling of 3D seismic wave propagation and long-period ground motions for the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake aftershock. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 18. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.1895739

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. K. Aki and K. Larner, “Surface motion of a layered medium having an irregular interface due to incident plane SH waves,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 933–954, 1970. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB075i005p00933
  2. P. Y. Bard and M. Bouchon, “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, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0700041263
  3. J. L. King and B. E. Tucker, “Observed variations of earthquake motion across a sediment-filled basin,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74 (1), 137–151, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0740010137
  4. A. S. Papageorgiou and J. Kim, “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, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0810062214
  5. R. W. Graves, “Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86 (4), 1091–1106, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860041091
  6. A. Pitarka, “3D elastic finite-difference modeling of seismic motion using staggered grids with nonuniform spacing,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89, 54–68, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0890010054
  7. R. W. Graves and A. Pitarka, “Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method,” Seismological Research Letters, 86 (1), 75–80, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101
  8. H. Kawase, “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, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.67.5.25
  9. R. W. Graves, A. Pitarka and P. G. Somerville, “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, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0880051224
  10. J. F. Semblat, M. Kham, E. Parara, P. Y. Bard, K. Pitilakis, K. Makra and D. Raptakis, “Seismic wave amplification: Basin geometry versus soil layering,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25 (7–10), 529–538, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.003
  11. K. Irikura and H. Miyake, “Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168, 85–104, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9
  12. P. Moczo, J. Kristek, P. Y. Bard et al., “Key structural parameters affecting earthquake ground motion in 2D and 3D sedimentary structures,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 2421–2450, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0345-5
  13. C. Zhu, D. Thambiratnam and C. Gallage, “Statistical analysis of the additional amplification in deep basins relative to the 1D approach,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 104, 296–306, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.09.003
  14. B. Özaslan, R. Iyisan, M. E. Haşal, H. Khanbabazadeh and H. Yamanaka, “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, 1371–1395, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01296-6
  15. K. Makra and F. J. Chávez-García, “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, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9862-7
  16. B. Özaslan, M. E. Haşal, H. Khanbabazadeh, M. Akbaş and R. İyisan, “Dynamic response analysis of trapezoidal basins on numerical models,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 960 (4), 042048, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/960/4/042048
  17. B. Özaslan, M. Akbaş and R. İyisan, “2D Site Response in Alluvial Basins by Finite Difference-Based Numerical Method,” WMCAUS 2021, AIP Conference Proceedings, 2574, 020001, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0106512
  18. H. Khanbabazadeh, R. Iyisan and B. Özaslan, “Dynamic behavior of the shallow clayey basins subjected to obliquely incident wave,” Geomechanics and Engineering, 31 (2), 183–195, 2022. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.31.2.183
  19. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), “February 6, 2023 Pazarcık–Elbistan Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7–Mw 7.6) report (in Turkish),” 2023. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/
  20. T. E. Buckreis, R. Pretell, M. A. Sandikkaya, Ö. Kale, A. Askan, S. J. Brandenberg and J. P. Stewart, “Engineering attributes of ground motions from February 2023 Türkiye earthquake sequence,” Earthquake Spectra, 40 (4), 2268–2284, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293024125902
  21. T. Y. Duman, T. Çan, Ö. Emre, F. T. Kadirioğlu, N. Başarır Baştürk, T. Kılıç et al., “Seismotectonic database of Turkey,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 3277–3316, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9965-9
  22. B. Özaslan, H. Yamanaka, S. Tsuno and N. Yamada, “Physics-based simulations of the foreshock and aftershock of the February 6, 2023 Turkiye earthquakes and ground motion validation,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-025-02360-1
  23. R. Paolucci, C. Smerzini and M. Vanini, “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, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210089
  24. F. Petrone, N. Abrahamson, D. McCallen and M. Miah, “Validation of (not-historical) large-event near-fault ground-motion simulations for use in civil engineering applications,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50 (1), 116–134, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3366
  25. D. McCallen, A. Petersson, A. Rodgers, A. Pitarka, M. Miah, F. Petrone, B. Sjogreen, N. Abrahamson and H. Tang, “EQSIM: A multidisciplinary framework for fault-to-structure earthquake simulations on exascale computers. Part I: Computational models and workflow,” Earthquake Spectra, 37 (2), 707–735, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020970982
  26. E. Zor, E. Sandvol, C. Gürbüz, N. Türkelli, D. Seber and M. Barazangi, “The crustal structure of the East Anatolian plateau (Turkey) from receiver functions,” Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (24), 2003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018192
  27. A. Maggi and K. Priestley, “Surface waveform tomography of the Turkish–Iranian plateau,” Geophysical Journal International, 160 (3), 1068–1080, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02505.x
  28. T. Tezel, M. Erduran and Ö. Alptekin, “Crustal shear wave velocity structure of Turkey by surface wave dispersion analysis,” Annals of Geophysics, 50 (2), 177–190, 2007.
  29. H. Yamanaka, Ö. T. Özmen, K. Chimoto, M. A. Alkan, M. Tün, E. Pekkan et al., “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, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9756-7
  30. K. W. Campbell, “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, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1785/012008011
  31. R. Graves and A. Pitarka, “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, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160088
  32. A. Bizzarri, “On the point-source approximation of earthquake dynamics,” Annals of Geophysics, 57 (3), 2014. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6479